by Doctor Science
I hadn’t really understood, on a gut level, how unusual American violence is until after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, MO. As people started talking about what happens in other wealthy, “civilized” countries, I realized that Americans experience — and expect — an extreme level of violence from both police and their fellow citizens.
As I’ve thought about it, I’ve come to the conclusion that the most important ingredient in American violence is slavery. The past isn’t dead, it isn’t even past.
Here are some facts for comparison:
- How many Americans are killed by police every year? No-one knows, because no statistics are kept. However, it’s definitely more than 400, which is the usual figure cited. 538 recommends the Killed By Police webpage, which is currently reporting “at least 975 people have been killed by U.S. police since January 1, 2014.”
- Police in England and Wales (Scotland keeps separate records) haven’t shot and killed anyone since 2012; the total number of fatal shootings by police in the past decade is 23. In 2012 there were only 3 “shooting incidents” by police. The population of England+Wales is about 57 million, about 18% of the US population. If the US had fatal police shootings at that rate, there’d be about 10-12 per year. In other words, almost two orders of magnitude less than what we actually experience.
- Similarly, in Germany in 2011, the police shot only 85 bullets. Total. Six people were killed, 15 wounded. The population of Germany is about 80 million. If the US had fatal police shootings at Germany’s rate, we might have 25 a year. But then, German police are trained with the mantra, Don’t Shoot.
- Australia had 105 fatal police shootings over 22 years, a rate of less than 5 per year. The population of Australia is 23 million; if the US had a similar rate, we’d see about 65 fatal police shootings per year. The Australian government Institute of Criminology says, “The decision to use a firearm in a police operation is one of the most critical a police officer can make and no other single issue has the potential to destroy the relationship between the police and the community like the use by police of deadly force.” No kidding.
- I can’t find any overall Canadian statistics about police shootings — please let me know if you can. However, there are good statistics for Ontario, the most populous province, which had 70 fatal police shootings from 2000-2011. With a population of 13.6 million, that translates to an equivalent US rate of maybe 130-140 per year.
This made me wonder why American culture has diverged from its English and European ancestors so very much in this way, in particular. American culture is still recognizably British in many ways (see one of my favorite books, David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed) — but not when it comes to violence. And especially not when it comes to police violence.
One of the standard explanations is the newness of the country:
The United States has a higher rate of violence, partly because large parts of the country were in a state of anarchy until the 20th century. People could not count on the government to protect them.
[Quote from Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined] And because the people were used to solving their problems by violence, the police got used to using violence against them in turn. I think this might explain why Australia and Canada have much higher rates of police violence than the UK and Europe, because they, too, were sparsely-settled and even more sparsely-governed for a long time. And, like the US, Australia and Canada also are pluralistic societies where people with different standards are likely to come into conflict. Not to mention the common theme of “push out and/or kill the original inhabitants”.
But I think that accounts for only one order of magnitude in the difference between US and English rates of police killings. I think the other order of magnitude is the history of slavery, which Australia and Canada don’t share.
In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker argues that levels of social violence decline as the state becomes more organized and powerful, and people become able to trust the government and legal apparatus to resolve their conflicts. That’s why we tend to think of resorting to violence as a lower-class behavior: poor people literally cannot afford justice.
And that, I think, is the main reason for the high level of violence among Black Americans: they are nearly stateless, and stateless people have to solve problems with violence. Until 150 years ago, Black Americans were *explicitly* stateless, outside the rights, responsibilities, and protections of the state. Since then, they’ve been too often as stateless as the authorities can manage. Pinker says:
.. another reason for their statelessness is that lower-status people and the legal system often live in a condition of mutual hostility. Black and Cooney report that in dealing with low-income African Americans, police “seem to vacillate between indifference and hostility, … reluctant to become involved in their affairs but heavy handed when they do so.” Judges and prosecutors too “tend to be … uninterested in the disputes of low-status people, typically disposing of them quickly and, to the parties involved, with any unsatisfactory penal emphasis.”
But I don’t think the level of police violence we tolerate in the US is merely a response to the violence of stateless people. I think part of the heritage of slavery is that violence comes from the top.
During the 19th century, the wealthiest and most powerful men in Europe, Canada, and Australia did not have to use violence to get their way, and they considered it barbarous and déclassé. Hand-to-hand violence was for the lower orders, and even dueling was going extinct. This was also true in the North of the US. A Boston Brahmin or a Wall Street banker never needed to hit anyone, and it would have shocked people if he did.
But in the antebellum South, the wealthiest and most powerful men were enslavers.[1] Their defining occupation was to manage the labor of the enslaved, and their most important tool was the whip. Not all enslaved people were whipped all the time, but every enslaved person was whipped at some time. A very wealthy planter probably wouldn’t whip all his slaves personally, but determining how much “discipline” was necessary and making sure it was done as he ordered was his core responsibility. He had to be accustomed to exercising direct, personal, physical violence against people who could not fight back.
As above, so below: because physical violence was necessary for the Southern elite, it naturally became part of the definition of “Southern manhood”, something every white man would emulate. And because violence was at the core of how the upper classes maintained good order in their homes, it seemed quite reasonable for violence to be necessary for civil order in general.
There’s no better illustration of the cultural divide between antebellum Southern elites and those in other English-speaking regions than South Carolina Charles Brooks’ beating of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate itself. Incensed by Sumner’s speech “Crime Against Kansas”, Brooks determined — in consultation with friends — that the “honorable” thing to do was to beat Sumner into a concussion and traumatic brain injury with a hard rubber (“gutta-percha”) cane. A whip might have been more in the spirit of things, but Brooks said
he had used a cane rather than a horsewhip because he was afraid Sumner might wrestle the whip away from him, in which case Brooks would have had to kill him. He didn’t say how.
Brooks also didn’t challenge Sumner to a duel, saying it was because Sumner was “no gentleman” — New Englanders thought dueling barbaric, not honorable. Their standards had changed since 1798, when Griswold (CT) and Lyon (VT) fought on the floor of the House with a walking-stick and the fire-tongs.
In the South, Brooks’ actions were, for the most part, considered appropriate and manly: “Hit him again!” was the refrain. Few in the South seem to have realized that for one elite man to beat another aforethought and in public was not within the realm of acceptable behavior, in either the North or in Britain or Canada — I’m not going to make any pronouncements about Australia in this period.
My argument, then, is that:
- Under slavery, the highest ranks of society were accustomed to using direct, personal violence to get their way
- That custom of violence flowed down through all the rest of society, so everyone got used to a high level of personal violence
- Violence was the normal and accepted way of “persuading” enslaved people to work. For instance, cotton plantations used a whipping/quota system: each worker had a personal quota to make each picking day, and if they came in under they’d be whipped to “balance the account”. Personal violence wasn’t necessarily *personal*.
- The cultural habit of expecting submission from black people and dishing out violence if you don’t get it isn’t as strong as it was 150 years ago, but it’s still there. When a black teen can be beaten and arrested for looking at the cops wrong, those are the habits of slavery.
- Like ink in milk, the habits of enslavers spread across the whole country, North and South, as well as down the social scale and over the years.
So as we wait for the Grand Jury report from Ferguson and see police and National Guard forces being rallied “just in case”, read some of the accounts in Killed By Police. Notice how many people are killed for “non-compliance”, or for holding a knife, or for burglary, or for other crimes that do not normally get the death penalty. Notice how much damn sloppiness we tolerate from police — who really killed 5-year-old Cadence Harris, after all?
We tolerate these things because we’re used to them, because we have a centuries-old tradition of authorities compelling submission by violence. The past isn’t dead.
[1] I have decided to follow the terminology used by Edward Baptist in The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. Baptist doesn’t speak of “slaves”, but of “enslaved people”; not of “slave owners”, but of “enslavers”. This usage emphasizes that slavery was not a characteristic of *people*, but of the way they were treated, and that keeping people in slavery was not passive, it didn’t “just happen”, it took ongoing effort. It was something “owners” *did*, and kept doing.
I would also suggest, prompted by this piece, that the reason why there is so much violence in the US is that we view everything as transactional in nature, so violence gets into the mix.
The violence functioned as a tool for preserving order, whether to maintain the hierarchies of prisoners or to reassert the authority of the guards. It was the best form of currency we had.
I would also suggest, prompted by this piece, that the reason why there is so much violence in the US is that we view everything as transactional in nature, so violence gets into the mix.
The violence functioned as a tool for preserving order, whether to maintain the hierarchies of prisoners or to reassert the authority of the guards. It was the best form of currency we had.
I would also suggest, prompted by this piece, that the reason why there is so much violence in the US is that we view everything as transactional in nature, so violence gets into the mix.
The violence functioned as a tool for preserving order, whether to maintain the hierarchies of prisoners or to reassert the authority of the guards. It was the best form of currency we had.
A couple of other features that other countries don’t share:
1) A (relatively recent) history of expanding across a continent. And doing so in the face of an existing population which was resistant militarily.
Perhaps more to the point, that expansion was a lot faster than the institutions of law kept up. So people get the habit of dealing, violently and often lethally, with their problems.
2) Prohibition. That gave us a couple of decades of large criminal gangs, which fought it out for territory, etc. — since competition in the legal arena wasn’t an option. And police fought back with lethal force, at least in part in self defense. We (finally) got rid of Prohibition, at least for alcohol, but the habits persisted.
Of those, I suspect that the latter was the critical one for today’s environment. Especially since our drug prohibitions mean that we still have large active criminal gangs fighting it out for territory and with police.
A couple of other features that other countries don’t share:
1) A (relatively recent) history of expanding across a continent. And doing so in the face of an existing population which was resistant militarily.
Perhaps more to the point, that expansion was a lot faster than the institutions of law kept up. So people get the habit of dealing, violently and often lethally, with their problems.
2) Prohibition. That gave us a couple of decades of large criminal gangs, which fought it out for territory, etc. — since competition in the legal arena wasn’t an option. And police fought back with lethal force, at least in part in self defense. We (finally) got rid of Prohibition, at least for alcohol, but the habits persisted.
Of those, I suspect that the latter was the critical one for today’s environment. Especially since our drug prohibitions mean that we still have large active criminal gangs fighting it out for territory and with police.
A couple of other features that other countries don’t share:
1) A (relatively recent) history of expanding across a continent. And doing so in the face of an existing population which was resistant militarily.
Perhaps more to the point, that expansion was a lot faster than the institutions of law kept up. So people get the habit of dealing, violently and often lethally, with their problems.
2) Prohibition. That gave us a couple of decades of large criminal gangs, which fought it out for territory, etc. — since competition in the legal arena wasn’t an option. And police fought back with lethal force, at least in part in self defense. We (finally) got rid of Prohibition, at least for alcohol, but the habits persisted.
Of those, I suspect that the latter was the critical one for today’s environment. Especially since our drug prohibitions mean that we still have large active criminal gangs fighting it out for territory and with police.
One of my cousins is a high ranking police officer in Australia. Many years ago, he did some sort of international police exchange where he got to spend a few months in the US visiting with and training with American police departments (the NYPD and LAPD featured prominently). I remember him saying at the time that criminals in the US are a lot more terrifying than those in Australia. There are a lot more weapons, those weapons tend to be much more powerful, and criminals who have been cornered by police were much more likely to go out shooting rather than peacefully surrender.
What struck me at the time was the fear and this was a guy who was accustomed to being in dicey situations. He’d made a name for himself going deep undercover in the most violent criminal organizations in the country and he’d worked as a homicide detective and on their equivalent of a SWAT team.
One of my cousins is a high ranking police officer in Australia. Many years ago, he did some sort of international police exchange where he got to spend a few months in the US visiting with and training with American police departments (the NYPD and LAPD featured prominently). I remember him saying at the time that criminals in the US are a lot more terrifying than those in Australia. There are a lot more weapons, those weapons tend to be much more powerful, and criminals who have been cornered by police were much more likely to go out shooting rather than peacefully surrender.
What struck me at the time was the fear and this was a guy who was accustomed to being in dicey situations. He’d made a name for himself going deep undercover in the most violent criminal organizations in the country and he’d worked as a homicide detective and on their equivalent of a SWAT team.
One of my cousins is a high ranking police officer in Australia. Many years ago, he did some sort of international police exchange where he got to spend a few months in the US visiting with and training with American police departments (the NYPD and LAPD featured prominently). I remember him saying at the time that criminals in the US are a lot more terrifying than those in Australia. There are a lot more weapons, those weapons tend to be much more powerful, and criminals who have been cornered by police were much more likely to go out shooting rather than peacefully surrender.
What struck me at the time was the fear and this was a guy who was accustomed to being in dicey situations. He’d made a name for himself going deep undercover in the most violent criminal organizations in the country and he’d worked as a homicide detective and on their equivalent of a SWAT team.
I don’t think you can really understand this, if you treat it as an “American” problem, as though this entire country, from ocean to ocean, Mexico to Canada, were one undifferentiated mass.
Levels of violence in American are hugely heterogeneous, varying by some three orders of magnitude from place to place. Large expanses of the country are as peaceful as you could ask. Small hotspots are as violent as war zones. A few blocks away you might be a hundred times safer.
If you ignore this, you are likely to end up attributing the violence in the hot spots to factors in the peaceful expanse.
I don’t think you can really understand this, if you treat it as an “American” problem, as though this entire country, from ocean to ocean, Mexico to Canada, were one undifferentiated mass.
Levels of violence in American are hugely heterogeneous, varying by some three orders of magnitude from place to place. Large expanses of the country are as peaceful as you could ask. Small hotspots are as violent as war zones. A few blocks away you might be a hundred times safer.
If you ignore this, you are likely to end up attributing the violence in the hot spots to factors in the peaceful expanse.
I don’t think you can really understand this, if you treat it as an “American” problem, as though this entire country, from ocean to ocean, Mexico to Canada, were one undifferentiated mass.
Levels of violence in American are hugely heterogeneous, varying by some three orders of magnitude from place to place. Large expanses of the country are as peaceful as you could ask. Small hotspots are as violent as war zones. A few blocks away you might be a hundred times safer.
If you ignore this, you are likely to end up attributing the violence in the hot spots to factors in the peaceful expanse.
part of the reason we so much police violence has to be due to the fact that we are a violent and heavily armed country. in our movies and books and TV, we worship and adore violence, especially gun violence. we run screaming from nudity, but cheer for the guy who casually shoots 20 people a season on The Sopranos.
American police are violent because: 1) they’re American, and 2) because they’re interacting with Americans.
part of the reason we so much police violence has to be due to the fact that we are a violent and heavily armed country. in our movies and books and TV, we worship and adore violence, especially gun violence. we run screaming from nudity, but cheer for the guy who casually shoots 20 people a season on The Sopranos.
American police are violent because: 1) they’re American, and 2) because they’re interacting with Americans.
part of the reason we so much police violence has to be due to the fact that we are a violent and heavily armed country. in our movies and books and TV, we worship and adore violence, especially gun violence. we run screaming from nudity, but cheer for the guy who casually shoots 20 people a season on The Sopranos.
American police are violent because: 1) they’re American, and 2) because they’re interacting with Americans.
Take a look at this. It’s coarse compared to the actual, neighborhood level variation, but you can see that, in Chicago, the least safe third of the city is about ten times more dangerous than the most safe third.
Take a look at this. It’s coarse compared to the actual, neighborhood level variation, but you can see that, in Chicago, the least safe third of the city is about ten times more dangerous than the most safe third.
Take a look at this. It’s coarse compared to the actual, neighborhood level variation, but you can see that, in Chicago, the least safe third of the city is about ten times more dangerous than the most safe third.
Large expanses of the country are as peaceful as you could ask.
the state with the lowest gun homicide rate (VT, 0.4 per 100,000) is still more than 10x the UK’s rate (0.03)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
ten times.
Large expanses of the country are as peaceful as you could ask.
the state with the lowest gun homicide rate (VT, 0.4 per 100,000) is still more than 10x the UK’s rate (0.03)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
ten times.
Large expanses of the country are as peaceful as you could ask.
the state with the lowest gun homicide rate (VT, 0.4 per 100,000) is still more than 10x the UK’s rate (0.03)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
ten times.
I saw something come up in my FB feed, but of course, once it disappears, good luck ever finding it. But it was an article that observed that the violence we think of in the Wild West could plausibly have been caused by the huge numbers of former Civil War veterans suffering from PTSD, I remember a while back, I wondered if Chinese had their Jesse James, Earp brothers etc as they pushed out to conquer their own frontiers, but this article suggested that maybe one of the keys to the violent west was the violence already experienced by so many people.
I saw something come up in my FB feed, but of course, once it disappears, good luck ever finding it. But it was an article that observed that the violence we think of in the Wild West could plausibly have been caused by the huge numbers of former Civil War veterans suffering from PTSD, I remember a while back, I wondered if Chinese had their Jesse James, Earp brothers etc as they pushed out to conquer their own frontiers, but this article suggested that maybe one of the keys to the violent west was the violence already experienced by so many people.
I saw something come up in my FB feed, but of course, once it disappears, good luck ever finding it. But it was an article that observed that the violence we think of in the Wild West could plausibly have been caused by the huge numbers of former Civil War veterans suffering from PTSD, I remember a while back, I wondered if Chinese had their Jesse James, Earp brothers etc as they pushed out to conquer their own frontiers, but this article suggested that maybe one of the keys to the violent west was the violence already experienced by so many people.
the state with the lowest gun homicide rate (VT, 0.4 per 100,000) is still more than 10x the UK’s rate (0.03)
Yes, but if you look at the homicide rate in VT:
http://vtweb.beyond2020.com/public/View/dispview.aspx?ReportId=75
It is on par with the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
Unless I missed a decimal place, somewhere.
The US aggregate rate is still higher, of course.
On the bigger question, I doubt there is a single thing, but I attribute large portions of the violence to
(1) the war on drugs, which has criminalized large swathes of the inner city (try getting a job after 10 years in prison) and funneled money into violent drug gangs. (Basically the follow up to what wj said)
and
(2) unwavering support for police actions and safety, leading uncriticized excessive use to riot gear, no knock raids, and SWAT teams.
the state with the lowest gun homicide rate (VT, 0.4 per 100,000) is still more than 10x the UK’s rate (0.03)
Yes, but if you look at the homicide rate in VT:
http://vtweb.beyond2020.com/public/View/dispview.aspx?ReportId=75
It is on par with the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
Unless I missed a decimal place, somewhere.
The US aggregate rate is still higher, of course.
On the bigger question, I doubt there is a single thing, but I attribute large portions of the violence to
(1) the war on drugs, which has criminalized large swathes of the inner city (try getting a job after 10 years in prison) and funneled money into violent drug gangs. (Basically the follow up to what wj said)
and
(2) unwavering support for police actions and safety, leading uncriticized excessive use to riot gear, no knock raids, and SWAT teams.
the state with the lowest gun homicide rate (VT, 0.4 per 100,000) is still more than 10x the UK’s rate (0.03)
Yes, but if you look at the homicide rate in VT:
http://vtweb.beyond2020.com/public/View/dispview.aspx?ReportId=75
It is on par with the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
Unless I missed a decimal place, somewhere.
The US aggregate rate is still higher, of course.
On the bigger question, I doubt there is a single thing, but I attribute large portions of the violence to
(1) the war on drugs, which has criminalized large swathes of the inner city (try getting a job after 10 years in prison) and funneled money into violent drug gangs. (Basically the follow up to what wj said)
and
(2) unwavering support for police actions and safety, leading uncriticized excessive use to riot gear, no knock raids, and SWAT teams.
Yes, but if you look at the homicide rate in VT:
true.
just for fun, i’ll note that the number of homicides in VT in 2010 was seven. and the number of gun homicides in VT in 2010 was two.
Yes, but if you look at the homicide rate in VT:
true.
just for fun, i’ll note that the number of homicides in VT in 2010 was seven. and the number of gun homicides in VT in 2010 was two.
Yes, but if you look at the homicide rate in VT:
true.
just for fun, i’ll note that the number of homicides in VT in 2010 was seven. and the number of gun homicides in VT in 2010 was two.
I don’t think Thompson’s comment is exactly wrong, but it misses something important, which is that the war on drugs exists across the whole country. The high rate of violent crime in parts of America has to be due to factors present in parts of America. Not across the entire country.
Which is not to say the war on drugs wasn’t a big factor, but why did this big factor hurt much, much more in some places, than others?
That’s the question that must be answered. Because if a variable, call it “x” is capable of causing hundred fold variation between locations within a country, you must identify it, and understand it precisely, before you can understand several fold variation between countries.
That’s basic statistical analysis.
I don’t think Thompson’s comment is exactly wrong, but it misses something important, which is that the war on drugs exists across the whole country. The high rate of violent crime in parts of America has to be due to factors present in parts of America. Not across the entire country.
Which is not to say the war on drugs wasn’t a big factor, but why did this big factor hurt much, much more in some places, than others?
That’s the question that must be answered. Because if a variable, call it “x” is capable of causing hundred fold variation between locations within a country, you must identify it, and understand it precisely, before you can understand several fold variation between countries.
That’s basic statistical analysis.
I don’t think Thompson’s comment is exactly wrong, but it misses something important, which is that the war on drugs exists across the whole country. The high rate of violent crime in parts of America has to be due to factors present in parts of America. Not across the entire country.
Which is not to say the war on drugs wasn’t a big factor, but why did this big factor hurt much, much more in some places, than others?
That’s the question that must be answered. Because if a variable, call it “x” is capable of causing hundred fold variation between locations within a country, you must identify it, and understand it precisely, before you can understand several fold variation between countries.
That’s basic statistical analysis.
go ahead, spit it out
go ahead, spit it out
go ahead, spit it out
African slavery came second.
Dispossession, enslavement and extermination of the Native Americans is the original American sin, a holocaust we seldom acknowledge.
African slavery came second.
Dispossession, enslavement and extermination of the Native Americans is the original American sin, a holocaust we seldom acknowledge.
African slavery came second.
Dispossession, enslavement and extermination of the Native Americans is the original American sin, a holocaust we seldom acknowledge.
The Great Society and War on Poverty. Paying people to stay where there aren’t jobs turns out to be socially much more destructive than ghost towns.
The Great Society and War on Poverty. Paying people to stay where there aren’t jobs turns out to be socially much more destructive than ghost towns.
The Great Society and War on Poverty. Paying people to stay where there aren’t jobs turns out to be socially much more destructive than ghost towns.
Gosh, I handn’t realized that American rates of violence were right there with everybody else (at least in the West) thru the 1950s. And then balooned thanks to LBJ.
Got a source of statistics which backs that up?
Gosh, I handn’t realized that American rates of violence were right there with everybody else (at least in the West) thru the 1950s. And then balooned thanks to LBJ.
Got a source of statistics which backs that up?
Gosh, I handn’t realized that American rates of violence were right there with everybody else (at least in the West) thru the 1950s. And then balooned thanks to LBJ.
Got a source of statistics which backs that up?
There was a big run-up in violent crime in the mid-20th century.
Kevin Drum has presented convincing evidence that this was produced by the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline, to be subsequently inhaled by every urban population.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/lead-and-crime-its-brain-thing
Unfortunately, this explanation doesn’t flatter Brett’s pre-existing moral narrative.
There was a big run-up in violent crime in the mid-20th century.
Kevin Drum has presented convincing evidence that this was produced by the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline, to be subsequently inhaled by every urban population.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/lead-and-crime-its-brain-thing
Unfortunately, this explanation doesn’t flatter Brett’s pre-existing moral narrative.
There was a big run-up in violent crime in the mid-20th century.
Kevin Drum has presented convincing evidence that this was produced by the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline, to be subsequently inhaled by every urban population.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/lead-and-crime-its-brain-thing
Unfortunately, this explanation doesn’t flatter Brett’s pre-existing moral narrative.
the war on drugs, which has criminalized large swathes of the inner city
Don’t forget that hillbilly heroin.
the war on drugs, which has criminalized large swathes of the inner city
Don’t forget that hillbilly heroin.
the war on drugs, which has criminalized large swathes of the inner city
Don’t forget that hillbilly heroin.
For a country located in the Americas, the United states has a relatively low murder rate. Canada and Chile are the exceptions. I suspect the issue is cultural, but but I don’t know how much of a role slavery played in it. One thing that has happened with colonization is that some cultural aspects are preserved from the time of colonization. I would look to the murder rate in the mother country at the time the country was colonized. The murder rate in Europe in the middle ages was extremely high, and dropped quite a bit during the time the Americas were being settled.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
I would surmise that as Europe shifted from an honor culture to a dignity culture, homicides fell, and the old cultural patterns were preserved to some extent in the new world.
For a country located in the Americas, the United states has a relatively low murder rate. Canada and Chile are the exceptions. I suspect the issue is cultural, but but I don’t know how much of a role slavery played in it. One thing that has happened with colonization is that some cultural aspects are preserved from the time of colonization. I would look to the murder rate in the mother country at the time the country was colonized. The murder rate in Europe in the middle ages was extremely high, and dropped quite a bit during the time the Americas were being settled.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
I would surmise that as Europe shifted from an honor culture to a dignity culture, homicides fell, and the old cultural patterns were preserved to some extent in the new world.
For a country located in the Americas, the United states has a relatively low murder rate. Canada and Chile are the exceptions. I suspect the issue is cultural, but but I don’t know how much of a role slavery played in it. One thing that has happened with colonization is that some cultural aspects are preserved from the time of colonization. I would look to the murder rate in the mother country at the time the country was colonized. The murder rate in Europe in the middle ages was extremely high, and dropped quite a bit during the time the Americas were being settled.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
I would surmise that as Europe shifted from an honor culture to a dignity culture, homicides fell, and the old cultural patterns were preserved to some extent in the new world.
Interestingly, wikipedia tells me leaded gasoline was favored over ethanol in the beginning because the former was more profitable (Profitability — where the wrong choice is always the best choice for just a few; see Russell’s comment on the healthcare thread) to the patent holders.
That sounds familiar.
And this might explain a few things:
“Leaded gasoline remains available at the pump in Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea (where very little is used), and possibly Afghanistan, where information is unclear.[14] (Also see a previous report[15] from 2011.) North Korea and Myanmar appear to buy their TEL from China[5] while Innospec sells TEL to Algeria, Iraq, and Yemen. Algeria is scheduled to phase out leaded gasoline in 2014 and Iraq in 2015. There is not yet a timeline for elimination of leaded gasoline in Yemen or Myanmar.”
Don’t forget lead paint.
Be funny if EPA-type mandated reductions in the amount of lead citizens in those countries have been “compelled” to internalize all these decades caused ISIL to eventually lose its mojo.
Not counting the North Koreans who must put something a lot worse in their fuel and paint.
Interestingly, wikipedia tells me leaded gasoline was favored over ethanol in the beginning because the former was more profitable (Profitability — where the wrong choice is always the best choice for just a few; see Russell’s comment on the healthcare thread) to the patent holders.
That sounds familiar.
And this might explain a few things:
“Leaded gasoline remains available at the pump in Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea (where very little is used), and possibly Afghanistan, where information is unclear.[14] (Also see a previous report[15] from 2011.) North Korea and Myanmar appear to buy their TEL from China[5] while Innospec sells TEL to Algeria, Iraq, and Yemen. Algeria is scheduled to phase out leaded gasoline in 2014 and Iraq in 2015. There is not yet a timeline for elimination of leaded gasoline in Yemen or Myanmar.”
Don’t forget lead paint.
Be funny if EPA-type mandated reductions in the amount of lead citizens in those countries have been “compelled” to internalize all these decades caused ISIL to eventually lose its mojo.
Not counting the North Koreans who must put something a lot worse in their fuel and paint.
Interestingly, wikipedia tells me leaded gasoline was favored over ethanol in the beginning because the former was more profitable (Profitability — where the wrong choice is always the best choice for just a few; see Russell’s comment on the healthcare thread) to the patent holders.
That sounds familiar.
And this might explain a few things:
“Leaded gasoline remains available at the pump in Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea (where very little is used), and possibly Afghanistan, where information is unclear.[14] (Also see a previous report[15] from 2011.) North Korea and Myanmar appear to buy their TEL from China[5] while Innospec sells TEL to Algeria, Iraq, and Yemen. Algeria is scheduled to phase out leaded gasoline in 2014 and Iraq in 2015. There is not yet a timeline for elimination of leaded gasoline in Yemen or Myanmar.”
Don’t forget lead paint.
Be funny if EPA-type mandated reductions in the amount of lead citizens in those countries have been “compelled” to internalize all these decades caused ISIL to eventually lose its mojo.
Not counting the North Koreans who must put something a lot worse in their fuel and paint.
“I would surmise that as Europe shifted from an honor culture to a dignity culture, homicides fell, and the old cultural patterns were preserved to some extent in the new world.”
It’s no coincidence that the honor culture of the Scots-Irish Southern slave owners gave way to the violence of the Civil War.
Just learned that John Wilkes Booth’s father Junius Sr. was renowned for writing fiery letters to President Andrew Jackson, an honor-bound jackass his ownself, threatening to slit the latter’s throat.
Not as bad as caning the crap out of your opponent on the floor of the Legislature, but worse than yelling “You lie” from the cheap seats to the uppity one during the SOTU.
Still, we’re stuck with the lot of them.
I still wish Obama had pulled a dueling pistol from his topcoat and shot Wilson thru the throat from the dias and we could have witnessed the latter tumble head first out of the balcony as Obama cleared his throat and said “Now where was I.”
Unfortunately, Obama keeps assaults from certain species of crackers upon his honor to himself.
“I would surmise that as Europe shifted from an honor culture to a dignity culture, homicides fell, and the old cultural patterns were preserved to some extent in the new world.”
It’s no coincidence that the honor culture of the Scots-Irish Southern slave owners gave way to the violence of the Civil War.
Just learned that John Wilkes Booth’s father Junius Sr. was renowned for writing fiery letters to President Andrew Jackson, an honor-bound jackass his ownself, threatening to slit the latter’s throat.
Not as bad as caning the crap out of your opponent on the floor of the Legislature, but worse than yelling “You lie” from the cheap seats to the uppity one during the SOTU.
Still, we’re stuck with the lot of them.
I still wish Obama had pulled a dueling pistol from his topcoat and shot Wilson thru the throat from the dias and we could have witnessed the latter tumble head first out of the balcony as Obama cleared his throat and said “Now where was I.”
Unfortunately, Obama keeps assaults from certain species of crackers upon his honor to himself.
“I would surmise that as Europe shifted from an honor culture to a dignity culture, homicides fell, and the old cultural patterns were preserved to some extent in the new world.”
It’s no coincidence that the honor culture of the Scots-Irish Southern slave owners gave way to the violence of the Civil War.
Just learned that John Wilkes Booth’s father Junius Sr. was renowned for writing fiery letters to President Andrew Jackson, an honor-bound jackass his ownself, threatening to slit the latter’s throat.
Not as bad as caning the crap out of your opponent on the floor of the Legislature, but worse than yelling “You lie” from the cheap seats to the uppity one during the SOTU.
Still, we’re stuck with the lot of them.
I still wish Obama had pulled a dueling pistol from his topcoat and shot Wilson thru the throat from the dias and we could have witnessed the latter tumble head first out of the balcony as Obama cleared his throat and said “Now where was I.”
Unfortunately, Obama keeps assaults from certain species of crackers upon his honor to himself.
russell:
Don’t forget that hillbilly heroin.
That’s a good point, thanks for the correction. Do you have any good data on the homicide rate in rural, drug producing/running counties?
I’d expect its not as high as the inner city, but I’ve haven’t been able to find a good source of data. High population density combined with high cost of living would, I expect, play a role. But I’d be interested if you had data one way or the other.
russell:
Don’t forget that hillbilly heroin.
That’s a good point, thanks for the correction. Do you have any good data on the homicide rate in rural, drug producing/running counties?
I’d expect its not as high as the inner city, but I’ve haven’t been able to find a good source of data. High population density combined with high cost of living would, I expect, play a role. But I’d be interested if you had data one way or the other.
russell:
Don’t forget that hillbilly heroin.
That’s a good point, thanks for the correction. Do you have any good data on the homicide rate in rural, drug producing/running counties?
I’d expect its not as high as the inner city, but I’ve haven’t been able to find a good source of data. High population density combined with high cost of living would, I expect, play a role. But I’d be interested if you had data one way or the other.
Any hypothesis about “importing violence from the home country” has to account for Australia.
Amusing anecdote I read on the internet (so it must be true):
Guy is applying for immigration to Australia, official is interviewing him:
“Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”
“I didn’t know that was still a requirement.”
Any hypothesis about “importing violence from the home country” has to account for Australia.
Amusing anecdote I read on the internet (so it must be true):
Guy is applying for immigration to Australia, official is interviewing him:
“Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”
“I didn’t know that was still a requirement.”
Any hypothesis about “importing violence from the home country” has to account for Australia.
Amusing anecdote I read on the internet (so it must be true):
Guy is applying for immigration to Australia, official is interviewing him:
“Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”
“I didn’t know that was still a requirement.”
“Any hypothesis about “importing violence from the home country” has to account for Australia.”
Australia was mainly settled in the 19th century, so it would have imported a later version of British culture than America. In fact, Botany Bay was established when it was no longer possible to sentence people to transportation to the American colonies. Quite a few were sent to the colonies for sedition. Wonder why they rebelled?
“Any hypothesis about “importing violence from the home country” has to account for Australia.”
Australia was mainly settled in the 19th century, so it would have imported a later version of British culture than America. In fact, Botany Bay was established when it was no longer possible to sentence people to transportation to the American colonies. Quite a few were sent to the colonies for sedition. Wonder why they rebelled?
“Any hypothesis about “importing violence from the home country” has to account for Australia.”
Australia was mainly settled in the 19th century, so it would have imported a later version of British culture than America. In fact, Botany Bay was established when it was no longer possible to sentence people to transportation to the American colonies. Quite a few were sent to the colonies for sedition. Wonder why they rebelled?
Do you have any good data on the homicide rate in rural, drug producing/running counties?
Nope. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
I’d expect its not as high as the inner city, but I’ve haven’t been able to find a good source of data.
My understanding is that the homicide rate is higher in the city, and the suicide rate is higher in rural areas.
But I wouldn’t make any assumptions. Go see what the numbers are.
Do you have any good data on the homicide rate in rural, drug producing/running counties?
Nope. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
I’d expect its not as high as the inner city, but I’ve haven’t been able to find a good source of data.
My understanding is that the homicide rate is higher in the city, and the suicide rate is higher in rural areas.
But I wouldn’t make any assumptions. Go see what the numbers are.
Do you have any good data on the homicide rate in rural, drug producing/running counties?
Nope. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
I’d expect its not as high as the inner city, but I’ve haven’t been able to find a good source of data.
My understanding is that the homicide rate is higher in the city, and the suicide rate is higher in rural areas.
But I wouldn’t make any assumptions. Go see what the numbers are.
Brett,
Because if a variable, call it “x” is capable of causing hundred fold variation between locations within a country, you must identify it, and understand it precisely, before you can understand several fold variation between countries.
That’s basic statistical analysis.
You’ve been singing this “between group within group” song for quite some time. It’s not a terrible point, but please bear in mind that the same logic applies to comparisons to other countries.
In other words, suppose all the violence in the US is attributable to people whose names begin with “B,” so it’s not fair to compare US levels to, say, UK levels without taking this into account. Then we have to look at the UK the same way, separating out the violence caused by those “B” (or maybe “D”) types from the peace-loving population.
IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that.
Brett,
Because if a variable, call it “x” is capable of causing hundred fold variation between locations within a country, you must identify it, and understand it precisely, before you can understand several fold variation between countries.
That’s basic statistical analysis.
You’ve been singing this “between group within group” song for quite some time. It’s not a terrible point, but please bear in mind that the same logic applies to comparisons to other countries.
In other words, suppose all the violence in the US is attributable to people whose names begin with “B,” so it’s not fair to compare US levels to, say, UK levels without taking this into account. Then we have to look at the UK the same way, separating out the violence caused by those “B” (or maybe “D”) types from the peace-loving population.
IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that.
Brett,
Because if a variable, call it “x” is capable of causing hundred fold variation between locations within a country, you must identify it, and understand it precisely, before you can understand several fold variation between countries.
That’s basic statistical analysis.
You’ve been singing this “between group within group” song for quite some time. It’s not a terrible point, but please bear in mind that the same logic applies to comparisons to other countries.
In other words, suppose all the violence in the US is attributable to people whose names begin with “B,” so it’s not fair to compare US levels to, say, UK levels without taking this into account. Then we have to look at the UK the same way, separating out the violence caused by those “B” (or maybe “D”) types from the peace-loving population.
IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that.
joel hanes: Kevin Drum has presented convincing evidence that this was produced by the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline, to be subsequently inhaled by every urban population.
It was 1971 or 1972 when Daniel Patrick Moynihan gave a speech at my high school. (He was then not yet Senator, but former Ambassador to India, and former Nixon Administration wonk.) It was the peak, or just after the peak, of campus protests. It was a time when “law and order” seemed to be tottering.
Moynihan’s thesis was that we were at a local maximum. Things would slowly get better, not keep getting worse, he said. And his argument was: the baby boomers won’t stay young and feisty much longer.
I think it may have been the first I ever heard of “the baby boom”. The speech did not make a huge impression on me at the time, but its prescience seemed to grow in retrospect.
Kevin Drum is almost surely right, but I still think Moynihan was on to something, too.
–TP
joel hanes: Kevin Drum has presented convincing evidence that this was produced by the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline, to be subsequently inhaled by every urban population.
It was 1971 or 1972 when Daniel Patrick Moynihan gave a speech at my high school. (He was then not yet Senator, but former Ambassador to India, and former Nixon Administration wonk.) It was the peak, or just after the peak, of campus protests. It was a time when “law and order” seemed to be tottering.
Moynihan’s thesis was that we were at a local maximum. Things would slowly get better, not keep getting worse, he said. And his argument was: the baby boomers won’t stay young and feisty much longer.
I think it may have been the first I ever heard of “the baby boom”. The speech did not make a huge impression on me at the time, but its prescience seemed to grow in retrospect.
Kevin Drum is almost surely right, but I still think Moynihan was on to something, too.
–TP
joel hanes: Kevin Drum has presented convincing evidence that this was produced by the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline, to be subsequently inhaled by every urban population.
It was 1971 or 1972 when Daniel Patrick Moynihan gave a speech at my high school. (He was then not yet Senator, but former Ambassador to India, and former Nixon Administration wonk.) It was the peak, or just after the peak, of campus protests. It was a time when “law and order” seemed to be tottering.
Moynihan’s thesis was that we were at a local maximum. Things would slowly get better, not keep getting worse, he said. And his argument was: the baby boomers won’t stay young and feisty much longer.
I think it may have been the first I ever heard of “the baby boom”. The speech did not make a huge impression on me at the time, but its prescience seemed to grow in retrospect.
Kevin Drum is almost surely right, but I still think Moynihan was on to something, too.
–TP
“IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that”
How is he “not doing that”? He’s asking a statistically meaningful question, perhaps a little obliquely, and certainly seems willing to see if the violence by “B” types is comparable between countries.
“IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that”
How is he “not doing that”? He’s asking a statistically meaningful question, perhaps a little obliquely, and certainly seems willing to see if the violence by “B” types is comparable between countries.
“IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that”
How is he “not doing that”? He’s asking a statistically meaningful question, perhaps a little obliquely, and certainly seems willing to see if the violence by “B” types is comparable between countries.
Add into all that the badly-drafted so incomprehensible statement about a militia that somehow crept into the constitution. This piece of nonsense has all sorts of people carrying & using guns as if they were some sort of totem or fetish object.
Add into all that the badly-drafted so incomprehensible statement about a militia that somehow crept into the constitution. This piece of nonsense has all sorts of people carrying & using guns as if they were some sort of totem or fetish object.
Add into all that the badly-drafted so incomprehensible statement about a militia that somehow crept into the constitution. This piece of nonsense has all sorts of people carrying & using guns as if they were some sort of totem or fetish object.
“IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that.”
I’m pointing out that you have to *know* what that standard is, to apply it. The more powerful the variable you don’t know about, the more prone you are to falsely concluding some variable you ARE looking at is the cause of the variation.
It’s a pretty basic point in statistics, and, until criminology can actually explain the huge local variations in violent crime, it generally makes a hash of any attempt to reach some conclusion by comparing larger areas.
This doesn’t say what the truth of the matter is, maybe there IS something peculiar about America, not just urban hot spots. Maybe it’s even guns.
But, what it does say, is that anybody who claims to know that is wrong.
“IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that.”
I’m pointing out that you have to *know* what that standard is, to apply it. The more powerful the variable you don’t know about, the more prone you are to falsely concluding some variable you ARE looking at is the cause of the variation.
It’s a pretty basic point in statistics, and, until criminology can actually explain the huge local variations in violent crime, it generally makes a hash of any attempt to reach some conclusion by comparing larger areas.
This doesn’t say what the truth of the matter is, maybe there IS something peculiar about America, not just urban hot spots. Maybe it’s even guns.
But, what it does say, is that anybody who claims to know that is wrong.
“IOW, you have to apply the same standards across the board. You are not doing that.”
I’m pointing out that you have to *know* what that standard is, to apply it. The more powerful the variable you don’t know about, the more prone you are to falsely concluding some variable you ARE looking at is the cause of the variation.
It’s a pretty basic point in statistics, and, until criminology can actually explain the huge local variations in violent crime, it generally makes a hash of any attempt to reach some conclusion by comparing larger areas.
This doesn’t say what the truth of the matter is, maybe there IS something peculiar about America, not just urban hot spots. Maybe it’s even guns.
But, what it does say, is that anybody who claims to know that is wrong.
Marty:
“certainly seems willing to see if the violence by ‘B’ types is comparable between countries”
I want you to read that over and over again until you realize how unfortunate this turn of phrase was.
Brett:
“I don’t think you can really understand this, if you treat it as an ‘American problem,’ as though this entire country, from ocean to ocean, Mexico to Canada, were one undifferentiated mass.”
Few countries (maybe Monaco and the Vatican are exceptions) are one undifferentiated mass. Thus, when you compare one country’s rates of violence to another country’s rates of violence, you will always have this issue of regional variations (in both countries), just as byomtov said. Your point is banal and unhelpful.
Marty:
“certainly seems willing to see if the violence by ‘B’ types is comparable between countries”
I want you to read that over and over again until you realize how unfortunate this turn of phrase was.
Brett:
“I don’t think you can really understand this, if you treat it as an ‘American problem,’ as though this entire country, from ocean to ocean, Mexico to Canada, were one undifferentiated mass.”
Few countries (maybe Monaco and the Vatican are exceptions) are one undifferentiated mass. Thus, when you compare one country’s rates of violence to another country’s rates of violence, you will always have this issue of regional variations (in both countries), just as byomtov said. Your point is banal and unhelpful.
Marty:
“certainly seems willing to see if the violence by ‘B’ types is comparable between countries”
I want you to read that over and over again until you realize how unfortunate this turn of phrase was.
Brett:
“I don’t think you can really understand this, if you treat it as an ‘American problem,’ as though this entire country, from ocean to ocean, Mexico to Canada, were one undifferentiated mass.”
Few countries (maybe Monaco and the Vatican are exceptions) are one undifferentiated mass. Thus, when you compare one country’s rates of violence to another country’s rates of violence, you will always have this issue of regional variations (in both countries), just as byomtov said. Your point is banal and unhelpful.
I’don’t go a step further and say that if you’going to talk about “B” types you need to articulate what “B” types are.
People in cities?
Any people, in any cities?
Poor people? How poor?
People engaged in criminal enterprise?
What kind of crimes?
People in particular zip codes?
What is special about those zip codes?
Are they prime numbers?
If you want to compare “B” types in the US to “B” types elsewhere, you have articulate what makes someone (or someplace) a “B”.
I’don’t go a step further and say that if you’going to talk about “B” types you need to articulate what “B” types are.
People in cities?
Any people, in any cities?
Poor people? How poor?
People engaged in criminal enterprise?
What kind of crimes?
People in particular zip codes?
What is special about those zip codes?
Are they prime numbers?
If you want to compare “B” types in the US to “B” types elsewhere, you have articulate what makes someone (or someplace) a “B”.
I’don’t go a step further and say that if you’going to talk about “B” types you need to articulate what “B” types are.
People in cities?
Any people, in any cities?
Poor people? How poor?
People engaged in criminal enterprise?
What kind of crimes?
People in particular zip codes?
What is special about those zip codes?
Are they prime numbers?
If you want to compare “B” types in the US to “B” types elsewhere, you have articulate what makes someone (or someplace) a “B”.
again: just spit it out, Brett.
again: just spit it out, Brett.
again: just spit it out, Brett.
Why am I thinking of Wheel of Fortune on South Park?
Why am I thinking of Wheel of Fortune on South Park?
Why am I thinking of Wheel of Fortune on South Park?
Oh! I know why – because cleek keeps nagging Brett.
Oh! I know why – because cleek keeps nagging Brett.
Oh! I know why – because cleek keeps nagging Brett.
More about where the wild things are here in the good old USA.
The source is the FBI’s uniform crime report.
Of note:
At the state level, LA has the most murders, AK the most rapes followed by SD, TN the most aggravated assaults, NV the most robberies, SC the most property crimes, CA the most car thefts.
SC leads again in larceny, AR in burglaries.
The maps don’t break it down by rural vs city, so I can’t tell you if all of the aggravated assaults in TN are happening in, for example, a ten-block area of Memphis, as opposed to back in the hills and hollers.
If you don’t like crime, the place to be is New England.
The numbers don’t include Washington DC, which is a particularly violent city.
In any case, looks like “B” types might be hard to pin down.
More about where the wild things are here in the good old USA.
The source is the FBI’s uniform crime report.
Of note:
At the state level, LA has the most murders, AK the most rapes followed by SD, TN the most aggravated assaults, NV the most robberies, SC the most property crimes, CA the most car thefts.
SC leads again in larceny, AR in burglaries.
The maps don’t break it down by rural vs city, so I can’t tell you if all of the aggravated assaults in TN are happening in, for example, a ten-block area of Memphis, as opposed to back in the hills and hollers.
If you don’t like crime, the place to be is New England.
The numbers don’t include Washington DC, which is a particularly violent city.
In any case, looks like “B” types might be hard to pin down.
More about where the wild things are here in the good old USA.
The source is the FBI’s uniform crime report.
Of note:
At the state level, LA has the most murders, AK the most rapes followed by SD, TN the most aggravated assaults, NV the most robberies, SC the most property crimes, CA the most car thefts.
SC leads again in larceny, AR in burglaries.
The maps don’t break it down by rural vs city, so I can’t tell you if all of the aggravated assaults in TN are happening in, for example, a ten-block area of Memphis, as opposed to back in the hills and hollers.
If you don’t like crime, the place to be is New England.
The numbers don’t include Washington DC, which is a particularly violent city.
In any case, looks like “B” types might be hard to pin down.
My understanding is that the homicide rate is higher in the city, and the suicide rate is higher in rural areas.
Yep.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/
So, we are left asking why homicides, especially firearm-related homicides, are higher in cities.
As I said above, I think an important contributor is the war on drugs, which generates a black market run by violent drug gangs:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF
BJS examined homicides in the 75 most populous counties in the United States in 1988. Many of the homicides involved drugs or drug trafficking, including the following: drug manufacture, dispute over drugs, theft of drugs or drug money, a drug scam, a bad drug deal, punishment for drug theft, or illegal use of drugs. One of
these circumstances was involved for 18% of defendants and 16% of victims.
Which is a fair number % of homicides, and doesn’t include the social and economic inequality generated by imprisoning people for drug use.
Of course, that’s 1988, perhaps something has changed.
My understanding is that the homicide rate is higher in the city, and the suicide rate is higher in rural areas.
Yep.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/
So, we are left asking why homicides, especially firearm-related homicides, are higher in cities.
As I said above, I think an important contributor is the war on drugs, which generates a black market run by violent drug gangs:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF
BJS examined homicides in the 75 most populous counties in the United States in 1988. Many of the homicides involved drugs or drug trafficking, including the following: drug manufacture, dispute over drugs, theft of drugs or drug money, a drug scam, a bad drug deal, punishment for drug theft, or illegal use of drugs. One of
these circumstances was involved for 18% of defendants and 16% of victims.
Which is a fair number % of homicides, and doesn’t include the social and economic inequality generated by imprisoning people for drug use.
Of course, that’s 1988, perhaps something has changed.
My understanding is that the homicide rate is higher in the city, and the suicide rate is higher in rural areas.
Yep.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/
So, we are left asking why homicides, especially firearm-related homicides, are higher in cities.
As I said above, I think an important contributor is the war on drugs, which generates a black market run by violent drug gangs:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF
BJS examined homicides in the 75 most populous counties in the United States in 1988. Many of the homicides involved drugs or drug trafficking, including the following: drug manufacture, dispute over drugs, theft of drugs or drug money, a drug scam, a bad drug deal, punishment for drug theft, or illegal use of drugs. One of
these circumstances was involved for 18% of defendants and 16% of victims.
Which is a fair number % of homicides, and doesn’t include the social and economic inequality generated by imprisoning people for drug use.
Of course, that’s 1988, perhaps something has changed.
B types.
Although I think this guy is just propagating that tired old stereotype of the hot-headed redneck.
There’s lots of interesting information about violence in America’s cities in the BI analysis, too.
B types.
Although I think this guy is just propagating that tired old stereotype of the hot-headed redneck.
There’s lots of interesting information about violence in America’s cities in the BI analysis, too.
B types.
Although I think this guy is just propagating that tired old stereotype of the hot-headed redneck.
There’s lots of interesting information about violence in America’s cities in the BI analysis, too.
B types.
I’m just googling around, so don’t take this as any kind proof one way or the other.
People make statements, I go look around to see if they hold up, that’s all.
I’d say the jury is out.
B types.
I’m just googling around, so don’t take this as any kind proof one way or the other.
People make statements, I go look around to see if they hold up, that’s all.
I’d say the jury is out.
B types.
I’m just googling around, so don’t take this as any kind proof one way or the other.
People make statements, I go look around to see if they hold up, that’s all.
I’d say the jury is out.
Relative to the OP, which is about cultural and historical reasons for aggregate violence levels in the U.S., we’re now getting into far more proximate factors of violence.
There aren’t going to be FBI statistics on how many murders were caused by the culture of the colonists or the legacy of slavery or the number of Civil War veterans roaming the Old West.
Relative to the OP, which is about cultural and historical reasons for aggregate violence levels in the U.S., we’re now getting into far more proximate factors of violence.
There aren’t going to be FBI statistics on how many murders were caused by the culture of the colonists or the legacy of slavery or the number of Civil War veterans roaming the Old West.
Relative to the OP, which is about cultural and historical reasons for aggregate violence levels in the U.S., we’re now getting into far more proximate factors of violence.
There aren’t going to be FBI statistics on how many murders were caused by the culture of the colonists or the legacy of slavery or the number of Civil War veterans roaming the Old West.
“Your point is banal and unhelpful.”
I think it is actually quite helpful to point out that something somebody wants to do isn’t feasible, even though it might often be banal to do so.
“again: just spit it out, Brett.”
Not spitting out what you want me to doesn’t mean I didn’t spit something out. I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid. My immediate neighborhood is something like half black, and the low crime rate was one of the reasons I chose to buy a house here. So I’d have to be an idiot to think “X” was race.
“Your point is banal and unhelpful.”
I think it is actually quite helpful to point out that something somebody wants to do isn’t feasible, even though it might often be banal to do so.
“again: just spit it out, Brett.”
Not spitting out what you want me to doesn’t mean I didn’t spit something out. I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid. My immediate neighborhood is something like half black, and the low crime rate was one of the reasons I chose to buy a house here. So I’d have to be an idiot to think “X” was race.
“Your point is banal and unhelpful.”
I think it is actually quite helpful to point out that something somebody wants to do isn’t feasible, even though it might often be banal to do so.
“again: just spit it out, Brett.”
Not spitting out what you want me to doesn’t mean I didn’t spit something out. I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid. My immediate neighborhood is something like half black, and the low crime rate was one of the reasons I chose to buy a house here. So I’d have to be an idiot to think “X” was race.
My immediate neighborhood is something like half black, and the low crime rate was one of the reasons I chose to buy a house here. So I’d have to be an idiot to think “X” was race.
Is this an example of basic statistics at work?
My immediate neighborhood is something like half black, and the low crime rate was one of the reasons I chose to buy a house here. So I’d have to be an idiot to think “X” was race.
Is this an example of basic statistics at work?
My immediate neighborhood is something like half black, and the low crime rate was one of the reasons I chose to buy a house here. So I’d have to be an idiot to think “X” was race.
Is this an example of basic statistics at work?
HSH:
There aren’t going to be FBI statistics on how many murders were caused by the culture of the colonists or the legacy of slavery or the number of Civil War veterans roaming the Old West.
Which, to me, makes it somewhat of an untestable hypothesis, and difficult to develop solutions to the real problem of violence.
On the other hand, there are many potential proximate causes of violence in US, and many of those differ from other first world countries. These can be identified, studied, and addressed.
russell:
Rural teens are equally or more likely than suburban and urban teens to be exposed to violent activities, including weapons carrying, fighting, fear of violence, and suicide behaviors.
And yet, that increased exposure to “violent activities” doesn’t seem to result in increased violent crime:
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf
Suggesting that the factors identified in the study are not either not causative, or convolved with other factors that also vary with urbanicity.
HSH:
There aren’t going to be FBI statistics on how many murders were caused by the culture of the colonists or the legacy of slavery or the number of Civil War veterans roaming the Old West.
Which, to me, makes it somewhat of an untestable hypothesis, and difficult to develop solutions to the real problem of violence.
On the other hand, there are many potential proximate causes of violence in US, and many of those differ from other first world countries. These can be identified, studied, and addressed.
russell:
Rural teens are equally or more likely than suburban and urban teens to be exposed to violent activities, including weapons carrying, fighting, fear of violence, and suicide behaviors.
And yet, that increased exposure to “violent activities” doesn’t seem to result in increased violent crime:
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf
Suggesting that the factors identified in the study are not either not causative, or convolved with other factors that also vary with urbanicity.
HSH:
There aren’t going to be FBI statistics on how many murders were caused by the culture of the colonists or the legacy of slavery or the number of Civil War veterans roaming the Old West.
Which, to me, makes it somewhat of an untestable hypothesis, and difficult to develop solutions to the real problem of violence.
On the other hand, there are many potential proximate causes of violence in US, and many of those differ from other first world countries. These can be identified, studied, and addressed.
russell:
Rural teens are equally or more likely than suburban and urban teens to be exposed to violent activities, including weapons carrying, fighting, fear of violence, and suicide behaviors.
And yet, that increased exposure to “violent activities” doesn’t seem to result in increased violent crime:
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf
Suggesting that the factors identified in the study are not either not causative, or convolved with other factors that also vary with urbanicity.
I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.
I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.
I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.
Violent crime correlates with ice cream sales.
Violent crime correlates with ice cream sales.
Violent crime correlates with ice cream sales.
Which, to me, makes it somewhat of an untestable hypothesis, and difficult to develop solutions to the real problem of violence.
I agree, but not all things worth thinking about and trying to understand are testable hypotheses.
The phrase “proximate causes” (though I used “proximate factors”)is something that stuck with me from Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. Certainly, Europeans had a great advantage over New World natives because they had guns and the natives didn’t. But why did they have the guns that others didn’t?
Diamond’s book offers compelling reasons why history broadly unfolded the way it did. Can he prove those reasons? Are they testable? I doubt it.
On the other hand, there are many potential proximate causes of violence in US, and many of those differ from other first world countries. These can be identified, studied, and addressed.
I agree with this, too. My point was simply that this isn’t what Doc Sci’s OP was about, and that implies that local variations within the country aren’t really relevant to the OP and the aggregate comparisions to other countries (which, as has been mentioned, also have their own local variations – and teasing them out will only shed light on the more proximate causes of violence).
Which, to me, makes it somewhat of an untestable hypothesis, and difficult to develop solutions to the real problem of violence.
I agree, but not all things worth thinking about and trying to understand are testable hypotheses.
The phrase “proximate causes” (though I used “proximate factors”)is something that stuck with me from Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. Certainly, Europeans had a great advantage over New World natives because they had guns and the natives didn’t. But why did they have the guns that others didn’t?
Diamond’s book offers compelling reasons why history broadly unfolded the way it did. Can he prove those reasons? Are they testable? I doubt it.
On the other hand, there are many potential proximate causes of violence in US, and many of those differ from other first world countries. These can be identified, studied, and addressed.
I agree with this, too. My point was simply that this isn’t what Doc Sci’s OP was about, and that implies that local variations within the country aren’t really relevant to the OP and the aggregate comparisions to other countries (which, as has been mentioned, also have their own local variations – and teasing them out will only shed light on the more proximate causes of violence).
Which, to me, makes it somewhat of an untestable hypothesis, and difficult to develop solutions to the real problem of violence.
I agree, but not all things worth thinking about and trying to understand are testable hypotheses.
The phrase “proximate causes” (though I used “proximate factors”)is something that stuck with me from Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. Certainly, Europeans had a great advantage over New World natives because they had guns and the natives didn’t. But why did they have the guns that others didn’t?
Diamond’s book offers compelling reasons why history broadly unfolded the way it did. Can he prove those reasons? Are they testable? I doubt it.
On the other hand, there are many potential proximate causes of violence in US, and many of those differ from other first world countries. These can be identified, studied, and addressed.
I agree with this, too. My point was simply that this isn’t what Doc Sci’s OP was about, and that implies that local variations within the country aren’t really relevant to the OP and the aggregate comparisions to other countries (which, as has been mentioned, also have their own local variations – and teasing them out will only shed light on the more proximate causes of violence).
“SC leads again in larceny,”
That’s a great sentence. Probably a very satisfying headline year after year for the good ole boys in them thar parts.
I think that’s exactly what Sumner quipped, loud enough to hear but to himself, before being beaten to a pulp by Brooks.
“How dare you, suh, malign the larcenous hearts of my kinfolk and their slaves. Take THAT, and THAT!”
These stats regarding the geographic centers of various sociopathies seem to align with national voting patterns, particularly in low-turnout off-year elections in the 21st century.
I see now how and why sociopaths like Richard Nixon, Strom Thurmond, and Lee Atwater reached out to their kindred spirits among the rabble to build the juggernaut of the modern Republican Party.
I understand now too how birthday parties in Alaska where alcohol and certain sociopathic families intersect can turn into a rollicking Death Panel of wanton cold-cocking and pile-ons.
I understand now too how civility in Washington D.C., or at least the semblance of it, has gone by the wayside as pig-filth vermin, fully cranked on meth and a bullet left in the chamber to shoot the toddler while cleaning the thing, send their candidates to sleep it off in their congressional offices and ruin everything for everyone.
“SC leads again in larceny,”
That’s a great sentence. Probably a very satisfying headline year after year for the good ole boys in them thar parts.
I think that’s exactly what Sumner quipped, loud enough to hear but to himself, before being beaten to a pulp by Brooks.
“How dare you, suh, malign the larcenous hearts of my kinfolk and their slaves. Take THAT, and THAT!”
These stats regarding the geographic centers of various sociopathies seem to align with national voting patterns, particularly in low-turnout off-year elections in the 21st century.
I see now how and why sociopaths like Richard Nixon, Strom Thurmond, and Lee Atwater reached out to their kindred spirits among the rabble to build the juggernaut of the modern Republican Party.
I understand now too how birthday parties in Alaska where alcohol and certain sociopathic families intersect can turn into a rollicking Death Panel of wanton cold-cocking and pile-ons.
I understand now too how civility in Washington D.C., or at least the semblance of it, has gone by the wayside as pig-filth vermin, fully cranked on meth and a bullet left in the chamber to shoot the toddler while cleaning the thing, send their candidates to sleep it off in their congressional offices and ruin everything for everyone.
“SC leads again in larceny,”
That’s a great sentence. Probably a very satisfying headline year after year for the good ole boys in them thar parts.
I think that’s exactly what Sumner quipped, loud enough to hear but to himself, before being beaten to a pulp by Brooks.
“How dare you, suh, malign the larcenous hearts of my kinfolk and their slaves. Take THAT, and THAT!”
These stats regarding the geographic centers of various sociopathies seem to align with national voting patterns, particularly in low-turnout off-year elections in the 21st century.
I see now how and why sociopaths like Richard Nixon, Strom Thurmond, and Lee Atwater reached out to their kindred spirits among the rabble to build the juggernaut of the modern Republican Party.
I understand now too how birthday parties in Alaska where alcohol and certain sociopathic families intersect can turn into a rollicking Death Panel of wanton cold-cocking and pile-ons.
I understand now too how civility in Washington D.C., or at least the semblance of it, has gone by the wayside as pig-filth vermin, fully cranked on meth and a bullet left in the chamber to shoot the toddler while cleaning the thing, send their candidates to sleep it off in their congressional offices and ruin everything for everyone.
The Great Society and War on Poverty. Paying people to stay where there aren’t jobs turns out to be socially much more destructive than ghost towns.
Neatly eliding the fact that whites fled the cities and took the jobs with them, then shut the door behind them.
I would also note in passing that incredibly large swaths of the USA are virtually uninhabited. Nonetheless, levels of violence as between hawks and rabbits remains high.
The Great Society and War on Poverty. Paying people to stay where there aren’t jobs turns out to be socially much more destructive than ghost towns.
Neatly eliding the fact that whites fled the cities and took the jobs with them, then shut the door behind them.
I would also note in passing that incredibly large swaths of the USA are virtually uninhabited. Nonetheless, levels of violence as between hawks and rabbits remains high.
The Great Society and War on Poverty. Paying people to stay where there aren’t jobs turns out to be socially much more destructive than ghost towns.
Neatly eliding the fact that whites fled the cities and took the jobs with them, then shut the door behind them.
I would also note in passing that incredibly large swaths of the USA are virtually uninhabited. Nonetheless, levels of violence as between hawks and rabbits remains high.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.
Which culture was naturally purposely created by the Great Society in order to maintain blacks on the “Democrat plantation” so libruls can pursue their Will To Power because that is the only reason there are such things as libruls in the first place.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.
Which culture was naturally purposely created by the Great Society in order to maintain blacks on the “Democrat plantation” so libruls can pursue their Will To Power because that is the only reason there are such things as libruls in the first place.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.
Which culture was naturally purposely created by the Great Society in order to maintain blacks on the “Democrat plantation” so libruls can pursue their Will To Power because that is the only reason there are such things as libruls in the first place.
And yet, that increased exposure to “violent activities” doesn’t seem to result in increased violent crime
And yet, the FBI sez that the highest rate of aggravated assault per 100K is in TN.
Is that Nashville and Memphis, or out in the boonies?
I don’t know.
Lots of numbers get flung around. I’m not sure they mean what people think they mean.
It’s still mighty unclear, to me, who “B” types are, and whether or not comparable types exist, at all, in other countries.
What is dead obvious to me is that Americans and American culture is way more violent than average, especially if you compare only to OECD.
We kill each other a lot. You tell me why, because I don’t know.
And yet, that increased exposure to “violent activities” doesn’t seem to result in increased violent crime
And yet, the FBI sez that the highest rate of aggravated assault per 100K is in TN.
Is that Nashville and Memphis, or out in the boonies?
I don’t know.
Lots of numbers get flung around. I’m not sure they mean what people think they mean.
It’s still mighty unclear, to me, who “B” types are, and whether or not comparable types exist, at all, in other countries.
What is dead obvious to me is that Americans and American culture is way more violent than average, especially if you compare only to OECD.
We kill each other a lot. You tell me why, because I don’t know.
And yet, that increased exposure to “violent activities” doesn’t seem to result in increased violent crime
And yet, the FBI sez that the highest rate of aggravated assault per 100K is in TN.
Is that Nashville and Memphis, or out in the boonies?
I don’t know.
Lots of numbers get flung around. I’m not sure they mean what people think they mean.
It’s still mighty unclear, to me, who “B” types are, and whether or not comparable types exist, at all, in other countries.
What is dead obvious to me is that Americans and American culture is way more violent than average, especially if you compare only to OECD.
We kill each other a lot. You tell me why, because I don’t know.
part of the reason we so much police violence has to be due to the fact that we are a violent and heavily armed country.
This may ve a part of the reason but only a part. Finland is almost as armed a country than the US, per capita, but the gun-related homicide rate is kess than tenth of the US rate.
The police has shot at three two persons during year 2014, which has been exceptionally large a number, though both cases were quite justified. In one case, the suspect was holding a pistol in a crowded ship terminal after having committed a murder. The police shot and wounded the suspect who then shot himself. In the most tragic case, the suspect was walking in a city center waving a submachine gun, and refusing to put it down. The police shot the man in the leg, but he bled to death. Unfortunately, the “gun” turned out to be a replica. The police story was corroborated by video, however. In the third case, a man who was confronting the police with a handgun was shot in the leg. None of the cases lead to prosecution of the police officers. For the US, this would correspond to 60 killed and 120 wounded persons. The average number of shots fired by the police is yearly about 10, which includes mercy killings of animals and e.g. locks broken with a firearm. That would correspond to some 600 shots for the US.
For me, the most incredible thing in the US polie violence is the extremely poor skill at marksmanship and fire discipline that many of the cases demonstrate. Second appalling thing is the unavailability of redress for private innocent victims of police actions. In Finland, the state automatically compensates for all harm caused by police actions to persons who have not been actively obstructing the police or convicted of an offence in relation to the action.
part of the reason we so much police violence has to be due to the fact that we are a violent and heavily armed country.
This may ve a part of the reason but only a part. Finland is almost as armed a country than the US, per capita, but the gun-related homicide rate is kess than tenth of the US rate.
The police has shot at three two persons during year 2014, which has been exceptionally large a number, though both cases were quite justified. In one case, the suspect was holding a pistol in a crowded ship terminal after having committed a murder. The police shot and wounded the suspect who then shot himself. In the most tragic case, the suspect was walking in a city center waving a submachine gun, and refusing to put it down. The police shot the man in the leg, but he bled to death. Unfortunately, the “gun” turned out to be a replica. The police story was corroborated by video, however. In the third case, a man who was confronting the police with a handgun was shot in the leg. None of the cases lead to prosecution of the police officers. For the US, this would correspond to 60 killed and 120 wounded persons. The average number of shots fired by the police is yearly about 10, which includes mercy killings of animals and e.g. locks broken with a firearm. That would correspond to some 600 shots for the US.
For me, the most incredible thing in the US polie violence is the extremely poor skill at marksmanship and fire discipline that many of the cases demonstrate. Second appalling thing is the unavailability of redress for private innocent victims of police actions. In Finland, the state automatically compensates for all harm caused by police actions to persons who have not been actively obstructing the police or convicted of an offence in relation to the action.
part of the reason we so much police violence has to be due to the fact that we are a violent and heavily armed country.
This may ve a part of the reason but only a part. Finland is almost as armed a country than the US, per capita, but the gun-related homicide rate is kess than tenth of the US rate.
The police has shot at three two persons during year 2014, which has been exceptionally large a number, though both cases were quite justified. In one case, the suspect was holding a pistol in a crowded ship terminal after having committed a murder. The police shot and wounded the suspect who then shot himself. In the most tragic case, the suspect was walking in a city center waving a submachine gun, and refusing to put it down. The police shot the man in the leg, but he bled to death. Unfortunately, the “gun” turned out to be a replica. The police story was corroborated by video, however. In the third case, a man who was confronting the police with a handgun was shot in the leg. None of the cases lead to prosecution of the police officers. For the US, this would correspond to 60 killed and 120 wounded persons. The average number of shots fired by the police is yearly about 10, which includes mercy killings of animals and e.g. locks broken with a firearm. That would correspond to some 600 shots for the US.
For me, the most incredible thing in the US polie violence is the extremely poor skill at marksmanship and fire discipline that many of the cases demonstrate. Second appalling thing is the unavailability of redress for private innocent victims of police actions. In Finland, the state automatically compensates for all harm caused by police actions to persons who have not been actively obstructing the police or convicted of an offence in relation to the action.
http://rt.com/usa/200855-police-white-shooting-hall/
There must be 50 alternatives to killing this guy with 46 bullets, most of which didn’t hit him.
One guy could have tackled him from behind.
And what’s with the overweight slobs in uniform?
http://rt.com/usa/200855-police-white-shooting-hall/
There must be 50 alternatives to killing this guy with 46 bullets, most of which didn’t hit him.
One guy could have tackled him from behind.
And what’s with the overweight slobs in uniform?
http://rt.com/usa/200855-police-white-shooting-hall/
There must be 50 alternatives to killing this guy with 46 bullets, most of which didn’t hit him.
One guy could have tackled him from behind.
And what’s with the overweight slobs in uniform?
And what’s with the overweight slobs in uniform?
Matt & Trey summed it up pretty well:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf68b53ef013484bc3d68970c-800wi
And what’s with the overweight slobs in uniform?
Matt & Trey summed it up pretty well:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf68b53ef013484bc3d68970c-800wi
And what’s with the overweight slobs in uniform?
Matt & Trey summed it up pretty well:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf68b53ef013484bc3d68970c-800wi
Tom Coburn asks President Obama to arm each and every one of the five million immigration amnesty candidates with high-powered military grade Tench Coxe automatic weapons to protect themselves against violent, rioting, murderous Republicans and Libertarians who Coburn believes will be assaulting the former and their children.
Violence from the top, indeed.
A U.S. Senator blows the dog whistle.
If only the Symbionese Liberation Army had their elected representatives in place to further their murderous rampages in 1974.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/usa-today-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/
Tom Coburn asks President Obama to arm each and every one of the five million immigration amnesty candidates with high-powered military grade Tench Coxe automatic weapons to protect themselves against violent, rioting, murderous Republicans and Libertarians who Coburn believes will be assaulting the former and their children.
Violence from the top, indeed.
A U.S. Senator blows the dog whistle.
If only the Symbionese Liberation Army had their elected representatives in place to further their murderous rampages in 1974.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/usa-today-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/
Tom Coburn asks President Obama to arm each and every one of the five million immigration amnesty candidates with high-powered military grade Tench Coxe automatic weapons to protect themselves against violent, rioting, murderous Republicans and Libertarians who Coburn believes will be assaulting the former and their children.
Violence from the top, indeed.
A U.S. Senator blows the dog whistle.
If only the Symbionese Liberation Army had their elected representatives in place to further their murderous rampages in 1974.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/usa-today-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/
“I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.”
I have a history of blaming a lot of things on culture, which may be somewhat correlated with race in this country, but that doesn’t make talking about culture a disguised reference to race.
No matter how much liberals want to avoid discussing culture, or enjoy accusing everyone who disagrees with them of racism.
America is culturally heterogeneous, some of those cultures lead to peace and prosperity, some lead to violence and poverty. That’s my take on the matter.
And I think the challenge that faces us is objectively identifying the relevant cultural factors, (Made challenging by the fact that our personal preferences are perfectly capable of not aligning with what really works.) and more difficult, finding a way to use that knowlege.
“I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.”
I have a history of blaming a lot of things on culture, which may be somewhat correlated with race in this country, but that doesn’t make talking about culture a disguised reference to race.
No matter how much liberals want to avoid discussing culture, or enjoy accusing everyone who disagrees with them of racism.
America is culturally heterogeneous, some of those cultures lead to peace and prosperity, some lead to violence and poverty. That’s my take on the matter.
And I think the challenge that faces us is objectively identifying the relevant cultural factors, (Made challenging by the fact that our personal preferences are perfectly capable of not aligning with what really works.) and more difficult, finding a way to use that knowlege.
“I know you want me to say that it’s race, but that would be stupid.
it would also be in line with your history of blaming all kinds of things on blacks and their horrid culture.”
I have a history of blaming a lot of things on culture, which may be somewhat correlated with race in this country, but that doesn’t make talking about culture a disguised reference to race.
No matter how much liberals want to avoid discussing culture, or enjoy accusing everyone who disagrees with them of racism.
America is culturally heterogeneous, some of those cultures lead to peace and prosperity, some lead to violence and poverty. That’s my take on the matter.
And I think the challenge that faces us is objectively identifying the relevant cultural factors, (Made challenging by the fact that our personal preferences are perfectly capable of not aligning with what really works.) and more difficult, finding a way to use that knowlege.
America is culturally heterogeneous, some of those cultures lead to peace and prosperity, some lead to violence and poverty.
I’d say Brett’s got that exactly right.
Now when the question turns to which of our subcultures is which in that analysis, then disagreements will start to fly…
America is culturally heterogeneous, some of those cultures lead to peace and prosperity, some lead to violence and poverty.
I’d say Brett’s got that exactly right.
Now when the question turns to which of our subcultures is which in that analysis, then disagreements will start to fly…
America is culturally heterogeneous, some of those cultures lead to peace and prosperity, some lead to violence and poverty.
I’d say Brett’s got that exactly right.
Now when the question turns to which of our subcultures is which in that analysis, then disagreements will start to fly…
Brett: And I think the challenge that faces us is objectively identifying the relevant cultural factors….
Doc Sci (in top post): And that, I think, is the main reason for the high level of violence among Black Americans: they are nearly stateless, and stateless people have to solve problems with violence. Until 150 years ago, Black Americans were *explicitly* stateless, outside the rights, responsibilities, and protections of the state. Since then, they’ve been too often as stateless as the authorities can manage.
There seems to be some agreement here.
Brett: And I think the challenge that faces us is objectively identifying the relevant cultural factors….
Doc Sci (in top post): And that, I think, is the main reason for the high level of violence among Black Americans: they are nearly stateless, and stateless people have to solve problems with violence. Until 150 years ago, Black Americans were *explicitly* stateless, outside the rights, responsibilities, and protections of the state. Since then, they’ve been too often as stateless as the authorities can manage.
There seems to be some agreement here.
Brett: And I think the challenge that faces us is objectively identifying the relevant cultural factors….
Doc Sci (in top post): And that, I think, is the main reason for the high level of violence among Black Americans: they are nearly stateless, and stateless people have to solve problems with violence. Until 150 years ago, Black Americans were *explicitly* stateless, outside the rights, responsibilities, and protections of the state. Since then, they’ve been too often as stateless as the authorities can manage.
There seems to be some agreement here.
It’s way past time we had an honest, open discussion on race. But we can’t discuss certain things, so maybe we can’t have that discussion yet.
Now, if it really is true that the tendency to violence is correlated highly with race, isn’t it useful to know that? If it really is true, is it made less true if that correlation is due to something that white people did/are doing?
To me, data is data. It’s useful. Sometimes it doesn’t mean what you think it means, but you have to gather it and tabulate it and hang out with it a while for it to be useful. What you don’t do is pretend it isn’t there, because it says something that you think might be racist.
Data isn’t racist. It’s just facts.
None of which is commentary on what points (if any) Brett is trying to make. It’s more a commentary on avoiding certain topics because of their inherent ickyness.
It’s way past time we had an honest, open discussion on race. But we can’t discuss certain things, so maybe we can’t have that discussion yet.
Now, if it really is true that the tendency to violence is correlated highly with race, isn’t it useful to know that? If it really is true, is it made less true if that correlation is due to something that white people did/are doing?
To me, data is data. It’s useful. Sometimes it doesn’t mean what you think it means, but you have to gather it and tabulate it and hang out with it a while for it to be useful. What you don’t do is pretend it isn’t there, because it says something that you think might be racist.
Data isn’t racist. It’s just facts.
None of which is commentary on what points (if any) Brett is trying to make. It’s more a commentary on avoiding certain topics because of their inherent ickyness.
It’s way past time we had an honest, open discussion on race. But we can’t discuss certain things, so maybe we can’t have that discussion yet.
Now, if it really is true that the tendency to violence is correlated highly with race, isn’t it useful to know that? If it really is true, is it made less true if that correlation is due to something that white people did/are doing?
To me, data is data. It’s useful. Sometimes it doesn’t mean what you think it means, but you have to gather it and tabulate it and hang out with it a while for it to be useful. What you don’t do is pretend it isn’t there, because it says something that you think might be racist.
Data isn’t racist. It’s just facts.
None of which is commentary on what points (if any) Brett is trying to make. It’s more a commentary on avoiding certain topics because of their inherent ickyness.
who said anything about disguised? you don’t disguise it at all.
when TN Coates had his “Case for reparations” piece out, you wrote:
and when i quoted that, you replied:
and on a thread about affirmative action, you wrote:
etc
who said anything about disguised? you don’t disguise it at all.
when TN Coates had his “Case for reparations” piece out, you wrote:
and when i quoted that, you replied:
and on a thread about affirmative action, you wrote:
etc
who said anything about disguised? you don’t disguise it at all.
when TN Coates had his “Case for reparations” piece out, you wrote:
and when i quoted that, you replied:
and on a thread about affirmative action, you wrote:
etc
Now, if it really is true that the tendency to violence is correlated highly with race, isn’t it useful to know that?
Yes, if (a) it really is true, and (b) the correlation is actually significant.
If (a) is not true, there’s nothing to know.
If (b) is not true, arguments based on the correlation are likely to be not only not useful, but actually harmful.
Now, if it really is true that the tendency to violence is correlated highly with race, isn’t it useful to know that?
Yes, if (a) it really is true, and (b) the correlation is actually significant.
If (a) is not true, there’s nothing to know.
If (b) is not true, arguments based on the correlation are likely to be not only not useful, but actually harmful.
Now, if it really is true that the tendency to violence is correlated highly with race, isn’t it useful to know that?
Yes, if (a) it really is true, and (b) the correlation is actually significant.
If (a) is not true, there’s nothing to know.
If (b) is not true, arguments based on the correlation are likely to be not only not useful, but actually harmful.
Because, as we all know, global warming is correlated with the decline in the number of pirates.
The correlation is, clearly, there.
Because, as we all know, global warming is correlated with the decline in the number of pirates.
The correlation is, clearly, there.
Because, as we all know, global warming is correlated with the decline in the number of pirates.
The correlation is, clearly, there.
HSH:
Thanks for clarifying, sorry if I jumped on you a little bit. I agree those discussions can be very interesting, and history is a crucial factor in our understanding of where we are now.
russell:
Is that Nashville and Memphis, or out in the boonies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Memphis,_Tennessee
Well, those stats are pretty trivial to look up. Apparently Memphis is one of the most violent cities in America, so I’m going to guess it skews TN rankings heavily. And indeed, violent crime normalized for populace is significantly higher in TN metropolis areas than Nonmetropolitan counties:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf
What is dead obvious to me is that Americans and American culture is way more violent than average, especially if you compare only to OECD.
What is also obvious to me, is that US violence is elevated in cities, especially in cities like Memphis. Which then leads me to ask questions about other factors in Memphis that might correlate with violence.
For example, is the poverty rate high in Memphis?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0708.pdf
Yes. What about income inequality?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-16.pdf
Also high in Memphis.
Another example of this would be DC, which has high income inequality, high poverty, and high violent crime rates (above links and):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-cost-of-living-is-taken-into-account-poverty-rate-is-higher-in-the-washington-area/2013/11/06/13d6853e-4712-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
We kill each other a lot. You tell me why, because I don’t know.
Again, all this data shows a link between urbanicity and violent crime. I can’t claim to have all the answers, but I think asking why violent crime, already high in the US, is higher in its cities is a good place to start.
HSH:
Thanks for clarifying, sorry if I jumped on you a little bit. I agree those discussions can be very interesting, and history is a crucial factor in our understanding of where we are now.
russell:
Is that Nashville and Memphis, or out in the boonies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Memphis,_Tennessee
Well, those stats are pretty trivial to look up. Apparently Memphis is one of the most violent cities in America, so I’m going to guess it skews TN rankings heavily. And indeed, violent crime normalized for populace is significantly higher in TN metropolis areas than Nonmetropolitan counties:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf
What is dead obvious to me is that Americans and American culture is way more violent than average, especially if you compare only to OECD.
What is also obvious to me, is that US violence is elevated in cities, especially in cities like Memphis. Which then leads me to ask questions about other factors in Memphis that might correlate with violence.
For example, is the poverty rate high in Memphis?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0708.pdf
Yes. What about income inequality?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-16.pdf
Also high in Memphis.
Another example of this would be DC, which has high income inequality, high poverty, and high violent crime rates (above links and):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-cost-of-living-is-taken-into-account-poverty-rate-is-higher-in-the-washington-area/2013/11/06/13d6853e-4712-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
We kill each other a lot. You tell me why, because I don’t know.
Again, all this data shows a link between urbanicity and violent crime. I can’t claim to have all the answers, but I think asking why violent crime, already high in the US, is higher in its cities is a good place to start.
HSH:
Thanks for clarifying, sorry if I jumped on you a little bit. I agree those discussions can be very interesting, and history is a crucial factor in our understanding of where we are now.
russell:
Is that Nashville and Memphis, or out in the boonies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Memphis,_Tennessee
Well, those stats are pretty trivial to look up. Apparently Memphis is one of the most violent cities in America, so I’m going to guess it skews TN rankings heavily. And indeed, violent crime normalized for populace is significantly higher in TN metropolis areas than Nonmetropolitan counties:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf
What is dead obvious to me is that Americans and American culture is way more violent than average, especially if you compare only to OECD.
What is also obvious to me, is that US violence is elevated in cities, especially in cities like Memphis. Which then leads me to ask questions about other factors in Memphis that might correlate with violence.
For example, is the poverty rate high in Memphis?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0708.pdf
Yes. What about income inequality?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-16.pdf
Also high in Memphis.
Another example of this would be DC, which has high income inequality, high poverty, and high violent crime rates (above links and):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-cost-of-living-is-taken-into-account-poverty-rate-is-higher-in-the-washington-area/2013/11/06/13d6853e-4712-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
We kill each other a lot. You tell me why, because I don’t know.
Again, all this data shows a link between urbanicity and violent crime. I can’t claim to have all the answers, but I think asking why violent crime, already high in the US, is higher in its cities is a good place to start.
Russell, that’s global warming correlated with an increase in the number of pirates. (If it was correlated with a decline in the number of pirates, that might be a reason to feel global warming was a good thing….)
Russell, that’s global warming correlated with an increase in the number of pirates. (If it was correlated with a decline in the number of pirates, that might be a reason to feel global warming was a good thing….)
Russell, that’s global warming correlated with an increase in the number of pirates. (If it was correlated with a decline in the number of pirates, that might be a reason to feel global warming was a good thing….)
asking why violent crime, already high in the US, is higher in its cities is a good place to start.
We can find a bunch of correlations to start our search. Some of them may actually be from a causal connection. Others will merely be from both having the same cause. And still others will certainly be coincidence.
My guess would be that we should look not so much at income inequality. Rather, we should look at what the prospects are for income mobility. How possible is it for someone born in a very poor family to get out of poverty? (Less talked about, but a necessary concomitant — how possible is it from someone born in a wealthy family to end up poor?)
If someone is poor, but see a (legal) path out of poverty, they would seem likely to work at going down that path. Whereas, if they don’t, the inclination grows to try illegal paths out — whether peddling drugs or robbing banks. And to lash out in frustration at not being able to get out.
asking why violent crime, already high in the US, is higher in its cities is a good place to start.
We can find a bunch of correlations to start our search. Some of them may actually be from a causal connection. Others will merely be from both having the same cause. And still others will certainly be coincidence.
My guess would be that we should look not so much at income inequality. Rather, we should look at what the prospects are for income mobility. How possible is it for someone born in a very poor family to get out of poverty? (Less talked about, but a necessary concomitant — how possible is it from someone born in a wealthy family to end up poor?)
If someone is poor, but see a (legal) path out of poverty, they would seem likely to work at going down that path. Whereas, if they don’t, the inclination grows to try illegal paths out — whether peddling drugs or robbing banks. And to lash out in frustration at not being able to get out.
asking why violent crime, already high in the US, is higher in its cities is a good place to start.
We can find a bunch of correlations to start our search. Some of them may actually be from a causal connection. Others will merely be from both having the same cause. And still others will certainly be coincidence.
My guess would be that we should look not so much at income inequality. Rather, we should look at what the prospects are for income mobility. How possible is it for someone born in a very poor family to get out of poverty? (Less talked about, but a necessary concomitant — how possible is it from someone born in a wealthy family to end up poor?)
If someone is poor, but see a (legal) path out of poverty, they would seem likely to work at going down that path. Whereas, if they don’t, the inclination grows to try illegal paths out — whether peddling drugs or robbing banks. And to lash out in frustration at not being able to get out.
Again, all this data shows a link between urbanicity and violent crime
Or, the data could show a link between poverty and crime. Or, high income inequality and crime. Or, high income inequality combined with close physical proximity and crime.
If there are cities which don’t have high crime rates – which there are – then “urbanity” doesn’t seem to be whole enchilada.
E.g., what explains this? Maybe the connection is between violent crime and other forms of organized criminal activity, full stop.
I’m not invested in cities being high, low, or in-between as far as crime rates go. I’m interested in understanding what the information actually has to tell us.
Russell, that’s global warming correlated with an increase in the number of pirates.
wj, the graph is actually poorly drawn, because the scale on the number of pirates axis goes DOWN from left to right.
So, it actually is a correlation to a decline in the number of pirates.
Clearly, this means we should burn up as much carbon as we can find, to keep those pirate numbers low!!
Again, all this data shows a link between urbanicity and violent crime
Or, the data could show a link between poverty and crime. Or, high income inequality and crime. Or, high income inequality combined with close physical proximity and crime.
If there are cities which don’t have high crime rates – which there are – then “urbanity” doesn’t seem to be whole enchilada.
E.g., what explains this? Maybe the connection is between violent crime and other forms of organized criminal activity, full stop.
I’m not invested in cities being high, low, or in-between as far as crime rates go. I’m interested in understanding what the information actually has to tell us.
Russell, that’s global warming correlated with an increase in the number of pirates.
wj, the graph is actually poorly drawn, because the scale on the number of pirates axis goes DOWN from left to right.
So, it actually is a correlation to a decline in the number of pirates.
Clearly, this means we should burn up as much carbon as we can find, to keep those pirate numbers low!!
Again, all this data shows a link between urbanicity and violent crime
Or, the data could show a link between poverty and crime. Or, high income inequality and crime. Or, high income inequality combined with close physical proximity and crime.
If there are cities which don’t have high crime rates – which there are – then “urbanity” doesn’t seem to be whole enchilada.
E.g., what explains this? Maybe the connection is between violent crime and other forms of organized criminal activity, full stop.
I’m not invested in cities being high, low, or in-between as far as crime rates go. I’m interested in understanding what the information actually has to tell us.
Russell, that’s global warming correlated with an increase in the number of pirates.
wj, the graph is actually poorly drawn, because the scale on the number of pirates axis goes DOWN from left to right.
So, it actually is a correlation to a decline in the number of pirates.
Clearly, this means we should burn up as much carbon as we can find, to keep those pirate numbers low!!
It doesn’t help to give inner city kids a bad education. And, then, tell them it’s illegal for them to have a job.
At one time, black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers. Now black teen unemployment is about double that for white teens.
It doesn’t help to give inner city kids a bad education. And, then, tell them it’s illegal for them to have a job.
At one time, black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers. Now black teen unemployment is about double that for white teens.
It doesn’t help to give inner city kids a bad education. And, then, tell them it’s illegal for them to have a job.
At one time, black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers. Now black teen unemployment is about double that for white teens.
“How possible is it for someone born in a very poor family to get out of poverty?”
Part of my point about welfare: How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available? Isn’t that just baiting a trap?
“How possible is it for someone born in a very poor family to get out of poverty?”
Part of my point about welfare: How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available? Isn’t that just baiting a trap?
“How possible is it for someone born in a very poor family to get out of poverty?”
Part of my point about welfare: How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available? Isn’t that just baiting a trap?
Part of my point about welfare: How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available?
Is that how welfare works? Does it require you to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs? And why aren’t there any jobs? Is a given place inherently jobless, such that everyone should leave and go somewhere else, leaving all the jobless places uninhabited, solving the problem of joblessness?
Part of my point about welfare: How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available?
Is that how welfare works? Does it require you to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs? And why aren’t there any jobs? Is a given place inherently jobless, such that everyone should leave and go somewhere else, leaving all the jobless places uninhabited, solving the problem of joblessness?
Part of my point about welfare: How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available?
Is that how welfare works? Does it require you to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs? And why aren’t there any jobs? Is a given place inherently jobless, such that everyone should leave and go somewhere else, leaving all the jobless places uninhabited, solving the problem of joblessness?
This is an area where I find myself, not in complete agreement with Brett, but recognizing the validity of his point.
One consequence of the urban renewal efforts of the 50’s and 60’s was the destruction of existing neighborhoods and the relocation of entire communities.
In many cases, the relocated folks were the poorer folks. Many of the neighborhoods that were turned into highways, government centers, and lovely arts complexes were black and/or other minority neighborhoods.
Lots of those folks were moved, wholesale, into Stalinesque project housing. Essentially, instant ghettos.
“Urban renewal” at that time was often referred to as “negro removal” in the black community.
It was, IMO, a case where Government’s Wonderful Plan For Your Life turned out not so well.
This is an area where I find myself, not in complete agreement with Brett, but recognizing the validity of his point.
One consequence of the urban renewal efforts of the 50’s and 60’s was the destruction of existing neighborhoods and the relocation of entire communities.
In many cases, the relocated folks were the poorer folks. Many of the neighborhoods that were turned into highways, government centers, and lovely arts complexes were black and/or other minority neighborhoods.
Lots of those folks were moved, wholesale, into Stalinesque project housing. Essentially, instant ghettos.
“Urban renewal” at that time was often referred to as “negro removal” in the black community.
It was, IMO, a case where Government’s Wonderful Plan For Your Life turned out not so well.
This is an area where I find myself, not in complete agreement with Brett, but recognizing the validity of his point.
One consequence of the urban renewal efforts of the 50’s and 60’s was the destruction of existing neighborhoods and the relocation of entire communities.
In many cases, the relocated folks were the poorer folks. Many of the neighborhoods that were turned into highways, government centers, and lovely arts complexes were black and/or other minority neighborhoods.
Lots of those folks were moved, wholesale, into Stalinesque project housing. Essentially, instant ghettos.
“Urban renewal” at that time was often referred to as “negro removal” in the black community.
It was, IMO, a case where Government’s Wonderful Plan For Your Life turned out not so well.
russell:
E.g., what explains this?
I would note that’s an example of how the war on drugs funnels money into a black market run by violent drug gangs.
I’m interested in understanding what the information actually has to tell us.
As am I. And the first step is understanding the information. You say you are “not invested in cities being high, low, or in-between as far as crime rates go”, which is fair. But if across the country, that trend is conserved, its worth asking why.
I’d agree its not an easy question to answer. Indeed, as you note, it could be a correlation without causation. But I’d speculate its because urban areas often concentrate other factors associated with crime, such as poverty (noted in one of your links) and income inequality (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2523129_Inequality_And_Violent_Crime*/links/0046352160ee282a5c000000 ).
wj:
If someone is poor, but see a (legal) path out of poverty, they would seem likely to work at going down that path.
And as ex-cons often have trouble securing legal employment after prison…
russell:
E.g., what explains this?
I would note that’s an example of how the war on drugs funnels money into a black market run by violent drug gangs.
I’m interested in understanding what the information actually has to tell us.
As am I. And the first step is understanding the information. You say you are “not invested in cities being high, low, or in-between as far as crime rates go”, which is fair. But if across the country, that trend is conserved, its worth asking why.
I’d agree its not an easy question to answer. Indeed, as you note, it could be a correlation without causation. But I’d speculate its because urban areas often concentrate other factors associated with crime, such as poverty (noted in one of your links) and income inequality (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2523129_Inequality_And_Violent_Crime*/links/0046352160ee282a5c000000 ).
wj:
If someone is poor, but see a (legal) path out of poverty, they would seem likely to work at going down that path.
And as ex-cons often have trouble securing legal employment after prison…
russell:
E.g., what explains this?
I would note that’s an example of how the war on drugs funnels money into a black market run by violent drug gangs.
I’m interested in understanding what the information actually has to tell us.
As am I. And the first step is understanding the information. You say you are “not invested in cities being high, low, or in-between as far as crime rates go”, which is fair. But if across the country, that trend is conserved, its worth asking why.
I’d agree its not an easy question to answer. Indeed, as you note, it could be a correlation without causation. But I’d speculate its because urban areas often concentrate other factors associated with crime, such as poverty (noted in one of your links) and income inequality (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2523129_Inequality_And_Violent_Crime*/links/0046352160ee282a5c000000 ).
wj:
If someone is poor, but see a (legal) path out of poverty, they would seem likely to work at going down that path.
And as ex-cons often have trouble securing legal employment after prison…
“Is that how welfare works? Does it require you to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs? And why aren’t there any jobs?”
It doesn’t require to to stay in a place, but it doesn’t require you to move, either. Newton’s first law of motion, metaphorically: Enable somebody to stay where they are, usually they’ll stay. Even if they have no future there.
And, does it matter why there aren’t jobs in a place? Should we keep people there, just in case they come back?
That’s my view: Ghost towns are better than ghettoes. And welfare has increased poverty by enabling people to stay where they have no prospect of employment.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs, to get assistance. Help them move, but don’t let them get money to stay where there aren’t any jobs.
“Is that how welfare works? Does it require you to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs? And why aren’t there any jobs?”
It doesn’t require to to stay in a place, but it doesn’t require you to move, either. Newton’s first law of motion, metaphorically: Enable somebody to stay where they are, usually they’ll stay. Even if they have no future there.
And, does it matter why there aren’t jobs in a place? Should we keep people there, just in case they come back?
That’s my view: Ghost towns are better than ghettoes. And welfare has increased poverty by enabling people to stay where they have no prospect of employment.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs, to get assistance. Help them move, but don’t let them get money to stay where there aren’t any jobs.
“Is that how welfare works? Does it require you to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs? And why aren’t there any jobs?”
It doesn’t require to to stay in a place, but it doesn’t require you to move, either. Newton’s first law of motion, metaphorically: Enable somebody to stay where they are, usually they’ll stay. Even if they have no future there.
And, does it matter why there aren’t jobs in a place? Should we keep people there, just in case they come back?
That’s my view: Ghost towns are better than ghettoes. And welfare has increased poverty by enabling people to stay where they have no prospect of employment.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs, to get assistance. Help them move, but don’t let them get money to stay where there aren’t any jobs.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs
a) where is that?
b) is housing there affordable given the available jobs?
c) good to know that you’re down with government coercion!
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs
a) where is that?
b) is housing there affordable given the available jobs?
c) good to know that you’re down with government coercion!
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs
a) where is that?
b) is housing there affordable given the available jobs?
c) good to know that you’re down with government coercion!
“And, then, tell them it’s illegal for them to have a job.
At one time, black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers. Now black teen unemployment is about double that for white teens.”
So more white teenagers work illegally than black teenagers.
Obviously, this mystery person who is telling them it is illegal to work must use stronger language, especially with these white kids who must have read someplace, maybe the Department of Labor’s website, that those 14 and above may work, with certain time and safety restrictions, which are less restrictive than for those between 16 and 18.
What should be restricted immediately is employers laying off those 21 and above willy-nilly from decent-paying jobs with benefits so the the latter then must migrate to lower-wage jobs traditionally held by teenagers so that they can support themselves and their families.
There might even be less pressure to raise the minimum wage.
“How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available? Isn’t that just baiting a trap?”
I suppose that would be stupid if indeed it is that simple.
Just rooting around a bit in the welfare benefit websites of a few random states, I see that there is little restriction on moving from county to county within states to seek employment, nor do I find much restriction on moving to another state to seek employment and begin collecting help while the job search stretches into weeks and months, and applying for benefits there.
If you are proposing a program to pay welfare recipients moving expenses and housing to move to places with low unemployment and more plentiful job prospects, I’m all ears, but I want them to have those jobs before they move, to prevent being marooned in a place with no family and friends.
If you are proposing cutting off payments altogether and somehow thinking that will force folks with little money and kids to raise to head for illusory greener pastures, like maybe they’ve got their resumes on Linked-In, and the job offers are pouring in, then how stupid is a legitimate question.
I was in Williston, North Dakota recently to get a taste of the oil boom and there are plenty of folks streaming in there from all over the country to take great paying jobs at fast food restaurants, changing the linens at motels, etc, except that there is literally no affordable place to live, unless it’s in your car in the Walmart parking lot.
I’d be interested to learn how many unemployed inner city residents own automobiles for the trip to Williston.
You want to consider culture in all of this as well. Inner city folks, yes, many of them single mothers have families and extended ones at that who they are trying to support whatever they can. Staying put is a family value, which of course is yet another of the many pieces of the English language emptied of all meaning by pig-filth during election campaigns.
My old friend Jed Clampett told me that whooey, he only moved from his straightened circumstances when he knew the stipend flow was a sure thing so’s he could keep Jethro in the third grade and Ellie Mae in a marriageable state.
Sam Drucker and the folks down Petticoat Junction way at the Shady Rest never offered the Clampetts real jobs so they’d stay in state, though they came to visit every once in while.
Even Eva Gabor wouldn’t let Eddie Albert move to Hooterville near Pixley without first saving up lots of money. They wouldn’t have been able to afford the farm Mr. Haney gypped than on.
Why should black inner city folk plan their finances any different?
We have 11 million supposedly illegal immigrants in this country who arrive with nothing and work, and some receive benefits.
They do what you want the rest to do and we’re trying to kick their asses out.
Also, what Russell wrote, but MOVING people to where there was better education, via busing, was fought tooth and nail by those WITH the ostensibly better educations and the attempt to MOVE valedictorians in the inner city to elite universities with help from “affirmative action” is not meeting with much more acceptance.
Many inner city blacks who did succeed MOVED uptown to better neighborhoods with better schools, once red-lining was “regulated”, and THEN their white neighbors moved farther away, thus eroding the tax base.
You want inner city folks in Detroit to move because many of the men lost their jobs in the car factories? Where, to Japan?
One particular political party cheered (they wanted it to happen, the sadist f*cks) the massive loss of jobs in Detroit and blamed it on the people whose jobs disappeared. They were paid too much, we were told.
NOW you want them to move?
America is a stable full of horsesh*t.
“And, then, tell them it’s illegal for them to have a job.
At one time, black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers. Now black teen unemployment is about double that for white teens.”
So more white teenagers work illegally than black teenagers.
Obviously, this mystery person who is telling them it is illegal to work must use stronger language, especially with these white kids who must have read someplace, maybe the Department of Labor’s website, that those 14 and above may work, with certain time and safety restrictions, which are less restrictive than for those between 16 and 18.
What should be restricted immediately is employers laying off those 21 and above willy-nilly from decent-paying jobs with benefits so the the latter then must migrate to lower-wage jobs traditionally held by teenagers so that they can support themselves and their families.
There might even be less pressure to raise the minimum wage.
“How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available? Isn’t that just baiting a trap?”
I suppose that would be stupid if indeed it is that simple.
Just rooting around a bit in the welfare benefit websites of a few random states, I see that there is little restriction on moving from county to county within states to seek employment, nor do I find much restriction on moving to another state to seek employment and begin collecting help while the job search stretches into weeks and months, and applying for benefits there.
If you are proposing a program to pay welfare recipients moving expenses and housing to move to places with low unemployment and more plentiful job prospects, I’m all ears, but I want them to have those jobs before they move, to prevent being marooned in a place with no family and friends.
If you are proposing cutting off payments altogether and somehow thinking that will force folks with little money and kids to raise to head for illusory greener pastures, like maybe they’ve got their resumes on Linked-In, and the job offers are pouring in, then how stupid is a legitimate question.
I was in Williston, North Dakota recently to get a taste of the oil boom and there are plenty of folks streaming in there from all over the country to take great paying jobs at fast food restaurants, changing the linens at motels, etc, except that there is literally no affordable place to live, unless it’s in your car in the Walmart parking lot.
I’d be interested to learn how many unemployed inner city residents own automobiles for the trip to Williston.
You want to consider culture in all of this as well. Inner city folks, yes, many of them single mothers have families and extended ones at that who they are trying to support whatever they can. Staying put is a family value, which of course is yet another of the many pieces of the English language emptied of all meaning by pig-filth during election campaigns.
My old friend Jed Clampett told me that whooey, he only moved from his straightened circumstances when he knew the stipend flow was a sure thing so’s he could keep Jethro in the third grade and Ellie Mae in a marriageable state.
Sam Drucker and the folks down Petticoat Junction way at the Shady Rest never offered the Clampetts real jobs so they’d stay in state, though they came to visit every once in while.
Even Eva Gabor wouldn’t let Eddie Albert move to Hooterville near Pixley without first saving up lots of money. They wouldn’t have been able to afford the farm Mr. Haney gypped than on.
Why should black inner city folk plan their finances any different?
We have 11 million supposedly illegal immigrants in this country who arrive with nothing and work, and some receive benefits.
They do what you want the rest to do and we’re trying to kick their asses out.
Also, what Russell wrote, but MOVING people to where there was better education, via busing, was fought tooth and nail by those WITH the ostensibly better educations and the attempt to MOVE valedictorians in the inner city to elite universities with help from “affirmative action” is not meeting with much more acceptance.
Many inner city blacks who did succeed MOVED uptown to better neighborhoods with better schools, once red-lining was “regulated”, and THEN their white neighbors moved farther away, thus eroding the tax base.
You want inner city folks in Detroit to move because many of the men lost their jobs in the car factories? Where, to Japan?
One particular political party cheered (they wanted it to happen, the sadist f*cks) the massive loss of jobs in Detroit and blamed it on the people whose jobs disappeared. They were paid too much, we were told.
NOW you want them to move?
America is a stable full of horsesh*t.
“And, then, tell them it’s illegal for them to have a job.
At one time, black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers. Now black teen unemployment is about double that for white teens.”
So more white teenagers work illegally than black teenagers.
Obviously, this mystery person who is telling them it is illegal to work must use stronger language, especially with these white kids who must have read someplace, maybe the Department of Labor’s website, that those 14 and above may work, with certain time and safety restrictions, which are less restrictive than for those between 16 and 18.
What should be restricted immediately is employers laying off those 21 and above willy-nilly from decent-paying jobs with benefits so the the latter then must migrate to lower-wage jobs traditionally held by teenagers so that they can support themselves and their families.
There might even be less pressure to raise the minimum wage.
“How stupid is it to pay somebody to stay in a place where there aren’t any jobs available? Isn’t that just baiting a trap?”
I suppose that would be stupid if indeed it is that simple.
Just rooting around a bit in the welfare benefit websites of a few random states, I see that there is little restriction on moving from county to county within states to seek employment, nor do I find much restriction on moving to another state to seek employment and begin collecting help while the job search stretches into weeks and months, and applying for benefits there.
If you are proposing a program to pay welfare recipients moving expenses and housing to move to places with low unemployment and more plentiful job prospects, I’m all ears, but I want them to have those jobs before they move, to prevent being marooned in a place with no family and friends.
If you are proposing cutting off payments altogether and somehow thinking that will force folks with little money and kids to raise to head for illusory greener pastures, like maybe they’ve got their resumes on Linked-In, and the job offers are pouring in, then how stupid is a legitimate question.
I was in Williston, North Dakota recently to get a taste of the oil boom and there are plenty of folks streaming in there from all over the country to take great paying jobs at fast food restaurants, changing the linens at motels, etc, except that there is literally no affordable place to live, unless it’s in your car in the Walmart parking lot.
I’d be interested to learn how many unemployed inner city residents own automobiles for the trip to Williston.
You want to consider culture in all of this as well. Inner city folks, yes, many of them single mothers have families and extended ones at that who they are trying to support whatever they can. Staying put is a family value, which of course is yet another of the many pieces of the English language emptied of all meaning by pig-filth during election campaigns.
My old friend Jed Clampett told me that whooey, he only moved from his straightened circumstances when he knew the stipend flow was a sure thing so’s he could keep Jethro in the third grade and Ellie Mae in a marriageable state.
Sam Drucker and the folks down Petticoat Junction way at the Shady Rest never offered the Clampetts real jobs so they’d stay in state, though they came to visit every once in while.
Even Eva Gabor wouldn’t let Eddie Albert move to Hooterville near Pixley without first saving up lots of money. They wouldn’t have been able to afford the farm Mr. Haney gypped than on.
Why should black inner city folk plan their finances any different?
We have 11 million supposedly illegal immigrants in this country who arrive with nothing and work, and some receive benefits.
They do what you want the rest to do and we’re trying to kick their asses out.
Also, what Russell wrote, but MOVING people to where there was better education, via busing, was fought tooth and nail by those WITH the ostensibly better educations and the attempt to MOVE valedictorians in the inner city to elite universities with help from “affirmative action” is not meeting with much more acceptance.
Many inner city blacks who did succeed MOVED uptown to better neighborhoods with better schools, once red-lining was “regulated”, and THEN their white neighbors moved farther away, thus eroding the tax base.
You want inner city folks in Detroit to move because many of the men lost their jobs in the car factories? Where, to Japan?
One particular political party cheered (they wanted it to happen, the sadist f*cks) the massive loss of jobs in Detroit and blamed it on the people whose jobs disappeared. They were paid too much, we were told.
NOW you want them to move?
America is a stable full of horsesh*t.
That’s my view: Ghost towns are better than ghettoes.
And “ghost town” is, to an increasing degree, an accurate description of big swathes of Detroit. Just to mention the place currently looking most like a new ghost town. For all that I doubt Brett, or anybody else, would describe it as a case of welfare not running amok.
That’s my view: Ghost towns are better than ghettoes.
And “ghost town” is, to an increasing degree, an accurate description of big swathes of Detroit. Just to mention the place currently looking most like a new ghost town. For all that I doubt Brett, or anybody else, would describe it as a case of welfare not running amok.
That’s my view: Ghost towns are better than ghettoes.
And “ghost town” is, to an increasing degree, an accurate description of big swathes of Detroit. Just to mention the place currently looking most like a new ghost town. For all that I doubt Brett, or anybody else, would describe it as a case of welfare not running amok.
Mebbe the Negro and the Hispanic should move to Nevada to get an even shake.
They could get a job on with Cliven Bundy running cattle illegally on Federal land.
Or mebbe not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ira-hansen-nevada-speaker-simple-minded-darkies
Mebbe the Negro and the Hispanic should move to Nevada to get an even shake.
They could get a job on with Cliven Bundy running cattle illegally on Federal land.
Or mebbe not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ira-hansen-nevada-speaker-simple-minded-darkies
Mebbe the Negro and the Hispanic should move to Nevada to get an even shake.
They could get a job on with Cliven Bundy running cattle illegally on Federal land.
Or mebbe not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ira-hansen-nevada-speaker-simple-minded-darkies
so, let’s see… first we get rid of the illegals who do all our crop harvesting. and then we forcibly move the inner city blacks to do the jobs the illegals used to do – for the wages land owners would pay because nobody wants to pay more for food, i assume.
right?
and Ira Hansen accuses liberals of wanting to keep blacks ‘down on the plantation’.
learn something new everyday, i guess.
so, let’s see… first we get rid of the illegals who do all our crop harvesting. and then we forcibly move the inner city blacks to do the jobs the illegals used to do – for the wages land owners would pay because nobody wants to pay more for food, i assume.
right?
and Ira Hansen accuses liberals of wanting to keep blacks ‘down on the plantation’.
learn something new everyday, i guess.
so, let’s see… first we get rid of the illegals who do all our crop harvesting. and then we forcibly move the inner city blacks to do the jobs the illegals used to do – for the wages land owners would pay because nobody wants to pay more for food, i assume.
right?
and Ira Hansen accuses liberals of wanting to keep blacks ‘down on the plantation’.
learn something new everyday, i guess.
Ghost towns are better than ghettoes.
wj beat me to it, and to Detroit you can add a long long list of former industrial cities gutted by industry relocation or outsourcing.
Most of working class folks who live in those places now are the kids and grandkids of folks who moved there because it’s where the jobs were when they were trying to make it.
Maybe it would be nice if some of the jobs stayed put, instead of making tens and hundreds of thousands of people relocate every generation.
Just a thought.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs, to get assistance.
To cleek’s list, I would add:
(4) You assume the people that are already there are interested in having poor, unemployed, often minority folks move into their town.
Especially when it’s to (a) take jobs in their area, and (b) qualify for public assistance.
It’s an interesting idea on paper, not so practical in real life.
Ghost towns are better than ghettoes.
wj beat me to it, and to Detroit you can add a long long list of former industrial cities gutted by industry relocation or outsourcing.
Most of working class folks who live in those places now are the kids and grandkids of folks who moved there because it’s where the jobs were when they were trying to make it.
Maybe it would be nice if some of the jobs stayed put, instead of making tens and hundreds of thousands of people relocate every generation.
Just a thought.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs, to get assistance.
To cleek’s list, I would add:
(4) You assume the people that are already there are interested in having poor, unemployed, often minority folks move into their town.
Especially when it’s to (a) take jobs in their area, and (b) qualify for public assistance.
It’s an interesting idea on paper, not so practical in real life.
Ghost towns are better than ghettoes.
wj beat me to it, and to Detroit you can add a long long list of former industrial cities gutted by industry relocation or outsourcing.
Most of working class folks who live in those places now are the kids and grandkids of folks who moved there because it’s where the jobs were when they were trying to make it.
Maybe it would be nice if some of the jobs stayed put, instead of making tens and hundreds of thousands of people relocate every generation.
Just a thought.
And my answer to that is, require people to move someplace where there are jobs, to get assistance.
To cleek’s list, I would add:
(4) You assume the people that are already there are interested in having poor, unemployed, often minority folks move into their town.
Especially when it’s to (a) take jobs in their area, and (b) qualify for public assistance.
It’s an interesting idea on paper, not so practical in real life.
The global warming – pirate correlation has to be formulated in a slightly more precise way: It’s not any pirates but traditional Yarrr!-Aaaarg!-Shiver-me-timbers! Pirates. Dhow outlaws from East Africa and Indonesian speed boat rubble don’t have that effect and are not included. In other words, only pirates that meet the TLAP standard.
