Alabama judge casts doubt on harsh new illegal immigration law

[Gaffer]

I'm sorely disappointed in KRB after this thread. I understand he's liberal, but I thought he was at least rational.

Me too.

[Kathianne]

Me too.

Seems to me there's a world of difference between acting as a defense attorney and speaking one's rational take on what police methods should be.

If they are pulled over and arrested, they are guilty cz the cops say so. Do you want to play executioner, too?

Then goes on to explain how the man was found not guilty. So I guess what the say so of cops, doesn't carry full weight?

[J.T]

Put a little thought into it, please. Who do you think the cops are going to ask this question to? The white 50ish guy?

Depends. If he speaks with a strong Irish accent and has IRA materials in the back seat, he might be worth checking out.

[Gaffer]

Depends. If he speaks with a strong Irish accent and has IRA materials in the back seat, he might be worth checking out.

Wow I agree with JT on something.

[ConHog]

Depends. If he speaks with a strong Irish accent and has IRA materials in the back seat, he might be worth checking out.

That's different
























somehow.

[KartRacerBoy]

Wow, a black guy arrested for DUI screams racism. I'm shocked, truly shocked, who ever heard of such a thing. And in the courtroom the whole trial becomes about race, not the fact he was driving drunk. You did a great job turning that all around. I'll bet after the trial he drove down to the club to party and celebrate. He can, after all, drive erratically now without worry, cause it would be racist profiling to pull him over again.

I've got your measure now.

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot. Where did I say the trial became one of race issues? You obviously know zero about how trails work but so I'll give you some slack.

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests. The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped. I filed a motion to supress and we had a hearing about whether the stop was legal and whether the case should proceed to trial. The judge, a former prosecutor, found for the state. The jury then found the defendant not guilty and when the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury after the verdict, the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped. Unsolicited.

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too. If they aren't white, that makes them guilty. Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

[ConHog]

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot. Where did I say the trial became one of race issues? You obviously know zero about how trails work but so I'll give you some slack.

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests. The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped. I filed a motion to supress and we had a hearing about whether the stop was legal and whether the case should proceed to trial. The judge, a former prosecutor, found for the state. The jury then found the defendant not guilty and when the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury after the verdict, the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped. Unsolicited.

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too. If they aren't white, that makes them guilty. Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

That was uncalled for. Gaffer isn't an idiot and he certainly hasn't said anything to make me believe he's a racist.

As you damn well know a person can be arrested and found guilty of DUI even if they pass the field sobriety tests. It happens.

As for the jury foreman's remarks. Who gives a shit if the guy understands why the cop suspected DUI or not. His ONLY job is to determine whether there is evidence to support a conviction, no one cares if he agrees the police had a good reason to stop him or not.

[J.T]

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot.

Where did I say the trial became one of race issues?

That's all you talked about. You literally said nothing else about any actual evidence in the case.

-You screamed racism when he was pulled over ('he was pulled over for being black!')
-You screamed that the Jury was racist ('they're all White- they must be racists because Whites are all racists!!!1!!!!')
-You claimed the same evil White racist jury was 'outraged' over the 'racism' you accused the cop of

You said literally nothing that wasn't about race. That was the entire narrative.

You obviously know zero about how trails work

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests.

Really, you told us all those racist crackers on the jury were all 'appalled' about a White cop pulling over a black guy. You said it was all about the profiling. Now all of a sudden you want to claim it was all about the sobriety tests- the same sobriety tests you never saw fit to even mention, let alone contest, until now.

The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped.

Let me guess... he was a racist kkk skinhead nazi who stopped your negroe client for 'driving while black'?

I filed a motion to supress

You filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the behavior that led the officer to believe your client was intoxicated? That nigger must've been guilty as hell- no wonder you opted to turn the whole trial into a giant race-baiting session!

The jury then found the defendant not guilty

Sounds to me like there was no trial at all. Rather, you knew your client was guilty as hell and you instead turned the whole thing around and tried the cop with being White. You managed to trick a bunch of idiot leftists to convict the cop of being White and now the blood will be on your hands when that same client gets drunk and runs down an innocent child.

the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped

But the cop couldn't answer, because you sought to suppress the evidence that showed that anything other than race was a factor..

