Post-Post-Racial
It was fashionable, immediately after the election of Barack Obama, for some (mostly white) commentators to proclaim that America had entered a "post-racial" era. What they meant by this, loosely translated, was: "A black man has been elected president, so all our racial problems must be over now, right?"
This was patent nonsense, of course, but that didn't stop many (some of whom really should have known better) to make this absurd claim. But breaking one glass ceiling, or checking off one very important "first African-American" accomplishment was never the panacea it was made out to be. Racial divisions still remain, and racial misunderstanding still abounds.
The only real difference is that any racial problem which makes the news was now talked about with political or partisan overtones. "How will Obama react?" became the go-to question for the punditocracy whenever some racially-tinged event happened. Of course, it isn't a new thing that many racial problems in America are political in nature, but with a black (or even half-black) man in the Oval Office, it puts a different slant on the conversation.
Obama himself has been almost painfully cautious to not ever be portrayed as an "angry black man," which has led him to not become the champion of African-American issues some had expected (or hoped) for him to be. Obama (and by extension Eric Holder, America's first black Attorney General) preferred to focus more on rebuilding the Justice Department's civil rights division, which had been starved of attention during the Bush years. Obama's first foray into a racial issue didn't go over very well (the result of which was the "beer summit" photo-op), which further distanced him from getting in the middle of any sort of racial conflict -- especially when the police were involved. Since then, Obama only reluctantly issues statements on events like the Trayvon Martin shooting and the more-recent events in Ferguson, Missouri.
The fact is, from the beginning of Obama's term in office, whatever he has to say on racial problems has always been viewed skeptically by both sides in the racial debate. Some white commentators always saw Obama as fanning the flames of racism no matter what he had to say, and some black pundits expressed perpetual disappointment that Obama didn't make stronger statements about racial problems and that he didn't make them often enough.
The American race debate has been going on a very long time. There are a lot of people alive today who grew up in the Jim Crow era. These earliest memories are still very strong for many, white and black. America will likely never achieve a "post-racial" society until the pre-Civil Rights era no longer exists in living memory. That may sound like an admission of defeat, but really it is nothing more than the passing of the generations. Racial disparities still exist today -- inequality, prejudice, lack of opportunity for advancement in life -- but none are as demeaning and dehumanizing as the "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws. Civil rights are still under attack and are actively being rolled back in some states (most notably, on voting rights), but we're never going to go back to legal segregation. That may sound overly cheerful, which only goes to prove how charged the entire issue is (I seem to have gone from defeatism to Pollyannaism within one paragraph).
The point I'm trying to make (badly, I admit) is that America still has a long way to go to live up to the lofty egalitarian ideal of "liberty and justice for all." We have made great strides, but we certainly aren't there yet. Expecting the entire country to morph into a color-blind society overnight as the result of one election was nothing short of foolish. With every upheaval of racial problems, this becomes shockingly apparent, even to those who proclaimed Obama's presidency as the dawn of some sort of post-racial era.
To begin to address the problem, and to have a conversation about what the country should and should not do about it means facing the fact that the problem still exists. If this truly were a post-racial society, there would be few towns in America with overwhelming disparities between the demographic makeup of its residents and its police force, just to use one obvious example. But to begin that conversation (or "continue it," really, after attempting to sweep it under the "post-racial" rug as an excuse to ignore it completely) means that we have to fully refute the "post-racial" nonsense first.
America is, quite obviously, not experiencing a post-racial Utopian Age. Moving on from premature proclamations of racial harmony (which doesn't yet exist) is the first painful step some people need to take in order to debate how America really can get to a truly post-racial society -- at some point in the future. We've got to put the false post-racial era behind us to do this. Entering in to what might be called a "post-post-racial" frame of mind needs to happen first. In other words, we've got to admit that the problems do indeed exist before we're ever going to have any hope of solving them.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The biggest problem we have in this "post racial" era is that people insist on labeling issues as racism where absolutely NO RACISM exists...
If people (yes I am looking at the Hysterical Left Wingers) were to keep their powder dry until there was actually REAL cases of racism, I would be willing to wager that the incidents of racism in this country would go way WAY down...
Sanford and Ferguson are PERFECT examples of faux-racism.. Absolutely NO RACISM involved in either of those incidents. That's not MY opinion. That is the determination of Obama's Department Of Justice.
I saids it befores and I'll says it again...
Institutionalized racism in this country is dead.. It died the day we elected a black man as President..
If you have an ACTUAL bona-fide case of institutionalized racism then I stand shoulder to shoulder with ya'all in opposing it..
But there is none. Even the most common evidence cited, that 75% of people arrested are black, is total felgercarp... The actual statistic is a lot closer to 5%-7%....
The Left wants to oppose racism?? Fine.. Great.. I am with them on that 1000%... But the Left will have to redefine their definition of racism.. Because, apparently, the Left's definition of racism is anytime a black person is involved to the detriment of said black person, it's racism..
And THAT is simply a bridge too far for me...
In other words, we've got to admit that the problems do indeed exist before we're ever going to have any hope of solving them.
Yes, problems do exist.. But we simply will not be able to address the REAL problem until people quit bringing up FAKE problems...
Let me give you a perfect example...
BLACK LIVES MATTER is one of the rallying cries of the Ferguson protesters...
Over 90% of the homicides of black people in America are committed by other black people. Less than 7% of the homicides of black people are committed by white people.
Looking at things completely logically and objectively, what is the problem??? Or, more accurately, what is the BIGGER problem??
Is it a bigger problem that white people murder black people??
Of course not... So, I would have to ask those Ferguson protesters the following question.
If black lives matter, why are they ignoring over 90% of the problem and addressing less than 7% of the problem??
I submit to you that the issue is not of admitting that a problem still exists.. No one can deny that a problem still exists..
The issue is that we need to AGREE on exactly WHAT the problem is...
AND, I might add from a personal perspective.... We need to be able to discuss the problem without questioning motivations..
Michale
Because, apparently, the Left's definition of racism is anytime a black person is involved to the detriment of said black person, it's racism..
Of course, according to the Left, it's NOT racism if it's against the likes of Bill Cosby, Herman King, Condelezza Rice or Dr Ben Carson..
Amazing how self-serving the Left's definitions are, eh??
Michale
Looks like Xmas shopping came early in Ferguson, MO. :^/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850383/A-town-ravaged-anger-pictures-extent-damage-buildings-Ferguson.html
The completely and utter moronic-ness of the scumbag looters..
The vast majority of businesses destroyed are businesses owned by black Americans and other minority Americans..
How ANYONE can justify this is beyond me...
Looks like Xmas shopping came early in Ferguson, MO. :^/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850383/A-town-ravaged-anger-pictures-extent-damage-buildings-Ferguson.html
The completely and utter moronic-ness of the scumbag looters..
The vast majority of businesses destroyed are businesses owned by black Americans and other minority Americans..
How ANYONE can justify this is beyond me...
Of course, according to the Left, it's NOT racism if it's against the likes of Bill Cosby, Herman King, Condelezza Rice or Dr Ben Carson..
bill cosby is a democrat, although i'm sure at this moment the party must wish he weren't.
anyhow, here's an article from the economist which i thought was well-written:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/ferguson-verdict-0
Joshua,
What's the gist of the Economist article and what's your take on it ... I can't seem to open it.
bill cosby is a democrat, although i'm sure at this moment the party must wish he weren't.
Bill Cosby is also on record as telling the black community to quit beating their women and pull their pants up...
Democrats don't like it when black Americans go against the idea that black Americans are victims..
Given this standard, and the fact that prosecutors have enormous discretion over the proceedings, one would think that indictments are fairly easy to secure whenever the state has a reasonable amount of evidence.
And what does THAT tell you about the case of the Michael Brown shooting??
There wasn't any reasonable evidence to indicate that the officer acted improperly....
The *ONLY* evidence that indicated that the officer messed up is the contradictory and outright fabricated eyewitness testimony of 3 or 4 witnesses...
Eyewitness testimony is the WORST type of evidence there is...
Michale
Liz,
the overall gist of the article is that white and black americans tend to have extremely different attitudes and experiences regarding law enforcement and the justice system. also, neither point of view is necessarily wrong. they're seeing it from different but equally rational perspectives.
Bill Cosby is also on record as telling the black community to quit beating their women and pull their pants up...
that's one guy who shouldn't have been throwing stones from his glass house.
also, neither point of view is necessarily wrong.
That's hard to believe considering what we have seen in Ferguson the last couple nights...
that's one guy who shouldn't have been throwing stones from his glass house.
Why not??
It's worked out perfectly for Bill Clinton who is much worse than Cosby...
Michale
that's one guy who shouldn't have been throwing stones from his glass house.
I am also constrained to point out that no one on the Left has any moral foundation to condemn Bill Cosby...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that no one on the Left has any moral foundation to condemn Bill Cosby...
are you kidding? anyone who has not engaged in predatory behavior toward young people and then criticized their entire community for not keeping their pants up, has moral foundation to condemn bill cosby!
JL
are you kidding? anyone who has not engaged in predatory behavior toward young people and then criticized their entire community for not keeping their pants up, has moral foundation to condemn bill cosby!
Not unless they condemned Bill Clinton as well...
Anyone silent on Bill Clinton has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to condemn Bill Cosby...
NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....
Michale
Eyewitness testimony is the WORST type of evidence there is...
And here is why...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies
People WANTED it to be a racial incident. So they made up "facts" to fit their biases...
Like I said above.. If we got rid of the phony racist complaints (Tawny Brawley anyone??) I am certain the number of actual racist incidents is a LOT lower than people think...
Michale
Not unless they condemned Bill Clinton as well...
michale, your threshold for moral standing is silly. even so, most people, even those who supported clinton, absolutely were critical of his inability to keep his pants on.
JL
The presidency isn't just one more glass ceiling. It's the ne plus ultra of glass ceilings.
There's still racism, obviously. But electing Obama was a big deal.
even those who supported clinton, absolutely were critical of his inability to keep his pants on
As far as I recall, I didn't much care about Bill Clinton's marital infidelity per se. I cared about whether it was consensual. (With Monica Lewinsky, I think it clearly was. With Paula Jones, it allegedly wasn't, but I don't think we ever found out.) And I cared about his stupidity in contaminating his own image and that of the Democratic party.
On the actual day of the impeachment, though, I said they should go ahead and impeach him. He had just ordered Operation Desert Fox (bombing of Iraq). I didn't approve of the impeachment. But they'd had the votes to impeach (but not convict) before the bombing started, and I thought that if they didn't go through with it the appearance that he had escaped it by military distraction (even if the main reason were something else) would be far worse than the impeachment itself.
michale, your threshold for moral standing is silly. even so, most people, even those who supported clinton, absolutely were critical of his inability to keep his pants on.
Yet they STILL supported him.. And support him to this day...