—
My personal guess concerning violence would have been that it generally correlates with population density. Other factors might be stronger locally but said correlation would be found under it. That could be (in theory) a testable hypothesis. Take two similar populations and put one into a large the other into a small area, wait for the equilibrium and then check the levels. Maybe switch the groups afterwards for control. Is there a critical density?
The global warming – pirate correlation has to be formulated in a slightly more precise way: It’s not any pirates but traditional Yarrr!-Aaaarg!-Shiver-me-timbers! Pirates. Dhow outlaws from East Africa and Indonesian speed boat rubble don’t have that effect and are not included. In other words, only pirates that meet the TLAP standard.
—
My personal guess concerning violence would have been that it generally correlates with population density. Other factors might be stronger locally but said correlation would be found under it. That could be (in theory) a testable hypothesis. Take two similar populations and put one into a large the other into a small area, wait for the equilibrium and then check the levels. Maybe switch the groups afterwards for control. Is there a critical density?
The global warming – pirate correlation has to be formulated in a slightly more precise way: It’s not any pirates but traditional Yarrr!-Aaaarg!-Shiver-me-timbers! Pirates. Dhow outlaws from East Africa and Indonesian speed boat rubble don’t have that effect and are not included. In other words, only pirates that meet the TLAP standard.
—
My personal guess concerning violence would have been that it generally correlates with population density. Other factors might be stronger locally but said correlation would be found under it. That could be (in theory) a testable hypothesis. Take two similar populations and put one into a large the other into a small area, wait for the equilibrium and then check the levels. Maybe switch the groups afterwards for control. Is there a critical density?
That’s rabble not rubble in the speed boats 😉
That’s rabble not rubble in the speed boats 😉
That’s rabble not rubble in the speed boats 😉
El Paso, a poor city that is just across the river/border from one of the most dangerous cities in the world, is one of the safest cities in the US.
El Paso, a poor city that is just across the river/border from one of the most dangerous cities in the world, is one of the safest cities in the US.
El Paso, a poor city that is just across the river/border from one of the most dangerous cities in the world, is one of the safest cities in the US.
But if across the country, that trend is conserved, its worth asking why.
I guess my point is that it’s important to ask what the actual trend is.
20 years ago we were told that a generation of urban super-predators were on the way. Now we think it might really have just been lead.
NYC is a very, very large city. In 2012 it apparently had a murder rate of 2.9 per 100K. That was the 4th lowest rate of any US city above 250K people. It’s probably better than a lot of rural counties.
If it was “urbanity” per se, NY would have different numbers.
Basically, I’m skeptical about drawing conclusions like “cities yield higher violent crime” without some understanding of what the relationship between the two is.
Understanding causes yields solutions. Noticing correlations, not so much.
But if across the country, that trend is conserved, its worth asking why.
I guess my point is that it’s important to ask what the actual trend is.
20 years ago we were told that a generation of urban super-predators were on the way. Now we think it might really have just been lead.
NYC is a very, very large city. In 2012 it apparently had a murder rate of 2.9 per 100K. That was the 4th lowest rate of any US city above 250K people. It’s probably better than a lot of rural counties.
If it was “urbanity” per se, NY would have different numbers.
Basically, I’m skeptical about drawing conclusions like “cities yield higher violent crime” without some understanding of what the relationship between the two is.
Understanding causes yields solutions. Noticing correlations, not so much.
But if across the country, that trend is conserved, its worth asking why.
I guess my point is that it’s important to ask what the actual trend is.
20 years ago we were told that a generation of urban super-predators were on the way. Now we think it might really have just been lead.
NYC is a very, very large city. In 2012 it apparently had a murder rate of 2.9 per 100K. That was the 4th lowest rate of any US city above 250K people. It’s probably better than a lot of rural counties.
If it was “urbanity” per se, NY would have different numbers.
Basically, I’m skeptical about drawing conclusions like “cities yield higher violent crime” without some understanding of what the relationship between the two is.
Understanding causes yields solutions. Noticing correlations, not so much.
“Culture” may be innate and impervious to external pressures, or it may be entirely a response to environment and history. Take Confederate culture.
Please.
–TP
“Culture” may be innate and impervious to external pressures, or it may be entirely a response to environment and history. Take Confederate culture.
Please.
–TP
“Culture” may be innate and impervious to external pressures, or it may be entirely a response to environment and history. Take Confederate culture.
Please.
–TP
Lots of those folks were moved, wholesale, into Stalinesque project housing. Essentially, instant ghettos.
Tragically true. But where else were they to go? They had no assets. They were renters, not owners. Those “other places” with all the jobs did not want them and actively worked to keep them out (sundowner towns). It would have been better to give each man, woman, and child $2,000,000, and scatter them to the winds, while shouting “problem solved”….but that of course would have been “reparations” and we couldn’t have that.
So welfare it was. And of course that was just giving lazy people “our hard earned tax dollars”. And there they are, stuck between the rock and the hard place. Sometimes you just can’t win.
Naturally, it was all their fault.
We have told them so repeatedly.
Lots of those folks were moved, wholesale, into Stalinesque project housing. Essentially, instant ghettos.
Tragically true. But where else were they to go? They had no assets. They were renters, not owners. Those “other places” with all the jobs did not want them and actively worked to keep them out (sundowner towns). It would have been better to give each man, woman, and child $2,000,000, and scatter them to the winds, while shouting “problem solved”….but that of course would have been “reparations” and we couldn’t have that.
So welfare it was. And of course that was just giving lazy people “our hard earned tax dollars”. And there they are, stuck between the rock and the hard place. Sometimes you just can’t win.
Naturally, it was all their fault.
We have told them so repeatedly.
Lots of those folks were moved, wholesale, into Stalinesque project housing. Essentially, instant ghettos.
Tragically true. But where else were they to go? They had no assets. They were renters, not owners. Those “other places” with all the jobs did not want them and actively worked to keep them out (sundowner towns). It would have been better to give each man, woman, and child $2,000,000, and scatter them to the winds, while shouting “problem solved”….but that of course would have been “reparations” and we couldn’t have that.
So welfare it was. And of course that was just giving lazy people “our hard earned tax dollars”. And there they are, stuck between the rock and the hard place. Sometimes you just can’t win.
Naturally, it was all their fault.
We have told them so repeatedly.
How does one explain the dysfunctional culture William F. Buckley was marinated in that caused him to athwart Brown vrs Board of Education and Civil Right Legislation and declare “Nein!”?
William Rehnquist and James Kilpatrick too.
Was it the fact that their fathers stayed intact in their households that drove them to criminal racism and institutionalized bigotry?
Was it the fact that they were children within wedlock and church-going members of society and law-abiding, upstanding citizens that turned them into such hateful putzes?
Was the welfare of privilege a source of their weak character and irresponsible and inhumane acts toward their fellow Americans?
Was it some genetic fault at the cellular level, handed down through generations on some dark continent of primitive tribalism?
Was it their placement on the Bell Curve that created their dysfunctional, sociopathic manner of living?
How does one explain the dysfunctional culture William F. Buckley was marinated in that caused him to athwart Brown vrs Board of Education and Civil Right Legislation and declare “Nein!”?
William Rehnquist and James Kilpatrick too.
Was it the fact that their fathers stayed intact in their households that drove them to criminal racism and institutionalized bigotry?
Was it the fact that they were children within wedlock and church-going members of society and law-abiding, upstanding citizens that turned them into such hateful putzes?
Was the welfare of privilege a source of their weak character and irresponsible and inhumane acts toward their fellow Americans?
Was it some genetic fault at the cellular level, handed down through generations on some dark continent of primitive tribalism?
Was it their placement on the Bell Curve that created their dysfunctional, sociopathic manner of living?
How does one explain the dysfunctional culture William F. Buckley was marinated in that caused him to athwart Brown vrs Board of Education and Civil Right Legislation and declare “Nein!”?
William Rehnquist and James Kilpatrick too.
Was it the fact that their fathers stayed intact in their households that drove them to criminal racism and institutionalized bigotry?
Was it the fact that they were children within wedlock and church-going members of society and law-abiding, upstanding citizens that turned them into such hateful putzes?
Was the welfare of privilege a source of their weak character and irresponsible and inhumane acts toward their fellow Americans?
Was it some genetic fault at the cellular level, handed down through generations on some dark continent of primitive tribalism?
Was it their placement on the Bell Curve that created their dysfunctional, sociopathic manner of living?
russell:
I guess my point is that it’s important to ask what the actual trend is.
Which is why I turn to data, like the UCR, to determine what the trend is. And I’ve provided multiple links to the UCR and other resources, all showing that, in general, violent crime is higher in urban areas.
20 years ago we were told that a generation of urban super-predators were on the way.
Data can be overinterpreted, certainly, and I hope I’m not coming off as breathlessly clutching my pearls about urban living. There is a trend, well established in the stats and in the literature, that violent crime correlates with urbanicity in the US (I don’t think you can use “urbanity” in this context, btw: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbanity).
That trend is a starting point. If we can understand why that trend exists, we can more effectively target the causes of violence. Or as you said:
Basically, I’m skeptical about drawing conclusions like “cities yield higher violent crime” without some understanding of what the relationship between the two is.
So we have a trend, a correlation. It might be causative, it might not. I’ve suggested explanations for that correlation (poverty, income inequality, etc) that are often concentrated in cities, and have been independently correlated violent crime, based on studies you and I have linked.
There are probably other factors as well. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on why violent crime, in general, is concentrated in US cities.
Understanding causes yields solutions. Noticing correlations, not so much.
I’m curious how you go about establishing causality in complex systems without ever considering correlations.
russell:
I guess my point is that it’s important to ask what the actual trend is.
Which is why I turn to data, like the UCR, to determine what the trend is. And I’ve provided multiple links to the UCR and other resources, all showing that, in general, violent crime is higher in urban areas.
20 years ago we were told that a generation of urban super-predators were on the way.
Data can be overinterpreted, certainly, and I hope I’m not coming off as breathlessly clutching my pearls about urban living. There is a trend, well established in the stats and in the literature, that violent crime correlates with urbanicity in the US (I don’t think you can use “urbanity” in this context, btw: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbanity).
That trend is a starting point. If we can understand why that trend exists, we can more effectively target the causes of violence. Or as you said:
Basically, I’m skeptical about drawing conclusions like “cities yield higher violent crime” without some understanding of what the relationship between the two is.
So we have a trend, a correlation. It might be causative, it might not. I’ve suggested explanations for that correlation (poverty, income inequality, etc) that are often concentrated in cities, and have been independently correlated violent crime, based on studies you and I have linked.
There are probably other factors as well. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on why violent crime, in general, is concentrated in US cities.
Understanding causes yields solutions. Noticing correlations, not so much.
I’m curious how you go about establishing causality in complex systems without ever considering correlations.
russell:
I guess my point is that it’s important to ask what the actual trend is.
Which is why I turn to data, like the UCR, to determine what the trend is. And I’ve provided multiple links to the UCR and other resources, all showing that, in general, violent crime is higher in urban areas.
20 years ago we were told that a generation of urban super-predators were on the way.
Data can be overinterpreted, certainly, and I hope I’m not coming off as breathlessly clutching my pearls about urban living. There is a trend, well established in the stats and in the literature, that violent crime correlates with urbanicity in the US (I don’t think you can use “urbanity” in this context, btw: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbanity).
That trend is a starting point. If we can understand why that trend exists, we can more effectively target the causes of violence. Or as you said:
Basically, I’m skeptical about drawing conclusions like “cities yield higher violent crime” without some understanding of what the relationship between the two is.
So we have a trend, a correlation. It might be causative, it might not. I’ve suggested explanations for that correlation (poverty, income inequality, etc) that are often concentrated in cities, and have been independently correlated violent crime, based on studies you and I have linked.
There are probably other factors as well. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on why violent crime, in general, is concentrated in US cities.
Understanding causes yields solutions. Noticing correlations, not so much.
I’m curious how you go about establishing causality in complex systems without ever considering correlations.
The impression that crime correlates with urbanity is probably not correct. Pew Research says:
These maps of violent death rates in general probably don’t support your mental image, but beware: that swathe of apparently low death rates in the High Plains is mostly “population too low for statistical significance.” For the Northeast, he notes
The impression that crime correlates with urbanity is probably not correct. Pew Research says:
These maps of violent death rates in general probably don’t support your mental image, but beware: that swathe of apparently low death rates in the High Plains is mostly “population too low for statistical significance.” For the Northeast, he notes
The impression that crime correlates with urbanity is probably not correct. Pew Research says:
These maps of violent death rates in general probably don’t support your mental image, but beware: that swathe of apparently low death rates in the High Plains is mostly “population too low for statistical significance.” For the Northeast, he notes
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*, by the wealthy and powerful, and that this has gotten everyone in the habit of thinking that violence is an acceptable way to get respect and public order.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*, by the wealthy and powerful, and that this has gotten everyone in the habit of thinking that violence is an acceptable way to get respect and public order.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*, by the wealthy and powerful, and that this has gotten everyone in the habit of thinking that violence is an acceptable way to get respect and public order.
Lurker’s point is also a good one: US standards for police competence are shockingly low. And it’s not because we have an especially high or low number of police per population, either: somewhat more police per capita than Germany, a good deal fewer than Finland.
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s (partly) because of the strong US tradition of local control over police funding, hiring, and training — which means that local traditions of underfunding and incompetence are respected, too.
Lurker’s point is also a good one: US standards for police competence are shockingly low. And it’s not because we have an especially high or low number of police per population, either: somewhat more police per capita than Germany, a good deal fewer than Finland.
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s (partly) because of the strong US tradition of local control over police funding, hiring, and training — which means that local traditions of underfunding and incompetence are respected, too.
Lurker’s point is also a good one: US standards for police competence are shockingly low. And it’s not because we have an especially high or low number of police per population, either: somewhat more police per capita than Germany, a good deal fewer than Finland.
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s (partly) because of the strong US tradition of local control over police funding, hiring, and training — which means that local traditions of underfunding and incompetence are respected, too.
Doc,
I am curious to see how our conservative brethren respond to your “violence tolerating culture” claim, because well, for the most part, our “culture” is white.
From what I have seen above, especially from Brett, they appear to express total disagreement-mostly by trying to wave away or downplay the statistics on violence.
But they are all too quick to condemn black “culture” for the violence observed in the black community.
Is that a “W” type thing?
Doc,
I am curious to see how our conservative brethren respond to your “violence tolerating culture” claim, because well, for the most part, our “culture” is white.
From what I have seen above, especially from Brett, they appear to express total disagreement-mostly by trying to wave away or downplay the statistics on violence.
But they are all too quick to condemn black “culture” for the violence observed in the black community.
Is that a “W” type thing?
Doc,
I am curious to see how our conservative brethren respond to your “violence tolerating culture” claim, because well, for the most part, our “culture” is white.
From what I have seen above, especially from Brett, they appear to express total disagreement-mostly by trying to wave away or downplay the statistics on violence.
But they are all too quick to condemn black “culture” for the violence observed in the black community.
Is that a “W” type thing?
Parenthesis: Obama just poisoned the arsenic well.
We now resume our regular programming and ask whether “urbanicity” is as highly correlated with crime in civilized countries as it is in the US.
–TP
Parenthesis: Obama just poisoned the arsenic well.
We now resume our regular programming and ask whether “urbanicity” is as highly correlated with crime in civilized countries as it is in the US.
–TP
Parenthesis: Obama just poisoned the arsenic well.
We now resume our regular programming and ask whether “urbanicity” is as highly correlated with crime in civilized countries as it is in the US.
–TP
Cleeks’ south part link above explains some of the issues. There seems to be a fair amount of “you have to do what I say!” attitude among the police, and anyone who is not immediately compliant (no matter what the order/request is) is automatically a suspect and runs a large risk of a beating or worse.
Combine that with what seems to be a majority-held view in the country that if you did something “wrong” then you deserve what you get, even if the “wrong” is j-walking and you end up dead; along with a similar view of the police not being capable of doing anything wrong and a police culture in many jurisdictions that seems to be fine with covering up wrongs and manufacturing evidence/framing the innocent (sometimes both at the same time) and you’ve got a recipe for bad police behavior even before getting to the relative violence of criminals in the U.S. (although some of this is a result of the criminal violence).
Cleeks’ south part link above explains some of the issues. There seems to be a fair amount of “you have to do what I say!” attitude among the police, and anyone who is not immediately compliant (no matter what the order/request is) is automatically a suspect and runs a large risk of a beating or worse.
Combine that with what seems to be a majority-held view in the country that if you did something “wrong” then you deserve what you get, even if the “wrong” is j-walking and you end up dead; along with a similar view of the police not being capable of doing anything wrong and a police culture in many jurisdictions that seems to be fine with covering up wrongs and manufacturing evidence/framing the innocent (sometimes both at the same time) and you’ve got a recipe for bad police behavior even before getting to the relative violence of criminals in the U.S. (although some of this is a result of the criminal violence).
Cleeks’ south part link above explains some of the issues. There seems to be a fair amount of “you have to do what I say!” attitude among the police, and anyone who is not immediately compliant (no matter what the order/request is) is automatically a suspect and runs a large risk of a beating or worse.
Combine that with what seems to be a majority-held view in the country that if you did something “wrong” then you deserve what you get, even if the “wrong” is j-walking and you end up dead; along with a similar view of the police not being capable of doing anything wrong and a police culture in many jurisdictions that seems to be fine with covering up wrongs and manufacturing evidence/framing the innocent (sometimes both at the same time) and you’ve got a recipe for bad police behavior even before getting to the relative violence of criminals in the U.S. (although some of this is a result of the criminal violence).
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*
FWIW, my thought about this is that most cultures are highly tolerant of violence against folks who are “not us”, who are formally categorized in some way as “not us”, and who are seen as lower in stature and value than “us”.
What’s unique about the US among similar nations, and what the US has in common with slave-based societies historically, is that the “not us” folks lived in our midst. As opposed to, frex in societies based on colonizing other countries, “over there” somewhere.
We have a longer and more recent history of systematic violence against people who are “not us” and who live right where we live.
If you, frex, included histocial violence against Indians (from India), Africans, and Asians into the UK numbers, the comparison to the US would probably look a bit different.
I’m curious how you go about establishing causality in complex systems without ever considering correlations.
I’m happy to consider correlations right up until the point where they don’t actually explain anything.
The difference between “urban” and “rural” is essentially population density. Lots of things come along with that, but that’s the essential difference.
If population density alone was sufficient to explain increases in violent crime, we’d expect to see more consistency in the relationship between city life and violent crime.
I’m not seeing that. It’s not that consistent. There are very, very large cities where violent crime is not that prevalent, and rural areas where violence is not uncommon.
More to the point, perhaps, if urban vs rural was the critical factor, we’d expect to see high rates of violent crime in cities in other places. Which I’m not sure we see.
You have to save the phenomena.
It’s notable that per-capita rates of violent crime in the US seem to be higher in cities than in rural areas, but in and of itself it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.
Were I to speculate, he said by way of introducing his own speculation, I would say that social cohesion is a more relevant factor.
Do people have a stake in their community, do they sense that they are bound and connected to the people they live near by any sense of mutual obligation and responsibility, does it matter to anyone (possibly including themselves) what they do with their lives.
When that is strong, I think you see less violent (and other) crime. When it’s not, you see more.
If city vs country is a factor, I suspect it’s almost biological – I suspect that people are, simply, neurologically stressed when they’re crowded.
If so, the solution to that factor may simply be better urban design.
But, in a nutshell, my suggestion for how to reduce violent crime would be to do things to increase people’s sense that they’re a valuable part of the community they live in.
A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*
FWIW, my thought about this is that most cultures are highly tolerant of violence against folks who are “not us”, who are formally categorized in some way as “not us”, and who are seen as lower in stature and value than “us”.
What’s unique about the US among similar nations, and what the US has in common with slave-based societies historically, is that the “not us” folks lived in our midst. As opposed to, frex in societies based on colonizing other countries, “over there” somewhere.
We have a longer and more recent history of systematic violence against people who are “not us” and who live right where we live.
If you, frex, included histocial violence against Indians (from India), Africans, and Asians into the UK numbers, the comparison to the US would probably look a bit different.
I’m curious how you go about establishing causality in complex systems without ever considering correlations.
I’m happy to consider correlations right up until the point where they don’t actually explain anything.
The difference between “urban” and “rural” is essentially population density. Lots of things come along with that, but that’s the essential difference.
If population density alone was sufficient to explain increases in violent crime, we’d expect to see more consistency in the relationship between city life and violent crime.
I’m not seeing that. It’s not that consistent. There are very, very large cities where violent crime is not that prevalent, and rural areas where violence is not uncommon.
More to the point, perhaps, if urban vs rural was the critical factor, we’d expect to see high rates of violent crime in cities in other places. Which I’m not sure we see.
You have to save the phenomena.
It’s notable that per-capita rates of violent crime in the US seem to be higher in cities than in rural areas, but in and of itself it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.
Were I to speculate, he said by way of introducing his own speculation, I would say that social cohesion is a more relevant factor.
Do people have a stake in their community, do they sense that they are bound and connected to the people they live near by any sense of mutual obligation and responsibility, does it matter to anyone (possibly including themselves) what they do with their lives.
When that is strong, I think you see less violent (and other) crime. When it’s not, you see more.
If city vs country is a factor, I suspect it’s almost biological – I suspect that people are, simply, neurologically stressed when they’re crowded.
If so, the solution to that factor may simply be better urban design.
But, in a nutshell, my suggestion for how to reduce violent crime would be to do things to increase people’s sense that they’re a valuable part of the community they live in.
A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*
FWIW, my thought about this is that most cultures are highly tolerant of violence against folks who are “not us”, who are formally categorized in some way as “not us”, and who are seen as lower in stature and value than “us”.
What’s unique about the US among similar nations, and what the US has in common with slave-based societies historically, is that the “not us” folks lived in our midst. As opposed to, frex in societies based on colonizing other countries, “over there” somewhere.
We have a longer and more recent history of systematic violence against people who are “not us” and who live right where we live.
If you, frex, included histocial violence against Indians (from India), Africans, and Asians into the UK numbers, the comparison to the US would probably look a bit different.
I’m curious how you go about establishing causality in complex systems without ever considering correlations.
I’m happy to consider correlations right up until the point where they don’t actually explain anything.
The difference between “urban” and “rural” is essentially population density. Lots of things come along with that, but that’s the essential difference.
If population density alone was sufficient to explain increases in violent crime, we’d expect to see more consistency in the relationship between city life and violent crime.
I’m not seeing that. It’s not that consistent. There are very, very large cities where violent crime is not that prevalent, and rural areas where violence is not uncommon.
More to the point, perhaps, if urban vs rural was the critical factor, we’d expect to see high rates of violent crime in cities in other places. Which I’m not sure we see.
You have to save the phenomena.
It’s notable that per-capita rates of violent crime in the US seem to be higher in cities than in rural areas, but in and of itself it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.
Were I to speculate, he said by way of introducing his own speculation, I would say that social cohesion is a more relevant factor.
Do people have a stake in their community, do they sense that they are bound and connected to the people they live near by any sense of mutual obligation and responsibility, does it matter to anyone (possibly including themselves) what they do with their lives.
When that is strong, I think you see less violent (and other) crime. When it’s not, you see more.
If city vs country is a factor, I suspect it’s almost biological – I suspect that people are, simply, neurologically stressed when they’re crowded.
If so, the solution to that factor may simply be better urban design.
But, in a nutshell, my suggestion for how to reduce violent crime would be to do things to increase people’s sense that they’re a valuable part of the community they live in.
A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.
Just for the record, the German police has image problems too. Policemen* are portrayed/seen as thuggish morons notoriously (more as thugs in the West, as imbeciles in the East). I would question though the veracity of those claims today. It was really bad a few decades ago (with batons instead of guns, so few deaths nonetheless).
Nothing new about the cliches though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv1jdhMtZhU
Unfortunately, the English subtitles give a completely false impression because they lack the malaproprims and funny ambiguities of the original German that make it a literal buttocks joke. Plus Schutzmann is more beat cop than traffic policeman, although he also does the latter).
*policewomen are imagined mainly as traffic wardens/meter maids.
Just for the record, the German police has image problems too. Policemen* are portrayed/seen as thuggish morons notoriously (more as thugs in the West, as imbeciles in the East). I would question though the veracity of those claims today. It was really bad a few decades ago (with batons instead of guns, so few deaths nonetheless).
Nothing new about the cliches though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv1jdhMtZhU
Unfortunately, the English subtitles give a completely false impression because they lack the malaproprims and funny ambiguities of the original German that make it a literal buttocks joke. Plus Schutzmann is more beat cop than traffic policeman, although he also does the latter).
*policewomen are imagined mainly as traffic wardens/meter maids.
Just for the record, the German police has image problems too. Policemen* are portrayed/seen as thuggish morons notoriously (more as thugs in the West, as imbeciles in the East). I would question though the veracity of those claims today. It was really bad a few decades ago (with batons instead of guns, so few deaths nonetheless).
Nothing new about the cliches though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv1jdhMtZhU
Unfortunately, the English subtitles give a completely false impression because they lack the malaproprims and funny ambiguities of the original German that make it a literal buttocks joke. Plus Schutzmann is more beat cop than traffic policeman, although he also does the latter).
*policewomen are imagined mainly as traffic wardens/meter maids.
Despite reports of little people, the so-called Munchkins, Brett assures us that there are people of average stature, and despite the areas, small to be sure, where you find flying monkeys, there are just as many areas where they are not. In short, according to Brett, we are actually still in Kansas…
Despite reports of little people, the so-called Munchkins, Brett assures us that there are people of average stature, and despite the areas, small to be sure, where you find flying monkeys, there are just as many areas where they are not. In short, according to Brett, we are actually still in Kansas…
Despite reports of little people, the so-called Munchkins, Brett assures us that there are people of average stature, and despite the areas, small to be sure, where you find flying monkeys, there are just as many areas where they are not. In short, according to Brett, we are actually still in Kansas…
“A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.”
Bingo. I don’t think it’s population density by itself. I think population density x unemployment might be closer to the truth.
I think we ought to drop the whole idea of welfare, and revive the CCC. Establish a principle that you don’t get paid for doing nothing no matter how bad your situation, but here are some jobs you can take if you really need the money.
“A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.”
Bingo. I don’t think it’s population density by itself. I think population density x unemployment might be closer to the truth.
I think we ought to drop the whole idea of welfare, and revive the CCC. Establish a principle that you don’t get paid for doing nothing no matter how bad your situation, but here are some jobs you can take if you really need the money.
“A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.”
Bingo. I don’t think it’s population density by itself. I think population density x unemployment might be closer to the truth.
I think we ought to drop the whole idea of welfare, and revive the CCC. Establish a principle that you don’t get paid for doing nothing no matter how bad your situation, but here are some jobs you can take if you really need the money.
“Establish a principle that you don’t get paid for doing nothing”
So, Brett, you mean to cut off the salaries of Republican congressmen and senators? After all, it’s ridiculous to pay them to stay in one place and do nothing, right?
“Establish a principle that you don’t get paid for doing nothing”
So, Brett, you mean to cut off the salaries of Republican congressmen and senators? After all, it’s ridiculous to pay them to stay in one place and do nothing, right?
“Establish a principle that you don’t get paid for doing nothing”
So, Brett, you mean to cut off the salaries of Republican congressmen and senators? After all, it’s ridiculous to pay them to stay in one place and do nothing, right?
Franklin Delano Bellmore
I’m impressed.
Franklin Delano Bellmore
I’m impressed.
Franklin Delano Bellmore
I’m impressed.
Morzer, those GOPsters at least pretend* that they would like to be anywhere else but DC and they are rarely seen at their official place of work (given the minute number of days they are bodily in session).
—
I said that high pouplation desnities would be in my opinion enabling/supporting factors that underly the observable pattern(s). A potentially violent and heavily armed hermit on some remote mountaintop would be quite different from the same guy in an overcrowded flat in an inner city block. Pack enough people close enough together and violent conflict is (imo) far more likely. Critical mass. U235 does not explode simply because too many atoms are in one place but because the decay of a single one can trigger a chain reaction in such an environment.
*Many actually hate to have to meet their official constituents instead of their real (=moneyed) ones, so it is actually just pretense. That’s true for many Dems too.
Morzer, those GOPsters at least pretend* that they would like to be anywhere else but DC and they are rarely seen at their official place of work (given the minute number of days they are bodily in session).
—
I said that high pouplation desnities would be in my opinion enabling/supporting factors that underly the observable pattern(s). A potentially violent and heavily armed hermit on some remote mountaintop would be quite different from the same guy in an overcrowded flat in an inner city block. Pack enough people close enough together and violent conflict is (imo) far more likely. Critical mass. U235 does not explode simply because too many atoms are in one place but because the decay of a single one can trigger a chain reaction in such an environment.
*Many actually hate to have to meet their official constituents instead of their real (=moneyed) ones, so it is actually just pretense. That’s true for many Dems too.
Morzer, those GOPsters at least pretend* that they would like to be anywhere else but DC and they are rarely seen at their official place of work (given the minute number of days they are bodily in session).
—
I said that high pouplation desnities would be in my opinion enabling/supporting factors that underly the observable pattern(s). A potentially violent and heavily armed hermit on some remote mountaintop would be quite different from the same guy in an overcrowded flat in an inner city block. Pack enough people close enough together and violent conflict is (imo) far more likely. Critical mass. U235 does not explode simply because too many atoms are in one place but because the decay of a single one can trigger a chain reaction in such an environment.
*Many actually hate to have to meet their official constituents instead of their real (=moneyed) ones, so it is actually just pretense. That’s true for many Dems too.
russell:
I think we agree…or at least I often see the point I’m trying to make in your posts. For example:
It’s notable that per-capita rates of violent crime in the US seem to be higher in cities than in rural areas, but in and of itself it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.
I would agree 100%. Which is why I look at the trend and try to find causative factors that could explain the trend. For example, poverty, income inequality, monetary support of violent gangs, and a cycle of criminalization that makes it hard to find meaningful work.
A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.
Yes. Absolutely. That is the point I’ve been trying to make regarding poverty, income inequality, and criminalization. It makes it hard for people to do something useful in any legal context.
DrSci:
The impression that crime correlates with urbanity is probably not correct.
Again, “urbanity” really isn’t the correct usage, unless you think I’m arguing that urbane individuals are prone to crime. A “polite and confident” crime wave, as it were (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbane?show=0&t=1416579394 ).
I’m not.
Also, I’d point out the Pew study you link identifies several cities as the murder capital over time…all of them have either high poverty rate, high Gini index (inequality), or both. In other words…consistent with the concept I’m trying (and failing) to express.
in general probably don’t support your mental image
I’m always welcome to learn new things…but that data doesn’t conflict with my mental image. Indeed, I believe I linked to a paper which made the same point (although specifically for firearms): rural areas are equivalent to urban areas in terms of firearm deaths…but urban tilts towards homicide and rural tilts toward suicide.
Suicide is public health concern in its own right, and I certainly wouldn’t wish to minimize it. I find it very unlikely that high suicide rates are driven by the same factors that drive violent crime. That is why I drew a distinction between suicide and violent crime earlier in the thread.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point
My apologies.
, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*
I think its possible that’s a causative factor, but I also think that’s a difficult concept to build evidence for.
I think Ugh and cleek have nailed down a crucial aspect of police violence in the US…basically they aren’t called on it. In general, they close ranks and in general they are supported by politicians.
There can be a historical tail to this: perhaps we tolerate police violence because of our history of violent enslavement. But before before we get there, I’d look to the more proximate causes: perhaps the way we structure our political campaigns makes it very unlikely that any politician is going criticize a politically powerful group, like law enforcement.
There are very few prominent voices calling for review of how our police agencies work. More now, especially since Ferguson. But a few years ago…Greenwald and Balko were about as prominent as you get on that topic. In other words, not at all. Even now, I wouldn’t consider concern over police behavior anywhere close to mainstream.
It’s far too easy to turn a specific criticism of an officer and incident into a general criticism of every police officer. Any politician, mayor, governor, etc is extremely cautious of making such a criticism, as an opponent will try to use it against him in the next campaign.
russell:
I think we agree…or at least I often see the point I’m trying to make in your posts. For example:
It’s notable that per-capita rates of violent crime in the US seem to be higher in cities than in rural areas, but in and of itself it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.
I would agree 100%. Which is why I look at the trend and try to find causative factors that could explain the trend. For example, poverty, income inequality, monetary support of violent gangs, and a cycle of criminalization that makes it hard to find meaningful work.
A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.
Yes. Absolutely. That is the point I’ve been trying to make regarding poverty, income inequality, and criminalization. It makes it hard for people to do something useful in any legal context.
DrSci:
The impression that crime correlates with urbanity is probably not correct.
Again, “urbanity” really isn’t the correct usage, unless you think I’m arguing that urbane individuals are prone to crime. A “polite and confident” crime wave, as it were (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbane?show=0&t=1416579394 ).
I’m not.
Also, I’d point out the Pew study you link identifies several cities as the murder capital over time…all of them have either high poverty rate, high Gini index (inequality), or both. In other words…consistent with the concept I’m trying (and failing) to express.
in general probably don’t support your mental image
I’m always welcome to learn new things…but that data doesn’t conflict with my mental image. Indeed, I believe I linked to a paper which made the same point (although specifically for firearms): rural areas are equivalent to urban areas in terms of firearm deaths…but urban tilts towards homicide and rural tilts toward suicide.
Suicide is public health concern in its own right, and I certainly wouldn’t wish to minimize it. I find it very unlikely that high suicide rates are driven by the same factors that drive violent crime. That is why I drew a distinction between suicide and violent crime earlier in the thread.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point
My apologies.
, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*
I think its possible that’s a causative factor, but I also think that’s a difficult concept to build evidence for.
I think Ugh and cleek have nailed down a crucial aspect of police violence in the US…basically they aren’t called on it. In general, they close ranks and in general they are supported by politicians.
There can be a historical tail to this: perhaps we tolerate police violence because of our history of violent enslavement. But before before we get there, I’d look to the more proximate causes: perhaps the way we structure our political campaigns makes it very unlikely that any politician is going criticize a politically powerful group, like law enforcement.
There are very few prominent voices calling for review of how our police agencies work. More now, especially since Ferguson. But a few years ago…Greenwald and Balko were about as prominent as you get on that topic. In other words, not at all. Even now, I wouldn’t consider concern over police behavior anywhere close to mainstream.
It’s far too easy to turn a specific criticism of an officer and incident into a general criticism of every police officer. Any politician, mayor, governor, etc is extremely cautious of making such a criticism, as an opponent will try to use it against him in the next campaign.
russell:
I think we agree…or at least I often see the point I’m trying to make in your posts. For example:
It’s notable that per-capita rates of violent crime in the US seem to be higher in cities than in rural areas, but in and of itself it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.
I would agree 100%. Which is why I look at the trend and try to find causative factors that could explain the trend. For example, poverty, income inequality, monetary support of violent gangs, and a cycle of criminalization that makes it hard to find meaningful work.
A lot of times that can be as simple as giving people something useful to do.
Yes. Absolutely. That is the point I’ve been trying to make regarding poverty, income inequality, and criminalization. It makes it hard for people to do something useful in any legal context.
DrSci:
The impression that crime correlates with urbanity is probably not correct.
Again, “urbanity” really isn’t the correct usage, unless you think I’m arguing that urbane individuals are prone to crime. A “polite and confident” crime wave, as it were (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbane?show=0&t=1416579394 ).
I’m not.
Also, I’d point out the Pew study you link identifies several cities as the murder capital over time…all of them have either high poverty rate, high Gini index (inequality), or both. In other words…consistent with the concept I’m trying (and failing) to express.
in general probably don’t support your mental image
I’m always welcome to learn new things…but that data doesn’t conflict with my mental image. Indeed, I believe I linked to a paper which made the same point (although specifically for firearms): rural areas are equivalent to urban areas in terms of firearm deaths…but urban tilts towards homicide and rural tilts toward suicide.
Suicide is public health concern in its own right, and I certainly wouldn’t wish to minimize it. I find it very unlikely that high suicide rates are driven by the same factors that drive violent crime. That is why I drew a distinction between suicide and violent crime earlier in the thread.
However, this is all a bit of topic drift from my original point
My apologies.
, which is that the US slavery system created a culture unusually tolerant of violence by the *elite*
I think its possible that’s a causative factor, but I also think that’s a difficult concept to build evidence for.
I think Ugh and cleek have nailed down a crucial aspect of police violence in the US…basically they aren’t called on it. In general, they close ranks and in general they are supported by politicians.
There can be a historical tail to this: perhaps we tolerate police violence because of our history of violent enslavement. But before before we get there, I’d look to the more proximate causes: perhaps the way we structure our political campaigns makes it very unlikely that any politician is going criticize a politically powerful group, like law enforcement.
There are very few prominent voices calling for review of how our police agencies work. More now, especially since Ferguson. But a few years ago…Greenwald and Balko were about as prominent as you get on that topic. In other words, not at all. Even now, I wouldn’t consider concern over police behavior anywhere close to mainstream.
It’s far too easy to turn a specific criticism of an officer and incident into a general criticism of every police officer. Any politician, mayor, governor, etc is extremely cautious of making such a criticism, as an opponent will try to use it against him in the next campaign.
I have to agree with Brett that reviving the CCC would be a good thing. Certainly we have a lot of infrastructure work that is in dire need of being done.
Just two problems. The Republicans would refuse to spend the money, both on principle and on the grounds that government can never do anything constructive. The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.” So neither side would agree to it. Pity. We could use it.
I have to agree with Brett that reviving the CCC would be a good thing. Certainly we have a lot of infrastructure work that is in dire need of being done.
Just two problems. The Republicans would refuse to spend the money, both on principle and on the grounds that government can never do anything constructive. The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.” So neither side would agree to it. Pity. We could use it.
I have to agree with Brett that reviving the CCC would be a good thing. Certainly we have a lot of infrastructure work that is in dire need of being done.
Just two problems. The Republicans would refuse to spend the money, both on principle and on the grounds that government can never do anything constructive. The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.” So neither side would agree to it. Pity. We could use it.
i’ll be the broken record…
we like violence.
we enjoy inflicting it and we enjoy watching it be inflicted. from our non-stop war-making and our ludicrously over-sized military, to our over-powered and trigger-happy local law enforcement, to the people who line up on the border dressed as soldiers so that they can be mete out vigilante justice, to the millions of people who sit in their dens fondly stroking their guns and waiting for the day that they can use them to kill an intruder or to Stand Their Ground against someone who looks at them funny. we relish the chance to bring pain to anyone who is wrong about something. our TV, movies, books and even many of our songs (“We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way”, “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”, countless rap songs about guns, etc.), glorify violence and make the dishing-out of violent justice seem like a noble and honorable pursuit. we can’t get enough reality TV shows and stuff like ‘Maury’ where we giggle at people who beat each other up over perceived slights.
and we panic when a nipple is shown in the middle of a violent sporting event.
the only time we don’t like violence is when we’re the target. and then we want to respond violently.
we are a violent and self-righteous society, and police are simply part of it. and on top of that, they get paid to be violent. and so they are.
how we got so violent i don’t know. but it’s not an inner city problem, it’s a fundamental problem with America as a whole.
i’ll be the broken record…
we like violence.
we enjoy inflicting it and we enjoy watching it be inflicted. from our non-stop war-making and our ludicrously over-sized military, to our over-powered and trigger-happy local law enforcement, to the people who line up on the border dressed as soldiers so that they can be mete out vigilante justice, to the millions of people who sit in their dens fondly stroking their guns and waiting for the day that they can use them to kill an intruder or to Stand Their Ground against someone who looks at them funny. we relish the chance to bring pain to anyone who is wrong about something. our TV, movies, books and even many of our songs (“We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way”, “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”, countless rap songs about guns, etc.), glorify violence and make the dishing-out of violent justice seem like a noble and honorable pursuit. we can’t get enough reality TV shows and stuff like ‘Maury’ where we giggle at people who beat each other up over perceived slights.
and we panic when a nipple is shown in the middle of a violent sporting event.
the only time we don’t like violence is when we’re the target. and then we want to respond violently.
we are a violent and self-righteous society, and police are simply part of it. and on top of that, they get paid to be violent. and so they are.
how we got so violent i don’t know. but it’s not an inner city problem, it’s a fundamental problem with America as a whole.
i’ll be the broken record…
we like violence.
we enjoy inflicting it and we enjoy watching it be inflicted. from our non-stop war-making and our ludicrously over-sized military, to our over-powered and trigger-happy local law enforcement, to the people who line up on the border dressed as soldiers so that they can be mete out vigilante justice, to the millions of people who sit in their dens fondly stroking their guns and waiting for the day that they can use them to kill an intruder or to Stand Their Ground against someone who looks at them funny. we relish the chance to bring pain to anyone who is wrong about something. our TV, movies, books and even many of our songs (“We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way”, “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”, countless rap songs about guns, etc.), glorify violence and make the dishing-out of violent justice seem like a noble and honorable pursuit. we can’t get enough reality TV shows and stuff like ‘Maury’ where we giggle at people who beat each other up over perceived slights.
and we panic when a nipple is shown in the middle of a violent sporting event.
the only time we don’t like violence is when we’re the target. and then we want to respond violently.
we are a violent and self-righteous society, and police are simply part of it. and on top of that, they get paid to be violent. and so they are.
how we got so violent i don’t know. but it’s not an inner city problem, it’s a fundamental problem with America as a whole.
The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.”
Citation required. Really, wj, I thought better of your integrity than this “both sides do it”-ism.
The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.”
Citation required. Really, wj, I thought better of your integrity than this “both sides do it”-ism.
The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.”
Citation required. Really, wj, I thought better of your integrity than this “both sides do it”-ism.
I think you could get Republicans to agree to a revival of the CCC, if it were pitched as a replacement for transfer programs,rather than a new program. “Let’s get some work out of them!” would be a line Republicans would like.
“Certainly we have a lot of infrastructure work that is in dire need of being done.”
Which is an interesting thing to note, after many billions in stimulus were supposed to be spent on exactly that. Got diverted to other uses that were better suited to vote buying and laundering, I expect.
We do have a lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading, but that’s a separate issue, you’re not going to employ many people stocking critical transformers for utilities. Maybe digging ditches to bury power lines, which is something we really ought to be doing.
I think you could get Republicans to agree to a revival of the CCC, if it were pitched as a replacement for transfer programs,rather than a new program. “Let’s get some work out of them!” would be a line Republicans would like.
“Certainly we have a lot of infrastructure work that is in dire need of being done.”
Which is an interesting thing to note, after many billions in stimulus were supposed to be spent on exactly that. Got diverted to other uses that were better suited to vote buying and laundering, I expect.
We do have a lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading, but that’s a separate issue, you’re not going to employ many people stocking critical transformers for utilities. Maybe digging ditches to bury power lines, which is something we really ought to be doing.
I think you could get Republicans to agree to a revival of the CCC, if it were pitched as a replacement for transfer programs,rather than a new program. “Let’s get some work out of them!” would be a line Republicans would like.
“Certainly we have a lot of infrastructure work that is in dire need of being done.”
Which is an interesting thing to note, after many billions in stimulus were supposed to be spent on exactly that. Got diverted to other uses that were better suited to vote buying and laundering, I expect.
We do have a lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading, but that’s a separate issue, you’re not going to employ many people stocking critical transformers for utilities. Maybe digging ditches to bury power lines, which is something we really ought to be doing.
welfare moms digging ditches.
are they using backhoes and ditch witches or are we just getting off on forced labor here?
What’s the hourly pay?
welfare moms digging ditches.
are they using backhoes and ditch witches or are we just getting off on forced labor here?
What’s the hourly pay?
welfare moms digging ditches.
are they using backhoes and ditch witches or are we just getting off on forced labor here?
What’s the hourly pay?
snarki, see Maher’s Natures New Deal on the way the unions reacted the first time around.
Today, the really robust unions are government employees. I.e. those workers who would otherwise be doing the jobs that most of a potential CCC would be doing. So they seem hardly likely to embrace the idea. And, as you are no doubt aware, those unions are significant supporters of the Democrats.
snarki, see Maher’s Natures New Deal on the way the unions reacted the first time around.
Today, the really robust unions are government employees. I.e. those workers who would otherwise be doing the jobs that most of a potential CCC would be doing. So they seem hardly likely to embrace the idea. And, as you are no doubt aware, those unions are significant supporters of the Democrats.
snarki, see Maher’s Natures New Deal on the way the unions reacted the first time around.
Today, the really robust unions are government employees. I.e. those workers who would otherwise be doing the jobs that most of a potential CCC would be doing. So they seem hardly likely to embrace the idea. And, as you are no doubt aware, those unions are significant supporters of the Democrats.
Brett, you may be right. But I was thinking more of maintenance work. On highways, for example. Or in the National Parks. And in both cases, it would end up costing somewhat more than we are currently spending.
Brett, you may be right. But I was thinking more of maintenance work. On highways, for example. Or in the National Parks. And in both cases, it would end up costing somewhat more than we are currently spending.
Brett, you may be right. But I was thinking more of maintenance work. On highways, for example. Or in the National Parks. And in both cases, it would end up costing somewhat more than we are currently spending.
i’ll be the broken record…
we like violence.
Agreed, and I agree with everything in cleek’s 11:11. And most of everything else he writes.
Which is an interesting thing to note, after many billions in stimulus were supposed to be spent on exactly that. Got diverted to other uses that were better suited to vote buying and laundering, I expect.
Lots was spent on infrastructure. There’s just a lot more to do.
i’ll be the broken record…
we like violence.
Agreed, and I agree with everything in cleek’s 11:11. And most of everything else he writes.
Which is an interesting thing to note, after many billions in stimulus were supposed to be spent on exactly that. Got diverted to other uses that were better suited to vote buying and laundering, I expect.
Lots was spent on infrastructure. There’s just a lot more to do.
i’ll be the broken record…
we like violence.
Agreed, and I agree with everything in cleek’s 11:11. And most of everything else he writes.
Which is an interesting thing to note, after many billions in stimulus were supposed to be spent on exactly that. Got diverted to other uses that were better suited to vote buying and laundering, I expect.
Lots was spent on infrastructure. There’s just a lot more to do.
According to this,, of the $779 billion, $37.7 billion was spent on “Transportation and infrastructure”, roughly the same amount that went to food stamps. Twice that amount was spent on unemployment benefits.
So, not surprising there’s lot’s left to do, almost all of the stimulus went to anything except “shovel ready projects”.
According to this,, of the $779 billion, $37.7 billion was spent on “Transportation and infrastructure”, roughly the same amount that went to food stamps. Twice that amount was spent on unemployment benefits.
So, not surprising there’s lot’s left to do, almost all of the stimulus went to anything except “shovel ready projects”.
According to this,, of the $779 billion, $37.7 billion was spent on “Transportation and infrastructure”, roughly the same amount that went to food stamps. Twice that amount was spent on unemployment benefits.
So, not surprising there’s lot’s left to do, almost all of the stimulus went to anything except “shovel ready projects”.
The number I like there is the $128 million spent to administer a $779 billion effort.
That’s 16 one-thousandths of one percent – 0.00016 of the total – in overhead.
I call that efficient.
The other numbers all look like appropriate expenditures under the general heading of “stimulus”. To me, anyway.
YMMV
The number I like there is the $128 million spent to administer a $779 billion effort.
That’s 16 one-thousandths of one percent – 0.00016 of the total – in overhead.
I call that efficient.
The other numbers all look like appropriate expenditures under the general heading of “stimulus”. To me, anyway.
YMMV
The number I like there is the $128 million spent to administer a $779 billion effort.
That’s 16 one-thousandths of one percent – 0.00016 of the total – in overhead.
I call that efficient.
The other numbers all look like appropriate expenditures under the general heading of “stimulus”. To me, anyway.
YMMV
cleek:
but it’s not an inner city problem, it’s a fundamental problem with America as a whole.
I’d agree with that, but I think its exacerbated in cities. Even the counter-examples that have been presented in this thread (NYC, Chicago) still have higher violent crime rates than the more rural sections of NY state and Illinois.
It’s worth asking if there are factors known to be associated with crime in cities (such as poverty, inequality, etc), and in fact there are.
I have no fundamental disagreement with Brett or wj on an initiative like the CCC. I think its a good idea. I also would support training and internship programs. The key, I think, is providing people a legal route out of poverty and criminalization, allowing them to invest in and contribute to a community.
cleek:
but it’s not an inner city problem, it’s a fundamental problem with America as a whole.
I’d agree with that, but I think its exacerbated in cities. Even the counter-examples that have been presented in this thread (NYC, Chicago) still have higher violent crime rates than the more rural sections of NY state and Illinois.
It’s worth asking if there are factors known to be associated with crime in cities (such as poverty, inequality, etc), and in fact there are.
I have no fundamental disagreement with Brett or wj on an initiative like the CCC. I think its a good idea. I also would support training and internship programs. The key, I think, is providing people a legal route out of poverty and criminalization, allowing them to invest in and contribute to a community.
cleek:
but it’s not an inner city problem, it’s a fundamental problem with America as a whole.
I’d agree with that, but I think its exacerbated in cities. Even the counter-examples that have been presented in this thread (NYC, Chicago) still have higher violent crime rates than the more rural sections of NY state and Illinois.
It’s worth asking if there are factors known to be associated with crime in cities (such as poverty, inequality, etc), and in fact there are.
I have no fundamental disagreement with Brett or wj on an initiative like the CCC. I think its a good idea. I also would support training and internship programs. The key, I think, is providing people a legal route out of poverty and criminalization, allowing them to invest in and contribute to a community.
of the $779 billion, $37.7 billion was spent on “Transportation and infrastructure”,
out of just under $100B allocated for that.
it’s still underway, though much slower that anyone would like.
of the $779 billion, $37.7 billion was spent on “Transportation and infrastructure”,
out of just under $100B allocated for that.
it’s still underway, though much slower that anyone would like.
of the $779 billion, $37.7 billion was spent on “Transportation and infrastructure”,
out of just under $100B allocated for that.
it’s still underway, though much slower that anyone would like.
I’d agree with that, but I think its exacerbated in cities.
definitely.
and the reasons are many.
i can’t help but think the fact that black and hispanic men are arrested, prosecuted and jailed at far higher rates than white men are, for the same crimes, does wonders to the social fabric of those neighborhoods and to the overall respect for laws and law enforcement.
but that would be blaming white culture. and we know that can’t be right.
I’d agree with that, but I think its exacerbated in cities.
definitely.
and the reasons are many.
i can’t help but think the fact that black and hispanic men are arrested, prosecuted and jailed at far higher rates than white men are, for the same crimes, does wonders to the social fabric of those neighborhoods and to the overall respect for laws and law enforcement.
but that would be blaming white culture. and we know that can’t be right.
I’d agree with that, but I think its exacerbated in cities.
definitely.
and the reasons are many.
i can’t help but think the fact that black and hispanic men are arrested, prosecuted and jailed at far higher rates than white men are, for the same crimes, does wonders to the social fabric of those neighborhoods and to the overall respect for laws and law enforcement.
but that would be blaming white culture. and we know that can’t be right.
What I like is that Brett’s cite says the “800+ billion stimulus” consisted of “Total funds used = $779 billion”.
Then it gives the spending in a bunch of categories. When I add up those numbers, I get $1,379.228 billion.
Libertopian arithmetic, or what?
–TP
What I like is that Brett’s cite says the “800+ billion stimulus” consisted of “Total funds used = $779 billion”.
Then it gives the spending in a bunch of categories. When I add up those numbers, I get $1,379.228 billion.
Libertopian arithmetic, or what?
–TP
What I like is that Brett’s cite says the “800+ billion stimulus” consisted of “Total funds used = $779 billion”.
Then it gives the spending in a bunch of categories. When I add up those numbers, I get $1,379.228 billion.
Libertopian arithmetic, or what?
–TP
Tony – see here.
Tony – see here.
Tony – see here.
Ugh,
My snark may have been too opaque. My point was that if you want to rail against something, you can double-count things to make your case look more impressive to the arithmetically challenged. I note that Brett’s cite gives a link to the generic “recovery.gov”, whereas you cite the specific page that is actually relevant.
I only bring this up because it seems to me that double-counting is a general problem in all sorts of arguments about grand concepts, like “health care” or “crime rates”.
–TP
Ugh,
My snark may have been too opaque. My point was that if you want to rail against something, you can double-count things to make your case look more impressive to the arithmetically challenged. I note that Brett’s cite gives a link to the generic “recovery.gov”, whereas you cite the specific page that is actually relevant.
I only bring this up because it seems to me that double-counting is a general problem in all sorts of arguments about grand concepts, like “health care” or “crime rates”.
–TP
Ugh,
My snark may have been too opaque. My point was that if you want to rail against something, you can double-count things to make your case look more impressive to the arithmetically challenged. I note that Brett’s cite gives a link to the generic “recovery.gov”, whereas you cite the specific page that is actually relevant.
I only bring this up because it seems to me that double-counting is a general problem in all sorts of arguments about grand concepts, like “health care” or “crime rates”.
–TP
cleek:
i can’t help but think the fact that black and hispanic men are arrested, prosecuted and jailed at far higher rates than white men are, for the same crimes, does wonders to the social fabric of those neighborhoods and to the overall respect for laws and law enforcement.
This is a point I’ve been trying to make. I agree 100%.
but that would be blaming white culture.
I view it more as identifying a systemic injustice in the system of justice.
cleek:
i can’t help but think the fact that black and hispanic men are arrested, prosecuted and jailed at far higher rates than white men are, for the same crimes, does wonders to the social fabric of those neighborhoods and to the overall respect for laws and law enforcement.
This is a point I’ve been trying to make. I agree 100%.
but that would be blaming white culture.
I view it more as identifying a systemic injustice in the system of justice.
cleek:
i can’t help but think the fact that black and hispanic men are arrested, prosecuted and jailed at far higher rates than white men are, for the same crimes, does wonders to the social fabric of those neighborhoods and to the overall respect for laws and law enforcement.
This is a point I’ve been trying to make. I agree 100%.
but that would be blaming white culture.
I view it more as identifying a systemic injustice in the system of justice.
“The key, I think, is providing people a legal route out of poverty and criminalization, allowing them to invest in and contribute to a community.”
Yes, but what I think is a crucial part of this, is getting them *out* of communities where there isn’t any real prospect of that.
Newton’s first law really does work with people: If you give people a way to stay in a hopeless situation, but continue to have food an housing, a lot of them will take it. And their children will grow up in a hopeless situation, too, among people who are not roll models of success.
That’s what I mean by ghost towns being better than ghettoes: Ghost towns represent people having left hopeless situations for someplace better. You used to get ghost towns when the local economy collapsed, because there wasn’t any system in place to enable people to live where there weren’t jobs. And that was brutal, but it did result in them moving to someplace else, where they had a chance.
That’s the ugly side effect of welfare: By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes. And that was not a change for the better.
“The key, I think, is providing people a legal route out of poverty and criminalization, allowing them to invest in and contribute to a community.”
Yes, but what I think is a crucial part of this, is getting them *out* of communities where there isn’t any real prospect of that.
Newton’s first law really does work with people: If you give people a way to stay in a hopeless situation, but continue to have food an housing, a lot of them will take it. And their children will grow up in a hopeless situation, too, among people who are not roll models of success.
That’s what I mean by ghost towns being better than ghettoes: Ghost towns represent people having left hopeless situations for someplace better. You used to get ghost towns when the local economy collapsed, because there wasn’t any system in place to enable people to live where there weren’t jobs. And that was brutal, but it did result in them moving to someplace else, where they had a chance.
That’s the ugly side effect of welfare: By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes. And that was not a change for the better.
“The key, I think, is providing people a legal route out of poverty and criminalization, allowing them to invest in and contribute to a community.”
Yes, but what I think is a crucial part of this, is getting them *out* of communities where there isn’t any real prospect of that.
Newton’s first law really does work with people: If you give people a way to stay in a hopeless situation, but continue to have food an housing, a lot of them will take it. And their children will grow up in a hopeless situation, too, among people who are not roll models of success.
That’s what I mean by ghost towns being better than ghettoes: Ghost towns represent people having left hopeless situations for someplace better. You used to get ghost towns when the local economy collapsed, because there wasn’t any system in place to enable people to live where there weren’t jobs. And that was brutal, but it did result in them moving to someplace else, where they had a chance.
That’s the ugly side effect of welfare: By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes. And that was not a change for the better.
Welfare moms digging trenches???…Let us not forget that nearly all of that 30-35% of our economy devoted to “social welfare” goes to aid the needy, the sick, the young, and the elderly…folks who need assistance under any reasonable scheme you care to think of (excludes GOP “do nothing-let the poors die in the gutter” wet dream).
“Let’s get some work out of them!” would be a line
Republicans/DEL> Stalin would like.
Brett needs to touch base with these people.
Welfare moms digging trenches???…Let us not forget that nearly all of that 30-35% of our economy devoted to “social welfare” goes to aid the needy, the sick, the young, and the elderly…folks who need assistance under any reasonable scheme you care to think of (excludes GOP “do nothing-let the poors die in the gutter” wet dream).
“Let’s get some work out of them!” would be a line
Republicans/DEL> Stalin would like.
Brett needs to touch base with these people.
Welfare moms digging trenches???…Let us not forget that nearly all of that 30-35% of our economy devoted to “social welfare” goes to aid the needy, the sick, the young, and the elderly…folks who need assistance under any reasonable scheme you care to think of (excludes GOP “do nothing-let the poors die in the gutter” wet dream).
“Let’s get some work out of them!” would be a line
Republicans/DEL> Stalin would like.
Brett needs to touch base with these people.
“Then it gives the spending in a bunch of categories. When I add up those numbers, I get $1,379.228 billion.”
Yes, if you do a lot of double counting. The first three categories listed add to 100%, the subsequent list is specific items within those categories.
Could have been more clearly written, but I was just looking for a quick reference to how much of the stimulus was spent on infrastructure. Not much of it…
“Then it gives the spending in a bunch of categories. When I add up those numbers, I get $1,379.228 billion.”
Yes, if you do a lot of double counting. The first three categories listed add to 100%, the subsequent list is specific items within those categories.
Could have been more clearly written, but I was just looking for a quick reference to how much of the stimulus was spent on infrastructure. Not much of it…
“Then it gives the spending in a bunch of categories. When I add up those numbers, I get $1,379.228 billion.”
Yes, if you do a lot of double counting. The first three categories listed add to 100%, the subsequent list is specific items within those categories.
Could have been more clearly written, but I was just looking for a quick reference to how much of the stimulus was spent on infrastructure. Not much of it…
whites flee urban areas+whites naturally take jobs and tax base with them+actively promote social policies to separate the races+systematically steal income and/or assets from black people+tilt government programs to favor a certain (ahem)race =
(drum roll, please)……SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE.
whites flee urban areas+whites naturally take jobs and tax base with them+actively promote social policies to separate the races+systematically steal income and/or assets from black people+tilt government programs to favor a certain (ahem)race =
(drum roll, please)……SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE.
whites flee urban areas+whites naturally take jobs and tax base with them+actively promote social policies to separate the races+systematically steal income and/or assets from black people+tilt government programs to favor a certain (ahem)race =
(drum roll, please)……SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE.
By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes
Why is it always ghettos, ghettos, ghettos? What about Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi? Why don’t those folks all just pick up and move to Beverly Hills like Jed Clampett?
Sheesh.
By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes
Why is it always ghettos, ghettos, ghettos? What about Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi? Why don’t those folks all just pick up and move to Beverly Hills like Jed Clampett?
Sheesh.
By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes
Why is it always ghettos, ghettos, ghettos? What about Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi? Why don’t those folks all just pick up and move to Beverly Hills like Jed Clampett?
Sheesh.
Yes, but what I think is a crucial part of this, is getting them *out* of communities where there isn’t any real prospect of that.
What you’re talking about is de-populating areas – some large-ish – in the middle of major American cities.
If you want to be consistent about it, you’re probably also talking about de-populating entire rural communities as well.
That’s a pretty huge waste of whatever is there in terms of built infrastructure. Buildings, water and utility infrastructure, roads, etc. Human infrastructure, too. Family connections, churches, neighborhood associations.
If we’re going to horse around with stuff like this at all, it makes more sense, to me, to look at how to actually rebuild the community in situ.
Historically, that’s proven to be a really hard thing to do, but I’m not sure mass relocation and abandonment of existing communities has a very good resume either.
That’s at least part of what the “urban renewal” thing was all about. The results were mixed.
I suspect there have been rural versions as well.
Yes, but what I think is a crucial part of this, is getting them *out* of communities where there isn’t any real prospect of that.
What you’re talking about is de-populating areas – some large-ish – in the middle of major American cities.
If you want to be consistent about it, you’re probably also talking about de-populating entire rural communities as well.
That’s a pretty huge waste of whatever is there in terms of built infrastructure. Buildings, water and utility infrastructure, roads, etc. Human infrastructure, too. Family connections, churches, neighborhood associations.
If we’re going to horse around with stuff like this at all, it makes more sense, to me, to look at how to actually rebuild the community in situ.
Historically, that’s proven to be a really hard thing to do, but I’m not sure mass relocation and abandonment of existing communities has a very good resume either.
That’s at least part of what the “urban renewal” thing was all about. The results were mixed.
I suspect there have been rural versions as well.
Yes, but what I think is a crucial part of this, is getting them *out* of communities where there isn’t any real prospect of that.
What you’re talking about is de-populating areas – some large-ish – in the middle of major American cities.
If you want to be consistent about it, you’re probably also talking about de-populating entire rural communities as well.
That’s a pretty huge waste of whatever is there in terms of built infrastructure. Buildings, water and utility infrastructure, roads, etc. Human infrastructure, too. Family connections, churches, neighborhood associations.
If we’re going to horse around with stuff like this at all, it makes more sense, to me, to look at how to actually rebuild the community in situ.
Historically, that’s proven to be a really hard thing to do, but I’m not sure mass relocation and abandonment of existing communities has a very good resume either.
That’s at least part of what the “urban renewal” thing was all about. The results were mixed.
I suspect there have been rural versions as well.
Owsley County, KY.
52% of the population receive food stamps.
Government benefits represent 53% of all personal income.
Move ’em out. Send them all to Williston.
Owsley County, KY.
52% of the population receive food stamps.
Government benefits represent 53% of all personal income.
Move ’em out. Send them all to Williston.
Owsley County, KY.
52% of the population receive food stamps.
Government benefits represent 53% of all personal income.
Move ’em out. Send them all to Williston.
russell, you might note that 95% of Owsley County’s registered voters are Republicans (although Romney only got 81% of the votes).
Who says that people don’t vote their pocketbooks above all else?
You might ask why they don’t all up and move to Texas. There are reported to be lots of jobs there.
russell, you might note that 95% of Owsley County’s registered voters are Republicans (although Romney only got 81% of the votes).
Who says that people don’t vote their pocketbooks above all else?
You might ask why they don’t all up and move to Texas. There are reported to be lots of jobs there.
russell, you might note that 95% of Owsley County’s registered voters are Republicans (although Romney only got 81% of the votes).
Who says that people don’t vote their pocketbooks above all else?
You might ask why they don’t all up and move to Texas. There are reported to be lots of jobs there.
I suspect there have been rural versions as well.
A point I was going to make as well, but my post above got truncated…damned html. damned fat gingers.
I suspect there have been rural versions as well.
A point I was going to make as well, but my post above got truncated…damned html. damned fat gingers.
I suspect there have been rural versions as well.
A point I was going to make as well, but my post above got truncated…damned html. damned fat gingers.
If it wasn’t for the grey economy, inner cities and other poor communities would be in even worse shape.
If it wasn’t for the grey economy, inner cities and other poor communities would be in even worse shape.
If it wasn’t for the grey economy, inner cities and other poor communities would be in even worse shape.
What I want to emphasize is that I’m not trying to pick on rural areas. I’m just trying to give a concrete sense of what it would mean to require people to move in order to get stuff like food stamps.
You’d be talking about half the population of Owsley County. It’s about 20% of the entire population of Kentucky.
It’s about a quarter of the people in the Bronx.
And so on.
You’re talking about millions of people in the aggregate. Relocating millions of people as a condition of their receiving basic assistance like food stamps is beyond impractical.
What I want to emphasize is that I’m not trying to pick on rural areas. I’m just trying to give a concrete sense of what it would mean to require people to move in order to get stuff like food stamps.
You’d be talking about half the population of Owsley County. It’s about 20% of the entire population of Kentucky.
It’s about a quarter of the people in the Bronx.
And so on.
You’re talking about millions of people in the aggregate. Relocating millions of people as a condition of their receiving basic assistance like food stamps is beyond impractical.
What I want to emphasize is that I’m not trying to pick on rural areas. I’m just trying to give a concrete sense of what it would mean to require people to move in order to get stuff like food stamps.
You’d be talking about half the population of Owsley County. It’s about 20% of the entire population of Kentucky.
It’s about a quarter of the people in the Bronx.
And so on.
You’re talking about millions of people in the aggregate. Relocating millions of people as a condition of their receiving basic assistance like food stamps is beyond impractical.
Brett: Could have been more clearly written, …
Yes, but it wasn’t. The sloppiness, if intentional, was not meant to fool either you or me.
… but I was just looking for a quick reference to how much of the stimulus was spent on infrastructure. Not much of it…
What category would you have reduced in order to increase “infrastructure”? Or would you just have made the stimulus package bigger? I take it for granted you would not have reduced the tax cuts.
Are schools “infrastructure”? Just the buildings, or the teachers too? Or are schools and teachers simply wasted on the “B” types?
–TP
Brett: Could have been more clearly written, …
Yes, but it wasn’t. The sloppiness, if intentional, was not meant to fool either you or me.
… but I was just looking for a quick reference to how much of the stimulus was spent on infrastructure. Not much of it…
What category would you have reduced in order to increase “infrastructure”? Or would you just have made the stimulus package bigger? I take it for granted you would not have reduced the tax cuts.
Are schools “infrastructure”? Just the buildings, or the teachers too? Or are schools and teachers simply wasted on the “B” types?
–TP
Brett: Could have been more clearly written, …
Yes, but it wasn’t. The sloppiness, if intentional, was not meant to fool either you or me.
… but I was just looking for a quick reference to how much of the stimulus was spent on infrastructure. Not much of it…
What category would you have reduced in order to increase “infrastructure”? Or would you just have made the stimulus package bigger? I take it for granted you would not have reduced the tax cuts.
Are schools “infrastructure”? Just the buildings, or the teachers too? Or are schools and teachers simply wasted on the “B” types?
–TP
What category would you have reduced in order to increase “infrastructure”?
I would have begun by reducing the number of Republican governors of New Jersey by one.
What category would you have reduced in order to increase “infrastructure”?
I would have begun by reducing the number of Republican governors of New Jersey by one.
What category would you have reduced in order to increase “infrastructure”?
I would have begun by reducing the number of Republican governors of New Jersey by one.
“You’re talking about millions of people in the aggregate. Relocating millions of people as a condition of their receiving basic assistance like food stamps is beyond impractical.”
The “beyond” of this scheme is starting to look a little Soviet-like, the 1920s and 1930s.
True, some could stay behind, but then what about those folks? Plenty of empty buildings to squat in, I suppose.
The Bureau of Land Management could deputize them to police federal lands and rustle Bundy’s illegally-grazed cattle and give each family a slaughtered beef cow as payment.
If we’re talking homelessness, I’ve been saving this link for some time in case the subject came up:
http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
Instead of the PolPotian “choices” “given” the homeless, whether they wear eyeglasses or not, around the country, the State of Utah, by bipartisan consent and with great success, has thought up the novel concept of giving the homeless homes to live in.
Imagine that.
If they end up in Williston, I hope the plan includes issuing long underwear, down coats, and good warm hats to the migrants.
Or should they bring shopping baskets full of newspaper with them from inner city Baltimore for insulation?
And when the boom ends, which it will, these folks will be the first to be laid off and the last to leave town after everyone else has fled to the next economic fad.
“You’re talking about millions of people in the aggregate. Relocating millions of people as a condition of their receiving basic assistance like food stamps is beyond impractical.”
The “beyond” of this scheme is starting to look a little Soviet-like, the 1920s and 1930s.
True, some could stay behind, but then what about those folks? Plenty of empty buildings to squat in, I suppose.
The Bureau of Land Management could deputize them to police federal lands and rustle Bundy’s illegally-grazed cattle and give each family a slaughtered beef cow as payment.
If we’re talking homelessness, I’ve been saving this link for some time in case the subject came up:
http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
Instead of the PolPotian “choices” “given” the homeless, whether they wear eyeglasses or not, around the country, the State of Utah, by bipartisan consent and with great success, has thought up the novel concept of giving the homeless homes to live in.
Imagine that.
If they end up in Williston, I hope the plan includes issuing long underwear, down coats, and good warm hats to the migrants.
Or should they bring shopping baskets full of newspaper with them from inner city Baltimore for insulation?
And when the boom ends, which it will, these folks will be the first to be laid off and the last to leave town after everyone else has fled to the next economic fad.
“You’re talking about millions of people in the aggregate. Relocating millions of people as a condition of their receiving basic assistance like food stamps is beyond impractical.”
The “beyond” of this scheme is starting to look a little Soviet-like, the 1920s and 1930s.
True, some could stay behind, but then what about those folks? Plenty of empty buildings to squat in, I suppose.
The Bureau of Land Management could deputize them to police federal lands and rustle Bundy’s illegally-grazed cattle and give each family a slaughtered beef cow as payment.
If we’re talking homelessness, I’ve been saving this link for some time in case the subject came up:
http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
Instead of the PolPotian “choices” “given” the homeless, whether they wear eyeglasses or not, around the country, the State of Utah, by bipartisan consent and with great success, has thought up the novel concept of giving the homeless homes to live in.
Imagine that.
If they end up in Williston, I hope the plan includes issuing long underwear, down coats, and good warm hats to the migrants.
Or should they bring shopping baskets full of newspaper with them from inner city Baltimore for insulation?
And when the boom ends, which it will, these folks will be the first to be laid off and the last to leave town after everyone else has fled to the next economic fad.
The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.”
You must be nearly as old as I am, to remember a time when the Dems actually defended unionism.
That kind of Democrat is pretty much extinct, and has been at least since Clinton’s first term.
The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.”
You must be nearly as old as I am, to remember a time when the Dems actually defended unionism.
That kind of Democrat is pretty much extinct, and has been at least since Clinton’s first term.
The Democrats would refuse to agree to a program which would “take union jobs.”
You must be nearly as old as I am, to remember a time when the Dems actually defended unionism.
That kind of Democrat is pretty much extinct, and has been at least since Clinton’s first term.
Then you should tell the unions how very badly they are wasting their money.
Then you should tell the unions how very badly they are wasting their money.
Then you should tell the unions how very badly they are wasting their money.
I went to an “upper class” high school in the south in the 70s, and I don’t remember a single fight in my time there.
I have now taught in a wide variety of schools, and some had fights on a daily basis. Those were the schools where all the kids had was respect – and if someone disrespected you, you had to fight them.
Seems to me that its the same as Brooks on the Senate floor – the legacy of fighting for respect, whether you are the disrespected poor kid or the police. It always ends badly either way.
I went to an “upper class” high school in the south in the 70s, and I don’t remember a single fight in my time there.
I have now taught in a wide variety of schools, and some had fights on a daily basis. Those were the schools where all the kids had was respect – and if someone disrespected you, you had to fight them.
Seems to me that its the same as Brooks on the Senate floor – the legacy of fighting for respect, whether you are the disrespected poor kid or the police. It always ends badly either way.
I went to an “upper class” high school in the south in the 70s, and I don’t remember a single fight in my time there.
I have now taught in a wide variety of schools, and some had fights on a daily basis. Those were the schools where all the kids had was respect – and if someone disrespected you, you had to fight them.
Seems to me that its the same as Brooks on the Senate floor – the legacy of fighting for respect, whether you are the disrespected poor kid or the police. It always ends badly either way.
Unions are not wasting their money. The lesser of two evils is, in fact, less evil.
And not for nothing, but police unions have been known to back Republicans at all levels.
–TP
Unions are not wasting their money. The lesser of two evils is, in fact, less evil.
And not for nothing, but police unions have been known to back Republicans at all levels.
–TP
Unions are not wasting their money. The lesser of two evils is, in fact, less evil.
And not for nothing, but police unions have been known to back Republicans at all levels.
–TP
Well, in at least one state the support of the police union(s) for the GOP resulted in them being explicitly excepted* from the massive anti-union measures the GOPvernor and his legalislative supGOPters forced through by at least doubtful legal means.
*at least temporarily. Iirc it blew up into everyone’s face due to the quid-pro-quo being so blatant. Can’t remember the details but it might have been that the Teahadists got apolectic about this exemption, so the kapos got stabbed in the back after all.
Well, in at least one state the support of the police union(s) for the GOP resulted in them being explicitly excepted* from the massive anti-union measures the GOPvernor and his legalislative supGOPters forced through by at least doubtful legal means.
*at least temporarily. Iirc it blew up into everyone’s face due to the quid-pro-quo being so blatant. Can’t remember the details but it might have been that the Teahadists got apolectic about this exemption, so the kapos got stabbed in the back after all.
Well, in at least one state the support of the police union(s) for the GOP resulted in them being explicitly excepted* from the massive anti-union measures the GOPvernor and his legalislative supGOPters forced through by at least doubtful legal means.
*at least temporarily. Iirc it blew up into everyone’s face due to the quid-pro-quo being so blatant. Can’t remember the details but it might have been that the Teahadists got apolectic about this exemption, so the kapos got stabbed in the back after all.
Actually, I think the reasoning was that they couldn’t risk a police strike just when the other unions might choose to riot.
Actually, I think the reasoning was that they couldn’t risk a police strike just when the other unions might choose to riot.
Actually, I think the reasoning was that they couldn’t risk a police strike just when the other unions might choose to riot.
“just when the other unions might choose to riot.”
When is the last time a union chose to do that in this country?
Maybe if they showed some gumption and open carried multi-shot weapons in Texas they’d get somewhere and Wayne LaPierre would riot with them in solidarity.
So, these riots, I’ve not heard of any lately.
“just when the other unions might choose to riot.”
When is the last time a union chose to do that in this country?
Maybe if they showed some gumption and open carried multi-shot weapons in Texas they’d get somewhere and Wayne LaPierre would riot with them in solidarity.
So, these riots, I’ve not heard of any lately.
“just when the other unions might choose to riot.”
When is the last time a union chose to do that in this country?
Maybe if they showed some gumption and open carried multi-shot weapons in Texas they’d get somewhere and Wayne LaPierre would riot with them in solidarity.
So, these riots, I’ve not heard of any lately.
Oh, yeah, Beck, Malkin. THAT’s where you got the word “riot”.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/02/17/right-wing-media-freak-out-over-union-protests/176563
I have a brother who misuses the language in a similar way. I was placed in the unfortunate position recently of having a mild intervention with him to head off some behavior that would have caused chaotic circumstances vis a vis my Alzheimer’s-ridden mother and my family, so I bought him lunch and spoke with him in even tones about some behavioral adjustment, and later I heard that behind my back he was telling people that I had read him the Riot Act.
To which I will tell him if he has the guts to tell me that directly, that he obviously has never either read the Riot Act himself (a wordy and repetitive document, as Carlin pointed out) or had it read to him through a f&cking bullhorn with firehoses and slavering dogs on short leashes nearby, which is probably one of his problems, come to think of it.
That there should be riots (not effing sleep-ins and hippie chanting and occupy tent encampments) in this country is a topic for another day, and when that occurs, you may then exercise the language accordingly.
Oh, yeah, Beck, Malkin. THAT’s where you got the word “riot”.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/02/17/right-wing-media-freak-out-over-union-protests/176563
I have a brother who misuses the language in a similar way. I was placed in the unfortunate position recently of having a mild intervention with him to head off some behavior that would have caused chaotic circumstances vis a vis my Alzheimer’s-ridden mother and my family, so I bought him lunch and spoke with him in even tones about some behavioral adjustment, and later I heard that behind my back he was telling people that I had read him the Riot Act.
To which I will tell him if he has the guts to tell me that directly, that he obviously has never either read the Riot Act himself (a wordy and repetitive document, as Carlin pointed out) or had it read to him through a f&cking bullhorn with firehoses and slavering dogs on short leashes nearby, which is probably one of his problems, come to think of it.
That there should be riots (not effing sleep-ins and hippie chanting and occupy tent encampments) in this country is a topic for another day, and when that occurs, you may then exercise the language accordingly.
Oh, yeah, Beck, Malkin. THAT’s where you got the word “riot”.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/02/17/right-wing-media-freak-out-over-union-protests/176563
I have a brother who misuses the language in a similar way. I was placed in the unfortunate position recently of having a mild intervention with him to head off some behavior that would have caused chaotic circumstances vis a vis my Alzheimer’s-ridden mother and my family, so I bought him lunch and spoke with him in even tones about some behavioral adjustment, and later I heard that behind my back he was telling people that I had read him the Riot Act.
To which I will tell him if he has the guts to tell me that directly, that he obviously has never either read the Riot Act himself (a wordy and repetitive document, as Carlin pointed out) or had it read to him through a f&cking bullhorn with firehoses and slavering dogs on short leashes nearby, which is probably one of his problems, come to think of it.
That there should be riots (not effing sleep-ins and hippie chanting and occupy tent encampments) in this country is a topic for another day, and when that occurs, you may then exercise the language accordingly.
“When was the last time a union did that in this country?”
I was at ground zero during the Detroit newspaper strike, living about 15 minutes from one of their printing plants. Bricks through windows of stores that dared to carry the papers were the least of it. Union violence isn’t as ancient of history as you suggest.
They’ve still got their RICO exemption.
“When was the last time a union did that in this country?”
I was at ground zero during the Detroit newspaper strike, living about 15 minutes from one of their printing plants. Bricks through windows of stores that dared to carry the papers were the least of it. Union violence isn’t as ancient of history as you suggest.
They’ve still got their RICO exemption.
“When was the last time a union did that in this country?”
I was at ground zero during the Detroit newspaper strike, living about 15 minutes from one of their printing plants. Bricks through windows of stores that dared to carry the papers were the least of it. Union violence isn’t as ancient of history as you suggest.
They’ve still got their RICO exemption.
cleek says:
We like violence.
I’m not disagreeing, but I’m trying to get you-all to talk about *why*. Why USans like violence so much more than Canadians or Australians, whose cultural backgrounds and histories have so many similarities to ours.
What sets us apart from the other Anglophone colonials is *slavery*. It’s not our “nature”, it’s our history.
The US has a long and terrible history of vigilantism, lynching, and whitecapping: exta-legal, community-sanctioned violence. I’m arguing that this kind of top-down violence has its roots in slavery.
Not only did the elite enslavers like Congressman Brooks have to use direct, personal violence to keep their “property” in line, the system relied on every white man, slave-owning or not, being willing to use threats and violence against any slave.
Black people weren’t just held in slavery by their “owners”, but by every other white man, too. A black person out on their own — walking down a road, for instance — could expect to be stopped and interrogated by any white man who felt like it, and beaten if the white man didn’t like their answers. I hope I don’t have to point out how similar this is to “random” stop-and-frisk policies.
cleek says:
We like violence.
I’m not disagreeing, but I’m trying to get you-all to talk about *why*. Why USans like violence so much more than Canadians or Australians, whose cultural backgrounds and histories have so many similarities to ours.
What sets us apart from the other Anglophone colonials is *slavery*. It’s not our “nature”, it’s our history.
The US has a long and terrible history of vigilantism, lynching, and whitecapping: exta-legal, community-sanctioned violence. I’m arguing that this kind of top-down violence has its roots in slavery.
Not only did the elite enslavers like Congressman Brooks have to use direct, personal violence to keep their “property” in line, the system relied on every white man, slave-owning or not, being willing to use threats and violence against any slave.
Black people weren’t just held in slavery by their “owners”, but by every other white man, too. A black person out on their own — walking down a road, for instance — could expect to be stopped and interrogated by any white man who felt like it, and beaten if the white man didn’t like their answers. I hope I don’t have to point out how similar this is to “random” stop-and-frisk policies.
cleek says:
We like violence.
I’m not disagreeing, but I’m trying to get you-all to talk about *why*. Why USans like violence so much more than Canadians or Australians, whose cultural backgrounds and histories have so many similarities to ours.
What sets us apart from the other Anglophone colonials is *slavery*. It’s not our “nature”, it’s our history.
The US has a long and terrible history of vigilantism, lynching, and whitecapping: exta-legal, community-sanctioned violence. I’m arguing that this kind of top-down violence has its roots in slavery.
Not only did the elite enslavers like Congressman Brooks have to use direct, personal violence to keep their “property” in line, the system relied on every white man, slave-owning or not, being willing to use threats and violence against any slave.
Black people weren’t just held in slavery by their “owners”, but by every other white man, too. A black person out on their own — walking down a road, for instance — could expect to be stopped and interrogated by any white man who felt like it, and beaten if the white man didn’t like their answers. I hope I don’t have to point out how similar this is to “random” stop-and-frisk policies.
And I’m pointing out that there’s an awful lot of heterogeneity being elided in that “us” of your’s.
Same history, widely different levels of violence. Maybe there’s some other, very important variable in there?
Anyway, here’s hoping for a Thanksgiving recipe thread in time for pre-Thanksgiving grocery shopping.
And I’m pointing out that there’s an awful lot of heterogeneity being elided in that “us” of your’s.
Same history, widely different levels of violence. Maybe there’s some other, very important variable in there?
Anyway, here’s hoping for a Thanksgiving recipe thread in time for pre-Thanksgiving grocery shopping.
And I’m pointing out that there’s an awful lot of heterogeneity being elided in that “us” of your’s.
Same history, widely different levels of violence. Maybe there’s some other, very important variable in there?
Anyway, here’s hoping for a Thanksgiving recipe thread in time for pre-Thanksgiving grocery shopping.
geographylady:
The point I’m trying to make is that Congressman Brooks, unlike your fighting students, was not by any means someone who *only* had respect. He was wealthy and powerful, he should have had *lots* of non-violent ways to gain and hold respect.
But the trouble for him was that much of his wealth was in the form of human beings — wealth that fights back, that really doesn’t want to be wealth. Their “respect” for him had to be based on violence and fear — so he was used to the idea that violent retribution was the *only* way to truly be respected.
And other Southern white men agreed with him, they thought his behavior was appropriate, manly, and admirable.
I’m saying we still see some of that standard today. Americans *like* bullies, angry men who “take the law into their own hands”, tough guys who “do what needs to be done”, men who will retaliate with violence — even when they have lots of other avenues to get respect.
This is not our “nature”, this is our history — the history of slavery, which infects all of us, North and South, black and white, men and women. And we have to understand and face the past if we’re going to escape it.
geographylady:
The point I’m trying to make is that Congressman Brooks, unlike your fighting students, was not by any means someone who *only* had respect. He was wealthy and powerful, he should have had *lots* of non-violent ways to gain and hold respect.
But the trouble for him was that much of his wealth was in the form of human beings — wealth that fights back, that really doesn’t want to be wealth. Their “respect” for him had to be based on violence and fear — so he was used to the idea that violent retribution was the *only* way to truly be respected.
And other Southern white men agreed with him, they thought his behavior was appropriate, manly, and admirable.
I’m saying we still see some of that standard today. Americans *like* bullies, angry men who “take the law into their own hands”, tough guys who “do what needs to be done”, men who will retaliate with violence — even when they have lots of other avenues to get respect.
This is not our “nature”, this is our history — the history of slavery, which infects all of us, North and South, black and white, men and women. And we have to understand and face the past if we’re going to escape it.
geographylady:
The point I’m trying to make is that Congressman Brooks, unlike your fighting students, was not by any means someone who *only* had respect. He was wealthy and powerful, he should have had *lots* of non-violent ways to gain and hold respect.
But the trouble for him was that much of his wealth was in the form of human beings — wealth that fights back, that really doesn’t want to be wealth. Their “respect” for him had to be based on violence and fear — so he was used to the idea that violent retribution was the *only* way to truly be respected.
And other Southern white men agreed with him, they thought his behavior was appropriate, manly, and admirable.
I’m saying we still see some of that standard today. Americans *like* bullies, angry men who “take the law into their own hands”, tough guys who “do what needs to be done”, men who will retaliate with violence — even when they have lots of other avenues to get respect.
This is not our “nature”, this is our history — the history of slavery, which infects all of us, North and South, black and white, men and women. And we have to understand and face the past if we’re going to escape it.
Europeans have the crusades, hundred years wars, the middle east has thousands of years of wars, the Mongols roamed, Asia, I could go on but violence ids by no means uniquely American. In lots of ways comparing the US to anywhere else loses the key genetic marker that created America, the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination. Those
are the people who came here to escape poverty and persecution. Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war. I could go on but if slavery is a continuing contributing factor its probably because their ancestors were part of a minority that didn’t come to achieve something, there was no natural selection for the same traits. Just another way to look at it. Heck Canadians never quit being European.
Europeans have the crusades, hundred years wars, the middle east has thousands of years of wars, the Mongols roamed, Asia, I could go on but violence ids by no means uniquely American. In lots of ways comparing the US to anywhere else loses the key genetic marker that created America, the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination. Those
are the people who came here to escape poverty and persecution. Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war. I could go on but if slavery is a continuing contributing factor its probably because their ancestors were part of a minority that didn’t come to achieve something, there was no natural selection for the same traits. Just another way to look at it. Heck Canadians never quit being European.
Europeans have the crusades, hundred years wars, the middle east has thousands of years of wars, the Mongols roamed, Asia, I could go on but violence ids by no means uniquely American. In lots of ways comparing the US to anywhere else loses the key genetic marker that created America, the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination. Those
are the people who came here to escape poverty and persecution. Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war. I could go on but if slavery is a continuing contributing factor its probably because their ancestors were part of a minority that didn’t come to achieve something, there was no natural selection for the same traits. Just another way to look at it. Heck Canadians never quit being European.
Since the US was hardly the only society which had slavery, I would think we could look at other places which had it as well. If they have disproportionate levels of violence, then the hypothesis is supported. If, however, their levels of violence today are not out of line with other, similarly developed and situated countries, then the hypothesis needs to be reconsidered.
Anybody want to start a list of other countries which had slavery? Especially race-based slavery. Brazil, for example, leaps to mind.
Since the US was hardly the only society which had slavery, I would think we could look at other places which had it as well. If they have disproportionate levels of violence, then the hypothesis is supported. If, however, their levels of violence today are not out of line with other, similarly developed and situated countries, then the hypothesis needs to be reconsidered.
Anybody want to start a list of other countries which had slavery? Especially race-based slavery. Brazil, for example, leaps to mind.
Since the US was hardly the only society which had slavery, I would think we could look at other places which had it as well. If they have disproportionate levels of violence, then the hypothesis is supported. If, however, their levels of violence today are not out of line with other, similarly developed and situated countries, then the hypothesis needs to be reconsidered.
Anybody want to start a list of other countries which had slavery? Especially race-based slavery. Brazil, for example, leaps to mind.
Why limit yourself to the past? A number of countries still have slavery today, and the world, shamefully, does not unite to stop it.
Why limit yourself to the past? A number of countries still have slavery today, and the world, shamefully, does not unite to stop it.
Why limit yourself to the past? A number of countries still have slavery today, and the world, shamefully, does not unite to stop it.
I limited myself to the past because we are talking about what remains even after slavery has been abolished in a country.
Not to say that the continued existance of slavery is not shameful. And action should be taken to force those countries (e.g. Mauritania) which still practice it to change.
I limited myself to the past because we are talking about what remains even after slavery has been abolished in a country.
Not to say that the continued existance of slavery is not shameful. And action should be taken to force those countries (e.g. Mauritania) which still practice it to change.
I limited myself to the past because we are talking about what remains even after slavery has been abolished in a country.
Not to say that the continued existance of slavery is not shameful. And action should be taken to force those countries (e.g. Mauritania) which still practice it to change.
Brazil does have very high levels of violent crime.
Brazil does have very high levels of violent crime.
Brazil does have very high levels of violent crime.
>> “just when the other unions might choose to riot.”
> When is the last time a union chose to do that in this country?
The police in Ferguson MO are unionized.
>> “just when the other unions might choose to riot.”
> When is the last time a union chose to do that in this country?
The police in Ferguson MO are unionized.
>> “just when the other unions might choose to riot.”
> When is the last time a union chose to do that in this country?
The police in Ferguson MO are unionized.
Maybe, but I don’t think the rioters are.
Maybe, but I don’t think the rioters are.
Maybe, but I don’t think the rioters are.
In lots of ways comparing the US to anywhere else loses the key genetic marker that created America
Genetic marker? You can’t be serious.
In lots of ways comparing the US to anywhere else loses the key genetic marker that created America
Genetic marker? You can’t be serious.
In lots of ways comparing the US to anywhere else loses the key genetic marker that created America
Genetic marker? You can’t be serious.
They’ve still got their RICO exemption.
Cite needed.
They’ve still got their RICO exemption.
Cite needed.
They’ve still got their RICO exemption.
Cite needed.
Marty, this is an argument founded firmly in Lamarckian genetics. The degree to which individualistic greed and selfish ambition are inherited and not learned behaviors do not in any way, shape, or form appear to correspond to a degree to which such behaviors are uniquely – or even principally – American. I will, however, say that I find it quite disturbing that you seem to want to reduce the “American spirit” to an unthinking, instinctual, individualistic avarice.
Marty, this is an argument founded firmly in Lamarckian genetics. The degree to which individualistic greed and selfish ambition are inherited and not learned behaviors do not in any way, shape, or form appear to correspond to a degree to which such behaviors are uniquely – or even principally – American. I will, however, say that I find it quite disturbing that you seem to want to reduce the “American spirit” to an unthinking, instinctual, individualistic avarice.
Marty, this is an argument founded firmly in Lamarckian genetics. The degree to which individualistic greed and selfish ambition are inherited and not learned behaviors do not in any way, shape, or form appear to correspond to a degree to which such behaviors are uniquely – or even principally – American. I will, however, say that I find it quite disturbing that you seem to want to reduce the “American spirit” to an unthinking, instinctual, individualistic avarice.
(To say nothing of the blinkered idealism required to decree that countless millions of immigrants of exceedingly disparate origins over the preceding several centuries shared not only identical motivations for immigrating, but an identical genetic predisposition towards a very specific definition of “freedom”.)
(To say nothing of the blinkered idealism required to decree that countless millions of immigrants of exceedingly disparate origins over the preceding several centuries shared not only identical motivations for immigrating, but an identical genetic predisposition towards a very specific definition of “freedom”.)
(To say nothing of the blinkered idealism required to decree that countless millions of immigrants of exceedingly disparate origins over the preceding several centuries shared not only identical motivations for immigrating, but an identical genetic predisposition towards a very specific definition of “freedom”.)
Another take on the Detroit Newspaper Strike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPdxlWGwqYQ
Brett trots out the standard issue corporate thugocracy view of labor relations in the USA. it is, to put it charitably, propaganda.
Another take on the Detroit Newspaper Strike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPdxlWGwqYQ
Brett trots out the standard issue corporate thugocracy view of labor relations in the USA. it is, to put it charitably, propaganda.
Another take on the Detroit Newspaper Strike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPdxlWGwqYQ
Brett trots out the standard issue corporate thugocracy view of labor relations in the USA. it is, to put it charitably, propaganda.
violence ids by no means uniquely American.
I think the argument being advanced is that the US is significantly more violent than similar nations – developed nations with mature economies and at least nominally coherent governments – when considered today, as opposed to 1,000 years ago.
That seems like a pretty solid claim, to me.
the key genetic marker that created America, the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination.
This strikes me as a pretty romantic reading of the history.
Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war.
It’s also full of people living successful, accomplished, satisfying lives, as Europeans.
violence ids by no means uniquely American.
I think the argument being advanced is that the US is significantly more violent than similar nations – developed nations with mature economies and at least nominally coherent governments – when considered today, as opposed to 1,000 years ago.
That seems like a pretty solid claim, to me.
the key genetic marker that created America, the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination.
This strikes me as a pretty romantic reading of the history.
Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war.
It’s also full of people living successful, accomplished, satisfying lives, as Europeans.
violence ids by no means uniquely American.
I think the argument being advanced is that the US is significantly more violent than similar nations – developed nations with mature economies and at least nominally coherent governments – when considered today, as opposed to 1,000 years ago.
That seems like a pretty solid claim, to me.
the key genetic marker that created America, the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination.
This strikes me as a pretty romantic reading of the history.
Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war.
It’s also full of people living successful, accomplished, satisfying lives, as Europeans.
“Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war.”
The Poles, a happy people thru it all, have always been stuck with the highest war deductibles and copays.
Fractured Fairy Tales comes to mind.
So does the newly established Texas school history curriculum.
“the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination.”
Yes, the main chance was seized.
The rivers of blood flowing from the hacking and the scalping and the buffalo hunters amtraking thru the food supply are smoothly elided here.
Our forefathers were nothing more than Comanche raiding parties in britches sporting gunpowder.
That it led to Google, Cisco Systems, and Colgate Palmolive is meaningless to cold-hearted comets heading our way.
“its probably because their ancestors were part of a minority that didn’t come to achieve something,”
Yes, when they purchased the cruise line tickets with the opportunity scholarships they had no idea a deficient number of bags of cotton picked would yield merciless whuppings and their women being ass-f*cked by Strom Thurmond for a good two centuries.
They figured they’d have a choice between the Big Mac, the Whopper, and the Baconator as the highest expression of human freedom.
I don’t know what sort of history is being trotted out here.
It’s innocence reminds me somehow of Tiny Tim’s falsetto faith in Miss Vicki on the Tonight Show.
“Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war.”
The Poles, a happy people thru it all, have always been stuck with the highest war deductibles and copays.
Fractured Fairy Tales comes to mind.
So does the newly established Texas school history curriculum.
“the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination.”
Yes, the main chance was seized.
The rivers of blood flowing from the hacking and the scalping and the buffalo hunters amtraking thru the food supply are smoothly elided here.
Our forefathers were nothing more than Comanche raiding parties in britches sporting gunpowder.
That it led to Google, Cisco Systems, and Colgate Palmolive is meaningless to cold-hearted comets heading our way.
“its probably because their ancestors were part of a minority that didn’t come to achieve something,”
Yes, when they purchased the cruise line tickets with the opportunity scholarships they had no idea a deficient number of bags of cotton picked would yield merciless whuppings and their women being ass-f*cked by Strom Thurmond for a good two centuries.
They figured they’d have a choice between the Big Mac, the Whopper, and the Baconator as the highest expression of human freedom.
I don’t know what sort of history is being trotted out here.
It’s innocence reminds me somehow of Tiny Tim’s falsetto faith in Miss Vicki on the Tonight Show.
“Europe is full of those people happy to be ruled by whoever won the latest war.”
The Poles, a happy people thru it all, have always been stuck with the highest war deductibles and copays.
Fractured Fairy Tales comes to mind.
So does the newly established Texas school history curriculum.
“the desire to live in a society that valued freedom of the individual to achieve prosperity beyond imagination.”
Yes, the main chance was seized.
The rivers of blood flowing from the hacking and the scalping and the buffalo hunters amtraking thru the food supply are smoothly elided here.
Our forefathers were nothing more than Comanche raiding parties in britches sporting gunpowder.
That it led to Google, Cisco Systems, and Colgate Palmolive is meaningless to cold-hearted comets heading our way.
“its probably because their ancestors were part of a minority that didn’t come to achieve something,”
Yes, when they purchased the cruise line tickets with the opportunity scholarships they had no idea a deficient number of bags of cotton picked would yield merciless whuppings and their women being ass-f*cked by Strom Thurmond for a good two centuries.
They figured they’d have a choice between the Big Mac, the Whopper, and the Baconator as the highest expression of human freedom.
I don’t know what sort of history is being trotted out here.
It’s innocence reminds me somehow of Tiny Tim’s falsetto faith in Miss Vicki on the Tonight Show.
Violence within the US is bad enough, but take a look at US foreign policy:
Violence, overt and covert, executed or threatened is the distinguishing feature of US foreign policy since WW2, the number of foreigners killed and maimed by US forces and their proxies is outrageously high – no other country, democratic or not, even comes close.
Violence within the US is bad enough, but take a look at US foreign policy:
Violence, overt and covert, executed or threatened is the distinguishing feature of US foreign policy since WW2, the number of foreigners killed and maimed by US forces and their proxies is outrageously high – no other country, democratic or not, even comes close.
Violence within the US is bad enough, but take a look at US foreign policy:
Violence, overt and covert, executed or threatened is the distinguishing feature of US foreign policy since WW2, the number of foreigners killed and maimed by US forces and their proxies is outrageously high – no other country, democratic or not, even comes close.
Cite needed.
US v Enmons
“Brett trots out the standard issue corporate thugocracy view of labor relations in the USA.”
Brett trots out what happened in front of his own two eyes.
Cite needed.
US v Enmons
“Brett trots out the standard issue corporate thugocracy view of labor relations in the USA.”
Brett trots out what happened in front of his own two eyes.
Cite needed.
US v Enmons
“Brett trots out the standard issue corporate thugocracy view of labor relations in the USA.”
Brett trots out what happened in front of his own two eyes.
Benghazi!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/
Benghazi!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/
Benghazi!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/
US v Enmons
Not exactly correct. That case exempted unions from prosecution under the Hobbs Act, not RICO. There is no “RICO exemption” per se. There is a well recognized preemption of labor violence associated with legitimate labor disputes from prosecution under federal anti-racketeering law (such acts are still illegal under state/local laws).
For a more nuanced view see here.
For another more recent chilling example of the misapplication of RICO to quash union organizing activity, see the the Smithfield Foods case. I see no exemption there, do you?
In passing, it is also noted that the criminal activities of anti-abortion activists is also exempt from RICO (cf. NOW vs. Scheidler). But I guess you are OK with anti-abortion violence.
US v Enmons
Not exactly correct. That case exempted unions from prosecution under the Hobbs Act, not RICO. There is no “RICO exemption” per se. There is a well recognized preemption of labor violence associated with legitimate labor disputes from prosecution under federal anti-racketeering law (such acts are still illegal under state/local laws).
For a more nuanced view see here.
For another more recent chilling example of the misapplication of RICO to quash union organizing activity, see the the Smithfield Foods case. I see no exemption there, do you?
In passing, it is also noted that the criminal activities of anti-abortion activists is also exempt from RICO (cf. NOW vs. Scheidler). But I guess you are OK with anti-abortion violence.
US v Enmons
Not exactly correct. That case exempted unions from prosecution under the Hobbs Act, not RICO. There is no “RICO exemption” per se. There is a well recognized preemption of labor violence associated with legitimate labor disputes from prosecution under federal anti-racketeering law (such acts are still illegal under state/local laws).
For a more nuanced view see here.
For another more recent chilling example of the misapplication of RICO to quash union organizing activity, see the the Smithfield Foods case. I see no exemption there, do you?
In passing, it is also noted that the criminal activities of anti-abortion activists is also exempt from RICO (cf. NOW vs. Scheidler). But I guess you are OK with anti-abortion violence.
Marty:
You should be aware that the “science” in “Doctor Science” is evolutionary biology and population genetics. For best results:
a) do not use terms like “it’s in our DNA” when you’re talking about something that’s not in our DNA
b) do not say “natural selection” unless you’re actually talking about natural selection
Marty:
You should be aware that the “science” in “Doctor Science” is evolutionary biology and population genetics. For best results:
a) do not use terms like “it’s in our DNA” when you’re talking about something that’s not in our DNA
b) do not say “natural selection” unless you’re actually talking about natural selection
Marty:
You should be aware that the “science” in “Doctor Science” is evolutionary biology and population genetics. For best results:
a) do not use terms like “it’s in our DNA” when you’re talking about something that’s not in our DNA
b) do not say “natural selection” unless you’re actually talking about natural selection
doc Science,
Its best not to be a pain. If you don’ think millions of people settling a “new world” didn’t create a certain gene pool that would include some behavioral similarities you should take the energy to explain why as Ianaeb.
doc Science,
Its best not to be a pain. If you don’ think millions of people settling a “new world” didn’t create a certain gene pool that would include some behavioral similarities you should take the energy to explain why as Ianaeb.
doc Science,
Its best not to be a pain. If you don’ think millions of people settling a “new world” didn’t create a certain gene pool that would include some behavioral similarities you should take the energy to explain why as Ianaeb.
but I’m trying to get you-all to talk about *why*.
seems like we’ve all agreed that nobody knows why.
maybe it’s because the country was founded as a frontier society with a weak government and a strong indigenous enemy. kill or be killed was the way things went for the first 300 years.
maybe it’s because guns are so ingrained in our culture.
maybe it’s because we sucked down too much lead.
but I’m trying to get you-all to talk about *why*.
seems like we’ve all agreed that nobody knows why.
maybe it’s because the country was founded as a frontier society with a weak government and a strong indigenous enemy. kill or be killed was the way things went for the first 300 years.
maybe it’s because guns are so ingrained in our culture.
maybe it’s because we sucked down too much lead.
but I’m trying to get you-all to talk about *why*.
seems like we’ve all agreed that nobody knows why.
maybe it’s because the country was founded as a frontier society with a weak government and a strong indigenous enemy. kill or be killed was the way things went for the first 300 years.
maybe it’s because guns are so ingrained in our culture.
maybe it’s because we sucked down too much lead.
This is not our “nature”, this is our history
it’s our culture, our society, our laws.
it might also be biological (lead).
This is not our “nature”, this is our history
it’s our culture, our society, our laws.
it might also be biological (lead).
This is not our “nature”, this is our history
it’s our culture, our society, our laws.
it might also be biological (lead).
Maybe a culture that has combined sucking down biological lead with a dysunctional gun fetish fueled by the shallow end of the gene pool, ie the NRA, the RNC, etc, leads to sucking down too much lead (and copper and brass) in the form of bullets:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ferguson-woman-kills-self-gun-accident
Maybe a culture that has combined sucking down biological lead with a dysunctional gun fetish fueled by the shallow end of the gene pool, ie the NRA, the RNC, etc, leads to sucking down too much lead (and copper and brass) in the form of bullets:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ferguson-woman-kills-self-gun-accident
Maybe a culture that has combined sucking down biological lead with a dysunctional gun fetish fueled by the shallow end of the gene pool, ie the NRA, the RNC, etc, leads to sucking down too much lead (and copper and brass) in the form of bullets:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ferguson-woman-kills-self-gun-accident
The difficulty with the thesis that it is biological rather than (sub) cultural is this: the prevelance of violence within our country varies drastically from place to place. And yet, biologically we are all pretty thoroughly stirred around, and getting more so, with no really substantive differences from one place to another — the melting pot is a lot more than just a figure of speech.
So there isn’t really a gene pool that is distinct to the violent parts of the country. There are, however, cultural differences, both between different areas of the country and between various rural, suburban, and urban areas.
The difficulty with the thesis that it is biological rather than (sub) cultural is this: the prevelance of violence within our country varies drastically from place to place. And yet, biologically we are all pretty thoroughly stirred around, and getting more so, with no really substantive differences from one place to another — the melting pot is a lot more than just a figure of speech.
So there isn’t really a gene pool that is distinct to the violent parts of the country. There are, however, cultural differences, both between different areas of the country and between various rural, suburban, and urban areas.
The difficulty with the thesis that it is biological rather than (sub) cultural is this: the prevelance of violence within our country varies drastically from place to place. And yet, biologically we are all pretty thoroughly stirred around, and getting more so, with no really substantive differences from one place to another — the melting pot is a lot more than just a figure of speech.
So there isn’t really a gene pool that is distinct to the violent parts of the country. There are, however, cultural differences, both between different areas of the country and between various rural, suburban, and urban areas.
wj, The problem with the we are all biologically the same therefore… argument is that it doesn’t take into account the external factors that would make “all” of us react similarly. These could be quite different stimuli across America, and be the same breadth of stimuli that occurs in other countries, yet we could react differently to each set of stimuli based on biology, and, of course, the culture. Or not, per Doc.
wj, The problem with the we are all biologically the same therefore… argument is that it doesn’t take into account the external factors that would make “all” of us react similarly. These could be quite different stimuli across America, and be the same breadth of stimuli that occurs in other countries, yet we could react differently to each set of stimuli based on biology, and, of course, the culture. Or not, per Doc.
wj, The problem with the we are all biologically the same therefore… argument is that it doesn’t take into account the external factors that would make “all” of us react similarly. These could be quite different stimuli across America, and be the same breadth of stimuli that occurs in other countries, yet we could react differently to each set of stimuli based on biology, and, of course, the culture. Or not, per Doc.
But if the same biology reacts differently to the different stimuli, that doesn’t change the fact that it is the same biology.
So unless someone has evidence that our biology (including that of the folks who have come here relatively recently and not yet genetically melted in with the rest) is somehow different from other large swathes of the world….
But if the same biology reacts differently to the different stimuli, that doesn’t change the fact that it is the same biology.
So unless someone has evidence that our biology (including that of the folks who have come here relatively recently and not yet genetically melted in with the rest) is somehow different from other large swathes of the world….
But if the same biology reacts differently to the different stimuli, that doesn’t change the fact that it is the same biology.
So unless someone has evidence that our biology (including that of the folks who have come here relatively recently and not yet genetically melted in with the rest) is somehow different from other large swathes of the world….
If you don’ think millions of people settling a “new world” didn’t create a certain gene pool that would include some behavioral similarities you should take the energy to explain why
I thought the “gene” thing was presented as a metaphor. I’m somewhat surprised to find that it’s being presented as a realistic proposal.
All kinds of people came here, for all kinds of reasons. The government where they lived treated them badly, they thought they could get rich, they were given the choice of emigrate or go to jail, they were sentenced to come here as their particular form of jail, it seemed like a better idea than starving, somebody kidnapped them and sold them to somebody here.
What is the common and distinctive “gene marker” of that lot?
A quite common personal “marker” for many of them was emigration as the only alternative to jail, miserable death, or total ruin.
If you don’ think millions of people settling a “new world” didn’t create a certain gene pool that would include some behavioral similarities you should take the energy to explain why
I thought the “gene” thing was presented as a metaphor. I’m somewhat surprised to find that it’s being presented as a realistic proposal.
All kinds of people came here, for all kinds of reasons. The government where they lived treated them badly, they thought they could get rich, they were given the choice of emigrate or go to jail, they were sentenced to come here as their particular form of jail, it seemed like a better idea than starving, somebody kidnapped them and sold them to somebody here.
What is the common and distinctive “gene marker” of that lot?
A quite common personal “marker” for many of them was emigration as the only alternative to jail, miserable death, or total ruin.
If you don’ think millions of people settling a “new world” didn’t create a certain gene pool that would include some behavioral similarities you should take the energy to explain why
I thought the “gene” thing was presented as a metaphor. I’m somewhat surprised to find that it’s being presented as a realistic proposal.
All kinds of people came here, for all kinds of reasons. The government where they lived treated them badly, they thought they could get rich, they were given the choice of emigrate or go to jail, they were sentenced to come here as their particular form of jail, it seemed like a better idea than starving, somebody kidnapped them and sold them to somebody here.
What is the common and distinctive “gene marker” of that lot?
A quite common personal “marker” for many of them was emigration as the only alternative to jail, miserable death, or total ruin.
“For a country located in the Americas, the United states has a relatively low murder rate. Canada and Chile are the exceptions. I suspect the issue is cultural, but but I don’t know how much of a role slavery played in it.”
That’s consistent with the slavery hypothesis, since much of the Americas had an even higher slavery rate too.
By the way, last I looked into this, the discrepancy in homicide rates between the US and other top-tier economies was much greater than the discrepancy in overall crime or even violence rates. People get murdered a lot in the US largely because our violence is more likely to be lethal than other countries’ violence. I have no trouble believing that’s largely down to the availability of guns (and the partly consequent eagerness of our police to use theirs).
“For a country located in the Americas, the United states has a relatively low murder rate. Canada and Chile are the exceptions. I suspect the issue is cultural, but but I don’t know how much of a role slavery played in it.”
That’s consistent with the slavery hypothesis, since much of the Americas had an even higher slavery rate too.
By the way, last I looked into this, the discrepancy in homicide rates between the US and other top-tier economies was much greater than the discrepancy in overall crime or even violence rates. People get murdered a lot in the US largely because our violence is more likely to be lethal than other countries’ violence. I have no trouble believing that’s largely down to the availability of guns (and the partly consequent eagerness of our police to use theirs).
“For a country located in the Americas, the United states has a relatively low murder rate. Canada and Chile are the exceptions. I suspect the issue is cultural, but but I don’t know how much of a role slavery played in it.”
That’s consistent with the slavery hypothesis, since much of the Americas had an even higher slavery rate too.
By the way, last I looked into this, the discrepancy in homicide rates between the US and other top-tier economies was much greater than the discrepancy in overall crime or even violence rates. People get murdered a lot in the US largely because our violence is more likely to be lethal than other countries’ violence. I have no trouble believing that’s largely down to the availability of guns (and the partly consequent eagerness of our police to use theirs).
Countme-In: I’ve actually been wondering if the inhalation of lead at shooting ranges causes enough neurological damage to have visible social effects. And how one might mitigate that, short of shutting down the shooting ranges. (Get people to wear masks or respirators?)
Countme-In: I’ve actually been wondering if the inhalation of lead at shooting ranges causes enough neurological damage to have visible social effects. And how one might mitigate that, short of shutting down the shooting ranges. (Get people to wear masks or respirators?)
Countme-In: I’ve actually been wondering if the inhalation of lead at shooting ranges causes enough neurological damage to have visible social effects. And how one might mitigate that, short of shutting down the shooting ranges. (Get people to wear masks or respirators?)
“People get murdered a lot in the US”
But… most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals. It’s questionable which side of the ledger their deaths should end up on, society does not clearly suffer when one criminal kills another.
I’d be very interested in seeing a comparison of murder rates that exclude non-criminal victims.
