ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [399] -- Stop All The Madness

[ Posted Friday, July 8th, 2016 – 16:42 PDT ]

We're going to open this week's column by quoting a Southern rock band from a while back. We have to admit that we never thought we'd ever quote this band, because Molly Hatchet wasn't generally known for deep and insightful lyrics (indeed, they were mostly known for the bandleader's propensity for whistling during their songs). But after their big blockbuster album, the band put out a followup which had one song on it with both a haunting melody and the saddest of lyrics, written after John Lennon's death. Today, they seemed the most appropriate response to all the carnage we've seen this week. So, from "Fall Of The Peacemakers," here are the thoughts of Molly Hatchet:

If ashes are ashes and dust is dust
At our journey's end then return we must
To the sands of the shore
White doves in flight
Peace to all
But tell me why the peacemakers fall
Must we bury anymore?

The hush of the crowd as the horse rode by
A black lace veil hid the tears from her eyes
And we all wept in silence
How many times must good men die?
How many times will the children cry?
'Til they suffer no more sadness
Oh, stop the madness
Oh, stop all the madness.

Amen. Stop all the madness... please. We simply have no other words to even attempt to explain or comment on all the shootings this week -- the two black men killed by cops, and the five cops killed by a racist and murderous sniper in Dallas. It is madness, and it must stop. How? We have no idea, we sadly admit.

Instead, we're just going to do what we normally do on Fridays, which is to take a look at the political news of the week, unrelated to the tragedies.

Donald Trump tweeted out an image originally circulated by a white supremacist this week, and then (as usual) refused to admit any sort of error and blamed all the fuss on the media. Because why would anyone think a Star of David with $100 bills behind it would be in any way anti-Semitic? Perish the thought! One Jewish Republican (and, assumably, some others who didn't make the news) decided he'd had enough of his own party's presidential nominee, and immediately quit the Republican Party. Look for this sort of thing to be a growing trend, as Donald finds creative new ways to insult large groups of voters.

Two people prominently mentioned as possible Trump running mates also distanced themselves from Trump this week, by turning down the veep offer before it had even been made. Also, more Republican officeholders are making the decision to just skip their party's national convention as well, but we'll get to all of that in more detail in the talking points part of the program.

Trump met in Washington with both House and Senate GOP members this week, but all did not go as swimmingly as planned. Trump lit into three senators who won't support him, and told the House meeting:

It would great if you could say we had an unbelievable meeting. "Trump loves us. We love Trump." It's going to be so good. Okay? Honestly, if we could say it is great, we have a unified party, I'll tell you what, you are going to see a difference immediately. That's what I'm going to say.

Towards the end, Trump returned to this theme:

If when we leave we could just go out and say, "We love Trump, he's going to be great." I love you, we're doing great. As a team, we can't be beaten. Say great things, because anything you say that's even a little -- well you know, they magnify it. Just say it's great. You gotta say great things. Any little negativity that you have, they are going to blow it up twentyfold. You've got to be positive.

Over on the other side of the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton had a rather rough week, even with the news that she wouldn't be indicted. F.B.I. director James Comey didn't have a whole lot of positive things to say about Clinton's actions, even if he did come to the conclusion that an indictment wasn't justified. The House of Representatives wasted no time, immediately calling him in for a hearing, so that all sorts of political posturing could happen, on camera.

The most likely outcome of the election is that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, Democrats probably take control of the Senate, but that the House remains in Republican hands. If this does come to pass, we can look forward to endless investigations of Hillary Clinton, beginning on her first day in office. The question may sadly become not "Will they impeach her?" but instead "How many times will they impeach her?" This may sound cynical now, but who among us really believes that a Republican House won't devote pretty much every waking moment to finding some way of taking Clinton down? It's happened before, after all.

Speaking of the House Republicans, Paul Ryan seems to be having exactly the same "herding cats" problem that so frustrated John Boehner. Ryan can't get his own caucus to agree on anything these days, which led to an amusing bit of irony. Darrell Issa reacted to Comey's announcement that Clinton wouldn't be indicted in truly petulant fashion -- he threatened to shut down the House entirely, and refuse to do any of the people's business. Which is where the irony comes in, because how would anyone tell the difference, really? It's not like they're doing much now, and they're about to scarper off onto the campaign trail for most of the rest of the summer and fall. So what, exactly, would be the difference, Darrell?

Speaker Ryan is also considering a monumentally silly political action -- he's exploring just how to punish those Democrats who took part in the sit-in protest a few weeks back. Nancy Pelosi had a beautiful reaction, upon hearing this: "Make my day. Make my day."

And let's end on one purely positive note, in an otherwise brutal week. The folks at NASA successfully put their Juno satellite into a polar orbit of Jupiter. Space flight is a risky business, and you never know if things are going to work out as planned, but from all accounts Juno's final maneuver ended its years-long journey exactly where it was supposed to wind up. That is a success everyone can applaud. Well done!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Hillary Clinton. This may come as somewhat of a surprise, since Clinton has generally had a pretty bad week all around. She started it off by being interrogated by the F.B.I., then she got raked over the coals by James Comey for her "extremely careless" handling of classified documents, and even though she escaped indictment her credibility and trustworthiness took a big hit. On all of those counts, Clinton had a pretty disappointing week.

But there was one silver lining for Clinton, and it was important enough that we have decided it rises to the level of the MIDOTW. Clinton took a big step towards getting Bernie Sanders (and his youthful followers) on board her campaign this week, by announcing her new plan for tuition-free college. It's not quite as expansive as Bernie's "tuition-free state college for all" idea, but it's pretty close. Clinton's plan will be means-tested, and only available to families making less than $85,000 a year (which will move up to $125,000 a year, eventually). Bernie's policy would have been all-inclusive rather than means-tested. But other than that, Clinton has essentially adopted Bernie's idea, rather than the more incremental tinkering around the edges she had suggested previously.

This is a big step towards truly unifying the Democratic Party, and the rumor now is that Bernie Sanders will appear with Hillary Clinton next week in New Hampshire to offer his full endorsement of her candidacy. This is an important step which hasn't happened yet, and which many didn't expect to happen before the convention. Bernie has been saying that Hillary had to move closer to his agenda before he could enthusiastically support her, and her move on tuition-free college was a big step in his direction.

We wrote about all this in more detail earlier this week, but we have to say we were indeed encouraged by Clinton's movement towards Sanders -- and (if true) Sanders deciding not to wait until Philadelphia to endorse Clinton. As we wrote earlier, we have no idea how many Sanders supporters this will convince, but it does give them a big reason to vote for Hillary Clinton (instead of just against Donald Trump).

For making this big step towards truly unifying her party -- even in the midst of all the email investigation fallout -- Hillary Clinton is indeed our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Hillary Clinton is a private citizen, and as a rule we don't provide contact information for such people, nor do we link to campaign websites, so you'll have to search Clinton's contact info out yourself, if you'd like to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Up until this morning, we had intended to also hand Hillary Clinton the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, since while the F.B.I. didn't recommend indicting her, James Comey certainly didn't "exonerate" her in any way. In his scathing press announcement (and then later, in front of the House committee hearing), Comey may not have provided enough information for a prosecutor to make a case, but he definitely proved that Clinton has lied about her email server out on the campaign trail.

Even though she heavily parsed her statements about the server -- knowing full well the level of scrutiny they would receive -- Clinton's assertions simply were not true. This isn't going to help her on the "trustworthiness" front, that's for sure. We fully expect lots of GOP ads during election season contrasting her statements with Comey's (especially that "extremely careless" line).

In addition to all this, the Washington Post has now created a page with a clock showing how long (over 200 days) it has been since Clinton held a press conference. That's not exactly the coverage her campaign needs right now, to state the obvious.

So, like we said, we fully expected to hand Clinton the MDDOTW award. Until we read this morning's news, that is. Now, we're going to let Clinton off the hook with just a (Dis-)Honorable Mention instead.

The reason for this late turnaround was the news that Representative Corrine Brown of Florida was indicted this morning. Here's the whole story:

The indictment alleges that [Corrine Brown] and her chief of staff, Elias "Ronnie" Simmons, set up a college scholarship fund in Virginia, raised more than $800,000 for it, and proceeded to spend a vast majority of the money on themselves "for personal and professional benefit."

Federal authorities allege they bought luxury boxes at concerts and football games in the D.C. area and that the nonprofit, One Door for Education, only handed out two scholarships worth $1,200. Federal authorities also say One Door was not properly registered as a nonprofit. The head of the nonprofit pleaded guilty in March to wire fraud.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell with the Justice Department said in a statement that Brown and her top aide used the nonprofit "as a personal slush fund."

The congresswoman and her chief of staff are officially charged on 24 different counts, including mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction and filing false tax returns.

Now, normally, we'd be willing to attach a caveat about "innocent until proven guilty" when giving MDDOTW awards for people who have merely been indicted. But if the head of the nonprofit has already struck a plea deal, it's a pretty sure bet that they'll be testifying against Brown in court. Which means there is little chance Brown is going to walk away unscathed from this indictment.

About the only good thing is the timing of the indictment, because Florida has yet to hold primaries for non-presidential races, meaning another Democratic candidate could win the nomination and salvage a chance of holding onto her House seat this November.

But, as you can see, running a "personal slush fund" trumps anything Hillary Clinton has done or said, so this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than Corrine Brown.

[Contact Representative Corrine Brown on her House contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 399 (7/8/16)

One program note before we get to the talking points. As you can see above, our odometer is about to turn over once again. We never thought we'd still be doing this when we started this column, almost nine years ago. But here we are! So next week we'll likely mark the occasion with a look back, and then for the following two weeks it'll be convention season, so we cannot guarantee we'll have the time to put together FTP columns (we'll be traveling to and from the Democratic National Convention, which will interfere with our normal Friday schedules). So this may be the last batch of new talking points we'll have for almost a month, just to warn everyone in advance.

As for this week's talking points, once again we find a wealth of riches to mine in the "dump on Trump" category, and -- also once again -- there is so much to choose from that we can fill our talking points almost completely (with one amusing tangent at the end) with just the snide things Republicans are saying about Trump. This trend shows no signs of abating, in other words. As Cleveland looms, we have to ponder the existential question: "What if they held a party and no one came?"

OK, that's slightly snarkier than the reality, but not by a whole lot. We've never seen such a flood of prominent party members refuse to even associate themselves with their party's nominee before, in fact. This is something new, folks. Eventually, we assume we'll have to report on what Democrats are saying about Trump, but so far the scathing rhetoric coming from his fellow Republicans is far worse than anything any Democrat has yet said.

 

1
   Number 9...

That's an obscure Beatles reference about a completely incoherent song, for those too young to remember.

"Donald Trump met with Republicans in Congress this week, and one House member asked him what his understanding of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution was. His response was, and I quote: 'I am going to abide by the Constitution whether it’s number 1, number 2, number 12, number 9.' Hopefully someone took him aside later and explained that Article 9 and Article 12 don't actually exist. The Constitution only has seven articles. But then again, who knows -- maybe Trump is planning on adding five or ten more? At this point, it wouldn't surprise me a bit."

 

2
   Another one bites the dust

These next two have titles from a Queen song. We do seem to be in "rock nostalgia mode" this week, for no particular reason.

"It's been pretty funny to see Republicans scamper away from the possibility of being named Trump's running mate. In any normal election, most politicians would jump at the opportunity to run for vice president, but this is obviously not a normal election year. Senator Bob Corker actually campaigned together with Trump this week, but then immediately took himself out of contention for Trump's veep pick. That's pretty astonishing. The turnaround was so abrupt as to induce whiplash in politics-watchers. Maybe Trump insulted Corker backstage or something? That could explain the reversal, I suppose."

 

3
   And another one down

Will the last to leave please turn out the lights? Thanks.

"Corker's not the only one this week to decline Trump's veep slot. Freshman Senator Joni Ernst also backed out of the running, saying she had more important work to do in the Senate instead. At this point, it's kind of like listening to your friends' excuses why they can't drive you to the airport, isn't it? What's that? Veep? Oh, no... sorry... I've got... um... a bunch of other big, important things to do, but thanks for asking!"

 

4
   Him, you know, that guy over there

Hoo boy.

"Even when Trump does manage to pick up endorsements, it seems the people endorsing him just can't bring themselves to even say his name. Here's Scott Walker -- who signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee, never expecting it would be Donald Trump -- through gritted teeth: 'Last August, I said I'd support the GOP nominee. It's now clear who the RNC delegates will vote to nominate. And he is better than she is.' Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the ages, is it? C'mon, Scott, you can say it: Trrrrruuuummmp! There! That wasn't so hard, was it?"

 

5
   I gotta stay in and wash my hair

These just get funnier and funnier, folks!

"When The Hill asked all Senate Republicans whether they'd be attending their party's national convention, only 36 of them definitely said they'd be going to Cleveland. The reasons for not going were even more hilarious than those given by Republicans declining Trump's veep slot. Don't believe me? Senator Jeff Flake (who in a meeting Trump had with Senate Republicans this week introduced himself to Trump as 'the other senator from Arizona -- the one who didn't get captured') responded, when asked why he wouldn't be attending the Republican National Convention: 'I've got to mow my lawn.' Ouch!"

 

6
   But the award goes to...

Now this right here is a what a political quote for the ages should sound like.

"Republican Senator Ben Sasse, when asked the same question about why he wouldn't be in Cleveland, had the best response yet. He deserves some sort of political metaphor prize for this one, really. Sasse said he, quote, will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some Dumpster fires across the state, all of which enjoy more popularity than the current front-runners, unquote. Wow, Ben. I mean, tell us what you really think of your party's nominee!"

 

7
   Make Inishturk great again!

OK, this one's just funny. Nothing like a little Blarney to end on. We should add that the video manages to be both amusing and insightful, and is well worth watching. One last note: the island looks exactly like Craggy Island from Father Ted, for those who are fortunate enough to understand that reference.

"The Irish island of Inishturk (population 58) is opening its arms to Americans who might consider fleeing their country, should Donald Trump somehow be elected president. They've even got a slogan -- 'Make Inishturk great again!' -- and a nine-minute video which explains the concept. The video ends on a rather jaw-dropping statistic: 28 percent of Americans would consider leaving the country if Donald Trump becomes president. I sincerely hope Inishturk has room for them all!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

449 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [399] -- Stop All The Madness”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 It's Trump's fault.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    who among us really believes that a Republican House won't devote pretty much every waking moment to finding some way of taking Clinton down?

    The Clinton Derangement Syndrome has come back with a vengeance. Of course, the entire Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Entertainment Complex is good at spreading disease and it would benefit financially from a President Hillary.

    She's always coming too close
    I wish she'd leave me alone
    I want her to stay by the length of my arm
    Or a 20-foot pole
    Keep her away
    The more that she gives me
    The hungrier I get, but I wouldn't give an inch
    If I was starvin' to death

    Peter Wolf

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The RNC really should make a rule against candidates who won't release their tax returns if they want to rid themselves of their tangerine nightmare.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    We simply have no other words to even attempt to explain or comment on all the shootings this week

    Really? No thoughts and prayers?

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The GOP was right to slime Comey at their wretched little witch hunt. He should be ashamed for sliming somebody he's declining to recommend for prosecution.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    I think its probably right that Hillary will be dogged by republican scandal-creating when she assumes office UNLESS the Dems figure out some kind of effective response. And they may. Back when the Clinton-take-down was started I really believe Dems in office just couldn't believe their fellow Congressmen would do what they did out of sheer malice. I think the Dems couldn't accept that people at that level could just be that shameless, low-down and scurvy. They know better now. They know there's no there there. And so does HRC.

    Up til now Dems have always cooperated -- remember how Rumsfeld? Rice? a couple of the Bushies just blew off subpeonas to appear in front of Dem committees? I think it's basically good that Dems respect the laws involved but at some point they have to say "enough". In some ways I think that's what this will all be about -- the showdown that's been building since Republicans decided anything goes in order to win.

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    [5] John: The GOP didn't actually have any right to slime Comey since they, themselves, were so despicable. But other than that quibble, yeah.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It looks like Hillary has decided not to meet the conclusions of the FBI investigation head on.

    Maybe it's just too late for her to admit to the seriousness of the mistakes she made in handling sensitive and classified information. But I think a more complete explanation from her for how and why those mistake were made and what she learned in the process, particularly in the wake of the investigation, would go quite a long way towards improving her credibility and the sense that the public has of her trustworthiness.

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    Everyone keeps saying she was careless and made mistakes -- which, exactly?She used her own server. That wasn't "careless" given the crappy level of security SOS systems have. It was a choice.

    It now turns out she didn't send a single classified document through email. The last 3 turned out to be marked in error. I think she was quite careful with information, in fact.

    You can say she shouldn't have broken a rule (about which I'm not sure I agree) -- but I understand the principle. But after that, where was she careless?

    I agree with Rude Pundit -- she should have come out and said "I used my own server because the SOS systems are crap and the rules unworkable. I think we need to look at these unworkable rules and bad IT because those who follow me shouldn't have to deal with that crap. F.U. Republicans; I'll talk to you after the FBI finds me not-guilty."

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It now turns out she didn't send a single classified document through email ... I think she was quite careful with information, in fact.

    Seriously?

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    Set aside the fact that it was her server. Then what?

  12. [12] 
    Paula wrote:

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding -- but a lot of fuss has been made over the idea that she was emailing classified stuff, when it turns out it's all be classified after the fact and most of it appears to be pretty innocuous. So what am I missing?

  13. [13] 
    Paula wrote:

    been classified after the fact

  14. [14] 
    Paula wrote:

    Reading Comey's statement it seems filled with stuff that sounds bad -- she used multiple devices -- to send work-related emails that didn't contain classified info. She purged her email periodically, as he notes, which is what people do. She didn't break laws about saving every email coz that wasn't the law until after she was gone. She turned over everything when asked.

    The chains he talks about have been debunked. The 3 classified emails have been debunked. She was a working person doing a job, getting info from lots of people and if you can't communicate by email what is the point of having it?

    There were times people needed responses and couldn't use SOS systems (after hours/weekend or from overseas).

    Someone along the way noted that not only did HRC do these things, so did the entire staff. I guess you can arrest them all. Or maybe you can look at what the rules and IT situation was and realize the rules were unworkable.

    Her home server turned out to not be hacked. SOS servers HAVE been hacked.

    Where, specifically was she "careless"?

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    The mistakes Hillary made had to do with using an unclassified email system for transmission of classified information. Whether or not the subject matter within the emails she sent/received were marked - in any way, shape or form - as being classified is really beside the point. Which is that she should have a general ability to discern between classified and unclassified subject matter and keep the classified stuff out of her personal and unclassified email system. And, that goes especially for those times when she used her email system while in "the territory of sophisticated adversaries" who could reasonably be assumed to be attempting to gain access to her communications.

    Having said that, I believe she could make a very good case for how and why she made these mistakes - rather than coming across as so defensive - and, in fact, Comey himself leads the way for her on this.

    I would really like to see her turn this whole sorry episode into a positive, on a number of fronts, not least of which her own credibility and a more effective and better resourced state department.

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    I don't think she's a careless person, nor a sloppy person, nor someone who didn't take her job seriously nor someone who wanted, in any way, to compromise security.

  17. [17] 
    Paula wrote:

    And, once again, it doesn't appear she actually sent unclassified information via her email. That's all been debunked. They were ALL classified later and apparently the agencies fight like cats and dogs about what to classify.

    I believe she did use SOS systems some of the time, as well. For stuff that really was sensitive.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The chains he talks about have been debunked. The 3 classified emails have been debunked. She was a working person doing a job, getting info from lots of people and if you can't communicate by email what is the point of having it?

    First, I have no idea what you are talking about here when you say the email chains have been debunked ...?

    Secondly, Hillary has said that she never sent or received classified information over her unclassified email system. Which presumes that she used other means of communication for sensitive subject matter. Right?

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    I agree that she comes across as defensive -- but I also think the "careless" slur is now just a sort of conventional wisdom that's not really accurate. Nor did she lie. She didn't believe what she sent was classified at the time, and it wasn't.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    My final word on this is that I hope she decides not to stay on the course she is currently on with respect to this investigation. Because, she isn't doing herself any favours by being so defensive and refusing to admit the obvious especially when there are valid and legitimate explanations for how mistakes were made and learned from.

    For me, it's really as simple as that.

  21. [21] 
    Paula wrote:

    The email chains Comey talks about. I'm trying to find the link that discussed them.

    Meanwhile, I said (though we probably crossed in the mail) that I believe she did use SOS systems some of the time, for sensitive material.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She didn't believe what she sent was classified at the time, and it wasn't.

    Okay, a few more words on this ... :)

    I suppose you can choose to believe that the FBI did NOT find what Director Comey said it found and that Hillary did not handle very sensitive or classified subject matter on her private and unclassified email system. That is up to you.

    Do you acknowledge that very sensitive and classified subject matter need not be marked in any way for it to be considered as being very sensitive and classified?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    We simply have no other words to even attempt to explain or comment on all the shootings this week -- the two black men killed by cops, and the five cops killed by a racist and murderous sniper in Dallas.

    And here I thought we were suppose to wait for all the facts to come in before we can compare likely justified shootings to assassinations of police officers..

    Silly me... :^/

    Look for this sort of thing to be a growing trend, as Donald finds creative new ways to insult large groups of voters.

    Ahhhh Another TRUMP IS TOAST prediction... What's this one?? The 15th?? 16th??

    They are becoming as accurate as my HILLARY IS TOAST predictions. :D

    In his scathing press announcement (and then later, in front of the House committee hearing), Comey may not have provided enough information for a prosecutor to make a case, but he definitely proved that Clinton has lied about her email server out on the campaign trail.

    Thank you.. Thank you ... Thank you... Thank you...

    Vindication, thy name is Michale

    :D

    But, as you can see, running a "personal slush fund" trumps anything Hillary Clinton has done or said,

    CLINTON FOUNDATION

    'nuff said.. :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Paula wrote:

    I don't disagree with your view that she might better handle the optics of this -- but I don't agree either -- I'm not sure what is the best way to handle it.

    But that's enough for tonight.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    'nuff said.. :D

    Thanks, Michale - we all appreciate it! :)

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    It looks like Hillary has decided not to meet the conclusions of the FBI investigation head on.

    Are you surprised??

    That Hillary would actually come clean and accept SOME semblance of responsibility???

    Maybe it's just too late for her to admit to the seriousness of the mistakes she made in handling sensitive and classified information. But I think a more complete explanation from her for how and why those mistake were made and what she learned in the process, particularly in the wake of the investigation, would go quite a long way towards improving her credibility and the sense that the public has of her trustworthiness.

    Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for ya... :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Paula wrote:

    but he definitely proved that Clinton has lied about her email server out on the campaign trail.

    Disagree. Where did he prove that? I was going to challenge Chris on that. I think the opposite has been proved: nothing she sent was actually classified until after the fact and at the time she sent it it was her belief that what she sent was not classified.

    Chris: what are you talking about?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Everyone keeps saying she was careless and made mistakes -- which, exactly?She used her own server. That wasn't "careless" given the crappy level of security SOS systems have. It was a choice.

    Exactly. And it was a choice that was extremely careless and showed bad judgement..

    How do we know this?? Because Director Comey, President Hussein Odumbo and Hillary Clinton herself said so...

    It now turns out she didn't send a single classified document through email. The last 3 turned out to be marked in error. I think she was quite careful with information, in fact.

    The scary thing is, you actually BELIEVE that... Despite all the facts to the contrary...

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding -- but a lot of fuss has been made over the idea that she was emailing classified stuff, when it turns out it's all be classified after the fact and most of it appears to be pretty innocuous. So what am I missing?

    Uh.... REALITY....

    Hillary sent and received 110 emails that were classified AT THE TIME THEY WERE sent and received..

    This is established as fact..

    You can choose not to believe this fact.. That is your prerogative...

    But it doesn't make it any less factual because you choose not to believe it..

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    nothing she sent was actually classified until after the fact and at the time she sent it it was her belief that what she sent was not classified.

    Chris: what are you talking about?

    Let my try to tackle that before I retire for the evening ... er, morning ...

    Quite a lot of what she sent and received was very sensitive and/or classified - if you take Director Comey at his word and I do - regardless of whether or when it was officially classified.

    Now, do I think she lied? No, I don't.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And while our nation mourns the brutal attacks and senseless assassinations of police officers....

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/08/16/3613924800000578-3681080-image-a-70_1467992777489.jpg

    President Hussein Odumbo has fun in Poland...

    :^(

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let my try to tackle that before I retire for the evening ... er, morning ...

    Ironic.. Yer just going down for the night and I am just getting up for the day... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Like two ships, passing in the ... or something.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Disagree. Where did he prove that? I was going to challenge Chris on that. I think the opposite has been proved: nothing she sent was actually classified until after the fact and at the time she sent it it was her belief that what she sent was not classified.

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
    -FBI Director Comey

    What part of AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT OR RECEIVED do you not understand??

    So, basically, what you are saying is that FBI Director Comey is lying...

    "Pretty bold statement coming from an ensign with only 3 months space duty under his belt."
    -Captain Hikaru Sulu, STAR TREK: VOYAGER

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like two ships, passing in the ... or something.

    heh :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  36. [36] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Talking Point 2

    Perhaps it wasn't an insult, per se. Perhaps, Corker just didn't want to make a McD runs for the Donald for the next few months.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Two people prominently mentioned as possible Trump running mates also distanced themselves from Trump this week, by turning down the veep offer before it had even been made. Also, more Republican officeholders are making the decision to just skip their party's national convention as well, but we'll get to all of that in more detail in the talking points part of the program.