Would you support Bill Cosby now??? Would you go to his shows, put money in his pockets??
You said above that that you believe that Democrats wish Cosby wasn't a Democrat..
Do Democrats wish Bill Clinton wasn't a Democrat now??
It's hypocritical to give Clinton a pass and condemn Cosby... It's politics at it's most pathetic..
Any argument that the Left made to defend Bill Clinton can ALSO be applied in defending Bill Cosby..
But the Left won't do it because the Left doesn't like Bill Cosby's politics.. So the Left throws him to the wolves..
The Left LOVES Bill Clinton's politics.. So they adore him even though he is much MUCH worse than Bill Cosby..
I stand by my assertion..
Anyone who hasn't condemned Bill Clinton does not have ANY moral foundation to condemn Bill Cosby...
Michale
michale, your threshold for moral standing is silly.
Not at all..
It's just that my threshold for tolerance of blatant partisan and political hypocrisy is very very very low...
Michale
It had been remarked here in Weigantia that the "Hands Up. Don't Shoot!" slogan was an excellent piece of PR...
And, I fully agree that it was...
Personally, as a Law And Order type personality, I prefer the slogans, "Thugs Get Slugs" or "Pants Up, Don't Loot"...
But, I have to admit that the "Hands Up. Don't Shoot!" would be a good slogan...
*IF*....
If it was based on facts...
But it's clear from the evidence of the shooting that gave birth to the slogan that it's a lie... Brown wasn't surrendering.. His hands WEREN'T up in surrender.. His hands were momentarily up in defiance, right before he lowered his head and charged at the officer with intent to commit grievous bodily harm or death...
So, I ask everyone here... Rather than try to place themselves in the shoes of a drugged up scumbag who had just assaulted a cop and who had just tried to take the officer's gun...
I ask ya'all to put yourself in the shoes of an honored police officer who put his life on the line every day to protect Ferguson residents..
Can ANYONE honestly say they would do anything different than Officer Darren Wilson??
Alone amongst everyone here, I can honestly say that I have been there and done that... And I can assure everyone with COMPLETE and utter authority that Officer Wilson acted within the law, within his training and within the best qualities of any police officer in the country..
This officer should be commended... Not condemned..
Michale
The Guardian had a great piece out recently about the five leaders who had failed in Ferguson.
That's one of the questions I'm wondering why our media isn't focusing more on instead of trying to play the white vs. black drama.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/27/ferguson-five-leaders-failed-michael-brown
It reminds me of the financial collapse. Why didn't the Wall Street leaders ever face any consequences?
Why has Bob McCulloch, the county prosecutor, acting like a lawyer for the defense? Why did Governor Jay Nixon call in the National Guard early and then "disappear" them on the night of the verdict? Where was Ferguson's mayor?
If we had a media that cared about anything more than trying to rile white people against blacks and blacks against whites, we'd be asking questions like The Guardian did.
-David
Why has Bob McCulloch, the county prosecutor, acting like a lawyer for the defense?
He wasn't. That's just the claim of the sour grapes crowd who didn't get what they wanted.. A lynching of Darren Wilson..
Why did Governor Jay Nixon call in the National Guard early and then "disappear" them on the night of the verdict?
Because the Grand Jury process is secret and there would be no warning when the verdict would be released. I can tell you that a company of National Guardsman don't just wait around until they are deployed, nor can they deploy at the drop of a dime.. Everyone thought the decision was imminent so Nixon mobilized the National Guard... If he hadn't and the decision came down, the destruction in Ferguson would have been much worse..
nd then "disappear" them on the night of the verdict?
The National Guard weren't "disappeared".. They needed more and Nixon was slow to deploy more.. Because, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, you can't deploy Guardsman at the drop of a dime..
Where was Ferguson's mayor?
Where he was supposed to be. On the phone in the command center screaming at Nixon to deploy more of the Guard...
If we had a media that cared about anything more than trying to rile white people against blacks and blacks against whites, we'd be asking questions like The Guardian did.
Those questions are really irrelevant to the incident..
The REAL questions are why don't people accept the facts???
Why do black people destroy other black people's lives and their shops and stores??
How do you honor someone who was killed by destroying that person's church??
If "Black Lives Matter" why aren't such efforts expended when a black person kills a black person??
THESE are the questions that, when discussed, will bring about REAL change for the black American community...
The questions the Guardian asks is just nothing more than an attempt to further the myth of the black person as a victim...
The ONLY victims in this whole sad affair is Darren Wilson and all the shopkeepers and store owners who had their lives ruined and their livelihoods destroyed..
Race had nothing to do with any of it.
Michale
It reminds me of the financial collapse. Why didn't the Wall Street leaders ever face any consequences?
Because your Obama Administration is bought and paid for by those same Wall Street Leaders...
Michale
Two images from Ferguson...
That's when Louis Head (Brown's mother's current husband) began talk of burning.
"Burn this bitch down!" Head began screaming on the video I watched, "Burn this mother— down! ... Burn this bitch down!!!" He said it again and again.
The other image I can't shake is of Natalie Dubose, a woman who had spent years scrimping and saving to open her bakery shop, Natalie's Cakes and More. Thanksgiving is a big week for bakers, and she had orders to fill before looters destroyed her place.
"It's just unbelievable," Dubose told reporters as she picked through her ruined store. "It's like a movie taking place. It's just unbelievable."
"I've invested everything into my business. I can't go anywhere. They destroyed the windows. They destroyed the materials I needed to do the Thanksgiving orders," Dubose said. "This is our only source of income. … This is what I prayed against."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-kass-met-1126-20141126-column.html
The questions of why Nixon did this or where was Mayor are not the questions that should be asked and answered, David..
How long is the Left going to encourage such activity??
How long is the Left going to encourage the likes of the Louis Heads of the world and ignore the pleas of the Natalie Duboses?
How long?
Answer those questions and we are well on our way to a solution..
Michale
CW,
Can ya check the NNL filters??
Sorry about that...
Michale
Because your Obama Administration is bought and paid for by those same Wall Street Leaders...
just as the bush II administration was, and the clinton administration before that, and the bush I and reagan administrations too. i think jimmy carter was the last president less than 100% in bed with wall street, and we all know how well that worked out for him.
michale, you've made no secret that you're going to take shots at obama because you don't like the administration in general. in many cases they deserve all the criticism they get, and perhaps this is one of those cases, especially since reining in wall street was one of those 2008 campaign promises that has conveniently disappeared. i guess my point is that such valid criticism tends to get lost among all the other vitriol.
JL
As far as I recall, I didn't much care about Bill Clinton's marital infidelity per se. I cared about whether it was consensual.
dsws,
thank you for clarifying that. looking back at my prior post, i don't think i was clear on the fundamental difference between the infidelity of bill clinton and the alleged crimes of bill cosby (and why michale was being silly by equating the two). cheating on your wife with your intern is reprehensible behavior, but it's not even close to the same thing as serial rape.
JL
The other part is it's not the infidelity that is the problem, it's that many republicans run on a heavy christian family values platform. Then when in office try to pass laws that try to force those values on people. It's the hypocrisy not the act that is important. Yes, democrats commit infidelity but they don't run on a platform morally condemning it then get caught doing it. This is a case where "they are all the same" doesn't really cut the mustard...
I think Michale is trying to bring up the various allegations of sexual misconduct of Bill Clinton beyond Monica Lewinsky, not that those, if true, were in the same ball park as Cosby's serial drugging and rape.
street, and we all know how well that worked out for him.
michale, you've made no secret that you're going to take shots at obama because you don't like the administration in general. in many cases they deserve all the criticism they get, and perhaps this is one of those cases, especially since reining in wall street was one of those 2008 campaign promises that has conveniently disappeared. i guess my point is that such valid criticism tends to get lost among all the other vitriol.
Yea, I know...
But as I have said many times, my excess vitriol is simply a response to the excessive OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG attitude amongst rank and file Weigantians...
I would be HAPPY to take Obama to task and hold him responsible LESS if everyone else would take him to task and hold him responsible MORE...
cheating on your wife with your intern is reprehensible behavior, but it's not even close to the same thing as serial rape.
And if ALL Bill Clinton did was cheat on his wife with an intern than we wouldn't be having this discussion..
But he didn't so we are...
But I am gabberflasted that ya'all actually see a difference between Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby...
It truly boggles the mind...
How do you know Bill Cosby did ANYTHING wrong???
Because a bunch of women said so?? A bunch of women who ADMITTED that they were hoping to further their careers.. A bunch of women who stayed with Cosby for DECADES after these alleged rapes??
Does all of that sound familiar???
It should. It's the same types of defense that the Left used to defend Bill Clinton...
There is no difference between Bill Cosby's crimes and Bill Clinton's crimes...
I'll say it again for the cheap seats..
No one has ANY moral foundation to condemn Bill Cosby if they give Bill Clinton a pass...
Michale
in many cases they deserve all the criticism they get, and perhaps this is one of those cases, especially since reining in wall street was one of those 2008 campaign promises that has conveniently disappeared.
It sure would be nice to see this when the discussions are actually taking place.. :D
I know, I know.. You have a life.. :D I wish I could make the same claim.. :D
Michale
Let's compare statements:
Barbara Bowman: “Cosby threw me on the bed and braced his forearm against my neck and attempted to disrobe me and himself,” she said. “I can still remember him messing with his belt. And I was screaming and crying and yelling and begging him to stop.”
Paula Jones: "I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said: "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do."
Michale, you CAN NOT seriously claim that there is no substantive difference in the conduct of the two men. Imagine neither man was a politician or celebrity, and you were back in your role in law enforcement. You're seriously saying that those two behaviors are identical, and people should have judged them in the same way?
JL
Michale, you CAN NOT seriously claim that there is no substantive difference in the conduct of the two men. Imagine neither man was a politician or celebrity, and you were back in your role in law enforcement. You're seriously saying that those two behaviors are identical, and people should have judged them in the same way?
There are dozens of other women who claimed Clinton physically and sexually assaulted them..
You picked the most benign of all Clinton's accusers...
In my role of an LEO, I would look at the EVIDENCE that supports Bowman's claims.. Just as I would look at the EVIDENCE that supports the Clinton accuser's claims..
As I have pointed out time and time again, eyewitness and alleged victim testimony is the most worthless type of evidence their is. It's always subjective and always fraught with self-serving statements and inconsistencies...
Yes, Clinton and Cosby should be judged the same manner. Their politics should not even enter into the judgement..
But we all know that with Clinton, it was ALL about his politics..
Hell, N.O.W. *DEFENDED* Clinton and help the Clintons trash Lewinsky....
Where is NOW on Cosby???
Michale
There are dozens of other women who claimed Clinton physically and sexually assaulted them..
Can you back that up? Because when Rand Paul made that claim, then backed off to a half dozen he still got Three Pinocchios [http://www.washingtonpost.com] from the Washington Post fact check...
