Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 35 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 >  Last ›
   3401. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:19 PM (#4773151)
edit: 15 seconds of research searching for "103 year old driver" found that this "story" is over a year old, and is only now in the news because the hip-hop community has chosen to make it so for their own purposes. Well done Jason

OK, my bad. I'm surprised I didn't see it over a year ago. But since you looked it up, is she still driving?
   3402. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:19 PM (#4773152)
Jason? Anything? You want to contribute something more than year old hand grenades?

edit: contrition accepted.

No, no information bout her.
   3403. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:23 PM (#4773154)
Jason? Anything? You want to contribute something more than year old hand grenades?

I'll ask again: ? ? ?

I didn't go off on Andy. You have me confused with someone else.
   3404. McCoy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4773156)
I was in an all-black pool room at 1419 Irving St. in Washington on the night that Dr. King was killed, and I was quite close to (euphemism alert) "the action" in varying ways over the following three days.

I think that is a Five Guys now with high end micro apartments upstairs. I thought about moving there this summer.
   3405. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4773158)
The Washington Post has a long story about an almost two-decades long scam that defrauded Medicare of billions of dollars for unnecessary motorized wheelchairs. The government is pretty efficient at sending out checks, not nearly as good at ensuring that the money is used appropriately. RTFA, and keep it in mind when anyone tries to claim we have a bare bones budget that couldn't be cut without causing incredible hardship. The real truth is that there is so much money, the Feds can barely keep track of it.
Exhibit #4,297,621,413 as to why Paul Krugman is the hackiest hack who ever hacked. He routinely touts the low overhead of Medicare compared to private insurance, citing bogus statistics that don't remotely show what he claims. With the methodology he uses, scams like this make Medicare appear more efficient. Why? Because the 'overhead' is measured by dividing non-benefits spending by total spending. So by not hiring fraud investigators, you make the numerator smaller, and by paying out fraudulent claims, you make the denominator bigger.
   3406. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4773160)
I didn't go off on Andy. You have me confused with someone else.


Yeh, That was a little loose cannon of me. Point being, early on in this Ferguson mess, someone posted online a (what is now known to be fake) facebook post of the the Ferguson Police Chief's wife ranting about black people It was of course fake, but Andy and others went with it, and were rightfully called out. Then you posted a (more or less) fake facebook post about a CNN snafu. When I saw your link was to facebook and not a credible source, I called you out on it.
   3407. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:33 PM (#4773161)
I think that is a Five Guys now

Highly over-rated burger joint.
   3408. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:38 PM (#4773163)
Highly over-rated burger joint.


Five years ago, when I went to DC for a SABRcon, I went to one. It was okay, but I didn't see what the fuss was all about.
   3409. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:42 PM (#4773167)
Five years ago, when I went to DC for a SABRcon, I went to one. It was okay, but I didn't see what the fuss was all about.

Yup. OK.
   3410. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:52 PM (#4773170)
Then you posted a (more or less) fake facebook post about a CNN snafu. When I saw your link was to facebook and not a credible source, I called you out on it.


I'm still confused, Misirlou. OK, the post was old -- apparently, the report is from 2010 -- but how was it (more or less) fake?
   3411. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 17, 2014 at 09:57 PM (#4773172)
I'm still confused, Misirlou. OK, the post was old -- apparently, the report is from 2010 -- but how was it (more or less) fake?

Fake or not, that video shouldn't have been posted now. You should have held off, to avoid further inflaming passions.
   3412. GregD Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4773173)
Five Guys is the definition of ok

Glad to see all the people on board with fraud investigations in Medicare and Medicaid. As am I. Looking forward to your support for controls on charters. Ohios law now exempts them from basic reporting required of normal schools. Patterned after michigan I suppose, which was described by an investigator as a plea for theft
   3413. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:02 PM (#4773174)
That clip shouldn't have been posted now. You should have held off, to avoid inflaming passions.

Fair enough, Joe. I certainly have no wish for any Primate to riot because of my ill-timed post.
   3414. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:05 PM (#4773176)
but how was it (more or less) fake?


because the implication it was somehow timely or relevant. had you known it was over a year old, would have posted it, along with your smarmy commentary?
   3415. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:08 PM (#4773177)
because the implication it was somehow timely.

To be clear: The video wasn't intended tie-in to the events of Ferguson and would have been posted a month ago had I seen it then.

EDIT: I'm becoming a bit irritated that you're still suggesting that I did it deliberately. "Smarmy?" Seriously?
   3416. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4773179)
To be clear: The video wasn't intended tie-in to the events of Ferguson and would have been posted a month ago had I seen it then.

EDIT: So the answer to your question is "yes."


I doubt that. How would you react if someone posted some mistake Fox new made last July? probably with the same shrug.
   3417. Danny Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:17 PM (#4773181)
"It certainly is relevant to the cop's state of mind and the state of mind of a reasonable person in the cop's situation" is an argument that the cop could use knowledge of the robbery as a justification for the shooting.


No, it isn't, Danny. Please learn how to read, and stop with your silly "gotcha" attempts until you do so. It's an argument that it is relevant, not that it equates to justification by itself. See how I say "it certainly is relevant," and see how I don't say "it is a justification"?

This is amazing.

What is it "relevant" to, Ray? According to you, it's "relevant to the cop's state of mind." And why is the cop's state of mind relevant? Oh, right, because that's one of the elements of the Defense of Justification for a police officer's use of deadly force.
   3418. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:20 PM (#4773184)
I doubt that. How would you react if someone posted some mistake Fox new made last July? probably with the same shrug.

Until you show up to a softball game in Central Park and stick around for a drink afterward, kindly refrain from pretending to know what I think. Notice too that I have stayed out of the Ferguson discussion except to say that Andy was right about there being no excuse to riot and then tease Sam about his Fawkes mask.
   3419. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:28 PM (#4773191)
Fair enough, Joe. I certainly have no wish for any Primate to riot because of my ill-timed post.

I was only giving you a hard time. There were some here who thought the Brown convenience-story video shouldn't have been released (either at all or yet).
   3420. tshipman Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:29 PM (#4773192)
I don't see what JE could possibly have meant by posting the CNN blooper (edit: except for making fun of CNN). It's mostly CNN goofing.

JE has never tried to derail the conversation through trolling.


   3421. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:38 PM (#4773196)
Fair enough. I'll just assume he was careless to post something someone forwarded to him without vesting its validity or relevance.
   3422. JE (Jason) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:44 PM (#4773200)
I was only giving you a hard time. There were some here who thought the Brown convenience-story video shouldn't have been released (either at all or yet).


I don't see what JE could possibly have meant by posting the CNN blooper. It's mostly CNN goofing.

JE has never tried to derail the conversation through trolling.