    Of course, the same thing will happen when Hillary starts thinking about Senators for her VP selection..

    But, of course, it will be spin'ed a different way... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
    -FBI Director Comey

    That means if an email was sent by someone at the CIA, the CIA determined the email contained classified information. That doesn't mean that someone at the State Dept that received the email would have known the information was classified.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agitators hurl rocks at Phoenix police, chant ‘we should shoot you’
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/agitators-hurl-rocks-phoenix-police-chant-shoot/

    Ahhh Yes.... The "peaceful" and "tolerant Democrats..... :^/

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    That doesn't mean that someone at the State Dept that received the email would have known the information was classified.

    Several things wrong with that..

    1> There are emails that Hillary sent to her staff instructing them to remove classification headers..

    2> As Secretary Of State, Hillary SHOULD have known what was and was not classified.

    3> If in doubt, treat it as classified...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Paula,

    You make a good point [7], so I'm revising my comment to:

    Comey deserved to be slimed by his slimy GOP pals at that wretched little witch hunt. He should be ashamed for sliming somebody he's declining to recommend for prosecution. Slimy!

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Classification headers from other agencies would not apply to any State Dept. emails! If you put in a FOIA request for an email you sent to three different agencies with each agency you sent it to, you could get three very different responses to your request! One agency may give it to you with no information redacted, one may give it to you with only addresses redacted, and one might flat out not disclose any of the email to you. It's all according to the what the agency deems as being "classified".

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    And THIS ^^^^^ is what passes for "serious" discussions around here??

    "Fascinating...."
    -Spock

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, Listen.. Ya got one in between.. :D

    Classification headers from other agencies would not apply to any State Dept. emails!

    It depends on what you mean by "State Dept emails".. If you are talking about emails that stay strictly within the confines of the State Dept, then you would be correct..

    If you are talking about emails that enter the State Dept system from outside agencies and are passed around the State Dept... Yer darn tootin' those classification headers would apply....

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    [38-42] Listen: Right!

    [29] E: Right. That's why I'm wondering what Chris is contending.

    [41] John: Yeah!

  46. [46] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Justified shootings, really Michale??? When one of the black men shot, had a license to openly carry a gun? When he told the policeman that? When he also told the policeman he was reaching for his I.D. as he was instructed to by that policeman? When he was still shot, not just once, but five times by that very same policeman? And you really don't think a white suspect would have been treated differently, when in fact over and over, it has been proven that in fact they are?

    As for the police officers who were shot and those that were killed, that indeed is a terrible tragedy. But it should kind of put a lie to the myth once and for all that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, when more than a dozen armed police with a gun could not stop one bad guy with a military style weapon.

    Why is the NRA silent on the ability of black men to lawfully openly carry a weapon?

    Also, Michale, what about all the military style weapons that are out there now that are a threat to the police? The NRA are supposed to be such great supporters of law enforcement, yet the are the ones advocating for the wider and and easier availability of military style weapons that make the police out gunned, because, you know, the police cannot be TRUSTED, being as they need to be guarded against and feared as a possible tool of a tyrannical government.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    [29] E: Right. That's why I'm wondering what Chris is contending.

    Because that's what the facts clearly show...

    Michale...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justified shootings, really Michale??? When one of the black men shot, had a license to openly carry a gun? When he told the policeman that? When he also told the policeman he was reaching for his I.D. as he was instructed to by that policeman?

    If that's what happened, then you would have a point.

    But it's not, so you don't..

    The video clearly shows that Castile said, "I am armed" as he reached into his shirt....

    The cop reacted as if his life was in danger, which was reasonable under the circumstances...

    Just like Officer Darren Wilson reacted..

    This was a good shoot.

    And you really don't think a white suspect would have been treated differently, when in fact over and over, it has been proven that in fact they are?

    Yea?? Prove it....

    Also, Michale, what about all the military style weapons that are out there now that are a threat to the police?

    Pray tell, what is a "military style weapon"?? :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And while our nation mourns the brutal attacks and senseless assassinations of police officers...
    President Hussein Odumbo has fun in Poland..."

    And just how is Obama supposed to react? During a previously scheduled important NATO meeting with an ally that just activated a missile shield for Europe, during a totally unexpected event?

    Seems to me I remember a President Bush having fun at an elementary school while NYC and DC were being attacked during 9/11 and 3,000 Americans were dying.

  50. [50] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Of course, the same thing will happen when Hillary starts thinking about Senators for her VP selection..

    But, of course, it will be spin'ed a different way... :D"

    Hmmmm. And just a little while ago I seem to remember somebody named Michale crowing about how Joni Ernst was such a great choice to be considered for Trump's VP. Now I guess, not so much. that she herself is running away from the possibility like it was toxic waste.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You have two people who are intimately familiar with Law Enforcement and it's procedures and activities saying one thing..

    And then you have a group of political ideologues who have absolutely ZERO experience, training or expertise in the field saying another...

    WHO has more credibility here??

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    And just how is Obama supposed to react? During a previously scheduled important NATO meeting with an ally that just activated a missile shield for Europe, during a totally unexpected event?

    Oh I dunno.. Maybe show a little somberness...

    You can bet that if we had another Trayvon Martin, Odumbo wouldn't be yucking it up...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmm. And just a little while ago I seem to remember somebody named Michale crowing about how Joni Ernst was such a great choice to be considered for Trump's VP. Now I guess, not so much. that she herself is running away from the possibility like it was toxic waste.

    And if Warren says she won't accept the VP slot because she could do more in the Senate (AS PAULA HERSELF HAS SAID) will you describe it as "running away from the possibility like it was toxic waste"..??

    Of course not..

    THAT is what I mean by spinning it...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pray tell, what is a "military style weapon"?? :D

    Ya know, a kitchen knife is much like a bayonet...

    I suppose you would consider a kitchen knife as a "military style weapon" right? :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justified shootings, really Michale???

    Yes.. To people who don't have a political agenda, who KNOW the facts of the cases and who UNDERSTAND the field...

    Yes...

    JUSTIFIED shootings...

    If there is ANY prosecutions, it will be because of MORONS who are politically correct and more interested in appeasing the black community...

    Does the name Mosby mean anything to you???

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, I am not asking ya'all to go to the Academy and become cops..

    Just take a ride-along in an inner-city patrol.... See FIRST HAND what cops deal with and go thru...

    Until you do that, all ya'all are doing is spewing DailyKos/HuffPoop bullshit that has absolutely NO BASIS in reality...

    Michale...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pivoting back to Trump's VP selection..

    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn....

    An EXCELLENT choice...

    Not as good as Ernst, but still a SOLID choice...

    This would definitely allow Trump to decimate Clinton....

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    The common theme over the last couple commentaries is clear...

    RACISM COLORS EVERYTHING COPS DO...

    Fine...

    All I ask is that ya'all PROVE it....

    {{{chiirrrrrpppppp}}} {{{chirrrpppp}}}

    And here we are....

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    And how was YOUR day???

    http://sjfm.us/temp/shop.jpg

    Makes me almost believe in Global Warming!!! :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Paula wrote:

    [46] John M: Yep.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    [46] John M: Yep.

    JM speaks from ZERO experience or knowledge...

    Take a ride along or try one of the simulators...

    Until ya'all do, yer just spouting ignorance...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Paula wrote:

    [61] And yet, oddly enough, I find JM so much more credible than you.

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M. [46]

    Justified shootings, really Michale??? When one of the black men shot, had a license to openly carry a gun? When he told the policeman that? When he also told the policeman he was reaching for his I.D. as he was instructed to by that policeman? When he was still shot, not just once, but five times by that very same policeman? And you really don't think a white suspect would have been treated differently, when in fact over and over, it has been proven that in fact they are?

    He told the officer he had a gun as he was reaching for his ID, not before. This was his fatal mistake! If you are armed and stopped by the police, you need to keep your hands on the steering wheel or on top of your head and let the officer know where the gun is located. You DO NOT reach for the gun, the officer will remove it from your possession for you! If the officer believed he was going to pull the gun instead of his ID, then the shooting was justified. The law is very specific as to what actions justify the use of deadly force by an officer. Treat any dealings with the police as if you are having a conversation with a cobra: don't yell, stay calm, and do not make any sudden movements that might cause them to strike.

    And as for your comment that white supremacists are treated differently (better?) than blacks being "factual"...no. Every encounter is its' own event. There are no identical calls. It's like people pointing to the DOJ's Ferguson report that showed blacks were far more likely to be stopped for minor traffic violations than whites. On the surface, that sounds really bad; until you realize that Ferguson's population is over 75% black. The black community is much poorer in Ferguson than the whites living there. Poor people are less likely to spend money to fix their vehicles when they have minor issues that result in violations. The white community is also much older in Ferguson, and thus speeding tickets typically aren't being written for them as much as they are for younger drivers. When you take all of these factors into consideration, it would be extremely odd if blacks were not being stopped more often for traffic violations than whites were!

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M.

    I have to agree with you on your calling out the hypocrisy of the NRA and their twisted fear-mongering campaigns that only serve to push gun sales higher. Every shooting is like a cash register ringing a sale for them.

  65. [65] 
    Paula wrote:

    [63] Listen: "that was his fatal mistake".

    Re-read that from the POV of people who aren't in the police/married to police. You are saying it is the person's fault for saying something in the wrong order -- he did not say things in a way that made the officer feel safe, so the officer shot him.

    "Do not make any sudden movements that might cause them to strike?" It sounds like you are talking about a snake or wild animal.

    You are describing police as needing to be approached with the utmost caution in order to protect one's own life -- down to the order in which statements are made. You are describing police as ticking time bombs. You are not, in any way, increasing my confidence in the police. I know that's not your intention. It all seems to seem reasonable to you -- it's like you've been in a dysfunctional situation for so long you can't see how abnormal it is. That's how it comes across to me, anyway.

    Separately: "poor people are less likely to spend money to fix their vehicles when they have minor issues that result in violations". Or maybe poor people don't have the money to fix minor issues... So of course they need to be fined, just to make their lives even more difficult, AND, if they fail in any way to please the officer, well, life's rough, right? I know you don't mean it that way, once again. But you are operating from a very police-centric POV wherein the world exists to support the police and not the other way around.

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    [[64] Listen: agree.

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    @Paula - thanks for posts [9] and [65]. Well said.

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula [65],

    owning and carrying a firearm are huge responsibilities. part of those responsibilities is knowing exactly what to say and do when stopped by the police, and in what order. the reason russ says it's like being with a coiled cobra is that the cops know every traffic stop could be their last, and respond with quick and deadly force to anything that looks life-threatening, like someone potentially reaching for a gun. on the cop's side, if you think someone might end your life in a split-second, even the best training and judgment may fail.

    on the other hand, i also agree with JM - the odds in the US are that police may be even more reactive with black suspects than white suspects. it's not fair but statistically it's true, making it even MORE absolutely vital not to take any action that is unexpected or out of order. you need to know ahead of time that the second a cop knows you have a gun, you need to stay completely still, await instructions and follow them to the letter. it's not fair that owning a gun is even more dangerous for black people than anyone else, but it is. and sometimes even if you do everything right, you run into that 15% who will jump at any excuse to shoot you, no matter how flimsy.

    also agree with JM on the total hypocrisy of the NRA on 2nd amendment rights for black citizens.

    @russ [38],

    this is the point that CW and others ignore about the evidence, and the importance of intent. all the evidence, especially from the FBI investigation and interviews, indicates that clinton was NOT lying, and is STILL not lying.

    however, at the VERY least with the 8 e-mail chains containing top secret info, she (and state department lawyers who advised her) made a bad mistake to allow them on a server without enough security for anyone to even KNOW whether or not it was hacked. sure, there are issues with up-classification and over-classification, along with communication issues between departments. but something at the TOP SECRET level should be pretty unambiguous, no matter who's looking at it. and if it isn't, someone (no matter how under-staffed) isn't doing their job.

    JL

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    [61] And yet, oddly enough, I find JM so much more credible than you.

    Of course you do. Because he says EXACTLY what you want to hear, regardless of the fact that it is out and out wrong..

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    He told the officer he had a gun as he was reaching for his ID, not before. This was his fatal mistake! If you are armed and stopped by the police, you need to keep your hands on the steering wheel or on top of your head and let the officer know where the gun is located. You DO NOT reach for the gun, the officer will remove it from your possession for you! If the officer believed he was going to pull the gun instead of his ID, then the shooting was justified. The law is very specific as to what actions justify the use of deadly force by an officer. Treat any dealings with the police as if you are having a conversation with a cobra: don't yell, stay calm, and do not make any sudden movements that might cause them to strike.

    To quote Paula... "YEP".. :D

    The problem here is that people like John M, Paula, Speak et al, they go on and on about what the officer COULD have done.. Or what the officer SHOULD have done. As if they have ANY credibility to say that..

    But the point is not what COULD have been done or what SHOULD have been done..

    The ONLY question before us is, is what the officer did REASONABLE?? Did the officer have a REASONABLE belief that his life was in danger..

    The answer to that is CLEARLY yes...

    Good Shoot...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re-read that from the POV of people who aren't in the police/married to police. You are saying it is the person's fault for saying something in the wrong order -- he did not say things in a way that made the officer feel safe, so the officer shot him.

    No, it's the persons fault for DOING something that was extremely stoopid for him to do..

    he did not say things in a way that made the officer feel safe, so the officer shot him.

    Again.. No..

    The subject said things and did things that caused the officer to fear his life..

    Now, the ONLY question you have to answer is, was that fear reasonable?

    If you are honest, you would agree that it was...

    Good Shoot..

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    the reason russ says it's like being with a coiled cobra is that the cops know every traffic stop could be their last,

    A traffic stop is THE most dangerous activity a police officer does on a daily basis. Because it's the ONE activity that is fraught with unknowns..

    on the other hand, i also agree with JM - the odds in the US are that police may be even more reactive with black suspects than white suspects.

    Prove it...

    I know, I know, it's common Democrat Party lore that black people get a bum deal..

    But, it's like Donald Trump is a racist is common Democrat Party lore...

    When one looks at and examines the FACTS...

    It's all bullshit...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Separately: "poor people are less likely to spend money to fix their vehicles when they have minor issues that result in violations". Or maybe poor people don't have the money to fix minor issues...

    Then they shouldn't be driving.. If they drive, they have to accept the consequences...

    But you are operating from a very police-centric POV wherein the world exists to support the police and not the other way around.

    If the world wants to be protected BY the police then the world needs to support the police...

    It's your whole anti-cop attitude that is part and parcel to the problem..

    You demand higher standards from LEOs but you refuse to give them higher regard that goes hand in hand with the higher standards requirement..

    To put it in a different context, it would be as if an employer demanded a PhD in Physical Particle Sciences then put the Doctor to work scrubbing toilets...

    Higher standards require higher deference or higher respect..

    When that doesn't happen, you get an US vs THEM mentality.. And lo and behold, that is EXACTLY what is happening..

    Basically, the Left Wingery (N.E.N) wants lap dogs that will do the bidding of the Left Wingery but know their place...

    And the result?

    The Ferguson Effect...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Prove it...

    see liz's link on the prior post. read the article. it's proven.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The researchers said they did not gather enough data specifically related to police shootings to draw conclusions on whether there were racial disparities when it came to the fatal confrontations between officers and civilians so in the news.

    Like Listen said above, there are factors not in that study.. What was the racial make-up of the target locations??

    Basically that report established a conclusion and then went out and found data to support that conclusion and ignored data that didn't support the pre-determined conclusion...

    Even if... *IF*...I were to allow that a black person is more likely to make an officer wary than a white person, is that racism??

    A person in muslim garb is likely to make an officer more wary than a girl in a mini-skirt...

    There are inherent biases that ALL police officers have that have nothing to do with racism...

    Again, that's assuming that cops ARE more wary about blacks than whites.

    If I was a patrol officer and I pulled over a white guy with a bunch of nazi tattoos I would be a LOT more wary of him than I would be if I pulled over a black guy in a business suit...

    Race has nothing to do with ANY THING..

    Except when it comes to the Left Wingery (N.E.N.) blaming cops..

    Then race has EVERYTHING to do with it...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's not proof.. That's a study with a pre-determined conclusion and cherry picked data...

    It's propaganda... Nothing more..

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You mentioned in the previous commentary that you have questions on the shootings..

    Let's take the MN shooting..

    What questions do you have??

    And I have a question for you...

    Would there be any questions on these shootings if the subjects were white?? Would you have even HEARD about these shootings if the subjects were white??

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Don't get me wrong.. I firmly and unequivocally know for a fact that racism is afoot here.. There is absolutely ZERO doubt in my mind that racism plays a part...

    But there is absolutely NO FACTs to support the claim that racism played a part in the actions of the responding officers...

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    The stench of racism surrounds ALL of these types of shootings..

    But it's not coming from the cops...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Referring back to my suggestion ya'all try a local police simulator..

    I realize that ya'all's community police unlikely have a police simulator available to the general public... Maybe ya'all can cajole a reporter friend into helping you...

    Until then, there are some articles of anti-cop people like ya'all who DID go thru a simulator..

    Needless to say, they did not survive...

    I wore a belt around my waist that was packed with the tools I might need for my safety or that of others: a Glock handgun, a can of pepper spray and extra ammunition.

    As I drove around Anytown, U.S.A., a police dispatcher directed me to check out a noise complaint at a house. The garage was wide open and a surly-looking man ignored me as he revved the engine of a Harley Davidson motorcycle.

    "Sir? Sir?" I bleated.

    When he finally deigned to acknowledge me I could see he clearly was mad but he shut off the motorcycle. He wanted to know if his neighbor had made a noise complaint -- again.

    Then a woman stormed into the garage from the house and demanded to know what was going on. I ordered her to get back in the house. I don't know if she obeyed me because I was looking again at the man, who suddenly had a carpenter's hammer in one hand and was pacing a bit behind the motorcycle. I barked a few orders at him to put down the hammer and he did. I started to relax.

    In a flash, he grabbed a shotgun that was inches away from him on a shelf and blew a hole through my chest.
    http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/2015/05/22/daily-record-reporter-tries-police-simulator-gets-shot-lot/27786657/

    There are other links as well..

    Dallas Reporters, Politicians Humiliate Themselves in Police Shooting Training
    dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-reporters-politicians-humiliate-themselves-in-police-shooting-training-7136469

    Activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios
    fox10phoenix.com/news/1382363-story

    Until anyone can actually take steps to speak from knowledge, ya'all are just wallowing in ignorance.. Again, I don't mean offense at that.. You don't know about police work.. That is not your fault..

    Where your fault lies is commenting as if you do know about police work...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I realize this is a really tough concept for most of ya'all to wrap yer brains around..

    But 99% of the time, when a cop shoots a subject, it's justified..

    EVEN if that subject happens to be a black man...

    If ya'all are REALLY concerned about black men and the racial disparity in their deaths, look at black on black violence..

    Over NINETY SIX PERCENT of black men are killed by other black men...

    Less than ONE PERCENT are killed by cops...

    If ya'all (N.E.N.) put a tenth of the effort into addressing black on black violence that ya'all put in demonizing and attacking cops, you would save a THOUSANDS of more lives...

    But, I know.. I know.. Combating black on black violence doesn't push the Democrat Agenda, so........

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a somewhat unrelated not..

    Bashi,

    http://www.lcpdfr.com/lspdfr/

    Have you tried that???

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Treat any dealings with the police as if you are having a conversation with a cobra: don't yell, stay calm, and do not make any sudden movements that might cause them to strike.

    THAT is the best analogy I have heard in a long time....

    Kudos...

    People seem to think that they can talk to cops like they talk to their bitchy ex....

    But cops are people and, more often than not, they will react to people the same way that people react to them... If you show attitude to a cop, then the cop is likely to show attitude back...

    A respectful "yes sir" or "no sir" goes a LOT further to de-escalate a situation than a sullen "what the frak you hasslin' me for, biatch!!"...

    I have had citizens actually shake my hand and thank me after I wrote them a ticket..

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to agree with you on your calling out the hypocrisy of the NRA and their twisted fear-mongering campaigns that only serve to push gun sales higher.

    It's not the NRA that is pushing gun sales higher..

    It's Obama and the Democrats who are pushing gun sales higher..

    But, ironically enough, gun sales have increased by TENS of MILLIONS yet we're not seeing a corresponding rise in gun violence..

    So, WHO is using fear-mongering to push their agenda???

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    He told the officer he had a gun as he was reaching for his ID, not before.

    And THAT is the beginning and the end of the discussion on whether or not this shooting was justified...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Several police officers have been injured by Black Lives Matter protesters who took over the I-94 freeway in St. Paul, Minnesota Saturday night over the deadly police shooting of Philando Castile, attacking police officers who tried to clear the road by throwing chunks of concrete, rebar, rocks, bottles, fireworks and Molotov Cocktails. The attacks have gone on for three hours.
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/videost-paul-police-injured-attacks-black-lives-matter-protesters-rocks-rebar-bottles-fireworks/

    Keep yer heads in the sand, Democrats.. Stay silent and let incidents like this pass w/o the condemnation they deserve..

    Yer gonna GUARANTEE President Trump...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Is the email issue any more complicated than if you handle any classified emails or emails that may become classified that all emails should be treated as if they were classified?
    Don't we all agree that no one should shoot, kill, harm anyone else unless that person is shooting, killing, harming somebody?
    Arguing about all this and who did or said what is just buying into the "Grand Illusion" (Styx).
    And supporting Trump or Clinton is "Flirting with Disaster" (Molly Hachet).

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    I would be more than happy to take on the Friday Talking Points while you are at the convention.
    (Though I doubt it would make you happy)

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Arguing about all this and who did or said what is just buying into the "Grand Illusion" (Styx).

    You had me at STYX :D First concert I ever saw.. San Diego 1978 I think... Maybe '79...

    Don't we all agree that no one should shoot, kill, harm anyone else unless that person is shooting, killing, harming somebody?

    Pre-emptive self-defense is legally and morally justified... In other words, you don't have to wait to be shot at before you shoot someone.. Someone reaching for a gun is sufficient to employ deadly force...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    And supporting Trump or Clinton is "Flirting with Disaster" (Molly Hachet).

    Word....

    But with Trump, we don't KNOW it will be a disaster..

    With Clinton, it's a guarantee....

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Someone reaching for a gun is sufficient to employ deadly force...

    ESPECIALLY if someone *TELLS* you they have a gun...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-year-end/

    See! I have a study too...

    And, wonder of wonders.. It says exactly the OPPOSITE of what your study says.....

    Who would have thunked it...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/the-clinton-contamination.html?ref=opinion

    And this is the Democrat Party's chosen champion???

    Sad.......

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    i realize "good shoot" is jargon, but it's really offensive.

    Asking me to not speak COP is like asking ya'all to not speak LIBERAL.....

    For better or for worse, it's who we are..... :^/

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Paula wrote:

    [67] Balthasar: thanks!

    [68] nypoet: owning and carrying a firearm are huge responsibilities. part of those responsibilities is knowing exactly what to say and do when stopped by the police, and in what order. the reason russ says it's like being with a coiled cobra is that the cops know every traffic stop could be their last, and respond with quick and deadly force to anything that looks life-threatening, like someone potentially reaching for a gun. on the cop's side, if you think someone might end your life in a split-second, even the best training and judgment may fail.

    Granted to all. Now flip it. You could equally say: "a black person knows every traffic stop could be their last...if you think someone might end your life in a splits second Ben the best training and judgement may fail."

  95. [95] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: you insist the police deserve "higher regard" and then, over and over, make excuses for why their lapses in judgement is perfectly understandable, reasonable, the civilian's fault, etc.

    You are demanding positional respect -- and, as I said, a little of that goes a long way. Especially if they think like you do and assume everything they do is justified, everywhere, all the time. Once people think of themselves that way they are the least trustworthy of all.

  96. [96] 
    Paula wrote:

    [94] even not Ben!

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Michale: you insist the police deserve "higher regard" and then, over and over,

    Just as you insist that the police must be held to a higher standard..

    make excuses for why their lapses in judgement is perfectly understandable, reasonable, the civilian's fault, etc.

    There ARE no "lapses in judgement"... That's the point you refuse to acknowledge..

    What part of JUSTIFIED do you not understand??

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ray Tessig followed ALL the rules of engagement...

    Darren Wilson followed ALL the rules of engagement.

    George Zimmerman followed ALL the rules of engagement.

    Jeronimo Yanez followed ALL the rules of engagement...

    What evidence do you have that there were "lapses in judgement"...

    Oh yea... That's right.. A black man was shot.. :^/

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    A former Weigantian (can't recall his name) stated explicitly that ALL that is needed to "prove" racism is that a black person be involved...

    I never thought that would be taken to heart by any intelligent person...

    I guess I was wrong....

    So let me ask point blank..

    Can a white cop shoot a black person and it NOT be racism???

    Is that possible??

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The following link may be helpful in reducing some of the madness around these parts:

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

    If the shoe fits.....

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    . You could equally say: "a black person knows every traffic stop could be their last..

    Then it behooves a black person to be respectful and not do something stoopid..

    Am I wrong??

    "You're not wrong"
    -God

    But, here's the thing....

    It doesn't matter WHAT color a person is.. If you are a motorist in a car and you tell a cop, "I'm armed" and reach under your shirt???

    I can guarantee you that the odds are very VERY high that you WILL be shot...

    Color of the skin doesn't matter one whit....

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, I am not saying that Castile had to die. It's not like the Ferguson or Sanford shootings where human trash was removed from the gene pool..

