home

Thursday Open Thread

Busy day today. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tsarnaev Convicted on All Counts | Hillary Clinton To Announce White House Bid on Sunday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    150 years ago today, ... (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    ... with his dwindling force of 27,000 men now completely surrounded by the U.S. Army of the Potomac at Appomattox Court House, VA, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee sent the following brief reply to a note from Union Gen. Ulysses Grant, who had proposed that Lee consider meeting with him to arrange the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia:

    "I received your note of this morning on the picket-line, whither I had come to meet you and ascertain definitely what terms were embraced in your proposal of yesterday with reference to the surrender of this army. I now ask an interview in accordance with the offer contained in your letter of yesterday for that purpose."

    Grant agreed to meet with Lee late that afternoon at the home of Wilmer McLain. Upon their mutual arrival at the McLain House, the two generals briefly engaged in small talk harkening back to their days together under Gen. Zachary Taylor's command in the Mexican War, before Lee cut the discussion short by suggesting that they get down to the business at hand. Much to the surprise of Lee's staff, Gen. Grant proved magnanimous in victory, and offered surprisingly generous terms to the beaten rebels:

    "I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate, one copy to be given to an officer to be designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged; and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery, and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officers appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by U. S. authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside."

    The reason for that unexpected generosity, unbeknownst to the Confederate officers accompanying Lee at the time, was rooted in a brief exchange between President Abraham Lincoln and Union Gen. Godfrey Weitzel only five days earlier, which had taken place in the now-occupied Confederate capital of Richmond.

    Union Col. Thomas Thatcher Graves, writing in his journal, described in vivid detail the humble but triumphant early-morning arrival of President Abraham Lincoln in the captured city:

    "The next day after our entry into the city, on passing out from Clay Street, from Jefferson Davis's house, I saw a crowd coming, headed by President Lincoln, who was walking with his usual long, careless stride, and looking about with an interested air and taking in everything. Upon my saluting he said: 'Is it far to President Davis's house?' I accompanied him to the house, which was occupied by General Weitzel as headquarters.

    "The President had arrived about 9 o'clock, at the landing called Rocketts, upon Admiral Porter's flag-ship, the Malvern, and as soon as the boat was made fast, without ceremony, he walked on shore, and started uptown. As soon as Admiral Porter was informed of it he ordered a guard of marines to follow as escort; but in the walk of about two miles they never saw him, and he was directed by negroes.

    "At the Davis house, he was shown into the reception-room, with the remark that the housekeeper had said that the room was President Davis's office. As he seated himself he remarked, 'This must have been President Davis's chair,' and, crossing his legs, he looked far off with a serious, dreamy expression. At length he asked me if the housekeeper was in the house. Upon learning that she had left he jumped up and said, with a boyish manner, 'Come, let's look at the house!'

    "We went pretty much over it; I retailed all that the housekeeper had told me, and he seemed interested in everything. As we came down the staircase General Weitzel came, breathless in haste, and at once President Lincoln's face lost its boyish expression as he realized that duty must be resumed. Soon afterward Judge Campbell, General Anderson (Confederates), and others called and asked for an interview with the President. It was granted, and took place in the parlor with closed doors.

    "I accompanied President Lincoln and General Weitzel to Libby Prison and Castle Thunder, and heard General Weitzel ask President Lincoln what he (Gen. Weitzel) should do in regard to the conquered people. President Lincoln replied that he did not wish to give any orders on that subject, but, as he expressed it, 'If I were in your place I'd let 'em up easy, let 'em up easy.'"
    -- McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: the Civil War Era, Oxford University Press, New York (1988).

    The U.S. Civil War wasn't quite over yet, for Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston and his Army of Tennessee were still retreating in force through North Carolina, desperately trying to avoid being cornered by Union Gen. William T. Sherman and the pursuing U.S. Army of the Cumberland. And further, they wouldn't yet be compelled by Sherman to lay down his arms until April 26, 1865.

    By that time, Abraham Lincoln would be lying in state at the New York State Capitol in Albany, the fifth stop of a 16-day-long funeral procession across a country in mourning for its martyred president. The funeral train bearing his body had departed Washington D.C. three days after his April 15 assassination at Ford's Theatre, and would eventually arrive in his hometown of Springfield, IL on May 4, 1865.

    Mary Lincoln had acceded to the request of Illinois officials that her husband's remains be brought home to the state capital for internment, but only on condition that the body of their son Willie -- who had died in Washington of typhoid fever three years earlier -- be allowed to accompany his father on one final journey together. Father and son were eventually laid to rest side by side in Springfield's Oak Ridge Cemetery on May 24, 1865.

    But on this particular day 150 years ago, Virginia -- the biggest and most powerful of the eleven seceding states which constituted the rebel alliance -- had finally been brought to heel and subdued by federal troops, and the long-pending outcome of four years of bloody internecine conflict was now fully assured.

    The Confederacy was vanquished, even if some of the issues underscoring its primary reason for its brief existence continue to haunt us still.

    Aloha.

    Cuba's off the list... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:25:46 PM EST
    ... ¡ Que viva Cuba !

    Republican Illiteracy (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ladyjustice on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:08:24 AM EST
    Thursday CBS This Morning.  Charlie Rose cannot grasp where Elizabeth Warren stands on issues which plague our nation.  What part of "student loan debt,"  and "inequality," just to name a couple, does he not understand.  I feel his frustration with Hillary Clinton, but talking Hillary v. Elizabeth, is talking apples and oranges.  His DNA mutated by some corporate bubblehead gene -- and quite visible this morning.

    I never could stand him (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:09:33 AM EST
    never understood why he is often taken so seriously

    Parent
    He poses nicely (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    With hand occasionally under chin, the lean in, and the I'm-listening-so-intently look, he flatters the interviewee with his attention.  

    I'll admit to being taken in from time-to-time by the serious voice and demeanor--and, fairly good questions at times--until the pattern of looking absorbed, the pondering pose is overdone.  He is personable.  But, what I find that he really is ... the upscale Larry King.

    Parent

    Nobody's perfect. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    Perhaps when evaluating professional interviewers such as Charlie Rose, we ought to remember that his counterpart from a previous generation, David Frost, was similarly considered a serious lightweight by those who ascribed to generally accepted journalistic standards.

    Yet, when conducting his now-famous series of interviews with Richard Nixon in 1977, Frost successfully cajoled out of the former president some startlingly frank answers about Watergate, and ultimately elicited from him a personal admission of culpability and an expression of profound regret for his role in that tragic scandal, which no one else could ever seem to get out of that man, before or since.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Cajoling goes a long way (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    Thank you for the reminder about David Frost & his effective style.  BTW, I saw him--at a lecture somewhere off Portugal during a cruise--about a year before he passed away ... as always, he was entertaining and informative about his experiences.

    You are correct.  Rose's ability to elicit information ... even recently during an interview with Syria's Assad ... is quite significant.  Another individual who seemed to be underrated (and drove me up-a-tree with her style) was the "If you were a tree, what tree would you be" Barbara Walters ... it took me awhile to realize that her ingratiating style did lead to some dropped guards and resultant effective interviews with a number of international leaders.

    Parent

    I would be thrilled (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    if his style was cajoling. What I see is his tendency to supply the answers to the "questions" that he "asks" which will either step over or derail the actual answer.

    He gets great guests. It's a sin what he does to them.

    Parent

    The best episodes of Charlie Rose's show... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by unitron on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:06:13 PM EST
    ...on PBS were several years back when he was out for quite a while for medical reasons and they had good guest hosts who would shut up and let the guests answer the question, unlike Rose.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    "Objection, your Honor! Counsel is leading the witness." Where's Alicia Florrick when you really need her?

    I enjoy watching "This Week on Charlie Rose," which essentially offers the highlights of his five interviews over a given prior week. But if I had to sit through the entirety of most of them, forget it. I often find such conversations to be tedious exercises in ingratiating banality.

    Now, that style is effective when you're trying to get a popular actor, author or musical artist comfortable enough to discuss his or her work. But when you're ostensibly attempting to compel public officials to explain the rationales for certain policy decisions, what it's often likely to elicit instead is a steady stream of high-minded platitudes, frothy bromides and / or folksy anecdotes -- not unlike what we got last week, when Leslie Stahl interviewed Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson for "60 Minutes."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:17:58 AM EST
    why does it even matter where she stands on issues? She's not running. I guess some people want to have an imaginary primary where Warren runs against Hillary.

    Parent
    Maybe it's just me (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    but I watch the reaction of the Iranians and the Cubans and I am filled with optimism.

    I cannot believe... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 04:49:58 PM EST
    that Chelsea Clinton is 35...  where does it all go?

    Hillary to announce (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:03:55 PM EST
    on Sunday.  With video.

    Link (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    It says this (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    weekend either Saturday or Sunday. I had read that she was going to more or less a suprise announcement.

