Is the point of this post that "bad things happen to white people, too... so feel bad for white people too and stop focusing on the oppression and harm caused to black people by systemic racism..."? Or what is the point of this in yet another of your endless stream of vague and unspecific random words and names?
No, the point is that the only names and people y’all give a rats ass about is the ones that serve to advance your agenda. If they don’t then the media and y’all are silent. Especially when it’s progressive office holders and policies that result in innocent deaths.
I have to ask you to just be reasonable. Do you think it is a rational to suggest that I and other Christians and people of good will across the u.s. who are liberal or moderate really don't care about children dying or whatever it is you think we don't care about?
Does it not strike you as at least a little insane to suggest that we don't care about children? You do know that we are parents, caregivers, people who teach school and teach children, who work with the poor and dispossessed and marginalized. Do you really think it's rational to suggest that we don't care? Please answer
I’m simply pointing out the fact that there has been silence from the left and the media in the case of a child literally being executed by someone of another ethnicity and virtual silence now that we find out that the Macy’s besting was one more lie about it being racial.
I’m guessing that a black child executed by a white guy would have had you all up in arms though.
What’s insane is to make assumptions and read things into my posts that only exist in your imagination.
If making shit up helps you save face or something, that’s your problem.
If you think silence is an appropriate response to barbarism, that’s all you also.
I gotta say that you’ve got chutzpah to keep asking questions after dodging so many recently.
So you're not going to answer the question. Is it the case that you don't recognize how insane that claim is? Or you just don't give a damn how it makes you look to pass on stupidly Foss and slanderous claims like that?
As to your alleged point, I will gladly admit that I do not comment on every murdered child, raped woman, beaten baby. I have not and never will comment on every instance of assault and oppression. Nor do you. It is, of course, not humanly possible. So your point, such as it is, is inane and obtuse.
Is your silence in the face of 99.9% of the instances of violence an indication that you don't care? Please.
What’s insane is the fact that you’ve literally made up a “claim” on my part out of thin air and bullshit. What’s even more insane is you bitching about me not answering a question about something that doesn’t exist, while you’ve been running away from questions over the last several threads you’ve been involved with.
Here’s what we’ve seen. The national media has been virtually silent on the three cases I’ve mentioned as well as others. They’ve been much louder when it comes to instances that move a narrative forward.
Further, we’ve seen your inability to express specific concern for the above as well as others who’ve been victimized. Even in this case, you can’t bring yourself to express even the most perfunctory or insincere sympathy for these victims.
So, maybe the problem is the silence of the media and folks like you, not my pointing out the hypocrisy, and expressing my opinion
How about this, you demonstrate that my opinion in my first comment is factually incorrect with some objective proof.
Craig... What’s insane is the fact that you’ve literally made up a “claim” on my part out of thin air and bullshit.
YOU claimed, and I quote:
the point is that the only names and people y’all give a rats ass about is [sic] the ones that serve to advance your agenda. If they don’t then the media and y’all are silent.
That is YOUR claim and it's Trump-level stupidly false and inane and just plain evil.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE how very evil and stupidly false that claim that YOU JUST MADE with YOUR OWN WORDS is?
We, of course, care about all lives and all children. We care about white children, too. That has NEVER been a subject of debate.
We raise concerns about immigrants and immigrant children being abused/mistreated as a matter of policy WHEN it's a problem (and to be certain as hell, it IS a problem, an evil set of policies by Trump and those who support him).
We raise concerns about black lives because there have been hundreds of years of slavery, racism and oppression, including right up until today, because it has been and is a serious policy problem.
That we're concerned about immigrants and black lives does not in any way suggest we don't care about other lives. Don't be an idiot or a blathering accomplice to the Trump racism con.
Answer the question. AND admit that you DID claim just what I said you claimed.
The national media has been virtually silent on the three cases I’ve mentioned as well as others.
The "national media" does NOT cover every story of abuse or harm to individuals. Unfortunately, there are too many instances of abuse and assault and harm to cover every one of them at a national level. Hell, YOU don't mention every instance of harm that occurs. Does that somehow mean that you don't give a "rat's ass" like you falsely accused progressives and the media of doing?
You made a mistake. You were caught in it.
Have the moral and intellectual integrity to admit your stupidly false error, your slanderous gossip that just plays into your party's conman pervert's agenda.
Those who bear false witness, who slander and gossip have NO part of the realm of God.
you demonstrate that my opinion in my first comment is factually incorrect with some objective proof.
It's inane. It's unsubstantial. It means not a single thing to say, "Dan (or the media) has not commented on every instance of abuse in the world."
TO say that Dan's/the media's "silence" on every single instance of abuse in the world is a sign of not caring is just stupidly false. There is NO DATA to suggest that I, or liberals, or the media don't care about abuse or violence, the evidence that we DO care is there, in all our work to stem oppression.
That we don't comment on any one given story (not me, not the media, not you, no one) is only a sign that we are finite, not that we don't care.
You have never once spoken his name. You have never once other than e concern or simply about his death. Shot to death by the police while on his knees and unarmed. Clearly, you do not care about police killings.
Craig... Here’s what we’ve seen. The national media has been virtually silent on the three cases I’ve mentioned as well as others. They’ve been much louder when it comes to instances that move a narrative forward.
About ten years ago in Louisville, there was a house being built and, while it was still in the 2x4 framework stage, a storm came along and the house collapsed under heavy winds. Did you know that the national media did not cover that story EVEN ONE BIT!??
Over the last several years, we've had some dams collapse or be at risk of collapsing, as well as some bridges and other infrastructure. Turns out some of them were falling apart or at risk of failure due to a shortage of infrastructure dollars and inspections that should be taking place but weren't, again, due to a lack of funds. This was and is a national problem.
Did you know that the national media HAS covered those stories?
Now, we can walk away from that with two conclusions:
1. The media (liberals, Dems, "socialists") hate framed houses in Kentucky and they don't give a rat's ass about the harm caused to people by framed houses collapsing in storms;
OR
2. The media (liberals, etc) are a finite group and don't cover every story. The national media tends to cover stories of national importance and so, a series of stories about bridges collapsing due to national policy decisions is deemed a national news story, but one house blowing down in a storm is not.
For the purposes of this thread, when I use the term "you" (or any of it's forms) I'm referring to the national media, and those on the political left in general. NOT specifically to Dan.
"DO YOU RECOGNIZE how very evil and stupidly false that claim that YOU JUST MADE with YOUR OWN WORDS is?"
I'm basing this opinion on the evidence of the silence of the media and the left on these and similar cases, and have couched my opinion in hyperbole. I get that you and those in the media and the left may have some level of generalized, non specific,"care" about these (and other) cases, but it's clearly not enough to get them national media coverage.
"We, of course, care about all lives and all children. We care about white children, too. That has NEVER been a subject of debate."
Bullshit. If you (and others) are going to tell people that "all lives matter" is off limits, then you can't play the "care about all lives" card when you stand silent on horrific crimes. Further, stop pretending that you speak for some vast group of people. It makes you look narcissistic, delusional, and pathetic.
"Does that somehow mean that you don't give a "rat's ass" like you falsely accused progressives and the media of doing?"