    This shooting, like the Rice shooting, like the Garner death was tragic and is truly a shame..

    But the cop did NOTHING wrong... There were no lapses in judgement, there was no racism on the part of the cop, there was nothing but a mistake made on the part of the motorist...

    Hanging the cop to push a racist agenda is complete and utter bullshit...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    11 cops are gunned down in Dallas..

    "White people have to change.."
    -Crooked Hillary Clinton

    "Police must root out bias"
    -Hussein Odumbo

    Keep talking, Democrats...

    Yer gonna talk Trump right into the Oval Office....

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    [102] But the cop did NOTHING wrong... There were no lapses in judgement, there was no racism on the part of the cop, there was nothing but a mistake made on the part of the motorist...

    A mistake on the part of the motorist.

    A mistake on the part of the motorist.

    Hear that all motorists? Your helpful police spokesman wants you to know that you will pay with your life when you make a mistake --

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, explain how the shootings could have been avoided...

    minnesota: the officer could have taken cover, ordered the suspect to remain still. if it was an honest mistake on the motorist's part, he would have complied. if not, retreat and call for backup.

    baton rouge: the officers could have kept their distance and shouted orders, then used non-lethal force and numerical advantage to safely disarm the suspect.

    in neither case did the officers use their voice to control the situation. even IF one were to presume the shootings were justifiable, which is a big presumption, that doesn't mean they were the best decisions. "good shoot" does not mean a good choice, much less the best choice.

    I'm thinking, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto... bunch of monsters at night with quantum physics books. She about to start some shit, Zed. She's about eight. Those books are way too advanced for her. If you ask me, she's up to something. Honestly, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it. Or do I owe her an apology? That was a good shot though, right?
    ~men in black

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    in neither case did the officers use their voice to control the situation.

    This shows your ignorance here..

    If a suspect is reaching for a gun (which, in BOTH cases, the officers thought this was the case) then "voice control" is out the window...

    even IF one were to presume the shootings were justifiable,

    Barring any political intervention, they will be determined as justified...

    that doesn't mean they were the best decisions. "good shoot" does not mean a good choice, much less the best choice.

    Two problems with that..

    You have neither the training nor the expertise or experience to make such a determination..

    And you can ONLY make such a determination with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight..

    In the case of Baton Rouge, you don't even have that... The officers there were already fully engaged..

    It's easy to say from the easy chair of ignorance that they shoulda done this or they coulda done that... They could have called in sick and not been at work at all....

    But ALL of that is not relevant...

    The ONLY relevant question is are the officer's actions reasonable.. In that, did they have a REASONABLE belief that their lives were in danger..

    The answer is YES and therefore the shootings are justified...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm thinking, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto... bunch of monsters at night with quantum physics books. She about to start some shit, Zed. She's about eight. Those books are way too advanced for her. If you ask me, she's up to something. Honestly, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it. Or do I owe her an apology? That was a good shot though, right?
    ~men in black

    heh :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: you are making the batterer's defense: "I wouldn't have hit her if she hadn't made me so angry."

    You don't see it but it is chilling.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    minnesota: the officer could have taken cover, ordered the suspect to remain still. if it was an honest mistake on the motorist's part, he would have complied. if not, retreat and call for backup.

    baton rouge: the officers could have kept their distance and shouted orders, then used non-lethal force and numerical advantage to safely disarm the suspect.

    And if the officers could see the future, as you obviously can, AND had days to ponder their moves with the benefit of astral prognostication as you have had, they might have made those decisions..

    Hell, why not have EVERY officer on EVERY traffic stop call in the ENTIRE department, just in case something goes sideways..

    " For Christ sake, Sam, do you really think that's the same as two teenage marines executing a routine order that they never believed would result in harm? These guys aren't the Nazis."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    The officers made a reasonable call that went sideways... It happens. That's why being a cop is so dangerous..

    They made a reasonable call that fit the circumstances..

    The ONLY way you can call that decision into question is with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight..

    That's the ONLY way to do it..

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    See! I have a study too...

    that study does nothing to refute the sample of 19,000 that prove the likelihood of police being violent greatly increases if someone is black. the marshall project, which conducted the study you cited, found double the rate for blacks, relative to population.

    12.6% of the US population is black. 72.4% is white. relative to population, blacks are more than twice as likely to be killed. that's the study YOU cited.

    JL

  111. [111] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America, and you instinctively underestimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk" - Newt Blingrich

    It is more dangerous, in that they are substantially more likely to end up in a situation where the police don't respect you and where you could easily get killed. And sometimes for whites it's difficult to appreciate how real that is and how it's an everyday danger,” - Newt Blingrich

    Trump's dream VP is just itching for HilRod to win.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: you are making the batterer's defense: "I wouldn't have hit her if she hadn't made me so angry."

    "I wouldn't have shot him if he hadn't made me think he was going to shoot me."

    The fact that you can't see the difference between to two statements... THAT is what is chilling..

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the thing and there is just no getting around it..

    Ya'all made the EXACT same arguments in the Sanford shooting..

    Ya'all were wrong..

    Ya'all made the EXACT same arguments in the Ferguson shooting..

    Ya'all were wrong...

    Ya'all made the EXACT same arguments in the Staten Island death..

    Ya'all were wrong...

    Ya'all made the EXACT same arguments in the Baltimore death..

    Ya'all were wrong...

    Are ya'all seeing the same pattern that I am???

    Ya'all are wrong.. Completely, unequivocally and CONSISTENTLY WRONG

    What does that tell you about the MN and LA shootings???

    I'll give you a hint...

    You are going to be WRONG... AGAIN....

    Michale...

  114. [114] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Some people say that Roger Ailes has harassed more women than Cosby has rufied. The Republican War on Women even includes Fox Babes. Sad!

  115. [115] 
    Paula wrote:

    And, it took me a few minutes to recognize this -- I said upthread "flip it -- a black person knows a traffic stop may be their last...training and judgement may fail" and in the following posts Michale begins to assert that "there were no errors, no lapses in judgement", etc. by the police in these various shootings.

    Because, to admit that perhaps, on occasion, a policeman is in error and uses poor judgement would then have to mean maybe all those people who think some police have gotten too trigger-happy have a point. The people that think the police are as scary as criminals have a point. And we can't have that. So now Michale is asserting the police are ALWAYS right; NEVER WRONG; if things go bad it's always the civilian's fault.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    So now Michale is asserting the police are ALWAYS right; NEVER WRONG; if things go bad it's always the civilian's fault.

    I said nothing of the sort and I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth..

    I said that, in THESE cases, there were no lapses in judgement.. The cops (and Zimmerman) followed the rules of engagement...

    Which is why, in EACH and EVERY case, the use of force was ruled justified...

    If you have any FACTS to refute this..

    By all means.. Present them..

    But all you have is hysteria and innuendo.....

    Not a single fact to be found...

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Paula wrote:

    105, 110, 111: yep!

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If a suspect is reaching for a gun (which, in BOTH cases, the officers thought this was the case) then "voice control" is out the window...

    in baton rouge i didn't see the suspect reaching for anything. he was supine and his arms were out, nowhere near a weapon. in minnesota there's no video, but if someone says they have a gun don't they train you to establish voice control BEFORE he starts reaching for anything? i acknowledge my lack of expertise.

    however, at least from a lay perspective it sure seems avoidable just by giving prompt vocal instructions. if someone tells me they have a gun, it'd take me exactly a nanosecond to say FREEZE!!! don't cops still say that?

    JL

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have any FACTS to refute this..

    By all means.. Present them..

    But, as ya'all have proven in Sanford, in Ferguson, in Staten Island and in Baltimore....

    You HAVE no facts to support your claims..

    But it's funny...

    Out of ALL the police shootings in this country, ya'all ONLY have a problem with the ones who have black subjects..

    Why is that???

    Michale
    Michale

  120. [120] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that said, it's really dumb if the police have just found out you are armed not to stay still and wait for instructions. russ was 110% right about that.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    if someone tells me they have a gun, it'd take me exactly a nanosecond to say FREEZE!!!

    About the same time it takes for a man who is already reaching for his gun to draw it...

    Regardless, I have already agreed that there are a multitude of things the officer COULD have done..

    But that's not relevant..

    The officer DID what he did.. And was the actions A> in keeping with his training...??? B> reasonable under the circumstances...???

    The answer to both is YES...

    It's easy to second-guess with the benefit 20/20 hindsight... You continue to ignore this very salient point..

    Were the officers actions reasonable?

    That is the ONLY question you have to answer..

    Any answer other than YES shows an ignorance of police work or a partisan agenda at work.. Or both....

    I wouldn't question how you would view a teaching incident, even though I have been married to a teacher for 35 years... I would hope/expect you would afford me the same courtesy and respect..

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    that said, it's really dumb if the police have just found out you are armed not to stay still and wait for instructions. russ was 110% right about that.

    Complete agreement here... No argument whatsoever..

    In this case, the subject is to blame for the shooting...

    The officer did nothing wrong...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I wouldn't question how you would view a teaching incident

    now i know that is not true. you would absolutely question my view, and seek a second opinion, perhaps from your wife. acknowledging inferior expertise is not the same as accepting one professional's judgment without question.

    JL

  124. [124] 
    Paula wrote:

    [120] that said, it's really dumb if the police have just found out you are armed not to stay still and wait for instructions. russ was 110% right about that.

    Ah, really dumb. Hmm.

    So who are the professionals in this scenario? What were they trained to do? What standard are they trying to meet? Why is it the untrained civilian who pays the price? Why is the trained professional excused for over-reacting, but the civilian is damned for not staying still and waiting for instructions? I guess he was dumb: he thought the officer was competent. Big mistake.

    Good to know going forward: always assume the officer will shoot. Have a will made up, never drive other than a perfect vehicle, don't be black, if you're black don't own a gun, if you own a gun with a license don't have it near you, certainly not in a car, when you raise your arms and give up, don't complain when 5 guys pile on you or shoot you in the back (as was done to a guy last night in Texas: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/10/3796941/alva-braziel/

    Remember, the trained professionals are never wrong so it must be your fault. They are scared. You are scared. Their fear trumps yours. You're just a lowly civilian, they are the professionals. You must respect them up to and including when they shoot you because they were scared. Even when their's more than one of them, all armed, and just one of you.

  125. [125] 
    Paula wrote:

    Even when there's more than one of them...

  126. [126] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Of course, Blingrich underestimates the level of risk as well. He seems to be awaking to the threat caused by regular police thugs, but failed to mention the threat from unstable wannabe cops like George Zimmerman or pay-to-play cops like Robert Bates.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    now i know that is not true. you would absolutely question my view, and seek a second opinion, perhaps from your wife. acknowledging inferior expertise is not the same as accepting one professional's judgment without question.

    I stand corrected.. :D

    I apologize.. (BLUE MOON!!!) :D

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    What were they trained to do?

    They are trained to stay alive in a job where it is not that easy to do....

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I apologize.. (BLUE MOON!!!) :D

    thank you! an apology with beer is definitely the way to go!

    ;)

    JL

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:
  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:
  132. [132] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale says: "they are trained to stay alive".

    I see. That's what they're trained to do.

    Not to de-escalate. Not to protect and serve. But to stay alive. And on that basis, if they fear for their lives they can respond with lethal force.

    You are describing a group of people who, by virtue of their uniform, are to be given license to roam and kill at will. You are describing predators. You hold them to no standard of conduct other than their own perceived survival.

    To me, the acid test is exactly when people are frightened and panicking -- how does the officer handle it? There are plenty of examples of officers de-escalating and ending encounters with no shots fired. That's professionalism. It isn't acceptable to say police can simply shoot out of fear. That cannot be acceptable.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    To me, the acid test is exactly when people are frightened and panicking -- how does the officer handle it? There are plenty of examples of officers de-escalating and ending encounters with no shots fired.

    Just because it DOES happen doesn't mean it ALWAYS will happen..

    Every situation is different and trying to apply a ONE SIZE FITS ALL scenario to EVERY scenario is simply emphasizing your ignorance in the police field..

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    . It isn't acceptable to say police can simply shoot out of fear. That cannot be acceptable.

    That's why I didn't say it...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    if they fear for their lives they can respond with lethal force.

    Uh.... yea......

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    agreed about professionalism. legally justifiable poor judgment is still poor judgment. that goes for police officers in baton rouge AND whomever in the state department told hillary setting up a private server for official business would be just fine.

    JL

  137. [137] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Cops shit their pants at the sight of a black man running away and they openly admit that protecting themselves is their Number One Priority. What could go wrong?

    I'm not a fan of allowing them to use bombs to kill suspects. Dallas is lucky they didn't burn down 60 buildings like they did when they tried to evict the MOVE cult in Philadelphia.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    agreed about professionalism. legally justifiable poor judgment is still poor judgment.

    {{cough}} {{cough}} Hillary Clinton {{cough}}

    :D

    AND whomever in the state department told hillary setting up a private server for official business would be just fine.

    Kill joy... :D

    Actually, that's not accurate...

    AND whomever told hillary that using her private server from her Senate days for State Dept business would be just fine.

    There.. Now it's fixed..

    Also, it's pretty clear NO ONE in the State Dept told Hillary that using her private server was fine...

    Michale

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not a fan of allowing them to use bombs to kill suspects.

    I am sure Dallas PD takes your likes and dislikes into consideration every time they take down a scumbag..

    Jeezus, where did ya'all dig this guy up?? :^D

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    . . . or any time. Police gangs are clearly corrupt and unaccountable, that's the issue, but since I'm an old white guy, they probably won't shoot me for complaining about their outrages.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Police gangs are clearly corrupt and unaccountable, that's the issue,

    Micah Johnson??? Is that you???

    I guess we'll see JFC on the roof sometime soon taking shots at cops...

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wanted to get a response on a point I made above...

    Why is it we only hear about police accountability from ya'all when it's a black guy who is the subject??

    I mean, I know I have knocked ya'all for ya'all's lack of credibility over police tactics and procedures..

    But ya'all would be able to have at least a SMIDGEN of credibility if ya'all were as hysterical when it's a white guy that gets shot...

    As it stands now, because ya'all only say BOO when it's a black guy... Well, it's obviously nothing but a pure partisan agenda at work...

    Am I wrong??

    "You're not wrong"
    -God

    Gods I love that episode!! :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since we're talking about unanswered questions, here's another..

    Prior to Dallas, (O)BLM was pressuring the Democrat Party to accede to their demands as to the Democrat Party Platform..

    "real commitments against the police" is how JM put it...

    So, this begs the question...

    In the aftermath of The Dallas Solution, what is the Democrat Party willing to give the (O)BLM racist hate group???

    And the bigger question...

    Does anyone think that the (O)BLM racist hate group will be satisfied with what the Democrat Party wants to give them??

    Objectively speaking, near as I can tell, the Democrat Party is NOT going to give the (O)BLM racist hate group NEARLY what they want.. To do so would guarantee that President Trump will be elected in a landslide...

    But if the Democrat Party DOESN'T kow-tow to the (O)BLM racist hate group, then the (O)BLM racist hate group will DECIMATE the Democrat Party at their convention... Philadelphia WILL burn...

    It'll be 1968 Part Duex which will, in turn, guarantee that President Trump will be elected in a landslide...

    If there is a fault in my logic, by all means...

    Someone point it out....

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Paula wrote:

    [134-135] Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If all that is required is a cop feeling threatened then we're supposed to agree the shooting is justified, then we are anointing a group of people, who, by virtue of their uniform/belonging to a profession, are to be allowed to kill at will.

  145. [145] 
    Paula wrote:

    [136] nypoet: "poor judgement" -- there's a big difference between an administrative error a la the State Dept, and an error that results in an innocent person's death.

  146. [146] 
    Paula wrote:

    Finally, Michale, you just go right ahead and give me some examples of white people who were unacceptably shot by police and the police paid no price, and I will be every bit as outraged as I am now. I will not stint on the outrage --- don't you worry!

    Let's have them -- you just serve up some examples, imkay?

    And while you do that, make sure to recognize that you are now agreeing that this is something that happens, even to white people! Sometimes the cops screw up! And they get away with it! And they shouldn't! And something should be done!

  147. [147] 
    Paula wrote:

    Oh, one more thing. Every time you refer to BLM as a "rascist hate group" Michale, you reveal your own prejudice, not anyone else's.

  148. [148] 
    Paula wrote:

    Rude Pundit says it better than me:

    I watched the videos, like you, and I just don't know what to say anymore. I don't see how you can conclude anything other than that the two men are dead because they are black. Hell, the governor of Minnesota just said that he's sure Castile wouldn't have been shot if he had been white.

    I have long said that, at some point, what needs to happen is that cops need to condemn other cops, like Muslims after a terrorist attack. Usually, the response to that is how cops would never do that to other cops, that I don't understand their job, or something about the Blue Wall of Silence, the usual litany of excuses for why we can't evolve. But the Castile case seems to offer a situation where police officers can possibly, safely say, "Yeah, he fucked up and needs to be arrested."

    African Americans need to know that the police know the difference between right and wrong, protection and attack. That's incumbent upon the cops to show that their world isn't just easily killed black and readily defended white.

    We are stuck in this nation in patterns that we seem to be deliberately refusing to break, as if to do so would take away the status quo and reconfigure the power dynamics of our culture. A history of racism, the proliferation of guns, the shitty training of police, the militarization of local law enforcement, so much is bound up in these acts that we may never get to untangle it and try to come up with a new way of putting it all together.

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/07/at-loss-struggle-to-say-something-about.html

  149. [149] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    After 45 minutes of trying to find something to add, I can only say, "I second everything Paula has written." So there.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    are to be allowed to kill at will.

    No.. Are allowed to kill to save their own life or someone else's life..

    The Castile shooting was a tragedy... No two ways about it.. Just like the Rice shooting was a tragedy..

    But BOTH were justified shootings...

    You just can't get it thru your bigotry that sometimes a cop can do EVERYTHING right and something bad STILL happens...

    Oh, one more thing. Every time you refer to BLM as a "rascist hate group" Michale, you reveal your own prejudice, not anyone else's.

    By ANY standard or litmus test you want to name, (O)BLM is a racist hate group..

    The fact that you deny it says more about you than it does about anyone else..

    The fact that you (and EVERYONE ELSE) can't address the point made in comment #142 also says more about you than it does about anyone else..

    Finally, Michale, you just go right ahead and give me some examples of white people who were unacceptably shot by police and the police paid no price, and I will be every bit as outraged as I am now.

    The fact that I have to go out and FIND things for you to be outraged about proves my point made in #142 perfectly...

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    After 45 minutes of trying to find something to add, I can only say, "I second everything Paula has written." So there.

    Like I have always said..

    Without me here, this place would be nothing but an echo chamber..

    Nothing but "YEP"s and "DITTO"s as far as the eye could see... :D

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although, to be fair, I could count on Listen to keep ya'all straight (no pun intended :D ) on the reality of cops and justified shootings. :D

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Finally, Michale, you just go right ahead and give me some examples of white people who were unacceptably shot by police and the police paid no price, and I will be every bit as outraged as I am now.

    Tucson police shoot, kill armed man in mental-health call; officers not hurt
    tucson.com/news/local/tucson-police-shoot-kill-armed-man-in-mental-health-call/article_d1f0b242-4570-11e6-ae71-eb73388fa4fa.htmlTucson police shoot, kill armed man in mental-health call; officers not hurt

    Inmate dies while restrained at Casey County jail
    centralkynews.com/amnews/news/local/casey/inmate-dies-while-restrained-at-casey-county-jail/article_c67ded1a-450e-11e6-9fbd-f3c6c6a46231.html


    heraldcourier.com/news/tbi-investigating-fatal-police-involved-shooting-in-bristol/article_a895dafe-40b5-11e6-848e-9797885cb990.html

    Motorcycle collides with Indiana State Police patrol car, leaves one dead
    abc57.com/story/32360647/motorcycle-collides-with-indiana-state-police-patrol-car-leaves-one-dead

    UPDATE: Authorities identify man killed in shooting in Madison
    wkow.com/story/32351785/2016/06/30/police-respond-to-report-of-residential-break-in-on-madisons-near-east-side

    Police-involved shooting near Frederica after harrowing pursuit led by wanted suspect
    wdel.com/story/75826-police-involved-shooting-near-frederica-after-harrowing-pursuit-led-by-wanted-suspect

    Man Killed in Boone Officer-Involved Shooting
    whotv.com/2016/06/28/dci-investigating-boone-officer-involved-shooting/

    UPDATE: Man shot, killed by Bleckley deputy identified
    13wmaz.com/news/local/bleckley-deputy-shoots-kills-suspect/257286657

    That's just in the last 13 days.. All white people. All killed by police..

    I'll expect a 140 comment thread on each and every one of these deaths...

    Have at it...

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The man responsible for the murders in Dallas was Micah Johnson, but having said that, I do think the president by his inaction has contributed to a climate where these things can happen. This president and his administration absolutely do not have our back and make our jobs more dangerous.”
    - William Johnson Executive Director, National Association Of Police Organizations

    Yep....

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Baton Rouge video clearly shows the subject going for his gun in his pocket. You can clearly see the officer's hand on the subjects hand with the officer trying to stop the subject..

    This was a justified shooting...

    Again, the facts. Not hysterical racial emotionalism...

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Cop-Hater in Chief

    Obama's shameful record of anti-police rhetoric stretches back to beginning
    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obamas-shameful-record-anti-cop-anti-white-rhetoric/

    Yep....

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re #143

    If there is a fault in my logic, by all means...

    Someone point it out....

    Apparently, there is no fault in my logic....

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no way that we can totally separate ourselves in the United States of America and we are aware of that. We know that we are owed land, we are owed monies, we are owed restitutions and we are owed reparations.
    -Babu Omowale, National Minister Of Defense, New Black Panther Party

    That is your quintessential Democrat..

    Gimme, Gimme, Gimme...

    We are owed, We are owed, We are owed...

    I want, I want, I want....

    The only question remains is will the Democrat Party give, give, give and hand the White House to Trump??

    Or will the Democrat Party show these morons the finger and watch Philadelphia burn??

    My guess is that the Democrat Party will cave and go with the former...

    They have already started the caving process...

    "White people have to change.."
    -Crooked Hillary Clinton

    "Police must root out bias"
    -Hussein Odumbo

    President Donald Trump....

    "Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think??"
    -Vanillope, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If there is a fault in my logic, by all means...

    Someone point it out....

    Apparently, there is no fault in my logic....

    ex-silentio.

    143 had so much ad hominem distraction, so many unfounded assertions and predictions, most folks probably couldn't even understand what you were trying to say, much less respond to it.

    153 included a car accident, alcohol poisoning, and a guy who refused to stop advancing with knives in his hands. did you even read this stuff?

  160. [160] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Julie Hecht of the New Yorker Magazine is of the opinion that David Letterman should not have been permitted to retire. No word yet on her policy towards Craig Ferguson.

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    ex-silentio.

    Silence gives assent..

    143 had so much ad hominem distraction, so many unfounded assertions and predictions, most folks probably couldn't even understand what you were trying to say, much less respond to it.

    Ad Avoidus A Bullshititis

    153 included a car accident, alcohol poisoning, and a guy who refused to stop advancing with knives in his hands. did you even read this stuff?

    Yes.. In each and every case, a white person was killed by cops..

    So, you are saying that they ALL were justified??

    In other words, it's only un-justified when cops kill a black person.

    So say you all..

    Thereby proving my point that ALL of this is nothing but pushing a Democrats anti-cop agenda...

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's just in the last 13 days.. All white people. All killed by police.. I'll expect a 140 comment thread on each and every one of these deaths...
    Have at it...

    You asked for it. These are the cases that you cite to prove your point:

    1. Tucson: Mental Health call. Man advanced on police holding knives, including a butcher's knife. Police pled with the man to drop the knives, while backing out the door and out into the yard. Only when officers couldn't back up any further did they shoot the man.

    2. Casey County jail: Man dies of natural causes while in police custody.

    3. Bristol: man dies after pulling a gun on deputies serving a warrant at a motel. Race of the man not mentioned in the article. The attitude of the Police Chief toward this death, which is still being investigated, is striking: “They [the officers involved in the shooting] will be given new weapons and they get to take 24 hours off,” [the Police Chief] said. “We offer counseling and that sort of thing, if it’s needed. But we don’t let them go right back to work.”

    4. Indiana: Motorcycle accident. The officer's patrol car was making a U-turn, and the motorcycle hit the passenger side door. Upon investigation, police found that the motorcyclist's driver's license was suspended and the vehicle was not registered. No mention of whether or not the U-turn was executed properly.

    5. Madison: A man was seen by neighbors chest deep in Lake Monona, slapping the water and talking to himself. He then went into a nearby home and started smashing things while the family that lived in the home fled for their lives. The first arriving officer saw the suspect at the door of the home holding a pitchfork. The officer told the man multiple times to put down the pitchfork, but the man kept "aggressing" toward the officer until the officer "felt compelled to shoot".

    6. Frederica: police pursuit of a man in a stolen truck brandishing a handgun. When the truck was finally stopped, the man continued to wave the weapon in the direction of police (who describe the man as 'obstinate'). After issuing several verbal commands to drop the weapon, police shot him with a patrol rifle.

    7. Boone: officers responded to a call about a man threatening people with a gun. When officers arrived, the man pulled the gun out of his waistband and pointed it at the officers. He was ordered to drop the gun, but he raised it and began walking toward the officers, at which time he was shot.

