Wednesday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< U.S. Tries and Fails to Revoke Kim Dotcom's Bond | Iraq: Woman Detained in Lebanon is Not Al Baghdadi's Wife >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is from that well-known Leftie publication (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 06:53:51 AM EST
    Business Insider:

    The increase in global temperatures since the start of the 20th century -- 0.8 degrees Celsius -- has affected glaciers worldwide.

    Climate scientists call these melting ice sheets the "sentries" of global warming.

    "The worst effects are happening at the poles, but the impact is also very powerful in the mountains of the tropics," said Olivier Dangles, who heads the Ecuador office of the French-based Institute for Development Research (IRD).

    In Bolivia, for example, the once year-round snow on Chacaltaya Mountain disappeared four years ago.

    The mountain used to boast the highest ski trail in the world, at 5,400 meters.

    In, Peru, glaciers have shrunk by more than 40 percent since 1970, giving birth to nearly 1,000 new lagoons, according to the national water authority.

    The phenomenon has even forced indigenous Peruvians to adapt an age-old Inca festival, the Qoyllur Rit'i, in which participants for countless generations had climbed glaciers to bring back blocks of ice.

    But there is no global warming. Get it, folks?

    Now you've done it (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 07:18:16 AM EST
    This whole thread will now be bullet holes in forearms and junk FOX pseudo science.

    And why (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    should this thread be different than all the other threads?  ;-)

    And it isnt (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:44:26 AM EST
    7 comments by 8:30 and both memes have clocked in for another day at the office.

    Ever thought that it might be more (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:09:09 AM EST
    productive for you to start a discussion on a topic that interests you rather than complain about what topics are filling up the threads.

    Your complaint may be valid but maybe you and others would be more effective starting discussions on other topics in the Open Threads.


    Nope, it's an opportunity (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 07:51:28 AM EST
    Is there something else you would like to (none / 0) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    discuss, or do you see yourself more in the role of spectator/critic, weighing in on the merits of whatever subjects have been offered for discussion?

    I've kind of come to think of this as the baby bird - mama bird dynamic, where some people here tend to wait for "mama" to bring "food" to the nest for them to "eat."

    I guess the worms on offer lately haven't been terribly tasty.


    I think I need to start (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    studying your commenting style.  I admire your ability to rip someone a new one without getting your comments deleted.

    Controlling my mouth has always been a problem.


    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    get where Jim is coming from with his denials about global warming.
    I don't get his motivation.

    He seems to think that there is some kind of conspiracy - with people profiting from claiming that our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing global warming.

    I don't get it.

    It seems like he doesn't want us to believe our lyin' eyes.

    Your quote above - about Bolivia, reminded me of what a friend of mine who lives in Switzerland told me - that a few summers ago, people were wearing bermuda shorts at a mountain resort that used to feature skiing...


    Cosby (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    Yesterday someone mentioned 12 women, I believe it's 20 women, one minor(at the time), and one guy who says he rescued a women who Cosby was assaulting.  All of the allegation past the statute of limitation except for this:
    Huth's lawsuit, however, contends that she became aware of the serious effect the abuse had on her within the past three years. California law allows victims of sex abuse when they were minors to bring a claim after adulthood if they discover later in life that they suffered psychological injuries as a result of the abuse. LINK

    He has also settled several lawsuits in regards to the same type of behavior.

    I have no idea if he did it, but enough women IMO have come forward that this should be investigated either way, even if charges can't be filed.  Either clear his name or let the victims have some justice in knowing their attacker was exposed.

    HERE is a timeline of allegations.

    Police, prosecutors and criminal courts (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:30:12 AM EST
      do not exist to investigate or prosecute  matters which cannot result in anything more than some inchoate personal satisfaction by some private individual[s].

      Unless you had some good faith basis for believing that if an accuser's claims are true there could be a viable criminal prosecution, you would be using public resources in a manner that could provide no "public good."

      That principle would foreclose a legitimate use of public resources beyond making the legal determination that any criminal charges would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations regardless of the merits.

      What might be interesting (in a morbid way) would be if someone came forward with allegations of assault/abuse in a jurisdiction where there is no SOL for felonies or someone cam forward with allegations recent enough that the SOL has not run in that jurisdiction. That would place the authorities in a much tougher position because they could not simply say there is nothing we can do even if the allegations are true.

     As for a civil action, that might be a more likely avenue to cause the allegations to be "put on the record."

       All that would take is for one person to plead a tort that has occurred within the statute of limitations and  survival of a motion to dismiss/ motion for judgment on the pleadings in order for discovery to commence. The plaintiff could then depose other persons making allegations (being allowed to take depositions would not be dependent on the evidence being admissible, but some of it might under Rule 404 (b)) and Cosby.

      Now, Cosby would certainly seek sealing/protective orders from the Court prohibiting public dissemination but even if granted much of the  "evidence" would be heard at a public trial (likely including at least some 404 (b) evidence and Cosby's statements under oath). That plaintiff would thus have huge leverage to extract a very nice settlement; would she forego that to force a public airing? Some people might.

        Cosby might have a problem with being permitted to "plead the 5th" precisely because criminal SOLs have run and his statements could not incriminate him in a criminal case.


    Not that I don't think the Cosby (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:46:40 AM EST
    situation won't - or can't - be discussed as ad nauseam-ly as climate change and Darren Wilson, but since Jeralyn has already stated that, in her book, Cosby hasn't been convicted of anything and remains innocent until he is, the better and maybe more enlightening discussion might be about understanding that just because there is no legal prohibition on some behaviors, or those behaviors aren't considered to rise to a level where they meet a legal test, that does not mean that a person who is subjected to them does not, can not or should not have the right to feel herself - or himself - to have been harassed, assaulted, abused or unreasonably subjected to objectionable behavior.

    I find it genuinely shocking that there still exists a perception that if there isn't a legal prohibition against a particular action or behavior that it somehow conveys permission to perpetrate it upon someone, regardless of whether the person being subjected to the actions denied his or her permission, at the time, or later.

    Something else: sometimes people say or do things that, in the moment, are not affirmatively objected to; that happened to me, with suggestive and sexual comments that, the first time they were made, I chalked up to being a one-time thing.  Then it happened again.  And again.  I was extremely uncomfortable about it - this was an attorney for whom I worked, and with whom I had had a very good work relationship, so it was awkward and painful.  You find yourself thinking you've dug yourself into a hole - "well, if I didn't object the first time, he probably thinks it's okay, so now what?  How do I make it stop without completely changing the working relationship?"

    Well, I got lucky, in a sense.  I had someone in the firm who could discreetly intervene in a way that resulted in a direct apology to me, and a return to the "old" work relationship.  But a lot of people don't have that - they're just on their own.

    There's a ton of gray in this area, but the fact remains that what matters is how actions and behaviors are perceived, even if they are not strictly illegal.  That the person doing it doesn't intend to be abusive or harassing is less important - on a personal level - than the fact that the person on the other end feels that it is.  That, to me, is what matters.

    Everyone processes things at a different rate and in different ways; it is entirely believable that someone could either have delayed reactions, or delayed realizations that harm was suffered.

    I'm going to stop here, but as I said at the beginning, whatever Cosby did or didn't do, the larger discussion is an important one to have, especially because there still persists a huge number of people who just don't get it - and they really need to.


    I Was Living With a Girl... (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    ...we had just moved apartments.  Anyways, I get a call at like 5 am, "Scott can you come get me ?" and I was like where are you.  She was in our old apartment and completely out of it.

    She had no idea how she got there, last thing she remember is having a drink at her company xmas party.  Turns out, that she and one of her friends had been drugged at the party, but luckily a male friend and his wife realized they were really out of it.

    Because my girl wasn't aware enough to give our address, they drove her to location on her license and the building manager, not knowing we had moved, let her in the apartment, which was occupied with someone's stuff.  Luckily they were not home.

    She rarely drank and if she did, one drink.  I never saw her drunk, much less incapacitated.  The accounting firm she worked at caught wind of it and w/i a week, she, her friend, and the guy that helped were fired.  No one else was.

    This was before date rape drugs were known, and to this day she has no idea who did it, but damn glad she had a responsible friend looking out for them.  I am too, because had this gone down the way they wanted it to, there is a good chance I would have been in jail because someone would have been seriously hurt had my gf been raped.

    I have had Rohypnol and just about every other drug, and only one I can think of can those kinds of effects, Ketimine, which is extremely dangerous to mix with alcohol.

    My point here is by the time they figured out what more or less happened, it was well after the fact.  That morning she didn't even know how she had gotten to our old place, and trying to piece together something you have no recollection of, isn't very easy.  The fact is no one knows what really happened that night.  But this is what predators do, ensure they don't get caught.  So the comment that just because they didn't do something, doesn't in any way mean it did not happen.  No saying it did, just that not doing something isn't proof of anything.

    The good news is that place was not a good place to work and getting fired lead to a much better situation for my gf.

    But the balls to drug someone at a company function, I would like to believe that person, or persons, eventuality ended up in jail or on the wrong side of a serious a$$ kicking.


    first civil suit (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    Not First... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    ...he settled several.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    yes, first in this round.