    Parent
    Surprise! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    Also (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:44:01 PM EST
    they we're giving more details on TV.  reportedly Sunday with video followed by a tour.

    So they say.

    Parent

    She apparently has sucked (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    all the oxygen out of an expected Rubio announcement. I can't figure out why Rubio is even running. That's a head scratcher.

    Parent
    I think the Republicans are going to do (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:57:45 AM EST
    What they did last time.  Every possible candidate is so full of holes and unsellable to the Independents, and the base is so crazy and fractured, every Republican looks like they have about the same chance on paper so they are all going to run...again :).

    Parent
    It sure looks (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:04:25 AM EST
    that way. Once one of them gets closer examination their support collapses. Only this time I'm not so sure it's going to be Jeb who ends up with the nomination.

    Parent
    I think he gets it (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:22:11 AM EST
    The establishment, those smoke filled rooms, will guarantee that...and that will disillusion some members of the Republican base even more.  The knock down drag out between Obama and Clinton left skid marks on some of us, but at least there was a fight.  The Republican base is going to do what it is told and like it!

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:26:44 AM EST
    then the GOP will get no more than 45% in a general election and 45% would be the absolute max I would think. Jeb has a toxic last name and that cannot be overcome. The more I read about him the more he sounds just like his brother.

    Parent
    That's right :) (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:27:27 AM EST
    Yer gonna die (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:31:40 AM EST
    The news just reported that Joe Biden stole Michael Bloomberg's grandson's binky.  And he had it in his mouth and the baby was staring at him like WTF :)? OMG Joe, stop over touching and over sharing body fluids :)

    Parent
    I saw (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:33:48 AM EST
    that and laughed. Uncle Joe is at it again. LOL.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    i really believe if they try shoving a Jeb down the throats of the unswashed there will be a good fashioned revolt.  As in third party.

    Parent
    They tried last time (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    And failed. The establishment must have a candidate that stands a chance of winning the general and that isn't Paul or the Huck or Ted.  Those guys have no chance of winning the general election.  And Republicans do what they are told much more predictably than Liberals.  They respond positively to their party's authoritarianism.

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    We live in the Red states my man (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    Recently I was surprised when someone in my neighborhood told me he didn't vote in the Presidential election because Romney was a Mormon and Mormon's were crazy.  But I snorted on the inside...because yeah...there was a chance Romney wasn't going to carry Alabama so his nonvote was meaningful in the grand scheme.

    Parent
    Your neighbor wasn't the only (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    Extremely conservative Republican who didn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. According to my liberal friend's brother, Mormons are heathens and he would never vote for a heathen. Believe me, you can't get much more conservative than my friend's brother. In his case, it didn't make a difference since he lived in Illinois.

    Parent
    OTOH, (none / 0) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    while he might prefer a more conservative candidate, I would bet money that he would vote for an establishment Republican as long as he was a Christian.

    Parent
    I think so too around here (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    And I think Jeb's Catholicism will pass for Christian enough, after all, he isn't Kennedy Catholic...he's Bush Catholic.

    Parent
    I'm with Howdy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    on this one. There's going to be a revolt in the ranks if Jeb is the nominee. However I don't likely see a third party emerging moreso than a lot of evangelicals just sitting home. Think Bob Dole ala 1996.

    Parent
    You're in a swinging state (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:32:24 AM EST
    Getting purplish and scary in Presidential and Senate races. You could see some initial debating.  My state will do what it is told :) And they love Bush's here.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:37:17 AM EST
    you're more like SC where they think the Bush name is synonomous with Jesus.

    But the legislature is still full of whackos who worry about glowing humans being created in a lab.

    Parent

    You really think (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    Evangelicals are gonna sit home in the general election (no matter WHO their nominee is?). They've had 8 years of living under a Kenyan-born Muslim's rule - you think they'll sit at home and let THAT WOMAN become president without a fight?

    I don't think so.

    Parent

    Me either (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    They have had enough of this Muslim socialist rule :)

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    they are sick of having people like Jeb shoved down their throats.

    There comes a point where hating the other candidate no longer works and the kind of thing you are suggesting has reached saturation point with them. They think that Jeb is liar and won't do what they want. They don't trust him. Even the talk radio crazies are saying there's no difference between him and Hillary trying to get rid of Jeb so he doesn't make it past the primaries.

    Parent

    Or, more likely (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    They say that every election cycle, but yet it doesn't happen.

    There's plenty of discussion about the difference between midterm and presidential electorates, but there is one emerging constant: the white evangelical vote.

    At least one interest group, Ralph Reed's Faith & Freedom Coalition, claimed that conservative Christians played a "decisive role" in the recent midterm elections. But according to the exit polls, white evangelicals made up the same percentage of the electorate and voted nearly the exact same way this year as they did in the two previous elections.

    In the recent midterm elections, white evangelicals or born-again Christians made up 26 percent of the electorate and voted for Republican candidates 78 percent to 20 percent, according to the National Exit Poll.

    Two years before in the 2012 presidential election, white evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate and voted for Republican Mitt Romney 78 percent to 21 percent over President Barack Obama. And in 2010, white evangelicals made up 25 percent of the electorate and voted for Republican candidates 77 percent to 19 percent.

    Remember 2012?  The meme was "Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon." (Guess what?  They did). 2008?  "Evangelicals will sit home rather than vote for Maverick McCain!". (Nope.  They voted for him)

    They may run their mouths off and stamp their feet, but they are pretty consistent in backing their guy and voting after all the in-party fighting is done.  2016 will be no different.


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    they say it every election cycle but they are also reading a lot from the midterm where they nominated crackpots.

    I never said they wouldn't vote for either of them. I said they would fall in line but it seems they are tired of being told what to do by the GOP establishment these days and since the GOP took over the senate things have only gotten worse on that account. They expected them to deliver and they haven't.

    And then you have the primaries which Charlie Cook even called the "evangelical primaries" which will make the candidates sign onto crazy stuff and that it what hurt Romney in the general election among other things.

    Anyway the Pew Poll spells out really bad news for the GOP and I don't think in a lot of ways it is really going to matter who they nominate.

    Parent

    I think you give too much credit (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    To most evangelicals (or most voters, for that matter) being as tuned in as political junkies on blogs.  Since the election is a year and a half away, my guess is most people, evangelicals included, will tune in when it's time to vote. And my other guess is, they won't care who their nominee is and will vote to ensure that THAT WOMAN doesn't become president. (Just like a large portion of Democrats and left-leaners will vote to make sure that the crazy of the month doesn't get to the White House).

    This is all an academic exercise at this point.

    Parent

    Evangelicals (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    are always heavily tuned into politics. Their churches are very political. The majority of their ministers are very political. Their sermons routinely involve politics. So yeah, while a lot of voters are tuned out evangelicals are not.

    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    You place too much emphasis on who you think is actually paying attention and is fully committed one way or another.

    I fully expect come November of 2016, between 20-25% of the electorate will identify as Evangelical, and around 75% will vote for the Republican.

    Just like they always have since this stat started being tracked.

    Parent

    The primary is coming up in (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    first of next year. The ministers are already ralling the troups and the candidates are courting evangelical ministers for their endorsements. And courting evangelical voters. Why would you think evangelicals are not paying attention? I'm sure the rest of the GOP which is about not evangelical probably is not but the primaries are heavy with evangelicals.

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:27:00 PM EST
    Because, like most other people, they are not posting attention.  Period.  Maybe the ministers and activists are, but, likeost other people, evangelicals are thinking about summer vacation, parties, paying the mortgage, end of school year activities, etc.

    Also, the math isn't in their favor.  Even assuming you are right, and they all pay full attention for the next year, they split the evangelical vote at least 5 ways between Cruz. dantorum, Perry, Huckabee, and Walker. Add in Rubio and others to be named layer, it further dilutes those votes.  ( You, of course, are also assuming that all Evangelicals who vote in the general will vote in the primaries.  Not gonna happen).

    Your math doesn't add up.

    Parent

    Yikes. Typos. (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    Will religious right votefor (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    Catholic convert Jeb Bush over HRC?   Do they really dislike George W. Bush all that muc?

    Parent
    But, Jeb (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    is the Hispanic Bush. He's different, the smart one.

    Parent
    Some of them will (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    The religious right is also made up of conservative Catholics.

    Parent
    If he gets the nomination, I expect his Catholicis (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    will trump HRC's Protestant background for evangelical conservative voters. Now Rev. Wright should have thrilled them.

    Parent
    It isn't about religion with most Conservatives (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    Until they get to the white Conservative candidates :). Then religion becomes a quantity :)

    I don't think the Indy vote that Hillary or Jeb would fight for cares a bit about their faith.

    Parent

    The irony (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    about indies is one poll I saw had them liking the GOP even less than Dems.

    Parent
    The GOP is so crazy anymore (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    And they don't even realize it.