    8. Bleckley: Police respond to a call about a man choking his mother and holding his mother and grandmother at gunpoint. When police arrived the man was in the yard with a rifle. Deputies ordered the man to drop the rifle, but he didn't, and was shot with a single gunshot.

    Although I couldn't find clear evidence of the race of the victims in all of these cases in the cites you provided, we'll agree for the sake of argument that these were all white men.

    Six of the eight cases described men who clearly exhibited mental health issues.

    One was a motorcycle accident, and while the officer might have been at fault, I'm throwing it out as irrelevant to the argument. I'm also throwing out the guy who died of natural causes on the same grounds.

    Of the six left, three of these cases involved men who were openly waving guns around, one was a man threatening police with knives, and another with a pitchfork.

    Only the sixth, the man at the motel died in a close-quarters gunfight, and the only apparent witnesses were the two deputies. There is no way to ascertain what actually happened in this case beyond those deputies' reports, so I'm throwing this one out for insufficient facts.

    In each of the five cases that remain, officers held fire and attempted to talk the suspects into dropping their weapons before firing. Each of the five were cases in which mental issues were clearly involved, and which might have involved "suicide by cop". I would also toss these out on grounds of irrelevance to the argument at hand, and in fact, Argument That Refutes the Premise, since the victims were all warned before being shot, unlike the recent victims of police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota.

    That's all of the examples you cited. None were shot before they brandished their weapons. None were shot in the back or while attempting to cooperate with police. None were shot within seconds of the police's arrival, or before police could properly assess the situation, and none of the victims had concealed carry permits.

    Michale, you are 0-for-8 on this one. I'd try a different argument.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you are 0-for-8 on this one. I'd try a different argument.

    Actually, you proved my point for me..

    Each and every case you justified for the officers because the subject was white..

    IF you applied the same thought processes to the MN shooting and the LA shooting, you would ALSO determine that the shootings were justified..

    But you CAN'T apply the same thought processes because the subject in THOSE cases are black...

    Thank you for proving exactly what I stated..

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    , since the victims were all warned before being shot, unlike the recent victims of police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota.

    Actually, in the LA shooting, the subject was not only warned several times, he was tazed at least twice and the officers attempted to physically restrain him.

    It was ONLY when all of that proved ineffective, was the subject shot..

    In the MN shooting, the subject did not give the opportunity for the officer to react in ANY way but deadly force..

    You see??

    Using YOUR thought processes, I just proved beyond any rational doubt that the shootings WERE justified..

    But you can't concede that because the subjects were black and you can't POSSIBLY concede that a white cop can shoot a black person and it be justified...

    Your enslavement to your political ideology prevents such a concession...

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just in the last 13 days.. All white people. All killed by police.. I'll expect a 140 comment thread on each and every one of these deaths...
    Have at it...

    You asked for it. These are the cases that you cite to prove your point:

    OK, that's ONE comment...

    Only 139 to go.. :D

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just in the last 13 days.. All white people. All killed by police.. I'll expect a 140 comment thread on each and every one of these deaths...
    Have at it...

    You asked for it. These are the cases that you cite to prove your point:

    OK, that's ONE comment...

    Only 139 to go.. :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, that's ONE comment...

    Only 139 to go.. :D

    "I'm not going to play these games with you!! I'm done!!! You're a troll!! You're a racist!!!"

    There... I saved you the trouble of responding.. :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    times, he was tazed at least twice and the officers attempted to physically restrain him.

    It was ONLY when all of that proved ineffective, was the subject shot..

    In the MN shooting, the subject did not give the opportunity for the officer to react in ANY way but deadly force..

    And I'll bet you a million quatloos that, barring any Mosby-esque bullshit, the after action reports from the investigating agencies will say EXACTLY what I stated above...

    These shootings were justified beyond any rational doubt...

    In deference to Joshua, I am refraining from using the LEO vernacular...

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    Behind a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: A $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-bill-clinton-speeches-20160711-snap-story.html

    Diva Bill Clinton...

    Representative of the Democrat Party..

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Each and every case you justified for the officers because the subject was white..

    I neither justified 'each and every case', nor did I take the victims' race into account in my analysis, but for the record:

    In none of the gun cases you cited (except for the motel incident) are any of these victims described as discharging these weapons. These men were shot for threatening to shoot their weapons. Was lethal force called for in all of these cases? I'm not sure. It sure seems easier to commit suicide by cop these days, whether you're white or black.

    Especially since displaying a weapon, and refusing to put it down, even when it has not been fired, is apparently a Capital Offense, punishable by immediate execution on the spot. Except for certain White militia types out west, apparently.

    For blacks lately, the offense punishable by death seems to be simply owning a weapon whether the weapon is licensed or not, and whether or not one is attempting to comply with an order.

    And you don't understand why folks are upset?

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the -OUCH!!! THAT'S GOTTA HURT- segment...

    Voters Question Clinton's Qualifications, Now Rate Trump Equal
    rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/voters_question_clinton_s_qualifications_now_rate_trump_equal

    X2

    Majority Disapproves of Decision Not to Charge Clinton on Emails (POLL)
    abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-disapproves-decision-charge-clinton-emails-poll/story?id=40445344

    OUCH!! That's GOTTA hurt.... :D

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Diva Bill Clinton...

    That's a laugh. Bill Clinton is a spartan monk compared to Trump and Gingrich. His first wife, Hillary, could tell you as much.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    These men were shot for threatening to shoot their weapons.

    As were both the LA and MN subjects...

    Especially since displaying a weapon, and refusing to put it down, even when it has not been fired, is apparently a Capital Offense, punishable by immediate execution on the spot.

    That's one way to put it.

    Another way, the way NON-PARTISAN people put it is, by refusing to put down a weapon, it implies an intent to use it..

    I responded to a man with a gun.. He was leaning against a building just holding the gun at his side. Myself and my partner approached the man with our guns drawn and ordered the man to drop the gun.. This went on for what seemed like an eternity, but in reality was less than sixty seconds.. At that point, the subject cocked the hammer.. To myself and my partner, that indicated an intent to use, so my partner and I opened fire...

    By failing to obey the lawful orders of police (in the LA shooting) that indicated an intent to employ the gun...

    For blacks lately, the offense punishable by death seems to be simply owning a weapon whether the weapon is licensed or not, and whether or not one is attempting to comply with an order.

    And there you make it a racist case where no racism is in evidence. SAVE for that a black man is the subject..

    Race has NOTHING to do with anything..

    Except ya'all's response to it..

    Michale

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a laugh. Bill Clinton is a spartan monk compared to Trump and Gingrich.

    The difference is Trump uses his OWN money...

    Clinton uses everyone else's money..

    That's the difference that makes all the difference..

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you don't understand why folks are upset?

    I understand PERFECTLY why the Left Wingery (N.E.N.) is upset...

    Pushing a partisan and racial agenda at the expense of LEOs everywhere...

    I understand it.. Believe me, I understand it..

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    OUCH!! That's GOTTA hurt....

    Oh cool, we get to play polls now..

    Rasmussen is an outlier,showing Trump at +2

    Pew Research shows Clinton ahead by +9
    Reuters/Ipsos has Clinton ahead by +11
    USA Today/Suffolk has Clinton ahead by +4-6
    Fox News' last poll had Clinton ahead by +6
    And FiveThirtyEight.com gives Clinton an average lead of +5.3 and a 73.2% chance of winning.

    I've got more..

    Clinton will have a tough time in the polls for the next two weeks or so - the inevitable result of the airwaves being dominated by people talking badly about you. She should bounce back to poll-health following the Democratic Convention, if she doesn't do so sooner following the spectacle of the Trump Show.

    The experts say "Ignore the polls 'til Labor Day."
    *sigh* If only we could...

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay, I'm game...

    I won't cite another poll if ya'all do the same....

    Deal??? :D

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    . She should bounce back to poll-health following the Democratic Convention,

    Unless, of course, (O)BLM burns down Philadelphia because they don't get their platform.. If THAT happens, the polls will be even WORSE for Clinton...

    You see, that's just my point..

    Ya'all spin the good and ignore the bad...

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Resist! Resist!
    the experts say,
    "Ignore the polls til Labor Day".
    As if we could,
    when pundits report results of polls of every sort,
    As if we would,
    when every minute,
    they tell us who they think will win it.
    As if we'd dare to doubt their science,
    paid for by consultant-clients:
    interviews by cell and phone with
    unlucky victims, home alone,
    conducted by a volunteer,
    or scratchy recording, hard to hear.
    Randomly sampled, or better yet,
    compiled from the internet.
    They suck us in, they pull our strings,
    they poll-test every single thing:
    Hillary, Trump or a Meteor?*
    We've never seen that one before!

    Relax! Relax!
    The polls will vary.
    September won't be quite so scary.
    Candidates will rise and fall,
    make some gaffes and wow the halls,
    But no matter what the polls present,
    It will be won by one percent.

    Balthasar

    *actual poll question

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fine...

    Let's ALL ignore the polls..

    The problem is, you only want to ignore the polls that say what you don't want to hear..

    And, of course, I respond with the polls that say what you don't want to hear..

    Ignore ALL the polls...

    Or acknowledge that polls that say what you don't want to hear are as valid as polls that say what you DO want to hear...

    As an aside, I guess you concede that the LA and MN shootings WERE justified, per your own thought processes?? :D

    Michale...

  181. [181] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As an aside, I guess you concede that the LA and MN shootings WERE justified, per your own thought processes?? :D

    No, you're not following me: what crime did those two men commit that carries the penalty of immediate death? Failure to comply?

    The Police have to find a better way of confronting citizens than to kill them on sight.

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar[181]

    And, that right there, is a lesson that police need to learn and be trained on. I'm surprised that they haven't and aren't.

    How is this not something that everyone can agree on?

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's ignore ALL the polls. Count me in!

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar[191]

    Very nice!

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    err ... Balthasar[179]

    Very nice!

    I can hardly wait to see comment #191!

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    During the protest in Dallas, before the sniper began his horrific assault on police officers, there were people in the street, amongst the protesters, carrying military style long rifles and openly exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

    When the shooting began and everyone starts running, how are the police supposed to distinguish between "good guys with guns" and "bad guys with guns"?

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, you're not following me: what crime did those two men commit that carries the penalty of immediate death? Failure to comply?

    In the MN shooting, no "crime" was committed.. But, as in the Tamir Rice shooting, it was a mistake. A tragedy, but a mistake nonetheless.. No one was "wrong" in the criminal sense..

    In the LA shooting, assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon..

    In BOTH cases, officers were in fear of their lives and that fear was reasonable..

    THAT's the part you don't get... And you don't get it because you lack context..

    Listen and I get it because we have context...

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Elizabeth,

    I imagine that you know that, when the shooting actually did break out, that a protester carrying an AR-15 handed it immediately to a cop, rather than learn the answer to that question for himself!

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the shooting began and everyone starts running, how are the police supposed to distinguish between "good guys with guns" and "bad guys with guns"?

    You would have to be a cop to understand..

    But, apparently, the cops did it right because ONLY the sniper was killed...

    Me, personally?? If I was in that situation?? Every armed person not displaying a shield would be on the ground, cuffed and stuffed...

    Let's ignore ALL the polls. Count me in!

    "If only.... If only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    Michale

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar and Michale,

    I wasn't speaking specifically but rather generally as incidents like the one in Dallas may very likely occur again.

    In open carry states like Texas, incidents like the one in Dallas could very conceivably end with a lot of innocent, gun-toting citizens dead.

    Does this concern either one of you?

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops

    Did someone say "STUDY"??

    But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

    Of course, that's a study ya'all won't like.. :D

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops

    Did someone say "STUDY"??

    But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

    Of course, that's a study ya'all won't like.. :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops

    Did someone say "STUDY"??

    But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

    Of course, that's a study ya'all won't like.. :D

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    ACK!!!!

  195. [195] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I think I may have finally figured you out! You're an anarchist!

  196. [196] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Every armed person not displaying a shield would be on the ground, cuffed and stuffed.

    ..says the 'gun rights' advocate. Oh, that's right: all the non-police were black. Cuff 'em & stuff 'em, eh?

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does this concern either one of you?

    Of course it's concerning..

    But those who responsibly carry... those who carry for the right reasons, will act responsibly when carrying in the presence of police...

    Those who don't.. Those who are the kind of people that Paula assumes... well, those people will be weeded out...

    Which will make people like Paula very happy, I am sure...

    This is not a gun control issue... No matter how much someone wants it to be...

    This is a justifiable use of deadly force issue..

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does this concern either one of you?

    Of course it's concerning..

    But those who responsibly carry... those who carry for the right reasons, will act responsibly when carrying in the presence of police...

    Those who don't.. Those who are the kind of people that Paula assumes... well, those people will be weeded out...

    Which will make people like Paula very happy, I am sure...

    This is not a gun control issue... No matter how much someone wants it to be...

    This is a justifiable use of deadly force issue..

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..says the 'gun rights' advocate. Oh, that's right: all the non-police were black. Cuff 'em & stuff 'em, eh?

    And again with the racism...

    What part of *COLOR BLIND* do you not understand???

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was an interesting study, Michale.

    But, like the one I cited earlier, it doesn't answer some of the most critical questions about how police make decisions about the use of deadly force.

    I think an important discussion point is how police, when confronted with a citizen brandishing a weapon that could inflict deadly force (guns, knives, baseball bats etc.), can make effective use of less than deadly force in an effort to de-escalate situations.

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, like the one I cited earlier, it doesn't answer some of the most critical questions about how police make decisions about the use of deadly force.

    That's because you can't answer questions like that with a study...

    Every situation is unique.... THAT's the point ya'all don't get...

    I think an important discussion point is how police, when confronted with a citizen brandishing a weapon that could inflict deadly force (guns, knives, baseball bats etc.), can make effective use of less than deadly force in an effort to de-escalate situations.

    Again, there is no formula for that.. One solution that might work in one situation will get you killed if tried in a different situation..

    Police officers are TRAINED to handle these situations..

    Is it really SO FAR-FETCHED to understand that a cop can do everything right but STILL shoot someone??? EVEN if that someone is a black person??

    If you can't understand that concept, no amount of STUDYs will help answer your questions..

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, like the one I cited earlier, it doesn't answer some of the most critical questions about how police make decisions about the use of deadly force.

    That's because you can't answer questions like that with a study...

    Every situation is unique.... THAT's the point ya'all don't get...

    I think an important discussion point is how police, when confronted with a citizen brandishing a weapon that could inflict deadly force (guns, knives, baseball bats etc.), can make effective use of less than deadly force in an effort to de-escalate situations.

    Again, there is no formula for that.. One solution that might work in one situation will get you killed if tried in a different situation..

    Police officers are TRAINED to handle these situations..

    Is it really SO FAR-FETCHED to understand that a cop can do everything right but STILL shoot someone??? EVEN if that someone is a black person??

    If you can't understand that concept, no amount of STUDYs will help answer your questions..

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am really sorry about all the double taps.. I am doing my best to be gentle with my trackball button....

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For example, as a lay person who has no personal experience whatsoever with police or policing, the actions of the officer involved in the recent Minnesota shooting, based solely on the video taken by the victim's girlfriend, struck me as odd.

    The stance he was taking seemed to put himself in a very dangerous position. He didn't seem to be putting enough distance between himself and the victim, didn't take the time to wait for back up, seemed to react badly after the shooting ...

    Maybe it's just my inexperienced perspective but, I would like to hear a LEO critique this officer's behavior - what he did right, what he did wrong, what can be learned from his actions that day.

  205. [205] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In open carry states like Texas, incidents like the one in Dallas could very conceivably end with a lot of innocent, gun-toting citizens dead.

    Does this concern either one of you?

    Of course it does. I repeat: death is a bad result, regardless of who causes it, and regardless of who dies. It's bad when cops shoot assholes, it's bad when assholes shoot cops, and it's even bad when assholes shoot assholes.

    We could try ending the carnage, rather than vying for who gets shot the most.

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As for studies, Michale, a lot of what you say makes sense to me.

    There is something that may be of benefit, far beyond what any study can do. And, that is a national data bank, under the auspices of the US Department of Justice, on all police involved shootings.

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    We could try ending the carnage

    How to go about doing that is fodder for an informative and on-going discussion, on a national basis and at the local level.

    Best in class learning is an important aspect of this discussion and I still believe that we have a lot to learn from the chief of police in Dallas.

  208. [208] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's bad when cops shoot assholes, it's bad when assholes shoot cops, and it's even bad when assholes shoot assholes.

    You left out another category, Balthasar.

    But, I'm sure you also think it's bad when cops shoot those who don't quite rise to the level of "asshole" in situations that might have been resolved with less than deadly force. I'm just sayin' ...

  209. [209] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, that is a national data bank, under the auspices of the US Department of Justice, on all police involved shootings.

    Isn't that on the GOP's 'Do Not Study' list, or is it still only the CDC that's not allowed to study gun violence?

    I've been watching you two spar over Studies.

    The trouble with studies is that one has to look very, very closely at who paid for the study, who conducted the study, what the premise of the study was, and where it stands in relation to its peers.

    Like, for years nobody was allowed to study the positive effects of marijuana, so anti-pot advocates could always say truthfully, "There are no studies that find any positive benefits to pot smoking." When its positive benefits were finally studied, they found enough to get it classified as medicine in many places.

    And, as John Oliver pointed out recently, just because a study is rigorously performed and meets every high bar for scientific accuracy, doesn't mean that the media, or even the professional journals, will resist the temptation to overplay or mis-report the study's findings to get a headline. Scientific studies are usually too narrowly focused to allow findings to be applied generally. As a result, an awful lot of information can quickly become an awful lot of mis-information.

  210. [210] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But, I'm sure you also think it's bad when cops shoot those who don't quite rise to the level of "asshole" in situations that might have been resolved with less than deadly force. I'm just sayin' ...

    Of course, and neither am I equating the term 'assholes' with anyone in particular (except to the extent that the right seems to believe that anyone shot by the police must be one).

    I've been allowing myself more latitude and hyperbole today than usual...

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've been watching you two spar over Studies.

    A careful observation would see that I'm not sparring over studies. Studies are inherently incomplete in their analyses.

    A data bank would provide the useful kind of information that would provide a basis for improving policies and practices.

  212. [212] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A data bank would provide the useful kind of information that would provide a basis for improving policies and practices.

    And I forgot to say that I agree with that, wholeheartedly.

  213. [213] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Isn't that on the GOP's 'Do Not Study' list, or is it still only the CDC that's not allowed to study gun violence?

    Unsure, though I don't see why the GOP should be in a position to stop such collection of data.

    I do know that the Justice Department has been trying to compile statistics on police involved shootings but has received little cooperation from police departments. Why is that?

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The stance he was taking seemed to put himself in a very dangerous position. He didn't seem to be putting enough distance between himself and the victim, didn't take the time to wait for back up, seemed to react badly after the shooting ...

    Thank you for proving my point that lay people are not qualified to pass judgement on instances such as this..

    It was a routine traffic stop... The officer approached the vehicle and asked for ID.. All routine..

    The subject... NOT the victim, but the subject, said, "I am armed" and reached into his shirt...

    Now, let me ask.. WHY should an officer A> call for back-up on a routine traffic stop???

    and...

    B> Put "enough distance" between himself and the subject when the ONLY issue at the time is a busted tail light???

    Maybe it's just my inexperienced perspective

    It is, but I don't hold that against you. You, at least, acknowledge your ignorance...

    In the MN shooting, there was NOTHING in the traffic stop or NOTHING in the demeanor of the subject that would lead ANY officer to believe that "distance" or "back up" was required..

    This particular shooting started and was over in less than 3 seconds...

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    , I would like to hear a LEO critique this officer's behavior

    That's what you HAVE been hearing since Friday....

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    This particular shooting started and was over in less than 3 seconds...

    "They're saying they can have the catapults fixed in 10 minutes."
    "Bullshit, this thing'll be over in 2 minutes!! Get on it!!"

    -TOP GUN

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Speaking of experience, have you ever, as a LEO, shot and killed a fellow citizen?

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of experience, have you ever, as a LEO, shot and killed a fellow citizen?

    I have had in my LEO capacity on 4 separate occasions, been forced to employ deadly force... Two of which I have mentioned here...

    This does not include my military years...

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I see you didn't fully answer my question but, I understand if you don't wish to do that.

    I'm moving on, Michale.

  220. [220] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wait ... would your time in the military ADD to the number of fellow citizens you have used deadly force on?

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wait ... would your time in the military ADD to the number of fellow citizens you have used deadly force on?

    I never claimed it was "fellow citizens"...

    Having to kill someone in a LEO capacity, it really doesn't matter whether or not it was countrymen... or women...

    There is also a distinct difference in killing in a LEO capacity vs killing in a military capacity..

    But all of that is neither here nor there in the discussion of justifiable use of deadly force. The vast majority of LEO's go their entire career without firing their weapons, save for the range...

    However, each and every one of them likely have close calls that they can aptly and with expertise, explain what the officers in LA and the officer in MN went thru...

    Sure, a layman could offer such inanities such as "Maybe the officer could have ducked!!" or "Why didn't the officer shoot the gun out of his hand!!" or some other such BS...

    But that is nothing more than irrational monday morning quarterbacking in pursuit of a partisan agenda....

    The actions of the officers was lawful and reasonable...

    That's the reality...

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I never claimed it was "fellow citizens"...

    But, that's what I was just asking ... moving on now because we're getting nowhere, fast, unfortunately.

  223. [223] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nowhere fast, because argumentation solely for the sake of arguing is apparently more appealing than a thoughtful search for solutions. Which, I might add, is pretty much par for the course, here. :(

  224. [224] 
    Paula wrote:

    Stopping in briefly -- too busy today for much commenting but will eventually respond.

    This, from a black MD in Dallas who helped with the injured police after the shootings, in a KOS diary: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/11/1547323/-This-Dallas-surgeon-s-response-to-last-week-s-shooting-is-utterly-profound

    You talk about the emotional impact. It's much more complicated for me personally. It's not just about that one night. It's about the racial undertones that affect and impact all of this. So it began for me much before those cops came through the door that evening. I don't know what I'm going to do about that. But right now, it is certainly a struggle. Where I'm standing with law enforcement, but I also personally feel and understand that angst that comes when you cross the paths of an officer in uniform, and you're fearing for your safety. I've been there. And I understand that.

    But for me, that does not condone disrespecting or killing police officers. And it's something I'm struggling with constantly. And I truly don't know what I'm going to do next. [ Inaudible question ] Yes, I do. So, I have a daughter. I make sure -- I do simple things when I'm out in public. When I see police officers eating at a restaurant, I pick up their tab. I even one time a year or two ago, I bought one of the Dallas P.D. Officers some ice cream when I was out with my daughter getting ice cream. I want my daughter to see me interacting with police that way, so she doesn't grow up with the same burden that I carry when it comes to interacting with law enforcement. And I want the police officers to see me, a black man, and understand that I support you.

    I will defend you. And I will care for you. That doesn't mean that I do not fear you. That doesn't mean that if you approach me, I will not immediately have a visceral reaction and start worrying for my personal safety. But I'll control that the best I can and not let that impact how I deal with law enforcement.

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, that's what I was just asking ...

    And I was telling you that it doesn't matter, in the context of LEO operations whether it's a "fellow citizen" or not..

    Put another way, do you think it's any less traumatic for a BP officer to shoot an illegal immigrant that is trying to kill him then it is for an LAPD officer trying to stop some scumbag American from trying to kill HIM???

    But, in answer to your question, yes. I have had to kill in the line of duty, both as an LEO and as a military member...

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    This, from a black MD in Dallas who helped with the injured police after the shootings, in a KOS diary: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/11/1547323/-This-Dallas-surgeon-s-response-to-last-week-s-shooting-is-utterly-profound

    If this was an issue of race, then this would be relevant...

    But it's not, so it isn't...

    The only racism is coming from the Left Wingery...

    Michale

  227. [227] 
    Paula wrote:

    [226] And here is what you cannot seem to grasp: it doesn't matter how often you assert that race is not an issue, when people of color say, from all walks of life, that they are viscerally afraid of the police, people like me believe them and not you. You are insisting that people do not feel what they feel and you are insisting their experiences are different than they are.

    I grasp that you have a POV as a former cop. I see that as cop-centric. Indeed, everything about your life: former cop, former military, sells security systems for a living, predisposes you to a authoritarian/force-centric, criminals/enemies are everywhere! POV. It makes you extraordinarily biased in favor of that POV, to the point that you will not concede the police can make mistakes. You agree to "tragedy" but not "error".

    The rest of us live in a different place and see the role and behavior of the police differently.

    You posted a list of white-people-killed-by-police. Do you think the police erred in those instances? If not, which part am I supposed to be outraged by? If so, what is your suggestion for how they don't err in the future?

    If you cannot admit to police fallibility you are ineffective as a spokesperson for your cause. Because the rest of us know full well people screw up; I don't buy that the Pope (who I like) is infallible. I certainly don't believe all police are.

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, that's what I was just asking ...

    And I was telling you that it doesn't matter...

    Thanks, Michale, for proving the point of [223].

    It's quite remarkable that, as you said, the vast majority of LEO's go their entire career without firing their weapons in the line of duty, and yet you have done so at least four times.

  229. [229] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, that's what I was just asking ...

    And I was telling you that it doesn't matter...

    Thanks, Michale, for proving the point of [223].

    It's quite remarkable that, as you said, the vast majority of LEO's go their entire career without firing their weapons in the line of duty, and yet you have done so at least four times.

