A headline for an Ezra Klein piece that really should have the second and third words reversed. It's a good question, but Ezra only poses as capable of answering it. I can think of 10 other answers to the question, but I'm writing this on an iPad.
ADDED: I've returned to my desktop, as you can see by the addition of tags, so I feel I should make good on my assertion that I have 10 other answers. I'll publish them as I proceed, beginning with one that is a tag.
1. Obama is bland. It's a tag on this blog that I've been using since April 21, 2009: "Yes. As in his campaign, Obama is very bland. For some reason — possibly vaguely racist — Americans liked the bland. But at some point, bland is not what you want." I have 55 posts with that tag. His fans may not want to believe it, but I've been observing it all along, and it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues.
2. Ezra speaks of Obama's 2008 "Race Speech" as the sort of speech that his opponents long for, but go back and read it. It's studded with lines like "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons," and "Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity...." We may remember that speech as extremely powerful, but it was assurance of Obama's moderation. Supporters want what they feel they got in the past but their memory of the past is distorted.
3. The "Race Speech" was crucial to Obama's 2008 campaign. A lot of work went into crafting that speech: "... Obama dictated a lengthy draft of this speech to [Jon] Favreau, who edited the speech the next day. Obama stayed up until 3:00 a.m. Sunday night working on the speech, and continued to work on it Monday and in the early hours of Tuesday." Favreau isn't there anymore, and I don't think Obama has the time or motivation to put that much personal effort into a speech about Ferguson.
4. The Jeremiah Wright crisis in 2008 required a direct, decisive response from the candidate. There was no option of standing back and seeing whether things might work out all right without his intrusion and interference. But when he has the option to lead from behind, that's his style.
5. Obama doesn't want a replay of the Skip Gates fiasco, where he blurted out that the police "acted stupidly," when he didn't really know the the facts, and it turned out that what the police did was not stupid at all. In the case of the Ferguson incident, we don't know the facts. Today, I'm seeing: "Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson." (Ezra Klein brings up Skip Gates, but doesn't mention that Obama got the facts wrong because he spoke too soon, only that "the White House no longer believes Obama can bridge divides.")
6. Michael Brown was no Trayvon Martin. Obama said "Trayvon could have been my son." And "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." But he can't (won't) say that about Brown. Yes, he could talk more generally about how racial profiling — real or feared — makes people feel and that's what the protests in Ferguson express and that matters even if Michael Brown strong-armed a shopkeeper and even if he threatened the police officer who killed him. But that's not the speech Obama supporters supposedly want. There is no cherubic boy with Skittles and iced tea. There's a very large, adult man with stolen cigars. It's harder to say deeply empathic things about Brown. And Obama cannot make that personal I-am-Trayvon kind of statement.
7. Obama must help his party in the Fall elections. I think this is the key graphic, the fight for the U.S. Senate. The toss-up states are Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisana, Michigan, and North Carolina. Whatever Obama says now must be calibrated for the effect in these states. Will emotive racial politics carry the Democratic Party through to November? Perhaps that seems like a risky bet.
8. Obama's tired.
9. "On December 11, 2006, I quoted Obama saying: 'I think to some degree I’ve become a shorthand or symbol or stand-in for a spirit....' I liked him for saying that. It was honest. I thought he'd have become something specific, and I'm amused to see that I added: 'Wouldn't it be funny if he didn't?'" I wrote that on February 18, 2008 in a post titled "Why I'm voting for Obama in the Wisconsin primary." It must get wearisome being America's shorthand or symbol or stand-in for so long, wearisome for all of us, and he knows it. Maybe not speaking is the best expression at this point in our long journey.
10. A truly brilliant speech about Ferguson — if he had the will and the time to craft the perfect statement — would not be what his supporters want, but something more difficult, challenging, and surprising.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२९२ टिप्पण्या:
292 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»It's called operator inversion. Putting the tensed verb ahead of the subject makes a question.
BO will give them what they want.
He won't give them what they need.
This is the first time I've read Ezra Klein in years. I'm actually surprised how dismissive he is of Obama. The headline neatly sums up his belief that Obama is not the President he was hoping for, that he has turned out to be polarizing. I don't plan to read Klein more as I don't want to give him the clicks, but it appears the bloom is off he rose for him.
I can think of 10 other answers to the question, but I'm writing this on an iPad.
Did one of your students write that?
F The left is scurrying away from Obama as fast as the ship lists. Their goal now is to keep the Democratic party above water...
Another brick in the wall of iPad suck.
Incredibly stupid article. The OJ trial? Zimmerman? The Clippers? Dumb.
Klein was a founder of "journolist", an email list that left wing journos used to coordinate their narratives.
"Obama was elected president because he seemed, alone among American politicians, to be able to bridge the deep divides in American politics."
How many Obama voters believed that Obama "seemed, alone among American politicians, to be able to bridge the deep divides in American politics."
I am going out on a limb here and saying it was basically all the folks on Journolist.
God, these people are pathetic.
I can't think of any photos I've seen of Obama in inner city neighborhoods or with poor people, in general, white or black.
This is probably true of many other presidents and top pols, too. I'd like to be proven wrong.
Robert Kennedy is the only exception I can think of.
"[Michael Brown] could have been me 35 years ago"
St. George said...
"Robert Kennedy is the only exception I can think of."
Ann, would this help?
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/tom-hanks-free-ipad-typewriter-app-climbs-no-195114366.html
- Krumhorn
So publicly stating an objective without discussing it before hand with those you need to convince is a bad idea. Seems kind of obvious.
Unsaid it that presidents, like Johnson, knew his timing and how to get things done by negotiating. Something Obama has avoided doing on most of the issues, even with his own party.
Obama is a snob. Why does anyone think Obama likes dumb black teens that smoke weed all day and bully store clerks to steal boxes of marijuana smoking accessories called rillos.
Obama has been putting all his efforts into helping Central American teens that respect his authority being given whatever they need to better replace the black underclass. That is why the black guys are angry at him.
Obama campaigned as a "Uniter".
The moment he was elected, he governed as a "Divider"
He won reelection by carefully dividing.
At this point, all the unicorn dust has blown away and we're left with a steaming sack of $hit in a suit, whose only strategic thinking is "how will this help me in the polls this week"
Why?
He will look as bad as he did the last time he tried it.
He hates looking bad. Having a beer with some people won't fix the stupid.
Obama could at least speak out against the rioting cops.
Garage: Last night, cops and protestors were fired on by "militants." Molotov cocktails have been thrown on police positions.
At this point, criticizing the police showing up in body armor is ... kind of dumb.
If we don't want the police to militarize, maybe we should stop THROWING BOMBS AT THEM?
Molotov cocktails have been thrown on police positions.
Sorry, I need proof, not accusations.
I think Obama's being cautious about this so he doesn't look like a fool if, as seems increasingly likely, Michael Brown was a violent thief resisting arrest instead of an innocent, college-bound jaywalker.
Doesn't mean there isn't a problem in Ferguson, of course.
Obama is blind.
"The Ferguson Police Department acted stupidly."
I would assert that Klein is maybe hoping for a speech (I am giving Klein the benefit of the doubt here, so bear with me) different from the one a lot/most of Obama's supporters (the tweets/tweeters Klein references, for example).
Obama cannot satisfy those tweeters precisely because the circumstances are not what was reported the first day. That video from the convenience store undermined any possibility that Obama could satisfy those tweeters. That is why there was so much outrage at the video's release.
Klein does seem a bit dispirited in this essay. Obama isn't the bridge a lot of naive people expected him to be.
Blogger garage mahal said...
Obama could at least speak out against the rioting cops.
8/19/14, 12:38 PM
----------------------
Obama doesn't need to speak out against rioting cops. That's what he has Eric Holder for.
Not a bad article, though Ezra misses the extent to which it is Obama's supporters that have polarized his presidency for little more than petty rhetorical point-scoring.