No, the national media doesn't cover everything. Yet the three stories I mentioned all contain elements that are similar to stories the national media does cover. Of course not, my job isn't the covering of news, what I choose to comment on in my spare time is based on what catches my eye and what interests me. But, I'm not an outlet whose job is to report the news, nor am I actively trying to foment protest or outrage.
"You made a mistake. You were caught in it."
If you're not going to answer the multiple questions you've run from or admit that you haven't, what possible grounds can you have for demanding that I do anything because you demand it? I'm sorry that my expressing my opinion (responding to your comment that demonstrate absolutely ZERO concern or care for the victims I cited) in frustrated hyperbole caused you such confusion.
"Or, at least that's the standard you're setting."
Actually, it's not. It's me suggesting that y'all live up to the standard that y'all set. That you live up the the standards you demand of others. It's pretty simple. If y'all are going to jump to the conclusion that every black person killed by a white person is automatically and forever to be attributed to racism, then why not be consistent in applying that standard. Further, when governmental policies proposed, implemented, and applied by progressive governmental entities produce the sorts of tragic consequences that we've seen repeatedly (illustrated by Karla Dominguez), then that seems newsworthy and worthy of comment.
I'm not an outlet whose job is to report the news, nor am I actively trying to foment protest or outrage.
1. It is NOT the media's job to report every story in the world. You don't do it and your silence on some story that you've not heard of is not an indictment of you, nor is it an indictment on the media.
2. You have no proof of the stupidly false claim that the media is "actively trying to foment protest or outrage." It's an empty claim of the idiotic sort that the president of the conservatives like to gossip about. Shame on you and shame on the president and shame on the large number of conservatives who act like childish little gossips slandering important people WITH A LITERAL agenda to foment outrage.
You ARE what you accuse the media of. And don't even recognize it.
You made a mistake and you were caught in it. Be an adult. Admit it and move on.
I'm going to take a break for a second and make a suggestion that might alleviate situations like this.
If you had started your initial comments with something like... "Oh my goodness, what happened to those individuals was horrible. I can't believe that they haven't gotten more coverage."
Instead of... "Is the point of this post that "bad things happen to white people, too... so feel bad for white people too and stop focusing on the oppression and harm caused to black people by systemic racism..."?"
That simple change might indicate that you actually do care about "all people" and that you took the 2 minutes to look at these people as individuals who suffered tragic circumstances, rather than to simply view these tragedies through your lens of "race", and group.
The content of your first comment, actually supports my point that your primary lens of value and care is first "race", second "oppression", third "group". Nothing in your comment indicates the tiniest bit of "care" for the individual tragedies suffered.
Maybe, you should look at how your heartless first comment might have affected my comment that has your panties so wadded.
1. The three stories I cited ALL fit the broader context of news stories that are getting significant coverage.
a) Cannon Hinnant, black guy executing a white 5 year old in front of the child's family. Black/white crime IS a national story. The brutal and unprovoked attack of a Macy's employee was covered, what makes this less newsworthy? b) Karla Dominguez, first she's not "white", second it's a direct result of a progressive initiative to release criminals due to the potential for contracting Covid. But these sorts (and this isn't the first one) of negative results of DFL policies shouldn't be covered, right? c) Owen Buell, please go ahead and defend the circumstances where destruction of a Ronald McDonald house where the families of children (yes, even black ones) advances the cause of "racial justice"?
You personally, have shown a degree of support (or ambivalence to the victims) for the rioters harming the interests of innocents. You cite storm damage 10 years ago (While the massive destruction in IA gets virtually no coverage) as if it means anything. Yet, you couldn't (to my recollection) muster up much concern over the hundreds of low income, minority/immigrant families wantonly destroyed in the name of "racial justice".
1) You could draw that conclusion if the storm damage was part of a larger story about regional or national storm damage. Or you could conclude that you picked some random insignificant "story" unrelated to any larger story.
2) Of course that's true. Yet in the larger context that I've pointed out they all three are newsworthy and fit the national picture. Further, it's entirely possible that they reason these stories aren't covered is that they don't fit the narrative that's being put out. That these stories weren't covered because they might cause people to question the larger narrative.
Of course, you simply provide 2 choices that are set up to get the result that you perceive will get the "right" answer. Regardless of any circumstances you choose to ignore.
Much like you ignore my pointing out your double standard.
"1. It is NOT the media's job to report every story in the world. You don't do it and your silence on some story that you've not heard of is not an indictment of you, nor is it an indictment on the media."
Of course this is simply one more false equivalency. It's not my job to report ANY stories. I don't get paid to report the news. I don't hold myself out as a news reporting organization. I don't claim to to unbiased or fair or balanced.
"2. You have no proof of the stupidly false claim that the media is "actively trying to foment protest or outrage.""
Context, is always important. I've pointed out that in the context of this thread that any generalizations include multiple groups (obviously it's not 100% of any of the groups). In this case I wasn't specifically and only referring to the "media" as those who "foment protest or outrage". Of course, I really didn't make the claim you said I made, so there's that as well. Of course there ARE some in the media who are trying to "foment protest or outrage" and some who use what the media covers (or doesn't) to "foment" away.
"slandering important people"
1. If you are going to pretend that "slandering" is bad, then apply this standard consistently and clean your own house before expecting others to do anything. 2. Your generalization that "the media" are universally "important" and therefore are immune from "slander" is absurd. 3. Are you really claiming that there is absolutely NOT ONE, news person, news outlet, media figure, media outlet, etc that is NOT trying to "foment protest or outrage"?
"You ARE what you accuse the media of. And don't even recognize it."
1. No. 2. If you are going to continue with this kind of crap, then set your own house in order first before you bitch at others. 3. I'm not the media. I don't report news. I comment and offer opinions on topics that interest me or seem significant to me. Given your extensive journalism expertise, I'm surprised you make such a basic mistake regarding the difference between reporting the news, and expressing one's opinion about the news.
"You made a mistake and you were caught in it. Be an adult. Admit it and move on.
Repent."
It's seems strange that you are 100% certain that, when it comes to what you say, that you are right 100% of the time and I am mistaken 100% of the time. Yet somehow, when the roles are reversed, you still act as if you are right 100% of the time, while I'm mistaken 100% of the time.
It's just easier to look at your actions, and ignore your words.
If it makes sense that it would seem that you'd do what makes sense, yet still nothing.
"Just like you did when I cited the story about the man who was killed by the cop. Oh. Wait. You didn't do that. Did you?"
No, I actually didn't address it or your citation of it at all. You might ask why I didn't.
I haven't addressed it, yet, because I've been trying to respond to all of your idiocy and didn't think it was appropriate to respond to that incident until I'd had a chance to look it up and get a sense of what happened.
So, instead of going on the attack, venting my assumptions and prejudices, and bitching, I chose the path of patience and the path of gathering information before I addressed that one specific point.
Are you really suggesting that I should have responded to your mention of a name without doing some research first? That I should have acted in haste and ignorance, when patience and knowledge were more appropriate.
Since that comment, I have literally been responding to your bullshit, or doing my job. I'm sorry that your impatience for a "rhetorical victory" backfired. But, it's just one more example of your double standards.