  230. [230] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    I really had to think about how I could best respond to your reply [65] because the points you made very extremely valid. The police cannot just shot someone and claim that they were afraid for their life and it is automatically considered "justified". The laws in every state require that their belief that their life was endangered must be "reasonable" for it to be justified. The SC state patrol officer who shot a driver who he had told to get his ID from his wallet was indicted because his belief that he was in danger was not deemed reasonable and thus the shooting was not justified.

    I said that the driver made the fatal mistake of announcing he had a gun while reaching into his shirt, giving the appearance that he might be drawing on the officer. The officer did exactly what his training was meant to have him do: stop someone from shooting him or anyone else. I kid you not, there are scenarios in training videos that are almost identical to what occurred! I do blame the victim for causing his own life to be taken. This is why I don't think gun ownership should be a right for every citizen. You should have to pass tests and show that you understand the threat that having a gun can present to you and those around you before you are able to have a concealed weapon permit.

    When a person reaches for a gun, they are considered more of a threat than a person holding a gun in their hands (but not pointing it at anyone), in how officers will react to them. Someone commented on how the officer responded right after firing the shots. He was in shock, which is not unusual is those circumstances, but his training kicked in and kept him going.

    I am going to repeat comments I know I have made before when I say that I am sick of how the media reports police shootings. I read an article the other day that claimed Eric Garner was "killed by the police for selling loose cigs" and called Michael Brown an "unarmed black teenager gunned down in the streets". Garner died because his body went into respiratory failure during a struggle with police. If you are playing tennis and have a heart attack, no one says that your tennis opponent murdered you! Brown physically attacked and attempted to disarm a police officer when he was shot. Officer Wilson should have allowed Brown to take his gun and kill Wilson with it is what I guess they were trying to say. That was the most likely alternative in that scenario. When people comment on how Brown would have been starting college, I like to point out that he would most likely have been facing the death penalty had he gotten the gun from Officer Wilson and that college was no longer an option when he chose to attack an officer.

    Again, I want to encourage everyone who reads this to make the effort and do a ride-along with your local police department so that you can see for yourself what the job of a police officer is like and so you can ask them any questions about the job that you have.

  231. [231] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [229],

    I have a friend who has been shot three times in the line of duty. He's an instructor and an incredible officer, not someone who made stupid mistakes that resulted in him getting shot. Officers rarely ever "act", they almost always "react" to their environments. And who Fate decides to put in those scenarios really is random. Officers that are forced to take a life, and I do mean "forced", are more likely to suffer from depression, have higher rates of alcoholism or chemical dependency, and are much more likely to commit suicide than those that never have to discharge their firearms. Even those shootings that are deemed "completely justified" can have serious repercussions for the officer involved.

  232. [232] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Listen,

    Of course, I can fully appreciate all of that.

    But, clearly, there are officers who do act/react badly and resort to use of deadly force when other options are available. And, these are the situations that need to be addressed.

    By the way, please thank your husband, Russ, for his reply the other day. Hope to hear more from him.

  233. [233] 
    Paula wrote:

    Listen: I appreciate you thoughtfulness in responding -- taking time to think about it :-)

    I can't really comment on whether individual shootings are justified or not and appreciate you have a more "informed" view on these -- but also, as we've discussed, a view that can't help but be colored by your experiences and insider perspective, which might lead, at times, to the police-centric POV I mentioned. (Which Michale exhibits by a power of 10 :-) The question of "justification" can be viewed broadly or narrowly. I think law enforcement tends to the broad view and the public tends to the narrow. I still feel the police need to be the "responsible" people when dealing with armed citizens, all things being equal. I don't think we're going to agree on that, although we do agree it would be better if there were just a lot fewer armed people running around.

    And I can agree that the media is often not helpful when these sorts of things happen. I absolutely agree gun-owners should have to go through lots of hoops and lots of training, etc.

    And, despite Michale's rants to the contrary, I am not anti-police but I think we have a problem that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. And, indeed, both of those things are starting to happen! But, they wouldn't have happened if lots of dirty laundry hadn't come out first.

    My husband worked security when he was a student at Cleveland Institute of Art back in the 1980's. He was technically part of a private police force that handled what we call University Circle in Cleveland (where the college, Severance Hall, Cleveland Museum of Art etc. are located). University Circle was literally surrounded by Cleveland ghettos at the time; 99% black and poor. At that time crime in the area was high but he tells me when he was trained the emphasis was very much on de-escalation and in the four years he worked security there were only 2 shootings by the University Circle police.

    So when you say an officer's training kicks in I believe you. I just think there's been some mighty questionable training going on.

    Further I think local police have been militarized and that's been a bad thing.

    I think an awful lot of police are also rightwing in orientation, and they have been inculcated in a "black people are dangerous" mindset, as well as a "danger! crime!" mindset. Rightwing media constantly trumpets the idea that the world is coming to an end, people are in danger all the time everywhere, everyone needs to be armed, open-carry, open-carry, open-carry!! The NRA spends lots and lots of money to promote such views because they sell guns.

    I've also read (we personally know guys like this) that a lot of cops buy and sell guns (legally) as an extra source of income. Meanwhile Republicans have been starving states of money which has lead to police forces using petty crimes as revenue generators, and, as it happens, those crimes are often committed by poor people, and inner cities are filled with majority poor black people.

    So there's a pretty toxic mixture of influences and confluences out there teeing up very bad outcomes.

    And I believe black people are on the receiving end of low and high levels of police harassment to an extent most of us have no conception of. I believe black people have every reason to fear police contact and that is not something we can just brush off. Canaries in the coal mine.

    I believe a percentage of cops are just plain jerks who like throwing their weight around and bullying those they can get away with bullying. All groups have their jerks -- it's not unique to policing. But police-jerks have forms of power at their disposal that most other groups do not. So police-jerks are worse than other kinds of jerks and must not be allowed to get away with abuses.

    I also believe a percentage of the police are basically walking wounded. They've been traumatized by their jobs and may not be in full control of themselves. You note to Elizabeth that police who have killed suffer depression, have high rates of suicide, etc. Just like returning veterans. I sympathize completely.

    But there has to be a constructive reaction to all of this that makes sense and it can't be either/or where we're expected to be "for the police or for BLM" when we can be for both.

    Josh Marshall has a good take, I think, on the racism/police issue: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/how-does-this-happen

  234. [234] 
    Paula wrote:

    Listen: my reply to your very thoughtful response has been eaten. Maybe it will appear later.

  235. [235] 
    Paula wrote:
  236. [236] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I should thank you. We sat down and talked more about his job than we probably ever have in a single sitting, and I learned a few new things from it! Here is one thought that came from our conversation:

    Have we become a society that is so uncomfortable when it sees physical conflict and no longer thinks corporal punishment is acceptable that we do not know how to react when we do see the police having to use physical force to compel compliance? The Eric Garner video is a great example. As hard as it is to watch that video because of the outcome, the truth is that there was nothing that came anywhere close to being excessive force in the video, much less "police brutality"! We have a generation that has grown up believing that a "time out" is the worst consequence they can expect as punishment for their breaking the rules. That isn't how it works with life and death situations. People complain because of the "militarization of the police", but the police must strive to be one step above what they will face on the streets. Those vests they wear aren't there as a fashion statement. Four officers were executed a few years ago in a neighboring town's coffee shop. There was no warning, the killer walked in and just shot the officers for no other reason than the uniforms they wore. There isn't another profession that is targeted for violence as much as the police are. When Devon is at work, if I am outside and see a patrol car that isn't his coming up the street towards the house, my heart stops and I pretty much hold my breath until they drive past.

    One other problem seems to be that people do not want to understand how the law works, they just expect certain results. I don't think that people are willing to learn exactly why certain shootings are considered "justified" if they want the officer to be found guilty. I had one person tell me that they wanted Officer Wilson indicted not because of the facts of the case, but because of what he had come to represent to the black community! This is why I have a hard time with BLM: no one is pointing at Michael Brown's actions and telling the children watching that what he did was wrong and could get them killed if they were to do the same things -- they say that Brown was only shot because he was black. And when the children never learn the truth, how can we be surprised when history repeats itself?

    And you are correct that there are situations that are not handled well, and when there is any misconduct then there must be repercussions. We do hold police to a higher standard, and when they fail to perform at the level expected of them, change is required.

  237. [237] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Listen,

    Glad to hear that!

    In the Garner case, why didn't any of the officers provide first aid?

  238. [238] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And you are correct that there are situations that are not handled well, and when there is any misconduct then there must be repercussions.

    Well, there's the rub ... there never seems to be any repercussions, at least not in the well publicized cases where one might reasonably assume that there should be repercussions.

    In any event, that respectful national discussion just may have begun, at long last ...

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    [226] And here is what you cannot seem to grasp: it doesn't matter how often you assert that race is not an issue, when people of color say, from all walks of life, that they are viscerally afraid of the police, people like me believe them and not you.

    Of course they are going to SAY that...

    People love to play the victim... People love to have a REASON why their lot in life is the pits.. People LOVE to blame something else for their woes.. So they don't have to look in a mirror and think, "Hmmmm Maybe *I* am the problem..."

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's quite remarkable that, as you said, the vast majority of LEO's go their entire career without firing their weapons in the line of duty, and yet you have done so at least four times.

    Don't think I don't appreciate the irony...

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, I want to encourage everyone who reads this to make the effort and do a ride-along with your local police department so that you can see for yourself what the job of a police officer is like and so you can ask them any questions about the job that you have.

    I have encouraged that myself but now I am having second thoughts...

    Do I want to subject fellow officers to a hostile and hateful ride along?? :^/

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, clearly, there are officers who do act/react badly and resort to use of deadly force when other options are available. And, these are the situations that need to be addressed.

    Fine.. WHEN that happens, then we can address them..

    But the problem here is that ya'all (Listen, yer the exception) THINK it's the case *EVERY TIME* a cop shoots a black person..

    THAT is the problem...

    By the way, please thank your husband, Russ, for his reply the other day. Hope to hear more from him.

    Whoaa now??? Did I miss something??

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, clearly, there are officers who do act/react badly and resort to use of deadly force when other options are available. And, these are the situations that need to be addressed.

    Fine.. WHEN that happens, then we can address them..

    But the problem here is that ya'all (Listen, yer the exception) THINK it's the case *EVERY TIME* a cop shoots a black person..

    THAT is the problem...

    By the way, please thank your husband, Russ, for his reply the other day. Hope to hear more from him.

    Whoaa now??? Did I miss something??

    Michale

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, clearly, there are officers who do act/react badly and resort to use of deadly force when other options are available. And, these are the situations that need to be addressed.

    Fine.. WHEN that happens, then we can address them..

    But the problem here is that ya'all (Listen, yer the exception) THINK it's the case *EVERY TIME* a cop shoots a black person..

    THAT is the problem...

    By the way, please thank your husband, Russ, for his reply the other day. Hope to hear more from him.

    Whoaa now??? Did I miss something??

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    crap... :(

    Anyone wanna spring for a new trackball?? :(

    Michale

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Even those shootings that are deemed "completely justified" can have serious repercussions for the officer involved.

    And that is exactly what galls me about people like Paula who scream, "THOSE OFFICERS SHOULD BE PUNISHED!!"

    Does she HONESTLY believe that they cop who shot Tamir Rice is not being punished!???

    Any punishment the courts can dish out is NOTHING compared to the punishment that the cop is doing to himself...

    The officer in MN will likely undergo the same hell...

    It's one thing to take out some scumbag who so richly deserves it. I doubt Darren Wilson loses much sleep. I know George Zimmerman doesn't... It's likely the officers in the LA shooting won't have much of a problem either, beyond the initial shock and the depression that comes with taking a life...

    Living with taking a life is hard, no two ways about it. But living with taking a life that was a mistake??

    No punishment???

    That's simply another indication that people are COMPLETELY ignorant...

    Michale

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you cannot admit to police fallibility you are ineffective as a spokesperson for your cause.

    Of course I can.. And I have... That SC shooting was a bad shoot and the cop was indicted. And deservedly so..

    But the difference between you and me is that I don't automatically assume the cop is wrong JUST BECAUSE they shoot a black person.

    You do..

    I gave you 8 instances of cops killing white people and you didn't say boo.....

    But let a cop shoot a black person?? And you are hysterical to no end...

    So, of the two of us, which is the worse spokesperson??

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you cannot admit to police fallibility you are ineffective as a spokesperson for your cause.

    Of course I can.. And I have... That SC shooting was a bad shoot and the cop was indicted. And deservedly so..

    But the difference between you and me is that I don't automatically assume the cop is wrong JUST BECAUSE they shoot a black person.

    You do..

    I gave you 8 instances of cops killing white people and you didn't say boo.....

    But let a cop shoot a black person?? And you are hysterical to no end...

    So, of the two of us, which is the worse spokesperson??

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [236 -7]

    In the Garner case, why didn't any of the officers provide first aid?

    They were not aware that he had actually gone unconscious. To be honest, he was handcuffed and laying still...until they were ready to transport him, they weren't going to engage him in any way that might have gotten him worked up again! The one thing they might have been negligent of was not monitoring him closely while he was handcuffed and lying chest down. There is a fascinating medical theory about why Garner's body shut down and he died. It's a condition referred to as "excited delirium" which includes positional asphyxiation. This is why police do not hogtie people as often as they used to.

    Well, there's the rub ... there never seems to be any repercussions, at least not in the well publicized cases where one might reasonably assume that there should be repercussions.

    This is why I think the media has intentionally created the racial tension between the police and black communitIes in our country. I know that I sound like a conspiracy nut when I say that, but I really cannot explain it any other way. The press doesn't care to report when the police are held accountable because that goes against the "story" they want to tell because they know conflict brings in the ratings! Stories of cops being held accountable are going to be a small blurb that typically get ignored by the national news outlets. Instead of stories that factually explain the events that occurred during a police shooting, we are given headlines that are sure to infuriate most readers! Saying that Castile was shot for committing a driving infraction is just dishonest and completely inaccurate. People begin to actually believe that the police are out here looking and hoping to get the chance to shoot someone! Less than 4% of the police departments in America reported having even one officer involved shooting in 2012. How does this equate to an "epidemic of police violence"?

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    Donald Trump tweeted out an image originally circulated by a white supremacist this week, and then (as usual) refused to admit any sort of error and blamed all the fuss on the media.

    And yet, the media doesn't make any fuss about this:

    https://twitter.com/CLEsportsTalk/status/752591244488998912/photo/1

    This is why I can't get excited when Trump is castigated by the Left Wingery, yet the Left Wingery is silent on garbage like that...

    It's part and parcel to the same argument as to the "epidemic of police violence" as Listen points out..

    Ya'all are making a POLITICAL ARGUMENT... Ya'all are simply pushing a partisan anti-cop agenda.. We know this to be true because you don't condemn obvious attacks like that twit above.. We know this to be true because you don't condemn any police shootings of white people....

    To be fair, the media (again, as Listen points out) bears the brunt of responsibility because they don't glorify a cop shooting of a white person...

    But ya'all do share some responsibility because ya'all (N.E.N.) let yourself be used by the media... Ya'all (N.E.N.) are willing participants..

    Michale

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    Well, there's the rub ... there never seems to be any repercussions, at least not in the well publicized cases where one might reasonably assume that there should be repercussions.

    That's because the assumptions that there should be repercussions AREN'T "reasonable"...

    Repercussions were reasonable in the SC shooting because the facts were clear... We never hear any whining from the Left Wingery over the SC shooting because they facts are clear...

    But the facts are EQUALLY clear in the St Paul shooting, the facts are equally clear in the Baton Rouge shooting, the facts are equally clear in the Cincinnati shooting...

    Just as the facts were clear in the Ferguson shooting and just as the facts were clear in the Sanford shooting..

    The problem is, the Left Wingery (N.E.N.) doesn't LIKE what the facts are saying...

    And here we are...

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the difference between you and me is that I don't automatically assume the cop is wrong JUST BECAUSE they shoot a black person.

    To be fair, I *DO* automatically assume that the cop did the right thing...

    I unabashedly fess up to that..

    But EVERYONE should!!

    With those higher standards that you always harp on, comes a higher deference...

    Due to the nature of their jobs, cops should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is FACTUAL evidence to support NOT giving them the benefit of the doubt...

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY applies more to cops than any other class of people. Why?? Because, as Listen points out, in civilian life, "there isn't another profession that is targeted for violence as much as the police are. "

    I completely agree that cops should be held to a higher standard. Completely, unequivocally, without hesitation or reservation agree..

    Cops SHOULD be held to a higher standard..

    But they should ALSO be given a higher deference, DUE to that higher standard...

    Michale

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cops SHOULD be held to a higher standard..

    But they should ALSO be given a higher deference, DUE to that higher standard...

    Let me put it to you in this context...

    As a leader, Hillary Clinton is held to a higher standard...

    There is absolutely NO DOUBT that you give her a higher deference....

    Same concept...

    Michale

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me try that again, although I am sure you get my point...

    Cops SHOULD be held to a higher standard..

    But they should ALSO be given a higher deference, DUE to that higher standard...

    Let me put it to you in this context...

    As a leader, Hillary Clinton is held to a higher standard...

    There is absolutely NO DOUBT that you give her a higher deference....

    Same concept...

    Michale

  255. [255] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They were not aware that he had actually gone unconscious. To be honest, he was handcuffed and laying still...

    Yes, that's the kind of police incompetence that I'm talking about. Those cops did almost nothing right.

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, that's the kind of police incompetence that I'm talking about. Those cops did almost nothing right.

    {sigh}

    You see, the cops likely had an unruly and hostile crowd that they had to deal with..

    The had to DE-ESCALATE that situation before it became a OI shooting situation..

    But, of course, NOW you want to ding the officers for doing EXACTLY what you advocate them doing.. De-escalating a tense situation..

    You see my point?? In ya'all's eyes, black people can do no wrong and police officers can do no right...

    Michale

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of that, it was Gardner's obesity, asthma and self-inflicted adrenaline rush that killed him..

    It's likely that any rudimentary first aid given by LEOs on scene wouldn't have prevented Gardner's death..

    But it IS possible that the LEO's on scene prevented MORE deaths by de-escalating the hostile and unruly crowd...

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see my point?? In ya'all's eyes, black people can do no wrong and police officers can do no right...

    Notable exceptions noted....

    Michale

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the Hillary/FBI issue, I have to admit that my attitude is changing..

    The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to think that Director Comey did EXACTLY the right thing..

    Like I noted before, DOJ guidelines require that elections, especially national ones, should not be interfered with, regardless of the facts of the case...

    So, Director Comey fulfilled that obligation but made sure that ALL the facts were released..

    This way, the American people could decide for themselves, based on the facts without all the spin...

    I have to say... My respect for Director Comey has gone up quite a bit...

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Gardner went into full respiratory failure. If this was a case of excited delirium, even having a full crash cart there would not have saved him. The police are not medics. You have a combative subject that has been howling how he can't breathe as he struggles against more than a dozen officers. He actually started snoring when he first went unconscious (which was likely Cheyne-Stokes respirations). Most of the officers involved were trying to catch their breaths as well, as Garner was not an easy person to get to comply. No officer caused him to stop breathing. No officer forced him to resist arrest. He chose to resist the day before and the two officers that tried to arrest him chose not to engage him because they recognized that it would get out of hand real quickly. Then when more than a dozen officers approached him and he was instructed to put his arms behind his back as he was under arrest, he chose to resist again knowing that the officers were not going to walk away a second time. They were serving a court ordered arrest warrant -- they had to arrest him or they could be found in contempt of court! Eric Garner chose to die that day! He put himself and every officer there, who were simply doing their job, in danger of being injured or worse!

  261. [261] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    But they should ALSO be given a higher deference, DUE to that higher standard...

    They ARE given a higher deference. Our laws are written specifically to do that. That is why an officer can use physical force against a person refusing to comply and it is not considered an assault.

  262. [262] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    I just saw that your response is now showing (thanks for rescuing it, CW!), so I will get a reply to you later this morning!

    Russ

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    They ARE given a higher deference.

    I am talking about a higher deference from the people who demand they be held to a higher standard..

    Michale

  264. [264] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Listen,

    Your country is not going to make progress on this issue until people start, well, listening to each other and imagining what it is like to be in the other person's shoes.

    That is especially true in the case of police/community relations and criminal justice reform. There are many examples throughout the US where progress IS being made and much can be learned going forward. But, people have to care and want to move forward.

    Frankly, I don't see much of that kind of spirit here.

  265. [265] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, please thank your husband, Russ, for his reply the other day. Hope to hear more from him.

    Whoaa now??? Did I miss something??

    Evidently, I am the one who was missing something. But, I'm all clear now. It can take a while sometimes but, I do eventually catch on ... :)

  266. [266] 
    Paula wrote:

    [239] Michale: you continue to display your utter inability to see past your own nose.

    [262] Listen: looking forward to it!

    [264] E: yep!

  267. [267] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    "Hmmmm Maybe *I* am the problem..."

    Yes, I believe you are. But, acceptance is a good step forward!

  268. [268] 
    Paula wrote:

    From an article on VOX:
    In fact, racist policing can exacerbate these issues. Some departments try to turn a profit by ticketing, which tends to exploit racially biased policing practices. The Department of Justice’s report on Ferguson, Missouri, showed high incarceration rates there, because residents often could not afford to pay the fines incurred from ticketing they disproportionately faced. And a panel of New York police officers recently admitted they often target the most vulnerable — poor people, people of color, and LGBTQ people — to meet quotas.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12152772/rudy-giuliani-black-on-black-crime-police

  269. [269] 
    Paula wrote:

    The linked article about NY officers admitting they target the poor/black/powerless: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/8/12128858/police-racism-officers-admit

    As the officers describe it, the big problem is they are constantly encouraged to arrest and ticket as many people as possible to look like they’re doing their jobs. As a result, they target the most vulnerable communities.

    “When you put any type of numbers on a police officer to perform, we are going to go to the most vulnerable,” Adhyl Polanco, a New York City police officer, said. “We’re going to [the] LGBT community, we’re going to the black community, we’re going to go to those people that have no boat, that have no power.”

  270. [270] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    [239] Michale: you continue to display your utter inability to see past your own nose.

    And, you continue to ignore the facts that you simply can't address..

    Liz,

    Yes, I believe you are. But, acceptance is a good step forward!

    That's really childish and, frankly, beneath you...

    And here I thought you wanted to have a SERIOUS conversation...

    Silly me.. :D

    Evidently, I am the one who was missing something. But, I'm all clear now. It can take a while sometimes but, I do eventually catch on ... :)

    OK, so Listen's husband DIDN'T comment??

    Got my hopes up. :D

    Your country is not going to make progress on this issue until people start, well, listening to each other and imagining what it is like to be in the other person's shoes.

    Which is why Listen (and I, to a certain extent) suggest ya'all go on a ride-along program....

    So you can UNDERSTAND what cops go thru BEFORE you condemn them and make comments like "Yes, that's the kind of police incompetence that I'm talking about. Those cops did almost nothing right." and "Well, there's the rub ... there never seems to be any repercussions, at least not in the well publicized cases where one might reasonably assume that there should be repercussions."

    Still waiting to hear ya'all's explanation as to why ya'all only have a problem with police shootings when it's a black person who is shot...

    Michale

  271. [271] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh ho ho ho ho...

    The chairman of the New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, said his group will carry arms for self-defense during protests at the Republican convention next week if allowed under Ohio law.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-black-panther-party-says-carry-arms-cleveland-153219433.html

    Now isn't THIS going to be the sheetz...

    Will the Left Wingery AND Weigantians condemn this black movement for carrying guns, just as they condemn Right Wingers for carrying guns???

    It's going to be an epic battle between their racism and their ideology.. :D

    Someone make up a HUGE batch of popcorn!! :D

    Michale

  272. [272] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OK, so Listen's husband DIDN'T comment??

    No, I don't think so. Listen's husband is Devon and Listen is Russ, I have surmised.

    I am easily confused but I think that clears it up.

    Would still like to hear from Devon, directly, if possible.

  273. [273] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That wouldn't be allowed under Ohio law, would it Michale? Say it ain't so!

  274. [274] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Still waiting to hear ya'all's explanation as to why ya'all only have a problem with police shootings when it's a black person who is shot…

    I asked you to explain to me the point of the examples of white shootings you provided (in 227).

    Do you feel the police were justified in those cases or not? If they are justified, why should we be outraged? If they aren't justified, explain why and what should be done about it.

  275. [275] 
    Paula wrote:

    Will the Left Wingery AND Weigantians condemn this black movement for carrying guns, just as they condemn Right Wingers for carrying guns???

    I'm against ANYONE carrying guns.

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    No, I don't think so. Listen's husband is Devon and Listen is Russ, I have surmised.

    I am easily confused but I think that clears it up.

    Yes it does.. :D

    Don't worry.. I am easily confused as well...

    That wouldn't be allowed under Ohio law, would it Michale? Say it ain't so!

    It IS allowed under Ohio law..

    Many states have open-carry laws..

    And the Left Wingery always resoundingly condemns them and the groups who carry under those laws..

    So, will the Left Wingery condemn this black militant group???

    2000 quatloos say NO....

    Paula,

    Do you feel the police were justified in those cases or not? If they are justified, why should we be outraged? If they aren't justified, explain why and what should be done about it.

    The point isn't *MY* outrage, it's yours...

    I defend cops until the facts say otherwise.. REGARDLESS of the color of the victim's color...

    Ya'all have NEVER questioned a cop's actions when the subject was not black...

    That's the point..

    Michale

  277. [277] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    No, I don't think so. Listen's husband is Devon and Listen is Russ, I have surmised.