Can you back that up? Because when Rand Paul made that claim, then backed off to a half dozen he still got Three Pinocchios
{sssiiiggggghhhhh}
I hadn't realized that sexual assault and serial raping was a numbers game...
That "dozens" is bad, but "half dozen" is OK...
Regardless, I won't bother documenting them all..
For my purposes, to illustrate my point, "half dozen" is just as good as "dozens"....
So, I will concede that it's "half dozen"...
Michale
I hadn't realized that sexual assault and serial raping was a numbers game...
it's not, but there's a difference between serial rape and harassment. one ranges between class-b and class-a felony; the other is occasionally a misdemeanor but usually a tort.
about thirty different women, twenty of whose names are public record, all told very similar stories about bill cosby's behavior. each one was of horrific, non-consensual felony-level behavior, not ambiguous, possible misunderstanding type stuff. it honestly upsets me that you're defending him and impeaching the character of the women who have come forward against him, bill clinton notwithstanding.
of all the stories to come out about clinton, only one woman, Juanita Broaddrick, reported anything that might have conceivably been criminal, and even her story was inconsistent. by the reports i've read, clinton didn't realize how she had experienced the incident, and years later tried to apologize. clinton was essentially just a regular jerk who might or might not have accidentally committed a crime, once, and even that once we're not so sure about.
numbers are not useful for keeping score, but they are absolutely useful for corroboration. if that many different individuals all report the same behaviors from the same perpetrator, you know damn well that makes a difference.
JL
of all the stories to come out about clinton, only one woman, Juanita Broaddrick, reported anything that might have conceivably been criminal, and even her story was inconsistent.
As are the stories of the Cosby women..
But do you see what you are doing?
You are going out of your way to defend Clinton. To mitigate what he did...
THAT is exactly what I am talking about..
Michale
Ask yourself a question...
Do you think the women who were assaulted and attacked by Clinton feel there is any difference between what Clinton did and what Cosby did??
it honestly upsets me that you're defending him and impeaching the character of the women who have come forward against him, bill clinton notwithstanding.
I am not defending Cosby.. If the allegations are true, he deserves to burn in hell...
But some of these incidents are THIRTY YEARS OLD..
That right there makes them suspect..
Most, if not all, of the allegations come from women who Cosby was mentoring, who were being helped by Cosby to become a star.. Most, if not all, did not achieve that stardom...
That coupled with the delay in reporting makes my LEO hairs twitch...
I am also constrained to point out that the "defense" I give Cosby is the same "defense" that all of the Left gave Clinton...
All I am saying is that such behavior should be condemned regardless of WHO the person is..
As I said above, NOW defended Clinton and helped the Clintons destroy Lewinsky..
If that's not indicative of a double standard, then what is??
Michale
it honestly upsets me that you're defending him and impeaching the character of the women who have come forward against him,
I felt the EXACT same way when the Left did those EXACT same things in defense of Bill Clinton...
Michale
I felt the EXACT same way when the Left did those EXACT same things in defense of Bill Clinton...
you might feel the same way, but the two men are not accused of the same behaviors.
left, right, famous, not famous, the only issue that matters is consent. if juanita broaddrick's account implicates clinton in a crime, then he belongs in a cell too. but otherwise, every other claim made against clinton is not criminal, and therefore not anybody else's business. if the behavior cosby was accused of was a tort rather than a felony, people would shrug their shoulders just like they (nearly the whole country, not just the Left) did with clinton.
cosby is accused of drugging and raping thirty women. clinton is accused of dropping his pants. clinton's women say they consented, cosby's women say they did not. any other distinction, whether in the court of law or the court of public opinion, is not relevant.
JL
you might feel the same way, but the two men are not accused of the same behaviors.
In your opinion....
I doubt the women who were assaulted by Clinton would feel the same...
As an LEO, here is what I would ask the Cosby accusers..
"Why did you stay with Cosby for 10 years after the initial 'rape'??"...
"Why did you wait 30 years to report the 'rape', right at the time Cosby was starting a new series??"
Those are the questions that put these accusations in a completely different light...
Those are also, incidentially, very similar questions that the Clinton accusers faced when they came forward with their complaints against Clinton..
You may want to split hairs and discuss semantics...
But the simple fact is, in the eyes of Joe and Jane Sixpack, there isn't much difference between Cosby and Clinton..
Other than the fact that Clinton is the Democrat's meow and Cosby, because he speaks against the Democrats "plantation", is not...
That is why Cosby's accusers are in the MSM and Clinton's accusers are not...
Michale
Joshua,
Let me make clear.. I have no doubt that you feel exactly as you have laid out...
But the general Hysterical Left??
They protect Clinton because he is "approved" by Democrats...
Cosby is not....
Michale
In your opinion....
I doubt the women who were assaulted by Clinton would feel the same...
can you name more than one? it's not my opinion at all, it's the reported statements of the alleged victims.
"Why did you stay with Cosby for 10 years after the initial 'rape'??"...
"Why did you wait 30 years to report the 'rape', right at the time Cosby was starting a new series??"
not the case for andrea constand. she reported to the police the same year as the incident (2004). most other alleged victims prior to 1990 were very young at the time of the incident, ignorant about the effects of rape drugs, and society overall was less cognizant of different ways that rape occurred, which meant it was less likely they could come forward and be believed.
But the simple fact is, in the eyes of Joe and Jane Sixpack, there isn't much difference between Cosby and Clinton..
do you have data to back that assertion?
JL
If the shooting weren't about race, why has white America gone all in trying to deny it's not about race?
Whether you like it or not, Michale, it's about race.
Here's what police do to white people:
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/difference-between-black-and-white
They arrest them. They don't shoot them 6 times.
It's really quite simple.
-David
p.s. And yeah, dude. Cosby is accused of rape. Clinton was never accused of a crime. He's just sleazy. Two totally different things.
If the shooting weren't about race, why has white America gone all in trying to deny it's not about race?
Because racists like Sharpton and Jackson and Crump immediately jumped on the lucrative bandwagon that the shooting WAS about race..
In other words, "white America" was simply denying the BS claim of the black racists..
Whether you like it or not, Michale, it's about race.
The aftermath was about race because the black racists MADE it about race..
The shooting itself, like the Zimmerman shooting, had absolutely NOTHING to do with race...
I'll look at your link later today...
p.s. And yeah, dude. Cosby is accused of rape. Clinton was never accused of a crime.
Really?? He wasn't impeached for Perjury??? :D
And yes, Clinton was accused of rape and sexual assault. Both crimes..
JL,
can you name more than one? it's not my opinion at all, it's the reported statements of the alleged victims.
Will it make a difference in your opinion??
not the case for andrea constand. she reported to the police the same year as the incident (2004). most other alleged victims prior to 1990 were very young at the time of the incident, ignorant about the effects of rape drugs, and society overall was less cognizant of different ways that rape occurred, which meant it was less likely they could come forward and be believed.
That's simply mitigation. The exact same kind of mitigation that the Left practiced to defend Clinton..
What's MORE likely is that these women had looked to Cosby to further their careers and figured they would go along to get along. When it became clear that the weren't going to be the stars they wanted to be.....??
Based on the evidence that I have seen, that would be my professional assessment. Of course, I haven't seen 1% of all the evidence out there. If I were actually investigating this case and had access to all data, it's likely my assessment would change..
do you have data to back that assertion?
If it would change your opinion, then I would gladly provide it.
But I doubt it would, so why take the time?? :D
Michale
Clinton was never accused of a crime.
That's not quite correct. The VRWC accused him of everything under the sun. Of his alleged victims, most were consistent in saying it was consensual. However, some of Kathleen Willey's allegations (I think) would have constituted sexual assault, and Juanita Broddrick alleged rape (after having said under oath that he didn't).
He's just sleazy.
Yes he is. And yet, he is still beloved by the Left and still the Left's number one guy..... Funny how that is, eh?? And if this sleaze's wife runs for POTUS, the Left (including everyone here) will vote for her thereby (possibly) putting this sleaze BACK into the White House with a whole new fresh batch of young and nubile interns...
Doesn't say much for the Left's integrity, eh??
If the accusations against Cosby are factually accurate, then Cosby is sleazy too...
The ONLY difference between Clinton and Cosby MIGHT be the magnitude of their crimes..
But, at their base, there is really nothing different between Clinton and Cosby.. Both were men of power and both used that power to seduce and attack women..
Michale
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/difference-between-black-and-white
They arrest them. They don't shoot them 6 times.
Oh come on..
So, basically, what you are saying in that in EVERY incident where a big guy assaults a cop, the cops should SHOOT them because, in one city, in one incident, a white cop shot a black subject..
Is that REALLY what you are saying??
Each situation is unique because each officer is unique...
To take ONE incident in ONE town involving ONE officer and try to paint an ENTIRE career field with that incident is ludicrous...
To try and make the case that cops are racist because of this ONE incident is equally ludicrous..
Is there ANY facts that support your contention that the Ferguson shooting was because of race??
No there is not. Even Holder's DOJ, which has every incentive to LOOK for the most minutest indication of racism, has come up empty...
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"
There was no racism in the Ferguson shooting. None whatsoever...
That's not quite correct. The VRWC accused him of everything under the sun. Of his alleged victims, most were consistent in saying it was consensual. However, some of Kathleen Willey's allegations (I think) would have constituted sexual assault, and Juanita Broddrick alleged rape (after having said under oath that he didn't).
What he said...
Michale
To try and make the case that cops are racist because of this ONE incident is equally ludicrous..
Even *IF* that one case WAS a case of racism...
Which it wasn't...
Michale
Something else for ya'all to chew on..
If Brown had been white or Wilson had been black, this NEVER would have gone to the Grand Jury, let alone be any kind of issue..
But racists, in the form of Sharpton and Crump MADE it a racial issue where absolutely no racism existed...
I am also constrained to point out that violence apparently runs in the Brown family..
Stepdad Head was videotaped inciting people to riot.. Mom has been arrested for felony assault for beating a relatives head with a metal pipe and stealing over $3000 in cash and merchandise..
Given the facts, Michael Brown had no chance to become a contributing member of society..
Michale
Progressive Myths Exposed
http://tinyurl.com/p6nc53s
Michale
Will it make a difference in your opinion??
yes, because my opinion is based on facts. maybe the evidence you present will be credible, maybe not. but i am absolutely open to the possibility that i may be wrong. until i searched and found the broaddrick statements i was convinced that clinton was never accused of any kind of sexual assault at all (every other accusation made was of lewd behavior or a consensual relationship). one rape accusation over fifty-plus years may not be cosby-esque, but it is certainly more than zero.
when it comes to rape cases, women very rarely come forward unless there is something to the charges. the situation is not always exactly as their statements portray it, but it's very rarely nothing.