“People get murdered a lot in the US”
But… most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals. It’s questionable which side of the ledger their deaths should end up on, society does not clearly suffer when one criminal kills another.
I’d be very interested in seeing a comparison of murder rates that exclude non-criminal victims.
“People get murdered a lot in the US”
But… most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals. It’s questionable which side of the ledger their deaths should end up on, society does not clearly suffer when one criminal kills another.
I’d be very interested in seeing a comparison of murder rates that exclude non-criminal victims.
“Countme-In: I’ve actually been wondering if the inhalation of lead at shooting ranges causes enough neurological damage to have visible social effects.”
I think likely not. Most gun ranges today are pretty obsessive about ventilation, and it’s more of an issue for childhood exposure than adults.
Firearms are more of a health issue for their users from a hearing standpoint, but I can’t see the solution, (Silencers) being promoted any time soon.
“Countme-In: I’ve actually been wondering if the inhalation of lead at shooting ranges causes enough neurological damage to have visible social effects.”
I think likely not. Most gun ranges today are pretty obsessive about ventilation, and it’s more of an issue for childhood exposure than adults.
Firearms are more of a health issue for their users from a hearing standpoint, but I can’t see the solution, (Silencers) being promoted any time soon.
“Countme-In: I’ve actually been wondering if the inhalation of lead at shooting ranges causes enough neurological damage to have visible social effects.”
I think likely not. Most gun ranges today are pretty obsessive about ventilation, and it’s more of an issue for childhood exposure than adults.
Firearms are more of a health issue for their users from a hearing standpoint, but I can’t see the solution, (Silencers) being promoted any time soon.
most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
Brett, do you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it. I’d just like to see the actual numbers.
most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
Brett, do you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it. I’d just like to see the actual numbers.
most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
Brett, do you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it. I’d just like to see the actual numbers.
It’s certainly our “peculiar institution” in the sense that we regard it as necessary to our way of life, and we refuse to give it up no matter how much it costs us.
Or as Garry Wills memorably put it, the great god Gun is our Moloch: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
It’s certainly our “peculiar institution” in the sense that we regard it as necessary to our way of life, and we refuse to give it up no matter how much it costs us.
Or as Garry Wills memorably put it, the great god Gun is our Moloch: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
It’s certainly our “peculiar institution” in the sense that we regard it as necessary to our way of life, and we refuse to give it up no matter how much it costs us.
Or as Garry Wills memorably put it, the great god Gun is our Moloch: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
In other news, of the some 19,000 people who committed suicide by gunshot in 2010, 100% were suicidal.
Of the 600 or so accidental gun deaths the same year, in addition to the 14,000 to 19,000 accidental gun injuries, the innocent victims were either in the vicinity of a clumsy, inebriated idiot or were themselves clumsy, inebriated, and/or idiotic.
None of the guns used in the above deaths and woundings admitted to having any responsibility whatsoever for the bullets leaving their chambers and were released on their own recognizance after tens of millions of dollars in pro-bono legal intervention.
Some small percentage of the murderers, murderees, suicides and accident victims were descendants of the original passengers and crew who arrived here on the Mayflower.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
In other news, of the some 19,000 people who committed suicide by gunshot in 2010, 100% were suicidal.
Of the 600 or so accidental gun deaths the same year, in addition to the 14,000 to 19,000 accidental gun injuries, the innocent victims were either in the vicinity of a clumsy, inebriated idiot or were themselves clumsy, inebriated, and/or idiotic.
None of the guns used in the above deaths and woundings admitted to having any responsibility whatsoever for the bullets leaving their chambers and were released on their own recognizance after tens of millions of dollars in pro-bono legal intervention.
Some small percentage of the murderers, murderees, suicides and accident victims were descendants of the original passengers and crew who arrived here on the Mayflower.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
In other news, of the some 19,000 people who committed suicide by gunshot in 2010, 100% were suicidal.
Of the 600 or so accidental gun deaths the same year, in addition to the 14,000 to 19,000 accidental gun injuries, the innocent victims were either in the vicinity of a clumsy, inebriated idiot or were themselves clumsy, inebriated, and/or idiotic.
None of the guns used in the above deaths and woundings admitted to having any responsibility whatsoever for the bullets leaving their chambers and were released on their own recognizance after tens of millions of dollars in pro-bono legal intervention.
Some small percentage of the murderers, murderees, suicides and accident victims were descendants of the original passengers and crew who arrived here on the Mayflower.
This joke about traveling to Australia:
Customs and Immigration Agent: Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime?
Traveler: I didn’t realize that was still required.
Or did I read that here?
This joke about traveling to Australia:
Customs and Immigration Agent: Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime?
Traveler: I didn’t realize that was still required.
Or did I read that here?
This joke about traveling to Australia:
Customs and Immigration Agent: Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime?
Traveler: I didn’t realize that was still required.
Or did I read that here?
“People get murdered a lot in the US”
But… most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
And in the context of the OP, the next logical questions are:
Don’t criminals in other places kill each other?
Why are American criminals so uniquely murderous?
Also, fifteen seconds reflection should, I think, put the lie to this:
society does not clearly suffer when one criminal kills another.
For one thing, criminals are not always crack shots. A very long list of additional reasons could easily be elaborated.
“People get murdered a lot in the US”
But… most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
And in the context of the OP, the next logical questions are:
Don’t criminals in other places kill each other?
Why are American criminals so uniquely murderous?
Also, fifteen seconds reflection should, I think, put the lie to this:
society does not clearly suffer when one criminal kills another.
For one thing, criminals are not always crack shots. A very long list of additional reasons could easily be elaborated.
“People get murdered a lot in the US”
But… most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
And in the context of the OP, the next logical questions are:
Don’t criminals in other places kill each other?
Why are American criminals so uniquely murderous?
Also, fifteen seconds reflection should, I think, put the lie to this:
society does not clearly suffer when one criminal kills another.
For one thing, criminals are not always crack shots. A very long list of additional reasons could easily be elaborated.
I’m a fan of TV/Netflix detective series, and two of my favorites are “Inspector Morse”, and its spinoffs, which take place in Oxford, England, (pop. @150,000) and lately “Wallander” the Swedish series (there was a Brit-produced version which was good, too) set in Ystad, Sweden (population roughly 18,000).
Both countries where the murder and killed-by-cop rates, especially via guns, are quite low per capita compared to the U.S.
Not that you can tell from the series.
The robed Oxford dons, students, and posh townsfolk kept up a weekly pace of murder via all sorts of nefarious means far ahead of British reality and maybe approaching totals in the inner parts of Baltimore just a few years ago.
In Wallander, the tiny, charming port town of Ystatd is on target for a murder rate (mostly via high-powered weaponry and incendiary devices) that may surpass recent totals in Crimea.
So there is an appetite for violent, armed mayhem for entertainment value in both cultures, but the fake stuff far surpasses their paltry real-life quotas.
It would be interesting to add up the annual shootings and other murders on American TV and movies, and see if they approach American reality in the streets, homes and love nests, and schools.
Sometimes even theaters, where there’s more blood shed in the audience than there is on screen.
Maybe even numbers, at best, if you don’t count the Zombie genre, which tells me that American entertainment just barely keeps pace with American reality blood lust, which of course pales to Brazil’s, for example.
Just an observation.
I’m a fan of TV/Netflix detective series, and two of my favorites are “Inspector Morse”, and its spinoffs, which take place in Oxford, England, (pop. @150,000) and lately “Wallander” the Swedish series (there was a Brit-produced version which was good, too) set in Ystad, Sweden (population roughly 18,000).
Both countries where the murder and killed-by-cop rates, especially via guns, are quite low per capita compared to the U.S.
Not that you can tell from the series.
The robed Oxford dons, students, and posh townsfolk kept up a weekly pace of murder via all sorts of nefarious means far ahead of British reality and maybe approaching totals in the inner parts of Baltimore just a few years ago.
In Wallander, the tiny, charming port town of Ystatd is on target for a murder rate (mostly via high-powered weaponry and incendiary devices) that may surpass recent totals in Crimea.
So there is an appetite for violent, armed mayhem for entertainment value in both cultures, but the fake stuff far surpasses their paltry real-life quotas.
It would be interesting to add up the annual shootings and other murders on American TV and movies, and see if they approach American reality in the streets, homes and love nests, and schools.
Sometimes even theaters, where there’s more blood shed in the audience than there is on screen.
Maybe even numbers, at best, if you don’t count the Zombie genre, which tells me that American entertainment just barely keeps pace with American reality blood lust, which of course pales to Brazil’s, for example.
Just an observation.
I’m a fan of TV/Netflix detective series, and two of my favorites are “Inspector Morse”, and its spinoffs, which take place in Oxford, England, (pop. @150,000) and lately “Wallander” the Swedish series (there was a Brit-produced version which was good, too) set in Ystad, Sweden (population roughly 18,000).
Both countries where the murder and killed-by-cop rates, especially via guns, are quite low per capita compared to the U.S.
Not that you can tell from the series.
The robed Oxford dons, students, and posh townsfolk kept up a weekly pace of murder via all sorts of nefarious means far ahead of British reality and maybe approaching totals in the inner parts of Baltimore just a few years ago.
In Wallander, the tiny, charming port town of Ystatd is on target for a murder rate (mostly via high-powered weaponry and incendiary devices) that may surpass recent totals in Crimea.
So there is an appetite for violent, armed mayhem for entertainment value in both cultures, but the fake stuff far surpasses their paltry real-life quotas.
It would be interesting to add up the annual shootings and other murders on American TV and movies, and see if they approach American reality in the streets, homes and love nests, and schools.
Sometimes even theaters, where there’s more blood shed in the audience than there is on screen.
Maybe even numbers, at best, if you don’t count the Zombie genre, which tells me that American entertainment just barely keeps pace with American reality blood lust, which of course pales to Brazil’s, for example.
Just an observation.
“For one thing, criminals are not always crack shots. A very long list of additional reasons could easily be elaborated.”
That would be a good reason to believe that society might suffer when one criminal attempts to kill another, but my statement was notable for the absence of “attempts”.
But, yes, I’d agree that criminals being murderous is not a good thing. Criminals dying at each other’s hands, maybe not as big a concern as innocents dying at the hands of criminals or each other.
And I did suggest that it would be nice to have some data that compared the rates of innocent people being murdered. If the difference is that our criminals are killing each other at a higher rate, it’s maybe not such a big concern.
“For one thing, criminals are not always crack shots. A very long list of additional reasons could easily be elaborated.”
That would be a good reason to believe that society might suffer when one criminal attempts to kill another, but my statement was notable for the absence of “attempts”.
But, yes, I’d agree that criminals being murderous is not a good thing. Criminals dying at each other’s hands, maybe not as big a concern as innocents dying at the hands of criminals or each other.
And I did suggest that it would be nice to have some data that compared the rates of innocent people being murdered. If the difference is that our criminals are killing each other at a higher rate, it’s maybe not such a big concern.
“For one thing, criminals are not always crack shots. A very long list of additional reasons could easily be elaborated.”
That would be a good reason to believe that society might suffer when one criminal attempts to kill another, but my statement was notable for the absence of “attempts”.
But, yes, I’d agree that criminals being murderous is not a good thing. Criminals dying at each other’s hands, maybe not as big a concern as innocents dying at the hands of criminals or each other.
And I did suggest that it would be nice to have some data that compared the rates of innocent people being murdered. If the difference is that our criminals are killing each other at a higher rate, it’s maybe not such a big concern.
I 100% agree with Brett about “lead inhalation”.
Metallic lead, the kind you’d find in bullets, is (like most heavy metals) toxic, but not excessively so. The stuff you have to really watch out for are the organic compounds of heavy metals, such as tetraethyl-lead in leaded gasoline, or whatever lead compound was used in paint. (Plus the “more harmful to kids” factor)
I 100% agree with Brett about “lead inhalation”.
Metallic lead, the kind you’d find in bullets, is (like most heavy metals) toxic, but not excessively so. The stuff you have to really watch out for are the organic compounds of heavy metals, such as tetraethyl-lead in leaded gasoline, or whatever lead compound was used in paint. (Plus the “more harmful to kids” factor)
I 100% agree with Brett about “lead inhalation”.
Metallic lead, the kind you’d find in bullets, is (like most heavy metals) toxic, but not excessively so. The stuff you have to really watch out for are the organic compounds of heavy metals, such as tetraethyl-lead in leaded gasoline, or whatever lead compound was used in paint. (Plus the “more harmful to kids” factor)
I’ve always wondered how upright citizens like Brett define “criminal” (the noun) when they talk about people who kill other people.
I mean, if some middle-aged white guy with an embezzlement conviction — and nothing else on his record — goes berserk with his legally-purchased pistol one day and shoots his ex-wife dead, is that a homicide committed by a “criminal”?
How about if it was a middle-aged black guy?
What if his conviction was for pot possession 25 years ago?
Brett disapproves of “criminal background checks” for gun purchases, I think. But if I’m wrong about that, I would be curious to know whether “criminal” means the same thing in both contexts. In Brett’s own usage, I mean.
–TP
I’ve always wondered how upright citizens like Brett define “criminal” (the noun) when they talk about people who kill other people.
I mean, if some middle-aged white guy with an embezzlement conviction — and nothing else on his record — goes berserk with his legally-purchased pistol one day and shoots his ex-wife dead, is that a homicide committed by a “criminal”?
How about if it was a middle-aged black guy?
What if his conviction was for pot possession 25 years ago?
Brett disapproves of “criminal background checks” for gun purchases, I think. But if I’m wrong about that, I would be curious to know whether “criminal” means the same thing in both contexts. In Brett’s own usage, I mean.
–TP
I’ve always wondered how upright citizens like Brett define “criminal” (the noun) when they talk about people who kill other people.
I mean, if some middle-aged white guy with an embezzlement conviction — and nothing else on his record — goes berserk with his legally-purchased pistol one day and shoots his ex-wife dead, is that a homicide committed by a “criminal”?
How about if it was a middle-aged black guy?
What if his conviction was for pot possession 25 years ago?
Brett disapproves of “criminal background checks” for gun purchases, I think. But if I’m wrong about that, I would be curious to know whether “criminal” means the same thing in both contexts. In Brett’s own usage, I mean.
–TP
This notion that there is this clear dividing line between the criminal and the innocent is so precious. It means that the possibility of a change of heart is impossible and one is reminded of Ed Meese’s legal acumen
That would be a good reason to believe that society might suffer when one criminal attempts to kill another, but my statement was notable for the absence of “attempts”.
That sentence also reminds me that Brett’s ever so clear dividing line also ignores the fact that there may be those who are slightly criminal and, when caught, feel like they have to resort of whatever means to stay on top.
I leave it to the Count to explain why these two criminals should have shot each other, ridding the pure of heart innocent of their felonious ways.
This notion that there is this clear dividing line between the criminal and the innocent is so precious. It means that the possibility of a change of heart is impossible and one is reminded of Ed Meese’s legal acumen
That would be a good reason to believe that society might suffer when one criminal attempts to kill another, but my statement was notable for the absence of “attempts”.
That sentence also reminds me that Brett’s ever so clear dividing line also ignores the fact that there may be those who are slightly criminal and, when caught, feel like they have to resort of whatever means to stay on top.
I leave it to the Count to explain why these two criminals should have shot each other, ridding the pure of heart innocent of their felonious ways.
This notion that there is this clear dividing line between the criminal and the innocent is so precious. It means that the possibility of a change of heart is impossible and one is reminded of Ed Meese’s legal acumen
That would be a good reason to believe that society might suffer when one criminal attempts to kill another, but my statement was notable for the absence of “attempts”.
That sentence also reminds me that Brett’s ever so clear dividing line also ignores the fact that there may be those who are slightly criminal and, when caught, feel like they have to resort of whatever means to stay on top.
I leave it to the Count to explain why these two criminals should have shot each other, ridding the pure of heart innocent of their felonious ways.
And who is more criminal:
Someone who has a felony conviction for a drug offense half a century ago?
Or someone who breaks the law repeatedly, day in and day out — meaning, of course, anyone who drives on the freeways at anything like the “flow of traffic” speed?
The latter is, arguably, a “career criminal,” especially if he is driving in pursuit of his employment. What we are thinking of when we say “criminal” is often a far cry from what the law actually says.
And who is more criminal:
Someone who has a felony conviction for a drug offense half a century ago?
Or someone who breaks the law repeatedly, day in and day out — meaning, of course, anyone who drives on the freeways at anything like the “flow of traffic” speed?
The latter is, arguably, a “career criminal,” especially if he is driving in pursuit of his employment. What we are thinking of when we say “criminal” is often a far cry from what the law actually says.
And who is more criminal:
Someone who has a felony conviction for a drug offense half a century ago?
Or someone who breaks the law repeatedly, day in and day out — meaning, of course, anyone who drives on the freeways at anything like the “flow of traffic” speed?
The latter is, arguably, a “career criminal,” especially if he is driving in pursuit of his employment. What we are thinking of when we say “criminal” is often a far cry from what the law actually says.
This notion that there is this clear dividing line between the criminal and the innocent is so precious.
I can understand, if not agree with, the concept of capital punishment for heinous crimes. But shrugging our shoulders at the death of other people, because they are or were guilty of some crime or another, that’s not something I can do.
Downplaying a death because of the victim’s criminality is a common ploy to whitewash deaths, especially at the hands of the police. For example, Akai Gurley, who was shot accidentally by the police. Nobody thought he had a gun, or was behaving suspiciously, or anything like that. A rookie officer who accidentally discharged his weapon while turning a doorknob with the same hand he held his gun in. And Akai unfortunately was hit and died. Despite the absolute irrelevance, the police released his rap sheet to the press.
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/23/the-outrage-of-the-victims-rap-sheet-must-end/
This notion that there is this clear dividing line between the criminal and the innocent is so precious.
I can understand, if not agree with, the concept of capital punishment for heinous crimes. But shrugging our shoulders at the death of other people, because they are or were guilty of some crime or another, that’s not something I can do.
Downplaying a death because of the victim’s criminality is a common ploy to whitewash deaths, especially at the hands of the police. For example, Akai Gurley, who was shot accidentally by the police. Nobody thought he had a gun, or was behaving suspiciously, or anything like that. A rookie officer who accidentally discharged his weapon while turning a doorknob with the same hand he held his gun in. And Akai unfortunately was hit and died. Despite the absolute irrelevance, the police released his rap sheet to the press.
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/23/the-outrage-of-the-victims-rap-sheet-must-end/
This notion that there is this clear dividing line between the criminal and the innocent is so precious.
I can understand, if not agree with, the concept of capital punishment for heinous crimes. But shrugging our shoulders at the death of other people, because they are or were guilty of some crime or another, that’s not something I can do.
Downplaying a death because of the victim’s criminality is a common ploy to whitewash deaths, especially at the hands of the police. For example, Akai Gurley, who was shot accidentally by the police. Nobody thought he had a gun, or was behaving suspiciously, or anything like that. A rookie officer who accidentally discharged his weapon while turning a doorknob with the same hand he held his gun in. And Akai unfortunately was hit and died. Despite the absolute irrelevance, the police released his rap sheet to the press.
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/23/the-outrage-of-the-victims-rap-sheet-must-end/
Speaking of the idea that you can easily separate the innocent from the criminal, Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides — “second only to homicides of intimate partners”. But then, research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population.
Speaking of the idea that you can easily separate the innocent from the criminal, Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides — “second only to homicides of intimate partners”. But then, research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population.
Speaking of the idea that you can easily separate the innocent from the criminal, Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides — “second only to homicides of intimate partners”. But then, research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population.
The Snoop and his posse had it in mind to move on Stewart’s turf, perhaps with a line of cookware, designer bongs, gold-plated ladies derringers, and maybe a Saturday morning cooking show aimed at kids,which could have led to some nasty business.
But after she rapped him on the knuckles with that 10-inch chef’s blade during commercial break for mangling the peeling of the potatoes, word is he stepped back from those plans, and then gave it up altogether when he got wind of the muscle she’d rubbed shoulders with while inside — mortgage bankers, hedge fund managers, Wall Street accountants with light fingers, and corporate CEO-types serving time for various serious felony convictions.
There were .. stories … from when she was inside .. that she had a guy, some low level Tea Party pol doing time for cooking the books of the local PAC, rolled in flour, deep fried in bacon fat and stuffed into the empanadas she used to serve the prison staff for Sunday brunch because he sneezed as she pulled a souffle from the prison’s kitchen oven, and made it fall, but that may have been urban legend planted to intimidate competitors.
As it was, just for the favor of permitting him to appear on her show and touting his new album, she told Snoop quietly in her dressing room afterwards that one day, and that day may never come, that she would call on him to do a service for her.
A message was sent.
The Snoop and his posse had it in mind to move on Stewart’s turf, perhaps with a line of cookware, designer bongs, gold-plated ladies derringers, and maybe a Saturday morning cooking show aimed at kids,which could have led to some nasty business.
But after she rapped him on the knuckles with that 10-inch chef’s blade during commercial break for mangling the peeling of the potatoes, word is he stepped back from those plans, and then gave it up altogether when he got wind of the muscle she’d rubbed shoulders with while inside — mortgage bankers, hedge fund managers, Wall Street accountants with light fingers, and corporate CEO-types serving time for various serious felony convictions.
There were .. stories … from when she was inside .. that she had a guy, some low level Tea Party pol doing time for cooking the books of the local PAC, rolled in flour, deep fried in bacon fat and stuffed into the empanadas she used to serve the prison staff for Sunday brunch because he sneezed as she pulled a souffle from the prison’s kitchen oven, and made it fall, but that may have been urban legend planted to intimidate competitors.
As it was, just for the favor of permitting him to appear on her show and touting his new album, she told Snoop quietly in her dressing room afterwards that one day, and that day may never come, that she would call on him to do a service for her.
A message was sent.
The Snoop and his posse had it in mind to move on Stewart’s turf, perhaps with a line of cookware, designer bongs, gold-plated ladies derringers, and maybe a Saturday morning cooking show aimed at kids,which could have led to some nasty business.
But after she rapped him on the knuckles with that 10-inch chef’s blade during commercial break for mangling the peeling of the potatoes, word is he stepped back from those plans, and then gave it up altogether when he got wind of the muscle she’d rubbed shoulders with while inside — mortgage bankers, hedge fund managers, Wall Street accountants with light fingers, and corporate CEO-types serving time for various serious felony convictions.
There were .. stories … from when she was inside .. that she had a guy, some low level Tea Party pol doing time for cooking the books of the local PAC, rolled in flour, deep fried in bacon fat and stuffed into the empanadas she used to serve the prison staff for Sunday brunch because he sneezed as she pulled a souffle from the prison’s kitchen oven, and made it fall, but that may have been urban legend planted to intimidate competitors.
As it was, just for the favor of permitting him to appear on her show and touting his new album, she told Snoop quietly in her dressing room afterwards that one day, and that day may never come, that she would call on him to do a service for her.
A message was sent.
No ham sandwiches in Ferguson, it seems.
No ham sandwiches in Ferguson, it seems.
No ham sandwiches in Ferguson, it seems.
And how one might mitigate [inhalation of lead at shooting ranges], short of shutting down the shooting ranges.
Besides Snarki’s point in re: equality of lead inhalation, one could always go with unleaded bullets. I mean, if the Army can do it…
And how one might mitigate [inhalation of lead at shooting ranges], short of shutting down the shooting ranges.
Besides Snarki’s point in re: equality of lead inhalation, one could always go with unleaded bullets. I mean, if the Army can do it…
And how one might mitigate [inhalation of lead at shooting ranges], short of shutting down the shooting ranges.
Besides Snarki’s point in re: equality of lead inhalation, one could always go with unleaded bullets. I mean, if the Army can do it…
I dunno, Ugh. McCollough seemed pretty hammy to me.
My favorite bit was his refusal to say what the grand jury vote was. If it’s a secret, whose word am I supposed to take that a majority voted to not indict?
And I’d like an answer to Rachel Maddow’s question: what the hell was the idea behind making the announcement at precisely the time of day best suited to violent protests? Why 8PM; why not noon, or midnight?
My man Charlie Pierce will surely point out tomorrow that this farce was Not About Race, because in white-bread ham-sandwich America, Nothing Is Ever About Race.
–TP
I dunno, Ugh. McCollough seemed pretty hammy to me.
My favorite bit was his refusal to say what the grand jury vote was. If it’s a secret, whose word am I supposed to take that a majority voted to not indict?
And I’d like an answer to Rachel Maddow’s question: what the hell was the idea behind making the announcement at precisely the time of day best suited to violent protests? Why 8PM; why not noon, or midnight?
My man Charlie Pierce will surely point out tomorrow that this farce was Not About Race, because in white-bread ham-sandwich America, Nothing Is Ever About Race.
–TP
I dunno, Ugh. McCollough seemed pretty hammy to me.
My favorite bit was his refusal to say what the grand jury vote was. If it’s a secret, whose word am I supposed to take that a majority voted to not indict?
And I’d like an answer to Rachel Maddow’s question: what the hell was the idea behind making the announcement at precisely the time of day best suited to violent protests? Why 8PM; why not noon, or midnight?
My man Charlie Pierce will surely point out tomorrow that this farce was Not About Race, because in white-bread ham-sandwich America, Nothing Is Ever About Race.
–TP
No ham sandwiches in Ferguson, it seems.
It’s hard to say what it would take to actually bring charges against a cop here in the USA.
No ham sandwiches in Ferguson, it seems.
It’s hard to say what it would take to actually bring charges against a cop here in the USA.
No ham sandwiches in Ferguson, it seems.
It’s hard to say what it would take to actually bring charges against a cop here in the USA.
BB: most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
WJ: Brett, do you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it. I’d just like to see the actual numbers.
Brett don’t need no steenkin’ source! His logic is exactly the same as that used by some US troops in Vietnam: if we shot them, they’re VC.
(Because: otherwise we wouldn’t have shot them, right?)
Much of the time I can ignore Brett as simply being obsessionally wrong-headed, like the village idiot or drunk. But this particular “logic” makes me sick.
BB: most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
WJ: Brett, do you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it. I’d just like to see the actual numbers.
Brett don’t need no steenkin’ source! His logic is exactly the same as that used by some US troops in Vietnam: if we shot them, they’re VC.
(Because: otherwise we wouldn’t have shot them, right?)
Much of the time I can ignore Brett as simply being obsessionally wrong-headed, like the village idiot or drunk. But this particular “logic” makes me sick.
BB: most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals.
WJ: Brett, do you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it. I’d just like to see the actual numbers.
Brett don’t need no steenkin’ source! His logic is exactly the same as that used by some US troops in Vietnam: if we shot them, they’re VC.
(Because: otherwise we wouldn’t have shot them, right?)
Much of the time I can ignore Brett as simply being obsessionally wrong-headed, like the village idiot or drunk. But this particular “logic” makes me sick.
“And I’d like an answer to Rachel Maddow’s question: what the hell was the idea behind making the announcement at precisely the time of day best suited to violent protests? Why 8PM; why not noon, or midnight?”
You got me. I can see giving the grand jury a space of time to go into hiding. But I’ve got no idea what the thinking was behind waiting until midnight. Not that the people planning riots were’t prepared to do so at any hour. There probably wasn’t any good hour to fire the starting pistol on that event.
“It’s hard to say what it would take to actually bring charges against a cop here in the USA.”
It’s hard to say why anyone thought it likely that a guy who was shot by police shortly after committing a robbery had done nothing to provoke it.
I mean, seriously, plenty of people get wrongfully shot by police, there’s no question about that. But there was never good reason to believe that Michael Brown was one of them. Any more than there was reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was attacked by Zimmerman.
Again, seriously, why this drive to pick such lousy cases to focus on? With no shortage of likely innocent victims of police shootings, why pick the guy who just committed a robbery? Why keep taking thugs old enough to join the Army, who got killed assaulting somebody, and pretending they’re innocent children? Just to prove that you don’t need the facts on your side to craft a narrative?
Yes, most murder victims have criminal records It’s not even a near thing. Or here, check page 40. Keeping in mind that not every criminal is going to have a criminal record, (The highest murder rate is in the 17-25 year old range, where somebody can easily be a criminal, and simply not have been caught yet.) 77% is the lower limit on how many of them were criminals.
Anybody who has taken a look at actual studies of murder knows this: Most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals, almost all of the people who commit murder are criminals, murder in the US is mostly a matter of criminals killing each other off.
But, of course, that might be the case outside the US, which is why I suggested that it would be nice if these usual international comparisons of murder rates broke out the rates for innocent victims and criminals. ‘Cause it really does make a difference in how you react, if the US murder rate is high because our criminals are killing each other at a higher rate.
Maybe we need a better class of criminal.
“And I’d like an answer to Rachel Maddow’s question: what the hell was the idea behind making the announcement at precisely the time of day best suited to violent protests? Why 8PM; why not noon, or midnight?”
You got me. I can see giving the grand jury a space of time to go into hiding. But I’ve got no idea what the thinking was behind waiting until midnight. Not that the people planning riots were’t prepared to do so at any hour. There probably wasn’t any good hour to fire the starting pistol on that event.
“It’s hard to say what it would take to actually bring charges against a cop here in the USA.”
It’s hard to say why anyone thought it likely that a guy who was shot by police shortly after committing a robbery had done nothing to provoke it.
I mean, seriously, plenty of people get wrongfully shot by police, there’s no question about that. But there was never good reason to believe that Michael Brown was one of them. Any more than there was reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was attacked by Zimmerman.
Again, seriously, why this drive to pick such lousy cases to focus on? With no shortage of likely innocent victims of police shootings, why pick the guy who just committed a robbery? Why keep taking thugs old enough to join the Army, who got killed assaulting somebody, and pretending they’re innocent children? Just to prove that you don’t need the facts on your side to craft a narrative?
Yes, most murder victims have criminal records It’s not even a near thing. Or here, check page 40. Keeping in mind that not every criminal is going to have a criminal record, (The highest murder rate is in the 17-25 year old range, where somebody can easily be a criminal, and simply not have been caught yet.) 77% is the lower limit on how many of them were criminals.
Anybody who has taken a look at actual studies of murder knows this: Most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals, almost all of the people who commit murder are criminals, murder in the US is mostly a matter of criminals killing each other off.
But, of course, that might be the case outside the US, which is why I suggested that it would be nice if these usual international comparisons of murder rates broke out the rates for innocent victims and criminals. ‘Cause it really does make a difference in how you react, if the US murder rate is high because our criminals are killing each other at a higher rate.
Maybe we need a better class of criminal.
“And I’d like an answer to Rachel Maddow’s question: what the hell was the idea behind making the announcement at precisely the time of day best suited to violent protests? Why 8PM; why not noon, or midnight?”
You got me. I can see giving the grand jury a space of time to go into hiding. But I’ve got no idea what the thinking was behind waiting until midnight. Not that the people planning riots were’t prepared to do so at any hour. There probably wasn’t any good hour to fire the starting pistol on that event.
“It’s hard to say what it would take to actually bring charges against a cop here in the USA.”
It’s hard to say why anyone thought it likely that a guy who was shot by police shortly after committing a robbery had done nothing to provoke it.
I mean, seriously, plenty of people get wrongfully shot by police, there’s no question about that. But there was never good reason to believe that Michael Brown was one of them. Any more than there was reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was attacked by Zimmerman.
Again, seriously, why this drive to pick such lousy cases to focus on? With no shortage of likely innocent victims of police shootings, why pick the guy who just committed a robbery? Why keep taking thugs old enough to join the Army, who got killed assaulting somebody, and pretending they’re innocent children? Just to prove that you don’t need the facts on your side to craft a narrative?
Yes, most murder victims have criminal records It’s not even a near thing. Or here, check page 40. Keeping in mind that not every criminal is going to have a criminal record, (The highest murder rate is in the 17-25 year old range, where somebody can easily be a criminal, and simply not have been caught yet.) 77% is the lower limit on how many of them were criminals.
Anybody who has taken a look at actual studies of murder knows this: Most of the people who get murdered in the US are criminals, almost all of the people who commit murder are criminals, murder in the US is mostly a matter of criminals killing each other off.
But, of course, that might be the case outside the US, which is why I suggested that it would be nice if these usual international comparisons of murder rates broke out the rates for innocent victims and criminals. ‘Cause it really does make a difference in how you react, if the US murder rate is high because our criminals are killing each other at a higher rate.
Maybe we need a better class of criminal.
“Plenty of people get wrongfully shot by police” makes my point with sufficient force.
Glad we’very found a point of agreement.
“Plenty of people get wrongfully shot by police” makes my point with sufficient force.
Glad we’very found a point of agreement.
“Plenty of people get wrongfully shot by police” makes my point with sufficient force.
Glad we’very found a point of agreement.
Ah, yes. Because the stopped clock is right twice a day, if we happened to check the time at those moments, we must conclude it was not stopped. Is that the takeaway? Except it’s not exactly a perfect analogy, since we know Wilson didn’t know about the robbery when the shooting occurred. So even if we assume robbery merits summary execution after the fact and without due process of law, why does that mean we must conclude misconduct could not have occurred here?
That Brown had just committed a crime does not in any way, shape, or form vindicate Wilson unless Wilson was engaging him in regards to said crime… which he was not.
Again, seriously, why this drive to empower random low-level government officials to conduct summary executions with little or no pretense, and to fight tooth and nail against the very idea of making a credible effort to hold them accountable for their actions?
(To bluntly answer the question as to why this has been latched onto, to no small degree because of how the Ferguson LE community handled the aftermath of the shooting. Really, I’d think that was pretty obvious.)
Ah, yes. Because the stopped clock is right twice a day, if we happened to check the time at those moments, we must conclude it was not stopped. Is that the takeaway? Except it’s not exactly a perfect analogy, since we know Wilson didn’t know about the robbery when the shooting occurred. So even if we assume robbery merits summary execution after the fact and without due process of law, why does that mean we must conclude misconduct could not have occurred here?
That Brown had just committed a crime does not in any way, shape, or form vindicate Wilson unless Wilson was engaging him in regards to said crime… which he was not.
Again, seriously, why this drive to empower random low-level government officials to conduct summary executions with little or no pretense, and to fight tooth and nail against the very idea of making a credible effort to hold them accountable for their actions?
(To bluntly answer the question as to why this has been latched onto, to no small degree because of how the Ferguson LE community handled the aftermath of the shooting. Really, I’d think that was pretty obvious.)
Ah, yes. Because the stopped clock is right twice a day, if we happened to check the time at those moments, we must conclude it was not stopped. Is that the takeaway? Except it’s not exactly a perfect analogy, since we know Wilson didn’t know about the robbery when the shooting occurred. So even if we assume robbery merits summary execution after the fact and without due process of law, why does that mean we must conclude misconduct could not have occurred here?
That Brown had just committed a crime does not in any way, shape, or form vindicate Wilson unless Wilson was engaging him in regards to said crime… which he was not.
Again, seriously, why this drive to empower random low-level government officials to conduct summary executions with little or no pretense, and to fight tooth and nail against the very idea of making a credible effort to hold them accountable for their actions?
(To bluntly answer the question as to why this has been latched onto, to no small degree because of how the Ferguson LE community handled the aftermath of the shooting. Really, I’d think that was pretty obvious.)
“That Brown had just committed a crime does not in any way, shape, or form vindicate Wilson unless Wilson was engaging him in regards to said crime… which he was not.”
For a rational person, it weights the probabilities in favor of Wilson’s account of what happened. If a police officer says, “I was attacked by that nun!”, you, rationally, are more skeptical than if he says, “I was attacked by that guy who just robbed a store!”
On second thought, perhaps I do know why they picked such a late hour.
Riots were inevitable, no matter when they made the announcement, and likely regardless of the conclusion the grand jury came to. Rioting plans had been made, the holidays are coming up and everybody had their looting lists ready.
What the late night announcement made sure of, was that the average person would get the news of the decision at the same time they heard of the rioting. And, while your average mushy headed liberal sees rioters, and thinks, “Aha! There must be injustice here!”, your normal human being sees rioters, and thinks, “Proof those people are dangerous lunatics.”
So the late night announcement saw to it that the average person would be primed to be sympathetic to the Ferguson police, by reminding them that said police are dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics.
“That Brown had just committed a crime does not in any way, shape, or form vindicate Wilson unless Wilson was engaging him in regards to said crime… which he was not.”
For a rational person, it weights the probabilities in favor of Wilson’s account of what happened. If a police officer says, “I was attacked by that nun!”, you, rationally, are more skeptical than if he says, “I was attacked by that guy who just robbed a store!”
On second thought, perhaps I do know why they picked such a late hour.
Riots were inevitable, no matter when they made the announcement, and likely regardless of the conclusion the grand jury came to. Rioting plans had been made, the holidays are coming up and everybody had their looting lists ready.
What the late night announcement made sure of, was that the average person would get the news of the decision at the same time they heard of the rioting. And, while your average mushy headed liberal sees rioters, and thinks, “Aha! There must be injustice here!”, your normal human being sees rioters, and thinks, “Proof those people are dangerous lunatics.”
So the late night announcement saw to it that the average person would be primed to be sympathetic to the Ferguson police, by reminding them that said police are dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics.
“That Brown had just committed a crime does not in any way, shape, or form vindicate Wilson unless Wilson was engaging him in regards to said crime… which he was not.”
For a rational person, it weights the probabilities in favor of Wilson’s account of what happened. If a police officer says, “I was attacked by that nun!”, you, rationally, are more skeptical than if he says, “I was attacked by that guy who just robbed a store!”
On second thought, perhaps I do know why they picked such a late hour.
Riots were inevitable, no matter when they made the announcement, and likely regardless of the conclusion the grand jury came to. Rioting plans had been made, the holidays are coming up and everybody had their looting lists ready.
What the late night announcement made sure of, was that the average person would get the news of the decision at the same time they heard of the rioting. And, while your average mushy headed liberal sees rioters, and thinks, “Aha! There must be injustice here!”, your normal human being sees rioters, and thinks, “Proof those people are dangerous lunatics.”
So the late night announcement saw to it that the average person would be primed to be sympathetic to the Ferguson police, by reminding them that said police are dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics.
Yes, most murder victims have criminal records It’s not even a near thing. Or here, check page 40.
The report says no such thing.
The statistics were for “prior arrest history”.
(Although, in any event, the US criminal justice system appears to this outside observer to be as racially biased as your recent comments – and given the remarkable effectiveness it displays in obtaining guilty pleas, there is probably a fair degree of overlap.)
Yes, most murder victims have criminal records It’s not even a near thing. Or here, check page 40.
The report says no such thing.
The statistics were for “prior arrest history”.
(Although, in any event, the US criminal justice system appears to this outside observer to be as racially biased as your recent comments – and given the remarkable effectiveness it displays in obtaining guilty pleas, there is probably a fair degree of overlap.)
Yes, most murder victims have criminal records It’s not even a near thing. Or here, check page 40.
The report says no such thing.
The statistics were for “prior arrest history”.
(Although, in any event, the US criminal justice system appears to this outside observer to be as racially biased as your recent comments – and given the remarkable effectiveness it displays in obtaining guilty pleas, there is probably a fair degree of overlap.)
The clown show continues. Bobo the clown admits that the police would actually like to have riots, so as to demonstrate that they are ‘dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics”. To protect and serve, unless that protection dilutes a point the police want to make. If some law abiding citizen’s business gets torched or something worse, well, just collateral damage to prove that the police are right and one can’t make an omelette without breaking a few of something. Of course, this is simply a case of ‘heightening the contradictions’. Quite amazing though that Brett seems to think that this notion of Lenin is the ticket.
The clown show continues. Bobo the clown admits that the police would actually like to have riots, so as to demonstrate that they are ‘dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics”. To protect and serve, unless that protection dilutes a point the police want to make. If some law abiding citizen’s business gets torched or something worse, well, just collateral damage to prove that the police are right and one can’t make an omelette without breaking a few of something. Of course, this is simply a case of ‘heightening the contradictions’. Quite amazing though that Brett seems to think that this notion of Lenin is the ticket.
The clown show continues. Bobo the clown admits that the police would actually like to have riots, so as to demonstrate that they are ‘dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics”. To protect and serve, unless that protection dilutes a point the police want to make. If some law abiding citizen’s business gets torched or something worse, well, just collateral damage to prove that the police are right and one can’t make an omelette without breaking a few of something. Of course, this is simply a case of ‘heightening the contradictions’. Quite amazing though that Brett seems to think that this notion of Lenin is the ticket.
So the late night announcement saw to it that the average person would be primed to be sympathetic to the Ferguson police, by reminding them that said police are dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics.
If true, that is some seriously f***ed up sh*t.
Just saying.
Happily, I suspect it’s only true in Brett’s mind.
For the record, my understanding is that Wilson was aware of the theft of the cigars. His claim, again from my understanding of his testimony to the grand jury, is that he thought Brown resembled the description given of the cigar thief, and that is why, having told the young men to get off the road, he went back and confronted Brown.
I’m not surprised that there were no charges brought, because it’s very rare for cops to be found criminally liable for the use of force on the job. Right or wrong, they’re given a lot of leeway.
My thoughts here are:
Wilson is not a good cop. Not in the sense of some kind of violent dude looking for excuses to shoot black kids, but in the sense of not having good control over the situation. He thought that he had made Brown as the thief, he had called for backup, all good. Somehow that turned into a fight that left Brown dead.
Not good police work. Whatever else Ferguson needs at this point, at a minimum they need better cops.
I’ve also never lived anywhere where the cops spent their time telling young men not to walk in the street. Cops in Ferguson have nothing better to do?
Other things:
Brown’s body was left in the street for four hours.
The medical investigator called to the scene didn’t take pictures “because the camera battery died”.
He also didn’t take any measurements or otherwise document the scene because, in his words:
Long story short, sh*t is f***ed up and bullsh*t in good old Ferguson MO. As it is in many other places.
The grand jury materials, including Wilson’s testimony, have been published, and can be read here.
I haven’t read much of them at this point, but what I take away so far is that Brown scared the crap out of Wilson, so he shot him.
Lastly:
why this drive to pick such lousy cases to focus on?
Yes, it is always interesting to see who folks choose as their causes celebre.
So the late night announcement saw to it that the average person would be primed to be sympathetic to the Ferguson police, by reminding them that said police are dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics.
If true, that is some seriously f***ed up sh*t.
Just saying.
Happily, I suspect it’s only true in Brett’s mind.
For the record, my understanding is that Wilson was aware of the theft of the cigars. His claim, again from my understanding of his testimony to the grand jury, is that he thought Brown resembled the description given of the cigar thief, and that is why, having told the young men to get off the road, he went back and confronted Brown.
I’m not surprised that there were no charges brought, because it’s very rare for cops to be found criminally liable for the use of force on the job. Right or wrong, they’re given a lot of leeway.
My thoughts here are:
Wilson is not a good cop. Not in the sense of some kind of violent dude looking for excuses to shoot black kids, but in the sense of not having good control over the situation. He thought that he had made Brown as the thief, he had called for backup, all good. Somehow that turned into a fight that left Brown dead.
Not good police work. Whatever else Ferguson needs at this point, at a minimum they need better cops.
I’ve also never lived anywhere where the cops spent their time telling young men not to walk in the street. Cops in Ferguson have nothing better to do?
Other things:
Brown’s body was left in the street for four hours.
The medical investigator called to the scene didn’t take pictures “because the camera battery died”.
He also didn’t take any measurements or otherwise document the scene because, in his words:
Long story short, sh*t is f***ed up and bullsh*t in good old Ferguson MO. As it is in many other places.
The grand jury materials, including Wilson’s testimony, have been published, and can be read here.
I haven’t read much of them at this point, but what I take away so far is that Brown scared the crap out of Wilson, so he shot him.
Lastly:
why this drive to pick such lousy cases to focus on?
Yes, it is always interesting to see who folks choose as their causes celebre.
So the late night announcement saw to it that the average person would be primed to be sympathetic to the Ferguson police, by reminding them that said police are dealing with a lot of dangerous lunatics.
If true, that is some seriously f***ed up sh*t.
Just saying.
Happily, I suspect it’s only true in Brett’s mind.
For the record, my understanding is that Wilson was aware of the theft of the cigars. His claim, again from my understanding of his testimony to the grand jury, is that he thought Brown resembled the description given of the cigar thief, and that is why, having told the young men to get off the road, he went back and confronted Brown.
I’m not surprised that there were no charges brought, because it’s very rare for cops to be found criminally liable for the use of force on the job. Right or wrong, they’re given a lot of leeway.
My thoughts here are:
Wilson is not a good cop. Not in the sense of some kind of violent dude looking for excuses to shoot black kids, but in the sense of not having good control over the situation. He thought that he had made Brown as the thief, he had called for backup, all good. Somehow that turned into a fight that left Brown dead.
Not good police work. Whatever else Ferguson needs at this point, at a minimum they need better cops.
I’ve also never lived anywhere where the cops spent their time telling young men not to walk in the street. Cops in Ferguson have nothing better to do?
Other things:
Brown’s body was left in the street for four hours.
The medical investigator called to the scene didn’t take pictures “because the camera battery died”.
He also didn’t take any measurements or otherwise document the scene because, in his words:
Long story short, sh*t is f***ed up and bullsh*t in good old Ferguson MO. As it is in many other places.
The grand jury materials, including Wilson’s testimony, have been published, and can be read here.
I haven’t read much of them at this point, but what I take away so far is that Brown scared the crap out of Wilson, so he shot him.
Lastly:
why this drive to pick such lousy cases to focus on?
Yes, it is always interesting to see who folks choose as their causes celebre.
What color is a “criminal who has not been caught yet”?
–TP
What color is a “criminal who has not been caught yet”?
–TP
What color is a “criminal who has not been caught yet”?
–TP
To bluntly answer the question as to why this has been latched onto, to no small degree because of how the Ferguson LE community handled the aftermath of the shooting. Really, I’d think that was pretty obvious.
This has always been the sticking point for me. Wilson deserved due process and reasonable doubt, just as anybody else does.
But if it had been anybody else, there would have been an indictment the next day. Instead, the police didn’t really investigate, charges weren’t filed, and the grand jury dragged on. The travesty isn’t what was presented to the grand jury, its what wasn’t:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/
That it ended without the prosecutor asking the grand jury for an indictment is unheard of. By this omission, it ended with the prosecutor telling the grand jury that a close call goes to the defendant.
To bluntly answer the question as to why this has been latched onto, to no small degree because of how the Ferguson LE community handled the aftermath of the shooting. Really, I’d think that was pretty obvious.
This has always been the sticking point for me. Wilson deserved due process and reasonable doubt, just as anybody else does.
But if it had been anybody else, there would have been an indictment the next day. Instead, the police didn’t really investigate, charges weren’t filed, and the grand jury dragged on. The travesty isn’t what was presented to the grand jury, its what wasn’t:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/
That it ended without the prosecutor asking the grand jury for an indictment is unheard of. By this omission, it ended with the prosecutor telling the grand jury that a close call goes to the defendant.
To bluntly answer the question as to why this has been latched onto, to no small degree because of how the Ferguson LE community handled the aftermath of the shooting. Really, I’d think that was pretty obvious.
This has always been the sticking point for me. Wilson deserved due process and reasonable doubt, just as anybody else does.
But if it had been anybody else, there would have been an indictment the next day. Instead, the police didn’t really investigate, charges weren’t filed, and the grand jury dragged on. The travesty isn’t what was presented to the grand jury, its what wasn’t:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/
That it ended without the prosecutor asking the grand jury for an indictment is unheard of. By this omission, it ended with the prosecutor telling the grand jury that a close call goes to the defendant.
For the record, my understanding is that Wilson was aware of the theft of the cigars. His claim, again from my understanding of his testimony to the grand jury, is that he thought Brown resembled the description given of the cigar thief, and that is why, having told the young men to get off the road, he went back and confronted Brown.
This is accurate. I’ve not followed this all that closely, and the narrative in August explicitly denied that the theft information had been disseminated. Reading the testimony, Wilson’s testimony is precisely what you say here, so I need to retract the part of my browbeating that included him not knowing about the theft. My point to Brett regarding questions about engagement, escalation of force, etc. stands without that, though, as it was more or less a rhetorical bludgeon rather than a pillar of the argument. Even if he knew he was confronting someone he suspected of a crime, that still says nothing to the claim that no thinking person could but think the deceased provoked his own death.
Ofc, you said it better than I did, as is the norm. Alas.
For the record, my understanding is that Wilson was aware of the theft of the cigars. His claim, again from my understanding of his testimony to the grand jury, is that he thought Brown resembled the description given of the cigar thief, and that is why, having told the young men to get off the road, he went back and confronted Brown.
This is accurate. I’ve not followed this all that closely, and the narrative in August explicitly denied that the theft information had been disseminated. Reading the testimony, Wilson’s testimony is precisely what you say here, so I need to retract the part of my browbeating that included him not knowing about the theft. My point to Brett regarding questions about engagement, escalation of force, etc. stands without that, though, as it was more or less a rhetorical bludgeon rather than a pillar of the argument. Even if he knew he was confronting someone he suspected of a crime, that still says nothing to the claim that no thinking person could but think the deceased provoked his own death.
Ofc, you said it better than I did, as is the norm. Alas.
For the record, my understanding is that Wilson was aware of the theft of the cigars. His claim, again from my understanding of his testimony to the grand jury, is that he thought Brown resembled the description given of the cigar thief, and that is why, having told the young men to get off the road, he went back and confronted Brown.
This is accurate. I’ve not followed this all that closely, and the narrative in August explicitly denied that the theft information had been disseminated. Reading the testimony, Wilson’s testimony is precisely what you say here, so I need to retract the part of my browbeating that included him not knowing about the theft. My point to Brett regarding questions about engagement, escalation of force, etc. stands without that, though, as it was more or less a rhetorical bludgeon rather than a pillar of the argument. Even if he knew he was confronting someone he suspected of a crime, that still says nothing to the claim that no thinking person could but think the deceased provoked his own death.
Ofc, you said it better than I did, as is the norm. Alas.
“It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there.”
That individual couldn’t even play a medical examiner on TV.
Sounds like something a know-nothing would say on a blog from the distance of roughly 1000 miles.
Sounds like a FOX News investigative piece on Benghazi … or anything.
Well, at least Officer Brown won’t have a criminal record to lug around as a target for other criminals to shoot at, breaking the mold established here.
“Nearly all gunshot victims have criminal records/somebody shot somebody.”
Jesus J Edgar Christ in a Vivian Vance dress!
Sounds like something Putin would say after the 20th incursion into the Ukraine.
Maybe Ferguson should accompany Finland into NATO.
The citizens of Ferguson should act precisely like the subhuman pig filth John Boehner and company in the House of Representatives and ignore this “final” document regarding Benghazi on the Mississippi and begin immediately on another … and another.
“It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there.”
That individual couldn’t even play a medical examiner on TV.
Sounds like something a know-nothing would say on a blog from the distance of roughly 1000 miles.
Sounds like a FOX News investigative piece on Benghazi … or anything.
Well, at least Officer Brown won’t have a criminal record to lug around as a target for other criminals to shoot at, breaking the mold established here.
“Nearly all gunshot victims have criminal records/somebody shot somebody.”
Jesus J Edgar Christ in a Vivian Vance dress!
Sounds like something Putin would say after the 20th incursion into the Ukraine.
Maybe Ferguson should accompany Finland into NATO.
The citizens of Ferguson should act precisely like the subhuman pig filth John Boehner and company in the House of Representatives and ignore this “final” document regarding Benghazi on the Mississippi and begin immediately on another … and another.
“It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there.”
That individual couldn’t even play a medical examiner on TV.
Sounds like something a know-nothing would say on a blog from the distance of roughly 1000 miles.
Sounds like a FOX News investigative piece on Benghazi … or anything.
Well, at least Officer Brown won’t have a criminal record to lug around as a target for other criminals to shoot at, breaking the mold established here.
“Nearly all gunshot victims have criminal records/somebody shot somebody.”
Jesus J Edgar Christ in a Vivian Vance dress!
Sounds like something Putin would say after the 20th incursion into the Ukraine.
Maybe Ferguson should accompany Finland into NATO.
The citizens of Ferguson should act precisely like the subhuman pig filth John Boehner and company in the House of Representatives and ignore this “final” document regarding Benghazi on the Mississippi and begin immediately on another … and another.
“that still says nothing to the claim that no thinking person could but think the deceased provoked his own death.”
Oh, you could think otherwise, but when you have somebody deceased, and the person who killed him says, “He attacked me.”, the knowledge that he had shortly before attacked somebody else is entirely relevant to any evaluation of this claim.
Brown wasn’t random innocent citizen. Brown was a violent thug. Violent thugs, too, have rights, but the knowlege of somebody being a violent thug rationally weights the probabilities when you assess competing claims of how they died.
Were I into the liberal practice of diagosing those who disagree with me, I could have a field day with the left’s fondness for championing violent thugs.
“that still says nothing to the claim that no thinking person could but think the deceased provoked his own death.”
Oh, you could think otherwise, but when you have somebody deceased, and the person who killed him says, “He attacked me.”, the knowledge that he had shortly before attacked somebody else is entirely relevant to any evaluation of this claim.
Brown wasn’t random innocent citizen. Brown was a violent thug. Violent thugs, too, have rights, but the knowlege of somebody being a violent thug rationally weights the probabilities when you assess competing claims of how they died.
Were I into the liberal practice of diagosing those who disagree with me, I could have a field day with the left’s fondness for championing violent thugs.
“that still says nothing to the claim that no thinking person could but think the deceased provoked his own death.”
Oh, you could think otherwise, but when you have somebody deceased, and the person who killed him says, “He attacked me.”, the knowledge that he had shortly before attacked somebody else is entirely relevant to any evaluation of this claim.
Brown wasn’t random innocent citizen. Brown was a violent thug. Violent thugs, too, have rights, but the knowlege of somebody being a violent thug rationally weights the probabilities when you assess competing claims of how they died.
Were I into the liberal practice of diagosing those who disagree with me, I could have a field day with the left’s fondness for championing violent thugs.
it’s strange… for all the talk of the violence of government and the inherently coercive nature of law making, when it comes to the over the top enforcement of those laws – trial by shouting match, summary execution, etc. – , self-proclaimed libertarians don’t seem to get that excited unless there’s a liberal to blame.
it’s strange… for all the talk of the violence of government and the inherently coercive nature of law making, when it comes to the over the top enforcement of those laws – trial by shouting match, summary execution, etc. – , self-proclaimed libertarians don’t seem to get that excited unless there’s a liberal to blame.
it’s strange… for all the talk of the violence of government and the inherently coercive nature of law making, when it comes to the over the top enforcement of those laws – trial by shouting match, summary execution, etc. – , self-proclaimed libertarians don’t seem to get that excited unless there’s a liberal to blame.
self-proclaimed libertarians don’t seem to get that excited unless there’s a liberal to blame.
On the contrary, I describe myself as libertarian and am saddened (if not surprised) by what happened in Ferguson.
self-proclaimed libertarians don’t seem to get that excited unless there’s a liberal to blame.
On the contrary, I describe myself as libertarian and am saddened (if not surprised) by what happened in Ferguson.
self-proclaimed libertarians don’t seem to get that excited unless there’s a liberal to blame.
On the contrary, I describe myself as libertarian and am saddened (if not surprised) by what happened in Ferguson.
Ferguson seems to be one of many petty little tax plantations in the St Louis area and around the country. Detroit is an example of an outsize one. And Bell, Ca an example of an especially egregious one. There was already a powder keg of resentment in the community that was set off by the killing.
Ferguson seems to be one of many petty little tax plantations in the St Louis area and around the country. Detroit is an example of an outsize one. And Bell, Ca an example of an especially egregious one. There was already a powder keg of resentment in the community that was set off by the killing.
Ferguson seems to be one of many petty little tax plantations in the St Louis area and around the country. Detroit is an example of an outsize one. And Bell, Ca an example of an especially egregious one. There was already a powder keg of resentment in the community that was set off by the killing.
And, while your average mushy headed liberal sees rioters, and thinks, “Aha! There must be injustice here!”, your normal human being sees rioters, and thinks, “Proof those people are dangerous lunatics.”
This might make a little more sense if riots necessarily occurred in vacuums, where there wasn’t already evidence of injustice, and if the existence of dangerous lunatics was mutually exclusive of the existence of injustice. Alas, life is more complicated than that.
And, while your average mushy headed liberal sees rioters, and thinks, “Aha! There must be injustice here!”, your normal human being sees rioters, and thinks, “Proof those people are dangerous lunatics.”
This might make a little more sense if riots necessarily occurred in vacuums, where there wasn’t already evidence of injustice, and if the existence of dangerous lunatics was mutually exclusive of the existence of injustice. Alas, life is more complicated than that.
And, while your average mushy headed liberal sees rioters, and thinks, “Aha! There must be injustice here!”, your normal human being sees rioters, and thinks, “Proof those people are dangerous lunatics.”
This might make a little more sense if riots necessarily occurred in vacuums, where there wasn’t already evidence of injustice, and if the existence of dangerous lunatics was mutually exclusive of the existence of injustice. Alas, life is more complicated than that.
Well when I see a demonstration I think “there is injustice, or at least the perception of injustice, here.” But when I see a riot, what I think is “There are people who are taking advantage of a demonstration to run amok.”
Possibly that is colored from my being (physically) around a lot of demonstrations, and not a few riots, in the late 1960s. But certainly in that case, the demonstrators and the rioters were two different groups with two very different, and unrelated, motivations. And the rioters were definitely NOT motived by any sense of injustice.
Well when I see a demonstration I think “there is injustice, or at least the perception of injustice, here.” But when I see a riot, what I think is “There are people who are taking advantage of a demonstration to run amok.”
Possibly that is colored from my being (physically) around a lot of demonstrations, and not a few riots, in the late 1960s. But certainly in that case, the demonstrators and the rioters were two different groups with two very different, and unrelated, motivations. And the rioters were definitely NOT motived by any sense of injustice.
Well when I see a demonstration I think “there is injustice, or at least the perception of injustice, here.” But when I see a riot, what I think is “There are people who are taking advantage of a demonstration to run amok.”
Possibly that is colored from my being (physically) around a lot of demonstrations, and not a few riots, in the late 1960s. But certainly in that case, the demonstrators and the rioters were two different groups with two very different, and unrelated, motivations. And the rioters were definitely NOT motived by any sense of injustice.
Brett: “By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes”
For those interested in this, Ta-Nesi Coates has done yeoman work on the deliberate and widespread work done to make sure that blacks were not allowed to participate in the post-WWII suburban boom.
Brett: “By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes”
For those interested in this, Ta-Nesi Coates has done yeoman work on the deliberate and widespread work done to make sure that blacks were not allowed to participate in the post-WWII suburban boom.
Brett: “By enabling people to survive staying where they had no hope, it changed ghost towns into ghettoes”
For those interested in this, Ta-Nesi Coates has done yeoman work on the deliberate and widespread work done to make sure that blacks were not allowed to participate in the post-WWII suburban boom.
Thanks, Nigel, for pointing me to the huge flaw in Brett’s argument. His sources are two reports by police departments in major cities – Chicago, and Pittsburgh – who identify a majority of murder victims as being “arrested for” or “charged with” crimes. (Nothing cited about suburban, small-town, or rural murder, though to be fair we don’t really wish too much documentation on a blog like this.)
This, to Brett, is sufficient to brand them “criminals,” and hence legitimate targets for police execution.
The presumption of innocence presumably does not apply to inner-city blacks.
Sheesh.
Thanks, Nigel, for pointing me to the huge flaw in Brett’s argument. His sources are two reports by police departments in major cities – Chicago, and Pittsburgh – who identify a majority of murder victims as being “arrested for” or “charged with” crimes. (Nothing cited about suburban, small-town, or rural murder, though to be fair we don’t really wish too much documentation on a blog like this.)
This, to Brett, is sufficient to brand them “criminals,” and hence legitimate targets for police execution.
The presumption of innocence presumably does not apply to inner-city blacks.
Sheesh.
Thanks, Nigel, for pointing me to the huge flaw in Brett’s argument. His sources are two reports by police departments in major cities – Chicago, and Pittsburgh – who identify a majority of murder victims as being “arrested for” or “charged with” crimes. (Nothing cited about suburban, small-town, or rural murder, though to be fair we don’t really wish too much documentation on a blog like this.)
This, to Brett, is sufficient to brand them “criminals,” and hence legitimate targets for police execution.
The presumption of innocence presumably does not apply to inner-city blacks.
Sheesh.
Brown was a violent thug.
Obviously.
Also:
What the hell is a “tax plantation”?
Also:
When I see a riot, I think “Those people are pissed off”.
Rashomon.
Brown was a violent thug.
Obviously.
Also:
What the hell is a “tax plantation”?
Also:
When I see a riot, I think “Those people are pissed off”.
Rashomon.
Brown was a violent thug.
Obviously.
Also:
What the hell is a “tax plantation”?
Also:
When I see a riot, I think “Those people are pissed off”.
Rashomon.
“This might make a little more sense if riots necessarily occurred in vacuums,”
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything. Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
“This might make a little more sense if riots necessarily occurred in vacuums,”
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything. Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
“This might make a little more sense if riots necessarily occurred in vacuums,”
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything. Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything.
People frequently act out when they’re pissed off.
Likewise when motivated by any of a variety of negative emotions or stressors.
Human beings reacting in counter-productive ways, and ways harmful to themselves and others, is not really a novelty.
Plus, there are always some folks in every crowd who just enjoy setting it off.
None of this should surprise anyone. The grand jury finding shouldn’t surprise anyone, and neither should the reaction.
IMO it would help if folks felt like their neighborhoods actually belonged to them.
looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything.
People frequently act out when they’re pissed off.
Likewise when motivated by any of a variety of negative emotions or stressors.
Human beings reacting in counter-productive ways, and ways harmful to themselves and others, is not really a novelty.
Plus, there are always some folks in every crowd who just enjoy setting it off.
None of this should surprise anyone. The grand jury finding shouldn’t surprise anyone, and neither should the reaction.
IMO it would help if folks felt like their neighborhoods actually belonged to them.
looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything.
People frequently act out when they’re pissed off.
Likewise when motivated by any of a variety of negative emotions or stressors.
Human beings reacting in counter-productive ways, and ways harmful to themselves and others, is not really a novelty.
Plus, there are always some folks in every crowd who just enjoy setting it off.
None of this should surprise anyone. The grand jury finding shouldn’t surprise anyone, and neither should the reaction.
IMO it would help if folks felt like their neighborhoods actually belonged to them.
Human beings do lots of horrible things. But destroying your neighborhood because you’re pissed that a robber got shot ranks pretty far down the scale.
Plenty of those businesses that got burned out DID belong to “them”. Here’s my prediction: Ferguson will never recover from what it’s own inhabitants did to themselves. There are still trees growing out of burnt buildings in Detroit, approaching 50 years after the riots there, and Detroit started out in better shape.
And another prediction: Those consequences will be attributed to everybody but the people who rioted. A decade from now people will be noticing how poor Ferguson is, and blaming it on discrimination, and not on morons who burned their own community to the ground.
Human beings do lots of horrible things. But destroying your neighborhood because you’re pissed that a robber got shot ranks pretty far down the scale.
Plenty of those businesses that got burned out DID belong to “them”. Here’s my prediction: Ferguson will never recover from what it’s own inhabitants did to themselves. There are still trees growing out of burnt buildings in Detroit, approaching 50 years after the riots there, and Detroit started out in better shape.
And another prediction: Those consequences will be attributed to everybody but the people who rioted. A decade from now people will be noticing how poor Ferguson is, and blaming it on discrimination, and not on morons who burned their own community to the ground.
Human beings do lots of horrible things. But destroying your neighborhood because you’re pissed that a robber got shot ranks pretty far down the scale.
Plenty of those businesses that got burned out DID belong to “them”. Here’s my prediction: Ferguson will never recover from what it’s own inhabitants did to themselves. There are still trees growing out of burnt buildings in Detroit, approaching 50 years after the riots there, and Detroit started out in better shape.
And another prediction: Those consequences will be attributed to everybody but the people who rioted. A decade from now people will be noticing how poor Ferguson is, and blaming it on discrimination, and not on morons who burned their own community to the ground.
But destroying your neighborhood because you’re pissed that a robber got shot ranks pretty far down the scale.
Maybe that’s not the whole of what they’re angry about.
In any case, I can think of worse things.
Not justifying the rioting, just pointing out that it’s far from the ultimate as far as bad human behavior goes.
Here’s my prediction:
You have no idea what the future holds for Ferguson, or any other place.
But destroying your neighborhood because you’re pissed that a robber got shot ranks pretty far down the scale.
Maybe that’s not the whole of what they’re angry about.
In any case, I can think of worse things.
Not justifying the rioting, just pointing out that it’s far from the ultimate as far as bad human behavior goes.
Here’s my prediction:
You have no idea what the future holds for Ferguson, or any other place.
But destroying your neighborhood because you’re pissed that a robber got shot ranks pretty far down the scale.
Maybe that’s not the whole of what they’re angry about.
In any case, I can think of worse things.
Not justifying the rioting, just pointing out that it’s far from the ultimate as far as bad human behavior goes.
Here’s my prediction:
You have no idea what the future holds for Ferguson, or any other place.
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything.
Anything? Including injustice?
The point isn’t that it’s okay to loot. The point is, as russell points out and you once again miss, that people might react in ways that aren’t justified to a given situation. But that doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t mean the situation didn’t precipitate the reaction, even if the reaction wasn’t justified.
People in Ferguson wouldn’t be doing this stuff were it not for the whole history of ill treatment of blacks by the police there. The Brown-Wilson case, as CharlesWT pointed out, simply set off pre-existing tensions that had been building.
This doesn’t excuse looting, burning and rioting. But it does explain it.
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything.
Anything? Including injustice?
The point isn’t that it’s okay to loot. The point is, as russell points out and you once again miss, that people might react in ways that aren’t justified to a given situation. But that doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t mean the situation didn’t precipitate the reaction, even if the reaction wasn’t justified.
People in Ferguson wouldn’t be doing this stuff were it not for the whole history of ill treatment of blacks by the police there. The Brown-Wilson case, as CharlesWT pointed out, simply set off pre-existing tensions that had been building.
This doesn’t excuse looting, burning and rioting. But it does explain it.
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything.
Anything? Including injustice?
The point isn’t that it’s okay to loot. The point is, as russell points out and you once again miss, that people might react in ways that aren’t justified to a given situation. But that doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t mean the situation didn’t precipitate the reaction, even if the reaction wasn’t justified.
People in Ferguson wouldn’t be doing this stuff were it not for the whole history of ill treatment of blacks by the police there. The Brown-Wilson case, as CharlesWT pointed out, simply set off pre-existing tensions that had been building.
This doesn’t excuse looting, burning and rioting. But it does explain it.
Since I basically don’t agree with anyone here, I would like to point out that CNN, last night, started asking anyone they could where they lived. Maybe one out of 5 was from Ferguson, many were proud that they had driven hundreds of miles to help burn down the house. So maybe the reaction is less insane if you don’t live there?
Since I basically don’t agree with anyone here, I would like to point out that CNN, last night, started asking anyone they could where they lived. Maybe one out of 5 was from Ferguson, many were proud that they had driven hundreds of miles to help burn down the house. So maybe the reaction is less insane if you don’t live there?
Since I basically don’t agree with anyone here, I would like to point out that CNN, last night, started asking anyone they could where they lived. Maybe one out of 5 was from Ferguson, many were proud that they had driven hundreds of miles to help burn down the house. So maybe the reaction is less insane if you don’t live there?
So maybe the reaction is less insane if you don’t live there?
Could be.
Reading your comment, it also strikes me as remarkable that people would drive hundreds of miles to burn down somebody else’s house.
Either Ferguson is a wonderful opportunity for folks who simply like to smash stuff and light it on fire, or folks are really pissed off in places more places than just Ferguson.
Just saying “those people are crazy!!” seems kind of inadequate, to me. Not that many people are that crazy.
So maybe the reaction is less insane if you don’t live there?
Could be.
Reading your comment, it also strikes me as remarkable that people would drive hundreds of miles to burn down somebody else’s house.
Either Ferguson is a wonderful opportunity for folks who simply like to smash stuff and light it on fire, or folks are really pissed off in places more places than just Ferguson.
Just saying “those people are crazy!!” seems kind of inadequate, to me. Not that many people are that crazy.
So maybe the reaction is less insane if you don’t live there?
Could be.
Reading your comment, it also strikes me as remarkable that people would drive hundreds of miles to burn down somebody else’s house.
Either Ferguson is a wonderful opportunity for folks who simply like to smash stuff and light it on fire, or folks are really pissed off in places more places than just Ferguson.
Just saying “those people are crazy!!” seems kind of inadequate, to me. Not that many people are that crazy.
Either Ferguson is a wonderful opportunity for folks who simply like to smash stuff and light it on fire, or folks are really pissed off in places more places than just Ferguson
It doesn’t have to be either/or. I can imagine people coming to peaceably protest, to riot because they are angry, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot.
I don’t think you can ascribe a single motive, or even several motives, to the current group in Ferguson.
Ferguson is an example of a systemic problem with law and order in this country. It is in the national spotlight, and different people are going to converge on Ferguson for different reasons.
Either Ferguson is a wonderful opportunity for folks who simply like to smash stuff and light it on fire, or folks are really pissed off in places more places than just Ferguson
It doesn’t have to be either/or. I can imagine people coming to peaceably protest, to riot because they are angry, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot.
I don’t think you can ascribe a single motive, or even several motives, to the current group in Ferguson.
Ferguson is an example of a systemic problem with law and order in this country. It is in the national spotlight, and different people are going to converge on Ferguson for different reasons.
Either Ferguson is a wonderful opportunity for folks who simply like to smash stuff and light it on fire, or folks are really pissed off in places more places than just Ferguson
It doesn’t have to be either/or. I can imagine people coming to peaceably protest, to riot because they are angry, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot.
I don’t think you can ascribe a single motive, or even several motives, to the current group in Ferguson.
Ferguson is an example of a systemic problem with law and order in this country. It is in the national spotlight, and different people are going to converge on Ferguson for different reasons.
Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown may have been “thugs”.
But George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are ARMED thugs. Armed thugs with authoritarian tendencies for sure. Armed thugs with interesting ideas about “culture”, most likely. Armed thugs who can count on upright citizens like Brett to give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Because culture, or something.
–TP
Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown may have been “thugs”.
But George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are ARMED thugs. Armed thugs with authoritarian tendencies for sure. Armed thugs with interesting ideas about “culture”, most likely. Armed thugs who can count on upright citizens like Brett to give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Because culture, or something.
–TP
Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown may have been “thugs”.
But George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are ARMED thugs. Armed thugs with authoritarian tendencies for sure. Armed thugs with interesting ideas about “culture”, most likely. Armed thugs who can count on upright citizens like Brett to give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Because culture, or something.
–TP
What the hell is a tax plantation ?
The Washington Post ran a series of articles on the (widespread) practice. For tax, read court fines.
Here’s one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/
What the hell is a tax plantation ?
The Washington Post ran a series of articles on the (widespread) practice. For tax, read court fines.
Here’s one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/
What the hell is a tax plantation ?
The Washington Post ran a series of articles on the (widespread) practice. For tax, read court fines.
Here’s one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/
Armed thugs who can count on upright citizens like Brett to give them the benefit of the doubt every time.
IMHO, it is important to keep in mind that everybody accused of a crime should be given benefit of the doubt.
This doesn’t mean I think the Ferguson case isn’t rife with injustice, just that ‘benefit of doubt’ is an important safeguard in our system, even if it is far too often used unequally.
Armed thugs who can count on upright citizens like Brett to give them the benefit of the doubt every time.
IMHO, it is important to keep in mind that everybody accused of a crime should be given benefit of the doubt.
This doesn’t mean I think the Ferguson case isn’t rife with injustice, just that ‘benefit of doubt’ is an important safeguard in our system, even if it is far too often used unequally.
Armed thugs who can count on upright citizens like Brett to give them the benefit of the doubt every time.
IMHO, it is important to keep in mind that everybody accused of a crime should be given benefit of the doubt.
This doesn’t mean I think the Ferguson case isn’t rife with injustice, just that ‘benefit of doubt’ is an important safeguard in our system, even if it is far too often used unequally.
Giuliani says 93% of black murder victims are killed by fellow blacks.
Welp, 83% of of white murder victims are killed by fellow whites.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053811/white-on-white-murder.
I couldn’t find stats on Hispanic-on-Hispanic murder, but I’ll bet it follows the same pattern.
As any TV detective will tell you, most murder victims know their assailant.
Proximity to your own kind is apparently not your friend.
Italians, like Giuliani, will most likely he whacked by their fellow Goombas, who keep it in the family. And I’m more likely to be caught in the crossfire at that family gathering, given my hunger for Italian food, unlike, say, Dr. Dre, who has other tastes.
This tells me that we have a massive failure of integration in this country. Had integration taken hold, we’d be killing the Other much more than we are, like America was intended to work, according to all men are created equal for killing.
I wonder how many white cops kill black people in the line of duty, or as happens too many times, in the line of untrained incompetent police work.
I also wonder how many black police officers gun down white people, armed or not.
I don’t believe I’ve ever run across a black police officer in any suburb I’ve lived in in my life, nor have I ever been stopped by a black police officer for however many traffic citations I’ve received in my life.
Yet the numbers above tell me that I’m much more likely to be gunned down by a white police officer, given proximity.
The numbers also tell me that I’m much more likely to be gunned down at a Redstate get-together, given that I share the same racial profile of the crew there, not that there might not be trouble for other reasons, than I am to be gunned down by the commentariat at Ta-Nehesi Coates place, since they are minding their own business.
Other stats that many surprise you:
100% of white suicide victims die by their own white hands.
100% of black suicide victims die by their own black hands.
In my haphazard research recently on related topics, I’ve noticed a pattern of relatively high suicides rates (Greenland, Scandanavia, etc) at more northern latitudes. The less melanin, the less daylight, the more depression, the more suicide.
Giuliani says 93% of black murder victims are killed by fellow blacks.
Welp, 83% of of white murder victims are killed by fellow whites.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053811/white-on-white-murder.
I couldn’t find stats on Hispanic-on-Hispanic murder, but I’ll bet it follows the same pattern.
As any TV detective will tell you, most murder victims know their assailant.
Proximity to your own kind is apparently not your friend.
Italians, like Giuliani, will most likely he whacked by their fellow Goombas, who keep it in the family. And I’m more likely to be caught in the crossfire at that family gathering, given my hunger for Italian food, unlike, say, Dr. Dre, who has other tastes.
This tells me that we have a massive failure of integration in this country. Had integration taken hold, we’d be killing the Other much more than we are, like America was intended to work, according to all men are created equal for killing.
I wonder how many white cops kill black people in the line of duty, or as happens too many times, in the line of untrained incompetent police work.
I also wonder how many black police officers gun down white people, armed or not.
I don’t believe I’ve ever run across a black police officer in any suburb I’ve lived in in my life, nor have I ever been stopped by a black police officer for however many traffic citations I’ve received in my life.
Yet the numbers above tell me that I’m much more likely to be gunned down by a white police officer, given proximity.
The numbers also tell me that I’m much more likely to be gunned down at a Redstate get-together, given that I share the same racial profile of the crew there, not that there might not be trouble for other reasons, than I am to be gunned down by the commentariat at Ta-Nehesi Coates place, since they are minding their own business.
Other stats that many surprise you:
100% of white suicide victims die by their own white hands.
100% of black suicide victims die by their own black hands.
In my haphazard research recently on related topics, I’ve noticed a pattern of relatively high suicides rates (Greenland, Scandanavia, etc) at more northern latitudes. The less melanin, the less daylight, the more depression, the more suicide.
Giuliani says 93% of black murder victims are killed by fellow blacks.
Welp, 83% of of white murder victims are killed by fellow whites.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053811/white-on-white-murder.
I couldn’t find stats on Hispanic-on-Hispanic murder, but I’ll bet it follows the same pattern.
As any TV detective will tell you, most murder victims know their assailant.
Proximity to your own kind is apparently not your friend.
Italians, like Giuliani, will most likely he whacked by their fellow Goombas, who keep it in the family. And I’m more likely to be caught in the crossfire at that family gathering, given my hunger for Italian food, unlike, say, Dr. Dre, who has other tastes.
This tells me that we have a massive failure of integration in this country. Had integration taken hold, we’d be killing the Other much more than we are, like America was intended to work, according to all men are created equal for killing.
I wonder how many white cops kill black people in the line of duty, or as happens too many times, in the line of untrained incompetent police work.
I also wonder how many black police officers gun down white people, armed or not.
I don’t believe I’ve ever run across a black police officer in any suburb I’ve lived in in my life, nor have I ever been stopped by a black police officer for however many traffic citations I’ve received in my life.
Yet the numbers above tell me that I’m much more likely to be gunned down by a white police officer, given proximity.
The numbers also tell me that I’m much more likely to be gunned down at a Redstate get-together, given that I share the same racial profile of the crew there, not that there might not be trouble for other reasons, than I am to be gunned down by the commentariat at Ta-Nehesi Coates place, since they are minding their own business.
Other stats that many surprise you:
100% of white suicide victims die by their own white hands.
100% of black suicide victims die by their own black hands.
In my haphazard research recently on related topics, I’ve noticed a pattern of relatively high suicides rates (Greenland, Scandanavia, etc) at more northern latitudes. The less melanin, the less daylight, the more depression, the more suicide.
I agree with you, thompson. But in my sentence fragment about armed thugs and upright citizens, “the benefit of the doubt” was a euphemism.
–TP
I agree with you, thompson. But in my sentence fragment about armed thugs and upright citizens, “the benefit of the doubt” was a euphemism.
–TP
I agree with you, thompson. But in my sentence fragment about armed thugs and upright citizens, “the benefit of the doubt” was a euphemism.
–TP
Correction: I was stopped once for speeding by a black officer some years ago.
He didn’t give me an ugly stare down so I didn’t shoot him.
Correction: I was stopped once for speeding by a black officer some years ago.
He didn’t give me an ugly stare down so I didn’t shoot him.
Correction: I was stopped once for speeding by a black officer some years ago.
He didn’t give me an ugly stare down so I didn’t shoot him.
Oh, you could think otherwise, but when you have somebody deceased, and the person who killed him says, “He attacked me.”, the knowledge that he had shortly before attacked somebody else is entirely relevant to any evaluation of this claim.
Hmm, Brett, is the “thinking person” only allowed to make circumstantial inferences regarding credibility about the behavior of the deceased before the fact, or can they look at behavior of the perp and his colleagues after the fact? Because your “thinking person” might well look at the highly professional and competent processing of the crime scene and conduct in investigating the whys and wherefores, and conclude that this is a group of LEOs going out of their way to not question the narrative of their peer, or to be particularly rigorous in gathering evidence which could contradict his narrative. Is your “thinking person” to make inferences of that sort, or only those which favor deferring to the state not being held accountable for low-level government employees engaging in violence against citizens?
Also, you repeatedly invoke the notion of “provocation” as though it’s a magical GOOJF card. Are we to be at all even-handed here before declaring Wilson did not wrong and was a victim defending himself? Did you even read his own testimony to the grand jury? He argues from the very beginning that he found Brown to be remarkably imposing and intimidating. Before the “light clicked” and he re-engaged with the pair as suspects after calling for (but not waiting for) backup, he remarked that the pair was confrontational. Further, it was a pair of individuals. Yet even if we take Wilson at his word without the least question, he repeatedly and recklessly provoked escalation up to the point where he felt justified in using lethal force due to a perceived threat to his person. If we simply take Wilson at his word and assume that the Blue Code is not at play here, he is a reckless and unprofessional danger to himself and others who bears a great deal of responsibility for creating a situation for which he will not be meaningfully held accountable.
Oh, you could think otherwise, but when you have somebody deceased, and the person who killed him says, “He attacked me.”, the knowledge that he had shortly before attacked somebody else is entirely relevant to any evaluation of this claim.
Hmm, Brett, is the “thinking person” only allowed to make circumstantial inferences regarding credibility about the behavior of the deceased before the fact, or can they look at behavior of the perp and his colleagues after the fact? Because your “thinking person” might well look at the highly professional and competent processing of the crime scene and conduct in investigating the whys and wherefores, and conclude that this is a group of LEOs going out of their way to not question the narrative of their peer, or to be particularly rigorous in gathering evidence which could contradict his narrative. Is your “thinking person” to make inferences of that sort, or only those which favor deferring to the state not being held accountable for low-level government employees engaging in violence against citizens?
Also, you repeatedly invoke the notion of “provocation” as though it’s a magical GOOJF card. Are we to be at all even-handed here before declaring Wilson did not wrong and was a victim defending himself? Did you even read his own testimony to the grand jury? He argues from the very beginning that he found Brown to be remarkably imposing and intimidating. Before the “light clicked” and he re-engaged with the pair as suspects after calling for (but not waiting for) backup, he remarked that the pair was confrontational. Further, it was a pair of individuals. Yet even if we take Wilson at his word without the least question, he repeatedly and recklessly provoked escalation up to the point where he felt justified in using lethal force due to a perceived threat to his person. If we simply take Wilson at his word and assume that the Blue Code is not at play here, he is a reckless and unprofessional danger to himself and others who bears a great deal of responsibility for creating a situation for which he will not be meaningfully held accountable.
Oh, you could think otherwise, but when you have somebody deceased, and the person who killed him says, “He attacked me.”, the knowledge that he had shortly before attacked somebody else is entirely relevant to any evaluation of this claim.
Hmm, Brett, is the “thinking person” only allowed to make circumstantial inferences regarding credibility about the behavior of the deceased before the fact, or can they look at behavior of the perp and his colleagues after the fact? Because your “thinking person” might well look at the highly professional and competent processing of the crime scene and conduct in investigating the whys and wherefores, and conclude that this is a group of LEOs going out of their way to not question the narrative of their peer, or to be particularly rigorous in gathering evidence which could contradict his narrative. Is your “thinking person” to make inferences of that sort, or only those which favor deferring to the state not being held accountable for low-level government employees engaging in violence against citizens?
Also, you repeatedly invoke the notion of “provocation” as though it’s a magical GOOJF card. Are we to be at all even-handed here before declaring Wilson did not wrong and was a victim defending himself? Did you even read his own testimony to the grand jury? He argues from the very beginning that he found Brown to be remarkably imposing and intimidating. Before the “light clicked” and he re-engaged with the pair as suspects after calling for (but not waiting for) backup, he remarked that the pair was confrontational. Further, it was a pair of individuals. Yet even if we take Wilson at his word without the least question, he repeatedly and recklessly provoked escalation up to the point where he felt justified in using lethal force due to a perceived threat to his person. If we simply take Wilson at his word and assume that the Blue Code is not at play here, he is a reckless and unprofessional danger to himself and others who bears a great deal of responsibility for creating a situation for which he will not be meaningfully held accountable.
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything
says the man with the atlatl lodged in his hind section. Lest we forget why his play circle was making an atlatl for their own, it was to be able to be prepared in case they didn’t have enough ammo for the End Times.
You have no idea what the future holds for Ferguson, or any other place.
Another ‘what Russell said’ moment. Given that you have no idea what your mind holds, I’d say this is a given, but maybe you ought to get that plane ticket ready so you can fly out of here. Feel free to practice your bugging out skills now.
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything
says the man with the atlatl lodged in his hind section. Lest we forget why his play circle was making an atlatl for their own, it was to be able to be prepared in case they didn’t have enough ammo for the End Times.
You have no idea what the future holds for Ferguson, or any other place.
Another ‘what Russell said’ moment. Given that you have no idea what your mind holds, I’d say this is a given, but maybe you ought to get that plane ticket ready so you can fly out of here. Feel free to practice your bugging out skills now.
It makes sense because looting stores and burning your neighborhood down is an insane reaction to, basically, anything
says the man with the atlatl lodged in his hind section. Lest we forget why his play circle was making an atlatl for their own, it was to be able to be prepared in case they didn’t have enough ammo for the End Times.
You have no idea what the future holds for Ferguson, or any other place.
Another ‘what Russell said’ moment. Given that you have no idea what your mind holds, I’d say this is a given, but maybe you ought to get that plane ticket ready so you can fly out of here. Feel free to practice your bugging out skills now.
It doesn’t have to be either/or. I can imagine people coming to peaceably protest, to riot because they are angry, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot.
thompson,
There is, unfortunately, another possible motivation. One which I have seen in action myself. Some people will go out to a riot just because “it’s exciting!” Really — I actually got exactly that response one time when asking someone (who had no visible interest in the nominal cause of the original demonstration, and no economic motivation to loot) why he was going out to a riot.
I don’t know that was the motivation for any of those running amok in Ferguson (or any of the other places where demonstrations turned violent last night). But I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand either.
It doesn’t have to be either/or. I can imagine people coming to peaceably protest, to riot because they are angry, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot.
thompson,
There is, unfortunately, another possible motivation. One which I have seen in action myself. Some people will go out to a riot just because “it’s exciting!” Really — I actually got exactly that response one time when asking someone (who had no visible interest in the nominal cause of the original demonstration, and no economic motivation to loot) why he was going out to a riot.
I don’t know that was the motivation for any of those running amok in Ferguson (or any of the other places where demonstrations turned violent last night). But I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand either.
It doesn’t have to be either/or. I can imagine people coming to peaceably protest, to riot because they are angry, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot.
thompson,
There is, unfortunately, another possible motivation. One which I have seen in action myself. Some people will go out to a riot just because “it’s exciting!” Really — I actually got exactly that response one time when asking someone (who had no visible interest in the nominal cause of the original demonstration, and no economic motivation to loot) why he was going out to a riot.
I don’t know that was the motivation for any of those running amok in Ferguson (or any of the other places where demonstrations turned violent last night). But I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand either.
Scott Lemieux summarizes some commentary.
It seems to me we have one of two things. A prosecutor who sabotaged the grand jury proceedings because he didn’t want Wilson to be charged and put on trial. Or a prosecutor who didn’t want any responsibility for the decision at all and just said “fnck it, let the grand jury decide” and dropped all the evidence on them.
I don’t like judging any of this from a distance. It reminds me of a couple other cases where, the closer to the facts you got the more reasonable the at first glance outrageous result becomes, or at a minimum it becomes much more explainable (I’m thinking of Bernie Goetz and the McDonalds hot coffee cases in particular).
The other thing this case reminds me of is a law school classmate of mine who was (and went back to being) a police officer. Both because of the crazy sh1t he described seeing, both from the general public and police, and some of the background facts/training that police receive about their abilities and the danger to them posed by various situations (one thing that sticks out is – if someone is charging at you with a knife, how far away does that person have to be for you to safely draw your weapon and fire? It’s a lot farther than one might think).
Part of the problem is, of course, that cops then use this knowledge to describe what happened, thus the ubiquitous claim (it seems) of resisting arrest. Or “failure to comply.”
NV also makes some good points about Wilson’s responsibility for creating/escalating the situation.
Scott Lemieux summarizes some commentary.
It seems to me we have one of two things. A prosecutor who sabotaged the grand jury proceedings because he didn’t want Wilson to be charged and put on trial. Or a prosecutor who didn’t want any responsibility for the decision at all and just said “fnck it, let the grand jury decide” and dropped all the evidence on them.
I don’t like judging any of this from a distance. It reminds me of a couple other cases where, the closer to the facts you got the more reasonable the at first glance outrageous result becomes, or at a minimum it becomes much more explainable (I’m thinking of Bernie Goetz and the McDonalds hot coffee cases in particular).
The other thing this case reminds me of is a law school classmate of mine who was (and went back to being) a police officer. Both because of the crazy sh1t he described seeing, both from the general public and police, and some of the background facts/training that police receive about their abilities and the danger to them posed by various situations (one thing that sticks out is – if someone is charging at you with a knife, how far away does that person have to be for you to safely draw your weapon and fire? It’s a lot farther than one might think).
Part of the problem is, of course, that cops then use this knowledge to describe what happened, thus the ubiquitous claim (it seems) of resisting arrest. Or “failure to comply.”
NV also makes some good points about Wilson’s responsibility for creating/escalating the situation.
Scott Lemieux summarizes some commentary.
It seems to me we have one of two things. A prosecutor who sabotaged the grand jury proceedings because he didn’t want Wilson to be charged and put on trial. Or a prosecutor who didn’t want any responsibility for the decision at all and just said “fnck it, let the grand jury decide” and dropped all the evidence on them.
I don’t like judging any of this from a distance. It reminds me of a couple other cases where, the closer to the facts you got the more reasonable the at first glance outrageous result becomes, or at a minimum it becomes much more explainable (I’m thinking of Bernie Goetz and the McDonalds hot coffee cases in particular).
The other thing this case reminds me of is a law school classmate of mine who was (and went back to being) a police officer. Both because of the crazy sh1t he described seeing, both from the general public and police, and some of the background facts/training that police receive about their abilities and the danger to them posed by various situations (one thing that sticks out is – if someone is charging at you with a knife, how far away does that person have to be for you to safely draw your weapon and fire? It’s a lot farther than one might think).
Part of the problem is, of course, that cops then use this knowledge to describe what happened, thus the ubiquitous claim (it seems) of resisting arrest. Or “failure to comply.”
NV also makes some good points about Wilson’s responsibility for creating/escalating the situation.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me. He’s a cop, talking to a guy who just robbed a store and then attacked a policeman. Unless Brown dropped to his knees with his hands behind his fing head, he was the one prolonging and escalating the issue.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me. He’s a cop, talking to a guy who just robbed a store and then attacked a policeman. Unless Brown dropped to his knees with his hands behind his fing head, he was the one prolonging and escalating the issue.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me. He’s a cop, talking to a guy who just robbed a store and then attacked a policeman. Unless Brown dropped to his knees with his hands behind his fing head, he was the one prolonging and escalating the issue.
Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
The oppressed. The powerless. They never fight fair.
Damn them all. Exterminate the brutes.*
*apologies to Joe Conrad
Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
The oppressed. The powerless. They never fight fair.
Damn them all. Exterminate the brutes.*
*apologies to Joe Conrad
Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
The oppressed. The powerless. They never fight fair.
Damn them all. Exterminate the brutes.*
*apologies to Joe Conrad
(marty)…”he was the one prolonging and escalating the issue.”
By this criteria, the National Guard should have been mobilized and shot dead each and every one of Cliven Bundey’s armed “defenders”.
And by the way, why is this f*ck still alive, much less a free man? Isn’t he a criminal? A thug?
(marty)…”he was the one prolonging and escalating the issue.”
By this criteria, the National Guard should have been mobilized and shot dead each and every one of Cliven Bundey’s armed “defenders”.
And by the way, why is this f*ck still alive, much less a free man? Isn’t he a criminal? A thug?
(marty)…”he was the one prolonging and escalating the issue.”
By this criteria, the National Guard should have been mobilized and shot dead each and every one of Cliven Bundey’s armed “defenders”.
And by the way, why is this f*ck still alive, much less a free man? Isn’t he a criminal? A thug?
Bobbyp, happy for you to go back and see my view of Bundy. Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot. Pretty sure if I attacked a cop I would too. Absolutely sure I would have at 18. Want a reason to rise up? Pick a better fight.
Bobbyp, happy for you to go back and see my view of Bundy. Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot. Pretty sure if I attacked a cop I would too. Absolutely sure I would have at 18. Want a reason to rise up? Pick a better fight.
Bobbyp, happy for you to go back and see my view of Bundy. Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot. Pretty sure if I attacked a cop I would too. Absolutely sure I would have at 18. Want a reason to rise up? Pick a better fight.
Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot.
Were you there?
What I take away from everything I’ve seen or read about this is that nobody has a story that hangs together worth a damn.
Wilson’s alive and he’s a cop. Brown is dead and he stole some cigars.
Wilson wins.
Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot.
Were you there?
What I take away from everything I’ve seen or read about this is that nobody has a story that hangs together worth a damn.
Wilson’s alive and he’s a cop. Brown is dead and he stole some cigars.
Wilson wins.
Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot.
Were you there?
What I take away from everything I’ve seen or read about this is that nobody has a story that hangs together worth a damn.
Wilson’s alive and he’s a cop. Brown is dead and he stole some cigars.
Wilson wins.
He attacked a cop and got shot…
You miss my point entirely. The cop need not have stopped anybody for anything in this particular instance. Or, barring that, he could have waited for backup. Beyond doing a bit of aggressive loitering, there was not big crime in progress.
But you know, you have to show blacks their place. The fight picked him.
He attacked a cop and got shot…
You miss my point entirely. The cop need not have stopped anybody for anything in this particular instance. Or, barring that, he could have waited for backup. Beyond doing a bit of aggressive loitering, there was not big crime in progress.
But you know, you have to show blacks their place. The fight picked him.
He attacked a cop and got shot…
You miss my point entirely. The cop need not have stopped anybody for anything in this particular instance. Or, barring that, he could have waited for backup. Beyond doing a bit of aggressive loitering, there was not big crime in progress.
But you know, you have to show blacks their place. The fight picked him.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me.
Really? Can cops not make stupid decisions, which may unnecessarily escalate situations? What was so urgent about confronting Brown, threatening guy that he was, without back up, knowing that the only recourse was to shoot him if he attacked? What was at stake, that outweighed the potential for ending a young man’s life?
Now – am I saying Wilson necessarily committed a crime? No, but I am saying he very well may have f*cked up and created sh*t storm in a place that was primed for one.
Am I saying Brown wasn’t being a dumb-assed 18-year-old? No, I’m not. But cops are supposed to know how to handle 18-year-old dumb-asses without needing to shoot them.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me.
Really? Can cops not make stupid decisions, which may unnecessarily escalate situations? What was so urgent about confronting Brown, threatening guy that he was, without back up, knowing that the only recourse was to shoot him if he attacked? What was at stake, that outweighed the potential for ending a young man’s life?
Now – am I saying Wilson necessarily committed a crime? No, but I am saying he very well may have f*cked up and created sh*t storm in a place that was primed for one.
Am I saying Brown wasn’t being a dumb-assed 18-year-old? No, I’m not. But cops are supposed to know how to handle 18-year-old dumb-asses without needing to shoot them.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me.
Really? Can cops not make stupid decisions, which may unnecessarily escalate situations? What was so urgent about confronting Brown, threatening guy that he was, without back up, knowing that the only recourse was to shoot him if he attacked? What was at stake, that outweighed the potential for ending a young man’s life?
Now – am I saying Wilson necessarily committed a crime? No, but I am saying he very well may have f*cked up and created sh*t storm in a place that was primed for one.
Am I saying Brown wasn’t being a dumb-assed 18-year-old? No, I’m not. But cops are supposed to know how to handle 18-year-old dumb-asses without needing to shoot them.
Russell, after all the dozens of things I’ve read and interviews I saw, the common thread is that, first, the original eye witnesses just lied. They claimed he was shot in the back, that wasn’t a mistake it was a lie. To create sympathy, for them. Second, he was moving toward Wilson, after attacking him in the car. That was what the forensics supported. Its hard to come to a different conclusion. My opinion. So now the lawyers are in tv saying they should have done the grand jury different, the prosecutor shouldn’t have given all the info to the grand jury, he should have used just enough to get an indictment. If he had done that and failed they would have complained about that.
Now everyone tries to justify the riots, burning buildings because,”even though this might not be a legitimate reason” history justfies a response. Bah.
Russell, after all the dozens of things I’ve read and interviews I saw, the common thread is that, first, the original eye witnesses just lied. They claimed he was shot in the back, that wasn’t a mistake it was a lie. To create sympathy, for them. Second, he was moving toward Wilson, after attacking him in the car. That was what the forensics supported. Its hard to come to a different conclusion. My opinion. So now the lawyers are in tv saying they should have done the grand jury different, the prosecutor shouldn’t have given all the info to the grand jury, he should have used just enough to get an indictment. If he had done that and failed they would have complained about that.
Now everyone tries to justify the riots, burning buildings because,”even though this might not be a legitimate reason” history justfies a response. Bah.
Russell, after all the dozens of things I’ve read and interviews I saw, the common thread is that, first, the original eye witnesses just lied. They claimed he was shot in the back, that wasn’t a mistake it was a lie. To create sympathy, for them. Second, he was moving toward Wilson, after attacking him in the car. That was what the forensics supported. Its hard to come to a different conclusion. My opinion. So now the lawyers are in tv saying they should have done the grand jury different, the prosecutor shouldn’t have given all the info to the grand jury, he should have used just enough to get an indictment. If he had done that and failed they would have complained about that.
Now everyone tries to justify the riots, burning buildings because,”even though this might not be a legitimate reason” history justfies a response. Bah.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me. He’s a cop, talking to a guy who just robbed a store and then attacked a policeman.
Marty, Wilson escalated the situation by going into it without waiting for backup despite there being a number of countervailing factors that he described himself as being keenly aware of in his grand jury testimony. The minimum amount of force necessary to maintain control of a situation can vary wildly, and Wilson needing to use lethal force is a direct reflection of that. If he had waited for backup, even if he hung back and tailed Brown, all parties involved would likely still be alive today. That he put himself into what his testimony portrays as a dangerous situation IOT apprehend someone who was not at that time posing danger to anyone else reflects at a minimum very poor judgement, and frankly was reckless and stupid. I’m surprised to see you arguing this, actually, because I recall you falling on the side of “sensible precaution” and “not taking imprudent risks” the last time we had a discussion of rape; the same principle should apply here. Just because Wilson had a badge doesn’t mean his choice to engage the situation alone was reasonable. In a perfect world, it would have been fine, but in a perfect world Wilson wouldn’t need to carry a gun, and for that matter, we wouldn’t need police in the first place. Wilson was well within his rights to confront Brown, but by his own sworn assessment this in no way, shape, or form suggests that it was sensible, prudent, or even professional of him to do so. It was dumb, and if we do nothing more than take his own word at face value, it could easily have gotten him killed instead of putting him in a position where he felt the only way to protect his person was by using lethal force. Wilson absolutely escalated the situation, and someone died as a result of his exceedingly poor judgement.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me. He’s a cop, talking to a guy who just robbed a store and then attacked a policeman.
Marty, Wilson escalated the situation by going into it without waiting for backup despite there being a number of countervailing factors that he described himself as being keenly aware of in his grand jury testimony. The minimum amount of force necessary to maintain control of a situation can vary wildly, and Wilson needing to use lethal force is a direct reflection of that. If he had waited for backup, even if he hung back and tailed Brown, all parties involved would likely still be alive today. That he put himself into what his testimony portrays as a dangerous situation IOT apprehend someone who was not at that time posing danger to anyone else reflects at a minimum very poor judgement, and frankly was reckless and stupid. I’m surprised to see you arguing this, actually, because I recall you falling on the side of “sensible precaution” and “not taking imprudent risks” the last time we had a discussion of rape; the same principle should apply here. Just because Wilson had a badge doesn’t mean his choice to engage the situation alone was reasonable. In a perfect world, it would have been fine, but in a perfect world Wilson wouldn’t need to carry a gun, and for that matter, we wouldn’t need police in the first place. Wilson was well within his rights to confront Brown, but by his own sworn assessment this in no way, shape, or form suggests that it was sensible, prudent, or even professional of him to do so. It was dumb, and if we do nothing more than take his own word at face value, it could easily have gotten him killed instead of putting him in a position where he felt the only way to protect his person was by using lethal force. Wilson absolutely escalated the situation, and someone died as a result of his exceedingly poor judgement.
This whole “Wilson escalated the issue” confuses the fck out of me. He’s a cop, talking to a guy who just robbed a store and then attacked a policeman.
Marty, Wilson escalated the situation by going into it without waiting for backup despite there being a number of countervailing factors that he described himself as being keenly aware of in his grand jury testimony. The minimum amount of force necessary to maintain control of a situation can vary wildly, and Wilson needing to use lethal force is a direct reflection of that. If he had waited for backup, even if he hung back and tailed Brown, all parties involved would likely still be alive today. That he put himself into what his testimony portrays as a dangerous situation IOT apprehend someone who was not at that time posing danger to anyone else reflects at a minimum very poor judgement, and frankly was reckless and stupid. I’m surprised to see you arguing this, actually, because I recall you falling on the side of “sensible precaution” and “not taking imprudent risks” the last time we had a discussion of rape; the same principle should apply here. Just because Wilson had a badge doesn’t mean his choice to engage the situation alone was reasonable. In a perfect world, it would have been fine, but in a perfect world Wilson wouldn’t need to carry a gun, and for that matter, we wouldn’t need police in the first place. Wilson was well within his rights to confront Brown, but by his own sworn assessment this in no way, shape, or form suggests that it was sensible, prudent, or even professional of him to do so. It was dumb, and if we do nothing more than take his own word at face value, it could easily have gotten him killed instead of putting him in a position where he felt the only way to protect his person was by using lethal force. Wilson absolutely escalated the situation, and someone died as a result of his exceedingly poor judgement.
If you are a dead man walking, what is a justifiable response?
If you are a dead man walking, what is a justifiable response?
If you are a dead man walking, what is a justifiable response?
NV, we pay cops to arrest criminals. Yes, they should use restraint and good judgement. But they should be respected enough to arrest a young man in broad daylight in the middle of the street without being attacked. They aren’t, deaths, needless ones, are the result. I don’t get how they are the problem. Wait for backup, just get beat up a little more, maybe killed while he waits? Let the guy just leave? All crap.
NV, we pay cops to arrest criminals. Yes, they should use restraint and good judgement. But they should be respected enough to arrest a young man in broad daylight in the middle of the street without being attacked. They aren’t, deaths, needless ones, are the result. I don’t get how they are the problem. Wait for backup, just get beat up a little more, maybe killed while he waits? Let the guy just leave? All crap.
NV, we pay cops to arrest criminals. Yes, they should use restraint and good judgement. But they should be respected enough to arrest a young man in broad daylight in the middle of the street without being attacked. They aren’t, deaths, needless ones, are the result. I don’t get how they are the problem. Wait for backup, just get beat up a little more, maybe killed while he waits? Let the guy just leave? All crap.
But they should be respected enough to arrest a young man in broad daylight in the middle of the street
If the police habitually arrested young white men in broad daylight in the middle of the street, you might have a point.
But they don’t.
But they should be respected enough to arrest a young man in broad daylight in the middle of the street
If the police habitually arrested young white men in broad daylight in the middle of the street, you might have a point.
But they don’t.
But they should be respected enough to arrest a young man in broad daylight in the middle of the street
If the police habitually arrested young white men in broad daylight in the middle of the street, you might have a point.
But they don’t.
Russell, after all the dozens of things I’ve read and interviews I saw, the common thread is that, first, the original eye witnesses just lied. They claimed he was shot in the back, that wasn’t a mistake it was a lie.
This claim is simply not true.
Russell, after all the dozens of things I’ve read and interviews I saw, the common thread is that, first, the original eye witnesses just lied. They claimed he was shot in the back, that wasn’t a mistake it was a lie.
This claim is simply not true.
Russell, after all the dozens of things I’ve read and interviews I saw, the common thread is that, first, the original eye witnesses just lied. They claimed he was shot in the back, that wasn’t a mistake it was a lie.
This claim is simply not true.
Marty, go read Wilson’s testimony. Or if you already have, go read it again. Wilson was disengaged when he called for backup. He was not getting beat up. He was not in any danger what-so-ever. He could have been sensible and hung back while waiting for backup to arrive. He could have prepared himself for the possibility of confrontation – a possibility his testimony suggests he was aware of – so that he had options beyond his sidearm. He could have done any number of sensible things that he did not, and he had time and distance to reflect before he chose to do none of them. Instead, he played cowboy and – if we take him at his word – was nearly disarmed, which would have put his sidearm in the hands of a criminal that you deem to have been casually murderous. How was that not, to use your phrasing, crap?
Sure, we pay the police to maintain order, enforce laws, and yes, arrest alleged criminals. That does not mean that they should not take reasonable and prudent precautions, nor that they cannot be deemed negligent or reckless when they willfully refuse to do so. Again, refer back to Wilson’s testimony. I know damned well he was playing this up as part of his self defense argument for the grand jury, so it was a bit of a show, but if we take him at his word as given under oath, he perceived that he was putting himself into a dangerous situation with individuals who he described as non-compliant and confrontational. He knew going into it they didn’t respect him, so I’m not sure why your statement that he should be respected carries any weight here. He frankly should not have expected to be respected if we take him at his word. Wilson claims to have perceived Brown as large, imposing, and by implication (there’s a lot of implication going on in his testimony) dangerous. He describes him as hostile and non-compliant. Why on earth would he think that he would be “respected enough” to arrest Brown and Johnson without serious risk of the situation escalating? Everything in his testimony points to him viewing the situation – before he re-engaged and subsequently lost control of the situation – as dangerous. He was reckless, and dumb – and not in the heat of the moment either. Either that, or he was lying through his teeth to the grand jury. Take your pick; neither suggests that he behaved professionally, prudently, or appropriately. He damned well escalated the situation, and someone died as a result of his recklessness.
Marty, go read Wilson’s testimony. Or if you already have, go read it again. Wilson was disengaged when he called for backup. He was not getting beat up. He was not in any danger what-so-ever. He could have been sensible and hung back while waiting for backup to arrive. He could have prepared himself for the possibility of confrontation – a possibility his testimony suggests he was aware of – so that he had options beyond his sidearm. He could have done any number of sensible things that he did not, and he had time and distance to reflect before he chose to do none of them. Instead, he played cowboy and – if we take him at his word – was nearly disarmed, which would have put his sidearm in the hands of a criminal that you deem to have been casually murderous. How was that not, to use your phrasing, crap?
Sure, we pay the police to maintain order, enforce laws, and yes, arrest alleged criminals. That does not mean that they should not take reasonable and prudent precautions, nor that they cannot be deemed negligent or reckless when they willfully refuse to do so. Again, refer back to Wilson’s testimony. I know damned well he was playing this up as part of his self defense argument for the grand jury, so it was a bit of a show, but if we take him at his word as given under oath, he perceived that he was putting himself into a dangerous situation with individuals who he described as non-compliant and confrontational. He knew going into it they didn’t respect him, so I’m not sure why your statement that he should be respected carries any weight here. He frankly should not have expected to be respected if we take him at his word. Wilson claims to have perceived Brown as large, imposing, and by implication (there’s a lot of implication going on in his testimony) dangerous. He describes him as hostile and non-compliant. Why on earth would he think that he would be “respected enough” to arrest Brown and Johnson without serious risk of the situation escalating? Everything in his testimony points to him viewing the situation – before he re-engaged and subsequently lost control of the situation – as dangerous. He was reckless, and dumb – and not in the heat of the moment either. Either that, or he was lying through his teeth to the grand jury. Take your pick; neither suggests that he behaved professionally, prudently, or appropriately. He damned well escalated the situation, and someone died as a result of his recklessness.
Marty, go read Wilson’s testimony. Or if you already have, go read it again. Wilson was disengaged when he called for backup. He was not getting beat up. He was not in any danger what-so-ever. He could have been sensible and hung back while waiting for backup to arrive. He could have prepared himself for the possibility of confrontation – a possibility his testimony suggests he was aware of – so that he had options beyond his sidearm. He could have done any number of sensible things that he did not, and he had time and distance to reflect before he chose to do none of them. Instead, he played cowboy and – if we take him at his word – was nearly disarmed, which would have put his sidearm in the hands of a criminal that you deem to have been casually murderous. How was that not, to use your phrasing, crap?
Sure, we pay the police to maintain order, enforce laws, and yes, arrest alleged criminals. That does not mean that they should not take reasonable and prudent precautions, nor that they cannot be deemed negligent or reckless when they willfully refuse to do so. Again, refer back to Wilson’s testimony. I know damned well he was playing this up as part of his self defense argument for the grand jury, so it was a bit of a show, but if we take him at his word as given under oath, he perceived that he was putting himself into a dangerous situation with individuals who he described as non-compliant and confrontational. He knew going into it they didn’t respect him, so I’m not sure why your statement that he should be respected carries any weight here. He frankly should not have expected to be respected if we take him at his word. Wilson claims to have perceived Brown as large, imposing, and by implication (there’s a lot of implication going on in his testimony) dangerous. He describes him as hostile and non-compliant. Why on earth would he think that he would be “respected enough” to arrest Brown and Johnson without serious risk of the situation escalating? Everything in his testimony points to him viewing the situation – before he re-engaged and subsequently lost control of the situation – as dangerous. He was reckless, and dumb – and not in the heat of the moment either. Either that, or he was lying through his teeth to the grand jury. Take your pick; neither suggests that he behaved professionally, prudently, or appropriately. He damned well escalated the situation, and someone died as a result of his recklessness.
Marty, after the dozens of things I’ve read, the common thread is that everybody’s story is really freaking sketchy.
One of my operating principles in life is that nothing is too weird to not be possibly true, so everything Wilson said could be gospel.
I just don’t see any more reason to believe him than not.
Brown wasn’t shot in the back, that’s true. Folks who say he was shot in the back while running away are lying or mistaken.
Other than that, I don’t see anything in the available evidence that makes one narrative more credible than another.
What we pay cops to do is to protect and serve, and to maintain the peace and good public order. A situation that goes from asking two young men to get out of the street, to one of them dead, in the space of a couple of minutes, does not have the aroma of good police work, to me.
Maybe Brown, as Wilson claims, just went all rogue elephant and, with no provocation beyond being asked to get on the sidewalk, decided to beat the living crap out of Wilson as he sat in his car.
Wilson being a cop, in uniform, with a gun and mace and whatever else, and Brown being a guy with no weapon at all.
It’s not impossible, it’s just not particularly credible.
Marty, after the dozens of things I’ve read, the common thread is that everybody’s story is really freaking sketchy.
One of my operating principles in life is that nothing is too weird to not be possibly true, so everything Wilson said could be gospel.
I just don’t see any more reason to believe him than not.
Brown wasn’t shot in the back, that’s true. Folks who say he was shot in the back while running away are lying or mistaken.