Thanks. I stumbled across a "wait, what?" video on Facebook and elected to share it here, clueless that it would get linked to earlier commmentary that I hadn't read, let alone been a part of.

Fair enough. I'll just assume he was careless to post something someone forwarded to him without vesting its validity or relevance.

We're cool.
   3423. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM (#4773203)
K
   3424. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4773205)
I certainly have no wish for any Primate to riot because of my ill-timed post.


Too late. My cats are starting to mill about.
   3425. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4773210)
I was in an all-black pool room at 1419 Irving St. in Washington on the night that Dr. King was killed, and I was quite close to (euphemism alert) "the action" in varying ways over the following three days.

I think that is a Five Guys now with high end micro apartments upstairs. I thought about moving there this summer.


Five Guys' address is listed at 1400 Irving, which would be in the same little cluster with Pete's Pizza, by the Metro stop. Brunswick Billiards at 1419 Irving was on the other side of the street, on top of a mostly white night club, and connected to the Columbia Heights P.O. station. Jack Blank Pontiac was west of that building and just east of Hiatt Place, all on the north side of Irving. IIRC the night club closed right after the riots, the pool room remained open for a year, Jack Blank closed shortly after that, the Post Office stayed open for several years after that, and then at some point that whole side of the block became one giant fenced in vacant lot until sometime in the late 90's or early 2000's. I still can't quite believe what that whole area has become today, after having known it for nearly 60 years in its previous incarnations.

During the late 50's and early 60's, Columbia Heights was transitioning from its former white lower middle class / middle class status to an almost all-black working class neighborhood. That pool room on Irving St. was 50-50 during the day, with the Jack Blank salesman coming in to gamble away their paychecks, but at night very few whites would go there other than the fairly serious players. The nightclub below it was de facto segregated (i.e. all white) well into the 60's. On the day after the riots ended (i.e. on the morning of the 6th), the Post ran a poignant picture of an old white lady, sitting shriveled up on a milk crate at 14th & Harvard, clutching all of her remaining possessions around her. By that point she might have been just about the last white resident of the area, other than a random streetwalker or two. Her building had been burned during the riots and she had been rendered homeless. It was one of the saddest looking sights you could ever imagine, and although she was white, that image encapsulated the fate of the neighborhood for many decades to come.
   3426. Mefisto Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4773212)
Exhibit #4,297,621,413 as to why Paul Krugman is the hackiest hack who ever hacked. He routinely touts the low overhead of Medicare compared to private insurance, citing bogus statistics that don't remotely show what he claims. With the methodology he uses, scams like this make Medicare appear more efficient. Why? Because the 'overhead' is measured by dividing non-benefits spending by total spending. So by not hiring fraud investigators, you make the numerator smaller, and by paying out fraudulent claims, you make the denominator bigger.


This is actually the latest exhibit as to why DMN is a hack. His argument, even if true, wouldn't prove that Krugman's point about administrative expenses is wrong. At best it would show that Krugman might be wrong.
   3427. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:22 PM (#4773221)
This is actually the latest exhibit as to why DMN is a hack. His argument, even if true, wouldn't prove that Krugman's point about administrative expenses is wrong. At best it would show that Krugman might be wrong.

So upon reading this Post report, who's more likely to favor increasing the budget of the Medicare fraud squad? Krugman or the GOP? (Hint: Which party routinely votes to slash the budget of the IRS auditing department, thereby throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of uncollected revenue down the toilet?)
   3428. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4773227)
This is actually the latest exhibit as to why DMN is a hack. His argument, even if true, wouldn't prove that Krugman's point about administrative expenses is wrong. At best it would show that Krugman might be wrong.
It doesn't prove that the claim that Medicare has lower overhead is wrong; it proves that his methodology is invalid¹. The team with the highest batting average might happen to have the best offense, but if one is using the former as proof of the latter, one is doing it wrong. And if one knows better, and is saying it for partisan reasons, one is a hack.


¹ There are many other problems with the claim, including the fact that old people get far more expensive treatment than younger people, and overhead is not proportional to the cost of the treatment. So it isn't demonstrating greater efficiency; it's just demonstrating more spending. (If one wanted to show that Medicare was more efficient, a more valid measure would be administrative spending per capita (where the relevant population is the number of beneficiaries.))
   3429. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM (#4773228)
So upon reading this Post report, who's more likely to favor increasing the budget of the Medicare fraud squad? Krugman or the GOP? (Hint: Which party routinely votes to slash the budget of the IRS auditing department, thereby throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of uncollected revenue down the toilet?)
The money isn't being "thrown down the toilet"; it's being kept by the people who earned it. What is it with liberals who can't tell the difference between taxes and spending?
   3430. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:47 PM (#4773236)
So upon reading this Post report, who's more likely to favor increasing the budget of the Medicare fraud squad? Krugman or the GOP? (Hint: Which party routinely votes to slash the budget of the IRS auditing department, thereby throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of uncollected revenue down the toilet?)

The money isn't being "thrown down the toilet"; it's being kept by the people who earned it.


Who've taken it upon themselves not to report it to the IRS whenever they don't feel like it. I suppose this is taken from your "Principles of Libertarianism" casebook.

To quote Kehoskie & Co.: "What part of 'illegal' do you not understand?"
   3431. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:48 PM (#4773237)

Dr. Michael Baden, who performed a second autopsy for the Brown family, says Brown was hit by six bullets, four in the right arm and the last two in the head. All six shots were from the front, which contradicts Brown's friend's earlier statement(s) about Brown being shot in the back.

Baden used to have a great HBO show. Some incredible cases.
   3432. GregD Posted: August 17, 2014 at 11:58 PM (#4773242)
Interesting also that no residue of gun powder on the body, suggesting the shots were not at close distance (though the police did not permit him to examine the clothing) and also that one shot entered the topmofnhis head as if he were bent over

It is amazing in the spirit of Ray's full disclosure that this is the first we have heard of this and that the police still have not said how many bullets or other basic information. It gives the lie to the idea that the robbery info was just a way of being responsive. And it also gives the lie to the idea that the police were just about to release the officer's name. They are releasing as little as they possibly can except when it comes to the robbery

I get the motive but the obviousness and amateurishness of the execution is shocking to watch
   3433. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:09 AM (#4773246)
I get the motive but the obviousness and amateurishness of the execution is shocking to watch.

Police leadership have tried to handle this the same way they would handle an instance of petty office politics. You can see how these clowns got promoted to their current positions.
   3434. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:17 AM (#4773247)
Interesting also that no residue of gun powder on the body, suggesting the shots were not at close distance (though the police did not permit him to examine the clothing) and also that one shot entered the topmofnhis head as if he were bent over


Not sure why it's interesting that one shot entered the top of his head. In a hail of bullets eventually the person is going to drop, but the hail continues.