JL
What's MORE likely is that these women had looked to Cosby to further their careers and figured they would go along to get along. When it became clear that the weren't going to be the stars they wanted to be.....??
... they waited thirty years and then decided to plot revenge by claiming to be rape victims? come on.
what's really more likely is they didn't want to endure the public scrutiny that comes with making criminal accusations against a beloved public figure. i know a few rape survivors personally, and none of them have come to the police to accuse the perpetrators, reportedly because it would wreak havoc on their own lives and friendships.
why do the cosby women feel differently now? the reason i find most likely is that it's much less difficult to corroborate someone else's case than to be at the center of your own.
JL
So, basically, what you are saying in that in EVERY incident where a big guy assaults a cop, the cops should SHOOT them because, in one city, in one incident, a white cop shot a black subject.
I believe that's what you're arguing. That police officers are always justified in shooting people.
I just think it's highly suspect that race wasn't involved. Especially when you don't see incidents like this where police are using excessive force against white people.
Why is it ok to shoot someone 6 times when the suspect is black and not when suspects are white?
And why does a prosecutor (yunno, the guy in charge of prosecuting) act like a defense attorney when he's supposed to be ... yunno ... prosecuting?
Maybe we need a new term - McCulloch justice - to describe justice for the white and privileged.
It's no wonder people have no confidence in our criminal justice system. It's a sham.
-David
JL,
. they waited thirty years and then decided to plot revenge by claiming to be rape victims? come on.
As an investigator, I would consider the timing. Cosby was working with NBC for a new sitcom...
David,
I believe that's what you're arguing. That police officers are always justified in shooting people.
Unless there are facts that indicate otherwise??
Absolutely...
I just think it's highly suspect that race wasn't involved.
Fine.. Give me some facts, ANY fact that indicates that race was involved.. ANY relevant fact at all..
Especially when you don't see incidents like this where police are using excessive force against white people.
Really??? Are you sure you want to go with that?? Because I am sure I can find many instances where officers have been disciplined, fired, prosecuted and/or jailed for excessive force against a white person..
Michale
JL,
. one rape accusation over fifty-plus years may not be cosby-esque, but it is certainly more than zero.
So, it IS a numbers game..
One rape accusation is OK. The accused is still a saint..
How many rapes does a person have to commit before they lose their sainthood?? :D
Michale
As I said above, you might have an argument that there is a difference in magnitude between Clinton and Cosby..
But there is no doubt that they are two of a kind....
Michale
Why is it ok to shoot someone 6 times when the suspect is black and not when suspects are white?
No one but you is claiming that...
And why does a prosecutor (yunno, the guy in charge of prosecuting) act like a defense attorney when he's supposed to be ... yunno ... prosecuting?
If there had actually been a, yunno, a trial, then there would have been a prosecutor..
Since there wasn't, there wasn't...
Maybe we need a new term - McCulloch justice - to describe justice for the white and privileged.
Now yer just being silly..
The simple fact that there was a Grand Jury is proof positive that McCulloch went above and beyond..
Given the FACTS (ya know, those pesky things that no one here will address and totally decimates any of ya'all's claims) this incident should never have even gone as far as a Grand Jury...
It was a clean shoot, thru and thru...
It's no wonder people have no confidence in our criminal justice system. It's a sham.
Only to those who ignore the facts and ignore reality..
Our system of justice is not perfect.. But it is, by far, the best system going...
On the other hand, I kinda have a sneaking admiration for the British legal system.. Defense and prosecutor work together to establish facts...
Michale
Really??? Are you sure you want to go with that?? Because I am sure I can find many instances where officers have been disciplined, fired, prosecuted and/or jailed for excessive force against a white person..
Go for it, Michale ... I'd like to read about that. :)
But, let's replace "excessive" with lethal, you know, so we're comparing apples to apples ...
If there had actually been a, yunno, a trial, then there would have been a prosecutor.
And that's the problem. It wasn't even allowed to go to a trial.
Because the prosecutor, instead of seeking an indictment, worked to free Wilson before it got to one.
-David
Unless there are facts that indicate otherwise?
I think you've got it backwards.
People are innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until they prove otherwise.
America, remember?
-David
As an investigator, I would consider the timing. Cosby was working with NBC for a new sitcom...
so... your alternate hypothesis is that twenty women came forward with rape allegations to prevent the release of a television show?
One rape accusation is OK. The accused is still a saint..
far from it. my point was that i'm open to changing my mind, if sufficient evidence exists. one allegation carries less weight than twenty, but that doesn't make it meaningless. i'm always inclined to believe the woman in rape or assault cases - unless there's compelling evidence of an ulterior motive on her part - something stronger than trying to cancel a TV show.
JL
But, let's replace "excessive" with lethal, you know, so we're comparing apples to apples ..
I would have to disagree.. Lethal force can be justified.. "Excessive" force usually cannot be justified..
Michale
And that's the problem. It wasn't even allowed to go to a trial.
Do you think an innocent person should have to endure a trial solely to placate a group??
When absolutely NO factual evidence supports a trial??
I mean, yea.. It happens. That's what happened in Sanford with Zimmerman..
But putting people on trial JUST to appease a vocal minority is NOT the America I grew up in and defended...
Michale
People are innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until they prove otherwise.
Exactly..
So, Darren Wilson is completely innocent....
Apparently ya'all forget that...
Michale
Do you think an innocent person should have to endure a trial solely to placate a group?
Huh? Placate a group?
The guy shot someone 6 times. He killed someone as a first option.
So, Darren Wilson is completely innocent....
We'll never know.
Because a prosecutor decided he was the judge and jury instead of doing his job and seeking an indictment.
-David
Michale,
I would have to disagree.. Lethal force can be justified.. "Excessive" force usually cannot be justified..
So, you are saying, then, that it was excessive force that was used in the Ferguson shooting since you have offered to present examples, as you said, where officers have been disciplined, fired, prosecuted and/or jailed for excessive force against a white person for purposes of comparison.
If you're not saying that, then I am confused.
Michale,
It was a clean shoot, thru and thru...
That's the kind of attitude that I think is the basis of the problem.
It's a sad commentary, thru and thru, to say that a young guy commits a robbery and assaults a police officer in the manner that was done in this case and he must pay for it with his life.
Understanding how the officer may have been in fear for his own life, it is still hard to believe that there was no other option for him to take at any time during this incident which began and finished in mere seconds.
Wilson says his "training took over". That tells me that the training officers receive to deal with incidents like this leave quite a lot to be desired.
The guy shot someone 6 times. He killed someone as a first option.
AFTER he was attacked and punched in the head twice by someone who outweighed him by a hundred pounds..
What would YOU have done??
Asked Brown why he was so angry???
Seriously, complaining that a cop defended himself and, thereby, did a public service by taking some scumbag thug out of the gene pool??
What exactly did Darren Wilson do wrong??
Michale
It's a sad commentary, thru and thru, to say that a young guy commits a robbery and assaults a police officer in the manner that was done in this case and he must pay for it with his life.
Why is that a sad commentary??
Understanding how the officer may have been in fear for his own life, it is still hard to believe that there was no other option for him to take at any time during this incident which began and finished in mere seconds.
Why is it hard to believe???
Perhaps it would be easier for you to believe if you had a big hulking guy who outweighed you by a hundred pounds punch you in the face a couple times.. I don't mean that to be mean or sarcastic. I mean that seriously.. If you had a choice between death and killing someone who assaulted you, what would your choice be??
Do you think that if Brown had succeeded in rendering Wilson unconscious and stole Wilson's weapon that Brown would have just walked away??
You forgot that the incident started with Brown trying to relieve Officer Wilson of his sidearm..
That alone warrants deadly force..
Wilson says his "training took over". That tells me that the training officers receive to deal with incidents like this leave quite a lot to be desired.
Why??? Would a dead cop be preferable???
Michale
... a cop defended himself and, thereby, did a public service by taking some scumbag thug out of the gene pool??
So, in the final analysis, you are saying that there is no space for redemption, no chance that an obviously misguided youth could turn his life around had the officer successfully defended himself through some other means that did not involve the death of the suspect?
If you had a choice between death and killing someone who assaulted you, what would your choice be??
Aren't you making an assumption that there were no other choices.
I think there were other options that didn't have to, necessarily, result in the death of the suspect.
For example, isn't it reasonable to think that the officer could have stood his ground a while longer until the suspect was close enough to be disabled with mace or pepper spray? That would also have given the officer more time to determine whether or not the suspect was armed in any way. Deadly force could still be used as a last resort.
Or, consider that the officer could have stayed in his vehicle in pursuit of the suspect, knowing back-up was on the way. In this case, it appears the suspect was not in great physical shape and might have been more easily disabled by the officer(s).
Given all of the circumstances of this particular case, I think the choices available to the officer were more numerous than you would have us believe.
Do you think that if Brown had succeeded in rendering Wilson unconscious and stole Wilson's weapon that Brown would have just walked away??
Well, that's a pretty big IF, Michale, and one that is really non-serious in this case and certainly not germane to the discussion we are having.
I would hope that police officers in the US receive better training than this little scenario would suggest!
Why??? Would a dead cop be preferable???
That's wholly non-serious and only succeeds in devolving the discussion to a place I won't go.
AFTER he was attacked and punched in the head twice by someone who outweighed him by a hundred pounds.
According to Mr. Wilson. The killer.
Whose story quite honestly sounds like he made it up to try to beat the charges.
Btw, 16 out of 18 witnesses said Mike Brown had his hands up when shot.
http://boingboing.net/2014/11/28/analysis-of-michael-brown-shoo.html
Sorry. Hands up and not even close is not a threat.
What probably happened was that in the heat of the moment Wilson made some dumb mistakes. The part that gets me is his phony story. And the fact that the prosecutor worked to get him off instead of seeking an indictment.
-David
David,
What about the witnesses that said he was charging the officer? Should we just discount them?
This is a difficult case for me to understand - all parts of it. I almost hate to admit it but, I have read quite a bit of the Grand Jury eye-witness testimony and will probably read more of it.
What I have found is that some witnesses are not at all reliable, and the ones who say they saw hands up in surrender mode have been the most unreliable of all - not because of their hands up accounts but because the rest of their testimony is so obviously at irreconcilable odds with the physical evidence.
David,
I think it's important when we start analyzing how many witnesses said this and how many said that that we take into account the overall reliability of the witnesses, based on their entire testimony in this case, and how their testimony comports with the physical evidence of the case.
For instance, according to that chart in your link, most of the witnesses who said that MB's hands were up also said that MB was shot several times while he was down, at close range with the officer standing over him. This would mean that there should be entrance wounds in his back but the physical evidence does not show that.
i'm inclined to agree with liz on this. once the officer was outside his vehicle with his weapon drawn, i think the evidence is pretty sketchy about what michael brown was or wasn't doing - hands up or down, bending over or preparing to charge, not much consistent corroboration about what happened or when.
my question - and this is a serious question - if the officer had already been assaulted and backup called, why would you pursue someone alone on foot with weapon drawn, if you don't think you could physically subdue him except by deadly force? isn't that a poor decision? why wouldn't you go back to the vehicle and report what happened, or follow in the vehicle?
JL
I agree whole-heartedly with that, Joshua, especially the last bit.
Which would seem to suggest that the training of officers with respect to how they should deal with situations like this needs to be revisited.
David,
We'll never know.
Because a prosecutor decided he was the judge and jury instead of doing his job and seeking an indictment.
The evidence CLEARLY showed that the cop did the right thing..
WHY seek an indictment??
SOLELY because the subject was black???
Michale
Give me ANY factual evidence that Officer Wilson acted improperly...
Just ONE piece of evidence that is factual...
Just ONE....
Michale
Give me ANY factual evidence that Officer Wilson acted improperly...
I'm afraid this is a classic case of MISSING THE POINT!!!
What about the witnesses that said he was charging the officer? Should we just discount them?
We should count them. In fact, that's why I was looking at it statistically. Because witnesses are often unreliable.
The purpose of a grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence but rather to determine whether or not to bring charges.
This is an extremely low bar for prosecutors to clear. The prosecutor's case is the only one that is usually discussed. There is no defense.
This is why grand juries almost always return an indictment.
As Nate Silver points out, out of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries decided not to indict only 11 times. That is, federal grand juries return indictments 99.99% of the time.
The question isn't guilt or innocence but rather if there is a sufficient case to bring it to trial.
It is also why the accused never testifies at a grand jury.
The problem in the case of this grand jury is that Robert McCulloch let Wilson testify without any cross examination.
In other words, he acted like a defense lawyer, not a prosecutor.
When a prosecutor isn't acting like a prosecutor it looks like a) he is incompetent (which doesn't seem to be the case), or b) he never wanted an indictment.
-David
When a prosecutor isn't acting like a prosecutor it looks like a) he is incompetent (which doesn't seem to be the case), or b) he never wanted an indictment.
I'm not so sure that we can discount the possibility of a certain degree of incompetence in this prosecutor's office. Okay, I'm being a bit facetious, here. I'm not sure we can say that he never wanted an indictment, either.
This case was very difficult and extremely problematic, any way you slice it, all of which may have left McCulloch with essentially bad options, without us getting into any further detail of all of the circumstances involved.
So, while it may have been better for some if there had been a trial, that may not have represented a better judicial outcome - I'm basing that primarily on the testimony the Grand Jury heard in this case.
So, while it may have been better for some if there had been a trial, that may not have represented a better judicial outcome - I'm basing that primarily on the testimony the Grand Jury heard in this case.
I'm sorry. I don't even know what this means.
A grand jury isn't supposed to decide on whether a better judicial outcome could be decided in a jury trial.
A grand jury is looking for probably cause to indict. They're only looking for reasonable evidence to proceed. They don't have to have preponderance of evidence. We're not talking about "beyond a reasonable doubt". We're talking about there exists evidence to proceed.
A grand jury is not supposed to be ruling on guilt or innocence.
I think that enough witnesses came forward to say Brown was surrendering (and Wilson's story has enough holes in it) for there to be probably cause of at least a manslaughter charge.
It's hard to trust a justice system that won't even pursue justice against some people (in this case, a police officer).
And the real problem is what this does to faith in our justice system. Unfortunately, I have more faith in NFL referees right now than I do in our justice system. Sad that the NFL does a better job of officiating.
-David
A grand jury isn't supposed to decide on whether a better judicial outcome could be decided in a jury trial.
You misunderstood me, David ... probably because I was being about as clear as mud. :)
Bottom line ... this is a very complicated case. The testimony is all over the map with many eye-witness statements and testimony bordering on the ludicrous. I'm not sure what was motivating the prosecutor in deciding to go the grand jury route and handling the proceedings the way he did.
In my comment #83, I was mostly thinking out loud about how a grand jury may have the best option and that I think the grand jury made a reasonable decision, based on what they heard; I'm thinking that if this had gone to trial it's very doubtful that there would have been a conviction - just based on what I've read of the grand jury testimony - and what would have been the result of a not guilty verdict and the consequences for the Ferguson community.
Anyway, I think I'm about done with this subject and very much looking forward to moving on ... :)
Wow, looks like I have a lot to catch up on.. :D
Good to have ya'all back!! :D
Liz,
So, in the final analysis, you are saying that there is no space for redemption, no chance that an obviously misguided youth could turn his life around had the officer successfully defended himself through some other means that did not involve the death of the suspect?
That works pretty well on Disney Movies, but rarely in real life...
Further, the only way for Brown to survive the incident is for him to kill Officer Wilson..
Surely that's not a better outcome??
Brown was high. He wasn't thinking clearly. The minute Brown attacked Wilson and tried to take Wilson's gun, Brown's death was a foregone conclusion...
David,
According to Mr. Wilson. The killer.
And the couple dozen eyewitnesses AND ALL of the forensic evidence.
Whose story quite honestly sounds like he made it up to try to beat the charges.
That's just ridiculous...
Btw, 16 out of 18 witnesses said Mike Brown had his hands up when shot.
And THAT is a load of crap.. Out of the approx 20 witness, only 2 or 3 said that Brown had his hands up. And those witnesses admitted that they weren't there or that they based their testimony on media reports and they based their testimony on what others told them to say... This is documented.
Further, there is NO forensic evidence that support the claim that Brown was shot with his arms raised, or shot in the back or shut running away...
Now, ya'all are free to ignore ALL the forensic evidence and ALL the eyewitness testimony except for the 2 or 3 people who say what you want to hear but who already admitted that they were lying...
Ya'all are absolutely free to think that way...
Of course that means ya'all can no longer say you are relying on facts, but that's a small price to pay, right? :D
Michale
I'm afraid this is a classic case of MISSING THE POINT!!!
I thought the point was the guilt or innocence of Darren Wilson??
Or are we discarding that and simply going with Lynch Mob justice???
Because that's what ya'all seem to want..
You want him indicted, have a trial, find him guilty and then string him up..
That's what ya'all are arguing for...
THAT's what ya'all are calling "justice"...
Count me out...
Michale
Brown was high. He wasn't thinking clearly. The minute Brown attacked Wilson and tried to take Wilson's gun, Brown's death was a foregone conclusion...
Let me amend that to say that either Brown's death or Wison's death was pre-ordained..
Once the attack began, only one of them was going to walk away...
Michale
i'm inclined to agree with liz on this. once the officer was outside his vehicle with his weapon drawn, i think the evidence is pretty sketchy about what michael brown was or wasn't doing - hands up or down, bending over or preparing to charge, not much consistent corroboration about what happened or when.
It's not sketchy at all if you look at the forensic evidence and then discount the eyewitness testimony that is disputed by the forensic evidence..
The problem is, the eyewitness testimony that is disputed by the forensic evidence is the testimony ya'all WANT to believe..
So, ya'all can be forgiven for not wanting to discard it..
my question - and this is a serious question - if the officer had already been assaulted and backup called, why would you pursue someone alone on foot with weapon drawn,
Because it's his job.. Brown was in a very violent state. If he had escaped, he could badly hurt or kill someone..
The fact that Brown turned and attacked Wilson is simply more proof of how unstable Brown was...
Had Brown continued to run and Wilson shot him in the back, it STILL would have been a good shoot..
Considering the evidence we have of Officer Wilson's honor and integrity, chances are good that, if Brown had kept running and not turned to attack Wilson, Brown would be alive today..
Or at least, not dead at the hands of Officer Wilson...
isn't that a poor decision?
It is not..
why wouldn't you go back to the vehicle and report what happened, or follow in the vehicle?
Had Brown not turned to attack Wilson, it's entirely possible that Wilson would have done just that...
*I* wouldn't, but I was a gung-ho type with more testosterone than brains.. :D
Wilson did what he had to do to survive.. Since there is absolutely no credible evidence to dispute his version of events, he should be honored for the hero that he is...
Michale
i'm inclined to agree with liz on this. once the officer was outside his vehicle with his weapon drawn, i think the evidence is pretty sketchy about what michael brown was or wasn't doing - hands up or down, bending over or preparing to charge, not much consistent corroboration about what happened or when.
It's not sketchy at all if you look at the forensic evidence and then discount the eyewitness testimony that is disputed by the forensic evidence..
The problem is, the eyewitness testimony that is disputed by the forensic evidence is the testimony ya'all WANT to believe..
So, ya'all can be forgiven for not wanting to discard it.. :D
Michale
my question - and this is a serious question - if the officer had already been assaulted and backup called, why would you pursue someone alone on foot with weapon drawn,
Because it's his job.. Brown was in a very violent state. If he had escaped, he could badly hurt or kill someone..
The fact that Brown turned and attacked Wilson is simply more proof of how unstable Brown was...
Had Brown continued to run and Wilson shot him in the back, it STILL would have been a good shoot..
Considering the evidence we have of Officer Wilson's honor and integrity, chances are good that, if Brown had kept running and not turned to attack Wilson, Brown would be alive today..
Or at least, not dead at the hands of Officer Wilson...
Michale
isn't that a poor decision?
It is not..
why wouldn't you go back to the vehicle and report what happened, or follow in the vehicle?
Had Brown not turned to attack Wilson, it's entirely possible that Wilson would have done just that...
*I* wouldn't, but I was a gung-ho type with more testosterone than brains.. :D
Wilson did what he had to do to survive.. Since there is absolutely no credible evidence to dispute his version of events, he should be honored for the hero that he is...
Michale
why wouldn't you go back to the vehicle and report what happened, or follow in the vehicle?
Had Brown not turned to attack Wilson, it's entirely possible that Wilson would have done just that...
*I* wouldn't, but I was a gung-ho type with more testosterone than brains.. :D
Wilson did what he had to do to survive.. Since there is absolutely no credible evidence to dispute his version of events, he should be honored for the hero that he is...
Michale
why wouldn't you go back to the vehicle and report what happened, or follow in the vehicle?
Had Brown not turned to attack Wilson, it's entirely possible that Wilson would have done just that...
*I* wouldn't, but I was a gung-ho type with more testosterone than brains.. :D
Michale
my question - and this is a serious question - if the officer had already been assaulted and backup called, why would you pursue someone alone on foot with weapon drawn,
I am also constrained to point out that Officer Wilson, like George Zimmerman, did NOT "pursue" Michael Brown..
According to the evidence, Wilson exited the vehicle and ordered Brown to stop and go to the ground.
Brown refused and turned and charged Wilson...
I honestly am stunned that this is actually an issue.. With ANY change in the racial makeup of the victim (Wilson) and the perp (Brown), this would be a good shoot on any day of the week and twice on Sunday....
