by Jack
“What do We Want? Dead Cops” – NYC Crowd Chants and now we have two dead police officers in Brooklyn, cut down by a Black male who wanted revenge. Well, I hope they’re happy. This crowd of morons has the blood of these dead cops all over them for life and so do a lot of other morons.
The following people are IMHO responsible for the deaths of these police officers, they are, in no particular order:
Ismaaiyl Brinsley, shooting suspect in Brooklyn
The mob of several hundred Black in Brooklyn. Black thugs on Brooklyn bridge and the white college professor who assaulted two police officers.
Barrack Obama
Eric Holder
Al Sharpton
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
Gov. of Missouri Jay Nixon
Ex-con and parolee, Louis Head, step father of Michael Brown (Ferguson)
Rams football players who put their hands up, despite evidence that Michael Brown never had his hands up or said, “Don’t shoot.”
All the liberal spokespeople who wrongly accused police everywhere of killing blacks with reckless abandon. (a.
(a. The facts say otherwise, police use great restraint. In 2014 millions of police calls and contacts with Black offenders, and hundreds of times the police face armed felons and yet only 124 Black males, almost all of them armed, all suspected of a part 1 felony, were actually shot and killed by police when they refused to surrender and threatened the officer/s. Blacks far more likely to murder (about 300% more) and the majority of all Black gun deaths (apx. 92%) are caused by other Blacks.
Needless to say, these guys aren’t speaking well for the black community. It’s only causing resentment anger and bitterness and non trust. It’s making black people look pretty bad. Signed ce6k
Caught deBlustero last night on TV lamenting the deaths that he helped cause with his marching in unison with those crying “death to cops.”
And NYPD officers in the crowd expressed their feelings by turning their backs on the mayor’s speech.
Well done, NYPD. A non-violent way to loudly express your contempt.
I agree with the comment made by Ce6k.
I would take it a bit further and state the people Jack listed and using the media to their advantage and stirring up protesters have set race relations back several decades.
Police have a tough enough job to carry out, if anyone of any race is given a command by any officer just comply and we would all would be discussing something else.
Harold, I have passed along your comments to Ce6k this morning. She says thanks!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the issue was WHITE cops were killing BLACKS.
Why isn’t anyone reporting the outrage that the cops “executed” were an Asian and a Hispanic minority members? Why aren’t these minority groups speaking out against deBlasio, Sharpton, etc. Aren’t they just as upset over this targeting of one of their race?
This is a race issue, right? Just like it was back in the 1960-70s. Obama and Holder has put us back decades in race relations. Good job idiots.
Also, another cop was killed in Florida this morning while answering a call.
If I was a cop in NY I’d be feeling like a bad case of the flu was coming on. Let the city survive for just one day without them and see if de Blasio is still in office the next day.
Seeing the video of the cops turn their backs on de Blasio as he walked into the news conference was really a slap in his face statement of no confidence.
Collective blame is so much fun when you’re the one dishing it out.
Ref:#6…. spoken by a expert
“There’s also value in having longer memories. In 2008, Jim David Adkisson walked into a Unitarian church in Tennessee, opened fire, and killed two people while wounding seven others. The shooter said he felt compelled to kill liberals because they’re bad for the country, and police later found books written by Fox News hosts in Adkisson’s home.
Was Sean Hannity responsible for these murders? Of course not. Deranged people are capable of horrific acts; their preferred television personalities are not to blame.
A year later, in 2009, Richard Poplawski gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh. He later said he targeted law enforcement because of the non-existent “Obama gun ban” he’d heard about in the media. Were conservative figures who’d carelessly used the ridiculous phrase partially responsible for the death of the three officers? No, they weren’t.
There’s no shortage of related examples. Joe Stack flew an airplane into a building, motivated by anti-government sentiment. Dr. George Tiller’s assassin was motivated by his opposition to abortion rights. The Oklahoma City bombers killed 168 people. How much responsibility do mainstream conservative pundits and politicians carry for these crimes? None.
There was also Cliven Bundy’s dangerous conflict with the Bureau of Labor Management – which generated all kinds of support from Republican policymakers and conservative pundits – and which “eventually motivated Jerad and Amanda Miller to kill five people in Las Vegas after participating in the Bundy standoff … declaring, ‘If they’re going to come bring violence to us, well, if that’s the language they want to speak, we’ll learn it.’”
Under the reasoning espoused by Giuliani, King, Pataki, and others over the weekend, the responsibility for all kinds of violence should apparently be extended to every corner of our political world.
Which is largely why this blame game isn’t worth playing. Tragically, lunatics sometimes commit horrific crimes. When it comes to maintaining a healthy discourse in a free society, let’s not connect their violence to political opinions we may or may not like.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-unfortunate-rush-politicize-the-nypd-murders
Don’t forget the Gabby Giffords shooting. Sarah Pailin put Giffords on the “Target List” with cross hairs on her district, “‘Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!'” Pailin said.
U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others were shot during a constituent meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona. Six people died, including federal District Court Chief Judge John Roll; Gabe Zimmerman, one of Rep. Giffords’ staffers; and a nine-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green.
Was Pailin responsible? Of course not, it was the actions of a deranged individual.
Jim, you are trying to make a comparison where there is no comparison. Chris agrees with you and that ought to tell you you’re on the wrong track, but the focus here is on a very narrow subject.
The President of the United States saw fit to weigh in 3 times on matters of local concern. He made a knee jerks kind of response and that was unprecedented. And 3 times he took the wrong side. This is entirely different than any example you offered as something equivalent. You don’t want to go down this road… lets stay focused and compare apples to apples.
Chris gets in trouble because he can’t focus on a specific issue and dissect it. He shifts to irrelevancy and side bar issues all the time. Sure, in his mind he connects the dots. But that doesn’t make him right. In fact almost every rational person would disagree with his positions, even a die-hard democrat because Chris is way too far out and his bias and hate for the moderate and right of center politics has him confused.
There’s a difference for me between a nut case taking the ideas expressed in media and books, letting them become twisted in his own mind, and deciding for himself to go on a killing rampage and authority figures encouraging violence and mayhem under the umbrella of their official office.
There is also a difference between disagreeing profoundly with political/social opinions and expressing oneself and promoting and teaching resentment, hate, and revenge.
The political targeting of cops is dangerous and stupid.
And then we have brain-dead elected representatives to deny the facts until he is confronted with the facts.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/22/video-there-isnt-much-dem-rep-can-say-after-cnn-host-delegitimizes-his-defense-of-anti-cop-protesters-with-just-four-words/
Is he responsible for spreading a lie inciting people to act against the police? Of course he is, for not being informed and promoting the truth.
Exactly, Jim. I remember the bloggers here showing outrage that anyone would dare blame conservatives as a whole for this type of violence. I agreed and said that was unfair.