Ezra does manage to do something that most pundits don't: he comes to a conclusion. The closing sentence is a moral straight out of Aesop or Hans Christian Andersen:
For Obama, the cost of becoming president was sacrificing the unique gift that made him president.
We know this story: it is The Gift of the Magi as a one-man play. Obama sold his pocket watch to buy a comb for the hair he sold to buy a watch fob.
It was the worst Christmas ever.
Proof. If you hate the blog, you can click through to the news stories.
He knows the odds of changing the culture of hyper violent urban black youth are close to zero. So he doesn't even try.
The real reason: Obama has very rarely giving his supporters what they want [no single payer, no complete abandonment of Iraq/Afghanistan, attacking Libya, ISIS, etc.]. Why start giving them what they want now?
Blogger garage mahal said: Obama could at least speak out against the rioting cops.
That's asking Obama to speak out against his own maladministration:
A recent New York Times article by Matt Apuzzo reported that in the Obama era, “police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.” The result is that police agencies around the nation possess military-grade equipment, turning officers who are supposed to fight crime and protect communities into what looks like an invading army. And military-style police raids have increased in recent years, with one count putting the number at 80,000 such raids last year.
Obama is complicit. That's the reason he can't speak out.
Henry,
That last line is the naivete of Klein (again, giving Klein the benefit of the doubt). Obama never actually had that gift.
Althouse is right- Obama is terribly bland. You compare an Obama speech (even the speech from 2004 convention) to any speech Jesse Jackson gives, and there is no comparison. One doesn't have to agree with what either speaker says, but Jackson is light years ahead in holding one's interest.
If it's not in Think Progress, garage won't believe it.
Here's some good reasons why not:
1) We don't know the facts, and may never know them. Whether the cop was reckless and went overboard, or if Brown was attacking the cop and earned himself a Darwin Award, we simply don't know at this time. That doesn't seem to stop everyone who has a preconceived opinion (that all white cops are racist executioners, or all young black men are dangerous thugs who bring misfortune on themselves) from voicing it. Maybe to Obama's credit he's trying to avoid rushing to judgment.
2) Maybe Obama like many on the left has decided he knows what happened here--racist killer cop!--but has enough political savvy to know better than to stick his neck out. Why risk making an accusation when more evidence could surface that would upend the case against the cop? Obama isn't really known for taking bold stances.
3) The diminishing returns of Obama's soaring oratory. He has yet to move opinion with his speeches and pronouncements. Maybe he realizes that's not going to change now.
4) Obama has checked out. He is in the swan song of his presidency and is counting the days until retirement.
5) What kind of speech COULD he give that his supporters would want? Unless he goes full Sharpton--and alienates every moderate he needs to keep his crumbling base of support from flatlining--his speech would have to be some bland crap about coming together and being a community. In other words, yawn city.
6) His idea for inviting the cop and Michael Brown's corpse to the White House for a beer summit was cancelled when his advisers pointed out that would be in poor taste.
7) If Obama had a son, he probably wouldn't look like Michael Brown.
Personally I think he has just checked out and is waiting for the day he can be an ex-president.
The older I get the more appreciative I become of the Westminster system of representation. It can work with federalism -- look at Canada and Australia
Obama HAS no substance to share, only narcissism and need. He truly is Eastwood's empty chair, the tailor's dummy, the marionette his critics make him out to be.
He is possessed neither of moral nor physical courage, unless backed up by an angry mob jamming into a conference room full of cowed bankers.
Faced with a crisis that requires genuine leadership he flees, to the golf course, to Martha's Vineyard, even the TV room if that's all that's available.
Look at the iconic picture of him in the war room as bin Laden is killed, squatting and sulking in the corner, ignored by everyone around him, and you will see how not a leader this useless man is.
After promising to erase racial division in this country and then in practice doing everything he can to heighten it through his racist Attorney General and his intrusion in the Zimmerman and Henry Louis Gates cases, Obama is in a corner. He needs to reassure the blacks of Ferguson that justice is on their side, but he can't because he's been telling them the opposite since 2008. He needs to tell the whites of Ferguson that reconciliation is possible but his credibility is shot-- see the previous sentence. He has no choice but to STFU. This is what passes for leadership among Democrats.
"We don't know the facts, and may never know them."
All cops should be required to wear a camera, and the video should be freely available to the public.
"All cops should be required to wear a camera, and the video should be freely available to the public."
I think that would be an excellent idea, if affordable. It wouldn't completely eliminate different interpretations of events, but could certainly provide additional evidence and most likely improve people's behavior as they know they're being filmed/recorded.
"garage mahal said...
Molotov cocktails have been thrown on police positions.
Sorry, I need proof, not accusations."
Says the troll who describes the John Doe investigations as proof of Scott Walker's guilt. Just the "seriousness of the charge" apparently is enough to convict Walker in GM's eyes, but now he wants proof of molotov cocktails. Matthew, there is no proof that you can provide that will get GM to agree with you, any proof will never be good enough.
It's one of the more basic plays in the leftist playbook: When things aren't going their way, demand proof, then dismiss any proof that you provide as inconclusive or lacking context. Seen it a million times before.
Proof. If you hate the blog, you can click through to the news stories.
That's certainly not proof under the terms you outlined in a previous thread from today. Really, with national/international journalists and cameras everywhere not one molotov was filmed?
Armored vehicles, tear gas, shooting people in the streets with rubber bullets, cops arresting journalists.....not of this is government tyranny of course, but a health insurance mandate? Worse than slavery!
Althouse said ...
"I've been observing [Obama is bland] all along, and it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues."
What the What?
Obama may be "bland" because he is an intellectual midget, but not a demagogue? What? Everything he has ever done shows he lives and breaths demagogue.
Don't squirrel this Garage. You want Obama to say something about the police being over zealous and "rioting," when they are being fired on and having explosives chucked at them and they have not yet shot any of the protestors or lived out any dystopian nightmare upon the people trying to kill them and other citizens.
What do you want the police to do? Back off and let the citizens kill each other off for a few days until they burn out most of the city and the corpses pile up?
Yeah, we might want to consider reining in the police: But you know when's not the best time to make that argument? When they're being outgunned and armed, armored police and National Guardsmen are the only thing standing between dead civilians.
Slightly off topic, but nonetheless relevant:
"it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues"
The action and the rationalization(s) for it remain the most flabbergasting things ever said on this blog.
Yancey,
You will notice I did not say the moral was straight out of Thucydides or Machiavelli.
Althouse:
You were wrong about Obama not being a demagogue.
Obama is President. He can't and shouldn't weigh in on the investigation - even the involvement of the DoJ is really suspect.
What he could do is call for calm and help pass legislation that could help in the future. For example: Ask to fund police vehicles/officers with cameras, require they be operational, and require they be available within 24 hours of a judicial request/investigation.
That's just a random example. Lots of ACTIONS Obama could take to help prevent society from ripping into each other. But Obama is not a President of action.
It's unlikely that nobody in a predominantly black neighborhood recorded a white cop stopping a black teen. Not in the 'smartphone' century.
Fact that no such recording has surfaced yet means that it is not favourable to the shot teen.
Obama can't risk bullshitting the second time a la 'this thief could be my son', because who knows what could be shown on video.
also, maybe Obama just hates thiefs and bullies. Would happily visit the cop, but that would be rather controversial. lol.
Is Klein still so gullible as to believe that yet another Obama speech will solve anything? Obama reads pretty good from a Teleprompter (the people writing his scripts are the ones really running the country) but honestly, he's just another pompus politician in way over his head. Today, he's just phoning it in.
You want Obama to say something about the police being over zealous and "rioting," when they are being fired on and having explosives chucked at them and they have not yet shot any of the protestors or lived out any dystopian nightmare upon the people trying to kill them and other citizens.