(FWIW Baden declined to draw a conclusion from the top of the head bullet wound.)

It is amazing in the spirit of Ray's full disclosure that this is the first we have heard of this and that the police still have not said how many bullets or other basic information.


How long does it _typically_ take to release autopsy and all this other information? You're arguing that this is non-standard, but without a baseline it's hard to say. One thing I'm _sure_ is non-standard here is the second autopsy Baden did, not the autopsy the police did.
   3435. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:18 AM (#4773248)
It is amazing in the spirit of Ray's full disclosure that this is the first we have heard of this and that the police still have not said how many bullets or other basic information. It gives the lie to the idea that the robbery info was just a way of being responsive.

You don't want to release the autopsy info and certain other evidence until the investigators obtain formal statements from the eyewitnesses, otherwise they can tailor their testimony to that information. This is basic police work. The convenience store robbery is in a different category.
   3436. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:25 AM (#4773249)
Yeah, the idea that we should be getting play by play of the investigation and all the evidence that comes out as it comes out is really nutty.
   3437. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:27 AM (#4773250)
You don't want to release the autopsy info and certain other evidence until the investigators obtain formal statements from the eyewitnesses, otherwise they can tailor their testimony to that information. This is basic police work.

If you've got to send out snipers and tear gas, then you're already saying 'basic police work' isn't good enough.

The convenience store robbery is in a different category.

You don't think the convenience store robbery is prejudicial?
   3438. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:36 AM (#4773251)
You don't think the convenience store robbery is prejudicial?

It's kind of odd to hear people claiming the tape is prejudicial two days after people here were cooking up conspiracy theories in which the officer in question might have been a lousy cop four-plus years ago, before the Ferguson PD's complaint-reporting system was changed.

Hypothetical complaint from four or more years ago? Relevant. Footage of strong-arm robbery from 10 minutes before the incident in question? Irrelevant and prejudicial.

As usual, no principles, just whims.
   3439. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:38 AM (#4773253)
You don't want to release the autopsy info and certain other evidence until the investigators obtain formal statements from the eyewitnesses, otherwise they can tailor their testimony to that information. This is basic police work. The convenience store robbery is in a different category.
Why is it in a different category? And why haven't the investigators obtained formal statements from the eyewitnesses after a week? Again, if a cop were the victim rather than the killer, they'd have had all 50 cops on the force interviewing every person in a ten block radius within 15 minutes of the shooting.
   3440. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:40 AM (#4773254)
It's kind of odd to hear people claiming the tape is prejudicial two days after people here were cooking up conspiracy theories in which the officer in question might have been a lousy cop four-plus years ago, before the Ferguson PD's complaint-reporting system was changed.

Maybe these are different posters, Joe. If you want me to ascribe the latest Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin comments to you, I can.
   3441. GregD Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:42 AM (#4773255)
You guys should get on the phone to nypd and tell them they aren't following procedure when they announce the number of shots fired within hours of an incident. I am sure they will appreciate your expertise.

And kudos on the attempt to shift attention from the fact that ferguson pd refused to issue basic information on shots fired and to create the fake issue of the full autopsy. Interesting to see how quickly ray has punted his argument on disclosure. And how intently people are spinning everything to the benefit of an agency that doesn't follow basic procedure, ignores us doj requests, and refuses to engage with the commander on the ground. Faith based reasoning at its best
   3442. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:42 AM (#4773256)
Yeah, the idea that we should be getting play by play of the investigation and all the evidence that comes out as it comes out is really nutty.

LINO misses that results from the private autopsy were released before the state-sponsored autopsy.
   3443. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:43 AM (#4773257)
Why is it in a different category? And why haven't the investigators obtained formal statements from the eyewitnesses after a week?

Witnesses don't always come forward immediately. The FBI has teams of agents in Ferguson looking for new witnesses.

***
Maybe these are different posters, Joe. If you want me to ascribe the latest Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin comments to you, I can.

I didn't say you were one such person. I simply pointed out how quickly the narrative seemed to shift here.
   3444. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:46 AM (#4773258)
You don't want to release the autopsy info and certain other evidence until the investigators obtain formal statements from the eyewitnesses, otherwise they can tailor their testimony to that information. This is basic police work. The convenience store robbery is in a different category.

If you've got to send out snipers and tear gas, then you're already saying 'basic police work' isn't good enough. You don't think the convenience store robbery is prejudicial?

While the police may not have done a great job handling the demonstrations, that's hardly a reason for them to compromise the investigation by releasing the autopsy report (and perhaps other evidence) before questioning the eyewitnesses. Again, you don't give out information that allows witnesses to potentially tailor their testimony to match that evidence. The convenience store video is in a different category, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether it is prejudicial. The police may have released that after they interviewed Brown's companion and the store clerk, but they could have been still waiting on the eyewitnesses to the shooting.

EDIT: Or the police may have wanted the reserve the right to go back to the eyewitnesses to question them about any potential discrepancies between their initial statements and the autopsy evidence, without tipping them off in advance.
   3445. GregD Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:50 AM (#4773259)
Anyone who has lived in NYC over the last years has seen ray Kelly numerous times, often on the night of an incident, give the basic details of what happened, express general regret over any death even if later justified, state the officer has been suspended pending investigation and affirm that the department takes any shooting seriously. He often did this for nonfatal shootings.

Acting as if it is unusual or improper for police departments to behave differently than ferguson is delusional or dishonest spin.
   3446. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:50 AM (#4773260)
You guys should get on the phone to nypd and tell them they aren't following procedure when they announce the number of shots fired within hours of an incident. I am sure they will appreciate your expertise.

Are you seriously claiming that the NYPD never withholds such information during the first week of investigations?

And kudos on the attempt to shift attention from the fact that ferguson pd refused to issue basic information on shots fired and to create the fake issue of the full autopsy. Interesting to see how quickly ray has punted his argument on disclosure. And how intently people are spinning everything to the benefit of an agency that doesn't follow basic procedure, ignores us doj requests, and refuses to engage with the commander on the ground. Faith based reasoning at its best

You're starting to sound hysterical. In the above paragraph, you complain both that information wasn't released and that information was released.

Anyone who has lived in NYC over the last years has seen ray Kelly numerous times, often on the night of an incident, give the basic details of what happened, express general regret over any death even if later justified, state the officer has been suspended pending investigation and affirm that the department takes any shooting seriously. He often did this for nonfatal shootings.

Acting as if it is unusual or improper for police departments to behave differently than ferguson is delusional or dishonest spin.