But this is Post Scripts, where two wrongs make a right winger very happy.
Long memories and covenant ones, lets not forget this young man either:
My name was Antonio West. I was the 13-month old child who was shot in the face at point blank range by two black teens, who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot.
I think my murder and my mommy’s wounding made the news for maybe a day, and then disappeared.
A Grand Jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick, Georgia ruled the black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty… but it was me who got the death sentence from my killers instead, because Mommy didn’t have the money they demanded.
See, my family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder wasn’t ruled a ‘hate crime’.
Oh, and President Obama didn’t take a single moment to acknowledge my murder. why did he not care?, why was my death not as important to him as say Michael Brown, or even Treyvon Martin, why, I would ask did I not deserve his attention?
I’m one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation’s history, but the media didn’t care to cover the story of my being killed in cold blood. Won’t someone stand up for me?
There isn’t a white equivalent of Al Sharpton, because if there was he would be branded a ‘racist’. So no one’s rushing to Brunswick, Georgia to demonstrate and demand ‘justice’ for me. There’s no ‘White Panther’ party, either, to put a bounty on the lives of the two black teens who murdered me.
Ref #7: You nailed that nicely and tightly. ^5’s Somewhere I read, “stupid is as stupid does.” (Or in this case maybe “deranged is as deranged does.”)
OFF TOPIC: What do you make of this weirdness?
“The ex-lawman had private Facebook communications that he shared via email with the state and the FBI, according to documents viewed by AP. The agents’ names were redacted by Kessler.”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLICE_CHIEF_VIDEO_CONTROVERSY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-22-13-15-35
My take: HUH??? THERE IS NOTHING ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THAT IS PRIVATE! GET A DAMN CLUE!
When you blanket blame it is a disservice and leads to more violence.
here is another interesting story. An off duty police officer shoots in road rage. Maybe there is a culture problem. When claiming one profession or status is above all others it is just plain silly.
“An off-duty Texas cop got upset at a woman for cutting him off and allegedly fired his gun into her window, hitting her in the head.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/29/cop-shoots-woman-in-head-road-rage_n_6237910.html
Jeanie, you’re right about “blanket blaming.” Trying to lump all of law enforcement into one category is beyond stupid, its just crazy and speaks to a racist issue not facts.
I don’t blame all Black people for killing two police officers in New York, nor for the riots in Ferguson, nor for the angry racists laden protesting where they blocking cars, starting fights, trying to incite rioting, in New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Chicago and other cities. But, I am aware that this is a pretty wide spread problem. It points to a fairly large group of people being responsible, including the President and a number of Black leaders. It’s disturbing when that many people are involved in a collective race based issue, but I still refuse to hold all Black responsible, however, that said I do think in the most general terms….this is something only the Black community can solve. We all must focus on the reality of the situation, not on hype, fiction or a false narrative.
Thank you for the link, but it isn’t quite what I expected. The cop in this case is not a cop…he’s a deputy constable. In Texas this is like a civilian who carries a badge to serve legal papers. So, I don’t see how it was relevant to our conversation? Real police officers go through a lot of filters and training to assure good behavior and performance that this lowly position doesn’t. For the Huffington Post to present such a story as a real cop is another example of false narrative, it was totally misleading and left the reader to think it was yet another example of a bad cop.
Harold–that comparison is completely idiotic. The black teens who shot that little boy didn’t get the death penalty because teenagers cannot get the death penalty in Georgia. They were arrested quickly and the shooter was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. As for the “hate crime” crack, there is no evidece that the shooters acted on a racial motivation.
How can so many people not understand why brutal killings by civilians, who are promptly arrested and convicted, and whom no one is publicly supporting, are not covered by the media to the same extent as killings by police in which no one is indicted and many people disagree over whether the killings were justified? Do you not understand that the media loves controversy?
I don’t think Mr. “Gee, was it torture when I lost my job?” has any grounds to lecture me on rationality.
“The President of the United States saw fit to weigh in 3 times on matters of local concern. He made a knee jerks kind of response and that was unprecedented. And 3 times he took the wrong side.”
That’s your opinion. Many informed, rational people disagree. I think he was right all three times. The cops who arrested Henry Gates outside his home did act stupidly. George Zimmerman has proven to be a violent, disturbed individual. And now we have the so-called “prosecutor” in the Wilson case admitting that he put witnesses on the stand who he knew were lying, and did not question their lies. He broke the law in order to act as the defense for Wilson instead of as a prosecutor.
But even if Obama was wrong to comment on these issues, it is still nonsensical to blame him for the murder of these cops.
You would never hold a Republican politician to the same standard. There are plenty of examples of violence motivated by right-wing ideology, and you’ve never argued that Republicans should take responsibility for those.
Well of course you would think the President made the right call! Nobody here doubts that Chris. You are welcome to your opinion, just not your own facts and the facts speaks loud and clear. We all understand what Obama did and the trouble he caused, if you don’t, then I can’t help you. I’m done explaining these things to you, it’s time for you to exercise a little common sense. As to my comment about torture, that was sarcasm Chris… the point of it being rather obvious.
Oh, to correct you misgiving once more….the facts say… we are the FIRST to hold Republicans accountable for their transgressions! Always have been. I have railed on them many times. We are more offended than anyone on the other side! Because, when we put our trust in someone or we give them our banner to carry and they do wrong… then we’re twice as mad at them, than if it were some liberal that we never expected much from anyway. You really have no clue do you? I wish we could help you, but until you set that strong biased against conservatives aside, there’s really no two way conversations possible.
Off topic.
Interesting study.
2014 Power Rankings: 25 Most Loved and Hated Conservatives in America:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/221640-a-2014-rankings-rights-influential-people-85-loved-hated-conservatives-america/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=List
Heather MacDonald nails it in her piece, “The Big Lie of the Anti-Cop Left Turns Lethal-The real story behind the murder of two NYPD officers,” City Journal, as she exposes the race-baiters and liars in government, media, and colleges and concludes:
This is the truth:
Cops are NOT killing blacks at alarming rates.
The questions we should be asking are, what do the race-baiting liars want to achieve with this incitement in the black community? What end does it serve? What positive can possibly come from convincing the black community that cops target blacks? How does creating the illusion of victim benefit radical left politicians? And what truth are they trying to hide in all of this subterfuge?
This is the most hideous brand of disservice. the people playing this tune should be roundly condemned not only for the violence they incite but for the demeaning and neglected position they relegate for the poor black community. REAL PROBLEMS exist in these communities and so-called leaders LIKE Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, Waters and the rest of the Black Caucus have done NOTHING to acknowledge these problems much less address them.
I completely support “the delegitimation of the lie-based protest movement.”
“We all understand what Obama did and the trouble he caused, if you don’t, then I can’t help you.”