So this doesn't apply less than two hours later?
"In the past, I have been lied to about spitting incidents and seen people vaguely accused of all sorts of terrible things -- with nothing ever proven or no convictions occurring. Therefore, I now request actual proof something HAPPENED, not just the ACCUSATION that something happened."
"A conviction would do as proof, by the way."
Blogger Sebastian said...
Slightly off topic, but nonetheless relevant:
"it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues"
The action and the rationalization(s) for it remain the most flabbergasting things ever said on this blog.
8/19/14, 1:12 PM
-----------------------------
You're flabbergasted and I can't get my jaw off the floor.
Side note, though the photo lacks a caption.
In addition, looters are keeping journalists from doing their job, often with threats of violence.
Also, the police released a photo of a seized explosive device.
Further confirmation about molotov attacks on police positions.
to garage - do you ever require proof when it comes to the police or conservatives? Or is it always the "validity of the charges"?
"But when he has the option to lead from behind, that's his style."
Voting "present" in the state senate was the clue to many of us that his style was to lead from behind. Sophisticated and well-educated elites missed this clue! Amazing! Lawmakers who refuse to commit make executives who refuse to commit. Pretty simple.
"...and it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues."
Holy shit.
Blogger jacksonjay said...
"But when he has the option to lead from behind, that's his style."
Voting "present" in the state senate was the clue to many of us that his style was to lead from behind. Sophisticated and well-educated elites missed this clue! Amazing! Lawmakers who refuse to commit make executives who refuse to commit. Pretty simple.
8/19/14, 1:28 PM
----------------------------
Give the man a break. It's his first fulltime job.
"The diminishing returns of Obama's soaring oratory."
I assume this must be snark, as, when has Obama ever achieved "soaring oratory?"
More proof of molotov cocktails, though these were being used to threaten reporters, not police.
Also, the police released a photo of a seized explosive device.
Oh FFS. Are you for real?
innocent, college-bound jaywalker.
Actually a trade school, and apparently no longer mentioned.
Now that that's been established, what we have are three or four different discussions going on.
1. Was the shooting of Brown justified or not [we need more data.]
2. The GENERAL militarization of police.
3. The SPECIFIC militarization of the response to attacks on police by gunfire and explosives in Ferguson the last few days.
4. Other topics of discussion.
The simple fact is -- none of these are easy to discuss, and Obama -- like many politicians -- works in sound bites. Hence, he's silent.
Matthew Sablan said...
Side note, though the photo lacks a caption.
Politico has the same photo with the caption: "A demonstrator throws back a tear gas container after tactical officers try to break up a group of bystanders on Chambers Road in Ferguson on Wednesday, Aug. 13."
Given the low light level and the amount of sparks, I'd say that's more likely a tear gas canister than a Molotov cocktail unless the guy is trying to set fire to himself.
From someone who practices The Chicago Way, curiously this time he orefers not to.
King Richard 1st let it burn.
Jane Byrne moved in to Cabrini.
Or he can just go behind closed doors, take the pen and sign an executive action, so let it be written, so let it be done. The Constitution is a pesky document written over 100 years aho, and it's very limiting to a man like Obama who just wants to help.
Once again, the president's hand are tied, what else can he do but go golfing and fundraising?
Good thing I didn't stop with just the first photo then!
I'm always amazed that people respond to Garage.
LarsPorsena said...
Give the man a break. It's his first fulltime job.
Not really, just the first job where he was actually expected to do something.
Garage Mahal said,
" 'Molotov cocktails have been thrown on police positions.'
"Sorry, I need proof, not accusations."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
3. The SPECIFIC militarization of the response to attacks on police by gunfire and explosives in Ferguson the last few days.
You are going to have do a lot better than linking to the dumbest man on the internet, Jim Hoft, and the Breitbart orphans. The only people we know who were shot at, and shot, are people in the streets. Why? Because we have ample footage of people looking at the end of rifle barrels and people showing where they were hit with rubber bullet rounds.
"Oh FFS. Are you for real?"
-- I go through the trouble of pulling a bunch of stuff that people passingly familiar with the situation at hand have heard/read/seen, and provide you sources, and the best you can come up with is, essentially, "nuh uh?" I get the feeling you don't really care about what happens to the people in Ferguson at all, so long as you score a few political points.
I actually don't understand what the problem is, I thought The Left wanted to live in the 70s?
We have the malaise....
We also know that two protestors were shot by other protestors/agitators.
[Like, shot-shot. With for realz bullets.]
Never let a crisis go to waste...if they could only check IDs and see who is supposed to live in the area, but that is racist....
I see a lot of knee jerk narrative that the cops acted stupidly, but given their operating environment as it continues to reveal itself, have they really?
The dead perp supposedly broke the cop's eye socket before ever being shot himself and the place is being looted and burned at will while pundits of all stripes comment on it remotely and egg it on to relieve their August boredom. Under those circumstances I think I'd appreciate a little body armor and a pal atop my APC with a scope on his M4, too.
"All cops should be required to wear a camera, and the video should be freely available to the public".
Really?
And what exactly would prevent criminals from watching the video to learn about police methods, shift patterns, surveillance process, and anything else that would make them more successful criminals?
I'm in favor of the police wearing cameras, but I have issues with letting the "public" track their every move.
-- I go through the trouble of pulling a bunch of stuff that people passingly familiar with the situation at hand have heard/read/seen, and provide you sources, and the best you can come up with is, essentially, "nuh uh?"
You provided a picture of Colt 45 bottle with a bandanna in it. You may trust whatever these cops say, but I wouldn't trust them for the time of day. That authoritarian streak in conservatives is virtually unshakable.
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long? Link
"Ann, would this help?"
LOL. That looks great.
To tell you the truth, I was getting a pedicure, and fear of the iPad slipping off my lap and into the water would have stopped me from using that. I needed one hand to grip and typed with one finger.
Ok. You don't trust the source. So... actually impeach the source. Show me a reason to believe you over it. One person did so by finding the caption for a photo. Can you? You asked for proof, then moved the goal posts.
Come on, I'm literally, I think, the only poster here who even is willing to engage you. But, every time I do, I wonder why I wasted the time.
They track ours Axel.
There was no "no cherubic boy with Skittles and iced tea" in the Trayvon Martin case either.
Come on, I'm literally, I think, the only poster here who even is willing to engage you
No offense, but links to gatewaypundit and Breitbart isn't terribly impressive. I can actually live without it.
Give it up Matthew. Garage is a troll. He doesn't argue in good faith.
Too bad because the few times he broke out of character (non political threads) he was interesting and fun.
"It's a good question,..."
Answered by two words:
White supremacy.
Whites can't even handle hearing, what blacks really think of them, online.
How can they hear the president tell whites - alone - they're full of shit and a bunch of murderous thieving bastards?
They'll lose it and start killing.
Well, before they'll ever let the country look at any evidence, anyway,..
Apropos of Ferguson:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/193640/#respond
Bill, Republic of Texas,
"There was no "no cherubic boy with Skittles and iced tea" in the Trayvon Martin case either."
Whup - stop the presses - whites have had a revelation, sent from their racist ancestors:
"Teenagers go through a period when they aren't angels, so - if they're black - they deserve to be stalked and killed. If they're white, we celebrate them."
That is all,...
garage mahal: Sorry, I need proof, not accusations.
The proof is stored on Scott Walker's "secret" router.
White man Garage gets more response with stupid posts than colored man Crack.
Racism abvious
Because Obama is thick as a brick and a narcissist. Among other things, he's surrounded himself with people just as stupid and those who aren't are too much sycophants to say anything to disagree with the boss.
Jon Favreau was a really great speech writer. He gets a lot of credit, and I suspect it is still inadequate.
Other than that, I don't think Obama has any ideas; he is just a vessel for the collectivized pablums of MSNBC, NPR, the Root, and the DNCCC.
