1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Elizabeth Warren’s Ferguson Tweet

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  280
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
26 August 2019 10:44
 

“5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.”

This tweet is a display of leftist confusion and Warren’s regressive position and/or pandering on this topic.  Warren is the current Vegas favorite to win the nomination.  I’m wondering if the Dems have learned anything since the last election.  If this is their best, get ready for another Trump term.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21909
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
26 August 2019 11:41
 

I don’t think M. Brown was murdered, and the officer was certainly never convicted of this.  He was cleared by the DOJ of civil rights violations. Politicians should not make pronouncements like this - she is basically doing the same thing Trump does.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  280
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
26 August 2019 13:08
 

Hillary Clinton made the same mistakes.  After the police shooting of Terrance Crutcher in Tulsa, she stated “we gotta tackle systemic racism…this horrible shooting again, how many times do we need to see this in our country…this is unbearable, and it needs to be intolerable, and so, you know, maybe I can - by speaking directly to white people - say ‘look, this is not who we are, we’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing’”.

Speaking directly to white people?  Hillary the ambassador to white people!  She made these statements before any investigation - saying the man just had his hands up and was shot for no reason.

All I’m saying is that if you want Trump out of office, you need a candidate that won’t make these confused (and in Hillary’s case racist) comments.  Sure it’s only one issue but it seems to be a pretty big issue lately. 

 

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21909
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
26 August 2019 13:52
 

I want him out of office.  How the next president turns out may lead to me wanting him/her out of office.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17887
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
26 August 2019 17:42
 

Warren is an extremest nut, I would go with Trump over her if that is the choice.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5216
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
30 August 2019 09:34
 

Poor phrasing or an incomplete grasp of the facts regarding one incident is one issue. Ethos on the larger topic is another issue.

Are you suggesting that there is not a systemic double standard by the justice system of racial minorities regarding arrest and prosecution? Because there is actually data on this. Beyond disparate versions of a single event.

Plenty of politicians will skirt controversy and avoid saying anything substantive about controversial topics. That’s nothing new. I hope that isn’t what you are endorsing.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  280
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
03 September 2019 07:27
 

This was a pretty good analysis of Warren’s (and Harris’s) tweets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LfiRAxOmLo

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 September 2019 08:29
 
DEGENERATEON - 26 August 2019 01:08 PM

Hillary Clinton made the same mistakes.  After the police shooting of Terrance Crutcher in Tulsa, she stated “we gotta tackle systemic racism…this horrible shooting again, how many times do we need to see this in our country…this is unbearable, and it needs to be intolerable, and so, you know, maybe I can - by speaking directly to white people - say ‘look, this is not who we are, we’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing’”.

Speaking directly to white people?  Hillary the ambassador to white people!  She made these statements before any investigation - saying the man just had his hands up and was shot for no reason.

All I’m saying is that if you want Trump out of office, you need a candidate that won’t make these confused (and in Hillary’s case racist) comments.  Sure it’s only one issue but it seems to be a pretty big issue lately.

The DOJ released two reports on the subject.  You should read BOTH of them.

DOJ Report on the Ferguson police department.
DOJ Report on the shooting of Michael Brown.

You’re right in that the killing of Michael Brown does not meet the technical term of “murder” (an unlawful killing, the system investigated him and found him not criminally liable… therefore it isn’t murder).  At the same time, if you accept the final report on this, you must ALSO accept the DOJ’s report on the rest of the situation.

Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather
than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional
character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing,
and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns
and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s
police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including
racial stereotypes.
Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact
African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these
disparities.
Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust
between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement
legitimacy among African Americans in particular.

Bold emphasis added by me.  The report is very clear that the context in which Wilson shot Brown was one of systemic racism.  If you’re going to claim otherwise you will need to provide evidence that this report is factually wrong.  I have provided evidence and data the supports the conclusion that systemic racism does exist.

Of course, based on your previous posts in some of Abel Dean’s threads, I suspect that have some agenda other than the truth on subjects like this.  (subtext: I am noticing a pattern in the language you use when posting about topics involving black people)

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17887
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 September 2019 08:57
 

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat.  The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive.  Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat.  Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law.  The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV.  These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution.  Cf.Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.  VI.ConclusionFor the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  280
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
03 September 2019 08:59
 
Garret - 03 September 2019 08:29 AM
DEGENERATEON - 26 August 2019 01:08 PM

Hillary Clinton made the same mistakes.  After the police shooting of Terrance Crutcher in Tulsa, she stated “we gotta tackle systemic racism…this horrible shooting again, how many times do we need to see this in our country…this is unbearable, and it needs to be intolerable, and so, you know, maybe I can - by speaking directly to white people - say ‘look, this is not who we are, we’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing’”.

Speaking directly to white people?  Hillary the ambassador to white people!  She made these statements before any investigation - saying the man just had his hands up and was shot for no reason.

All I’m saying is that if you want Trump out of office, you need a candidate that won’t make these confused (and in Hillary’s case racist) comments.  Sure it’s only one issue but it seems to be a pretty big issue lately.

The DOJ released two reports on the subject.  You should read BOTH of them.

DOJ Report on the Ferguson police department.
DOJ Report on the shooting of Michael Brown.

You’re right in that the killing of Michael Brown does not meet the technical term of “murder” (an unlawful killing, the system investigated him and found him not criminally liable… therefore it isn’t murder).  At the same time, if you accept the final report on this, you must ALSO accept the DOJ’s report on the rest of the situation.

Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather
than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional
character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing,
and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns
and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s
police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including
racial stereotypes.
Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact
African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these
disparities.
Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust
between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement
legitimacy among African Americans in particular.

Bold emphasis added by me.  The report is very clear that the context in which Wilson shot Brown was one of systemic racism.  If you’re going to claim otherwise you will need to provide evidence that this report is factually wrong.  I have provided evidence and data the supports the conclusion that systemic racism does exist.

Of course, based on your previous posts in some of Abel Dean’s threads, I suspect that have some agenda other than the truth on subjects like this.  (subtext: I am noticing a pattern in the language you use when posting about topics involving black people)

So the report finds that racial bias is clearly an issue in the Ferguson Police Department.  Fine, I’ll accept that.  But to say that is the “context” in which Wilson shot Brown is ridiculous.  The “context” in which Wilson shot Brown was the evidence that Brown was reaching for Wilson’s weapon, and that he was charging toward the officer.  To say that racial bias played any role is to read the mind of officer Wilson.  Did he shoot him because he was black, or because he was a threat?  Clearly both reports do not claim the former. 

Your suspicions are based on your bias.  Like when I echoed Sam Harris’ thoughts on people not knowing how to get arrested, and recommended some public service announcement or education on the topic.  Your response was “thinking black people need to be educated on being arrested is cute and naive”.  The fact is that I never said anything about black people, you just READ it that way because that’s your regressive bias and you can’t get around it.  So are we back to that discussion?  Where did I say what you claim I said?

I am also noticing a pattern with your language. 

 

[ Edited: 03 September 2019 09:02 by DEGENERATEON]
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 September 2019 09:19
 

Are black people part of the public?
Would you include or exclude black people from this education on how to get arrested?

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  280
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
03 September 2019 09:33
 
Garret - 03 September 2019 09:19 AM

Are black people part of the public?
Would you include or exclude black people from this education on how to get arrested?

DEGEN:  “We should have some education on the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving.”
Garret:  “It’s super cute and naive that you think Chinese people need education on this!”
DEGEN:  “I didn’t say anything about Chinese people.”
Garret:  “Aren’t Chinese people part of the public?  Would you include or exclude Chinese people from this education?”

Garret, there’s no need to take this any further.  You’re embarrassing yourself.  You are either a Troll or your grasp of logic is so weak you can’t make coherent points.  Just….go away man.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 September 2019 10:15
 

I agree that the logic is pretty self-evident, but I want to ensure that there is zero confusion or room for miscommunication.

I find that if we first establish which facts we agree one, we can have a better discussion on the points we disagree on.

Lets use a simple syllogism:
P1) A equals B
P2) B does not equal C
C) A does not equal C

If you and I can’t agree on premise one, then there is no point in discussing the conclusion.  We first have to be able to agree that premise one is true (and premise two) before any conversation about the conclusion will be useful.

So, I repeat my question… when you made your comment about educating people about how to be arrested, were you including black people in that?
Because if you weren’t, then my comment would indeed be ridiculous and make no sense.  But if you were, then it is possible (not definitive, but just possible) that my comment does pertain to what you said.  But if you were only talking about white people, then I would agree, my old comment was ridiculous and made no sense.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1000
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2019 07:27
 
Brick Bungalow - 30 August 2019 09:34 AM

Poor phrasing or an incomplete grasp of the facts regarding one incident is one issue. Ethos on the larger topic is another issue.

Are you suggesting that there is not a systemic double standard by the justice system of racial minorities regarding arrest and prosecution? Because there is actually data on this. Beyond disparate versions of a single event.

Plenty of politicians will skirt controversy and avoid saying anything substantive about controversial topics. That’s nothing new. I hope that isn’t what you are endorsing.

I would be interested in any analysis you have indicating “a systemic double standard by the justice system” with respect to racial minorities “regarding arrest and prosecution” because I haven’t seen reliable evidence of it, despite some familiarity with the topic.  As far as I’ve been able to tell, this might be true of Hispanics but is certainly not true of blacks or other races and ethnicities (sentencing after arrest and prosecution is another matter; blacks do get longer sentences than whites).  In any case, I admit this is not an area I’d consider myself an expert in, but I’m not completely ignorant in it either, so I’d like to see the data you are referring to.

[ Edited: 04 September 2019 07:51 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1000
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2019 07:38
 

Warren’s Tweet in the context of both the facts available in the Michael Brown case and the latest research on police shootings so distorts the specific incident through careful phrasing that it amounts to endorsing an ethos over a fabricated problem.  As political demagoguery goes, it is Trump-like in its simultaneous denigration and divorce from reality.  If she and other Democrats keep it up, I agree with DEGENERATEON: Trump is that much more likely to inflict his own divorce and denigrations on us for another term. 

Re the topic of Warren’s Tweet—systemic racism and police violence—the latest analysis shows if there is any bias in police shootings, it’s an anti-white bias, not an anti-black bias.  It also shows that blacks are shot commensurate with the black crime rate in any given area, and therefore commensurate with probable encounters with the police—i.e. they are not disproportionately shot relative to the presumption of innocence, much less more frequently shot in absolute terms (see “Officer characteristic and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” PNAS, Aug 6, 2019).  Simply put, if blacks as a group committed fewer crimes, they would encounter the police less, and if they encountered the police less, they would be less likely to be shot, justifiably or not.  Since this can be said of any racial or ethnic group, there is no need to “confront systemic racism and police violence head on” because systemic racism is not an element of police violence. 

Whether unjustified violence is a systemic problem in policing in general is another matter, one only obscured by Warren’s Tweet.  Instead of fabricating problems about race and pandering to her base, perhaps she could win over more voters by focusing on that.

[ Edited: 04 September 2019 07:54 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 September 2019 07:59
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 04 September 2019 07:27 AM

I would be interested in any analysis you have indicating “a systemic double standard by the justice system” with respect to racial minorities “regarding arrest and prosecution” because I haven’t seen reliable evidence of it, despite some familiarity with the topic.  As far as I’ve been able to tell, this might be true of Hispanics but is certainly not true of blacks or other races and ethnicities (sentencing after arrest and prosecution is another matter; blacks do get longer sentences than whites).  In any case, I admit this is not an area I’d consider myself an expert in, but I’m not completely ignorant in it either, so I’d like to see the data you are referring to.

As is often the case, no amount of reliable evidence will convince someone to believe what they are reluctant or resistant to believe.  Facts and perceptions both play a role.  In my opinion, the failure of the majority to acknowledge the racism in their midst may be just as harmful as blatant racism.


Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/

The Numbers Don’t Speak for Themselves: Racial Disparities and the Persistence of Inequality in the Criminal Justice System
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418763931

 

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›