I haven't addressed it, yet, because I've been trying to respond to all of your idiocy and didn't think it was appropriate to respond to that incident until I'd had a chance to look it up and get a sense of what happened.
Wow. You actually didn't talk about this story you didn't know about until you knew more. Funny. But I SHOULD have talked about stories that I don't know because... WHY is it okay for you to NOT comment on a story you don't know about but it's required that I do so?
Oh, because of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I get it.
Regarding the killing of Sean Monterosa. It's a horrible tragedy and it appears as though officer Tonn grossly overreacted and shot Mr Monterosa. It saddens me when any individual is killed whether intentionally or accidentally. I'm sure that Sean's friends and family are devastated.
There are a few interesting things about it that make me curious why you think it somehow invalidates my point, but It certainly seems incredibly tragic. It bears some similarities to the Justine Damond killing up here.
FYI, if you're going to play the "say his name" card, it's helpful if you spell his name correctly.
"Wow. You actually didn't talk about this story you didn't know about until you knew more. Funny."
Really, you're suggesting that I was somehow wrong to choose to take the time to do a little research and be able to have at least some rudimentary information before I commented. Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea?
"But I SHOULD have talked about stories that I don't know because..."
I'm not trying to tell you what you "SHOULD" have done at all. I AM pointing out that YOU made the CHOICE to respond as you did. I'm further making the point that because you CHOSE to comment out of your prejudices, assumptions, and preconceptions that my response was directly related to the nature and tone of your comment. The nature and tone that you CHOSE to use. I'm merely comparing and contrasting the choice I made to the choice you made.
"WHY is it okay for you to NOT comment on a story you don't know about but it's required that I do so?"
1. I never said that it is "okay" for me to NOT comment. Quite the contrary. I said that I chose to WAIT to comment until I was more informed. Does the difference between "not" and "not now" confuse you?
2. Likewise I never said that you were "required" to do research before you commented. I merely pointed out how I chose to handle commenting on topics where I lack knowledge. If you'll note the fact that I never said anything about what you should have done, you should have been able to figure out that I wasn't trying to "require" you to do anything. It's your choice to be informed or not.
"Oh, because of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I get it."
If you mean your "hypocrisy and inconsistency" then you'd be right. Or maybe you should read what I actually say before you respond to what you think I said. It could have deterred misunderstanding twice in this thread.
Now, I have to leave my office/computer and go meet with clients. If I don't respond to you as quickly as you'd like it's because I'm working, not because I'm ignoring you or scared or whatever bullshit you'd like to sling.
you're suggesting that I was somehow wrong to choose to take the time to do a little research and be able to have at least some rudimentary information before I commented. Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea?
Not what I'm saying at all. The OPPOSITE of what I'm saying, actually.
As is so often the case when you read my words and tell me I'm saying something that is the opposite of what I just said.
In this case, I was using irony, which is perhaps the reason you missed it. Conservatives too often today seem to have a problem with words and irony.
What I was saying is that I have NOT commented on these stories I've never heard and the circumstances of those cases precisely because I had not heard of these stories nor did I know anything about the circumstances. And yet, I/the media are "remaining silent" because we "don't give a rat's ass..."
But never mind. It's just too difficult to talk with you, THEN go back and correct your misunderstandings, THEN explain to you what you're not understanding... and on it goes.
You're the one who brought his name up, not me. But, please laugh at yourself. The rest of us do and it would probably do you some good.
Dan, you see it's always amusing when you do this. First, if you think that "irony" translates well in this medium, then you are a bigger idiot than I previously thought.
But, when you talk about failing to understand, it would probably be a good idea to pick a better example. The example you chose literally ended with the phrase, "Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea?". Maybe the little ? thing threw you off, but that's the thingy that most people use when they are asking a question. In this case, I was literally asking you a question, to clarify if your comment was serious or poorly done irony. It's always hilarious when you do things like this. Now you'll go even further away from the topic trying to pretend that you didn't do what you clearly did.
"What I was saying is that I have NOT commented on these stories I've never heard and the circumstances of those cases precisely because I had not heard of these stories nor did I know anything about the circumstances."
Yet you clearly made some assumptions about them and some inferences about them in your ignorance and haste. Read the first sentence of your first comment again.
It's always interesting when you get so caught up in trying to preserve your ego and your pride that you say stupid things, ignore/hide from questions and substantive points, and try to drive the conversation in ways you think most helpful to your pride. As always it'll be interesting to see how much you ignore and how much you screw up due to your apparent need to stoke your pride.
In all of this, you can't even muster up the most minimal expression of (hell you can't even fake it) concern or care for the three specific individuals I cited.
I think heartless bastard might not be as hyperbolic as I thought in your case.
"I’m seeing a lot of my White/Conservative friends posting #JusticeForCannon and #SayHisName and asking why this case isn’t receiving “national attention,” in an attempt to show bias in the media, discredit the attention of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and change the narrative.
Yes, it’s a very sad, unfortunate story. It’s heartbreaking. But what are you looking to prove? What justice are you demanding? There was a full manhunt for his killer who was then charged with murder with no bond WITHIN 24 HOURS of the shooting. (Not weeks. Not months. 1 day.)
That’s the whole premise behind the BLM movement...
because a Black man (#AhmaudArbery) was attacked and shot by multiple White men and no arrests were made until 3 MONTHS LATER and ONLY after national attention, petitions, and marches. Stop trying to act oppressed. Want to demand justice? Demand justice for #BreonnaTaylor, a Black woman (and EMT working during this pandemic) who was killed in her sleep by police despite having not committed a crime and who’s killers have not been arrested even 5 months later. Her petition has 10+ MILLION signatures and still NO JUSTICE. Demand that..."
+++++
Understand the difference? Understand why racists and white supremacists and the ignorant are using the sorts of messages that you just used in an attempt to undermine and delegitimize (whether intentionally or not) BLM and why it's so wrong to do so?
And after all this, what is the result? Dan still defends the disparity in reporting by choosing to attack your pointing it out. There is clearly a difference in the way race-related stories are reported by the vast majority of media. Stories like the murder of the five year old get some attention after it is pointed out that it got next to none at all in the initial period after its commission. But the media, BLM and other lefties in and outside of media would be all over it like stink on shit if it was a white guy executing a 5 yr old black child. This isn't a matter of imagination or false perception. This is the reality and Dan refuses to acknowledge it because he's a lying lefty himself, and that's what lying lefties do.
And then for Dan to criticize because YOU don't report all stories, or to pretend the point isn't valid because ALL stories aren't reported exactly the same is beyond moronic. It is a lie by virtue of having tried to make that case in the first place, as it doesn't at all reflect the point, to which Dan will give no legitimate response, because answering questions is for others...not Dan.
The real issue is not that all stories aren't reported the same. The issue is what stories are reported and why. To pretend there is no leftist agenda at play is, again, to lie. Journalism isn't about pushing an agenda. It's about reporting stories that have the greatest impact on the general population and doing so objectively and with as much detail as legally possible. It's NOT to simply report that "another black man" was killed by a white guy, and certainly to not do so while not giving the same level of attention when the races are reversed. More importantly, it's NOT about reporting with any reference to race at all where race plays absolutely no role, or to be damned sure you report ALL such race-related stories the exact same way.