Who is “we all?” All conservatives? All people who are already against Obama and will criticize him no matter what he says or does? If you mean that second group, then yeah, of course you’re right. If you mean anyone outside of that group, then no, we do NOT all understand why you are blaming the President of the United States for a murder committed by a madman. And we certainly don’t understand how you can cast that blame while at the same time refusing to do the same whenever the targets of Republican criticism have been murdered by madmen.
“done explaining these things to you”
You haven’t explained anything. You’ve merely made assertions. There is a big difference.
“Oh, to correct you misgiving once more….the facts say… we are the FIRST to hold Republicans accountable for their transgressions”
Except in cases where those “transgressions” are the exact same ones committed by Obama. When two Cliven Bundy supporters killed police officers last year you did not blame Bundy or anyone in the conservative media who supported his protest and anti-government rhetoric. (Neither did I, because they were not to blame. Only the murderers were responsible for their crimes.) Yet here you are blaming the president and everyone who protested the Ferguson verdict (which, as I’ve already shown, was the result of a prosecutor violating the law) for these murders.
You accused me earlier of refusing to argue specifics, but in this case you are the one hiding behind vague statements like “we hold Republicans accountable” while ignoring the arguments of your opponents who have clearly pointed out specific instances of Republican targets of criticism being murdered and you saying nothing. You haven’t even addressed this double standard, and it’s pretty obvious that the reason for that is because you have no rational defense for it. The ONLY reason you are blaming Obama for these murders is because it is politically convenient; if you actually believed that politicians were responsible for “inciting violence” any time they criticized anyone, you would have spoken out against Bill OReilly when George Tiller was murdered, Clive Bundy and Sean Hannity when those cops were murdered last year, Glenn Beck when that guy tried to attack the Tides Foundation…the list goes on and on. But you don’t actually believe that. You are pretending to believe that because it is convenient in this one instance. You are using the murder of these innocent officers as part of a political game, and it disgusts me.
Jack: “As to my comment about torture, that was sarcasm Chris… the point of it being rather obvious.”
The point was that you and Tina were completely unwilling to admit to the fact that waterboarding is covered under the legal definition of torture, because you are incapable of acknowledging facts that go against your narrative.
You’re right, it was pretty obvious!
Tina, I’d ask you what possible legal definition of “inciting violence” could cover people who explicitly condemn violence and call for peaceful protests, but…you’ve already shown that you can’t read legal definitions, so I guess the question would be in vain.
FYI: Off topic.
Historian David Barton wins defamation lawsuit against two democrats who accused him of being tied to white supremacist groups.
The Unsuspecting Thing Conservative Historian David Barton Did With $1 Million Awarded to Him in Defamation Lawsuit:
“The Unsuspecting Thing Conservative Historian David Barton Did With $1 Million Awarded to Him in Defamation Lawsuit.
“We understand that this statement suggested that David Barton is a white supremacist, and that the two organizations he is affiliated with, WallBuilder Presentations, Inc. and WallBuilders L.L.C., were associated with or supportive of white supremacists,” the two said. “After learning more about Mr. Barton, we realize this statement was false. We separately and jointly apologize to Mr. Barton for damage to him individually and to his two organizations as a result of that statement.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/22/conservative-historian-david-barton-wins-1-million-judgment-in-defamation-lawsuit-and-heres-what-he-did-with-the-money/
Thank you Tina and Jeanie, voices of reason.
Chris, Antonio’s death and the protests that never occurred on his behalf is the point of the post. And regarding your typical method of attempting to belittle others comments, even their personal opinions by using words like stupid or idiotic. Here’s what I see as” idiotic”, it is your attempt to dodge the point about no protest with your typical “selective point” arguments, and try to make anything seem irrelevant, unless it agrees with your thinking.
Readers new and old of Post Scripts realize you’re really not as clever as you posture yourself to be. Possibly it is time you recognized it for yourself
So to be redundant, if only for your benefit, the piece about Antonio was in reference to “NO PROTEST” on his behalf, or no extended drawn out media attention, (media could easily find conflict in two black thugs killing a 2 year old white child in a stroller) and you avoided that point (just like most other times you pull this BS) using a selective bit of Googled facts.
As I stated prior, when people follow the instruction given by a police officer, these conflicts do not happen. Police officers have a hard enough time having to enforce laws written and dictated to them as their job responsibility to carry out, and now having to manage the increased restrictive PC crap laid on them by the elected, for no reason other than voter popularity.
Antonio, for a short time of maybe the two Christmas’s he lived, he was able to give joy and love to his people. He must be missed.
“make you “anti-cop.” Both cops and public school teachers are members of valuable professions. But both also often get away with poor performance because of perverse incentives. In the case of cops, those perverse incentives are exacerbated by a vast proliferation of criminal law that creates almost endless opportunities for dangerous interactions between police and civilians. Conservatives should not be surprised by that either.
For these and other reasons, it is wrong to denounce all those who protest police abuses, most of whom in no way advocate violence against the police themselves. The right-wing claim that the protestors have inspired the murder of the two New York officers is reminiscent of equally dubious left-wing charges that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was inspired by conservatives like Sarah Palin. Conservatives rightly decry such guilt-by-incredibly-loose-association tactics when used by the left. They should not repeat the same mistake themselves.
The perpetrator of the New York crime was a seriously disturbed individual who had shot his girlfriend earlier and committed suicide after shooting the two officers. If we are to refrain from all political protests and commentary that could potentially lead a deranged individual to commit violent acts, we won’t be able to debate contentious political issues at all. The better way to reduce violence is to ensure that both police and civilians are held accountable when they resort to it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/23/we-should-condemn-both-crimes-against-police-and-crimes-committed-by-the-police-themselves/
Chris… IF…this one “mentally disturbed” Black guy was the only event then we could close this case, but its not. We have a huge climate of racism spreading rampant around the country. But, lets back up a second. We can’t say this guy was crazy, because we don’t know. Sure,he did terrible things, but crazy? How do you define crazy? He knew right from wrong – he had a clear agenda of payback and he carried it out. What we have here is his motive, a motive created by a lot Black militants causing hate. They guided his hand and he said so! This cop killer was buying into the racist narrative that all police are basically evil killers of Black people and so he was going to avenge the death of the totally “victimized Black man” who died from a heart attack after resisting arrest…the narrative painted the cops as killers, even though they were cleared by a Grand Jury!