    I am easily confused but I think that clears it up.

    Yes it does.. :D

    Don't worry.. I am easily confused as well...

    That wouldn't be allowed under Ohio law, would it Michale? Say it ain't so!

    It IS allowed under Ohio law..

    Many states have open-carry laws..

    And the Left Wingery always resoundingly condemns them and the groups who carry under those laws..

    So, will the Left Wingery condemn this black militant group???

    2000 quatloos say NO....

    Paula,

    Do you feel the police were justified in those cases or not? If they are justified, why should we be outraged? If they aren't justified, explain why and what should be done about it.

    The point isn't *MY* outrage, it's yours...

    I defend cops until the facts say otherwise.. REGARDLESS of the color of the victim's color...

    Ya'all have NEVER questioned a cop's actions when the subject was not black...

    That's the point..

    Michale

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    I defend cops until the facts say otherwise.. REGARDLESS of the color of the victim's color...

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant..."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    Ya'all have NEVER questioned a cop's actions when the subject was not black...

    As I mentioned above, it's not ALL your fault... The LameStream Media doesn't sensationalize a cop shooting if the subject is not black...

    So, it's not ALL on you...

    But failing to the concede the point???

    That IS all on ya'all...

    Michale

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm against ANYONE carrying guns.

    Then condemn the (O)BLM or Black Panther Group who have stated their intentions to do so...

    Go ahead... I double dog dare ya... :D

    Michale

  280. [280] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you think your country has reached a point where you need to take another look at these open-carry/conceal carry laws even if it is just to tweak them a bit so that firearms (or some classes of firearms) cannot be carried to organized protests?

    I gathered that the Dallas police chief, whom I have come to greatly admire for his reasoned approach, believes these laws make it very difficult for him and his officers to do their jobs.

    I would think you would be open to any action, legislatively or otherwise, that would create a safer environment in which police officers must work.

  281. [281] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Ya'all have NEVER questioned a cop's actions when the subject was not black...

    As I mentioned above, it's not ALL your fault... The LameStream Media doesn't sensationalize a cop shooting if the subject is not black...

    I wholeheartedly say to you that I would not feel any differently about abuse of use of deadly force by police officers if the race of the cop/subject were reversed or if the race of the cop and subject were the same.

    And, I will also concede your point about the media and go further to say that laziness on my part prevents a gathering/reading of information on cases where the subject shot in a OIS is not black but of any other racial group.

    Perhaps you could point out these other situations where, under similar circumstances, a white cop shoots a white subject. Is there is good resource to go to find this information. I came across PoliceOne.com and this, at first perusal, seems to be a very informative site ...

    You see, being horrified about some of these apparent unjustified police shootings (unjustified in the sense that there may have been less lethal means to deal with the situation which we will never know because they weren't tried)is not really about race - it's about being horrified, regardless of race, seeing it as a police/civilian interaction that has gone very, very bad.

    What I'd like to discuss are ways in which those very, very bad interactions - justified or not - can be reduced if not entirely eliminated.

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think your country has reached a point where you need to take another look at these open-carry/conceal carry laws even if it is just to tweak them a bit so that firearms (or some classes of firearms) cannot be carried to organized protests?

    Ok.. I'll bite.. What classes of firearms would you not allow?? What would the criteria be for allow/disallow??

    I gathered that the Dallas police chief, whom I have come to greatly admire for his reasoned approach, believes these laws make it very difficult for him and his officers to do their jobs.

    In some ways, it's harder.. In some ways, it's easier..

    I would think you would be open to any action, legislatively or otherwise, that would create a safer environment in which police officers must work.

    I am willing to discuss it. But reasonable criteria based on logic and facts, not partisan hysteria...

    Michale

  283. [283] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ok.. I'll bite.. What classes of firearms would you not allow?? What would the criteria be for allow/disallow??

    I don't know. That's why I'm asking you.

  284. [284] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am willing to discuss it. But reasonable criteria based on logic and facts, not partisan hysteria...

    Music to my ears!

  285. [285] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll say one more thing ... that black guy who was carrying a long, military-style rifle and who was arrested after the Dallas shooting and who said he carried solely to exercise his 2nd amendment rights really boggles my mind.

    I fear that this is going to be the next very bad trend in your country and a I don't see it ending up very good.

  286. [286] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps you could point out these other situations where, under similar circumstances, a white cop shoots a white subject. Is there is good resource to go to find this information. I came across PoliceOne.com and this, at first perusal, seems to be a very informative site ...

    Comment #153 is a good place to start...

    You can also look here...

    killedbypolice.net/

    White people killed by cops as far as the eye can see...

    But NEVER... in the annals of Weigantia has anyone condemned the police for the killing of a white person..

    NEVER... NOT ONCE....

    But gods, let a black person be killed by a cop?? And the hysterical come out of the woodwork....

    Why do you think that is???

    And, since we're asking (and MAYBE answering) questions.... Why is it ya'all advocate "wait for all the facts" whenever cops are killed...

    But when a cop shoots a black person, the reaction from the Left Wingery and the majority of Weigantians is immediate and, invariably, wrong...

    Michale

  287. [287] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: The point isn't *MY* outrage, it's yours…

    No You are expecting me to be outraged without reason. I doesn't work that way for me. You provided the links as though they proved something. So far they've proved white people get shot. I never denied that. After that, analysis is required, which you don't do.

    You don't like that people, rightly, say that there is a consistent pattern of selective abuse operating in law enforcement around the country. DOJ investigations support this claim; their results re: Ferguson, Cleveland, Chicago, etc. which are damning.

    Instead, you try to turn it into some whacked out argument that instead of being angry and concerned about these abuses, we should INSTEAD be angry about abuses towards white victims. Except they aren't abuses, because abuses don't happen. But why aren't we mad at justified shootings of white people? Why are we only mad at justified shootings of black people? Because they are justified. So we should be mad at justified white shootings and ignore justified black shootings and agree there are no unjustified shootings. And also, black people aren't preyed upon, they're just crybabies. But when the police feel beleaguered because people are giving them a hard time about documented abuses, they are NOT crybabies.

    You are a garbled mess.

  288. [288] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I agree with what most of Paula just said. :)

  289. [289] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or, more succinctly, I think I agree with most of what Paula just said ...

  290. [290] 
    Michale wrote:

    No You are expecting me to be outraged without reason.

    You *ARE* being outraged without reason..

    The MN and LA shootings were completely justified..

    Just like you were outraged in Sanford, Ferguson, Staten Island, etc etc etc...

    And THAT was also being outraged without reason...

    So far they've proved white people get shot. I never denied that.

    I am not out to prove that white people get shot by cop..

    I am out to prove that your "outrage" is solely, completely and unequivocally based on the cover of the subject's skin..

    And I have proven that beyond ANY doubt...

    Michale

  291. [291] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, since we're asking (and MAYBE answering) questions.... Why is it ya'all advocate "wait for all the facts" whenever cops are killed...

    But when a cop shoots a black person, the reaction from the Left Wingery and the majority of Weigantians is immediate and, invariably, wrong...

    I plead not guilty on those charges.

    And, I really wish you wouldn't project comments by others, here or elsewhere onto me. I really hate when you do that because it makes a serious discussion between the two of us very difficult.

  292. [292] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    I thoroughly appreciated your comments and appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the various matters. I do not think that you are "anti-police", but "anti-corruption". You are empathetic to the struggles faced by others, as are most "liberals". I do recognize that my having been an EMT and a 911 call receiver influences how I view these stories (oh yeah, being married to a cop might influence that a bit as well).

    The question of "justification" can be viewed broadly or narrowly. I think law enforcement tends to the broad view and the public tends to the narrow. I still feel the police need to be the "responsible" people when dealing with armed citizens, all things being equal.

    I agree with you, to an extent. The question of "justification" is actually defined very narrowly by the law -- it either meets the requirements or it doesn't. And if it does meet it, then any response to deadly force with deadly force is completely justified. Yes, the general public views "justification" narrowly, as long as it is not their lives being put at risk.

    I honestly do not think that BLM thinks that there is ever justification for an officer using deadly force against a person of color. I take issue with BLM's refusal to admit that the actions of their martyrs played a role in their own deaths. "Michael Brown didn't deserve to die for stealing a few dollars worth of smokes." That wasn't why Brown was shot. But Brown could have been shot by the shop keeper when he threatened the guy if he tried to prevent him from leaving...and the shop keeper would have likely been justified in doing it.

    "Michael Brown was an unarmed teenager who was gunned down by the police for being black." A person who attempts to disarm an officer is considered to be using "deadly force" against the officer. If deadly force is used against you, when should you respond with deadly force? Is it three strikes before they are out? 96% of officers who lose their gun in a struggle are killed by their own gun (98% are shot). How many times should an officer be willing to put their own life at risk before they respond with deadly force? Brown was unarmed; but it wasn't for a lack of trying on his part!

    I think an awful lot of police are also rightwing in orientation, and they have been inculcated in a "black people are dangerous" mindset, as well as a "danger! crime!" mindset.

    I chuckle at this, because the police are actually trained that ALL people are dangerous. Trust no one. I know that sounds horrible, but it is true. They cannot just assume that someone is not really a threat because the moment they do that, they'll be killed. That is why every student that escapes from a school shooting is checked before they are allowed to leave -- to make sure that they aren't involved. Yes, I am aware that prejudices exist, but that is a universal condition that we all suffer from.

    Meanwhile Republicans have been starving states of money which has lead to police forces using petty crimes as revenue generators, and, as it happens, those crimes are often committed by poor people, and inner cities are filled with majority poor black people.

    The police do not create the laws, they only enforce them. Ferguson got slammed for their city having so many laws that penalized violators financially for minor infractions. These exist because the city council votes for them to cover the money they lose by cutting residential taxes for their citizens. Ferguson's citizens had never bothered to try to get those laws off the book, which raises the question as to how much the people really felt like they were being targeted before someone told them they were being targeted!

    And I believe black people are on the receiving end of low and high levels of police harassment to an extent most of us have no conception of. I believe black people have every reason to fear police contact and that is not something we can just brush off.

    I hear people talk about how the police stop blacks for no reason all the time. Chris Rock tweeted how he'd been stopped three times in one week by the police. Only problem is that he didn't say why, exactly, he was pulled over. Nor did he say that the police were wrong to have stopped him. He just focused on the fact that his skin color was to blame, and not his driving twenty five mph over the speed limit in a school zone! When a 911 call comes in reporting a rape where the suspect is a black male, mid 20's 5'10 - 6'1" between 175 and 225 lbs wearing jeans and a blue sweat shirt named "Ronny Runns" and you are a thirty year old black male, 5'11 200# wearing a purple sweat shirt and jeans walking a block away from where the rape occurred, you will most likely be stopped and let go fairly quickly, once you show your ID and the police see you aren't Ronny. The police aren't going to tell you why they are stopping you always, because they don't need to waste that valuable time that they could be searching for the rapist. If I have 9 brothers who have all been arrested for shoplifting from the local pig farm, should I be upset with the pig farmer for following me around when I shop there to make sure that I don't shoplift a pig? Or maybe I should be angry that my brothers are screwing things up for me?

    As for the "bullying", I find that people treat you the way you treat them most of the time. If you are instructed by an officer to move off of the street, you need to move immediately, You don't have a right to ignore the officer. You don't have the right to debate the officer about your rights then and there. If your civil rights are violated, you go to court to settle that. Judges will not throw out charges for disobeying a legal order even if the judge rules that your rights were violated.

    People complain that the "good cops" don't speak out against the actions of "bad cops" quickly enough, which is true. That's because they want to have all of the facts before they pass judgement on a fellow officer.

    One last thing I will share... If I get stopped for speeding, I won't tell whoever pulls me over that I am married to an officer if I have any hope of getting off with a warning. If they find out I am married to an officer, I am getting a ticket! The times, they are a changing!

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, more succinctly, I think I agree with most of what Paula just said ...

    Of course you do..

    Because it's ALL based on ya'all's ideology..

    So, if ya'all have the same ideology, ya'all agree....

    I don't have an ideology..

    Which is why sometimes I agree with some of ya'all and sometimes I don't...

    Michale

  294. [294] 
    Paula wrote:

    [291] Elizabeth: Yep!

    [290] Michale: And I have proven that beyond ANY doubt…

    Um, no you haven't. Repeating assertions is not "proving".

  295. [295] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This has NOTHING to do with ideology. Why can't you see that?

  296. [296] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can I answer that!? :)

  297. [297] 
    Paula wrote:

    Let me add Michale: many law enforcement officials ARE acknowledging the problems I'm talking about and are doing things about them. (Dallas Police Force has been doing a huge makeover of itself.) Why can't you?

  298. [298] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, the general public views "justification" narrowly, as long as it is not their lives being put at risk.

    Yep....

    If I have 9 brothers who have all been arrested for shoplifting from the local pig farm, should I be upset with the pig farmer for following me around when I shop there to make sure that I don't shoplift a pig? Or maybe I should be angry that my brothers are screwing things up for me?

    Yep...

    As for the "bullying", I find that people treat you the way you treat them most of the time.

    Yep.... In spades.. :D

    If you are instructed by an officer to move off of the street, you need to move immediately, You don't have a right to ignore the officer. You don't have the right to debate the officer about your rights then and there.

    Yep.....

    People complain that the "good cops" don't speak out against the actions of "bad cops" quickly enough, which is true. That's because they want to have all of the facts before they pass judgement on a fellow officer.

    Yep....

    You said the EXACT same things that I have been saying for over a decade now....

    I am sure you'll be fine.. :D

    Michale

  299. [299] 
    Michale wrote:

    This has NOTHING to do with ideology. Why can't you see that?

    It has EVERYTHING to do with ideology..

    If it wasn't about ideology, ya'all would equally condemn police shootings when the subjects are white...

    Um, no you haven't. Repeating assertions is not "proving".

    Repeated facts that you refuse to refute *IS* proving... :D

    Michale

  300. [300] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Let me add Michale: many law enforcement officials ARE acknowledging the problems I'm talking about and are doing things about them.

    Nope..

    They are bowing to political correctness because they are being extorted by politicians..

    Michale

  301. [301] 
    Michale wrote:
  302. [302] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If it wasn't about ideology, ya'all would equally condemn police shootings when the subjects are white...

    I have no doubt whatsoever that everyone here would condemn ANY police shooting that we see as being unjustified.

    Please, Michale, give me just one example, not a link, of a case where the subject being shot is white, under similar circumstances that I have already judged to be unjustified, and will condemn it. I'm not trying to be facetious here, in any way, just wanting more info ... this is one reason why I think a national data bank would be so helpful in allowing us all to better understand OIS and all the issues that surround it.

  303. [303] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please, Michale, give me just one example, not a link, of a case where the subject being shot is white, under similar circumstances that I have already judged to be unjustified, and will condemn it.

    Fair enough...

    What circumstances would you judge as "unjustified"???

    For example, if a person who had just committed a strong-armed robbery and was confronted by a police officer and then that person attacked the cop and tried to take the cops gun and the cop retained his gun and shot the person..

    Would THAT be considered "justified"??

    Or, say cops responding to a report of a man waving a gun and cops make contact with the subject and the subject refuses orders, is tased twice, continues to fight, cops learn he has a gun and the subject goes for it and the cops shoot him..

    Would that be considered "justified"??

    Or say cops, after a high speed chase, have the subject out of the car and he is waving a gun.. After the subject refuses several orders to drop the gun, police shoot the subject..

    Would that be considered justified??

    An officer responds to a domestic. In an attempt calm the situation, the officer separates the two combatants.. The wife returns from the kitchen with a knife advancing on the officer. The officer kills the woman..

    Would that be considered justified??

    Michale

  304. [304] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please, Michale, give me just one example, not a link, of a case where the subject being shot is white, under similar circumstances that I have already judged to be unjustified, and will condemn it.

    Fair enough...

    What circumstances would you judge as "unjustified"???

    For example, if a person who had just committed a strong-armed robbery and was confronted by a police officer and then that person attacked the cop and tried to take the cops gun and the cop retained his gun and shot the person..

    Would THAT be considered "justified"??

    Or, say cops responding to a report of a man waving a gun and cops make contact with the subject and the subject refuses orders, is tased twice, continues to fight, cops learn he has a gun and the subject goes for it and the cops shoot him..

    Would that be considered "justified"??

    Or say cops, after a high speed chase, have the subject out of the car and he is waving a gun.. After the subject refuses several orders to drop the gun, police shoot the subject..

    Would that be considered justified??

    An officer responds to a domestic. In an attempt calm the situation, the officer separates the two combatants.. The wife returns from the kitchen with a knife advancing on the officer. The officer kills the woman..

    Would that be considered justified??

    Michale

  305. [305] 
    Paula wrote:

    [300]Michale: They are bowing to political correctness because they are being extorted by politicians..

    I see. The world is conspiring to pretend there are problems that you "KNOW" are non-existent because of political correctness. DOJ is just filled with people who decide things out of political correctness. The police departments (those that do) comply with recommendations out of political correctness.

    Wow.

  306. [306] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see. The world is conspiring to pretend there are problems that you "KNOW" are non-existent because of political correctness.

    More or less....

    You know how I know??

    Because there is no proof...

    We know Mark Fuhrman is a racist.. How do we know??

    Because we have FACTS that show it...

    There are no stone cold unequivocal FACTS that show ANY sort of institutionalized racism..

    Your kind of facts??

    Joe Blow called Odumbo a moron and Obama is a black person. Therefore, Joe Blow MUST be a racist..

    THAT is what qualifies for "facts" in your world..

    It's ALL based on ideology...

    And yet, you are ALWAYS wrong..

    Darren Wilson?? NOT a smidgen of racism, despite YOU swearing up and down it was racism..

    George Zimmerman?? NOT an IOTA of racism, despite YOU swearing up and down it was racism..

    EVERY TIME ya'all scream RACISM, you are *ALWAYS* wrong...

    What does that tell you???

    Michale

  307. [307] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I am going to put away this trackball and only use it during the fundraiser.. :D

    Michale

  308. [308] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I am going to put away this trackball and only use it during the fundraiser.. :D

    Michale

  309. [309] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton legal team moves to block deposition in email lawsuit

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-block-deposition-email-225418#ixzz4EDqVshOP
    Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

    What's Crooked Hillary afraid of???

    Michale

  310. [310] 
    Paula wrote:

    {309] Good for HRC! Judicial Watch does nothing but present frivolous lawsuits against the Clintons.

    Also your political correctness argument is one of the saddest, most pathetic pieces of "argumentation" ever presented.

    There is no way on earth I can ever take you even remotely seriously on this topic again.

  311. [311] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What she said!

  312. [312] 
    Paula wrote:

    [311] Elizabeth: thanks!

  313. [313] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no way on earth I can ever take you even remotely seriously on this topic again.

    Of course you can't... Because I have all the facts and training and expertise on my side of the argument..

    And you have.... what's that you have again???

    Oh that's right.. You have your ideology...

    Michale

  314. [314] 
    Michale wrote:

    {309] Good for HRC! Judicial Watch does nothing but present frivolous lawsuits against the Clintons.

    Then Crooked Hillary shouldn't be afraid to do the deposition. Hell, she could use it as a fund raiser!!!

    But, she won't because THIS TIME she WILL be under oath.. And if she perjures herself, which she KNOWS she will have to....

    THEN she goes to jail....

    So, yea... Hillary MUST avoid that deposition at all costs.. :D

    And the more she tries to duck it, the more votes she will lose...

    Her numbers are ALREADY going down... :D

    Michale

  315. [315] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    As President Obama so eloquently said today at the very moving Dallas police memorial, we all need a new heart ... some of us more than others, naturally. :)

  316. [316] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/12/people-are-furious-that-bernie-sanders-just-endorsed-hillary-clinton/

    I guess Bernie has sold out...

    Typical politician...

    "HILLARY IS BOUGHT BY WALL STREET!!!! HILLARY IS OWNED BY THE CORPORATIONS!!! ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY SHOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!
    Whaaa??? She won???
    .......
    .........
    HILLARY IS THE BEST!!! HILLARY IS AWESOME!!!! WE SHOULD ALL VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!"

    Hypocrite, thy name is Bernie Sanders....

    I called this weeks ago and was even given a shout out by the Grand Poobah hisself... :D

    Michale

  317. [317] 
    Michale wrote:

    As President Obama so eloquently said today at the very moving Dallas police memorial, we all need a new heart ... some of us more than others, naturally. :)

    I completely agree..

    And those who condemn and demonize a cop whose ONLY crime is doing his job and surviving and do so SOLELY AND COMPLETELY based on the color of the subject??

    Those ones need the newest heart of all... :^/

    Michale

  318. [318] 
    Michale wrote:

    As President Obama so eloquently said today at the very moving Dallas police memorial, we all need a new heart ... some of us more than others, naturally. :)

    I completely agree..

    And those who condemn and demonize a cop whose ONLY crime is doing his job and surviving and do so SOLELY AND COMPLETELY based on the color of the subject??

    Those ones need the newest heart of all... :^/

    Michale

  319. [319] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And those who condemn and demonize a cop whose ONLY crime is doing his job and surviving and do so SOLELY AND COMPLETELY based on the color of the subject??

    This may come as a surprise to you but, no one who comments here has ever done that.

  320. [320] 
    Michale wrote:

    This may come as a surprise to you but, no one who comments here has ever done that.

    Yea?? OK, prove me wrong..

    Show me a comment from a Weigantian in the last 10 years that called into question a cop shooting that involved a white subject..

    Find me just one and I'll concede I was wrong..

    But you can't because none exist..

    Don't worry, I won't bother asking you to concede the point... :D

    Michale

  321. [321] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, you are the ONLY one who is obsessed with and by race.

  322. [322] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, you are the ONLY one here at CW.com who is obsessed with and by race and ideology.

  323. [323] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't recall hearing about a case where the subject shot by police under questionable circumstances was white.

    I'm assuming that there are such cases - but, you haven't been able to find one ...

  324. [324] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas

    Yea, that's our Hussein Odumbo..

    Michale

  325. [325] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't recall hearing about a case where the subject shot by police under questionable circumstances was white.

    EXACTLY my point.. YOU DON'T RECALL..

    But you can list off a dozen where the subject was black..

    And you don't see ANYTHING wrong with that????

    I'm assuming that there are such cases - but, you haven't been able to find one ...

    Yer kidding, right??

    Michale

  326. [326] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you are the ONLY one who is obsessed with and by race.

    Yea, you keep telling yourself that.. :D

    Michale

  327. [327] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you are the ONLY one who is obsessed with and by race.

    Yea, you keep telling yourself that.. :D

    Michale

  328. [328] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: he's a brick wall.

  329. [329] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know. And, I have a headache to prove it. :)

  330. [330] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elizabeth: he's a brick wall.

    He's a brick wall with FACTS, experience and expertise..

    There.. Fixed it for ya... :D

    Ya'all accept what Listen says and ignore what I say..

    The funny thing is, Listen and I are saying the EXACT same thing.. :D

    Ya'all's ideology rules you...

    Michale

  331. [331] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't you have anything new to say, Michale?

  332. [332] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you have anything new to say, Michale?

    yep... You asked me in comment #302 for sample cases...

    I answered in comment #304...

    Are you going to ignore that because you can't address the points??

    Or did you just miss that...

    Michale

  333. [333] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh... And apparently you missed this as well..

    Show me a comment from a Weigantian in the last 10 years that called into question a cop shooting that involved a white subject..

    Find me just one and I'll concede I was wrong..

    But you can't because none exist..

    TEN YEARS of comments about castigating and demonizing cops... And ALL of them because the subjects were black...

    So, who is all about race???

    The facts are clear...

    Michale

  334. [334] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I asked for a real example where a white man was shot and killed by the police under questionable circumstances.

    You must have one to point to so that I can have a look at it and see what my assessment would be and if it would be any different from the examples in the news over the last few years dealing with black men who have been shot and killed under questionable circumstances.

    This is a very simple and serious request and I don't understand why you are being so coy about it??

  335. [335] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TEN YEARS of comments about castigating and demonizing cops... And ALL of them because the subjects were black...

    Michale, no one who comments here has ever castigated or demonized cops. What some of us have done is to question whether lethal force was unavoidable and in some cases - not all - I remain unconvinced that lethal force was not avoidable.

    Chris is allowing you great latitude, Michale, but the time may have come for him to step in and put a stop to your constant misrepresentations.

  336. [336] 
    Michale wrote:

    I asked for a real example where a white man was shot and killed by the police under questionable circumstances.

    YOU have to tell ME what is questionable..

    Because YOU have said that the Sanford shooting was "questionable"..

    It wasn't..

    YOU have said the Ferguson shooting was questionable..

    It wasn't..

    YOU have said the MN shooting was questionable.

    It's not...

    YOU have said the LA shooting was questionable...

    It's not...

    ALL of those shootings have 2 things in common...

    They all involved black males as the subject..

    And they were ALL good shoots...

    So, how can I determine for YOU what is questionable??

    This is a very simple and serious request and I don't understand why you are being so coy about it??

    Not being coy...

    Just showing you how wrong you are...

    Michale

  337. [337] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, no one who comments here has ever castigated or demonized cops.

    I honestly don't know how to answer such blatant bullshit represented as fact....

    I remain unconvinced that lethal force was not avoidable.

    And what do you base that on?? Your VAST Law Enforcement experience??

    Nope.. It's based on the sole and single fact that the subject was black...

    The facts don't lie... *EVERY TIME* ya'all have called into question the actions of police officers, the subject has *ALWAYS* been black...