This is so far from being the reality as to provide, yet again, more evidence that the press has become the enemy of the people. Dan objects to this truth because he aids and abets the enemy of the people being that he agrees with the harmful agenda being pushed.
It’s interesting that the big case you cited is one where Sean was (essentially/appears) white, and the officer is being both prosecuted and sued, so he’s getting justice. As to Cannon, we’ll see how justice plays out, so I’m not calling for justice. I’m simply pointing out the absolute silence from the media and the left. I explained why I think it’s relevant, clearly you disagree.
Yet all this effort to to ignore 2/3 of the names you’ve ignored. And you think that trotting our sine magic negro who agrees with you shuts down any possible disagreement.
I’ll end by pointing out how much you’ve dodged and ignored in your obsessive quest to save face.
I’ll simply point out the reality that we can see what’s “behind” the BLM movement and you’ve certainly cast them in a light that they’re own words don’t justify.
But it’s a great job of moving the conversation in ways that don’t focus on your problems, dodges, and unanswered questions.
Good gosh. Craig speaks of media silence and Dan tries to run the stale falsehoods of justice denied.
People witnessed the murder of the 5 yr old. There was no doubt and thus an immediate arrest easy. But there was little media attention and no rioting.
Ahmaus Arbery died after assaulting and trying disarm a man with a legally carried shotgun. There were no immediate arrests because there was no crime committed. Arrests came after media attention and unjustified protests.
The same is true of the unfortunate Breonna Taylor, who died after cops returned fire after her boyfriend fired upon the cops. Cops aren't paid to take bullets while serving warrants, and thus Taylor's death is accidental at worst. Yet, not only did this tragic death receive media attention, it was commonly reported falsely.
Of course it's not only little white kids whose murders go without media concern. Many black kids die unjustly at the hands of scumbags far too frequently, and no one seems to care.
Somehow, the leftist media, fake Christians and the race-hustler industry gravitated to the deaths by cops or whites of mostly low-lifes or those too close to them (Taylor, for example) to trumpet as examples of injustice or police brutality. Then all the stops are pulled out.
The following is only on topic insofar as references to what the press decides to cover or not, as well as how it covers what it does report, and how that choice is part of what makes them the enemy of the people.
Ive noticed a rash of identical copy/paste social media comments regarding the Cannon situation. The problem is that the talking points are wrong. No one was suggesting that Justice wasn't being done in his case, what is being suggested is that this horrific crime was met with absolute silence by the media and others. No one is suggesting that there should be protests, riots and destruction in his name, just that he's worth at least as much national attention as the recent string of children killed in Chicago.
The other mistake is that the ex cops who were involved in the killing of George Floyd are NOT escaping "justice", they haven't and won't "get off". They've been fired, arrested, charged, and will go to trial on multiple charges.
I'll at least give the copy paste folks more credit that Dan, they at least had the sense to start out by expressing concern for Cannon and sympathy for his family. So, despite being wrong about a couple of things, they got the part about showing humanity right.
However, I would instead submit that the cops involved in the Floyd case are not candidates for justice if they haven't done anything wrong. THAT is what will be found out at trial, should the trial be run properly with all pertinent evidence weighed as it should be.
And I feel compelled to say again that some evidence suggests no improper behavior by the cops contributed to the death of Floyd, who was, by one report, dying when the cops first arrived on the scene.
1. You seem to be buying the fiction that Justice means instant punishment. Justice is simply them going through the appropriate legal process and seeing what the verdict is. 2. My point is that the ex cops didn’t get a free pass, they are facing justice, and their guilt or innocence will be determined. 3. This idiotic notion that justice demands instant arrest, automatically being charged with the maximum charge, and automatic conviction that is prevalent among too many is part of the problem. 4. As per MPD policy the use of the kneeling technique of restraint is not allowed. So, at a minimum Chauvin engaged in improper behavior.
1. I was using the term as the "no justice, no peace" types use it, which generally means an expectation of punishment for perceived wrongs, not the real truth coming out with the appropriate consequences following.
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. I'll have to dig up the source that suggested the contrary, but what's most important is that according to the medical examiner, it had little to nothing to do with Floyd dying.
As to Chauvin getting off, if the videos are presenting all the details and if the medical examiner's report is accurate and given the weight it deserves, he may indeed get off given Ellison upped the stakes when he shouldn't have. In other words, the lesser charge that was originally lodged against Chauvin would have been easier to make stick:
1. Floyd complained about trouble breathing from the get-go. 2. Breathing issues are supposedly common from the drugs in his system. 3. He was resisting from the beginning, as confirmed by his friends in the car with him. 4. He asked to be put on the ground. 5. Body cam footage indicates requests by arresting cops for medical assistance. 6. Floyd's physical health was poor, particularly with regard to his heart.
Floyd died in May. It wasn't until June 9 or so when MPD changed their position on restraint techniques such as that employed by Chauvin. Pror to that, there was a distinction made between choke holds (potential for fatality) versus neck restraints (minimal to no such potential). Put that together with the medical examiner finding no evidence of trauma to neck or airway and I don't know on what basis Chauvin can be charged at all. Later, I'll provide an article with more details.
According to local news, they banned the kneeling technique after another suspect died while it was being used on them. But, they’ve made additional changes recently .
Again, the body cam video indicated he requested that he be allowed to lie down. I admit that I've only watched it once, and might have the chronology and details off a bit, but there would also be the question of whether position would've mattered to a guy in as bad a shape as he was in when they arrived.
The point is whether or not ANY of the cops' actions played a role in Floyd dying, or would it have mattered even if an ambulance rolled up instead of the cops.
That’s true, however he didn’t ask for the knee restraint. MPD training also says that the knee restraint shouldn’t be used indefinitely and that they should be put in a recovery position after a period of time.
The latter was linked from the former and I believe I had read it once before and was glad to have come upon it again because of the details within. No doubt some would view this as some sort of rationale for "brutalizing" a black dude, because of course, once the claim is made of racist police brutality, there can be no facts reported that will make that claim the stupidity it is.
46 comments:
Is the point of this post that "bad things happen to white people, too... so feel bad for white people too and stop focusing on the oppression and harm caused to black people by systemic racism..."? Or what is the point of this in yet another of your endless stream of vague and unspecific random words and names?
No, the point is that the only names and people y’all give a rats ass about is the ones that serve to advance your agenda. If they don’t then the media and y’all are silent. Especially when it’s progressive office holders and policies that result in innocent deaths.
Heartless bastards.
I have to ask you to just be reasonable. Do you think it is a rational to suggest that I and other Christians and people of good will across the u.s. who are liberal or moderate really don't care about children dying or whatever it is you think we don't care about?
Does it not strike you as at least a little insane to suggest that we don't care about children? You do know that we are parents, caregivers, people who teach school and teach children, who work with the poor and dispossessed and marginalized. Do you really think it's rational to suggest that we don't care? Please answer
I’m simply pointing out the fact that there has been silence from the left and the media in the case of a child literally being executed by someone of another ethnicity and virtual silence now that we find out that the Macy’s besting was one more lie about it being racial.