If that one case was all there was, well, it probably wouldn’t have inspired him to kill cops. But, if you pile on Ferguson and all that BS. All the lies, the distortions, disinformation and the way the White House treated the Black robber and his family, the comments Obama made, and pile on the comments and actions by Eric Holder and his people, if you go back and you pile on the Trayvon Martin case and again Obama’s comments and Holders actions and all that they did to stir up things and make it a race issue, then pile on all the incendiary comments for the last 6 years from so-called Black leaders and this includes Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright, and this hate and intimidation coming from the New Black Panthers, the wanted posters they put out, and lets include all that stupid hate commentary coming from Black Congressmen and Senators, and then don’t forget to pile on Sharpton’s special relationship with Obama and at some point you have enough facts to sink a battleship. That’s big pile and it stinks of racism and it stinks of race baiters being way to quick to judge and point blame.
There’s been way too much jumping to conclusions, way too much denial, and way too much awarding victimization status to every Black shot by any cop or white person. The President was hardly in office before he was championing his pal Henry Luis Gates and condemning the cops when he really didn’t know the facts. AND YOU CAN’T SEE THIS CHRIS? OMG…you really and truly can’t see how all this hate rhetoric has a common thread? That all the jumping to conclusions and making false accusations directed at cops and white people in general is getting way out of hand? Seriously…you really don’t see this?
If you don’t see it by now you never will. You’re just another denier of the truth…a confused, misled, deceived person who has become like a co-dependant for the militant groups and all the people with a destructive racist agenda trying to divide this country for their own advantage.
Lastly…I have no problem with people protesting REAL issues. But, so much of this stuff lately is just concocted and/or blown way out of proportion.
I don’t have to respect stupid people protesting stupid issues. The first amendment says you have a right to free speech…I support that, even if you want to be stupid about it! Of course there is nothing to be proud of when free speech is abused, but I will defend their right and yours to be stupid all you want. I have never opposed anyone’s right to speak up, I have only opposed their stupidity when doing it. Big diff Chris.
Well once again the finger pointing continues with political underlying’s. Both sides of this issue have viable arguments, but disruptive and criminal response should never be tolerated, period!
A friend sent me this video link to a Mike Rowe response to Ferguson and Browns death,it made sense to me, I just wanted to share it’s message this Christmas eve.
Agree or disagree with Mikes opinion, I see it as balanced.
Mike Rowe is again going viral, this time after he candidly answered a fan’s question about the events surrounding Ferguson aftermath and the non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson.
The question from his Facebook wall reads:
Hello Mr. Mike Rowe. I’m a big fan and also happen to work in the lower Haight as well as live in Alameda. I have to ask with everything that is going on in Ferguson, how do you feel about the protests in SF as well as the looting/rioting in downtown Oakland?
While lengthy, Mike’s response eloquently answers not only the question posed, but also the ideological problem driving racial tension in our country:
Hi Meghan,
Last week, those very protests blocked off one of the major arteries, and as a result, I was 90 minutes late to a holiday dinner in Alameda. I apologized for my tardiness, and was told by my hostess not to give it a second thought. “It’s a small price to pay,” she said, “given all that’s at stake.” Another guest, already well into the eggnog, wondered aloud if a heart attack victim waiting for an ambulance stuck in traffic might hold a different view?
Within moments, everyone was talking about Garner and Brown, and the conversation got very political very quickly. A liberal guest said, “Look, I wasn’t there, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive had they been white.” A conservative guest replied, “I wasn’t there either, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive if they hadn’t resisted arrest.”
This annoyed the liberal, who asked the conservative why Republicans wanted a “police state.” This annoyed the conservative, who asked the liberal why Democrats wanted “total anarchy.” Things continued to escalate, and within moments, fingers were pointing, veins were bulging, and logical fallacies were filling the air. Ho! ho! ho!
For once, I kept my mouth shut and listened as a roomful of decent people tore each others throats out. It was remarkable, because no one disagreed on the big points. No one disagreed that black lives mattered just as much as white lives. No one disputed that racial bias in law enforcement should be exposed and eliminated. In fact, no one disagreed about the basic facts surrounding each case. The breakdown happened over relevance and context.
My conservative friends were focused on the fact that both men died while resisting arrest, and were therefor responsible for their own demise. They wanted to discuss the killings in light of the incredible risk that all police officers agree to assume.
My liberal friends were focused on the fact that both men were unarmed, and were therefor[e] victims of excessive force. They wanted to discuss the killings in the context of historical trends that suggest bias plays a recurring role in the way cops treat minorities.
By dessert, it was clear that both sides wanted law and order. But the conservatives were convinced that order is only possible when citizens treat cops with respect. Liberals, on the other hand, were arguing that order can only occur when cops treat everyone the same. And round and round we went. The chicken and the egg.
Later, on the drive home, I called a friend of mine back in Baltimore. He’s black, successful, and hard-working. He also resents the way he’s gotten swept into the zeitgeist of Ferguson. In his words, “I’m a pawn in someone else’s agenda, and I’m sick of it. I know what bias looks like in my life. I’m tired of being represented by two petty criminals who died resisting arrest.”
I hadn’t thought about it like that, but he’s got a point. The vast majority of black Americans have never broken the law. And yet, millions of lives are now entwined with the death of Brown and Garner. That’s not fair, but it’s hardly breaking news. Minorities are constantly stereotyped and the impression lingers. Looters and arsonists run amok, and Black America suffers the association. Now I’m trying to get my head around the fact that two cops are dead in Brooklyn, assassinated by a lunatic in “retaliation” for Ferguson and Staten Island. Unbelievable.
How much worse can it get for the millions of law-abiding minorities, struggling to be seen as individuals? How much worse can it get for the thousands of honest cops, trying to protect a citizenry that doesn’t seem to appreciate their daily sacrifice?
A few days ago, people were marching in the streets, literally calling for the execution of police. (“What do we want? Dead Cops!”) Others are standing by today, waiting to lionize the assassins who answer the call. These are not the champions of justice; these are the enemies of civilization, and it’s up to sensible people on both sides of the aisle to close ranks and shout them down. If we want to live in a nation of laws, we need to support the humans sworn to uphold them. [There are] a lot of really great cops out there who have promised to do that very thing, including the one in my family. We’d be screwed without them.
To answer your question Meghan, I support peaceful protests, and I’m all for rooting out bad cops. But let’s not stop there. If we’re serious about saving lives, and eliminating the confrontations that lead to the demise of Garner and Brown, let’s also condemn the stupidity that leads so many Americans to resist arrest. I don’t care if you’re white, black, red, periwinkle, burnt umber, or chartreuse – resisting arrest is not a right, it’s a crime. And it’s never a good idea.
Mike
It’s answers like these that demonstrate why Mike Rowe should be an essential part of our modern American discourse. He’s an example of the kind of thinking our country could sorely use much more of: Tough but compassionate, he writes with a balanced sense of justice and understanding.
Instead of just pointing fingers, Rowe is lamenting the state of our modern society. And he’s asking us to do better.
It was a long read, but covered a lot of important points, I hope you saw that there is work to be done by all..
Additionally, I wish everyone here at Post Scripts the Merriest of Christmases’ gatherings.