Other than that, I don’t see anything in the available evidence that makes one narrative more credible than another.
What we pay cops to do is to protect and serve, and to maintain the peace and good public order. A situation that goes from asking two young men to get out of the street, to one of them dead, in the space of a couple of minutes, does not have the aroma of good police work, to me.
Maybe Brown, as Wilson claims, just went all rogue elephant and, with no provocation beyond being asked to get on the sidewalk, decided to beat the living crap out of Wilson as he sat in his car.
Wilson being a cop, in uniform, with a gun and mace and whatever else, and Brown being a guy with no weapon at all.
It’s not impossible, it’s just not particularly credible.
Marty, after the dozens of things I’ve read, the common thread is that everybody’s story is really freaking sketchy.
One of my operating principles in life is that nothing is too weird to not be possibly true, so everything Wilson said could be gospel.
I just don’t see any more reason to believe him than not.
Brown wasn’t shot in the back, that’s true. Folks who say he was shot in the back while running away are lying or mistaken.
Other than that, I don’t see anything in the available evidence that makes one narrative more credible than another.
What we pay cops to do is to protect and serve, and to maintain the peace and good public order. A situation that goes from asking two young men to get out of the street, to one of them dead, in the space of a couple of minutes, does not have the aroma of good police work, to me.
Maybe Brown, as Wilson claims, just went all rogue elephant and, with no provocation beyond being asked to get on the sidewalk, decided to beat the living crap out of Wilson as he sat in his car.
Wilson being a cop, in uniform, with a gun and mace and whatever else, and Brown being a guy with no weapon at all.
It’s not impossible, it’s just not particularly credible.
And by the way, why is this f*ck still alive, much less a free man? Isn’t he a criminal? A thug?
bobby,
Because he has made it a 2nd Amendment issue, it is obvious that he isn’t a criminal. By definition. (Of course, all that 2nd Amendment stuff somehow never applies to blacks. Otherwise the Black Panthers would have been right wing folk heros. But that’s a different discussion.)
And by the way, why is this f*ck still alive, much less a free man? Isn’t he a criminal? A thug?
bobby,
Because he has made it a 2nd Amendment issue, it is obvious that he isn’t a criminal. By definition. (Of course, all that 2nd Amendment stuff somehow never applies to blacks. Otherwise the Black Panthers would have been right wing folk heros. But that’s a different discussion.)
And by the way, why is this f*ck still alive, much less a free man? Isn’t he a criminal? A thug?
bobby,
Because he has made it a 2nd Amendment issue, it is obvious that he isn’t a criminal. By definition. (Of course, all that 2nd Amendment stuff somehow never applies to blacks. Otherwise the Black Panthers would have been right wing folk heros. But that’s a different discussion.)
Well Russell thats the problem, when the evidence favors the cop then”there’s just no way to tell”, when it favors the other guy everyone is perfectly happy to believe it. Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct. There isn’t one. The haters are down to “we think he could have done it better” from their comfy Monday morning QB spot in the backseat.
I will, given the opportunity for the teaching moment, use this to remind my grandsons how not to act around a cop..
Well Russell thats the problem, when the evidence favors the cop then”there’s just no way to tell”, when it favors the other guy everyone is perfectly happy to believe it. Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct. There isn’t one. The haters are down to “we think he could have done it better” from their comfy Monday morning QB spot in the backseat.
I will, given the opportunity for the teaching moment, use this to remind my grandsons how not to act around a cop..
Well Russell thats the problem, when the evidence favors the cop then”there’s just no way to tell”, when it favors the other guy everyone is perfectly happy to believe it. Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct. There isn’t one. The haters are down to “we think he could have done it better” from their comfy Monday morning QB spot in the backseat.
I will, given the opportunity for the teaching moment, use this to remind my grandsons how not to act around a cop..
What I’m saying is that I don’t see that the evidence favors the cop.
What I’m saying is that I don’t see that the evidence favors the cop.
What I’m saying is that I don’t see that the evidence favors the cop.
Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct.
As I’m pretty sure this is aimed at me, there’s a lot of daylight between “confront and engage” and “do nothing and watch them walk away”. He should have kept his distance while maintaining visual contact and awaiting backup. That’s what all my (correctional) LE training points to. You don’t introduce yourself into a situation that you perceive as having a significant risk of you losing control, especially if doing so would put your equipment or person in the hands of a hostile party. You watch, and wait for backup, unless there is an immediate and pressing cause to intervene – and even then you weigh the possibility that intervening will do more harm than good.
You’re at least as much a Monday morning quarterback in a comfy chair as I am, Marty; the only difference is you’re saying the gameday QB made the right call.
Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct.
As I’m pretty sure this is aimed at me, there’s a lot of daylight between “confront and engage” and “do nothing and watch them walk away”. He should have kept his distance while maintaining visual contact and awaiting backup. That’s what all my (correctional) LE training points to. You don’t introduce yourself into a situation that you perceive as having a significant risk of you losing control, especially if doing so would put your equipment or person in the hands of a hostile party. You watch, and wait for backup, unless there is an immediate and pressing cause to intervene – and even then you weigh the possibility that intervening will do more harm than good.
You’re at least as much a Monday morning quarterback in a comfy chair as I am, Marty; the only difference is you’re saying the gameday QB made the right call.
Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct.
As I’m pretty sure this is aimed at me, there’s a lot of daylight between “confront and engage” and “do nothing and watch them walk away”. He should have kept his distance while maintaining visual contact and awaiting backup. That’s what all my (correctional) LE training points to. You don’t introduce yourself into a situation that you perceive as having a significant risk of you losing control, especially if doing so would put your equipment or person in the hands of a hostile party. You watch, and wait for backup, unless there is an immediate and pressing cause to intervene – and even then you weigh the possibility that intervening will do more harm than good.
You’re at least as much a Monday morning quarterback in a comfy chair as I am, Marty; the only difference is you’re saying the gameday QB made the right call.
NV, true enough. The grand jury did too.
NV, true enough. The grand jury did too.
NV, true enough. The grand jury did too.
Well, no, they said that given the evidence presented to them, that at least nine of them concluded there was not probable cause to believe that Wilson had committed a crime. They didn’t say he acted appropriately, or professionally, or that his actions were the only or best ones available to him, which is moreso what I’ve been harping on about. They said there was not evidence amounting to probable cause of criminal behavior, and nothing more.
(This ofc leaves aside the irregularities of McCulloch’s handling of said grand jury as well. Which, ah, were notable.)
Well, no, they said that given the evidence presented to them, that at least nine of them concluded there was not probable cause to believe that Wilson had committed a crime. They didn’t say he acted appropriately, or professionally, or that his actions were the only or best ones available to him, which is moreso what I’ve been harping on about. They said there was not evidence amounting to probable cause of criminal behavior, and nothing more.
(This ofc leaves aside the irregularities of McCulloch’s handling of said grand jury as well. Which, ah, were notable.)
Well, no, they said that given the evidence presented to them, that at least nine of them concluded there was not probable cause to believe that Wilson had committed a crime. They didn’t say he acted appropriately, or professionally, or that his actions were the only or best ones available to him, which is moreso what I’ve been harping on about. They said there was not evidence amounting to probable cause of criminal behavior, and nothing more.
(This ofc leaves aside the irregularities of McCulloch’s handling of said grand jury as well. Which, ah, were notable.)
Ah, you have to love the liberal media. (And, yes, ‘love’ is a euphemism for hate.) The NYT just published Wilson’s city and street, and Slate helpfully provided a photo of his house, so that the rioters would be able to find his family to attack them.
“Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
The oppressed. The powerless. They never fight fair.”
Really, Bobbyp? Really? You think burning your own neighborhood down, destroying multiple black owned businesses because you think blacks are downtrodden is some kind of way of cheating?
Man, the lengths some people will go to try to justify looting and riots.
Ah, you have to love the liberal media. (And, yes, ‘love’ is a euphemism for hate.) The NYT just published Wilson’s city and street, and Slate helpfully provided a photo of his house, so that the rioters would be able to find his family to attack them.
“Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
The oppressed. The powerless. They never fight fair.”
Really, Bobbyp? Really? You think burning your own neighborhood down, destroying multiple black owned businesses because you think blacks are downtrodden is some kind of way of cheating?
Man, the lengths some people will go to try to justify looting and riots.
Ah, you have to love the liberal media. (And, yes, ‘love’ is a euphemism for hate.) The NYT just published Wilson’s city and street, and Slate helpfully provided a photo of his house, so that the rioters would be able to find his family to attack them.
“Now, if they were burning down the police headquarters, I might think them misguided, but at least the targeting would strike me as rationally directed.
The oppressed. The powerless. They never fight fair.”
Really, Bobbyp? Really? You think burning your own neighborhood down, destroying multiple black owned businesses because you think blacks are downtrodden is some kind of way of cheating?
Man, the lengths some people will go to try to justify looting and riots.
Brown shot in back!
Uh, no
Brown shot surrendering!
Uh, no
Cops lie about Brown attacking Wilson!
Uh, no
Cop is big guy, shouldn’t have been scared!
Uh, not really Brown is 6’6″ and 295, att ks me I’m scared.
Cop should have done nothing!
Uh, no
Body left in street 4 hours!
Yep, sucks. Ha nothing to do with Wilson.
Prosecutor “irregularities”!
Uh, no. Unless you count taking this set of evidence to a grand jury at all. That was pretty irregular. No Prosecutor would ever take it to a Grand Jury without the national political uproar, because there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
Brown shot in back!
Uh, no
Brown shot surrendering!
Uh, no
Cops lie about Brown attacking Wilson!
Uh, no
Cop is big guy, shouldn’t have been scared!
Uh, not really Brown is 6’6″ and 295, att ks me I’m scared.
Cop should have done nothing!
Uh, no
Body left in street 4 hours!
Yep, sucks. Ha nothing to do with Wilson.
Prosecutor “irregularities”!
Uh, no. Unless you count taking this set of evidence to a grand jury at all. That was pretty irregular. No Prosecutor would ever take it to a Grand Jury without the national political uproar, because there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
Brown shot in back!
Uh, no
Brown shot surrendering!
Uh, no
Cops lie about Brown attacking Wilson!
Uh, no
Cop is big guy, shouldn’t have been scared!
Uh, not really Brown is 6’6″ and 295, att ks me I’m scared.
Cop should have done nothing!
Uh, no
Body left in street 4 hours!
Yep, sucks. Ha nothing to do with Wilson.
Prosecutor “irregularities”!
Uh, no. Unless you count taking this set of evidence to a grand jury at all. That was pretty irregular. No Prosecutor would ever take it to a Grand Jury without the national political uproar, because there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
The NYT just published Wilson’s city and street,
Helped along by the conservative media blaring that the NYTimes did so – the first six links in a google search for “Darren Wilson’s Address” are all right wing news sites talking about the NYTimes story. Now, you can say the NYTimes let the cat out of the bag and therefore there’s nothing to do but report – but that’s the NYTimes excuse for publishing it – that it’s been widely reported elsewhere.
And they’re right, the Washington Post published the exact same information back on August 15th. Of course, the WaPo is part of the liberal media too and, it seems, far more prescient in their subtle rioter directing than the NYTimes.
A better issue would be – who the fnck cares that Darren Wilson got married in October? Why is that at all newsworthy enough for the NYTimes to report on?
The NYT just published Wilson’s city and street,
Helped along by the conservative media blaring that the NYTimes did so – the first six links in a google search for “Darren Wilson’s Address” are all right wing news sites talking about the NYTimes story. Now, you can say the NYTimes let the cat out of the bag and therefore there’s nothing to do but report – but that’s the NYTimes excuse for publishing it – that it’s been widely reported elsewhere.
And they’re right, the Washington Post published the exact same information back on August 15th. Of course, the WaPo is part of the liberal media too and, it seems, far more prescient in their subtle rioter directing than the NYTimes.
A better issue would be – who the fnck cares that Darren Wilson got married in October? Why is that at all newsworthy enough for the NYTimes to report on?
The NYT just published Wilson’s city and street,
Helped along by the conservative media blaring that the NYTimes did so – the first six links in a google search for “Darren Wilson’s Address” are all right wing news sites talking about the NYTimes story. Now, you can say the NYTimes let the cat out of the bag and therefore there’s nothing to do but report – but that’s the NYTimes excuse for publishing it – that it’s been widely reported elsewhere.
And they’re right, the Washington Post published the exact same information back on August 15th. Of course, the WaPo is part of the liberal media too and, it seems, far more prescient in their subtle rioter directing than the NYTimes.
A better issue would be – who the fnck cares that Darren Wilson got married in October? Why is that at all newsworthy enough for the NYTimes to report on?
Cop should have done nothing!
Uh, no
Again, Marty, his choice were not only “do nothing” and “do exactly what he did”. I see nothing in his own testimony that suggests he should have done what he did, though, so if his choices were do what he did or do nothing, then he should have done nothing. Ofc, they weren’t just that, so what he actually should have done more than nothing, and less than what he did. It’s not that complicated.
Prosecutor “irregularities”!
Uh, no
It’s not just whether or not it went to a grand jury (though you’re right it’s odd in this case for it to have gone, and that should raise an eyebrow by itself). It’s how the prosecutor behaved once it got there. I don’t think even you would disagree that he took it to the grand jury to be able to offload or at least share responsibility/blame for his entirely predictable (and possibly even justifiable) failure to indict. You’ll disagree about why he felt he had to share responsibility/blame, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to assert that he felt it better if he could claim he didn’t make the decision himself. But once he had it before the grand jury, he behaved quite unusually for a prosecutor before a grand jury, though not surprisingly so for a prosecutor before a grand jury who wants to ensure no indictment arises. So I’ll stand quite comfortably behind my assertion that the grand jury kabuki was irregular in its character.
Cop should have done nothing!
Uh, no
Again, Marty, his choice were not only “do nothing” and “do exactly what he did”. I see nothing in his own testimony that suggests he should have done what he did, though, so if his choices were do what he did or do nothing, then he should have done nothing. Ofc, they weren’t just that, so what he actually should have done more than nothing, and less than what he did. It’s not that complicated.
Prosecutor “irregularities”!
Uh, no
It’s not just whether or not it went to a grand jury (though you’re right it’s odd in this case for it to have gone, and that should raise an eyebrow by itself). It’s how the prosecutor behaved once it got there. I don’t think even you would disagree that he took it to the grand jury to be able to offload or at least share responsibility/blame for his entirely predictable (and possibly even justifiable) failure to indict. You’ll disagree about why he felt he had to share responsibility/blame, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to assert that he felt it better if he could claim he didn’t make the decision himself. But once he had it before the grand jury, he behaved quite unusually for a prosecutor before a grand jury, though not surprisingly so for a prosecutor before a grand jury who wants to ensure no indictment arises. So I’ll stand quite comfortably behind my assertion that the grand jury kabuki was irregular in its character.
Cop should have done nothing!
Uh, no
Again, Marty, his choice were not only “do nothing” and “do exactly what he did”. I see nothing in his own testimony that suggests he should have done what he did, though, so if his choices were do what he did or do nothing, then he should have done nothing. Ofc, they weren’t just that, so what he actually should have done more than nothing, and less than what he did. It’s not that complicated.
Prosecutor “irregularities”!
Uh, no
It’s not just whether or not it went to a grand jury (though you’re right it’s odd in this case for it to have gone, and that should raise an eyebrow by itself). It’s how the prosecutor behaved once it got there. I don’t think even you would disagree that he took it to the grand jury to be able to offload or at least share responsibility/blame for his entirely predictable (and possibly even justifiable) failure to indict. You’ll disagree about why he felt he had to share responsibility/blame, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to assert that he felt it better if he could claim he didn’t make the decision himself. But once he had it before the grand jury, he behaved quite unusually for a prosecutor before a grand jury, though not surprisingly so for a prosecutor before a grand jury who wants to ensure no indictment arises. So I’ll stand quite comfortably behind my assertion that the grand jury kabuki was irregular in its character.
Tony:
“the benefit of the doubt” was a euphemism
Fair enough.
wj:
Really — I actually got exactly that response one time when asking someone
Oh, I believe you. I’ve known people who heard about a riot and went to join because it sounded fun. I’d believe some Ferguson protesters are there just because it sounded exciting.
My point was that even if some are there ‘just cuz’, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot, it doesn’t extend to all of the protesters having that motivation.
It can be too easy to see a broken store window and blame all protestors, either for participating or for not doing enough to maintain order. It’s something that should be guarded against.
And finally…what NV said. Pretty much all of it. Especially this:
(This ofc leaves aside the irregularities of McCulloch’s handling of said grand jury as well. Which, ah, were notable.)
There is a lot of focus on Wilson. Did he escalate the situation? Was he prudent? Was he justified?
There is also focus on Brown? Was he criminal? Violent? Did he charge Wilson, leaving him no choice?
What’s been raised many times in this thread, and often gets lost in the noise of Wilson and Brown, is that we have a system that allows (as russell put it):
A situation that goes from asking two young men to get out of the street, to one of them dead, in the space of a couple of minutes
I don’t buy Wilson’s testimony, but that doesn’t really matter. I’m not on his jury, and he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But Wilson getting away with a crime isn’t the elephant in the room for me. It’s that the investigation was poorly handled. Wilson was left in the street. Witnesses weren’t interviewed. The DA, far from being an adversarial advocate for the People, was an advocate for the system. It’s that in aggregate, the people we pay and give substantial powers to protect society don’t feel the need to justify or explain themselves, even when lethal force is used.
That is a structural problem. It allows for corruption, it allows for racism. It decays what little trust police have in the communities they serve, making those communities more dangerous, both for the populace and the police.
Tony:
“the benefit of the doubt” was a euphemism
Fair enough.
wj:
Really — I actually got exactly that response one time when asking someone
Oh, I believe you. I’ve known people who heard about a riot and went to join because it sounded fun. I’d believe some Ferguson protesters are there just because it sounded exciting.
My point was that even if some are there ‘just cuz’, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot, it doesn’t extend to all of the protesters having that motivation.
It can be too easy to see a broken store window and blame all protestors, either for participating or for not doing enough to maintain order. It’s something that should be guarded against.
And finally…what NV said. Pretty much all of it. Especially this:
(This ofc leaves aside the irregularities of McCulloch’s handling of said grand jury as well. Which, ah, were notable.)
There is a lot of focus on Wilson. Did he escalate the situation? Was he prudent? Was he justified?
There is also focus on Brown? Was he criminal? Violent? Did he charge Wilson, leaving him no choice?
What’s been raised many times in this thread, and often gets lost in the noise of Wilson and Brown, is that we have a system that allows (as russell put it):
A situation that goes from asking two young men to get out of the street, to one of them dead, in the space of a couple of minutes
I don’t buy Wilson’s testimony, but that doesn’t really matter. I’m not on his jury, and he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But Wilson getting away with a crime isn’t the elephant in the room for me. It’s that the investigation was poorly handled. Wilson was left in the street. Witnesses weren’t interviewed. The DA, far from being an adversarial advocate for the People, was an advocate for the system. It’s that in aggregate, the people we pay and give substantial powers to protect society don’t feel the need to justify or explain themselves, even when lethal force is used.
That is a structural problem. It allows for corruption, it allows for racism. It decays what little trust police have in the communities they serve, making those communities more dangerous, both for the populace and the police.
Tony:
“the benefit of the doubt” was a euphemism
Fair enough.
wj:
Really — I actually got exactly that response one time when asking someone
Oh, I believe you. I’ve known people who heard about a riot and went to join because it sounded fun. I’d believe some Ferguson protesters are there just because it sounded exciting.
My point was that even if some are there ‘just cuz’, or even to take advantage of the chaos to loot, it doesn’t extend to all of the protesters having that motivation.
It can be too easy to see a broken store window and blame all protestors, either for participating or for not doing enough to maintain order. It’s something that should be guarded against.
And finally…what NV said. Pretty much all of it. Especially this:
(This ofc leaves aside the irregularities of McCulloch’s handling of said grand jury as well. Which, ah, were notable.)
There is a lot of focus on Wilson. Did he escalate the situation? Was he prudent? Was he justified?
There is also focus on Brown? Was he criminal? Violent? Did he charge Wilson, leaving him no choice?
What’s been raised many times in this thread, and often gets lost in the noise of Wilson and Brown, is that we have a system that allows (as russell put it):
A situation that goes from asking two young men to get out of the street, to one of them dead, in the space of a couple of minutes
I don’t buy Wilson’s testimony, but that doesn’t really matter. I’m not on his jury, and he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But Wilson getting away with a crime isn’t the elephant in the room for me. It’s that the investigation was poorly handled. Wilson was left in the street. Witnesses weren’t interviewed. The DA, far from being an adversarial advocate for the People, was an advocate for the system. It’s that in aggregate, the people we pay and give substantial powers to protect society don’t feel the need to justify or explain themselves, even when lethal force is used.
That is a structural problem. It allows for corruption, it allows for racism. It decays what little trust police have in the communities they serve, making those communities more dangerous, both for the populace and the police.
I did see Giuliani explain that it is not “unusual”, even though it happens less often, that a prosecutor uses the grand jury to help him to decide. Any kabuki is because the prosecutor did not want to be accused of “hiding” evidence, so he just presented it all.
I did see Giuliani explain that it is not “unusual”, even though it happens less often, that a prosecutor uses the grand jury to help him to decide. Any kabuki is because the prosecutor did not want to be accused of “hiding” evidence, so he just presented it all.
I did see Giuliani explain that it is not “unusual”, even though it happens less often, that a prosecutor uses the grand jury to help him to decide. Any kabuki is because the prosecutor did not want to be accused of “hiding” evidence, so he just presented it all.
To add to what NV said Marty, more broadly, if we’re going to give police the authority to use deadly force in the discharge of their duties, then they need to be highly trained in that use and must be expected to apply that training.
Part of that training has to be how to handle situations like confronting a suspect without having them escalate into unnecessary violence – just for the officer’s own safety if nothing else. It seems that Wilson followed part of that training when calling for back up, but then forgot it all by not waiting and confronting two people on his own.
Does that mean Wilson is guilty of a crime? No. Does it mean that Michael Brown died unnecessarily? That’s certainly what is seems like.
To add to what NV said Marty, more broadly, if we’re going to give police the authority to use deadly force in the discharge of their duties, then they need to be highly trained in that use and must be expected to apply that training.
Part of that training has to be how to handle situations like confronting a suspect without having them escalate into unnecessary violence – just for the officer’s own safety if nothing else. It seems that Wilson followed part of that training when calling for back up, but then forgot it all by not waiting and confronting two people on his own.
Does that mean Wilson is guilty of a crime? No. Does it mean that Michael Brown died unnecessarily? That’s certainly what is seems like.
To add to what NV said Marty, more broadly, if we’re going to give police the authority to use deadly force in the discharge of their duties, then they need to be highly trained in that use and must be expected to apply that training.
Part of that training has to be how to handle situations like confronting a suspect without having them escalate into unnecessary violence – just for the officer’s own safety if nothing else. It seems that Wilson followed part of that training when calling for back up, but then forgot it all by not waiting and confronting two people on his own.
Does that mean Wilson is guilty of a crime? No. Does it mean that Michael Brown died unnecessarily? That’s certainly what is seems like.
Darren Wilson Got a Private Trial Run by Friendly Prosecutors
Darren Wilson Got a Private Trial Run by Friendly Prosecutors
Darren Wilson Got a Private Trial Run by Friendly Prosecutors
Brown shot in back!
Uh, no
There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.
Brown shot surrendering!
Uh, no
Says Wilson.
Cops lie about Brown attacking Wilson!
Uh, no
You know this, how?
I don’t know, and you don’t know, because there is no way for either of us to know. We weren’t there. The testimony offered by people who *were* there does not present a completely clear picture of what happened.
So there is no freaking way for you to make any of the statements you’ve made here. You’re just picking your favorite narrative.
And I’ll pre-empt your inevitable reply and say that no, I’m not picking my own favorite narrative. I’m not claiming to know what happened.
You are. I’m not.
I want to second thompson’s 8:52.
Whether Brown stole cigars or not is irrelevant. Whether Wilson followed protocol correctly is relevant, but is not the point.
The issue in all of this, for me, is this, from thompson:
Correct.
It’s also unseemly, IMVHO, for them to avoid having to explain themselves by, frex, leaking video of the cigar incident, or admitting Wilson’s “BIG SCARY BLACK MAN” testimony without challenge, but all of that is kind of lagniappe.
Cops can’t be above the law, and the legal process can’t be tweaked for their benefit if it’s to have any legitimacy.
And not for nothing, but Giuliani is a freaking hideous gibbering ghoul, like the rest of the hard-ass law and order crypto-fascist assholes. Giving him any attention at all will rot your mind, and is materially harmful to the health of the nation and the body politic.
The sooner we see the back of him the better.
Brown shot in back!
Uh, no
There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.
Brown shot surrendering!
Uh, no
Says Wilson.
Cops lie about Brown attacking Wilson!
Uh, no
You know this, how?
I don’t know, and you don’t know, because there is no way for either of us to know. We weren’t there. The testimony offered by people who *were* there does not present a completely clear picture of what happened.
So there is no freaking way for you to make any of the statements you’ve made here. You’re just picking your favorite narrative.
And I’ll pre-empt your inevitable reply and say that no, I’m not picking my own favorite narrative. I’m not claiming to know what happened.
You are. I’m not.
I want to second thompson’s 8:52.
Whether Brown stole cigars or not is irrelevant. Whether Wilson followed protocol correctly is relevant, but is not the point.
The issue in all of this, for me, is this, from thompson:
Correct.
It’s also unseemly, IMVHO, for them to avoid having to explain themselves by, frex, leaking video of the cigar incident, or admitting Wilson’s “BIG SCARY BLACK MAN” testimony without challenge, but all of that is kind of lagniappe.
Cops can’t be above the law, and the legal process can’t be tweaked for their benefit if it’s to have any legitimacy.
And not for nothing, but Giuliani is a freaking hideous gibbering ghoul, like the rest of the hard-ass law and order crypto-fascist assholes. Giving him any attention at all will rot your mind, and is materially harmful to the health of the nation and the body politic.
The sooner we see the back of him the better.
Brown shot in back!
Uh, no
There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.
Brown shot surrendering!
Uh, no
Says Wilson.
Cops lie about Brown attacking Wilson!
Uh, no
You know this, how?
I don’t know, and you don’t know, because there is no way for either of us to know. We weren’t there. The testimony offered by people who *were* there does not present a completely clear picture of what happened.
So there is no freaking way for you to make any of the statements you’ve made here. You’re just picking your favorite narrative.
And I’ll pre-empt your inevitable reply and say that no, I’m not picking my own favorite narrative. I’m not claiming to know what happened.
You are. I’m not.
I want to second thompson’s 8:52.
Whether Brown stole cigars or not is irrelevant. Whether Wilson followed protocol correctly is relevant, but is not the point.
The issue in all of this, for me, is this, from thompson:
Correct.
It’s also unseemly, IMVHO, for them to avoid having to explain themselves by, frex, leaking video of the cigar incident, or admitting Wilson’s “BIG SCARY BLACK MAN” testimony without challenge, but all of that is kind of lagniappe.
Cops can’t be above the law, and the legal process can’t be tweaked for their benefit if it’s to have any legitimacy.
And not for nothing, but Giuliani is a freaking hideous gibbering ghoul, like the rest of the hard-ass law and order crypto-fascist assholes. Giving him any attention at all will rot your mind, and is materially harmful to the health of the nation and the body politic.
The sooner we see the back of him the better.
…because there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
I’m not sure what “evidence” and “wrong” are supposed to mean here, given the unarmed dead guy.
…because there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
I’m not sure what “evidence” and “wrong” are supposed to mean here, given the unarmed dead guy.
…because there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
I’m not sure what “evidence” and “wrong” are supposed to mean here, given the unarmed dead guy.
Worth reading (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/25/does-ferguson-show-that-cops-who-kill-get-off-too-easily/trust-is-a-police-officers-greatest-protection ):
As a rookie police officer, I was given a pair of handcuffs to detain people, chemical spray and a baton to physically enforce my commands and a gun that I could have used to kill someone.
But most important was the badge I was given, signifying the ultimate source of my authority: the trust of the community I served.
[…]
Our legal system has the obligation to ensure that they exercise their authority appropriately. Police officers wield enormous authority, and we should hold them to a correspondingly high standard.
[…]
Further, there are institutional obstacles to police accountability; many agencies investigate accusations against officers entirely in-house, for example, and local prosecutors can be extremely reluctant to bring charges against police officers.
H/T to Greenfield: blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/26/the-post-ferguson-trade-off-whose-life-is-worth-saving/
Worth reading (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/25/does-ferguson-show-that-cops-who-kill-get-off-too-easily/trust-is-a-police-officers-greatest-protection ):
As a rookie police officer, I was given a pair of handcuffs to detain people, chemical spray and a baton to physically enforce my commands and a gun that I could have used to kill someone.
But most important was the badge I was given, signifying the ultimate source of my authority: the trust of the community I served.
[…]
Our legal system has the obligation to ensure that they exercise their authority appropriately. Police officers wield enormous authority, and we should hold them to a correspondingly high standard.
[…]
Further, there are institutional obstacles to police accountability; many agencies investigate accusations against officers entirely in-house, for example, and local prosecutors can be extremely reluctant to bring charges against police officers.
H/T to Greenfield: blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/26/the-post-ferguson-trade-off-whose-life-is-worth-saving/
Worth reading (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/25/does-ferguson-show-that-cops-who-kill-get-off-too-easily/trust-is-a-police-officers-greatest-protection ):
As a rookie police officer, I was given a pair of handcuffs to detain people, chemical spray and a baton to physically enforce my commands and a gun that I could have used to kill someone.
But most important was the badge I was given, signifying the ultimate source of my authority: the trust of the community I served.
[…]
Our legal system has the obligation to ensure that they exercise their authority appropriately. Police officers wield enormous authority, and we should hold them to a correspondingly high standard.
[…]
Further, there are institutional obstacles to police accountability; many agencies investigate accusations against officers entirely in-house, for example, and local prosecutors can be extremely reluctant to bring charges against police officers.
H/T to Greenfield: blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/26/the-post-ferguson-trade-off-whose-life-is-worth-saving/
“There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.”
Yes, there are. The forensic evidence says they lied. Witnesses do that sometimes. This was clear early on, but a lot of people didn’t care, the lies were useful.
“I’m not sure what “evidence” and “wrong” are supposed to mean here, given the unarmed dead guy.”
The unarmed dead guy was unarmed when he robbed that store, do you deduce from that that he did nothing wrong in the store, either?
“There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.”
Yes, there are. The forensic evidence says they lied. Witnesses do that sometimes. This was clear early on, but a lot of people didn’t care, the lies were useful.
“I’m not sure what “evidence” and “wrong” are supposed to mean here, given the unarmed dead guy.”
The unarmed dead guy was unarmed when he robbed that store, do you deduce from that that he did nothing wrong in the store, either?
“There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.”
Yes, there are. The forensic evidence says they lied. Witnesses do that sometimes. This was clear early on, but a lot of people didn’t care, the lies were useful.
“I’m not sure what “evidence” and “wrong” are supposed to mean here, given the unarmed dead guy.”
The unarmed dead guy was unarmed when he robbed that store, do you deduce from that that he did nothing wrong in the store, either?
Thompson, that was pretty well my take as well. From the (extremely partial) information that I have seen, it appears that Wilson did not merit indictment. But it also appears that a) he handled the situation badly, b) the police handled the aftermath of the shooting at the scene extremely badly, not to say incompetently, and c) the prosecutor behaved both oddly and incompetently.
At minimum, I would say that the officer needs serious additional training. And I would not be amazed if the Ferguson PD ends up with a consent decree involving massively re-working how it is run. Certainly both seem warranted. Unfortunately, I doubt that much can be done to deal appropriately with the prosecutor.
Thompson, that was pretty well my take as well. From the (extremely partial) information that I have seen, it appears that Wilson did not merit indictment. But it also appears that a) he handled the situation badly, b) the police handled the aftermath of the shooting at the scene extremely badly, not to say incompetently, and c) the prosecutor behaved both oddly and incompetently.
At minimum, I would say that the officer needs serious additional training. And I would not be amazed if the Ferguson PD ends up with a consent decree involving massively re-working how it is run. Certainly both seem warranted. Unfortunately, I doubt that much can be done to deal appropriately with the prosecutor.
Thompson, that was pretty well my take as well. From the (extremely partial) information that I have seen, it appears that Wilson did not merit indictment. But it also appears that a) he handled the situation badly, b) the police handled the aftermath of the shooting at the scene extremely badly, not to say incompetently, and c) the prosecutor behaved both oddly and incompetently.
At minimum, I would say that the officer needs serious additional training. And I would not be amazed if the Ferguson PD ends up with a consent decree involving massively re-working how it is run. Certainly both seem warranted. Unfortunately, I doubt that much can be done to deal appropriately with the prosecutor.
there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
If by “wrong” you mean “illegally,” that may well be true. But if by “wrong” you mean “did not act approptiately, following best practices for the situation,” that is pretty obviously not true. Part of our difficulty, albeit only part of it, is that we keep using “wrong” in different senses — and assuming that everybody else means it in the same way we are using it.
there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
If by “wrong” you mean “illegally,” that may well be true. But if by “wrong” you mean “did not act approptiately, following best practices for the situation,” that is pretty obviously not true. Part of our difficulty, albeit only part of it, is that we keep using “wrong” in different senses — and assuming that everybody else means it in the same way we are using it.
there simply was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong.
If by “wrong” you mean “illegally,” that may well be true. But if by “wrong” you mean “did not act approptiately, following best practices for the situation,” that is pretty obviously not true. Part of our difficulty, albeit only part of it, is that we keep using “wrong” in different senses — and assuming that everybody else means it in the same way we are using it.
“There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.”
Yes, there are. The forensic evidence says they lied. Witnesses do that sometimes.
How could forensic evidence of bullets that missed Brown tell us which way he was running at the time?
“There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.”
Yes, there are. The forensic evidence says they lied. Witnesses do that sometimes.
How could forensic evidence of bullets that missed Brown tell us which way he was running at the time?
“There are eye witness reports that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and missed.”
Yes, there are. The forensic evidence says they lied. Witnesses do that sometimes.
How could forensic evidence of bullets that missed Brown tell us which way he was running at the time?
The forensic evidence says they lied.
What forensic evidence is that?
There is more than one person who stated that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and those folks don’t appear to have known each other.
So your argument would be stronger if you can actually point out what the forensic evidence is.
My understanding is that Wilson did not hit Brown every time he fired. Ugh’s question here seems relevant.
The forensic evidence says they lied.
What forensic evidence is that?
There is more than one person who stated that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and those folks don’t appear to have known each other.
So your argument would be stronger if you can actually point out what the forensic evidence is.
My understanding is that Wilson did not hit Brown every time he fired. Ugh’s question here seems relevant.
The forensic evidence says they lied.
What forensic evidence is that?
There is more than one person who stated that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and those folks don’t appear to have known each other.
So your argument would be stronger if you can actually point out what the forensic evidence is.
My understanding is that Wilson did not hit Brown every time he fired. Ugh’s question here seems relevant.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/26/being-a-cop-has-never-been-safer/
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/26/being-a-cop-has-never-been-safer/
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/26/being-a-cop-has-never-been-safer/
The unarmed dead guy was unarmed when he robbed that store, do you deduce from that that he did nothing wrong in the store, either?
Michael Brown did wrong at the store and before getting shot, but I wasn’t talking about him. I was talking about Wilson, as was Marty, to whom I was replying.
The unarmed dead guy was unarmed when he robbed that store, do you deduce from that that he did nothing wrong in the store, either?
Michael Brown did wrong at the store and before getting shot, but I wasn’t talking about him. I was talking about Wilson, as was Marty, to whom I was replying.
The unarmed dead guy was unarmed when he robbed that store, do you deduce from that that he did nothing wrong in the store, either?
Michael Brown did wrong at the store and before getting shot, but I wasn’t talking about him. I was talking about Wilson, as was Marty, to whom I was replying.
OK, the forensic evidence is that Wilson did not hit Brown while he was running away. So the question for those who claim he shot at Brown while Brown was running away has to be this: If someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why would you then turn around and run towards him? (The only alternative being that Wilson shot at and hit Brown while Brown was running towards him, and then Brown turned to run away, but from that point on all of Wilson’s shots missed. And Brown never got even a step away, judging from where them body and the blood trail were.)
OK, the forensic evidence is that Wilson did not hit Brown while he was running away. So the question for those who claim he shot at Brown while Brown was running away has to be this: If someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why would you then turn around and run towards him? (The only alternative being that Wilson shot at and hit Brown while Brown was running towards him, and then Brown turned to run away, but from that point on all of Wilson’s shots missed. And Brown never got even a step away, judging from where them body and the blood trail were.)
OK, the forensic evidence is that Wilson did not hit Brown while he was running away. So the question for those who claim he shot at Brown while Brown was running away has to be this: If someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why would you then turn around and run towards him? (The only alternative being that Wilson shot at and hit Brown while Brown was running towards him, and then Brown turned to run away, but from that point on all of Wilson’s shots missed. And Brown never got even a step away, judging from where them body and the blood trail were.)
Let me expand on that, in case it wasn’t obvious: If someone is shooting at you, and missing every time, why would you turn and run towards him?
Let me expand on that, in case it wasn’t obvious: If someone is shooting at you, and missing every time, why would you turn and run towards him?
Let me expand on that, in case it wasn’t obvious: If someone is shooting at you, and missing every time, why would you turn and run towards him?
And Brown never got even a step away, judging from where them body and the blood trail were.
? He was dead next to the police vehicle?
And Brown never got even a step away, judging from where them body and the blood trail were.
? He was dead next to the police vehicle?
And Brown never got even a step away, judging from where them body and the blood trail were.
? He was dead next to the police vehicle?
“Let me expand on that, in case it wasn’t obvious: If someone is shooting at you, and missing every time, why would you turn and run towards him?”
Making my point.
I will add that I think everyone saying “unarmed” here is trying to imply that Wilson couldn’t have been in any danger, that’s simply not true. Brown was quite capable of applying deadly force without a gun.
“Let me expand on that, in case it wasn’t obvious: If someone is shooting at you, and missing every time, why would you turn and run towards him?”
Making my point.
I will add that I think everyone saying “unarmed” here is trying to imply that Wilson couldn’t have been in any danger, that’s simply not true. Brown was quite capable of applying deadly force without a gun.
“Let me expand on that, in case it wasn’t obvious: If someone is shooting at you, and missing every time, why would you turn and run towards him?”
Making my point.
I will add that I think everyone saying “unarmed” here is trying to imply that Wilson couldn’t have been in any danger, that’s simply not true. Brown was quite capable of applying deadly force without a gun.
Ugh, as far as I know, nobody is arguing that Brown did not run away from the police cruiser after being shot initially.
But what Wilson says happened is that Brown then turned and ran towards him again. And the blood trail at the scene was from a point more distant from Wilson to the point where Brown fell.
Does that help clarify?
Ugh, as far as I know, nobody is arguing that Brown did not run away from the police cruiser after being shot initially.
But what Wilson says happened is that Brown then turned and ran towards him again. And the blood trail at the scene was from a point more distant from Wilson to the point where Brown fell.
Does that help clarify?
Ugh, as far as I know, nobody is arguing that Brown did not run away from the police cruiser after being shot initially.
But what Wilson says happened is that Brown then turned and ran towards him again. And the blood trail at the scene was from a point more distant from Wilson to the point where Brown fell.
Does that help clarify?
I will add that I think everyone saying “unarmed” here is trying to imply that Wilson couldn’t have been in any danger, that’s simply not true. Brown was quite capable of applying deadly force without a gun.
Saying “unarmed” means he didn’t have a gun or any other weapon. It does not mean he was incapable of applying deadly force, though it would limit how far he could project it.
If he did have a gun, his shooting would be far less controversial. That’s the implication.
I will add that I think everyone saying “unarmed” here is trying to imply that Wilson couldn’t have been in any danger, that’s simply not true. Brown was quite capable of applying deadly force without a gun.
Saying “unarmed” means he didn’t have a gun or any other weapon. It does not mean he was incapable of applying deadly force, though it would limit how far he could project it.
If he did have a gun, his shooting would be far less controversial. That’s the implication.
I will add that I think everyone saying “unarmed” here is trying to imply that Wilson couldn’t have been in any danger, that’s simply not true. Brown was quite capable of applying deadly force without a gun.
Saying “unarmed” means he didn’t have a gun or any other weapon. It does not mean he was incapable of applying deadly force, though it would limit how far he could project it.
If he did have a gun, his shooting would be far less controversial. That’s the implication.
If you’re running away, and a cop is NOT shooting at you, why don’t you just KEEP RUNNING AWAY?
If the cop IS shooting at you, why would you not STOP AND TURN AROUND?
If you just ran past a doorway, or a mailbox, or a car that you could shelter behind, to avoid the bullets the cop is firing at you, might an eyewitness infer that you were “charging at the cop”?
It doesn’t take a witness of any sort to infer things, of course. Marty and Brett can do it, and so can I.
–TP
If you’re running away, and a cop is NOT shooting at you, why don’t you just KEEP RUNNING AWAY?
If the cop IS shooting at you, why would you not STOP AND TURN AROUND?
If you just ran past a doorway, or a mailbox, or a car that you could shelter behind, to avoid the bullets the cop is firing at you, might an eyewitness infer that you were “charging at the cop”?
It doesn’t take a witness of any sort to infer things, of course. Marty and Brett can do it, and so can I.
–TP
If you’re running away, and a cop is NOT shooting at you, why don’t you just KEEP RUNNING AWAY?
If the cop IS shooting at you, why would you not STOP AND TURN AROUND?
If you just ran past a doorway, or a mailbox, or a car that you could shelter behind, to avoid the bullets the cop is firing at you, might an eyewitness infer that you were “charging at the cop”?
It doesn’t take a witness of any sort to infer things, of course. Marty and Brett can do it, and so can I.
–TP
Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct.
This jumped out at me. Putting aside the false dichotomy of *immediate, lone confrontation* versus *standing around and doing nothing*, the idea that doing anything other than what Wilson did should be grounds for being fired might be a big part of the underlying problem here.
If cops are expected to be confrontational, regardless of the situation, needlessly putting themselves and others in greater danger, then the situation is fundamentally f*cked from the start. What happens after that is just deck chairs on the Titanic.
Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct.
This jumped out at me. Putting aside the false dichotomy of *immediate, lone confrontation* versus *standing around and doing nothing*, the idea that doing anything other than what Wilson did should be grounds for being fired might be a big part of the underlying problem here.
If cops are expected to be confrontational, regardless of the situation, needlessly putting themselves and others in greater danger, then the situation is fundamentally f*cked from the start. What happens after that is just deck chairs on the Titanic.
Read this thread, with an open mind and find me one good reason, beyond” he should have stood around and done nothing” which should get him fired, to believe he wasn’t correct.
This jumped out at me. Putting aside the false dichotomy of *immediate, lone confrontation* versus *standing around and doing nothing*, the idea that doing anything other than what Wilson did should be grounds for being fired might be a big part of the underlying problem here.
If cops are expected to be confrontational, regardless of the situation, needlessly putting themselves and others in greater danger, then the situation is fundamentally f*cked from the start. What happens after that is just deck chairs on the Titanic.
If someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why would you then turn around and run towards him?
First, I’ll say that, IMO, forensic mind-reading is of little value.
Having said that, several eye witnesses state that Brown turned around and appeared to attempting to surrender to Wilson.
Note that Brown had, at that point, already been shot, just not in the back.
Whether you find their stories more plausible than Wilson’s seems, to me, to have little to do with the forensic evidence. From what I can see, the forensics are consistent with either narrative.
Likewise the question of whether Brown was “head down” because he was charging Wilson, or was just having a hard time standing up.
If someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why would you then turn around and run towards him?
First, I’ll say that, IMO, forensic mind-reading is of little value.
Having said that, several eye witnesses state that Brown turned around and appeared to attempting to surrender to Wilson.
Note that Brown had, at that point, already been shot, just not in the back.
Whether you find their stories more plausible than Wilson’s seems, to me, to have little to do with the forensic evidence. From what I can see, the forensics are consistent with either narrative.
Likewise the question of whether Brown was “head down” because he was charging Wilson, or was just having a hard time standing up.
If someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why would you then turn around and run towards him?
First, I’ll say that, IMO, forensic mind-reading is of little value.
Having said that, several eye witnesses state that Brown turned around and appeared to attempting to surrender to Wilson.
Note that Brown had, at that point, already been shot, just not in the back.
Whether you find their stories more plausible than Wilson’s seems, to me, to have little to do with the forensic evidence. From what I can see, the forensics are consistent with either narrative.
Likewise the question of whether Brown was “head down” because he was charging Wilson, or was just having a hard time standing up.
wj:
At minimum, I would say that the officer needs serious additional training.
Training can help an officer avoid dangerous situations and prevent escalation, certainly. But its more then the training failures of a single officer. It is that use of force is just not questioned that rigorously. This provides cover in unjustified shootings, and fosters distrust even with justified shootings.
At minimum, we need to consistently question the use of force. IMHO, every police shooting should be subject to adversarial review. Not because I believe the majority of them to be unjustified, but because we currently have a very poor method for differentiating justified from unjustified.
wj:
At minimum, I would say that the officer needs serious additional training.
Training can help an officer avoid dangerous situations and prevent escalation, certainly. But its more then the training failures of a single officer. It is that use of force is just not questioned that rigorously. This provides cover in unjustified shootings, and fosters distrust even with justified shootings.
At minimum, we need to consistently question the use of force. IMHO, every police shooting should be subject to adversarial review. Not because I believe the majority of them to be unjustified, but because we currently have a very poor method for differentiating justified from unjustified.
wj:
At minimum, I would say that the officer needs serious additional training.
Training can help an officer avoid dangerous situations and prevent escalation, certainly. But its more then the training failures of a single officer. It is that use of force is just not questioned that rigorously. This provides cover in unjustified shootings, and fosters distrust even with justified shootings.
At minimum, we need to consistently question the use of force. IMHO, every police shooting should be subject to adversarial review. Not because I believe the majority of them to be unjustified, but because we currently have a very poor method for differentiating justified from unjustified.
Delurking
Marty:
Bobbyp, happy for you to go back and see my view of Bundy. Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot. Pretty sure if I attacked a cop I would too. Absolutely sure I would have at 18. Want a reason to rise up? Pick a better fight.
I am beginning to think this is a feature, not a bug. Pick fights that are overall losers because when you lose, it feeds the narrative. Just sayin’.
From what little I know about the situation(and I think we all know little), Wilson could have potentially handled it better. And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
Delurking
Marty:
Bobbyp, happy for you to go back and see my view of Bundy. Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot. Pretty sure if I attacked a cop I would too. Absolutely sure I would have at 18. Want a reason to rise up? Pick a better fight.
I am beginning to think this is a feature, not a bug. Pick fights that are overall losers because when you lose, it feeds the narrative. Just sayin’.
From what little I know about the situation(and I think we all know little), Wilson could have potentially handled it better. And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
Delurking
Marty:
Bobbyp, happy for you to go back and see my view of Bundy. Cop says stop , stop. He attacked a cop and got shot. Pretty sure if I attacked a cop I would too. Absolutely sure I would have at 18. Want a reason to rise up? Pick a better fight.
I am beginning to think this is a feature, not a bug. Pick fights that are overall losers because when you lose, it feeds the narrative. Just sayin’.
From what little I know about the situation(and I think we all know little), Wilson could have potentially handled it better. And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
I am beginning to think this is a feature, not a bug. Pick fights that are overall losers because when you lose, it feeds the narrative. Just sayin’.
Yes, it’s a big, long-range conspiracy the liberal hive-mind has cooked up. You got us.
From what little I know about the situation(and I think we all know little), Wilson could have potentially handled it better. And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
But, getting back to NV’s point earlier, what we do know is what Wilson testified to. Based on his own words, we can conclude that he could have handled the situation better, maybe even a LOT better.
And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
Sure. I don’t think anyone has said otherwise, unless thinking he didn’t necessarily have to die is somehow contradictory to that.
I am beginning to think this is a feature, not a bug. Pick fights that are overall losers because when you lose, it feeds the narrative. Just sayin’.
Yes, it’s a big, long-range conspiracy the liberal hive-mind has cooked up. You got us.
From what little I know about the situation(and I think we all know little), Wilson could have potentially handled it better. And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
But, getting back to NV’s point earlier, what we do know is what Wilson testified to. Based on his own words, we can conclude that he could have handled the situation better, maybe even a LOT better.
And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
Sure. I don’t think anyone has said otherwise, unless thinking he didn’t necessarily have to die is somehow contradictory to that.
I am beginning to think this is a feature, not a bug. Pick fights that are overall losers because when you lose, it feeds the narrative. Just sayin’.
Yes, it’s a big, long-range conspiracy the liberal hive-mind has cooked up. You got us.
From what little I know about the situation(and I think we all know little), Wilson could have potentially handled it better. And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
But, getting back to NV’s point earlier, what we do know is what Wilson testified to. Based on his own words, we can conclude that he could have handled the situation better, maybe even a LOT better.
And Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
Sure. I don’t think anyone has said otherwise, unless thinking he didn’t necessarily have to die is somehow contradictory to that.
I think we all know little
Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
I’d say that we know quite a bit, but what we know doesn’t paint a very clear picture.
Among the things that are unclear is what Brown did or did not do.
Hate to be a broken record about this, but if you think you know exactly what happened, and/or what the “forensic evidence proves”, IMO you’re talking out of your behind.
I think we all know little
Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
I’d say that we know quite a bit, but what we know doesn’t paint a very clear picture.
Among the things that are unclear is what Brown did or did not do.
Hate to be a broken record about this, but if you think you know exactly what happened, and/or what the “forensic evidence proves”, IMO you’re talking out of your behind.
I think we all know little
Brown could potentially have handled it a LOT better.
I’d say that we know quite a bit, but what we know doesn’t paint a very clear picture.
Among the things that are unclear is what Brown did or did not do.
Hate to be a broken record about this, but if you think you know exactly what happened, and/or what the “forensic evidence proves”, IMO you’re talking out of your behind.
But, getting back to NV’s point earlier, what we do know is what Wilson testified to. Based on his own words, we can conclude that he could have handled the situation better, maybe even a LOT better.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things. I’ve learned I can take a pretty good wallop to the noggin and still stay “standing.” I’ve also learned my judgment isn’t so hot after said wallop. And then Wilson claims he was grabbing for his gun. If true, no better way to say “I want to hurt you real bad” than grabbing for an officer’s gun while hitting said officer. Again, if true.
My point being that clinically speaking, sure, there appear to have been things that could have been done “better.” It’s too bad that these things never happen in a clinical setting and now a young man is dead. His death is truly a tragedy. So is the rest of the story.
And hairshirt, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see The Reverends Show(tm) change as the “facts” came out. An unarmed, black, nice, teenager out for a walk with his hands up being shot by a white officer is one thing. Only that doesn’t appear to be exactly the case here.
But, getting back to NV’s point earlier, what we do know is what Wilson testified to. Based on his own words, we can conclude that he could have handled the situation better, maybe even a LOT better.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things. I’ve learned I can take a pretty good wallop to the noggin and still stay “standing.” I’ve also learned my judgment isn’t so hot after said wallop. And then Wilson claims he was grabbing for his gun. If true, no better way to say “I want to hurt you real bad” than grabbing for an officer’s gun while hitting said officer. Again, if true.
My point being that clinically speaking, sure, there appear to have been things that could have been done “better.” It’s too bad that these things never happen in a clinical setting and now a young man is dead. His death is truly a tragedy. So is the rest of the story.
And hairshirt, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see The Reverends Show(tm) change as the “facts” came out. An unarmed, black, nice, teenager out for a walk with his hands up being shot by a white officer is one thing. Only that doesn’t appear to be exactly the case here.
But, getting back to NV’s point earlier, what we do know is what Wilson testified to. Based on his own words, we can conclude that he could have handled the situation better, maybe even a LOT better.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things. I’ve learned I can take a pretty good wallop to the noggin and still stay “standing.” I’ve also learned my judgment isn’t so hot after said wallop. And then Wilson claims he was grabbing for his gun. If true, no better way to say “I want to hurt you real bad” than grabbing for an officer’s gun while hitting said officer. Again, if true.
My point being that clinically speaking, sure, there appear to have been things that could have been done “better.” It’s too bad that these things never happen in a clinical setting and now a young man is dead. His death is truly a tragedy. So is the rest of the story.
And hairshirt, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see The Reverends Show(tm) change as the “facts” came out. An unarmed, black, nice, teenager out for a walk with his hands up being shot by a white officer is one thing. Only that doesn’t appear to be exactly the case here.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things.
In the middle of the story…
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things.
In the middle of the story…
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things.
In the middle of the story…
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things.
Again, if true.
Precisely.
Wilson’s medical exam photos, if I understand it correctly taken the day he shot Brown.
Without drawing any conclusions, I’m not seeing clear evidence of a violent physical altercation. I.e., of being punched in the face repeatedly by a 290 pound young adult male.
I don’t know what happened. But I’m not seeing clear evidence that whatever happened was as it was described by Wilson.
I’m not seeing clear evidence that anybody else’s story was necessarily an clean and accurate accounting, either. I’m not picking on Wilson.
What I am saying is that presenting this as a simple open-and-shut case of young man responds to simple direction from a cop by trying to punch him out and steal his gun is, at best, a matter of faith.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things.
Again, if true.
Precisely.
Wilson’s medical exam photos, if I understand it correctly taken the day he shot Brown.
Without drawing any conclusions, I’m not seeing clear evidence of a violent physical altercation. I.e., of being punched in the face repeatedly by a 290 pound young adult male.
I don’t know what happened. But I’m not seeing clear evidence that whatever happened was as it was described by Wilson.
I’m not seeing clear evidence that anybody else’s story was necessarily an clean and accurate accounting, either. I’m not picking on Wilson.
What I am saying is that presenting this as a simple open-and-shut case of young man responds to simple direction from a cop by trying to punch him out and steal his gun is, at best, a matter of faith.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things.
Again, if true.
Precisely.
Wilson’s medical exam photos, if I understand it correctly taken the day he shot Brown.
Without drawing any conclusions, I’m not seeing clear evidence of a violent physical altercation. I.e., of being punched in the face repeatedly by a 290 pound young adult male.
I don’t know what happened. But I’m not seeing clear evidence that whatever happened was as it was described by Wilson.
I’m not seeing clear evidence that anybody else’s story was necessarily an clean and accurate accounting, either. I’m not picking on Wilson.
What I am saying is that presenting this as a simple open-and-shut case of young man responds to simple direction from a cop by trying to punch him out and steal his gun is, at best, a matter of faith.
Nigel, thanks for your link to How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty.
The article describes what I had in mind when I used the rather vague term, “tax plantation.” (When you use a term that Google can’t find, you’re likely pulling it out of your arse.) The article describes in more detail and historical context a situation that is worse than I had suspected.
Nigel, thanks for your link to How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty.
The article describes what I had in mind when I used the rather vague term, “tax plantation.” (When you use a term that Google can’t find, you’re likely pulling it out of your arse.) The article describes in more detail and historical context a situation that is worse than I had suspected.
Nigel, thanks for your link to How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty.
The article describes what I had in mind when I used the rather vague term, “tax plantation.” (When you use a term that Google can’t find, you’re likely pulling it out of your arse.) The article describes in more detail and historical context a situation that is worse than I had suspected.
It’s a delicious irony: the people I can most count on to tell me how heavy-handed and clumsy The Government is, when it comes to taxation and regulation, are also the people I can most count on to deny or justify heavy-handed clumsiness on the part of The Government when it comes to shooting (certain) people.
–TP
It’s a delicious irony: the people I can most count on to tell me how heavy-handed and clumsy The Government is, when it comes to taxation and regulation, are also the people I can most count on to deny or justify heavy-handed clumsiness on the part of The Government when it comes to shooting (certain) people.
–TP
It’s a delicious irony: the people I can most count on to tell me how heavy-handed and clumsy The Government is, when it comes to taxation and regulation, are also the people I can most count on to deny or justify heavy-handed clumsiness on the part of The Government when it comes to shooting (certain) people.
–TP
Corollary irony: people arguing that the legal code is so bloated and byzantine that the government can prosecute and convict literally anyone it chooses of a crime, and then extolling the benefits of “criminals” being shot dead in the streets.
Corollary irony: people arguing that the legal code is so bloated and byzantine that the government can prosecute and convict literally anyone it chooses of a crime, and then extolling the benefits of “criminals” being shot dead in the streets.
Corollary irony: people arguing that the legal code is so bloated and byzantine that the government can prosecute and convict literally anyone it chooses of a crime, and then extolling the benefits of “criminals” being shot dead in the streets.
This strikes me as a very rational comment, from an interesting source…
http://www.russellmoore.com/2014/11/24/ferguson-and-the-path-to-peace/
We haven’t as of yet sorted through all the evidence the grand jury saw and we don’t know precisely what happened in this nightmarish incident. What we do know is that the Ferguson situation is one of several in just the past couple of years where white and black Americans have viewed a situation in starkly different terms. White Americans tend, in public polling, to view the presenting situations as though they exist in isolation, dealing only with the known facts of the case at hand, of whether there is evidence of murder. Black Americans, polls show, tend to view these crises through a wider lens, the question of whether African-American youth are too often profiled and killed in America. Whatever the particulars of this case, this divergence ought to show us that we have a ways to go toward racial reconciliation.
One of the things I’ve learned over the past year is that nothing brings out more hate mail, nothing, than when I say that too many black kids are being shot in America. Often this hate mail is accompanied by the sort of neo-Confederate rhetoric that I would have thought would have died out, at least in its explicit form, a long, long time ago. That’s just mail, with no real harm. I cannot imagine what it would be to worry about the physical safety of my sons…
This strikes me as a very rational comment, from an interesting source…
http://www.russellmoore.com/2014/11/24/ferguson-and-the-path-to-peace/
We haven’t as of yet sorted through all the evidence the grand jury saw and we don’t know precisely what happened in this nightmarish incident. What we do know is that the Ferguson situation is one of several in just the past couple of years where white and black Americans have viewed a situation in starkly different terms. White Americans tend, in public polling, to view the presenting situations as though they exist in isolation, dealing only with the known facts of the case at hand, of whether there is evidence of murder. Black Americans, polls show, tend to view these crises through a wider lens, the question of whether African-American youth are too often profiled and killed in America. Whatever the particulars of this case, this divergence ought to show us that we have a ways to go toward racial reconciliation.
One of the things I’ve learned over the past year is that nothing brings out more hate mail, nothing, than when I say that too many black kids are being shot in America. Often this hate mail is accompanied by the sort of neo-Confederate rhetoric that I would have thought would have died out, at least in its explicit form, a long, long time ago. That’s just mail, with no real harm. I cannot imagine what it would be to worry about the physical safety of my sons…
This strikes me as a very rational comment, from an interesting source…
http://www.russellmoore.com/2014/11/24/ferguson-and-the-path-to-peace/
We haven’t as of yet sorted through all the evidence the grand jury saw and we don’t know precisely what happened in this nightmarish incident. What we do know is that the Ferguson situation is one of several in just the past couple of years where white and black Americans have viewed a situation in starkly different terms. White Americans tend, in public polling, to view the presenting situations as though they exist in isolation, dealing only with the known facts of the case at hand, of whether there is evidence of murder. Black Americans, polls show, tend to view these crises through a wider lens, the question of whether African-American youth are too often profiled and killed in America. Whatever the particulars of this case, this divergence ought to show us that we have a ways to go toward racial reconciliation.
One of the things I’ve learned over the past year is that nothing brings out more hate mail, nothing, than when I say that too many black kids are being shot in America. Often this hate mail is accompanied by the sort of neo-Confederate rhetoric that I would have thought would have died out, at least in its explicit form, a long, long time ago. That’s just mail, with no real harm. I cannot imagine what it would be to worry about the physical safety of my sons…
Polling finds a stark racial divide in perceptions of law enforcement
Polling finds a stark racial divide in perceptions of law enforcement
Polling finds a stark racial divide in perceptions of law enforcement
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things. I’ve learned I can take a pretty good wallop to the noggin and still stay “standing.” I’ve also learned my judgment isn’t so hot after said wallop.
Sure, but looking at his grand jury testimony, his least justifiable bad decisions had already been made by this point. At the moment when he describes Brown assaulting him, Wilson had already confronted Brown, disengaged, realized he matched the description of the robbery suspect, and called for backup… and then decided not to wait for it, and re-engaged in a confrontational manner despite his professed assessment of the situation as dangerous and his prior interaction with the suspects being quite confrontational. There were unquestionably no blows to the head to influence that exceedingly awful decision, and his narrative describes the situation spiraling out of control from that point on. The actual shooting is easier to justify since it was presumably in the heat of the moment and Wilson can make a claim of fearing for his life. The decision to re-confront and/or apprehend Brown and Johnson was made with no such mitigating factors, and was the pure product of Wilson’s bad judgement despite having time and space to safely reflect on it.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things. I’ve learned I can take a pretty good wallop to the noggin and still stay “standing.” I’ve also learned my judgment isn’t so hot after said wallop.
Sure, but looking at his grand jury testimony, his least justifiable bad decisions had already been made by this point. At the moment when he describes Brown assaulting him, Wilson had already confronted Brown, disengaged, realized he matched the description of the robbery suspect, and called for backup… and then decided not to wait for it, and re-engaged in a confrontational manner despite his professed assessment of the situation as dangerous and his prior interaction with the suspects being quite confrontational. There were unquestionably no blows to the head to influence that exceedingly awful decision, and his narrative describes the situation spiraling out of control from that point on. The actual shooting is easier to justify since it was presumably in the heat of the moment and Wilson can make a claim of fearing for his life. The decision to re-confront and/or apprehend Brown and Johnson was made with no such mitigating factors, and was the pure product of Wilson’s bad judgement despite having time and space to safely reflect on it.
Sure, but then getting hit in the head (if true and if a good blow) changes things. I’ve learned I can take a pretty good wallop to the noggin and still stay “standing.” I’ve also learned my judgment isn’t so hot after said wallop.
Sure, but looking at his grand jury testimony, his least justifiable bad decisions had already been made by this point. At the moment when he describes Brown assaulting him, Wilson had already confronted Brown, disengaged, realized he matched the description of the robbery suspect, and called for backup… and then decided not to wait for it, and re-engaged in a confrontational manner despite his professed assessment of the situation as dangerous and his prior interaction with the suspects being quite confrontational. There were unquestionably no blows to the head to influence that exceedingly awful decision, and his narrative describes the situation spiraling out of control from that point on. The actual shooting is easier to justify since it was presumably in the heat of the moment and Wilson can make a claim of fearing for his life. The decision to re-confront and/or apprehend Brown and Johnson was made with no such mitigating factors, and was the pure product of Wilson’s bad judgement despite having time and space to safely reflect on it.
Brown wasn’t shot in the back, that’s true. Folks who say he was shot in the back while running away are lying or mistaken.
it’s entirely possible he was shot at while running, but Wilson missed.
Brown wasn’t shot in the back, that’s true. Folks who say he was shot in the back while running away are lying or mistaken.
it’s entirely possible he was shot at while running, but Wilson missed.
Brown wasn’t shot in the back, that’s true. Folks who say he was shot in the back while running away are lying or mistaken.
it’s entirely possible he was shot at while running, but Wilson missed.
“It’s a delicious irony: the people I can most count on to tell me how heavy-handed and clumsy The Government is, when it comes to taxation and regulation, are also the people I can most count on to deny or justify heavy-handed clumsiness on the part of The Government when it comes to shooting (certain) people.”
It’s not that ironic: What do we hate about The Government? That it often acts like Michael Brown robbing the store.
That being the case, are we supposed to blow off Michael Brown robbing the store? If you don’t like government acting like a criminal, you’re supposed to ignore that somebody’s a criminal?
Michael Brown got shot attacking somebody. That police officer wasn’t his first victim that day. I’d much rather that hadn’t happened. But, to be specific, I’d much rather it hadn’t happened because he hadn’t gone around attacking people.
Do you maybe envision a world where a Michael Brown can go around committing strong arm robberies, and assaulting police officiers, and just won’t come to a bad end? Is that the end game you’re aiming for here?
Because it seems to me that, while the officer may have been the proximate cause of his death, Michael Brown himself was the ultimate cause, he had set himself on a path that had no good end.
And isn’t that what you should be concerned about? That he was juggling hand grenades, not which one went off?
“it’s entirely possible he was shot at while running, but Wilson missed”
It’s entirely possible he was revolving at high RPMs, and the shots were synchronized with his rate of revolution. But is there any good reason to suppose that?
“It’s a delicious irony: the people I can most count on to tell me how heavy-handed and clumsy The Government is, when it comes to taxation and regulation, are also the people I can most count on to deny or justify heavy-handed clumsiness on the part of The Government when it comes to shooting (certain) people.”
It’s not that ironic: What do we hate about The Government? That it often acts like Michael Brown robbing the store.
That being the case, are we supposed to blow off Michael Brown robbing the store? If you don’t like government acting like a criminal, you’re supposed to ignore that somebody’s a criminal?
Michael Brown got shot attacking somebody. That police officer wasn’t his first victim that day. I’d much rather that hadn’t happened. But, to be specific, I’d much rather it hadn’t happened because he hadn’t gone around attacking people.
Do you maybe envision a world where a Michael Brown can go around committing strong arm robberies, and assaulting police officiers, and just won’t come to a bad end? Is that the end game you’re aiming for here?
Because it seems to me that, while the officer may have been the proximate cause of his death, Michael Brown himself was the ultimate cause, he had set himself on a path that had no good end.
And isn’t that what you should be concerned about? That he was juggling hand grenades, not which one went off?
“it’s entirely possible he was shot at while running, but Wilson missed”
It’s entirely possible he was revolving at high RPMs, and the shots were synchronized with his rate of revolution. But is there any good reason to suppose that?
“It’s a delicious irony: the people I can most count on to tell me how heavy-handed and clumsy The Government is, when it comes to taxation and regulation, are also the people I can most count on to deny or justify heavy-handed clumsiness on the part of The Government when it comes to shooting (certain) people.”
It’s not that ironic: What do we hate about The Government? That it often acts like Michael Brown robbing the store.
That being the case, are we supposed to blow off Michael Brown robbing the store? If you don’t like government acting like a criminal, you’re supposed to ignore that somebody’s a criminal?
Michael Brown got shot attacking somebody. That police officer wasn’t his first victim that day. I’d much rather that hadn’t happened. But, to be specific, I’d much rather it hadn’t happened because he hadn’t gone around attacking people.
Do you maybe envision a world where a Michael Brown can go around committing strong arm robberies, and assaulting police officiers, and just won’t come to a bad end? Is that the end game you’re aiming for here?
Because it seems to me that, while the officer may have been the proximate cause of his death, Michael Brown himself was the ultimate cause, he had set himself on a path that had no good end.
And isn’t that what you should be concerned about? That he was juggling hand grenades, not which one went off?
“it’s entirely possible he was shot at while running, but Wilson missed”
It’s entirely possible he was revolving at high RPMs, and the shots were synchronized with his rate of revolution. But is there any good reason to suppose that?
Fee and fine plantations:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/get-out-of-jail-inc
The biggest scam going, on the backs of the poor, outside of whatever the latest du jour scam on Wall Street is.
So-called cost cutting by urban court systems and the hiring of for-profit contractors/corporations to plague these people either into jail or the grave.
For petty offenses. It’s Dickensian.
Why, because taxpayers refuse to pay for government law enforcement, judiciary and jail services that protect them.
Remember, Officer Brown may be guilty of something in the eyes of those defending his actions and those of the Ferguson Police Department — stealing from the taxpayers via his pension and healthcare benefits.
Fee and fine plantations:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/get-out-of-jail-inc
The biggest scam going, on the backs of the poor, outside of whatever the latest du jour scam on Wall Street is.
So-called cost cutting by urban court systems and the hiring of for-profit contractors/corporations to plague these people either into jail or the grave.
For petty offenses. It’s Dickensian.
Why, because taxpayers refuse to pay for government law enforcement, judiciary and jail services that protect them.
Remember, Officer Brown may be guilty of something in the eyes of those defending his actions and those of the Ferguson Police Department — stealing from the taxpayers via his pension and healthcare benefits.
Fee and fine plantations:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/get-out-of-jail-inc
The biggest scam going, on the backs of the poor, outside of whatever the latest du jour scam on Wall Street is.
So-called cost cutting by urban court systems and the hiring of for-profit contractors/corporations to plague these people either into jail or the grave.
For petty offenses. It’s Dickensian.
Why, because taxpayers refuse to pay for government law enforcement, judiciary and jail services that protect them.
Remember, Officer Brown may be guilty of something in the eyes of those defending his actions and those of the Ferguson Police Department — stealing from the taxpayers via his pension and healthcare benefits.
Officer Wilson, not Brown.
Like Brett, I get confused about who deserves to be shot first, unarmed violent black teenagers, or government employees who act just like them by stealing cigars and/or collecting sales and property taxes at convenience stores.
Come to think of it, maybe Brown overheard his parents criticizing police pensions and healthcare benefits and decided, like Cliven Bundy and Brett’s brethren who rushed armed to the former’s side, to do something about it.
God, I wish Brown’s buddy had told THAT to prosecutors, just to see how public opinion rearranged itself.
I’m surprised Bundy’s raiders didn’t stop in Ferguson on the way back to Backfat, South Carolina to take one side or the other, if they could decide, given the standoff between a black kid and oppressive government agents.
Officer Wilson, not Brown.
Like Brett, I get confused about who deserves to be shot first, unarmed violent black teenagers, or government employees who act just like them by stealing cigars and/or collecting sales and property taxes at convenience stores.
Come to think of it, maybe Brown overheard his parents criticizing police pensions and healthcare benefits and decided, like Cliven Bundy and Brett’s brethren who rushed armed to the former’s side, to do something about it.
God, I wish Brown’s buddy had told THAT to prosecutors, just to see how public opinion rearranged itself.
I’m surprised Bundy’s raiders didn’t stop in Ferguson on the way back to Backfat, South Carolina to take one side or the other, if they could decide, given the standoff between a black kid and oppressive government agents.
Officer Wilson, not Brown.
Like Brett, I get confused about who deserves to be shot first, unarmed violent black teenagers, or government employees who act just like them by stealing cigars and/or collecting sales and property taxes at convenience stores.
Come to think of it, maybe Brown overheard his parents criticizing police pensions and healthcare benefits and decided, like Cliven Bundy and Brett’s brethren who rushed armed to the former’s side, to do something about it.
God, I wish Brown’s buddy had told THAT to prosecutors, just to see how public opinion rearranged itself.
I’m surprised Bundy’s raiders didn’t stop in Ferguson on the way back to Backfat, South Carolina to take one side or the other, if they could decide, given the standoff between a black kid and oppressive government agents.
Michael Brown got shot attacking somebody.
That’s some high RPMs right there, Brett.
–TP
Michael Brown got shot attacking somebody.
That’s some high RPMs right there, Brett.
–TP
Michael Brown got shot attacking somebody.
That’s some high RPMs right there, Brett.
–TP
It’s entirely possible he was revolving at high RPMs, and the shots were synchronized with his rate of revolution.
Actually, my early comment notwithstanding, I would put that in the realm of the not-quite-entirely possible.
Earlier, I asked you to explain what you thought the forensic evidence was that ruled out Wilson firing at Brown, and missing.
Since you took the trouble to weigh in again on the point, but failed to do more than re-state your earlier bald assertion, I’m saying you got nothing.
Which is to say, you’re full of shit.
Prove me wrong, if you like.
It’s entirely possible he was revolving at high RPMs, and the shots were synchronized with his rate of revolution.
Actually, my early comment notwithstanding, I would put that in the realm of the not-quite-entirely possible.
Earlier, I asked you to explain what you thought the forensic evidence was that ruled out Wilson firing at Brown, and missing.
Since you took the trouble to weigh in again on the point, but failed to do more than re-state your earlier bald assertion, I’m saying you got nothing.
Which is to say, you’re full of shit.
Prove me wrong, if you like.
It’s entirely possible he was revolving at high RPMs, and the shots were synchronized with his rate of revolution.
Actually, my early comment notwithstanding, I would put that in the realm of the not-quite-entirely possible.
Earlier, I asked you to explain what you thought the forensic evidence was that ruled out Wilson firing at Brown, and missing.
Since you took the trouble to weigh in again on the point, but failed to do more than re-state your earlier bald assertion, I’m saying you got nothing.
Which is to say, you’re full of shit.
Prove me wrong, if you like.
Really, Bobbyp? Really? You think burning your own neighborhood down, destroying multiple black owned businesses because you think blacks are downtrodden is some kind of way of cheating?
Man, the lengths some people will go to try to justify looting and riots.
We have an organized and systemic social construct of oppression in this country based on race. I would call it struggle or revolt.
The struggle of the oppressed takes many forms, especially when they are otherwise powerless. The crimes of the powerful are all of a type: Over-weaning arrogance. Wall Street lies and cheats as a matter of business. Bush and Cheney committed war crimes. Traitors raised their loaded weapons and aimed them at lawfully authorized federal agents.
“Cheating” is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Really, Bobbyp? Really? You think burning your own neighborhood down, destroying multiple black owned businesses because you think blacks are downtrodden is some kind of way of cheating?
Man, the lengths some people will go to try to justify looting and riots.
We have an organized and systemic social construct of oppression in this country based on race. I would call it struggle or revolt.
The struggle of the oppressed takes many forms, especially when they are otherwise powerless. The crimes of the powerful are all of a type: Over-weaning arrogance. Wall Street lies and cheats as a matter of business. Bush and Cheney committed war crimes. Traitors raised their loaded weapons and aimed them at lawfully authorized federal agents.
“Cheating” is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Really, Bobbyp? Really? You think burning your own neighborhood down, destroying multiple black owned businesses because you think blacks are downtrodden is some kind of way of cheating?
Man, the lengths some people will go to try to justify looting and riots.
We have an organized and systemic social construct of oppression in this country based on race. I would call it struggle or revolt.
The struggle of the oppressed takes many forms, especially when they are otherwise powerless. The crimes of the powerful are all of a type: Over-weaning arrogance. Wall Street lies and cheats as a matter of business. Bush and Cheney committed war crimes. Traitors raised their loaded weapons and aimed them at lawfully authorized federal agents.
“Cheating” is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
But, to be specific, I’d much rather it hadn’t happened because he hadn’t gone around attacking people.
I’d be fine with that as well.
But Darren Wilson handling the situation better, leading to Michael Brown simply being arrested – that would be just awful. Brown wouldn’t have gotten the death penalty he clearly deserved.
But, to be specific, I’d much rather it hadn’t happened because he hadn’t gone around attacking people.
I’d be fine with that as well.
But Darren Wilson handling the situation better, leading to Michael Brown simply being arrested – that would be just awful. Brown wouldn’t have gotten the death penalty he clearly deserved.
But, to be specific, I’d much rather it hadn’t happened because he hadn’t gone around attacking people.
I’d be fine with that as well.
But Darren Wilson handling the situation better, leading to Michael Brown simply being arrested – that would be just awful. Brown wouldn’t have gotten the death penalty he clearly deserved.
Russell, Officer Wilson stated he fired at Brown as he was running away.
“Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets.
Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents”
Russell, Officer Wilson stated he fired at Brown as he was running away.
“Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets.
Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents”
Russell, Officer Wilson stated he fired at Brown as he was running away.
“Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets.
Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents”
I’m still curious to hear how the available forensic evidence supports Wilson’s story, but not that of other eye witnesses who do not have Brown charging Wilson after he turned around.
There are lots of claims being made about what happened. I have no idea what people are basing them on.
Wilson and Brown got into some kind of physical thing at the car. Wilson says Brown attacked him, other folks say Wilson tried to grab Brown and pull him to the car. I find either story plausible and supportable given the physical evidence. Either story requires one or the other of the men to have acted foolishly, but sadly human foolishness is abundantly on offer, all the time.
Wilson shot Brown in the hand. Brown ran away, Wilson pursued him, shot at him, and missed.
Brown then turned around and moved back toward Wilson. Some folks, including Wilson, say he charged. Others say he walked and/or stumbled toward Wilson. Some eye witnesses say his hands were raised. Others say he was “balled up”, which would be unsurprising given that he had been shot at least once at that point.
Wilson then shot him another number of times, killing him. The fatal shot was apparently to the top of the head, which could have been the result of Brown having his head down to charge Wilson, or of Brown having his head down because he was stumbling or falling.
Those are the facts we know, as best that I can tell. They support about a hundred different readings of what happened.
Unless somebody has some other treasure trove of information to offer, I respectfully submit that none of us knows exactly what happened, or exactly what blame belongs where.
All of this is independent of whether the police department in Ferguson is FUBAR, or whether they are unfair in their dealings with the folks who live there, or whether those folks have ample reason to be pissed off.
The Wilson / Brown thing is just the lightning rod, the storm has a life of its own.
I’m still curious to hear how the available forensic evidence supports Wilson’s story, but not that of other eye witnesses who do not have Brown charging Wilson after he turned around.
There are lots of claims being made about what happened. I have no idea what people are basing them on.
Wilson and Brown got into some kind of physical thing at the car. Wilson says Brown attacked him, other folks say Wilson tried to grab Brown and pull him to the car. I find either story plausible and supportable given the physical evidence. Either story requires one or the other of the men to have acted foolishly, but sadly human foolishness is abundantly on offer, all the time.
Wilson shot Brown in the hand. Brown ran away, Wilson pursued him, shot at him, and missed.
Brown then turned around and moved back toward Wilson. Some folks, including Wilson, say he charged. Others say he walked and/or stumbled toward Wilson. Some eye witnesses say his hands were raised. Others say he was “balled up”, which would be unsurprising given that he had been shot at least once at that point.
Wilson then shot him another number of times, killing him. The fatal shot was apparently to the top of the head, which could have been the result of Brown having his head down to charge Wilson, or of Brown having his head down because he was stumbling or falling.
Those are the facts we know, as best that I can tell. They support about a hundred different readings of what happened.
Unless somebody has some other treasure trove of information to offer, I respectfully submit that none of us knows exactly what happened, or exactly what blame belongs where.
All of this is independent of whether the police department in Ferguson is FUBAR, or whether they are unfair in their dealings with the folks who live there, or whether those folks have ample reason to be pissed off.
The Wilson / Brown thing is just the lightning rod, the storm has a life of its own.
I’m still curious to hear how the available forensic evidence supports Wilson’s story, but not that of other eye witnesses who do not have Brown charging Wilson after he turned around.
There are lots of claims being made about what happened. I have no idea what people are basing them on.
Wilson and Brown got into some kind of physical thing at the car. Wilson says Brown attacked him, other folks say Wilson tried to grab Brown and pull him to the car. I find either story plausible and supportable given the physical evidence. Either story requires one or the other of the men to have acted foolishly, but sadly human foolishness is abundantly on offer, all the time.
Wilson shot Brown in the hand. Brown ran away, Wilson pursued him, shot at him, and missed.
Brown then turned around and moved back toward Wilson. Some folks, including Wilson, say he charged. Others say he walked and/or stumbled toward Wilson. Some eye witnesses say his hands were raised. Others say he was “balled up”, which would be unsurprising given that he had been shot at least once at that point.
Wilson then shot him another number of times, killing him. The fatal shot was apparently to the top of the head, which could have been the result of Brown having his head down to charge Wilson, or of Brown having his head down because he was stumbling or falling.
Those are the facts we know, as best that I can tell. They support about a hundred different readings of what happened.
Unless somebody has some other treasure trove of information to offer, I respectfully submit that none of us knows exactly what happened, or exactly what blame belongs where.
All of this is independent of whether the police department in Ferguson is FUBAR, or whether they are unfair in their dealings with the folks who live there, or whether those folks have ample reason to be pissed off.
The Wilson / Brown thing is just the lightning rod, the storm has a life of its own.
They support about a hundred different readings of what happened.
And, my understanding is that is basically why the grand jury decided not to indict.
The eye witness accounts were inconsistent, and in some cases changed over time.
So, a lack of clarity about what, exactly, happened.
That’s the prosecutor’s story, if I’m not mistaken. Nobody speaking for the grand jury appears to be saying that Wilson was clearly and unambiguously without fault.
They’re saying there wasn’t enough there to proceed with an indictment.
Unless I’m missing something.
They support about a hundred different readings of what happened.
And, my understanding is that is basically why the grand jury decided not to indict.
The eye witness accounts were inconsistent, and in some cases changed over time.
So, a lack of clarity about what, exactly, happened.
That’s the prosecutor’s story, if I’m not mistaken. Nobody speaking for the grand jury appears to be saying that Wilson was clearly and unambiguously without fault.
They’re saying there wasn’t enough there to proceed with an indictment.
Unless I’m missing something.
They support about a hundred different readings of what happened.
And, my understanding is that is basically why the grand jury decided not to indict.
The eye witness accounts were inconsistent, and in some cases changed over time.
So, a lack of clarity about what, exactly, happened.
That’s the prosecutor’s story, if I’m not mistaken. Nobody speaking for the grand jury appears to be saying that Wilson was clearly and unambiguously without fault.
They’re saying there wasn’t enough there to proceed with an indictment.
Unless I’m missing something.
For a good take suburban segregation and the wasteful dead end suburban “growth” model please read this.
Click through and read the links. Good background/context material.
For a good take suburban segregation and the wasteful dead end suburban “growth” model please read this.
Click through and read the links. Good background/context material.
For a good take suburban segregation and the wasteful dead end suburban “growth” model please read this.
Click through and read the links. Good background/context material.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
IANAL, but this statement from Judge Scalia, of all people, blew my mind: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
“neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.” The purpose of a grand jury is specifically to find whether there is reasonable cause for an indictment, NOT whether there is any defense to the charges. I didn’t know that.
And yet McCullough – who IS a lawyer – not only presented extensive exculpatory evidence, but allowed the suspect himself to testify at length. Which is, IMHO (but IANAL) gross prosecutorial misconduct, for which he should be sanctioned if not fired.
And this (if correct) registers all of the right-wing cavilling above moot. The arguments that were made in favor of Wilson’s action could have been made in an actual trial – under cross-examination – and might very well have resulted in his acquittal. Many observers think so. But that would not have been the injustice that this “mock trial” was – and no amount of rolling eyeballs over the “threat” posed by Michael Brown alters this fact.
IMHO. But IANAL.
IANAL, but this statement from Judge Scalia, of all people, blew my mind: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
“neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.” The purpose of a grand jury is specifically to find whether there is reasonable cause for an indictment, NOT whether there is any defense to the charges. I didn’t know that.
And yet McCullough – who IS a lawyer – not only presented extensive exculpatory evidence, but allowed the suspect himself to testify at length. Which is, IMHO (but IANAL) gross prosecutorial misconduct, for which he should be sanctioned if not fired.
And this (if correct) registers all of the right-wing cavilling above moot. The arguments that were made in favor of Wilson’s action could have been made in an actual trial – under cross-examination – and might very well have resulted in his acquittal. Many observers think so. But that would not have been the injustice that this “mock trial” was – and no amount of rolling eyeballs over the “threat” posed by Michael Brown alters this fact.
IMHO. But IANAL.
IANAL, but this statement from Judge Scalia, of all people, blew my mind: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
“neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.” The purpose of a grand jury is specifically to find whether there is reasonable cause for an indictment, NOT whether there is any defense to the charges. I didn’t know that.
And yet McCullough – who IS a lawyer – not only presented extensive exculpatory evidence, but allowed the suspect himself to testify at length. Which is, IMHO (but IANAL) gross prosecutorial misconduct, for which he should be sanctioned if not fired.
And this (if correct) registers all of the right-wing cavilling above moot. The arguments that were made in favor of Wilson’s action could have been made in an actual trial – under cross-examination – and might very well have resulted in his acquittal. Many observers think so. But that would not have been the injustice that this “mock trial” was – and no amount of rolling eyeballs over the “threat” posed by Michael Brown alters this fact.
IMHO. But IANAL.
“neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”
It ought to be pointed out that grand jurys don’t exist in England – or anywhere else on the planet outside the US.
“neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”
It ought to be pointed out that grand jurys don’t exist in England – or anywhere else on the planet outside the US.
“neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”
It ought to be pointed out that grand jurys don’t exist in England – or anywhere else on the planet outside the US.
There isn’t anything contradictory between what Scalia said in his opinion and what McCullough did in front of the grand jury. It’s clear that McCullough either did not want Wilson charged or that if Wilson was charged that no one could say McCullough was pushing for it. Unorthodox and atypical for what grand juries have become in the US? Yes. But not in violation of any duty or law or procedural rule, as far as I can tell.
There isn’t anything contradictory between what Scalia said in his opinion and what McCullough did in front of the grand jury. It’s clear that McCullough either did not want Wilson charged or that if Wilson was charged that no one could say McCullough was pushing for it. Unorthodox and atypical for what grand juries have become in the US? Yes. But not in violation of any duty or law or procedural rule, as far as I can tell.
There isn’t anything contradictory between what Scalia said in his opinion and what McCullough did in front of the grand jury. It’s clear that McCullough either did not want Wilson charged or that if Wilson was charged that no one could say McCullough was pushing for it. Unorthodox and atypical for what grand juries have become in the US? Yes. But not in violation of any duty or law or procedural rule, as far as I can tell.
But not in violation of any duty or law or procedural rule, as far as I can tell.
Prosecutorial discretion, eh?
But not in violation of any duty or law or procedural rule, as far as I can tell.
Prosecutorial discretion, eh?
But not in violation of any duty or law or procedural rule, as far as I can tell.
Prosecutorial discretion, eh?
I think that’s pretty much correct. Grand juries are not used in all states. In a way, this gave McCullough an “out.” If there were no grand jury, the charging decision would have been entirely up to his discretion. This way he can wash his hands of it (or at least attempt to do so).
I think that’s pretty much correct. Grand juries are not used in all states. In a way, this gave McCullough an “out.” If there were no grand jury, the charging decision would have been entirely up to his discretion. This way he can wash his hands of it (or at least attempt to do so).
I think that’s pretty much correct. Grand juries are not used in all states. In a way, this gave McCullough an “out.” If there were no grand jury, the charging decision would have been entirely up to his discretion. This way he can wash his hands of it (or at least attempt to do so).
If McCollough had treated this just like any other presentation to a grand jury, he could probably have gotten away with clean hands.
But when he so visibly treated this case differently, he probably will not manage to get away unscathed. His fondest hopes notwithstanding.
If McCollough had treated this just like any other presentation to a grand jury, he could probably have gotten away with clean hands.
But when he so visibly treated this case differently, he probably will not manage to get away unscathed. His fondest hopes notwithstanding.
If McCollough had treated this just like any other presentation to a grand jury, he could probably have gotten away with clean hands.
But when he so visibly treated this case differently, he probably will not manage to get away unscathed. His fondest hopes notwithstanding.
If he’d treated it like any other case, it never would have gone to the grand jury, so asking how he would have presented to the grand jury a case he wouldn’t have presented to the grand jury is a bit pointless.
Amazingly, people are pissed off because the grand jury got too much information. I’m sure they would have voted to prosecute if they’d only gotten the press accounts.
If he’d treated it like any other case, it never would have gone to the grand jury, so asking how he would have presented to the grand jury a case he wouldn’t have presented to the grand jury is a bit pointless.
Amazingly, people are pissed off because the grand jury got too much information. I’m sure they would have voted to prosecute if they’d only gotten the press accounts.
If he’d treated it like any other case, it never would have gone to the grand jury, so asking how he would have presented to the grand jury a case he wouldn’t have presented to the grand jury is a bit pointless.
Amazingly, people are pissed off because the grand jury got too much information. I’m sure they would have voted to prosecute if they’d only gotten the press accounts.
Brett, what you are saying is that the general process used by grand juries is seriously flawed. Which may be true.
But that doesn’t change what the impact on McCollough is likely to be from not following that general process, once he decided to go to the grand jury. Do you think it will? (Not whether it should, but whether it will.)
Brett, what you are saying is that the general process used by grand juries is seriously flawed. Which may be true.
But that doesn’t change what the impact on McCollough is likely to be from not following that general process, once he decided to go to the grand jury. Do you think it will? (Not whether it should, but whether it will.)
Brett, what you are saying is that the general process used by grand juries is seriously flawed. Which may be true.
But that doesn’t change what the impact on McCollough is likely to be from not following that general process, once he decided to go to the grand jury. Do you think it will? (Not whether it should, but whether it will.)
My general opinion of the petite and grand jury process in America, is that the professionals have transferred so much of the jury’s power to themselves, and gone so far in transforming both sorts of jurors into the proverbial mushrooms, (Kept in the dark and fed BS.) that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury is not being delivered on anymore. The jury is a charade they’d drop if they thought they could get away with it.
None the less, this is a case that would not have been prosecuted either by grand jury or prosecutor, absent huge political pressure, not because of pro-police bias, (Though that is present.) but because there never was much of a case here.
So the prosecutor used the grand jury as a way of diverting the inevitable blame away from himself, and getting enough evidence out to establish for people who care about the evidence that justice had been done. The jury was used for PR purposes, because there wasn’t any other purpose in sending it to the grand jury.
My general opinion of the petite and grand jury process in America, is that the professionals have transferred so much of the jury’s power to themselves, and gone so far in transforming both sorts of jurors into the proverbial mushrooms, (Kept in the dark and fed BS.) that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury is not being delivered on anymore. The jury is a charade they’d drop if they thought they could get away with it.
None the less, this is a case that would not have been prosecuted either by grand jury or prosecutor, absent huge political pressure, not because of pro-police bias, (Though that is present.) but because there never was much of a case here.
So the prosecutor used the grand jury as a way of diverting the inevitable blame away from himself, and getting enough evidence out to establish for people who care about the evidence that justice had been done. The jury was used for PR purposes, because there wasn’t any other purpose in sending it to the grand jury.
My general opinion of the petite and grand jury process in America, is that the professionals have transferred so much of the jury’s power to themselves, and gone so far in transforming both sorts of jurors into the proverbial mushrooms, (Kept in the dark and fed BS.) that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury is not being delivered on anymore. The jury is a charade they’d drop if they thought they could get away with it.
None the less, this is a case that would not have been prosecuted either by grand jury or prosecutor, absent huge political pressure, not because of pro-police bias, (Though that is present.) but because there never was much of a case here.
So the prosecutor used the grand jury as a way of diverting the inevitable blame away from himself, and getting enough evidence out to establish for people who care about the evidence that justice had been done. The jury was used for PR purposes, because there wasn’t any other purpose in sending it to the grand jury.
A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at. For example, the below article is frustration to me because they seem to think the the time to start measuring whether Wilson’s actions are appropriate is the struggle at the window. Rather than earlier. Same thing with the grand jury – is McCullough supposed to just act as if all that came before is a run of the mill case once he’s in front o the grand jury, especially if he doesn’t think he should be there in the first place?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/ferguson-experts-weigh-darren-wilsons-decisions-leading-to-fatal-shooting-of-michael-brown.html?_r=0
A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at. For example, the below article is frustration to me because they seem to think the the time to start measuring whether Wilson’s actions are appropriate is the struggle at the window. Rather than earlier. Same thing with the grand jury – is McCullough supposed to just act as if all that came before is a run of the mill case once he’s in front o the grand jury, especially if he doesn’t think he should be there in the first place?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/ferguson-experts-weigh-darren-wilsons-decisions-leading-to-fatal-shooting-of-michael-brown.html?_r=0
A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at. For example, the below article is frustration to me because they seem to think the the time to start measuring whether Wilson’s actions are appropriate is the struggle at the window. Rather than earlier. Same thing with the grand jury – is McCullough supposed to just act as if all that came before is a run of the mill case once he’s in front o the grand jury, especially if he doesn’t think he should be there in the first place?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/ferguson-experts-weigh-darren-wilsons-decisions-leading-to-fatal-shooting-of-michael-brown.html?_r=0
I think it depends on what he is hoping to achieve in front of the grand jury. If he wants to get exactly the decision he would have made himself (i.e. not to prosecute) then what he did was right. But in that case, why bother to go at all; just decide not to prosecute and be done with it.
However if what he wants is to avoid being blamed for the failure to prosecute, then he should have gone to the grand jury just like he would have for any other case. (Which he did not.) Otherwise, his determination to not prosecute is somewhat transparent. And he can reasonably expect to be held responsible for the lack of prosecution.
I think it depends on what he is hoping to achieve in front of the grand jury. If he wants to get exactly the decision he would have made himself (i.e. not to prosecute) then what he did was right. But in that case, why bother to go at all; just decide not to prosecute and be done with it.
However if what he wants is to avoid being blamed for the failure to prosecute, then he should have gone to the grand jury just like he would have for any other case. (Which he did not.) Otherwise, his determination to not prosecute is somewhat transparent. And he can reasonably expect to be held responsible for the lack of prosecution.
I think it depends on what he is hoping to achieve in front of the grand jury. If he wants to get exactly the decision he would have made himself (i.e. not to prosecute) then what he did was right. But in that case, why bother to go at all; just decide not to prosecute and be done with it.
However if what he wants is to avoid being blamed for the failure to prosecute, then he should have gone to the grand jury just like he would have for any other case. (Which he did not.) Otherwise, his determination to not prosecute is somewhat transparent. And he can reasonably expect to be held responsible for the lack of prosecution.
For those of you queasy about the revolt in Ferguson:
Terror….“was not the only reason that the State of Israel finally came into being, but the Irgun (terror) campaign was a critical factor in driving the British out of Palestine.”
-Menachem Begin
Funny how terrorism is waved away wrt certain political actors, but not others. Something to think about.
Enjoy your holiday repast!
Best Regards,
For those of you queasy about the revolt in Ferguson:
Terror….“was not the only reason that the State of Israel finally came into being, but the Irgun (terror) campaign was a critical factor in driving the British out of Palestine.”
-Menachem Begin
Funny how terrorism is waved away wrt certain political actors, but not others. Something to think about.
Enjoy your holiday repast!
Best Regards,
For those of you queasy about the revolt in Ferguson:
Terror….“was not the only reason that the State of Israel finally came into being, but the Irgun (terror) campaign was a critical factor in driving the British out of Palestine.”
-Menachem Begin
Funny how terrorism is waved away wrt certain political actors, but not others. Something to think about.
Enjoy your holiday repast!
Best Regards,
It would be interesting to know if the DOJ was outing any pressure on McCollough to bring the case when he didn’t want to. Perhaps what we saw was the compromise. It seems a good decision to release all the evidence presented, which also isn’t SOP, I believe.
It would be interesting to know if the DOJ was outing any pressure on McCollough to bring the case when he didn’t want to. Perhaps what we saw was the compromise. It seems a good decision to release all the evidence presented, which also isn’t SOP, I believe.
It would be interesting to know if the DOJ was outing any pressure on McCollough to bring the case when he didn’t want to. Perhaps what we saw was the compromise. It seems a good decision to release all the evidence presented, which also isn’t SOP, I believe.
Ugh: A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at.
That point was made in the Treyvon Martin case, too. People who are determined to justify shootings of young black “thugs” by armed white thugs can always pick a convenient starting point.
It seems a good decision to release all the evidence presented …
Cuts both ways. All the evidence presented is not the same as all the evidence.
–TP
Ugh: A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at.
That point was made in the Treyvon Martin case, too. People who are determined to justify shootings of young black “thugs” by armed white thugs can always pick a convenient starting point.
It seems a good decision to release all the evidence presented …
Cuts both ways. All the evidence presented is not the same as all the evidence.
–TP
Ugh: A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at.
That point was made in the Treyvon Martin case, too. People who are determined to justify shootings of young black “thugs” by armed white thugs can always pick a convenient starting point.
It seems a good decision to release all the evidence presented …
Cuts both ways. All the evidence presented is not the same as all the evidence.
–TP
More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)
Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.
There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.
Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.
here
More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)
Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.
There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.
Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.
here
More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)
Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.
There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.
Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.
here
Not sure there’s any point in that timeline where Trayvon’s decision to assault Zimmerman actually looks good. Frankly, discussions of that case give me the impression that liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
Not sure there’s any point in that timeline where Trayvon’s decision to assault Zimmerman actually looks good. Frankly, discussions of that case give me the impression that liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
Not sure there’s any point in that timeline where Trayvon’s decision to assault Zimmerman actually looks good. Frankly, discussions of that case give me the impression that liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old
Which was likely illegal, full stop.
Not sure there’s any point in that timeline where Trayvon’s decision to assault Zimmerman actually looks good.
The dead horse begs for mercy.
Long story short, any narrative you care to present about “what REALLY happened”, in that case or this, is something you’re pulling out of your @ss.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old
Which was likely illegal, full stop.
Not sure there’s any point in that timeline where Trayvon’s decision to assault Zimmerman actually looks good.
The dead horse begs for mercy.
Long story short, any narrative you care to present about “what REALLY happened”, in that case or this, is something you’re pulling out of your @ss.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old
Which was likely illegal, full stop.
Not sure there’s any point in that timeline where Trayvon’s decision to assault Zimmerman actually looks good.
The dead horse begs for mercy.
Long story short, any narrative you care to present about “what REALLY happened”, in that case or this, is something you’re pulling out of your @ss.
It was the skittles.
It was the skittles.
It was the skittles.
just to, hopefully, pre-empt the inevitable flood of crap about Trayvon Martin, here are the FL statutes discussing when the use of force is justified.
If Martin reasonably believed himself in danger of assault by Zimmerman, he was completely justified in beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
He was under no obligation to retreat.
Having been followed around the neighborhood by Zimmerman, first by car and then by foot, it’s quite easy to imagine Martin holding that belief, reasonably.
But we don’t know what he thought, and we can’t ask him because he’s dead. The only other person there was Zimmerman, and he is obviously not a disinterested witness.
Anything anybody wants to say about that situation above and beyond “they got into a fight and Zimmerman shot him” is bullshit. Total bullshit. Nobody but Zimmerman knows what precipitated the fight.
Enough already about Trayvon Martin. He’s dead, Zimmerman’s a free man. If you want to piss on his grave, go do it somewhere else.
just to, hopefully, pre-empt the inevitable flood of crap about Trayvon Martin, here are the FL statutes discussing when the use of force is justified.
If Martin reasonably believed himself in danger of assault by Zimmerman, he was completely justified in beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
He was under no obligation to retreat.
Having been followed around the neighborhood by Zimmerman, first by car and then by foot, it’s quite easy to imagine Martin holding that belief, reasonably.
But we don’t know what he thought, and we can’t ask him because he’s dead. The only other person there was Zimmerman, and he is obviously not a disinterested witness.
Anything anybody wants to say about that situation above and beyond “they got into a fight and Zimmerman shot him” is bullshit. Total bullshit. Nobody but Zimmerman knows what precipitated the fight.
Enough already about Trayvon Martin. He’s dead, Zimmerman’s a free man. If you want to piss on his grave, go do it somewhere else.
just to, hopefully, pre-empt the inevitable flood of crap about Trayvon Martin, here are the FL statutes discussing when the use of force is justified.
If Martin reasonably believed himself in danger of assault by Zimmerman, he was completely justified in beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
He was under no obligation to retreat.
Having been followed around the neighborhood by Zimmerman, first by car and then by foot, it’s quite easy to imagine Martin holding that belief, reasonably.
But we don’t know what he thought, and we can’t ask him because he’s dead. The only other person there was Zimmerman, and he is obviously not a disinterested witness.
Anything anybody wants to say about that situation above and beyond “they got into a fight and Zimmerman shot him” is bullshit. Total bullshit. Nobody but Zimmerman knows what precipitated the fight.
Enough already about Trayvon Martin. He’s dead, Zimmerman’s a free man. If you want to piss on his grave, go do it somewhere else.
….liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
I must confess. I got it from reading the wisdom of John Woo.
….liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
I must confess. I got it from reading the wisdom of John Woo.
….liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
I must confess. I got it from reading the wisdom of John Woo.
….liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
Well, first it’s necessary to say that “Skittles are a WMD!” and then it’s all justified, amirite?
….liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
Well, first it’s necessary to say that “Skittles are a WMD!” and then it’s all justified, amirite?
….liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.
Well, first it’s necessary to say that “Skittles are a WMD!” and then it’s all justified, amirite?
This is also Ferguson MO.
As is this.
Contrary to the sayings of our local prophet and seer Brett, the city is not totally FUBAR and there are people who live there who are committed to making a future for themselves there.
This is also Ferguson MO.
As is this.
Contrary to the sayings of our local prophet and seer Brett, the city is not totally FUBAR and there are people who live there who are committed to making a future for themselves there.
This is also Ferguson MO.
As is this.
Contrary to the sayings of our local prophet and seer Brett, the city is not totally FUBAR and there are people who live there who are committed to making a future for themselves there.
The subhuman pig vermin Moe Lane hangs with:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-fac
The subhuman pig vermin Moe Lane hangs with:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-fac
The subhuman pig vermin Moe Lane hangs with:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-fac
yes, they’re all tough guys over at red state
yes, they’re all tough guys over at red state
yes, they’re all tough guys over at red state
russell, the term you are looking for is “chicken hawk.”
russell, the term you are looking for is “chicken hawk.”
russell, the term you are looking for is “chicken hawk.”
“Frankly, discussions of that case give me the impression that liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.”
So far, the unarmed liberals are outgunned:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Labs_Take_A_Break
That’s going to change.
The next stalked Trayvon carries.
“Frankly, discussions of that case give me the impression that liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.”
So far, the unarmed liberals are outgunned:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Labs_Take_A_Break
That’s going to change.
The next stalked Trayvon carries.
“Frankly, discussions of that case give me the impression that liberals have a really, really warped view of what justifies violence.”
So far, the unarmed liberals are outgunned:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Labs_Take_A_Break
That’s going to change.
The next stalked Trayvon carries.
Been saving this.
Be careful what you wish for:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/do-black-people-have-equal-gun-rights.html?_r=0
First read it.
Then scroll down and see who Mr. Cooke writes for.
He points out that Martin Luther King kept a sizable arsenal in his home and nods approvingly at the old photo of Malcolm X standing in a window with a rifle.
To which I say, a lot of good it did them.
Maybe Trayvon’s parents kept a weapon at home, too.
Here’s what should have happened.
King’s and Malcolm’s arsenals, had they truly been used in the old-fashioned way Cooke relishes, would have come in handy during all of the long years racist, segregationist William F. Buckley’s National Review and its pig vermin staff were haranguing against Brown vrs Board of Education and every other piece of Civil Rights progress.
The true mystery of American history is why King and Malcolm X, and all of their forebears didn’t pack up those arsenals and visit the NR offices at the time and go from desk to desk and blow those f*ckers away, including Buckley, and make a true American statement regarding the Second Amendment and its role in furthering human freedoms, that Cooke could relish.
King’s forbearance in his choice of peaceful demonstration, sans the weaponry, should be what Cooke gets down on his knees and thanks his conservative Gods for, because he wouldn’t be working at National Review had King gone violent and killed those who stood in the way of human freedom under the Constitution.
He’d probably have to get a slot next to Steve Doocy on Fox to get a paycheck.
As it is, NR and the same Confederate vermin live on, in ever more need of some fatal lead poisoning.
The South prevailed, as Buckley insisted.
Been saving this.
Be careful what you wish for:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/do-black-people-have-equal-gun-rights.html?_r=0
First read it.
Then scroll down and see who Mr. Cooke writes for.
He points out that Martin Luther King kept a sizable arsenal in his home and nods approvingly at the old photo of Malcolm X standing in a window with a rifle.
To which I say, a lot of good it did them.
Maybe Trayvon’s parents kept a weapon at home, too.
Here’s what should have happened.
King’s and Malcolm’s arsenals, had they truly been used in the old-fashioned way Cooke relishes, would have come in handy during all of the long years racist, segregationist William F. Buckley’s National Review and its pig vermin staff were haranguing against Brown vrs Board of Education and every other piece of Civil Rights progress.
The true mystery of American history is why King and Malcolm X, and all of their forebears didn’t pack up those arsenals and visit the NR offices at the time and go from desk to desk and blow those f*ckers away, including Buckley, and make a true American statement regarding the Second Amendment and its role in furthering human freedoms, that Cooke could relish.
King’s forbearance in his choice of peaceful demonstration, sans the weaponry, should be what Cooke gets down on his knees and thanks his conservative Gods for, because he wouldn’t be working at National Review had King gone violent and killed those who stood in the way of human freedom under the Constitution.
He’d probably have to get a slot next to Steve Doocy on Fox to get a paycheck.
As it is, NR and the same Confederate vermin live on, in ever more need of some fatal lead poisoning.
The South prevailed, as Buckley insisted.
Been saving this.
Be careful what you wish for:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/do-black-people-have-equal-gun-rights.html?_r=0
First read it.
Then scroll down and see who Mr. Cooke writes for.
He points out that Martin Luther King kept a sizable arsenal in his home and nods approvingly at the old photo of Malcolm X standing in a window with a rifle.
To which I say, a lot of good it did them.
Maybe Trayvon’s parents kept a weapon at home, too.
Here’s what should have happened.
King’s and Malcolm’s arsenals, had they truly been used in the old-fashioned way Cooke relishes, would have come in handy during all of the long years racist, segregationist William F. Buckley’s National Review and its pig vermin staff were haranguing against Brown vrs Board of Education and every other piece of Civil Rights progress.
The true mystery of American history is why King and Malcolm X, and all of their forebears didn’t pack up those arsenals and visit the NR offices at the time and go from desk to desk and blow those f*ckers away, including Buckley, and make a true American statement regarding the Second Amendment and its role in furthering human freedoms, that Cooke could relish.
King’s forbearance in his choice of peaceful demonstration, sans the weaponry, should be what Cooke gets down on his knees and thanks his conservative Gods for, because he wouldn’t be working at National Review had King gone violent and killed those who stood in the way of human freedom under the Constitution.
He’d probably have to get a slot next to Steve Doocy on Fox to get a paycheck.
As it is, NR and the same Confederate vermin live on, in ever more need of some fatal lead poisoning.
The South prevailed, as Buckley insisted.
Again I draw your attention to one of the Count’s bloody fantasies. You might not like this life member of the NRA, but I, at least, do not dream of murder.
The day may yet come when you look back at comments like the above, and wonder why you didn’t ser it coming.
Again I draw your attention to one of the Count’s bloody fantasies. You might not like this life member of the NRA, but I, at least, do not dream of murder.
The day may yet come when you look back at comments like the above, and wonder why you didn’t ser it coming.
Again I draw your attention to one of the Count’s bloody fantasies. You might not like this life member of the NRA, but I, at least, do not dream of murder.
The day may yet come when you look back at comments like the above, and wonder why you didn’t ser it coming.
we will know him by the trail of dead….
we will know him by the trail of dead….
we will know him by the trail of dead….
As usual, you have the weapons, and I don’t.
What are you going to do, add some commas to the First Amendment to make words lethal?
Words don’t kill, your bullets do.
I hope you have them with you on your flight out of town.
Meanwhile, very nice recipes.
You know Brett, I’m your biggest defender against being banned here, because what’s the point of bobbyp and me agreeing all the time.
That would be boring.
As usual, you have the weapons, and I don’t.
What are you going to do, add some commas to the First Amendment to make words lethal?
Words don’t kill, your bullets do.
I hope you have them with you on your flight out of town.
Meanwhile, very nice recipes.
You know Brett, I’m your biggest defender against being banned here, because what’s the point of bobbyp and me agreeing all the time.
That would be boring.
As usual, you have the weapons, and I don’t.
What are you going to do, add some commas to the First Amendment to make words lethal?
Words don’t kill, your bullets do.
I hope you have them with you on your flight out of town.
Meanwhile, very nice recipes.
You know Brett, I’m your biggest defender against being banned here, because what’s the point of bobbyp and me agreeing all the time.
That would be boring.
Apparently, guns don’t kill, words do.
Apparently, guns don’t kill, words do.
Apparently, guns don’t kill, words do.
Brett, how bout you get on this guy’s case instead.
It’s gun fantasy brought to life, in the state where gun fantasy becomes reality.
And what’s with the silly hats?
Among the violent, revolutionary wing of Ted Cruz’s partytime.
Brett, how bout you get on this guy’s case instead.
It’s gun fantasy brought to life, in the state where gun fantasy becomes reality.
And what’s with the silly hats?
Among the violent, revolutionary wing of Ted Cruz’s partytime.
Brett, how bout you get on this guy’s case instead.
It’s gun fantasy brought to life, in the state where gun fantasy becomes reality.
And what’s with the silly hats?
Among the violent, revolutionary wing of Ted Cruz’s partytime.
Link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-id-austin-gunman-steven-mcquilliams
What a handsome Republican murderer.
I’ll bet he’s gone coyote trolling with the Governor.
Link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-id-austin-gunman-steven-mcquilliams
What a handsome Republican murderer.
I’ll bet he’s gone coyote trolling with the Governor.
Link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-id-austin-gunman-steven-mcquilliams
What a handsome Republican murderer.
I’ll bet he’s gone coyote trolling with the Governor.
I, at least, do not dream of murder.
Of course not: you dream of justifiably killing people. That’s why you’ve amassed more than a few people killing machines. That’s why you practice shooting at targets. That’s why you’ve rehearsed in your head, God only knows how many times, how you’d react if an intruder showed up at your front door. But in your non-dreams, this killing is socially justified and thus non-murder.
It occurs to me that a lot of people who murder other people with guns have convinced themselves that the murders they carried out were socially justified killings and very much not murders.
I, at least, do not dream of murder.
Of course not: you dream of justifiably killing people. That’s why you’ve amassed more than a few people killing machines. That’s why you practice shooting at targets. That’s why you’ve rehearsed in your head, God only knows how many times, how you’d react if an intruder showed up at your front door. But in your non-dreams, this killing is socially justified and thus non-murder.