If the shooting was not justified then the cop will be portrayed (not unreasonably) as a villain.
BUT that doesn't make Michael Brown an angel. We can all recall our youthful follies (or worse), but few of us casually committed strong-arm robberies. Brown's thuggishness in that robbery video destroys him as a sympathetic victim; no one likes a bully.
The President could say repeat, "If I had a son he might look like Michael," but that doesn't mean he'd act like Michael.
Which perhaps is why he doesn't say that?
Obviously the robbery by itself can't justify the shooting, but, without a sympathetic victim the story just doesn't break so easily as good-vs-evil.
And without full information about what actually happened in the street (which may never be available) it may remain morally ambiguous forever.
"Martin Luther King died for the cause of love and justice between human beings,..."
- Robert Kennedy
"They gonna owe us a whole lot of money!"
- Martin Luther King
It's a shame whites choose to betray "the cause of love and justice between human beings,..."
Crack --
The innocent black youth that we're all concerned about...
The threat to black youth that is 10,000 times greater than "the police" ARE OTHER BLACK YOUTHS.
The best thing that the people of Fergsuon could do for themselves, their property values and the future of their children is to form tightly organized block clubs, each one with a dedicated liaison to the local police department. And develop a much tighter, not more adversarial, relationship with the police.
"I assume this must be snark, as, when has Obama ever achieved "soaring oratory?""
Snark at its snarkiest! Ezra "Wedgie Victim" Klein seems to think much more highly of Obama's oratorical abilities than the general public does. In a way, we've failed Obama! We should be moved by him, perhaps we're just not a good enough country for this dear leader?
Whup - stop the presses - whites have had a revelation, sent from their racist ancestors:
"Teenagers go through a period when they aren't angels, so - if they're black - they deserve to be stalked and killed. If they're white, we celebrate them."
Crack's too stupid and dishonest to understand or acknowledge this, but Trayvon wasn't killed because he wasn't an angel, but because he was pounding someone's head into the pavement. Such people do deserve to be killed.
Never have seen the commercial, but just looking at the screen shot I would venture to say that it's shot from Grandad's Bluff at LaCrosse, Wi, a town I lived in for a coupla years a coupla years ago. Great town, about as lousy w/ self-righteous libs as Fargo, but the real money is on the hard-working, hard-playing run-of-the-mill working-joes who actually run the town and still probably vote dem but not from any ideological bent just that's the way their moms and dads voted. I love 'me just the same. Paul Ryan's my man for the 2016 Presidential Plan! Granny's a twisted self-involved lib anyway, toss her from the cliff, on to the future w/ Ryan!
There was no "no cherubic boy with Skittles and iced tea" in the Trayvon Martin case either.
Well, she got the Skittles part right, and that would get her a B+ at most colleges.
I saw another article about "The White House" "weighing" whether to "send" Obama to Ferguson, MO.
Can anyone here remember anything of this kind being said about other president of the United States?
As in "the White House weighing whether to send Mr. Lincoln to Gettysburg"?
"His fans may not want to believe it, but I've been observing it all along, and it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues."
I have a world full of respect for you, Althouse. Reading this fills me with dismay.
The man demonizes his opponents (or, as he has called them, his "enemies"), ascribing policy differences as bad faith. His favorite rhetorical device is the straw man. He uses the machinery of government to sabotage his opponents. He blatantly lies to the people in furtherance of his political agenda (as opposed to just saving his own skin, like most pols).
Perhaps there is refuge for you in the definition of "demagogue"; I admit to always having difficulty with the meaning of this word. Or, perhaps, your 2008 belief is "no longer operative". But if, after six years, you still see this man as an honest broker, I am at a loss.
11. Ezra Klein wasn't listening yesterday:
"I’ve said this before. In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement. In too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and seen only as objects of fear."
The police did act stupidly in the Skip Gates case. Professor Gates acted stupidly too. So did the two women who called the police. It was a true comedy.
President Obama handled that rather well, from the point of view of tamping down the heated rhetoric. He brought all the stupidity down on himself, and that effectively brought closure on that rather trivial incident.
He also did a good job handling the Benghazi attack, from the perspective of quelling the anti-American demonstrations across the Muslim world that had been ginned up on the pretext of a stupid video.
Obama'd have to distinguish between protestors, anarchists, leftists and looters in order to give a speech. But he just calls everyone who protests against his policies a racist; he doesn't want people thinking about different kinds of protest. So he can't say anything about Ferguson where all these kinds of people are mingled together and the violent are wrecking the town for the rest. So, back to the party goes the US President. (He could send a post card "Having a great time - glad you aren't here.")
"The Jeremiah Wright crisis in 2008 required a direct, decisive response from the candidate. "
You mean how the Obamas supposedly went to Wright's church regularly, for 20(?) years, but had no idea that his preaching was so racially-tinged?
"Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police."
Do we have to wait as long for photos of this as we had to wait for clear photos of George Zimmermann's head?
Obama has always shown deference to state power over protesters with none. He spied on and targeted Occupy. He's shown nothing but contempt for lefty protesters. Why would he speak out against it now?
"Obama'd have to distinguish between protestors, anarchists, leftists and looters in order to give a speech."
Just to help him out: The difference between looters and leftists? Looters want some of your property, leftists all of it.
"How can they hear the president tell whites - alone - they're full of shit and a bunch of murderous thieving bastards?"
Tragic.
Thus, the repeated calls for a "national dialogue on race" are pretty much useless. What are the rules for such a dialogue? One side is forever tainted with the collective sins of people they never met. Any demurral is, of course, proof of inherent racism. "That's some catch, that Catch 22."
If society is inescapably rotten due to the evil nature of white people, then discussing it with them is futile.
All true.
He has to be cautious because the facts are not in.
I got out ahead of the facts on this, assuming that Wilson chased after Brown while firing his gun. Now it appears that is in dispute.
The whole trip back to Washington seems to be theatre. Too bad all they are showing is the intermission.
Obama probably knows more than the public about the evidence implicating the not so gentle Michael Brown.
I read this morning that the policeman sustained a blow out fracture of his eye socket when he first encountered Michael Brown.
Getting more and more difficult to make the dead teenager the victim here.
Peter,
"If the shooting was not justified then the cop will be portrayed (not unreasonably) as a villain."
He shot an unarmed 18-year old kid six times. He's a villain AND a coward.
"BUT that doesn't make Michael Brown an angel."
I wish someone - white, black, anything - can explain to me where this cockamamy idea comes from that Americans have to be straight-A students on the Honor Roll in order to have the right to live.
White teens aren't held to that standard - but white adults seem to reflexively want to let the world know (because of white supremacy) they expect black teens to be or whatever happens to them is justified.
And blacks just have to live with that.
"We can all recall our youthful follies (or worse), but few of us casually committed strong-arm robberies."
Let's talk about that "or worse," and ask if whites are outrageous hypocrites who should be shot dead in public now, shall we?
"Brown's thuggishness in that robbery video destroys him as a sympathetic victim; no one likes a bully."
And the Ferguson resident who the cops wrongly arrested, beat up, and then sued for bleeding on their uniforms isn't either.
The cops aren't bullies. American whites - outnumbering us 6 to 1 - aren't bullies to blacks.
There's just something wrong,...with blacks.
And, though whites can't quite put their finger on what it is, it must be killed - as often as possible.
"The President could say repeat, "If I had a son he might look like Michael," but that doesn't mean he'd act like Michael."
Or that he may, boys being boys, and we'd know there wasn't anything strange about it. Why?
Trained law enforcement officers don't shoot unarmed kids.
"Which perhaps is why he doesn't say that?"
White supremacy determines what he can say. The white propensity to violence and murder determines who and what's allowed to be heard and said in this country.
"Obviously the robbery by itself can't justify the shooting, but, without a sympathetic victim the story just doesn't break so easily as good-vs-evil."