The mere fact that Brown was black and Wilson was not is the ONLY reason that it's an issue..
And THAT is the saddest commentary of all...
Michale
David,
Especially when you don't see incidents like this where police are using excessive force against white people.
First of all, there was no excessive force used in Ferguson because, simply put, you are not qualified to determine what "excessive" is... By training, a peace officer is obligated to use the amount of force necessary to accomplish the goal and no more..
In this case, the "goal" for Officer Wilson was to stay alive. The only way to accomplish that goal was to eliminate the threat. Officer Wilson used enough force to accomplish the goal..
No "excess" whatsoever...
Second, you have the case of Dillion Taylor.. A white guy who was shot by a black cop in Salt Lake City, Utah...
So, this kinda decimates yer claim that cops don't shoot white people...
Michale
Here ya go...
Graphical Timeline Ferguson Shooting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-grand-jury-findings/
If that doesn't convince you, nothing will..
But I know.. Nothing will convince ya.. Ya'all have made up your minds, facts be damned...
Michale
In my comment #83, I was mostly thinking out loud about how a grand jury may have the best option and that I think the grand jury made a reasonable decision, based on what they heard.
Fair enough. I do too. I do believe, however, that Mr. McCulloch put his thumb on the scales (so to speak). Mostly the grand jury seems like it was used as a way to absolve everyone from responsibility. McCulloch can say "the grand jury said ..." even though if you ask a lawyer, they will tell you it's the prosecutor who determines the outcome of the grand jury.
The real problem here is the lack of trust in our justice system. For any number of reasons. A few you mentioned when it came to Officer Wilson. Did the situation really warrant 6 bullets?
-David
Fair enough. I do too. I do believe, however, that Mr. McCulloch put his thumb on the scales (so to speak). Mostly the grand jury seems like it was used as a way to absolve everyone from responsibility. McCulloch can say "the grand jury said ..." even though if you ask a lawyer, they will tell you it's the prosecutor who determines the outcome of the grand jury.
Could you postulate me a scenario where a white cop can shoot a black subject and you would deem it justified...
I would like to see what that would look like..
The real problem here is the lack of trust in our justice system. For any number of reasons. A few you mentioned when it came to Officer Wilson. Did the situation really warrant 6 bullets?
Officers are trained to continue to fire until the threat is eliminated..
In this case, Brown continued to come at Wilson despite Wilson almost emptying his clip. This was likely due to a combination of factors. Lousy marksmanship by Wilson, the bulk of Brown and the fact that Brown was high at the time..
Cops fire until the threat is eliminated. This is how they are trained..
Michale
"a good shoot"
I don't believe there is such a thing, Michale.
Any situation that comes to someone getting shot is unfortunate. Sometimes necessary, but unfortunate.
-David
I don't believe there is such a thing, Michale.
Any situation that comes to someone getting shot is unfortunate. Sometimes necessary, but unfortunate.
I would like you to read a book called SIGNAL ZERO.. It's about a liberal professor at a liberal college that was exactly like you. Constantly second guessing the cops, claiming they are too aggressive etc etc...
On a challenge, he joins a police force in a fairly large city.. His days as a police officer are an eye opener to him..
If you can read that book, it would be an eye-opener for you as well...
No one has the right to condemn cops until they walk in the cops' shoes...
Michale
I'm not condemning cops, Michale. I know that cops have a difficult job. I don't envy them.
The fact that they have a difficult job doesn't justify the Michael Brown shooting.
-David
p.s. Thanks for the book rec. I'll check it out.
I'm not condemning cops, Michale. I know that cops have a difficult job. I don't envy them.
The fact that they have a difficult job doesn't justify the Michael Brown shooting.
-David
p.s. Thanks for the book rec. I'll check it out.
The fact that they have a difficult job doesn't justify the Michael Brown shooting.
You and I absolutely agree on this.. 1000%.. Just because cops have a rough job doesn't justify shooting Brown..
What justifies shooting Brown is that he attacked a police officer and attempted to take the cops weapon..
THAT is what justifies the shooting of Brown..
I know we'll never agree on this point. But that's what makes life interesting.. :D
Michale
Thanks for the book rec. I'll check it out.
It's not a long book at all.. You could probably read it in just a few hours...
Michale
If you really want to understand police work, read this book. The author was a liberal criminal justice professor who thought police were brutal, ignorant thugs. Then one of his students, a police officer, challenged him to actually work as a police officer. Dr. Kirkham took up the challenge, and then found himself turning into the very things he always criticized police officers for being. A fascinating journey into the psychology of law enforcement--and an excellent read for those who hate/criticize police.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1697947.Signal_Zero
Michale
David,
Email me your shipping address and I'll send you a Mass Market Paperback copy of SIGNAL ZERO with my compliments.. :D
All I ask is that you read it (your time permitting) and report back your thoughts.. :D
Michale
Don't forget the flip side of law enforcement: an interview with Frank Serpico [politico.com]. Ya, that Serpico...
Thanks, Bashi, for posting that link! Serpico, the movie, is on my top ten list ...
Don't forget the flip side of law enforcement: an interview with Frank Serpico [politico.com]. Ya, that Serpico...
I actually read that article awhile ago..
While he makes some valid general points, his analysis simply doesn't apply to Ferguson..
None of his claims (or ya'all's incidentially) is supported by ANY factual or credible evidence...
Michale
i read kirkham's article-length version, and it was fascinating. the experience sounds similar in some ways to the way people act toward teachers. also a symbol of authority, also expected to act calm and polite in the face of ridiculous behavior, and also frequently second-guessed by enthusiastic amateurs. obviously the jobs are not identical - classroom teachers are rarely asked to put their lives at risk, newtown notwithstanding. justifiably, law enforcement officers have a few extra tools at their disposal. nonetheless, the parallels are interesting.
JL
Yeah, Michale, Frank Serpico doesn't know what he's talking about. :roll eyes:
Yeah, Michale, Frank Serpico doesn't know what he's talking about. :roll eyes:<
With regards to the Ferguson shooting.. No, he doesn't.
I am still waiting for some FACTS that indicate this was not a good shoot...
Michale
"FERGUSON GRAND JURY GOT IT RIGHT, LOOTERS ARE SCUMBAGS"
-Charles Barkley
Looks like Barkley has been reading chrisweigant.com :D
Michale
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/1/tammy-bruce-ferguson-and-useful-application-mayhem/
Now we know WHY things like Ferguson happen...
Michale
Michale,
I am still waiting for some FACTS that indicate this was not a good shoot...
I'm still waiting for you to stop missing the point. I guess that will happen when Hell freezes over ... :)
Michale,
Now we know WHY things like Ferguson happen...
What's the gist of the article in your link? You know how I hate clicking on links ...
I'm still waiting for you to stop missing the point.
And again, I thought the point was whether or not Wilson was justified in the use of deadly force..
If you want to concede that he WAS justified, then we can move on to your point...
What could be more fair than that.. :D
What's the gist of the article in your link? You know how I hate clicking on links ...
Allow me.. :D
It has been clear since the beginning of his presidency that Mr. Obama has an interest in exploiting and worsening racial tensions in this country, which distracts from the abject failure of big government and its monstrous impact on the poor and middle class. By forcing a community to face existential issues such as racism, riots and general mayhem, there’s simply a better chance they won’t look Mr. Obama’s way when asking why things are getting worse in their community.
For Democrats, the only answer is to convince their own constituents that everyone is racist and out to get them. Better that, they must reason, than to be honest about the fact that it’s the poverty the liberal elite rely on to control communities of color. After all, if people actually began to see craven and cynical liberal politicians for who they are, they might, just might, reject the horrors brought upon them by their so-called leaders, who need them forever mired in debilitating, but politically useful, poverty and hopelessness.
-www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/1/tammy-bruce-ferguson-and-useful-application-mayhem/#ixzz3Kjwr7oqr
Michale
Oh carp!!!
Michale
JL,
i read kirkham's article-length version, and it was fascinating. the experience sounds similar in some ways to the way people act toward teachers. also a symbol of authority, also expected to act calm and polite in the face of ridiculous behavior, and also frequently second-guessed by enthusiastic amateurs. obviously the jobs are not identical - classroom teachers are rarely asked to put their lives at risk, newtown notwithstanding. justifiably, law enforcement officers have a few extra tools at their disposal. nonetheless, the parallels are interesting.
I know cops who have braved bullets, who HAVE been shot and who have gone up against the worst of the worst that humanity has to offer. And, to a 1, they all would say they would NEVER be a teacher! Too dangerous!! :D
Michale
Michale
I wanted the gist of the article, in YOUR OWN WORDS ... oh, wait ...
The point, Michale, is whether or not there was a better option available.
I wanted the gist of the article, in YOUR OWN WORDS
My own words??
Hokay..
Democrat Party sucks. It keeps the black community on welfare and doesn't give them, as a whole, a way out of their dependency.. Thereby keeping them enslaved and beholden to the Democrat Party..
Don't you find it strange that vast majority of successful blacks in this country are Republican or conservative...
There is a reason for that...
The point, Michale, is whether or not there was a better option available.
The ONLY person who is qualified to make that determination is the cop on the scene..
From the factual and credible evidence, there doesn't seem to be another course of action, other than simply turning a blind eye...
And to do that would simply abdicated officer Wilson's responsibility as a police officer..
This isn't like the Sanford Shooting.. Officer Wilson did not have the option to back away... Neither did Zimmerman, albeit for different reasons...
Michale
Several lawmakers took to the House floor Monday evening to make the “Hands up, don’t shoot,” gesture to protest the police shooting of the unarmed Ferguson teen, Michael Brown.
-http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html#ixzz3Kl280Abw
I still prefer PANTS UP, DON'T LOOT
But then again, I am a Law And Order kinda guy... Not a guy who condones lawlessness and senseless wanton destruction...
Silly me...
Michale
I am still waiting for some FACTS that indicate this was not a good shoot...
Lets see, a black teenager is dead. There was rioting and the national guard was called in costing both the city of Ferguson and the state of Missouri quite a bit of money. The officer in question has been forced to quit his job and lose his pension all over a box of cigars. That's a "good" shoot? Not in my book...
Now we know WHY things like Ferguson happen...
Because conservative blowhards spew their heavily biased bile on opinion pages? It's all Obama's fault. And yet you rail against the Left for blaming Bush for everything. All the while never ever criticizing a republican. It's an odd strategy to point out our hypocrisy by being the biggest hypocrite here...
From the factual and credible evidence, there doesn't seem to be another course of action, other than simply turning a blind eye...
And to do that would simply abdicated officer Wilson's responsibility as a police officer..
Lets see, how about not pulling the car up to the suspects in a way that puts the officer in a defensive disadvantage? I bet the police academy had some lessons about that. How about following the suspects until backup arrives instead of confrontation alone? There were many options, the officer made some wrong ones...