You realize the NYPD has slightly more experience with officer-involved shootings than the Ferguson PD, right?
   3447. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 01:08 AM (#4773264)
You don't want to release the autopsy info and certain other evidence until the investigators obtain formal statements from the eyewitnesses, otherwise they can tailor their testimony to that information. This is basic police work. The convenience store robbery is in a different category.

Why is it in a different category? And why haven't the investigators obtained formal statements from the eyewitnesses after a week? Again, if a cop were the victim rather than the killer, they'd have had all 50 cops on the force interviewing every person in a ten block radius within 15 minutes of the shooting.

You don't really have to worry about other witnesses "going to school" on the convenience store video, not so the autopsy report. This is pretty basic. I don't believe any of us know how cooperative the eyewitnesses were. Were they as eager to talk to the police as the media? Did they come in immediately? Did they want to obtain counsel first? Do we even know when the autopsy reports were done? Was there anything in the eyewitness testimony that caused the police to want to do further investigation and a reinterview? I don't know the answers, and I doubt anyone else here does, either, but it seems that some are willing to make a lot of assumptions about such matters. Also, once a decision was made to do the second autopsy, it may have been decided to release them together, although I don't know if the other one has actually been released, but since the autopsy report linked in #3431 was described as done at the request of the Brown family, maybe they had something to do with the timing of its release.
   3448. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 01:20 AM (#4773266)
Anyone who has lived in NYC over the last years has seen ray Kelly numerous times, often on the night of an incident, give the basic details of what happened, express general regret over any death even if later justified, state the officer has been suspended pending investigation and affirm that the department takes any shooting seriously. He often did this for nonfatal shootings.

Acting as if it is unusual or improper for police departments to behave differently than ferguson is delusional or dishonest spin.


Are you seriously contending that the NYPD doesn't make tactical decisions to withhold information in order to not compromise their investigations? Seriously? And has it ever occurred to anyone that there might be different public records laws in New York and Arkansas that might account for some of the differences in how such records are handled? Lots of jumping to conclusions here, as well as assigning motives, that appears to suggest some folks aren't interested in entertaining anything that doesn't conform to their already formed view of the case.
   3449. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 01:36 AM (#4773271)
Witnesses don't always come forward immediately. The FBI has teams of agents in Ferguson looking for new witnesses.
Because the police didn't do their job. I didn't say anything about witnesses "coming forward." I said that the police didn’t look for witnesses after the shooting. (It was repeatedly reported that the police hadn't talked to the witnesses.) You can't wait a week to talk to eyewitnesses. Claiming that they didn't want to taint the witness pool by releasing the autopsy results is absurd, in that the witness pool is already tainted after a week by media coverage, etc.
   3450. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 18, 2014 at 01:55 AM (#4773276)
Because the police didn't do their job. I didn't say anything about witnesses "coming forward." I said that the police didn’t look for witnesses after the shooting. (It was repeatedly reported that the police hadn't talked to the witnesses.) You can't wait a week to talk to eyewitnesses. Claiming that they didn't want to taint the witness pool by releasing the autopsy results is absurd, in that the witness pool is already tainted after a week by media coverage, etc.

I'm guessing this isn't a neighborhood known for its close cooperation with the police, but even if the police were aggressive on Day 1 in searching out witnesses, it wouldn't be unusual for the police to withhold specific pieces of information for a while. Withholding the officer's name seemed like a wrong move, but I don't know that the public had a right to know the exact number of shots fired, etc., on Day 1, when the police were still sorting through witnesses, the autopsy had yet to be performed, etc.

As it is, withholding some information seems to have shown one key witness, who claims Brown was shot in the back, to be a liar or an unreliable witness.
   3451. CrosbyBird Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:09 AM (#4773280)
I think this is one of those "check your privilege" moments.

In a perfect world, would the protests have been exclusively non-violent? Yes, of course. But I don't think you can blame people for not being Ghandi or Martin Luther King. When faced with an injustice like a young man surrendering to police and being gunned down, I think a riot is an appropriate response. What else would have gotten attention?


A lot of people were paying attention to this before the rioting started. Especially with three other incidents, one particularly high-profile (Eric Garner), within a month of each other.

If you must respond with violence, it should be targeted toward the people who wronged you. That might be attacks on police officers or destruction of government property, but it shouldn't be some store owner who had absolutely nothing to do with your suffering.

Let me put it to you this way: if you're black, and you surrender and still get shot, why follow any of their rules? None of them matter.

They matter if following the rules makes you significantly less likely to get hurt. If you surrender, there's a very small chance that you'll get shot and if you're innocent and submissive, a very small chance that you'll be charged with anything. Yes, it must be infuriating to face the frequent harassment and aggressive policing. Yes, it is terribly unfair that there is a double-standard of enforcement based on race. Yes, it requires discipline in the face of horror in the community.

But if you riot, there's a pretty good chance you'll be arrested, hurt, or killed. There's a good chance that you'll push the police to crack down even further. And there's a good chance that you'll drive away potential allies. (Let alone the moral issue of responding to harmed innocents by harming more innocents.)

I think even as bad as it can be for blacks in America, rioting makes it worse. Like I said before, putting aside any moral considerations, it just isn't a practical response.
   3452. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 06:56 AM (#4773288)
Did the authorities in Ferguson do any investigation whatsoever?

The events in their totality in Ferguson plainly justify civil unrest by the citizenry and those in solidarity with the citizenry. At that point we get into the definition and semantics of the words "riot" and "civil unrest," and the analysis becomes more fact-intensive -- i.e., the type of thing 21st c. American political culture doesn't do very well.

Looking at the still photo of Brown shoving the guy out of the way of the door to get out of the store, the thing in his hand does not look like a box of cigarillos. In the video, the other guy puts what does look like a box of cigarillos back on the counter.

The cop's defense is going to be something in the key of "he doubled back, and was big and black."
   3453. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 18, 2014 at 07:31 AM (#4773289)
There were some here who thought the Brown convenience-story video shouldn't have been released (either at all or yet).


Including the Govoner of Missouri

Nixon also criticized the Police Department's release of a convenience store surveillance video that shows a man fitting Brown's description allegedly stealing a box of cigars just before Brown was killed.
Nixon said he was "unaware" the tape was going to be released and "we certainly were not happy."
Nixon said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the tape release is an attempt to "besmirch a victim" and "to tarnish him."
"It appeared to, you know, cast aspersions on a young man that was gunned down in the street," he added on "This Week."
   3454. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4773316)
The events in their totality in Ferguson plainly justify civil unrest by the citizenry and those in solidarity with the citizenry. At that point we get into the definition and semantics of the words "riot" and "civil unrest,"

When stores are being looted, you've entered the riot stage.
   3455. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4773318)
The Governor of Missouri is calling out the National Guard after this:

UPDATE at 2:40 a.m.: A little more than an hour into the curfew in Ferguson, Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, who is in charge of security in the St. Louis suburb, said police had no choice but to “elevate the level of our response” because of “premeditated criminal acts designed to … provoke a response.” Molotov cocktails were thrown, people shot at officers and looted several stores, Johnson said. “We had to act to protect lives and property,” he added. No officers were injured.