“Chris, Antonio’s death and the protests that never occurred on his behalf is the point of the post.”
Why would there be protests? Protests against who? The murderers? What would the point? Do you think murderers as a group ar typically amenable to protesters’ demands? Are you saying there should have been protests against the state of Georgia for not having the death penalty for even the worst youth offenders? OK, well, nothing is stopping you from starting such protests; you and other conservatives upset that there were no protests in his case seem to be upset that other people aren’t doing your work for you.
You really don’t seem to understand that the reason for protests in Ferguson and cases like Trayvonn Martin is not just that someone was killed, but that people believed that the killer was going to go free and that the justice system wasn’t being applied equally. Now maybe those beliefs were wrong, but there is no comparison between this and a murder where the killers are promptly arrested, tried and punished.
It would be ridiculous, pointless and impossible to protest every murder committed. Conservatives against the current wave of protests should stick to explaining how the protesters have their facts wrong, rather than resorting to extremely weak comparisons which do nothing but reveal their own lack of understanding of why people even protest in the first place.
“media could easily find conflict in two black thugs killing a 2 year old white child in a stroller)”
“Conflict” isn’t enough to drive stories as long as Ferguson did. Controversy is. There was no disagreement or debate in the mirder case you brought up. Everyone knew who did it, and everyone agrees it was wrong. There are no two sides debating whether or not the murderers were justified in shooting a baby in a stroller. How can you not see why one would generate more attention than the other?
Jack, the history of mental illness with this suspect is well known.
“We have a huge climate of racism spreading rampant around the country.”
Finally you admit this!
Oh wait….you’re talking about racism against white people, aren’t you?
*headdesk*
“This cop killer was buying into the racist narrative that all police are basically evil killers”
No one on your list of convenient blame targets, save for a few of the more radical protesters, has said anything even resembling this narrative. This is a strawman argument, Obama especially has made clear that most police are brave and noble protectors.
And you’ve once again ignored the double standard point. You can say the same thing about anti-Obama rhetoric or anti-Democrat rhetoric on the right. When right wingers shot cops last year to show support for Bundy, why did you did blame conservatives or Bundy supporters in general? If someone tries to assassinate Obama because he thinks that Obama has said all cops are evil, will you take responsibility for spreading that false narrative?
Please address this point in your next comment.
Sorry Chris, I don’t have time for this. I barely have time to write my articles. Feel free to comment and criticize, but I probably won’t respond.
Oh, but as for your few protestors saying they hate cops…Let me draw your attention to a recent incident where hundreds of people chanted, “What do we want? Dead cops.” And you said a few people? Nice. To most people a few means two or three, hundreds are a mob with a collective mindset representative of many more people that were not present.
Harold at #31, that’s the kind of sensible response I can’t help but (mostly) agree with. I think there’s a wide difference between Mike Rowe’s arguments and the insistence on blaming all protesters for these murders, or all cops for police brutality for that matter.
More stats from Before Its News that support the fact that the left is pushing protest against cops based on a lie:
What is the purpose behind this politically generated fake protest?
Why would there be protests? Really Chris,you ask Why?
Because they all led to deaths, one innocent and two of the other mentioned three would not have happened if compliance had been followed. Why protest on behalf of Antonio’s death to begin with? Of the 4 people killed he was the only one innocent of any crime of his own doing. He was a victim, without criminal intent, and after all, Antonio was just a white toddler. So why get upset about that!
That’s how I read your position and well you are Wrong in my opinion.
You then write, “You really don’t seem to understand that the reason for protests in Ferguson and cases like Trayvonn Martin is not just that someone was killed, but that people believed that the killer was going to go free and that the justice system wasn’t being applied equally.”
Once more your assumptions are wrong, what I don’t understand is why the Sharpton’s, Jacksons, agitators in common and Holder were permitted to stir up the people and insight riots. I understand frustration with something wrong or even someone, take you for instance.
I will wager in their thinking(the agitators)there was never any doubt people would riot, it was solely a matter of how much agitation it would take to get them to do so, that’s not a protest for equality, that a criminal action, and a crime, One that your Obama and Holder are allowing to take place.
I can see why you can’t see the parallel pertaining to the race issue here and inequality of media attention.
First, there was no equity, agreed the two gang like thugs who murdered Antonio were caught tried and the system brought back a guilty decision and they were convicted, completely without riots and protest I might add. Now because the White Police who were on trial for deaths of criminals of criminals who were black, and a grand Jury of 20 plus people found no negligence of duty we need a riot to call attention to it, BS. If it was wrong, (I am not saying it was), then proceed within the legal system and get your justice, peacefully and only if it’s deserving. That’s the equity I am seeking.
Antonio’s who’s potential most likely would have exceeded Browns, Martins and Garners, (speculation on my part, yes) however given the history of the three grown men of anti-social and un productive activities, I put my belief in Antonio, and say “protest his loss of life”, bring change about on his account, but as the script of the letter says he has no Sharpton or Jackson to agitate justice for his demise.
His was a life wasted by murders, however he was just a white kid in the wrong neighborhood, so in your thinking his death is undeserving of any real action, change or civil protest, because his death didn’t equally compare to the three criminals. Well in my opinion the other three were just thugs and created the circumstances their own deaths through defiance of an order to stand down and comply, which sadly, but was really the cause of their deaths.
In all 4 cases the loss of life was unnecessary, but only in one, Antonio’s, deserved the recognition in form of a protest of an innocent loss of life.
I am through Chris, it seems certain we will never agree that the protests, and then the escalated riots as carried out were justified over a Grand Jury’s decision. And I think both our positions have been completely discussed.
Harold, most of your comment is unreadable, but I feel the need to respond to this:
“His was a life wasted by murders, however he was just a white kid in the wrong neighborhood, so in your thinking his death is undeserving of any real action, change or civil protest, because his death didn’t equally compare to the three criminals.”
No. I explained quite clearly why a protest in Antonio West’s case would make no sense. It has NOTHING to do with the value of anyone’s life in comparison to anyone else’s. It has to do with he purpose of protest itself, which you still show no indication of understanding. When individual murderers commit a murder and are swiftly punished, there is no reason to hold a protest. When members of the police kill unarmed citizens, and there is disagreement over whether or not the killings were justified, then protests are at least understandable, if not always the right thing to do.
I feel like this shouldn’t even need to be explained.
So, Jack, you refuse to acknowledge your double standard. Typical. You cannot respond to it because you have no defense. Your silence proves my point: you blame Obama for this violence, even though he has explicitly condemned violence multiple times, but you would never blame any conservative politician or conservative rhetoric in general for violence directed at liberals.
Merry Christmas; it’s unfortunate that consistent principles aren’t something I can order for you from Amazon.