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too.

You're the one who made it a race issue

If they aren't white, that makes them guilty

Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

[Trigg]

Practically everytime I watch COPS they pull someone over who's in a nice car driving through a crappy neighborhood. Usually the conversation in the car revolves around this being a "high drug area and people driving in to buy it".

They pull over white people for being in those neighborhoods, profilling those innocent people simply for DWW in a bad neighborhood.

Profilling is not racist and it isn't a bad idea.

The airports should use it a little more instead of stopping little old ladies, everyone knows they should be going after Middle Eastern men in their 20's-30's. .

Like cornhog says, no one screams racism when the cops start looking for a white middle aged man whenever there is a mass murderer on the loose.

[ConHog]

That's all you talked about. You literally said nothing else about any actual evidence in the case.

-You screamed racism when he was pulled over ('he was pulled over for being black!')
-You screamed that the Jury was racist ('they're all White- they must be racists because Whites are all racists!!!1!!!!')
-You claimed the same evil White racist jury was 'outraged' over the 'racism' you accused the cop of

You said literally nothing that wasn't about race. That was the entire narrative.





Really, you told us all those racist crackers on the jury were all 'appalled' about a White cop pulling over a black guy. You said it was all about the profiling. Now all of a sudden you want to claim it was all about the sobriety tests- the same sobriety tests you never saw fit to even mention, let alone contest, until now.
Let me guess... he was a racist kkk skinhead nazi who stopped your negroe client for 'driving while black'?

You filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the behavior that led the officer to believe your client was intoxicated? That nigger must've been guilty as hell- no wonder you opted to turn the whole trial into a giant race-baiting session!

Sounds to me like there was no trial at all. Rather, you knew your client was guilty as hell and you instead turned the whole thing around and tried the cop with being White. You managed to trick a bunch of idiot leftists to convict the cop of being White and now the blood will be on your hands when that same client gets drunk and runs down an innocent child.

But the cop couldn't answer, because you sought to suppress the evidence that showed that anything other than race was a factor..

You're the one who made it a race issue

Gotta give credit where credit is due. JT just handed KRB his ass right here.

[J.T]

Profiling is a tool. Can it be a bad thing if people misuse profiles or rely too heavily on them? Sure. Just look at the D.C. sniper case, where they ignored the murderers when they encountered them because they were focusing on 30-something White guys who read The Turner Diaries too many times. That was a failure to properly weigh other evidence and remember that profiles are statistical constructs and that there will be outliers. The fact remains, however, that if you're looking for persons guilty of gang-related activity, you look first at non-Whites wearing baggy clothes, gang colours, and 'flags'- the overwhelming majority of gang members fit this profile and most people who dress in such a manner and hang out in groups of similarly-dressed persons have some sort of gang affiliation.

[Trigg]

this could explain why KRB is unemployed and has been for a year. He's a crappy lawyer who sees racism in every case.

[ConHog]

I find it appalling that KRB has been the biggest racist in this thread all the while screaming that others are racists.

[Gaffer]

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot. Where did I say the trial became one of race issues? You obviously know zero about how trails work but so I'll give you some slack.

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests. The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped. I filed a motion to supress and we had a hearing about whether the stop was legal and whether the case should proceed to trial. The judge, a former prosecutor, found for the state. The jury then found the defendant not guilty and when the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury after the verdict, the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped. Unsolicited.

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too. If they aren't white, that makes them guilty. Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

I'll put away my klan costume when you put away your white guilt.

Maybe you could have gone a little more in depth about the trial in the first place and I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You stated that he was arrested based on profiling, which means you used that as a defense and took the trial from a DUI to a racial harassment case. You got the jury to concentrate on the racial part and they forgot the DUI part. Good maneuvering.

I'm not a lawyer, but eight years with a sheriff's department did give me some experience in court rooms. It also gives me some experience in how and why profiling is used.

You call me a klansman based on a few statements I made yet you know nothing about me. Profile much?

[J.T]

this could explain why KRB is unemployed and has been for a year. He's a crappy lawyer who sees racism in every case.

Maybe he can get a show on MSNBC. He can start off substituting for Al Sharpton when Al's at the Black Panther meetings.