“A Sunday that started with prayers and messages of unity and justice took a different turn after dark,” Johnson said. The deterioration of what had been a peaceful protest began at around 8:26 p.m. with the shooting of a civilian. That was followed by a quick succession of shootings, injuring “two or three” people. “Seven or eight” people were arrested.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/17/ferguson_police_fire_tear_gas_at_protesters_before_second_night_of_curfew.html

Molotov cocktail. Shots fired at police (confirmed by a CNN producer). Stores looted.

Sure sounds like rioting to me.

Edit: and this is right about when I lose all sympathy with the protesters. If this continues, people will die, and it will be the protesters fault.
   3456. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4773331)
When stores are being looted, you've entered the riot stage.

Not necessarily. Legitimate protesters aren't responsible for every crime someone commits in a city during their protest. The looters could be unrelated opportunists.

Molotov cocktail. Shots fired at police (confirmed by a CNN producer).

I'm not sure what exactly you expect people to do if civil unrest is warranted and illegitimate curfews are imposed and a quasi-occupation army is in place. If police don't want a response from people, they should just let people protest, without the military garb and formations. If people vandalize property in the area, find them and arrest the perpetrators.

Police should not be shooting tear gas into crowds of protestors. The whole mentality of the police has to change. People have a right to assemble in protest of government action. And the press has the right to cover such protests, and inform the public of their nature and the protestors' grievances. Full stop.

As a broader matter, you've often (rightly) said the social fabric can't hold with these levels of joblessness and inequality ... well, what do you expect the social fabric not holding will look like?



   3457. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4773333)
I'm not sure what exactly you expect people to do if civil unrest is warranted and illegitimate curfews are imposed and a quasi-occupation army is in place. If police don't want a response from people, they should just let people protest, without the military garb and formations. If people vandalize property in the area, find them and arrest the perpetrators.

Police should not be shooting tear gas into crowds of protestors. The whole mentality of the police has to change. People have a right to assemble in protest of government action. And the press has the right to cover such protests, and inform the public of their nature and the protestors' grievances. Full stop.


If violence and looting start, the legitimate protesters should go home. They should confine their protests to earlier in the day.

As a broader matter, you've often (rightly) said the social fabric can't hold with these levels of joblessness and inequality ... well, what do you expect the social fabric not holding will look like?

This. And you'll end up with a fascist gov't, b/c your average citizen will tolerate fascism (especially directed at the lower class) far more than violence in the streets.

But, this unrest has no relation to economic conditions. It's a response to a particular bad police force.

Now that the state and Feds are involved, and the protests have turned violent, people should stop the unrest, and give the system a chance to work. Particularly since the worst case "shot in the back" scenario, appears to be debunked.
   3458. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM (#4773346)
Did the authorities in Ferguson do any investigation whatsoever?


Not really, (not that we know of yet)
I assume they spoke with the shooting officer, matching Brown with the robbery suspect video seems almost to have been happenstance, small police department, "hey we had a call about a big ass suspect robbing a store and we have a big ass dead guy"

The trouble as I see it, the trouble that makes this story of interest beyond Ferguson, is that said police department does literally nothing visible as the story spreads that an unarmed 18 year old was gunned down in the middle of the street, no explanation whatsoever. Instead as "unrest" began the local police called in the county police and they rolled in looking for all the world like an occupying army and began treating all people gathering, both the law abiding and the non-law abiding, alike- and as noted began arresting or threatening to arrest people for perfectly legal things like eating in McDonalds or filming the police, and you had images of things the police threatening crowds with 30 cal. machine guns set up on tripods.... and tear gas, lots of tear gas... stared looking like "crowd control" scenes from 3rd world authoritarian countries.

Then as things are seemingly getting back under control, the police chief, releases information (which I unlike some others do find to be of some relevance to Brown's shooting) in a time and manner that seemed to have been deliberately geared to inflaming tensions (If you waited that long, why not wait a bit longer, when the protests are ended and people have resumed their everyday lives, but no, he's facing a community that doesn't trust him or his department, a community that believes he, the police chief, is going to do anything possible to protect his guy (the shooter) so he publicly shoves into their faces what they are bound to see as absolute 100% confirmation for that view) - and he does it apparently because he's angered by the negative publicity he and his department received and the positive publicity received by the state troopers in their seemingly apparent success at dampening down tensions.
   3459. Mefisto Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4773353)
it proves that his methodology is invalid


Uh, no. No it doesn't. The hypothetical existence of a potential flaw doesn't prove methodology invalid, because nobody is obligated to prove a claim to a metaphysical certainty. Those who want to prove a result invalid have the burden of proving the actual existence of the flaw.
   3460. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4773355)
I'm no forensic pathologist but I have a hard time imagining how one could be shot down while running away and yet end up with no bullet entry wounds from the back. And yet that is what all of the people who rushed to judgment have been insisting for days now is what happened.
   3461. McCoy Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4773369)
Magneto was involved.
   3462. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4773375)
I'm no forensic pathologist but I have a hard time imagining how one could be shot down while running away and yet end up with no bullet entry wounds from the back.

Because the cop fired some shots that missed? Or that Brown was running away then turned back around?

And yet that is what all of the people who rushed to judgment have been insisting for days now is what happened.

Has anyone on here given any indication that they even care whether or not he was shot in the back? I know I haven't. Who cares?

   3463. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4773378)
Also, looking at the diagram Baden drew, it's hard to conclude that he was necessarily shot with his hands up. The diagram seems to cut the other way. The wounds to his arms are on the FRONT of his arms. When you have your hands up and you're facing your attacker and you're shot in the arms, the entry wounds, it seems to me, would be on the BACK of his arms -- even though he was facing forward. True, he could have been shot in the head at the time he had his hands up. But to me the version that we were all told to believe -- him being shot as he was running away and then shot after he put his arms up to surrender -- is called into serious question by Baden's diagram. (Not that Baden bothered to offer conclusions on anything that cut against the cop murderer theory.)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-shot-arrested-protesters-police-ferguson-clash-violence-article-1.1906387
   3464. Mefisto Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4773386)
If someone wants a REALLY good argument against rioting and looting, this story seems like an all-time winner.
   3465. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4773387)
Has anyone on here given any indication that they even care whether or not he was shot in the back? I know I haven't. Who cares?


If Brown had been shot in the back it would look worse for the PO involved than it already does.

   3466. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4773397)
And yet that is what all of the people who rushed to judgment have been insisting for days now is what happened.