Ref: “Harold, most of your comment is unreadable, but I feel the need to respond to this”
Chris, you are so predictable, especially when opinions differ from yours.
HOHOHO and Have a Merry Chrismas
There is nothing new under the sun. This album is an astute documentary — and prophesy — of the phony, self aggrandizing cookie cutter moron graduates of English that pack the left like sardines in a tin. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors.) Made before most of them were born and decided to toss their soiled diapers in Post Scripts. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-9FX7bhESs
Harold another reason for protests is political theater, in fact it is the biggest reason. It will always be dismissed and left unacknowledged by victim apologists for obvious reasons, they don’t want to blow the cover on the deception. These protests have nothing to do with justice. In fact they work to deny justice and replace it with street justice. The Ferguson case is quite an example. The initial protest, generated by political activists, was meant to railroad the officer even before the facts of the case were known. The later protest claimed the officer was “unfairly” given an advantage in the justice system. In each case the authorities are simply deemed wrong and street thug justice should rule the day. The purpose for this brand of protest is chaos stoked by generous globs of ginned up resentment, anger, and hate. Is the stuff of revolution and it has the power to destroy a nation. Thankfully a much more informed and aware nation doesn’t seem to be buying into the politics of it…the smoke and mirrors drama is all too transparent!
Jack gets it succinctly. Chris blathers on with his usual disjointed, grasping at straws “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit” style. Copious streams of it.
Tina: “The later protest claimed the officer was “unfairly” given an advantage in the justice system.”
Yes, because that is true. The prosecutor has admitted to allowing a witness to lie on the stand in support of Wilson, and he did nothing to contest her story. Why won’t you acknowledge this fact?
For the same reason you still won’t acknowledge the legal definition of torture, and Jack won’t acknowledge his double standard with regards to politically motivated violence against leftist targets; you don’t respond because you have no response.
One witness, even a discredited witness, does not constitute an unfair advantage. Pretending to know better than the twelve citizens that actually sat on the panel and heard all of the evidence is typical of lefties.
I’d say the officer was already at a distinct disadvantage because he had already been tried in the court of public opinion with lies.
Our readers should know I am aware of the legal definition of torture. I am also aware of words in the definition that must be interpreted by people charged with actually using the definition in their difficult work. I am also aware that legal experts were consulted, as were physicians, when the parameters were set by the Bush administration so that they would not step over the line and actually harm those being interrogated.
I am also aware that pointy headed critics refuse to define such words in the legal definition, words like “severe.” In my estimation they lack the experience and credentials to even discuss the legal definition much less act as judge and jury for those who made the hard decisions and put their butts on the line to defend us and keep us safe.
If I don’t respond it’s because I don’t respect arrogant output channels or bullies.
Pie, more frightening to contemplate are the number of radicals and hippies that now either teach or lead in America, a nation in decline since they first hit the streets to protest against “the man” and wouldn’t trust anyone over thirty.
“One witness, even a discredited witness, does not constitute an unfair advantage.”
When that witness is lying, and the prosecutor knows that, and refuses to reveal that to the jury, not does that constitute an unfair advantage, it consistutes legal malpractice. There is also the fact that the prosecutor allowed the accused to testify and presented exculpatory evidence. You KNOW that his is rare in GJ proceedings; why do you keep ignoring the obvious?
“Our readers should know I am aware of the legal definition of torture”
Yes, I know. That’s what made your refusal to explain how waterboarding doesn’t fit that definition so dishonest.
“I am also aware of words in the definition that must be interpreted by people charged with actually using the definition in their difficult work. I am also aware that legal experts were consulted, as were physicians, when the parameters were set by the Bush administration so that they would not step over the line and actually harm those being interrogated.”
Saying “I trust government lawyers to know what they’re talking about” is not a valid argument, Tina, it’s an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. The Bush administration wanted a specific result, and worked backwards to achieve that result, just as they did in their justifications for the Iraq War.
I asked you to explain in your own words why you believe waterboarding does not meet the legal definition of torture. “Because government lawyers said so” is not an answer, and is comically ironic coming from someone who claims to not trust either the government or legal experts–at least, when they tell you things you don’t already want to hear. When they are telling you what you do want to hear, your tune suddenly changes to “Who dares question their almighty wisdom?” You’re a case study in confirmation bias.
“I am also aware that pointy headed critics refuse to define such words in the legal definition, words like “severe.””
Is this a joke? What other words in the definition do you need defined for you–“the” and “and?” Get a dictionary. Waterboarding is clearly “severe” pain and suffering–that’s the entire point of it! The fear and anguish needs to be severe enough to get the suspect to tell the interrogator anything. This whole argument is so disingenuous.
Re #43: “you don’t respond because you have no response.”
Classic specious icehole Chris. This reeking sewer scum student of Quentin Colgan can bully and jack-boot his innocent 8th grade students for now,but not forever, and certainly not Post Scripts. His days are numbered.
“His days are numbered.”
I take this as a threat.
The current protests movement is built on a foundation of lies.
So-called justice had already been meted out in the court of public opinion by an ugly bigoted mob inspired by political opportunists eager to exploit a trumped up crisis based on lies.
Excuse me if I just don’t give a rip about petty complaints. Had this not been elevated in the media by lying SOB’s in positions of power the law would have followed a natural course.
Waterboarding conducted with a physician present and limited in time is not the same as waterboarding conducted in a dirty dingy hovel for hours on end without precaution or consideration for well-being. The United States of America is involved in war with a ruthless murdering enemy. It is not sitting in a classroom filled with naval gazers. Real world problems require real world responses. We were seeking information and had no intent to do permanent damage, psychological or physical damage. There is a difference between responsibly pushing the envelope to save lives and wanton severe abuse. Discomfort and stress are not the same as broken arms and gouged out eyes. I’m comfortable with the limits we put in place for intense interrogation. Most Americans are. I think it’s because we know who we are and we’ve also seen the handiwork of the enemy. Rigid thinking can result in innocent people being killed by our enemy. As far as I can tell those who would prosecute GWB/Cheney under a rigid reading of the law don’t make the distinction because they don’t have a clue who we are much less who we are fighting.
Talking down to others and acting superior are not effective communication skills and sure as he77 don’t make someone right.
Tina: “Excuse me if I just don’t give a rip about petty complaints.”
A prosecutor allowing a witness to lie under oath, and refusing to divulge that information to the jury, is a “petty complaint?” Are you kidding me?
I agree with you that a lot of protesters unfairly judged the officer as guilty before the facts were out. But why should anyone accept the results of a grand jury which was so clearly handled in an unethical and possibly illegal fashion?
“Waterboarding conducted with a physician present and limited in time is not the same as waterboarding conducted in a dirty dingy hovel for hours on end without precaution or consideration for well-being.”
No one said it was. But they are both still torture.
Shoplifting is not the same as armed robbery. But they are both still stealing.
“Real world problems require real world responses.”
If you had any evidence that torture actually produced reliable information, this statement would support your argument. But you don’t, so it doesn’t.
“We were seeking information and had no intent to do permanent damage, psychological or physical damage.”
“Intent” is irrelevant to the 26 innocent people who were detained and tortured.
“I’m comfortable with the limits we put in place for intense interrogation.”
You are aware that those limits, which themselves were illegal, were routinely violated? And that CIA interrogators lied to the CIA and the administration about the severity and effectiveness of their tactics? (Of course you’re not; you refuse to read the report.)
“Most Americans are.”
Not really:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/politics/poll-waterboarding-torture/
“Rigid thinking can result in innocent people being killed by our enemy.”
“Rigid thinking” is what led the administration into convincing themselves that torture worked when it didn’t, not to mention leading us into a pointless war in which many innocent people were killed.
“As far as I can tell those who would prosecute GWB/Cheney under a rigid reading of the law don’t make the distinction because they don’t have a clue who we are much less who we are fighting.”
Very few are talking about prosecution; Obama said long ago he had no interest. The point is exposing these crimes and condemning them so that our nation never stoops to this level again.
Chris be honest, if the grand jury in Ferguson had come back with an indictment for murder would you still be saying, the grand jury method was so clearly handled in an unethical and possibly illegal fashion? I could be wrong, but I think you’re just upset because their fact-finding did not coincide with yours.
Jack: “Chris be honest, if the grand jury in Ferguson had come back with an indictment for murder would you still be saying, the grand jury method was so clearly handled in an unethical and possibly illegal fashion? I could be wrong, but I think you’re just upset because their fact-finding did not coincide with yours.”
Do you mean if the prosecutor’s behavior was exactly the same, but the GJ decided to indict the officer? I suppose I still would think the prosecutor should be held accountable, but since he would have failed at sabotaging his own case, his actions wouldn’t be under as much scrutiny, and I might not even be aware of his misconduct.
I’m not sure why you’re implying that I’m just mad the GJ didn’t come to the conclusions I wanted them too; if you remember my first comments here about the GJ’s decision, I was initially supportive and said that the protesters should accept the decision and move on. It was only later when a conservative friend showed me how unusual the prosecutor’s actions were that I changed my opinion. (I linked to my Facebook wall to demonstrate this, which I now regret given the multiple threats against me issued by one of your friends here at this blog.) I still think the officer was most likely innocent and acting in self defense, but I think it would have been better to have a fair trial to establish that for good. And regardless of your opinion on Wilson’s guilt or innocent, we should always oppose lawyers violating the law and basic ethics.
Re #48: You will be your own undoing, fool. Take it anyway you like.
Re #48: By the way Chris, when the end of your career as an extreme left wing, propagandist, child abusing indoctrinator bully and brow beater is over, it will be your own undoing. You won’t be able to connect me to it.
Re #51: Get over it. Chris is an ass.
Pie Guevara has now baselessly accused me of child abuse. This libel is way over the line and should be considered unacceptable by any decent blog runner. Do something.
I will no longer be posting here due to the abusive comments I have received from David Walton and the complete failure of the blog runners to moderate or call out his unparalleled hostility and threats. But before I leave I have a request. I posted a comment a while back that included a link to my Facebook page. Jack, Tina, if you can find that comment please delete it. It would be very easy for David Walton (aka Pie) to use that information to figure out the school I work for and I honestly have reason to fear given his recent statements that he may be intending to contact my school with false allegations.
For the record I have never attempted to “indoctrinate” any of my students, they have no idea what side of the political aisle I stand on and on the rare occasions politics do come up I play devil’s advocate and make sure both sides are heard. I have a student who has asked me multiple times who I voted for in the last election, and I refuse to tell him because I firmly believe in letting students make up their own minds. My job is not to tell them what to think, it is to give them the tools to come to their own conclusions. To assume that I am a “propagandist” who uses my classroom as a left wing recruitment center simply because I am passionate about politics is delusional.
I wish you all well, even you, David. I genuinely hope you get help for your rage disorder before you hurt someone or go too far and find yourself the subject of a lawsuit.
As an ex CIA agent indicated, simply talking to a prisoner in a serious tone would be considered torture by smug leftist critics. In fact capturing them and holding them must also be torture since that is also a very stressful experience.
Think about this pettifogging reasoning. It’s okay to shoot our enemy but we can’t scare them or make them uncomfortable.
This strikes me as an ignorant approach to war but then the left is not interested in what this means in terms of the war or the enemy we face. Their attack on our past president and VP is a sleazy traitorous political stunt and it has done real damage in the prosecution of this war and quite possibly resulted in DEATH/TORTURE for people that have risked their lives to help us and for our troops, diplomats and their families.
Your niggling, Chris, is dangerous and stupid…as are you.
Question. Should we also claim as torture the stress and mental anguish officers and their families experience when death threats are made and they become the target of so much hatred and malice? What about the stress of having your business vandalized by an angry mob or torched and burned to the ground…is that a form of torture. The left attempts to distance itself from this consequence of rhetoric aimed at ginning up anger and resentment but they cannot avoid the ugly truth.
We are losing the ability to communicate because the left plays with and has no respect for the language.
The left’s definition of torture is beyond ridiculous, its stupid and dangerous, because according to them anything punitive could be considered torture. I tried to demonstrate that to our pal Chris with my sarcasm, but he doesn’t seem to have the capacity to understand what I’m saying.
Ugh, why can’t I resist? I said I wasn’t going to comment here anymore but I just can’t let these fallacies stand…
Tina: “As an ex CIA agent indicated, simply talking to a prisoner in a serious tone would be considered torture by smug leftist critics.”
That’s absurd. “Talking to a prisoner in a serious tone” clearly does not match the legal definition of torture, which is this:
“(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
“In fact capturing them and holding them must also be torture since that is also a very stressful experience.”
What part of “other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions” do you NOT understand? The stress caused by imprisonment is obviously “incidental to lawful sanctions,” so it does not count under the legal definition of torture. I’ve explained this to you once before, which is one more time than I should have had to explain it to a literate adult.
“it has done real damage in the prosecution of this war and quite possibly resulted in DEATH/TORTURE for people that have risked their lives to help us and for our troops, diplomats and their families.”
You have no evidence of this whatsoever.
“Question. Should we also claim as torture the stress and mental anguish officers and their families experience when death threats are made and they become the target of so much hatred and malice? What about the stress of having your business vandalized by an angry mob or torched and burned to the ground…is that a form of torture.”
Neither of these actions fall under the legal definition of torture, as you can easily see by reading. Both of them are illegal under other laws.
Why do you make your points so bloody easy to dismiss? Surely you can do better than this?
Jack: “The left’s definition of torture is beyond ridiculous, its stupid and dangerous, because according to them anything punitive could be considered torture”
I have not provided you “the left’s definition,” whatever that is, I have provided you the legal definition. You and Tina claim to be in favor of the rule of law, but you have yet to show any shred of awareness of what the law says regarding torture and how it was clearly violated by the CIA and the Bush administration, as documented in the torture report that you haven’t read.
Chris has sown the seeds of his own destruction. He may be good for posting his hate speech, personal abuse, and dogmatic political tripe on The Daily KOS, but he is no good for “teaching” our youth. Chris is bowing out (if he is really bowing out) because he knows his income is in eminent danger of being cut off by his own doing. He fears his life as an “educator” may well be over. (It should be!) This person has time and time over demonstrated his abuse of adults with whom he disagrees. Do you think for a minute that his professional peers or his students deserve such a dysfunctional member of staff? I think not. His days are numbered.
Like the late Quentin Colgan (Chris’ mentor), if he actually has teaching credentials (which I doubt) he should be stripped of them. Colgan was and rightly so by the State Of California. No person who daily bullies and badgers and personally attacks his adult political adversaries should be trusted with youth. Does anyone actually think he would treat children any differently?
Chris has committed every fallacy in the book, yet denies it. He is a self aggrandizing megalomaniac, just like Quentin Colgan. Post Scripts may miss this foil. I say no big deal.
Also: no comment whatsoever about David Walton’s falsely accusing me of being a child abuser and making veiled threats against both my life and my career? Everyone here is totally cool with that?
By the way, I have no idea where the anonymous Chris works. I simply project his end as an educator is neigh, BY HIS OWN DOING. Perhaps I am wrong.
In any case, there will be no need for me to give this odious person a hand.
“Chris is bowing out (if he is really bowing out) because he knows his income is in eminent danger of being cut off by his own doing. He fears his life as an “educator” may well be over. (It should be!) This person has time and time over demonstrated his abuse of adults with whom he disagrees. Do you think for a minute that his professional peers or his students deserve such a dysfunctional member of staff? I think not. His days are numbered.”
This is a personal threat and it has no place on any decent blog. I expect some kind of action will be taken to deal with this.
Re #62: The ass is back!!! I knew it.
Chris: ““Talking to a prisoner in a serious tone” clearly does not match the legal definition of torture…”
Excuse me you ignorant jerk but IF the serious talking results in “severe mental pain or suffering,” it is, by you rigid definition, considered torture and therefore illegal. Get the picture? The real world problem facing GWB/Cheney and the men charged with getting information was how far does the law allow us to go…haw far can we push the envelope and stay within the parameters of the law…the intent of the law. They worked for a solution to a real world problem intending to stay within the bounds of the law. Had they wanted to act like animals they wouldn’t have bothered you niggling tool.
“so it does not count under the legal definition of torture”
So as long as we create severe discomfort and harm to extract information in situations where the enemy is not held captive we’d be okay. Congratulations Chris, you just elevated beheadings above the discomfort of controlled waterboarding in the real world. Stupid, stupid tool! No wonder the President chose killing by drone strike. No captivity involved, also no information gathered but plenty of legally severe pains, suffering and death! The legal genius in it astounds!
Chris Pie has no control over the people that hired you; there is no personal threat in his expressed opinion.
Jack: “I tried to demonstrate that to our pal Chris with my sarcasm, but he doesn’t seem to have the capacity to understand what I’m saying.”
Jack you did a bang up job of demonstrating the ridiculousness of this internal attack on our nation, our CIA, our military, and the past administration. Lack of real world experience mixed with a flawed belief system about America and our purpose in this war seem to be causing profound dissonance. He’s willing to help traitorous pols smearing white hats with black paint to claim political power and doesn’t get he’s become a part in what he claims to abhor!
Tina: “Excuse me you ignorant jerk but IF the serious talking results in “severe mental pain or suffering,” it is, by you rigid definition, considered torture and therefore illegal.”
No. I can’t believe you are having this hard of a time reading plain English.
Try again:
“(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality”
The methods that constitute “severe mental pain or suffering” are clearly outlined, right there. “Serious talking” is not in there.
“So as long as we create severe discomfort and harm to extract information in situations where the enemy is not held captive we’d be okay. Congratulations Chris, you just elevated beheadings above the discomfort of controlled waterboarding in the real world”
What? That makes no sense. The definition specifically states that torture must be made “upon another person within his custody or physical control.” If you are beheading someone they are obviously under your physical control, unless it’s in self-defense…
Really, Tina–I can’t believe your arguments are this bad. If you had a legitimate defense of the administration’s actions, you wouldn’t need to resort to such laughable arguments.
Tina, your description of Pie’s false allegations of child abuse leveled against me, as well as his completely unprovoked swipes at my career, my educational degree, and the way he imagines I treat my students as mere “expressed opinion” is repugnant, and reveals you to have no ethical standards whatsoever. You would never stand for anyone making such horrendous accusations against you, or Jack, or Peggy, or anyone else on your side of the aisle, nor would you stand for them extrapolating from your comments here to the way you treat your employees, or making veiled threats against your job security; but because I am the target you find all of this completely acceptable. That is wrong.
I get heated here sometimes and I have accused you of many things–dishonesty, hipocrisy, lack of ethics, etc.–but all of those are within the bounds of debate and argumentation and you have thrown all of them right back at me when you felt it was appropriate. There is no comparison between that and what Pie says here on a daily basis. I am dissapointed that you would accept such behavior, but unfortunately I can’t say I am surprised. You believe anything is acceptable as long as it’s done in the name of your side.
After all it is the holiday season, so why don’t we all enjoy another slice of Pie.
Hmmm…yummy idea!
Chris: “your description of Pie’s false allegations of child abuse leveled against me, as well as his completely unprovoked swipes at my career, my educational degree, and the way he imagines I treat my students as mere “expressed opinion” is repugnant, and reveals you to have no ethical standards whatsoever.”
Generally speaking, since you have leveled some pretty hefty smears against me, your appeal strikes me as quite humorous and your evaluation of my ethical standards hollow.
The problem is, Chris, it is just his opinion.
I agree it doesn’t feel good to be characterized in such an ugly way.
Re #72 Tina: “I agree it doesn’t feel good to be characterized in such an ugly way.”
BINGO! Lesson learned? I think not.
Re #62: I have made no “veiled threats”, I have merely made some prognostications.
Oh, by the way, my given name is David Walton and I do not give a damn who is Chris’ given name is. He may hide it all he wants. Cowards and child abusers usually do.
What do I mean by child abuse? Just look at how the anonymous Chris abuses adults.
At #75 “child abuse”: Hmmmm…I assumed a position on abortion. So much for attempting to interpret what another means better to ask or at least make an effort to get it.