Awww. Whites get confused by reality if it's not "easily" good-vs-evil, huh?
"And without full information about what actually happened in the street (which may never be available) it may remain morally ambiguous forever."
"Morally ambiguous"?
Whites have wrongly killed blacks for centuries.
Where's the ambiguity?
I read this morning that the policeman sustained a blow out fracture of his eye socket when he first encountered Michael Brown.
Does Wilson appear to have a fractured eye socket in this video, or appear to be in any discomfort?
Also, where the hell is Wilson?
In the unlikely event Obama does try to go to an active riot zone, the Secret Service would be derelict in their duty if they didn't lock him in a White House closet.
McCain was a demagogue? Who are you kidding, yourself?
I wish someone - white, black, anything - can explain to me where this cockamamy idea comes from that Americans have to be straight-A students on the Honor Roll in order to have the right to live.
Explaining things to someone as stupid and dishonest as Crack is a challenge, but I'm up for it.
Blacks don't have to be straight-A students on the Honor Roll to not get killedI wish someone - white, black, anything - can explain to me where this cockamamy idea comes from that Americans have to be straight-A students on the Honor Roll in order to have the right to live. They only have to not assault people with guns.
You think so little of blacks that you imagine that they can't possibly abstainfrom mindless violence, but that's your problem. Has nothing to do with reality.
Trained law enforcement officers don't shoot unarmed kids.
Then it's a good thing no kids were involved in this incident.
Take 2:
I wish someone - white, black, anything - can explain to me where this cockamamy idea comes from that Americans have to be straight-A students on the Honor Roll in order to have the right to live.
Explaining things to someone as stupid and dishonest as Crack is a challenge, but I'm up for it.
Blacks don't have to be straight-A students on the Honor Roll to not get killed. They only have to not assault people with guns.
You think so little of blacks that you imagine that they can't possibly abstainfrom mindless violence, but that's your problem. Has nothing to do with reality.
@garage -- I'm also skeptical about that report, since it'd be incredibly easy to release incontrovertible evidence that Wilson has a broken eye socket.
You could always argue the possibility that he had it broken for him, Dirty Harry style, and I'm sure someone (maybe you) would in fact argue that, but for the vast majority of people it would become a closed case: justifiable homicide.
And this is incredibly obvious. So we're left to conclude that the cops are in possession of clear solid evidence that overwhelmingly benefits their guy, and have had it for a week, and are -- what? Just interested in seeing how this all plays out first?
It's noteworthy that no one except Jim Hoft is reporting this eye socket thing yet.
Oh, and Crack-
Juvenilizing adult black men has a long and sordid racist history. You should be ashamed of yourself.
garage - the police put his CT scan out there. It's confirmed, a blowout fracture to his eye socket.
Does Wilson appear to have a fractured eye socket in this video, or appear to be in any discomfort?
Unless that video includes an X-ray of Wilson's skull, the diagnosis of a blow out fracture cannot be made by looking at a video.
Wilson was reported to have a swollen face and he was treated at a hospital.
Crack - is Michael Brown your new saint?
One can only wonder under what bed Crack has been hiding to have escaped the murderous wrath of the white man this long.
The Sanford, FL police dept. did an outstanding job of documenting the field evidence in the Trayvon Martin case, but were prevented from releasing it in a timely manner that could have defused, or at least helped to defuse, the situation by the political authorities, whether from sheer boneheaded stupidity or more sinister motives.
Is the same happening in Ferguson, MO?
Here's the speech.
Don't smoke dope.
Don't be a criminal
Don't assault police, you fools
Don't riot when rumors and lies are spread about police actions.
Don't ruin your town and make fools of youselves.
Run race baiting carpetbaggers like Holder et al out of town.
No one is saying Michael Brown deserved to die because he wasn't some cherubic Skittles boy scout and pillar of his community. Save your straw man argument--no one is saying that at all.
However, Brown's character is absolutely a helpful indication towards what may have happened that night. Someone prone to fighting, or with a history of rejecting authority, is more likely to have attacked or threatened the cop. That doesn't mean he necessarily did so--nor does it mean the cop acted reasonably or responsibly in shooting him. But right now there are conflicting accounts as to how this went down, and until we know the whole picture we can't determine whether criminal charges should be brought against the cop.
I know it's fun and easy to have answers before you even know what the questions are--the true measure of any idealogue--and go full Sharpton every time you have White Shooter + Dead Black Guy = Profit! And yes, even thugs have rights, and cops are capable of unlawful killings of criminals. All anyone should be calling for at this point is more information and a fair investigation. If you've made up your mind before that, then congratulations, you're an idiot.
Crack writes;
"He shot an unarmed 18-year old kid six times. He's a villain AND a coward."
Maybe. But you're coming to your conclusion before you have the facts.
No surprise there. The victim is black, and you're a racist. It's what expected of you.
As for the rest of us, a man who is 6'4" and 300 pounds, if he is suspected of strong arm robbery and charging in our direction after trying to take away our gun? Then the shooting is justified.
But then again, we don't have all the facts, so making a conclusion at this point is just, well, racist.
"Does Wilson appear to have a fractured eye socket in this video, or appear to be in any discomfort?"
-- Did Zimmerman have a wound on the back of his head in that video?
I see no point in believing any of this leaked "information."
I remember the Richard Jewell case all to well.
Let these 10 witnesses come forward. Let the police inform the public by official report not leaks to a radio talk show.
Let us find out how many rounds Officer Wilson fired. Was he pursuing Brown with his gun blazing? If so, why?
Let someone officially report on Wilson's injuries instead of giving us a leak.
Consider Tiffany Mitchell's statement:
""As I pull onto the side, the kid, he finally gets away, he starts running. As he runs the police get out of his vehicle and he follows behind him, shooting," Mitchell said. "And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turns around and puts his hands up like this, and the cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground and his face just smacks the concrete."
Mitchell clarified she heard a shot after she saw Brown trying to pull away from the cop, and said even after Brown turned to face the cop and put his hands in the air, "the cop continued to come up on him and shoot him until he fell down to the ground." She said she counted "more than about five or six shots."
Do you just dismiss this? At least she said it on tape with a newsperson in interviewing her.
Do you really think it's ok for a cop to fire on a fleeing suspect who is no longer a threat to him, and not a threat to anyone else? What if your son made the mistake of taking a swing at a cop and then ran away. Do you thing the cops should shoot him?
"As for the rest of us, a man who is 6'4" and 300 pounds, if he is suspected of strong arm robbery and charging in our direction after trying to take away our gun? Then the shooting is justified."
Do you also think it was justified to be shooting at Brown as he fled unarmed?
Are you sure Wilson knew about the robbery? Why do you believe that Brown was charging him, when several witnesses have said that he was not? Is it possible that Brown stopped and turned after being grazed by a shot from behind? Might he have taken the grazing as a signal to surrender? Or a signal to attack an armed police officer? Which do you think is more likely?
I do not know what happened. Why do you think you do?
JASON RILEY, WALL STREET JOURNAL columnist (who also happens to be a black man) last night on Fox News:
We don't have all the evidence and I'm hesitant to try and litigate this in the press, but there's also this false narrative being pushed out there by folks like Michael Eric Dyson and [Al] Sharpton and the rest of the hustlers is that black men live in fear of being shot by cops in these neighborhoods. That too is nonsense. I know something about growing up black and male in the inner city and it's not that hard to avoid getting shot by a cop. They pull you over, you answer their questions, you are on your way.
The real difficulty is not getting shot by other black people if you are a young black man in these neighborhoods and again that is something we need to talk more about. Cops are not the problem. Cops are not producing these black bodies in the morgues every weekend in Chicago, in New York and Detroit and so forth. That's not cops. Those other black people shooting black people.
David said...
Was he pursuing Brown with his gun blazing? If so, why?
...