    Parent
    Jeb (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    being Catholic is going to be a problem for him with evangelicals especially with the new pope.

    Parent
    It's never been a problem (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    For Santorum with evangelicals.

    And they love them some Scalia, Thomas, and Alito too.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    was with the old pope who aligned with all their priorities. The new pope they are calling a communist.

    Parent
    Are any of them (none / 0) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    women, named CLINTON?%$#@#$%????

    lol, realistically, they would vote for Lucifer before pulling the handle for Hillary.

    imo, naturally

    Parent

    Funny... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    ...maybe she could go back to Rodham or maybe Bill could have an unfortunate accident and she can find a Bush to marry.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton Bush 2016 !!

    Parent

    I think Neil is available (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    Maybe a Gay Marriage... (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    ...to make it interesting, if there is one thing conservatives hate more than a Black Kenyan Communist Muslim...  it would be a gay married Clinton, ops, I mean Bush.

    Neil probably thinks killing his wife would entitle him to the presidency.

    Parent

    you wrote:
    But this is unique in that he gave a statement before the evidence was known, and it's clear he lied about what happened after the scuffle.

    do you have a link to the cop's statement/incident report?

    I cannot find the actual report.

    Parent

    Me neither. And I've tried (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    to find it.  

    Parent
    Santorum just said that if he announces (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:46:58 AM EST
    Expect it around June.  And he won't be wearing any sweater vests this time.  What was the name of that one movie?  Oh yeah, Tropic Thunder :)

    Parent
    Santorum must have missed... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:49:10 AM EST
    the "never go full retard" memo;)

    Parent
    OMG... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:55:12 AM EST
    ...that movie was so underrated.  I keep imagining Santorum wearing a panda head and the tea party going absolutely crazy with glee over their candidate wearing an endangered species on his head.

    Parent
    I'm gonna rewatch it this weekend now (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    It's on Comedy Central... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    ...like every other Saturday.

    Robert Downy Jr is epic in that movie.  To play an Australian who thinks he is actually black because he playing a black guy...

    And a combed over hair wearing Tom Cruise playing a movie exec is the cherry topper.

    Parent

    See...I couldn't type that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    But it was exactly what I was thinking along the lines of, as well as how insane all the other candidates are.  Who is the Jack Black candidate in this clown car?

    Parent
    If you were thinking it... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    why couldn't you type it?  

    The PC Police with no regard for context haven't got you self-censoring, have they? ;)

    Parent

    I'm too PC about some things (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    Just one reason why I need you!

    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    Hang in there, recognition of context and intent might come back in style some day.

    Till then, f*ck 'em.

    Parent

    Kdog, please do me a favor (none / 0) (#131)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    And don't use the word "retard" any more.
    For those who are developmentally disabled, and for those of us in the special education field, this skates awfully close to words that have been used in the past to denigrate racial and religious minorities.
    It's insulting and hurtful to those who are developmentally disabled.


    Parent
    With all due love and respect... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 06:43:11 AM EST
    I can't grant you that favor...but I can promise to never use the word to denigrate a person who is mentally or physically challenged.

    Isn't the term "disabled" also frowned upon in some circles in this context?

    Parent

    Kdog (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:37:34 AM EST
      I'm not going to tell you what to say, but in deciding for yourself, you should consider that just because you don't use a pejorative term to describe a person with the condition the word was originally used to describe doesn't mean your use of it isn't hurtful to those with the condition. Using a word as an insult to someone who doesn't have the condition can be seen as implying having it makes a person inferior.

      Just food for thought.

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#162)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    Thank you, that's exactly the case.

    Parent
    the retarded (none / 0) (#134)
    by the capstan on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:05:56 PM EST
    Only insulting and hurtful to those who understand and care.  My daughter actually manages life in a group home quite well; most people, consequently, respond favorably to her.  I'm thankful there is a place like that and people like that.

    Parent
    Splits (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    So, if Mr. Santorum really gets in, from whom does he take votes? From among the lot of Huckabee, Rubio, and Cruz in terms of the more outspoken Evangelicals, I'm guessing. Meanwhile, Jeb potentially consolidates; Walker tries for a resurgence and a way to be the compromise with the sparring Evangelicals while also being ok to the $$$$ boys (Koch and beyond.)  As for Rand Paul: I'm guessing that he has some smoothing-out-consistencies business to do after the media's negative reports on his first-day interviews ... or else content himself with being Ron Paul all over again. (Of course, Rand could still surprise, but there seem to be too many traps that would preclude a breakout.)

    Jeb Bush really is beginning to look like an ad for Citizens United.  Without his bankroll and expected growing $$$$, he might already be in the third tier.  But, that kind of $$$$$ can outlast a lot, can bide the time, and usually prevails. IMO, the chance to upend Bush will depend on whether a challenger can position himself between the Evangelicals & the classical big $$$$$ ... Walker seems the most likely on the surface, but he really comes across as a sleaze (the modern day version of the 5 o'clock shadow image with the shyster face) and as one who is not that quick on his feet.

    An aside: With the Cuba news, does that have any effect on Bush or Rubio outside Florida? Would they seem out-of-touch, in any way ... even within their own party?  Or is it merely another pin-prick in Bush's side (those registration forms, emails, business reports, etc. pricks do add up in the early portrayal.)

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:07:17 AM EST
    the evangelicals are talking about rallying around a candidate early so that they will not get stuck with Jeb. Apparently the only people who like Jeb are fundraisers.

    And I have to wonder if Rubio doesn't take out Jeb for them. I can see both of them going into a death match in FL and maybe both taking themselves out.

    Parent

    This Bush-Rubio thing (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    As you suggest, Ga6th, could be more surprising than first appearances.  If Rubio recovers from his earlier less-than-impressive intro--and that recast is quite possible--Rubio could overcome Bush at home, and then, the dominoes might not stand long.

    In terms of image and presentation, Rubio doesn't have the baggage that burdens Bush (at least, it hasn't been publicized yet.) And, I have wondered: (A) What would have motivated the Rubio plunge into candidacy when his good buddy/maybe mentor Bush is running unless there have been samplings and overtures of the kind that overcome political friendship; and, (B) Awhile back, ole' Walker starts mentioning Rubio in positive terms and in complimentary ways, etc. ... hmmm, there could be the alignment of circumstances.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    his intro is going to alter anything in regards to the Florida primary but I do think he has a good shot at taking FL in the GOP primary from Jeb. Rubio is currently in office and Jeb is more or less a has been from a nationally reviled family.

    Parent
    Where does Jeb Bush live? (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    Not going to have an all-Florida ticket (and, unless Jeb moves or has an address somewhere else that he can make his primary, it's not a constitutionally viable the ticket.)

    Parent
    I don't think Rubio can overcome (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    The Bush money machine.  Bush doesn't have to beat Rubio at home to keep partying on unless the money leaves him.  Both Bush and Rubio stand a chance of carrying Florida in a general election which is a vital GET, but Bush can lose a lot of state primaries and still be out there partying it up like the chosen one...the force/the money is with him.  He has purchased momentum as long as the money stays with him.

    Parent
    Clinton and Bush... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    should just break bread together and team-up to form the Wall St. Super Ticket...so the rest of us on both sides of the ideological divide have a chance at actual representation on economic issues in the White House.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:12:46 PM EST
    ...Clinton Prez and Bush VP, then every four swap positions.  If they were to spend a billion each per election, that save $8B and a whole lot less drinking on my part.

    Parent
    huh (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    ...a whole lot less drinking on my part.
    It would be a whole lot more on my part.

    :)

    Parent

    Unless (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Rubio is the one who will help get rid of Jeb. Now that would make sense.

    Parent
    Yup - a Walker-Rubio ticket (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    is probably their best shot at winning.

    Parent
    And that's a poor (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    one at that. A nominee with a criminal indictment hanging over his head? I really don't think Walker is going anywhere and the Walker "boomlet" seems to be over according to the likes of Michelle Malkin. It seems they are all pushing Cruz.

    Parent
    Scott Walker...I don't think he's a remotely (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    Ready for prime time candidate.  He might have some money behind him.  He isn't polished though.

    Parent
    Light-bulb moment, Ga6th (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    Rubio ... Today, I'm struck by the "fact" (in my mind, anyway) that--IF Marco Rubio doesn't fall over his feet this time--he is the one that could pull it together for the party.  Stream of consciousness: What is Rubio's gambit ... is he the fallback if Bush flags ... Marco can look the part (plus photogenic family)... the Hispanic vote ...he made a short-lived but not-too-bad attempt to be a moderate on the Senate immigration reform committee ... could be forming a loose alliance with Wisconsin ... for a Repub candidate these days, does not come across as frightening, mean, etc. (a low-bar, I know, but a difference in the field)... an overall acceptable personal quality, potentially.

    I must take a shower and go for another walk ... or, I'll go further down that rabbit-hole.