It occurs to me that a lot of people who murder other people with guns have convinced themselves that the murders they carried out were socially justified killings and very much not murders.
I, at least, do not dream of murder.
Of course not: you dream of justifiably killing people. That’s why you’ve amassed more than a few people killing machines. That’s why you practice shooting at targets. That’s why you’ve rehearsed in your head, God only knows how many times, how you’d react if an intruder showed up at your front door. But in your non-dreams, this killing is socially justified and thus non-murder.
It occurs to me that a lot of people who murder other people with guns have convinced themselves that the murders they carried out were socially justified killings and very much not murders.
Meanwhile, shouldn’t the IRS be gearing up to investigate Putin funding the RNC in the leadup to the Presidential election in 2016:
http://www.france24.com/en/20141123-france-far-right-turns-russian-lender-national-front-marine-le-pen/
The worldwide conservative movement is lethal to its common enemies: gays, solar and wind projects, nigger U.S. presidents, Finland, etc.
Is Erickson Erickson in line to receive Soviet funding?
Is Moe Lane prepping for Saudi Arabian financing to derail Solyndra and American oil independence?
Is Streiff striving for me to do a patriot’s work?
Meanwhile, shouldn’t the IRS be gearing up to investigate Putin funding the RNC in the leadup to the Presidential election in 2016:
http://www.france24.com/en/20141123-france-far-right-turns-russian-lender-national-front-marine-le-pen/
The worldwide conservative movement is lethal to its common enemies: gays, solar and wind projects, nigger U.S. presidents, Finland, etc.
Is Erickson Erickson in line to receive Soviet funding?
Is Moe Lane prepping for Saudi Arabian financing to derail Solyndra and American oil independence?
Is Streiff striving for me to do a patriot’s work?
Meanwhile, shouldn’t the IRS be gearing up to investigate Putin funding the RNC in the leadup to the Presidential election in 2016:
http://www.france24.com/en/20141123-france-far-right-turns-russian-lender-national-front-marine-le-pen/
The worldwide conservative movement is lethal to its common enemies: gays, solar and wind projects, nigger U.S. presidents, Finland, etc.
Is Erickson Erickson in line to receive Soviet funding?
Is Moe Lane prepping for Saudi Arabian financing to derail Solyndra and American oil independence?
Is Streiff striving for me to do a patriot’s work?
Count, elections outside the US cost peanuts compared to US elections; Putin has better things to waste his limited cash on.
Now, Bibi funneling money to the RNC via Adelson & Macau? That’s a different matter entirely. It didn’t work in 2012, so they’ll have to up their game.
Count, elections outside the US cost peanuts compared to US elections; Putin has better things to waste his limited cash on.
Now, Bibi funneling money to the RNC via Adelson & Macau? That’s a different matter entirely. It didn’t work in 2012, so they’ll have to up their game.
Count, elections outside the US cost peanuts compared to US elections; Putin has better things to waste his limited cash on.
Now, Bibi funneling money to the RNC via Adelson & Macau? That’s a different matter entirely. It didn’t work in 2012, so they’ll have to up their game.
“Of course not: you dream of justifiably killing people.”
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like, and you assume the real guy must conform to the one in your head. Meanwhile, the Count routinely spews murderous fantasies, and somehow this doesn’t cause you to update the version of him in your head.
I’m serious about this: The day may yet come when you read about the Count in the news, and wonder why you didn’t see it coming.
“Of course not: you dream of justifiably killing people.”
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like, and you assume the real guy must conform to the one in your head. Meanwhile, the Count routinely spews murderous fantasies, and somehow this doesn’t cause you to update the version of him in your head.
I’m serious about this: The day may yet come when you read about the Count in the news, and wonder why you didn’t see it coming.
“Of course not: you dream of justifiably killing people.”
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like, and you assume the real guy must conform to the one in your head. Meanwhile, the Count routinely spews murderous fantasies, and somehow this doesn’t cause you to update the version of him in your head.
I’m serious about this: The day may yet come when you read about the Count in the news, and wonder why you didn’t see it coming.
“The police in Ferguson MO are unionized.”
Posted by: joel hanes | November 22, 2014 at 04:47 PM
“Maybe, but I don’t think the rioters are.”
Posted by: Brett Bellmore
Wrong, since the police definitely did riot, back a few months ago. I don’t know what they did last week, but given the fact that they are pretty bad, I’d expect the same.
“The police in Ferguson MO are unionized.”
Posted by: joel hanes | November 22, 2014 at 04:47 PM
“Maybe, but I don’t think the rioters are.”
Posted by: Brett Bellmore
Wrong, since the police definitely did riot, back a few months ago. I don’t know what they did last week, but given the fact that they are pretty bad, I’d expect the same.
“The police in Ferguson MO are unionized.”
Posted by: joel hanes | November 22, 2014 at 04:47 PM
“Maybe, but I don’t think the rioters are.”
Posted by: Brett Bellmore
Wrong, since the police definitely did riot, back a few months ago. I don’t know what they did last week, but given the fact that they are pretty bad, I’d expect the same.
The police in Ferguson went around looting stores and burning down buildings? First I heard of it.
The police in Ferguson went around looting stores and burning down buildings? First I heard of it.
The police in Ferguson went around looting stores and burning down buildings? First I heard of it.
The day may yet come when you read about the Count in the news, and wonder why you didn’t see it coming.
I’ve been listening to conservative jack-offs blathering about how they are going to kill liberals / gays / muslims / socialists / blacks / black muslim socialist liberal gays for almost 15 years.
like, on a daily basis.
people i know, people i don’t know, people i thought i knew, people i wish i didn’t know, people i don’t want to know any more.
vivid, tumescent fantasies about their guns, what their guns can do, what their guns are gonna do, how many more guns they have than the muslim socialist liberal gay blacks they are gonna kill.
how much fun it’s gonna be to watch their targets piss their pants when they whip their big guns out.
oh yeah, hippies too, i forgot about the hippies.
for, like, almost the last 15 years.
so i don’t really give a crap when the count goes off on his rants. it’s theater.
my reading of the count is that he’s holding a big funhouse mirror up to the conservative id. if it looks bizarre disturbing and/or threatening, maybe you should take a look at yourself. if not yourself, definitely some of your buddies and/or favorite causes celebre.
in any case, the man doesn’t even have a gun. he does, admittedly, have a rake and maybe a pitchfork out in the shed, but you’ll have to get pretty close to him for those to do any damage.
just keep your distance and you’ll be fine.
and no, that isn’t a veiled threat, i’m taking the piss, as the brits say.
is there a “taking the piss” emoticon?
just thought i’d let you know that, so you don’t have to waste another ten comments bewailing my secret desire to see you dead.
The day may yet come when you read about the Count in the news, and wonder why you didn’t see it coming.
I’ve been listening to conservative jack-offs blathering about how they are going to kill liberals / gays / muslims / socialists / blacks / black muslim socialist liberal gays for almost 15 years.
like, on a daily basis.
people i know, people i don’t know, people i thought i knew, people i wish i didn’t know, people i don’t want to know any more.
vivid, tumescent fantasies about their guns, what their guns can do, what their guns are gonna do, how many more guns they have than the muslim socialist liberal gay blacks they are gonna kill.
how much fun it’s gonna be to watch their targets piss their pants when they whip their big guns out.
oh yeah, hippies too, i forgot about the hippies.
for, like, almost the last 15 years.
so i don’t really give a crap when the count goes off on his rants. it’s theater.
my reading of the count is that he’s holding a big funhouse mirror up to the conservative id. if it looks bizarre disturbing and/or threatening, maybe you should take a look at yourself. if not yourself, definitely some of your buddies and/or favorite causes celebre.
in any case, the man doesn’t even have a gun. he does, admittedly, have a rake and maybe a pitchfork out in the shed, but you’ll have to get pretty close to him for those to do any damage.
just keep your distance and you’ll be fine.
and no, that isn’t a veiled threat, i’m taking the piss, as the brits say.
is there a “taking the piss” emoticon?
just thought i’d let you know that, so you don’t have to waste another ten comments bewailing my secret desire to see you dead.
The day may yet come when you read about the Count in the news, and wonder why you didn’t see it coming.
I’ve been listening to conservative jack-offs blathering about how they are going to kill liberals / gays / muslims / socialists / blacks / black muslim socialist liberal gays for almost 15 years.
like, on a daily basis.
people i know, people i don’t know, people i thought i knew, people i wish i didn’t know, people i don’t want to know any more.
vivid, tumescent fantasies about their guns, what their guns can do, what their guns are gonna do, how many more guns they have than the muslim socialist liberal gay blacks they are gonna kill.
how much fun it’s gonna be to watch their targets piss their pants when they whip their big guns out.
oh yeah, hippies too, i forgot about the hippies.
for, like, almost the last 15 years.
so i don’t really give a crap when the count goes off on his rants. it’s theater.
my reading of the count is that he’s holding a big funhouse mirror up to the conservative id. if it looks bizarre disturbing and/or threatening, maybe you should take a look at yourself. if not yourself, definitely some of your buddies and/or favorite causes celebre.
in any case, the man doesn’t even have a gun. he does, admittedly, have a rake and maybe a pitchfork out in the shed, but you’ll have to get pretty close to him for those to do any damage.
just keep your distance and you’ll be fine.
and no, that isn’t a veiled threat, i’m taking the piss, as the brits say.
is there a “taking the piss” emoticon?
just thought i’d let you know that, so you don’t have to waste another ten comments bewailing my secret desire to see you dead.
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like…
The Brett in my head has visions of violently overthrowing the current US Federal Government from time to time, especially when changing the light bulb in the chicken coop or flushing the toilet, but they are most likely harmless fantasies.
More disturbing is the possibility of slightly tumescent fantasies regarding “taking out” the dreaded “home intruder, as Brett expressed here:
Though I will grant that getting shot in the act would be better; A pity California is too uncivilized to encourage that sort of thing.
But for the most part, he is harmless. The political movement to which he gives his expressed allegiance? Not so much.
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like…
The Brett in my head has visions of violently overthrowing the current US Federal Government from time to time, especially when changing the light bulb in the chicken coop or flushing the toilet, but they are most likely harmless fantasies.
More disturbing is the possibility of slightly tumescent fantasies regarding “taking out” the dreaded “home intruder, as Brett expressed here:
Though I will grant that getting shot in the act would be better; A pity California is too uncivilized to encourage that sort of thing.
But for the most part, he is harmless. The political movement to which he gives his expressed allegiance? Not so much.
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like…
The Brett in my head has visions of violently overthrowing the current US Federal Government from time to time, especially when changing the light bulb in the chicken coop or flushing the toilet, but they are most likely harmless fantasies.
More disturbing is the possibility of slightly tumescent fantasies regarding “taking out” the dreaded “home intruder, as Brett expressed here:
Though I will grant that getting shot in the act would be better; A pity California is too uncivilized to encourage that sort of thing.
But for the most part, he is harmless. The political movement to which he gives his expressed allegiance? Not so much.
I can see the headlines now:
(Cue swirling montage of bold-faced, huge-font newspaper headlines as the camera moves in for a closeup of the headline on a stack of bound newspapers thrown from the back of truck on to the cobblestones as young boys grab their daily quota for the morning delivery)
THE COUNT STRIKES AGAIN!!!
MYSTERIOUS COUNT SUSPECTED IN HANNITY PIE-THROWING INCIDENT!!!!
REDSTATE EDITOR SHOOTS THE COUNT IN FACE, CLAIMS HE WAS AIMING FOR HIS BACK!!!
SENATOR ERNST SHOOTS THE COUNT IN FACE, SAYS SHE MISTOOK HIM FOR OBAMACARE OFFICIAL!!!!
FERGUSON COPS DON’T SHOOT THE INFAMOUS COUNT IN FACE, CLAIM HE IS PRETTY WHITE BOY!!!
OMG, THEY’VE KILLED THE COUNT AGAIN!!#?&!!
MICHELLE BACHMANN BLINKS; THE COUNT BLAMED!!!
THE COUNT FIGHTS OFF ENTIRE PALIN FAMILY WITH ONE HAND, DOESN’T SPILL BEER HELD IN OTHER HAND!!@)&!!
CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLE DROPS CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON, SHOOTS SELF IN GROIN AND INFANT SON IN HEAD WITH SAME BULLET; LIBERTARIANS ON LOOK-OUT FOR THE COUNT!!!&!
THE COUNT ASSASSINATES VLAD PUTIN; REPUBLICANS MOURN AND BEGIN SEARCH FOR NEW LEADER!!!6
THE COUNT REPORTED MISSING; GOVERNOR PERRY ORDERS SHOOTING OF ALL IMMIGRANTS UNDER AGE OF 16 DRESSED AS COYOTES#!@!!
THE COUNT SHOOTS MOUTH OFF, HIS WORDS RICOCHET INTO REPUBLICAN CROWD; THOUSANDS WET PANTS 555!!!!
LIMBAUGH COMPLAINS NEWS ON THE NOTORIOUS COUNT RELEGATED TO SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES FOOD SECTION, CONFIRMING LIBERAL BIAS !!#$%!
J. EDGAR HOOVER DRESSED AS VIVIAN VANCE, SOURCES CLAIM!!%# WILLIAM FRAWLEY OUTRAGED AT FASHION STATEMENT!!!!*
REPUBLICANS LEVY NEW FEES AND FINES ON POOR — SAY IT WILL GO TOWARD HUNTING DOWN THE COUNT!!!*&!!
DINESH D’SOUZA DOWNS DOGGIE D’OO D’OO, DISOWNS D’LUSIONAL D’MOCKCRAZY !!%$
COUNT BLAMED FOR MISSING NUCLEAR ATLATL WARHEAD FOUND LODGED IN GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S FUNDAMENT #!! LATTER IS A WALKING TIME-BOMB !!!!$
OBAMA PACKS SUPREME COURT WITH APPOINTMENT OF THECOUNT AS 11TH JUSTICE!!*
JUSTICE THECOUNT ISSUES DECISION FOR MAJORITY WITH NOVEL UNIFIED THEORY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE — TIME IS MONEY, MONEY IS SPEECH, THEREFORE TIME IS SPEECH, THEREFORE CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, THEREFORE CORPORATIONS HAVE FACES, THEREFORE BULLETS ARE SPEECH, THEREFORE COPS EXONERATED FOR SHOOTING CORPORATIONS IN FACES !!!!%!
COUNT CAPTURED, EXECUTED — AMERICANS RESUME BENDING OVER TO RECEIVE JOLLY ROGERING FROM REPUBLICANS NOW THAT COAST IS CLEAR !!!%!
THE DOBE SHRUGS OFF THE COUNT’S DEMISE — SAYS “IF HE HAD A HIGHER DEDUCTIBLE, HE WOULD HAVE WATCHED HIS MOUTH!!!” …..
all the news that is print to fit.
I can see the headlines now:
(Cue swirling montage of bold-faced, huge-font newspaper headlines as the camera moves in for a closeup of the headline on a stack of bound newspapers thrown from the back of truck on to the cobblestones as young boys grab their daily quota for the morning delivery)
THE COUNT STRIKES AGAIN!!!
MYSTERIOUS COUNT SUSPECTED IN HANNITY PIE-THROWING INCIDENT!!!!
REDSTATE EDITOR SHOOTS THE COUNT IN FACE, CLAIMS HE WAS AIMING FOR HIS BACK!!!
SENATOR ERNST SHOOTS THE COUNT IN FACE, SAYS SHE MISTOOK HIM FOR OBAMACARE OFFICIAL!!!!
FERGUSON COPS DON’T SHOOT THE INFAMOUS COUNT IN FACE, CLAIM HE IS PRETTY WHITE BOY!!!
OMG, THEY’VE KILLED THE COUNT AGAIN!!#?&!!
MICHELLE BACHMANN BLINKS; THE COUNT BLAMED!!!
THE COUNT FIGHTS OFF ENTIRE PALIN FAMILY WITH ONE HAND, DOESN’T SPILL BEER HELD IN OTHER HAND!!@)&!!
CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLE DROPS CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON, SHOOTS SELF IN GROIN AND INFANT SON IN HEAD WITH SAME BULLET; LIBERTARIANS ON LOOK-OUT FOR THE COUNT!!!&!
THE COUNT ASSASSINATES VLAD PUTIN; REPUBLICANS MOURN AND BEGIN SEARCH FOR NEW LEADER!!!6
THE COUNT REPORTED MISSING; GOVERNOR PERRY ORDERS SHOOTING OF ALL IMMIGRANTS UNDER AGE OF 16 DRESSED AS COYOTES#!@!!
THE COUNT SHOOTS MOUTH OFF, HIS WORDS RICOCHET INTO REPUBLICAN CROWD; THOUSANDS WET PANTS 555!!!!
LIMBAUGH COMPLAINS NEWS ON THE NOTORIOUS COUNT RELEGATED TO SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES FOOD SECTION, CONFIRMING LIBERAL BIAS !!#$%!
J. EDGAR HOOVER DRESSED AS VIVIAN VANCE, SOURCES CLAIM!!%# WILLIAM FRAWLEY OUTRAGED AT FASHION STATEMENT!!!!*
REPUBLICANS LEVY NEW FEES AND FINES ON POOR — SAY IT WILL GO TOWARD HUNTING DOWN THE COUNT!!!*&!!
DINESH D’SOUZA DOWNS DOGGIE D’OO D’OO, DISOWNS D’LUSIONAL D’MOCKCRAZY !!%$
COUNT BLAMED FOR MISSING NUCLEAR ATLATL WARHEAD FOUND LODGED IN GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S FUNDAMENT #!! LATTER IS A WALKING TIME-BOMB !!!!$
OBAMA PACKS SUPREME COURT WITH APPOINTMENT OF THECOUNT AS 11TH JUSTICE!!*
JUSTICE THECOUNT ISSUES DECISION FOR MAJORITY WITH NOVEL UNIFIED THEORY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE — TIME IS MONEY, MONEY IS SPEECH, THEREFORE TIME IS SPEECH, THEREFORE CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, THEREFORE CORPORATIONS HAVE FACES, THEREFORE BULLETS ARE SPEECH, THEREFORE COPS EXONERATED FOR SHOOTING CORPORATIONS IN FACES !!!!%!
COUNT CAPTURED, EXECUTED — AMERICANS RESUME BENDING OVER TO RECEIVE JOLLY ROGERING FROM REPUBLICANS NOW THAT COAST IS CLEAR !!!%!
THE DOBE SHRUGS OFF THE COUNT’S DEMISE — SAYS “IF HE HAD A HIGHER DEDUCTIBLE, HE WOULD HAVE WATCHED HIS MOUTH!!!” …..
all the news that is print to fit.
I can see the headlines now:
(Cue swirling montage of bold-faced, huge-font newspaper headlines as the camera moves in for a closeup of the headline on a stack of bound newspapers thrown from the back of truck on to the cobblestones as young boys grab their daily quota for the morning delivery)
THE COUNT STRIKES AGAIN!!!
MYSTERIOUS COUNT SUSPECTED IN HANNITY PIE-THROWING INCIDENT!!!!
REDSTATE EDITOR SHOOTS THE COUNT IN FACE, CLAIMS HE WAS AIMING FOR HIS BACK!!!
SENATOR ERNST SHOOTS THE COUNT IN FACE, SAYS SHE MISTOOK HIM FOR OBAMACARE OFFICIAL!!!!
FERGUSON COPS DON’T SHOOT THE INFAMOUS COUNT IN FACE, CLAIM HE IS PRETTY WHITE BOY!!!
OMG, THEY’VE KILLED THE COUNT AGAIN!!#?&!!
MICHELLE BACHMANN BLINKS; THE COUNT BLAMED!!!
THE COUNT FIGHTS OFF ENTIRE PALIN FAMILY WITH ONE HAND, DOESN’T SPILL BEER HELD IN OTHER HAND!!@)&!!
CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLE DROPS CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON, SHOOTS SELF IN GROIN AND INFANT SON IN HEAD WITH SAME BULLET; LIBERTARIANS ON LOOK-OUT FOR THE COUNT!!!&!
THE COUNT ASSASSINATES VLAD PUTIN; REPUBLICANS MOURN AND BEGIN SEARCH FOR NEW LEADER!!!6
THE COUNT REPORTED MISSING; GOVERNOR PERRY ORDERS SHOOTING OF ALL IMMIGRANTS UNDER AGE OF 16 DRESSED AS COYOTES#!@!!
THE COUNT SHOOTS MOUTH OFF, HIS WORDS RICOCHET INTO REPUBLICAN CROWD; THOUSANDS WET PANTS 555!!!!
LIMBAUGH COMPLAINS NEWS ON THE NOTORIOUS COUNT RELEGATED TO SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES FOOD SECTION, CONFIRMING LIBERAL BIAS !!#$%!
J. EDGAR HOOVER DRESSED AS VIVIAN VANCE, SOURCES CLAIM!!%# WILLIAM FRAWLEY OUTRAGED AT FASHION STATEMENT!!!!*
REPUBLICANS LEVY NEW FEES AND FINES ON POOR — SAY IT WILL GO TOWARD HUNTING DOWN THE COUNT!!!*&!!
DINESH D’SOUZA DOWNS DOGGIE D’OO D’OO, DISOWNS D’LUSIONAL D’MOCKCRAZY !!%$
COUNT BLAMED FOR MISSING NUCLEAR ATLATL WARHEAD FOUND LODGED IN GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S FUNDAMENT #!! LATTER IS A WALKING TIME-BOMB !!!!$
OBAMA PACKS SUPREME COURT WITH APPOINTMENT OF THECOUNT AS 11TH JUSTICE!!*
JUSTICE THECOUNT ISSUES DECISION FOR MAJORITY WITH NOVEL UNIFIED THEORY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE — TIME IS MONEY, MONEY IS SPEECH, THEREFORE TIME IS SPEECH, THEREFORE CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, THEREFORE CORPORATIONS HAVE FACES, THEREFORE BULLETS ARE SPEECH, THEREFORE COPS EXONERATED FOR SHOOTING CORPORATIONS IN FACES !!!!%!
COUNT CAPTURED, EXECUTED — AMERICANS RESUME BENDING OVER TO RECEIVE JOLLY ROGERING FROM REPUBLICANS NOW THAT COAST IS CLEAR !!!%!
THE DOBE SHRUGS OFF THE COUNT’S DEMISE — SAYS “IF HE HAD A HIGHER DEDUCTIBLE, HE WOULD HAVE WATCHED HIS MOUTH!!!” …..
all the news that is print to fit.
here’s my question du jour:
one group of folks walks into a chili’s openly carrying semi-automatic rifles. real ones. chili’s asks them to leave. it’s a Great Big Fncking Deal, because they are being deprived of their rights.
in contrast, a guy in a Walmart plays some video games, walks over and picks up an air gun offered for sale at the store. somebody calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him. dead.
also in contrast, a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him within two seconds of their arrival. having shot him, they make no attempt to revive him or keep him alive. he is, also, dead.
what’s different about the first group – folks openly carrying real, live semi-automatic rifles into a fast food joint – and the second and third case?
what could explain such a difference in how the situations were handled?
here’s my question du jour:
one group of folks walks into a chili’s openly carrying semi-automatic rifles. real ones. chili’s asks them to leave. it’s a Great Big Fncking Deal, because they are being deprived of their rights.
in contrast, a guy in a Walmart plays some video games, walks over and picks up an air gun offered for sale at the store. somebody calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him. dead.
also in contrast, a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him within two seconds of their arrival. having shot him, they make no attempt to revive him or keep him alive. he is, also, dead.
what’s different about the first group – folks openly carrying real, live semi-automatic rifles into a fast food joint – and the second and third case?
what could explain such a difference in how the situations were handled?
here’s my question du jour:
one group of folks walks into a chili’s openly carrying semi-automatic rifles. real ones. chili’s asks them to leave. it’s a Great Big Fncking Deal, because they are being deprived of their rights.
in contrast, a guy in a Walmart plays some video games, walks over and picks up an air gun offered for sale at the store. somebody calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him. dead.
also in contrast, a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him within two seconds of their arrival. having shot him, they make no attempt to revive him or keep him alive. he is, also, dead.
what’s different about the first group – folks openly carrying real, live semi-automatic rifles into a fast food joint – and the second and third case?
what could explain such a difference in how the situations were handled?
Another Brettism…..
Of course violent action against the government is sometimes justified. It’s been justified against THIS government, in the past, it may well be justified against it again in the future, and I dare say there’s never been a moment during my life when it wasn’t justified against some government, somewhere.
Those trees need watering….and lots of commas.
Another Brettism…..
Of course violent action against the government is sometimes justified. It’s been justified against THIS government, in the past, it may well be justified against it again in the future, and I dare say there’s never been a moment during my life when it wasn’t justified against some government, somewhere.
Those trees need watering….and lots of commas.
Another Brettism…..
Of course violent action against the government is sometimes justified. It’s been justified against THIS government, in the past, it may well be justified against it again in the future, and I dare say there’s never been a moment during my life when it wasn’t justified against some government, somewhere.
Those trees need watering….and lots of commas.
What a handsome Republican murderer.
Love the hat!
What a handsome Republican murderer.
Love the hat!
What a handsome Republican murderer.
Love the hat!
THE COUNT WATERS TREE OF LIBERTY, SHOT DEAD FOR PUBLIC URINATION !!!@#!
THE BELLMORE WATERS TREE OF LIBERTY, STATUE OF HIM UNVEILED NEXT TO TEN COMMANDMENTS IN MISSISSIPPI — PIGEONS CIRCLE!!!@%
ANN COULTER FINALLY CLAPS HER KNEES TOGETHER, FRACTURING ROGER AILES’ SKULL !!!#@
IT’S 8:20 AM, MOUNTAIN TIME, COUNT BORED, GOES BACK TO BED !!!@#!!(&%!!!!
THE COUNT WATERS TREE OF LIBERTY, SHOT DEAD FOR PUBLIC URINATION !!!@#!
THE BELLMORE WATERS TREE OF LIBERTY, STATUE OF HIM UNVEILED NEXT TO TEN COMMANDMENTS IN MISSISSIPPI — PIGEONS CIRCLE!!!@%
ANN COULTER FINALLY CLAPS HER KNEES TOGETHER, FRACTURING ROGER AILES’ SKULL !!!#@
IT’S 8:20 AM, MOUNTAIN TIME, COUNT BORED, GOES BACK TO BED !!!@#!!(&%!!!!
THE COUNT WATERS TREE OF LIBERTY, SHOT DEAD FOR PUBLIC URINATION !!!@#!
THE BELLMORE WATERS TREE OF LIBERTY, STATUE OF HIM UNVEILED NEXT TO TEN COMMANDMENTS IN MISSISSIPPI — PIGEONS CIRCLE!!!@%
ANN COULTER FINALLY CLAPS HER KNEES TOGETHER, FRACTURING ROGER AILES’ SKULL !!!#@
IT’S 8:20 AM, MOUNTAIN TIME, COUNT BORED, GOES BACK TO BED !!!@#!!(&%!!!!
a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him within two seconds of their arrival
Video.
Go ahead and watch it if you have the stomach for it.
What could possibly make people so angry that they would burn down stores in their own neighborhood?
What are they, animals?
a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him within two seconds of their arrival
Video.
Go ahead and watch it if you have the stomach for it.
What could possibly make people so angry that they would burn down stores in their own neighborhood?
What are they, animals?
a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops, the cops arrive and shoot him within two seconds of their arrival
Video.
Go ahead and watch it if you have the stomach for it.
What could possibly make people so angry that they would burn down stores in their own neighborhood?
What are they, animals?
Of course, once again, Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops. I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better. What I don’t understand is why the kid OR the cop have to be “bad”? We could review procedure, fix stuff, teach kids better, seems a short list of things we could do to fix or limit the problem. Me awhile, the count is interesting, although occasionally too angry to be writing. He knows when that is.
Of course, once again, Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops. I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better. What I don’t understand is why the kid OR the cop have to be “bad”? We could review procedure, fix stuff, teach kids better, seems a short list of things we could do to fix or limit the problem. Me awhile, the count is interesting, although occasionally too angry to be writing. He knows when that is.
Of course, once again, Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops. I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better. What I don’t understand is why the kid OR the cop have to be “bad”? We could review procedure, fix stuff, teach kids better, seems a short list of things we could do to fix or limit the problem. Me awhile, the count is interesting, although occasionally too angry to be writing. He knows when that is.
“what could explain such a difference in how the situations were handled?”
just when I was dozing off …
The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right to bear toy guns?
If you serve high-sodium, high fat content, high calorie grub in the fried food belt, expect a lower class of armed clientele?
If you buy your guns at Toys R Us, don’t dine at the Golden O.K. Corral?
High Melanin content while waving toy guns around is just another word for suicide, while fat slobs waving real loaded semi-automatic weapons around amidst restaurant patrons armed only with butter knives are freedom’s entourage?
“what could explain such a difference in how the situations were handled?”
just when I was dozing off …
The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right to bear toy guns?
If you serve high-sodium, high fat content, high calorie grub in the fried food belt, expect a lower class of armed clientele?
If you buy your guns at Toys R Us, don’t dine at the Golden O.K. Corral?
High Melanin content while waving toy guns around is just another word for suicide, while fat slobs waving real loaded semi-automatic weapons around amidst restaurant patrons armed only with butter knives are freedom’s entourage?
“what could explain such a difference in how the situations were handled?”
just when I was dozing off …
The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right to bear toy guns?
If you serve high-sodium, high fat content, high calorie grub in the fried food belt, expect a lower class of armed clientele?
If you buy your guns at Toys R Us, don’t dine at the Golden O.K. Corral?
High Melanin content while waving toy guns around is just another word for suicide, while fat slobs waving real loaded semi-automatic weapons around amidst restaurant patrons armed only with butter knives are freedom’s entourage?
Russell wrote:
“a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops”
Marty wrote:
“Of course, once again, Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops.”
Of course, Marty misses part where Russell didn’t miss the part about the “toy” gun.
Also:
“I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better”
I’m glad they made it thru 11.
The armed characters at Chili’s are 23, 35, 51, 19, and recently turned 29 1/2 last week. And that’s just their IQ scores.
But, immature for their age and weight.
The obvious rational solution to this gigantic swirling conservative sh8tstorm visible from space is for the cops to carry toy guns and point them at people when called to a toy gun shootout.
Pop goes the weasel. Nobody gets hurt. Everyone goes home and lives until they are 14, at which time they qualify for the adult menu at Chili’s.
“. Me awhile, the count is interesting, although occasionally too angry to be writing. He knows when that is.”
First “the count is interesting” is a pretty good and subtle dig. It’s like that time Dobie told a girlfriend that Maynard was, well, cool …. for a deadbeat.
But, think of the hours of dead air on AM hate radio if that amount of self-awareness set in across the board.
Why, C-Span’s conservative phone line would go silent and Louie Gohmert would stand silently in the well of the empty House chamber studying his nails after hours.
On the raving liberal side, former raving Redstater John Cole would hold it all inside and have a stroke as a result. Think of the entertainment value down the drain there.
On a more serious note, if I’m at Chili’s and people walk in open carrying weaponry, THEN I’ll be too angry to write and those jagoffs will have their hands full.
As for the concealed carry dipsh*ts, make sure you don’t drop that weapon or leave it in the bathroom, because you will be eating my chili cheese fries through the wrong orifice.
I’ll be very calm throughout the entire spectacle.
Russell wrote:
“a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops”
Marty wrote:
“Of course, once again, Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops.”
Of course, Marty misses part where Russell didn’t miss the part about the “toy” gun.
Also:
“I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better”
I’m glad they made it thru 11.
The armed characters at Chili’s are 23, 35, 51, 19, and recently turned 29 1/2 last week. And that’s just their IQ scores.
But, immature for their age and weight.
The obvious rational solution to this gigantic swirling conservative sh8tstorm visible from space is for the cops to carry toy guns and point them at people when called to a toy gun shootout.
Pop goes the weasel. Nobody gets hurt. Everyone goes home and lives until they are 14, at which time they qualify for the adult menu at Chili’s.
“. Me awhile, the count is interesting, although occasionally too angry to be writing. He knows when that is.”
First “the count is interesting” is a pretty good and subtle dig. It’s like that time Dobie told a girlfriend that Maynard was, well, cool …. for a deadbeat.
But, think of the hours of dead air on AM hate radio if that amount of self-awareness set in across the board.
Why, C-Span’s conservative phone line would go silent and Louie Gohmert would stand silently in the well of the empty House chamber studying his nails after hours.
On the raving liberal side, former raving Redstater John Cole would hold it all inside and have a stroke as a result. Think of the entertainment value down the drain there.
On a more serious note, if I’m at Chili’s and people walk in open carrying weaponry, THEN I’ll be too angry to write and those jagoffs will have their hands full.
As for the concealed carry dipsh*ts, make sure you don’t drop that weapon or leave it in the bathroom, because you will be eating my chili cheese fries through the wrong orifice.
I’ll be very calm throughout the entire spectacle.
Russell wrote:
“a 12 year old kid is playing with a toy gun, somebody freaks out and calls the cops”
Marty wrote:
“Of course, once again, Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops.”
Of course, Marty misses part where Russell didn’t miss the part about the “toy” gun.
Also:
“I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better”
I’m glad they made it thru 11.
The armed characters at Chili’s are 23, 35, 51, 19, and recently turned 29 1/2 last week. And that’s just their IQ scores.
But, immature for their age and weight.
The obvious rational solution to this gigantic swirling conservative sh8tstorm visible from space is for the cops to carry toy guns and point them at people when called to a toy gun shootout.
Pop goes the weasel. Nobody gets hurt. Everyone goes home and lives until they are 14, at which time they qualify for the adult menu at Chili’s.
“. Me awhile, the count is interesting, although occasionally too angry to be writing. He knows when that is.”
First “the count is interesting” is a pretty good and subtle dig. It’s like that time Dobie told a girlfriend that Maynard was, well, cool …. for a deadbeat.
But, think of the hours of dead air on AM hate radio if that amount of self-awareness set in across the board.
Why, C-Span’s conservative phone line would go silent and Louie Gohmert would stand silently in the well of the empty House chamber studying his nails after hours.
On the raving liberal side, former raving Redstater John Cole would hold it all inside and have a stroke as a result. Think of the entertainment value down the drain there.
On a more serious note, if I’m at Chili’s and people walk in open carrying weaponry, THEN I’ll be too angry to write and those jagoffs will have their hands full.
As for the concealed carry dipsh*ts, make sure you don’t drop that weapon or leave it in the bathroom, because you will be eating my chili cheese fries through the wrong orifice.
I’ll be very calm throughout the entire spectacle.
Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops.
I don’t really have a problem with the guy calling the cops.
The part I have a problem with is the dispatcher not passing along the information that it was a toy gun, and then the part where the cop shoots the kid pretty much immediately upon arrival.
Maybe “hey kid, what are you doing?” might have been a better response.
I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better.
Good for them.
What I don’t understand is why the kid OR the cop have to be “bad”?
They don’t have to be bad.
Where did I call anybody “bad”?
My point in raising the event is to compare and contrast that event with others, where not only did nobody get shot, the cops weren’t even called.
Here is the video from the guy in the Walmart.
Who was he pointing the gun at?
What actions did the cops take to figure out WTF was going on before they dropped him from down the aisle?
Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops.
I don’t really have a problem with the guy calling the cops.
The part I have a problem with is the dispatcher not passing along the information that it was a toy gun, and then the part where the cop shoots the kid pretty much immediately upon arrival.
Maybe “hey kid, what are you doing?” might have been a better response.
I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better.
Good for them.
What I don’t understand is why the kid OR the cop have to be “bad”?
They don’t have to be bad.
Where did I call anybody “bad”?
My point in raising the event is to compare and contrast that event with others, where not only did nobody get shot, the cops weren’t even called.
Here is the video from the guy in the Walmart.
Who was he pointing the gun at?
What actions did the cops take to figure out WTF was going on before they dropped him from down the aisle?
Russell misses the part where the kid waves the gun around pointing it at people, so they call the cops.
I don’t really have a problem with the guy calling the cops.
The part I have a problem with is the dispatcher not passing along the information that it was a toy gun, and then the part where the cop shoots the kid pretty much immediately upon arrival.
Maybe “hey kid, what are you doing?” might have been a better response.
I have 14 year old grandsons, at 12 they knew better.
Good for them.
What I don’t understand is why the kid OR the cop have to be “bad”?
They don’t have to be bad.
Where did I call anybody “bad”?
My point in raising the event is to compare and contrast that event with others, where not only did nobody get shot, the cops weren’t even called.
Here is the video from the guy in the Walmart.
Who was he pointing the gun at?
What actions did the cops take to figure out WTF was going on before they dropped him from down the aisle?
The police in Ferguson went around looting stores and burning down buildings? First I heard of it.
While a bunch of people looting stores and burning down buildings may be sufficient to be termed a riot, they are not necessary features. A bunch of people running (or driving) around and shooting people would also qualify as a riot.
If a bunch of people, non-residents, came thru your (perhaps quiet suburban, not that that’s relevant) neighborhood, shooting at anything that moved, would you be screaming for the police to come deal with them? I sure would!
Of course, if that bunch of people are the police, then where would you be? Unless, as a dedicated supporter of the 2nd Amendment, you had heavy weapons at home. And some plan for what you would do when the actual SWAT guys showed up with even heavier weapons….
The police in Ferguson went around looting stores and burning down buildings? First I heard of it.
While a bunch of people looting stores and burning down buildings may be sufficient to be termed a riot, they are not necessary features. A bunch of people running (or driving) around and shooting people would also qualify as a riot.
If a bunch of people, non-residents, came thru your (perhaps quiet suburban, not that that’s relevant) neighborhood, shooting at anything that moved, would you be screaming for the police to come deal with them? I sure would!
Of course, if that bunch of people are the police, then where would you be? Unless, as a dedicated supporter of the 2nd Amendment, you had heavy weapons at home. And some plan for what you would do when the actual SWAT guys showed up with even heavier weapons….
The police in Ferguson went around looting stores and burning down buildings? First I heard of it.
While a bunch of people looting stores and burning down buildings may be sufficient to be termed a riot, they are not necessary features. A bunch of people running (or driving) around and shooting people would also qualify as a riot.
If a bunch of people, non-residents, came thru your (perhaps quiet suburban, not that that’s relevant) neighborhood, shooting at anything that moved, would you be screaming for the police to come deal with them? I sure would!
Of course, if that bunch of people are the police, then where would you be? Unless, as a dedicated supporter of the 2nd Amendment, you had heavy weapons at home. And some plan for what you would do when the actual SWAT guys showed up with even heavier weapons….
Here’s the thing: I DO live in a quiet neighborhood. We don’t go around burning each other’s homes, or burning down the corner grocery.
If somebody showed up, and started doing exactly that, we would expect, even demand, that the police put in an appearance, and if the perpetrators didn’t swiftly surrender, yes, maybe even gun them down.
Now, maybe the police did shoot one of the looters in Ferguson, and if they did, they were doing their job.
Here’s the thing: I DO live in a quiet neighborhood. We don’t go around burning each other’s homes, or burning down the corner grocery.
If somebody showed up, and started doing exactly that, we would expect, even demand, that the police put in an appearance, and if the perpetrators didn’t swiftly surrender, yes, maybe even gun them down.
Now, maybe the police did shoot one of the looters in Ferguson, and if they did, they were doing their job.
Here’s the thing: I DO live in a quiet neighborhood. We don’t go around burning each other’s homes, or burning down the corner grocery.
If somebody showed up, and started doing exactly that, we would expect, even demand, that the police put in an appearance, and if the perpetrators didn’t swiftly surrender, yes, maybe even gun them down.
Now, maybe the police did shoot one of the looters in Ferguson, and if they did, they were doing their job.
Unfortunate but amusing (in a brain-frying kind of way) juxtaposition of headlines on front page of USA Today on this morning’s news stand:
The Gist
“Calm returns to Ferguson; residents begin cleanup”
and just below that
‘Turkey Day shoppers gobble deals; one says “it’s like a war zone”‘
It reminds of these headlines from the London Times in World War I:
“French, English, and German shoppers along Maginot Line emerge from trenches, exchange gifts of flying shrapnel and perfumed gas”
right next to
“Harrod’s shoots out the lights on holiday sales; nine trampled in opening melee”
which of course I just made up..
Unfortunate but amusing (in a brain-frying kind of way) juxtaposition of headlines on front page of USA Today on this morning’s news stand:
The Gist
“Calm returns to Ferguson; residents begin cleanup”
and just below that
‘Turkey Day shoppers gobble deals; one says “it’s like a war zone”‘
It reminds of these headlines from the London Times in World War I:
“French, English, and German shoppers along Maginot Line emerge from trenches, exchange gifts of flying shrapnel and perfumed gas”
right next to
“Harrod’s shoots out the lights on holiday sales; nine trampled in opening melee”
which of course I just made up..
Unfortunate but amusing (in a brain-frying kind of way) juxtaposition of headlines on front page of USA Today on this morning’s news stand:
The Gist
“Calm returns to Ferguson; residents begin cleanup”
and just below that
‘Turkey Day shoppers gobble deals; one says “it’s like a war zone”‘
It reminds of these headlines from the London Times in World War I:
“French, English, and German shoppers along Maginot Line emerge from trenches, exchange gifts of flying shrapnel and perfumed gas”
right next to
“Harrod’s shoots out the lights on holiday sales; nine trampled in opening melee”
which of course I just made up..
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like, and you assume the real guy must conform to the one in your head.
I know what people are like. Everyone has their hobbies and people dream about them. My pilot friends dream of flying. My sailor friends dream of sailing. My cooking friends dream of making perfect souffles. My acrobat friends dream of beautiful drops or glorious climbs.
You talk incessantly about guns, about owning them, shooting them, advocating for their use. There is no way any human being could be as fixated with guns as you are and not dream of shooting people.
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like, and you assume the real guy must conform to the one in your head.
I know what people are like. Everyone has their hobbies and people dream about them. My pilot friends dream of flying. My sailor friends dream of sailing. My cooking friends dream of making perfect souffles. My acrobat friends dream of beautiful drops or glorious climbs.
You talk incessantly about guns, about owning them, shooting them, advocating for their use. There is no way any human being could be as fixated with guns as you are and not dream of shooting people.
This you know, because that’s what the Brett Bellmore in your head is like, and you assume the real guy must conform to the one in your head.
I know what people are like. Everyone has their hobbies and people dream about them. My pilot friends dream of flying. My sailor friends dream of sailing. My cooking friends dream of making perfect souffles. My acrobat friends dream of beautiful drops or glorious climbs.
You talk incessantly about guns, about owning them, shooting them, advocating for their use. There is no way any human being could be as fixated with guns as you are and not dream of shooting people.
Or this at TPM:
“Turkey escapes unscathed but fully basted during holiday romp”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/woman-stabbed-husband-thanksgiving
Or this at TPM:
“Turkey escapes unscathed but fully basted during holiday romp”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/woman-stabbed-husband-thanksgiving
Or this at TPM:
“Turkey escapes unscathed but fully basted during holiday romp”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/woman-stabbed-husband-thanksgiving
occasionally too angry to be writing
Everybody is occasionally too angry to be doing something. Of all the somethings an occasionally-too-angry person could do, writing may be the most benign.
I can think of many worse things for an occasionally-too-angry person to be doing. Owning guns comes easily to mind.
Brett will no doubt explain that guns have a soothing effect on the occasionally-too-angry; that a “lifetime NRA member” is less likely to be “too angry” while he has a gun handy than The Count is while he has a keyboard handy.
I like my chances better in the neighborhood of a too-angry Count than a too-angry Bellmore, and not just because of the gun thing. There’s also the difference between having a sense of humor and being a self-righteous ideologue.
The Count is wrong about one thing: he’s not Brett’s biggest supporter against being banned from here — I am. Brett’s earnest wrong-headedness is more entertaining (occasionally) than The Count’s gonzo musings.
–TP
occasionally too angry to be writing
Everybody is occasionally too angry to be doing something. Of all the somethings an occasionally-too-angry person could do, writing may be the most benign.
I can think of many worse things for an occasionally-too-angry person to be doing. Owning guns comes easily to mind.
Brett will no doubt explain that guns have a soothing effect on the occasionally-too-angry; that a “lifetime NRA member” is less likely to be “too angry” while he has a gun handy than The Count is while he has a keyboard handy.
I like my chances better in the neighborhood of a too-angry Count than a too-angry Bellmore, and not just because of the gun thing. There’s also the difference between having a sense of humor and being a self-righteous ideologue.
The Count is wrong about one thing: he’s not Brett’s biggest supporter against being banned from here — I am. Brett’s earnest wrong-headedness is more entertaining (occasionally) than The Count’s gonzo musings.
–TP
occasionally too angry to be writing
Everybody is occasionally too angry to be doing something. Of all the somethings an occasionally-too-angry person could do, writing may be the most benign.
I can think of many worse things for an occasionally-too-angry person to be doing. Owning guns comes easily to mind.
Brett will no doubt explain that guns have a soothing effect on the occasionally-too-angry; that a “lifetime NRA member” is less likely to be “too angry” while he has a gun handy than The Count is while he has a keyboard handy.
I like my chances better in the neighborhood of a too-angry Count than a too-angry Bellmore, and not just because of the gun thing. There’s also the difference between having a sense of humor and being a self-righteous ideologue.
The Count is wrong about one thing: he’s not Brett’s biggest supporter against being banned from here — I am. Brett’s earnest wrong-headedness is more entertaining (occasionally) than The Count’s gonzo musings.
–TP
And now for something entirely different: This article clarifies what the term “justice system” means for far too many in our country.
Something is clearly amiss here.
And now for something entirely different: This article clarifies what the term “justice system” means for far too many in our country.
Something is clearly amiss here.
And now for something entirely different: This article clarifies what the term “justice system” means for far too many in our country.
Something is clearly amiss here.
Count, for clarity, interesting in the sense that Jon Stewart is interesting. I almost never agree with his point, sometimes can pick an intermediate point I agree with and, unlike Letterman and a few others, I mostly enjoy the show. He I’d, at least, intellectually honest and mostly consistent.
Count, for clarity, interesting in the sense that Jon Stewart is interesting. I almost never agree with his point, sometimes can pick an intermediate point I agree with and, unlike Letterman and a few others, I mostly enjoy the show. He I’d, at least, intellectually honest and mostly consistent.
Count, for clarity, interesting in the sense that Jon Stewart is interesting. I almost never agree with his point, sometimes can pick an intermediate point I agree with and, unlike Letterman and a few others, I mostly enjoy the show. He I’d, at least, intellectually honest and mostly consistent.
if the perpetrators didn’t swiftly surrender, yes, maybe even gun them down.
Projection, thy name is Brett.
if the perpetrators didn’t swiftly surrender, yes, maybe even gun them down.
Projection, thy name is Brett.
if the perpetrators didn’t swiftly surrender, yes, maybe even gun them down.
Projection, thy name is Brett.
LJ, when somebody sets fire to a building, they are potentially committing manslaughter. In Ferguson, there were apparently a fair number of people who were perfectly comfortable with causing somebody’s death. They certainly had no trouble destroying hundreds of man-years of productive effort of other people. Taking the work a man spent his precious, irretrievable years performing, and destroying it, is not unlike fractionally murdering him, IMO.
Why is the left so comfortable defending looters and arsonists? So uncomfortable with the thought that it might actually be the job of the police to stop such activities? Why, with so many innocent people wrongly killed by police, do you seize upon a robber killed assaulting a police officer to make a cause celebre out of?
It seems to me the left is fond of monsters, and finds honest, hard working people boring. Maybe because you really do want a revolution, and honest, hard working people aren’t tinder for the fire you want to set?
Whatever the reason, it’s not an attractive trait on your part, and you’re not winning converts defending the rioters in Ferguson.
LJ, when somebody sets fire to a building, they are potentially committing manslaughter. In Ferguson, there were apparently a fair number of people who were perfectly comfortable with causing somebody’s death. They certainly had no trouble destroying hundreds of man-years of productive effort of other people. Taking the work a man spent his precious, irretrievable years performing, and destroying it, is not unlike fractionally murdering him, IMO.
Why is the left so comfortable defending looters and arsonists? So uncomfortable with the thought that it might actually be the job of the police to stop such activities? Why, with so many innocent people wrongly killed by police, do you seize upon a robber killed assaulting a police officer to make a cause celebre out of?
It seems to me the left is fond of monsters, and finds honest, hard working people boring. Maybe because you really do want a revolution, and honest, hard working people aren’t tinder for the fire you want to set?
Whatever the reason, it’s not an attractive trait on your part, and you’re not winning converts defending the rioters in Ferguson.
LJ, when somebody sets fire to a building, they are potentially committing manslaughter. In Ferguson, there were apparently a fair number of people who were perfectly comfortable with causing somebody’s death. They certainly had no trouble destroying hundreds of man-years of productive effort of other people. Taking the work a man spent his precious, irretrievable years performing, and destroying it, is not unlike fractionally murdering him, IMO.
Why is the left so comfortable defending looters and arsonists? So uncomfortable with the thought that it might actually be the job of the police to stop such activities? Why, with so many innocent people wrongly killed by police, do you seize upon a robber killed assaulting a police officer to make a cause celebre out of?
It seems to me the left is fond of monsters, and finds honest, hard working people boring. Maybe because you really do want a revolution, and honest, hard working people aren’t tinder for the fire you want to set?
Whatever the reason, it’s not an attractive trait on your part, and you’re not winning converts defending the rioters in Ferguson.
Brett, what you say makes a great deal of sense. Likewise, anyone who advocates for people to keep lots of guns in their home, and argues for taking (unspecified) action to prevent the government from acting against them (for reasons possibly unrelated to guns) is guilty of inciting to riot, and encouraging others to commit manslaughter, murder, arson, and treason. Right?
Because someone who took your words seriously could do any of those things. So that, by your reasoning, makes you responsible for helping cause them to happen.
Brett, what you say makes a great deal of sense. Likewise, anyone who advocates for people to keep lots of guns in their home, and argues for taking (unspecified) action to prevent the government from acting against them (for reasons possibly unrelated to guns) is guilty of inciting to riot, and encouraging others to commit manslaughter, murder, arson, and treason. Right?
Because someone who took your words seriously could do any of those things. So that, by your reasoning, makes you responsible for helping cause them to happen.
Brett, what you say makes a great deal of sense. Likewise, anyone who advocates for people to keep lots of guns in their home, and argues for taking (unspecified) action to prevent the government from acting against them (for reasons possibly unrelated to guns) is guilty of inciting to riot, and encouraging others to commit manslaughter, murder, arson, and treason. Right?
Because someone who took your words seriously could do any of those things. So that, by your reasoning, makes you responsible for helping cause them to happen.
Why is the left so comfortable defending looters and arsonists?
It’s because private property is theft, so arsonists and looters are really anti-thieves.
Everybody is in favor of anti-thieves, right?
Why is the left so comfortable defending looters and arsonists?
It’s because private property is theft, so arsonists and looters are really anti-thieves.
Everybody is in favor of anti-thieves, right?
Why is the left so comfortable defending looters and arsonists?
It’s because private property is theft, so arsonists and looters are really anti-thieves.
Everybody is in favor of anti-thieves, right?
why is the right so comfortable defending insurrectionists and murderers, both would-be and actual?
why is the right so comfortable defending insurrectionists and murderers, both would-be and actual?
why is the right so comfortable defending insurrectionists and murderers, both would-be and actual?
it’s not attractive.
it’s not attractive.
it’s not attractive.
“It seems to me the left is fond of monsters, and finds honest, hard working people boring.”
Whereas the right wing has Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson…
No corrupt, murderous, torturing monsters there!
“It seems to me the left is fond of monsters, and finds honest, hard working people boring.”
Whereas the right wing has Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson…
No corrupt, murderous, torturing monsters there!
“It seems to me the left is fond of monsters, and finds honest, hard working people boring.”
Whereas the right wing has Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson…
No corrupt, murderous, torturing monsters there!
There is a popular belief on the left that every human being is redeemable. Brett may yet persuade us that this notion is misguided.
–TP
There is a popular belief on the left that every human being is redeemable. Brett may yet persuade us that this notion is misguided.
–TP
There is a popular belief on the left that every human being is redeemable. Brett may yet persuade us that this notion is misguided.
–TP
LJ, when somebody sets fire to a building, they are potentially committing manslaughter. In Ferguson, there were apparently a fair number of people who were perfectly comfortable with causing somebody’s death.
And your words indicate that you are perfectly comfortable causing someone’s death. You suggest that the Count is inciting violence, so everytime you choose to post here, you are doing the same thing. That’s what I meant by projection. Own your words.
LJ, when somebody sets fire to a building, they are potentially committing manslaughter. In Ferguson, there were apparently a fair number of people who were perfectly comfortable with causing somebody’s death.
And your words indicate that you are perfectly comfortable causing someone’s death. You suggest that the Count is inciting violence, so everytime you choose to post here, you are doing the same thing. That’s what I meant by projection. Own your words.
LJ, when somebody sets fire to a building, they are potentially committing manslaughter. In Ferguson, there were apparently a fair number of people who were perfectly comfortable with causing somebody’s death.
And your words indicate that you are perfectly comfortable causing someone’s death. You suggest that the Count is inciting violence, so everytime you choose to post here, you are doing the same thing. That’s what I meant by projection. Own your words.
You know Brett, I’m your biggest defender against being banned here, because what’s the point of bobbyp and me agreeing all the time.
That would be boring.
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading. It was off then too. Now it is pick on Brett time once the “dialogue” has been exhausted. That any would consider banning Brett is humorous and sad at the same time. The blog isn’t boring per se, but it would be a LOT more interesting with some conservative posters (leading to more dialogue in the comments). Why not let Brett post? (No, I’m not ducking and running for cover; it’s a serious question).
Ugh: A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at.
Well, if we go a few minutes before the shooting, Michael Brown was robbing a convenience store while Officer Wilson was assisting a sick child. Could we start there?
like, on a daily basis.
a)russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem. You need to spend some time out west with real conservatives. Come shoot some skeet. It’s fun! Of course, I’d have to buy a shotgun ’cause I only shoot at my friend’s ranch. And all we shoot are bright orange round things flying through the air. Or ducks, depending on the season (I don’t personally dream of shooting anything).
b) Why do you listen to them daily? I enjoy bantering with my uber-liberal pal, but I couldn’t do it every day. And he’s decidedly NOT a psychopath (although I think he is clinically depressed over the midterms).
Seriously, though, the videos of the two shootings are very, very troubling to everyone. I don’t think they are all that relevant to the Michael Brown situation.
You know Brett, I’m your biggest defender against being banned here, because what’s the point of bobbyp and me agreeing all the time.
That would be boring.
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading. It was off then too. Now it is pick on Brett time once the “dialogue” has been exhausted. That any would consider banning Brett is humorous and sad at the same time. The blog isn’t boring per se, but it would be a LOT more interesting with some conservative posters (leading to more dialogue in the comments). Why not let Brett post? (No, I’m not ducking and running for cover; it’s a serious question).
Ugh: A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at.
Well, if we go a few minutes before the shooting, Michael Brown was robbing a convenience store while Officer Wilson was assisting a sick child. Could we start there?
like, on a daily basis.
a)russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem. You need to spend some time out west with real conservatives. Come shoot some skeet. It’s fun! Of course, I’d have to buy a shotgun ’cause I only shoot at my friend’s ranch. And all we shoot are bright orange round things flying through the air. Or ducks, depending on the season (I don’t personally dream of shooting anything).
b) Why do you listen to them daily? I enjoy bantering with my uber-liberal pal, but I couldn’t do it every day. And he’s decidedly NOT a psychopath (although I think he is clinically depressed over the midterms).
Seriously, though, the videos of the two shootings are very, very troubling to everyone. I don’t think they are all that relevant to the Michael Brown situation.
You know Brett, I’m your biggest defender against being banned here, because what’s the point of bobbyp and me agreeing all the time.
That would be boring.
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading. It was off then too. Now it is pick on Brett time once the “dialogue” has been exhausted. That any would consider banning Brett is humorous and sad at the same time. The blog isn’t boring per se, but it would be a LOT more interesting with some conservative posters (leading to more dialogue in the comments). Why not let Brett post? (No, I’m not ducking and running for cover; it’s a serious question).
Ugh: A lot of this depends on what part of the series of events you start at.
Well, if we go a few minutes before the shooting, Michael Brown was robbing a convenience store while Officer Wilson was assisting a sick child. Could we start there?
like, on a daily basis.
a)russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem. You need to spend some time out west with real conservatives. Come shoot some skeet. It’s fun! Of course, I’d have to buy a shotgun ’cause I only shoot at my friend’s ranch. And all we shoot are bright orange round things flying through the air. Or ducks, depending on the season (I don’t personally dream of shooting anything).
b) Why do you listen to them daily? I enjoy bantering with my uber-liberal pal, but I couldn’t do it every day. And he’s decidedly NOT a psychopath (although I think he is clinically depressed over the midterms).
Seriously, though, the videos of the two shootings are very, very troubling to everyone. I don’t think they are all that relevant to the Michael Brown situation.
bc, all regular commentators have been invited to post on several occasions and they are being invited now. If Brett wants to avail himself of that opportunity, he can. If you want to, you can. I’ve never asked Brett because I don’t think he can actually string an argument together, but I have asked McT several times as well as others.
As I said before, the problem I have with Brett is that he doesn’t seem to have a sense of humor and takes what he says far too seriously. And he spends all of his time filling his comments with paragraphs that begin with
Why is the left
Why is Brett so stupid that he can’t realize that this is going to make him a target and this doesn’t fit in with the culture here? Does he just not realize it? Or is he just trolling? Curious readers what to know!
Michael Brown was robbing a convenience store
I hate to ask, but was it proven that he stole the cigarillos?
http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/
If you are saying he got what was coming to him cause he jacked a box of cigarillos, I’d suggest that sounds like a post hoc excuse fed to Wilson why Brown’s body was lying in the street.
bc, all regular commentators have been invited to post on several occasions and they are being invited now. If Brett wants to avail himself of that opportunity, he can. If you want to, you can. I’ve never asked Brett because I don’t think he can actually string an argument together, but I have asked McT several times as well as others.
As I said before, the problem I have with Brett is that he doesn’t seem to have a sense of humor and takes what he says far too seriously. And he spends all of his time filling his comments with paragraphs that begin with
Why is the left
Why is Brett so stupid that he can’t realize that this is going to make him a target and this doesn’t fit in with the culture here? Does he just not realize it? Or is he just trolling? Curious readers what to know!
Michael Brown was robbing a convenience store
I hate to ask, but was it proven that he stole the cigarillos?
http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/
If you are saying he got what was coming to him cause he jacked a box of cigarillos, I’d suggest that sounds like a post hoc excuse fed to Wilson why Brown’s body was lying in the street.
bc, all regular commentators have been invited to post on several occasions and they are being invited now. If Brett wants to avail himself of that opportunity, he can. If you want to, you can. I’ve never asked Brett because I don’t think he can actually string an argument together, but I have asked McT several times as well as others.
As I said before, the problem I have with Brett is that he doesn’t seem to have a sense of humor and takes what he says far too seriously. And he spends all of his time filling his comments with paragraphs that begin with
Why is the left
Why is Brett so stupid that he can’t realize that this is going to make him a target and this doesn’t fit in with the culture here? Does he just not realize it? Or is he just trolling? Curious readers what to know!
Michael Brown was robbing a convenience store
I hate to ask, but was it proven that he stole the cigarillos?
http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/
If you are saying he got what was coming to him cause he jacked a box of cigarillos, I’d suggest that sounds like a post hoc excuse fed to Wilson why Brown’s body was lying in the street.
[sarcasm] I thought the proscribed penalty for theft was (dishonorable) hanging not (honorable) firing squad. Not even considering the skin colour of the executee and the traditions connected to that.[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm] I thought the proscribed penalty for theft was (dishonorable) hanging not (honorable) firing squad. Not even considering the skin colour of the executee and the traditions connected to that.[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm] I thought the proscribed penalty for theft was (dishonorable) hanging not (honorable) firing squad. Not even considering the skin colour of the executee and the traditions connected to that.[/sarcasm]
I had the impression that the penalty for theft was praise from the Bain shareholders plus the GOP presidential nomination.
I had the impression that the penalty for theft was praise from the Bain shareholders plus the GOP presidential nomination.
I had the impression that the penalty for theft was praise from the Bain shareholders plus the GOP presidential nomination.
I hate to ask, but was it proven that he stole the cigarillos?
Dorian Johnson’s testimony is that he “wanted nothing to do with” what Brown was doing, namely taking cigarillos without paying. He heard the store clerk say he was going to call the police.
If you are saying he got what was coming to him . . . .
Nothing of the sort. But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
bc, all regular commentators have been invited to post on several occasions and they are being invited now
Good to know. Thanks lj. If I only had the time. . .
Re Bellmore, I’ll go back and re-read, but the reaction seemed disproportionate.
I hate to ask, but was it proven that he stole the cigarillos?
Dorian Johnson’s testimony is that he “wanted nothing to do with” what Brown was doing, namely taking cigarillos without paying. He heard the store clerk say he was going to call the police.
If you are saying he got what was coming to him . . . .
Nothing of the sort. But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
bc, all regular commentators have been invited to post on several occasions and they are being invited now
Good to know. Thanks lj. If I only had the time. . .
Re Bellmore, I’ll go back and re-read, but the reaction seemed disproportionate.
I hate to ask, but was it proven that he stole the cigarillos?
Dorian Johnson’s testimony is that he “wanted nothing to do with” what Brown was doing, namely taking cigarillos without paying. He heard the store clerk say he was going to call the police.
If you are saying he got what was coming to him . . . .
Nothing of the sort. But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
bc, all regular commentators have been invited to post on several occasions and they are being invited now
Good to know. Thanks lj. If I only had the time. . .
Re Bellmore, I’ll go back and re-read, but the reaction seemed disproportionate.
“And he spends all of his time filling his comments with paragraphs that begin with
Why is the left”
“What’s the matter with Kansas?” To some extent I enjoy playing a twisted mirror, that throws back at you what you throw at the right. You might not notice it, but much of what you guys have to say about the right is pretty vicious and condescending. You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.
Anyway, I may avail myself of that offer, if I can find the time to throw something together. Don’t have the free time I used to, now that my son is 6, and my wife attending college. Had a LOT of free time before I married, of course, but I rather prefer this.
“And he spends all of his time filling his comments with paragraphs that begin with
Why is the left”
“What’s the matter with Kansas?” To some extent I enjoy playing a twisted mirror, that throws back at you what you throw at the right. You might not notice it, but much of what you guys have to say about the right is pretty vicious and condescending. You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.
Anyway, I may avail myself of that offer, if I can find the time to throw something together. Don’t have the free time I used to, now that my son is 6, and my wife attending college. Had a LOT of free time before I married, of course, but I rather prefer this.
“And he spends all of his time filling his comments with paragraphs that begin with
Why is the left”
“What’s the matter with Kansas?” To some extent I enjoy playing a twisted mirror, that throws back at you what you throw at the right. You might not notice it, but much of what you guys have to say about the right is pretty vicious and condescending. You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.
Anyway, I may avail myself of that offer, if I can find the time to throw something together. Don’t have the free time I used to, now that my son is 6, and my wife attending college. Had a LOT of free time before I married, of course, but I rather prefer this.
But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
A man who had just been doing his job helping a sick child has just as much reason to lie when caught engaged in illegal behavior as a man who just stole some tobacco. Indeed, the man with the cleaner record has more to lose by being honest if he engaged in wrongdoing. People are complicated, their behavior is rarely 100% consistent, and “good” people are perfectly capable of doing “bad” things (for “good” reasons or “bad”) – and vice-versa.
I don’t find this particular exercise in inference to be all that convincing… not least because it seems to be suggesting that the credibility of witnesses contesting Wilson’s narrative should be deemed less credible owing to Brown’s actions and character, and not their own. But even setting that aside, that by happenstance Wilson was engaged in behavior as required by his job that makes him look sympathetic immediately prior to the incident has no non-rhetorical bearing on his credibility, nor that of the witnesses challenging him.
But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
A man who had just been doing his job helping a sick child has just as much reason to lie when caught engaged in illegal behavior as a man who just stole some tobacco. Indeed, the man with the cleaner record has more to lose by being honest if he engaged in wrongdoing. People are complicated, their behavior is rarely 100% consistent, and “good” people are perfectly capable of doing “bad” things (for “good” reasons or “bad”) – and vice-versa.
I don’t find this particular exercise in inference to be all that convincing… not least because it seems to be suggesting that the credibility of witnesses contesting Wilson’s narrative should be deemed less credible owing to Brown’s actions and character, and not their own. But even setting that aside, that by happenstance Wilson was engaged in behavior as required by his job that makes him look sympathetic immediately prior to the incident has no non-rhetorical bearing on his credibility, nor that of the witnesses challenging him.
But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
A man who had just been doing his job helping a sick child has just as much reason to lie when caught engaged in illegal behavior as a man who just stole some tobacco. Indeed, the man with the cleaner record has more to lose by being honest if he engaged in wrongdoing. People are complicated, their behavior is rarely 100% consistent, and “good” people are perfectly capable of doing “bad” things (for “good” reasons or “bad”) – and vice-versa.
I don’t find this particular exercise in inference to be all that convincing… not least because it seems to be suggesting that the credibility of witnesses contesting Wilson’s narrative should be deemed less credible owing to Brown’s actions and character, and not their own. But even setting that aside, that by happenstance Wilson was engaged in behavior as required by his job that makes him look sympathetic immediately prior to the incident has no non-rhetorical bearing on his credibility, nor that of the witnesses challenging him.
“But even setting that aside, that by happenstance Wilson was engaged in behavior as required by his job that makes him look sympathetic immediately prior to the incident has no non-rhetorical bearing on his credibility, nor that of the witnesses challenging him”
And this convenient rhetorical ploy demeans the police officer because he was “doing his job” in helping the small child. “By happenstance”, how many ways can you try to denigrate the guy? Oddly, the fact that he has a job where that is part of his job increases his credibility to me.
“But even setting that aside, that by happenstance Wilson was engaged in behavior as required by his job that makes him look sympathetic immediately prior to the incident has no non-rhetorical bearing on his credibility, nor that of the witnesses challenging him”
And this convenient rhetorical ploy demeans the police officer because he was “doing his job” in helping the small child. “By happenstance”, how many ways can you try to denigrate the guy? Oddly, the fact that he has a job where that is part of his job increases his credibility to me.
“But even setting that aside, that by happenstance Wilson was engaged in behavior as required by his job that makes him look sympathetic immediately prior to the incident has no non-rhetorical bearing on his credibility, nor that of the witnesses challenging him”
And this convenient rhetorical ploy demeans the police officer because he was “doing his job” in helping the small child. “By happenstance”, how many ways can you try to denigrate the guy? Oddly, the fact that he has a job where that is part of his job increases his credibility to me.
It’s hopeless, Marty: A relentless refusal to rationally take into account such things is pretty central to liberalism as it exists today.
It’s hopeless, Marty: A relentless refusal to rationally take into account such things is pretty central to liberalism as it exists today.
It’s hopeless, Marty: A relentless refusal to rationally take into account such things is pretty central to liberalism as it exists today.
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading. It was off then too. Now it is pick on Brett time once the “dialogue” has been exhausted.
bc, if you feel we are out of balance, please geel free to wade in. Whether it is advocating something you think we are missing, or just spreading the picking on around more. As long as you are at least moderately civil, nobody is going to get upset at being disagreed with. (And if they do, they won’t get much sympathy.)
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading. It was off then too. Now it is pick on Brett time once the “dialogue” has been exhausted.
bc, if you feel we are out of balance, please geel free to wade in. Whether it is advocating something you think we are missing, or just spreading the picking on around more. As long as you are at least moderately civil, nobody is going to get upset at being disagreed with. (And if they do, they won’t get much sympathy.)
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading. It was off then too. Now it is pick on Brett time once the “dialogue” has been exhausted.
bc, if you feel we are out of balance, please geel free to wade in. Whether it is advocating something you think we are missing, or just spreading the picking on around more. As long as you are at least moderately civil, nobody is going to get upset at being disagreed with. (And if they do, they won’t get much sympathy.)
Marty, turnabout’s fair play. I chose my words there for precisely the effect you’re complaining about, just as bc chose theirs for the effect I was complaining about. That was more than a little the point. bc’s invocation of what Brown was doing to reduce the credibility of testimony contradicting Wilson was as pure rhetoric as their invocation of Wilson performing an action that is part of his job by his job prior to shooting Brown as a factor increasing the credibility of Wilson. bc’s implication was that someone who helps a child is a good person and less likely to lie when accused of misconduct. And that’s simply not true on its face, but it’s even less true when we know they had potential reasons for engaging in the lauded behavior that do not in any way touch on the goodness of their character, namely that they were paid to do so, and would have been censured had they not.
When you strip away the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, bc’s argument devolves to “Wilson is credible because he is a cop, and those who contradict his testimony are not credible because Brown was a criminal”. It has no more substance than that, and that’s not an argument that can be reasonably used to dismiss any and all questioning of Wilson’s testimony, particularly given that Wilson is anything but an objective witness.
Marty, turnabout’s fair play. I chose my words there for precisely the effect you’re complaining about, just as bc chose theirs for the effect I was complaining about. That was more than a little the point. bc’s invocation of what Brown was doing to reduce the credibility of testimony contradicting Wilson was as pure rhetoric as their invocation of Wilson performing an action that is part of his job by his job prior to shooting Brown as a factor increasing the credibility of Wilson. bc’s implication was that someone who helps a child is a good person and less likely to lie when accused of misconduct. And that’s simply not true on its face, but it’s even less true when we know they had potential reasons for engaging in the lauded behavior that do not in any way touch on the goodness of their character, namely that they were paid to do so, and would have been censured had they not.
When you strip away the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, bc’s argument devolves to “Wilson is credible because he is a cop, and those who contradict his testimony are not credible because Brown was a criminal”. It has no more substance than that, and that’s not an argument that can be reasonably used to dismiss any and all questioning of Wilson’s testimony, particularly given that Wilson is anything but an objective witness.
Marty, turnabout’s fair play. I chose my words there for precisely the effect you’re complaining about, just as bc chose theirs for the effect I was complaining about. That was more than a little the point. bc’s invocation of what Brown was doing to reduce the credibility of testimony contradicting Wilson was as pure rhetoric as their invocation of Wilson performing an action that is part of his job by his job prior to shooting Brown as a factor increasing the credibility of Wilson. bc’s implication was that someone who helps a child is a good person and less likely to lie when accused of misconduct. And that’s simply not true on its face, but it’s even less true when we know they had potential reasons for engaging in the lauded behavior that do not in any way touch on the goodness of their character, namely that they were paid to do so, and would have been censured had they not.
When you strip away the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, bc’s argument devolves to “Wilson is credible because he is a cop, and those who contradict his testimony are not credible because Brown was a criminal”. It has no more substance than that, and that’s not an argument that can be reasonably used to dismiss any and all questioning of Wilson’s testimony, particularly given that Wilson is anything but an objective witness.
If you prefer, Marty, the fact that Wilson has a job where shooting shooting unarmed civilians is part of his job makes him less credible to me. Or it would, if I was willing to assume that the logic packed into your comment is compelling. I am not, however, quite so naive as to do so.
If you prefer, Marty, the fact that Wilson has a job where shooting shooting unarmed civilians is part of his job makes him less credible to me. Or it would, if I was willing to assume that the logic packed into your comment is compelling. I am not, however, quite so naive as to do so.
If you prefer, Marty, the fact that Wilson has a job where shooting shooting unarmed civilians is part of his job makes him less credible to me. Or it would, if I was willing to assume that the logic packed into your comment is compelling. I am not, however, quite so naive as to do so.
One could equally question Wilson’s credibility based on the fact that he got fired from his previous job as a cop. (Of course, the entire police force there got fired, due to massive incompetence. But still.)
There is some rationale, in many criminal cases, to taking the police officer’s word as relatively objective. On the theory that he has no stake in the actual course of events. But in a case like this, where the officer’s actions are at the core of the case, that rationale really does not apply.
One could equally question Wilson’s credibility based on the fact that he got fired from his previous job as a cop. (Of course, the entire police force there got fired, due to massive incompetence. But still.)
There is some rationale, in many criminal cases, to taking the police officer’s word as relatively objective. On the theory that he has no stake in the actual course of events. But in a case like this, where the officer’s actions are at the core of the case, that rationale really does not apply.
One could equally question Wilson’s credibility based on the fact that he got fired from his previous job as a cop. (Of course, the entire police force there got fired, due to massive incompetence. But still.)
There is some rationale, in many criminal cases, to taking the police officer’s word as relatively objective. On the theory that he has no stake in the actual course of events. But in a case like this, where the officer’s actions are at the core of the case, that rationale really does not apply.
Stripped of the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, YOUR argument is that committing robberies doesn’t do anything to make you less credible, helping children nothing to make you more credible.
While, in a sense of strict formal logic, helping a child does not irrefutably establish that you are honest 100% of the time, and robbing a convenience store does not irrefutably establish that every word you utter, including “and” and “the” is a lie, you can’t run your life on formal logic, and nobody is asserting that everything Wilson ever said in his life was true, or that Brown never spoke any truths.
Both do contribute to any rational assessment of credibility.
Stripped of the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, YOUR argument is that committing robberies doesn’t do anything to make you less credible, helping children nothing to make you more credible.
While, in a sense of strict formal logic, helping a child does not irrefutably establish that you are honest 100% of the time, and robbing a convenience store does not irrefutably establish that every word you utter, including “and” and “the” is a lie, you can’t run your life on formal logic, and nobody is asserting that everything Wilson ever said in his life was true, or that Brown never spoke any truths.
Both do contribute to any rational assessment of credibility.
Stripped of the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, YOUR argument is that committing robberies doesn’t do anything to make you less credible, helping children nothing to make you more credible.
While, in a sense of strict formal logic, helping a child does not irrefutably establish that you are honest 100% of the time, and robbing a convenience store does not irrefutably establish that every word you utter, including “and” and “the” is a lie, you can’t run your life on formal logic, and nobody is asserting that everything Wilson ever said in his life was true, or that Brown never spoke any truths.
Both do contribute to any rational assessment of credibility.
You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.
That’s funny. Who says BB does not have sense of humor?
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading..
It would seem so. There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.
You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.
That’s funny. Who says BB does not have sense of humor?
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading..
It would seem so. There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.
You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.
That’s funny. Who says BB does not have sense of humor?
The balance is still WAY off here compared to when I first started reading..
It would seem so. There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.
“There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.”
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
“There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.”
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
“There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.”
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
bc: …russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem.
“Those” not-conservatives are apparently the people russell was talking about here:
It’s not russell’s fault that THEY CALL THEMSELVES “conservatives”. I’m not sure they care what bc calls them. If those “psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem” declare that bc is not-conservative, whose definition is a liberal supposed to accept?
To hear Brett tell it, one thing about liberals is that they are utterly predictable. He just knows which side any liberal will take in most controversies: the anti-conservative side. It would seem that, even by Brett’s own logic, liberals would be less predictable if conservatives were less predictable.
Maybe bc is a “real conservative” and maybe not. But is anybody here willing to admit that you could not predict which side of the Ferguson controversy bc would come down on? Seriously?
I am perfectly willing to concede — nay, proclaim — that we are ALL predictable, because I have become convinced over the decades that there is an innate difference between the liberal and the conservative mind. I don’t know what flips the switch. Is it a gene? Some random influence in the womb? Some trauma in adolescence? Whatever it may be, it’s apparently a permanent feature of human nature: there have ALWAYS been conservatives and liberals, on opposite sides of practically every question. And (I claim) you can always predict, at any moment in history, which tribe will come down on which side of any particular question.
–TP
bc: …russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem.
“Those” not-conservatives are apparently the people russell was talking about here:
It’s not russell’s fault that THEY CALL THEMSELVES “conservatives”. I’m not sure they care what bc calls them. If those “psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem” declare that bc is not-conservative, whose definition is a liberal supposed to accept?
To hear Brett tell it, one thing about liberals is that they are utterly predictable. He just knows which side any liberal will take in most controversies: the anti-conservative side. It would seem that, even by Brett’s own logic, liberals would be less predictable if conservatives were less predictable.
Maybe bc is a “real conservative” and maybe not. But is anybody here willing to admit that you could not predict which side of the Ferguson controversy bc would come down on? Seriously?
I am perfectly willing to concede — nay, proclaim — that we are ALL predictable, because I have become convinced over the decades that there is an innate difference between the liberal and the conservative mind. I don’t know what flips the switch. Is it a gene? Some random influence in the womb? Some trauma in adolescence? Whatever it may be, it’s apparently a permanent feature of human nature: there have ALWAYS been conservatives and liberals, on opposite sides of practically every question. And (I claim) you can always predict, at any moment in history, which tribe will come down on which side of any particular question.
–TP
bc: …russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem.
“Those” not-conservatives are apparently the people russell was talking about here:
It’s not russell’s fault that THEY CALL THEMSELVES “conservatives”. I’m not sure they care what bc calls them. If those “psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem” declare that bc is not-conservative, whose definition is a liberal supposed to accept?
To hear Brett tell it, one thing about liberals is that they are utterly predictable. He just knows which side any liberal will take in most controversies: the anti-conservative side. It would seem that, even by Brett’s own logic, liberals would be less predictable if conservatives were less predictable.
Maybe bc is a “real conservative” and maybe not. But is anybody here willing to admit that you could not predict which side of the Ferguson controversy bc would come down on? Seriously?
I am perfectly willing to concede — nay, proclaim — that we are ALL predictable, because I have become convinced over the decades that there is an innate difference between the liberal and the conservative mind. I don’t know what flips the switch. Is it a gene? Some random influence in the womb? Some trauma in adolescence? Whatever it may be, it’s apparently a permanent feature of human nature: there have ALWAYS been conservatives and liberals, on opposite sides of practically every question. And (I claim) you can always predict, at any moment in history, which tribe will come down on which side of any particular question.
–TP
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
Marxist != Nazi
Brett gets picked on because of idiotic mistakes like that.
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
Marxist != Nazi
Brett gets picked on because of idiotic mistakes like that.
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
Marxist != Nazi
Brett gets picked on because of idiotic mistakes like that.
Brett gives good recipe. Really.
Brett gives good recipe. Really.
Brett gives good recipe. Really.
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
Perhaps an indication of a weak sense of humor on those sites? Or was I the only one who detected the sarcasm in the complaint here?
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
Perhaps an indication of a weak sense of humor on those sites? Or was I the only one who detected the sarcasm in the complaint here?
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
Perhaps an indication of a weak sense of humor on those sites? Or was I the only one who detected the sarcasm in the complaint here?
something something no true conservative
something something no true conservative
something something no true conservative
Stripped of the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, YOUR argument is that committing robberies doesn’t do anything to make you less credible, helping children nothing to make you more credible.
Brett, I’m not sure how the robbery allegedly committed by Brown impacts on the credibility of anyone but him, and he’s too dead to worry about it. bc’s implicit point was that Brown being a criminal, as is alleged, diminishes the credibility of anyone contradicted Wilson’s testimony. Which is rhetorically moving, but pure smoke and mirrors.
And for the record, Brett, I’ll cite personal bias in my refusal to assume that all members of a profession deemed “good” are in fact good, or live up to the values widely ascribed to the profession, or any better a person for doing good deeds when professionally obligated to do so. I am biased against that sort of reasoning. I’ll lay odds that if you spent some time working military corrections, you’d find that sort of reasoning a wee mite harder to swallow too. So yeah, I’m biased. I don’t trust people to be honest simply because of their job description, or the uniform they wear. All other things being equal, I might generally be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not when they are participants to the incident they’re bearing witness to, and not when they stand to come to substantial harm by giving testimony that does not flatter them. Frankly, I have trouble seeing why you think I should, and the fact that the person they killed was an alleged criminal does nothing to change that.
Stripped of the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, YOUR argument is that committing robberies doesn’t do anything to make you less credible, helping children nothing to make you more credible.
Brett, I’m not sure how the robbery allegedly committed by Brown impacts on the credibility of anyone but him, and he’s too dead to worry about it. bc’s implicit point was that Brown being a criminal, as is alleged, diminishes the credibility of anyone contradicted Wilson’s testimony. Which is rhetorically moving, but pure smoke and mirrors.
And for the record, Brett, I’ll cite personal bias in my refusal to assume that all members of a profession deemed “good” are in fact good, or live up to the values widely ascribed to the profession, or any better a person for doing good deeds when professionally obligated to do so. I am biased against that sort of reasoning. I’ll lay odds that if you spent some time working military corrections, you’d find that sort of reasoning a wee mite harder to swallow too. So yeah, I’m biased. I don’t trust people to be honest simply because of their job description, or the uniform they wear. All other things being equal, I might generally be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not when they are participants to the incident they’re bearing witness to, and not when they stand to come to substantial harm by giving testimony that does not flatter them. Frankly, I have trouble seeing why you think I should, and the fact that the person they killed was an alleged criminal does nothing to change that.
Stripped of the emotionally manipulative rhetoric, YOUR argument is that committing robberies doesn’t do anything to make you less credible, helping children nothing to make you more credible.
Brett, I’m not sure how the robbery allegedly committed by Brown impacts on the credibility of anyone but him, and he’s too dead to worry about it. bc’s implicit point was that Brown being a criminal, as is alleged, diminishes the credibility of anyone contradicted Wilson’s testimony. Which is rhetorically moving, but pure smoke and mirrors.
And for the record, Brett, I’ll cite personal bias in my refusal to assume that all members of a profession deemed “good” are in fact good, or live up to the values widely ascribed to the profession, or any better a person for doing good deeds when professionally obligated to do so. I am biased against that sort of reasoning. I’ll lay odds that if you spent some time working military corrections, you’d find that sort of reasoning a wee mite harder to swallow too. So yeah, I’m biased. I don’t trust people to be honest simply because of their job description, or the uniform they wear. All other things being equal, I might generally be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not when they are participants to the incident they’re bearing witness to, and not when they stand to come to substantial harm by giving testimony that does not flatter them. Frankly, I have trouble seeing why you think I should, and the fact that the person they killed was an alleged criminal does nothing to change that.
“You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.”
Some folks used to be vaguely disappointed when they bought tickets for a Tony Clifton appearance and Andy Kaufman showed up instead.
Let’s do an experiment. One of us could go over to Redstate, sign in as Martin Boorman Jr. and ask to guest post on immigration issues, and another of us could show up, sign in as Cecile Richards, and request guest posting privileges on the matter of reproductive rights.
We’ll see which one identified as a Nazi and turned down first.
I’m convinced that if Kaufman were alive today, and he may well be (do you really know who Louie Gohmert is?), that he would be doing his standup while open carrying military grade weaponry and waving it around in the audience’s faces.
It would be interesting to see who bought it and who didn’t, because just when you thought you had the gist figured out, he wouldn’t be beyond firing that thing at someone or something and showing up next time wearing a neck brace while standing alongside Wayne LaPierre.
“You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.”
Some folks used to be vaguely disappointed when they bought tickets for a Tony Clifton appearance and Andy Kaufman showed up instead.
Let’s do an experiment. One of us could go over to Redstate, sign in as Martin Boorman Jr. and ask to guest post on immigration issues, and another of us could show up, sign in as Cecile Richards, and request guest posting privileges on the matter of reproductive rights.
We’ll see which one identified as a Nazi and turned down first.
I’m convinced that if Kaufman were alive today, and he may well be (do you really know who Louie Gohmert is?), that he would be doing his standup while open carrying military grade weaponry and waving it around in the audience’s faces.
It would be interesting to see who bought it and who didn’t, because just when you thought you had the gist figured out, he wouldn’t be beyond firing that thing at someone or something and showing up next time wearing a neck brace while standing alongside Wayne LaPierre.
“You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.”
Some folks used to be vaguely disappointed when they bought tickets for a Tony Clifton appearance and Andy Kaufman showed up instead.
Let’s do an experiment. One of us could go over to Redstate, sign in as Martin Boorman Jr. and ask to guest post on immigration issues, and another of us could show up, sign in as Cecile Richards, and request guest posting privileges on the matter of reproductive rights.
We’ll see which one identified as a Nazi and turned down first.
I’m convinced that if Kaufman were alive today, and he may well be (do you really know who Louie Gohmert is?), that he would be doing his standup while open carrying military grade weaponry and waving it around in the audience’s faces.
It would be interesting to see who bought it and who didn’t, because just when you thought you had the gist figured out, he wouldn’t be beyond firing that thing at someone or something and showing up next time wearing a neck brace while standing alongside Wayne LaPierre.
Marxist ! = Nazi
Groucho and Basil Fawlty had rudeness and funny walks in common.
I’m not sure folks in the Ukraine get the joke, but at least they have solid historical reasons not to.
Marxist ! = Nazi
Groucho and Basil Fawlty had rudeness and funny walks in common.
I’m not sure folks in the Ukraine get the joke, but at least they have solid historical reasons not to.
Marxist ! = Nazi
Groucho and Basil Fawlty had rudeness and funny walks in common.
I’m not sure folks in the Ukraine get the joke, but at least they have solid historical reasons not to.
Marty wrote:
“Count, for clarity, interesting in the sense that Jon Stewart is interesting”
Well, no need to go overboard now …
But, I know what you mean.
Several years ago, a friend and ordered drinks at a very western restaurant around where I live (lots of game prepared from settler recipes) and one of the ingredients in the drinks was gunpowder.
When the bartender asked after my reaction, I nodded thoughtfully, and answered “Interesting …. elegantly relaxing on the palate and yet with an explosive after burn to follow. I imagine my breath is going to have the aroma of the atmosphere surrounding the Sand Creek Massacre.”
(and if you believe I really said that, other than “interesting”, then your faith in reliable narrators on the internet is fascinating) ;;)
So, yeah, that’s me. I’m a drink with gunpowder in it.
Never offer me a lit match.
Marty wrote:
“Count, for clarity, interesting in the sense that Jon Stewart is interesting”
Well, no need to go overboard now …
But, I know what you mean.
Several years ago, a friend and ordered drinks at a very western restaurant around where I live (lots of game prepared from settler recipes) and one of the ingredients in the drinks was gunpowder.
When the bartender asked after my reaction, I nodded thoughtfully, and answered “Interesting …. elegantly relaxing on the palate and yet with an explosive after burn to follow. I imagine my breath is going to have the aroma of the atmosphere surrounding the Sand Creek Massacre.”
(and if you believe I really said that, other than “interesting”, then your faith in reliable narrators on the internet is fascinating) ;;)
So, yeah, that’s me. I’m a drink with gunpowder in it.
Never offer me a lit match.
Marty wrote:
“Count, for clarity, interesting in the sense that Jon Stewart is interesting”
Well, no need to go overboard now …
But, I know what you mean.
Several years ago, a friend and ordered drinks at a very western restaurant around where I live (lots of game prepared from settler recipes) and one of the ingredients in the drinks was gunpowder.
When the bartender asked after my reaction, I nodded thoughtfully, and answered “Interesting …. elegantly relaxing on the palate and yet with an explosive after burn to follow. I imagine my breath is going to have the aroma of the atmosphere surrounding the Sand Creek Massacre.”
(and if you believe I really said that, other than “interesting”, then your faith in reliable narrators on the internet is fascinating) ;;)
So, yeah, that’s me. I’m a drink with gunpowder in it.
Never offer me a lit match.
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters….
Why should they? There appears to be no shortage to complain about.
And as always, It is only fitting to give Coates the last word.
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters….
Why should they? There appears to be no shortage to complain about.
And as always, It is only fitting to give Coates the last word.
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters….
Why should they? There appears to be no shortage to complain about.
And as always, It is only fitting to give Coates the last word.
But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
The latter’s word is not in question, because he was unable to speak. He’s dead.
There are numerous eye witness accounts about what happened. Some support Wilson, some definitely do not.
Wilson claims that Brown attached him without provocation as he sat in his car, with sufficient force that he believed he would be rendered unconscious or killed. I’ve looked at the photographs taken of Wilson the day of the incident, and I’m not seeing a man who was beaten to the point of unconsciousness or death.
Wilson fired at Brown as he fled. Unless Brown posed a threat of serious physical harm to Wilson or the public at large, that was illegal. Brown was unarmed, and was in fact running away from Wilson at that point.
At the risk of making everybody’s head explode, I’ll also say that punching a cop, assuming that is what happened and stupid an action though it may be, is not sufficient reason for a cop to shoot you. You should expect to find your @ss in jail and you should expect to be showing some bruises of your own, but you should not expect to be dead.
This incident is not about whether Brown is a sweet angel or an evil thug robber, nor is it about whether Wilson is a racist cowboy rogue cop or a noble public servant rushing to the aid of tiny children.
The Ferguson PD has a documented history of abuse toward the population there. The folks who live there do not feel that the police force represents them, or acts in their interest. They have reason to feel that way.
The police response to this incident, from the release of the Great Cigarillo Robbery video tapes to the kid-gloves grand jury proceedings, has at no point demonstrated good faith.
And all of that is not to mention the freaking bizarre shock and awe response to the initial protests.
And all of *that* is not to mention the increasingly militarized, hostile, and violent relationship of the police in general to the populations they are supposed to protect and serve.
Cops are not supposed to be a freaking paramilitary strike force. They are supposed to resolve, not create, conflict, and defuse, rather than escalate, public violence.
Any disagreement on that?
It should be a rare thing for a cop to shoot an unarmed citizen in the course of their duty. It’s not. And for young black men, it’s very very much not.
russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem.
They are likely all of the things you cite, but they are also conservatives.
“There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.”
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
If there’s an irony gene, it is sadly missing from the Bellmore gene pool.
Assuming, of course, that Brett’s reply wasn’t a triple-gainer tongue-in-cheek recursive irony-upon-irony riposte.
If so, well played.
But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
The latter’s word is not in question, because he was unable to speak. He’s dead.
There are numerous eye witness accounts about what happened. Some support Wilson, some definitely do not.
Wilson claims that Brown attached him without provocation as he sat in his car, with sufficient force that he believed he would be rendered unconscious or killed. I’ve looked at the photographs taken of Wilson the day of the incident, and I’m not seeing a man who was beaten to the point of unconsciousness or death.
Wilson fired at Brown as he fled. Unless Brown posed a threat of serious physical harm to Wilson or the public at large, that was illegal. Brown was unarmed, and was in fact running away from Wilson at that point.
At the risk of making everybody’s head explode, I’ll also say that punching a cop, assuming that is what happened and stupid an action though it may be, is not sufficient reason for a cop to shoot you. You should expect to find your @ss in jail and you should expect to be showing some bruises of your own, but you should not expect to be dead.
This incident is not about whether Brown is a sweet angel or an evil thug robber, nor is it about whether Wilson is a racist cowboy rogue cop or a noble public servant rushing to the aid of tiny children.
The Ferguson PD has a documented history of abuse toward the population there. The folks who live there do not feel that the police force represents them, or acts in their interest. They have reason to feel that way.
The police response to this incident, from the release of the Great Cigarillo Robbery video tapes to the kid-gloves grand jury proceedings, has at no point demonstrated good faith.
And all of that is not to mention the freaking bizarre shock and awe response to the initial protests.
And all of *that* is not to mention the increasingly militarized, hostile, and violent relationship of the police in general to the populations they are supposed to protect and serve.
Cops are not supposed to be a freaking paramilitary strike force. They are supposed to resolve, not create, conflict, and defuse, rather than escalate, public violence.
Any disagreement on that?
It should be a rare thing for a cop to shoot an unarmed citizen in the course of their duty. It’s not. And for young black men, it’s very very much not.
russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem.
They are likely all of the things you cite, but they are also conservatives.
“There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.”
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
If there’s an irony gene, it is sadly missing from the Bellmore gene pool.
Assuming, of course, that Brett’s reply wasn’t a triple-gainer tongue-in-cheek recursive irony-upon-irony riposte.
If so, well played.
But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
The latter’s word is not in question, because he was unable to speak. He’s dead.
There are numerous eye witness accounts about what happened. Some support Wilson, some definitely do not.
Wilson claims that Brown attached him without provocation as he sat in his car, with sufficient force that he believed he would be rendered unconscious or killed. I’ve looked at the photographs taken of Wilson the day of the incident, and I’m not seeing a man who was beaten to the point of unconsciousness or death.
Wilson fired at Brown as he fled. Unless Brown posed a threat of serious physical harm to Wilson or the public at large, that was illegal. Brown was unarmed, and was in fact running away from Wilson at that point.
At the risk of making everybody’s head explode, I’ll also say that punching a cop, assuming that is what happened and stupid an action though it may be, is not sufficient reason for a cop to shoot you. You should expect to find your @ss in jail and you should expect to be showing some bruises of your own, but you should not expect to be dead.
This incident is not about whether Brown is a sweet angel or an evil thug robber, nor is it about whether Wilson is a racist cowboy rogue cop or a noble public servant rushing to the aid of tiny children.
The Ferguson PD has a documented history of abuse toward the population there. The folks who live there do not feel that the police force represents them, or acts in their interest. They have reason to feel that way.
The police response to this incident, from the release of the Great Cigarillo Robbery video tapes to the kid-gloves grand jury proceedings, has at no point demonstrated good faith.
And all of that is not to mention the freaking bizarre shock and awe response to the initial protests.
And all of *that* is not to mention the increasingly militarized, hostile, and violent relationship of the police in general to the populations they are supposed to protect and serve.
Cops are not supposed to be a freaking paramilitary strike force. They are supposed to resolve, not create, conflict, and defuse, rather than escalate, public violence.
Any disagreement on that?
It should be a rare thing for a cop to shoot an unarmed citizen in the course of their duty. It’s not. And for young black men, it’s very very much not.
russell, those aren’t conservatives. They sound like psychopaths or losers lacking self esteem.
They are likely all of the things you cite, but they are also conservatives.
“There are no dyed-in-the-wool marxist posters, much less commenters, here. Something must be done.”
You know, nobody at a right-wing site would complain about a lack of Nazi posters, and think something had to be done about it.
If there’s an irony gene, it is sadly missing from the Bellmore gene pool.
Assuming, of course, that Brett’s reply wasn’t a triple-gainer tongue-in-cheek recursive irony-upon-irony riposte.
If so, well played.
There’s a New Yorker cartoonist whose regular theme is the first fish emerging from the primordial booze and taking its first steps on terra firma.
His latest depicts the fish freshly out of the water, surveying his new environment, and remarking, shrewdly for a newcomer, “How can I monetize this.”
I have a feeling the Brown family is monetizing their plight, but I haven’t been able to find dollar figures.
But Wilson, who just resigned from the Ferguson Police Force, will do just fine, though I fear for his soul in his private hours away from the media marketplace, especially after America moves on to the next temporary fascination and the checks stoppa comin:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/30/taking-the-money-and-running/
The Diana Christianson in me, the sleek monetizing, capitalizing, shallow soul of America, sees an opportunity in this event, not that right-wing media hasn’t flipped the prophetic parody of “Network” many times over for fun and profit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnIz7ELbI0g
We send our talent scouts into neighborhoods with heavily black populations and overwhelmingly white police presences and instead of just waiting for something to happen, we bring the parties together on a weekly basis, reality show style, and we pay big money upfront (none of this shoot-to-kill-first-pay-you-later excuse for a business model) to the cops and the victims and their families to incentivize confrontations, with a sliding scale of bonusues according to whether death or mutilation occur, and subsequent police brutality against peaceful demonstrators, not to mention jerkoff arsonists among the citizenry burning down neighborhoods.
America’s short attention span being what it is, the second season would start off with the shooting of an upper middle class, white, high school football hero being gunned down by the lone black female officer of a suburban township, just to shake up the pattern a bit.
Of course, were I to do that, my inner Max Schumacher would have to break up with my inner Diana Christianson on account of the banality surfeit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4DXaKuOAZ0
The Marxist versus Nazi meme so often resorted to, even by me, cracks me up. The two ideologies, to the tiny extent they exist in any form approaching purity in America, are subsumed and co-opted as well by America’s culture of universal monetization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuqvlMxfGA4
If Hannah Arendt could write a book about America in the year 2014, she would call it “The Banality of Banality”.
There’s a New Yorker cartoonist whose regular theme is the first fish emerging from the primordial booze and taking its first steps on terra firma.
His latest depicts the fish freshly out of the water, surveying his new environment, and remarking, shrewdly for a newcomer, “How can I monetize this.”
I have a feeling the Brown family is monetizing their plight, but I haven’t been able to find dollar figures.
But Wilson, who just resigned from the Ferguson Police Force, will do just fine, though I fear for his soul in his private hours away from the media marketplace, especially after America moves on to the next temporary fascination and the checks stoppa comin:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/30/taking-the-money-and-running/
The Diana Christianson in me, the sleek monetizing, capitalizing, shallow soul of America, sees an opportunity in this event, not that right-wing media hasn’t flipped the prophetic parody of “Network” many times over for fun and profit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnIz7ELbI0g
We send our talent scouts into neighborhoods with heavily black populations and overwhelmingly white police presences and instead of just waiting for something to happen, we bring the parties together on a weekly basis, reality show style, and we pay big money upfront (none of this shoot-to-kill-first-pay-you-later excuse for a business model) to the cops and the victims and their families to incentivize confrontations, with a sliding scale of bonusues according to whether death or mutilation occur, and subsequent police brutality against peaceful demonstrators, not to mention jerkoff arsonists among the citizenry burning down neighborhoods.
America’s short attention span being what it is, the second season would start off with the shooting of an upper middle class, white, high school football hero being gunned down by the lone black female officer of a suburban township, just to shake up the pattern a bit.
Of course, were I to do that, my inner Max Schumacher would have to break up with my inner Diana Christianson on account of the banality surfeit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4DXaKuOAZ0
The Marxist versus Nazi meme so often resorted to, even by me, cracks me up. The two ideologies, to the tiny extent they exist in any form approaching purity in America, are subsumed and co-opted as well by America’s culture of universal monetization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuqvlMxfGA4
If Hannah Arendt could write a book about America in the year 2014, she would call it “The Banality of Banality”.
There’s a New Yorker cartoonist whose regular theme is the first fish emerging from the primordial booze and taking its first steps on terra firma.
His latest depicts the fish freshly out of the water, surveying his new environment, and remarking, shrewdly for a newcomer, “How can I monetize this.”
I have a feeling the Brown family is monetizing their plight, but I haven’t been able to find dollar figures.
But Wilson, who just resigned from the Ferguson Police Force, will do just fine, though I fear for his soul in his private hours away from the media marketplace, especially after America moves on to the next temporary fascination and the checks stoppa comin:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/30/taking-the-money-and-running/
The Diana Christianson in me, the sleek monetizing, capitalizing, shallow soul of America, sees an opportunity in this event, not that right-wing media hasn’t flipped the prophetic parody of “Network” many times over for fun and profit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnIz7ELbI0g
We send our talent scouts into neighborhoods with heavily black populations and overwhelmingly white police presences and instead of just waiting for something to happen, we bring the parties together on a weekly basis, reality show style, and we pay big money upfront (none of this shoot-to-kill-first-pay-you-later excuse for a business model) to the cops and the victims and their families to incentivize confrontations, with a sliding scale of bonusues according to whether death or mutilation occur, and subsequent police brutality against peaceful demonstrators, not to mention jerkoff arsonists among the citizenry burning down neighborhoods.
America’s short attention span being what it is, the second season would start off with the shooting of an upper middle class, white, high school football hero being gunned down by the lone black female officer of a suburban township, just to shake up the pattern a bit.
Of course, were I to do that, my inner Max Schumacher would have to break up with my inner Diana Christianson on account of the banality surfeit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4DXaKuOAZ0
The Marxist versus Nazi meme so often resorted to, even by me, cracks me up. The two ideologies, to the tiny extent they exist in any form approaching purity in America, are subsumed and co-opted as well by America’s culture of universal monetization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuqvlMxfGA4
If Hannah Arendt could write a book about America in the year 2014, she would call it “The Banality of Banality”.
Any disagreement on that?
cue Brett and his ‘why do you liberals/the left love rioters so much’ in 3, 2, 1…
Any disagreement on that?
cue Brett and his ‘why do you liberals/the left love rioters so much’ in 3, 2, 1…
Any disagreement on that?
cue Brett and his ‘why do you liberals/the left love rioters so much’ in 3, 2, 1…
“Marxist ! = Nazi”
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
“Marxist ! = Nazi”
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
“Marxist ! = Nazi”
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
yay! it’s time to play “your totalitarian dictatorial extremist regime is worse than my totalitarian dictatorial extremist regime”!
it’s my favorite game whenever folks try to discuss political economy here on the internet.
allow me to see Brett’s Hitler and raise him a Stalin:
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
yeah, but look at the size of the populations they started with!
Germany, tens of millions. Even if you include the territories grabbed during the Anschluss, you’re still not looking at the numbers either the USSR or China had.
If you’re going to compare, Brett, at least compare apples to apples!
bc, if you want to know why folks pile on Brett now and then, now you know.
yay! it’s time to play “your totalitarian dictatorial extremist regime is worse than my totalitarian dictatorial extremist regime”!
it’s my favorite game whenever folks try to discuss political economy here on the internet.
allow me to see Brett’s Hitler and raise him a Stalin:
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
yeah, but look at the size of the populations they started with!
Germany, tens of millions. Even if you include the territories grabbed during the Anschluss, you’re still not looking at the numbers either the USSR or China had.
If you’re going to compare, Brett, at least compare apples to apples!
bc, if you want to know why folks pile on Brett now and then, now you know.
yay! it’s time to play “your totalitarian dictatorial extremist regime is worse than my totalitarian dictatorial extremist regime”!
it’s my favorite game whenever folks try to discuss political economy here on the internet.
allow me to see Brett’s Hitler and raise him a Stalin:
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
yeah, but look at the size of the populations they started with!
Germany, tens of millions. Even if you include the territories grabbed during the Anschluss, you’re still not looking at the numbers either the USSR or China had.
If you’re going to compare, Brett, at least compare apples to apples!
bc, if you want to know why folks pile on Brett now and then, now you know.
Brett: “You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.”
Obviously. That’s why the hard-left contingent here are continuously performing the famed “Blog Flounce” after Brett turns up the heat on them.
For Count, it must be a daily occurrence, you betcha.
Brett: “You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.”
Obviously. That’s why the hard-left contingent here are continuously performing the famed “Blog Flounce” after Brett turns up the heat on them.
For Count, it must be a daily occurrence, you betcha.
Brett: “You can dish it out, but obviously not take it.”
Obviously. That’s why the hard-left contingent here are continuously performing the famed “Blog Flounce” after Brett turns up the heat on them.
For Count, it must be a daily occurrence, you betcha.
10 to 1 Brett is, at this moment, combing wikipedia for stats on the population for greater Germany after the Anschluss.
10 to 1 Brett is, at this moment, combing wikipedia for stats on the population for greater Germany after the Anschluss.
10 to 1 Brett is, at this moment, combing wikipedia for stats on the population for greater Germany after the Anschluss.
russell, you probably also want to think about whether the issue is how many of their own people they killed, vs how many people they killed who were foreigners. Stalin (and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot) killed enormous numbers, but mostly their own folks. Hitler, in contrast, mostly killed other peoples. Although, admittedly, he managed to get a lot of Germans killed too; but at least that wasn’t his goal.
The trouble with trying to compare apples to apples is this: The first challenge is on agreeing on what apples are. Mostly, we all assume that obviously everybody else is making the same assumptions there that we are — because how could you not? And things go down hill from there.
russell, you probably also want to think about whether the issue is how many of their own people they killed, vs how many people they killed who were foreigners. Stalin (and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot) killed enormous numbers, but mostly their own folks. Hitler, in contrast, mostly killed other peoples. Although, admittedly, he managed to get a lot of Germans killed too; but at least that wasn’t his goal.
The trouble with trying to compare apples to apples is this: The first challenge is on agreeing on what apples are. Mostly, we all assume that obviously everybody else is making the same assumptions there that we are — because how could you not? And things go down hill from there.
russell, you probably also want to think about whether the issue is how many of their own people they killed, vs how many people they killed who were foreigners. Stalin (and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot) killed enormous numbers, but mostly their own folks. Hitler, in contrast, mostly killed other peoples. Although, admittedly, he managed to get a lot of Germans killed too; but at least that wasn’t his goal.
The trouble with trying to compare apples to apples is this: The first challenge is on agreeing on what apples are. Mostly, we all assume that obviously everybody else is making the same assumptions there that we are — because how could you not? And things go down hill from there.
BC: Nothing of the sort. But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
It’s been said before, BC, but it’s worth saying again: “All things being equal” doesn’t really apply when one of the actors is DEAD. You can’t judge Michael Brown’s credibility – whether or not he stole cigarillos “to make blunts to smoke some weed” (assuming facts not in evidence?) – because he’s DEAD, shot dead by the other man whom you find credible, but who did not allow Michael Brown to articulate his own case, whatever it may have been.
That is callous to the point of criminality. Or would be, if criminality applied in such cases, as it clearly does not.
BC: Nothing of the sort. But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
It’s been said before, BC, but it’s worth saying again: “All things being equal” doesn’t really apply when one of the actors is DEAD. You can’t judge Michael Brown’s credibility – whether or not he stole cigarillos “to make blunts to smoke some weed” (assuming facts not in evidence?) – because he’s DEAD, shot dead by the other man whom you find credible, but who did not allow Michael Brown to articulate his own case, whatever it may have been.
That is callous to the point of criminality. Or would be, if criminality applied in such cases, as it clearly does not.
BC: Nothing of the sort. But I’m going to tend to believe (all things being equal) more the guy that helps small children in the minutes before the shooting than the one who pushes small clerks and steals cigarillos to make blunts to smoke some weed.
It’s been said before, BC, but it’s worth saying again: “All things being equal” doesn’t really apply when one of the actors is DEAD. You can’t judge Michael Brown’s credibility – whether or not he stole cigarillos “to make blunts to smoke some weed” (assuming facts not in evidence?) – because he’s DEAD, shot dead by the other man whom you find credible, but who did not allow Michael Brown to articulate his own case, whatever it may have been.
That is callous to the point of criminality. Or would be, if criminality applied in such cases, as it clearly does not.
As for Wilson’s character, I’ve not read enough to judge him finally; some good, some not-so-good, like most people.
But I cannot help grouping him (broadly) among those men – rarely women, so far as I know – who go armed to seek out, and even provoke, danger in order to prove something to themselves, perhaps about manliness. George Zimmerman, Captain Ahab, the now-deceased crocodile hunter and the man who lived among bears, many war “heroes” and some other warriors, all of whom have in common a disinclination to calm things down, avoid the possibility of killing or being killed, because . . . well, whatever.
Wilson, an armed white man, provoked a confrontation with an unarmed black man whom he (nevertheless) feared. It may be argued that the original “provocation” was legitimate (though we don’t have Brown’s story, do we?), but pursuing him after he had retreated from the car, shouting at him, possibly shooting at him (?), was certainly at Wilson’s initiative.
With much more excuse for his actions than Zimmerman, to be sure, but still without (apparently) considering that the wise thing to do might be to call for backup, continue surveillance at a reasonable distance, try NOT to get into a situation where, because he feared for his life, he had to kill someone. Like Zimmerman, like Ahab (although he failed), etc. I’m seeing a pattern here, and insofar as it just applies to men hunting dangerous animals, I don’t much care, but when it comes to men seizing the opportunity to confront the fears in the form of other (dangerous?) men, I worry.
As for Wilson’s character, I’ve not read enough to judge him finally; some good, some not-so-good, like most people.
But I cannot help grouping him (broadly) among those men – rarely women, so far as I know – who go armed to seek out, and even provoke, danger in order to prove something to themselves, perhaps about manliness. George Zimmerman, Captain Ahab, the now-deceased crocodile hunter and the man who lived among bears, many war “heroes” and some other warriors, all of whom have in common a disinclination to calm things down, avoid the possibility of killing or being killed, because . . . well, whatever.
Wilson, an armed white man, provoked a confrontation with an unarmed black man whom he (nevertheless) feared. It may be argued that the original “provocation” was legitimate (though we don’t have Brown’s story, do we?), but pursuing him after he had retreated from the car, shouting at him, possibly shooting at him (?), was certainly at Wilson’s initiative.
With much more excuse for his actions than Zimmerman, to be sure, but still without (apparently) considering that the wise thing to do might be to call for backup, continue surveillance at a reasonable distance, try NOT to get into a situation where, because he feared for his life, he had to kill someone. Like Zimmerman, like Ahab (although he failed), etc. I’m seeing a pattern here, and insofar as it just applies to men hunting dangerous animals, I don’t much care, but when it comes to men seizing the opportunity to confront the fears in the form of other (dangerous?) men, I worry.
As for Wilson’s character, I’ve not read enough to judge him finally; some good, some not-so-good, like most people.
But I cannot help grouping him (broadly) among those men – rarely women, so far as I know – who go armed to seek out, and even provoke, danger in order to prove something to themselves, perhaps about manliness. George Zimmerman, Captain Ahab, the now-deceased crocodile hunter and the man who lived among bears, many war “heroes” and some other warriors, all of whom have in common a disinclination to calm things down, avoid the possibility of killing or being killed, because . . . well, whatever.
Wilson, an armed white man, provoked a confrontation with an unarmed black man whom he (nevertheless) feared. It may be argued that the original “provocation” was legitimate (though we don’t have Brown’s story, do we?), but pursuing him after he had retreated from the car, shouting at him, possibly shooting at him (?), was certainly at Wilson’s initiative.
With much more excuse for his actions than Zimmerman, to be sure, but still without (apparently) considering that the wise thing to do might be to call for backup, continue surveillance at a reasonable distance, try NOT to get into a situation where, because he feared for his life, he had to kill someone. Like Zimmerman, like Ahab (although he failed), etc. I’m seeing a pattern here, and insofar as it just applies to men hunting dangerous animals, I don’t much care, but when it comes to men seizing the opportunity to confront the fears in the form of other (dangerous?) men, I worry.