Has anyone on here given any indication that they even care whether or not he was shot in the back? I know I haven't. Who cares?


Is this parody? Here, here's a sampling to refresh your memory:


3088. Lassus Posted: August 15, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4771958)

The "nothing to see here" response

You're being a liar, Ray.

Saying that an unarmed, fleeing cigar thief does not merit being shot to death in the back multiple times is not a "nothing to see here" response.


2992. tshipman Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4771748)

The thing about this explanation is that even if we take the most generous view of events towards police, it still is incredibly inappropriate for the police officer to shoot Brown.

Brown is a suspect in a larceny case. They yell at Brown to get out of the street and on the sidewalk. Somehow this provoked Brown to assault the police car empty handed. After being scared off by one shot, Brown tries to run away, the police officer empties a clip into him.


2886. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4771473)

Among other things, it's not murder if he was tackled into his police car and a struggle ensued for his weapon and he feared for his life. This, of course, might not be true, but that's why we have trials.

Even if all that happened - and one would have to be really gullible to think that a kid would just randomly grab for a cop's gun - it couldn't justify him shooting the kid while the kid was running away.


3118. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4772026)

[...]

It was the Ferguson PD that started this game of essentially trying to post-fact "explain" what might have been in this dead guy's mind (predicated on the assumption that he WAS the robber, but we'll set that aside) when he got 10 bullets pumped into him -- if what I've heard to be true, 4 in the front, 6 in the back.

   3467. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4773403)
Is this parody? Here, here's a sampling to refresh your memory:

Huh? Only two people there mentioned shooting in the back, one couches it with a "if what I've heard to be true" caveat, and no one indicates that they actually care.

No one has been "insisting" that Brown was shot in the back, as you breathlessly alleged.

You seem to have an irresistable impulse to come up with a strawman to "disprove" here. Why?
   3468. Joey B. Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4773408)
Let me put it to you this way: if you're black, and you surrender and still get shot, why follow any of their rules? None of them matter.

You're going to look like such a total f*cking idiot when all the facts finally come to light and the fairy tale you've concocted inevitably gets debunked.
   3469. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4773412)
Has anyone on here given any indication that they even care whether or not he was shot in the back? I know I haven't. Who cares?

Anyone who wants to see a fair, impartial and thorough investigation should care. If some witnesses say that Brown was shot in the back but that wasn't the case, there is a question as to those witnesses' credibility or actual knowledge of the shooting. Does it automatically mean they can't be believed on other aspects of their testimony? Of course not, but it raises issues. Some here clearly have made up their mind about this case based on the initial media reports - and those reports could eventually be proved to be largely correct - but we don't try folks based on media reports. Those who trumpeted the fake Facebook posts from the fake police chief wife as "evidence" of the Ferguson mind set embarrassed themselves by their willingness to accept whatever fit their already formed opinion of the case. Similarly, some here seem to only want to consider the evidence that fits their view of the case, arguing that the convenience store robbery should be disregarded and it doesn't matter whether Brown was shot in the front or back. That is simply absurd. Every bit of evidence matters, even if each bit of evidence isn't dispositive of all the issues in the case.
   3470. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4773413)
Huh? Only two people there mentioned shooting in the back, one couches it with a "if what I've heard to be true" caveat, and no one indicates that they actually care.


Nothing about the released autopsy information contradicts the reports from the witnesses (other than, of course, the cop.)

1. Cop tells Brown and friend to "get the #### off the street." They refuse.
2. Cop slides truck in front of Brown and friend, throws open door.
3. Door hits Brown/rebounds onto cop.
4. Cop shits his pants, pulls gun, starts blasting away.
5. Brown and friend turn to run.
6. Brown, who may have been hit by the first round fired, the one fired "in the truck" does not find cover.
7. Cop is still blasting away aimlessly.
8. Brown stops running, turns to surrender.
9. Cop is now out of the truck and has a non-moving target. His blind unloading of the clip finds a target now.

The autopsy details show us how many rounds found meat, and which direction they entered the body from. They do not tell us how many rounds were fired, from where, or in what sequence.

I realize authoritarians need to find some reason to support the pigs even when the pigs are murderers, but it's ####### pathetic when they do, nonetheless.
   3471. BrianBrianson Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4773414)
and give the system a chance to work.


The system had it's chance to work. And it failed. The idea that protesters shouldn't be allowed to protest because a couple of cops in balaclavas throw bricks through windows is identical to saying people shouldn't be allowed to protest. Which is exactly how they get into a "as long as we don't have anything left to lose, might as well riot" mindsets.
   3472. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4773416)
Anyone who wants to see a fair, impartial and thorough investigation should care.


That is to say, kneejerk "conservatives" who's primary response to any police murder is to spin and spin until they can "justify" why the good, just police department just had to kill someone will "care." Because those jackboots aren't going to lick themselves.
   3473. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4773419)
More journalists -- FT, SI, and Telegraph -- arrested and more threatened with mace and other violence. Things really aren't trending in the right direction here.
   3474. BDC Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4773420)
Since I managed to avoid representation in the anthology in #3466, let me suggest that it really doesn't matter if a cop shoots an unarmed citizen in the front or the back. This is not a Western movie.

Now of course I gotta qualify and say "if he was unarmed," because I'm sure there apologists working on eroding that assumption, too …
   3475. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4773424)
Now of course I gotta qualify and say "if he was unarmed," because I'm sure there apologists working on eroding that assumption, too …


He was both large, young, black, and near a sidewalk.
   3476. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4773425)
That is to say, kneejerk "conservatives" who's primary response to any police murder is to spin and spin until they can "justify" why the good, just police department just had to kill someone will "care." Because those jackboots aren't going to lick themselves.

A couple weeks before Ferguson, even National Review ran an article headlined, "It's Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police."

The police are completely and totally out of control here.
   3477. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4773427)
For those who insist that the robbery is completely irrelevant to the cop's defense because the cop didn't know about it, actual lawyers disagree:

http://www.popehat.com/2014/08/17/lawsplainer-how-mike-browns-alleged-robbery-of-a-liquor-store-matters-and-how-it-doesnt/

Could Wilson seek to introduce evidence of the robbery in his own defense? They answer — like most lawyer answers — is maybe.

The robbery is not broadly admissible to show that Mike Brown was the sort of person who robs convenience stores. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) — which is duplicated in some form in most state evidence codes — provides:

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

...

Here, Mike Brown's alleged robbery could not be offered to show that he was the sort of person who uses force against others. Wilson couldn't offer it, for instance, to support the argument "you know Officer Wilson is telling the truth about Mike Brown attacking him, because Mike Brown was violent on this other occasion."

However, there is a significant exception to Rule 404(b):

This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

...