    Which other claims did Cosby settle? (none / 0) (#209)
    by gbrbsb on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    Until this week when another filed a civil claim I was under the impression there had been only one against him and in the timeline you linked in your first post only mentions one, i.e., that of Andrea Constand for 150.000 in 2005 (?) which was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

    This is going to be a very tough hurdle (none / 0) (#107)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    While the state of California can only pursue criminal charges against Cosby had the incident occurred in 1988 or after due to the statute of limitations, a civil trial could proceed if Huth can prove that she has developed "psychological injuries and illnesses" in the past three years as a result of the decades-old alleged assault.

       37 years of latency and then a subsequent onset of psychological injury or illness caused by act will be a tough sell.


    Somewhat off topic of Cosby (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    but definitely addresses the subject of rape. Somehow I can't see how the proposed punishment fits the crime for which Donny Ray Williams pled quility.

    Both of the assaults occurred in 2010. Prosecutors say Williams invited a colleague to his apartment, where he spiked her drink with a sleep aid and raped the woman while she was asleep.

    A month later, prosecutors say Williams gave a woman alcoholic beverages and had sexual contact with her when she was too drunk to consent.

    Prosecutors plan to seek a suspended prison term and five years of supervised probation. LINK

    The article is pretty brief. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:10:38 PM EST
      A couple of things to bear in mind are that plea agreements factor in the strength of the case as well as the severity of the allegations. In sensitive cases like this the possibly conflicted attitudes of the victims can also matter. Victims may go along with a lenient plea agreement  to avoid the ordeal of testifying in court and the motional impact that can have.

      Also, unless it's a binding plea agreement, the judge will not be bound by the prosecutor's recommendation. With most plea agreements, a defendant can receive a sentence greater or lesser than the one the parties "suggest."


    Somewhat more detailed article (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    By Washington Post. [ http://tinyurl.com/kcvclzk]

    I understand what you are saying and yet, IMO the proposed sentence is ridiculous light. Under our current judicial system, prison time would be mandatory for much lesser crimes than rape.

    The fact that too often in rape cases the victim is put on trial has IMO resulted in slap on the wrist verdicts for people who plead guilty to raping one or more women.


    Perhaps this defendant has Congressional (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:56:34 PM EST

    Donny Ray Williams Jr., 37, who served as a staff director for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee, pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse, two misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse and one count of misdemeanor threats.

    African American professional man gets a huge break. Interesting.


    This person was neither (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    African American or a Congressional staffer.

    The 55-year-old teacher pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent; last year Judge G. Todd Baugh handed Rambold a 15-year sentence with all but 31 days suspended.

    The judge who imposed this so called justice public statement:

    Baugh said the victim looked older than her years and was "probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant," according to the Montana attorney general's office.

    Rambold was later sentenced to 15 years, five years suspended. Of course justice was rendered too late for the victim who committed suicide as a result of the ordeal.



    Just to clarify, my comment was about your (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    WaPo link.

    The Montana case is notorious for the initial sentencing judge's statements at the sentencing hearing.


    My comments reflect the ongoing practice (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    The last link is to a case (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    In the UK that uses the same logic that an 11 year looked older and was responsible for the actions of two grown men.

    But (none / 0) (#128)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:02:07 PM EST
      it's not uncommon for those to be plea bargained down too.

    An additional factor, is this victim (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    Impeacable by defense counsel?

    That goes (none / 0) (#118)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:33:18 PM EST
      both to strength of the case and a possible desire to avoid the ordeal of testifying.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    it sure doesn't look good.  I made a comment about this yesterday but it was more about the commenters seeming tendency to assume they might be lying.  
    I don't really assume anything.   It's depressing to think its true.

    But it sure doesn't look good.  


    And... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:32:29 AM EST
    he cast himself, in his show, as a gynecologist...

    Ewwwwuu (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    never watched the show.  Didn't know that.

    He did -- didn't he (none / 0) (#44)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:28:27 AM EST

    As I said in yesterdays's thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    Some of the allegations aren't very convincing. Some of these women even continue to see Cosby after the alleged crime. That doesn't mean they are lying but it makes their stories harder to believe.

    So I guess you have never heard (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:21:43 AM EST
    that it is not uncommon for a woman to stay with their abuser . . . and for a variety of reasons.

    I have heard that (none / 0) (#142)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:54:32 PM EST
    I'm sure it does happen but it doesn't help the claims.  

    It shouldn't be a negative (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    since it is common and common knowledge. Hopefully you won't be one sitting in judgement on an issue like this . . .

    And, it is very unlikely (none / 0) (#130)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    that Bill Cosby will sue his accusers for defamation.  Depositions and sworn testimony about the allegations would be involved in the counter-claimant's efforts to discredit Cosby's defamation suit.  Cosby would get his day in court, but so would his accusers.  

    That's probably the safest bet (none / 0) (#132)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:18:07 PM EST
     made here in a long time.

    Zemir Begic (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:52:53 AM EST
    Is there a national (4.50 / 6) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    epidemic of Bosnian immigrants being beaten to death with hammers that I don't know about?

    Protests by Bosnian community (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    gets immediate results.

    Hundreds of protesters rallied the past two nights in the Little Bosnia neighborhood as a response to the death of Zemir Begic (BEE-jihk), who was beaten with hammers early Sunday.

    St. Louis COP Dotson's response to protest:

    Dotson arrived and promised the Bosnians that they would get more police officers, and said he has asked the mayor for more money to do so.

    The problem of white violent crime (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    Is a problem the Leaders of the white community like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and many others have failed to address in recent years, and this is a possible result of such negligence.

    Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:22:24 AM EST

    Right.  White people made them do it.

    The violence of white people (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:01:16 PM EST
    Rioting at pumpkin festivals and after athletic events doesn't set a good example for the people of Ferguson or elsewhere.

    I'm a member of the white community. (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    There's absolutely no way in hell that any of those clowns will ever be considered my "leaders."

    Stay granted on tonight's scheduled texecution (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    of the severely mentally ill prisoner.  Since this stay was granted (late Wednesday morning) by the federal court of appeals, it is subject to reconsideration this afternoon or evening by Justice Scalia (who has geographical oversight responsibility for the Fifth Circuit, including Texas) or the full membership of the Supreme Court.

    The AP link you provide (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:24:14 PM EST
     states the Texas AG does not intend to challenge the stay and will present its case to the 5th Circuit according to a schedule set by that Court.
    If so, there will no execution for quite some time, if ever.

      As Texas goes, accepting the stay is pretty restrained.


    First ever MLB umpire comes out as gay (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    An in depth interview of Cyrus (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Vance, Jr., who is serving his second term as the District Attorney of New York County:


    kdog, you'd best be sure your blood pressure is under control b/4 you read this. One factlet:  only a fine to light up in Brooklyn.

    My BP is always under control... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    recreational mj use can also be pre-emptively medicinal...kinda like part of a well balanced wellness program;)

    But current events has me pissed off enough lately, I'm gonna pass on the gas from Vance for the time being, no more fuel on this fire.  Thank you though!


    Anyone in the mood to talk about torture? (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    Or is that just too much on top of climate change, Darren Wilson and Cosby?

    Here's Dan Froomkin:

    The Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report will be released "in a matter of days," a committee staffer tells The Intercept. The report, a review of brutal CIA interrogation methods during the presidency of George W. Bush, has been the subject of a contentious back-and-forth, with U.S. intelligence agencies and the White House on one side pushing for mass redactions in the name of national security and committee staffers on the other arguing that the proposed redactions render the report unintelligible.

    Dan gives us 12 things to keep in mind if we read the report.  In brief (in the article, these are expanded), they are:

    1) You're not actually reading the torture report. You're just reading an executive summary.

    1. The CIA got to cut out parts.

    2. Senate Democrats had their backs to the wall.

    3. The investigation was extremely narrow in its focus.

    4. The investigation didn't examine who gave the CIA its orders, or why.

    5. Torture was hardly limited to the CIA. In fact, the worst of it was done by the military.

    6. Senate investigators conducted no interviews of torture victims.

    7. Senate investigators conducted no interviews of CIA officials.

    8. In fact, Senate investigators conducted no interviews at all.

    9. Bush and Cheney have acknowledged their roles in the program.  

    10. The report's conclusion that torture didn't do any good is a big deal.

    11. No one has been held accountable.

    Discuss - or not.

    Kind of speechless (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    no interviews.  Wow.  Where did the get their information?
    Ouija Boards?

    From Dan's article: (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    7) Senate investigators conducted no interviews of torture victims. As the Guardian reported in late November: "Lawyers for four of the highest-value detainees ever held by the CIA, all of whom have made credible allegations of torture and all of whom remain in US government custody, say the Senate committee never spoke with their clients."

    1. Senate investigators conducted no interviews of CIA officials. As the Washington Times reported in August, committee staffers never spoke to either the senior managers of the torture program or the directors who oversaw it.

    2. In fact, Senate investigators conducted no interviews at all. "We did not conduct interviews, but did make significant use of transcripts of interviews done by the CIA IG [Inspector General] and others during the program," a Senate Intelligence Committee staffer emailed me recently. "That, together with the literally millions of pages of contemporaneous documents, emails, chat sessions, etc. make us confident in the accuracy and comprehensive nature of the report." So it's basically aggregation.

    "Aggregation:" another word for "cobbled together."


    Hopefully, the citizenry (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    will be up for, at least, hearing about what was done in its name. However, my worry is that the fears inculcated since 9/11 have warped not only policy and institutions, but also, the idea that the end justifies the means (as faulty as that may, in fact, be).   The devil may wind up in the details of the full report, but the executive summary itself (door-stopper in size as it is, at about 500 pages) should provide more than most can bear.  

    The conclusion of No. 11 (that torture didn't do any good) may bring the best outcome for the future, but Hollywood action films with ticking bombs tied to lovely heroines, are likely to outweigh factual studies--especially when such fantasies are mother's milk to wingers.Nos. 10 and 12 are interrelated, of course, and between the two nothing new is likely gained.

    The executive summary and the report will be interesting reading.  And, the backstory will also be revelatory--the fight between Senator Feinstein (who, customarily sees nor hears no CIA evil) and the CIA.  But, we will have to wait awhile for an "executive summary" of that tete a tete.


    An investigation that (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    Was not an investigation. Another better than nothing endeavor by our government.

    The cop used a hold on (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    Eric Garner that had been banned by the department and the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.


    In the interest of clarity (none / 0) (#193)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:26:50 PM EST
     "homicide" merely means a death caused by the act of another person[s]. It's not synonymous with "crime."

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    it means he was killed.  With a dozen cops standing around watching.  How do you feel about the use of the choke hold that had been very specifically banned with specific reasons why it was banned.

    IMO what this shows a, with the circumstances, is that a cop can not be held responsible IN ANY case for the use of deadly force.

    This cannot stand.


    Note (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    i did not say charged with 1st degree murder.  I said held responsible.

    The video is pretty clear. (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    I cannot understand how there is not enough evidence to indict. Is there some alternate definition of "choke hold" that we are not aware of?

    Also, after watching the video in this case, and seeing no indictment, I'm not so sure cops wearing GoPros is going to bring any higher level of justice to our world...


    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:08:09 PM EST
    Videos don't seem to matter at all. GoPros probably won't bring any higher level of justice to our world as long as the legal system defends the right of police to kill unarmed people regardless of the crime or circumstance.

     homicide possibly a greater charge. I was merely pointing out that a finding of "homicide" in a case such as this doesn't really mean anything because there is no dispute the cop killed him.

      With the Rice case in Cleveland, I've see the video, and I find that very compelling evidence that the cop did not act reasonably in any sense of the word. Given that using a gun allows for the presumption the shooter intended the likely consequences of his act, I feel that presents an even stronger case for criminal prosecution.


    What do I want (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:41:59 PM EST
    What do you want to happen?

    The cop to be convicted of murder? another charge?
    The cop to be indicted and face trial?
    Cops never be allowed to shoot first?
    Wait for more information?
    Something else?
    Or do you just want to complain when someone believes in innocent until proven guilty?

    An easy one

    ---The cop to be indicted and face trial

    25 wealthiest suburbs (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    posted earlier by MO Blue

    kind of a silly list: "We only considered suburbs within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the nearest metropolitan area -- which explains why some wealthy suburbs (such as the relatively isolated Greenwich, Connecticut, or Great Neck, New York) didn't make the cut."

    also, these so-called wealthiest suburbs made the list on the basis of median household income, but income is not wealth

    i'm sure i've been kicked out of wealthier suburbs than these

    I may have a "sunny" disposition (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by ZtoA on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    in my every day life -probably do since I seem to encounter so very many nice friendly people- but I have just had 10 minutes (maybe more and maybe many more in the future) of uncontrollable convulsive crying about Eric Garner, and, well, I can't link now but google 'Southern Poverty Center men's hate groups online" and then read the sites. Rape culture abounds as does the police state that targets us all. When they start coming after me - an older middle aged 'nice' lady (may be wearing some goofy thing tho) then it is all over. It is already all over. Geezus christmas!!  

    McBain, you queried if this was all simply about the 'media' -- Because of the 'media' ?? Like they are supposed to NOT report major violent incidents? They report, then those 'incidents' get parsed and parsed and parsed. But first they simply report. Is that bad? Is a free press 'bad' ?? Does your pretend 'open' mind resent a free press?

    Be on the sunny side (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    the more I read and watch the more hopeful I become.  When I agree with Charles Krauthammer I think it's safe to say a consensus is within reach.  The dishonest and/or incompetent prosecutor in NY may have finally united us to the point something can happen.

    "Hope is the thing with feathers
    That perches in the soul
    And sings the tune without the words
    And never stops at all."
    ― Emily Dickinson

    Hope (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    "From looking at the video, the grand jury's decision here is totally incomprehensible," Krauthammer said. "It look as if at least they might've indicted him on something like involuntary manslaughter at the very least . . . The crime was as petty as they come. He was selling loose cigarettes, which in and of itself is absurd that somebody has to die over that."

    Get your Alice Smith on (4.75 / 4) (#105)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    This is the song I needed today. (link)

    Life has been hard on my wife's family lately. Yesterday I hit The City to procure a batch of ganja related products to ship to my sister-in-law in San Diego (where the meds are slimmer and pricier, conservative military burb it is), who had a mastectomy a month ago, is going through chemo, hair fell out, depressed out of her sweet mind. She used to poke fun at her sister and I for toking up now and then, but now she needs the herb and badly. Thanks to Purple Star MD in the Mission for being solid cats on price and volume. (link)

    Then, three days ago, their sweet mother, my mother in law, slipped on ice at the end of her driveway, broke her hip socket. 6 hours of surgery and 18 screws later she's soon to be at rehab hospital for the next two months. Smile on her face as always, sweet lady who produced the greatest wife a phucked up dysfunctional Gen X'er could dream of.

    And, of course, it is stressing my lovely Queen to the max.

    Mortality, my TL friends, 'tis a burden of the sharpest sort.

    Peace, y'all.

    Oh, I'm so sorry (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    for your wife's family, your wife, and you, D.  
    Take care, and namaste.

    Thanks, Z (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    My head has been a mess for about six months now. Gotta settle in sooner or later. Or sooner. One would hope. Hope all is well on the farm. ;-)

    Oh, jeez - you guys have really been (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    through the meat grinder, which just really sucks.

    I've had spells of that, and about all it seems you can do is keep putting one foot in front of the other as best you can and try to hold onto the good stuff as if your life depends on it.  And it kind of does, in a way.

    Will keep all of you in my thoughts, and send some strength and love waves your way - I don't know if it helps, but it can't hurt, right?

    Hang in there - and remember, we're here when you need to vent...


    Thank you (none / 0) (#136)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    Soaking up all the vibes I can. And, hey, on top of it, it's finally raining here in Cali...and our sliding glass door leaks like the Titanic. Until the rain stops for a day, it's just keep those towels coming. Oy.

    In the case of Tamir Rice, (4.00 / 4) (#211)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:29:26 PM EST
    I doubt that even the video or this report will result in the police being held responsible.

    Cleveland Cop Who Killed 12-Year-Old Had 'Dismal' Handgun Performance

    During Officer Tim Loehmann's brief tenure with the Independence Police Department, he was characterized as "distracted" and "weepy" during firearms training, according to a Nov. 29, 2012 letter obtained by Cleveland.com.

    The letter was written by the police department's Deputy Chief Jim Polak.

    "He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal," Polak wrote.

    The letter also recommended that the department disassociate with Loehmann, who eventually became an officer with the Cleveland Division of Police, Cleveland.com reported.

    Not sure what justification police departments use to hire people like this officer.

    "Stop!" (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:32:52 AM EST
    I have earlier commented on Mark O'Mara's observation that approaching a law enforcement officer, with hands raised at shoulder height, creates "an aggressive situation."  If we credit Wilson's account of how he was attacked by Brown while in his patrol car, raised hands would do little to allay his fear of allowing Brown to close within lunging distance.  This put me in mind of attempting to identify the witnesses who confirm Wilson's testimony that he instructed Brown to halt, before firing.

    Witness #48 says "Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer. . . . He [Wilson] did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop."  (Vol. 18, p. 27.)

    The witness questioned in Vol. 11, at page 179, says that, as Brown was "running" back toward Wilson, "I heard him say get down about two or three times."

    As far as I have thus far been able to determine, the above testimony is uncontradicted. Several witnesses say they did not hear such a command, but this, of course, is not evidence that no such command was given.

    There has been an astonishing amount of outlandish testimony in this case.  We are invited to believe that Wilson blazed away at Brown as he fled, that Brown didn't turn back towards Wilson, that Wilson coldly stood above Brown and "executed" him, etc.  Other "witnesses" are flatly contradicted by the forensic evidence.  Would anyone care to identify the specific "prosecution witnesses" they think most credible?

    Credibility (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    Common wisdom states all eye-witness testimony is fallible yet you seem to  assign more credibility to the one's that back up DW and less to the others. Tell be again about how all this forensic evidence is supposed to be backing up DW's tall tale of a demonic bull rush by MB ?

    You're (none / 0) (#42)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    conceding that the "prosecution witnesses" have pretty much "lied themselves out of court"?

    No (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    You are the one accusing people of lying. I see the witness testimony as an expected mish-mash of contradictions, confusion and flaws. You are the one using your magic truth-o-meter to discredit witness statements that don't fit your narrative.

    Now you've (none / 0) (#64)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    put your finger right on the problem: How do you arrest and prosecute someone on the basis of a "confused mish-mash" without making yourself liable for violating rights protected by the 4th and 14th amendments?

    Thats why they have trials. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    Where all the evidence is parsed and extensively cross examined by experts under very strict rules overseen by an impartial judge. There are a lot of people of have been prosecuted for must less. You seem to think that nobody can be taken to trial unless all the evidence shows that person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

    This Was Much Better (none / 0) (#81)
    by RickyJim on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    Cross examiners are not usually "experts".  American lawyers are notorious for trying to put words into witnesses mouths and attempting to testify themselves.  The kind of non adversarial trial, held for Wilson, resembles what goes on in trials outside the English speaking world.  The only thing wrong was it wasn't held in public.  I think DA McCulloch could have had a public preliminary hearing in front of a judge, and let him decide, but there were too many witnesses who didn't want to testify in public.  I am under the impression that in the US, you can't testify in open court behind a curtain.

    The kind of non adversarial trial, held for Wilson (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    It was NOT supposed to be a trial but it seems to have turned into one outside of normal Judicial restraints.
    Of course lawyers are always foremost spin doctors but they are "experts" at blowing holes in opposing testimony. I am also presuming that there would be experts testifying on the forensics, which would also be subject to close scrutiny. The way this prosecutor presented evidence was mostly a raw data dump without a narrative(except for DW's uncontested and self serving story), leaving the amateurs like the GJ and ourselves rather unenlightened to the true facts.

    Come on, Ricky - the GJ proceeding (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    was not a trial; that it had the intended effect of you - and many others - conflating it with one just highlights what was wrong with the way McCulloch chose to handle it.

    There is so much wrong with your comment I am hard-pressed to believe you have even a basic understanding of the judicial system; could you please educate yourself before posting anything else that purports to describe or explain it?



    It was better (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    for him

    Um, hm (none / 0) (#96)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    and we just ignore the "unconfused" witnesses who, consistent with the forensic evidence, corroborate Wilson's testimony?

    Ummmm (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    You seem willing to ignore a all of the testimony that doesn't fit your narrative. I admit we should take all of the testimony with a grain of salt but you unconditionally believe the witnesses that back up DW. I have heard over and over again about this forensic evidence being consistent with your view but I all I see is some raw data that is thrown around without much analysis applied

    Witness 10 (none / 0) (#79)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    How do you take the word of anonymous witness [#10] who was 480 feet away from the shooting over the dozen named witnesses who were within 50 feet???

    And how is it not suspicious when said witness 10 tells the detective the precise distance between Wilson and Brown at the point of turnaround -- that turns out to be accurate to the foot. From 480 feet???

    And he can see a hand gesture from 480 feet -- a hand gesture from a hand that never got above Brown's waist according to him???

    And then at the same time from that distance he sees everything that some guy in a Pontiac is doing -- while all this other stuff is going on.

    Ophthalmologists worldwide would like to know what kind of bionic eyes this mystery witness has and how they can get a hold of them for their patients.


    Without getting into the details (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    that you misrepresent in witness 10's testimony, why would you "accuse" the poster of
    take[ing] the word of anonymous witness [#10]
    when the poster did not mention witness 10 nor reference witness 10's testimony in any way?

    Are you his mommy??? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    If he has a complaint he is a big boy and can lodge it himself and has shown his full capacity to do so.

    Now go put on your big boy pants.


    complete fabrications and intentionally misleading comments, I will call you out on them.

    If you'd like not to be called out on your false comments, simply don't make them.

    EZ PZ.


    Chip (4.25 / 4) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    i don't always agree with you but I want to thank you for your work on this.  Ignore the people who say they are tired of hearing from you.  The right wing krap isn't going to stop and it needs a response.  You have been there every day responding to it.  Sometimes it makes my head hurt but but it needs to be done.  For my part, thanks.  Don't stop.

    Thank You... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    and you're welcome.

    What do you derive from the intense examination (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    of the material Mc Culloch released in this case at this point, in light of the fact the grand jury did not return an indictmant?  (Please note I am not referring to the civil rights issues stemming from the death of Micahel Brown.)!!

    Witness 48 (none / 0) (#73)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    Witness #48 says "Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer.

    Witness 48??? You mean the one who testified to this on page 1:

    And the boy wouldn't stop, he fired 3 rounds, the dude kept running, he fired 4 more rounds, then he finished off the rounds I guess, and he fell on the ground dead.

    So that's 3 series' of rounds at the point of turnaround and afterwards:

    1] he fired 3 rounds

    2] he fired 4 more rounds

    3] then he finished off the rounds

    Am I correct here??? No more questions -- you are dismissed subject to right of recall.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    why did you omit the previous response?

    "And then a police officer hopped out of the cruiser and started chasing him, the dude turned back and started charging towards the police officer, the police officer told him to stop at least three times."

    I regret to say that you appear to be stooping to calculated misrepresentation.


    3 series of shots (none / 0) (#110)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    I guess you don't get it:

    [S]he testified to 3 series' of shots.

    The last two series' are documented on Glide audio recordings to have been 6 and 4.

    And when added to the 2 at the Tahoe that makes 12 -- all that Wilson said he fired.

    But we have a clear statement here that there was a series before that 6 and 4 and after the Tahoe.

    And that series would have been when his back was turned.

    And it is further evidence that he fired 13 shots not 12.

    Do you still want to stand by this witness???

    Your call.


    except the witness you are using (none / 0) (#154)
    by leftwig on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    to draw this conclusion says that all shots were fired with Brown facing Wilson and that Wilson didn't even draw his gun until Brown turned around.  She's wrong on the count clearly, but I think only a few individuals testified exactly to the number of shots recorded on the Glide video.

    Gun draw (2.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    Wilson didn't even draw his gun until Brown turned around

    Another discrepancy as even Wilson admitted that he had his gun out the whole way. He never holstered it after it went off in the Tahoe.

    Furthermore just how did he get Brown's blood get on the palm of Wilson's right hand transferring it thus to the handle of the weapon that ballistics had to wipe off before testing???

    How did Brown's blood get on just the palm of his right hand, the back of his left forearm -- and nowhere else except for a small smudge on his shirt collar and a few drips on his pants.

    All this blood evidence testifies to other than the BS that Team Wilson have been telling us.

    No wonder he was told to go back and wash it off before the CSIs arrived.


    Grand Jury Radio Traffic (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:17:42 AM EST
    Why are the timestamps missing from the Grand Jury Radio Dispatches???

    And why are two radio dispatches missing from the Grand Jury Report as well:

    12:01:50 p.m. Shooting event opened [missing]
    12:02:22 p.m. Dispatch, enroute, arrival [missing]

    Timeline of Saturday, Aug. 9, 2014, according to police reports

    And where are the 911 calls???

    The fact remains that the (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 07:24:17 AM EST
    global temperature has remained steady for the last 16 years or so.

    They may decide to start back up. They may start to do down. They may remain the same. No one knows and glaciers melt for a variety of reasons. One of them is dust, which was proposed to be used, during the last climate change hoax, as a solution to.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,

    That's from Newsweek around 4/75. I'll provide a link later!

    In the meantime what we do know is that none of the hoaxers claims have come true. And making accurate predictions are one of the most important requirements of what makes a small "t" theory a Scientific Theory.

    So don't tremble in your boots folks. The hoaxers haven't been right in 20 years. In the meantime, the Great Lakes are setting records.

    Gotta go now!

    Sorry, but your assertion (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:05:45 AM EST
    Isn't backed up by the fact of the glaciers melting around the world.


    The theoretical equation reveals the complex relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the ocean system. Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leading to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which is partly offset by the oceans taking in both heat and carbon.
    The results show every million-million tonnes of carbon emitted will generate one degree Celsius of global warming. They also show that the build-up of carbon emitted over the last 200 years will then last for many centuries to millennia, even if carbon emissions are subsequently phased out.
    The results also reveal that surface warming is related to the total amount of carbon emitted from fossil fuels, with little change over time as ocean carbon and changes in heat uptake almost cancel each other out.

    Facts be facts, Jim.  Falsifiability would be to explain the observations of the glaciers melting, with the "fact" that the earth's temperature hasn't changed, according to you and some climate denialists.

    Who are we to believe, you or the glaciers virtually melting before our eyes.

    Take your time in responding, Lord knows you don't want to come across as stupid and snarky as you usually do when confronted with the evidence of AGW, just blame those Leftie glaciers.  😄


    As your quote suggests (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:40:05 AM EST
      The lack of increased temperatures over the last 16-20 years and the continuing melting of glaciers (or other temperature dependent effects)can be simultaneously true.

      It would seem indisputable that once an environment has warmed sufficiently to cause melting, not only is  further warming  not necessary for melting to continue, it will continue in the absence of cooling.



    I was wondering (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    if anyone (except youknowwho) has seen any thing that says the leveling since the turn of the new century, it's not 16 years-look at the charts, have any thing to do with efforts to curb greenhouse gas.

    To early for a search expedition.


    I'm not even close (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:24:31 AM EST
      to an expert on the subject, but I doubt it.

    Data for Global Carbon Emissions

    2013-9.9 billion metric tonnes (GtC)

    2012-9.7 billion metric tonnes (GtC)  

    2011-9.47 billion metric tonnes (GtC)  

    2010-9.19 billion metric tonnes (GtC)  

    2009-8.74 billion metric tonnes (GtC)  

    2008-8.77 billion of metric tonnes (GtC)  

    2007-8.57 billion metric tonnes (GtC)

    2006-8.37 billion metric tonnes (GtC)

     That's a rather significant increase in carbon emissions, despite the small (my characterization) steps taken to reduce emissions in the industrial West.

      I also doubt, as a non-expert, that this short-timeframe combined with the rudimentary knowledge we possess  would permit valid conclusions from any attempt at causal studies linking the lack of significant temperature increases over this short period with actions or omissions in the same period.

      What we do know is basically:

     In a separate report in early September, the World Meteorological Organization said the level of carbon dioxide in the air in 2013 was 42 percent above the level that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution. Other important greenhouse gases have gone up as well, with methane increasing 153 percent from the preindustrial level and nitrous oxide by 21 percent.

      We also know the "average temperature" has risen about 1.5˚ Fahrenheit in the last 200 years.

      That correlation is not the only "evidence" of man-made global warming. We know, through replicated studies, that in a controlled, closed environment with a constant external source of heat that the introduction of increased levels of carbon dioxide will cause the temperature to increase in that closed environment.

       Jim has a valid point that the Earth and the atmosphere does not constitute a closed, controlled environment, that external heat sources do not transmit heat at a constant rate and that we obviously cannot control (or even accurately measure) the impact of variable factors other than carbon dioxide on the temperature. I don't think any scientists suggest otherwise; the vast majority, however, still believe that the "evidence," accounting for the limitations and caveats, is very strong that the burning of fossil fuels acts to warm the atmosphere.

      A less substantial majority of scientists commit to the idea that the existing  predictive models attempting to estimate future temperature change based upon future actions or inactions are reliable and accurate. Personally, this is where I do see a deviation from "objective science" toward a results oriented agenda.


    Thanks for bringing more facts and light (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:43:00 AM EST
    To the discussion instead of smoke and mirrors.

    Wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    "A less substantial majority," be more accurate if stated as, " a much smaller minority?"

    Someone reading your description might interpret it as both sides having almost the same adherents, whereas, in fact, the scientific community is skewed 97% to 3% in favor of MMGW.

    The concept of there being, "two sides to every story," has been used with devastating results by people (politicians, oligarchs, power seekers) in convincing the less educated, less curious, anti-social, and, easily led, elements of our society to their everlasting detriment.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:30:33 AM EST

    I was just forwarded an email (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    urging anyone who has ever worked or applied to work (I'm in the second category) at Sony Pictures start vigilant policing of their credit reports.


    Not exactly a fun Holiday present (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:03:33 AM EST
    Never participated in a vigilant policing of credit reports. Any idea how much this activity would cost and would Sony pick up the tab?

    None at all (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:12:35 AM EST
    And Sony clearly has their own problems.  This morning I saw the guy who wrote that Fusion piece I linked to yesterday on teevee.  He said it was "total pandemonium" or words to that effect at Sony.
    That at first it was sort of funny seeing the corporate bosses salaries leaked but when SS numbers started showing up everyone freaked.
    I gonna roll with it. I honestly don't think they can hurt me much.  

    One interesting bit.  The guy said - numbers from memory- of the 19 people with salaries over a million a year 17 were men an 15 were white.



    Also I applied there in '05 (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    almost 20 ago years when I went to Disney instead.  Hopefully they have enough more recent and flush applicants to harass.

    Um (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    supposed to be '95.

    I can count I just can't type.


    Have that problem myself (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:47:33 AM EST
    especially now that we have gone to a touch scene rather than a regular keyboard. Auto correct does not help me much either since it tends to change things against my will and chose words that are drastically different than what I want to type.

    Federal law provides you (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    are entitled to a free copy annually from each credit report company:


    There is a caution re using notebook or phone to apply on line.


    I believe that they (none / 0) (#172)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    give you the credit report, but, not the credit score. I think many (most?) people would like to have their score as that's usually the determining factor in extending credit, or, not.

    If that's not right (I haven't used the service personally) maybe someone will correct me.


    Looks like you are correct as to federal law. (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:22:53 PM EST
    I think if you put a hold on your credit reports (none / 0) (#13)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    then you might be safe.  My CC was hacked as part of the Target breach so that's what we did, knowing we were not going to be looking for credit anytime soon.  Now if they get your personal data, such as SS number, etc., that's a different animal altogether.  Hope you're safe.

    I Use Cedit Karma... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    ...and even have the app installed on my phone.  Every month it emails you your credit score.  Believe it or not, it changes every month, depending mostly on your utilization percentage, which is total credit versus credit used.

    This is the month, for me, in which my credit is the lowest for no other reason than I put more dollars on my card.  Always pay the balance, but the card is in perpetual use, so there is never a true -0- balance.  And December is the month I use it the most, beyond gifts, my expenses and for things like gas and groceries peak in December.

    The point is that if you have the app you could check your score every day and would know even if someone charged something, deepening on your habits, for as little a couple hundred bucks.  But with the app you could trace it the day it happened and figure out if even someone ran a hard credit check as both would reduce your score, even if by a point or two.

    It's free and lets you truly explore every detail with tips and explanations of how the numbers are derived and weighted. The downside to free is the occasional email with a credit offer, some ads on the app, but for me is not a big deal.  

    I like it because I am the one trolling through my information, not a service, and I am deciding if this or that is legitimate or significant.  I have used all kinds of apps, websites, and services and this is easily the best one, hands down.


    Almost 4000 (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:13:50 AM EST
    SS numbers were stolen from HR records



    Forensics ? (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:13:39 AM EST
    I keep hearing that the forensics backing up DW's story but I have yet to hear a convincing narrative of why. It seems to me that the forensics that were presented ranged from inconclusive (ie. no telling which way the arms were facing when shot), puzzling (ie. blood drops on car and blood drops 180 ft away but nothing in between) and flat out ignored (ie. lack of bruises  on MB's hands from the death blows he throwing).

    And (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    you are "flat out ignoring" that damning blood trail leading back towards Wilson.  How would you explain this to a jury?  That Brown left them with elevated hands?  Who cares?

    Do you consider the radio logs to be forensic evidence?  They prove that Wilson knew of the market robbery, had a description of the suspects, and had offered to look for them.  Unless, of course, the logs were "faked," as part of some lurid conspiracy.  


    not ignoring anything (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    The radio logs are not germane to my point.
    There is no "blood trail" per se but that evidence shows that MB only came back 24 ft during the 6 seconds (as shown by the audio tape) that DW was firing. 4 feet a second is kind of a slow motion charge don't you think.
    Where is the evidence of the beating MB was supposed to be taking?

    oops (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:07:38 AM EST
     I meant the beating DW was taking. There appears to be no evidence from the autopsy of MB punching anybody or anything with full force

    And that (none / 0) (#66)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    proved to be 24 ft. too far, didn't it?  Even assuming that was the full extent of Brown's advance, which is doubtful.  Others say 49 ft., as I mentioned in the previous open thread.

    Four feet a second... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:32:54 AM EST

    ...is indeed a slow advance. If at a uniform speed.  However, Brown's speed was not uniform as some witness reported.  There seems to have been a hesitation in the the advance.

    That's because he'd been shot. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    Like the multiple witnesses (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    who said he had his hands up who were ignored or told they were mistaken.   It's funny to see the hand wringing about how the "hands up" gesture was promoting a lie when there was absolutely nothing in the document that supported that.

    Hands Up gesture a symbol for (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    people of all races who believe that police procedures need to change.

    Architect Evan Chakroff was among the protesters last week in Seattle. He said the "hands up" gesture is far from a literal representation of the circumstances of Brown's death.

    "My sense is that it's totally symbolic and a way of representing powerlessness" in the face of inequality and militarized police, he said.

    Several demonstrators said focusing on the exact circumstances of Brown's shooting misses the point of the slogan.

    "This is not about one boy getting shot in the street, but about the hundreds just like him who have received the same callous and racially influenced treatment," said Oakland, California, protester Gabe Johnson, a middle school teacher. "So ultimately, no, it doesn't matter at all if somehow we can say for sure whether this one young man really said these words or had his hands up."

    But even in the Brown case (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    there is no reason to say it's promoting a lie.  There is no evidence that shows he did not and several witnesses who said he did have his hands up.

    Sorry did not mean to imply (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    that it was promoting a lie. It is my opinion that this has evolved beyond being Mike Brown specific.

    I think what many of the protesters are trying to do is move the dialog to what they feel is the underlying problem. Many of these problems were highlighted by this case. Problems of cities preying on the AA community as a major source of revenue, of racial profiling and inequality, the shoot to kill first response and militarized police.

    Judging from what I hear around me this is a gigantic task. Too, too many of the people around me just want to focus on how completely worthless those people are and continually spread misinformation as facts. The protesters are just lazy, stupid individuals and that is that. Try pointing out that many of the protesters have advanced degrees, not to mention many are white, and they just change the subject to another completely unrelated atrocity that one of those people have done.


    Yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:24:08 AM EST
    that seems to be what may don't want or choose not to understand.  Hasn't just been about Michael for a while.

    And yes, I have a friend - an affluent old white guy - who is a professor at Wash u who got a fat lip a couple of weeks ago.


    Not sure how Prof. got (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    his fat lip. Could you please explain.

    It was back when there was (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    a lot of action.  And apparently it was more or less an accident.

    He wasn't intentionally injured by an adversary or anything.  It was one of the night there was gunshots and he said he "zigged when he should have zagged"


    Was he participating in (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    one the protests or was he just unintentionally caught in the area?

    Oh he was protesting (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    he has been there a lot.  He has been involved in some of the workshops.

    I'm still trying to figure out how (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    Brown manages to hit Wilson on the right side of his face with his right hand, while Wilson is sitting in the car; the angles are all wrong and awkward enough to make me question how Wilson could have feared that a third blow might be fatal (going on the "facts" as Wilson presented them, and not on the assumption that this is what actually happened).

    That's not hard to accept (none / 0) (#52)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:52:32 AM EST

      A person in the driver's seat engaged with someone at the window would quite possibly turn toward the window rather than remain facing forward. Turned even partially toward the window would make it easily possible for the person at the window to strike the right side of the driver's face with a blow from his left hand.


    Left hand, sure. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    But Anne said "right hand." Is that what the testimony says?

    From the testimony, beginning at (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    Page 210:

    17 I had shielded myself in this type of
    18 manner and kind of looked away, so I don't remember
    19 seeing him come at me, but I was hit right here in

    20 the side of the face with a fist. I don't think it
    21 was a full?on swing, I think it was a full?on swing,

    22 but not a full shot. I think my arm deflected some

    23 of it, but there was still a significant amount of
    24 contact that was made to my face.
    25 Now, he was hitting you with what hand?
    A I believe it was his right, just judging

    2 by how we were situated.

    3 Right.

    4 A But like I said, I had turned away, had my
    5 eyes, I was shielding myself.

    Keep reading, and then try imagining it playing out the way he describes it - see if you can imagine it is even possible.

    I would love for someone to try to recreate it as a third person is reading from the testimony.  I suspect the entire thing just falls apart - but I could be wrong.

    Last night, I sat in my car and tried to see how my body would have to be positioned in order for someone to hit me on the right side of my face - suffice it to say that the geometry just doesn't work, unless one is a master-level contortionist.


    Mahalo, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    I agree with you, that's just implausible as it stands. It's really too bad that those two prosecutors didn't subject Officer Wilson's statements to the sort of rigorous examination employed when they aggressively questioned those witnesses who contradicted his account.

    My first (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:28:46 PM EST
      supposition would be that if I was seated in a vehicle attempting to "turn away" from a blow, I would turn to my right, thus exposing the left side of my face.

      To expose the right side of your face-- in a defensive reflex--would more or less put you the position of burying your face against the back of the seat and covering up. I don't think most people, let alone many cops would do that.

      He could though just be confused as he gives an equivocal answer.

      Another thing that might be of some significance is whether Wilson is right handed or left handed. People generally wear their gun on the side of their dominant hand. A left handed person might thus find him self turning left to get his gun exposing his right side.

      Along those lines, the person outside the car would likely "go for the gun" with a different hand depending on which side the driver was wearing it. If the driver has the gun on his right side, I would likely reach for it with my left hand, leaving my right hand free to swing. If the driver had it on his left side, though, I would likely reach for it with my right hand, leaving my left free.

        In any event, I have never believed the minute details of the altercation at the vehicle are the most important part of the story. I know some tire of me saying this but the critical question is not who was the aggressor at the vehicle and is not what is the most accurate "blow by blow" concerning that stage of the altercation.

      The critical question is whether Wilson reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent serious injury or death at the time he fired the fatal shot.



    I Have Out... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:20:46 AM EST
    ...for a couple weeks, has Wilson's statement been released yet ?

    You're right and that's the issue. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:40:46 PM EST
    The forensics do not back up Wilson's tall tale.

    The only part of his tale that is forensically true is "I shot ... and shot ... and shot ...".

    All the supposed blood inside the Tahoe turned out to be just on the door handle -- nowhere else.

    And that matches up with the blood on the palm of his right hand used to open that door.

    Then we find out that Wilson was pulling on Brown's "Big Hulk" right wrist with his left hand when the gun went off.

    So then how could that Brown's right hand have been inside the Tahoe if Wilson is holding it at the window with his left hand when the gun goes off???

    Had this gone to trial all of these dots would have been connected and questions answered and that's why they had to kill it here.


    I don't disagree that a trial (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    would have answered some questions.  But I listening to MSNBC while making cookies and there is a woman on who defends police officers.  She just said something I thought was pretty stunning.  Paraphrasing-

    "I've yet to have an officer convicted in one of here cases ever.  In decades."

    Chew on that for a while.


    Yep -- (none / 0) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    and another one to watch right now is the Curtis Reeves trial in Tampa Bay -- the theatre killer.



    BTW -- you'll love this: (none / 0) (#178)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    Darren Wilson and his organization support the Rams players over 'Hands Up' gesture

    He sure does --

    It turns out that the head of the Black St Louis Police Officers Association is also named: Darren Wilson


    It (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    seems that Iran has bombed ISIS in the eastern Iraqi province of Diyala.

    If true, it appears that the axis of evil is a little less evil than the newest evil entree.

    Hard to keep track of these new evils, old evils, once evil, now not evil, back to evil back to not so evil.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    we could get a color coded scale.  Like the alert system. But I guess it would have to go from ultraviolet to infrared.

    That is (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    a great idea.

    That way I can know who to hate, when, and how much.


    It also be helpful to color code (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    some popular topics here.

    Well an ignore button would be helpful (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    but the scroll down arrow works pretty well.

    At least you made an attempt yesterday to introduce another topic that you found interesting. If people take the time to introduce other subjects, there might be less bandwidth available for topics that don't interest you.

    Of course, there is always the risk that no one else but you are interested. This is not an observation specific to you but to all of us who post here.


    And then there is the issue of (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    bandwith consumed to alert others of their ability to scroll.

    No segue:  did you see my link re your right to obtain free creit reports?


    Also the bandwidth expended (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    teaching someone how to use their iPad correctly. Which BTW, I greatly appreciated but all the numerous posts on how to link etc. had to bore the pants off of all the people who had mastered those skills eons ago.

    Yes, I did see your link regarding free annual credit reports. That is very helpful information for numerous circumstances but I think people who were involved in the Sony hack might need to monitor their report more often.


    Iirc, Target is paying for (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    credit monitoring for those that were hacked.

    I wonder how one (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    shows they have been hacked

    Never mind (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    just saw you were talking about Target

    New Version of PBS Chart of Brown Witnesses (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    Fyi (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    That link is to something called "the conservative treehouse".

    Which actually made me laugh out loud.


    Oh (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    I an beginning to think that they have moved that treehouse to TL.

    I sometimes read and post on that site (none / 0) (#67)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    I don't agree with everything said on TCT but they don't have the silly personal attacks that I've seen on this site.  They also do a lot of research.  Their articles and discussion about the Mike Brown shooting have been pretty good.



    This is a difference between the (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    left and the right.  Wingnuts love to troll leftist sites.   Liberals would generally rather be dead than waste one minute of their lives on a site called "conservative treehouse".

    That why there are no attacks.


    I think it's silly for someone to limit themselves (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    to only one point of view.  I watch CNN and Fox News.  There are strengths and weaknesses to both networks.  I can't watch MSNBC or listen to Rush Limbaugh.  I have a limit to the level of bias.  



    I do not limit myself (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:36:46 PM EST
    I read a lot of sane conservative news.  FOX is not news.  It's propaganda.   I am more conservative than many commenters here.   Believe it or not.

    Also (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    i often hear people say MSNBC and FOX are the "two extremes" IMO that's bull.  They are not.  MSNBC has Scarborough and Matthews who have no correlation on FOX.

    MSNBC (often) reports the news with a liberal slant.  FOX just makes sh!t up.


    I can't agree with that (none / 0) (#173)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    MSNBC is in a league if it's own. They hired Al Sharpton! I tried their coverage of the Michael Brown case and it was unwatchable. I agree somewhat about Scarborogh but not Matthews at all.

    There's a lot more to Fox News than Hannity and O'Reilly.  Brett Baier is good.  Megan Kelly is a drama queen but she usually puts on a good show. I used to watch Greta Van Susteren when she mostly covered legal cases. Fox went downhill a bit when Obama was first elected.... everything became political.  

    I prefer Fox for general news and CNN for legal and social issues and their documentaries..... The 60s, Blackfish.  


    I'm With You on the CTH (none / 0) (#72)
    by RickyJim on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    Jeralyn often linked to people who posted there during the Zimmerman case.  They do allow descent from their position and I have urged people like Chip to try posting there. I don't know of any other blog that has gone into the nitty gritty of the evidence in the Brown case.

    Police shooting response time (none / 0) (#65)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    There was an interesting piece on Anderson Cooper 360 last night about how much time police have to decide if they're going to shoot someone.

    I think if most people understood how quickly that decision has to be made they would have a different opinion about the Tamir Rice case and others.

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    McBain: "I think if most people understood how quickly that decision has to be made they would have a different opinion about the Tamir Rice case and others."

    Tamir Rice was only 12 years old. He was playing with a toy.

    There's no acceptable excuse for a "concerned bystander," one or two police dispatchers and a couple of beat cops to have collectively engaged in an appalling series of bad judgment calls like that, culminating in that poor child's wholly unnecessary death.

    Please stop trying to come up with one. Posts such as these belie your repeated claim to having an open mind.



    I'm very serious (none / 0) (#140)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    The police officers didn't know he was 12 years old and playing with a toy.  The shooter had to make a quick decision.  

    Have you made up your mind on this?  Would you charge the shooting officer with murder?


    The reason they didn't know he was 12 years old (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:43:49 PM EST
    or playing with a toy was because the cop came out of his car with guns blazing.  He didn't give himself time to assess the situation.  Had he done so we wouldn't be having this conversation.  

    I'm not convinced that was the fault of the (none / 0) (#177)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    shooter.  Because the driver pulled up so close to the kid, the shooter didn't have much time to assess. Unless you have proof that he fired before telling the kid to drop the gun, I don't think he will face charges.

    If nothing else (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:12:37 PM EST
    I think we have established the facing charges part is a given.

    Why did they fly up like that.  Why not, as others have said take 30 seconds to access the situation before coming out guns blazing?


    I don't know exactly what cops are (none / 0) (#194)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    trained to do in that situation but waiting 30 seconds might allow for an unknown potential threat ( in this case the kid) to shoot someone.

    Also, I'm not sure waiting 30 seconds would have changed the cops decision.  They weren't going to know the gun was a pellet gun until they got up close.  

    But, I'd like to hear from an expert about this topic.


    because somehow (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by CST on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    the fact that someone "might" shoot someone is a worse threat than someone (in this case the cop) actually shooting someone dead.

    With that logic, anyone who is far enough away or has their back turned to a cop could be carrying a weapon and is a potential threat.


    ::sigh:: (5.00 / 4) (#208)
    by sj on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    You are really good at creating straw men, and then, when called it on it accusing others of not "putting their cards on the table."

    It's a really ugly tactic.

    Speaking for myself, I haven't put my "cards on the table" because I'm not going to be dealt in when you are playing a hand full of Jokers.

    I will only note that the deck is supposed to contain only two.


    He probably ... (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by sj on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    ...won't face charges.
    I'm not convinced that was the fault of the  (none / 0) (#177)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:01:56 PM MDT

    shooter.  Because the driver pulled up so close to the kid, the shooter didn't have much time to assess. Unless you have proof that he fired before telling the kid to drop the gun, I don't think he will face charges.

    And you, and others like you, will continue to create accounts on websites to justify that fact.

    Or maybe (none / 0) (#198)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    me and people like me will continue to assess the information before jumping to emotional conclusions.

    My bias is towards innocent until proven guilty. I'm shocked at how many people are biased towards guilty until proven innocent in this blog.

    We still don't know everything about this case but we do know it's difficult to indict a cop. My opinion might change but, right now, I don't see the shooting officer indicted.


    You keep saying (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    he won't be indicted.  No one is arguing this after today.  For the love of god that doesn't make it right.

    What do you mean by (none / 0) (#204)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:46:58 PM EST
    "doesn't make it right"?  Are you saying he should be indicted?

    The main problem I have with people on this blog is they love to argue with me and sometimes make personal attacks but they rarely put their cards on the table.

    This isn't so much for you Howdy but for the blog in general.

    What do you want to happen?

    The cop to be convicted of murder? another charge?
    The cop to be indicted and face trial?
    Cops never be allowed to shoot first?
    Wait for more information?
    Something else?
    Or do you just want to complain when someone believes in innocent until proven guilty?


    You haven't assessed a (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by sj on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:43:45 PM EST
    single bit of information yet. You have only posted comment after comment after comment about how you intend to do so, all while declaring that such an assessment (should you ever get around to it) might very well exonerate the killer.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" applies at trial. If that is your standard for "assessment" then there is no reason for you to opine [ad nauseum] until a verdict is reached.

    Alas, I know that we will not be so graced.


    You likely weren't around, but I ... (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    ... already posted my answer to that question two days ago. And I've seen nothing these last few days that would encourage me to amend it.

    I will agree with you that those police officers likely did not know that was a 12-year-old child with a toy gun in the park. And you know why they didn't know that?

    Because again, judging by what we see on that security / surveillance video and hear on the 911 calls, they likely didn't even bother to first ascertain the situation and determine whether that child actually constituted a public threat. Rather, they just charged in with the squad car, and opened fire. That poor kid probably never even knew what hit him.

    Being a law and order-type of person -- as you probably see yourself -- doesn't require one to forgo the use of common sense during any assessment of a police-related tragedy such as this. And it certainly shouldn't mean that everyone in the community has to toe the line, save for the people in charge. Life isn't the real-time equivalent of a "Dirty Harry" movie, and we don't pay the police to shoot first and ask questions later.

    Whenever we as citizens confer upon a select group of men and women the authority to put on that badge, carry a firearm, detain people for questioning and arrest them for probable cause, we have not only the right to expect their sound judgment, but also an obligation to demand it of them at all hours.

    And if they can't meet that basic criteria, they really have no business wearing that uniform.



    As I've been saying for a few days now (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    The driver might be the cop who messed up, not the shooter.

    "we don't pay the police to shoot first and ask questions later."

    We also don't pay them to ask questions and get killed.  If the cop had a reasonable belief the kid was going to shoot him, the shooting will be justified.

    I want to know more about police procedures for driving up to situation like that. Was there a reason why they pulled up so close?


    straw man (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by sj on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    logical fallacy.
    We also don't pay them to ask questions and get killed.
    In any case, additional risk is in their job description. If one wants a risk free profession, one shouldn't be a cop.

    Timing is not the Issue... (5.00 / 8) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    ...any idiot with functioning finger can point a gun at someone a pull, but being a cop isn't about how fast you can use your gun, it's about evaluating situations and understanding threats, either to themselves or the public.

    Police should be determining if there is a credible threat before determining how quickly they can shoot.  With Rice and Crawford there was absolutely no assessment of the situation to determine if the threat was credible.  If they had, no shots would have been fired in either case because toy guns pose no threats to the police or the public.

    What function do the police serve if determining whether a threat is credible isn't part of the equation.  You and can shoot people we think are threats, that takes no training or police work, just a gun and a finger.

    Right now, if a black person appears to have an object that looks like a weapon, cops are free to shoot.  Maybe you don't find that problematic, but I do.  The people tasked with protecting the public is assuming one race is more threatening than another.

    There is no way two cops roll up on a white kid in that situation and fire before evaluating the threat, does not happen.  If it did, they would be in jail and the only question would be for how long and how much it will cost the city, not did they act appropriately.  The fact that the cops didn't know it was a kid, isn't a defense of shooting, it's proof that they did not evaluate the situation, aka police work.

    No one is asking the police to not be suspicious or not use deadly force when necessary.  What people want is for the cops to afford black people the same evaluation process afforded to white people before firing their weapons, that is it.


    Response to Scott (none / 0) (#186)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    "Right now, if a black person appears to have an object that looks like a weapon, cops are free to shoot."

    What do you mean by "Right now"? have things changed or you more aware of recent shooting because of the media?

    "There is no way two cops roll up on a white kid in that situation and fire before evaluating the threat, does not happen."

    That's BS.  Cops shoot white people too you just don't hear about it.  

    "What people want is for the cops to afford black people the same evaluation process afforded to white people before firing their weapons, that is it."

    Are you aware of any proof that cops don't afford black people the same process? I'm not and I don't believe what I see in the media is an accurate depiction of our society.  


    "Do you have proof" (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by CST on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    Immediately followed with "I don't believe it"

    No proof, just lies, d@mn lies, and statistics.


    Right now I'm watching (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    the guy who is swallowed by the anaconda.

    He's hot.

    I'm envious of that snake.

    The list of the 25 wealthiest Suburbs is out (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:31:19 PM EST
     St. Louis and Dallas were the only cities who landed three suburbs in the list of the 25 wealthiest.

    Town and Country (No. 12), Ladue (No. 20), and Frontenac (No. 21) made Business Insider's list, which ranks each suburb by its median household income, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In order to be eligible, the suburb has to be within 25 miles of a metropolitan city. LINK

    That's good. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:12:06 PM EST
    Because come the revolution and overthrow of the presently standing social order, we'll know exactly which neighborhoods to pillage and plunder.

    All Hail, Marx and Lennon.


    It s reported (HUPO) (none / 0) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    that the grand jury has voted not to indict NYC Police Officer Daniel Panataleo in the death of Eric Gardner.   A viral video of the arrest shows Gardner screaming "I can't breathe."   Chokeholds are against NYPD guidelines.  Gardner was selling illegal cigarettes.

    No surprise there at all (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    Anyone who thought otherwise has not been paying attention to the latitude the police are given in killing people.

    Yes, sad to say. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    fear of being blamed for being weak by the fearful has not only become a potent force in politics, but has also, it seems, intruded into our criminal justice system.

    It's never easy to indict a cop (none / 0) (#148)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    The burden is high. When the victim/person killed doesn't obey the cops commands, it makes it even harder.  However, I'm surprised there wasn't an indictment in this case.



    The NY grand Jury had 23 jurors (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    Do you or anyone else know how many were required to indict? I  tried googling for the information but was not successful.

    It requires (none / 0) (#167)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:48:26 PM EST
      a majority of the entire panel (12), no matter how many are present at the time of the vote.  

    Thanks for info (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:54:00 PM EST
    I tried to find it but evidently did not use correct criteria.

    Grand jury does not indict in NY (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    chokehold homicide case. Demonstrations planned. Al Sharpton is there.

    Open Hunting Season... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    all ya need is a hunting license...aka a badge.

    F*ck the Police.

    And let the Cleveland case be a lesson to all you "good Samaritans" who drop dimes...that call to 911 may as well be a call to a hitman sometimes.  Think twice before dialing...three times even, cuz not calling could save someone's life.  911 should be a last resort.


    The worst part of this (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:56:15 PM EST
    to me is that the person who dropped the dime told the 911 operator that it was probably a juvenile and it was probably a toy.

    The cops were not told that.


    Yeah,,, (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    that's a mistake that "good samaritan" won't make again...the guilt must be tremendous for initiating the fatal turn of events.

    A continuing problem when (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:19:59 PM EST
    a family member calls 911 because a child (often an adult child with mental illness) is terrorizing someone in the house who needs help. Call or don't call?

    If possible... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    call a strong friend to restrain your mentally ill loved one, not a cop who ain't your friend.  

    Once you call the authorities, you surrender any shred of control you may have had over the situation, which is only wise as a very last resort imo.


    NY congressional delegation on now (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    and they are not happy.  I really think this is different than the Brown case.  There is video.  And it's horrific.  This is not over.

    The justice department may not be able to intervene in Ferguson but my prediction is they will in this.

    This is IMO outrageous.


    Sen Gillibrand on FB (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    The decision not to indict in the Eric Garner case is shocking, I'll be calling on The United States Department of Justice to investigate further. I urge all protests to remain peaceful in the aftermath of this decision.

    Hey Gilly... (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    urge the police to remain peaceful towards the protestors!  Urge them to remain peaceful, period.  

    Who is killing who without going to trial here?


    Perhaps she has more faith (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    in the protestors . . .  ;)

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    she is trying to cash in on the outrage to win a few votes, while trying not to alienate the law and order vote.  It's a tough tango in that racket.

    I must say I'd like to tel the congressional delegation to stick it up their arse...it is they and all the unnecessary criminal laws they've passed over the years that have put so many of us in the crosshairs of the law unnecessarily.  Blood on the hands of Congress too...let's not be fooled by their "outrage", like everything else it's for the damn cameras, like kissing babies.


    remember the guy (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by CST on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    that was shot like 50 times at his wedding party?

    Where were all these people then?

    I mean I guess better late than never, but this isn't new, it's just finally news.

    On another note, I'd like for just one politician to admit  that 98% of newborns are really hideous terrifying creatures, but we love and take care of them anyway.


    Sean Bell... (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    and Amadou Diallo before that...and so many many more, from coast to coast.

    The difference now may be the Ferguson protests awakening many from their slumber.  And maybe most of all,  the rise of social media.  Everybody with a phone is a combat correspondent now.  People on the street can reach millions without the corporate media filter.


    I don't think Gillibrand was in office then (none / 0) (#205)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    and Bloomberg did not side with the cops at all  right from the start, iirc.

    John Nolte of Breitbart (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    Eric Garner is a 180 from Mike Brown.  Choke hold, the guy was selling cigs.

    Hate to disappoint the Left, but I'm with them on this.

    Others conservatives express similar feelings.


    We passed outrageous... (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    a long time ago...this is ludicrous.

    It's like the long standing war against our own people, the war on drugs, has bled over into all manners of law enforcement, right down to loosies and jaywalking for Christ's sake.  The inmates are running the asylum.  It sure feels like outright war has been declared, in actions if not in words.  And it's shifting from a "cold war" (if you will) of an embarrassing prison population and institutionalized criminal justice racism, into a hot war of blood and corpses in the streets in alarming numbers. You're "lucky" if you're black and make it to prison...imagine that!

    Selfishly speaking, like Louis C.K. said, "thank god I'm white!". Sh*t if I wasn't, and all the whiteboy breaks and benefits of the doubt that comes with it, I may well not be alive today.    


    Chris Rock speaks out on--everything! (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    Ferguson, Obama, Cosby, growing up black in the U.S.,



    It would (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    seem conservatives never disappoint when it comes to putting out there what scared little people they are and what weenies they are. Conservaweenies is the nickname I'm giving them these days.

    What is it now? (none / 0) (#188)
    by CST on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    Muslims, black people, healthcare, foreigners, ebola (the nifty healthcare/black-people/foreigner combo), ISIS, gay people adopting kids, women who want to get paid, birth control, war on christmas, pot, athiests, sex ed, "kids today" in general?

    Yes (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    Holder opening investigation into Garner death. (none / 0) (#212)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    Can't believe NYC cop wasn't indicted (none / 0) (#214)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    How could he not be guilty of negligent homicide or assault?

    Obviously he had no plan to do more then restrain him but he used force that caused a death.   They could have restrained that man without a choke hold.

    For Howdy: (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    The guns are already cocked and loaded and aimed at Jeb! and the shooting is getting ready to commence. Jeb is not conservative enough and his statement about not pandering to the tea party has put a target on his back. You knew this was gonna happen just like me. I'm just surprised it's ALREADY happening.

    Slado (none / 0) (#216)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    its unbelievable.   I'm reading now that apparently no one expected this GJ to do anything which is why Holder has been working in the background.   The inappropriate use of force can be use in a civil rights trial.   It's not over.  The justice department will be on this like white on rice.   They have done it in NY before.



    This case seems less about race (none / 0) (#218)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    And more about excessive force and over policing.

    To me it seems that the cop thought the only way to arrest this man was to subdue him and since he was outweighed by 200lbs he see used the ridiculous choke move which considering there where multiple officers (crazy by itself) was completely unnecessary.    Did the guy give up right away?  No.   But he was simply resisting not fighting or attacking the officers.

    Even if you grant the wrestling move was needed to subdue him after he's on the ground a 400lb man is not getting up with 5 or 6 cops all over him.   That to me is when the crime occurred.   Holding him in a choke hold when he's already restrained and on the ground was excessive force that lead to his death.

    It is too bad this occurs a week after Ferguson because now both extreme sides will take to their corners.  

    I don't see this as a racial policing issue but instead a over enforcement and reckless disregard for human life issue by an overzealous group of officers.  

    Simply put their gung ho attitudes towards this man lead to his death.

    I didn't mean to imply (none / 0) (#219)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 06:39:45 PM EST
    by saying civil rights charges are coming that it was all about race.  That is just the tool the justice department has.   They have used it before in NY.  It is definitely a problem if out if control police.
    That said,  the people dying, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Akai Gurly and on and on.   I don't see a lot of white faces there.

    In Garners case he was not only not fighting back he was begging for his life.  He said I can't breath 11 times.  
    THAT is intent.

    Tamir Rices funeral was today.

    We are in agreement for the most part (none / 0) (#220)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 06:57:42 PM EST
    It can't have "nothing" to do with race but I worry turning it into a racial story takes away from what the bigger issues are.   Over criminalization of minor offenses enforced by excessive shows of force by police.

    For us on the libertarian side of the aisle this is a major problem and this case a perfect example.

    This man should have been given a fine,  not involved in a physicall altercation that led to his death.

    Police go from 0 to 60 way to fast when the citizenry shows the slightest bit of consternation for being arrested minor crimes like selling cigarettes.  

    Yes blacks are per capita more likely to receive this type of treatment but there are plenty of poor white kids and frankly just normal Americans hassled and subjected to excessive police force all the time.

    Also not many on the right are defending this decision.   Some will just recoil when it becomes more about white cops vs black people rather then bad cops vs people.

    Officer Who Killed Tamir Rice Found Unfit (none / 0) (#221)
    by Jack203 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 07:01:15 PM EST
    for duty from previous police force.

    This is not surprising at all.

    Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo should absolutely NOT have been indicted.  In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  There were MAJOR doubts that crossed the threshold of reasonable by ten fold for each case. They were unwinnable cases for the prosecution.  Appeasing an angry and rioting mob is not grounds for indictment.

    But Timothy Loehmann should be indicted, and mark my words, WILL be indicted.

    Judging by that video, Timothy Loehmann should never have been a police officer.  I also predict jail time.  But Loehmann should be grateful he still has his life ahead of him while Tamir Rice does not.