    Parent

    I just don't (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    see Rubio as having much of a constituency in the GOP these days outside of Florida.

    Parent
    VP (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:22:05 AM EST
    I just love reading (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:16:11 PM EST
    all about what a group of people you folks know nothing about will do.

    lol

    Jeb won't be nominated. You're wasting your time dissing him.

    Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Huckabee make good copy but won't be nominated.

    My money is still on Walker, if for no other reason than he is resisting going on the Glen Beck show.

    And a women for VP is a shoo in.

    Parent

    Do you think (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    they're going to nominate someone who is under criminal investigation?

    And no, it's not that we don't know anything but that we are getting our information from conservative sites. I guess you think people like Michelle Malkin is an idiot? I would agree except that the one thing she seems to know something about is the GOP primary even if she doesn't know much about anything else.

    Parent

    I didn't know Bill was running (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:53:26 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    Don't try humor, Jim (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:54:31 PM EST
    The only time you're funny is when you're not trying.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:11:26 AM EST
    you have no answer?

    Walker is not going to be your nominee. I can see that already. The few minutes he's been on the national stage he's shown himself to definitely be second rate not ready for prime time.

    Parent

    Ga, the thingee you keep mouthing (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    about is as dead as Rover..

    Yman, sorry, but you always give me a case of the giggles... now, who was it that called you a what???

    Not me.

    lol

    Parent

    Jim do you want to buy my rock? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    It does keep away bears and Far Lefties. 😋

    Parent
    You should - you do it all the time (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:53:31 PM EST
    You're always prattling on about what liberals think ... always without a clue.  Not to mention the fact that you're now speaking for Republicans, when you have stated repeatedly that you're not a Republican but an "independent" and "social liberal".

    Hard to keep it all straight, huh, Jim?

    heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Clinton numbers slipping in key states (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 11:15:53 PM EST
    according to Quinnipiac Poll. This article's title is: "Hillary Clinton tumbles in new poll, as e-mail scandal lingers".

    The article leads with:

    "Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal has eaten into her poll ratings on issues like trust and honesty. For the first time, a new poll shows the GOP presidential field edging ahead of her in hypothetical matchups in key swing states."

    Ga6, weren't you telling us that the email scandal wasn't impacting Clinton and that she had an insurmountable lead?

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:49:40 AM EST
    but one poll does not a trend make:

    Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, Clin­ton continues to hold a commanding lead in the competition for her party's presidential nomination. She has a 6-to-1 advantage over Vice President Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, neither of whom has announced plans to run. Those who have expressed interest -- former senator James Webb of Virginia, former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) -- are in the low single digits.

    Tested against four possible Republicans in a general election -- Bush, Cruz, Walker and Rubio -- Clinton holds double-digit leads in every case. Bush does marginally better than the others but trails by 53 percent to 41 percent among registered voters, while Cruz runs weakest at 54 percent to 37 percent.

    That's from last week.  12 points isn't insurmountable, but it is a challenge,  even this early out the gate.


    Parent

    It is early and none of the Republicans are that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:05:50 AM EST
    well known. From the article on the Wa Post poll, "Most Republicans are not well known, but at this point".

    Also from that article, "Her favorability rating has dropped nine points in the past year and 18 points since she left the State Department in 2013."

    My points are not that Hillary doesn't have a good lead and won't win. My points are that Ga6 is incorrect in thinking the email matter hasn't and won't hurt her, her lead is insurmountable, and the Republicans have no chance. The email matter plays into the thinking that she can't be trusted, and it's still very early in the election.

    Also notice that the WA Post poll was done March 26-29, before Rand Paul announced. Perhaps not a big deal, but still a fact.

    Parent

    Oh, yeah, Rand Paul (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:27:39 AM EST
    And the other members of the Republican Clown Car Brigade just don't have the name recognition, which is why Hillary mops the floor with them in a general election according to a poll that only 2 weeks old, and therefore not representative of trends like the one you cite here is.

    Are you this stupid in real life?

    Parent

    Look forward to two years (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:11:46 AM EST
    of every tiny bump in the road to the Oval Office for Hillary beng hailed as her Waterloo.

    Parent
    Well, I'm going to need (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by fishcamp on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    some fast answers Monday morning at the gym, that's 100% Republican weight lifters.  Of course, not one of them can answer why it is they hate Hillary.  As soon as I walk in the door they start with, he voted for Obama, so he's gonna vote for Hillary too, and we'll be even more doomed.  Individually I can usually conquer their ideas, but they know that, and fire off questions and statements rapid fire, to confuse me.  If anybody wants to come down for a free tarpon fishing trip, it will include a trip to the gym with me for backup.  One of the main ones still thinks the WMD's were spirited to Syria.  It's hard to fix stupid.

    Parent
    My Old Watering Hole... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    ...was plagued by the same types after work, they would come in for a couple beers, rant about democrats, then leave.

    Same thing, when I walked in, they would purposely talk to each other loudly and obviously meant for me.  One in particular was a AM radio devote and would bring up stuff I had never heard of, plus he was very good at arguing.

    What really bothered me about the situation was other people, most of whom were my friends, would act like they didn't hear anything.  Which was wise, but I can't let anyone just sit there an lie about democrats.

    After a while, I realized that a couple bucks for the juke box and some metal or rap would drive the old geezer out pretty fast.  And without him the rest were pretty quiet.

    I actually stopped going there after about 3 years of Obama.  I started realizing that Obama was not a liberal and GD if I was going to start agreeing with them about Obama, although it was for entirely different reasons.  Plus I moved.

    Parent

    You should've come to my bar ... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:57:15 PM EST
    ... whenever I held court as barkeep, because I kept a very tight lid on both politics and religion as topics for general discussion.

    I didn't overtly forbid them per se, but I both reserved and exercised my right to call timeout whenever I saw that someone was clearly annoying other patrons with his loudmouthed opinions. And quite honestly, 95% of the time that blowhard would be male. Whenever that happened, I'd politely pull him aside and inform him of his two choices. Either he found another subject to talk about, or he needed to finish his drink and leave.

    I think most longtime bartenders would probably agree with me that there's no easier way to maximize potential for some serious fisticuffs, than to allow gratuitous alcohol consumption to influence public discussion about either of those two aforementioned subjects.

    That combination is a toxic brew and seriously, no bartender in the City and County of Honolulu wants a brawl to break out on his or her designated watch. Failure to maintain order in your own bar is a good way to get the City Liquor Commission to consider revoking your yellow card, which anyone who serves liquor professionally on Oahu must obtain from the City and County as a condition for employment.

    And if you lose your yellow card, you're out of a job, because C&C ordinance provides that any licensed establishment found to have an unregistered employee serving liquor may be subject to a 30-day suspension of its liquor / cabaret license, and a possible $5,000 fine. For any subsequent offenses, one is subject to an immediate suspension of one's license pending an administrative hearing on the matter.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Turn the conversation (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    to fishing and don't take the bait ;)

    Me, I'm not too worried about encountering stupid too much where I live, but dogs and gardening/cooking will be my go to :P

    I plan on not getting sucked in this time around. Not worth the headache, especially if she gets elected and we have 4-8 years of this sh!t flying around . . . just gonna smile and nod at their high blood pressure and stupidity :)

    Parent

    There really are (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    Millions of other things to talk about besides politics.  :)

    Parent
    It's even harder (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    when one of the inspectors admit there was satellite info showing a lot of activity that backs up Iraq's no 2 air guy who said they went to Syria.

    And now this.

    Oh, I know that doesn't fit the PC version of the "facts" any more than Iran now saying all those intrusive inspections can't be done on their military bases.

    Parent

    Hard to know which is funnier (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:25:13 PM EST
    that you read this crap or that you imagine for whatever reason that other people will.

    But I do love your links. Dont stop.

    Parent

    I think the same (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:49:49 PM EST
    thing. I can't believe how the GOP has these people fooled. I really want them to go public on this kind of stuff and talk about how Syria hid the WMDs and in the next presidential election.

    Parent
    Got this quote out of it (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:30:00 PM EST

    "I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety.

    Also

    Saddam Did No Such Thing Because That Would Be Ridiculous

    One of those people is Kris Alexander, an officer in the U.S. Army, writing in Wired's Danger Room today. Alexander says if  you think about this theory logically, it makes no sense.. First, it's illogical to think that in 2003 with the U.S. on the brink of invading, Saddam would give up the one thing that would raise the stakes of a U.S.-led invasion. But that's not the only reason this theory is illogical, he argues:

     Second, let's say that Saddam wasn't so concerned about the Americans -- a miscalculation that Saddam seems to have made. That's actually not a rationale for transferring weapons to Syria. Just like in 1991, he faced the collapse of his regime. Except back then, he slaughtered jubilant Shiites and used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Why, in 2003, would Saddam give up the worst threat he could make against his people?

        Third, the Iraqi Ba'athists and Syrian Ba'athists are far from allies.  Syria's Allawites are minority Shiites and proxies to Iraq's arch-enemy Iran. They fought on the allied side against Iraq during Desert Storm.  Why would Saddam turn over his deadliest weapons Iran's best friend in the region? Remember: Saddam says he made his WMD threats to cower the Iranians.
    (ed)
        Fourth, from a U.S. military perspective, the transfer would have been impossible to hide.  I worked at U.S. Central Command's Mideast headquarters before, during, and after the invasion, which gave me a good understanding of what was going on at the time.  The region was blanketed by U.S. military assets.  Operation Enduring Freedom was in full swing in Afghanistan, and Operations Northern and Southern Watch were still in place over Iraq.  If something moved -- like, say a convoy of Winnebagos of Death heading for Syria -- it could be detected and killed.(ed)


    While Alexander makes a number of persuasive points, this 9-year-old theory clearly isn't going to be settled by a debate. Intriguingly, it might not have to be. With Assad's regime in limbo, and claims from global figures that it's just a "matter of time" before Assad is gone, some international body could theoretically investigate the stockpile in the next year if the Assad regime crumbles. Wouldn't that be interesting...



    Parent
    Morediggian, if you could put (none / 0) (#155)
    by Green26 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    your post in English, I might be able to respond to it.

    You do realize that most of what i posted were quotes from articles? Perhaps you should contact the authors to ask them if they are stupid in life.

    I attended an Ivy and Stanford. What schools did you attend that have made you so smart?

    Parent

    I went to the Harvard of the Midwest (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    and I've known several Stanford graduates who couldn't pour p*ss out of a boot without instructions.  

    One of them was my first guidance counselor who taught at my public high school.  Fortunately, my second GC wasn't a Stanford grad.

    Parent

    Apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    Green26 failed to remember that George W. Bush went to two Ivies, Yale and Harvard.
    That certainly didn't make Bush any kind of savant.

    Parent
    No such thing as Harvard of the Midwest (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Green26 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    so I assume you must be embarrassed to name your school. Sorry but no Stanford law graduate ever became a guidance counselor.

    I'm still waiting for you to put your earlier post into English, so that it might be understandable. It's pretty funny when someone who can't put 2 or 3 understandable sentences together tries to call out someone else.

    Some Stanford law info from the website:

    Graduate Facts

        Percentage of students placed in jobs within 9 months of graduation: 98%

        Median starting salary for a Stanford Law graduate in the class of 2011: $160K

        Number of consecutive years Stanford Law graduates have clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court: 39

        Stanford Law alumni serve or have served as general counsels of most of the major high-tech companies, including Microsoft, Google, Cisco, eBay, Yahoo!, Qualcomm, Oracle, and Genentech.

        With a zeal for pioneering and a Stanford Law education, female graduates have set remarkable precedents, including:
            first U.S. Secretary of Education (Shirley Hufstedler '49),
            first female appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor '52),
            first female chair of national firm (Mary Cranston '75).


    Parent

    You are apparently the dumbest person (none / 0) (#194)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 07:24:48 AM EST
    to ever graduate from Stanford Law School then, so congratulations in achieving such a unique status.

    As for The Harvard of the Midwest, here's a clue, Poindexter.

    Parent

    Green26 (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    If you disagree with him you will have a follower for life.

    ;-)

    Mondriggian, you copy:

    One of those people is Kris Alexander, an officer in the U.S. Army, writing in Wired's Danger Room today. Alexander says if  you think about this theory logically, it makes no sense.. First, it's illogical to think that in 2003 with the U.S. on the brink of invading, Saddam would give up the one thing that would raise the stakes of a U.S.-led invasion.

    It makes perfect sense when you consider that Saddam thought the US would invade and after beating his army we'd let him off the hook again.

    Parent

    Heh - no evidence to ... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    ... support your latest tinfoil conspiracy theory, so now you're resorting to reading Saddam's mind.

    It's almost too funny to read.

    Parent

    Except the ostensible stated purpose (none / 0) (#171)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:34:26 PM EST
    Of the invasion were the WMD, so your remark makes no sense whatsoever.

    Glad to clear that up for you.

    Parent

    The only (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:15:36 AM EST
    people who care about the email thing are the far right. I guess you didn't know that Trey Gowdy wanted to have a closed door meeting with Hillary and she said she would meet with him but she wanted it to be out in the open with public access. Kinda blows up the whole GOP secrecy thing now doesn't it.

    The GOP has massive problems according to the latest pew poll, problem that are not going to be overcome by calling Hillary names or by any of their clown car candidates because none of them have the guts to throw George W. Bush in the trash can and do a sister souljah on the tea party whackos.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:52:24 AM EST
    this is apparently the new GOP talking point however that poll also shows the GOP not being able to take VA which they have to have to win and losing Ohio which they also must have. No matter what Hillary's numbers are the GOP seems to max out at 42% which I guess is their ceiling.

    Parent
    I heard about this all Morning on Joe (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:16:04 AM EST
    She hasn't even announced.  No governing issue has been approached or addressed.  The only person talking right now is Rand Paul, but he's already running away from what he considers questions that need an editor :)

    Morning Joe is so schizophrenic today, rambling and mumbling about how being the front runner early out is a secret death knell (for Clinton) to being excited that Rand Paul might be the early front runner

    Sing it Gnarls Barkley... Crazy

    Parent

    This is the One... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    ...that always reminds me of the clown car brigade:
    Standing in the shower thinking
    About what makes a man
    An outlaw or a leader
    I'm thinking about power...
    The ways a man could use it
    Or be destroyed by it
    The water hits my neck
    And I'm p1ssing on myself...

    Standing
    In the shower
    Thinking...


    ---------------

    Paul's got lady problems.

    It wasn't the first time Paul had lost his cool with a female interviewer, and Kelly questioned whether the presidential candidate was ready for the pressure of the campaign trail.

    "I don't think it makes for good TV on both sides. And I do lose my cool," said Paul, noting that nobody wants to watch "yelling."

    "Those women were not yelling at you," Kelly said, referring to the interview with Guthrie, as well as with CNBC's Kelly Evans.

    "Do you regret shushing the reporter?" Kelly asked. "Savannah Guthrie's not exactly known for her aggressive unfairness."

    "I think the question was unfair," Paul responded. "Do I think that I responded appropriately? You know, I would rather not have contentious interviews. I'd rather do 30 minutes with Charlie Rose, laid back in a lazy boy chair."

    "The question some people are asking about you is whether you're ready for prime time because it's only going to get worse," Kelly said.

    There is one thing I can't stand, it's people who ask a question, then answer it.  But above Paula asks, 'Do I think that I responded appropriately?', then proceeds to provide an answer that is unrelated.  What a tool.  Definitely not ready for prime time, but I wouldn't call an interview with Guthrie prime time.  She is one of these worst interviewers I can remember, how she replaced Ann Curry is beyond me.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:03:50 AM EST
    watching that show was like living in LA.  I always knew I hated it but I did not really understand how much until I stopped watching it.  I'm a much happier person now.

    Now I see those stupid "model" shots of banjo boy and the original blond and it just makes me giggle.

    Parent

    lol!~ (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    I was SO happy when I moved out of LA. I thought I could live there because I was born there. WRONG. I lasted a bit under 2 years trying to convince myself I could do it . . .

    Parent
    My husband puts it on in the morning (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:23:22 AM EST
    Because I get right out of bed.  My aim when throwing things laying down just isn't what it used to be.

    Leading up to the last Presidential election I would get up yelling at the TV. He'd be in the bathroom shaving and smirking because he had been up since 5 am for PT.  Hey, I'm not the idiot who decided to be a soldier!  It's not my fault he sees the sun rise every day.

    Parent

    The Comedians (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 07:28:47 PM EST
    Billy Crystals new show starts tonight on FX.  Followed by the season premier of Louie.  Probably the funniest thing on TV

    I love Louie, not all the excited about (none / 0) (#11)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:56:43 PM EST
    The Comedians.  Let me know if it's any good.    

    Parent
    Dang, I forgot about Louie..hope my Tivo (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    is still set from last season.

    The ads fro The Comedians have been spoiling my Justified viewing for months. That looks like a truly horrible show.

    Parent

    I think horrible (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    is the goal.  I just curious.

    Parent
    I mean horrible in a bad way...:-) (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    Speaking of which, did you happen to watch 'The Slap'. good lord, that was baaaaaad

    Parent
    No saw some of the original (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    so I knew better

    Parent
    Regarding the NC police shooting indictment (none / 0) (#14)
    by Redbrow on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:58:32 AM EST
    Does it include lesser offenses if they are unable to prove first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

    he has not been indicted (none / 0) (#18)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:16:18 AM EST
    SC does not have degrees of murder.
    It essentiallly is a common law state-- murder and manslaughter with malice aforethought being the distinguishing element. Murder is punishable bydeath or30 to life; MS by 2-30.  