Here, the robbery may be relevant to state of mind. At least as I understand the facts, it's not relevant to Wilson's state of mind, because he didn't know about the robbery when he shot Brown.2 But it could conceivably relate to Brown's state of mind. Wilson might argue that Brown resisted him because Brown thought he was being arrested for robbery, and that Wilson's story that Brown forcibly resisted arrest is more credible if Brown had a motive to resist.

...

But determining whether Rule 404 allows evidence of a witness' prior conduct is only part of the analysis. Under Rule 403 — echoed in every evidence code in the country — the trial judge must also weigh the probity of the evidence (its tendency to prove something legitimate and relevant) against its potential for unfair prejudice (its tendency to lead the jury to decide the case based on illegitimate factors). Here, the trial court would weigh how evidence of the robbery would serve legitimate purposes (by showing why Mike Brown might resist Officer Wilson) against the danger it would serve illegitimate purposes (by suggesting to the jury that Mike Brown had it coming, or was a violent person). The rest of the evidence will influence this decision. For instance, if the evidence shows that Wilson shot Brown from 35 feet away while he was surrendering, the court might rule that the question of whether he initially resisted Wilson, and why, is not very probative. [RDP: I think the author is missing something here, because as I said, the cop will likely be charged with lesser crimes and so how the initial struggle started becomes very important to those lesser crimes; less so for the murder charge presuming the evidence shows that Brown was trying to surrender.]

Were Wilson a normal mortal, I'd give this a 50/50 chance of being admitted in evidence. Since he's a cop, and he wants it to come in, and cops generally get special treatment, I'll give it a 75% chance of getting in. The judge might limit the evidence to reduce potential prejudice; for instance, the judge might only allow the government to introduce a summary of the robbery rather than the video.


Point being the notion that the robbery is completely irrelevant to the cop's defense is simply incorrect, as a legal matter, despite the claims of the rush-to-judgment non-lawyer screamers here. I don't think even David will claim that there is no way the robbery evidence is coming in. And even under the author's scenario above that a judge decides not to let the evidence in, it is not because the judge will find that the evidence is irrelevant, but because the judge would find that the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighs its probative nature.
   3478. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4773428)
Now of course I gotta qualify and say "if he was unarmed," because I'm sure there apologists working on eroding that assumption, too …

Even if he was unarmed, the cop is going to concoct a tale of him reaching into his pocket, or otherwise making the cop think he was armed. Bank on it.
   3479. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4773432)
And even under the author's scenario above that a judge decides not to let the evidence in, it is not because the judge will find that the evidence is irrelevant, but because the judge would find that the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighs its probative nature.

Which I already noted many comments ago, after you "insisted" that every judge in the land would admit the video into evidence.

It remains untrue that someone who's done something in their past subjecting them to arrest has a "motive" or "intent" to assault any police officer they encounter.

Moreover, whatever "fear of arrest" may have existed -- none has been remotely proven, of course -- was likely vitiated by the fact that the actual conduct itself was for reasons other than arrest.
   3480. BrianBrianson Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4773435)

Even if he was unarmed, the cop is going to concoct a tale of him reaching into his pocket, or otherwise making the cop think he was armed. Bank on it.


Well, assuming it comes to a trial situation, which is becoming not totally unlikely.
   3481. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4773438)
Those who trumpeted the fake Facebook posts from the fake police chief wife as "evidence" of the Ferguson mind set embarrassed themselves by their willingness to accept whatever fit their already formed opinion of the case.


Right. What we have here is a sea of people pre-judging the case because the initial media reports fit in with their narrative.
   3482. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4773439)
The system had it's chance to work. And it failed. The idea that protesters shouldn't be allowed to protest because a couple of cops in balaclavas throw bricks through windows is identical to saying people shouldn't be allowed to protest. Which is exactly how they get into a "as long as we don't have anything left to lose, might as well riot" mindsets.


The riots have worked wonderfully thus far for the guy that was shot during them.
   3483. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4773440)
Right. What we have here is a sea of people pre-judging the case because the initial media reports fit in with their narrative.


What we have here is a sea of people who so desperately want the facts of the world to be other than they are that they will kneel down and take anything the cops offer as "evidence" because otherwise they have to think for themselves.
   3484. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM (#4773444)
And even under the author's scenario above that a judge decides not to let the evidence in, it is not because the judge will find that the evidence is irrelevant, but because the judge would find that the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighs its probative nature.


Which I already noted many comments ago, after you "insisted" that every judge in the land would admit the video into evidence.


That may have been an overbid on my part, but my point that the evidence is relevant stands 100%, and that's what the claim I was challenging was, that the evidence was simply not relevant. That claim is incorrect as a legal matter.
   3485. BrianBrianson Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4773448)
The riots have worked wonderfully thus far for the guy that was shot during them.


Certainly riots have downsides, often really awful ones, but people riot because they believe they only have bad options. Sure, you might get shot during a riot. But that only puts it level with "the system", where you still might get shot in the street. In a kinda perverse way, I'd probabyly rather be shot by a rioter or criminal, since I know there's at least an off chance they'll face punishment for it.
   3486. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4773450)
The police are completely and totally out of control here.

Yes, I agree. So what?

That doesn't mean we suspend due process for the cop involved in the shooting. That doesn't mean rioting is justified.

The case has plenty of state and national attention. The misconduct of the police is being investigated.

Now, let's avoid getting anyone else killed.
   3487. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4773453)
It remains untrue that someone who's done something in their past subjecting them to arrest has a "motive" or "intent" to assault any police officer they encounter.

Several folks have suggested that it wouldn't make sense for Brown to assault the police officer just because he feared arrest for the convenience store robbery, and that is true in the abstract - it's never smart to escalate an encounter with the police, - but it happens. How many folks turn what would be a simple speeding ticket into more serious offenses by trying to outrun the police? Enough to provide dash cam fodder for hours of TV shows. Resisting arrest is common enough that there is even a separate offense for it. Do we know that Brown assaulted the police officer? No, but it should certainly be investigated. After all, if Brown didn't assault the police officer, the state should want to be in a position to counter the officer's claim that he did. If Brown did assault the officer, it puts the case in a different posture, although even that might not justify the shooting depending on the circumstances.
   3488. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4773455)
That doesn't mean we suspend due process for the cop involved in the shooting.


The fact that you think cops get "due process" rather than "covered for by their friends on the force and in the DA's office" would be cute if it wasn't so damaging to the public good.
   3489. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4773457)
Certainly riots have downsides, often really awful ones, but people riot because they believe they only have bad options. Sure, you might get shot during a riot. But that only puts it level with "the system", where you still might get shot in the street. In a kinda perverse way, I'd probabyly rather be shot by a rioter or criminal, since I know there's at least an off chance they'll face punishment for it.

Well, in this case, those people are wrong. There are plenty of other options.
   3490. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4773460)
Since I managed to avoid representation in the anthology in #3466, let me suggest that it really doesn't matter if a cop shoots an unarmed citizen in the front or the back. This is not a Western movie.

It does matter in at least one respect - if the witness reports that someone was shot in the back and the person was actually shot in the front, that does reflect poorly on the witness's testimony.

(Overall, I have little impression as to what happened yet given the lack of reviewable evidence at this time)
   3491. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4773461)
The fact that you think cops get "due process" rather than "covered for by their friends on the force and in the DA's office" would be cute if it wasn't so damaging to the public good.

Haven't the state and Feds taken over here?

And in any case, even if a cover up was 100% likely to succeed. How does looting and destroying innocent people's property make it better? How does getting more people shot and killed make it better?

If what you say is true, the only rational response is for the people of Ferguson to organize politically, vote out their city gov't and clean house in the police force.
   3492. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4773462)
Yes, I agree. So what?

So their entire method of going about their business needs to be drastically reformed.

And, since they're completely out of control, we gain some understanding of the legitimacy of the civil unrest they're facing in Ferguson. (As well as a canary in the coalmine look at America's incipient fascism. No one should recoil from calling this what it is.)
   3493. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4773463)
What we have here is a sea of people who so desperately want the facts of the world to be other than they are . . .

You mean the folks who were claiming that the fake Facebook posts from the fake police chief wife showed something about Ferguson? Yeah, that was pretty bad, one guy here was a real idiot.
   3494. BrianBrianson Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4773465)
Well, in this case, those people are wrong. There are plenty of other options.


It's their community, and their valuation to make. The rioting has probably changed the odds the cop will face charges from ~0% to ?~20%? and that he'll actually be convicted of something from ~0% to ?~5%?. It might yet create an atmosphere in the town where the cops will be more reluctant to shoot people willy-nilly (though I'd think so far, the evidence suggests they're more gung-ho to abuse people). Sure, they could've chosen to do nothing, but it makes sense that as a community they might not want to accept a condition where cops can kill them on a lark without any thought of repercussions.
   3495. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4773467)
It remains untrue that someone who's done something in their past subjecting them to arrest has a "motive" or "intent" to assault any police officer they encounter.


That was never the argument offered by anyone here. And again please stop with the "in their past" silliness to describe a crime that had happened 10 minutes earlier and so was of course fresh in Brown's mind which is the entire point (and, along with it being a robbery, is what separates it from your dumb "anyone with unpaid parking tickets from five years ago could use this as an excuse"). The argument was that since the cop will likely argue that Brown escalated the initial confrontation, the cop's expected story that Brown forcibly resisted arrest is more credible if Brown had a motive (i.e., he thought he was being arrested for the robbery) to resist.

Moreover, whatever "fear of arrest" may have existed -- none has been remotely proven, of course -- was likely vitiated by the fact that the actual conduct itself was for reasons other than arrest.


"None has been remotely proven" is a red herring on your part. The cop won't have to "prove" that "fear of arrest" was in Brown's mind at the time the cop approached him. The cop need only offer a credible argument why the evidence is admissible.
   3496. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4773472)
So their entire method of going about their business needs to be drastically reformed.

And the only way to do that is to gain political power. Some civil unrest won't achieve that.

If the police in Ferguson have been abusive to blacks for a long time, what has prevented the black majority from voting in a new administration that would change that?

It's their community, and their valuation to make. The rioting has probably changed the odds the cop will face charges from ~0% to ?~20%? and that he'll actually be convicted of something from ~0% to ?~5%?. It might yet create an atmosphere in the town where the cops will be more reluctant to shoot people willy-nilly (though I'd think so far, the evidence suggests they're more gung-ho to abuse people). Sure, they could've chosen to do nothing, but it makes sense that as a community they might not want to accept a condition where cops can kill them on a lark without any thought of repercussions.

Nope. You don't get to riot. You don't get to hurt innocent people just to make your point.

Massive peaceful protests, that ended before the curfew, would have achieved the same thing, and probably more. Mob violence just makes the cops' storm trooper tactics look more justifiable.
   3497. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4773473)
Haven't the state and Feds taken over here?


They have taken over operations of crowd control in the aftermath. I have seen nothing to suggest that they have relieved the locals of investigation/prosecution of the murder. If the feds were in charge of the full investigation the family wouldn't have had to request the autopsy details be shared/reviewed by the DOJ. Until I see some sort of proof that someone other than the shooter's best buddies are running the "investigation" I'll assume that the "investigation" is nothing more than a coverup and spin job. The odds that this guy does time for murdering Michael Brown are very, very low.
   3498. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4773474)
Nope. You don't get to riot. You don't get to hurt innocent people just to make your point.


Unless you wear a badge.
   3499. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 18, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4773475)
That was never the argument offered by anyone here.

I know ... because the people offering arguments aren't doing so objectively, but as advocates. But that's the principle they're espousing. And it's incorrect. It's incorrect that, standing alone, consciousness of having done something for which you could be arrested gives you the motive or intent to assault a police officer.

See, the thing about writing legal briefs is that the judge will expect some citations in support of that principle in the brief. Unlike here, "LOL" or "You've got to be kidding" won't really cut it.
   3500. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4773478)
Nope. You don't get to riot. You don't get to hurt innocent people just to make your point.


Unless you wear a badge.

Do you really think it's likely the cop killed Brown out of pure malice?

Or do you think it's far more likely he got scared and effed up. Why would he voluntarily put himself through this "to make a point"? Even if he never sees the inside of a courtroom his life is screwed up. And what "point" would he be making by shooting Brown in cold blood, if that's what happened?

I believe cops will beat somebody up to make a point about who's in charge, b/c they can usually get away with it. But, there's too much downside to out and out murder.
Page 35 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4611 - 11:25am, Dec 18)
Last: JL

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(45 - 11:21am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSource: Myers to Padres in 11-player deal with Rays, Nats | MLB.com
(6 - 11:20am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(9 - 11:19am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals Celebration Tour
(2 - 11:17am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(37 - 11:17am, Dec 18)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogNew York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2015
(20 - 11:15am, Dec 18)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(646 - 10:44am, Dec 18)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(10 - 10:36am, Dec 18)
Last: Hal Chase School of Professionalism

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(155 - 10:31am, Dec 18)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(2 - 9:57am, Dec 18)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOpening of Relations Could Bring Cuban Stars to Major League Baseball
(1 - 9:55am, Dec 18)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(302 - 9:51am, Dec 18)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9153 - 9:49am, Dec 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(76 - 9:32am, Dec 18)
Last: J. Sosa

Page rendered in 0.9134 seconds
48 querie(s) executed