    EVERY TIME.... ALWAYS...

    It's all so blatantly transparent..

    Michale

  338. [338] 
    Michale wrote:

    ISIS Boasts Of Its Bloody Ramadan
    From Orlando to Bangladesh, the group is claiming that 5,200 people were killed or wounded from 'military operations' in one month

    http://www.vocativ.com/339694/isis-bloody-ramadan/

    How is this possible???

    Our Moron In Chief, Hussein Odumbo has stated that the Daesch is "The JV" and "is contained"...

    So how can they keep having all this success???

    Michale

  339. [339] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Devon was commenting, but he doesn't have an account, so he used mine. If there are any questions that you have for him, I'll make sure that we indicate which one is replying from now on.

    The police departments are not ignoring the issues that people have with how they do their jobs. Almost all of the dept. training sessions these days focus on being culturally sensitive, working with citizens with psychological issues, or LGBQT issues. Police departments no longer use the big batons, and have also includedo Tasers and other non-lethal

  340. [340] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, no one who comments here has ever castigated or demonized cops.

    "Yes, that's the kind of police incompetence that I'm talking about. Those cops did almost nothing right."

    Yea.. Glad there is no castigating or demonizing.. :^/

    Michale

  341. [341] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Russ! I'll keep that in mind.

    Truth be known, I would probably be mostly in agreement with you and Devon on most issues involving police/community relations and how police are trained and how they perform under very difficult situations and in an exceedingly difficult environment.

    I came across a website, PoliceOne.com ... do either of you know if this is a reliable site with good information? ... it doesn't appear, at first glance, to be overly partisan or slanted in any direction, politically speaking ...

  342. [342] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Crap, I hit the submit button when I tried to edit some text.

    The last thing I wanted to say was that I really appreciate the candor and thoughts shared by everyone here. I love a good debate, and had searched for a site to fill that need after HuffPost stopped doing their own comments and sold out to Facebook. HuffPost had something that I thought was pretty amazing when all of your comments were kept track of and the conversation chains they used. I even liked that volunteers were able to be monitors and help direct the conversations. They claimed Facebook would make things more "civil", but nothing could be further from the truth! But I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on here and getting to know people. Thanks, CW, for giving us a space to chat!

  343. [343] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Not sure about the PoliceOne site, honestly. I have read articles from there a few times I think, but never spent any real time there.

    R-

  344. [344] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Crap, I hit the submit button when I tried to edit some text.

    Heh.

    Maybe you'll have more luck than I've had trying to convince Chris to add an edit function that would allow some limited editing of a comment already posted ... for up to about 15 or 30 minutes after the original comment is posted. :)

    But, I have to agree with you about CW.com - I left HP as well after they went to Facebook comments only.

  345. [345] 
    Paula wrote:

    [292] Listen: how did I miss your comment? Was it there all day? Did it get eaten then put in retroactively?

    Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    Its interesting because I think we're both trying and we are finding elements of common ground (good!) but we still have a definite difference of opinion about BLM and treatment of black people by the police in many cases.

    It may be, as you say, BLM activists don't believe any shootings are justified. I can't say. Evidently it feels like that to you. But what is your response to the link I had posted to the Black ER doctor in Dallas talking about the fear he experiences of the police?

    I can appreciate that police-people are under stress etc. in their jobs. Can you appreciate that black people are also under stress? Especially poor black people. Poor people in general. And the most stressful of the stresses is a feeling of powerlessness.

    You dismiss Ferguson by saying the citizens should change the laws. Maybe they should. But that's like 3 levels beyond the reality that the folks there were being abominably mistreated by the law enforcement/judicial institutions that held power over them. For years. And in the most insidious of ways -- taking poor people and making them poorer. Giving them police records which interferes with their ability to get employment. Then punish them for all the results that come from being poor -- shoddy vehicles, inability to pay fines, attempts to make a living through under-the-table work.

    We live in a time when MOST Americans feel helpless to deal with their government; when they feel they aren't listened to. But you expect the poorest, least educated to fix the systems that have them by the throat?

    My husband also says the stuff you are saying about Eric Garner is factually inaccurate -- although I really don't want to argue about that. I can't make that judgement. He's followed those specifics way more closely than I; and some of these situations are very much a matter of the officer's word against the dead guy's. And we've seen several situations now where police immediately began trying to cover up evidence for whatever happened. Obviously that isn't always the case. But now that some of these folks are getting caught on camera many Americans can't help but wonder how long individual police have gotten away with cover-ups? Especially when the victim is dead and can't defend himself.

    Probably the answer is cameras on, all the time. And the police have got to STOP grabbing peoples phones and trying to get them to stop filming. That only makes them look bad.

    Because things have simply become too poisoned for us out here to believe the police on their say-so. And the police have to accept responsibility for their end of all this. You say they don't want to comment right away because they want the facts and don't want to potentially harm another officer unfairly, etc. I'm sure that's true. But they often immediately start leaking stuff to damage the reputations of the victims, which has happened multiple times. That's dirty. Especially when the victim can't defend himself/herself, the phones have been confiscated, etc.

    I don't think we'll come to agreement on this. Cameras on all the time is what it will take, I think.

  346. [346] 
    Michale wrote:

    My husband also says the stuff you are saying about Eric Garner is factually inaccurate -- although I really don't want to argue about that.

    Of course you don't... Because Listen is of the same ideology that you are, so you would never want to argue with someone like that.

    It's ALL about the ideology...

    And we've seen several situations now where police immediately began trying to cover up evidence for whatever happened.

    "Michale, no one who comments here has ever castigated or demonized cops."

    Like I said.. BULL... and SHIT.....

    My points have been proven...

    Ya'all only demonize and castigate cops when they shoot a black person, REGARDLESS of all the facts that PROVEN it was a good shoot..

    It's ALL about the ideology...

    That's the beginning and then end of ya'all's argument...

    Michale

  347. [347] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote this in an article for the Atlantic:

    What does it mean, for instance, that black children are ritually told that any stray movement in the face of the police might result in their own legal killing? When Eric Holder spoke about getting “The Talk” from his father, and then giving it to his own son, many of us nodded our heads. But many more of us were terrified. When the nation’s top cop must warn his children to be skeptical of his own troops, how legitimate can the police actually be?

    And it is not as if Holder is imagining things. When the law shoots down down 12-year-old children, or beats down old women on traffic islands, or chokes people to death over cigarettes; when the law shoots people over compact discs, traffic stops, drivers’ licenses, loud conversation, or car trouble; when the law auctions off its monopoly on lethal violence to bemused civilians, when these civilians then kill, and when their victims are mocked in their death throes; when people stand up to defend police as officers of the state, and when these defenders are killed by these very same officers; when much of this is recorded, uploaded, live-streamed, tweeted, and broadcast; and when government seems powerless, or unwilling, to stop any of it, then it ceases, in the eyes of citizens, to be any sort of respectable law at all. It simply becomes “force.”

    This really highlighted what I was trying explain what has bothered me with the BLM movements!

    First, I am always surprised when blacks seem to think that they are the only ones who have the talk with their kids on how to act around the police. I don't know of any race that wouldn't have that talk with their kids, because it is an important lesson that our children need to learn!

    Next is the hardest thing for me to get past. " When the law shoots down down 12-year-old children, or beats down old women on traffic islands, or chokes people to death over cigarettes; when the law shoots people over compact discs, traffic stops, drivers’ licenses, loud conversation, or car trouble..."

    When the police are accused of doing something, even though the evidence shows that the accusations are false, what can possibly be done to please people? The media's biased stories are taken as fact while the actual evidence and investigations are ignored. No police officer killed Eric Garner. His autopsy did not list the cause of death as "strangulation". Eric Garner was never placed in an actual "choke hold". The officer had Garner in a "headlock". How do we know Garner was not in a chokehold? The most obvious evidence was that he hollered, "I can't breathe!" loudly, eleven times. When a person chokes, they cannot pass air through their vocal cords to make any sound. I used to do ground fighting, and if I ever put a person in a choke hold, they might be able to get, "I can't br......" out once, but that would be it. The autopsy listed Garner's asthma, high blood pressure, his obesity and diabetes all as "contributing factors" to his death. Yes, the weight of that many officers on top of Garner trying to compel him to comply with their order to put his hands behind his back contributed to his death as well. But the officers did nothing to him physically until he resisted. They gave him the opportunity to comply, but he chose to resist.

    If we aren't willing to be honest about what actually occurred, then I have a hard time believing that we truly hope for things to get better. Why does BLM refuse to state that Tamir Rice was shot because the officers believed he was drawing on them? Does anyone actually believe that Tamir pointing what looked like a real gun at people as they walked by him in the park had NOTHING to do with his death? This was what the DOJ investigation stated. Michael Brown physically attacked and attempted to disarm a police officer and was shot because of it.

    Actually. if the BLM folks want to claim that the police are shooting blacks for committing traffic violations, then how happy are they really going to be when the police promise to stop killing people simply for being black?!? Nothing gets fixed until all sides are honest about what has occurred.

  348. [348] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    And we've seen several situations now where police immediately began trying to cover up evidence for whatever happened. Obviously that isn't always the case. But now that some of these folks are getting caught on camera many Americans can't help but wonder how long individual police have gotten away with cover-ups? Especially when the victim is dead and can't defend himself.

    There have been lots of accusations of the police trying to cover up evidence or tamper with crime scenes by the press, but the truth is that there isn't time for officers to meet and discuss what all needs to be altered to cover up a crime for any of this to actually occur. Paula, this is one place that I am going to say that you are being hoodwinked by the press. Remember, perspective is what causes ten people to view the same event occur and each one to tell a different account of what they think they saw.

    I am a "just the facts" kind of person. Unless there is empirical evidence to support an argument, then it is just an opinion...(Which is why I take issue with Michael's "facts" all the time!) Law enforcement agencies reported that 49,851 officers were assaulted while performing their duties in 2013. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2013 ) In 2013, there were 458 justifiable homicides by police. Less than 3% of departments reported having even one officer involved shooting. Almost 50,000 officers assaulted, yet the police responded with deadly force only 458 times. The argument that we are having an epidemic of police brutality in this country does not seem to be based on actual facts.

  349. [349] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    I am a facts kinda person myself, despite yer remark to the contrary.. :D

    But facts don't matter here. Liz, Paula, JohnM et al...

    They don't CARE about the facts...

    They believe that Trayvon Martin was stalked and murdered... DESPITE ALL THE FACTS TO THE CONTRARY...

    They believe that Darren Wilson attacked and shot Michael Brown in the back while his hands were raised... DESPITE ALL THE FACTS TO THE CONTRARY...

    This isn't about facts... It's about furthering an anti-cop agenda..

    This is what the facts clearly show...

    "Just the fax..."
    -John McClane, DIE HARD II: Die Harder

    Michale

  350. [350] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here’s a sobering thought for Americans to contemplate as we now deal with the aftermath of the horrific murders of law enforcement officers in the name of Black Lives Matter in Dallas, Texas: this was mission accomplished for Black Lives Matter, not an aberration.

    The violence and hate-filled messages pouring out of Black Lives Matter seek exactly this kind of bloody resolution, or revolution, though they cannot admit it in polite society. Even as celebrities clamor over themselves to demonstrate their fealty to the hate group, they align themselves with one of the most destructive groups to the well-being and justice for black Americans that exist today.
    -Sheriff David Clarke

    Like I said.. (O)BLM is a racist hate group..

    It's very easy to prove this...

    Change every "Black" mention to white..

    "WHITE" POWER... ONLY "WHITE" LIVES MATTER

    If a group of whites got together and spewed bile like that and more, ya'all would scream RACISM to the high heavens...

    There can be absolutely NO DOUBT that (O)BLM is a racist hate group..

    Michale

  351. [351] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/11/sheriff-david-clarke-its-time-to-stand-up-to-black-lives-matter.html

    I hope you can hold your nose and read FoxNews.. :D

    Sheriff Clarke knows what is what about BLM...

    I'de be interested in hearing whether or not you and yours agree with him...

    Michale

  352. [352] 
    Michale wrote:

    Micah Johnson never balked at the $600 asking price for an AK-47 assault rifle. The buy was arranged via Facebook, and consummated in the parking lot of a Target.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dallas-shooter-micah-johnson-purchased-ak-47-facebook-article-1.2708860

    "What!!! The deal was made on FACEBOOK!!!!! CRACK DOWN ON FACEBOOK!!!! Run that place out of business!!!!! They have NO RIGHT being in business if they are going to allow these heinous crimes!!!!! BURN IT DOWN!!!!

    Whaa??? The head of Facebook is The Messiah's BFF???...

    oh.... Never mind.... My bad.... "
    -The Left Wingery

    That is how serious the Left is about gun control.... It's nothing but politics...

    Michale....

  353. [353] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CRACK DOWN ON FACEBOOK!!!! Run that place out of business!!!!! They have NO RIGHT being in business if they are going to allow these heinous crimes!!!!! BURN IT DOWN!!!!

    you're preaching to the choir on that front.

    JL

  354. [354] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're preaching to the choir on that front.

    Well, yer the exception that emphasis the rule.. :D

    But it's always nice to find common ground.. Like a little bitty pokemon flitting around reality.. :D

    Michale

  355. [355] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/canadian-singers-apologize-all-lives-910487

    Ya'all see how bad it's gotten???

    It's now "disrespectful" and "misguided" to proclaim ALL LIVES MATTER...

    What a world we live in where a racist hate group sets the tone for "civil" conversation...

    60-80 years ago it was the KKK....

    Today, we have the (O)BLM....

    Sad.....

    Michale

  356. [356] 
    Michale wrote:

    Transgender woman arrested for voyeurism at Target
    http://www.postregister.com/articles/news-daily-email-todays-headlines/2016/07/12/transgender-woman-arrested-voyeurism-target

    Yea... Let men use women's restrooms and women's dressing rooms..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong.. ?? :^/

    Michale

  357. [357] 
    Michale wrote:

    The woman who filed the complaint should be COMPLETELY ashamed of herself for being so intolerant and hateful..

    Let the scumbag take all the pictures he wants. NO ONE should complain!!

    :^/

    What a world we live in.....

    Michale

  358. [358] 
    Michale wrote:

    University Student Who Criticized Black Lives Matter Faces Expulsion, Death Threats
    http://heatst.com/culture-wars/university-student-who-criticized-black-lives-matter-faces-expulsion-death-threats/

    TOLERANCE IS FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME
    -The Left Wingery (NEN)

    That's what chaps my ass so much.. The BLATANT double standards and hypocrisy....

    MIchale

  359. [359] 
    Paula wrote:

    [347] Listen First, I am always surprised when blacks seem to think that they are the only ones who have the talk with their kids on how to act around the police. I don't know of any race that wouldn't have that talk with their kids, because it is an important lesson that our children need to learn!

    I find that pretty stunning. I really don't know how to react to that. I guess I'll have to start polling my everyone to find out whether everyone gets that talk. It certainly never came up in my life. Although nowadays I can imagine that comes up more as people grow more fearful of the police.

    And you just keep brushing off the experiences black people have -- they don't count, they aren't real, people only think they're being harassed, it's their fault...

    You then recite statistics that seem to reflect your view that all this stuff is exaggerated or untrue, but don't consider where the statistics come from, who compiles them, etc. The police produce the numbers.

    Do you discount the reports that came out of Ferguson and Cleveland?

  360. [360] 
    Paula wrote:

    Separately, here's a good article about the "state-centric-warrior" versus "civic-centric-guardian" models of policing. I'm for the civic-centricl approach. http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/07/12/the-tie-that-binds-police-shootings-and-the-nra-warrior-cops/

    The mindset that ties the message of the NRA to a warrior mentality (a state-centric approach) is one that says that dominance via the use of force (and violence) is the way we protect ourselves. That sets up an ugly feedback loop where the two feed off of each other. The more people are “packing,” the more police officers feel the need to be warriors. In other words, the people we ask to “protect and serve” become the people who view themselves to be at war with us.

  361. [361] 
    Paula wrote:

    [347] Further: When the police are accused of doing something, even though the evidence shows that the accusations are false, what can possibly be done to please people?"

    Yes, there's a problem there. Media sucks on so many levels. But that cuts both ways. When the police leak to the press all sorts of stuff about the most recent dead person, leaked in order to damage that person's reputation and make their killing seem more acceptable, the media runs with that too.

    Also, the evidence of exhaustive investigations show long-term abuse by law enforcement in Ferguson and Cleveland and other cities. What about that evidence?

  362. [362] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with all your quoted articles, Paula,is that they ALL come from anti-police activists...

    As such, they cherry pick their "facts", and often just make shit up, to "prove" a pre-determined conclusion...

    Michale

  363. [363] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, the evidence of exhaustive investigations show long-term abuse by law enforcement in Ferguson and Cleveland and other cities. What about that evidence?

    THAT evidence was "found" when the DOJ couldn't find any malfeasance or racism in the specific incidents that prompted the investigations...

    In other words, it's a case of "We have to find SOMETHING" to support a pre-determined conclusion...

    Don't you find it strange that the DOJ goes in all balls to the walls to find racism in specific incidents in Sanford, in Ferguson, in Staten Island and in Cleveland but have NEVER found any racism associated with those incidents.

    NEVER... NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA....

    And then the DOJ casts a wider net to find SOMETHING... ANYTHING so as to save SOME semblance of face...

    And the anti-cop types just eat that stuff up...

    Michale

  364. [364] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you find it strange that the DOJ goes in all balls to the walls to find racism in specific incidents in Sanford, in Ferguson, in Staten Island and in Cleveland but have NEVER found any racism associated with those incidents.

    NEVER... NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA....

    This is a point that bears repeating..

    A half dozen police shootings... A **VERY** motivated DOJ searching for the merest scintilla of racism, the slightest whiff of racism....

    Comes up EMPTY HANDED **each and EVERY time**

    EVERY TIME....

    Why can't ya'all just admit what is painfully (for ya'all) obvious...

    More often than not, ya'all see racism where none exists....

    Michale

  365. [365] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Obama's great Dallas speech???

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/how-obama-ruined-his-dallas-memorial-speech/

    Not so much.... :^/

    Michale

  366. [366] 
    Michale wrote:

    it’s easier for a poor kid in a struggling neighborhood to get a Glock than a book.
    -President Obama

    How utter ridiculous...

    Maybe it's the cop in me, but *MY* first question would be, "Why does the poor kid want to get a glock? Is it to commit a crime??"

    I mean, seriously.. What does this moron think?? That if we make it harder for the kid to get a glock, he'll just throw up his hands and say, "Well, shit!! It's too hard to get a glock!! I might as well get a book!!"

    Are ya'all SERIOUSLY that delusional!???

    If the kid wants a glock to commit a crime and he can't get one, he'll get a blade... Or a bat... or a hammer... or any one of a HUNDRED different items that he could use as a weapon to commit a crime..

    Maybe you should look at WHY the kid wants a glock...

    Maybe instead of #BlackLivesMatter, the black community should be thinking of #BlackParentingMatters or #BlackFamilyMatters or #BlackFatherhoodMatters or #BlackReponsibilityMatters....

    But, noooooooo Let's just concentrate *ALL* of our energies on WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that will do absolutely NOTHING to address the issue of WHY a poor kid would want a glock instead of a book...

    Yea... THAT'S the ticket... :^/

    Michale

  367. [367] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again and again and again, this president, who was so uniquely positioned with the credibility to do more than any president in history to quell the discord and unify America, has done the exact opposite.

    Instead of waiting for blind justice to work, he repeatedly jumps to prejudicial — and usually wrong — conclusions.

    Police are stupid; somebody looks like him; things were racially motivated; let’s go after guns. Every opportunity he has had to be the honest broker and reach for the great principles and high ideals that unite America, Mr. Obama has instead chosen partisan divisiveness.

    If he were a real man, if he were a leader or statesman or one ounce of the constitutional scholar he claims to be, Mr. Obama would have already hotly condemned and denounced the Black Lives Matter movement as the racist and anti-American thing that it is.

    In America, people are to be fairly and equally judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, he would have told black activists. As bad as it may be to fail to live up to those ideals, it is so much worse to not even try.

    Instead, Mr. Obama chickened out. He scrambled for the easy way out. Shirked his duties. He blew his moment to defend the constitution and stand with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.

    His presidency — for all the hope it began with — has been nothing short of an American catastrophe.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/obama-tramples-on-high-ideals-of-america-fuels-bla/

    Yep......

    Michale

  368. [368] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I thought the speech President Obama gave at the Dallas police memorial was one of the best he has ever given.

    You and I might as well live on different planets, if not in different universes.

  369. [369] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just read the link you provided from the NYPost ... the writer makes a very good point. The speech was too long and did seem to ramble on at about the 25 minute mark and, consequently, lost some of its punch, so to speak. But, still, I think it was a very good speech with a lot of good practical advice for Americans who wish to move forward, together.

  370. [370] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, still, I think it was a very good speech with a lot of good practical advice for Americans who wish to move forward, together.

    It puts absolutely NO onus of responsibility on the black community...

    It's ALL #BlackLivesMatter...

    It's NONE #BlackParentingMatters or #BlackFamilyMatters or #BlackFatherhoodMatters or #BlackReponsibilityMatters....

    As such, it was nothing but a pandering speech that put cops to sleep...

    Michale

  371. [371] 
    Michale wrote:

    But credit where credit is due..

    At least Obama showed up.. I would have bet quatloos he wouldn't have even sent a flunky....

    So, there is that...

    Michale

  372. [372] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I guess a speech that puts cops to sleep is better than one that puts them on a warpath against the president of the United States. ;)

  373. [373] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I guess a speech that puts cops to sleep is better than one that puts them on a warpath against the president of the United States. ;)

    If the president is pandering, then maybe a warpath IS required....

    Let me put it to you this way, Liz..

    I endow ya'all with superhuman powers... Ya'all can solve ONE problem in the black community...

    1. Cops killing innocent black males...

    2. Black males killing black males....

    Ya'all can only solve ONE of the problems..

    Based on the comments here, it is obvious that ya'all would choose problem #1......

    Congratulations... Ya'all have just saved one or two black lives per year.. It's only 2, but hay... BlackLivesMatter, right??

    Congrats...

    NOW...

    If ya'all had chosen #2, ya'all would have saved over NINETY FIVE **HUNDRED** black lives...

    So, you can see why it's so mind-bobbling that ya'all would choose to try and save one or two innocent lives over saving almost TEN THOUSAND lives...

    Of course, there is no ideological/Party benefit to saving all those lives...

    So, maybe it's not so mind-bobbling after all....

    Michale

  374. [374] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought the speech President Obama gave at the Dallas police memorial was one of the best he has ever given.

    Of course you do..

    It's a little bit better than the last one.. But not quite as good as the next one... :D

    Michale

  375. [375] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    I liked the article you shared, and I agree with it. I believe the Guardian did a similar piece on the warrior vs. guardian approaches to police work around the same time as Ferguson. I don't dispute the DOJ's findings that the justice system treats some people worse than others, I do question whether or not those differences are intentional acts of racial discrimination or if they are economically motivated. Wealthy blacks do not face the same legal problem that poor whites face; but then wealthy Hispanics also don't face the same legal problem that poor Native Americans face either.

    And you just keep brushing off the experiences black people have -- they don't count, they aren't real, people only think they're being harassed, it's their fault...

    I hate that it sounds like I am brushing off the experiences of black people, but after re-reading my posts I can see why you would think that as my comments have been less than empathetic. I would point out that talking about the black experience is not the same as discussing the facts of a case. How people feel and how they are treated by the police definitely matter. But those feelings have no place in determining guilt/innocence in criminal cases.

    While the DOJ have found that the police departments needed to fix the way they treated the black communities, the reports also made it very clear that race played absolutely no role in the shooting deaths and that the officers involved acted appropriately and followed standard policing practices. So the feelings and experiences of the black community are valid, but they are not factors in most of the cases that are causing the outrage.

    Do you not see the problem with the public pointing to Michael Brown's death and demanding change from the police? The officer was attacked and responded to a use of deadly force against him with a show of deadly force of his own. Are the police not allowed to defend their own lives? And for those that think Brown's death was racially motivated, I always ask, "What race would the person have to be for Officer Wilson to have allowed them to take his gun and kill him with it? White? Pacific Islander/Greek mix?" What that says to the police is that Only Black Lives Matter.

    I feel like too many people look at what these shooting deaths for what they symbolically represent to them and the black community but ignore the reality and facts of what occurred. Like the one person told me during Ferguson, what Michael Brown and Officer Wilson came to represent was more important and much bigger than who they are and what they actually did as individuals. We are outraged (and rightly so!) when we discover evidence that exonerates blacks that should have never been indicted, much less convicted for the crimes that caused them to spend decades in prison. Yet we demand that officers face trial for shooting even if there is no evidence to support the charges against them. It's not about justice, it's about revenge.

    Has anyone from BLM ever apologized to Darrin Wilson for how he was/is portrayed in Michael Brown's death? He was doing his job and didn't want to die, and that cost him his job, forced him to move his family out of state, and continue to receive death threats. I have no problem pointing out when the police are guilty of causing the death of blacks that aren't justifiable; I just wish that courtesy went both ways.

  376. [376] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [368]

    I hope your planet has room for me, because I thought Obama gave an incredible speech at a very sensitive and emotionally charged event!

  377. [377] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    One last thought about the comment you made:
    When the police leak to the press all sorts of stuff about the most recent dead person, leaked in order to damage that person's reputation and make their killing seem more acceptable, the media runs with that too.