    Assuming he is indicted for murder, whether a lesser included instruction is given would depend on whether a party requests it and the judgess determines the facts adduced at trial support the charge.

    Parent

    Offered without much comment (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    At least he didn't murder anybody... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    NYPD Detective caught on candid camera with sticky fingers, stealing almost 3 grand from a deli after a bust for selling under-taxed cigarettes.

    In this age of increased documentation of brutal police, does that make him one of the "good" ones?

    Prohibition and/or over-taxation = widespread corruption...every damn time. Will we ever wise up?

    25 Maps That Help Explain Texas (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    Is the title to this LINK.

    It's actually pretty cool to see old land maps and various other US maps.  Doesn't really explain anything about Texas, but interesting.

    Let's say that Scott did have the taser at some point during the scuffle (from the vid, it looks like he probably did).

    Would Scott's having possession of the taser reach the legal level of validating the cop's reasonable belief of danger of significant bodily harm or death to himself?

    Then, from the video, it seems pretty clear that when Scott turned to run, the taser and something else simultaneously hit the ground. (Maybe the taser broke? Maybe it had some sort of case or attachment or something that got separated before the pieces hit the ground?)

    Anyway, as it seems the taser was the core of the tussle at that point in time, I would assume that the cop saw the taser hit the ground and/or could see that Scott no longer had the taser in his hand as Scott turned and ran, before the cop started firing.

    Assuming that the taser was on the ground, on a legal level would that invalidate the argument by the cop that he reasonably felt he or others were in danger?

    Having just seen the dashcam video ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    ... from Officer Slager's vehicle, my question is this: Why did Slager willingly chase Scott, when the latter had clearly panicked by bolting from his car for some still-unknown reason?

    I mean, Scott's flight from the scene effectively left both his vehicle and his driver's license in possession of the police. Slager and his colleagues would therefore know who he was and likely where he lived. So where exactly did Scott think he was running to?

    Unless Scott was planning on sprinting nonstop to the Mexican border, once he eventually calmed down and started thinking rationally, he would've likely understood the hard reality of his situation. Eventually, he had to go home, and / or come to the police station to reclaim the property he so hastily abandoned without aforethought.

    Hindsight's always 20 /20, for sure, but I believe that in this particular situation, Officer Slager clearly failed to demonstrate common sense and proper discretion of judgment. Had he done so, he'd have realized that time was actually on his side here. It would've been far better and safer for him to have just let Scott go for now, and then catch him on the rebound.

    Sometimes I think that these guys have been watching too many police dramas on TV. In mindless choosing to give chase like that, they don't first pause to consider whether the possible reward to be gained by a subject's immediate apprehension is clearly worth the inherent risk to be incurred, were such a pursuit to possibly go awry.

    You live in Los Angeles, where vehicular chases by law enforcement often provide great fodder and filler for primetime local newscasts. Look at how many of them over the years have ended tragically, with some bystander(s) getting maimed or even killed for no apparent reason, other than the mutual endorphine rushes being experienced by both the pursuer and the pursued.

    Police academy instructors really ought to do a much better job in first assessing their officer candidates' respective capacities for quickly performing a reliable cost / benefit analysis when confronted with a given situation, before ever allowing them to don the badge and assume their official duties.

    Because really, nobody wins when Elmer Fudd, Wile E. Coyote and Yosemite Sam are on the job, except perhaps Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Cops are like dogs, bears, and mountain lions; you run and they chase you out of reflex.

    Anyway, my interest is more about what could be the outcome of a legal trial based on what probably actually happened, and not so much about imagining about what could have been.

    If Scott had the taser, at that point in time is the cop's fear of imminent harm or death, resulting in a fatal shooting, justified?

    If Scott then dropped the taser and ran away, at that point in time is the cop's fear of imminent harm or death, resulting in a fatal shooting, justified?

    Parent

    "according to Scott"? (none / 0) (#132)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:00:38 PM EST
    He's dead. When did he supposedly say this?

    Parent
    No, I haven't seen it yet (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:26:52 PM EST
    Thanks for the reference, it sounded odd and like the info could be second hand (the officer said . . . ) kinda thing (since Scott is dead).

    Parent
    ... for his lack of insurance coverage on the vehicle that he was either buying the car from someone, or he had already bought it, when Slager asked him for proof of insurance. Clearly, he failed to get his story straight.

    I'll be honest with you, nycstray. Having seen what I have thus far, and as appalling as Slager's actions were in response to Scott running off down the alley, I believe that Scott does bear at least a portion of responsibility for the chain of events which led to the physical confrontation. And I think saracastic is asking some good questions.

    Why didn't Scott just stay in the car, as he was ordered? Certainly, I would think that a 50-year-old man who's been driving for several decades should know that when you're pulled over by an officer for a perceived traffic or vehicular violation, you don't get out of your vehicle unless the officer asks you to do so.

    That said, he certainly didn't deserve to be shot in the back multiple times for what started out as a broken taillight and lack of auto insurance. Slager's own reaction was way over the top, and turned what was initially broad farce into a needlessly deadly tragedy. We deserve far better from law enforcement than what we saw on display that day.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    All actions have consequences, but (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    in an interaction between a citizen and a police officer, it's the cop who is supposed to have the training and education to de-escalate and check the emotion and fear that can turn an otherwise "routine" stop into something deadly.

    i think what gives me the most pause, though, is the utter lack of concern for Scott's condition; it's as if he was a dog gunned down in the street.  No one checks on him, no one renders any kind of aid.  What does this say about this officer and others who arrived on the scene?

    And that scene filmed from the air.  Lordy.  Guy goes to the ground, puts his hands behind his back, and what happens?  He gets tased, and then he gets kicked and punched.  And then more deputies join in - there were 11 members of law enforcement ganging up on one man who had "assumed the position."

    So, I have to ask: how do these kinds of encounters give the general public any confidence that they can interact with the police without ending up dead?

    Parent

    In LE Serve and Protect is selective (none / 0) (#148)
    by Palli on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:08:47 AM EST
    Many people are now thinking in different terms. Is a police violent action avoidable?  There are too many ways to claim a police action "necessary & justifiable". A PO can fear for personal safety with or without reason and it is given credence. Anyway, in PO killings, the dead person cannot express fear. Yet somehow the actions of a civilian afraid of an impending police is discounted: "Why didn't Scott just stay in the car." White privilege gives many of us confidence for compliance. But I can assure you, many other Americans have no such confidence.

    PO Slager could have avoided shooting Walter Scott in the back 9 times. Anyone who believes otherwise is inhumane.

    Why would anyone believe this is an unavoidable killing when: 1.) the officer lies about planting a taser, 2) another officer lies about giving medical attention to the victim; 3.) unarmed Walter Scott was shot in the back and, 4.) there is an unexplained gap in the dash cam recording of the traffic stop just prior to the victim fleeing?

    A Police Officer is not judge, jury and executioner. How many times does this have to be said?

    Parent

    1.) the officer lies about planting a taser, 2) another officer lies about giving medical attention to the victim; 3.) unarmed Walter Scott was shot in the back and, 4.) there is an unexplained gap in the dash cam recording of the traffic stop just prior to the victim fleeing?

    I've seen these claims a few times (#1 & #2). Are they from some statement the cop submitted? Do you have a link to that actual statement? I have looked but cannot find it.

    Regarding 4, I've seen several (3-4) versions of the dashcam vid, the longest one starts while Scott is still a block or two from the auto parts store. I did not notice an "unexplained gap" in any of the versions I saw, can you link us to a vid showing that gap.

    Regarding #3, he was not only unarmed, he was also not threatening at the time he was shot, imo.

    Parent

    Did Officer Stager at the time he (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    fired his gun, know that Mr. Scott was "unarmed"?

    Parent
    He obviously didn't (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:10:29 AM EST
    think so because he planted the taser for his alibi against Scott.

    Why do you feel inclined to try to defend what appears to be cold-blooded murder on the video showing what happened?

    Parent

    Why are you so confident (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    what the officer picked up and placed by Mr. Scott was Stager's taser?

    Parent
    Occam's razor. From the NYT (none / 0) (#159)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:37:53 AM EST

    The video begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Officer Slager fired his Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Mr. Scott's body as the two men tussle and Mr. Scott turns to run.

    Something -- it is not clear whether it is the stun gun -- is either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men and Officer Slager draws his gun, the video shows. When the officer fires, Mr. Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.

    At 12:27 (9:38 a.m.), as the other officers try to find Slager, he says, "shots fired. Subject is down. He grabbed my Taser."



    Parent
    Let's please not resort to hyperbole. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    Mordiggian 88: "Why do you feel inclined to try to defend what appears to be cold-blooded murder on the video showing what happened?"

    sarcastic's asking legitimate questions about what may or may not have gone down, even if such questions may not be answerable right now given what's in public evidence thus far. He's neither defending nor condoning the officer's actions.

    Parent

    I was responding to oculus, (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    But now that my comment has been disappeared I can't prove that was the case.

    Thanks, Obama!

    Parent

    Actually, it wasn't (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    So you can see that I had and have no quarrel with anything SUO has written on this thread.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by sj on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 12:12:55 AM EST
    You're going with that?
    Did Officer Stager at the time he  (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:59:52 AM MDT

    fired his gun, know that Mr. Scott was "unarmed"?

    What could he have thought? That Scott had a second pair of arms pointing backwards bearing arms with which to shoot him as he ran away???  How many arms did he need?

    Parent
    Who would be in danger of (none / 0) (#136)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    "imminent harm or death," the cop, or some innocent folks where Scott was running towards?

    Are you hypothesizing that Scott, if he had the taser on him, could/would be a danger to people he came across?

    Parent

    You are kidding, right? (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:12:29 PM EST
    I'm not a cheerleader, for any viewpoint. I'm interested in the fact-based legalities of potential/probable court-room scenarios of this case. Where the legal lines are drawn. What positions the prosecution and defense may well take in court.

    The only thing I'm hypothesizing right now is that you apparently do not have the capacity to do the same. I would be happy to be wrong.

    Parent

    I don't know what your problem is, (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    and now, I don't care.

    I asked a serious question to clarify something you stated that I  didn't quite understand. Why that elicited a childish tantrum from you is a question I don't need an answer to.

    Maybe another day.

    Parent

    OK, maybe because of some previous (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:49:30 AM EST
    commenter's responses in the previous thread to me on this subject I read something into your comment that you did not intend.

    If so, I do apologize.

    I am not intending to hypothesize anything, please do not characterize my comments as an attempt to do so, especially as an attempt to impose a point of view via the hypothesis.

    Based on the video it seems probable that Scott likely had the cop's taser at one point during the scuffle, and then lost possession of it just as he started to run again.

    Based on that I am interested in the objective legal aspects of the law, ie, the presumed defense, based on law, that the cop will claim he reasonably feared that he was in danger of bodily harm or death, or that someone else was/could be put in that danger, due to the decedent's actions, and therefor the cop was justified in killing him.

    That is, essentially, the law. If the jury agrees that the cop reasonably feared the above, then they (should) find he was justified in shooting Scott. If the jury does not agree that he had reasonable fear, then they (should) find he was not justified in shooting Scott.

    so, does that defense hold sway, legally, during a scuffle when the other party has the cop's taser and is attempting to shoot the cop with it?

    Does that defense hold sway, legally, after a scuffle is finished and the other party has dropped the taser and is running away?

    Parent

    "Probable"? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    Based on the video it seems probable that Scott likely had the cop's taser at one point during the scuffle, and then lost possession of it just as he started to run again.

    Where does the video show that?!?


    so, does that defense hold sway, legally, during a scuffle when the other party has the cop's taser and is attempting to shoot the cop with it
    ?

    The video doesn't back up this scenario, but assuming this is just a hypothetical, the officer could certainly make an argument that he was in fear for his life and that the fear was reasonable, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.  It would depend on all of the circumstances

    Does that defense hold sway, legally, after a scuffle is finished and the other party has dropped the taser and is running away?

    No.  If the danger (assuming there ever was one) has passed and the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly force is no longer justified.  The fleeing suspect has to present a threat of death or serious bodily injury.  If someone points a gun at you you would generally be justified in using deadly force in self defense.  If they drop the gun and are running away, the threat is gone along with the justification.  This might vary in some jurisdictions if the person was in your home.  In some jurisdictions, police officers can also use deadly force to stop a suspect fleeing from a violent felony.


    Parent

    To question to your hypothetical again: (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Palli on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    Do police officers believe that a taser is a lethal weapon when aimed at them but is not a lethal weapon when a police officer aims a taser at a citizen?


    Parent
    ... we should neither speculate about nor presume to know what someone else was thinking at a particular moment.

    It is certainly possible the Officer Slager felt endangered or threatened at the decisive moment of his physical confrontation with Walter Scott, when he made the fateful decision to open fire on the man.

    Whether or not his actions are actually justifiable within the totality of circumstances is another question entirely.

    I'm sure most everyone here has experienced at least one time in their lives, when their own initial base fears were subsequently proved to be completely unfounded.

    Would our acting upon our then-very real fears still be justified, even if those fears actually had no basis in fact and / or reality?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I don't agree with that (none / 0) (#168)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 02:07:58 PM EST
      Drawing inferences from facts relevant to behavior to determine an actor's state of mind is precisely what juries do.

      In some instances, including one likely very important here, juries are specifically told they can draw a state of mind inference if they find a certain "behavioral fact" to be proven.

      I mean that jury will be instructed that a person who intentionally employs a deadly weapon may be found to have intended the deadly result.

      A huge number of cases have no evidence as to sate of mind of the defendant when the act was committed except those circumstantially derived from his actions.

    Parent

    The taser itself may not be lethal... (none / 0) (#192)
    by unitron on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 05:43:36 AM EST
    ...but once you use it on a cop you can grab his gun while he's still twitching and kill him with that.

    So, yeah, a cop is right to fear someone with a taser.

    Parent

    grabbed tazer (none / 0) (#197)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 08:13:43 AM EST
    So, yeah, a cop is right to fear someone with a taser.

    I think that's why after Slager shot Scott he radioed in that he shot the suspect because he "grabbed his Tazer".

    That was going to be his justification for resorting to deadly force and he wanted it on record.

    If you grab the baton, pepper spray, Tazer  from the officer's belt, then according to rules of engagement as I understand them, the officer is authorized to pull his gun and shoot you.

    However what if, as in this case, the Tazer had already been pulled, and fired, and activated, and slapped away, and was lying on the ground behind them, and no longer useable and fearsome, when lethal force was then used.

    The fingerprints on the Tazer will be quite telling as well as which of the two had the Tazer prong marks on him.

    Parent

    Best point of the week, Palli. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    "Probable"? "Where does the video (none / 0) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 06:32:13 PM EST
    show that?!?"

    Right where the video captures both Scott and the cop just before Scott starts running.

    My suggestion is to find a good copy of the video and go frame by frame, especially at the point I described above. (I linked to a decent copy on the closed "SC Cop Charged" thread).

    From what I could see the cop is holding Scott's right wrist with his left hand and pulling it down such that it's pointed at the ground. The cop's right hand is on his far side, on or near his gun.

    A split second later Scott breaks free and two black items hit the ground hard. One between the two men, on the side where Scott's wrist was being held, and one behind the cop, also on the side where Scott's wrist was being held.

    Not sure how to explain two items, maybe the taser got broken?  Maybe the taser and some sort of attachment that fell off? Not sure.

    I believe Scott was holding it/them in his right hand before they hit the ground as that is the hand/wrist the cop was controlling by holding on to, and both of the cop's hands were already engaged with other stuff (Scott's wrist and the cop's gun)

    I said "Probable" because I accept that what I think I see on even the best copy I could find of a shaky cell phone video, may not be what actually happened.

    Anyway, at this point Scott runs and the cop shoots him.

    It is also pretty clear, from what I could see anyway, that the cop runs back and picks up one of the two black items which he then throws down near Scott's feet.

    Later, what I see in the video, is that he picked up a different black item from near Scott's right side, not from near his feet.

    And the video also shows that the black item he previously threw down by Scott's feet is clearly still laying there while the cop picks up the other item from near Scott's side.

    I appears that the cop makes a winding motion around the item he picked up, as though winding broken-off taser wires.

    As I write this, and really think it through, I realize that that could well mean Scott had the taser in his hand when he was shot.

    In fact, now that I think of it, maybe the two items that hit the ground hard, as I described above, may have been the part of the taser that discharges when it's fired.

    Anyway, the rest of your analysis is appreciated. ianal, so I don't know the legal ins and outs, but what you wrote makes logical sense.


    Parent

    times.

    Here is the version I've been watching. It's the clearest version I've been able to find, but it's still not great.

    Anyway, I now believe it does look like the cop threw the item down near Scott's side, not near his feet, and then picked up that same item. So I'm now thinking Scott did not have the taser in his hand when he was shot.

    There does seem to be an additional black object in the grass near Scott's feet though, no idea what that is.

    Looking at the vid, I think as Scott forcefully pulled his right wrist free from the cop's left hand, which was pulling Scott's wrist at a downward angle toward the ground, and as he pulled his right hand through the cop's grasped hand, probably the cop's clenched hand knocked or stripped the taser from Scott's hand forcefully in a downward angle.

    Parent

    is often blurry and jumpy...

    Parent
    Tazer (none / 0) (#191)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 01:15:03 AM EST
    I see no evidence in that video that the Tazer was in Scott's hands or had ever been.

    The Tazer wire runs from Scott's ankle up to Slager's hands where the unit probably had been before Scott knocked it out of his hands in the scuffle.

    When Slager runs back he goes all the way past the ballcap to that black thing [probably the Tazer] that was on the ground about 10 feet behind them as the video starts.

    Furthermore the Tazer had already been activated during the scuffle before the video starts. The videographer said he heard it zapping and someone screaming before he started recording.

     In other words the Tazer had already shot its wad and was no longer of any use as a weapon to Scott even if he had grabbed it at that point, unless he wanted to shock himself.

    Parent

    I watched a frame-by-frame ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    ... analysis of the video.  Neither the analysts nor I saw any evidence in the video that Scott had the officer's taser.

    Parent
    Same here (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:30:44 PM EST
    Agreed, see my comment #177. (none / 0) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:38:30 PM EST
    Can you link us to the analysis you viewed?

    What I am now noticing, at around 0:18-0:19 seconds, when the cop has his gun drawn and just before Scott disappears from view behind the tree, you can see what look like taser wire(s) stretching from Scott's feet/legs to what looks like the cop's chest/arms.

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:57:52 PM EST
    Thanks. Correction to my above "agreed." (none / 0) (#187)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:37:26 PM EST
    I agree it does not seem probably that Scott had the taser when he was shot.

    However, a couple objects hit the ground with some force as Scott appears to pull himself free from Slager's grip. Whatever the objects may be, it seems probable to me from the vid that they were originally in Scott's right hand.

    Parent

    Just a guess on my part... (none / 0) (#193)
    by unitron on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 06:43:44 AM EST
    ...but as to why Slager gave chase--

    The audio that goes along with the dash cam video is hard for me to hear clearly in some spots and impossible in others, but I got the impression that Scott was explaining that he hadn't taken care of the brake light problem because he had just bought the car, and then, when unable to provide any sort of paperwork on the car comes back with he hadn't actually bought it yet but was going to.

    So Slager has been given 2 different stories and no documentation on the vehicle, so I'm supposing he went back to his car to run the plate and see who really owned it and if it's stolen or been reported involved in anything, and to run Scott's operator's license, and see if there are any red flags associated with it.

    While he's doing that Scott goes to get out of the vehicle and is told to remain in it, but a few moments later gets back out and starts to run off.

    At that point Slager doesn't know why he's running, but it's not unreasonable for him to suspect that there's something he's about to find out and Scott wants to be beyond taking into custody range when he does find out.

    For all Slager knows, Scott just stole the car or killed someone or who knows what, and may be a danger to the next civilian he comes across, perhaps killing or injuring them in order to carjack them, or taking someone hostage.

    He doesn't know that to be true, but he also doesn't know it to be false, so he can't ignore the possibility.

    Parent

    First (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by Palli on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 07:25:03 AM EST
    This was an unnecessary trafic stop.
    South Carolina State Law
    Title 56- Motor Vehicles Code 56-5-4510
    The law requires an auto to be equipped with 1 tail light

    I am always amazed at the mental gymnastics that people go thru trying to understand why a human being is justified in shooting to kill another human being in the back. While at the same time not even considering or ignoring all the obvious  reasons the dead person might have had to try running away.

    For all Walter Scott knew, PO Slager was going to kill him.

    White Privlege.

    Parent

    traffic stops (none / 0) (#196)
    by Palli on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 07:50:37 AM EST
    Unnecessary traffic stops are often instigated by patrol boredom and department quotas. It is dangerous to arm PO officers whose disposition & training feeds off control, superiority & adrenaline. Training emphasizes target practice and quick action-not necessarily thinking.

    The fact that tasers are cumbersome, messy and carry no bravado should not be overlooked. It is much more macho to use a gun. Who gives claps on the back for a well-aimed taser wire?

    There are too many of these cops and it is easy to identify who they are. Listen in the locker room and the nearest cop bar. Why should the police union be the only hallowed union left? Although the self-serving paperwork is sometimes hard to find-the incident reports are there and the citizenry can collaborate the alternative truth.

    Parent

    "For all Slager knows"?!? (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    A police officer - or anyone for that matter - can't just assume that something may be true to justify the use of deadly force.  There are millions of "possibilities" that the officer can - and should ignore, without evidence to support them.

    Parent
    This from the DM (3.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 08:58:27 AM EST
    Scott on phone with mother during the stop

    The Mail has revealed that Walter speaking to his mother on his cell phone as he was stopped and told his mother police were pulling him over.

    Was she on the phone with him the whole time???

    What did they talk about that could have led him to take off running minutes later???

    Did she tell him to run or did she tell him to sit still and he disobeyed his mother???

    Parent

    Strange days (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    head transplant set to happen

    There's no telling what the transplant - and all the new connections and foreign chemicals that his head and brain will have to suddenly deal with - will do to Spiridonov's psyche, but as Hootan puts it rather chillingly, it "could result in a hitherto never experienced level and quality of insanity".


    I just (none / 0) (#121)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    heard a tape which exposes the fact that not only did Nixon conspire to try to extend the war in Vietnam by sabotaging the Peace talks of 1968 because he thought it would help him get elected, but also that both Johnson and Humphrey knew of it, but decided not to expose Nixon's treasonous action because it "would have shocked the country so, that he (Nixon) would be seriously hurt".

    Here is a link so that you can actually hear Johnson saying that last quote above.

    The fact that the country could be hurt by being kept in the dark was shunted aside in favor of protecting not only Nixon, but the spy program that discovered Nixon's nefarious actions. (Presumably FBI wire taps.)

    I know it is putting gasoline on the fire to say it, but this puts me in mind of Obama's call to "move on", instead of launching a full investigation into what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it.

    An informed citizenry has not been a priority of people in power for some time methinks.

    Some time, probably meaning forever (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:41:18 AM EST
    I think it is just in the DNA of the powerful that they think they know better than the rest of us, and that we will do something they don't want with the information. They have to be in control of every aspect, regardless of unintended consequences. Protecting other powerful people in the club seems second nature.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#149)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:27:44 AM EST
    there is an unfortunate part that we play in this repeating scenario - which is letting them get away with it.

    I don't blame us.
    But it is a fact.

    We have no leadership.

    And they keep us scared.

    Parent

    If you don't protect the other powerful in (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    The club, then there isn't a club :) Without clubs, what is a climber to do with themselves?  

    Parent
    If you don't protect the other powerful in (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:23:21 PM EST
    The club, then there isn't a club :) Without clubs, what is a climber to do with themselves?  

    Parent
    So, when are the cops going to learn (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:55:00 PM EST
    cameras are everywhere, including out in the hills?

    Just reading that (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    Black Lives Matter plans to start a campaign to get people to use their cameras/phones more.  Record everything.  Which I think I a great idea.  But then there is this-

    The Guy Who Filmed Eric Garner's Death Is Still Fighting To Get Out of Jail


    Parent

    Yeah, I saw that also (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:42:35 PM EST
    No wonder the SC guy is so scared. I was thinking we should all just wear body cameras, especially since cops won't and when they do, they mysteriously breakdown.

    But then again, the cops in the hills had to know there were cameras on them. Helicopters in the air and all . . .  doesn't seem to matter. Sad.

    Parent

    "Sickening" doesn't begin (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    to describe that scene. I saw that video, and all I could think of was that often used refrain, "don't broad-brush all cops for the actions of a very few."

    "Very few," my a$$! That scene is being replicated every day, in hundreds of places, day after day after day.

    This sadistic savagery will end when cops who witness other cops committing these crimes, and remain silent, start being arrested, prosecuted, and jailed.

    Until then, they're occupiers, not protectors.

    Parent

    Maher (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 06:29:31 PM EST
    on "religious freedom" laws

    This may leave some commenters here terribly conflicted since he bashes both them AND Muslim countries.

    He's finally (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    on the right track that fundamentalism is the problem. Unfortunately he's also wrong that we don't let fundamentalism rule us. So far as a country yes but there are many states where fundamentalism rules unfortunately.

    Parent
    No he is not wrong (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:30:14 PM EST
    as he said the biggest problem we currently have is cake.  If you think that is in any way equal to what gay face in the countries he named you are mistaken.
    His opening statement was dead on.  It's time for the right to admit they have lost when we are arguing about gay cakes.

    Parent
    He also (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:15:04 PM EST
    was talking about the guy in California that wanted to kill all the gays. I think Harris is taking him to court to keep it off the ballot.

    It's actually more than cakes with the religious freedom act. It's about women too and employers telling them what birth control they can use and all kinds of stuff beyond just gays. I mean the conservatives around here are talking about "protecting" Chick Fil A an Hobby Lobby neither of which do cakes.

    Parent

    And have any actually (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:21:32 PM EST
    passed?  Well one did and was quickly "fixed"

    You are missing the point.  Denying someone birth control or the other things these laws are meant to do, while not a good thing, is hard on the level of being summarily put to death.

    That was his point.  And it is a valid one.

    Parent