Consider Tiffany Mitchell's statement:
"...As he runs the police get out of his vehicle and he follows behind him, shooting," Mitchell said. "And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind..."
Do you just dismiss this?
The autopsy done at the family's request showed that he was not shot from behind. I do not just dismiss this witness's statement, but it is, at the very least, unreliable.
And this is incredibly obvious. So we're left to conclude that the cops are in possession of clear solid evidence that overwhelmingly benefits their guy, and have had it for a week, and are -- what? Just interested in seeing how this all plays out first? .
You'd think after the selective leaks to assassinate Brown's character they would release clear evidence supporting Wilson. Also telling: nobody even disputes cops being able to confiscate your cell phone without question. Why do conservatives always instinctively defend this shit is what I want to know. Always.
Do you really think it's ok for a cop to fire on a fleeing suspect who is no longer a threat to him, and not a threat to anyone else? What if your son made the mistake of taking a swing at a cop and then ran away. Do you thing the cops should shoot him?
David - you are completely ignoring the evidence that HAS come out already. Baden's autopsy has already proven he was not "firing on a fleeing suspect."
If you want to argue the case that he shouldn't have fired 6 shots, then fine. But don't interject stuff into the discussion that is completely untrue.
You'd think after the selective leaks to assassinate Brown's character they would release clear evidence supporting Wilson. Also telling: nobody even disputes cops being able to confiscate your cell phone without question. Why do conservatives always instinctively defend this shit is what I want to know. Always.
Do you really believe what you just typed here? I really would like to know that.
"Also telling: nobody even disputes cops being able to confiscate your cell phone without question."
OK, against my better judgement, I'll ask. What are you talking about?
Who do Blacks fear more? Pimps, gangbangers and dealers OR White Po-Po? Outwardly they fear 5-0, in reality, they fear the real menace in the community. Black people continue to call 911, right?
Who do Lefties fear more? Al Bhadadi or Ted Cruz?
"Also telling: nobody even disputes cops being able to confiscate your cell phone without question. Why do conservatives always instinctively defend this shit is what I want to know."
Another example where the left is deliberately ignorant of what conservatives think.
I don't think video cameras on cops solves the problem. You can't see what is off-camera and it may be key to understanding. Have you ever seen the director and crew in a Hollywood movie? Do you think they are present during filming? Of course they are but we only see part of what is going on. In fact, the distortion of reality made possible by the limited view of a camera is much of the charm of movies!
Also: What selective leaks? The robbery video was released to the media due to a FOIA, or whatever the state equivalent was. Or at least, that's my understanding.
"10. A truly brilliant speech about Ferguson — if he had the will and the time to craft the perfect statement — would not be what his supporters want, but something more difficult, challenging, and surprising."
And the reason to believe that Obama is capable of such can be found where?
Noted non-conservative discusses police's ability to confiscate your electronics: "Even Justice Sotomayor conceded that for someone arrested simply for driving without seat belts, "it seems absurd that they should be able to search that person's iPhone.""
Oh. I'm sorry. I meant Scalia.
The robbery video was released to the media due to a FOIA, or whatever the state equivalent was.
In addition, it was guys on Garage's side who were angry this got released.
Let's face it - the left and the media (redundant) have a narrative they want to portray, and the video shattered that. Instantly. Guys like Garage are just butthurt that their worldview is so full of crap.
Please give Crank MC a break. As the song says, he's just doing what the Black folks do.
Please give Crank MC a break. As the song says, he's just doing what the Black folks do.
Asserting that black folks in general are as stupid and dishonest as Crack is a vile racist slur. Really.
@Grundood: Nothing's perfect, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, we'd know whether Brown was surrendering or not.
Equally important, if the cops knew they were being recorded, they'd be on their best behavior. Same as the photo ID argument today. It's a deterrent to potential law breakers.
GM Really, with national/international journalists and cameras everywhere not one molotov was filmed?
I don't come by often. This is why.
I types up a description for GM of a series of pictures I saw this weekend of a guy walking down the street with his bottle and then heaving it (not towards the rioters, ya think?)
And then realized that was a complete waste of time. Good job GM.
We have two sides of the story here. There are some stories of Brown getting shot in the back by an out of control racist cop. Those stories are quite clearly not true as evidenced both by the autopsy and pictures of Brown's body. We then have the cop's story, which an black neighborhood eyewitness confirms moments after the shooting. Alledgedly, there are many more witnesses to confirm the cop's account.
The preponderance of the evidence is pointing to the following timeline:
Brown (known for thrown Blood's gange signs on Facebook) and friend rob store of marijuana paraphernalia.
Cop tells them to get out of middle of street.
Cop sees Rellos in Brown's hand. Confrontation starts.
Scuffle with cop which leads to cop getting busted face and gunshot going off in struggle for gun.
After shot, Brown flees and cop pursues.
Brown (6'4" and 300 pounds -- who has already tried to take gun away from cop) turns around and charges cop.
Cop, quite rightly, fears what happens when violent criminal successfully takes gun away from cops shoots Brown until Brown drops.
It is entirely possible that more facts will come to light to make me think otherwise, but based on everything that has come out so far the above timeline seems the most likely scenario. If so, it is a righteous shoot.
The robbery video was released to the media due to a FOIA, or whatever the state equivalent was. Or at least, that's my understanding.
Chief Tom Jackson said he released the video "because the press asked for it". Of all the requests the press were asking for, this was it? The deadly encounter with Brown had nothing to do with store robbery, so why release it? No word on who leaked info that Brown had marijuana in his system.
All of the above given as a last ditch effort to show Crack and others exactly what many Americans are coming to believe. It isn't racism and not caring about the fate of young black men. Rather, it is logic, evidence and facts. If you can't even conceive of people coming to the above conclusions except due to racism then you are lost and completely disconnected from reality.
"The deadly encounter with Brown had nothing to do with store robbery, so why release it?"
I don't know if releasing it was legal, but it does shed light on Brown's character. There are very few things about this incident I know for sure (since there's no video), but I do know Brown was a belligerent bully. Or, at the least, he was 15 minutes before the shooting.
Hey crack..
About this White supremacy and how whites can't even handle hearing, what blacks really think of them, online.
What about how blacks don't want to hear the truth about how others, whites, Asians, Spanish, etc.. really view them.
But unlike whites or Asians or Spanish, blacks like crack blame their life not on their own actions but on the actions of others.
It's so much easier and might even get a few dollars in their tin cups.
Yet blacks like Condoleezza Rice, who's ancestors worked as sharecroppers for a time after emancipation, and grew up in segregated Alabama, rose up and became something.
And that is how you rise up in society crack, not by playing the victimology card.
All the Democrats will do for you is keep you on the dole, and poverty. That was what the 'Great Society' was all about, plantationism.
Don't believe me? Look at all the welfare for decades you have gotten. Has it really helped?
All you really have to do is go to work, save, say married, raise your children to see hard honest work and saving is the key, and send them to school so they can be better than you.
That's all that is needed crack.
Stand up crack and get your life going cause all this crying about racism won't even get you a cup of coffee.
There are very few things about this incident I know for sure (since there's no video), but I do know Brown was a belligerent bully.
See this video account of the robbery. You tell me. (The store never reported a robbery and Brown did not have a criminal record).
garage: "The deadly encounter with Brown had nothing to do with store robbery, so why release it?"
The deadly encounter with Brown was not initiated with the store robbery in mind but that does not mean that Brown knew that.
Browns actions might have been influenced by the thought that perhaps the police officer did know about the crime.
That might explain why some witnesses say Brown rushed the police car and got entangled with the officer prior to running away from the car.
Of course, this is basic stuff which is easily missed by your average high schooler.
garage: "The store never reported a robbery..."
The store owner himself has professed fear of being killed if any of his actions are viewed negatively by the community there at large.