I’m guessing that a black child executed by a white guy would have had you all up in arms though.
What’s insane is to make assumptions and read things into my posts that only exist in your imagination.
If making shit up helps you save face or something, that’s your problem.
If you think silence is an appropriate response to barbarism, that’s all you also.
I gotta say that you’ve got chutzpah to keep asking questions after dodging so many recently.
“Please answer”
Given your recent behavior this could be the funniest, most ironic thing you’ve ever written.
So you're not going to answer the question. Is it the case that you don't recognize how insane that claim is? Or you just don't give a damn how it makes you look to pass on stupidly Foss and slanderous claims like that?
As to your alleged point, I will gladly admit that I do not comment on every murdered child, raped woman, beaten baby. I have not and never will comment on every instance of assault and oppression. Nor do you. It is, of course, not humanly possible. So your point, such as it is, is inane and obtuse.
Is your silence in the face of 99.9% of the instances of violence an indication that you don't care? Please.
Dan,
What’s insane is the fact that you’ve literally made up a “claim” on my part out of thin air and bullshit. What’s even more insane is you bitching about me not answering a question about something that doesn’t exist, while you’ve been running away from questions over the last several threads you’ve been involved with.
Here’s what we’ve seen. The national media has been virtually silent on the three cases I’ve mentioned as well as others. They’ve been much louder when it comes to instances that move a narrative forward.
Further, we’ve seen your inability to express specific concern for the above as well as others who’ve been victimized. Even in this case, you can’t bring yourself to express even the most perfunctory or insincere sympathy for these victims.
So, maybe the problem is the silence of the media and folks like you, not my pointing out the hypocrisy, and expressing my opinion
How about this, you demonstrate that my opinion in my first comment is factually incorrect with some objective proof.
Craig... What’s insane is the fact that you’ve literally made up a “claim” on my part out of thin air and bullshit.
YOU claimed, and I quote:
the point is that the
only names and people y’all give a rats ass about
is [sic] the ones that serve to advance your agenda.
If they don’t then the media and y’all are silent.
That is YOUR claim and it's Trump-level stupidly false and inane and just plain evil.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE how very evil and stupidly false that claim that YOU JUST MADE with YOUR OWN WORDS is?
We, of course, care about all lives and all children. We care about white children, too. That has NEVER been a subject of debate.
We raise concerns about immigrants and immigrant children being abused/mistreated as a matter of policy WHEN it's a problem (and to be certain as hell, it IS a problem, an evil set of policies by Trump and those who support him).
We raise concerns about black lives because there have been hundreds of years of slavery, racism and oppression, including right up until today, because it has been and is a serious policy problem.
That we're concerned about immigrants and black lives does not in any way suggest we don't care about other lives. Don't be an idiot or a blathering accomplice to the Trump racism con.
Answer the question. AND admit that you DID claim just what I said you claimed.
The national media has been virtually silent on the three cases I’ve mentioned as well as others.
The "national media" does NOT cover every story of abuse or harm to individuals. Unfortunately, there are too many instances of abuse and assault and harm to cover every one of them at a national level. Hell, YOU don't mention every instance of harm that occurs. Does that somehow mean that you don't give a "rat's ass" like you falsely accused progressives and the media of doing?
You made a mistake. You were caught in it.
Have the moral and intellectual integrity to admit your stupidly false error, your slanderous gossip that just plays into your party's conman pervert's agenda.
Those who bear false witness, who slander and gossip have NO part of the realm of God.
Repent. It's good for the soul.
you demonstrate that my opinion in my first comment is factually incorrect with some objective proof.
It's inane. It's unsubstantial. It means not a single thing to say, "Dan (or the media) has not commented on every instance of abuse in the world."
TO say that Dan's/the media's "silence" on every single instance of abuse in the world is a sign of not caring is just stupidly false. There is NO DATA to suggest that I, or liberals, or the media don't care about abuse or violence, the evidence that we DO care is there, in all our work to stem oppression.
That we don't comment on any one given story (not me, not the media, not you, no one) is only a sign that we are finite, not that we don't care.
It's a stupidly false claim. Admit it.
Seam Monterrosa.
You have never once spoken his name. You have never once other than e concern or simply about his death. Shot to death by the police while on his knees and unarmed. Clearly, you do not care about police killings.
Or, at least that's the standard you're setting.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/vallejo-police-kill-unarmed-man-california
Craig... Here’s what we’ve seen. The national media has been virtually silent on the three cases I’ve mentioned as well as others. They’ve been much louder when it comes to instances that move a narrative forward.
About ten years ago in Louisville, there was a house being built and, while it was still in the 2x4 framework stage, a storm came along and the house collapsed under heavy winds. Did you know that the national media did not cover that story EVEN ONE BIT!??
Over the last several years, we've had some dams collapse or be at risk of collapsing, as well as some bridges and other infrastructure. Turns out some of them were falling apart or at risk of failure due to a shortage of infrastructure dollars and inspections that should be taking place but weren't, again, due to a lack of funds. This was and is a national problem.
Did you know that the national media HAS covered those stories?
Now, we can walk away from that with two conclusions:
1. The media (liberals, Dems, "socialists") hate framed houses in Kentucky and they don't give a rat's ass about the harm caused to people by framed houses collapsing in storms;
OR
2. The media (liberals, etc) are a finite group and don't cover every story. The national media tends to cover stories of national importance and so, a series of stories about bridges collapsing due to national policy decisions is deemed a national news story, but one house blowing down in a storm is not.
Which view is the reasonable, not insane one?
For the purposes of this thread, when I use the term "you" (or any of it's forms) I'm referring to the national media, and those on the political left in general. NOT specifically to Dan.
"DO YOU RECOGNIZE how very evil and stupidly false that claim that YOU JUST MADE with YOUR OWN WORDS is?"
I'm basing this opinion on the evidence of the silence of the media and the left on these and similar cases, and have couched my opinion in hyperbole. I get that you and those in the media and the left may have some level of generalized, non specific,"care" about these (and other) cases, but it's clearly not enough to get them national media coverage.
"We, of course, care about all lives and all children. We care about white children, too. That has NEVER been a subject of debate."
Bullshit. If you (and others) are going to tell people that "all lives matter" is off limits, then you can't play the "care about all lives" card when you stand silent on horrific crimes. Further, stop pretending that you speak for some vast group of people. It makes you look narcissistic, delusional, and pathetic.
"Does that somehow mean that you don't give a "rat's ass" like you falsely accused progressives and the media of doing?"
No, the national media doesn't cover everything. Yet the three stories I mentioned all contain elements that are similar to stories the national media does cover. Of course not, my job isn't the covering of news, what I choose to comment on in my spare time is based on what catches my eye and what interests me. But, I'm not an outlet whose job is to report the news, nor am I actively trying to foment protest or outrage.
"You made a mistake. You were caught in it."
If you're not going to answer the multiple questions you've run from or admit that you haven't, what possible grounds can you have for demanding that I do anything because you demand it? I'm sorry that my expressing my opinion (responding to your comment that demonstrate absolutely ZERO concern or care for the victims I cited) in frustrated hyperbole caused you such confusion.