    The police do NOT leak information regarding an active investigation, or the individuals involved would face criminal prosecution. The press tried to claim that the video of Michael Brown committing strong armed robbery was released by Police Chief to discredit Brown's character. That was complete and utter bullshasta! I have been a public records advocate for years. The press entered a public records request with the Ferguson PD for any and all records involving Michael Brown. Because the police had decided not to press charges on Dorian Johnson in exchange for his testimony on what he witnessed during the shooting, the strong armed robbery case was closed. If there is an active investigation, the evidence related to it is not subject to release. If the case is closed, the evidence is subject to release according to public record laws.

    HuffPost went beyond being reprehensible when they ran an article calling the Ferguson Police Chief a liar for saying that the only reason the video was released was because someone had requested it. The author was playing the semantics game, trying to argue that the reporter never named the video specifically in his request, even though the law still required the police to release the video because it was under the umbrella of things the request meant when it asked for "any and all records relating to Michael Brown".

  378. [378] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ[376],

    I hope your planet has room for me, because I thought Obama gave an incredible speech at a very sensitive and emotionally charged event!

    The more, the merrier, I always say ... :)

    I'm happy to hear you liked the speech. This may be a critical turning point ...

  379. [379] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why do you always put an 'O' in brackets before BLM when you are commenting on BlackLivesMatter?

  380. [380] 
    Michale wrote:

    While the DOJ have found that the police departments needed to fix the way they treated the black communities, the reports also made it very clear that race played absolutely no role in the shooting deaths and that the officers involved acted appropriately and followed standard policing practices. So the feelings and experiences of the black community are valid, but they are not factors in most of the cases that are causing the outrage.

    Which is EXACTLY what I said in comment #363, #364...

    Bet ya, your's gets ignored too.. :D

    Michale

  381. [381] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Why do you always put an 'O' in brackets before BLM when you are commenting on BlackLivesMatter?

    What that says to the police is that Only Black Lives Matter.
    -Listen

    That clear it up?? :D

    It's abundantly clear that to this racist hate group ONLY black lives matter...

    This is easy to prove.. Got to a (O)BLM rally and stand and proclaim that ALL LIVES MATTER..

    Please be packing when you do that, as your life will be in danger...

    But, since you ask your question, let me ask mine..

    How is it that black lives "matter", but over 96% of black males are killed by other black males??

    That's a question that defies answer...

    Michale

  382. [382] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is easy to prove.. Got to a (O)BLM rally and stand and proclaim that ALL LIVES MATTER..

    Please be packing when you do that, as your life will be in danger...

    Which, in and of itself, proves how nasty and hateful this (O)BLM group is...

    Michale

  383. [383] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen

    I hope your planet has room for me, because I thought Obama gave an incredible speech at a very sensitive and emotionally charged event!

    Let me repeat what I said above..

    It puts absolutely NO onus of responsibility on the black community...

    It's ALL #BlackLivesMatter...

    It's NO #BlackParentingMatters or #BlackFamilyMatters or #BlackFatherhoodMatters or #BlackReponsibilityMatters....

    As such, it was nothing but a pandering speech that put cops to sleep...

    Michale

  384. [384] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh look!!!!

    A new study by a Harvard economist, who happens to be black, finds cops less likely to use deadly force on black suspects vs. white.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/14/ignorance_of_facts_fuels_the_anti-cop_movement_131188.html

    ANOTHER study!! :D

    My study kicks yer study in the arse!!! :D

    Michale

  385. [385] 
    Michale wrote:

    HuffPost went beyond being reprehensible

    THERE's a shocker.. :^/

    Michale

  386. [386] 
    Michale wrote:

    How is it that black lives "matter", but over 96% of black males are killed by other black males??

    That's a question that defies answer...

    Do you want to know where the most dangerous place for a black person to be.

    In this place, tens of thousands of black people are killed every year..

    That place is the womb....

    So, if we take the number of black abortions per year and the number of black deaths caused by black people every year and go back over 30 years...

    Black people are responsible for MILLIONS of black deaths....

    So you might understand why it's hard for me to wrap my brain around the concept that black people actually BELIEVE that black lives "matter"....

    It goes back to ya'all's superpower thing..

    The black community can save a couple lives a year by addressing the unjustified killing of black people by cops..

    TWO black lives....

    Or the black community can save almost TEN THOUSAND black lives by addressing the brutal killing of black people by other black people...

    If they do the latter, THEN they can stand proud on the idea that black lives do, indeed, matter...

    But doing the former simply proves it's all about pushing an ideologically WHACKED agenda and that black lives DON'T matter....

    Am I wrong???

    "Yer not wrong"

    :D

    Michale

  387. [387] 
    Michale wrote:

    Columbia fires 2 more firefighters, closes a station as fallout grows over Facebook postings
    Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article89491017.html#storylink=cpy

    's ironic....

    A racist hate group can loudly proclaim in earnest that they want dead cops and the Left Wingery falls all over themselves to kow-tow to the racist hate group..

    Good and decent public servants who PROTECT these (O)BLM racist morons express an obvious joke in frustration and their lives are ruined...

    Jan 2017 can't come soon enough!!

    Michale

  388. [388] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fresno police release body camera videos in Dylan Noble shooting

    Noble was fatally shot by officers on June 25 during traffic stop

    Video shows Noble repeatedly ignoring officers’ commands to show his hands

    Department has said officers believed Noble was about to shoot them
    Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article89431417.html#storylink=cpy

    Where's the hysteria???

    Where's the outrage???

    Where's the protests???

    Subject was a white man..

    Oh... That explains it...

    Michale

  389. [389] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Charles Blow of the NYTimes makes an excellent point about the root causes of the tension that exists today between police departments the minority communities they serve.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/opinion/blood-on-your-hands-too.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

    The phrase that I like to use, generally speaking, is that we are ALL in this together. Charles Blow explains how you can draw a line between policies made in Washington and state capitols - particularly tax and fiscal policies and national and state budgets - directly to community/police relations, for better or worse. Joe Biden has a saying (it was actually his dad's phrase) which goes like this ... don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll you what you value,

    Here's how I see the BlackLivesMatter movement ... given the history and the historical challenges that still permeate the present of black life in America, it might be called BLMT! - BlackLivesMatterToo!

    You will recall, Michale, being the true defender of the constitution that you are, that black lives used to matter only 3/5 as much as white lives!

    Can you find it in your heart to at least try to understand why BLM doesn't mean that other lives don't matter, too and to see that relations between the police and minority communities/citizens is the end point of a long and winding continuum of policies and policymaking that directly or indirectly impact on the health and life of communities across America.

  390. [390] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hate when I mangle what Joe Biden says!

    "Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I'll show you what you value."

    That has taken on added meaning for me in the wake of recent discussions here.

  391. [391] 
    Michale wrote:

    You will recall, Michale, being the true defender of the constitution that you are, that black lives used to matter only 3/5 as much as white lives!

    Which has absolutely NO BEARING on today...

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA.....

    Humans used to live in caves and wear animal skins and poop where ever they wanted to...

    But that ALSO has absolutely NO bearing in the here and now...

    Can you find it in your heart to at least try to understand why BLM doesn't mean that other lives don't matter,

    I could.. Possibly...

    IF the BLM movement didn't violently attack ANYONE who counter's their message with the obvious message that ALL lives matter....

    Here's how I see the BlackLivesMatter movement ... given the history and the historical challenges that still permeate the present of black life in America, it might be called BLMT! - BlackLivesMatterToo!

    It SHOULD be called that..

    And, if the goal was truly what the Left Wingery claims is the goal, it WOULD be called that..

    But the group doesn't WANT to acknowledge that point..

    Their group is ALL about black lives and black lives ONLY...

    But even THAT is total bullshit because they don't give a rip about all the black abortions and all the black on black violence..

    Look at Chicago and try to tell me that black people REALLY care about black lives..

    Michale

  392. [392] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's another great piece that you may find of interest and I'd love to get your thoughts on ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/when-whites-just-dont-get-it-part-6.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

    The point here is that the white community needs to take its share of responsibility for the state of affairs in police/minority community relations. As whites, we should focus our thoughts, actions and comments on that!

  393. [393] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the base message behind BLM, from the beginning, is that black lives matter, too.

  394. [394] 
    Michale wrote:

    95% of the problems that the black community has are self-inflicted...

    Michale

  395. [395] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're all in this together, Michale!

  396. [396] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think the base message behind BLM, from the beginning, is that black lives matter, too.

    If that's what you have to believe to support the group, fine.. I don't fault you for that..

    But the facts CLEARLY show that, as Listen points out, to the group, ONLY black lives matter...

    The point here is that the white community needs to take its share of responsibility for the state of affairs in police/minority community relations.

    What the hell do you think AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is!!???

    The "white community" has been taking it's share of responsibility for a hundred years..

    Are things any better??

    No.. Because the black community refuses to accept ANY responsibility for THEIR actions..

    30 thousand black abortions a year. Almost 10,000 black males killed by other black males..

    THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "white community"...

    It's ALL on the black community..

    And the Left Wingery who acts as the enabler for ducking responsibility..

    Michale

  397. [397] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are the problems in your community also self-inflicted? I know you have problems in your community because you have said so in the past and is one of the reasons you would like to see Trump in the White House.

    I'm confused about how you apportion responsibility ...

  398. [398] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    30 thousand black abortions a year. Almost 10,000 black males killed by other black males..

    How many white abortions per year? How many white males killed by other white males?

    Are you saying that ... what the heck are you saying?

  399. [399] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're all in this together, Michale

    There comes a time when indulgence becomes enabling...

    Did the white community burn Ferguson to the ground??

    No, it was the black community...

    Was it the white community that burned Baltimore to the ground??

    No, it was the black community..

    You and Hillary and Paula et al go on an on about how the white community needs to accept responsibility..

    But, in your eyes, the black community is blameless..

    Do you blame the black community for Dallas?? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous..

    Yet, ya'all blame the entirety of the white community for every little imagined slight that the black community spouts off about...

    Michale

  400. [400] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many white abortions per year?

    Blacks account for approx 13% of the population, but they account for over 34% of the abortions according to the CDC>.

    How many white males killed by other white males?

    Blacks account for approx 13% of the population, but they account for over 96% of the cause of black deaths..

    Are you saying that ... what the heck are you saying?

    I am saying that, if black lives matter, why is the OVERWHELMING cause of black deaths, other blacks???

    Michale

  401. [401] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am saying that, according to the FACTS, black lives *DON'T* matter to black people unless the deaths of black people can be used as a bludgeon to beat political opponents over the head with...

    If you have any FACTS that dispute this conclusion..

    "Well, I am all ears"
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Election Debate

    Michale

  402. [402] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sam Duboes, the driver who was shot and killed in Cincinatti...

    He had NINETEEN kids by 6 or 7 different women..

    And THAT is the norm for the black community...

    Now, you tell me that THAT is not a good portion of the problems facing the black community...

    Michale

  403. [403] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can a black person say that black lives matter, then IGNORE the millions and millions of black persons that have been killed in the last 30 years, ALL AT THE HANDS OF BLACK PEOPLE

    If you have a logical and rational and, above all else, FACTUAL answer to that question, I will shut up about the entire issue..

    But the ONLY logical, rational and factual answer is that black lives DON'T matter to the (O)BLM group.. It's just an excuse to push their racist and hate-filled political agenda...

    Michale

  404. [404] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If there was any doubt that you are incapable of self-reflection and soul searching or even of assessing situations or putting yourself in the shoes of ANY of your fellow citizens, there is none now. :(

    Have a nice day!

  405. [405] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which, ironically, helps make sense of many of your comments.

  406. [406] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Carry on ...

  407. [407] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are the problems in your community also self-inflicted?

    In a manner of speaking..

    We voted for Obama...

    Every community has it's share of problems..

    But the BLACK community is unique in that it, as a whole, REFUSES to accept it's own responsibility and seeks to blame OTHER communities...

    Whites didn't burn down Ferguson and Baltimore.. Blacks did..

    Whites don't shoot hundreds of whites every month in Chicago...
    Blacks do..

    Whites don't have dozens of children out of wedlock.
    Blacks do..

    All of these are real and serious problems within the black community THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITES

    Ya'all go on and on about the white community's responsibility for the black community but completely and utterly ignore the black community's responsibility..

    Why???

    The answer is simple...

    Political expediency... The Left Wingery *CAN'T* hold the black community responsible because then the Left Wingery would lose their votes...

    That's all it boils down to..

    Michale

  408. [408] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there was any doubt that you are incapable of self-reflection and soul searching or even of assessing situations or putting yourself in the shoes of ANY of your fellow citizens, there is none now. :(

    Yer right. I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who sires almost 2 dozen children by 6 or 7 different women..

    I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who burns down their own neighborhoods..

    I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who kills cops....

    I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who murders by the TENS OF THOUSANDS, members of my own race...

    Your absolutely right..

    I CAN'T see things from that perspective.....

    The fact that YOU can says more about you than it does about me...

    Have an awesomely frabjous day... :D

    MIchale

  409. [409] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there was any doubt that you are incapable of self-reflection and soul searching or even of assessing situations or putting yourself in the shoes of ANY of your fellow citizens, there is none now. :(

    Actually, I have laid out a dozen questions and facts that ya'all refuse to answer or address..

    Ya'all can't because those facts PROVE ya'all are wrong....

    So, you just ignore them.....

    But it's OK.. I am used to winning by forfeit... :D

    Michale

  410. [410] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This isn't about winning, Michale.

  411. [411] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the point you don't get..

    White people have been acknowledging their responsibility for a hundred years... THAT is what Affirmative Action is..

    And things have not gotten better, they have gotten worse..

    And *WHY* have things gotten worse??

    Because the black community refuses to accept ANY responsibility...

    A black person guns down 12 cops and 2 civilians..

    And it's the WHITE community that needs to look at itself and it's actions..

    WTF????

    Ya'all can't hold the black community responsible for ANYTHING...

    Because ya'all are afraid of losing their votes..

    It's THAT simple....

    Michale

  412. [412] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn't about winning, Michale.

    Says the lovely young lady who's not.. :D

    Michale

  413. [413] 
    Michale wrote:

    Slavery in the US a hundred years ago has as much relevance in the lives of the American people as the Stalin Purges has to the Russian people..

    It happened, it's bad and it's sad that it happened..

    But to use THAT as an excuse to burn down your own neighborhoods and kill cops???

    Again... WTF???

    Michale

  414. [414] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there was any doubt that you are incapable of self-reflection and soul searching

    What kind of "self-reflection" and "soul-searching" is required for me to comment on a black scumbag who gunned down 14 people, including 12 cops??

    Just curious...

    Michale

  415. [415] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth; you can see what we have to deal with in this country.

    Can you find it in your heart to at least try to understand why BLM doesn't mean that other lives don't matter, too and to see that relations between the police and minority communities/citizens is the end point of a long and winding continuum of policies and policymaking that directly or indirectly impact on the health and life of communities across America.

    Nope. He can't. He won't. Coz if he admits the accuracy of any point it will make the next point questionable - and if he admits that, it will cast doubt on his position on the next point. Easier all around to put his fingers in his ears and scream "NO! I can't heeeeeeeear you!" Plus he just enjoys baiting us.

    Michale is an excellent example of a certain type of American: the rolling gasbag of white privilege. The important thing is to identify those of his mindset who can be salvaged and keep the rest as far away from the corridors of power as possible until they die out.

  416. [416] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea...

    I am ROLLING in white privilege...

    hehehehehehehehehe

    Seriously, you people should take a step back and see how utterly ridiculous and totally inane you sound...

    The scary part is, ya'all actually BELIEVE it!!

    Ya'all can't address the facts so you just resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks...

    You remind me of that guy in THE REPLACEMENTS..

    "Dem cops jus tryin' to keep the black man down!!!"

    Hay Paula, the 60s are calling.. They want their racial activism back.. .

    Heh

    Michale

  417. [417] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elizabeth; you can see what we have to deal with in this country.

    Oh, so now I am representative of the entire country!!!???

    Whoever you took that hugely broad brush from, they want it back.. They need to paint house.. :D

    Michale

  418. [418] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact of the matter is that there is no institutionalize racism in this country. It died the day we elected a black guy as President...

    These are the facts...

    Michale

  419. [419] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, so now I am representative of the entire country!!!???

    Oh, please, say it ain't so. :)

  420. [420] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When you say "institutionalized racism", what do you mean, precisely?

  421. [421] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I think I understand Michale and what he is trying to do here. And, as many times as I say I've had enough of his worldview, that's as many times as I keep coming back for more.

    There's a name for that kind of behavior and I'm guilty as charged. :)

  422. [422] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale is an excellent example of a certain type of American: the rolling gasbag of white privilege.

    I feel like too many people look at what these shooting deaths for what they symbolically represent to them and the black community but ignore the reality and facts of what occurred. Like the one person told me during Ferguson, what Michael Brown and Officer Wilson came to represent was more important and much bigger than who they are and what they actually did as individuals. We are outraged (and rightly so!) when we discover evidence that exonerates blacks that should have never been indicted, much less convicted for the crimes that caused them to spend decades in prison. Yet we demand that officers face trial for shooting even if there is no evidence to support the charges against them. It's not about justice, it's about revenge.

    Has anyone from BLM ever apologized to Darrin Wilson for how he was/is portrayed in Michael Brown's death? He was doing his job and didn't want to die, and that cost him his job, forced him to move his family out of state, and continue to receive death threats. I have no problem pointing out when the police are guilty of causing the death of blacks that aren't justifiable; I just wish that courtesy went both ways.
    -ListenWhenYouHear

    Of course, Listen is a product of "white privilege" too, right?? :D

    Every time I type "white privilege" I laugh and think back to that Orlando Jones scene from THE REPLACEMENTS... :D

    Anyone who thinks "white privilege" exists beyond a Left Winger inane totally BS talking point is delusional and is unwilling to assess any blame where it REALLY belongs...

    "White privilege" doesn't abort 30,000 black babies a year.. Black people do..

    "White privilege" doesn't brutally murder 10,000 black people a year.. Black people do...

    "White privilege" didn't burn down Baltimore or Ferguson black neighborhoods. Black people did..

    "White privilege" doesn't kill hundreds if black people in Chicago every month. Black people do...

    I could go on and on, but what would be the point??

    With ya'all, it's ALL about fanatical ideological slavery...

    And you can't debate rational and logical facts with a fanatic...

    Michale

  423. [423] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale,

    When you say "institutionalized racism", what do you mean, precisely?

    What do YOU think I mean??

    Michale

  424. [424] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, so now I am representative of the entire country!!!???

    Oh, please, say it ain't so. :)

    Apparently, Paula seems to think so... :D

    Kewl.... :D

    Michale

  425. [425] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You think I'm asking these questions to be cute?

    No, I'm asking because I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that institutionalized racism ended the day President Obama was elected. And, if I am to understand what you mean, then I need to know how you define institutionalized racism as it existed BEFORE Obama was elected ...

  426. [426] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you say "institutionalized racism", what do you mean, precisely?

    Remembering that I am nothing but a knuckle-dragging ground pounder, this is my definition of institutionalized racism...

    A health-inspector out on his rounds is harsher on his inspections when he is inspecting businesses that are owned by black people..

    THAT is racism...

    A directive comes down from the Director of the Health Department that says ALL health inspectors must be harsher on businesses owned by black people than other businesses.. This directive is followed by the entirety of the health department on a systemic and on-going basis...

    THAT is institutionalized racism...

    If anyone has any actual factual evidence of institutionalized racism????

    Put it out there...

    Otherwise, the facts are clear....

    And I mean evidence like "code words" and "dog whistles" and "super duper decoder rings" kind of evidence..

    REAL, tangible evidence for which there is one possible conclusion and one possible conclusion ONLY...

    When you have THAT kind of evidence??

    We'll talk....

    Michale

  427. [427] 
    Michale wrote:

    You think I'm asking these questions to be cute?

    You don't have to ask questions to be cute... :D

    Apparently, it comes naturally for you. :D

    Michale

  428. [428] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I mean evidence like "code words" and "dog whistles" and "super duper decoder rings" kind of evidence..

    And I DON'T mean evidence like "code words" and "dog whistles" and "super duper decoder rings" kind of evidence..

    My bust....

    Michale

  429. [429] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing like a buttload of facts to quiet down a room.. :D

    Michale

  430. [430] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Buttload being the key word. Ahem.

  431. [431] 
    Michale wrote:

    Buttload being the key word. Ahem.

    Exactly....

    N. 1. An extremely large quantity of anything that takes up space. 10x bigger than an assload , and 100x bigger than a shitload , yet smaller than a truckload.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buttload

    :D

    Michale

  432. [432] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hoisted on your own whatever ...

  433. [433] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea... It's a cross I must bear.. :D

    Michale

  434. [434] 
    Michale wrote:

    I bring facts to the masses... :D

    Heh

    Michale

  435. [435] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Enough, already!

  436. [436] 
    Michale wrote:

    Enough, already!

    Awwwwwww You can NEVER have too many facts!!! :D

    OK, OK... The points been made... :D

    Michale

  437. [437] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    "White privilege" does exist, and as a society we were very honest about its existence and what it meant back 30-something years ago. Why in the world would we have created Affirmative Action if we weren't aware of how it unfairly affected minorities in the workplace? This is why I get confused when people say that society has to wake up and recognize the problem exists so that we can do something to help fix the damage caused by "white privilege"; ummmmmmm, we did.

    I know that white people get offended when someone says that it was easier for them to get a certain job or to reach a certain level of management than it would be for people of color, because it suggests we did not have to work hard or put any effort into achieving our goals; they were just handed to us. Here's how I explain "white privilege" to people:

    "White privilege" allows whites to register for the marathon online, but it requires people of color to carry the entry form by hand to the sponsor's HQ between the hours of 2:07pm and 2:13pm the day before the race in order to register. Must have exact change!

    "White privilege" does not make running a marathon easier for whites, nor does it lessen the accomplishment for whites (nobody just runs a marathon like its no big deal, it takes hard work and training to get into that kind of shape!), but what it does do is that it adds extra difficulty for people of color just to be able to reach the starting line!

  438. [438] 
    Michale wrote:

    "White privilege" allows whites to register for the marathon online, but it requires people of color to carry the entry form by hand to the sponsor's HQ between the hours of 2:07pm and 2:13pm the day before the race in order to register. Must have exact change!

    That's a very good explanation of what white privilege was..

    Just like my explanation of institutionalized racism is a very good example of what it WAS...

    Now, if you can find me an example of that in the here and now..

    THEN... and ONLY then.. will you have a case that white privilege still exists...

    Until such time as those facts are presented....

    White privilege, like institutionalized racism is as mythical as a unicorn...

    Michale

  439. [439] 
    Michale wrote:

    White privilege, like institutionalized racism is as mythical as a unicorn...

    To be more accurate, White privilege, like institutionalized racism is as mythical, in the here and now, as a unicorn...

    Michale

  440. [440] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as always, I am open to be proven wrong..

    Give me a factual, verifiable and documented case of either white privilege or institutionalized that is based on bona fide facts without the use of mythical and subjective code words, dog whistles or the little hairs on the back of your neck standing up..

    Find me the facts that prove this beyond ANY doubt from the last 7 years and I will shut up about it...

    Michale

  441. [441] 
    Michale wrote:

    Way Way way back..... approx 24 hours ago...

    I posted an article about an unarmed white man shot and killed by police in nearly identical circumstances than other police shootings of black men..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/07/08/ftp399/#comment-79494

    Not a SINGLE comment from Weigantians calling into question the actions of the officers..

    The facts are undeniable..

    The Left Wingery (NEN) don't give a flying frak unless cops shoot a black person....

    It's *ALL* about the ideology...

    Michale

  442. [442] 
    Michale wrote:

    SEDRO-WOOLLEY, Wash. – The sheriff of a county about 70 miles north of Seattle says a restaurant owner has asked that law enforcement no longer dine there.

    Skagit County Sheriff Will Reichardt said on Facebook that after four deputies finished lunch at Lucky's Teriyaki in Sedro-Woolley Thursday, the owner asked them not to eat there anymore.

    Reichardt says the deputies were told that customers didn't like law enforcement there. The sheriff says his chief deputy called the owner later Thursday and says the request was confirmed along with a request to spread the word among other law enforcement agencies.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/15/deputies-asked-not-to-dine-at-washington-state-restaurant.html

    Yea... No anti-cop bias amongst the Left Wingery.. None at all. :^/

    Michale

  443. [443] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-good-men-talk-about-race-1468536387

    I am willing to address EVERY point in this commentary...

    Is anyone else???

    Michale

  444. [444] 
    Michale wrote:
  445. [445] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [442] Michael,

    Who said that shop owner was a liberal? You continue to falsely associate behaviors you disagree with or dislike as being the product of "left-Wingery" witchcraft. Should I assume any story of a man being arrested for sex with his farm animal is just another example of Wrong-Wingery values?

  446. [446] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who said that shop owner was a liberal?

    Washington State, first of all... :D

    Anti-cop?? Yea, definitely a liberal...

    Michale

  447. [447] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anti-cop?? Yea, definitely a liberal...

    Of course there are always exceptions.. That's a given..

    But the few exceptions to the rule don't belie the legitimacy of the rule itself..

    Michale

  448. [448] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's secret weapon is Ivanka
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/287789-right-hand-woman

    Strange....

    Donald Trump doesn't SOUND like Satan*OR* Hitler....

    I am guessing it's just more BS hyperbole from the hysterical Left Wingery....

    Michale

  449. [449] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cwap.... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.