Also, I suppose we are supposed to just pretend the store incident never happened even with the videotape evidence because the store owner fears for his life in this community.
Ignoring the evidence right before your eyes? That's par for the course for your average lefty.
Ummmm. Trayvon turned out to be a vicious thug with a love of violence. It was really stupid of Obama to say that Trayvon could be his son or that he could have been that kind of thug when he was younger.
garage: "Also telling: nobody even disputes cops being able to confiscate your cell phone without question. Why do conservatives always instinctively defend this shit is what I want to know"
LOL
Lets just revisit Kelo for a moment, shall we?
Who voted to allow the city of New London to just take the property of individuals and have the government give the property to their rent-seeking pals?
Why, it's none other than all of garage's pals on the left!
Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer with the "swinger" Kennedy.
Another rake in the face for garage.
garage was first in line to invite Michael Brown to his house for dinner.
The speech Obama ought to give isn't one about the shooting itself, but about how the police responded to the shooting and the protests.
Regardless of whether the shooting itself ultimately turns out to be "justified" (and Missouri's law is broad enough that it is almost impossible for police shootings not to be), the police's wanna-be shock-and-awe response was not justified.
Police need to be reminded that they are civilians. They are not our masters; they are our servants. That is the speech we need.
Will Obama give it? Nope. At heart, he's a fan of overwhelming government power. He just objects to specific uses of it.
@GM: So, I'd have to see the whole thing, with audio, which I have not done.
I will say this statement from the link is, to my knowledge, baseless: "Of course the right-wing took the robbery claim at face value, and began labeling Michael Brown as a ‘thug‘ who did not deserve due process." I know of no one who has said Brown did not deserve due process. Do you?
"President Obama went back to his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard Tuesday evening following less than 48 hours in Washington, leaving people puzzled over why he came back in the first place. "
Will there ever come a time when those who voted for Obama will apologize to those who saw though this guy from the beginning and are not at all surprised how things turned out?
Excellent list. #5 was my choice.
mtrobertsattorney:
Asked and answered, counselor.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
David said...
The autopsy done at the family's request showed that he was not shot from behind. I do not just dismiss this witness's statement, but it is, at the very least, unreliable.
It is being widely reported that all bullets hit him from the front. However, those reports are incomplete and inaccurate. Shaun Parcells, the forensic pathologist who assisted Dr. Baden in the autopsy, gave the following report (from the Daily Mail):
The 18-year-old was shot twice in the head and four times on the arm.
One bullet entered and exited Brown several times. That shot struck the teen above the right eyeball, went through his face, left through his jaw and re-entered his collarbone.
It is believed that five of the shots hit Brown on the front of his body.
However Parcells said that the gunshot wound to Brown's forearm appeared to be consistent with someone walking away or putting their arms up in a surrender or defensive manner before adding, 'but we don't know'.
So in fact the report conforms it likely that Brown was hit from behind with one shot. That is completely consistent with what Michelle Phillips said.
Still want to dismiss her statement? And she is not the only one who saw it that way.
How about cutting the bullshit on the store robbery? Of course it's relevant.
1. The video makes it clear that Brown was the person pushing the clerk around and taking stuff. It's undeniable.
2. The police chief said Wilson did not know about the robbery when he interacted with Brown. Some later leaks maintain that Wilson heard a radio call after he first ordered Brown off the street. The chief has not confirmed that.
3. One possible explanation for the scuffle at the car is that Brown thought the cop was after him for the store robbery. That could have given Brown a motive to push Wilson back in the car or hit him and then flee.
4. Nevertheless, when Wilson pursued Brown and (according to several witnesses) fired at him, Brown's known transgressions at maximum were a minor store robbery and a physical altercation with a cop.
5. Under this situation Wilson may have been firing several shots with deadly potential at Brown. Not to mention the risk to bystanders.
This is where I stop to assess what the Ferguson police are defending. One of their own was trying to kill a citizen who had not committed a serious crime and was fleeing the scene unarmed.
For purposes of argument, I will grant you that Brown's actions were thuggish in those two incidents. Is it police policy to try to kill unarmed "thugs" who are presenting no immediate danger to anyone?
Do you suppose a white kid in La Due or Kirkwood or the other white suburbs of St. Louis would fire on a white kid who took a swing at a cop and then ran away?
No fucking way would they fire. No fucking way.
To be clear, I would assess the incident somewhat differently if it were clear that Wilson fired no shots before Brown turned around. Nevertheless you have to believe that Brown would charge an armed police officer from 10 to 15 yards away. Possible, but not the most likely course of action for just about everyone. Moreover, you have to deal with the other citizens who said that Brown did not charge.
If Wilson pursued Brown and was firing his gun in the pursuit, he is culpable. He's also culpable if he shot Brown during standoff.
Now I do not know what happened. But I know I don't know, and I also know that it's wrong to try to kill someone just to stop them from fleeing. Cops aren't supposed to do that anymore. Every crime is not a free fire zone for the police.
David - he was 6'4" 300lbs.
Obama won't make a Ferguson speech because his plant in the investigation, Holder, is telling him that it's a ringer case. Today's information drop seems to be that the officer had a fracture around the eye from the initial struggle with Brown. (the one at the car). The autopsy and new witnesses seem to be corroborating the Officer's statement and now with injuries to boot, Obama would enrage his main constituency if he acknowledged that attacking a policemen isn't really cool.
I think also that Obama sees the rioting as very bad optics for him - he's losing credibility on both sides as the nightly tear gas visuals keep going on. And I think that arresting the policeman as the mob wants would backfire big time if the evidence keeps supporting the officer.
No speech - just leading from behind here.
I would love to see a thread where no one responded to Garbage and the Crackhead.
Really! What's the point? You only encourage their trolling.
"Obama was elected president because he seemed, alone among American politicians, to be able to bridge the deep divides in American politics."
I find this line by Klein to be fascinating.
It is passive voice. An action has occurred ("he was elected") but no one is identified as electing him.
In any case, Obama was elected by a bare majority in both 2008 and 2012.
What "deep divides" is Klein talking about? We all have different interests. Those middle class whites who fled the cities for the suburbs? They were doing what was in their best interests and the best interests of their families. Fuck you, community organizer. You ain't the boss o' me.
Now that Russia, Iran and ISIS are taunting America to get their house in order because of what is going on in Ferguson, do you all think Obama and Holder, (Sharpton, and the rest of the racebaiters) will tone it down and not try to take full political advantage of what is going on there by exaggerating and exacerbating? Why is Holder going there? BTW, Jason Riley (WSJ) was on Brett Baier had great commentary and criticism of what Holder and Obama are doing.
My theory is that Obama's folks have been well briefed on this kid's record and his interaction with the cop and they don't want to be anywhere near the falling load of bricks when the information is released.
David-
Do you have a link for your info? It sounds like the assistant is contradicting the opinion of the person who performed the autopsy. I'm going by info at this link:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0&referrer=
Just watched a piece on Cavuto where it was stated that the FAA has banned news helicopters from flying over Ferguson, MO. claiming 'safety' considerations. The guest commenterss said B.S. They just don't want pictures of what is happening down below to go on the air.
"Nevertheless you have to believe that Brown would charge an armed police officer from 10 to 15 yards away. Possible, but not the most likely course of action for just about everyone."
Umm David? Did you see the video of his behavior in the convenience store just prior to the shooting, are are you avoiding it to keep your narrative clear and simple?
I am not a police officer, but if I have a Richie Incognito double coming at me with obvious intent to do me bodily harm, and I have a gun, I am firing!
You know what David reminds me of? Those guys trying to prove that that letter that matched MS Word perfectly was typed on a 70's typewriter. No claim too ridiculous to throw out there on that one either.
Ok David, I did find the story you quoted. It does not seem like a grazing wound on the forearm would cause his body to jerk like he was hit from behind. So I'm still pretty skeptical on this on.