"Or, at least that's the standard you're setting."
Actually, it's not. It's me suggesting that y'all live up to the standard that y'all set. That you live up the the standards you demand of others. It's pretty simple. If y'all are going to jump to the conclusion that every black person killed by a white person is automatically and forever to be attributed to racism, then why not be consistent in applying that standard. Further, when governmental policies proposed, implemented, and applied by progressive governmental entities produce the sorts of tragic consequences that we've seen repeatedly (illustrated by Karla Dominguez), then that seems newsworthy and worthy of comment.
I'm not an outlet whose job is to report the news, nor am I actively trying to foment protest or outrage.
1. It is NOT the media's job to report every story in the world. You don't do it and your silence on some story that you've not heard of is not an indictment of you, nor is it an indictment on the media.
2. You have no proof of the stupidly false claim that the media is "actively trying to foment protest or outrage." It's an empty claim of the idiotic sort that the president of the conservatives like to gossip about. Shame on you and shame on the president and shame on the large number of conservatives who act like childish little gossips slandering important people WITH A LITERAL agenda to foment outrage.
You ARE what you accuse the media of. And don't even recognize it.
You made a mistake and you were caught in it. Be an adult. Admit it and move on.
Repent.
I'm going to take a break for a second and make a suggestion that might alleviate situations like this.
If you had started your initial comments with something like... "Oh my goodness, what happened to those individuals was horrible. I can't believe that they haven't gotten more coverage."
Instead of... "Is the point of this post that "bad things happen to white people, too... so feel bad for white people too and stop focusing on the oppression and harm caused to black people by systemic racism..."?"
That simple change might indicate that you actually do care about "all people" and that you took the 2 minutes to look at these people as individuals who suffered tragic circumstances, rather than to simply view these tragedies through your lens of "race", and group.
The content of your first comment, actually supports my point that your primary lens of value and care is first "race", second "oppression", third "group". Nothing in your comment indicates the tiniest bit of "care" for the individual tragedies suffered.
Maybe, you should look at how your heartless first comment might have affected my comment that has your panties so wadded.
RE your false equivalence.
1. The three stories I cited ALL fit the broader context of news stories that are getting significant coverage.
a) Cannon Hinnant, black guy executing a white 5 year old in front of the child's family. Black/white crime IS a national story. The brutal and unprovoked attack of a Macy's employee was covered, what makes this less newsworthy?
b) Karla Dominguez, first she's not "white", second it's a direct result of a progressive initiative to release criminals due to the potential for contracting Covid. But these sorts (and this isn't the first one) of negative results of DFL policies shouldn't be covered, right?
c) Owen Buell, please go ahead and defend the circumstances where destruction of a Ronald McDonald house where the families of children (yes, even black ones) advances the cause of "racial justice"?
You personally, have shown a degree of support (or ambivalence to the victims) for the rioters harming the interests of innocents. You cite storm damage 10 years ago (While the massive destruction in IA gets virtually no coverage) as if it means anything. Yet, you couldn't (to my recollection) muster up much concern over the hundreds of low income, minority/immigrant families wantonly destroyed in the name of "racial justice".
1) You could draw that conclusion if the storm damage was part of a larger story about regional or national storm damage. Or you could conclude that you picked some random insignificant "story" unrelated to any larger story.
2) Of course that's true. Yet in the larger context that I've pointed out they all three are newsworthy and fit the national picture. Further, it's entirely possible that they reason these stories aren't covered is that they don't fit the narrative that's being put out. That these stories weren't covered because they might cause people to question the larger narrative.
Of course, you simply provide 2 choices that are set up to get the result that you perceive will get the "right" answer. Regardless of any circumstances you choose to ignore.
Much like you ignore my pointing out your double standard.
Craig... "If you had started your initial comments with something like... "Oh my goodness, what happened to those individuals was horrible..."
That makes sense. Just like you did when I cited the story about the man who was killed by the cop.
Oh. Wait. You didn't do that.
Did you?
"1. It is NOT the media's job to report every story in the world. You don't do it and your silence on some story that you've not heard of is not an indictment of you, nor is it an indictment on the media."
Of course this is simply one more false equivalency. It's not my job to report ANY stories. I don't get paid to report the news. I don't hold myself out as a news reporting organization. I don't claim to to unbiased or fair or balanced.
"2. You have no proof of the stupidly false claim that the media is "actively trying to foment protest or outrage.""
Context, is always important. I've pointed out that in the context of this thread that any generalizations include multiple groups (obviously it's not 100% of any of the groups). In this case I wasn't specifically and only referring to the "media" as those who "foment protest or outrage". Of course, I really didn't make the claim you said I made, so there's that as well. Of course there ARE some in the media who are trying to "foment protest or outrage" and some who use what the media covers (or doesn't) to "foment" away.
"slandering important people"
1. If you are going to pretend that "slandering" is bad, then apply this standard consistently and clean your own house before expecting others to do anything.
2. Your generalization that "the media" are universally "important" and therefore are immune from "slander" is absurd.
3. Are you really claiming that there is absolutely NOT ONE, news person, news outlet, media figure, media outlet, etc that is NOT trying to "foment protest or outrage"?
"You ARE what you accuse the media of. And don't even recognize it."
1. No.
2. If you are going to continue with this kind of crap, then set your own house in order first before you bitch at others.
3. I'm not the media. I don't report news. I comment and offer opinions on topics that interest me or seem significant to me. Given your extensive journalism expertise, I'm surprised you make such a basic mistake regarding the difference between reporting the news, and expressing one's opinion about the news.
"You made a mistake and you were caught in it. Be an adult. Admit it and move on.
Repent."
It's seems strange that you are 100% certain that, when it comes to what you say, that you are right 100% of the time and I am mistaken 100% of the time. Yet somehow, when the roles are reversed, you still act as if you are right 100% of the time, while I'm mistaken 100% of the time.
It's just easier to look at your actions, and ignore your words.
"That makes sense."
If it makes sense that it would seem that you'd do what makes sense, yet still nothing.
"Just like you did when I cited the story about the man who was killed by the cop. Oh. Wait. You didn't do that. Did you?"
No, I actually didn't address it or your citation of it at all. You might ask why I didn't.
I haven't addressed it, yet, because I've been trying to respond to all of your idiocy and didn't think it was appropriate to respond to that incident until I'd had a chance to look it up and get a sense of what happened.
So, instead of going on the attack, venting my assumptions and prejudices, and bitching, I chose the path of patience and the path of gathering information before I addressed that one specific point.
Are you really suggesting that I should have responded to your mention of a name without doing some research first? That I should have acted in haste and ignorance, when patience and knowledge were more appropriate.
Since that comment, I have literally been responding to your bullshit, or doing my job. I'm sorry that your impatience for a "rhetorical victory" backfired. But, it's just one more example of your double standards.
I haven't addressed it, yet, because I've been trying to respond to all of your idiocy and didn't think it was appropriate to respond to that incident until I'd had a chance to look it up and get a sense of what happened.
Wow. You actually didn't talk about this story you didn't know about until you knew more. Funny. But I SHOULD have talked about stories that I don't know because... WHY is it okay for you to NOT comment on a story you don't know about but it's required that I do so?