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
By that standard, the white race in this country stands condemned.
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
By that standard, the white race in this country stands condemned.
That’s for sure, the Marxists killed a lot more people.
By that standard, the white race in this country stands condemned.
In the twentieth century, fiat money killed the most people.
In the twentieth century, fiat money killed the most people.
In the twentieth century, fiat money killed the most people.
Look on the bright side folks: Brett implicitly acknowledged up front that Nazis are to the right wing what (he thinks) “Marxists” are to the left wing. That’s progress of a sort. Right-wingers have been known to opine that Hitler was evil because he was a liberal.
–TP
Look on the bright side folks: Brett implicitly acknowledged up front that Nazis are to the right wing what (he thinks) “Marxists” are to the left wing. That’s progress of a sort. Right-wingers have been known to opine that Hitler was evil because he was a liberal.
–TP
Look on the bright side folks: Brett implicitly acknowledged up front that Nazis are to the right wing what (he thinks) “Marxists” are to the left wing. That’s progress of a sort. Right-wingers have been known to opine that Hitler was evil because he was a liberal.
–TP
[I just posted a second comment, which has disappeared; this is an attempted reconstruction. Apologies if both show up.]
As for the character of Wilson, I am not greatly moved by his uniform, nor his small act of kindness. Nor do I find him evil incarnate, from what I have read. Some good, some bad, like most people. Young; capable of making mistakes like we all do (except that none of mine were lethal).
What I am struck by, however, is how readily he fits into the (very broad) pattern of men – rarely women, AFAIK – who seek to test themselves in some sense by going armed into, or even provoking, confrontations with something they fear. George Zimmerman the most recent and obvious: an armed white man pursuing an unarmed black man until he has created a situation in which he “fears for his life” and therefore has to kill the dangerous enemy. Wilson had far more legitimacy, but he too had the chance to defuse the situation, wait for backup, maintain surveillance, avoid bloodshed – instead of which he chose to provoke further, by getting out of his car and shouting (or even shooting?) at Brown until he had brought about what he feared, and perhaps unconsciously desired: the chance to kill the being he was afraid of.
But in the broad pattern it’s not just these two, but it’s Captain Ahab, it’s the now-deceased Crocodile Hunter and the Man Who Lived With (and died by) Bears, it’s many – though scarcely all – war heroes and non-heroic but foolhardy or murderous warriors. And the pattern, where it applies, is deliberately placing oneself – heavily armed if possible – into confrontation with the greatest danger. But not just a danger to oneself, such as mountain climbers might experience, but a danger that would “force” one to end another life.
When that life is that of an animal, I am not aroused to protest. But when that life is one of a “dangerous” human being – often characterized as an animal – I am. I do.
[I just posted a second comment, which has disappeared; this is an attempted reconstruction. Apologies if both show up.]
As for the character of Wilson, I am not greatly moved by his uniform, nor his small act of kindness. Nor do I find him evil incarnate, from what I have read. Some good, some bad, like most people. Young; capable of making mistakes like we all do (except that none of mine were lethal).
What I am struck by, however, is how readily he fits into the (very broad) pattern of men – rarely women, AFAIK – who seek to test themselves in some sense by going armed into, or even provoking, confrontations with something they fear. George Zimmerman the most recent and obvious: an armed white man pursuing an unarmed black man until he has created a situation in which he “fears for his life” and therefore has to kill the dangerous enemy. Wilson had far more legitimacy, but he too had the chance to defuse the situation, wait for backup, maintain surveillance, avoid bloodshed – instead of which he chose to provoke further, by getting out of his car and shouting (or even shooting?) at Brown until he had brought about what he feared, and perhaps unconsciously desired: the chance to kill the being he was afraid of.
But in the broad pattern it’s not just these two, but it’s Captain Ahab, it’s the now-deceased Crocodile Hunter and the Man Who Lived With (and died by) Bears, it’s many – though scarcely all – war heroes and non-heroic but foolhardy or murderous warriors. And the pattern, where it applies, is deliberately placing oneself – heavily armed if possible – into confrontation with the greatest danger. But not just a danger to oneself, such as mountain climbers might experience, but a danger that would “force” one to end another life.
When that life is that of an animal, I am not aroused to protest. But when that life is one of a “dangerous” human being – often characterized as an animal – I am. I do.
[I just posted a second comment, which has disappeared; this is an attempted reconstruction. Apologies if both show up.]
As for the character of Wilson, I am not greatly moved by his uniform, nor his small act of kindness. Nor do I find him evil incarnate, from what I have read. Some good, some bad, like most people. Young; capable of making mistakes like we all do (except that none of mine were lethal).
What I am struck by, however, is how readily he fits into the (very broad) pattern of men – rarely women, AFAIK – who seek to test themselves in some sense by going armed into, or even provoking, confrontations with something they fear. George Zimmerman the most recent and obvious: an armed white man pursuing an unarmed black man until he has created a situation in which he “fears for his life” and therefore has to kill the dangerous enemy. Wilson had far more legitimacy, but he too had the chance to defuse the situation, wait for backup, maintain surveillance, avoid bloodshed – instead of which he chose to provoke further, by getting out of his car and shouting (or even shooting?) at Brown until he had brought about what he feared, and perhaps unconsciously desired: the chance to kill the being he was afraid of.
But in the broad pattern it’s not just these two, but it’s Captain Ahab, it’s the now-deceased Crocodile Hunter and the Man Who Lived With (and died by) Bears, it’s many – though scarcely all – war heroes and non-heroic but foolhardy or murderous warriors. And the pattern, where it applies, is deliberately placing oneself – heavily armed if possible – into confrontation with the greatest danger. But not just a danger to oneself, such as mountain climbers might experience, but a danger that would “force” one to end another life.
When that life is that of an animal, I am not aroused to protest. But when that life is one of a “dangerous” human being – often characterized as an animal – I am. I do.
Now Tony, they didn’t call it National Socialism for nothing.
Liberals are the real fascists, and the real communists-ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
Liberals are the real racists.
Liberals are the real destroyers of Liberty.
And their reckless abandonment of the gold standard has killed hundreds of millions.
Sucks to be us, doesn’t it?
Now Tony, they didn’t call it National Socialism for nothing.
Liberals are the real fascists, and the real communists-ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
Liberals are the real racists.
Liberals are the real destroyers of Liberty.
And their reckless abandonment of the gold standard has killed hundreds of millions.
Sucks to be us, doesn’t it?
Now Tony, they didn’t call it National Socialism for nothing.
Liberals are the real fascists, and the real communists-ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
Liberals are the real racists.
Liberals are the real destroyers of Liberty.
And their reckless abandonment of the gold standard has killed hundreds of millions.
Sucks to be us, doesn’t it?
I love post-game analyses of the body-count matches between Communism and Fascism.
We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the complicated rise of both ideologies from the perfectly civilized raised pinky slaughter of cultured gentleman and poets during World War I – roughly 16 million soldiers and civilians(another 20 million casualties), and if you want to add in the up to 100 million deaths worldwide from the Spanish Flu contagion that various theorists surmised first began spreading in the European back lines of that war, you’ll need more cemetery space.
Is it my imagination or do I sense a vague feeling of disappointment among those who are prone to point out that the Marxist team managed a walk-off three run homer in extra innings over the beleaguered Nazis, who ran out of relief pitching late in the game?
We could speculate how the body count game might have ended differently in Hitler’s favor if he hadn’t been bogged down on the eastern Front at the hands of ferocious and brutal Soviet Marxist armies and weather and how the Chinese, with the help of Communist guerrilla activity against the invading fascist Japanese armies, hadn’t fought the latter to a standstill on the mainland in the Pacific theater.
The thought of Nazi and Nippon forces meeting up somewhere near the Ganges and turning their attention to butchering 100 million or so Asian Indians would have blown the game wide open.
The AXIS game plan failed, especially Hitler’s tactical idiocy on the eastern front, because the Allies, including the killing power of the Marxists (actually both the Russians, and the Chinese Communists in their provincial strongholds, became good old nationalists when their land was threatened), pushed plenty of bodies across the plate, and stopped the Fascist body count rally in its tracks.
Think what a better world it would be if the Nazis had won the thing in the bottom of the ninth and lived to build a body count dynasty.
Who would have the last laugh then?
But seriously, anyone living between the meat grinder that was the area between the western border of Poland and the eastern edge of the Ukraine between the years 1932 and 1945 lost track of the score because most of them were killed several times over by both teams.
Hitler had a very poor opinion of Marxists, placing them near the center of the International Jewish conspiracy, thus the train accommodations for them as well.
Conservative Americans, and I include the old Southern Democratic Party, have always been circumspect about Hitler’s usefulness regarding that matter.
I love post-game analyses of the body-count matches between Communism and Fascism.
We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the complicated rise of both ideologies from the perfectly civilized raised pinky slaughter of cultured gentleman and poets during World War I – roughly 16 million soldiers and civilians(another 20 million casualties), and if you want to add in the up to 100 million deaths worldwide from the Spanish Flu contagion that various theorists surmised first began spreading in the European back lines of that war, you’ll need more cemetery space.
Is it my imagination or do I sense a vague feeling of disappointment among those who are prone to point out that the Marxist team managed a walk-off three run homer in extra innings over the beleaguered Nazis, who ran out of relief pitching late in the game?
We could speculate how the body count game might have ended differently in Hitler’s favor if he hadn’t been bogged down on the eastern Front at the hands of ferocious and brutal Soviet Marxist armies and weather and how the Chinese, with the help of Communist guerrilla activity against the invading fascist Japanese armies, hadn’t fought the latter to a standstill on the mainland in the Pacific theater.
The thought of Nazi and Nippon forces meeting up somewhere near the Ganges and turning their attention to butchering 100 million or so Asian Indians would have blown the game wide open.
The AXIS game plan failed, especially Hitler’s tactical idiocy on the eastern front, because the Allies, including the killing power of the Marxists (actually both the Russians, and the Chinese Communists in their provincial strongholds, became good old nationalists when their land was threatened), pushed plenty of bodies across the plate, and stopped the Fascist body count rally in its tracks.
Think what a better world it would be if the Nazis had won the thing in the bottom of the ninth and lived to build a body count dynasty.
Who would have the last laugh then?
But seriously, anyone living between the meat grinder that was the area between the western border of Poland and the eastern edge of the Ukraine between the years 1932 and 1945 lost track of the score because most of them were killed several times over by both teams.
Hitler had a very poor opinion of Marxists, placing them near the center of the International Jewish conspiracy, thus the train accommodations for them as well.
Conservative Americans, and I include the old Southern Democratic Party, have always been circumspect about Hitler’s usefulness regarding that matter.
I love post-game analyses of the body-count matches between Communism and Fascism.
We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the complicated rise of both ideologies from the perfectly civilized raised pinky slaughter of cultured gentleman and poets during World War I – roughly 16 million soldiers and civilians(another 20 million casualties), and if you want to add in the up to 100 million deaths worldwide from the Spanish Flu contagion that various theorists surmised first began spreading in the European back lines of that war, you’ll need more cemetery space.
Is it my imagination or do I sense a vague feeling of disappointment among those who are prone to point out that the Marxist team managed a walk-off three run homer in extra innings over the beleaguered Nazis, who ran out of relief pitching late in the game?
We could speculate how the body count game might have ended differently in Hitler’s favor if he hadn’t been bogged down on the eastern Front at the hands of ferocious and brutal Soviet Marxist armies and weather and how the Chinese, with the help of Communist guerrilla activity against the invading fascist Japanese armies, hadn’t fought the latter to a standstill on the mainland in the Pacific theater.
The thought of Nazi and Nippon forces meeting up somewhere near the Ganges and turning their attention to butchering 100 million or so Asian Indians would have blown the game wide open.
The AXIS game plan failed, especially Hitler’s tactical idiocy on the eastern front, because the Allies, including the killing power of the Marxists (actually both the Russians, and the Chinese Communists in their provincial strongholds, became good old nationalists when their land was threatened), pushed plenty of bodies across the plate, and stopped the Fascist body count rally in its tracks.
Think what a better world it would be if the Nazis had won the thing in the bottom of the ninth and lived to build a body count dynasty.
Who would have the last laugh then?
But seriously, anyone living between the meat grinder that was the area between the western border of Poland and the eastern edge of the Ukraine between the years 1932 and 1945 lost track of the score because most of them were killed several times over by both teams.
Hitler had a very poor opinion of Marxists, placing them near the center of the International Jewish conspiracy, thus the train accommodations for them as well.
Conservative Americans, and I include the old Southern Democratic Party, have always been circumspect about Hitler’s usefulness regarding that matter.
Am I to conclude that Brett is accusing Michael Brown of Marxist sympathies and tactics and Officer Wilson of goosestepping in the line of duty?
Am I to conclude that Brett is accusing Michael Brown of Marxist sympathies and tactics and Officer Wilson of goosestepping in the line of duty?
Am I to conclude that Brett is accusing Michael Brown of Marxist sympathies and tactics and Officer Wilson of goosestepping in the line of duty?
I’d like to hear more about the fiat money theory of genocide.
Didn’t gold standard aficionados Cortes and Pizarro wipe out Montezuma (the Steve Forbes of a strong Aztec dollar backed by gold) and the Aztecs before fiat money became all the rage?
I’d like to hear more about the fiat money theory of genocide.
Didn’t gold standard aficionados Cortes and Pizarro wipe out Montezuma (the Steve Forbes of a strong Aztec dollar backed by gold) and the Aztecs before fiat money became all the rage?
I’d like to hear more about the fiat money theory of genocide.
Didn’t gold standard aficionados Cortes and Pizarro wipe out Montezuma (the Steve Forbes of a strong Aztec dollar backed by gold) and the Aztecs before fiat money became all the rage?
Good ol’ Iulius Caesar caused the death of 1/3 of all Gauls, had another 1/3 sold into slavery (leading to a crash of the slave market due to oversupply) and opened the surviving 1/3 to the Roman Publicani (tax farmers). All of that in under 8 years without access to the proper tools (he was rather short on M-16s and AK-47s let alone an air force). Contemporary estimates of the population of Gauls was 3-4 million btw. He even had to postpone the library burning in order to achieve that. But according to his own records he killed 1-200K Germans on the side (most of them in a single day).
He was the leading figure of the Populares movement, i.e. the populist liberals of their day. It ran in the family. Only some conservative patriots stopped him from establishing socialism by Brute force.
Good ol’ Iulius Caesar caused the death of 1/3 of all Gauls, had another 1/3 sold into slavery (leading to a crash of the slave market due to oversupply) and opened the surviving 1/3 to the Roman Publicani (tax farmers). All of that in under 8 years without access to the proper tools (he was rather short on M-16s and AK-47s let alone an air force). Contemporary estimates of the population of Gauls was 3-4 million btw. He even had to postpone the library burning in order to achieve that. But according to his own records he killed 1-200K Germans on the side (most of them in a single day).
He was the leading figure of the Populares movement, i.e. the populist liberals of their day. It ran in the family. Only some conservative patriots stopped him from establishing socialism by Brute force.
Good ol’ Iulius Caesar caused the death of 1/3 of all Gauls, had another 1/3 sold into slavery (leading to a crash of the slave market due to oversupply) and opened the surviving 1/3 to the Roman Publicani (tax farmers). All of that in under 8 years without access to the proper tools (he was rather short on M-16s and AK-47s let alone an air force). Contemporary estimates of the population of Gauls was 3-4 million btw. He even had to postpone the library burning in order to achieve that. But according to his own records he killed 1-200K Germans on the side (most of them in a single day).
He was the leading figure of the Populares movement, i.e. the populist liberals of their day. It ran in the family. Only some conservative patriots stopped him from establishing socialism by Brute force.
“In the twentieth century, fiat money killed the most people.”
I blame Audi money myself, but I understand that the matter is controversial.
“In the twentieth century, fiat money killed the most people.”
I blame Audi money myself, but I understand that the matter is controversial.
“In the twentieth century, fiat money killed the most people.”
I blame Audi money myself, but I understand that the matter is controversial.
“Look on the bright side folks: Brett implicitly acknowledged up front that Nazis are to the right wing what (he thinks) “Marxists” are to the left wing.”
Don’t recall acknowledging anything of the sort. My view of the matter is that, at the bottom, all totalitarian ideologies are the same. The role they have taken on themselves, telling everybody else what to do about everything, forces them to be the same.
Marxist, Nazi, there are cosmetic differences. One asserts that it owns the means of production, (And the appointed managers are to be shot if they don’t meet quotas.) one asserts they are privately owned, (And the ‘owners’ are to be shot if they don’t meet quotas.) They’ve got different uniforms, different funny walks, different chants, but they both need secret police and death camps.
The ideological ‘spectrum’ is more like a globe. Walk due North to increasing government, eventually you arrive at the North pole of totalitarianism, and the route you took didn’t matter. Walk due South to to less and less government, eventually you arrive at anarchy, and again, all genuine anarchys are the same, ’cause everything multiplied by zero is zero. (That some totalitarians like to call themselves “anarchists” adds some amusing confusion to this.)
Hitler isn’t my guy, I despise both that guy with the funny mustache AND kindly ‘Uncle Joe”. And I assure you that, in contrast to the way the left treat Marxists, the right do not regard neo-Nazis as amusing eccentrics.
“Look on the bright side folks: Brett implicitly acknowledged up front that Nazis are to the right wing what (he thinks) “Marxists” are to the left wing.”
Don’t recall acknowledging anything of the sort. My view of the matter is that, at the bottom, all totalitarian ideologies are the same. The role they have taken on themselves, telling everybody else what to do about everything, forces them to be the same.
Marxist, Nazi, there are cosmetic differences. One asserts that it owns the means of production, (And the appointed managers are to be shot if they don’t meet quotas.) one asserts they are privately owned, (And the ‘owners’ are to be shot if they don’t meet quotas.) They’ve got different uniforms, different funny walks, different chants, but they both need secret police and death camps.
The ideological ‘spectrum’ is more like a globe. Walk due North to increasing government, eventually you arrive at the North pole of totalitarianism, and the route you took didn’t matter. Walk due South to to less and less government, eventually you arrive at anarchy, and again, all genuine anarchys are the same, ’cause everything multiplied by zero is zero. (That some totalitarians like to call themselves “anarchists” adds some amusing confusion to this.)
Hitler isn’t my guy, I despise both that guy with the funny mustache AND kindly ‘Uncle Joe”. And I assure you that, in contrast to the way the left treat Marxists, the right do not regard neo-Nazis as amusing eccentrics.
“Look on the bright side folks: Brett implicitly acknowledged up front that Nazis are to the right wing what (he thinks) “Marxists” are to the left wing.”
Don’t recall acknowledging anything of the sort. My view of the matter is that, at the bottom, all totalitarian ideologies are the same. The role they have taken on themselves, telling everybody else what to do about everything, forces them to be the same.
Marxist, Nazi, there are cosmetic differences. One asserts that it owns the means of production, (And the appointed managers are to be shot if they don’t meet quotas.) one asserts they are privately owned, (And the ‘owners’ are to be shot if they don’t meet quotas.) They’ve got different uniforms, different funny walks, different chants, but they both need secret police and death camps.
The ideological ‘spectrum’ is more like a globe. Walk due North to increasing government, eventually you arrive at the North pole of totalitarianism, and the route you took didn’t matter. Walk due South to to less and less government, eventually you arrive at anarchy, and again, all genuine anarchys are the same, ’cause everything multiplied by zero is zero. (That some totalitarians like to call themselves “anarchists” adds some amusing confusion to this.)
Hitler isn’t my guy, I despise both that guy with the funny mustache AND kindly ‘Uncle Joe”. And I assure you that, in contrast to the way the left treat Marxists, the right do not regard neo-Nazis as amusing eccentrics.
All anarchy is the same? Never change, Brett.
All anarchy is the same? Never change, Brett.
All anarchy is the same? Never change, Brett.
(Ofc, I’m equally amused by how you’re managing to cram collectiveist anarchy into the pigeonhole of “totalitarian” because of your dislike of their economics. Who knew that totalitarianism was so simply identified)
(Ofc, I’m equally amused by how you’re managing to cram collectiveist anarchy into the pigeonhole of “totalitarian” because of your dislike of their economics. Who knew that totalitarianism was so simply identified)
(Ofc, I’m equally amused by how you’re managing to cram collectiveist anarchy into the pigeonhole of “totalitarian” because of your dislike of their economics. Who knew that totalitarianism was so simply identified)
And I assure you that, in contrast to the way the left treat Marxists, the right do not regard neo-Nazis as amusing eccentrics.
I’m not sure you can speak for “the right”. You can certainly speak for yourself, beyond that it seems to me that “the right” includes a pretty broad range of opinion, including about neo-Nazis.
The salient difference between real, honest-to-God Marxists and neo-Nazis, in this country, today, is that Marxists inflict pain by means of tedious harangues in the student union, while neo-Nazis do so by curb stomping.
As a practical matter, it’s a significant difference.
At any rate, the relevance of commies vs Nazis to any of the topics at hand sort of escapes me.
And I assure you that, in contrast to the way the left treat Marxists, the right do not regard neo-Nazis as amusing eccentrics.
I’m not sure you can speak for “the right”. You can certainly speak for yourself, beyond that it seems to me that “the right” includes a pretty broad range of opinion, including about neo-Nazis.
The salient difference between real, honest-to-God Marxists and neo-Nazis, in this country, today, is that Marxists inflict pain by means of tedious harangues in the student union, while neo-Nazis do so by curb stomping.
As a practical matter, it’s a significant difference.
At any rate, the relevance of commies vs Nazis to any of the topics at hand sort of escapes me.
And I assure you that, in contrast to the way the left treat Marxists, the right do not regard neo-Nazis as amusing eccentrics.
I’m not sure you can speak for “the right”. You can certainly speak for yourself, beyond that it seems to me that “the right” includes a pretty broad range of opinion, including about neo-Nazis.
The salient difference between real, honest-to-God Marxists and neo-Nazis, in this country, today, is that Marxists inflict pain by means of tedious harangues in the student union, while neo-Nazis do so by curb stomping.
As a practical matter, it’s a significant difference.
At any rate, the relevance of commies vs Nazis to any of the topics at hand sort of escapes me.
Yes, all anarchy is the same, because no government is… no government. And, if you’re not going to have government, who enforces the other differences?
But, as I said, there’s an approach to totalitarianism that likes to call itself “anarchism”. Mainly because no form of totalitarianism admits what it is until it can shoot you if you don’t like it.
If you’re confused, here’s a guide: If your ‘anarchists’ are demanding a law be passed, they’re not anarchists. Most of the ‘anarchists’ you see in the news, protesting free trade, are nothing of the sort. They’re just left style totalitarians who’ve noticed that ‘communism’ polls badly.
Yes, all anarchy is the same, because no government is… no government. And, if you’re not going to have government, who enforces the other differences?
But, as I said, there’s an approach to totalitarianism that likes to call itself “anarchism”. Mainly because no form of totalitarianism admits what it is until it can shoot you if you don’t like it.
If you’re confused, here’s a guide: If your ‘anarchists’ are demanding a law be passed, they’re not anarchists. Most of the ‘anarchists’ you see in the news, protesting free trade, are nothing of the sort. They’re just left style totalitarians who’ve noticed that ‘communism’ polls badly.
Yes, all anarchy is the same, because no government is… no government. And, if you’re not going to have government, who enforces the other differences?
But, as I said, there’s an approach to totalitarianism that likes to call itself “anarchism”. Mainly because no form of totalitarianism admits what it is until it can shoot you if you don’t like it.
If you’re confused, here’s a guide: If your ‘anarchists’ are demanding a law be passed, they’re not anarchists. Most of the ‘anarchists’ you see in the news, protesting free trade, are nothing of the sort. They’re just left style totalitarians who’ve noticed that ‘communism’ polls badly.
“I’m equally amused by how you’re managing to cram collectiveist anarchy into the pigeonhole of “totalitarian” because of your dislike of their economics.”
I class collectivist ‘anarchists’ as totalitarians, for the simple reason that collectivism does not exist unless enforced. And the collectivists are well aware of this.
“I’m equally amused by how you’re managing to cram collectiveist anarchy into the pigeonhole of “totalitarian” because of your dislike of their economics.”
I class collectivist ‘anarchists’ as totalitarians, for the simple reason that collectivism does not exist unless enforced. And the collectivists are well aware of this.
“I’m equally amused by how you’re managing to cram collectiveist anarchy into the pigeonhole of “totalitarian” because of your dislike of their economics.”
I class collectivist ‘anarchists’ as totalitarians, for the simple reason that collectivism does not exist unless enforced. And the collectivists are well aware of this.
Brett, you’re a self-proclaimed lib, not an anarchist, so your ignorance of anarchism is forgivable. Appalling, but forgivable. Political and economic anarchism is much, much more complicated than “there is no state”. And that has nothing to do with free-trade protesters engaging in compatiblist activism. Political anarchism is historically a leftist philosophy, and with cause; right-wing anarchy tends to be either so deluded about its own viability* or so maladroit in concealing its lurking statist agenda that it’s not surprising that the liberal capitalist establishment has reduced the popular meaning of anarchism to them, but that does not change the movement’s history, or the hard-left slant of most serious (and yes, genuine) anarchists. Of course, a lib of your ilk would recoil in horror at the notion that people can be anti-statist without supporting neo-feudal libertarian fantasies.
*As a hypocritical cynical non-practicing/compatiblist left-anarchist, I’m keenly aware of the degree to which this particular critique applies to many collectivist anarchisms. That’s not the point here, however, as mainstream American discourse tends to ignore them or homogenize them into “anarchi-capitalism practiced by DFHs”.
Brett, you’re a self-proclaimed lib, not an anarchist, so your ignorance of anarchism is forgivable. Appalling, but forgivable. Political and economic anarchism is much, much more complicated than “there is no state”. And that has nothing to do with free-trade protesters engaging in compatiblist activism. Political anarchism is historically a leftist philosophy, and with cause; right-wing anarchy tends to be either so deluded about its own viability* or so maladroit in concealing its lurking statist agenda that it’s not surprising that the liberal capitalist establishment has reduced the popular meaning of anarchism to them, but that does not change the movement’s history, or the hard-left slant of most serious (and yes, genuine) anarchists. Of course, a lib of your ilk would recoil in horror at the notion that people can be anti-statist without supporting neo-feudal libertarian fantasies.
*As a hypocritical cynical non-practicing/compatiblist left-anarchist, I’m keenly aware of the degree to which this particular critique applies to many collectivist anarchisms. That’s not the point here, however, as mainstream American discourse tends to ignore them or homogenize them into “anarchi-capitalism practiced by DFHs”.
Brett, you’re a self-proclaimed lib, not an anarchist, so your ignorance of anarchism is forgivable. Appalling, but forgivable. Political and economic anarchism is much, much more complicated than “there is no state”. And that has nothing to do with free-trade protesters engaging in compatiblist activism. Political anarchism is historically a leftist philosophy, and with cause; right-wing anarchy tends to be either so deluded about its own viability* or so maladroit in concealing its lurking statist agenda that it’s not surprising that the liberal capitalist establishment has reduced the popular meaning of anarchism to them, but that does not change the movement’s history, or the hard-left slant of most serious (and yes, genuine) anarchists. Of course, a lib of your ilk would recoil in horror at the notion that people can be anti-statist without supporting neo-feudal libertarian fantasies.
*As a hypocritical cynical non-practicing/compatiblist left-anarchist, I’m keenly aware of the degree to which this particular critique applies to many collectivist anarchisms. That’s not the point here, however, as mainstream American discourse tends to ignore them or homogenize them into “anarchi-capitalism practiced by DFHs”.
*anarcho-
Stupid phone…
*anarcho-
Stupid phone…
*anarcho-
Stupid phone…
kindly note the “total” in “totalitarianism”.
kindly note the “total” in “totalitarianism”.
kindly note the “total” in “totalitarianism”.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Since the north pole is totalitarian (communist, fascist, etc.), clearly the south pole is the opposite. Doesn’t matter if you get there from left wing anarchism or right wing libertarianism, you end up the same place.
Now, are we to deduce that this is the ideal state for mankind, simply because it is the polar opposite of totalitarianism? Or is there some point at which too extreme is not good, even in this direction? Brett? Anyone?
(Personally, my observation is that human beings generally aren’t happy without some kind of structure. But some are willfully blind to the facts as to what completely getting rid of government is going to do to them.)
Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Since the north pole is totalitarian (communist, fascist, etc.), clearly the south pole is the opposite. Doesn’t matter if you get there from left wing anarchism or right wing libertarianism, you end up the same place.
Now, are we to deduce that this is the ideal state for mankind, simply because it is the polar opposite of totalitarianism? Or is there some point at which too extreme is not good, even in this direction? Brett? Anyone?
(Personally, my observation is that human beings generally aren’t happy without some kind of structure. But some are willfully blind to the facts as to what completely getting rid of government is going to do to them.)
Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Since the north pole is totalitarian (communist, fascist, etc.), clearly the south pole is the opposite. Doesn’t matter if you get there from left wing anarchism or right wing libertarianism, you end up the same place.
Now, are we to deduce that this is the ideal state for mankind, simply because it is the polar opposite of totalitarianism? Or is there some point at which too extreme is not good, even in this direction? Brett? Anyone?
(Personally, my observation is that human beings generally aren’t happy without some kind of structure. But some are willfully blind to the facts as to what completely getting rid of government is going to do to them.)
if a human society with no government was both desirable and feasible, one would think it would have occurred, someplace, at some time, in the 10,000 years of settled human civilization.
surely, somebody somewhere would have made it happen.
right?
the poor dead horse begs, once again, for mercy.
if a human society with no government was both desirable and feasible, one would think it would have occurred, someplace, at some time, in the 10,000 years of settled human civilization.
surely, somebody somewhere would have made it happen.
right?
the poor dead horse begs, once again, for mercy.
if a human society with no government was both desirable and feasible, one would think it would have occurred, someplace, at some time, in the 10,000 years of settled human civilization.
surely, somebody somewhere would have made it happen.
right?
the poor dead horse begs, once again, for mercy.
and, like, atheism is just another form of religion, man.
and, like, atheism is just another form of religion, man.
and, like, atheism is just another form of religion, man.
Left to their own devices, without a state to dictate their actions, humans form governments and create states. Brett should be happy that no one prevented people from doing what they wanted.
On the other hand, maybe he’d be happier being subject to the whims of a warlord in one of those relatively few places populated by humans but not under the control of any recognized government.
Left to their own devices, without a state to dictate their actions, humans form governments and create states. Brett should be happy that no one prevented people from doing what they wanted.
On the other hand, maybe he’d be happier being subject to the whims of a warlord in one of those relatively few places populated by humans but not under the control of any recognized government.
Left to their own devices, without a state to dictate their actions, humans form governments and create states. Brett should be happy that no one prevented people from doing what they wanted.
On the other hand, maybe he’d be happier being subject to the whims of a warlord in one of those relatively few places populated by humans but not under the control of any recognized government.
“Now, are we to deduce that this is the ideal state for mankind, simply because it is the polar opposite of totalitarianism? Or is there some point at which too extreme is not good, even in this direction? Brett? Anyone?”
I would say that is a question to be answered empirically, rather than theoretically. Government, or to put it differently, coercion, is both undesirable, AND unavoidable, we need to find an optimum, not a minimum.
Still, when somebody calls themselves an “anarchist” and demands laws imposing trade barriers, expect a horse laugh from me.
“Now, are we to deduce that this is the ideal state for mankind, simply because it is the polar opposite of totalitarianism? Or is there some point at which too extreme is not good, even in this direction? Brett? Anyone?”
I would say that is a question to be answered empirically, rather than theoretically. Government, or to put it differently, coercion, is both undesirable, AND unavoidable, we need to find an optimum, not a minimum.
Still, when somebody calls themselves an “anarchist” and demands laws imposing trade barriers, expect a horse laugh from me.
“Now, are we to deduce that this is the ideal state for mankind, simply because it is the polar opposite of totalitarianism? Or is there some point at which too extreme is not good, even in this direction? Brett? Anyone?”
I would say that is a question to be answered empirically, rather than theoretically. Government, or to put it differently, coercion, is both undesirable, AND unavoidable, we need to find an optimum, not a minimum.
Still, when somebody calls themselves an “anarchist” and demands laws imposing trade barriers, expect a horse laugh from me.
Government, or to put it differently, coercion, is both undesirable
Where, for “undesirable”, please add “when it bugs me”.
From your comments here and elsewhere I assume you’re fine with government coercion being applied to, for example, looters.
Is government coercion in that case still “undesirable”? Should we replace it with everyone guarding their own property with whatever arms they can bring to bear?
What if the looters bring better arms, or are simply more effective fighters?
Government, or to put it differently, coercion, is both undesirable
Where, for “undesirable”, please add “when it bugs me”.
From your comments here and elsewhere I assume you’re fine with government coercion being applied to, for example, looters.
Is government coercion in that case still “undesirable”? Should we replace it with everyone guarding their own property with whatever arms they can bring to bear?
What if the looters bring better arms, or are simply more effective fighters?
Government, or to put it differently, coercion, is both undesirable
Where, for “undesirable”, please add “when it bugs me”.
From your comments here and elsewhere I assume you’re fine with government coercion being applied to, for example, looters.
Is government coercion in that case still “undesirable”? Should we replace it with everyone guarding their own property with whatever arms they can bring to bear?
What if the looters bring better arms, or are simply more effective fighters?
Mr. Ed used to give out a prolonged whinny when Wilbur demanded laws imposing people barriers, like the imaginary border between ourselves and Mexico.
My perfect exercise of liberty, in a perfect world, would allow 50 million Mexican immigrants, or any other nationality, to waltz (maybe they would do a modified salsa) across the border to deliver directly, at cheaper costs and probably higher quality, to me whatever the commodities are that Brett produces in his job, thus cutting out the high-wage, high overhead American middleman.
So, reality follows my satirical musings, by just a few days, on Ferguson to the “T”:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-order-oath-keepers-stand-down-ferguson
One wonders how Cliven Bundy can spare the hired help, but a further question for the roof-top itchy-fingered ones is who do they decide to shoot first, looters, or the gummint riot police with their totalitarian body armor and weapons who come by to collect grazing fees from the local steak house proprietor who bought Bundy’s deadbeat beef?
Mr. Ed used to give out a prolonged whinny when Wilbur demanded laws imposing people barriers, like the imaginary border between ourselves and Mexico.
My perfect exercise of liberty, in a perfect world, would allow 50 million Mexican immigrants, or any other nationality, to waltz (maybe they would do a modified salsa) across the border to deliver directly, at cheaper costs and probably higher quality, to me whatever the commodities are that Brett produces in his job, thus cutting out the high-wage, high overhead American middleman.
So, reality follows my satirical musings, by just a few days, on Ferguson to the “T”:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-order-oath-keepers-stand-down-ferguson
One wonders how Cliven Bundy can spare the hired help, but a further question for the roof-top itchy-fingered ones is who do they decide to shoot first, looters, or the gummint riot police with their totalitarian body armor and weapons who come by to collect grazing fees from the local steak house proprietor who bought Bundy’s deadbeat beef?
Mr. Ed used to give out a prolonged whinny when Wilbur demanded laws imposing people barriers, like the imaginary border between ourselves and Mexico.
My perfect exercise of liberty, in a perfect world, would allow 50 million Mexican immigrants, or any other nationality, to waltz (maybe they would do a modified salsa) across the border to deliver directly, at cheaper costs and probably higher quality, to me whatever the commodities are that Brett produces in his job, thus cutting out the high-wage, high overhead American middleman.
So, reality follows my satirical musings, by just a few days, on Ferguson to the “T”:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-order-oath-keepers-stand-down-ferguson
One wonders how Cliven Bundy can spare the hired help, but a further question for the roof-top itchy-fingered ones is who do they decide to shoot first, looters, or the gummint riot police with their totalitarian body armor and weapons who come by to collect grazing fees from the local steak house proprietor who bought Bundy’s deadbeat beef?
if a human society with no government was both desirable and feasible, one would think it would have occurred, someplace, at some time, in the 10,000 years of settled human civilization.
surely, somebody somewhere would have made it happen.
Actually it has happened, a lot, and relatively frequently. The problem is (if you like the model) is that AFAIK it has never happened at a level above that of a tiny group – not even a tribe – and such groups, mostly hunter-gatherers, are not just materially poor, but incredibly vulnerable to other, larger groups that are organized by something we could call “government.” So they wind up exterminated, enslaved, or subsumed into (usually at the bottom of) governed societies.
Whether they are better off and happier as a result is a question to which we cannot supply a definitive answer. But if you want to live wholly without government, the model is there, and a very very few examples are still out there in the bush. I’m not sure Brett (or any of us) would be accepted into these groups, or have the survival skills necessary for these hostile environments – all the friendly environments having been taken over by more organized societies – however.
if a human society with no government was both desirable and feasible, one would think it would have occurred, someplace, at some time, in the 10,000 years of settled human civilization.
surely, somebody somewhere would have made it happen.
Actually it has happened, a lot, and relatively frequently. The problem is (if you like the model) is that AFAIK it has never happened at a level above that of a tiny group – not even a tribe – and such groups, mostly hunter-gatherers, are not just materially poor, but incredibly vulnerable to other, larger groups that are organized by something we could call “government.” So they wind up exterminated, enslaved, or subsumed into (usually at the bottom of) governed societies.
Whether they are better off and happier as a result is a question to which we cannot supply a definitive answer. But if you want to live wholly without government, the model is there, and a very very few examples are still out there in the bush. I’m not sure Brett (or any of us) would be accepted into these groups, or have the survival skills necessary for these hostile environments – all the friendly environments having been taken over by more organized societies – however.
if a human society with no government was both desirable and feasible, one would think it would have occurred, someplace, at some time, in the 10,000 years of settled human civilization.
surely, somebody somewhere would have made it happen.
Actually it has happened, a lot, and relatively frequently. The problem is (if you like the model) is that AFAIK it has never happened at a level above that of a tiny group – not even a tribe – and such groups, mostly hunter-gatherers, are not just materially poor, but incredibly vulnerable to other, larger groups that are organized by something we could call “government.” So they wind up exterminated, enslaved, or subsumed into (usually at the bottom of) governed societies.
Whether they are better off and happier as a result is a question to which we cannot supply a definitive answer. But if you want to live wholly without government, the model is there, and a very very few examples are still out there in the bush. I’m not sure Brett (or any of us) would be accepted into these groups, or have the survival skills necessary for these hostile environments – all the friendly environments having been taken over by more organized societies – however.
Interesting contrast, Brett. So you seem to be acknowledging that political purity will rarely be realized in practice, and political philosophies are something to strive for and inform your decision-making… unless it’s someone else being politically pragmatic, in which case they’re laughable hypocrites?
I’ll say it again, Brett: never change.
Interesting contrast, Brett. So you seem to be acknowledging that political purity will rarely be realized in practice, and political philosophies are something to strive for and inform your decision-making… unless it’s someone else being politically pragmatic, in which case they’re laughable hypocrites?
I’ll say it again, Brett: never change.
Interesting contrast, Brett. So you seem to be acknowledging that political purity will rarely be realized in practice, and political philosophies are something to strive for and inform your decision-making… unless it’s someone else being politically pragmatic, in which case they’re laughable hypocrites?
I’ll say it again, Brett: never change.
Brett wrote:
“Hitler isn’t my guy, I despise both that guy with the funny mustache AND kindly ‘Uncle Joe.”
So, you are in the mushy middle with the rest of us, eh?
That’s what happens when an odd man out rubs shoulders for too long with the moderates at OBWI.
Somehow, this reminds me of Carlin’s question about the “undisputed heavyweight champion of the world”.
“Well, if it’s undisputed, what’s all the fighting about?”
Now, if we could get Libertarians who have actually amounted something in this country by coming very close to wielding power at the highest levels to be so reasonable:
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/11/anonymous-hacks-website-finds-ron-paul-connection/
Brett wrote:
“Hitler isn’t my guy, I despise both that guy with the funny mustache AND kindly ‘Uncle Joe.”
So, you are in the mushy middle with the rest of us, eh?
That’s what happens when an odd man out rubs shoulders for too long with the moderates at OBWI.
Somehow, this reminds me of Carlin’s question about the “undisputed heavyweight champion of the world”.
“Well, if it’s undisputed, what’s all the fighting about?”
Now, if we could get Libertarians who have actually amounted something in this country by coming very close to wielding power at the highest levels to be so reasonable:
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/11/anonymous-hacks-website-finds-ron-paul-connection/
Brett wrote:
“Hitler isn’t my guy, I despise both that guy with the funny mustache AND kindly ‘Uncle Joe.”
So, you are in the mushy middle with the rest of us, eh?
That’s what happens when an odd man out rubs shoulders for too long with the moderates at OBWI.
Somehow, this reminds me of Carlin’s question about the “undisputed heavyweight champion of the world”.
“Well, if it’s undisputed, what’s all the fighting about?”
Now, if we could get Libertarians who have actually amounted something in this country by coming very close to wielding power at the highest levels to be so reasonable:
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/11/anonymous-hacks-website-finds-ron-paul-connection/
“From your comments here and elsewhere I assume you’re fine with government coercion being applied to, for example, looters.”
In a hypothetical universe where looting didn’t hurt anybody, I’d be all in favor of not coercing people who engage in it.
“From your comments here and elsewhere I assume you’re fine with government coercion being applied to, for example, looters.”
In a hypothetical universe where looting didn’t hurt anybody, I’d be all in favor of not coercing people who engage in it.
“From your comments here and elsewhere I assume you’re fine with government coercion being applied to, for example, looters.”
In a hypothetical universe where looting didn’t hurt anybody, I’d be all in favor of not coercing people who engage in it.
Count your blessings, little lady Liberty.
http://www.heraldchronicle.com/?p=14363
Daily Kos’ monthly roundup of gunfails is entertaining reading for unarmed violence fantasists like myself.
The great thing about America, despite recent news like Ferguson, is we leave it pretty much to the citizenry to gun each other down.
The government and/or police can hardly get a shot in edgewise.
What’s odd is that citizens playing with real guns is pretty much slapstick of the Bloodiest Home Videos variety, whereas the government seems to step in with serious deadly force when the citizens are either actually playing with toy guns or are altogether unarmed.
Count your blessings, little lady Liberty.
http://www.heraldchronicle.com/?p=14363
Daily Kos’ monthly roundup of gunfails is entertaining reading for unarmed violence fantasists like myself.
The great thing about America, despite recent news like Ferguson, is we leave it pretty much to the citizenry to gun each other down.
The government and/or police can hardly get a shot in edgewise.
What’s odd is that citizens playing with real guns is pretty much slapstick of the Bloodiest Home Videos variety, whereas the government seems to step in with serious deadly force when the citizens are either actually playing with toy guns or are altogether unarmed.
Count your blessings, little lady Liberty.
http://www.heraldchronicle.com/?p=14363
Daily Kos’ monthly roundup of gunfails is entertaining reading for unarmed violence fantasists like myself.
The great thing about America, despite recent news like Ferguson, is we leave it pretty much to the citizenry to gun each other down.
The government and/or police can hardly get a shot in edgewise.
What’s odd is that citizens playing with real guns is pretty much slapstick of the Bloodiest Home Videos variety, whereas the government seems to step in with serious deadly force when the citizens are either actually playing with toy guns or are altogether unarmed.
In a hypothetical universe
Precisely.
In a hypothetical universe
Precisely.
In a hypothetical universe
Precisely.
In a hypothetical universe…
+Restored abundance of plants, berries, and animals-(60% of current human population)-(concept of “that’s mine”)-(fiat money…natch)=PARADISE!
JUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty simple when you think about it after the 4th drink.
In a hypothetical universe…
+Restored abundance of plants, berries, and animals-(60% of current human population)-(concept of “that’s mine”)-(fiat money…natch)=PARADISE!
JUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty simple when you think about it after the 4th drink.
In a hypothetical universe…
+Restored abundance of plants, berries, and animals-(60% of current human population)-(concept of “that’s mine”)-(fiat money…natch)=PARADISE!
JUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty simple when you think about it after the 4th drink.
“In a hypothetical universe where looting didn’t hurt anybody, I’d be all in favor of not coercing people who engage in it.”
So if Michael Brown had lifted the cigarillos with a polite thank you instead of shoving the woman in the convenience store, in fact, if he had offered her one and they had a friendly smoke together before he went on his merry way, we could have avoided this entire thread and Officer Wilson would still be stuck in his dead end police job instead of milking the media cow for a living?
I keep a little journal in which I write down sentences I come across that I’ll come back to one day to see if I can find a wormhole into their mysterious parallel universe meanings and that one is going in there.
There’s some Kierkegaard in there already (I mix the profound with the whackjob; really I should keep two separate journals), a sampling of Sarah Palin offerings, and even some of my own written in comments here that neither Slart nor I can make heads or tails of.
Some Finnegan’s Wake, some biblical verse, and I once started copying out some David Foster Wallace, but why would I want to transfer all 1000 pages and footnotes of “Infinite Jest” by hand, when I can just keep the book for further inspection.
Also, samplings of Gnostic and Eastern religious texts, Chinese hotel instructions/rules translated into English, a couple of lines from “I am The Walrus”, .. you get the idea.
“In a hypothetical universe where looting didn’t hurt anybody, I’d be all in favor of not coercing people who engage in it.”
So if Michael Brown had lifted the cigarillos with a polite thank you instead of shoving the woman in the convenience store, in fact, if he had offered her one and they had a friendly smoke together before he went on his merry way, we could have avoided this entire thread and Officer Wilson would still be stuck in his dead end police job instead of milking the media cow for a living?
I keep a little journal in which I write down sentences I come across that I’ll come back to one day to see if I can find a wormhole into their mysterious parallel universe meanings and that one is going in there.
There’s some Kierkegaard in there already (I mix the profound with the whackjob; really I should keep two separate journals), a sampling of Sarah Palin offerings, and even some of my own written in comments here that neither Slart nor I can make heads or tails of.
Some Finnegan’s Wake, some biblical verse, and I once started copying out some David Foster Wallace, but why would I want to transfer all 1000 pages and footnotes of “Infinite Jest” by hand, when I can just keep the book for further inspection.
Also, samplings of Gnostic and Eastern religious texts, Chinese hotel instructions/rules translated into English, a couple of lines from “I am The Walrus”, .. you get the idea.
“In a hypothetical universe where looting didn’t hurt anybody, I’d be all in favor of not coercing people who engage in it.”
So if Michael Brown had lifted the cigarillos with a polite thank you instead of shoving the woman in the convenience store, in fact, if he had offered her one and they had a friendly smoke together before he went on his merry way, we could have avoided this entire thread and Officer Wilson would still be stuck in his dead end police job instead of milking the media cow for a living?
I keep a little journal in which I write down sentences I come across that I’ll come back to one day to see if I can find a wormhole into their mysterious parallel universe meanings and that one is going in there.
There’s some Kierkegaard in there already (I mix the profound with the whackjob; really I should keep two separate journals), a sampling of Sarah Palin offerings, and even some of my own written in comments here that neither Slart nor I can make heads or tails of.
Some Finnegan’s Wake, some biblical verse, and I once started copying out some David Foster Wallace, but why would I want to transfer all 1000 pages and footnotes of “Infinite Jest” by hand, when I can just keep the book for further inspection.
Also, samplings of Gnostic and Eastern religious texts, Chinese hotel instructions/rules translated into English, a couple of lines from “I am The Walrus”, .. you get the idea.
Morzer:
“I blame Audi money myself, but I understand that the matter is controversial.”
Your fiat money tends to leak oil at unacceptable rates and the body and frame rust out during the first hard winter, so you’ll want to avoid that, not to mention the attendant genocide.
Unfortunately, the alternative audi money is harder to come by, being highly expensive. If you don’t have the gold, no audis for you.
Morzer:
“I blame Audi money myself, but I understand that the matter is controversial.”
Your fiat money tends to leak oil at unacceptable rates and the body and frame rust out during the first hard winter, so you’ll want to avoid that, not to mention the attendant genocide.
Unfortunately, the alternative audi money is harder to come by, being highly expensive. If you don’t have the gold, no audis for you.
Morzer:
“I blame Audi money myself, but I understand that the matter is controversial.”
Your fiat money tends to leak oil at unacceptable rates and the body and frame rust out during the first hard winter, so you’ll want to avoid that, not to mention the attendant genocide.
Unfortunately, the alternative audi money is harder to come by, being highly expensive. If you don’t have the gold, no audis for you.
“So if Michael Brown had lifted the cigarillos with a polite thank you”
Supposing that the store had no need to sell it’s products, rather than giving them away, there’d be no particular harm from politely walking off with them.
In the case in question, of course, the confrontation between Wilson and Brown was precipitated by Brown’s walking in the middle of the street, instead of using the sidewalk. Absent that, he *might* still be living, depending on the longer term consequences of the conveience store robbery, and any future robberies he might have committed.
As I’ve said, the guy was living a life of juggling handgrenades, why blame his death on which of them went off?
“So if Michael Brown had lifted the cigarillos with a polite thank you”
Supposing that the store had no need to sell it’s products, rather than giving them away, there’d be no particular harm from politely walking off with them.
In the case in question, of course, the confrontation between Wilson and Brown was precipitated by Brown’s walking in the middle of the street, instead of using the sidewalk. Absent that, he *might* still be living, depending on the longer term consequences of the conveience store robbery, and any future robberies he might have committed.
As I’ve said, the guy was living a life of juggling handgrenades, why blame his death on which of them went off?
“So if Michael Brown had lifted the cigarillos with a polite thank you”
Supposing that the store had no need to sell it’s products, rather than giving them away, there’d be no particular harm from politely walking off with them.
In the case in question, of course, the confrontation between Wilson and Brown was precipitated by Brown’s walking in the middle of the street, instead of using the sidewalk. Absent that, he *might* still be living, depending on the longer term consequences of the conveience store robbery, and any future robberies he might have committed.
As I’ve said, the guy was living a life of juggling handgrenades, why blame his death on which of them went off?
I’m not sure you can speak for “the right”.
While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
I’m not sure you can speak for “the right”.
While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
I’m not sure you can speak for “the right”.
While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
Walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk is one of those provocations to totalitarian rules government tries to arbitrarily apply, sometimes because of the play of the light on the skin of the jaywalking provocateur.
This universe you speak of, Spock, it wouldn’t be your Terra/Vulcan hometown would it, where every utterance is met by hilarious deadpan meta-logic?
Walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk is one of those provocations to totalitarian rules government tries to arbitrarily apply, sometimes because of the play of the light on the skin of the jaywalking provocateur.
This universe you speak of, Spock, it wouldn’t be your Terra/Vulcan hometown would it, where every utterance is met by hilarious deadpan meta-logic?
Walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk is one of those provocations to totalitarian rules government tries to arbitrarily apply, sometimes because of the play of the light on the skin of the jaywalking provocateur.
This universe you speak of, Spock, it wouldn’t be your Terra/Vulcan hometown would it, where every utterance is met by hilarious deadpan meta-logic?
These grenades, how forgetful of Brown to walk the streets without them for protection.
The police report didn’t mention grenades, did it?
Not even toy grenades.
These grenades, how forgetful of Brown to walk the streets without them for protection.
The police report didn’t mention grenades, did it?
Not even toy grenades.
These grenades, how forgetful of Brown to walk the streets without them for protection.
The police report didn’t mention grenades, did it?
Not even toy grenades.
in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
I’m not denying him anything. I’m observing that not everybody “on the right” holds the same opinion about neo-Nazis.
Not everybody “on the right” holds the same opinion about everything. Likewise, on the left, in the middle, or anywhere else you care to name.
In the case in question, of course, the confrontation between Wilson and Brown was precipitated by Brown’s walking in the middle of the street, instead of using the sidewalk. Absent that, he *might* still be living
Someone who was suspicious of government overreach *might* find the progression from “walking in the middle of the street” to “dead” to be problematic.
in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
I’m not denying him anything. I’m observing that not everybody “on the right” holds the same opinion about neo-Nazis.
Not everybody “on the right” holds the same opinion about everything. Likewise, on the left, in the middle, or anywhere else you care to name.
In the case in question, of course, the confrontation between Wilson and Brown was precipitated by Brown’s walking in the middle of the street, instead of using the sidewalk. Absent that, he *might* still be living
Someone who was suspicious of government overreach *might* find the progression from “walking in the middle of the street” to “dead” to be problematic.
in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
I’m not denying him anything. I’m observing that not everybody “on the right” holds the same opinion about neo-Nazis.
Not everybody “on the right” holds the same opinion about everything. Likewise, on the left, in the middle, or anywhere else you care to name.
In the case in question, of course, the confrontation between Wilson and Brown was precipitated by Brown’s walking in the middle of the street, instead of using the sidewalk. Absent that, he *might* still be living
Someone who was suspicious of government overreach *might* find the progression from “walking in the middle of the street” to “dead” to be problematic.
While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
Can’t Brett be, generally, to “the right” politically without being able to speak for the entire “right” on a particular issue where opinions vary wildly, even just on “the right”?
And can you foist something on someone who already embraces it? (I’m pretty sure Brett, among many others here and elsewhere, doesn’t believe the right-left political dichotomy captures much of the full picture, but, to the extent that he uses it for simplicity’s sake, I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t consider himself to be on “the left,” which leaves him … um … somwhere else.)
While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
Can’t Brett be, generally, to “the right” politically without being able to speak for the entire “right” on a particular issue where opinions vary wildly, even just on “the right”?
And can you foist something on someone who already embraces it? (I’m pretty sure Brett, among many others here and elsewhere, doesn’t believe the right-left political dichotomy captures much of the full picture, but, to the extent that he uses it for simplicity’s sake, I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t consider himself to be on “the left,” which leaves him … um … somwhere else.)
While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.
Can’t Brett be, generally, to “the right” politically without being able to speak for the entire “right” on a particular issue where opinions vary wildly, even just on “the right”?
And can you foist something on someone who already embraces it? (I’m pretty sure Brett, among many others here and elsewhere, doesn’t believe the right-left political dichotomy captures much of the full picture, but, to the extent that he uses it for simplicity’s sake, I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t consider himself to be on “the left,” which leaves him … um … somwhere else.)
“While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.”
Well, we must admit that Brett is a little cagey, sometimes reciting RNC/FOX news rhetoric verbatim, while then retreating to a position somehow above it all in meta-no-gummint land except for these Jokers lording it over all of us:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/09/1305609/-Las-Vegas-shooter-confirmed-to-be-participant-in-Bundy-Ranch-standoff
This guy, too:
https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+gunman+at+bundy+ranch+lying+prone+and+aiming+rifle&client=firefox-a&hs=cMY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%253BXy_rAe22_o6mFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.businessinsider.com%25252Fbundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4&source=iu&pf=m&fir=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%252CXy_rAe22_o6mFM%252C_&usg=__NX8nBKL_Qbd3YwOZGdKv3o1A-M4%3D&biw=1429&bih=994&dpr=0.9&ved=0CDgQyjc&ei=Ar98VKyINsP6igL-4IDwDw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%3BXy_rAe22_o6mFM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%252Fimage%252F534db531eab8eacf1caab272%252Fwhy-one-man-traveled-almost-3000-miles-to-take-on-the-federal-government-at-a-ranch-in-nevada.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.businessinsider.com%252Fbundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4%3B3221%3B2415
The good thing about Brett is that when those guys really start the trouble, he’s leaving on a jet plane oh babe doesn’t know when he’ll be back again to the Barbados, so I view his peculiarly American armed fantasias as harmless.
He can still send us recipes. Don’t they have the internet down there?
“While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.”
Well, we must admit that Brett is a little cagey, sometimes reciting RNC/FOX news rhetoric verbatim, while then retreating to a position somehow above it all in meta-no-gummint land except for these Jokers lording it over all of us:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/09/1305609/-Las-Vegas-shooter-confirmed-to-be-participant-in-Bundy-Ranch-standoff
This guy, too:
https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+gunman+at+bundy+ranch+lying+prone+and+aiming+rifle&client=firefox-a&hs=cMY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%253BXy_rAe22_o6mFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.businessinsider.com%25252Fbundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4&source=iu&pf=m&fir=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%252CXy_rAe22_o6mFM%252C_&usg=__NX8nBKL_Qbd3YwOZGdKv3o1A-M4%3D&biw=1429&bih=994&dpr=0.9&ved=0CDgQyjc&ei=Ar98VKyINsP6igL-4IDwDw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%3BXy_rAe22_o6mFM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%252Fimage%252F534db531eab8eacf1caab272%252Fwhy-one-man-traveled-almost-3000-miles-to-take-on-the-federal-government-at-a-ranch-in-nevada.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.businessinsider.com%252Fbundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4%3B3221%3B2415
The good thing about Brett is that when those guys really start the trouble, he’s leaving on a jet plane oh babe doesn’t know when he’ll be back again to the Barbados, so I view his peculiarly American armed fantasias as harmless.
He can still send us recipes. Don’t they have the internet down there?
“While I often wonder if Brett thinks he can speak for the “right”, I find it interesting that, in this case only, you try to deny him the label you so easily foist on him the rest of the time.”
Well, we must admit that Brett is a little cagey, sometimes reciting RNC/FOX news rhetoric verbatim, while then retreating to a position somehow above it all in meta-no-gummint land except for these Jokers lording it over all of us:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/09/1305609/-Las-Vegas-shooter-confirmed-to-be-participant-in-Bundy-Ranch-standoff
This guy, too:
https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+gunman+at+bundy+ranch+lying+prone+and+aiming+rifle&client=firefox-a&hs=cMY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%253BXy_rAe22_o6mFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.businessinsider.com%25252Fbundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4&source=iu&pf=m&fir=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%252CXy_rAe22_o6mFM%252C_&usg=__NX8nBKL_Qbd3YwOZGdKv3o1A-M4%3D&biw=1429&bih=994&dpr=0.9&ved=0CDgQyjc&ei=Ar98VKyINsP6igL-4IDwDw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=HUvXNFw1-ONvqM%253A%3BXy_rAe22_o6mFM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%252Fimage%252F534db531eab8eacf1caab272%252Fwhy-one-man-traveled-almost-3000-miles-to-take-on-the-federal-government-at-a-ranch-in-nevada.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.businessinsider.com%252Fbundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4%3B3221%3B2415
The good thing about Brett is that when those guys really start the trouble, he’s leaving on a jet plane oh babe doesn’t know when he’ll be back again to the Barbados, so I view his peculiarly American armed fantasias as harmless.
He can still send us recipes. Don’t they have the internet down there?
“This universe you speak of, Spock, it wouldn’t be your Terra/Vulcan hometown would it, where every utterance is met by hilarious deadpan meta-logic?
And the universe you aspire to is, what? One where Michael Brown could have embarked on a life of robbing convenience stores and assaulting people, and just gone on that way, somehow never coming to a bad end?
The guy was, metaphorically, playing Russian Roulette with his life, and you’re blaming the chamber for not coming up empty, instead of him for playing the game. Officer Wilson was not the reason Michael Brown died. At worst, he was the reason Michael died on that particular occasion, and not a later one.
“This universe you speak of, Spock, it wouldn’t be your Terra/Vulcan hometown would it, where every utterance is met by hilarious deadpan meta-logic?
And the universe you aspire to is, what? One where Michael Brown could have embarked on a life of robbing convenience stores and assaulting people, and just gone on that way, somehow never coming to a bad end?
The guy was, metaphorically, playing Russian Roulette with his life, and you’re blaming the chamber for not coming up empty, instead of him for playing the game. Officer Wilson was not the reason Michael Brown died. At worst, he was the reason Michael died on that particular occasion, and not a later one.
“This universe you speak of, Spock, it wouldn’t be your Terra/Vulcan hometown would it, where every utterance is met by hilarious deadpan meta-logic?
And the universe you aspire to is, what? One where Michael Brown could have embarked on a life of robbing convenience stores and assaulting people, and just gone on that way, somehow never coming to a bad end?
The guy was, metaphorically, playing Russian Roulette with his life, and you’re blaming the chamber for not coming up empty, instead of him for playing the game. Officer Wilson was not the reason Michael Brown died. At worst, he was the reason Michael died on that particular occasion, and not a later one.
Ringling Brothers/Nazi/Stalinist-quality grenade juggling:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180619/12-scariest-parts-new-report-bundy-ranch-standoff
http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
I’ll give you that last guy at least isn’t jaywalking.
Officer Krupke Wilson would have mowed those guys down, wouldn’t he, being of the government persuasion, or does he stick to the routine police work of wiping the demon looks off unarmed jaywalking attackers faces with a fusillade of bullets or maybe protecting the Nation against weapons made by Mattel.
Ringling Brothers/Nazi/Stalinist-quality grenade juggling:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180619/12-scariest-parts-new-report-bundy-ranch-standoff
http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
I’ll give you that last guy at least isn’t jaywalking.
Officer Krupke Wilson would have mowed those guys down, wouldn’t he, being of the government persuasion, or does he stick to the routine police work of wiping the demon looks off unarmed jaywalking attackers faces with a fusillade of bullets or maybe protecting the Nation against weapons made by Mattel.
Ringling Brothers/Nazi/Stalinist-quality grenade juggling:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180619/12-scariest-parts-new-report-bundy-ranch-standoff
http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
I’ll give you that last guy at least isn’t jaywalking.
Officer Krupke Wilson would have mowed those guys down, wouldn’t he, being of the government persuasion, or does he stick to the routine police work of wiping the demon looks off unarmed jaywalking attackers faces with a fusillade of bullets or maybe protecting the Nation against weapons made by Mattel.
Wow. I enjoy Countme-in’s fantasy ravings, while rarely taking them seriously for a moment, but I never thought Brett would threaten to outdo him at his own game. A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?! His life was set at the age of 18; no possibility of redemption or recovery from any mistakes he might have made. He was bound to die, and Wilson was just the innocent tool in the hand of Fate?
Wilson bears no responsibility for precipitating a final confrontation with someone he believed to be dangerous, and feared it would take lethal force to deal with?
Hey, Brett, my knowledge of history and demography says you’re bound to die someday. So is it OK if anyone kills you at any time anyway, because you got it coming? Just asking.
(In case you’re wondering, I myself have no interest in ending your life – but I will support philosophically [if not emotionally] whoever does. He or she was only the reason you died on that particular occasion and not a later one.)
Wow. I enjoy Countme-in’s fantasy ravings, while rarely taking them seriously for a moment, but I never thought Brett would threaten to outdo him at his own game. A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?! His life was set at the age of 18; no possibility of redemption or recovery from any mistakes he might have made. He was bound to die, and Wilson was just the innocent tool in the hand of Fate?
Wilson bears no responsibility for precipitating a final confrontation with someone he believed to be dangerous, and feared it would take lethal force to deal with?
Hey, Brett, my knowledge of history and demography says you’re bound to die someday. So is it OK if anyone kills you at any time anyway, because you got it coming? Just asking.
(In case you’re wondering, I myself have no interest in ending your life – but I will support philosophically [if not emotionally] whoever does. He or she was only the reason you died on that particular occasion and not a later one.)
Wow. I enjoy Countme-in’s fantasy ravings, while rarely taking them seriously for a moment, but I never thought Brett would threaten to outdo him at his own game. A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?! His life was set at the age of 18; no possibility of redemption or recovery from any mistakes he might have made. He was bound to die, and Wilson was just the innocent tool in the hand of Fate?
Wilson bears no responsibility for precipitating a final confrontation with someone he believed to be dangerous, and feared it would take lethal force to deal with?
Hey, Brett, my knowledge of history and demography says you’re bound to die someday. So is it OK if anyone kills you at any time anyway, because you got it coming? Just asking.
(In case you’re wondering, I myself have no interest in ending your life – but I will support philosophically [if not emotionally] whoever does. He or she was only the reason you died on that particular occasion and not a later one.)
A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?!
He had it coming, he had it coming
He only had himself to blame
If you’d have been there, if you’d have seen it
I betcha you would have done the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvSLmO82UCw
except those women were all in jail.
A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?!
He had it coming, he had it coming
He only had himself to blame
If you’d have been there, if you’d have seen it
I betcha you would have done the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvSLmO82UCw
except those women were all in jail.
A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?!
He had it coming, he had it coming
He only had himself to blame
If you’d have been there, if you’d have seen it
I betcha you would have done the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvSLmO82UCw
except those women were all in jail.
The good thing about Brett is that when those guys really start the trouble, he’s leaving on a jet plane oh babe doesn’t know when he’ll be back again to the Barbados, so I view his peculiarly American armed fantasias as harmless.
He can still send us recipes. Don’t they have the internet down there?
There’s gotta be a joke about “jerk chicken” in there somewhere.
The good thing about Brett is that when those guys really start the trouble, he’s leaving on a jet plane oh babe doesn’t know when he’ll be back again to the Barbados, so I view his peculiarly American armed fantasias as harmless.
He can still send us recipes. Don’t they have the internet down there?
There’s gotta be a joke about “jerk chicken” in there somewhere.
The good thing about Brett is that when those guys really start the trouble, he’s leaving on a jet plane oh babe doesn’t know when he’ll be back again to the Barbados, so I view his peculiarly American armed fantasias as harmless.
He can still send us recipes. Don’t they have the internet down there?
There’s gotta be a joke about “jerk chicken” in there somewhere.
stupid crappy YouTube videos.
this is the good version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA6R1DMb-Z8
you’re welcome.
stupid crappy YouTube videos.
this is the good version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA6R1DMb-Z8
you’re welcome.
stupid crappy YouTube videos.
this is the good version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA6R1DMb-Z8
you’re welcome.
Your 2:38pm, Brett, brings us to the crux of the matter.
Young black men and boys are dead men walking from the get go, no chance beyond the age of 18 or so for redemption and turning their lives around.
Your average dumbass white teenaged malingerer and chronic lawbreaker has the luxury of being arrested at his middle class home after shoplifting and jaywalking there unmolested, and taken in for questioning and eventual arrest, while his parents call a pretty good attorney and he does his time or rehab, and continues on to the next criminal malfeasance until maybe he wises up in his late 20’s, and with luck, resumes his education and settles down.
I grew up in a very upscale neighborhood a long time ago.
I have acquaintances from that time, the teenaged sons of doctors, captains of industry, and attorneys, who as teenagers, broke into and robbed 6000 square foot homes owned by doctors, captains of industry, and attorneys, and were caught at least once in the act, in that particular case while robbing the home in the middle of the night of a very well-known but now deceased celebrity kid’s show creator and host, and never once was a gun by the cops or neighbors or anyone fired their way, and they were apprehended, punished and lived, despite being mouthy tough punks at the time, some whom were prone to assaulting people in the high school hallways, to grow up and become doctors, captains of industry, and maybe even attorneys, if their under-aged crimes were wiped from the books, which I’m quite sure their privileged parents were able to afford.
One of my brothers ran into one of them recently at a reunion. They reminisced. The guy, a very nice guy despite his reputation as a teenager of being on the inevitable road to a life of robbery and assault, grenades dangling from his belt, said he didn’t know what was wrong with himself back then, why he was just an idiot with anger problems, and then he drove off in his Audi A4, having been afforded the luxury and time to grow up to be a Republican who believes in hard audi money, not the kind of fiat money one gets from fencing stolen goods, and a strong stand against crime.
I could tell you about a sadder case too, of a person very close to me, still alive, even after several violent, mouthy, but unarmed confrontations with armed police in his very long life and not a gun unholstered or a round fired at him by the cops.
The same cops and their replacements on the local police force would like a piece of him to this day, and maybe they’ll still get their chance since, unlike Brown or Trayvon, he wasn’t gunned down all those years ago by the armed cops, or cop imposters, despite his for-the-most-part failure to seek the redemption of living a decent life on his own.
None of the people I speak of here are black, otherwise they would have been dead a long time ago for making the same mistakes as Brown.
I love being white.
Your 2:38pm, Brett, brings us to the crux of the matter.
Young black men and boys are dead men walking from the get go, no chance beyond the age of 18 or so for redemption and turning their lives around.
Your average dumbass white teenaged malingerer and chronic lawbreaker has the luxury of being arrested at his middle class home after shoplifting and jaywalking there unmolested, and taken in for questioning and eventual arrest, while his parents call a pretty good attorney and he does his time or rehab, and continues on to the next criminal malfeasance until maybe he wises up in his late 20’s, and with luck, resumes his education and settles down.
I grew up in a very upscale neighborhood a long time ago.
I have acquaintances from that time, the teenaged sons of doctors, captains of industry, and attorneys, who as teenagers, broke into and robbed 6000 square foot homes owned by doctors, captains of industry, and attorneys, and were caught at least once in the act, in that particular case while robbing the home in the middle of the night of a very well-known but now deceased celebrity kid’s show creator and host, and never once was a gun by the cops or neighbors or anyone fired their way, and they were apprehended, punished and lived, despite being mouthy tough punks at the time, some whom were prone to assaulting people in the high school hallways, to grow up and become doctors, captains of industry, and maybe even attorneys, if their under-aged crimes were wiped from the books, which I’m quite sure their privileged parents were able to afford.
One of my brothers ran into one of them recently at a reunion. They reminisced. The guy, a very nice guy despite his reputation as a teenager of being on the inevitable road to a life of robbery and assault, grenades dangling from his belt, said he didn’t know what was wrong with himself back then, why he was just an idiot with anger problems, and then he drove off in his Audi A4, having been afforded the luxury and time to grow up to be a Republican who believes in hard audi money, not the kind of fiat money one gets from fencing stolen goods, and a strong stand against crime.
I could tell you about a sadder case too, of a person very close to me, still alive, even after several violent, mouthy, but unarmed confrontations with armed police in his very long life and not a gun unholstered or a round fired at him by the cops.
The same cops and their replacements on the local police force would like a piece of him to this day, and maybe they’ll still get their chance since, unlike Brown or Trayvon, he wasn’t gunned down all those years ago by the armed cops, or cop imposters, despite his for-the-most-part failure to seek the redemption of living a decent life on his own.
None of the people I speak of here are black, otherwise they would have been dead a long time ago for making the same mistakes as Brown.
I love being white.
Your 2:38pm, Brett, brings us to the crux of the matter.
Young black men and boys are dead men walking from the get go, no chance beyond the age of 18 or so for redemption and turning their lives around.
Your average dumbass white teenaged malingerer and chronic lawbreaker has the luxury of being arrested at his middle class home after shoplifting and jaywalking there unmolested, and taken in for questioning and eventual arrest, while his parents call a pretty good attorney and he does his time or rehab, and continues on to the next criminal malfeasance until maybe he wises up in his late 20’s, and with luck, resumes his education and settles down.
I grew up in a very upscale neighborhood a long time ago.
I have acquaintances from that time, the teenaged sons of doctors, captains of industry, and attorneys, who as teenagers, broke into and robbed 6000 square foot homes owned by doctors, captains of industry, and attorneys, and were caught at least once in the act, in that particular case while robbing the home in the middle of the night of a very well-known but now deceased celebrity kid’s show creator and host, and never once was a gun by the cops or neighbors or anyone fired their way, and they were apprehended, punished and lived, despite being mouthy tough punks at the time, some whom were prone to assaulting people in the high school hallways, to grow up and become doctors, captains of industry, and maybe even attorneys, if their under-aged crimes were wiped from the books, which I’m quite sure their privileged parents were able to afford.
One of my brothers ran into one of them recently at a reunion. They reminisced. The guy, a very nice guy despite his reputation as a teenager of being on the inevitable road to a life of robbery and assault, grenades dangling from his belt, said he didn’t know what was wrong with himself back then, why he was just an idiot with anger problems, and then he drove off in his Audi A4, having been afforded the luxury and time to grow up to be a Republican who believes in hard audi money, not the kind of fiat money one gets from fencing stolen goods, and a strong stand against crime.
I could tell you about a sadder case too, of a person very close to me, still alive, even after several violent, mouthy, but unarmed confrontations with armed police in his very long life and not a gun unholstered or a round fired at him by the cops.
The same cops and their replacements on the local police force would like a piece of him to this day, and maybe they’ll still get their chance since, unlike Brown or Trayvon, he wasn’t gunned down all those years ago by the armed cops, or cop imposters, despite his for-the-most-part failure to seek the redemption of living a decent life on his own.
None of the people I speak of here are black, otherwise they would have been dead a long time ago for making the same mistakes as Brown.
I love being white.
“A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?!”
Ok, first off, I think it rather insulting to refer to anybody old enough to join the military or vote, (Brown was 18.) as a “boy”. The guy was not a child. In fact, if anybody on my side of the political spectrum dared to refer to a black man as a “boy” we’d never hear the end of it.
Second, I don’t at all think he deserved to die for walking down the middle of the street. I’ve done that myself, my own neighborhood lacks sidewalks, it’s either the street or the neighbors’ lawns if you go for a stroll. However, Google maps confirms there were sidewalks where he was shot, so it was not at all unreasonable of a police officer to insist he use them, instead of walking in traffic.
OTOH, the whole assaulting the officer when he tells you to get out of the middle of the street bit? We’re getting more into deserves to be shot territory there, so let’s not just skip over that detail.
“A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?!”
Ok, first off, I think it rather insulting to refer to anybody old enough to join the military or vote, (Brown was 18.) as a “boy”. The guy was not a child. In fact, if anybody on my side of the political spectrum dared to refer to a black man as a “boy” we’d never hear the end of it.
Second, I don’t at all think he deserved to die for walking down the middle of the street. I’ve done that myself, my own neighborhood lacks sidewalks, it’s either the street or the neighbors’ lawns if you go for a stroll. However, Google maps confirms there were sidewalks where he was shot, so it was not at all unreasonable of a police officer to insist he use them, instead of walking in traffic.
OTOH, the whole assaulting the officer when he tells you to get out of the middle of the street bit? We’re getting more into deserves to be shot territory there, so let’s not just skip over that detail.
“A man (or a very large boy) apparently grabs some cigarillos without paying and then walks down the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk – thank heaven he doesn’t live in my city, where there are no sidewalks – and for this he deserves to die?!”
Ok, first off, I think it rather insulting to refer to anybody old enough to join the military or vote, (Brown was 18.) as a “boy”. The guy was not a child. In fact, if anybody on my side of the political spectrum dared to refer to a black man as a “boy” we’d never hear the end of it.
Second, I don’t at all think he deserved to die for walking down the middle of the street. I’ve done that myself, my own neighborhood lacks sidewalks, it’s either the street or the neighbors’ lawns if you go for a stroll. However, Google maps confirms there were sidewalks where he was shot, so it was not at all unreasonable of a police officer to insist he use them, instead of walking in traffic.
OTOH, the whole assaulting the officer when he tells you to get out of the middle of the street bit? We’re getting more into deserves to be shot territory there, so let’s not just skip over that detail.
Your average dumbass white teenaged malingerer and chronic lawbreaker has the luxury of being arrested at his middle class home after shoplifting and jaywalking there unmolested, and taken in for questioning and eventual arrest, while his parents call a pretty good attorney and he does his time or rehab, and continues on to the next criminal malfeasance until maybe he wises up in his late 20’s, and with luck, resumes his education and settles down
Not where I come from. And yes this is the heart of the problem, black middle class people don’t have this problem, black poor people have this problem, as do white poor people. Its as if you never met a white poor person. As a percentage of poor people, white poor people make up 75%. Black poor people are 25% of poor people, so per capita there are more black poor people. But there are a shit load more poor white people, they don’t have good lawyers, they I am one of 6 cousins in my family, don’t come home and finish their education. Four of us saw jail before 18. 50% died before they were 30. One at the hands of a cop.
You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people. Not because they were born that way, or even grew up that way, as many were raised in pretty integrated environments. They just get so f’ing tired of hearing about how white people have all the advantages. They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks. And most of them aren’t bigoted, by percentage. They are mostly just forgotten.
Your average dumbass white teenaged malingerer and chronic lawbreaker has the luxury of being arrested at his middle class home after shoplifting and jaywalking there unmolested, and taken in for questioning and eventual arrest, while his parents call a pretty good attorney and he does his time or rehab, and continues on to the next criminal malfeasance until maybe he wises up in his late 20’s, and with luck, resumes his education and settles down
Not where I come from. And yes this is the heart of the problem, black middle class people don’t have this problem, black poor people have this problem, as do white poor people. Its as if you never met a white poor person. As a percentage of poor people, white poor people make up 75%. Black poor people are 25% of poor people, so per capita there are more black poor people. But there are a shit load more poor white people, they don’t have good lawyers, they I am one of 6 cousins in my family, don’t come home and finish their education. Four of us saw jail before 18. 50% died before they were 30. One at the hands of a cop.
You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people. Not because they were born that way, or even grew up that way, as many were raised in pretty integrated environments. They just get so f’ing tired of hearing about how white people have all the advantages. They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks. And most of them aren’t bigoted, by percentage. They are mostly just forgotten.
Your average dumbass white teenaged malingerer and chronic lawbreaker has the luxury of being arrested at his middle class home after shoplifting and jaywalking there unmolested, and taken in for questioning and eventual arrest, while his parents call a pretty good attorney and he does his time or rehab, and continues on to the next criminal malfeasance until maybe he wises up in his late 20’s, and with luck, resumes his education and settles down
Not where I come from. And yes this is the heart of the problem, black middle class people don’t have this problem, black poor people have this problem, as do white poor people. Its as if you never met a white poor person. As a percentage of poor people, white poor people make up 75%. Black poor people are 25% of poor people, so per capita there are more black poor people. But there are a shit load more poor white people, they don’t have good lawyers, they I am one of 6 cousins in my family, don’t come home and finish their education. Four of us saw jail before 18. 50% died before they were 30. One at the hands of a cop.
You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people. Not because they were born that way, or even grew up that way, as many were raised in pretty integrated environments. They just get so f’ing tired of hearing about how white people have all the advantages. They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks. And most of them aren’t bigoted, by percentage. They are mostly just forgotten.
Wow. I wonder aloud at Brett condemning to death – because he had it coming – a black male, and the first thing BB latches on to is suggesting that he might be called a “boy” at 18. (Which is in fact what many in his community called him, IIRC.) Let me suggest that this is considerably less “insulting” than shooting him dead. Or even stating that he might as well be dead. BB is too politically correct for the term, but not enough for the execution of a jaywalker.
And Cleek: thanks very much for the link to “He had it coming.” Great song. But maybe, in this context, we need a manlier version, like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4se7auC-6bo
Wow. I wonder aloud at Brett condemning to death – because he had it coming – a black male, and the first thing BB latches on to is suggesting that he might be called a “boy” at 18. (Which is in fact what many in his community called him, IIRC.) Let me suggest that this is considerably less “insulting” than shooting him dead. Or even stating that he might as well be dead. BB is too politically correct for the term, but not enough for the execution of a jaywalker.
And Cleek: thanks very much for the link to “He had it coming.” Great song. But maybe, in this context, we need a manlier version, like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4se7auC-6bo
Wow. I wonder aloud at Brett condemning to death – because he had it coming – a black male, and the first thing BB latches on to is suggesting that he might be called a “boy” at 18. (Which is in fact what many in his community called him, IIRC.) Let me suggest that this is considerably less “insulting” than shooting him dead. Or even stating that he might as well be dead. BB is too politically correct for the term, but not enough for the execution of a jaywalker.
And Cleek: thanks very much for the link to “He had it coming.” Great song. But maybe, in this context, we need a manlier version, like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4se7auC-6bo
white people do have all the advantages. not all white people have all the advantages. but the people who have all the advantages, those are white people.
white people do have all the advantages. not all white people have all the advantages. but the people who have all the advantages, those are white people.
white people do have all the advantages. not all white people have all the advantages. but the people who have all the advantages, those are white people.
Marty: You’re right that poor white people are also forgotten and abused, though I’m not in a position to say if they are (marginally?) better off in potential conflicts with law enforcement. (I’d guess more blacks are shot dead by cops than whites, but that’s just a guess.)
But I’m hearing a subtext(*) – probably unintended – that because poor whites are also abused, we should ignore what happened to Brown and other poor blacks. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along. Business as usual in America. Without going back through the entire thread, could you just remind me, Marty: are you OK with the killing of Michael Brown?
(*) My wife has an MA in Theater. I’ve heard LOTS about “subtext” in my time.
Marty: You’re right that poor white people are also forgotten and abused, though I’m not in a position to say if they are (marginally?) better off in potential conflicts with law enforcement. (I’d guess more blacks are shot dead by cops than whites, but that’s just a guess.)
But I’m hearing a subtext(*) – probably unintended – that because poor whites are also abused, we should ignore what happened to Brown and other poor blacks. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along. Business as usual in America. Without going back through the entire thread, could you just remind me, Marty: are you OK with the killing of Michael Brown?
(*) My wife has an MA in Theater. I’ve heard LOTS about “subtext” in my time.
Marty: You’re right that poor white people are also forgotten and abused, though I’m not in a position to say if they are (marginally?) better off in potential conflicts with law enforcement. (I’d guess more blacks are shot dead by cops than whites, but that’s just a guess.)
But I’m hearing a subtext(*) – probably unintended – that because poor whites are also abused, we should ignore what happened to Brown and other poor blacks. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along. Business as usual in America. Without going back through the entire thread, could you just remind me, Marty: are you OK with the killing of Michael Brown?
(*) My wife has an MA in Theater. I’ve heard LOTS about “subtext” in my time.
I am not, ever, ok with anyone being shot. I don’t like guns, my kids weren’t allowed to have fake guns, a lesson I reinforced with my grandchildren this week. ( I do object to the inanity of people deciding that they now “know” this cop is a bad guy looking for a black to kill.) I am not ok with people attacking cops, or anyone else. I think we hire cops to protect us and that we should expect everyone to respect us, thus them. Attack a cop you probably will get shot, because it is the expected outcome doesn’t mean I’m “ok” with it. It means I am not in the mood to destroy the cops life.
Subtext? I am not nearly eloquent enough to include a subtext in anything I write.
I am not, ever, ok with anyone being shot. I don’t like guns, my kids weren’t allowed to have fake guns, a lesson I reinforced with my grandchildren this week. ( I do object to the inanity of people deciding that they now “know” this cop is a bad guy looking for a black to kill.) I am not ok with people attacking cops, or anyone else. I think we hire cops to protect us and that we should expect everyone to respect us, thus them. Attack a cop you probably will get shot, because it is the expected outcome doesn’t mean I’m “ok” with it. It means I am not in the mood to destroy the cops life.
Subtext? I am not nearly eloquent enough to include a subtext in anything I write.
I am not, ever, ok with anyone being shot. I don’t like guns, my kids weren’t allowed to have fake guns, a lesson I reinforced with my grandchildren this week. ( I do object to the inanity of people deciding that they now “know” this cop is a bad guy looking for a black to kill.) I am not ok with people attacking cops, or anyone else. I think we hire cops to protect us and that we should expect everyone to respect us, thus them. Attack a cop you probably will get shot, because it is the expected outcome doesn’t mean I’m “ok” with it. It means I am not in the mood to destroy the cops life.
Subtext? I am not nearly eloquent enough to include a subtext in anything I write.
The Ghetto Archipelago: Life in an inner-city police state
The Ghetto Archipelago: Life in an inner-city police state
The Ghetto Archipelago: Life in an inner-city police state
Marty, your are right, the poor of all races are f*cked.
Yes, if the guys who had robbed those homes had been the working class white poor (my high school was a remarkably bifurcated institution when it came to income), they would have suffered disproportionately to the guys who actually did the crimes.
I’ll maintain though that they wouldn’t have been shot by the local police force where I grew up.
“It’s as if you never met a white poor person”
I’ve fallen far in life, so there is that.
“You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people”
Yeah, I follow elections.
“They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks. And most of them aren’t bigoted, by percentage. They are mostly just forgotten”
Medicare by ethnicity:
http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/medicare-beneficiaries-by-raceethnicity/
Medicaid (non-elderly) by ethnicity:
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity-4/
Welfare by ethnicity:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Foodstamps by ethnicity:
http://diversitydata-archive.org/Data/Rankings/Show.aspx?ind=341
You win that Hitler vrs Stalin facedown, yes, but where does it say in the SNAP program that you have to be white or hispanic
Ah Obamacare:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/11/why_obamacare_is_good_for_poor_whites.html
Despite the 99% percent white Tea Party Republicans who hate Obamacare because it is supposedly a sop thrown to THOSE people.
Couldn’t find racial/ethnic breakdowns.
“They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks.”
The Democratic Party does have a problem talking to voters who vote against their own interests.
Unemployment benefits by race/ethnicity:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412596-Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences-in-Receipt-of-Unemployment-Insurance-Benefits-During-the-Great-Recession.pdf
What do poor whites think, that all of these programs are a form of affirmative action working against them, when the programs take all comers regardless of race, religion, creed, or IQ levels, as long as you qualify per your income, and in the instance of healthcare it should be fully universal, like unemployment benefits mostly are.
No wonder I keep my distance from those people, but I kid.
Marty, your are right, the poor of all races are f*cked.
Yes, if the guys who had robbed those homes had been the working class white poor (my high school was a remarkably bifurcated institution when it came to income), they would have suffered disproportionately to the guys who actually did the crimes.
I’ll maintain though that they wouldn’t have been shot by the local police force where I grew up.
“It’s as if you never met a white poor person”
I’ve fallen far in life, so there is that.
“You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people”
Yeah, I follow elections.
“They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks. And most of them aren’t bigoted, by percentage. They are mostly just forgotten”
Medicare by ethnicity:
http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/medicare-beneficiaries-by-raceethnicity/
Medicaid (non-elderly) by ethnicity:
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity-4/
Welfare by ethnicity:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Foodstamps by ethnicity:
http://diversitydata-archive.org/Data/Rankings/Show.aspx?ind=341
You win that Hitler vrs Stalin facedown, yes, but where does it say in the SNAP program that you have to be white or hispanic
Ah Obamacare:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/11/why_obamacare_is_good_for_poor_whites.html
Despite the 99% percent white Tea Party Republicans who hate Obamacare because it is supposedly a sop thrown to THOSE people.
Couldn’t find racial/ethnic breakdowns.
“They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks.”
The Democratic Party does have a problem talking to voters who vote against their own interests.
Unemployment benefits by race/ethnicity:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412596-Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences-in-Receipt-of-Unemployment-Insurance-Benefits-During-the-Great-Recession.pdf
What do poor whites think, that all of these programs are a form of affirmative action working against them, when the programs take all comers regardless of race, religion, creed, or IQ levels, as long as you qualify per your income, and in the instance of healthcare it should be fully universal, like unemployment benefits mostly are.
No wonder I keep my distance from those people, but I kid.
Marty, your are right, the poor of all races are f*cked.
Yes, if the guys who had robbed those homes had been the working class white poor (my high school was a remarkably bifurcated institution when it came to income), they would have suffered disproportionately to the guys who actually did the crimes.
I’ll maintain though that they wouldn’t have been shot by the local police force where I grew up.
“It’s as if you never met a white poor person”
I’ve fallen far in life, so there is that.
“You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people”
Yeah, I follow elections.
“They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks. And most of them aren’t bigoted, by percentage. They are mostly just forgotten”
Medicare by ethnicity:
http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/medicare-beneficiaries-by-raceethnicity/
Medicaid (non-elderly) by ethnicity:
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity-4/
Welfare by ethnicity:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Foodstamps by ethnicity:
http://diversitydata-archive.org/Data/Rankings/Show.aspx?ind=341
You win that Hitler vrs Stalin facedown, yes, but where does it say in the SNAP program that you have to be white or hispanic
Ah Obamacare:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/11/why_obamacare_is_good_for_poor_whites.html
Despite the 99% percent white Tea Party Republicans who hate Obamacare because it is supposedly a sop thrown to THOSE people.
Couldn’t find racial/ethnic breakdowns.
“They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks.”
The Democratic Party does have a problem talking to voters who vote against their own interests.
Unemployment benefits by race/ethnicity:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412596-Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences-in-Receipt-of-Unemployment-Insurance-Benefits-During-the-Great-Recession.pdf
What do poor whites think, that all of these programs are a form of affirmative action working against them, when the programs take all comers regardless of race, religion, creed, or IQ levels, as long as you qualify per your income, and in the instance of healthcare it should be fully universal, like unemployment benefits mostly are.
No wonder I keep my distance from those people, but I kid.
That’s a good article Charles.
Marty wrote:
“Subtext? I am not nearly eloquent enough to include a subtext in anything I write.”
Fortunately, we have enough eloquent posters here to read between the lines and ferret out one for you, 😉 even if it is completely off base.
So this Dobie Gillis pose with the parents nice house and the slacker buddy Maynard has been a mere ruse all along, hunh?
I never took you for The Real McCoys.
That’s a good article Charles.
Marty wrote:
“Subtext? I am not nearly eloquent enough to include a subtext in anything I write.”
Fortunately, we have enough eloquent posters here to read between the lines and ferret out one for you, 😉 even if it is completely off base.
So this Dobie Gillis pose with the parents nice house and the slacker buddy Maynard has been a mere ruse all along, hunh?
I never took you for The Real McCoys.
That’s a good article Charles.
Marty wrote:
“Subtext? I am not nearly eloquent enough to include a subtext in anything I write.”
Fortunately, we have enough eloquent posters here to read between the lines and ferret out one for you, 😉 even if it is completely off base.
So this Dobie Gillis pose with the parents nice house and the slacker buddy Maynard has been a mere ruse all along, hunh?
I never took you for The Real McCoys.
Supposing that the store had no need to sell it’s products, rather than giving them away, there’d be no particular harm from politely walking off with them.
I think I read that particular libertarian fantasy. Eric Frank Russell’s “And Then There Were None” if memory serves.
The problem, of course, is that in the real world there is no way to do that, and deal with the “free rider” problem.
Granted, for the sake of discussion, that a majority of the people in the world want to do something useful with their time. There are still, unfortunately, a substantial number who will just take and never give unless constrained. Which either leads to governments, or to everybody sitting on their personal stask with as big a weapon as they can find, lest someone take it.
Supposing that the store had no need to sell it’s products, rather than giving them away, there’d be no particular harm from politely walking off with them.
I think I read that particular libertarian fantasy. Eric Frank Russell’s “And Then There Were None” if memory serves.
The problem, of course, is that in the real world there is no way to do that, and deal with the “free rider” problem.
Granted, for the sake of discussion, that a majority of the people in the world want to do something useful with their time. There are still, unfortunately, a substantial number who will just take and never give unless constrained. Which either leads to governments, or to everybody sitting on their personal stask with as big a weapon as they can find, lest someone take it.
Supposing that the store had no need to sell it’s products, rather than giving them away, there’d be no particular harm from politely walking off with them.
I think I read that particular libertarian fantasy. Eric Frank Russell’s “And Then There Were None” if memory serves.
The problem, of course, is that in the real world there is no way to do that, and deal with the “free rider” problem.
Granted, for the sake of discussion, that a majority of the people in the world want to do something useful with their time. There are still, unfortunately, a substantial number who will just take and never give unless constrained. Which either leads to governments, or to everybody sitting on their personal stask with as big a weapon as they can find, lest someone take it.
“have to be black or hispanic” in the SNAP program, it should say.
“have to be black or hispanic” in the SNAP program, it should say.
“have to be black or hispanic” in the SNAP program, it should say.
Just chiming in to say that IMO Marty’s 3:40 and 4:12 are pretty much right on.
Race is a factor in the Ferguson thing for sure, but it’s not the only factor, and the things that make the relationship of the cops to the folks in Ferguson toxic aren’t specific to, or limited to, black communities.
Cops shouldn’t be quick to shoot people. If there’s an imminent danger to somebody’s life, different story. It’s far from clear that that was true in this case.
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown, and unnecessary shootings of civilians are way too common.
Just chiming in to say that IMO Marty’s 3:40 and 4:12 are pretty much right on.
Race is a factor in the Ferguson thing for sure, but it’s not the only factor, and the things that make the relationship of the cops to the folks in Ferguson toxic aren’t specific to, or limited to, black communities.
Cops shouldn’t be quick to shoot people. If there’s an imminent danger to somebody’s life, different story. It’s far from clear that that was true in this case.
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown, and unnecessary shootings of civilians are way too common.
Just chiming in to say that IMO Marty’s 3:40 and 4:12 are pretty much right on.
Race is a factor in the Ferguson thing for sure, but it’s not the only factor, and the things that make the relationship of the cops to the folks in Ferguson toxic aren’t specific to, or limited to, black communities.
Cops shouldn’t be quick to shoot people. If there’s an imminent danger to somebody’s life, different story. It’s far from clear that that was true in this case.
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown, and unnecessary shootings of civilians are way too common.
Actually, one quibble with Marty’s comments:
I think it’s actually fairly common for middle class and even wealthy blacks to be hassled, by cops and others. Because they’re black.
Other than that, IMO it’s all pretty much on the money.
Actually, one quibble with Marty’s comments:
I think it’s actually fairly common for middle class and even wealthy blacks to be hassled, by cops and others. Because they’re black.
Other than that, IMO it’s all pretty much on the money.
Actually, one quibble with Marty’s comments:
I think it’s actually fairly common for middle class and even wealthy blacks to be hassled, by cops and others. Because they’re black.
Other than that, IMO it’s all pretty much on the money.
“I was afraid so I killed him”
That is Officer Wilson’s defense.
Being only 5′-5″ 130 pounds I am bigoted against BIG people.
Wilson is 6′-4″ and not a featherweight so no sympathy from me.
Being a such a chickenshit he should of just stayed in his cruiser locked the doors and windows had waited for help to arrive.
The job of being a Peace Officer requires a reasonable amount of courage and bravery … or at least it should.
“I was afraid so I killed him”
That is Officer Wilson’s defense.
Being only 5′-5″ 130 pounds I am bigoted against BIG people.
Wilson is 6′-4″ and not a featherweight so no sympathy from me.
Being a such a chickenshit he should of just stayed in his cruiser locked the doors and windows had waited for help to arrive.
The job of being a Peace Officer requires a reasonable amount of courage and bravery … or at least it should.
“I was afraid so I killed him”
That is Officer Wilson’s defense.
Being only 5′-5″ 130 pounds I am bigoted against BIG people.
Wilson is 6′-4″ and not a featherweight so no sympathy from me.
Being a such a chickenshit he should of just stayed in his cruiser locked the doors and windows had waited for help to arrive.
The job of being a Peace Officer requires a reasonable amount of courage and bravery … or at least it should.
I can understand whites from North Carolina feeling that they were harassed disproportionately as teenagers for shoplifting while black kids today aren’t taken to task enough for dressing improperly at White House fetes.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lauten-sasha-malia-class-arrested-teen
She looks like the lucky type who would stay on the sidewalk on the way home from shoplifting and live to tell the tale.
I can understand whites from North Carolina feeling that they were harassed disproportionately as teenagers for shoplifting while black kids today aren’t taken to task enough for dressing improperly at White House fetes.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lauten-sasha-malia-class-arrested-teen
She looks like the lucky type who would stay on the sidewalk on the way home from shoplifting and live to tell the tale.
I can understand whites from North Carolina feeling that they were harassed disproportionately as teenagers for shoplifting while black kids today aren’t taken to task enough for dressing improperly at White House fetes.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lauten-sasha-malia-class-arrested-teen
She looks like the lucky type who would stay on the sidewalk on the way home from shoplifting and live to tell the tale.
Count, I was pretty lucky, life is complex.
Count, I was pretty lucky, life is complex.
Count, I was pretty lucky, life is complex.
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown
Last millennium, when I was taking driver’s ed, I was told a rule of thumb: the culpable driver is the one who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
“Who had the last clear chance to avoid the killing of Michael Brown?” is the question. A sure token of my assertion that the “conservative” mind works differently from the “liberal” mind at a primordial level is the left/right split on the answer to this question.
–TP
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown
Last millennium, when I was taking driver’s ed, I was told a rule of thumb: the culpable driver is the one who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
“Who had the last clear chance to avoid the killing of Michael Brown?” is the question. A sure token of my assertion that the “conservative” mind works differently from the “liberal” mind at a primordial level is the left/right split on the answer to this question.
–TP
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown
Last millennium, when I was taking driver’s ed, I was told a rule of thumb: the culpable driver is the one who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
“Who had the last clear chance to avoid the killing of Michael Brown?” is the question. A sure token of my assertion that the “conservative” mind works differently from the “liberal” mind at a primordial level is the left/right split on the answer to this question.
–TP
I don’t know, Jeff, in my heyday (that’s actually the first time I’ve ever used that phrase in my life), I was careful not to pick fights with small, wiry guys. They were mean and fought dirty and were quick as snakes and could get up in your face before you were ready. They always got the first punch in, I guess, because they had to.
Plus, their mothers are wiry too.
The big guys, I found, could be maneuvered around.
Plus, if things went too far South, I could outrun the big guys, which is where I agree with you re Wilson.
Find Brown’s home, with backup, before he got there, and have a talk with his mom/Dad and meet him together on the front stoop and cuff him as he arrives home for supper.
If Sheriff Taylor had been in charge, he would have taken at least 11 bullets away from Officer Barney Fife Wilson, leaving him one to shoot Brown in his meaty thigh.
How is it that a guy innocently cleaning his gun in the garage can misfire the thing thru the wall and that one bullet can administer a kill shot directly into his kid’s brain sleeping two rooms away, but a supposedly well-trained cop has to fire off twelve rounds to finish off a gigantic teenager.
If one of those bullets had hit an innocent bystander, I wonder what we’d be talking about today.
I don’t know, Jeff, in my heyday (that’s actually the first time I’ve ever used that phrase in my life), I was careful not to pick fights with small, wiry guys. They were mean and fought dirty and were quick as snakes and could get up in your face before you were ready. They always got the first punch in, I guess, because they had to.
Plus, their mothers are wiry too.
The big guys, I found, could be maneuvered around.
Plus, if things went too far South, I could outrun the big guys, which is where I agree with you re Wilson.
Find Brown’s home, with backup, before he got there, and have a talk with his mom/Dad and meet him together on the front stoop and cuff him as he arrives home for supper.
If Sheriff Taylor had been in charge, he would have taken at least 11 bullets away from Officer Barney Fife Wilson, leaving him one to shoot Brown in his meaty thigh.
How is it that a guy innocently cleaning his gun in the garage can misfire the thing thru the wall and that one bullet can administer a kill shot directly into his kid’s brain sleeping two rooms away, but a supposedly well-trained cop has to fire off twelve rounds to finish off a gigantic teenager.
If one of those bullets had hit an innocent bystander, I wonder what we’d be talking about today.
I don’t know, Jeff, in my heyday (that’s actually the first time I’ve ever used that phrase in my life), I was careful not to pick fights with small, wiry guys. They were mean and fought dirty and were quick as snakes and could get up in your face before you were ready. They always got the first punch in, I guess, because they had to.
Plus, their mothers are wiry too.
The big guys, I found, could be maneuvered around.
Plus, if things went too far South, I could outrun the big guys, which is where I agree with you re Wilson.
Find Brown’s home, with backup, before he got there, and have a talk with his mom/Dad and meet him together on the front stoop and cuff him as he arrives home for supper.
If Sheriff Taylor had been in charge, he would have taken at least 11 bullets away from Officer Barney Fife Wilson, leaving him one to shoot Brown in his meaty thigh.
How is it that a guy innocently cleaning his gun in the garage can misfire the thing thru the wall and that one bullet can administer a kill shot directly into his kid’s brain sleeping two rooms away, but a supposedly well-trained cop has to fire off twelve rounds to finish off a gigantic teenager.
If one of those bullets had hit an innocent bystander, I wonder what we’d be talking about today.
“Count, I was pretty lucky, life is complex.”
Good on ya, Marty.
Luck amidst life’s complexities has been my strong suit too.
“Count, I was pretty lucky, life is complex.”
Good on ya, Marty.
Luck amidst life’s complexities has been my strong suit too.
“Count, I was pretty lucky, life is complex.”
Good on ya, Marty.
Luck amidst life’s complexities has been my strong suit too.
Chris Rock will be my last post of the day.
Will you people leave me alone for once.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-rock-race-relations-nonsense
Chris Rock will be my last post of the day.
Will you people leave me alone for once.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-rock-race-relations-nonsense
Chris Rock will be my last post of the day.
Will you people leave me alone for once.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-rock-race-relations-nonsense
“I think I read that particular libertarian fantasy. Eric Frank Russell’s “And Then There Were None” if memory serves.”
I think memory doesn’t serve, in this case. That planet had a kind of barter system going, somewhat informal, but unquestionably enforced by shunning if you didn’t pay your debts. There was even a little morality tale about the guy who thought he didn’t need to pay up, “Idle Jack”, related by one of the characters to the visiting spacemen. It didn’t end well for Jack.
Not memory, I’ve got the NESFA Press edition of his collected works over there on the shelf.
“A sure token of my assertion that the “conservative” mind works differently from the “liberal” mind at a primordial level is the left/right split on the answer to this question.”
Got that right. To the conservative mind, Brown should have refrained from attacking the police officer. Not to mention robbing the store. To the liberal, the police officer should have allowed himself to be attacked, and that Brown shouldn’t have gone around attacking people is just a side issue, if it figures at all. Like the attacking people had nothing to do with what happened.
“I think I read that particular libertarian fantasy. Eric Frank Russell’s “And Then There Were None” if memory serves.”
I think memory doesn’t serve, in this case. That planet had a kind of barter system going, somewhat informal, but unquestionably enforced by shunning if you didn’t pay your debts. There was even a little morality tale about the guy who thought he didn’t need to pay up, “Idle Jack”, related by one of the characters to the visiting spacemen. It didn’t end well for Jack.
Not memory, I’ve got the NESFA Press edition of his collected works over there on the shelf.
“A sure token of my assertion that the “conservative” mind works differently from the “liberal” mind at a primordial level is the left/right split on the answer to this question.”
Got that right. To the conservative mind, Brown should have refrained from attacking the police officer. Not to mention robbing the store. To the liberal, the police officer should have allowed himself to be attacked, and that Brown shouldn’t have gone around attacking people is just a side issue, if it figures at all. Like the attacking people had nothing to do with what happened.
“I think I read that particular libertarian fantasy. Eric Frank Russell’s “And Then There Were None” if memory serves.”
I think memory doesn’t serve, in this case. That planet had a kind of barter system going, somewhat informal, but unquestionably enforced by shunning if you didn’t pay your debts. There was even a little morality tale about the guy who thought he didn’t need to pay up, “Idle Jack”, related by one of the characters to the visiting spacemen. It didn’t end well for Jack.
Not memory, I’ve got the NESFA Press edition of his collected works over there on the shelf.
“A sure token of my assertion that the “conservative” mind works differently from the “liberal” mind at a primordial level is the left/right split on the answer to this question.”
Got that right. To the conservative mind, Brown should have refrained from attacking the police officer. Not to mention robbing the store. To the liberal, the police officer should have allowed himself to be attacked, and that Brown shouldn’t have gone around attacking people is just a side issue, if it figures at all. Like the attacking people had nothing to do with what happened.
“How is it that *** a gigantic teenager.”
Oh, oh, I’ll take one: Because you’re not a uniform lump of stuff inside, like a potato. There are spots where a little 22 rimfire could kill you dead, if it hit just right, there are areas where a mortar shell would leave you alive, if a little asymmetric. Really, unless shot placement is perfect, a human body keeps running for a while even after multiple hits capable of eventually causing death.
Heck, you could be shot right through the heart, and if you weren’t so startled you just sat there, you’d have 20-30 seconds during which you’d still be able to move around.
But I expect you knew that, and you were just pretending otherwise for rhetorical purposes.
“How is it that *** a gigantic teenager.”
Oh, oh, I’ll take one: Because you’re not a uniform lump of stuff inside, like a potato. There are spots where a little 22 rimfire could kill you dead, if it hit just right, there are areas where a mortar shell would leave you alive, if a little asymmetric. Really, unless shot placement is perfect, a human body keeps running for a while even after multiple hits capable of eventually causing death.
Heck, you could be shot right through the heart, and if you weren’t so startled you just sat there, you’d have 20-30 seconds during which you’d still be able to move around.
But I expect you knew that, and you were just pretending otherwise for rhetorical purposes.
“How is it that *** a gigantic teenager.”
Oh, oh, I’ll take one: Because you’re not a uniform lump of stuff inside, like a potato. There are spots where a little 22 rimfire could kill you dead, if it hit just right, there are areas where a mortar shell would leave you alive, if a little asymmetric. Really, unless shot placement is perfect, a human body keeps running for a while even after multiple hits capable of eventually causing death.
Heck, you could be shot right through the heart, and if you weren’t so startled you just sat there, you’d have 20-30 seconds during which you’d still be able to move around.
But I expect you knew that, and you were just pretending otherwise for rhetorical purposes.
We would never ban Brett cause if he weren’t here, the Count would lose his inspiration. Brett provides the 3 Stooges for the Count’s Marx Brothers. The clown car has a special set aside parking place here.
We would never ban Brett cause if he weren’t here, the Count would lose his inspiration. Brett provides the 3 Stooges for the Count’s Marx Brothers. The clown car has a special set aside parking place here.
We would never ban Brett cause if he weren’t here, the Count would lose his inspiration. Brett provides the 3 Stooges for the Count’s Marx Brothers. The clown car has a special set aside parking place here.
Brett, someday some white punk will “attack” a black police officer and get shot dead for his trouble. We will resume this conversation then.
Meanwhile, your conflation of “robbing the store” and “last clear chance to avoid the accident” reveals a cluelessness I could only characterize by violating the posting rules.
–TP
Brett, someday some white punk will “attack” a black police officer and get shot dead for his trouble. We will resume this conversation then.
Meanwhile, your conflation of “robbing the store” and “last clear chance to avoid the accident” reveals a cluelessness I could only characterize by violating the posting rules.
–TP
Brett, someday some white punk will “attack” a black police officer and get shot dead for his trouble. We will resume this conversation then.
Meanwhile, your conflation of “robbing the store” and “last clear chance to avoid the accident” reveals a cluelessness I could only characterize by violating the posting rules.
–TP
I’ve stayed out of this because others have been saying pretty much what needs to be said. But what russell said deserves repeating:
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown, and unnecessary shootings of civilians are way too common.
This sums up my thoughts on the issue. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know exactly how poor Wilson’s judgement was. For all I know, his restraint in the face of grave bodily harm was exceptional, although I doubt it. Part of the problem, the large part IMO, is that we could have known better. There could have been a swift, impartial, and thorough investigation. There wasn’t.
In the absence of that investigation, we’re left with bits and pieces of evidence and contradicting witness testimony, and Wilson is innocent until proven guilty.
We don’t really know what happened, and that’s the problem. It allows good officers to be tarred with accusations and bad officers to slip through the cracks. It fosters distrust between police and the communities they serve.
At the end of the day, this is one case of many, one symptom of system that protects officers almost without question. We have a system that allows police officers to shoot and kill people without cause or with minimal cause. We give such wide margins to officer involved shootings (weak investigations, weak prosecution), that corruption and racism (or the appearance of corruption and racism) can creep into that system.
I’ve stayed out of this because others have been saying pretty much what needs to be said. But what russell said deserves repeating:
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown, and unnecessary shootings of civilians are way too common.
This sums up my thoughts on the issue. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know exactly how poor Wilson’s judgement was. For all I know, his restraint in the face of grave bodily harm was exceptional, although I doubt it. Part of the problem, the large part IMO, is that we could have known better. There could have been a swift, impartial, and thorough investigation. There wasn’t.
In the absence of that investigation, we’re left with bits and pieces of evidence and contradicting witness testimony, and Wilson is innocent until proven guilty.
We don’t really know what happened, and that’s the problem. It allows good officers to be tarred with accusations and bad officers to slip through the cracks. It fosters distrust between police and the communities they serve.
At the end of the day, this is one case of many, one symptom of system that protects officers almost without question. We have a system that allows police officers to shoot and kill people without cause or with minimal cause. We give such wide margins to officer involved shootings (weak investigations, weak prosecution), that corruption and racism (or the appearance of corruption and racism) can creep into that system.
I’ve stayed out of this because others have been saying pretty much what needs to be said. But what russell said deserves repeating:
I’m not looking to crucify Wilson, I just don’t think he needed to shoot Brown, and unnecessary shootings of civilians are way too common.
This sums up my thoughts on the issue. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know exactly how poor Wilson’s judgement was. For all I know, his restraint in the face of grave bodily harm was exceptional, although I doubt it. Part of the problem, the large part IMO, is that we could have known better. There could have been a swift, impartial, and thorough investigation. There wasn’t.
In the absence of that investigation, we’re left with bits and pieces of evidence and contradicting witness testimony, and Wilson is innocent until proven guilty.
We don’t really know what happened, and that’s the problem. It allows good officers to be tarred with accusations and bad officers to slip through the cracks. It fosters distrust between police and the communities they serve.
At the end of the day, this is one case of many, one symptom of system that protects officers almost without question. We have a system that allows police officers to shoot and kill people without cause or with minimal cause. We give such wide margins to officer involved shootings (weak investigations, weak prosecution), that corruption and racism (or the appearance of corruption and racism) can creep into that system.
To the liberal, the police officer should have allowed himself to be attacked, and that Brown shouldn’t have gone around attacking people is just a side issue, if it figures at all.
Well, I don’t claim to be liberal, Brett, so that’s perhaps why instead of agreeing with your strawliberal’s mind, my leftist mind thinks the unprofessional cowboy should have sat his stupid, cocky *$$ in his squad until backup got there instead of aggressively confronting two hostile, non-cooperative suspects, one of whom he claimed after-the-fact to have found physically intimidating. But then my mind is full of twisted leftist ideas like people not being absolved of personal responsibility for their actions just because they’re an authority figure or people around them behave badly first.
To the liberal, the police officer should have allowed himself to be attacked, and that Brown shouldn’t have gone around attacking people is just a side issue, if it figures at all.