Just to be clear, at this point I find it hard to believe that this shooting was justified. But we need to wait for the full investigation.
And this story has this in common with the Trayvon Martin case: The few actual facts known comport with the cop's story and are inconsistent with bystanders' versions.
I guess that everybody would have been happy if Brown had been aborted, like so many other black children. That isn't genocide, you know, but killing a thug is.
Umm David? Did you see the video of his behavior in the convenience store just prior to the shooting, are are you avoiding it to keep your narrative clear and simple?
Um, tim? Could you explain how "will shove a store clerk" implies "will charge a man who is pointing a gun at him"?
So far as I can tell, the narrative you're following is "he was a criminal, therefore whatever explanation the police give for shooting him automagically makes sense".
And where does a robbery of a South Asian clerk fit into this?
How many local shops that are being looted belong to Asians or other immigrants?
this might not hit the US news, but I have seen a discussion of racism in the US on Korean TV about the lack of police protection of their stores in similar riots.
David wrote: Do you suppose a white kid in La Due or Kirkwood or the other white suburbs of St. Louis would fire on a white kid who took a swing at a cop and then ran away?
No fucking way would they fire. No fucking way.
If the white kid were as big and angry as Michael Brown and coming at the cop, then yes I can see it happening. I can also see the cop firing warning shots to the arm and then after not stopping or slowing him, firing to kill. It's not a hard scenario to imagine at all. It just needs factual support. A more detailed autopsy may help.
And this story has this in common with the Trayvon Martin case: The few actual facts known comport with the cop's story and are inconsistent with bystanders' versions.
Well of course the facts are consistent with the police story. The police department changes their story every time a new fact comes to light, and the cop himself didn't have to make a statement until after he'd seen the evidence.
If the rest of us were according those protections, no criminal would ever go to jail.
A black "youth" is approximately one hundred times more likely to be killed by another black person than he is by a policeman of any color.
Shouldn't the scenario of Brown being shot being shot in the back be thoroughly dismissed as fabrication? If not, why not? Shouldn't other testimony from witnesses who said he was shot in the back be scrutinized and highly doubted -- if not outright dismissed?
Ann, (1)you’re stupid. (2) time isn’t helping.
They could fly drones overhead, and provide the footage to the press. I would be surprised if they aren't already using drones for surveillance.
"Um, tim? Could you explain how "will shove a store clerk" implies "will charge a man who is pointing a gun at him"? "
So "shoving" is all that happened? Not pushing his chest up into a much smaller man and then shoving him, walking out of the store will stolen stuff and then turning around and coming back in and attacking again?
Why, if the facts are so innocent, do you avoid them? What you see above is a factual description of what happened, and it was more than a shove, it was an angry man in a rage stealing from "Asians," so I guess that makes it not a crime.
[Obama] seemed, alone among American politicians, to be able to bridge the deep divides in American politics.
History teaches this: Political chasms are bridged, not by bland speechifying and lugubrious moralizing, but by clear and present danger.
If the white kid were as big and angry as Michael Brown and coming at the cop, then yes I can see it happening. I can also see the cop firing warning shots to the arm and then after not stopping or slowing him, firing to kill. It's not a hard scenario to imagine at all.
I could, maybe, be sympathetic to this argument if police applied it to cases where someone shot a cop they felt threatened by. But in reality, if police kick in your door in the dead of night and you kill one of them because you think he's a burglar, you're going to prison for murder.
The cop starts off this story in a car. What the hell is an unarmed guy going to do to someone in a car? Piss on the windshield? If he too scared of the big guy to take him on with a taser, club, or pepper spray, call for backup. How the hell is "pull a gun on him" the proper step?
To the typical rich tenured academic this headline doesn’t affect their lifestyle: “Average Price of Ground Beef Hits All-Time High.” Especially those who still justify their love of Obama.
"assault and battery" becomes "shove", you know, like kids might do in a school lunch line.
Why, if the facts are so innocent, do you avoid them?
Sigh. I'll try to dumb it down for you, since my original question went over your head.
Brown is a horrible, awful, human being. He probably likes beating the ever-loving shit out of helpless store clerks every chance he gets. Why, I bet he jerks off to "A Clockwork Orange" every night.
Now, if your delicate feelings will permit it, please answer the fuckin' question.
Your argument is, basically, "Brown was a thug, therefore he was suicidal". My gut instinct is that you're a retard, but maybe there's a non-retarded explanation for why you think robbers are in the habit of charging police guns while armed with nothing but a shitty attitude and a pack of cigars.
Well of course the facts are consistent with the police story. The police department changes their story every time a new fact comes to light, and the cop himself didn't have to make a statement until after he'd seen the evidence.
As far as I know, "the cop himself" is under wraps and has not made any public statement.
The "facts" are the convenience store video, which speaks to Michael Brown' physique and his mental condition 10-15 minutes before the incident, and the autopsy results (which so far is not from the official autopsy, but by the NYC 'expert' who also muddled up the Martin case, IIRC, but however got us the sketches showing the bullet wounds), and "the cop's story" which actually so far is by another officer (or bystander, but friendly?) who did not know he was being recorded.
The police department has, as far as I know, not released any story at all so far. Apparently some other official agency did confirm the injuries to officer Wilson's face to some media agency. And that's it.
Revenant, your attitude is not justified.
I really like the way that supporters of an overweight thug would deal with him if it were their job. What the hell is someone going to do with someone in a car? How about slamming the door on him as he’s getting out? Ever been hit with a car door hero? How about hitting him in the face? You just pulled a little guy’s shirt front to show how tough you are and he knows what happens to him if he resist. But who cares what happens to the store attendant, he’s not on your list is he Rev? I’ve got 150 pounds on you and I’m not afraid to use it and I’m ready to beat you to a blood pulp Rev … what are you going to do? Call for backup, punk?
The cop starts off this story in a car.
No shit. He drove up to scene.
What the hell is an unarmed guy going to do to someone in a car?
I dunno? But why would an overarmed coward of a cop as you insinuate pull him into his car? How did he get in the car? If the cop were as big a racist pussy as you maintain, why wouldn't he have just stood behind his open door and taken aim and shot him. Then, after gunning him down, he could have walked up and done the coup de grace. And he wouldn't have thought twice about doing any of that in revenant's world because that's what an all white police force with impunity can get away with doing. That's how I read you, revenant and it's sad given your long history.
Here's something not so secret: Rev's a racist.
Rev's Rambo in his mind. In his universe no one ever dies from being beaten to death.
The "facts" are the convenience store video
The convenience store video is irrelevant. The cop didn't know about it, and "thug" doesn't imply "suicidal".
and the autopsy results (which so far is not from the official autopsy, but by the NYC 'expert' who also muddled up the Martin case, IIRC, but however got us the sketches showing the bullet wounds)
The autopsy results are inconsistent with the police department's original version of the story, which was that the officer was forced to shoot Brown because Brown was going for his gun.
As one of the hits (to the arm) could have come from any direction, it is not inconsistent with Brown running away -- he gets hit in the arm and spun around, then is hit in the front by the remaining bullets.
and "the cop's story" which actually so far is by another officer (or bystander, but friendly?) who did not know he was being recorded.
That story is no more "evidence" than any of the other eyewitness stories, which -- in typical eyewitness fashion -- are inconsistent with one another.
This from a cop's opinion piece in WaPo:
[...]An average cop is always concerned with his or her safety and tries to control every encounter. That is how we are trained. While most citizens are courteous and law abiding, the subset of people we generally interact with everyday are not the genteel types. You don’t know what is in my mind when I stop you. Did I just get a radio call of a shooting moments ago? Am I looking for a murderer or an armed fugitive? For you, this might be a “simple” traffic stop, for me each traffic stop is a potentially dangerous encounter. Show some empathy for an officer’s safety concerns. Don’t make our job more difficult than it already is.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा