Last 30 Comments

The last 30 comments posted will appear below. The comments are excerpted after 200 words, for the full comment thread; click the post title. To see new comments, refresh this page.

  • Last 30 Comments

    • On The Fantasies of Government, Thrill said:
      Great post! If any president ever believed that he could accomplish anything he wanted based on nothing but his own will and bizarre notions of how the world really works more than Obama, it was that one.
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On Antisocial Movements, Thrill said:
      Ooooh. Don't try this in Texas. http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/ferguson-protestors-tried-cause-chaos-dallas-big-mistake/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On The Amnesty that Dare Not Speak Its Name, Xetrov said:
      So here's an interesting take on Obamnesty - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/ Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare. President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover. Unintended consequences have been the hallmark of this Presidency.
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On Antisocial Movements, Thrill said:
      Ah, but the Brian Willson example (what is it with controversial guys named Wilson anyway?) is a great case in point for the purposes of this post. According to the Wikipedia article, the Reagan Administration had identitied him as a domestic "terrorist" and had apparently ordered the railroad not to stop the train based on that. If he had been correctly identified as a dumbass churlist instead and treated accordingly, the government could have avoided paying a settlement! See, it's a gray area that we really could stand to clear up.
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      I think Mehserle's defense was correct. So did Balko. If you look at the video tape, he's clearly shocked. But that's still involuntary manslaughter -- an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence. And I doubt anything would have happened if it hadn't been on video.
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On Antisocial Movements, richtaylor365 said:
      I think it was the Occupy Movement that really pioneered this one. That practice is much older. One of my favorites is that dumbass Brian Wilson; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Willson I was there, although did not see the actual accident, idiot thought by lying down on the train tracks the train, carrying evil weapons of destruction, would just stop for him. Much of this nonsense could be eliminated if the scofflaws would get prosecuted, they never do. It would shock the collective conscience to reveal that almost all arrested protesters, arrested for stuff like assault and vandalism are rarely prosecuted, they get a free meal and a cot for the night, then back to the streets the next day.
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, richtaylor365 said:
      one conviction, by itself, does not refute everything that has come before No one said it does, but you (and others) make unsubstantiated claims that police misconduct is immune from legal consequences. A similar (and bogus) claim could be made by inferencing OJ Simpson with ,"See, black men never get convicted of killing white people". Sure, there are examples of the pendulum swinging both ways, I can give you several examples I know of personally of prosecutions being extra harsh because it did involve law enforcement, which I have no beef with btw because they should, by way of their authority and power over people, be held to a higher standard. It just refutes time and time again the nonsense about them being able to get away with shit. And not wanting to try the Mehserle case all over again, but his explanation as to the shooting was perfectly plausible ( a fairly inexperienced cop who just completed a rushed and abbreviated training class-with no practical application on the use of tasers, who just got his like that week, thrown into a situation where he was outnumbered, that was turning ugly by the second, suspects not complying with ordered instructions,...
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      And I’m glad he brought up Oscar Grant, since that outcome refutes all the talking points that cops don’t go to prison for killing blacks. There is a consensus out there that think Mehserle was convicted by mob rule and sentenced unfairly due to who the victim was. I missed this before, but worth addressing: one conviction, by itself, does not refute everything that has come before. I don't think convicting someone who shot an unarmed man who was being held down is "mob rule". I thought it was just -- involuntary manslaughter because they believed he was reaching for his taser.
      Posted Nov 26, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      I've finally gotten a chance to read the witness accounts more thoroughly (I've been sitting both kids while writing two papers and a massive proposal). While I'm still not convinced that Brown was bull-rushing Wilson, I'm convinced that he didn't have his hands up. A lot of that testimony sounds more like what people want to be true than what was true. You know what the case is starting to remind me of? Yesterday I was reading about the Mathew Shephard Case. For years, we were told that he was murdered because he was gay. We passed laws based on it. Then Stephen Jimenez, himself a gay man, showed that it wasn't related to his gayness. The murder happened because the principals were on a violent meth bender. It's not that violence against gays isn't a problem. It's that the Shephard case was the wrong one to use to illustrated it.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a system that rarely, if ever, present exculpatory evidence at the GJ stage. McCullough was in a tough spot since he couldn't not go to a grand jury, true. But the thing is that the Corey model is a lot more common than this one. As I said earlier in the thread, I wish they'd show this kind of skepticism for more than just Darren Wilson (especially now that SCOTUS had decided that indictment is sufficient grounds to take our money away). FWIW, even *if* everything the Brown camp had been saying were true, I doubt there would been a conviction. At most, they would have charged him second degree murder, probably less. And any reasonable defense attorney -- and as a union member, Wilson had one -- would have persuaded a jury to a reasonable doubt that having just been violently assaulted, that Wilson mistook the supposed surrender gesture.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, richtaylor365 said:
      (e.g. how far apart they were, what gestures Brown may or may not have made, whether he was “bull rushing” or not) Given that there were 2 separate instances of gunfire, separated by some seconds when there was no gunfire, it is reasonable (based on all the witness statements we have) to conclude that he stopped advancing temporarily, then proceeded to go at the officer again. "Bullrushing" is the word I used, other witnesses used the word "charge", while one described the movement in football terms as "rushing", use any word you like but Brown was advancing towards Wilson based on all three autopsies with no hands raised during any of the entry wounds, and falling forward after the fatal round. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-at-close-/
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Thrill said:
      I mean, to get a prosecution against Wilson, McCullough would have had to select those most credible witnesses with the most consistent stories, coach them to agree on some essential details about Brown having his hands up, and then downplay the medical examiner's report and the multiple autopsies. If he did that, he'd be at risk of getting disbarred (*cough Nifong *spit). How would any of that be better for the justice system than the outcome we have now?
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Thrill said:
      You keep saying that it was all about the evidence they were SHOWN. Doesn't a prosecutor have a responsibility to NOT put a person on trial when the evidence doesn't support it? Sure, an unscrupulous prosecutor (*cough Angela Corey *cough) could simply choose to ONLY present damning evidence. He could even choose to repeatedly call grand juries (*achoo! Ronnie Earle) until he finally gets one to hand down an indictment. You're moving into another realm here. You're going from criticizing bad cops to accepting rogue prosecutors. McCullough was not rogue. He faithfully fulfilled the requirements of his office and the needs of justice in this instance. It seems like you're holding him to the standard set by dirtbag prosecutors rather than responsible ones. That's a very strange for you to do.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      Incidentally. Don't know if you saw this, but the NYT and Slate saw fit to publish Wilson's address and pictures of his house: http://www.ibtimes.com/new-york-times-publishes-darren-wilsons-address-info-ferguson-simmers-1728676#.VHUSe31XMjU.twitter You know, just in case those mobs get lost or something. What a disgrace. NYT has at least pulled the information but Slate still has it up. What a bunch of tools.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      My sister said it perfectly: “This is the wrong case to ask the right questions about”. That is a great way to put it, yes. There are other cases where the circumstance are much clearer. And if we equipped more cops with dash and body cams, I think we would have both fewer instances of excessive force and fewer cases like this.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      Thrill, I don't disagree. Based on the evidence they were shown, there was not ground for indictment as I said above. The question is about what evidence was presented to them. we know that he later turned and charged Wilson twice (corroborated by the eye witnesses, and the audio log from the video chat guy next door which recorded 2 separate instances of gunfire) There's no dispute about two instances of gunfire. There is dispute about the circumstances of the second with you apparently taking the words of some of the witness over others and ignoring any inconsistencies in their statements (e.g. how far apart they were, what gestures Brown may or may not have made, whether he was "bull rushing" or not). You are also basing this on the idea that we have all the evidence in this case, which is never the case with a GJ.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, richtaylor365 said:
      That’s the only conclusion you can reach based on this but you want to take the conclusion that Michael Brown has been proven guilty. Well, we know that he is guilty of strong armed robbery, and assault with that poor store owner, we know that he initiated the violence against Wilson by reaching in and punching him twice (his own blood inside the driver door and on Wilson's uniform), we know that he made verbal threats against Wilson (based both on Wilson's account and those of eye witnesses whose testimony was not rebutted), we know that he later turned and charged Wilson twice (corroborated by the eye witnesses, and the audio log from the video chat guy next door which recorded 2 separate instances of gunfire), and we know that the bullet entries were from the front with Brown falling forward after the fatal round, indicating forward movement. Of these things, yes he was guilty, but since the whole purpose of the GJ was to weigh the evidence to determine whether in fact criminal charges should be filed against the officer, they found his testimony compelling, corroborated by that mountain of evidence you so easily dismiss, and that...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Thrill said:
      The forensic evidence didn't prove that Brown charged Wilson. It DID demolish the claims of every witness who said that Wilson shot him while he was running away, on his knees, or lying on the ground. What it disproves is arguably more important than what it proves. Like it or not, the jurors detected the contradictions in Dorian Johnson and the other "hands up" witnesses because of their own contradictions with the forensic evidence and even each other's statements. I even pointed these out in the thread and it didn't take me two months to demolish their case. Why in the world should the jurors have indicted Wilson when there was nothing compelling about the evidence? What exactly would a trial for Wilson have accomplished here, beyond staving off the riots until the inevitable Not Guilty verdict?
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      Holy smokes , did Al Sharpton highjack your identity? The mountains and mountains of evidence they had to go over, 3 separate investigations(county, state and Eric Holder’s separate witch hunt)-all running in tandem, all the forensic reports, the police logs, witness statements, 3 separate autopsies, 3 months worth of work, with the whole world looking over their shoulder ready to second guess them and you just shit all over them, you sound ridiculous. And how often does that happen with grand juries? There are mountains of evidence in every case. The GJ is not where you decide the case (since there is no confrontation or anything). In most criminal cases, the presentment takes less than an hour. You can't possibly say that Wilson's account is the gospel truth when 1) I don't think the forensic is nearly that clear-cut as to say Wilson's account is absolutely true; which part of the forensic evidence "proves" Brown was rushing Wilson?; 2) none of it has been subjected to the kind of examination you get in a trial. Grand juries are presented a slice of the evidence, usually whatever will favor indictment. The slice they were presented with here did not support...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Thrill said:
      My sister said it perfectly: "This is the wrong case to ask the right questions about". Brown's supporters had their day in court, more or less. The evidence wouldn't have convicted Wilson. It would have been ethically wrong to charge him knowing that. For my part, I was equally disgusted by how utterly the Ferguson PD/St Louis law enforcement escalated and lost control this past summer. I believe that the high water mark for militarized law enforcement has already been reached. SOMETHING good will come of all of this if we can at least roll back the soldier-cops for good. However, we cannot undermine our own justice system just to correct bad policing methods. In my opinion, Wilson is a product of it, but he does not belong in prison for shooting Brown. The grand jury was right and it was never their job to address anything but the evidence placed in front of them in this one case, not to put American law enforcement on trial.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Section8 said:
      I never said I believe his accomplice’s version of events. In that case, the forensic evidence is clear that there was at least an altercation. But it is less ridiculous to believe that Michael Brown, already wounded, turned around and tried to “bull rush” a cop from half a football field away into the teeth of semi-automatic gunfire? A lack of evidence to support Brown supporter’s version of events does not mean that Wilson’s version of events are automatically true. Given what we’ve read in just the law few months about people “resisting” while unconscious and dying, “reaching for a gun” they didn’t actually have or “moving aggressively” while standing still or running away, I think some skepticism of his account is warranted. The chase may have ended a half football field away, that does not mean Wilson stayed at the car and just timed his firing until Brown turned around because he's such a great shot. He gave pursuit according to testimony. Now then the argument could be made then how could he fear for his life if he went after him, but that's his job regardless of what he fears. Yeah most of us would have stayed in the car...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, richtaylor365 said:
      Oh, come off it. Grand juries are spoon fed evidence by the DA and are basically rubber stamps. Holy smokes , did Al Sharpton highjack your identity? The mountains and mountains of evidence they had to go over, 3 separate investigations(county, state and Eric Holder's separate witch hunt)-all running in tandem, all the forensic reports, the police logs, witness statements, 3 separate autopsies, 3 months worth of work, with the whole world looking over their shoulder ready to second guess them and you just shit all over them, you sound ridiculous. So Wilson’s version and the version of a couple of the witnesses is the gospel truth? When all the forensic evidence lines up exactly with his version, then yes, it is gospel truth. You keep harping about how this GJ hearing was unusual, what is really unusual is Wilson volunteering to appear before the GJ (never done by a suspect, why give them ammo in case an indictment follows?) , testifying before the GJ, answering every single one of their questions, testimony which was down the line consistent with his prior statements to investigators, now that was unusual. never said I believe his accomplice’s version of events. By posing the question at...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      First I think this would be rather obvious, but fact is their job requires them to deal with the worst of people everyday. No cop gets called to a scene for someone being nice to people. People call on them to deal with the worst of people. When you call the cops, you are basically handing off whatever danger you may be in to someone who will pick it up for you. They have to repeat this every day. They don’t have the ability to be clairvoyant anymore than the rest of us as to how the situation may end up when they show up on the scene, but one thing is for sure once they pick up your issue your responsibility to the outcome has likely decreased significantly while their responsibility has become 100%. This is a situation that repeats itself time and time again and why it’s pretty obvious there should be some cushion regarding what they can do to preserve their own safety. Agreed. And the vast majority of cops execute their duties extremely well. The problem is that when a cop does not do his job well, when he is abusive, when he uses excessive...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Hal_10000 said:
      What an insult to those 12 GJ panelists that spent 3 months of their time going over every scrap of evidence available to them. No system is perfect but in this incident it worked exactly was expected. Oh, come off it. Grand juries are spoon fed evidence by the DA and are basically rubber stamps. Last year grand juries returned indictments in all but a handful of cases. The only time they show this kind of rigor is when it's a cop. The most common question they ask when it isn't a cop is "why are we even having a trial". But the system works because this one grand jury did their job? Last year, juries returned bills of indictment in all but 11 of 162,000 federal cases. In Dallas, they returned indictments in one of 81 cases involving a cop. Yeah, right, bull rushing the officer while totally ignoring repeated warnings to stop, that is how a reasonable and prudent man would surrender, both you and Mchorter are delusional. So Wilson's version and the version of a couple of the witnesses is the gospel truth? Even though he *also* changed his story between his initial statement...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Section8 said:
      As far as the rioting, I think the MSM is culpable. Without a doubt. They are "investigative" reporters who at the same time claim ignorance when the facts come out counter to their agenda. Given the broadcasting voice they have I hope some of these outlets get sued for the damages due to their irresponsibility. From day one this has been to make it a white vs black issue. Hal, I don't necessarily have an issue with tighter controls on police. I think dashboard cameras, and perhaps even the Brown family's idea of cameras (if it's workable and doesn't interfere with their job and safety) on the officer are helpful to transparency, but there is a big difference in applying the same rules to cops while on the job as Joe citizen. First I think this would be rather obvious, but fact is their job requires them to deal with the worst of people everyday. No cop gets called to a scene for someone being nice to people. People call on them to deal with the worst of people. When you call the cops, you are basically handing off whatever danger you may be in to someone who will pick it...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Seattle Outcast said:
      No matter, per Jarrett/Obama "race relations have never been better"....
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Thrill said:
      I had to share this little gem from the grand jury testimony I just found: Prosecutor (Q): Had you ever really seen Darren Wilson before? Witness (A): No. Q: You never had any interaction with him at all before this incident? A: You say Darren Wilson? Q: The police officer involved with the shooting who shot Michael Brown, his name is Darren Wilson. A: Oh, yeah, once. Q: You did once? A: Yeah, when I was running from QuikTrip because I had to pee, because I normally walk to QuikTrip and get my donuts and coffee and cigarettes, and I was running down Canfield trying to make it home to pee. I didn't buy no coffee that day, I just had donuts and cigarettes. Q: And what happened? A: As I was running, he was asking me what are you running from. I say I'm running from QuikTrip to try to get home, I got to pee. He pulled in front of me and I ran straight into it, that's why my knees is kind of messed up a little bit worse than what they are. Q: How long ago was that? A: This was like, I've been in Canfield for four years, this was like two and a half years ago. Q:...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On When You’ve Lost SNL …, Xetrov said:
      It's amazing that WaPo actually felt the need to fact check the skit. Anything to protect dear leader. Meanwhile most people still think Palin claimed she could see Russia from her house.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, richtaylor365 said:
      but the problem is that the system doesn’t lend any confidence to its results. What an insult to those 12 GJ panelists that spent 3 months of their time going over every scrap of evidence available to them. No system is perfect but in this incident it worked exactly was expected. likely trying to indicate surrender. Yeah, right, bull rushing the officer while totally ignoring repeated warnings to stop, that is how a reasonable and prudent man would surrender, both you and Mchorter are delusional. And yes, if the guy lurching back toward Wilson had been white, just maybe he wouldn’t have fired those last shots. Yep, Wilson is a racist too, unbelievable. We may never know whether Brown reached into the car or whether Wilson grabbed Brown by the neck. So you think Wilson, constrained in a vehicle with limited mobility and seated decided to try some new fangled arrest technique never before tried or described in any approved police manual anywhere in the country, reached out and grabbed Brown by the neck in an attempt to pull a 300 lb man into his vehicle for arrest? Wilson was punched twice, once in the face and once in the back of...
      Posted Nov 25, 2014
    • On The Ferguson Decision, Thrill said:
      Obama just isn't used to being on the other side of street agitation. No credibility, as I said in my own post on this affair.
      Posted Nov 25, 2014

Leave a Reply