Well, I don’t claim to be liberal, Brett, so that’s perhaps why instead of agreeing with your strawliberal’s mind, my leftist mind thinks the unprofessional cowboy should have sat his stupid, cocky *$$ in his squad until backup got there instead of aggressively confronting two hostile, non-cooperative suspects, one of whom he claimed after-the-fact to have found physically intimidating. But then my mind is full of twisted leftist ideas like people not being absolved of personal responsibility for their actions just because they’re an authority figure or people around them behave badly first.
To the liberal, the police officer should have allowed himself to be attacked, and that Brown shouldn’t have gone around attacking people is just a side issue, if it figures at all.
Well, I don’t claim to be liberal, Brett, so that’s perhaps why instead of agreeing with your strawliberal’s mind, my leftist mind thinks the unprofessional cowboy should have sat his stupid, cocky *$$ in his squad until backup got there instead of aggressively confronting two hostile, non-cooperative suspects, one of whom he claimed after-the-fact to have found physically intimidating. But then my mind is full of twisted leftist ideas like people not being absolved of personal responsibility for their actions just because they’re an authority figure or people around them behave badly first.
Also, what thompson said at 6:55pm with far more decorum and restraint than I’ve exercised in this thread.
Also, what thompson said at 6:55pm with far more decorum and restraint than I’ve exercised in this thread.
Also, what thompson said at 6:55pm with far more decorum and restraint than I’ve exercised in this thread.
“But then my mind is full of twisted leftist ideas like people not being absolved of personal responsibility for their actions just because they’re an authority figure or people around them behave badly first.”
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
More important: Thompson, this was pretty quick. As grand juries go. And there is a tin of stuff to read. Giuliani was complaining Sunday that no one wanted to actually read the transcript. The forensics were pretty definitive, eye witnesses as reliable as ever, I think complaining about the investigation/ grand jury is misplaced.
“But then my mind is full of twisted leftist ideas like people not being absolved of personal responsibility for their actions just because they’re an authority figure or people around them behave badly first.”
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
More important: Thompson, this was pretty quick. As grand juries go. And there is a tin of stuff to read. Giuliani was complaining Sunday that no one wanted to actually read the transcript. The forensics were pretty definitive, eye witnesses as reliable as ever, I think complaining about the investigation/ grand jury is misplaced.
“But then my mind is full of twisted leftist ideas like people not being absolved of personal responsibility for their actions just because they’re an authority figure or people around them behave badly first.”
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
More important: Thompson, this was pretty quick. As grand juries go. And there is a tin of stuff to read. Giuliani was complaining Sunday that no one wanted to actually read the transcript. The forensics were pretty definitive, eye witnesses as reliable as ever, I think complaining about the investigation/ grand jury is misplaced.
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
Some pass.
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
Some pass.
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
Some pass.
Suppose Wilson, after yelling at Brown to “get the fnck off the street!”, reached out after pulling up next to him, grabbed Brown by the back of the neck, and pulled Brown’s head into the SUV. The rest then plays out according to Wilson’s testimony.
Is the shooting okay then?
Suppose Wilson, after yelling at Brown to “get the fnck off the street!”, reached out after pulling up next to him, grabbed Brown by the back of the neck, and pulled Brown’s head into the SUV. The rest then plays out according to Wilson’s testimony.
Is the shooting okay then?
Suppose Wilson, after yelling at Brown to “get the fnck off the street!”, reached out after pulling up next to him, grabbed Brown by the back of the neck, and pulled Brown’s head into the SUV. The rest then plays out according to Wilson’s testimony.
Is the shooting okay then?
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
Yup, ya got me, Marty. I totally gave Brown a pass because he’s an authority figure, or people around him behave badly. You probably should have pointed out that I gave Jeffrey Dahmer a pass, too. And Charles Witman. And Krippen. And Karl Liderfelt. And the dingos that ate Azaria Chamberlain. And the 1918 flu epidemic. And every other bad person or thing in history who I implicitly gave a pass by not explicitly condemning in that paragraph. Dammit, Marty, I thought I was gonna slip all those passes past ya, but you’re just too vigilant at seeing what I didn’t write.
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
Yup, ya got me, Marty. I totally gave Brown a pass because he’s an authority figure, or people around him behave badly. You probably should have pointed out that I gave Jeffrey Dahmer a pass, too. And Charles Witman. And Krippen. And Karl Liderfelt. And the dingos that ate Azaria Chamberlain. And the 1918 flu epidemic. And every other bad person or thing in history who I implicitly gave a pass by not explicitly condemning in that paragraph. Dammit, Marty, I thought I was gonna slip all those passes past ya, but you’re just too vigilant at seeing what I didn’t write.
Well, except Brown. Because he gets a pass.
Yup, ya got me, Marty. I totally gave Brown a pass because he’s an authority figure, or people around him behave badly. You probably should have pointed out that I gave Jeffrey Dahmer a pass, too. And Charles Witman. And Krippen. And Karl Liderfelt. And the dingos that ate Azaria Chamberlain. And the 1918 flu epidemic. And every other bad person or thing in history who I implicitly gave a pass by not explicitly condemning in that paragraph. Dammit, Marty, I thought I was gonna slip all those passes past ya, but you’re just too vigilant at seeing what I didn’t write.
Seriously, Marty, do you actually believe what you wrote far upthread and implicitly supported here? Do you honestly believe that police should not have to follow procedures, or take precautions, or perform any sort of risk mitigation if they don’t feel like it? Is professionalism really something you don’t think LEOs should be troubled with cultivating? Because that’s the most straightforward conclusion of your particular objections to my complaints about Wilson’s recklessness.
Seriously, Marty, do you actually believe what you wrote far upthread and implicitly supported here? Do you honestly believe that police should not have to follow procedures, or take precautions, or perform any sort of risk mitigation if they don’t feel like it? Is professionalism really something you don’t think LEOs should be troubled with cultivating? Because that’s the most straightforward conclusion of your particular objections to my complaints about Wilson’s recklessness.
Seriously, Marty, do you actually believe what you wrote far upthread and implicitly supported here? Do you honestly believe that police should not have to follow procedures, or take precautions, or perform any sort of risk mitigation if they don’t feel like it? Is professionalism really something you don’t think LEOs should be troubled with cultivating? Because that’s the most straightforward conclusion of your particular objections to my complaints about Wilson’s recklessness.
“Because that’s the most straightforward conclusion of your particular objections to my complaints about Wilson’s recklessness.”
You have decide Wilson was reckless, you. And if I disagree then I don’t think procedures, discretion, professionalism are important?
I don’t think he could have done anything except let Brown either walk away or beat the crap out of him that would prove his “professionalism” to you.
In my world, a cop chasing a suspect that just attacked him would be considered “professional”. Overcoming his own fear to chase a clearly dangerous young man is part of the job.
His job put him at risk, and, when threatened again he had the option to use deadly force. I don’t think it’s “ok” but two people participated and I believe the criminal aggressor who refused to surrender, even under threat of being shot, is MORE culpable than the police officer.
“Because that’s the most straightforward conclusion of your particular objections to my complaints about Wilson’s recklessness.”
You have decide Wilson was reckless, you. And if I disagree then I don’t think procedures, discretion, professionalism are important?
I don’t think he could have done anything except let Brown either walk away or beat the crap out of him that would prove his “professionalism” to you.
In my world, a cop chasing a suspect that just attacked him would be considered “professional”. Overcoming his own fear to chase a clearly dangerous young man is part of the job.
His job put him at risk, and, when threatened again he had the option to use deadly force. I don’t think it’s “ok” but two people participated and I believe the criminal aggressor who refused to surrender, even under threat of being shot, is MORE culpable than the police officer.
“Because that’s the most straightforward conclusion of your particular objections to my complaints about Wilson’s recklessness.”
You have decide Wilson was reckless, you. And if I disagree then I don’t think procedures, discretion, professionalism are important?
I don’t think he could have done anything except let Brown either walk away or beat the crap out of him that would prove his “professionalism” to you.
In my world, a cop chasing a suspect that just attacked him would be considered “professional”. Overcoming his own fear to chase a clearly dangerous young man is part of the job.
His job put him at risk, and, when threatened again he had the option to use deadly force. I don’t think it’s “ok” but two people participated and I believe the criminal aggressor who refused to surrender, even under threat of being shot, is MORE culpable than the police officer.
Chasing a suspect that just attacked him is the officer’s job if he has reason to believe that the suspect is an imminent threat to others. Otherwise, his job is to wait for his back-up to arrive.
There is no need to chase after the suspect, at risk to yourself, unless you have reason to think he is going to attack someone else. That’s why police procedures are routinely written to not do so.
Chasing a suspect that just attacked him is the officer’s job if he has reason to believe that the suspect is an imminent threat to others. Otherwise, his job is to wait for his back-up to arrive.
There is no need to chase after the suspect, at risk to yourself, unless you have reason to think he is going to attack someone else. That’s why police procedures are routinely written to not do so.
Chasing a suspect that just attacked him is the officer’s job if he has reason to believe that the suspect is an imminent threat to others. Otherwise, his job is to wait for his back-up to arrive.
There is no need to chase after the suspect, at risk to yourself, unless you have reason to think he is going to attack someone else. That’s why police procedures are routinely written to not do so.
The forensics were pretty definitive
I’m not seeing that. If you could lay out some details here, it would be more convincing.
The forensics were pretty definitive
I’m not seeing that. If you could lay out some details here, it would be more convincing.
The forensics were pretty definitive
I’m not seeing that. If you could lay out some details here, it would be more convincing.
And beyond what wj said, Marty, Wilson’s decision point was not after Brown “had just attacked him”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. It was when he called for backup and didn’t wait for it to arrive before confronting Brown for the second time.
The procedures are there for his protection, too, Marty, not just “murderous thugs” like Brown’s. You’ve repeatedly declared Brown to be a dangerous, aggressive, and yes, murderous individual – what if he had had a gun when Wilson did exactly as his testimony reports he did? Hell, what if he merely had a knife or even just a heavy blunt object? Your vision of police “professionalism” would have gotten Wilson killed. Killed. Dead. In a stupid and entirely preventable fashion. Because he was reckless, impatient, or cocky. Those are not noble reasons to die.
I’m not saying Wilson was reckless because I sit here cackling malignantly and fantasizing about him getting beaten, Marty, and it’s getting exceedingly tedious explaining that to you – not least because every explanation must (pointlessly?) remind you that my declarations that Wilson was reckless, unprofessional, and made a poor decision refer to the decision he made when safely away from Brown, before Brown ever laid a hand on him, not the decision he made when he dismounted and shot at Brown as he fled. Again, the poor, reckless decision to which I am referring – and have referred to every time I have done so in this thread, and have EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED I have done so every time I have done so in this thread – was the decision to re-engage/apprehend Brown and Johnson alone after he called for backup. I’m beginning to reach the limits of my ability to presume good faith on your part in repeatedly “misunderstanding” that, Marty.
And beyond what wj said, Marty, Wilson’s decision point was not after Brown “had just attacked him”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. It was when he called for backup and didn’t wait for it to arrive before confronting Brown for the second time.
The procedures are there for his protection, too, Marty, not just “murderous thugs” like Brown’s. You’ve repeatedly declared Brown to be a dangerous, aggressive, and yes, murderous individual – what if he had had a gun when Wilson did exactly as his testimony reports he did? Hell, what if he merely had a knife or even just a heavy blunt object? Your vision of police “professionalism” would have gotten Wilson killed. Killed. Dead. In a stupid and entirely preventable fashion. Because he was reckless, impatient, or cocky. Those are not noble reasons to die.
I’m not saying Wilson was reckless because I sit here cackling malignantly and fantasizing about him getting beaten, Marty, and it’s getting exceedingly tedious explaining that to you – not least because every explanation must (pointlessly?) remind you that my declarations that Wilson was reckless, unprofessional, and made a poor decision refer to the decision he made when safely away from Brown, before Brown ever laid a hand on him, not the decision he made when he dismounted and shot at Brown as he fled. Again, the poor, reckless decision to which I am referring – and have referred to every time I have done so in this thread, and have EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED I have done so every time I have done so in this thread – was the decision to re-engage/apprehend Brown and Johnson alone after he called for backup. I’m beginning to reach the limits of my ability to presume good faith on your part in repeatedly “misunderstanding” that, Marty.
And beyond what wj said, Marty, Wilson’s decision point was not after Brown “had just attacked him”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. It was when he called for backup and didn’t wait for it to arrive before confronting Brown for the second time.
The procedures are there for his protection, too, Marty, not just “murderous thugs” like Brown’s. You’ve repeatedly declared Brown to be a dangerous, aggressive, and yes, murderous individual – what if he had had a gun when Wilson did exactly as his testimony reports he did? Hell, what if he merely had a knife or even just a heavy blunt object? Your vision of police “professionalism” would have gotten Wilson killed. Killed. Dead. In a stupid and entirely preventable fashion. Because he was reckless, impatient, or cocky. Those are not noble reasons to die.
I’m not saying Wilson was reckless because I sit here cackling malignantly and fantasizing about him getting beaten, Marty, and it’s getting exceedingly tedious explaining that to you – not least because every explanation must (pointlessly?) remind you that my declarations that Wilson was reckless, unprofessional, and made a poor decision refer to the decision he made when safely away from Brown, before Brown ever laid a hand on him, not the decision he made when he dismounted and shot at Brown as he fled. Again, the poor, reckless decision to which I am referring – and have referred to every time I have done so in this thread, and have EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED I have done so every time I have done so in this thread – was the decision to re-engage/apprehend Brown and Johnson alone after he called for backup. I’m beginning to reach the limits of my ability to presume good faith on your part in repeatedly “misunderstanding” that, Marty.
Lets see Russell, he just robbed a store, then attacked me, I’m supposed to mind read that he isn’t dangerous to others? Not my cop.
Lets see Russell, he just robbed a store, then attacked me, I’m supposed to mind read that he isn’t dangerous to others? Not my cop.
Lets see Russell, he just robbed a store, then attacked me, I’m supposed to mind read that he isn’t dangerous to others? Not my cop.
The procedures are there for his protection
Not to mention also for bystanders who might be endangered by the use of deadly force.
The procedures are there for his protection
Not to mention also for bystanders who might be endangered by the use of deadly force.
The procedures are there for his protection
Not to mention also for bystanders who might be endangered by the use of deadly force.
Marty, “your cop” is dead in his squad because he played cowboy and “my” murderous thug hit his face with a knife instead of just his fist.
Your “police professionalism” killed him, see?
Marty, “your cop” is dead in his squad because he played cowboy and “my” murderous thug hit his face with a knife instead of just his fist.
Your “police professionalism” killed him, see?
Marty, “your cop” is dead in his squad because he played cowboy and “my” murderous thug hit his face with a knife instead of just his fist.
Your “police professionalism” killed him, see?
(Or yes, “your cop” shot and killed a (murderous?) bystander while using deadly force to take down “Ugh’s” murderous thug. Very professional.)
(Or yes, “your cop” shot and killed a (murderous?) bystander while using deadly force to take down “Ugh’s” murderous thug. Very professional.)
(Or yes, “your cop” shot and killed a (murderous?) bystander while using deadly force to take down “Ugh’s” murderous thug. Very professional.)
No, your thug killed him. And he didn’t kill a bystander, so now you’re making sh*t up.
No, your thug killed him. And he didn’t kill a bystander, so now you’re making sh*t up.
No, your thug killed him. And he didn’t kill a bystander, so now you’re making sh*t up.
It’s a hypothetical, thus by definition…
It’s a hypothetical, thus by definition…
It’s a hypothetical, thus by definition…
Brown was a being a dumb-assed, 18-year-old knucklehead who shouldn’t have been stealing cigars, shoving shopkeepers, walking down the middle of the street or mouthing off to a cop. He shouldn’t have attacked the cop, either, if he did that. No need for a pass, unless anything short of death is a pass.
It’s just that Wilson should have avoided creating a situation where Brown, obviously not intimidated by or respectful of Wilson, might attack a lone cop before back-up arrived.
It’s entirely possible to think Brown was at fault while still thinking that Wilson was, too – perhaps not criminally so, but at fault none the less.
(It’s also possible to find fault with the grand-jury process, which was essentially a closed-door trial dressed up as a super-thorough grand-jury hearing.)
Brown was a being a dumb-assed, 18-year-old knucklehead who shouldn’t have been stealing cigars, shoving shopkeepers, walking down the middle of the street or mouthing off to a cop. He shouldn’t have attacked the cop, either, if he did that. No need for a pass, unless anything short of death is a pass.
It’s just that Wilson should have avoided creating a situation where Brown, obviously not intimidated by or respectful of Wilson, might attack a lone cop before back-up arrived.
It’s entirely possible to think Brown was at fault while still thinking that Wilson was, too – perhaps not criminally so, but at fault none the less.
(It’s also possible to find fault with the grand-jury process, which was essentially a closed-door trial dressed up as a super-thorough grand-jury hearing.)
Brown was a being a dumb-assed, 18-year-old knucklehead who shouldn’t have been stealing cigars, shoving shopkeepers, walking down the middle of the street or mouthing off to a cop. He shouldn’t have attacked the cop, either, if he did that. No need for a pass, unless anything short of death is a pass.
It’s just that Wilson should have avoided creating a situation where Brown, obviously not intimidated by or respectful of Wilson, might attack a lone cop before back-up arrived.
It’s entirely possible to think Brown was at fault while still thinking that Wilson was, too – perhaps not criminally so, but at fault none the less.
(It’s also possible to find fault with the grand-jury process, which was essentially a closed-door trial dressed up as a super-thorough grand-jury hearing.)
Lets see Russell, he just robbed a store, then attacked me, I’m supposed to mind read that he isn’t dangerous to others? Not my cop.
You’re not presenting forensics here, you’re presenting a narrative.
It’s not clear that he attacked Wilson. The eyewitness testimony differs on the point. The physical evidence – the medical record and photographs of Wilson’s injuries – do not demonstrate a life-threatening physical beating.
It is clear that Wilson fired at Brown when he fled. Unless Brown presented a credible serious physical threat to Wilson or anybody else, it was illegal for Wilson to fire at him while he was fleeing. Brown was unarmed, and was fleeing away from Wilson at that point, so I’m not seeing a threat to Wilson at that point, no matter what happened at the car. Wilson could presumably claim that he believed Brown would present a serious danger to somebody else, but that claim will not now be tested.
Several eye witnesses have Brown surrendering when he turned back toward Wilson. Intuitively, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than having him turn and, unarmed, attack a police officer who is firing a gun at him. It’s unclear how far away Brown was from Wilson when Wilson killed him. The police chief says the “whole scene” was 35 feet, the medical examiner has the “whole scene” more like a football field.
When I ask for “the forensics”, I’m asking what actual evidence – what testimony, what physical evidence – you are referring to.
What do we actually know that will help us understand what happened.
You may simply prefer to take Wilson at his word, that’s your prerogative. When people claim that it’s clear what happened, I would like to know the basis of that claim.
I’ve read a fair amount of stuff, and it’s not clear to me.
Lets see Russell, he just robbed a store, then attacked me, I’m supposed to mind read that he isn’t dangerous to others? Not my cop.
You’re not presenting forensics here, you’re presenting a narrative.
It’s not clear that he attacked Wilson. The eyewitness testimony differs on the point. The physical evidence – the medical record and photographs of Wilson’s injuries – do not demonstrate a life-threatening physical beating.
It is clear that Wilson fired at Brown when he fled. Unless Brown presented a credible serious physical threat to Wilson or anybody else, it was illegal for Wilson to fire at him while he was fleeing. Brown was unarmed, and was fleeing away from Wilson at that point, so I’m not seeing a threat to Wilson at that point, no matter what happened at the car. Wilson could presumably claim that he believed Brown would present a serious danger to somebody else, but that claim will not now be tested.
Several eye witnesses have Brown surrendering when he turned back toward Wilson. Intuitively, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than having him turn and, unarmed, attack a police officer who is firing a gun at him. It’s unclear how far away Brown was from Wilson when Wilson killed him. The police chief says the “whole scene” was 35 feet, the medical examiner has the “whole scene” more like a football field.
When I ask for “the forensics”, I’m asking what actual evidence – what testimony, what physical evidence – you are referring to.
What do we actually know that will help us understand what happened.
You may simply prefer to take Wilson at his word, that’s your prerogative. When people claim that it’s clear what happened, I would like to know the basis of that claim.
I’ve read a fair amount of stuff, and it’s not clear to me.
Lets see Russell, he just robbed a store, then attacked me, I’m supposed to mind read that he isn’t dangerous to others? Not my cop.
You’re not presenting forensics here, you’re presenting a narrative.
It’s not clear that he attacked Wilson. The eyewitness testimony differs on the point. The physical evidence – the medical record and photographs of Wilson’s injuries – do not demonstrate a life-threatening physical beating.
It is clear that Wilson fired at Brown when he fled. Unless Brown presented a credible serious physical threat to Wilson or anybody else, it was illegal for Wilson to fire at him while he was fleeing. Brown was unarmed, and was fleeing away from Wilson at that point, so I’m not seeing a threat to Wilson at that point, no matter what happened at the car. Wilson could presumably claim that he believed Brown would present a serious danger to somebody else, but that claim will not now be tested.
Several eye witnesses have Brown surrendering when he turned back toward Wilson. Intuitively, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than having him turn and, unarmed, attack a police officer who is firing a gun at him. It’s unclear how far away Brown was from Wilson when Wilson killed him. The police chief says the “whole scene” was 35 feet, the medical examiner has the “whole scene” more like a football field.
When I ask for “the forensics”, I’m asking what actual evidence – what testimony, what physical evidence – you are referring to.
What do we actually know that will help us understand what happened.
You may simply prefer to take Wilson at his word, that’s your prerogative. When people claim that it’s clear what happened, I would like to know the basis of that claim.
I’ve read a fair amount of stuff, and it’s not clear to me.
Hi Marty,
Your comment @ 3:40 above was interesting, and its challege got me thinking. So let’s take it step by step, shall we? Please bear with me.
You open with a quote from the Count that lays out an all too common scenario of white privilege, and then assert:
Not where I come from. And yes this is the heart of the problem
At first, these struck me as contradictory statements. I mean if it’s not true “where you came from” then how could it possibly be the “heart of the problem”? But then yes, it is true that ALL poor people get treated like dirt in our society. On this we agree (yahoo), and it is a very important point. I shall return to that thought below, but first let’s express a bit of dismay at some other parts of your post:
(1.)black middle class people don’t have this problem This is, as I and others have asserted on this and other threads, manifestly untrue. The evidence for racial discrimination across all income levels is overwhelming.
(2.) It’s as if you never met a white poor person. Thank you for the overweening condescension. I see conservatives are no more immune to it than are liberals. In its way, this is heartening. You guys are as thoughtlessly stupid as we are sometimes.
(3.) As a percentage of poor people, white poor people make up 75%. Black poor people are 25% of poor people, True. But this is news? I’ve known this since Michael Harrington’s pathbreaking book, The Other America published way back in 1962. The question is this: What, if anything, do we do about it? To me, economic inequality is the important and overriding issue we face as a nation today. What do you think?
(4.) You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people.
Possibly, but perhaps that because they express their bigotry so manifestly, viscerally, and violently. So it is obvious. But racial animus is not constrained by good manners, and certainly not by wealth. You seem to know this. Have you ever read Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant? I think you’d like it. He addresses these kinds of issues directly, and from a “left” prospective.
(5.) Not because they were born that way, or even grew up that way, as many were raised in pretty integrated environments.
Well no, the statistics would argue otherwise. Housing segregation is still the norm in this country, not the exception. Again, statistics bear this out.
And then we get this…..They (poor whites) just get so f’ing tired of hearing about how white people have all the advantages. They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks.
Ah, the heart of the matter. I agree, I have heard that line of thought expressed often-and not just from the poors. But I turn it back on you in that case. What should be done? If all those “programs” (TV????) ceased, Al Sharpton was locked in a basement, and all those politicians shut the f*ck up, what would change? Would poor whites be more disposed to stop acting like racist assholes? Why would they? I mean, to my way of thinking, I am really tired of hearing about how tired they are. I tend to believe they are tired of being poor.
On the left (you may not believe this), this is a subject of great debate. What do we have to do to win back the white working class? Or should we even bother to try? After all, now that we have hollowed out manufacturing in this country, what working class is left? Nonetheless we push on. On the policy front, we advocate policies that not only help blacks, but all of us. These include:
1. Stronger labor unions. We need tight labor markets and higher wages.
2. An end to so-called “free” trade. Trade that pits our factory workers against the Chinese but not doctors, accountants, and lawyers, shifts income upward. Trade policies that force everybody else to kowtow to our absurd patent system is just stealing from the world’s poor as well as ours.
3. Fiscal policies to guarantee that all who want a decent job have a decent job.
4. Break up “too big to fail banks”. They are financial vampires.
5. Curb untrammeled corporate power.
6. Raise marginal tax rates on wealth. Ever since Reagan, we have been giving the rich the ranch and waiting for the tide to rise. Just how long are you willing to wait?
6. Extend health care to all. The ACA’s broad extension of medicare is critical in this regard.
There are others, but I assume you get the idea. All of these policies are vehemently opposed by “conservatives”. To the poor and working class, the conservative “movement”, the GOP, and right wing conservative lickspittle propagandists offer this: NOTHING. But their politicians will go to bat to make sure you have your guns, you anti-abortion laws, your institutionalized discrimination against gays, and the 10 commandments in the town square. In return, they ask only for the infinite enhancement of the private power of your boss when it comes to the workplace and most, if not all, of your f*cking money.
So tell me again why you call yourself a conservative.
They are mostly just forgotten.
I couldn’t agree more.
Hi Marty,
Your comment @ 3:40 above was interesting, and its challege got me thinking. So let’s take it step by step, shall we? Please bear with me.
You open with a quote from the Count that lays out an all too common scenario of white privilege, and then assert:
Not where I come from. And yes this is the heart of the problem
At first, these struck me as contradictory statements. I mean if it’s not true “where you came from” then how could it possibly be the “heart of the problem”? But then yes, it is true that ALL poor people get treated like dirt in our society. On this we agree (yahoo), and it is a very important point. I shall return to that thought below, but first let’s express a bit of dismay at some other parts of your post:
(1.)black middle class people don’t have this problem This is, as I and others have asserted on this and other threads, manifestly untrue. The evidence for racial discrimination across all income levels is overwhelming.
(2.) It’s as if you never met a white poor person. Thank you for the overweening condescension. I see conservatives are no more immune to it than are liberals. In its way, this is heartening. You guys are as thoughtlessly stupid as we are sometimes.
(3.) As a percentage of poor people, white poor people make up 75%. Black poor people are 25% of poor people, True. But this is news? I’ve known this since Michael Harrington’s pathbreaking book, The Other America published way back in 1962. The question is this: What, if anything, do we do about it? To me, economic inequality is the important and overriding issue we face as a nation today. What do you think?
(4.) You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people.
Possibly, but perhaps that because they express their bigotry so manifestly, viscerally, and violently. So it is obvious. But racial animus is not constrained by good manners, and certainly not by wealth. You seem to know this. Have you ever read Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant? I think you’d like it. He addresses these kinds of issues directly, and from a “left” prospective.
(5.) Not because they were born that way, or even grew up that way, as many were raised in pretty integrated environments.
Well no, the statistics would argue otherwise. Housing segregation is still the norm in this country, not the exception. Again, statistics bear this out.
And then we get this…..They (poor whites) just get so f’ing tired of hearing about how white people have all the advantages. They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks.
Ah, the heart of the matter. I agree, I have heard that line of thought expressed often-and not just from the poors. But I turn it back on you in that case. What should be done? If all those “programs” (TV????) ceased, Al Sharpton was locked in a basement, and all those politicians shut the f*ck up, what would change? Would poor whites be more disposed to stop acting like racist assholes? Why would they? I mean, to my way of thinking, I am really tired of hearing about how tired they are. I tend to believe they are tired of being poor.
On the left (you may not believe this), this is a subject of great debate. What do we have to do to win back the white working class? Or should we even bother to try? After all, now that we have hollowed out manufacturing in this country, what working class is left? Nonetheless we push on. On the policy front, we advocate policies that not only help blacks, but all of us. These include:
1. Stronger labor unions. We need tight labor markets and higher wages.
2. An end to so-called “free” trade. Trade that pits our factory workers against the Chinese but not doctors, accountants, and lawyers, shifts income upward. Trade policies that force everybody else to kowtow to our absurd patent system is just stealing from the world’s poor as well as ours.
3. Fiscal policies to guarantee that all who want a decent job have a decent job.
4. Break up “too big to fail banks”. They are financial vampires.
5. Curb untrammeled corporate power.
6. Raise marginal tax rates on wealth. Ever since Reagan, we have been giving the rich the ranch and waiting for the tide to rise. Just how long are you willing to wait?
6. Extend health care to all. The ACA’s broad extension of medicare is critical in this regard.
There are others, but I assume you get the idea. All of these policies are vehemently opposed by “conservatives”. To the poor and working class, the conservative “movement”, the GOP, and right wing conservative lickspittle propagandists offer this: NOTHING. But their politicians will go to bat to make sure you have your guns, you anti-abortion laws, your institutionalized discrimination against gays, and the 10 commandments in the town square. In return, they ask only for the infinite enhancement of the private power of your boss when it comes to the workplace and most, if not all, of your f*cking money.
So tell me again why you call yourself a conservative.
They are mostly just forgotten.
I couldn’t agree more.
Hi Marty,
Your comment @ 3:40 above was interesting, and its challege got me thinking. So let’s take it step by step, shall we? Please bear with me.
You open with a quote from the Count that lays out an all too common scenario of white privilege, and then assert:
Not where I come from. And yes this is the heart of the problem
At first, these struck me as contradictory statements. I mean if it’s not true “where you came from” then how could it possibly be the “heart of the problem”? But then yes, it is true that ALL poor people get treated like dirt in our society. On this we agree (yahoo), and it is a very important point. I shall return to that thought below, but first let’s express a bit of dismay at some other parts of your post:
(1.)black middle class people don’t have this problem This is, as I and others have asserted on this and other threads, manifestly untrue. The evidence for racial discrimination across all income levels is overwhelming.
(2.) It’s as if you never met a white poor person. Thank you for the overweening condescension. I see conservatives are no more immune to it than are liberals. In its way, this is heartening. You guys are as thoughtlessly stupid as we are sometimes.
(3.) As a percentage of poor people, white poor people make up 75%. Black poor people are 25% of poor people, True. But this is news? I’ve known this since Michael Harrington’s pathbreaking book, The Other America published way back in 1962. The question is this: What, if anything, do we do about it? To me, economic inequality is the important and overriding issue we face as a nation today. What do you think?
(4.) You want to know who the most racially bigoted people, as a percentage, I know are? Poor white people.
Possibly, but perhaps that because they express their bigotry so manifestly, viscerally, and violently. So it is obvious. But racial animus is not constrained by good manners, and certainly not by wealth. You seem to know this. Have you ever read Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant? I think you’d like it. He addresses these kinds of issues directly, and from a “left” prospective.
(5.) Not because they were born that way, or even grew up that way, as many were raised in pretty integrated environments.
Well no, the statistics would argue otherwise. Housing segregation is still the norm in this country, not the exception. Again, statistics bear this out.
And then we get this…..They (poor whites) just get so f’ing tired of hearing about how white people have all the advantages. They watch program after program and politician after politician talk about the plight of those poor black folks.
Ah, the heart of the matter. I agree, I have heard that line of thought expressed often-and not just from the poors. But I turn it back on you in that case. What should be done? If all those “programs” (TV????) ceased, Al Sharpton was locked in a basement, and all those politicians shut the f*ck up, what would change? Would poor whites be more disposed to stop acting like racist assholes? Why would they? I mean, to my way of thinking, I am really tired of hearing about how tired they are. I tend to believe they are tired of being poor.
On the left (you may not believe this), this is a subject of great debate. What do we have to do to win back the white working class? Or should we even bother to try? After all, now that we have hollowed out manufacturing in this country, what working class is left? Nonetheless we push on. On the policy front, we advocate policies that not only help blacks, but all of us. These include:
1. Stronger labor unions. We need tight labor markets and higher wages.
2. An end to so-called “free” trade. Trade that pits our factory workers against the Chinese but not doctors, accountants, and lawyers, shifts income upward. Trade policies that force everybody else to kowtow to our absurd patent system is just stealing from the world’s poor as well as ours.
3. Fiscal policies to guarantee that all who want a decent job have a decent job.
4. Break up “too big to fail banks”. They are financial vampires.
5. Curb untrammeled corporate power.
6. Raise marginal tax rates on wealth. Ever since Reagan, we have been giving the rich the ranch and waiting for the tide to rise. Just how long are you willing to wait?
6. Extend health care to all. The ACA’s broad extension of medicare is critical in this regard.
There are others, but I assume you get the idea. All of these policies are vehemently opposed by “conservatives”. To the poor and working class, the conservative “movement”, the GOP, and right wing conservative lickspittle propagandists offer this: NOTHING. But their politicians will go to bat to make sure you have your guns, you anti-abortion laws, your institutionalized discrimination against gays, and the 10 commandments in the town square. In return, they ask only for the infinite enhancement of the private power of your boss when it comes to the workplace and most, if not all, of your f*cking money.
So tell me again why you call yourself a conservative.
They are mostly just forgotten.
I couldn’t agree more.
Here’s another situation – is it reasonable for police to initiate a high speed chase when someone takes off after/while being pulled over for a minor traffic violation?
And is it more suspicious to be walking with your hands in your pockets in freezing weather, or with your hands out of your pockets in freezing weather? The former, it seems.
Here’s another situation – is it reasonable for police to initiate a high speed chase when someone takes off after/while being pulled over for a minor traffic violation?
And is it more suspicious to be walking with your hands in your pockets in freezing weather, or with your hands out of your pockets in freezing weather? The former, it seems.
Here’s another situation – is it reasonable for police to initiate a high speed chase when someone takes off after/while being pulled over for a minor traffic violation?
And is it more suspicious to be walking with your hands in your pockets in freezing weather, or with your hands out of your pockets in freezing weather? The former, it seems.
“Officer Wilson was not the reason Michael Brown died. At worst, he was the reason Michael died on that particular occasion, and not a later one.”
I shall be interested to hear this particular defense tried in a court of law sometime. I rather suspect that its success will depend on the skin color of the victim rather than mundane concerns like logic and facts.
“Officer Wilson was not the reason Michael Brown died. At worst, he was the reason Michael died on that particular occasion, and not a later one.”
I shall be interested to hear this particular defense tried in a court of law sometime. I rather suspect that its success will depend on the skin color of the victim rather than mundane concerns like logic and facts.
“Officer Wilson was not the reason Michael Brown died. At worst, he was the reason Michael died on that particular occasion, and not a later one.”
I shall be interested to hear this particular defense tried in a court of law sometime. I rather suspect that its success will depend on the skin color of the victim rather than mundane concerns like logic and facts.
“To the poor and working class, the conservative “movement”, the GOP, and right wing conservative lickspittle propagandists offer this: NOTHING. But their politicians will go to bat to make sure you have your guns, you anti-abortion laws, your institutionalized discrimination against gays, and the 10 commandments in the town square.”
The key question here is whether these things seem like nothing to the voters in question. If we assumed that they don’t believe politicians/government can or will do anything to radically ameliorate their lives, the appeal to these voters of seeing their (economically worthless, but resonantly tribal) traditions “respected” might seem worth something. In sum, not all worth or value can be measured in terms of economic benefit, which is, I think the mistake that far too many persons of the left continue to make in their analysis of the problem.
“To the poor and working class, the conservative “movement”, the GOP, and right wing conservative lickspittle propagandists offer this: NOTHING. But their politicians will go to bat to make sure you have your guns, you anti-abortion laws, your institutionalized discrimination against gays, and the 10 commandments in the town square.”
The key question here is whether these things seem like nothing to the voters in question. If we assumed that they don’t believe politicians/government can or will do anything to radically ameliorate their lives, the appeal to these voters of seeing their (economically worthless, but resonantly tribal) traditions “respected” might seem worth something. In sum, not all worth or value can be measured in terms of economic benefit, which is, I think the mistake that far too many persons of the left continue to make in their analysis of the problem.
“To the poor and working class, the conservative “movement”, the GOP, and right wing conservative lickspittle propagandists offer this: NOTHING. But their politicians will go to bat to make sure you have your guns, you anti-abortion laws, your institutionalized discrimination against gays, and the 10 commandments in the town square.”
The key question here is whether these things seem like nothing to the voters in question. If we assumed that they don’t believe politicians/government can or will do anything to radically ameliorate their lives, the appeal to these voters of seeing their (economically worthless, but resonantly tribal) traditions “respected” might seem worth something. In sum, not all worth or value can be measured in terms of economic benefit, which is, I think the mistake that far too many persons of the left continue to make in their analysis of the problem.
“Brett, someday some white punk will “attack” a black police officer and get shot dead for his trouble. We will resume this conversation then.”
No. No, we won’t. We didn’t have this conversation the last time that happened, and we won’t have this conversation the next time that happens.
And part of the reason we didn’t/won’t, is because people on my side have little sympathy for punks, and maybe too much sympathy for cops.
But the bigger reason is that it isn’t useful to your side to make a big fuss over a black guy killing a white guy, whatever their respective occupations.
Michael Brown was chosen to be a figurehead, a symbol. To that end, his shooting had to be wrongful regardless of what the evidence said, he had to be guiltless, regardless of what the evidence said, and Ferguson burned, more than once, because, eggs and omelettes.
And we will certainly NOT have this conversation the next time a black cop kills a white punk. Because it won’t be in the news, except maybe locally.
“Brett, someday some white punk will “attack” a black police officer and get shot dead for his trouble. We will resume this conversation then.”
No. No, we won’t. We didn’t have this conversation the last time that happened, and we won’t have this conversation the next time that happens.
And part of the reason we didn’t/won’t, is because people on my side have little sympathy for punks, and maybe too much sympathy for cops.
But the bigger reason is that it isn’t useful to your side to make a big fuss over a black guy killing a white guy, whatever their respective occupations.
Michael Brown was chosen to be a figurehead, a symbol. To that end, his shooting had to be wrongful regardless of what the evidence said, he had to be guiltless, regardless of what the evidence said, and Ferguson burned, more than once, because, eggs and omelettes.
And we will certainly NOT have this conversation the next time a black cop kills a white punk. Because it won’t be in the news, except maybe locally.
“Brett, someday some white punk will “attack” a black police officer and get shot dead for his trouble. We will resume this conversation then.”
No. No, we won’t. We didn’t have this conversation the last time that happened, and we won’t have this conversation the next time that happens.
And part of the reason we didn’t/won’t, is because people on my side have little sympathy for punks, and maybe too much sympathy for cops.
But the bigger reason is that it isn’t useful to your side to make a big fuss over a black guy killing a white guy, whatever their respective occupations.
Michael Brown was chosen to be a figurehead, a symbol. To that end, his shooting had to be wrongful regardless of what the evidence said, he had to be guiltless, regardless of what the evidence said, and Ferguson burned, more than once, because, eggs and omelettes.
And we will certainly NOT have this conversation the next time a black cop kills a white punk. Because it won’t be in the news, except maybe locally.
“I shall be interested to hear this particular defense tried in a court of law sometime.”
It was, essentially. And the court of law thought, “Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.” a pretty darned valid defense, and didn’t prosecute.
My position is that Michael Brown could not go around attacking people indefinitely, and never come to a bad end.
“I shall be interested to hear this particular defense tried in a court of law sometime.”
It was, essentially. And the court of law thought, “Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.” a pretty darned valid defense, and didn’t prosecute.
My position is that Michael Brown could not go around attacking people indefinitely, and never come to a bad end.
“I shall be interested to hear this particular defense tried in a court of law sometime.”
It was, essentially. And the court of law thought, “Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.” a pretty darned valid defense, and didn’t prosecute.
My position is that Michael Brown could not go around attacking people indefinitely, and never come to a bad end.
“Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.”
a position somewhat in question, if you believe any of the witnesses who disagree with the He Had It Coming defense.
“Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.”
a position somewhat in question, if you believe any of the witnesses who disagree with the He Had It Coming defense.
“Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.”
a position somewhat in question, if you believe any of the witnesses who disagree with the He Had It Coming defense.
No, your thug killed him. And he didn’t kill a bystander, so now you’re making sh*t up.
Oh, Marty, no; it’s not “now” that I was making sh|t up. I was also making s#it up when I made the hypothetical about Brown committing murder right before that – you know, the hypothetical that the first half of your sentence treated as the hypothetical that it was – and didn’t start making shi+ up only when I made the hypothetical about Wilson shooting a bystander. I was “making $hit up” both times. For someone who’s been as obsessed with instances when someone decries one thing but doesn’t mention the other in this thread, you’ve got to realize how… telling it looks when you have no problem treating reasonably with a hypothetical that denigrates Brown, but suddenly becoming a font of righteous indignation about me just making $#|+ up when immediately afterwards you’re faced with one that to a less serious degree denigrates Wilson.
You (and Brett, too) have been absolutely adamant on the point that I (and others, but definitely I) have refused to view Brown as doing anything wrong. Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter. Exactly as hsh stated last night, Brown’s alleged conduct does exactly nothing to preclude Wilson from having done wrong. Wilson’s behavior looks bad even when we take him at his sworn word, and he was not – and will never be – held accountable for it to the same degree that a civilian engaged in comparable activity would. And this is completely typical for police engaged in certain broad swaths of unprofessional, dangerous, and even apparently unlawful conduct.
Your fervent insistence that I (and others) must view the alleged robber Brown as guilt-free simply because we don’t take your tack of fawningly praising Wilson as unquestionably guilt-free is straight-up tribal.
No, your thug killed him. And he didn’t kill a bystander, so now you’re making sh*t up.
Oh, Marty, no; it’s not “now” that I was making sh|t up. I was also making s#it up when I made the hypothetical about Brown committing murder right before that – you know, the hypothetical that the first half of your sentence treated as the hypothetical that it was – and didn’t start making shi+ up only when I made the hypothetical about Wilson shooting a bystander. I was “making $hit up” both times. For someone who’s been as obsessed with instances when someone decries one thing but doesn’t mention the other in this thread, you’ve got to realize how… telling it looks when you have no problem treating reasonably with a hypothetical that denigrates Brown, but suddenly becoming a font of righteous indignation about me just making $#|+ up when immediately afterwards you’re faced with one that to a less serious degree denigrates Wilson.
You (and Brett, too) have been absolutely adamant on the point that I (and others, but definitely I) have refused to view Brown as doing anything wrong. Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter. Exactly as hsh stated last night, Brown’s alleged conduct does exactly nothing to preclude Wilson from having done wrong. Wilson’s behavior looks bad even when we take him at his sworn word, and he was not – and will never be – held accountable for it to the same degree that a civilian engaged in comparable activity would. And this is completely typical for police engaged in certain broad swaths of unprofessional, dangerous, and even apparently unlawful conduct.
Your fervent insistence that I (and others) must view the alleged robber Brown as guilt-free simply because we don’t take your tack of fawningly praising Wilson as unquestionably guilt-free is straight-up tribal.
No, your thug killed him. And he didn’t kill a bystander, so now you’re making sh*t up.
Oh, Marty, no; it’s not “now” that I was making sh|t up. I was also making s#it up when I made the hypothetical about Brown committing murder right before that – you know, the hypothetical that the first half of your sentence treated as the hypothetical that it was – and didn’t start making shi+ up only when I made the hypothetical about Wilson shooting a bystander. I was “making $hit up” both times. For someone who’s been as obsessed with instances when someone decries one thing but doesn’t mention the other in this thread, you’ve got to realize how… telling it looks when you have no problem treating reasonably with a hypothetical that denigrates Brown, but suddenly becoming a font of righteous indignation about me just making $#|+ up when immediately afterwards you’re faced with one that to a less serious degree denigrates Wilson.
You (and Brett, too) have been absolutely adamant on the point that I (and others, but definitely I) have refused to view Brown as doing anything wrong. Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter. Exactly as hsh stated last night, Brown’s alleged conduct does exactly nothing to preclude Wilson from having done wrong. Wilson’s behavior looks bad even when we take him at his sworn word, and he was not – and will never be – held accountable for it to the same degree that a civilian engaged in comparable activity would. And this is completely typical for police engaged in certain broad swaths of unprofessional, dangerous, and even apparently unlawful conduct.
Your fervent insistence that I (and others) must view the alleged robber Brown as guilt-free simply because we don’t take your tack of fawningly praising Wilson as unquestionably guilt-free is straight-up tribal.
It was, essentially. And the court of law thought, “Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.” a pretty darned valid defense, and didn’t prosecute.
No, it was not, “essentially” or otherwise. A grand jury, especially one as fraught by irregularities as this one was, is not a court of law. There is no adversarial process. There is a lower standard of evidence. Hell, there are specific charges leveled rather than the jury being presented with a mountain of evidence and being told to look to see if they see anything wrong.
So no, that defense was not tried here, Brett.
It was, essentially. And the court of law thought, “Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.” a pretty darned valid defense, and didn’t prosecute.
No, it was not, “essentially” or otherwise. A grand jury, especially one as fraught by irregularities as this one was, is not a court of law. There is no adversarial process. There is a lower standard of evidence. Hell, there are specific charges leveled rather than the jury being presented with a mountain of evidence and being told to look to see if they see anything wrong.
So no, that defense was not tried here, Brett.
It was, essentially. And the court of law thought, “Michael Brown attacked me, not the other way around.” a pretty darned valid defense, and didn’t prosecute.
No, it was not, “essentially” or otherwise. A grand jury, especially one as fraught by irregularities as this one was, is not a court of law. There is no adversarial process. There is a lower standard of evidence. Hell, there are specific charges leveled rather than the jury being presented with a mountain of evidence and being told to look to see if they see anything wrong.
So no, that defense was not tried here, Brett.
NV lets be clear, the making sh*t up was meant to cover all of your made up sh*t. It was an inclusive statement. I appreciate you pointing out that wasn’t clear.
And you can’t, no matter how much you want to, or repeat it, unattach Wilsons behavior from Browns. Everything Wilson did was a response to Browns actions. It wasn’t a movie or a training video or Wilson acting in a vacuum. Brown stops, puts his hands behind his head, kneels as ordered, Wilson doesn’t shoot him.
I have mow read (and heard) enough to KnOW what Wison would have done.
NV lets be clear, the making sh*t up was meant to cover all of your made up sh*t. It was an inclusive statement. I appreciate you pointing out that wasn’t clear.
And you can’t, no matter how much you want to, or repeat it, unattach Wilsons behavior from Browns. Everything Wilson did was a response to Browns actions. It wasn’t a movie or a training video or Wilson acting in a vacuum. Brown stops, puts his hands behind his head, kneels as ordered, Wilson doesn’t shoot him.
I have mow read (and heard) enough to KnOW what Wison would have done.
NV lets be clear, the making sh*t up was meant to cover all of your made up sh*t. It was an inclusive statement. I appreciate you pointing out that wasn’t clear.
And you can’t, no matter how much you want to, or repeat it, unattach Wilsons behavior from Browns. Everything Wilson did was a response to Browns actions. It wasn’t a movie or a training video or Wilson acting in a vacuum. Brown stops, puts his hands behind his head, kneels as ordered, Wilson doesn’t shoot him.
I have mow read (and heard) enough to KnOW what Wison would have done.
bobbyp, a long and interesting response. I will think about it before I say anything, thanks.
bobbyp, a long and interesting response. I will think about it before I say anything, thanks.
bobbyp, a long and interesting response. I will think about it before I say anything, thanks.
Housing segregation is still the norm in this country, not the exception. Again, statistics bear this out.
Bobby, it is still the norm, yes. But far less so that it used to be. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120385/black-white-segregation-steadily-declining
Today, the average person lives in a neighborhhod with people of a variety of different races. Not, perhaps, totally reflecting the nation, but far from what we saw 40-50 years ago.
Housing segregation is still the norm in this country, not the exception. Again, statistics bear this out.
Bobby, it is still the norm, yes. But far less so that it used to be. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120385/black-white-segregation-steadily-declining
Today, the average person lives in a neighborhhod with people of a variety of different races. Not, perhaps, totally reflecting the nation, but far from what we saw 40-50 years ago.
Housing segregation is still the norm in this country, not the exception. Again, statistics bear this out.
Bobby, it is still the norm, yes. But far less so that it used to be. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120385/black-white-segregation-steadily-declining
Today, the average person lives in a neighborhhod with people of a variety of different races. Not, perhaps, totally reflecting the nation, but far from what we saw 40-50 years ago.
Marty:
A few quick points:
this was pretty quick. As grand juries go.
Was it? It seems that it was atypically long, according to Scott Greenfield, ABC news, etc
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ferguson-grand-jury-unusual-ways-27103419
etc. I’ve read numerous news reports detailing how irregular the grand jury was. I’d be honestly quite surprised to learn that the grand jury was uncharacteristically short. Do you have a reference for that?
eye witnesses as reliable as ever
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially after time passes. I would point out, witness statements were gathered over weeks and months following the shooting. It is unsurprising to me they are inconsistent with each other:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-decision-michael-brown-witness-testimony/
The forensics are the forensics, and are consistent with many possible situations.
I think complaining about the investigation/ grand jury is misplaced.
In general, I don’t feel like its out of line to expect the government to provide the highest level of clarity when one of their agents takes the life of a citizen. I feel its quite reasonable to immediately take statements and file reports about the incident. I also feel that in the presence of questions, government agents should be subjected to the same form of adversarial process any other citizen would go through.
None of this was done, and that’s why I don’t think my concerns are misplaced.
Marty:
A few quick points:
this was pretty quick. As grand juries go.
Was it? It seems that it was atypically long, according to Scott Greenfield, ABC news, etc
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ferguson-grand-jury-unusual-ways-27103419
etc. I’ve read numerous news reports detailing how irregular the grand jury was. I’d be honestly quite surprised to learn that the grand jury was uncharacteristically short. Do you have a reference for that?
eye witnesses as reliable as ever
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially after time passes. I would point out, witness statements were gathered over weeks and months following the shooting. It is unsurprising to me they are inconsistent with each other:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-decision-michael-brown-witness-testimony/
The forensics are the forensics, and are consistent with many possible situations.
I think complaining about the investigation/ grand jury is misplaced.
In general, I don’t feel like its out of line to expect the government to provide the highest level of clarity when one of their agents takes the life of a citizen. I feel its quite reasonable to immediately take statements and file reports about the incident. I also feel that in the presence of questions, government agents should be subjected to the same form of adversarial process any other citizen would go through.
None of this was done, and that’s why I don’t think my concerns are misplaced.
Marty:
A few quick points:
this was pretty quick. As grand juries go.
Was it? It seems that it was atypically long, according to Scott Greenfield, ABC news, etc
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ferguson-grand-jury-unusual-ways-27103419
etc. I’ve read numerous news reports detailing how irregular the grand jury was. I’d be honestly quite surprised to learn that the grand jury was uncharacteristically short. Do you have a reference for that?
eye witnesses as reliable as ever
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially after time passes. I would point out, witness statements were gathered over weeks and months following the shooting. It is unsurprising to me they are inconsistent with each other:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-decision-michael-brown-witness-testimony/
The forensics are the forensics, and are consistent with many possible situations.
I think complaining about the investigation/ grand jury is misplaced.
In general, I don’t feel like its out of line to expect the government to provide the highest level of clarity when one of their agents takes the life of a citizen. I feel its quite reasonable to immediately take statements and file reports about the incident. I also feel that in the presence of questions, government agents should be subjected to the same form of adversarial process any other citizen would go through.
None of this was done, and that’s why I don’t think my concerns are misplaced.
…he had to be guiltless, regardless of what the evidence said, and Ferguson burned, more than once, because, eggs and omelettes.
Please quote anyone on this thread who has said Brown was guiltless and that burning Ferguson was good, wise or necessary.
…he had to be guiltless, regardless of what the evidence said, and Ferguson burned, more than once, because, eggs and omelettes.
Please quote anyone on this thread who has said Brown was guiltless and that burning Ferguson was good, wise or necessary.
…he had to be guiltless, regardless of what the evidence said, and Ferguson burned, more than once, because, eggs and omelettes.
Please quote anyone on this thread who has said Brown was guiltless and that burning Ferguson was good, wise or necessary.
Everything Wilson did was a response to Browns actions. It wasn’t a movie or a training video or Wilson acting in a vacuum.
Right, exactly! And this is the problem, Marty. It was all based on Wilson’s perception of Brown, and Wilson’s first interaction with Brown. It was not based on what Brown did after Wilson made his decision to recklessly escalate the decision by himself. It was not based on Wilson helping a sick kid beforehand (no matter how much you appear to want it to be). It was based on Wilson deciding that he didn’t need to wait for the backup he called for, and to confront two suspected robbers that he has now sworn he assessed as uncooperative, confrontational, and potentially (but not currently) dangerous. It is about Brown behaving in a manner when Wilson first confronted him that would cause a reasonable person to not expect Brown to be a compliant suspect. It was about the fact that Wilson’s testimony does not support a reasonable person expecting the apprehension to go nearly as smoothly as your making sh*t up describes it going. It describes a situation where a reasonable person could expect a pair of confrontational, hostile suspects who to flee or resist when faced with a lone officer they’ve already made it clear they don’t respect. And no amount of wishful making sh*t up on your part can change that. Wilson escalated the situation, and the most charitable interpretation of his actions that his testimony allows for is that he willfully placed himself in a situation where he (foreseeably) lost control and used more than the minimum amount of force than would have been necessary to prevent Brown and Johnson from remaining at large had he exercised reasonable, professional prudence when he had the opportunity to do so.
Everything Wilson did was a response to Browns actions. It wasn’t a movie or a training video or Wilson acting in a vacuum.
Right, exactly! And this is the problem, Marty. It was all based on Wilson’s perception of Brown, and Wilson’s first interaction with Brown. It was not based on what Brown did after Wilson made his decision to recklessly escalate the decision by himself. It was not based on Wilson helping a sick kid beforehand (no matter how much you appear to want it to be). It was based on Wilson deciding that he didn’t need to wait for the backup he called for, and to confront two suspected robbers that he has now sworn he assessed as uncooperative, confrontational, and potentially (but not currently) dangerous. It is about Brown behaving in a manner when Wilson first confronted him that would cause a reasonable person to not expect Brown to be a compliant suspect. It was about the fact that Wilson’s testimony does not support a reasonable person expecting the apprehension to go nearly as smoothly as your making sh*t up describes it going. It describes a situation where a reasonable person could expect a pair of confrontational, hostile suspects who to flee or resist when faced with a lone officer they’ve already made it clear they don’t respect. And no amount of wishful making sh*t up on your part can change that. Wilson escalated the situation, and the most charitable interpretation of his actions that his testimony allows for is that he willfully placed himself in a situation where he (foreseeably) lost control and used more than the minimum amount of force than would have been necessary to prevent Brown and Johnson from remaining at large had he exercised reasonable, professional prudence when he had the opportunity to do so.
Everything Wilson did was a response to Browns actions. It wasn’t a movie or a training video or Wilson acting in a vacuum.
Right, exactly! And this is the problem, Marty. It was all based on Wilson’s perception of Brown, and Wilson’s first interaction with Brown. It was not based on what Brown did after Wilson made his decision to recklessly escalate the decision by himself. It was not based on Wilson helping a sick kid beforehand (no matter how much you appear to want it to be). It was based on Wilson deciding that he didn’t need to wait for the backup he called for, and to confront two suspected robbers that he has now sworn he assessed as uncooperative, confrontational, and potentially (but not currently) dangerous. It is about Brown behaving in a manner when Wilson first confronted him that would cause a reasonable person to not expect Brown to be a compliant suspect. It was about the fact that Wilson’s testimony does not support a reasonable person expecting the apprehension to go nearly as smoothly as your making sh*t up describes it going. It describes a situation where a reasonable person could expect a pair of confrontational, hostile suspects who to flee or resist when faced with a lone officer they’ve already made it clear they don’t respect. And no amount of wishful making sh*t up on your part can change that. Wilson escalated the situation, and the most charitable interpretation of his actions that his testimony allows for is that he willfully placed himself in a situation where he (foreseeably) lost control and used more than the minimum amount of force than would have been necessary to prevent Brown and Johnson from remaining at large had he exercised reasonable, professional prudence when he had the opportunity to do so.
*that would have been
*that would have been
*that would have been
God, that was a masterpiece of jumbling, confusing incomplete post-editing. I think the meaning remains clear even though entirely too many sentences really don’t parse…
God, that was a masterpiece of jumbling, confusing incomplete post-editing. I think the meaning remains clear even though entirely too many sentences really don’t parse…
God, that was a masterpiece of jumbling, confusing incomplete post-editing. I think the meaning remains clear even though entirely too many sentences really don’t parse…
http://41.media.tumblr.com/67cc74960a2d933eba7d516f88383f4c/tumblr_nfx5fihmYO1qz9bu3o1_1280.png
he had it coming
http://41.media.tumblr.com/67cc74960a2d933eba7d516f88383f4c/tumblr_nfx5fihmYO1qz9bu3o1_1280.png
he had it coming
http://41.media.tumblr.com/67cc74960a2d933eba7d516f88383f4c/tumblr_nfx5fihmYO1qz9bu3o1_1280.png
he had it coming
I’m not sure, here is what I think is the basic difference, that, once the altercation at the car occurred, anything that Wilson did can be considers “escalating”. It was escalated. Dangerous suspect, hot pursuit, self defense, all reasonable steps after I scuffle with a suspect over my gun while tries to beat me around the head. I certainly believe he is dangerous, to me and possibly others.
I’m not sure, here is what I think is the basic difference, that, once the altercation at the car occurred, anything that Wilson did can be considers “escalating”. It was escalated. Dangerous suspect, hot pursuit, self defense, all reasonable steps after I scuffle with a suspect over my gun while tries to beat me around the head. I certainly believe he is dangerous, to me and possibly others.
I’m not sure, here is what I think is the basic difference, that, once the altercation at the car occurred, anything that Wilson did can be considers “escalating”. It was escalated. Dangerous suspect, hot pursuit, self defense, all reasonable steps after I scuffle with a suspect over my gun while tries to beat me around the head. I certainly believe he is dangerous, to me and possibly others.
The forensics are the forensics, and are consistent with many possible situations.
That’s my position as well.
Forensics.
The Ferguson PD didn’t even take prints off of Wilson’s gun.
The forensics are the forensics, and are consistent with many possible situations.
That’s my position as well.
Forensics.
The Ferguson PD didn’t even take prints off of Wilson’s gun.
The forensics are the forensics, and are consistent with many possible situations.
That’s my position as well.
Forensics.
The Ferguson PD didn’t even take prints off of Wilson’s gun.
and to confront two suspected robbers
whether Wilson thought they were robbers or not depends on if you’re asking immediately post-incident Wilson or grand-jury Wilson. only the latter says he knew they were robbers at the time.
and to confront two suspected robbers
whether Wilson thought they were robbers or not depends on if you’re asking immediately post-incident Wilson or grand-jury Wilson. only the latter says he knew they were robbers at the time.
and to confront two suspected robbers
whether Wilson thought they were robbers or not depends on if you’re asking immediately post-incident Wilson or grand-jury Wilson. only the latter says he knew they were robbers at the time.
I’m not sure, here is what I think is the basic difference, that, once the altercation at the car occurred, anything that Wilson did can be considers “escalating”.
Yes, Marty, THE ALTERCATION AT THE CAR. Which I have NEVER described as the point at which Wilson escalated (although, technically, he did escalate, since he increased the amount of force he was using… but that’s technical jargon overlapping with common English; Wilson escalated the force he was utilizing, but didn’t escalate the situation). But. BUT. I am not now, nor have I to my recollection at ANY time in this thread been talking about him escalating the situation after his testimony describes him being assaulted in his squad.
Serious question, Marty: have you actually read his testimony, or any other detailed description of how events unfolded? Because you keep misconstruing this very simple part. And I don’t know whether I should be assuming bad faith at this point, or just a lack of familiarity with the timeline of the incident.
Here goes:
1) Wilson sees Brown and Johnson walking in the street, and confronts them. They are disrespectful and hostile.
2) Wilson disengages from them, and is no longer in their proximity. He hears the reported robbery on his radio, and “it clicks” that Brown matches the description, etc.
3) Wilson calls for backup. At this point Wilson is still disengaged, not in contact or close proximity with Brown and Johnson, is in no physical danger, and has seen no sign of violence from Brown or Johnson.
4) With a cool head and time to think, in no danger and observing no threatening behavior from Brown or Johnson, Wilson chooses to escalate the situation by turning around, going back up the street to where Brown and Johnson are, and confronting them alone, without waiting for backup. Note that, again, he is not in physical danger. He has not witnessed behavior painting Brown or Johnson as a danger to him or others. He has, per his sworn testimony, observed them engaging in uncooperative, hostile, and disrespectful behavior. He has observed that Brown is larger than his own 6’4″ and is imposing. He has observed that there’s two of them and one of him. The behavior he testifies to does not paint the suspects as cooperative individuals, and indeed presents evidence that they could be reasonably suspected to resist or flee. If nothing else, if they fled, the fact that he was alone essentially ensures at least one would escape. If they had fled w/o first assaulting him or a bystander, he would have no basis to engage lethal force to apprehend them, and his testimony clearly describes him as having no force short of lethal force that would be effective in halting fleeing suspects at any range but point blank with them facing him. So he has no good reason to believe he alone can successfully apprehend the alleged robbers unless they are models of compliance, and he has good reason to believe they will be anything but models of compliance. But he still decides to escalate the situation.
5) Wilson drives back up the street and re-confronts Brown and Johnson. This is the escalation to which I have endlessly referred.
6) With the situation now escalated by Wilson’s reckless decision to go it alone, Brown and Johnson are quite predictably not models of compliance. Wilson loses control of the situation. Per Wilson’s testimony, at this moment Brown escalates the situation by beginning a physical altercation, and escalates the force being used against Wilson by striking his head with his hands. Wilson counter-escalates his own force by deploying lethal force.
7) Brown flees. Wilson dismounts and fires at the fleeing Brown. This is not what I’m referring to as Wilson escalating the situation. This is what you have repeatedly claimed I am referring to, but it absolutely is not. I have always been referring to 5), not 7).
8) Per Wilson’s testimony, Brown turns and charges him. Per witness testimony, not so much. For Brown, the outcome is the same either way: he’s fatally shot, and the situation is now de-escalated since one of the parties is somewhat dead.
Wilson chose to escalate the situation. Wilson was reckless, and should have waited for backup. He did not. This could have gotten him killed. It did get Brown killed. If Wilson had not escalated the situation by confronting two observably belligerent and uncooperative suspects with no backup and no reason to believe he could effect an apprehension unless the uncooperative suspects suddenly became respectful and compliant, Brown would still be alive, and presumably punished, awaiting punishment, or undergoing punishment for the crime he was alleged to have committed. Wilson was a reckless, unprofessional cowboy. He put himself at risk, he put bystanders at risk, and yes, he put his suspects at risk. Of them, he claims to have been beaten nearly into unconsciousness (though I agree with russell, the photos are unconvincing on this point), and one of his two suspects is dead. Both of these outcomes were preventable, and if Wilson had been more responsible, both would have been prevented.
I’m not sure, here is what I think is the basic difference, that, once the altercation at the car occurred, anything that Wilson did can be considers “escalating”.
Yes, Marty, THE ALTERCATION AT THE CAR. Which I have NEVER described as the point at which Wilson escalated (although, technically, he did escalate, since he increased the amount of force he was using… but that’s technical jargon overlapping with common English; Wilson escalated the force he was utilizing, but didn’t escalate the situation). But. BUT. I am not now, nor have I to my recollection at ANY time in this thread been talking about him escalating the situation after his testimony describes him being assaulted in his squad.
Serious question, Marty: have you actually read his testimony, or any other detailed description of how events unfolded? Because you keep misconstruing this very simple part. And I don’t know whether I should be assuming bad faith at this point, or just a lack of familiarity with the timeline of the incident.
Here goes:
1) Wilson sees Brown and Johnson walking in the street, and confronts them. They are disrespectful and hostile.
2) Wilson disengages from them, and is no longer in their proximity. He hears the reported robbery on his radio, and “it clicks” that Brown matches the description, etc.
3) Wilson calls for backup. At this point Wilson is still disengaged, not in contact or close proximity with Brown and Johnson, is in no physical danger, and has seen no sign of violence from Brown or Johnson.
4) With a cool head and time to think, in no danger and observing no threatening behavior from Brown or Johnson, Wilson chooses to escalate the situation by turning around, going back up the street to where Brown and Johnson are, and confronting them alone, without waiting for backup. Note that, again, he is not in physical danger. He has not witnessed behavior painting Brown or Johnson as a danger to him or others. He has, per his sworn testimony, observed them engaging in uncooperative, hostile, and disrespectful behavior. He has observed that Brown is larger than his own 6’4″ and is imposing. He has observed that there’s two of them and one of him. The behavior he testifies to does not paint the suspects as cooperative individuals, and indeed presents evidence that they could be reasonably suspected to resist or flee. If nothing else, if they fled, the fact that he was alone essentially ensures at least one would escape. If they had fled w/o first assaulting him or a bystander, he would have no basis to engage lethal force to apprehend them, and his testimony clearly describes him as having no force short of lethal force that would be effective in halting fleeing suspects at any range but point blank with them facing him. So he has no good reason to believe he alone can successfully apprehend the alleged robbers unless they are models of compliance, and he has good reason to believe they will be anything but models of compliance. But he still decides to escalate the situation.
5) Wilson drives back up the street and re-confronts Brown and Johnson. This is the escalation to which I have endlessly referred.
6) With the situation now escalated by Wilson’s reckless decision to go it alone, Brown and Johnson are quite predictably not models of compliance. Wilson loses control of the situation. Per Wilson’s testimony, at this moment Brown escalates the situation by beginning a physical altercation, and escalates the force being used against Wilson by striking his head with his hands. Wilson counter-escalates his own force by deploying lethal force.
7) Brown flees. Wilson dismounts and fires at the fleeing Brown. This is not what I’m referring to as Wilson escalating the situation. This is what you have repeatedly claimed I am referring to, but it absolutely is not. I have always been referring to 5), not 7).
8) Per Wilson’s testimony, Brown turns and charges him. Per witness testimony, not so much. For Brown, the outcome is the same either way: he’s fatally shot, and the situation is now de-escalated since one of the parties is somewhat dead.
Wilson chose to escalate the situation. Wilson was reckless, and should have waited for backup. He did not. This could have gotten him killed. It did get Brown killed. If Wilson had not escalated the situation by confronting two observably belligerent and uncooperative suspects with no backup and no reason to believe he could effect an apprehension unless the uncooperative suspects suddenly became respectful and compliant, Brown would still be alive, and presumably punished, awaiting punishment, or undergoing punishment for the crime he was alleged to have committed. Wilson was a reckless, unprofessional cowboy. He put himself at risk, he put bystanders at risk, and yes, he put his suspects at risk. Of them, he claims to have been beaten nearly into unconsciousness (though I agree with russell, the photos are unconvincing on this point), and one of his two suspects is dead. Both of these outcomes were preventable, and if Wilson had been more responsible, both would have been prevented.
I’m not sure, here is what I think is the basic difference, that, once the altercation at the car occurred, anything that Wilson did can be considers “escalating”.
Yes, Marty, THE ALTERCATION AT THE CAR. Which I have NEVER described as the point at which Wilson escalated (although, technically, he did escalate, since he increased the amount of force he was using… but that’s technical jargon overlapping with common English; Wilson escalated the force he was utilizing, but didn’t escalate the situation). But. BUT. I am not now, nor have I to my recollection at ANY time in this thread been talking about him escalating the situation after his testimony describes him being assaulted in his squad.
Serious question, Marty: have you actually read his testimony, or any other detailed description of how events unfolded? Because you keep misconstruing this very simple part. And I don’t know whether I should be assuming bad faith at this point, or just a lack of familiarity with the timeline of the incident.
Here goes:
1) Wilson sees Brown and Johnson walking in the street, and confronts them. They are disrespectful and hostile.
2) Wilson disengages from them, and is no longer in their proximity. He hears the reported robbery on his radio, and “it clicks” that Brown matches the description, etc.
3) Wilson calls for backup. At this point Wilson is still disengaged, not in contact or close proximity with Brown and Johnson, is in no physical danger, and has seen no sign of violence from Brown or Johnson.
4) With a cool head and time to think, in no danger and observing no threatening behavior from Brown or Johnson, Wilson chooses to escalate the situation by turning around, going back up the street to where Brown and Johnson are, and confronting them alone, without waiting for backup. Note that, again, he is not in physical danger. He has not witnessed behavior painting Brown or Johnson as a danger to him or others. He has, per his sworn testimony, observed them engaging in uncooperative, hostile, and disrespectful behavior. He has observed that Brown is larger than his own 6’4″ and is imposing. He has observed that there’s two of them and one of him. The behavior he testifies to does not paint the suspects as cooperative individuals, and indeed presents evidence that they could be reasonably suspected to resist or flee. If nothing else, if they fled, the fact that he was alone essentially ensures at least one would escape. If they had fled w/o first assaulting him or a bystander, he would have no basis to engage lethal force to apprehend them, and his testimony clearly describes him as having no force short of lethal force that would be effective in halting fleeing suspects at any range but point blank with them facing him. So he has no good reason to believe he alone can successfully apprehend the alleged robbers unless they are models of compliance, and he has good reason to believe they will be anything but models of compliance. But he still decides to escalate the situation.
5) Wilson drives back up the street and re-confronts Brown and Johnson. This is the escalation to which I have endlessly referred.
6) With the situation now escalated by Wilson’s reckless decision to go it alone, Brown and Johnson are quite predictably not models of compliance. Wilson loses control of the situation. Per Wilson’s testimony, at this moment Brown escalates the situation by beginning a physical altercation, and escalates the force being used against Wilson by striking his head with his hands. Wilson counter-escalates his own force by deploying lethal force.
7) Brown flees. Wilson dismounts and fires at the fleeing Brown. This is not what I’m referring to as Wilson escalating the situation. This is what you have repeatedly claimed I am referring to, but it absolutely is not. I have always been referring to 5), not 7).
8) Per Wilson’s testimony, Brown turns and charges him. Per witness testimony, not so much. For Brown, the outcome is the same either way: he’s fatally shot, and the situation is now de-escalated since one of the parties is somewhat dead.
Wilson chose to escalate the situation. Wilson was reckless, and should have waited for backup. He did not. This could have gotten him killed. It did get Brown killed. If Wilson had not escalated the situation by confronting two observably belligerent and uncooperative suspects with no backup and no reason to believe he could effect an apprehension unless the uncooperative suspects suddenly became respectful and compliant, Brown would still be alive, and presumably punished, awaiting punishment, or undergoing punishment for the crime he was alleged to have committed. Wilson was a reckless, unprofessional cowboy. He put himself at risk, he put bystanders at risk, and yes, he put his suspects at risk. Of them, he claims to have been beaten nearly into unconsciousness (though I agree with russell, the photos are unconvincing on this point), and one of his two suspects is dead. Both of these outcomes were preventable, and if Wilson had been more responsible, both would have been prevented.
whether Wilson thought they were robbers or not depends on if you’re asking immediately post-incident Wilson or grand-jury Wilson.
Fair point. My tediously-made point stands even if we give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and go with grand-jury Wilson, but yeah.
whether Wilson thought they were robbers or not depends on if you’re asking immediately post-incident Wilson or grand-jury Wilson.
Fair point. My tediously-made point stands even if we give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and go with grand-jury Wilson, but yeah.
whether Wilson thought they were robbers or not depends on if you’re asking immediately post-incident Wilson or grand-jury Wilson.
Fair point. My tediously-made point stands even if we give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and go with grand-jury Wilson, but yeah.
“With a cool head and time to think, in no danger and observing no threatening behavior from Brown or Johnson, Wilson chooses to escalate the situation by turning around, going back up the street to where Brown and Johnson are, and confronting them alone, without waiting for backup.”
Cops stop suspected people every day, by themselves. He had no reason to believe at this point they would attack. Fleeing might have been a consideration, but cops tend to think that, rightly in most situations, the authority they are given will provide minimal compliance.
There are about 250 cops per 100,000 people in the US, they don’t typically need numbers to do the simple stuff. Which this was until Brown decided to make it hard.
I simply disagree that the cop driving up and calling over to them made him a “reckless, unprofessional cowboy.” He never made it out of the car before Brown escalated the situation.
I read just what you read and, up until Brown attacked him, it was just a routine day.
“With a cool head and time to think, in no danger and observing no threatening behavior from Brown or Johnson, Wilson chooses to escalate the situation by turning around, going back up the street to where Brown and Johnson are, and confronting them alone, without waiting for backup.”
Cops stop suspected people every day, by themselves. He had no reason to believe at this point they would attack. Fleeing might have been a consideration, but cops tend to think that, rightly in most situations, the authority they are given will provide minimal compliance.
There are about 250 cops per 100,000 people in the US, they don’t typically need numbers to do the simple stuff. Which this was until Brown decided to make it hard.
I simply disagree that the cop driving up and calling over to them made him a “reckless, unprofessional cowboy.” He never made it out of the car before Brown escalated the situation.
I read just what you read and, up until Brown attacked him, it was just a routine day.
“With a cool head and time to think, in no danger and observing no threatening behavior from Brown or Johnson, Wilson chooses to escalate the situation by turning around, going back up the street to where Brown and Johnson are, and confronting them alone, without waiting for backup.”
Cops stop suspected people every day, by themselves. He had no reason to believe at this point they would attack. Fleeing might have been a consideration, but cops tend to think that, rightly in most situations, the authority they are given will provide minimal compliance.
There are about 250 cops per 100,000 people in the US, they don’t typically need numbers to do the simple stuff. Which this was until Brown decided to make it hard.
I simply disagree that the cop driving up and calling over to them made him a “reckless, unprofessional cowboy.” He never made it out of the car before Brown escalated the situation.
I read just what you read and, up until Brown attacked him, it was just a routine day.
Cops stop suspected people every day
and they stop more minorities than they do white people. and they arrest more minorities than they do white people. and more minorities than white people are convicted for identical crimes.
that includes Missouri.
it might be that minorities have different attitudes towards police because the police have demonstrably different attitudes towards minorities.
doesn’t excuse attacking a police officer, but it does shed a little light on why a member of a minority might not be as compliant as white folks. such a disparity in treatment and outcomes might tend to put one on edge. might give one less of a reason to think the cops are there to help.
Cops stop suspected people every day
and they stop more minorities than they do white people. and they arrest more minorities than they do white people. and more minorities than white people are convicted for identical crimes.
that includes Missouri.
it might be that minorities have different attitudes towards police because the police have demonstrably different attitudes towards minorities.
doesn’t excuse attacking a police officer, but it does shed a little light on why a member of a minority might not be as compliant as white folks. such a disparity in treatment and outcomes might tend to put one on edge. might give one less of a reason to think the cops are there to help.
Cops stop suspected people every day
and they stop more minorities than they do white people. and they arrest more minorities than they do white people. and more minorities than white people are convicted for identical crimes.
that includes Missouri.
it might be that minorities have different attitudes towards police because the police have demonstrably different attitudes towards minorities.
doesn’t excuse attacking a police officer, but it does shed a little light on why a member of a minority might not be as compliant as white folks. such a disparity in treatment and outcomes might tend to put one on edge. might give one less of a reason to think the cops are there to help.
“might give one less of a reason to think the cops are there to help.”
As would having just robbed a store.
“might give one less of a reason to think the cops are there to help.”
As would having just robbed a store.
“might give one less of a reason to think the cops are there to help.”
As would having just robbed a store.
“it might be that minorities have different attitudes towards police because the police have demonstrably different attitudes towards minorities.”
Or it might be minorities are committing more crimes, leading to their being convicted, arrested, and stopped more, and to the extent there’s a difference in police attitudes, it is driven by this reality.
“it might be that minorities have different attitudes towards police because the police have demonstrably different attitudes towards minorities.”
Or it might be minorities are committing more crimes, leading to their being convicted, arrested, and stopped more, and to the extent there’s a difference in police attitudes, it is driven by this reality.
“it might be that minorities have different attitudes towards police because the police have demonstrably different attitudes towards minorities.”
Or it might be minorities are committing more crimes, leading to their being convicted, arrested, and stopped more, and to the extent there’s a difference in police attitudes, it is driven by this reality.
also, minorities receive longer sentences than whites.
which i’m sure is the minorities’ fault, too.
also, minorities receive longer sentences than whites.
which i’m sure is the minorities’ fault, too.
also, minorities receive longer sentences than whites.
which i’m sure is the minorities’ fault, too.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002
the link.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002
the link.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002
the link.
Obfuscation of the painful (to the left) truth that the forensic evidence supports the testimony of those that stated Brown charged Wilson.
7 say he did, 6 say he didn’t.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/
Obfuscation of the painful (to the left) truth that the forensic evidence supports the testimony of those that stated Brown charged Wilson.
7 say he did, 6 say he didn’t.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/
Obfuscation of the painful (to the left) truth that the forensic evidence supports the testimony of those that stated Brown charged Wilson.
7 say he did, 6 say he didn’t.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/
Sorry, I am late to this discussion. But I see this asserted, and wonder where that assertion came from, and what it’s based on.
If it’s not some kind of by-regulation standard operating procedure, then it’s your opinion.
Sorry, I am late to this discussion. But I see this asserted, and wonder where that assertion came from, and what it’s based on.
If it’s not some kind of by-regulation standard operating procedure, then it’s your opinion.
Sorry, I am late to this discussion. But I see this asserted, and wonder where that assertion came from, and what it’s based on.
If it’s not some kind of by-regulation standard operating procedure, then it’s your opinion.
Backup is called only after it is apparent that the suspect is violent or running.
Except in this case, apparently.
Backup is called only after it is apparent that the suspect is violent or running.
Except in this case, apparently.
Backup is called only after it is apparent that the suspect is violent or running.
Except in this case, apparently.
Cops stop suspected people every day, by themselves. He had no reason to believe at this point they would attack.
Except that Wilson had already confronted them and, using NV’s paraphrase of Wilson’s testimony, “He has, per his sworn testimony, observed them engaging in uncooperative, hostile, and disrespectful behavior.” AND he already had called for backup.
Why did he call for backup if this was just a run of the mill thing?
Cops stop suspected people every day, by themselves. He had no reason to believe at this point they would attack.
Except that Wilson had already confronted them and, using NV’s paraphrase of Wilson’s testimony, “He has, per his sworn testimony, observed them engaging in uncooperative, hostile, and disrespectful behavior.” AND he already had called for backup.
Why did he call for backup if this was just a run of the mill thing?
Cops stop suspected people every day, by themselves. He had no reason to believe at this point they would attack.
Except that Wilson had already confronted them and, using NV’s paraphrase of Wilson’s testimony, “He has, per his sworn testimony, observed them engaging in uncooperative, hostile, and disrespectful behavior.” AND he already had called for backup.
Why did he call for backup if this was just a run of the mill thing?
i>It is clear that Wilson fired at Brown when he fled.
Is it? There are eyewitnesses going both ways. Wilson doesn’t say that. The forensics supports Wilson’s version and flatly contradicts some eyewitness testimony on this issue. Some of the witnesses that said Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown admitted to not seeing the start of the incident or having an intermittent view. One is Dorian Johnson’s cousin. One shot went into Brown’s arm in a way that could be interpreted either way depending on arm position. But the rest appear to have been fired with Brown facing Wilson. How is this clear?
Several eye witnesses have Brown surrendering when he turned back toward Wilson. Intuitively, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than having him turn and, unarmed, attack a police officer who is firing a gun at him.
Intuitively, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not punch an officer in his patrol car, try to take his gun, or rob a store. But some people do. I don’t think it is safe to say MB responded intuitively here as most people would because he, by definition, appears to not be doing what most people do.
The latter’s word is not in question, because he was unable to speak. He’s dead.
Yep. My not-so-well-stated point was the narrative that was being spread from the beginning, e.g. “gentle giant” that wouldn’t hurt a fly, was wrong. And a bit more. Brown’s conduct prior to the incident makes me more inclined to believe Wilson’s story. I do question it and do not accept it implicitly and recognize as (nv?) said Wilson has motive to lie.
At the risk of making everybody’s head explode, I’ll also say that punching a cop, assuming that is what happened and stupid an action though it may be, is not sufficient reason for a cop to shoot you.
Agreed, unless the cop fears for his life. But as stated, agreed.
Tony P, you intimated that I have somehow made up my mind, but I have not. I do not know definitively what happened. I am troubled not by the grand jury (the prosecutor could have simply not prosecuted), but by the lack of forensics at the scene and the incomplete chain of custody. Bad practice, but if a crowd was gathering and upset, I somewhat understand it. Nonetheless, Michael Brown had gunpowder residue on his hand consistent with Wilson’s testimony Brown was trying to take his weapon or fire it into Wilson. The shots appear to have been fired while Brown was facing Wilson. Brown’s DNA was on the gun.
Chasing a suspect that just attacked him is the officer’s job if he has reason to believe that the suspect is an imminent threat to others. Otherwise, his job is to wait for his back-up to arrive.
Is it? Wilson stated he got out to keep an eye on Brown because he knew backup was seconds away but the situation turned bad faster than that. Under the new circumstances (i.e. the assault coupled with an attempt to shoot the officer and/or take his weapon) keeping an eye would be what I would expect an officer to do at a minimum.
And beyond what wj said, Marty, Wilson’s decision point was not after Brown “had just attacked him”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. It was when he called for backup and didn’t wait for it to arrive before confronting Brown for the second time.
I realize witnesses vary on this. Wilson’s testimony is what I just said. He did follow him with gun drawn and command him to get down. It was definitely confrontational, but he thought backup was within 30 seconds.
One interesting point I’d like to see if anyone has explored: the position of the witnesses after the shooting. Allegedly Dorian Johnson changed his shirt and then mingled with the crowed that was cordoned off from the scene in one location with the media and there are questions about whether the initial witness testimony was the product of discussions (i.e. group think). A friend sent me this link (I know what you are going to say, but I’ve never read this source before and it may be complete bunk, and for most of you it will probably be like reading Daily Kos for me but I still do that from time to time; and I realize that even linking to this raises Tony P’s “conservative/liberal mind” dichotomy. But oh well). It may explain some of the witness contradictions. I have a hard time with “witness score cards” that do not explore the testimony itself. I haven’t seen any other analysis of witness location and would be interested if others have and can post links.
i>It is clear that Wilson fired at Brown when he fled.
Is it? There are eyewitnesses going both ways. Wilson doesn’t say that. The forensics supports Wilson’s version and flatly contradicts some eyewitness testimony on this issue. Some of the witnesses that said Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown admitted to not seeing the start of the incident or having an intermittent view. One is Dorian Johnson’s cousin. One shot went into Brown’s arm in a way that could be interpreted either way depending on arm position. But the rest appear to have been fired with Brown facing Wilson. How is this clear?
Several eye witnesses have Brown surrendering when he turned back toward Wilson. Intuitively, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than having him turn and, unarmed, attack a police officer who is firing a gun at him.
Intuitively, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not punch an officer in his patrol car, try to take his gun, or rob a store. But some people do. I don’t think it is safe to say MB responded intuitively here as most people would because he, by definition, appears to not be doing what most people do.
The latter’s word is not in question, because he was unable to speak. He’s dead.
Yep. My not-so-well-stated point was the narrative that was being spread from the beginning, e.g. “gentle giant” that wouldn’t hurt a fly, was wrong. And a bit more. Brown’s conduct prior to the incident makes me more inclined to believe Wilson’s story. I do question it and do not accept it implicitly and recognize as (nv?) said Wilson has motive to lie.
At the risk of making everybody’s head explode, I’ll also say that punching a cop, assuming that is what happened and stupid an action though it may be, is not sufficient reason for a cop to shoot you.
Agreed, unless the cop fears for his life. But as stated, agreed.
Tony P, you intimated that I have somehow made up my mind, but I have not. I do not know definitively what happened. I am troubled not by the grand jury (the prosecutor could have simply not prosecuted), but by the lack of forensics at the scene and the incomplete chain of custody. Bad practice, but if a crowd was gathering and upset, I somewhat understand it. Nonetheless, Michael Brown had gunpowder residue on his hand consistent with Wilson’s testimony Brown was trying to take his weapon or fire it into Wilson. The shots appear to have been fired while Brown was facing Wilson. Brown’s DNA was on the gun.
Chasing a suspect that just attacked him is the officer’s job if he has reason to believe that the suspect is an imminent threat to others. Otherwise, his job is to wait for his back-up to arrive.
Is it? Wilson stated he got out to keep an eye on Brown because he knew backup was seconds away but the situation turned bad faster than that. Under the new circumstances (i.e. the assault coupled with an attempt to shoot the officer and/or take his weapon) keeping an eye would be what I would expect an officer to do at a minimum.
And beyond what wj said, Marty, Wilson’s decision point was not after Brown “had just attacked him”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. It was when he called for backup and didn’t wait for it to arrive before confronting Brown for the second time.
I realize witnesses vary on this. Wilson’s testimony is what I just said. He did follow him with gun drawn and command him to get down. It was definitely confrontational, but he thought backup was within 30 seconds.
One interesting point I’d like to see if anyone has explored: the position of the witnesses after the shooting. Allegedly Dorian Johnson changed his shirt and then mingled with the crowed that was cordoned off from the scene in one location with the media and there are questions about whether the initial witness testimony was the product of discussions (i.e. group think). A friend sent me this link (I know what you are going to say, but I’ve never read this source before and it may be complete bunk, and for most of you it will probably be like reading Daily Kos for me but I still do that from time to time; and I realize that even linking to this raises Tony P’s “conservative/liberal mind” dichotomy. But oh well). It may explain some of the witness contradictions. I have a hard time with “witness score cards” that do not explore the testimony itself. I haven’t seen any other analysis of witness location and would be interested if others have and can post links.
i>It is clear that Wilson fired at Brown when he fled.
Is it? There are eyewitnesses going both ways. Wilson doesn’t say that. The forensics supports Wilson’s version and flatly contradicts some eyewitness testimony on this issue. Some of the witnesses that said Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown admitted to not seeing the start of the incident or having an intermittent view. One is Dorian Johnson’s cousin. One shot went into Brown’s arm in a way that could be interpreted either way depending on arm position. But the rest appear to have been fired with Brown facing Wilson. How is this clear?
Several eye witnesses have Brown surrendering when he turned back toward Wilson. Intuitively, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than having him turn and, unarmed, attack a police officer who is firing a gun at him.
Intuitively, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not punch an officer in his patrol car, try to take his gun, or rob a store. But some people do. I don’t think it is safe to say MB responded intuitively here as most people would because he, by definition, appears to not be doing what most people do.
The latter’s word is not in question, because he was unable to speak. He’s dead.
Yep. My not-so-well-stated point was the narrative that was being spread from the beginning, e.g. “gentle giant” that wouldn’t hurt a fly, was wrong. And a bit more. Brown’s conduct prior to the incident makes me more inclined to believe Wilson’s story. I do question it and do not accept it implicitly and recognize as (nv?) said Wilson has motive to lie.
At the risk of making everybody’s head explode, I’ll also say that punching a cop, assuming that is what happened and stupid an action though it may be, is not sufficient reason for a cop to shoot you.
Agreed, unless the cop fears for his life. But as stated, agreed.
Tony P, you intimated that I have somehow made up my mind, but I have not. I do not know definitively what happened. I am troubled not by the grand jury (the prosecutor could have simply not prosecuted), but by the lack of forensics at the scene and the incomplete chain of custody. Bad practice, but if a crowd was gathering and upset, I somewhat understand it. Nonetheless, Michael Brown had gunpowder residue on his hand consistent with Wilson’s testimony Brown was trying to take his weapon or fire it into Wilson. The shots appear to have been fired while Brown was facing Wilson. Brown’s DNA was on the gun.
Chasing a suspect that just attacked him is the officer’s job if he has reason to believe that the suspect is an imminent threat to others. Otherwise, his job is to wait for his back-up to arrive.
Is it? Wilson stated he got out to keep an eye on Brown because he knew backup was seconds away but the situation turned bad faster than that. Under the new circumstances (i.e. the assault coupled with an attempt to shoot the officer and/or take his weapon) keeping an eye would be what I would expect an officer to do at a minimum.
And beyond what wj said, Marty, Wilson’s decision point was not after Brown “had just attacked him”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. It was when he called for backup and didn’t wait for it to arrive before confronting Brown for the second time.
I realize witnesses vary on this. Wilson’s testimony is what I just said. He did follow him with gun drawn and command him to get down. It was definitely confrontational, but he thought backup was within 30 seconds.
One interesting point I’d like to see if anyone has explored: the position of the witnesses after the shooting. Allegedly Dorian Johnson changed his shirt and then mingled with the crowed that was cordoned off from the scene in one location with the media and there are questions about whether the initial witness testimony was the product of discussions (i.e. group think). A friend sent me this link (I know what you are going to say, but I’ve never read this source before and it may be complete bunk, and for most of you it will probably be like reading Daily Kos for me but I still do that from time to time; and I realize that even linking to this raises Tony P’s “conservative/liberal mind” dichotomy. But oh well). It may explain some of the witness contradictions. I have a hard time with “witness score cards” that do not explore the testimony itself. I haven’t seen any other analysis of witness location and would be interested if others have and can post links.
Ugh, Cops deal with uncooperative, hostile and disrespectful people everyday. Very few of those people attack them. Much of this thread has focused on all the good reasons that cops should expect this behavior. I would expect the officer to ask for backup in case he needed it. Only in nightly crime dramas does that mean he just watches the suspect walk away until it arrives.
Ugh, Cops deal with uncooperative, hostile and disrespectful people everyday. Very few of those people attack them. Much of this thread has focused on all the good reasons that cops should expect this behavior. I would expect the officer to ask for backup in case he needed it. Only in nightly crime dramas does that mean he just watches the suspect walk away until it arrives.
Ugh, Cops deal with uncooperative, hostile and disrespectful people everyday. Very few of those people attack them. Much of this thread has focused on all the good reasons that cops should expect this behavior. I would expect the officer to ask for backup in case he needed it. Only in nightly crime dramas does that mean he just watches the suspect walk away until it arrives.
I could easily see that backup is something you’d want but not necessarily need unless you had a suspect that was known to be armed.
But it’d be nice to hear what is actually done. And it’d be nice to know whether Wilson was taking a usual risk, an unusual risk, or a dangerously unusual risk. Not in hindsight; in terms of what Wilson could see at the time.
I could easily see that backup is something you’d want but not necessarily need unless you had a suspect that was known to be armed.
But it’d be nice to hear what is actually done. And it’d be nice to know whether Wilson was taking a usual risk, an unusual risk, or a dangerously unusual risk. Not in hindsight; in terms of what Wilson could see at the time.
I could easily see that backup is something you’d want but not necessarily need unless you had a suspect that was known to be armed.
But it’d be nice to hear what is actually done. And it’d be nice to know whether Wilson was taking a usual risk, an unusual risk, or a dangerously unusual risk. Not in hindsight; in terms of what Wilson could see at the time.
Or it might be minorities are committing more crime
They undoubtedly are committing more crimes than other folks in areas where they are not actually the minority.
But the rest appear to have been fired with Brown facing Wilson. How is this clear?
That was my statement, based on my understanding that Wilson himself had said he had fired while Brown was fleeing.
I was mistaken in that understanding, I retract the claim that it was clear that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away.
Some witnesses have him firing at Brown (and missing) while he was running away, some don’t. I don’t think the forensic evidence is clear on the topic either way.
Jump ball.
Intuitively, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not punch an officer in his patrol car, try to take his gun, or rob a store
I agree.
It’s not clear to me that Brown punched Wilson while he was in the car, or that he tried to grab the gun. Some witnesses say that Brown attacked Wilson, some say Wilson grabbed him and pulled him toward, or even into, the car, and Brown was just trying to get away from him.
I don’t see physical evidence to favor one narrative over another. So, I don’t favor one narrative over another. I don’t know what happened.
Whether Wilson’s killing of Brown was justified depends on whether Brown attacked him in the car, and on whether Brown’s approach toward Wilson at the end of the incident was threatening or not. I.e., whether he was surrendering, as a number of witnesses have it, or whether he was charging Wilson, as another number of witnesses have it.
It has nothing to do with whether Brown stole cigars, or with whether Wilson should have waited for backup.
If Brown attacked Wilson, Wilson had grounds to use deadly force.
Unless somebody here has access to evidence that the rest of the freaking world hasn’t seen 100 times, nobody here is in a position to make any claims about whether he did, or not.
We don’t know.
Over and above all of that, as cleek and others have pointed out, black people are the targets of aggressive policing at a rate out of proportion to their numbers or their rate of involvement in crime.
As thompson and others have pointed out, cops are rarely called to account when they shoot people. And they shoot, tase, and beat the crap out of people fairly frequently.
Both of those last two things are FUBAR, and should not stand.
Or it might be minorities are committing more crime
They undoubtedly are committing more crimes than other folks in areas where they are not actually the minority.
But the rest appear to have been fired with Brown facing Wilson. How is this clear?
That was my statement, based on my understanding that Wilson himself had said he had fired while Brown was fleeing.
I was mistaken in that understanding, I retract the claim that it was clear that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away.
Some witnesses have him firing at Brown (and missing) while he was running away, some don’t. I don’t think the forensic evidence is clear on the topic either way.
Jump ball.
Intuitively, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not punch an officer in his patrol car, try to take his gun, or rob a store
I agree.
It’s not clear to me that Brown punched Wilson while he was in the car, or that he tried to grab the gun. Some witnesses say that Brown attacked Wilson, some say Wilson grabbed him and pulled him toward, or even into, the car, and Brown was just trying to get away from him.
I don’t see physical evidence to favor one narrative over another. So, I don’t favor one narrative over another. I don’t know what happened.
Whether Wilson’s killing of Brown was justified depends on whether Brown attacked him in the car, and on whether Brown’s approach toward Wilson at the end of the incident was threatening or not. I.e., whether he was surrendering, as a number of witnesses have it, or whether he was charging Wilson, as another number of witnesses have it.
It has nothing to do with whether Brown stole cigars, or with whether Wilson should have waited for backup.
If Brown attacked Wilson, Wilson had grounds to use deadly force.
Unless somebody here has access to evidence that the rest of the freaking world hasn’t seen 100 times, nobody here is in a position to make any claims about whether he did, or not.
We don’t know.
Over and above all of that, as cleek and others have pointed out, black people are the targets of aggressive policing at a rate out of proportion to their numbers or their rate of involvement in crime.
As thompson and others have pointed out, cops are rarely called to account when they shoot people. And they shoot, tase, and beat the crap out of people fairly frequently.
Both of those last two things are FUBAR, and should not stand.
Or it might be minorities are committing more crime
They undoubtedly are committing more crimes than other folks in areas where they are not actually the minority.
But the rest appear to have been fired with Brown facing Wilson. How is this clear?
That was my statement, based on my understanding that Wilson himself had said he had fired while Brown was fleeing.
I was mistaken in that understanding, I retract the claim that it was clear that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away.
Some witnesses have him firing at Brown (and missing) while he was running away, some don’t. I don’t think the forensic evidence is clear on the topic either way.
Jump ball.
Intuitively, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not punch an officer in his patrol car, try to take his gun, or rob a store
I agree.
It’s not clear to me that Brown punched Wilson while he was in the car, or that he tried to grab the gun. Some witnesses say that Brown attacked Wilson, some say Wilson grabbed him and pulled him toward, or even into, the car, and Brown was just trying to get away from him.
I don’t see physical evidence to favor one narrative over another. So, I don’t favor one narrative over another. I don’t know what happened.
Whether Wilson’s killing of Brown was justified depends on whether Brown attacked him in the car, and on whether Brown’s approach toward Wilson at the end of the incident was threatening or not. I.e., whether he was surrendering, as a number of witnesses have it, or whether he was charging Wilson, as another number of witnesses have it.
It has nothing to do with whether Brown stole cigars, or with whether Wilson should have waited for backup.
If Brown attacked Wilson, Wilson had grounds to use deadly force.
Unless somebody here has access to evidence that the rest of the freaking world hasn’t seen 100 times, nobody here is in a position to make any claims about whether he did, or not.
We don’t know.
Over and above all of that, as cleek and others have pointed out, black people are the targets of aggressive policing at a rate out of proportion to their numbers or their rate of involvement in crime.
As thompson and others have pointed out, cops are rarely called to account when they shoot people. And they shoot, tase, and beat the crap out of people fairly frequently.
Both of those last two things are FUBAR, and should not stand.
Not in hindsight; in terms of what Wilson could see at the time.
Wilson’s testimony is that he wanted to delay the boys from leaving before the backup could arrive.
That seems reasonable, to me.
Not in hindsight; in terms of what Wilson could see at the time.
Wilson’s testimony is that he wanted to delay the boys from leaving before the backup could arrive.
That seems reasonable, to me.
Not in hindsight; in terms of what Wilson could see at the time.
Wilson’s testimony is that he wanted to delay the boys from leaving before the backup could arrive.
That seems reasonable, to me.
What russell said:
Both of those last two things are FUBAR, and should not stand.
Actually, russell has been pretty dead on (IMO) this entire thread.
What russell said:
Both of those last two things are FUBAR, and should not stand.
Actually, russell has been pretty dead on (IMO) this entire thread.
What russell said:
Both of those last two things are FUBAR, and should not stand.
Actually, russell has been pretty dead on (IMO) this entire thread.
Thompson: If you’d like, I’ll let you borrow the stamp that I keep close at hand in reading ObWi. It says, simply: WHAT RUSSELL SAID. (But I warn you it’s a bit worn down from use.)
Thompson: If you’d like, I’ll let you borrow the stamp that I keep close at hand in reading ObWi. It says, simply: WHAT RUSSELL SAID. (But I warn you it’s a bit worn down from use.)
Thompson: If you’d like, I’ll let you borrow the stamp that I keep close at hand in reading ObWi. It says, simply: WHAT RUSSELL SAID. (But I warn you it’s a bit worn down from use.)
yeah, ditto on russell.
yeah, ditto on russell.
yeah, ditto on russell.
Sorry, I am late to this discussion. But I see this asserted, and wonder where that assertion came from, and what it’s based on.
Mostly, by taking his grand jury testimony at face value. Which, I know, is dumb because he’s playing to the audience and we don’t really have any reason to believe his reasoning as sworn to was his reasoning at the time. But if you take what he swore at face value, he gave a number of reasons not to confront Brown a second time. I’m fully open to the idea that what he swore was entirely playing to the grand jury, though.
—
As usual, though, I can’t see the forest for the weeds. russell’s 3:46 said what needs said.
Sorry, I am late to this discussion. But I see this asserted, and wonder where that assertion came from, and what it’s based on.
Mostly, by taking his grand jury testimony at face value. Which, I know, is dumb because he’s playing to the audience and we don’t really have any reason to believe his reasoning as sworn to was his reasoning at the time. But if you take what he swore at face value, he gave a number of reasons not to confront Brown a second time. I’m fully open to the idea that what he swore was entirely playing to the grand jury, though.
—
As usual, though, I can’t see the forest for the weeds. russell’s 3:46 said what needs said.
Sorry, I am late to this discussion. But I see this asserted, and wonder where that assertion came from, and what it’s based on.
Mostly, by taking his grand jury testimony at face value. Which, I know, is dumb because he’s playing to the audience and we don’t really have any reason to believe his reasoning as sworn to was his reasoning at the time. But if you take what he swore at face value, he gave a number of reasons not to confront Brown a second time. I’m fully open to the idea that what he swore was entirely playing to the grand jury, though.
—
As usual, though, I can’t see the forest for the weeds. russell’s 3:46 said what needs said.
It seems unreasonable to me that a Peace Officer should empty their guns so quickly and recklessly, especially at unarmed opponents. I’m still in favor of a Rex O’Herlihan school of marksmanship being a required part of LEO training.
This is not just about Ferguson. Michael Browns death was just a tipping point.
It seems unreasonable to me that a Peace Officer should empty their guns so quickly and recklessly, especially at unarmed opponents. I’m still in favor of a Rex O’Herlihan school of marksmanship being a required part of LEO training.
This is not just about Ferguson. Michael Browns death was just a tipping point.
It seems unreasonable to me that a Peace Officer should empty their guns so quickly and recklessly, especially at unarmed opponents. I’m still in favor of a Rex O’Herlihan school of marksmanship being a required part of LEO training.
This is not just about Ferguson. Michael Browns death was just a tipping point.
How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/
How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/
How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/
Thugs:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/02/1348833/-Tamir-Rice-The-story-behind-the-execution-character-assassination-coverup-of-a-senseless-murder
Thugs:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/02/1348833/-Tamir-Rice-The-story-behind-the-execution-character-assassination-coverup-of-a-senseless-murder
Thugs:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/02/1348833/-Tamir-Rice-The-story-behind-the-execution-character-assassination-coverup-of-a-senseless-murder
Isn’t all the evidence – other than Wilson’s testimony – also consistent with Wilson being a racist, authoritarian, asshole cop who, when Brown and his companion didn’t quickly and meekly comply with his command to “get the fnck off the street,” decided he was going to teach Brown (the supposedly mouthy one) a lesson, and then finding himself in over his head?
Isn’t all the evidence – other than Wilson’s testimony – also consistent with Wilson being a racist, authoritarian, asshole cop who, when Brown and his companion didn’t quickly and meekly comply with his command to “get the fnck off the street,” decided he was going to teach Brown (the supposedly mouthy one) a lesson, and then finding himself in over his head?
Isn’t all the evidence – other than Wilson’s testimony – also consistent with Wilson being a racist, authoritarian, asshole cop who, when Brown and his companion didn’t quickly and meekly comply with his command to “get the fnck off the street,” decided he was going to teach Brown (the supposedly mouthy one) a lesson, and then finding himself in over his head?
Morzer,
In sum, not all worth or value can be measured in terms of economic benefit, which is, I think the mistake that far too many persons of the left continue to make in their analysis of the problem.
I appreciate this observation and counter with the fact that politics is essentially about who gets what, and the “what” is not generally measured in terms of tribal psychic gratification, but power. The “cultural wars” are about control, who gets to set the agenda, and ultimately who gets to reap the rewards.
There is also the fact that a sizable segment of the ‘left’ is oblivious to class based economic analysis. Sadly, many elected Democrats reflect this (do they lead or do they follow?) or have enthusiastically bought into the “neo-liberal” (to use an overused term) world view.
The debate as to how the Democratic Party can move forward after the sundering of the New Deal coalition is as interesting as it is endless.
But I am interested to know what your take on “the problem” is.
Thanks.
Morzer,
In sum, not all worth or value can be measured in terms of economic benefit, which is, I think the mistake that far too many persons of the left continue to make in their analysis of the problem.
I appreciate this observation and counter with the fact that politics is essentially about who gets what, and the “what” is not generally measured in terms of tribal psychic gratification, but power. The “cultural wars” are about control, who gets to set the agenda, and ultimately who gets to reap the rewards.
There is also the fact that a sizable segment of the ‘left’ is oblivious to class based economic analysis. Sadly, many elected Democrats reflect this (do they lead or do they follow?) or have enthusiastically bought into the “neo-liberal” (to use an overused term) world view.
The debate as to how the Democratic Party can move forward after the sundering of the New Deal coalition is as interesting as it is endless.
But I am interested to know what your take on “the problem” is.
Thanks.
Morzer,
In sum, not all worth or value can be measured in terms of economic benefit, which is, I think the mistake that far too many persons of the left continue to make in their analysis of the problem.
I appreciate this observation and counter with the fact that politics is essentially about who gets what, and the “what” is not generally measured in terms of tribal psychic gratification, but power. The “cultural wars” are about control, who gets to set the agenda, and ultimately who gets to reap the rewards.
There is also the fact that a sizable segment of the ‘left’ is oblivious to class based economic analysis. Sadly, many elected Democrats reflect this (do they lead or do they follow?) or have enthusiastically bought into the “neo-liberal” (to use an overused term) world view.
The debate as to how the Democratic Party can move forward after the sundering of the New Deal coalition is as interesting as it is endless.
But I am interested to know what your take on “the problem” is.
Thanks.
That didn’t answer my question. Unless I have misunderstood your response, which is always a possibility.
My question was more along the lines of whether Brown did anything horribly wrong by not waiting for his backup to arrive. I am guessing that a more accurate and succinct answer to this question is “no”, but IANAC.
I am in complete agreement with this. I do tend to get more upset about this when cops break into people’s homes because of some error or other and wind up shooting dogs, people, etc. The police have morphed into something more paramilitary than “To Protect And Serve” is descriptive of.
That didn’t answer my question. Unless I have misunderstood your response, which is always a possibility.
My question was more along the lines of whether Brown did anything horribly wrong by not waiting for his backup to arrive. I am guessing that a more accurate and succinct answer to this question is “no”, but IANAC.
I am in complete agreement with this. I do tend to get more upset about this when cops break into people’s homes because of some error or other and wind up shooting dogs, people, etc. The police have morphed into something more paramilitary than “To Protect And Serve” is descriptive of.
That didn’t answer my question. Unless I have misunderstood your response, which is always a possibility.
My question was more along the lines of whether Brown did anything horribly wrong by not waiting for his backup to arrive. I am guessing that a more accurate and succinct answer to this question is “no”, but IANAC.
I am in complete agreement with this. I do tend to get more upset about this when cops break into people’s homes because of some error or other and wind up shooting dogs, people, etc. The police have morphed into something more paramilitary than “To Protect And Serve” is descriptive of.
I am guessing that a more accurate and succinct answer to this question is “no”, but IANAC.
I’d tend to agree, yes. If his testimony’s playing-up of Brown’s uncooperativeness and imposing demeanor when he first encountered him is taken as completely unexaggerated, I’d still not go any further than “an unusual risk”. I suspect it was actually “a usual risk”.
(The above being speculative, as IANAC either, and while I do have some small amount of LE force escalation training, almost all of it was colored/tainted by a military and/or corrections context/perspective, which is very, very different than this on a fair number of levels (so while I have strong instinctive feelings about this, they’re a bit suspect.))
I am guessing that a more accurate and succinct answer to this question is “no”, but IANAC.
I’d tend to agree, yes. If his testimony’s playing-up of Brown’s uncooperativeness and imposing demeanor when he first encountered him is taken as completely unexaggerated, I’d still not go any further than “an unusual risk”. I suspect it was actually “a usual risk”.
(The above being speculative, as IANAC either, and while I do have some small amount of LE force escalation training, almost all of it was colored/tainted by a military and/or corrections context/perspective, which is very, very different than this on a fair number of levels (so while I have strong instinctive feelings about this, they’re a bit suspect.))
I am guessing that a more accurate and succinct answer to this question is “no”, but IANAC.
I’d tend to agree, yes. If his testimony’s playing-up of Brown’s uncooperativeness and imposing demeanor when he first encountered him is taken as completely unexaggerated, I’d still not go any further than “an unusual risk”. I suspect it was actually “a usual risk”.
(The above being speculative, as IANAC either, and while I do have some small amount of LE force escalation training, almost all of it was colored/tainted by a military and/or corrections context/perspective, which is very, very different than this on a fair number of levels (so while I have strong instinctive feelings about this, they’re a bit suspect.))
Thanks for the reply, NV.
Thanks for the reply, NV.
Thanks for the reply, NV.
I’d like to thank Slart for asking questions that are actually relevant to the argument, rather than pretending the argument is some other (less-reasonable and easier-to-attack) argument.
I’d like to thank Slart for asking questions that are actually relevant to the argument, rather than pretending the argument is some other (less-reasonable and easier-to-attack) argument.
I’d like to thank Slart for asking questions that are actually relevant to the argument, rather than pretending the argument is some other (less-reasonable and easier-to-attack) argument.
Here is an article from Police Magazine* that says contacting people while sitting behind the wheel of your car is a bad police tactic that can get the officer killed. This is exactly what Wilson did, AFAICT.
*Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is a good source of info on tactics.
Here is an article from Police Magazine* that says contacting people while sitting behind the wheel of your car is a bad police tactic that can get the officer killed. This is exactly what Wilson did, AFAICT.
*Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is a good source of info on tactics.
Here is an article from Police Magazine* that says contacting people while sitting behind the wheel of your car is a bad police tactic that can get the officer killed. This is exactly what Wilson did, AFAICT.
*Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is a good source of info on tactics.
“that says contacting people while sitting behind the wheel of your car is a bad police tactic that can get the officer killed.”
Others too:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/
“that says contacting people while sitting behind the wheel of your car is a bad police tactic that can get the officer killed.”
Others too:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/
“that says contacting people while sitting behind the wheel of your car is a bad police tactic that can get the officer killed.”
Others too:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/
lying thugs:
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/what-happened-to-tamir-rice–366078531874
1.5 to 2 seconds does not give Tamir time enough to do anything but die
lying thugs:
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/what-happened-to-tamir-rice–366078531874
1.5 to 2 seconds does not give Tamir time enough to do anything but die
lying thugs:
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/what-happened-to-tamir-rice–366078531874
1.5 to 2 seconds does not give Tamir time enough to do anything but die
Ugh, I was disinclined to opine on that based on a lack of a citation (of unknown value or otherwise), but yeah, that seems accurate from the always trustworthy source of “common sense” and is actually consistent with a number of problems Wilson describes in his testimony.
Ugh, I was disinclined to opine on that based on a lack of a citation (of unknown value or otherwise), but yeah, that seems accurate from the always trustworthy source of “common sense” and is actually consistent with a number of problems Wilson describes in his testimony.
Ugh, I was disinclined to opine on that based on a lack of a citation (of unknown value or otherwise), but yeah, that seems accurate from the always trustworthy source of “common sense” and is actually consistent with a number of problems Wilson describes in his testimony.
I feel for cops who meet a tragic end but am tired of hearing how we must give LEO latitude because they put their lives on the line for us every day. So do I (fixing roofs in winter). Being a cop does not even make the list of the top ten dangerous jobs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/
I feel for cops who meet a tragic end but am tired of hearing how we must give LEO latitude because they put their lives on the line for us every day. So do I (fixing roofs in winter). Being a cop does not even make the list of the top ten dangerous jobs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/
I feel for cops who meet a tragic end but am tired of hearing how we must give LEO latitude because they put their lives on the line for us every day. So do I (fixing roofs in winter). Being a cop does not even make the list of the top ten dangerous jobs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/
http://fee.org/blog/detail/by-the-numbers-how-dangerous-is-it-to-be-a-cop
http://fee.org/blog/detail/by-the-numbers-how-dangerous-is-it-to-be-a-cop
http://fee.org/blog/detail/by-the-numbers-how-dangerous-is-it-to-be-a-cop
No indictment in the Eric Garner case.
Garner was allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. He was very overweight, the cops put him a chokehold, and he died. He clearly stated that he couldn’t breathe, but the cops would not let him up. He did not attack or threaten anyone, including any cop, nor did he resist arrest.
The chokehold is not permissible under NYCPD policy. The cops on the scene waited 7 minutes before administering any CPR. The cop who administered the chokehold has been cited for harassing people during arrests, in at least one case resulting in the city having to make a financial settlement.
There was no freaking need for Eric Garner to die.
No indictment in the Eric Garner case.
Garner was allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. He was very overweight, the cops put him a chokehold, and he died. He clearly stated that he couldn’t breathe, but the cops would not let him up. He did not attack or threaten anyone, including any cop, nor did he resist arrest.
The chokehold is not permissible under NYCPD policy. The cops on the scene waited 7 minutes before administering any CPR. The cop who administered the chokehold has been cited for harassing people during arrests, in at least one case resulting in the city having to make a financial settlement.
There was no freaking need for Eric Garner to die.
No indictment in the Eric Garner case.
Garner was allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. He was very overweight, the cops put him a chokehold, and he died. He clearly stated that he couldn’t breathe, but the cops would not let him up. He did not attack or threaten anyone, including any cop, nor did he resist arrest.
The chokehold is not permissible under NYCPD policy. The cops on the scene waited 7 minutes before administering any CPR. The cop who administered the chokehold has been cited for harassing people during arrests, in at least one case resulting in the city having to make a financial settlement.
There was no freaking need for Eric Garner to die.
“There was no freaking need for Eric Garner to die.”
Not going to argue on this. Except that Im not sure how you define resisting arrest. The officer certainly deserved some consequence.
“There was no freaking need for Eric Garner to die.”
Not going to argue on this. Except that Im not sure how you define resisting arrest. The officer certainly deserved some consequence.
“There was no freaking need for Eric Garner to die.”
Not going to argue on this. Except that Im not sure how you define resisting arrest. The officer certainly deserved some consequence.
Actually based on my calculations, law enforcement officers average somewhere upward of 16 deaths per hundred thousand, depending on the year. 2013 and 2014 were fairly light years as compared with the average over the last 15 years of about 150 per year.
But if you look at how officers die, it’s that they’re shot, closely followed by automobile accident. Those two things account for nearly two-thirds of LEO deaths.
I would guess that the key difference between LEO jobs and those more dangerous kinds is that very few of them are dangerous because of other people shooting the employee.
Yes, indeed, that’s an emotional argument. Imagine, though, what would happen if firefighters were to simply build a firebreak around the scene and just let it burn. More people would die, yes, and more property would get damaged. But more of the firefighters would go home safe at night.
I think this is roughly akin to the defense of LEO’s tendency to shoot people that aren’t actually a threat. And I mean that as a general statement; not one that applies specifically or solely to Wilson.
Actually based on my calculations, law enforcement officers average somewhere upward of 16 deaths per hundred thousand, depending on the year. 2013 and 2014 were fairly light years as compared with the average over the last 15 years of about 150 per year.
But if you look at how officers die, it’s that they’re shot, closely followed by automobile accident. Those two things account for nearly two-thirds of LEO deaths.
I would guess that the key difference between LEO jobs and those more dangerous kinds is that very few of them are dangerous because of other people shooting the employee.
Yes, indeed, that’s an emotional argument. Imagine, though, what would happen if firefighters were to simply build a firebreak around the scene and just let it burn. More people would die, yes, and more property would get damaged. But more of the firefighters would go home safe at night.
I think this is roughly akin to the defense of LEO’s tendency to shoot people that aren’t actually a threat. And I mean that as a general statement; not one that applies specifically or solely to Wilson.
Actually based on my calculations, law enforcement officers average somewhere upward of 16 deaths per hundred thousand, depending on the year. 2013 and 2014 were fairly light years as compared with the average over the last 15 years of about 150 per year.
But if you look at how officers die, it’s that they’re shot, closely followed by automobile accident. Those two things account for nearly two-thirds of LEO deaths.
I would guess that the key difference between LEO jobs and those more dangerous kinds is that very few of them are dangerous because of other people shooting the employee.
Yes, indeed, that’s an emotional argument. Imagine, though, what would happen if firefighters were to simply build a firebreak around the scene and just let it burn. More people would die, yes, and more property would get damaged. But more of the firefighters would go home safe at night.
I think this is roughly akin to the defense of LEO’s tendency to shoot people that aren’t actually a threat. And I mean that as a general statement; not one that applies specifically or solely to Wilson.
I agree, russell, that the Garner situation is something that people should well and truly be pissed off about.
From what I have read, he never should have been detained in the first place.
I agree, russell, that the Garner situation is something that people should well and truly be pissed off about.
From what I have read, he never should have been detained in the first place.
I agree, russell, that the Garner situation is something that people should well and truly be pissed off about.
From what I have read, he never should have been detained in the first place.
2.3 cop deaths per year by opponent without a gun or car
I still can not fathom Officer Wilson’s level of fear
2.3 cop deaths per year by opponent without a gun or car
I still can not fathom Officer Wilson’s level of fear
2.3 cop deaths per year by opponent without a gun or car
I still can not fathom Officer Wilson’s level of fear
In my heyday I’ve challenged and defeated angry assholes in wrestling matches who outsized me by much more than Brown outsized Wilson.
Though I suspect they were more intoxicated than me.
In my heyday I’ve challenged and defeated angry assholes in wrestling matches who outsized me by much more than Brown outsized Wilson.
Though I suspect they were more intoxicated than me.
In my heyday I’ve challenged and defeated angry assholes in wrestling matches who outsized me by much more than Brown outsized Wilson.
Though I suspect they were more intoxicated than me.
Maybe the “untaxed” part is what the conservative news media will latch on to in Garner’s favor.
Redstate editor’s are torn between strangulation and shooting in the face, the first being appropriate for this particular petty crime, while shooting in the face is what Lois Lerner deserves.
I’m sensing the conservative meme now …. liberals use oppressive government to tax cigarettes to change harmful behavior and look what happens.
Innocent Milton Friedman devotees in the black community are murdered by government agents.
Tea Party lawn jockey Dr. Ben Carson will hold a press conference shortly to speak his peculiar form of conservative pig-filth Latin, comparing the taxation of cigarettes as precisely equal to the burning of the Reichstag and Nazism, and when a Jewish liberal says, well, except for the Death Camps, Carson will blame out-of-control political correctness for the liberal Jew’s sensitivity.
Then he’ll present evidence of Garner’s mother’s slut hobbies as the real reason Garner’s death was justified.
Sean Hannity, his lacquered hair gleaming like the the skin of a coiled snake on a windowpane under bright lights, his forked tongue flicking toward the camera, will show a photo of Obama sneaking a smoke and ask, conspiratorially, “Where did Barack Hussein purchase that cigarette, or is that a cigarillo shoplifted on his behalf? We demand Eric Holder, the well-known racist Attorney General, conduct an immediate Justice Department investigation into Obama’s cigarette smuggling via Garner and Brown. Leave Brown’s and Garner’s bodies where they are and get down to the real business of justice, Mr Attorney General!”
Meanwhile, the frontrunner in the Republican Presidential primary sweepstakes seems to be faltering a bit …
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_12/remember_when_putin_was_a_colo053159.php
…. though House Republican vermin still view Putin as a shoo-in to give the U.S. State of the Union address this coming January, since they’ve dis-invited our sitting President from the occasion because he makes them look like subhuman bug shit up close.
Maybe the “untaxed” part is what the conservative news media will latch on to in Garner’s favor.
Redstate editor’s are torn between strangulation and shooting in the face, the first being appropriate for this particular petty crime, while shooting in the face is what Lois Lerner deserves.
I’m sensing the conservative meme now …. liberals use oppressive government to tax cigarettes to change harmful behavior and look what happens.
Innocent Milton Friedman devotees in the black community are murdered by government agents.
Tea Party lawn jockey Dr. Ben Carson will hold a press conference shortly to speak his peculiar form of conservative pig-filth Latin, comparing the taxation of cigarettes as precisely equal to the burning of the Reichstag and Nazism, and when a Jewish liberal says, well, except for the Death Camps, Carson will blame out-of-control political correctness for the liberal Jew’s sensitivity.
Then he’ll present evidence of Garner’s mother’s slut hobbies as the real reason Garner’s death was justified.
Sean Hannity, his lacquered hair gleaming like the the skin of a coiled snake on a windowpane under bright lights, his forked tongue flicking toward the camera, will show a photo of Obama sneaking a smoke and ask, conspiratorially, “Where did Barack Hussein purchase that cigarette, or is that a cigarillo shoplifted on his behalf? We demand Eric Holder, the well-known racist Attorney General, conduct an immediate Justice Department investigation into Obama’s cigarette smuggling via Garner and Brown. Leave Brown’s and Garner’s bodies where they are and get down to the real business of justice, Mr Attorney General!”
Meanwhile, the frontrunner in the Republican Presidential primary sweepstakes seems to be faltering a bit …
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_12/remember_when_putin_was_a_colo053159.php
…. though House Republican vermin still view Putin as a shoo-in to give the U.S. State of the Union address this coming January, since they’ve dis-invited our sitting President from the occasion because he makes them look like subhuman bug shit up close.
Maybe the “untaxed” part is what the conservative news media will latch on to in Garner’s favor.
Redstate editor’s are torn between strangulation and shooting in the face, the first being appropriate for this particular petty crime, while shooting in the face is what Lois Lerner deserves.
I’m sensing the conservative meme now …. liberals use oppressive government to tax cigarettes to change harmful behavior and look what happens.
Innocent Milton Friedman devotees in the black community are murdered by government agents.
Tea Party lawn jockey Dr. Ben Carson will hold a press conference shortly to speak his peculiar form of conservative pig-filth Latin, comparing the taxation of cigarettes as precisely equal to the burning of the Reichstag and Nazism, and when a Jewish liberal says, well, except for the Death Camps, Carson will blame out-of-control political correctness for the liberal Jew’s sensitivity.
Then he’ll present evidence of Garner’s mother’s slut hobbies as the real reason Garner’s death was justified.
Sean Hannity, his lacquered hair gleaming like the the skin of a coiled snake on a windowpane under bright lights, his forked tongue flicking toward the camera, will show a photo of Obama sneaking a smoke and ask, conspiratorially, “Where did Barack Hussein purchase that cigarette, or is that a cigarillo shoplifted on his behalf? We demand Eric Holder, the well-known racist Attorney General, conduct an immediate Justice Department investigation into Obama’s cigarette smuggling via Garner and Brown. Leave Brown’s and Garner’s bodies where they are and get down to the real business of justice, Mr Attorney General!”
Meanwhile, the frontrunner in the Republican Presidential primary sweepstakes seems to be faltering a bit …
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_12/remember_when_putin_was_a_colo053159.php
…. though House Republican vermin still view Putin as a shoo-in to give the U.S. State of the Union address this coming January, since they’ve dis-invited our sitting President from the occasion because he makes them look like subhuman bug shit up close.
It disturbs me when Countme-In is being sober and realistic:
I’m sensing the conservative meme now …. liberals use oppressive government to tax cigarettes to change harmful behavior and look what happens.
Within the last hour a libertarian friend of mine – really good guy, aside from his political quirks – posted the Eric Garner story on Facebook under this heading:
Another disaster that could have been avoided by the repeal of a senseless criminal law:
“Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.”
It disturbs me when Countme-In is being sober and realistic:
I’m sensing the conservative meme now …. liberals use oppressive government to tax cigarettes to change harmful behavior and look what happens.
Within the last hour a libertarian friend of mine – really good guy, aside from his political quirks – posted the Eric Garner story on Facebook under this heading:
Another disaster that could have been avoided by the repeal of a senseless criminal law:
“Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.”
It disturbs me when Countme-In is being sober and realistic:
I’m sensing the conservative meme now …. liberals use oppressive government to tax cigarettes to change harmful behavior and look what happens.
Within the last hour a libertarian friend of mine – really good guy, aside from his political quirks – posted the Eric Garner story on Facebook under this heading:
Another disaster that could have been avoided by the repeal of a senseless criminal law:
“Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.”
Peace, brothers:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/video/kalashnikov-rebrands-its-ak-47-killing-machine-as-a-weapon-of-peace/ar-BBghBjO
Embrace the Second Amendment in the streets of America.
Peace, brothers:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/video/kalashnikov-rebrands-its-ak-47-killing-machine-as-a-weapon-of-peace/ar-BBghBjO
Embrace the Second Amendment in the streets of America.
Peace, brothers:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/video/kalashnikov-rebrands-its-ak-47-killing-machine-as-a-weapon-of-peace/ar-BBghBjO
Embrace the Second Amendment in the streets of America.
As Anna Russell used to say, during her analysis of Wagner’s Ring Cycle:
I’m Not Making This Up, You Know.
As Anna Russell used to say, during her analysis of Wagner’s Ring Cycle:
I’m Not Making This Up, You Know.
As Anna Russell used to say, during her analysis of Wagner’s Ring Cycle:
I’m Not Making This Up, You Know.
We once had a civilized society, in which appropriate waiting periods were observed between satire and reality.
MAD Magazine had to wait years sometimes for America to act as dumb as their features predicted.
Now, it’s instant gratification all around.
We once had a civilized society, in which appropriate waiting periods were observed between satire and reality.
MAD Magazine had to wait years sometimes for America to act as dumb as their features predicted.
Now, it’s instant gratification all around.
We once had a civilized society, in which appropriate waiting periods were observed between satire and reality.
MAD Magazine had to wait years sometimes for America to act as dumb as their features predicted.
Now, it’s instant gratification all around.
Let’s hope they were not high-capacity assault unlicensed cigarettes, with that thing that goes up.
Let’s hope they were not high-capacity assault unlicensed cigarettes, with that thing that goes up.
Let’s hope they were not high-capacity assault unlicensed cigarettes, with that thing that goes up.
From the Count’s Kalashnikov link:
It’s getting scary out there.
From the Count’s Kalashnikov link:
It’s getting scary out there.
From the Count’s Kalashnikov link:
It’s getting scary out there.
“Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.”
Let’s wait and see how far the taxes-killed-Garner meme spreads in the right-wing “culture”. Meanwhile, we can be fairly sure, per another right-wing meme, that Garner would have resisted arrest for something else on some other occasion, so he’d have been choked to death on some other day anyhow.
Speaking of stupid memes, “peaceful protest”. Left and right, people on my TV machine keep mouthing this piety. It takes the cops, as well as the protesters, to keep a protest “peaceful”. And no protest can be effective unless it inconveniences somebody, unless it’s loud and disruptive, unless in short it violates the “order” part of “law and order”. And that always gives the law-and-order types an opening to nullify one half or the other of “peaceful protest”.
“Order” is a pusillanimous prosecutor leading a spineless grand jury through a staid proceeding that returns no indictment. Order is white cops getting away with killing black people and nothing being done about it — except the coining of newer and stupider memes.
–TP
“Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.”
Let’s wait and see how far the taxes-killed-Garner meme spreads in the right-wing “culture”. Meanwhile, we can be fairly sure, per another right-wing meme, that Garner would have resisted arrest for something else on some other occasion, so he’d have been choked to death on some other day anyhow.
Speaking of stupid memes, “peaceful protest”. Left and right, people on my TV machine keep mouthing this piety. It takes the cops, as well as the protesters, to keep a protest “peaceful”. And no protest can be effective unless it inconveniences somebody, unless it’s loud and disruptive, unless in short it violates the “order” part of “law and order”. And that always gives the law-and-order types an opening to nullify one half or the other of “peaceful protest”.
“Order” is a pusillanimous prosecutor leading a spineless grand jury through a staid proceeding that returns no indictment. Order is white cops getting away with killing black people and nothing being done about it — except the coining of newer and stupider memes.
–TP
“Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes —better known as loosies —and that he resisted arrest.”
Let’s wait and see how far the taxes-killed-Garner meme spreads in the right-wing “culture”. Meanwhile, we can be fairly sure, per another right-wing meme, that Garner would have resisted arrest for something else on some other occasion, so he’d have been choked to death on some other day anyhow.
Speaking of stupid memes, “peaceful protest”. Left and right, people on my TV machine keep mouthing this piety. It takes the cops, as well as the protesters, to keep a protest “peaceful”. And no protest can be effective unless it inconveniences somebody, unless it’s loud and disruptive, unless in short it violates the “order” part of “law and order”. And that always gives the law-and-order types an opening to nullify one half or the other of “peaceful protest”.
“Order” is a pusillanimous prosecutor leading a spineless grand jury through a staid proceeding that returns no indictment. Order is white cops getting away with killing black people and nothing being done about it — except the coining of newer and stupider memes.
–TP
And to think, I do this stuff for free:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/eric-garner-conservative-reaction-nanny-state
Ross Dontdouthatdothis, no less.
I see mighty whitey is late to the news desk.
Size, to white trash, as usual, seems to matter as a killable offense.
I think what happened is that roughly 1000 to 1200 pounds of Grade A New York police pork gang-manslaughtered another 285-lb black citizen.
There must be a moneymaking diet fad craze a guy could monetize here.
Want to shed pounds quickly?
Want to quit that smoking habit?
Talk a little smack to Rudy Ghouliani and his boys oveh heah.
And to think, I do this stuff for free:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/eric-garner-conservative-reaction-nanny-state
Ross Dontdouthatdothis, no less.
I see mighty whitey is late to the news desk.
Size, to white trash, as usual, seems to matter as a killable offense.
I think what happened is that roughly 1000 to 1200 pounds of Grade A New York police pork gang-manslaughtered another 285-lb black citizen.
There must be a moneymaking diet fad craze a guy could monetize here.
Want to shed pounds quickly?
Want to quit that smoking habit?
Talk a little smack to Rudy Ghouliani and his boys oveh heah.
And to think, I do this stuff for free:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/eric-garner-conservative-reaction-nanny-state
Ross Dontdouthatdothis, no less.
I see mighty whitey is late to the news desk.
Size, to white trash, as usual, seems to matter as a killable offense.
I think what happened is that roughly 1000 to 1200 pounds of Grade A New York police pork gang-manslaughtered another 285-lb black citizen.
There must be a moneymaking diet fad craze a guy could monetize here.
Want to shed pounds quickly?
Want to quit that smoking habit?
Talk a little smack to Rudy Ghouliani and his boys oveh heah.
Yeah, poor whites have it as bad as middle-class blacks:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/03/the-lawful-killing-of-eric-garner/
Yeah, poor whites have it as bad as middle-class blacks:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/03/the-lawful-killing-of-eric-garner/
Yeah, poor whites have it as bad as middle-class blacks:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/03/the-lawful-killing-of-eric-garner/
“Let’s wait and see how far the taxes-killed-Garner meme spreads in the right-wing “culture””
Well, they don’t call it law “enforcement” for nothing, which is something the left ought to spend at least a *little* more time thinking about before advocating yet another law. Every single law is a threat to commit violence against somebody if they don’t do as they’re told. It would be nice if people gave just a little bit more consideration to whether what they wanted to pass a law about really was important enough to justify that violence.
“Let’s wait and see how far the taxes-killed-Garner meme spreads in the right-wing “culture””
Well, they don’t call it law “enforcement” for nothing, which is something the left ought to spend at least a *little* more time thinking about before advocating yet another law. Every single law is a threat to commit violence against somebody if they don’t do as they’re told. It would be nice if people gave just a little bit more consideration to whether what they wanted to pass a law about really was important enough to justify that violence.
“Let’s wait and see how far the taxes-killed-Garner meme spreads in the right-wing “culture””
Well, they don’t call it law “enforcement” for nothing, which is something the left ought to spend at least a *little* more time thinking about before advocating yet another law. Every single law is a threat to commit violence against somebody if they don’t do as they’re told. It would be nice if people gave just a little bit more consideration to whether what they wanted to pass a law about really was important enough to justify that violence.
I’d like to get rid of the laws against trespassing on private property, or are we now cutting into laws Brett believes important enough to justify violence?
I’m going to speed at roughly 100 mph up and down Brett’s street during school bus hours. I don’t expect to be troubled by the authorities.
Cigarette tax laws don’t kill people, people kill people.
I’d like to get rid of the laws against trespassing on private property, or are we now cutting into laws Brett believes important enough to justify violence?
I’m going to speed at roughly 100 mph up and down Brett’s street during school bus hours. I don’t expect to be troubled by the authorities.
Cigarette tax laws don’t kill people, people kill people.
I’d like to get rid of the laws against trespassing on private property, or are we now cutting into laws Brett believes important enough to justify violence?
I’m going to speed at roughly 100 mph up and down Brett’s street during school bus hours. I don’t expect to be troubled by the authorities.
Cigarette tax laws don’t kill people, people kill people.
How many pig vermin Republican Governors and States Attorney Generals does it take to pile on a black President for not enforcing a law that conservative murderers believe justifies coercion and violence against millions?
Or is it just that he’s not obeying them when they demand he kneel?
How many pig vermin Republican Governors and States Attorney Generals does it take to pile on a black President for not enforcing a law that conservative murderers believe justifies coercion and violence against millions?
Or is it just that he’s not obeying them when they demand he kneel?
How many pig vermin Republican Governors and States Attorney Generals does it take to pile on a black President for not enforcing a law that conservative murderers believe justifies coercion and violence against millions?
Or is it just that he’s not obeying them when they demand he kneel?
Disarm the BLM.
Disarm the cops.
Disarm Bundy.
Arm Trayvon Martin until Zimmerman is disarmed and then disarm Trayvon.
Shut down all importations of Kalashnikov’s and (ohh, a new law, punishable by life imprisonment, whaddaya gonna do, shoot me?) and whatever weaponry can be banned forever in this country.
I’d say that’s a mild case of dreamboat neuroses mixed with wishful thinking, but hardly clinical schizophrenia.
Brett wants everyone armed so that no one submits to arrest and everyone on both sides gets shot, but just for a few select laws he favors.
That’s not schizophrenia, however.
Monomania with aggravating symptoms of glandular dyspepsia, more like, but like I’ve said, he sets a splendid table.
Odd that my reported schizophrenia is the exact mirror image of yours.
I fake my schizophrenia, for the drugs.
What do you do?
I will say it’s weird that so many unarmed but seemingly threatening full-figured black men are wasted, yet Bundy and his merry maraudering tax evaders can point military grade weaponry at law enforcement trying to uphold the rule of conservative order and yet walk-away unscathed, except for those subsequently arrested for shooting up the joints elsewhere.
I’d like to see Brown’s parents try that.
Do either you or Brett have notions of an armed confrontation with Sheriff’s Departments who aim to collect past due property taxes on your residences?
I wouldn’t if were you.
That would make you both psychopaths, not schizophrenics.
It’s tough to aim at a schizophrenic and shoot two personalities at once.
Probably want to use a shotgun.
Disarm the BLM.
Disarm the cops.
Disarm Bundy.
Arm Trayvon Martin until Zimmerman is disarmed and then disarm Trayvon.
Shut down all importations of Kalashnikov’s and (ohh, a new law, punishable by life imprisonment, whaddaya gonna do, shoot me?) and whatever weaponry can be banned forever in this country.
I’d say that’s a mild case of dreamboat neuroses mixed with wishful thinking, but hardly clinical schizophrenia.
Brett wants everyone armed so that no one submits to arrest and everyone on both sides gets shot, but just for a few select laws he favors.
That’s not schizophrenia, however.
Monomania with aggravating symptoms of glandular dyspepsia, more like, but like I’ve said, he sets a splendid table.
Odd that my reported schizophrenia is the exact mirror image of yours.
I fake my schizophrenia, for the drugs.
What do you do?
I will say it’s weird that so many unarmed but seemingly threatening full-figured black men are wasted, yet Bundy and his merry maraudering tax evaders can point military grade weaponry at law enforcement trying to uphold the rule of conservative order and yet walk-away unscathed, except for those subsequently arrested for shooting up the joints elsewhere.
I’d like to see Brown’s parents try that.
Do either you or Brett have notions of an armed confrontation with Sheriff’s Departments who aim to collect past due property taxes on your residences?
I wouldn’t if were you.
That would make you both psychopaths, not schizophrenics.
It’s tough to aim at a schizophrenic and shoot two personalities at once.
Probably want to use a shotgun.
Disarm the BLM.
Disarm the cops.
Disarm Bundy.
Arm Trayvon Martin until Zimmerman is disarmed and then disarm Trayvon.
Shut down all importations of Kalashnikov’s and (ohh, a new law, punishable by life imprisonment, whaddaya gonna do, shoot me?) and whatever weaponry can be banned forever in this country.
I’d say that’s a mild case of dreamboat neuroses mixed with wishful thinking, but hardly clinical schizophrenia.
Brett wants everyone armed so that no one submits to arrest and everyone on both sides gets shot, but just for a few select laws he favors.
That’s not schizophrenia, however.
Monomania with aggravating symptoms of glandular dyspepsia, more like, but like I’ve said, he sets a splendid table.
Odd that my reported schizophrenia is the exact mirror image of yours.
I fake my schizophrenia, for the drugs.
What do you do?
I will say it’s weird that so many unarmed but seemingly threatening full-figured black men are wasted, yet Bundy and his merry maraudering tax evaders can point military grade weaponry at law enforcement trying to uphold the rule of conservative order and yet walk-away unscathed, except for those subsequently arrested for shooting up the joints elsewhere.
I’d like to see Brown’s parents try that.
Do either you or Brett have notions of an armed confrontation with Sheriff’s Departments who aim to collect past due property taxes on your residences?
I wouldn’t if were you.
That would make you both psychopaths, not schizophrenics.
It’s tough to aim at a schizophrenic and shoot two personalities at once.
Probably want to use a shotgun.
When the discussion reaches the point like this where the Count is reeling off sane and sensible posts, all one can do is agree with him. (Or accpet defeat gracefully, I suppose.)
When the discussion reaches the point like this where the Count is reeling off sane and sensible posts, all one can do is agree with him. (Or accpet defeat gracefully, I suppose.)
When the discussion reaches the point like this where the Count is reeling off sane and sensible posts, all one can do is agree with him. (Or accpet defeat gracefully, I suppose.)
“Guess what, even in this wet dream of yours, people still gonna kill each other.”
Brett claims my wet dream is all about people killing people.
To tell you the truth, now that both you AND Brett have appeared in this schizophrenic wet dream in which people are both killed and not killed, I’ve lost my erection.
Though I find your French rather stimulating, you tease. Pepe Le pew mon aimee de merde.
“Because all of this is done with laws and laws must be enforced. No one can obviously break the law.”
Take it up with, Brett.
I love both of my parents. It’s only yours I pray for, Afro-boy.
My parents made my skin, true.
Yours must have made you crawl.
You could have used a third to wash out your anti-gay, anti-black, anti-illegal immigrant mouth.
Besides, the above-mentioned have views on abortion that are just as complex as mine, and probably more conservative, despite your invitation to them to work in this abortion clinic you speak of.
I mean, a gay two parent family are the last people who would need an abortion.
“Guess what, even in this wet dream of yours, people still gonna kill each other.”
Brett claims my wet dream is all about people killing people.
To tell you the truth, now that both you AND Brett have appeared in this schizophrenic wet dream in which people are both killed and not killed, I’ve lost my erection.
Though I find your French rather stimulating, you tease. Pepe Le pew mon aimee de merde.
“Because all of this is done with laws and laws must be enforced. No one can obviously break the law.”
Take it up with, Brett.
I love both of my parents. It’s only yours I pray for, Afro-boy.
My parents made my skin, true.
Yours must have made you crawl.
You could have used a third to wash out your anti-gay, anti-black, anti-illegal immigrant mouth.
Besides, the above-mentioned have views on abortion that are just as complex as mine, and probably more conservative, despite your invitation to them to work in this abortion clinic you speak of.
I mean, a gay two parent family are the last people who would need an abortion.
“Guess what, even in this wet dream of yours, people still gonna kill each other.”
Brett claims my wet dream is all about people killing people.
To tell you the truth, now that both you AND Brett have appeared in this schizophrenic wet dream in which people are both killed and not killed, I’ve lost my erection.
Though I find your French rather stimulating, you tease. Pepe Le pew mon aimee de merde.
“Because all of this is done with laws and laws must be enforced. No one can obviously break the law.”
Take it up with, Brett.
I love both of my parents. It’s only yours I pray for, Afro-boy.
My parents made my skin, true.
Yours must have made you crawl.
You could have used a third to wash out your anti-gay, anti-black, anti-illegal immigrant mouth.
Besides, the above-mentioned have views on abortion that are just as complex as mine, and probably more conservative, despite your invitation to them to work in this abortion clinic you speak of.
I mean, a gay two parent family are the last people who would need an abortion.
smells like troll in here
smells like troll in here
smells like troll in here
Harrumph!
Harrumph!
Harrumph!
This martial arts practitioner says it looks, smells and tastes like a chokehold.
Good thing we didn’t step in it, eh?
Say, aren’t you banned?
This martial arts practitioner says it looks, smells and tastes like a chokehold.
Good thing we didn’t step in it, eh?
Say, aren’t you banned?
This martial arts practitioner says it looks, smells and tastes like a chokehold.
Good thing we didn’t step in it, eh?
Say, aren’t you banned?
Hey look, conservatives in Russia accuse their Central Bank of sabotaging the economy.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russian-leader-accuses-central-bank-of-economic-sabotage/ar-BBgiyL6
Just like ours.
That and the distinctly NRA-like western style marketing campaign for the new Kalashnikov and it’s like both countries are stuck with Georgia, except their Georgia is saner than ours.
Hey look, conservatives in Russia accuse their Central Bank of sabotaging the economy.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russian-leader-accuses-central-bank-of-economic-sabotage/ar-BBgiyL6
Just like ours.
That and the distinctly NRA-like western style marketing campaign for the new Kalashnikov and it’s like both countries are stuck with Georgia, except their Georgia is saner than ours.
Hey look, conservatives in Russia accuse their Central Bank of sabotaging the economy.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russian-leader-accuses-central-bank-of-economic-sabotage/ar-BBgiyL6
Just like ours.
That and the distinctly NRA-like western style marketing campaign for the new Kalashnikov and it’s like both countries are stuck with Georgia, except their Georgia is saner than ours.
Garner:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/03/a-question-of-human-dignity/
Garner:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/03/a-question-of-human-dignity/
Garner:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/03/a-question-of-human-dignity/
Sorry about the troll getting in — another day, another IP address. Should I remove his comments, too, or let them stand as a warning?
Sorry about the troll getting in — another day, another IP address. Should I remove his comments, too, or let them stand as a warning?
Sorry about the troll getting in — another day, another IP address. Should I remove his comments, too, or let them stand as a warning?
i vote for remove the comments.
i vote for remove the comments.
i vote for remove the comments.
also, for folks who are all bent out of shape by a cigarette tax, allow me to remind you that taxes on luxury and “sin” items, along with market-meddling, free-trade-intruding tariffs, where how the founders rolled.
it’s how they paid the bills. it’s the American way.
it was good for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me.
the reason Garner is dead is because he was choked by a cop. period.
also, for folks who are all bent out of shape by a cigarette tax, allow me to remind you that taxes on luxury and “sin” items, along with market-meddling, free-trade-intruding tariffs, where how the founders rolled.
it’s how they paid the bills. it’s the American way.
it was good for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me.
the reason Garner is dead is because he was choked by a cop. period.
also, for folks who are all bent out of shape by a cigarette tax, allow me to remind you that taxes on luxury and “sin” items, along with market-meddling, free-trade-intruding tariffs, where how the founders rolled.
it’s how they paid the bills. it’s the American way.
it was good for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me.
the reason Garner is dead is because he was choked by a cop. period.
remove, we’ve got a nice collection in the spam bin if anyone would like to research what sort of phobias he’s projecting, he’s make a nice little psych paper.
remove, we’ve got a nice collection in the spam bin if anyone would like to research what sort of phobias he’s projecting, he’s make a nice little psych paper.
remove, we’ve got a nice collection in the spam bin if anyone would like to research what sort of phobias he’s projecting, he’s make a nice little psych paper.
Incidentally, I had just a couple of hours ago read a comment on FB saying that anyone who had ever applied a chokehold would know that wasn’t a real choke.
I had a similar response. Looked like a choke to me, and I’ve been on both giving and receiving ends of a choke. But not at the same time.
Incidentally, I had just a couple of hours ago read a comment on FB saying that anyone who had ever applied a chokehold would know that wasn’t a real choke.
I had a similar response. Looked like a choke to me, and I’ve been on both giving and receiving ends of a choke. But not at the same time.
Incidentally, I had just a couple of hours ago read a comment on FB saying that anyone who had ever applied a chokehold would know that wasn’t a real choke.
I had a similar response. Looked like a choke to me, and I’ve been on both giving and receiving ends of a choke. But not at the same time.
(If) it was good for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me.
mmmm, yes-and pancakes.
(If) it was good for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me.
mmmm, yes-and pancakes.
(If) it was good for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me.
mmmm, yes-and pancakes.
the reason it was a choke hold, even if it wasn’t a Choke Hold™ is that he died of asphyxiation. whatever hold it was choked him, to death.
the reason it was a choke hold, even if it wasn’t a Choke Hold™ is that he died of asphyxiation. whatever hold it was choked him, to death.
the reason it was a choke hold, even if it wasn’t a Choke Hold™ is that he died of asphyxiation. whatever hold it was choked him, to death.
If you think you can remove them without making the rest of the comments hard to follow, go for it. But if not, we can survive a small intrusion in the archives.
If you think you can remove them without making the rest of the comments hard to follow, go for it. But if not, we can survive a small intrusion in the archives.
If you think you can remove them without making the rest of the comments hard to follow, go for it. But if not, we can survive a small intrusion in the archives.
It’s OK with me if you remove my, umm, contribution, too
It’s OK with me if you remove my, umm, contribution, too
It’s OK with me if you remove my, umm, contribution, too
Chris Rock:
“There’s always going to be people that don’t know that the war’s over. I’m more optimistic than you, but maybe it’s because I live the way I do. I just have a great life, so it’s easier for me to say things are great. But not even me. My brothers drive trucks and stock shelves. They live in a much better world than my father did. My mother tells stories of growing up in Andrews, South Carolina, and the black people had to go to the vet to get their teeth pulled out. And you still had to go to the back door, because if the white people knew the vet had used his instruments on black people, they wouldn’t take their pets to the vet. This is not some person I read about. This is my mother. […]”
Chris Rock:
“There’s always going to be people that don’t know that the war’s over. I’m more optimistic than you, but maybe it’s because I live the way I do. I just have a great life, so it’s easier for me to say things are great. But not even me. My brothers drive trucks and stock shelves. They live in a much better world than my father did. My mother tells stories of growing up in Andrews, South Carolina, and the black people had to go to the vet to get their teeth pulled out. And you still had to go to the back door, because if the white people knew the vet had used his instruments on black people, they wouldn’t take their pets to the vet. This is not some person I read about. This is my mother. […]”
Chris Rock:
“There’s always going to be people that don’t know that the war’s over. I’m more optimistic than you, but maybe it’s because I live the way I do. I just have a great life, so it’s easier for me to say things are great. But not even me. My brothers drive trucks and stock shelves. They live in a much better world than my father did. My mother tells stories of growing up in Andrews, South Carolina, and the black people had to go to the vet to get their teeth pulled out. And you still had to go to the back door, because if the white people knew the vet had used his instruments on black people, they wouldn’t take their pets to the vet. This is not some person I read about. This is my mother. […]”
This, I think, eloquently sums up what I’ve tried to say in this thread. People die from police violence because we do nothing to stop it:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/12/04/broken-windows-and-broken-lives/
This, I think, eloquently sums up what I’ve tried to say in this thread. People die from police violence because we do nothing to stop it:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/12/04/broken-windows-and-broken-lives/
This, I think, eloquently sums up what I’ve tried to say in this thread. People die from police violence because we do nothing to stop it:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/12/04/broken-windows-and-broken-lives/
Strikes me that there is a group of guys wandering the US who, it’s understood, might kill you if you diss them on the street.
And who then get a free pass from your usually hyperactive prosecutors.
Strikes me that there is a group of guys wandering the US who, it’s understood, might kill you if you diss them on the street.
And who then get a free pass from your usually hyperactive prosecutors.
Strikes me that there is a group of guys wandering the US who, it’s understood, might kill you if you diss them on the street.
And who then get a free pass from your usually hyperactive prosecutors.
“People die from police violence because we do nothing to stop it:”
Yes, but broken windows made them do it.
Cigarette taxes made them do it.
They was fat; they was overweight and outta shape; put a choke hold on a skinny, ripped, athlete and kill him and then maybe you gotta case.
John Cole asked on Twitter last night (see Balloon Juice) what could possible get a cop indicted by a grand jury and some wag suggested if the cops “field dressed the corpses”
Even then, FOX News would say, yeah, but the cops needed the meat, cause ya know, that FDA nanny state inspected stuff is too expensive, so they hadda kill the guy, and put his carcass up in the freezer.
Then it would become all the rage among the subhuman pig filth conservative media and their “personalities” to advise the rest of us on how to field dress a dead black man and whether to do it in situ or strap the body to the hood of the car and do it in their backyards.
NEWSMAX would sell butcher aprons for the occasion.
Ted Nugent would host Mike Huckabee to make a video of how to field dress a black person and then the two of them would barbecue the choice cuts and jam together for the assembled cannibals, and that would be O.K. with Meghan Kelly, and they’d joke about how it’s lucky the recently deceased didn’t take various shitheads’ advice regarding the need to be heavily armed to defend himself against gummint tyranny, cause then all we’d have to eat is squirrel.
And then Nugent and Huckabee would blow each other on camera and that would be O.K. too because because not that there is anything wrong with that and that’s another thing liberals made them do.
The FDA did this thing here, not us.
Remember, all of these conservative vermin who have been stroking their racial boners the last couple of years every time a black man is wasted by cops and psuedo cops pretty much all grew up in two-parent families, have some sort of religious piety, and will slaver their opposition to abortion all oveer the place, unless of course the fetus is inside a black woman who resists arrest and the baby takes a couple of rounds in its fetal brain, then, geez, get rid of cigarette taxes and we’ll be O,K. and if the woman wasn’t so fat, Congressman Pete King will opine, the fetus would not have been shot, cause ya know, the layers of fat covered up the pregnancy so how was we to know, hanh?
What does this say about the intact two parent family, and religious training, and their work ethics that the issue from this traditional blahblah turn out to be altogether stupid, racist, murderous,, drunken gets, who by the way, if they are white, of the poor white variety especially, chances are they are responsible for the 83% of the whites who are murdered by their fellow whites?
Of course, your average eye-ties, like Ghouliani, with their relatively swarthy complexions and watchamacallit, iffy connections with another type of traditional Family, sport a higher murder rate than your typical white.
“People die from police violence because we do nothing to stop it:”
Yes, but broken windows made them do it.
Cigarette taxes made them do it.
They was fat; they was overweight and outta shape; put a choke hold on a skinny, ripped, athlete and kill him and then maybe you gotta case.
John Cole asked on Twitter last night (see Balloon Juice) what could possible get a cop indicted by a grand jury and some wag suggested if the cops “field dressed the corpses”
Even then, FOX News would say, yeah, but the cops needed the meat, cause ya know, that FDA nanny state inspected stuff is too expensive, so they hadda kill the guy, and put his carcass up in the freezer.
Then it would become all the rage among the subhuman pig filth conservative media and their “personalities” to advise the rest of us on how to field dress a dead black man and whether to do it in situ or strap the body to the hood of the car and do it in their backyards.
NEWSMAX would sell butcher aprons for the occasion.
Ted Nugent would host Mike Huckabee to make a video of how to field dress a black person and then the two of them would barbecue the choice cuts and jam together for the assembled cannibals, and that would be O.K. with Meghan Kelly, and they’d joke about how it’s lucky the recently deceased didn’t take various shitheads’ advice regarding the need to be heavily armed to defend himself against gummint tyranny, cause then all we’d have to eat is squirrel.
And then Nugent and Huckabee would blow each other on camera and that would be O.K. too because because not that there is anything wrong with that and that’s another thing liberals made them do.
The FDA did this thing here, not us.
Remember, all of these conservative vermin who have been stroking their racial boners the last couple of years every time a black man is wasted by cops and psuedo cops pretty much all grew up in two-parent families, have some sort of religious piety, and will slaver their opposition to abortion all oveer the place, unless of course the fetus is inside a black woman who resists arrest and the baby takes a couple of rounds in its fetal brain, then, geez, get rid of cigarette taxes and we’ll be O,K. and if the woman wasn’t so fat, Congressman Pete King will opine, the fetus would not have been shot, cause ya know, the layers of fat covered up the pregnancy so how was we to know, hanh?
What does this say about the intact two parent family, and religious training, and their work ethics that the issue from this traditional blahblah turn out to be altogether stupid, racist, murderous,, drunken gets, who by the way, if they are white, of the poor white variety especially, chances are they are responsible for the 83% of the whites who are murdered by their fellow whites?
Of course, your average eye-ties, like Ghouliani, with their relatively swarthy complexions and watchamacallit, iffy connections with another type of traditional Family, sport a higher murder rate than your typical white.
“People die from police violence because we do nothing to stop it:”
Yes, but broken windows made them do it.
Cigarette taxes made them do it.
They was fat; they was overweight and outta shape; put a choke hold on a skinny, ripped, athlete and kill him and then maybe you gotta case.
John Cole asked on Twitter last night (see Balloon Juice) what could possible get a cop indicted by a grand jury and some wag suggested if the cops “field dressed the corpses”
Even then, FOX News would say, yeah, but the cops needed the meat, cause ya know, that FDA nanny state inspected stuff is too expensive, so they hadda kill the guy, and put his carcass up in the freezer.
Then it would become all the rage among the subhuman pig filth conservative media and their “personalities” to advise the rest of us on how to field dress a dead black man and whether to do it in situ or strap the body to the hood of the car and do it in their backyards.
NEWSMAX would sell butcher aprons for the occasion.
Ted Nugent would host Mike Huckabee to make a video of how to field dress a black person and then the two of them would barbecue the choice cuts and jam together for the assembled cannibals, and that would be O.K. with Meghan Kelly, and they’d joke about how it’s lucky the recently deceased didn’t take various shitheads’ advice regarding the need to be heavily armed to defend himself against gummint tyranny, cause then all we’d have to eat is squirrel.
And then Nugent and Huckabee would blow each other on camera and that would be O.K. too because because not that there is anything wrong with that and that’s another thing liberals made them do.
The FDA did this thing here, not us.
Remember, all of these conservative vermin who have been stroking their racial boners the last couple of years every time a black man is wasted by cops and psuedo cops pretty much all grew up in two-parent families, have some sort of religious piety, and will slaver their opposition to abortion all oveer the place, unless of course the fetus is inside a black woman who resists arrest and the baby takes a couple of rounds in its fetal brain, then, geez, get rid of cigarette taxes and we’ll be O,K. and if the woman wasn’t so fat, Congressman Pete King will opine, the fetus would not have been shot, cause ya know, the layers of fat covered up the pregnancy so how was we to know, hanh?
What does this say about the intact two parent family, and religious training, and their work ethics that the issue from this traditional blahblah turn out to be altogether stupid, racist, murderous,, drunken gets, who by the way, if they are white, of the poor white variety especially, chances are they are responsible for the 83% of the whites who are murdered by their fellow whites?
Of course, your average eye-ties, like Ghouliani, with their relatively swarthy complexions and watchamacallit, iffy connections with another type of traditional Family, sport a higher murder rate than your typical white.
it goes on and on and on and on…
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/12/white_phoenix_pd_officer_shoots_and_kills_unarmed_black_man.html
don’t stop believing
it goes on and on and on and on…
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/12/white_phoenix_pd_officer_shoots_and_kills_unarmed_black_man.html
don’t stop believing
it goes on and on and on and on…
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/12/white_phoenix_pd_officer_shoots_and_kills_unarmed_black_man.html
don’t stop believing
and on:
Justice Dept.: Cleveland police have pattern of excessive force
and on:
Justice Dept.: Cleveland police have pattern of excessive force
and on:
Justice Dept.: Cleveland police have pattern of excessive force
and on:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/montgomery-county-ohio-deputies-racist-texts
and on:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/montgomery-county-ohio-deputies-racist-texts
and on:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/montgomery-county-ohio-deputies-racist-texts
and on:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/03/1349088/-Denver-police-erase-video-evidence-of-them-flipping-7-month-pregnant-woman-and-pummeling-her-friend
The fetus should have shot the cop in the face.
Hasn’t the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?
and on:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/03/1349088/-Denver-police-erase-video-evidence-of-them-flipping-7-month-pregnant-woman-and-pummeling-her-friend
The fetus should have shot the cop in the face.
Hasn’t the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?
and on:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/03/1349088/-Denver-police-erase-video-evidence-of-them-flipping-7-month-pregnant-woman-and-pummeling-her-friend
The fetus should have shot the cop in the face.
Hasn’t the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?
“Hasn’t the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?”
Depends on their color, now doesn’t it?
“Hasn’t the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?”
Depends on their color, now doesn’t it?
“Hasn’t the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?”
Depends on their color, now doesn’t it?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349318/-In-2010-veteran-St-Louis-Police-officer-lost-lawsuit-for-800-000-after-hanging-noose-up-in-office
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349318/-In-2010-veteran-St-Louis-Police-officer-lost-lawsuit-for-800-000-after-hanging-noose-up-in-office
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349318/-In-2010-veteran-St-Louis-Police-officer-lost-lawsuit-for-800-000-after-hanging-noose-up-in-office
To the good Doctor’s initial inquiry…(damn, that was a long time ago) is it not the reverberations of the past that continue to dictate the present? Is the violence we now witness a matter of unfortunate circumstance, or is it part of the design?
To the good Doctor’s initial inquiry…(damn, that was a long time ago) is it not the reverberations of the past that continue to dictate the present? Is the violence we now witness a matter of unfortunate circumstance, or is it part of the design?
To the good Doctor’s initial inquiry…(damn, that was a long time ago) is it not the reverberations of the past that continue to dictate the present? Is the violence we now witness a matter of unfortunate circumstance, or is it part of the design?
black middle class people don’t have this problem
One member of the black middle class begs to differ.
So how do you argue against the eye witness account and the “forensics” in this instance?
black middle class people don’t have this problem
One member of the black middle class begs to differ.
So how do you argue against the eye witness account and the “forensics” in this instance?
black middle class people don’t have this problem
One member of the black middle class begs to differ.
So how do you argue against the eye witness account and the “forensics” in this instance?
Shame on the public for not appreciating on the spot capital punishment…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30323811
On websites catering to the law enforcement community, the mood was largely angry and defensive – reflecting a community that sees itself as under siege by an unappreciative public…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd
…Capital punishment in Mega-City One is rarely used, though deaths while resisting arrest are commonplace….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjYrXd9ycA
the thing that almost always triggers the violence is that they felt like (she) was disrespecting the cops…
… disrespecting a police officer is not a capital offense… … allegedly.
A countervailing voice of police sanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uqQhC3XA4
Shame on the public for not appreciating on the spot capital punishment…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30323811
On websites catering to the law enforcement community, the mood was largely angry and defensive – reflecting a community that sees itself as under siege by an unappreciative public…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd
…Capital punishment in Mega-City One is rarely used, though deaths while resisting arrest are commonplace….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjYrXd9ycA
the thing that almost always triggers the violence is that they felt like (she) was disrespecting the cops…
… disrespecting a police officer is not a capital offense… … allegedly.
A countervailing voice of police sanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uqQhC3XA4
Shame on the public for not appreciating on the spot capital punishment…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30323811
On websites catering to the law enforcement community, the mood was largely angry and defensive – reflecting a community that sees itself as under siege by an unappreciative public…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd
…Capital punishment in Mega-City One is rarely used, though deaths while resisting arrest are commonplace….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjYrXd9ycA
the thing that almost always triggers the violence is that they felt like (she) was disrespecting the cops…
… disrespecting a police officer is not a capital offense… … allegedly.
A countervailing voice of police sanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uqQhC3XA4
black middle class people don’t have this problem
An interesting read from LinkedIn (I know, I’m shocked too). But the perspective of a black CEO:
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20141204174020-261404895-it-s-time-to-revolutionize-race-relations
In short, no, simply achieving success in life doesn’t normalize how people view black men.
black middle class people don’t have this problem
An interesting read from LinkedIn (I know, I’m shocked too). But the perspective of a black CEO:
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20141204174020-261404895-it-s-time-to-revolutionize-race-relations
In short, no, simply achieving success in life doesn’t normalize how people view black men.
black middle class people don’t have this problem
An interesting read from LinkedIn (I know, I’m shocked too). But the perspective of a black CEO:
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20141204174020-261404895-it-s-time-to-revolutionize-race-relations
In short, no, simply achieving success in life doesn’t normalize how people view black men.
This op-ed is still mind boggling.
“I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.”
This op-ed is still mind boggling.
“I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.”
This op-ed is still mind boggling.
“I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.”
the editor must’ve taken out the “Results may vary, depending on your skin color” disclaimer. for space reasons, probably.
the editor must’ve taken out the “Results may vary, depending on your skin color” disclaimer. for space reasons, probably.
the editor must’ve taken out the “Results may vary, depending on your skin color” disclaimer. for space reasons, probably.
An interesting read from LinkedIn
The comments are something else, though.
An interesting read from LinkedIn
The comments are something else, though.
An interesting read from LinkedIn
The comments are something else, though.
The comments are something else, though.
I would recommend browsing with NoScript. Pages load faster and you don’t have deal with comments on most sites.
The comments are something else, though.
I would recommend browsing with NoScript. Pages load faster and you don’t have deal with comments on most sites.
The comments are something else, though.
I would recommend browsing with NoScript. Pages load faster and you don’t have deal with comments on most sites.
See the commonality of experience between the black Professor of Literature at Vassar cited by bobbyp at 10:06pm and the black CEO of Kaiser Permanante cited by thompson.
I’ve been to the Vassar campus a couple of times. It embodies liberal sensibilities, which is to say that the everyday racial bias that even black professionals marinate in in (two ins does make an outie) their daily lives, despite all of the formal strides made in Civil Rights in this country, exists outside liberal and conservative political categories and is invisible to blinkered white experience, regardless of our racial sensibilities.
It’s what it is.
The middle class black professional is a couple of steps closer to a fatal choke hold from the authorities in his or her daily life than even a poor white, generally speaking.
I’m entertaining a thought experiment.
Let’s say I now agree with the conservative meme (which remained satire for approximately a minute and a half before it became full-blown earnest bullsh*t reality) that the enforcement of cigarette taxes is the direct cause of Mr. Garner’s death (although I now see that the guy who shot the video has been indicted on weapons charges some time after the fact, which is yet another post hoc justification for Garner being choked to death, uh hunh)
I need to fill my car’s gas tank today, but I’ve decided to refuse to pay the gasoline tax because of its coercive qualities. Unlike Mr. Garner and Mr. Brown, I’m going to carry a weapon to protect myself, as prescribed by conservative deep thinkers, against these governmental oppressions and any interference by government agents that might ensue. I’ll pay the amount in cash, subtracting the tax tax.
We’ll see what happens.
When Brett and the rest of you hear about the result in the media (my thought experiment includes media coverage), as predicted here, I expect several outcomes: I’m not black so I will live through this. If I’m choked to death, I’m rather svelt and in great physical shape, so conservative commentators will be at a loss to explain my demise, and I’m armed and refusing to pay an oppressive tax, so if I live, I’ll be assured of gainful appointment with Grover Norquist’s octopus-like organizational conglomerate, NRA advertising spots, and my new show on FOX entitled “Taxes, Schmaxes”. If I’m gunned down by oppressive government agents, I’ll ascend to conservative martyrdom and the awful regime of gasoline taxation will begin to crumble like so many Eastern European communist potentates and you folks are free to use your driverless and apparently now roadless and bridgeless cars.
I’ll keep you posted.
See the commonality of experience between the black Professor of Literature at Vassar cited by bobbyp at 10:06pm and the black CEO of Kaiser Permanante cited by thompson.
I’ve been to the Vassar campus a couple of times. It embodies liberal sensibilities, which is to say that the everyday racial bias that even black professionals marinate in in (two ins does make an outie) their daily lives, despite all of the formal strides made in Civil Rights in this country, exists outside liberal and conservative political categories and is invisible to blinkered white experience, regardless of our racial sensibilities.
It’s what it is.
The middle class black professional is a couple of steps closer to a fatal choke hold from the authorities in his or her daily life than even a poor white, generally speaking.
I’m entertaining a thought experiment.
Let’s say I now agree with the conservative meme (which remained satire for approximately a minute and a half before it became full-blown earnest bullsh*t reality) that the enforcement of cigarette taxes is the direct cause of Mr. Garner’s death (although I now see that the guy who shot the video has been indicted on weapons charges some time after the fact, which is yet another post hoc justification for Garner being choked to death, uh hunh)
I need to fill my car’s gas tank today, but I’ve decided to refuse to pay the gasoline tax because of its coercive qualities. Unlike Mr. Garner and Mr. Brown, I’m going to carry a weapon to protect myself, as prescribed by conservative deep thinkers, against these governmental oppressions and any interference by government agents that might ensue. I’ll pay the amount in cash, subtracting the tax tax.
We’ll see what happens.
When Brett and the rest of you hear about the result in the media (my thought experiment includes media coverage), as predicted here, I expect several outcomes: I’m not black so I will live through this. If I’m choked to death, I’m rather svelt and in great physical shape, so conservative commentators will be at a loss to explain my demise, and I’m armed and refusing to pay an oppressive tax, so if I live, I’ll be assured of gainful appointment with Grover Norquist’s octopus-like organizational conglomerate, NRA advertising spots, and my new show on FOX entitled “Taxes, Schmaxes”. If I’m gunned down by oppressive government agents, I’ll ascend to conservative martyrdom and the awful regime of gasoline taxation will begin to crumble like so many Eastern European communist potentates and you folks are free to use your driverless and apparently now roadless and bridgeless cars.
I’ll keep you posted.
See the commonality of experience between the black Professor of Literature at Vassar cited by bobbyp at 10:06pm and the black CEO of Kaiser Permanante cited by thompson.
I’ve been to the Vassar campus a couple of times. It embodies liberal sensibilities, which is to say that the everyday racial bias that even black professionals marinate in in (two ins does make an outie) their daily lives, despite all of the formal strides made in Civil Rights in this country, exists outside liberal and conservative political categories and is invisible to blinkered white experience, regardless of our racial sensibilities.
It’s what it is.
The middle class black professional is a couple of steps closer to a fatal choke hold from the authorities in his or her daily life than even a poor white, generally speaking.
I’m entertaining a thought experiment.
Let’s say I now agree with the conservative meme (which remained satire for approximately a minute and a half before it became full-blown earnest bullsh*t reality) that the enforcement of cigarette taxes is the direct cause of Mr. Garner’s death (although I now see that the guy who shot the video has been indicted on weapons charges some time after the fact, which is yet another post hoc justification for Garner being choked to death, uh hunh)
I need to fill my car’s gas tank today, but I’ve decided to refuse to pay the gasoline tax because of its coercive qualities. Unlike Mr. Garner and Mr. Brown, I’m going to carry a weapon to protect myself, as prescribed by conservative deep thinkers, against these governmental oppressions and any interference by government agents that might ensue. I’ll pay the amount in cash, subtracting the tax tax.
We’ll see what happens.
When Brett and the rest of you hear about the result in the media (my thought experiment includes media coverage), as predicted here, I expect several outcomes: I’m not black so I will live through this. If I’m choked to death, I’m rather svelt and in great physical shape, so conservative commentators will be at a loss to explain my demise, and I’m armed and refusing to pay an oppressive tax, so if I live, I’ll be assured of gainful appointment with Grover Norquist’s octopus-like organizational conglomerate, NRA advertising spots, and my new show on FOX entitled “Taxes, Schmaxes”. If I’m gunned down by oppressive government agents, I’ll ascend to conservative martyrdom and the awful regime of gasoline taxation will begin to crumble like so many Eastern European communist potentates and you folks are free to use your driverless and apparently now roadless and bridgeless cars.
I’ll keep you posted.
comments on LinkedIn are such a terrible idea.
next time i’m in the job market i’m going to go there and scan for comments from any execs from any potential employers.
that people are willing to let their racism fly under their real name, with job title and employer name attached is just astounding.
comments on LinkedIn are such a terrible idea.
next time i’m in the job market i’m going to go there and scan for comments from any execs from any potential employers.
that people are willing to let their racism fly under their real name, with job title and employer name attached is just astounding.
comments on LinkedIn are such a terrible idea.
next time i’m in the job market i’m going to go there and scan for comments from any execs from any potential employers.
that people are willing to let their racism fly under their real name, with job title and employer name attached is just astounding.
and then this proves that the system is perfectly fair, i’m sure:
http://news.yahoo.com/ex-south-carolina-police-chief-indicted-murder-charge-160946468.html
and then this proves that the system is perfectly fair, i’m sure:
http://news.yahoo.com/ex-south-carolina-police-chief-indicted-murder-charge-160946468.html
and then this proves that the system is perfectly fair, i’m sure:
http://news.yahoo.com/ex-south-carolina-police-chief-indicted-murder-charge-160946468.html
Off-topic, but maybe not .. in this thread:
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2163175-ft-leniency-expected-from-oil-creditors-amid-fall-in-prices
If only mortgage holders could be so lucky.
I wonder if loud-mouthed Tea Party pig Rick Santelli will let us know about these oilpatch deadbeats.
Off-topic, but maybe not .. in this thread:
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2163175-ft-leniency-expected-from-oil-creditors-amid-fall-in-prices
If only mortgage holders could be so lucky.
I wonder if loud-mouthed Tea Party pig Rick Santelli will let us know about these oilpatch deadbeats.
Off-topic, but maybe not .. in this thread:
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2163175-ft-leniency-expected-from-oil-creditors-amid-fall-in-prices
If only mortgage holders could be so lucky.
I wonder if loud-mouthed Tea Party pig Rick Santelli will let us know about these oilpatch deadbeats.
Some good news, now on-topic, from a bad news State:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/south-carolina-3-indictments-cops
Some good news, now on-topic, from a bad news State:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/south-carolina-3-indictments-cops
Some good news, now on-topic, from a bad news State:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/south-carolina-3-indictments-cops
I was diagnosed with schizophrenia (and months ago of penning word salad) by the fleeting here today, gone tomorrow psychiatrist on this thread, and I would like the opportunity to take that as a compliment since I’m in good company, though not comparable in stature by any means:
http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Walser/e/B000APSK2A/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1417800149&sr=1-2-ent
Besides, I think, schizophasia is the more accurate term. I don’t know what the psychiatric term is for feigned schizophasia, but I’ve a raging case of that.
Been reading an essay on Walser by W.G. Sebald, who everyone must read, or there will be choke holds.
I was diagnosed with schizophrenia (and months ago of penning word salad) by the fleeting here today, gone tomorrow psychiatrist on this thread, and I would like the opportunity to take that as a compliment since I’m in good company, though not comparable in stature by any means:
http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Walser/e/B000APSK2A/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1417800149&sr=1-2-ent
Besides, I think, schizophasia is the more accurate term. I don’t know what the psychiatric term is for feigned schizophasia, but I’ve a raging case of that.
Been reading an essay on Walser by W.G. Sebald, who everyone must read, or there will be choke holds.
I was diagnosed with schizophrenia (and months ago of penning word salad) by the fleeting here today, gone tomorrow psychiatrist on this thread, and I would like the opportunity to take that as a compliment since I’m in good company, though not comparable in stature by any means:
http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Walser/e/B000APSK2A/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1417800149&sr=1-2-ent
Besides, I think, schizophasia is the more accurate term. I don’t know what the psychiatric term is for feigned schizophasia, but I’ve a raging case of that.
Been reading an essay on Walser by W.G. Sebald, who everyone must read, or there will be choke holds.
I love when middle class black people complain about this stuff. If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.
But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.
I love when middle class black people complain about this stuff. If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.
But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.
I love when middle class black people complain about this stuff. If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.
But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.
the difference, Marty, is that you have to go somewhere specific to be insecure. for some people, it happens everywhere.
the difference, Marty, is that you have to go somewhere specific to be insecure. for some people, it happens everywhere.
the difference, Marty, is that you have to go somewhere specific to be insecure. for some people, it happens everywhere.
I wish I could say “I love it when Marty goes into his ‘I’ve had it bad too, so nothing to worry about, folks, just suck it up and move along’.”
But I just can’t.
I wish I could say “I love it when Marty goes into his ‘I’ve had it bad too, so nothing to worry about, folks, just suck it up and move along’.”
But I just can’t.
I wish I could say “I love it when Marty goes into his ‘I’ve had it bad too, so nothing to worry about, folks, just suck it up and move along’.”
But I just can’t.
If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.
Marty, why is it that I have a sneaking suspicion that the CEO of a $55B company isn’t exactly wearing sweats or doing anything else comparable to look ostentatiously out-of-place in the situations he’s outlining? Well… except… you know.
I know you don’t mean to be, but you’re actually exactly making his point for him.
If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.
Marty, why is it that I have a sneaking suspicion that the CEO of a $55B company isn’t exactly wearing sweats or doing anything else comparable to look ostentatiously out-of-place in the situations he’s outlining? Well… except… you know.
I know you don’t mean to be, but you’re actually exactly making his point for him.
If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.
Marty, why is it that I have a sneaking suspicion that the CEO of a $55B company isn’t exactly wearing sweats or doing anything else comparable to look ostentatiously out-of-place in the situations he’s outlining? Well… except… you know.
I know you don’t mean to be, but you’re actually exactly making his point for him.
I actually found that the best point in this was one that gets forgotten way too often: even if the suspect did something wrong and glaringly illegal, and it’s an open-and-shut case against them… it is not in any way, shape or form the job of the police to punish them. That’s not their role in the justice system, and when they take it upon themselves to do so, they’re no more legitimate than a random civilian doing likewise (though obviously they’re much less likely to suffer any ill consequences for it). Punishment is a prerogative of the courts, not of the police.
I actually found that the best point in this was one that gets forgotten way too often: even if the suspect did something wrong and glaringly illegal, and it’s an open-and-shut case against them… it is not in any way, shape or form the job of the police to punish them. That’s not their role in the justice system, and when they take it upon themselves to do so, they’re no more legitimate than a random civilian doing likewise (though obviously they’re much less likely to suffer any ill consequences for it). Punishment is a prerogative of the courts, not of the police.
I actually found that the best point in this was one that gets forgotten way too often: even if the suspect did something wrong and glaringly illegal, and it’s an open-and-shut case against them… it is not in any way, shape or form the job of the police to punish them. That’s not their role in the justice system, and when they take it upon themselves to do so, they’re no more legitimate than a random civilian doing likewise (though obviously they’re much less likely to suffer any ill consequences for it). Punishment is a prerogative of the courts, not of the police.
I just did a back of the envelope analysis. Black, Native American, White and Asian homicide rates (per 100k) respectively: 16.5, 3.2, 2.7, 1.6 Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06 Now the ratio of homicide to killed by police for Black, Native American, White and Asian: .02, .05, .04, .04 Given the rate at which they are involved in homicides, whites are killed by police at more than twice the rate (.05) of blacks (.02) and in fact more than the other racial categories. Blacks are killed by police by far the least relative to their participation in homicides. They’re getting off easy based on their level of violent crime. I assert that the racial meme re; police violence is junk science at best and, more likely, is designed to divide the people against each other such that it becomes more difficult to fight for justice for all against a govt that seeks to remove our freedoms.
I just did a back of the envelope analysis. Black, Native American, White and Asian homicide rates (per 100k) respectively: 16.5, 3.2, 2.7, 1.6 Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06 Now the ratio of homicide to killed by police for Black, Native American, White and Asian: .02, .05, .04, .04 Given the rate at which they are involved in homicides, whites are killed by police at more than twice the rate (.05) of blacks (.02) and in fact more than the other racial categories. Blacks are killed by police by far the least relative to their participation in homicides. They’re getting off easy based on their level of violent crime. I assert that the racial meme re; police violence is junk science at best and, more likely, is designed to divide the people against each other such that it becomes more difficult to fight for justice for all against a govt that seeks to remove our freedoms.
I just did a back of the envelope analysis. Black, Native American, White and Asian homicide rates (per 100k) respectively: 16.5, 3.2, 2.7, 1.6 Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06 Now the ratio of homicide to killed by police for Black, Native American, White and Asian: .02, .05, .04, .04 Given the rate at which they are involved in homicides, whites are killed by police at more than twice the rate (.05) of blacks (.02) and in fact more than the other racial categories. Blacks are killed by police by far the least relative to their participation in homicides. They’re getting off easy based on their level of violent crime. I assert that the racial meme re; police violence is junk science at best and, more likely, is designed to divide the people against each other such that it becomes more difficult to fight for justice for all against a govt that seeks to remove our freedoms.
NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I’m running while white. And there are plenty of places we could both run where no one would notice us. But, as someone noted above, since we live in mostly segregated neighborhoods, especially in the upper middle class, then, well, yes it happens. One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.
NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I’m running while white. And there are plenty of places we could both run where no one would notice us. But, as someone noted above, since we live in mostly segregated neighborhoods, especially in the upper middle class, then, well, yes it happens. One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.
NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I’m running while white. And there are plenty of places we could both run where no one would notice us. But, as someone noted above, since we live in mostly segregated neighborhoods, especially in the upper middle class, then, well, yes it happens. One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.
Oh wow. That’s some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for “involvement in violent crimes”? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes? Asserting that police shootings are more justified because of the “collective guilt” of “blacks” as demonstrated by their higher homicide rates? And is that rates at which they’re victims or perpetrators of homicide? Nope, definitely nothing junky about your presentation of those back-of-the-envelope calculations. I think we can officially declare this matter laid to rest.
Oh wow. That’s some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for “involvement in violent crimes”? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes? Asserting that police shootings are more justified because of the “collective guilt” of “blacks” as demonstrated by their higher homicide rates? And is that rates at which they’re victims or perpetrators of homicide? Nope, definitely nothing junky about your presentation of those back-of-the-envelope calculations. I think we can officially declare this matter laid to rest.
Oh wow. That’s some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for “involvement in violent crimes”? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes? Asserting that police shootings are more justified because of the “collective guilt” of “blacks” as demonstrated by their higher homicide rates? And is that rates at which they’re victims or perpetrators of homicide? Nope, definitely nothing junky about your presentation of those back-of-the-envelope calculations. I think we can officially declare this matter laid to rest.
NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I’m running while white.
And the CEO was citing his shopping-while-black. And his eating-out-while-black. And his checking-out-while-black. And his walking-to-his-car-while-black. Do you have similar “-while-white” stories to counter those? Your hypothetical running example says exactly nothing to that. Or to the Vassar prof’s experiences. That you can in very constrained circumstances be subjected to a comparable level of scrutiny (we can generously assume with comparable consequences too) to an other does nothing to address the part where the other is subjected to that heightened level of scrutiny continuously in contexts where you would never be subjected to that same scrutiny if you dressed and behaved as they did. Or more succinctly, what cleek said.
NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I’m running while white.
And the CEO was citing his shopping-while-black. And his eating-out-while-black. And his checking-out-while-black. And his walking-to-his-car-while-black. Do you have similar “-while-white” stories to counter those? Your hypothetical running example says exactly nothing to that. Or to the Vassar prof’s experiences. That you can in very constrained circumstances be subjected to a comparable level of scrutiny (we can generously assume with comparable consequences too) to an other does nothing to address the part where the other is subjected to that heightened level of scrutiny continuously in contexts where you would never be subjected to that same scrutiny if you dressed and behaved as they did. Or more succinctly, what cleek said.
NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I’m running while white.
And the CEO was citing his shopping-while-black. And his eating-out-while-black. And his checking-out-while-black. And his walking-to-his-car-while-black. Do you have similar “-while-white” stories to counter those? Your hypothetical running example says exactly nothing to that. Or to the Vassar prof’s experiences. That you can in very constrained circumstances be subjected to a comparable level of scrutiny (we can generously assume with comparable consequences too) to an other does nothing to address the part where the other is subjected to that heightened level of scrutiny continuously in contexts where you would never be subjected to that same scrutiny if you dressed and behaved as they did. Or more succinctly, what cleek said.
The exception proves the rule. Spud Webb was a short basketball player.
The exception proves the rule. Spud Webb was a short basketball player.
The exception proves the rule. Spud Webb was a short basketball player.
well, to be fair, the definition of ‘factoid’ is :
so, it’s a mistake to expect actual fact.
well, to be fair, the definition of ‘factoid’ is :
so, it’s a mistake to expect actual fact.
well, to be fair, the definition of ‘factoid’ is :
so, it’s a mistake to expect actual fact.
I just did a back of the envelope analysis.
That’s an hour with the census website and a calculator, gone to waste.
I just did a back of the envelope analysis.
That’s an hour with the census website and a calculator, gone to waste.
I just did a back of the envelope analysis.
That’s an hour with the census website and a calculator, gone to waste.
One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.
I get that you apparently had a kind of hardscrabble coming-up, but I’m not sure your experiences can really be equated to that of black men, in general, in the US.
Either a hell of a lot of black guys are puny-ass whiners, or they really and truly are hassled, for no good reason, on a routine basis.
I don’t think that happens to a lot of white guys.
One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.
I get that you apparently had a kind of hardscrabble coming-up, but I’m not sure your experiences can really be equated to that of black men, in general, in the US.
Either a hell of a lot of black guys are puny-ass whiners, or they really and truly are hassled, for no good reason, on a routine basis.
I don’t think that happens to a lot of white guys.
One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.
I get that you apparently had a kind of hardscrabble coming-up, but I’m not sure your experiences can really be equated to that of black men, in general, in the US.
Either a hell of a lot of black guys are puny-ass whiners, or they really and truly are hassled, for no good reason, on a routine basis.
I don’t think that happens to a lot of white guys.
NV “continuously” this is where your argument breaks down. Occasionally, I could agree with, more often than white folk going to Vassar, ok, but I’m pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it’s happened to him, at least as an adult. I Could tell three stories just about being harassed by cops. Young blacks in poor neighborhoods, particularly in parts of town “owned” by gangs or where there is a known street drug trade? Continuously may cone close.
NV “continuously” this is where your argument breaks down. Occasionally, I could agree with, more often than white folk going to Vassar, ok, but I’m pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it’s happened to him, at least as an adult. I Could tell three stories just about being harassed by cops. Young blacks in poor neighborhoods, particularly in parts of town “owned” by gangs or where there is a known street drug trade? Continuously may cone close.
NV “continuously” this is where your argument breaks down. Occasionally, I could agree with, more often than white folk going to Vassar, ok, but I’m pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it’s happened to him, at least as an adult. I Could tell three stories just about being harassed by cops. Young blacks in poor neighborhoods, particularly in parts of town “owned” by gangs or where there is a known street drug trade? Continuously may cone close.
“That’s some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for “involvement in violent crimes”? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent ….”
As opposed to your emotionally charged unsubstantiated anecdotes that must be a true reflection of reality because you feel like it is so, I’d say my assumptions are pretty good.
“That’s some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for “involvement in violent crimes”? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent ….”
As opposed to your emotionally charged unsubstantiated anecdotes that must be a true reflection of reality because you feel like it is so, I’d say my assumptions are pretty good.
“That’s some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for “involvement in violent crimes”? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent ….”
As opposed to your emotionally charged unsubstantiated anecdotes that must be a true reflection of reality because you feel like it is so, I’d say my assumptions are pretty good.
all I can say is that it sucks to be an Indian.
all I can say is that it sucks to be an Indian.
all I can say is that it sucks to be an Indian.
Marty: but I’m pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it’s happened to him, at least as an adult.
Well then you’d lose, unless he’s lying:
So you know I’m speaking from a realistic rather than theoretical standpoint, here are a few personal examples I’ve experienced in the past couple of months:
Marty: but I’m pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it’s happened to him, at least as an adult.
Well then you’d lose, unless he’s lying:
So you know I’m speaking from a realistic rather than theoretical standpoint, here are a few personal examples I’ve experienced in the past couple of months:
Marty: but I’m pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it’s happened to him, at least as an adult.
Well then you’d lose, unless he’s lying:
So you know I’m speaking from a realistic rather than theoretical standpoint, here are a few personal examples I’ve experienced in the past couple of months:
Let me see if I’ve got “factoidal” right. Your brother is shot by the police. That’s bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother’s death only half as bad?
Wow. That doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.
Let me see if I’ve got “factoidal” right. Your brother is shot by the police. That’s bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother’s death only half as bad?
Wow. That doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.
Let me see if I’ve got “factoidal” right. Your brother is shot by the police. That’s bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother’s death only half as bad?
Wow. That doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.
it’s that new math
it’s that new math
it’s that new math
“Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes?”
Let’s try this: Police, rationally, ought to be deployed where there is a lot of crime going on, particularly violent crime. And they’re not going to be shooting people where they aren’t deployed. So, yes, they’re is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.
“Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes?”
Let’s try this: Police, rationally, ought to be deployed where there is a lot of crime going on, particularly violent crime. And they’re not going to be shooting people where they aren’t deployed. So, yes, they’re is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.
“Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes?”
Let’s try this: Police, rationally, ought to be deployed where there is a lot of crime going on, particularly violent crime. And they’re not going to be shooting people where they aren’t deployed. So, yes, they’re is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.
Brett, my apologies for being less verbose than usual. I incorrectly thought in context it was clear I meant: “…incidence of police shootings [where the victim is a member of demographic X] and incidence of violent crimes [where the victim is a member of demographic X]…”
That doesn’t hold up quite so well as the general case.
Brett, my apologies for being less verbose than usual. I incorrectly thought in context it was clear I meant: “…incidence of police shootings [where the victim is a member of demographic X] and incidence of violent crimes [where the victim is a member of demographic X]…”
That doesn’t hold up quite so well as the general case.
Brett, my apologies for being less verbose than usual. I incorrectly thought in context it was clear I meant: “…incidence of police shootings [where the victim is a member of demographic X] and incidence of violent crimes [where the victim is a member of demographic X]…”
That doesn’t hold up quite so well as the general case.
“Wow. That doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.”
Again I ask, what does have left have to offer other emotional anecdote molded into a “just so” story?
“Your brother is shot by the police. That’s bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother’s death only half as bad?”
So let me see if I have you correctly, you are saying that all police shootings are of innocent people minding their own business?
For your “narrative” to be correct, you have to show that police are killing people without good cause and, overwhelmingly these are black people. I submit to you that, quite to the contrary, police are shooting dangerous felons and in a very justified manner. I just read an account of two recent fatal shootings of black teenagers in Chicago. They happened on the same night. In both cases the shot blacks were committing crimes and then pointed loaded handguns at police. Having read the statistics, these are typical incidents for both blacks and whites getting killed by police.
When it comes to cases of apparent police abuse of lethal power, I am not seeing statistics that support the idea that the victim is more likely to be black than white.
Perhaps you have these specific statistics handy and would like to share them.
“Wow. That doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.”
Again I ask, what does have left have to offer other emotional anecdote molded into a “just so” story?
“Your brother is shot by the police. That’s bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother’s death only half as bad?”
So let me see if I have you correctly, you are saying that all police shootings are of innocent people minding their own business?
For your “narrative” to be correct, you have to show that police are killing people without good cause and, overwhelmingly these are black people. I submit to you that, quite to the contrary, police are shooting dangerous felons and in a very justified manner. I just read an account of two recent fatal shootings of black teenagers in Chicago. They happened on the same night. In both cases the shot blacks were committing crimes and then pointed loaded handguns at police. Having read the statistics, these are typical incidents for both blacks and whites getting killed by police.
When it comes to cases of apparent police abuse of lethal power, I am not seeing statistics that support the idea that the victim is more likely to be black than white.
Perhaps you have these specific statistics handy and would like to share them.
“Wow. That doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.”
Again I ask, what does have left have to offer other emotional anecdote molded into a “just so” story?
“Your brother is shot by the police. That’s bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother’s death only half as bad?”
So let me see if I have you correctly, you are saying that all police shootings are of innocent people minding their own business?
For your “narrative” to be correct, you have to show that police are killing people without good cause and, overwhelmingly these are black people. I submit to you that, quite to the contrary, police are shooting dangerous felons and in a very justified manner. I just read an account of two recent fatal shootings of black teenagers in Chicago. They happened on the same night. In both cases the shot blacks were committing crimes and then pointed loaded handguns at police. Having read the statistics, these are typical incidents for both blacks and whites getting killed by police.
When it comes to cases of apparent police abuse of lethal power, I am not seeing statistics that support the idea that the victim is more likely to be black than white.
Perhaps you have these specific statistics handy and would like to share them.
I’m pretty sure factoidal is just mighty whitey and just sayin by a different name, and that evolution of handles demonstrates how this works, you start off with some really putrid racism, then you move to the ‘I’m just pointing this observation out’ to the implication that it is based on facts and calculations. I guess the observations on chokeholds didn’t pan out…
I’m pretty sure factoidal is just mighty whitey and just sayin by a different name, and that evolution of handles demonstrates how this works, you start off with some really putrid racism, then you move to the ‘I’m just pointing this observation out’ to the implication that it is based on facts and calculations. I guess the observations on chokeholds didn’t pan out…
I’m pretty sure factoidal is just mighty whitey and just sayin by a different name, and that evolution of handles demonstrates how this works, you start off with some really putrid racism, then you move to the ‘I’m just pointing this observation out’ to the implication that it is based on facts and calculations. I guess the observations on chokeholds didn’t pan out…
can’t you ban by IP?
can’t you ban by IP?
can’t you ban by IP?
So, yes, they’re is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.
care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?
So, yes, they’re is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.
care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?
So, yes, they’re is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.
care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?
Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06
I squint at those numbers and come up with the following hypothesis: Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types, then it would appear that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be assassinated by the police while committing similar offences.
The obvious solution is to deploy more police on Wall Street (where the real violet crimes take place) and gun down an occasional banker once and a while just to keep them on their toes.
Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06
I squint at those numbers and come up with the following hypothesis: Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types, then it would appear that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be assassinated by the police while committing similar offences.
The obvious solution is to deploy more police on Wall Street (where the real violet crimes take place) and gun down an occasional banker once and a while just to keep them on their toes.
Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06
I squint at those numbers and come up with the following hypothesis: Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types, then it would appear that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be assassinated by the police while committing similar offences.
The obvious solution is to deploy more police on Wall Street (where the real violet crimes take place) and gun down an occasional banker once and a while just to keep them on their toes.
A rather funny (and telling) finding of mine today: In (post-classical) Latin ‘to shoot (with) a gun’ is ‘eiaculari sclopeto’. Freud would have a field day with that.
A rather funny (and telling) finding of mine today: In (post-classical) Latin ‘to shoot (with) a gun’ is ‘eiaculari sclopeto’. Freud would have a field day with that.
A rather funny (and telling) finding of mine today: In (post-classical) Latin ‘to shoot (with) a gun’ is ‘eiaculari sclopeto’. Freud would have a field day with that.
“care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?”
Now, why would I care to do that? Causal relations going both ways is hardly unheard of. But there clearly is a causal connection between rates of violent crime, and rates of police shootings, and it’s fairly obvious: The police go where there is crime, and don’t shoot people where they aren’t.
“care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?”
Now, why would I care to do that? Causal relations going both ways is hardly unheard of. But there clearly is a causal connection between rates of violent crime, and rates of police shootings, and it’s fairly obvious: The police go where there is crime, and don’t shoot people where they aren’t.
“care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?”
Now, why would I care to do that? Causal relations going both ways is hardly unheard of. But there clearly is a causal connection between rates of violent crime, and rates of police shootings, and it’s fairly obvious: The police go where there is crime, and don’t shoot people where they aren’t.
” Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types,”
I take it, you mean, assuming they’re engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates? Yes, given that assumption, the conclusion follows. But is that assumption at all defensible? I think not.
” Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types,”
I take it, you mean, assuming they’re engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates? Yes, given that assumption, the conclusion follows. But is that assumption at all defensible? I think not.
” Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types,”
I take it, you mean, assuming they’re engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates? Yes, given that assumption, the conclusion follows. But is that assumption at all defensible? I think not.
The police go where there is crime, and don’t shoot people where they aren’t.
and, for some reason, they stop, arrest, try, convict and convict for longer in those places than any other place.
it’s as if they aren’t just following crime. it’s as if there’s something else going on here. and there is.
but y’all don’t want to acknowledge that, for some reason.
The police go where there is crime, and don’t shoot people where they aren’t.
and, for some reason, they stop, arrest, try, convict and convict for longer in those places than any other place.
it’s as if they aren’t just following crime. it’s as if there’s something else going on here. and there is.
but y’all don’t want to acknowledge that, for some reason.
The police go where there is crime, and don’t shoot people where they aren’t.
and, for some reason, they stop, arrest, try, convict and convict for longer in those places than any other place.
it’s as if they aren’t just following crime. it’s as if there’s something else going on here. and there is.
but y’all don’t want to acknowledge that, for some reason.
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime? Who would have guessed?
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime? Who would have guessed?
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime? Who would have guessed?
I take it, you mean, assuming they’re engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates?
No. I am engaging in factoids.
But if there are more police per capita out on the streets in these ‘high crime’ areas, then your chances of getting shot ‘at the same rate’ are higher, yes?
So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.
This assumes I am giving this matter more thought than I gave this morning to my belly button lint (innie).
I take it, you mean, assuming they’re engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates?
No. I am engaging in factoids.
But if there are more police per capita out on the streets in these ‘high crime’ areas, then your chances of getting shot ‘at the same rate’ are higher, yes?
So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.
This assumes I am giving this matter more thought than I gave this morning to my belly button lint (innie).
I take it, you mean, assuming they’re engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates?
No. I am engaging in factoids.
But if there are more police per capita out on the streets in these ‘high crime’ areas, then your chances of getting shot ‘at the same rate’ are higher, yes?
So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.
This assumes I am giving this matter more thought than I gave this morning to my belly button lint (innie).
Consider another peculiarly American institution of violence nurtured and proselytized over the last half of the 20th century to the very present by a political and economic movement of psychopaths poised to destroy the country:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Pig Paul Ryan, meet William Edward Hickman, the model for every piece of legislation you’ve conceived.
Consider another peculiarly American institution of violence nurtured and proselytized over the last half of the 20th century to the very present by a political and economic movement of psychopaths poised to destroy the country:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Pig Paul Ryan, meet William Edward Hickman, the model for every piece of legislation you’ve conceived.
Consider another peculiarly American institution of violence nurtured and proselytized over the last half of the 20th century to the very present by a political and economic movement of psychopaths poised to destroy the country:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Pig Paul Ryan, meet William Edward Hickman, the model for every piece of legislation you’ve conceived.
This cracks me up:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/massive-785-million-recall-for-popular-us-gun/ar-BBgoPPI
Now, if we could have a recall for every single gun in America because they are designed to fire on purpose, as well as accidentally.
This cracks me up:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/massive-785-million-recall-for-popular-us-gun/ar-BBgoPPI
Now, if we could have a recall for every single gun in America because they are designed to fire on purpose, as well as accidentally.
This cracks me up:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/massive-785-million-recall-for-popular-us-gun/ar-BBgoPPI
Now, if we could have a recall for every single gun in America because they are designed to fire on purpose, as well as accidentally.
“No. I am engaging in factoids.”
I’m entirely open to the possibility, likelihood even, that race is “a” factor in these differences. What I’m fighting is the determination to identify it as “the” factor in them, as though there weren’t any other reasons for it, and some of them entirely justifiable.
“So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.”
Wouldn’t work. Because the cops in the low crime areas, knowing they were in low crime areas, would behave differently. They’d know they didn’t need to be looking on a hair trigger for muggers and robbers. They’d be more in a “keep an eye out for lost kids to help find their parents” mode.
I think in high crime areas cops are going around with an entirely different mindset. And shouldn’t they? The facts they’re surrounded by are different, are they supposed to ignore them?
“No. I am engaging in factoids.”
I’m entirely open to the possibility, likelihood even, that race is “a” factor in these differences. What I’m fighting is the determination to identify it as “the” factor in them, as though there weren’t any other reasons for it, and some of them entirely justifiable.
“So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.”
Wouldn’t work. Because the cops in the low crime areas, knowing they were in low crime areas, would behave differently. They’d know they didn’t need to be looking on a hair trigger for muggers and robbers. They’d be more in a “keep an eye out for lost kids to help find their parents” mode.
I think in high crime areas cops are going around with an entirely different mindset. And shouldn’t they? The facts they’re surrounded by are different, are they supposed to ignore them?
“No. I am engaging in factoids.”
I’m entirely open to the possibility, likelihood even, that race is “a” factor in these differences. What I’m fighting is the determination to identify it as “the” factor in them, as though there weren’t any other reasons for it, and some of them entirely justifiable.
“So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.”
Wouldn’t work. Because the cops in the low crime areas, knowing they were in low crime areas, would behave differently. They’d know they didn’t need to be looking on a hair trigger for muggers and robbers. They’d be more in a “keep an eye out for lost kids to help find their parents” mode.
I think in high crime areas cops are going around with an entirely different mindset. And shouldn’t they? The facts they’re surrounded by are different, are they supposed to ignore them?
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems,
i’m not. and you know i’m not.
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems,
i’m not. and you know i’m not.
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems,
i’m not. and you know i’m not.
You’re saying they DON’T behave differently when they know they’re in high crime areas?
You’re saying they DON’T behave differently when they know they’re in high crime areas?
You’re saying they DON’T behave differently when they know they’re in high crime areas?
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime?
Actually, what he is saying ist hat police behave differently in places where they make more arrests. Whether there actually is more behavior that breaks the law in those places is, at best, unproven. In fact, that is precisely the question at issue: are more blacks arrested because they commit more crimes? Or because they get arrested at a higher rate for the same rate of commission?
And then we get into the question of the rate at which they are killed by police (police behaving differently), relative to the number of arrests. But that is two removes from the number killed relative to the number of crimes committed.
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime?
Actually, what he is saying ist hat police behave differently in places where they make more arrests. Whether there actually is more behavior that breaks the law in those places is, at best, unproven. In fact, that is precisely the question at issue: are more blacks arrested because they commit more crimes? Or because they get arrested at a higher rate for the same rate of commission?
And then we get into the question of the rate at which they are killed by police (police behaving differently), relative to the number of arrests. But that is two removes from the number killed relative to the number of crimes committed.
What, you’re saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime?
Actually, what he is saying ist hat police behave differently in places where they make more arrests. Whether there actually is more behavior that breaks the law in those places is, at best, unproven. In fact, that is precisely the question at issue: are more blacks arrested because they commit more crimes? Or because they get arrested at a higher rate for the same rate of commission?
And then we get into the question of the rate at which they are killed by police (police behaving differently), relative to the number of arrests. But that is two removes from the number killed relative to the number of crimes committed.
Don’t much believe in victimization surveys, do you? I don’t think it’s unproven at all. Just inconvenient to acknowledge for people who desperately want the entire difference to be pinned on racism.
Of course, some might say it would be inconvenient for me to acknowledge that Ferguson didn’t have a hugely high violent crime rate, at least prior to the riots. But I’ll acknowledge it anyway, and propose another reform:
No monetary penalty should ever go back to the government unit that levied it. Not traffic fines, not penalties for failing to show up in court, not proceeds from civil forfeiture. (Which should be largely abolished anyway.)
It clearly is too much of a conflict of interest for them to cope with, to be able to get money by charging people with crimes.
Don’t much believe in victimization surveys, do you? I don’t think it’s unproven at all. Just inconvenient to acknowledge for people who desperately want the entire difference to be pinned on racism.
Of course, some might say it would be inconvenient for me to acknowledge that Ferguson didn’t have a hugely high violent crime rate, at least prior to the riots. But I’ll acknowledge it anyway, and propose another reform:
No monetary penalty should ever go back to the government unit that levied it. Not traffic fines, not penalties for failing to show up in court, not proceeds from civil forfeiture. (Which should be largely abolished anyway.)
It clearly is too much of a conflict of interest for them to cope with, to be able to get money by charging people with crimes.
Don’t much believe in victimization surveys, do you? I don’t think it’s unproven at all. Just inconvenient to acknowledge for people who desperately want the entire difference to be pinned on racism.
Of course, some might say it would be inconvenient for me to acknowledge that Ferguson didn’t have a hugely high violent crime rate, at least prior to the riots. But I’ll acknowledge it anyway, and propose another reform:
No monetary penalty should ever go back to the government unit that levied it. Not traffic fines, not penalties for failing to show up in court, not proceeds from civil forfeiture. (Which should be largely abolished anyway.)
It clearly is too much of a conflict of interest for them to cope with, to be able to get money by charging people with crimes.
Those last two paragraphs are another thing we could agree on but even more difficult to achieve since corruption is not limited to the individual unit. E.g. if the fines would go to the state instead, it could put pressure on the police to fine more and threaten to cut the budgets, if not enough revenue is produced. And departments could collude for profit-sharing (‘our fines go to you and yours to us, so if you fine more, we will too and we both benefit’). Not that this would be unknown even today and also in the private sector.
Those last two paragraphs are another thing we could agree on but even more difficult to achieve since corruption is not limited to the individual unit. E.g. if the fines would go to the state instead, it could put pressure on the police to fine more and threaten to cut the budgets, if not enough revenue is produced. And departments could collude for profit-sharing (‘our fines go to you and yours to us, so if you fine more, we will too and we both benefit’). Not that this would be unknown even today and also in the private sector.
Those last two paragraphs are another thing we could agree on but even more difficult to achieve since corruption is not limited to the individual unit. E.g. if the fines would go to the state instead, it could put pressure on the police to fine more and threaten to cut the budgets, if not enough revenue is produced. And departments could collude for profit-sharing (‘our fines go to you and yours to us, so if you fine more, we will too and we both benefit’). Not that this would be unknown even today and also in the private sector.
You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it. Since, theoretically anyway, all these fines are levied in the interest of the people, not the state. Don’t let the government keep any of it.
You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it. Since, theoretically anyway, all these fines are levied in the interest of the people, not the state. Don’t let the government keep any of it.
You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it. Since, theoretically anyway, all these fines are levied in the interest of the people, not the state. Don’t let the government keep any of it.
“You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it.”
It could work like Alaska’s Windfall Oil Rebate to the hard-working taxpayers.
The hard-working taxpayers would be incentivized to encourage their government to increase crime production, especially on public lands where crime is now discouraged and practically non-existent, thereby increasing the return of capital to themselves each year.
In New York, thug Eric Garner, instead of being strangled by police thugs who are merely carrying out the will of thug politicians, would be held up as a top producer of rebates to the thug taxpayers and perhaps awarded via a series of further tax incentives to his behavior for his contributions to the interests of the people.
Instead of his demise via chokehold, the bystander video would feature Garner and the police cooperating arm in arm in yet another of his arrests and instead of his last words (“I can’t breathe”), he would smile into the camera as he was happily volunteered to head down to the station to pay his fines, with the words “Breathe easy hard-working taxpayer, because I work hard every day to increase the size of you annual crime rebate checks. Drill, baby, drill.”
The hard-working taxpayer, watching this on the TV at home, would call his wife into the living room (because otherwise she’s not allowed in the living room in most libertarian households) and say “Honey, Garner’s doing his part overtime. Our rebate check is going to be enormous this year. Let’s put an addition on the house. And tell the kids to step up their shoplifting and speeding on the roads, because I’m telling ya, there is a shortfall in their college funds.”
Ah, but why should the proceeds be divided equally among the population, when garner, we’re told, is doing all the work?
Simply.
“You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it.”
It could work like Alaska’s Windfall Oil Rebate to the hard-working taxpayers.
The hard-working taxpayers would be incentivized to encourage their government to increase crime production, especially on public lands where crime is now discouraged and practically non-existent, thereby increasing the return of capital to themselves each year.
In New York, thug Eric Garner, instead of being strangled by police thugs who are merely carrying out the will of thug politicians, would be held up as a top producer of rebates to the thug taxpayers and perhaps awarded via a series of further tax incentives to his behavior for his contributions to the interests of the people.
Instead of his demise via chokehold, the bystander video would feature Garner and the police cooperating arm in arm in yet another of his arrests and instead of his last words (“I can’t breathe”), he would smile into the camera as he was happily volunteered to head down to the station to pay his fines, with the words “Breathe easy hard-working taxpayer, because I work hard every day to increase the size of you annual crime rebate checks. Drill, baby, drill.”
The hard-working taxpayer, watching this on the TV at home, would call his wife into the living room (because otherwise she’s not allowed in the living room in most libertarian households) and say “Honey, Garner’s doing his part overtime. Our rebate check is going to be enormous this year. Let’s put an addition on the house. And tell the kids to step up their shoplifting and speeding on the roads, because I’m telling ya, there is a shortfall in their college funds.”
Ah, but why should the proceeds be divided equally among the population, when garner, we’re told, is doing all the work?
Simply.
“You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it.”
It could work like Alaska’s Windfall Oil Rebate to the hard-working taxpayers.
The hard-working taxpayers would be incentivized to encourage their government to increase crime production, especially on public lands where crime is now discouraged and practically non-existent, thereby increasing the return of capital to themselves each year.
In New York, thug Eric Garner, instead of being strangled by police thugs who are merely carrying out the will of thug politicians, would be held up as a top producer of rebates to the thug taxpayers and perhaps awarded via a series of further tax incentives to his behavior for his contributions to the interests of the people.
Instead of his demise via chokehold, the bystander video would feature Garner and the police cooperating arm in arm in yet another of his arrests and instead of his last words (“I can’t breathe”), he would smile into the camera as he was happily volunteered to head down to the station to pay his fines, with the words “Breathe easy hard-working taxpayer, because I work hard every day to increase the size of you annual crime rebate checks. Drill, baby, drill.”
The hard-working taxpayer, watching this on the TV at home, would call his wife into the living room (because otherwise she’s not allowed in the living room in most libertarian households) and say “Honey, Garner’s doing his part overtime. Our rebate check is going to be enormous this year. Let’s put an addition on the house. And tell the kids to step up their shoplifting and speeding on the roads, because I’m telling ya, there is a shortfall in their college funds.”
Ah, but why should the proceeds be divided equally among the population, when garner, we’re told, is doing all the work?
Simply.
But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.
This statement has been bugging me for the last few days.
We live in a nation where the common emotional thread running through one of the two major parties – its life-blood and invigorating juice – is the festering, undying resentment of millions of people who feel that “liberal elites” are “looking down on them”.
They see a conspiracy in every arugula salad.
In that context, Marty – and when I say Marty, he’s just standing in for about eleventy-million other folks with the same complaint – wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they’re hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.
The thing you feel, other people are likely to feel. If it bugs you that other people treat you differently because of how you dress, or what your accent sounds like, or whether you hunt, or whatever other cultural identifier happens to attach itself to you, imagine how it would bug you if you went through the same and worse because of the color of your skin.
It really should not take much of a leap of the imagination.
You’re saying they DON’T behave differently when they know they’re in high crime areas?
The relevant comparison, which doesn’t appear to be on offer in your or anyone else’s comments here, is how cops behave when they’re in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.
Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.
Unless your argument is that black neighborhoods are inherently high crime neighborhoods, while white ones are not.
I suspect that last is not a claim you would make.
But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.
This statement has been bugging me for the last few days.
We live in a nation where the common emotional thread running through one of the two major parties – its life-blood and invigorating juice – is the festering, undying resentment of millions of people who feel that “liberal elites” are “looking down on them”.
They see a conspiracy in every arugula salad.
In that context, Marty – and when I say Marty, he’s just standing in for about eleventy-million other folks with the same complaint – wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they’re hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.
The thing you feel, other people are likely to feel. If it bugs you that other people treat you differently because of how you dress, or what your accent sounds like, or whether you hunt, or whatever other cultural identifier happens to attach itself to you, imagine how it would bug you if you went through the same and worse because of the color of your skin.
It really should not take much of a leap of the imagination.
You’re saying they DON’T behave differently when they know they’re in high crime areas?
The relevant comparison, which doesn’t appear to be on offer in your or anyone else’s comments here, is how cops behave when they’re in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.
Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.
Unless your argument is that black neighborhoods are inherently high crime neighborhoods, while white ones are not.
I suspect that last is not a claim you would make.
But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.
This statement has been bugging me for the last few days.
We live in a nation where the common emotional thread running through one of the two major parties – its life-blood and invigorating juice – is the festering, undying resentment of millions of people who feel that “liberal elites” are “looking down on them”.
They see a conspiracy in every arugula salad.
In that context, Marty – and when I say Marty, he’s just standing in for about eleventy-million other folks with the same complaint – wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they’re hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.
The thing you feel, other people are likely to feel. If it bugs you that other people treat you differently because of how you dress, or what your accent sounds like, or whether you hunt, or whatever other cultural identifier happens to attach itself to you, imagine how it would bug you if you went through the same and worse because of the color of your skin.
It really should not take much of a leap of the imagination.
You’re saying they DON’T behave differently when they know they’re in high crime areas?
The relevant comparison, which doesn’t appear to be on offer in your or anyone else’s comments here, is how cops behave when they’re in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.
Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.
Unless your argument is that black neighborhoods are inherently high crime neighborhoods, while white ones are not.
I suspect that last is not a claim you would make.
wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they’re hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.
No Russell, I don’t need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn’t be happier for them to complain. I don’t want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.
wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they’re hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.
No Russell, I don’t need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn’t be happier for them to complain. I don’t want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.
wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they’re hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.
No Russell, I don’t need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn’t be happier for them to complain. I don’t want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.
russell, don’t bet the ranch on it.
Marty might not, but others that I have read in the past week certainly have made exactly that argument: that black neighborhoods are inherently higher crime neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, all else being equal.
russell, don’t bet the ranch on it.
Marty might not, but others that I have read in the past week certainly have made exactly that argument: that black neighborhoods are inherently higher crime neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, all else being equal.
russell, don’t bet the ranch on it.
Marty might not, but others that I have read in the past week certainly have made exactly that argument: that black neighborhoods are inherently higher crime neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, all else being equal.
don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions
Then absolutely nobody’s “complaints” should drive government policy decisions? Well, I guess that settles that.
don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions
Then absolutely nobody’s “complaints” should drive government policy decisions? Well, I guess that settles that.
don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions
Then absolutely nobody’s “complaints” should drive government policy decisions? Well, I guess that settles that.
I don’t need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn’t be happier for them to complain. I don’t want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.
That’s all good, Marty, but what I don’t understand is how the experience that all of those black people describe is anything other than evidence of ongoing racial issues.
Is it all in their head?
This isn’t unique to blacks. Rural whites are, in fact, looked down on by folks in other parts of the country who view them as unsophisticated rubes.
It’s not in their heads, it’s a reality.
And all of those folks should be pissed off about it. And, to the degree that other folks’ perception of them as unsophisticated rubes has an effect on public policy that they don’t like, they very much ought to apply whatever influence they can bring to bear to drive government decisions.
They should, *and they do*. All the time.
Likewise, all the folks in the dreaded liberal enclaves who get to listen to an unending stream of drivel about how they are a bunch of addle-brained nosy parkers who have no idea how the “real world” works.
Likewise, all of the brown folks who get hassled every time they mispronounce an Anglo vowel.
All of those folks should be pissed off, and all of them should do whatever they feel they need to do to push back when they feel they are being abused.
Including all of the points at which that touches on public policy.
Just because folks other than black folks bear the brunt of ill use doesn’t mean that blacks don’t *also* bear the brunt of ill use, nor does it mean that they should just suck it up.
I don’t need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn’t be happier for them to complain. I don’t want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.
That’s all good, Marty, but what I don’t understand is how the experience that all of those black people describe is anything other than evidence of ongoing racial issues.
Is it all in their head?
This isn’t unique to blacks. Rural whites are, in fact, looked down on by folks in other parts of the country who view them as unsophisticated rubes.
It’s not in their heads, it’s a reality.
And all of those folks should be pissed off about it. And, to the degree that other folks’ perception of them as unsophisticated rubes has an effect on public policy that they don’t like, they very much ought to apply whatever influence they can bring to bear to drive government decisions.
They should, *and they do*. All the time.
Likewise, all the folks in the dreaded liberal enclaves who get to listen to an unending stream of drivel about how they are a bunch of addle-brained nosy parkers who have no idea how the “real world” works.
Likewise, all of the brown folks who get hassled every time they mispronounce an Anglo vowel.
All of those folks should be pissed off, and all of them should do whatever they feel they need to do to push back when they feel they are being abused.
Including all of the points at which that touches on public policy.
Just because folks other than black folks bear the brunt of ill use doesn’t mean that blacks don’t *also* bear the brunt of ill use, nor does it mean that they should just suck it up.
I don’t need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn’t be happier for them to complain. I don’t want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don’t want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.
That’s all good, Marty, but what I don’t understand is how the experience that all of those black people describe is anything other than evidence of ongoing racial issues.
Is it all in their head?
This isn’t unique to blacks. Rural whites are, in fact, looked down on by folks in other parts of the country who view them as unsophisticated rubes.
It’s not in their heads, it’s a reality.
And all of those folks should be pissed off about it. And, to the degree that other folks’ perception of them as unsophisticated rubes has an effect on public policy that they don’t like, they very much ought to apply whatever influence they can bring to bear to drive government decisions.
They should, *and they do*. All the time.
Likewise, all the folks in the dreaded liberal enclaves who get to listen to an unending stream of drivel about how they are a bunch of addle-brained nosy parkers who have no idea how the “real world” works.
Likewise, all of the brown folks who get hassled every time they mispronounce an Anglo vowel.
All of those folks should be pissed off, and all of them should do whatever they feel they need to do to push back when they feel they are being abused.
Including all of the points at which that touches on public policy.
Just because folks other than black folks bear the brunt of ill use doesn’t mean that blacks don’t *also* bear the brunt of ill use, nor does it mean that they should just suck it up.
Thats a lot of pissed off, accomplishing what?
Thats a lot of pissed off, accomplishing what?
Thats a lot of pissed off, accomplishing what?
(looks like the software has something stuck on again.)
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior. Which, in turn, may lead to a change in perceptions.
Culture change is not easy. But simply throwing up our hands and saying “nothing can be done” will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And since cultures DO change, there’s no reason to assume that they cannot be successfully changed deliberately.
(looks like the software has something stuck on again.)
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior. Which, in turn, may lead to a change in perceptions.
Culture change is not easy. But simply throwing up our hands and saying “nothing can be done” will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And since cultures DO change, there’s no reason to assume that they cannot be successfully changed deliberately.
(looks like the software has something stuck on again.)
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior. Which, in turn, may lead to a change in perceptions.
Culture change is not easy. But simply throwing up our hands and saying “nothing can be done” will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And since cultures DO change, there’s no reason to assume that they cannot be successfully changed deliberately.
“The relevant comparison, which doesn’t appear to be on offer in your or anyone else’s comments here, is how cops behave when they’re in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.
Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.”
Right, that is the relevant comparison. To the extent that you do not attempt to disentangle these variables, you risk spurious correlations. You risk attributing to race what is driven by crime rates.
For what it’s worth, I live in a largely black, low crime neighborhood. Nobody seems to have any problem with the way the police behave here, any more than we had a problem with the way the police behaved when I lived in Michigan, in a low crime, mostly white neighborhood.
This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
“The relevant comparison, which doesn’t appear to be on offer in your or anyone else’s comments here, is how cops behave when they’re in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.
Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.”
Right, that is the relevant comparison. To the extent that you do not attempt to disentangle these variables, you risk spurious correlations. You risk attributing to race what is driven by crime rates.
For what it’s worth, I live in a largely black, low crime neighborhood. Nobody seems to have any problem with the way the police behave here, any more than we had a problem with the way the police behaved when I lived in Michigan, in a low crime, mostly white neighborhood.
This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
“The relevant comparison, which doesn’t appear to be on offer in your or anyone else’s comments here, is how cops behave when they’re in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.
Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.”
Right, that is the relevant comparison. To the extent that you do not attempt to disentangle these variables, you risk spurious correlations. You risk attributing to race what is driven by crime rates.
For what it’s worth, I live in a largely black, low crime neighborhood. Nobody seems to have any problem with the way the police behave here, any more than we had a problem with the way the police behaved when I lived in Michigan, in a low crime, mostly white neighborhood.
This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior.
Yes, exactly. Thanks wj.
But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
More than fair enough.
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior.
Yes, exactly. Thanks wj.
But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
More than fair enough.
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior.
Yes, exactly. Thanks wj.
But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
More than fair enough.
The word “peculiar” doesn’t begin to describe American violence these a days.
I’m traveling and using the I-pad so linking is a mystery, but go to TPM and read “concealed carry activist charged with shooting ex husband and stepdaughter”.
The word “peculiar” doesn’t begin to describe American violence these a days.
I’m traveling and using the I-pad so linking is a mystery, but go to TPM and read “concealed carry activist charged with shooting ex husband and stepdaughter”.
The word “peculiar” doesn’t begin to describe American violence these a days.
I’m traveling and using the I-pad so linking is a mystery, but go to TPM and read “concealed carry activist charged with shooting ex husband and stepdaughter”.
But “lowest level in decades” does describe American violence these days, which is good.
I don’t suppose anybody on my side ever claimed that CCW permit holders have a precisely zero rate of crime, (Just lower than the police.) and if anybody is claiming that domestic violence is exclusively perpetrated by men, they’re probably on your side.
But, I’ll give you this: For a while yet, until the MSM finishes its death convulsions, a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape. That’s just part of the headwind the Right has to cope with in this country.
But “lowest level in decades” does describe American violence these days, which is good.
I don’t suppose anybody on my side ever claimed that CCW permit holders have a precisely zero rate of crime, (Just lower than the police.) and if anybody is claiming that domestic violence is exclusively perpetrated by men, they’re probably on your side.
But, I’ll give you this: For a while yet, until the MSM finishes its death convulsions, a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape. That’s just part of the headwind the Right has to cope with in this country.
But “lowest level in decades” does describe American violence these days, which is good.
I don’t suppose anybody on my side ever claimed that CCW permit holders have a precisely zero rate of crime, (Just lower than the police.) and if anybody is claiming that domestic violence is exclusively perpetrated by men, they’re probably on your side.
But, I’ll give you this: For a while yet, until the MSM finishes its death convulsions, a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape. That’s just part of the headwind the Right has to cope with in this country.
This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
Is the New Jersey Turnpike a neighborhood? What’s the local crime rate?
This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
Is the New Jersey Turnpike a neighborhood? What’s the local crime rate?
This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I’m open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.
Is the New Jersey Turnpike a neighborhood? What’s the local crime rate?
…a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape.
Such a donor clearly should be contributing to some number of the many pro-pedophilia candidates instead of Obama.
…a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape.
Such a donor clearly should be contributing to some number of the many pro-pedophilia candidates instead of Obama.
…a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape.
Such a donor clearly should be contributing to some number of the many pro-pedophilia candidates instead of Obama.
Perhaps in 2015 a gay activist Obama donor will murder two people with a firearm and an open carry activist in Texas will perform sodomy and rape on an under aged individual via the puréed hummus gambit and you will have even more to laugh about in 2015.
I’m hoping the MSM will cover your rash of hilarity next year so all of us hear about it, on an equal par with, say, something trivial, like 20 kindergartners blown away in their classrooms by a gay, open carry activist wielding an automatic salad shooter and your frown lines will be erased altogether.
He who laughs last laughs longest, but sometimes suffers from sports hernias.
Perhaps in 2015 a gay activist Obama donor will murder two people with a firearm and an open carry activist in Texas will perform sodomy and rape on an under aged individual via the puréed hummus gambit and you will have even more to laugh about in 2015.
I’m hoping the MSM will cover your rash of hilarity next year so all of us hear about it, on an equal par with, say, something trivial, like 20 kindergartners blown away in their classrooms by a gay, open carry activist wielding an automatic salad shooter and your frown lines will be erased altogether.
He who laughs last laughs longest, but sometimes suffers from sports hernias.
Perhaps in 2015 a gay activist Obama donor will murder two people with a firearm and an open carry activist in Texas will perform sodomy and rape on an under aged individual via the puréed hummus gambit and you will have even more to laugh about in 2015.
I’m hoping the MSM will cover your rash of hilarity next year so all of us hear about it, on an equal par with, say, something trivial, like 20 kindergartners blown away in their classrooms by a gay, open carry activist wielding an automatic salad shooter and your frown lines will be erased altogether.
He who laughs last laughs longest, but sometimes suffers from sports hernias.
NB:
“pureed hummus” is redundant.
NB:
“pureed hummus” is redundant.
NB:
“pureed hummus” is redundant.
That’s exactly what the torture victim said to the CIA’s colon feeding crew, contractors no doubt, as they turned the blender on and inserted the colostomy hose.
But, did they listen?
That’s exactly what the torture victim said to the CIA’s colon feeding crew, contractors no doubt, as they turned the blender on and inserted the colostomy hose.
But, did they listen?
That’s exactly what the torture victim said to the CIA’s colon feeding crew, contractors no doubt, as they turned the blender on and inserted the colostomy hose.
But, did they listen?