Oh, because of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I get it.
Regarding the killing of Sean Monterosa. It's a horrible tragedy and it appears as though officer Tonn grossly overreacted and shot Mr Monterosa. It saddens me when any individual is killed whether intentionally or accidentally. I'm sure that Sean's friends and family are devastated.
There are a few interesting things about it that make me curious why you think it somehow invalidates my point, but It certainly seems incredibly tragic. It bears some similarities to the Justine Damond killing up here.
FYI, if you're going to play the "say his name" card, it's helpful if you spell his name correctly.
"Wow. You actually didn't talk about this story you didn't know about until you knew more. Funny."
Really, you're suggesting that I was somehow wrong to choose to take the time to do a little research and be able to have at least some rudimentary information before I commented. Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea?
"But I SHOULD have talked about stories that I don't know because..."
I'm not trying to tell you what you "SHOULD" have done at all. I AM pointing out that YOU made the CHOICE to respond as you did. I'm further making the point that because you CHOSE to comment out of your prejudices, assumptions, and preconceptions that my response was directly related to the nature and tone of your comment. The nature and tone that you CHOSE to use. I'm merely comparing and contrasting the choice I made to the choice you made.
"WHY is it okay for you to NOT comment on a story you don't know about but it's required that I do so?"
1. I never said that it is "okay" for me to NOT comment. Quite the contrary. I said that I chose to WAIT to comment until I was more informed. Does the difference between "not" and "not now" confuse you?
2. Likewise I never said that you were "required" to do research before you commented. I merely pointed out how I chose to handle commenting on topics where I lack knowledge. If you'll note the fact that I never said anything about what you should have done, you should have been able to figure out that I wasn't trying to "require" you to do anything. It's your choice to be informed or not.
"Oh, because of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I get it."
If you mean your "hypocrisy and inconsistency" then you'd be right. Or maybe you should read what I actually say before you respond to what you think I said. It could have deterred misunderstanding twice in this thread.
Now, I have to leave my office/computer and go meet with clients. If I don't respond to you as quickly as you'd like it's because I'm working, not because I'm ignoring you or scared or whatever bullshit you'd like to sling.
Regarding the killing of Sean Monterosa. It's a horrible tragedy and it appears as though officer Tonn grossly overreacted and shot Mr Monterosa...
if you're going to play the "say his name" card, it's helpful if you spell his name correctly.
Yes, I had a typo. As did you. TWICE. (It's Monterrosa, with two Rs...)
But thanks for the huge laugh.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Vallejo-officials-confirm-key-evidence-in-killing-15411421.php
you're suggesting that I was somehow wrong to choose to take the time to do a little research and be able to have at least some rudimentary information before I commented. Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea?
Not what I'm saying at all. The OPPOSITE of what I'm saying, actually.
As is so often the case when you read my words and tell me I'm saying something that is the opposite of what I just said.
In this case, I was using irony, which is perhaps the reason you missed it. Conservatives too often today seem to have a problem with words and irony.
What I was saying is that I have NOT commented on these stories I've never heard and the circumstances of those cases precisely because I had not heard of these stories nor did I know anything about the circumstances. And yet, I/the media are "remaining silent" because we "don't give a rat's ass..."
But never mind. It's just too difficult to talk with you, THEN go back and correct your misunderstandings, THEN explain to you what you're not understanding... and on it goes.
"But thanks for the huge laugh."
You're the one who brought his name up, not me. But, please laugh at yourself. The rest of us do and it would probably do you some good.
Dan, you see it's always amusing when you do this. First, if you think that "irony" translates well in this medium, then you are a bigger idiot than I previously thought.
But, when you talk about failing to understand, it would probably be a good idea to pick a better example. The example you chose literally ended with the phrase, "Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea?". Maybe the little ? thing threw you off, but that's the thingy that most people use when they are asking a question. In this case, I was literally asking you a question, to clarify if your comment was serious or poorly done irony. It's always hilarious when you do things like this. Now you'll go even further away from the topic trying to pretend that you didn't do what you clearly did.
"What I was saying is that I have NOT commented on these stories I've never heard and the circumstances of those cases precisely because I had not heard of these stories nor did I know anything about the circumstances."
Yet you clearly made some assumptions about them and some inferences about them in your ignorance and haste. Read the first sentence of your first comment again.
It's always interesting when you get so caught up in trying to preserve your ego and your pride that you say stupid things, ignore/hide from questions and substantive points, and try to drive the conversation in ways you think most helpful to your pride. As always it'll be interesting to see how much you ignore and how much you screw up due to your apparent need to stoke your pride.
In all of this, you can't even muster up the most minimal expression of (hell you can't even fake it) concern or care for the three specific individuals I cited.
I think heartless bastard might not be as hyperbolic as I thought in your case.
From a black gentleman named Chris Bidorini...
"I’m seeing a lot of my White/Conservative friends posting #JusticeForCannon and #SayHisName and asking why this case isn’t receiving “national attention,” in an attempt to show bias in the media, discredit the attention of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and change the narrative.
Yes, it’s a very sad, unfortunate story. It’s heartbreaking. But what are you looking to prove? What justice are you demanding? There was a full manhunt for his killer who was then charged with murder with no bond WITHIN 24 HOURS of the shooting. (Not weeks. Not months. 1 day.)
That’s the whole premise behind the BLM movement...
because a Black man (#AhmaudArbery) was attacked and shot by multiple White men and no arrests were made until 3 MONTHS LATER and ONLY after national attention, petitions, and marches. Stop trying to act oppressed. Want to demand justice? Demand justice for #BreonnaTaylor, a Black woman (and EMT working during this pandemic) who was killed in her sleep by police despite having not committed a crime and who’s killers have not been arrested even 5 months later. Her petition has 10+ MILLION signatures and still NO JUSTICE. Demand that..."
+++++
Understand the difference? Understand why racists and white supremacists and the ignorant are using the sorts of messages that you just used in an attempt to undermine and delegitimize (whether intentionally or not) BLM and why it's so wrong to do so?
I'm guessing not.
And after all this, what is the result? Dan still defends the disparity in reporting by choosing to attack your pointing it out. There is clearly a difference in the way race-related stories are reported by the vast majority of media. Stories like the murder of the five year old get some attention after it is pointed out that it got next to none at all in the initial period after its commission. But the media, BLM and other lefties in and outside of media would be all over it like stink on shit if it was a white guy executing a 5 yr old black child. This isn't a matter of imagination or false perception. This is the reality and Dan refuses to acknowledge it because he's a lying lefty himself, and that's what lying lefties do.
And then for Dan to criticize because YOU don't report all stories, or to pretend the point isn't valid because ALL stories aren't reported exactly the same is beyond moronic. It is a lie by virtue of having tried to make that case in the first place, as it doesn't at all reflect the point, to which Dan will give no legitimate response, because answering questions is for others...not Dan.
The real issue is not that all stories aren't reported the same. The issue is what stories are reported and why. To pretend there is no leftist agenda at play is, again, to lie. Journalism isn't about pushing an agenda. It's about reporting stories that have the greatest impact on the general population and doing so objectively and with as much detail as legally possible. It's NOT to simply report that "another black man" was killed by a white guy, and certainly to not do so while not giving the same level of attention when the races are reversed. More importantly, it's NOT about reporting with any reference to race at all where race plays absolutely no role, or to be damned sure you report ALL such race-related stories the exact same way.
This is so far from being the reality as to provide, yet again, more evidence that the press has become the enemy of the people. Dan objects to this truth because he aids and abets the enemy of the people being that he agrees with the harmful agenda being pushed.
To support his weak case, Dan links to an article requiring a subscription. I doubt he even read it himself.
Dan,
It’s interesting that the big case you cited is one where Sean was (essentially/appears) white, and the officer is being both prosecuted and sued, so he’s getting justice. As to Cannon, we’ll see how justice plays out, so I’m not calling for justice. I’m simply pointing out the absolute silence from the media and the left. I explained why I think it’s relevant, clearly you disagree.
Yet all this effort to to ignore 2/3 of the names you’ve ignored. And you think that trotting our sine magic negro who agrees with you shuts down any possible disagreement.
I’ll end by pointing out how much you’ve dodged and ignored in your obsessive quest to save face.
I’ll simply point out the reality that we can see what’s “behind” the BLM movement and you’ve certainly cast them in a light that they’re own words don’t justify.
But it’s a great job of moving the conversation in ways that don’t focus on your problems, dodges, and unanswered questions.
Good gosh. Craig speaks of media silence and Dan tries to run the stale falsehoods of justice denied.
People witnessed the murder of the 5 yr old. There was no doubt and thus an immediate arrest easy. But there was little media attention and no rioting.
Ahmaus Arbery died after assaulting and trying disarm a man with a legally carried shotgun. There were no immediate arrests because there was no crime committed. Arrests came after media attention and unjustified protests.
The same is true of the unfortunate Breonna Taylor, who died after cops returned fire after her boyfriend fired upon the cops. Cops aren't paid to take bullets while serving warrants, and thus Taylor's death is accidental at worst. Yet, not only did this tragic death receive media attention, it was commonly reported falsely.
Of course it's not only little white kids whose murders go without media concern. Many black kids die unjustly at the hands of scumbags far too frequently, and no one seems to care.
Somehow, the leftist media, fake Christians and the race-hustler industry gravitated to the deaths by cops or whites of mostly low-lifes or those too close to them (Taylor, for example) to trumpet as examples of injustice or police brutality. Then all the stops are pulled out.
The following is only on topic insofar as references to what the press decides to cover or not, as well as how it covers what it does report, and how that choice is part of what makes them the enemy of the people.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/08/7yearold_boy_in_georgia_died_from_covid19_media_leaving_out_key_details.html
Ive noticed a rash of identical copy/paste social media comments regarding the Cannon situation. The problem is that the talking points are wrong. No one was suggesting that Justice wasn't being done in his case, what is being suggested is that this horrific crime was met with absolute silence by the media and others. No one is suggesting that there should be protests, riots and destruction in his name, just that he's worth at least as much national attention as the recent string of children killed in Chicago.
The other mistake is that the ex cops who were involved in the killing of George Floyd are NOT escaping "justice", they haven't and won't "get off". They've been fired, arrested, charged, and will go to trial on multiple charges.
I'll at least give the copy paste folks more credit that Dan, they at least had the sense to start out by expressing concern for Cannon and sympathy for his family. So, despite being wrong about a couple of things, they got the part about showing humanity right.
Agreed.
However, I would instead submit that the cops involved in the Floyd case are not candidates for justice if they haven't done anything wrong. THAT is what will be found out at trial, should the trial be run properly with all pertinent evidence weighed as it should be.
And I feel compelled to say again that some evidence suggests no improper behavior by the cops contributed to the death of Floyd, who was, by one report, dying when the cops first arrived on the scene.
Art,
1. You seem to be buying the fiction that Justice means instant punishment. Justice is simply them going through the appropriate legal process and seeing what the verdict is.
2. My point is that the ex cops didn’t get a free pass, they are facing justice, and their guilt or innocence will be determined.
3. This idiotic notion that justice demands instant arrest, automatically being charged with the maximum charge, and automatic conviction that is prevalent among too many is part of the problem.
4. As per MPD policy the use of the kneeling technique of restraint is not allowed. So, at a minimum Chauvin engaged in improper behavior.
The chance of Chauvin getting off is minimal, which might actually end up being the antithesis of justice.
1. I was using the term as the "no justice, no peace" types use it, which generally means an expectation of punishment for perceived wrongs, not the real truth coming out with the appropriate consequences following.
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. I'll have to dig up the source that suggested the contrary, but what's most important is that according to the medical examiner, it had little to nothing to do with Floyd dying.
As to Chauvin getting off, if the videos are presenting all the details and if the medical examiner's report is accurate and given the weight it deserves, he may indeed get off given Ellison upped the stakes when he shouldn't have. In other words, the lesser charge that was originally lodged against Chauvin would have been easier to make stick:
1. Floyd complained about trouble breathing from the get-go.
2. Breathing issues are supposedly common from the drugs in his system.
3. He was resisting from the beginning, as confirmed by his friends in the car with him.
4. He asked to be put on the ground.
5. Body cam footage indicates requests by arresting cops for medical assistance.
6. Floyd's physical health was poor, particularly with regard to his heart.
Where's the "murder"?
1. Hence the confusion
4. That facet has been covered locally, I’m not sure about nationally.
I agree that Chauvin should not be convicted of murder, I do think that manslaughter is probably more appropriate.
Of course, he’ll likely get ruined by the wrongful death suit, which could be seen as a form of justice.
Floyd died in May. It wasn't until June 9 or so when MPD changed their position on restraint techniques such as that employed by Chauvin. Pror to that, there was a distinction made between choke holds (potential for fatality) versus neck restraints (minimal to no such potential). Put that together with the medical examiner finding no evidence of trauma to neck or airway and I don't know on what basis Chauvin can be charged at all. Later, I'll provide an article with more details.
According to local news, they banned the kneeling technique after another suspect died while it was being used on them. But, they’ve made additional changes recently .
It also looks like, according to training materials, that Floyd should have been put in a recovery position instead of continuing the kneeling.
Again, the body cam video indicated he requested that he be allowed to lie down. I admit that I've only watched it once, and might have the chronology and details off a bit, but there would also be the question of whether position would've mattered to a guy in as bad a shape as he was in when they arrived.
The point is whether or not ANY of the cops' actions played a role in Floyd dying, or would it have mattered even if an ambulance rolled up instead of the cops.
That’s true, however he didn’t ask for the knee restraint. MPD training also says that the knee restraint shouldn’t be used indefinitely and that they should be put in a recovery position after a period of time.
Either way, It’s a question for the trial.
"Indefinitely" is subjective.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/killed-himself-defense-argument-emerges-100047064.html
https://spectator.org/george-floyd-death-toxicology-report/
The latter was linked from the former and I believe I had read it once before and was glad to have come upon it again because of the details within. No doubt some would view this as some sort of rationale for "brutalizing" a black dude, because of course, once the claim is made of racist police brutality, there can be no facts reported that will make that claim the stupidity it is.
Post a Comment