Lets see, a black teenager is dead.
And THAT means it was a bad shoot???
What's your thinking process on that??
How did you get from here to there??
There was rioting and the national guard was called in costing both the city of Ferguson and the state of Missouri quite a bit of money. The officer in question has been forced to quit his job and lose his pension all over a box of cigars. That's a "good" shoot?
How does that have ANY bearing on the facts of the shooting??
All of that only shows the lawlessness and the utter stoopidity of the black community in Ferguson..
Not in my book...
Yea, but we're not talking CAT IN THE HAT here...
Because conservative blowhards spew their heavily biased bile on opinion pages? It's all Obama's fault. And yet you rail against the Left for blaming Bush for everything. All the while never ever criticizing a republican. It's an odd strategy to point out our hypocrisy by being the biggest hypocrite here...
It's all the Democrat Party's fault...
If they would actually hold people accountable for their actions....
Lets see, how about not pulling the car up to the suspects in a way that puts the officer in a defensive disadvantage?
And your vast LEO experience tells you that??
Newsflash for ya sunshine.. By putting himself at a defensive advantage, he was protecting the public..
Ya know. HIS JOB...
That's the part that ya'all seem to forget...
There were many options, the officer made some wrong ones...
Says the guy completely ignorant of police procedures but apparently an expert in Monday Morning Quarterbacking... :D
Michale
Lets see, a black teenager is dead.
A druggie scumbag felon bully is dead...
That makes it a good shoot...
Michale
All of that only shows the lawlessness and the utter stoopidity of the black community in Ferguson..
Or the animosity the police had created in the black community...
Newsflash for ya sunshine.. By putting himself at a defensive advantage, he was protecting the public..
He was not in a defensive advantage otherwise the events might have turned out differently. And just how was the public, specifically that neighborhood endangered by an unarmed teenager to such a degree that waiting for backup was not an option? Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking, look in the mirror.
A druggie scumbag felon bully is dead...
And a bad cop lost his job. Idiot meets idiot, stupidly ensues...
Or the animosity the police had created in the black community...
And, how exactly is the police to blame for that?? If black people wouldn't be killing other black people in record numbers, then there would be a lot less need for police response in black areas..
And just how was the public, specifically that neighborhood endangered by an unarmed teenager to such a degree that waiting for backup was not an option?
The simple fact that the scumbag was so drugged out of his mind to attack an armed officer, in essence to bring his fists to a gun fight PROVES he was a threat to society... Suppose Wilson would have let it go and wait and some little kid bumped into the scumbag and the scumbag went off..
Cops do not have the luxury of hoping that the best case scenario works out..
And a bad cop lost his job. Idiot meets idiot, stupidly ensues...
Do you have ANY evidence that Wilson was a bad cop??
No, you don't..
As usual, you are simply speaking from ignorance..
Michale
Do you have ANY evidence that Wilson was a bad cop??
No, you don't..
really?
Violating a citizen's constitutional rights is at least as bad as shoplifting...
really?
An anonymous source who has a bunch of charges pending.
THAT's yer proof?? :D
Would you accept that kind of proof from me??
Of course you wouldn't..
Bashi, Bashi, Bashi...
Yer on the losing side of this one..
There is absolutely *NO CREDIBLE* evidence to support ANY other conclusion but that it was a good shoot..
I also find it interesting that ya'all have gone to such lengths to condemn Wilson without ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to back it up, yet ya'all are completely and utterly silent on the looting and the destruction of people's lives and livelyhood.. People who are completely innocent and had NOTHING to do with the Michael Brown shooting..
Ya'all don't seem to have ANY words of condemnation for those scumbags...
I wonder why...
Because, in ya'all's eyes a black person can do no wrong..
Michale
An anonymous source who has a bunch of charges pending.
THAT's yer proof?? :D
A video plainly showing the officer telling him to stop filming when filming a police officer in the course of his duties is quite legal...
Ya'all don't seem to have ANY words of condemnation for those scumbags...
And you support bad cops even with video proof...
Because, in ya'all's eyes a black person can do no wrong..
Unless, of course, they are black people who don't toe the Party line.. Like Bill Cosby, Hermann King, Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, etc etc etc...
Party Uber Alles
Michale
A druggie scumbag felon bully is dead...
Must opinions be expressed here, of all places, with such vitriol?
And, lest anyone think I'm encouraging political correctness, I'm not ... just wishing for a little more common decency when discussing issues that are already inherently charged.
Now, to be fair, a few of you do disagree with Party on an issue..
Bashi has made it clear that the Dem Party's stance on Gun Control is moronic..
JL has spoken many times against the absolute stoopidity of the Administration's Educational aspects..
But neither of them let that get in the way of full and complete support for the Democrat Party... If it's a choice between the Party or the issue, ya'all choose Party each and every time..
It's like Michelle Obama said. Who cares what the candidates are or what they say or what they have done. Just vote Dem up and down the line...
Michale
just wishing for a little more common decency when discussing issues that are already inherently charged.
I calls em as I sees em, Liz...
I am sure many of Michael Brown's victims would agree with me..
Who knows how many more victims there might have been had Michael Brown not been stopped...
I know, I know. Michael Brown was somebody's son...
So was Ted Bundy... So was William Gacy... So was Jeffery Dahlmer...
They are all scumbags too and this world is a bit safer and a lot better without them in it..
So it is with Michael Brown..
I know it's not a very nice thing to say.. But it is how I feel...
Michale
Wow, an altercation with a police officer makes one a serial killer? Slathering on the hysteria a little thick there?
I am sure many of Michael Brown's victims would agree with me..
Well, other than the shop clerk and Wilson do you have any proof of "other victims"?
Who knows how many more victims there might have been had Michael Brown not been stopped...
Probably none. Marijuana is not PCP and to think otherwise is just ignorance of pharmacology...
Wow, an altercation with a police officer makes one a serial killer? Slathering on the hysteria a little thick there?
Drugs, poverty, no respect, no father figure... While it might not add up to a serial killer, it's 95% sure that Michael Brown would have ended up dead by violence anyways..
Well, other than the shop clerk and Wilson do you have any proof of "other victims"?
Two is all I need...
Probably none. Marijuana is not PCP and to think otherwise is just ignorance of pharmacology.
And yet, Michael Brown brought fists to a gun fight. And the demeanor and facial expressions of Brown as described by Wilson indicate that apparently Michael Brown couldn't hold his pot...
Michale
Brown tried to kill a cop..
Now, I am not sure how it is in ya'alls world, but here amongst the CIVILIZED human beings in this world, that tends to be a big deal...
Michale
michale,
none of the criticisms of the individuals you've named has anything to do with the fact that they're black, or even their politics.
Bill Cosby - accused serial rapist, twenty named victims and counting.
[Herman Cain] sic - right wing bill clinton. not criminal, but not exactly the poster child for moral behavior. big shoulder shrug.
Condolezza Rice - no problem whatsoever. decent sec state, big improvement over Rumsfeld, possibly the next NFL commissioner. disagree with her politically, but no other issues.
Clarence Thomas - major issue on judicial impartiality and conflict of interest. should have recused himself on a number of cases to avoid the appearance of favoring his wife's lobbying firm. other judges have made similar mistakes, and I'm sure there are judges out there more corrupt than thomas, but I'm not exactly a fan.
But neither of them let that get in the way of full and complete support for the Democrat Party... If it's a choice between the Party or the issue, ya'all choose Party each and every time..
I think that's a gross oversimplification. my support for a candidate depends on the specifics of the candidate and their opponent(s). In 2008 I seriously considered voting for McCain because I strongly supported his work on campaign finance reform. ultimately I ended up voting in the Obama wave.
on the whole, the truism tends to hold that democrats fall in love, while republicans fall in line.
JL
none of the criticisms of the individuals you've named has anything to do with the fact that they're black, or even their politics.
And yet, ALL of the criticisms of President Obama ALL had to do with the fact that Obama was black..
It works both ways, my friend..
I think that's a gross oversimplification.
“And that’s my message to voters, this isn’t about Barack, it’s not about person on that ballot– its about you. And for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this– that shouldn’t even come into the equation.”
-Michelle Obama
Michale
Bill Cosby - accused serial rapist, twenty named victims and counting.
Basically you are arguing that the guy who rapes just 2 women is better than the guy who rapes 20 women...
I just don't see it that way...
Michale
'The Ox-Bow Incident,' Ferguson and the rule of law
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-ox-bow-incident-ferguson-kass-met-1203-20141202-column.html
Well said..
VERY well said...
The airwaves and the blogosphere go on and on nearly hysterically about how it's tragic a young black kid was killed by a cop... A young black kid who was, incidentally, a thug and a thief and a bully and who was a hairsbreadth away from becoming a cop-killer..
But then turn around and ignore the young white guy who was brutally murdered with a hammer right in front of his wife..
THAT is the only truly sad commentary of this whole tragic issue..
Michale
JL,
Ben Carson???
Michale
060
"Those aren't black people, those are scumbags... We have to be really careful with the cops, man, because if it wasn’t for the cops we would be living in the wild, wild west in our neighborhoods. We can’t pick out certain incidents that don’t go our way and act like the cops are all bad. I hate when we do that. Do you know how bad some of these neighborhoods would be if it wasn't for the cops?"
-Charles Barkley
Hmmmmm Scumbags... Where have I heard that before?? :D
Michale
061
“{Eric Holder} disgusts me. He comes out with these scurrilous claims that law enforcement officers hit the streets every day with some nefarious intent in their heart to deny people their constitutional civil rights and indiscriminately just shoot black males as if it were some sort of sport.”
Sheriff David Clarke
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/3/david-clarke-black-milwaukee-sheriff-eric-holder/#ixzz3KrCReOvE
That's EXACTLY what's wrong with the likes of Holder and Obama and Sharpton and Crump and Jackson...
There world is NOT reality..
It's a Democrat infused fantasy where black Americans are ALWAYS right, ALWAYS the victim, never do anything wrong and EVERYTHING is the fault of Republicans which are nothing buy white people...
I am astonished that anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would buy into that crap...
Michale
062
For the record, Sheriff David Clarke is not black.
He's true blue...
"Being a cop is not what we do, it's who we are!"
-James Woods, THE HARD WAY
Michale
Basically you are arguing that the guy who rapes just 2 women is better than the guy who rapes 20 women...
no, I am arguing that someone who has twenty accusers is more likely than someone who has one accuser to be guilty at least once.
Ben Carson???
that's the MD who's a conservative talking head, right? to be honest I don't know anything about him, other than the fact that he's a conservative talking head and a doctor. I plead ignorance.
no, I am arguing that someone who has twenty accusers is more likely than someone who has one accuser to be guilty at least once.
So, we're back to it simply being a numbers game..
The Democrat Poster Child who has a dozen accusers is still better than the thorn in the Dem Party's side that has more than a dozen accusers..
I STILL don't see it that way...
that's the MD who's a conservative talking head, right? to be honest I don't know anything about him, other than the fact that he's a conservative talking head and a doctor. I plead ignorance.
Actually, he's a respect MD who is fed up with Obama's bullshit..
But why muddy the partisan waters with facts, eh??
Facts are always so.... inconvenient when they paint the Democrat Party in a bad light.. :^/
Party Uber Alles....
Michale
064
I guess with Charles Barkley now taking up the mantel that the black community needs to (ACK!!! The Horror!!!) take responsibility for their actions, one has to wonder..
How long til 30, 40 or 50 year old allegations of rape come along....
Michale
065
So, we're back to it simply being a numbers game..
you're being far too flippant about this. rape is never a game, and the numbers matter only insofar as they determine the probability that an accusation is accurate or inaccurate. that's not something you can believe or disbelieve, it's just math.
of all the allegations against bill clinton, only juanita broaddrick's is an accusation of sexual assault in 1978. if the allegation is true, then clinton should serve jail time. but that allegation is far from certain.
bill cosby's accusers establish a pattern because they are corroborating evidence. some of them individually seem reputable and others seem more sketchy, but as a body of evidence it is highly unlikely that every single one has sufficient motive to lie about it. you've basically argued that twenty women, some recent and some from the past, all told the world they were raped in order to prevent the release of a television show.
when confronted with the ridiculousness of that argument, your response is to draw a parallel with an unrelated case of a politician who is accused of a different pattern of behavior, and call it partisan bias.
JL
you're being far too flippant about this.
No more flippant than the Left was during the Clinton years..
THAT is my point..
rape is never a game,
Many on the Right said that during the Clinton years..
The response from the Left??
Boys will be boys
f all the allegations against bill clinton, only juanita broaddrick's is an accusation of sexual assault in 1978. if the allegation is true, then clinton should serve jail time. but that allegation is far from certain.
It's as certain as any of the Cosby accusers...
when confronted with the ridiculousness of that argument, your response is to draw a parallel with an unrelated case of a politician who is accused of a different pattern of behavior,
That's just it. The PATTERN is identical..
It's only the magnitude that's different..
and call it partisan bias.
I call 'em as I see 'em...
The same things being said in defense of Cosby is nearly verbatim identical to the things that were said in defense of Clinton..
It's all just politics...
Michale
Rest assured, I am not being flippant about rape..
I am being flippant about these accusations because of the obvious politics involved and the fact that these women maintained a relationship with Cosby for years after the alleged rape occurred and waited DECADES before coming forward...
If rape is all so serious as you claim (which it is) then NOTHING should take priority over it..
Apparently, with EACH AND EVERY ONE of these women, something was a bigger priority than their alleged rape...
That's all I am saying...
Michale
075
Re: #154...
That argument sound familiar?? It should..
It's the EXACT same argument the Left made in defense of Bill Clinton over the Kathleen Wiley accusation..
Michale
076
I know what you are trying to say, Joshua.. And, in theory, I agree with you...
It is undeniable that Bill Cosby is likely a slime-ball...
It's equally undeniable that Bill Clinton is likely a slime-ball too..
Now, you want to argue that what Cosby did is worse than what Clinton did, that's fine.. That's your opinion and I respect that.. I'll even go so far as to conditionally concede the point.
Because it's not central to my point..
My point being that Bill Clinton exhibited the same pattern of behavior that Bill Cosby exhibited yet Bill Clinton gets a pass from the Left..
Such a large pass that the Left is actually actively trying to put Bill Clinton BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
And that is pure, blatant and unadulterated hypocrisy.. No matter how much ya wanna spin it and excuse/mitigate/extenuate what Clinton did, that doesn't change the fact that Clinton gets a pass from the Left...
That is my whole point.
And the fact is simply undeniable..
Michale
077
No matter how much ya wanna spin it and excuse/mitigate/extenuate what Clinton did, that doesn't change the fact that Clinton gets a pass from the Left...
For behavior that is very similar if not identical, to the behavior of Cosby...
Put a different way. If someone steals $100 it's a misdemeanor. If someone steals $1,000,000,000 it's a felony..
Regardless of the degree, that someone is still a thief.. The only difference is the magnitude...
If someone rapes 1 person, and another person rapes 20 people, guess what??
They BOTH are scumbags... The only difference is the magnitude
"I am VECTOR! A mathematical equation that shows both DEPTH and MAGNITUDE!!"
-Victor, DESPICABLE ME
:D
Michale
078
I think we have a new LIE OF THE YEAR from President Obama..
"My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation."
-President Obama
Now if Obama changes the word "NOT" to "ALWAYS" then he would be correct..
But, as it is, it's a lie.. And a WHOPPER of a lie..
Obama has been Gruber-fied... He must think Americans are really REALLY stoopid...
Michale
And NOW it comes out that one of Cosby's accusers tried to extort money from Cosby in return for her silence..
First $100,000 then a cool quarter million...
Yea.. Pure as the driven snow...
"Looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it.."
-Janet Wood, THREE'S COMPANY
This is why I take all the accusations with a huge grain of salt.. There is so much back-story that no one knows...
Michale
#158 was 080
#159 was 081
Michale
082
http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/eric-garner-was-a-victim-of-himself-for-deciding-to-resist/
A good read...
Michael Brown and Eric Gardner would be alive today if they hadn't decided to fight the cops and disobey lawful orders from police...
THAT's the point that no one here seems to get...
Michale
084
You're wrong Michale ... we do get that point. We're not complete idiots, after all, you know.
We also see that you have never met and will never meet an officer-involved death that wasn't justified.
You're wrong Michale ... we do get that point. We're not complete idiots, after all, you know.
I never thought for a micro-second that anyone here was..
We also see that you have never met and will never meet an officer-involved death that wasn't justified.
Actually I have absolutely NO PROBLEM conceding that an officer-involved death was not justified..
But, unlike everyone here, I require credible evidence... Not politically correct faux "justice"....
Michale
084
No 50 cents for that comment, eh?? :D
Michale
085
The Hysterical Left is always demanding respect from police officers....
Police union: Some protesters cheered when officer injured
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27070538/police-union-some-protesters-cheered-when-officer-injured
Ya know??
The Hysterical Left reaps what the Hysterical Left sows...
Michale
Actually I have absolutely NO PROBLEM conceding that an officer-involved death was not justified..
For the record, the death of Eric Gardner wasn't "justified" as it is commonly defined...
But it was unavoidable, given Gardner's current health and his lack of co-operation in obeying the lawful orders of the police on scene..
It should also be noted that the officer did his job well within the bounds of his training and made every effort to insure the safety of his fellow officers AND of Gardner...
While I definitely would NOT put the officer in for a medal (as I would Officer Darren Wilson) and DO feel that it's sad that Gardner died, the simple fact that Gardner alone is responsible for his death..
This should be a lesson to everyone. If an officer gives you a lawful order, you follow it.. period...
Argue about it after the incident is resolved.. It's safer and healthier for everyone involved..
Michale
090
Michale,
But it was unavoidable ...
Oh, it was hardly unavoidable.
It was easily avoidable.
The officers involved in applying the pressure merely had to ease up a little after half-way through the litany of "I can't breathe" utterances.
Often times, Michale, you see only what you wish to see.
The officers involved in applying the pressure merely had to ease up a little after half-way through the litany of "I can't breathe" utterances.
As the video clearly shows, that is EXACTLY what the officer did...
But you are correct.. It WAS avoidable..
If Gardner had obeyed the lawful orders of police. Orders he was obviously in no physical condition to fight against...
Michale
094
Yes, Michale, of course Gardner's death could have been avoided if he had made better decisions.
But, what you seem unable to admit is that Gardner's death could also have been avoided if the police had relieved the pressure they were applying to Gardner's neck and chest, not to mention his head, when it was obvious he was having trouble breathing.
It's hard for the police, and others, to learn lessons about best practices when they don't believe they did anything wrong.
But, what you seem unable to admit is that Gardner's death could also have been avoided if the police had relieved the pressure they were applying to Gardner's neck and chest, not to mention his head, when it was obvious he was having trouble breathing.
That is exactly what the officer did. The video clearly shows that after Gardner said a few times he couldn't breath, Officer Pantaleo eased the pressure of the chokehold..
That's why I say that Pantaleo did everything right, according to his training..
It's hard for the police, and others, to learn lessons about best practices when they don't believe they did anything wrong.
The bigger danger is to change good training to bad training just because of vocal few use threats intimidation and looting because they can't get their way...
When one looks at the FACTS, rather than the emotion in Ferguson and Staten Island, it's clear that the responsibility for the events lie with the perpetrators..
Now, if you want to argue that it's silly for cops to be arresting Gardner for what he was doing, then I would be gung ho to do that..
But for THAT arrest, you would have to blame the politicians of the Nanny/Regulate/Tax everything State...
Michale
That is exactly what the officer did. The video clearly shows that after Gardner said a few times he couldn't breath, Officer Pantaleo eased the pressure of the chokehold..
Right, and that's why Gardner died as a result of a chokehold, according to the medical examiner's office.
You're really something else, Michale.
Right, and that's why Gardner died as a result of a chokehold, according to the medical examiner's office.
That's not entirely accurate..
The ME's office stated that Gardner's obesity, asthma and diabetes contributed to his death...
Officer Pantaleo's chokehold did not cause Gardner to be fat nor did it cause his asthma or his diabetes..
Now, you are correct when you say that the chokehold was contributory to his death, but as we have already established, the chokehold would not have been present of Gardner had opted NOT to resist arrest...
You're really something else, Michale.
Awwwww, I think yer speeshal too.. :D
Michale
096
Officer Pantaleo's chokehold did not cause Gardner to be fat nor did it cause his asthma or his diabetes..
That's right! Officer Pantaleo's chokehold caused Gardner to die. Neither I nor the medical examiner's office described that chokehold as contributory to Gardner's death but, rather we agree that it actually caused Gardner's death.
It's time to move on, Michale.
That's right! Officer Pantaleo's chokehold caused Gardner to die.
Not by itself it didn't..
I am also constrained to point out the elephant in the room..
There would have been NO REASON for the choke hold if Gardner hadn't resisted arrest...
Officer Pantaleo used the minimum force necessary to accomplish the mission. In this case, restraining Gardner...
Michale
099
It's time to move on, Michale.
Awwwww, do I gotta!!??? :D
Michale
100
JL,
Rolling Stone retracts UVA rape story
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/05/rolling-stone-retracts-uva-story/19954293/
This is exactly why all accusations such as these cannot be accepted at face value..
This is EXACTLY why false allegations hurt real instances, whether it be rape or racism..
Michale
104