Why Is There No Outrage About This Police Shooting?
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
HOW COULD I HAVE LIED ABOUT WHERE IT CAME FROM.? I didn't say it came from the article. I merely gave a quote of his statement as an example of what I was talking about in my previous post and didn't provide a link. I was then asked for a link from someone else and I provided one. Your first reaction was to call me a liar and say I just made it up instead of asking for a link.
It is in context. He gave his opinion in his tweet AND then provided his link about the article. It has become apparent that you are very condescending and your accusations are based on falsehoods, just like the last one where you said I was a liar. Nothing I said was a lie.
The ONLY context about this author that we had ever discussed was the context of that article. When you said it came from him and it was "in context," that can only mean that it came from him and came from that article.
Since it did not come from the article, and our came from somewhere else, that leaves only two possibilities, one, that you deliberately lied, or two, that you have no clue whatsoever as to the meaning and usage of the word "context."
So which is it? It can't be both. You can't be telling the truth AND know what context is.
The discussion wasn't just about the article you posted. The thread was actually about a lot of different topics . The original OP story, your article, Fox News, links about an arrest in Texas, story about a cow, and a discussion about race. I just referenced him because he made a quote that was pertinent to the point I was making.
Putting cops in parenthesis was merely to put in context what his quote was about. Just giving his quote about apples in an orchard wouldn't make much sense.
Regardless, he was referring to cops in his tweet. Since he used the word ALL, it is quite clear that he was referring to ALL COPS are bad. He doesn't sound like someone with a clear eye and honest view of things.The irony is that his narrow minded view would be a detriment to a fair Grand Jury process if he was a juror, one that he so vehemently rails against as unfair.
The quote came from outside of the article. I wasn't using his quote from the article because obviously it didn't come from his article. I used his quote from his tweet as an example of a point I was trying to make. I didn't link to his tweet, but it in no way means I was lying or am a liar. I didn't say it came from the article. The quote (tweet) was in context because it was referring to ( cops) apples and because he linked to the article below his tweet.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The longer this thread goes on (and the more Barf keeps yappin'), the better it gets ...
Reminds me more and more of the bubster ...
Some people are so illiterate (and of such an IQ) that they can read something ... and then come to an understanding which is 180 degrees opposite of whatever was written ...
Toss in political fanaticism and you have a outstanding recipe for some of the best comedy you'll ever run across ...
Reminds me more and more of the bubster ...
Some people are so illiterate (and of such an IQ) that they can read something ... and then come to an understanding which is 180 degrees opposite of whatever was written ...
Toss in political fanaticism and you have a outstanding recipe for some of the best comedy you'll ever run across ...
It would be funny if he was doing it on purpose. Heck, hilarious if it was on purpose. But I'm finding it more and more troubling.
Like as Alfred North Whitehead once said, “Not ignorance, but the ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.”
Martin Luther King, Jr noted that, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
The problem is a basic failure to understand what is read, the meanings of words, and even of what he writes. The problem is compounded when his misunderstandings are explained to him, and he still doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.
We're all familiar with the terms illiterates, semi-illiterates and functional illiterates. But the hidden illiterates are, as is described in the article I liked to earlier, those who are ignorant of their own illiteracy, their illiteracy is hidden from themselves. Hidden illiterates are ignorant of their ignorance; they do not know that they do not know. They think they know, they are quite sure that they know, but they don't know. They do not fully comprehend the information and ideas being received, studied, or applied and are not aware they do not understand. Their actions, feelings and beliefs are founded on their unknown wrong suppositions, ideas and understandings. The problems and results of being a hidden illiterate can range from humorous (as we so often see here) to disastrous (not just in terms of failed knowledge, but in applying that failed knowledge in critical functions - often referred to as simply someone who is incompetent at their job).
What we've seen in this thread and in numerous previous threads is someone who's beliefs and positions are based on their own wrong understandings and conclusions, and they remain completely unaware that they do not fully comprehend the information before them. The old joke of going into battle of wits against an unarmed opponent is suddenly not a joke here, and I find that a little disconcerting. And I will endeavor to conduct myself accordingly in the future in this matter.
Like as Alfred North Whitehead once said, “Not ignorance, but the ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.”
Martin Luther King, Jr noted that, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
The problem is a basic failure to understand what is read, the meanings of words, and even of what he writes. The problem is compounded when his misunderstandings are explained to him, and he still doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.
We're all familiar with the terms illiterates, semi-illiterates and functional illiterates. But the hidden illiterates are, as is described in the article I liked to earlier, those who are ignorant of their own illiteracy, their illiteracy is hidden from themselves. Hidden illiterates are ignorant of their ignorance; they do not know that they do not know. They think they know, they are quite sure that they know, but they don't know. They do not fully comprehend the information and ideas being received, studied, or applied and are not aware they do not understand. Their actions, feelings and beliefs are founded on their unknown wrong suppositions, ideas and understandings. The problems and results of being a hidden illiterate can range from humorous (as we so often see here) to disastrous (not just in terms of failed knowledge, but in applying that failed knowledge in critical functions - often referred to as simply someone who is incompetent at their job).
What we've seen in this thread and in numerous previous threads is someone who's beliefs and positions are based on their own wrong understandings and conclusions, and they remain completely unaware that they do not fully comprehend the information before them. The old joke of going into battle of wits against an unarmed opponent is suddenly not a joke here, and I find that a little disconcerting. And I will endeavor to conduct myself accordingly in the future in this matter.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
No wonder EO keeps the Soapbox functional, it just keeps the "clicks" on a comin'. Because, who can't help not look at a train wreck? My lord the idiocy of some is unfathomable.
EO should feel sorry for a few that just keep getting their arse's handed to them and do everyone a favor (especially for barf's sake) and shut it down.
EO should feel sorry for a few that just keep getting their arse's handed to them and do everyone a favor (especially for barf's sake) and shut it down.
Thank you for your comments. Your comments are important to us.
Do you have any that are on-topic, though?
witness23
Veteran Expediter
witness23
Veteran Expediter
btw.....it was your posts, particularly your numerous comments of the inability of one particular poster to comprehend, that persons ignorance being displayed, his wrong understandings and conclusions, etc, etc, that prompted my post in the first place. I couldn't agree with you more. I bet he is vehemently against Common Core too boot. Crazy isn't it?
I dunno. I'm against Common Core, too. It's nonsense. For starters, the misnamed “Common Core State Standards” are not state standards at all. They're national standards, created by Bill Gates-funded consultants for the National Governors Association. They were designed, in part, to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum, hence the insertion of the word “state” in the brand name. States were then coerced into adopting the Common Core by requirements attached to federal funding, including the Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind waivers.
It was developed not by teachers and parents, but by academic bureaucrats and assessment experts, a majority of whom have direct ties to testing companies and to corporate sponsors. Of the 135 member official Common Core panels, 7 were current teachers or school administrators, with all 7 being employed at the college level, not the K-12 levels. Parents were entirely absent from the panels, and a handful of K-12 educators were brought in after the fact to endorse the mess and to add legitimacy. The kicker is, much of the reading material in the curriculum textbooks includes corporate logos and promotional material (marketing and advertising) woven right into the text in the same way that Fox News weaves opinion right into the news - after a while you don't even notice the difference, and if you didn't know the difference in the first place, you never will.
The extravagant claims being made for the ability of these standards to ensure that every child not only will learn more and retain it better, but will indeed graduate from high school as “college and career ready" are based solely on wishful thinking, backed up with exactly zero research and experience. The Common Core standards and methods have never been implemented and tested in a real school anywhere on the planet.
My home state of Kentucky was the first to implement a curriculum based on the Common Core standards, rolling out math and English in 2010. It has not gone well. Teachers, students and parents alike hate it. Oh, sure, the 2% increase in test scores are being touted as a resounding success, but 2% ain't much, and these are tests where you don't even have to give a right answer to have it marked as correct - all you have to do is understand the question.
But then again, Common Core is really more of a topic for a hole nuther thred.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
The "Common Core" remark was a joke but since you brought it up. The following video is just a short simplified explanation of Common Core. More to follow........
You can thank me later mutt's for taking the spotlight off of you for now. That is, until you decide to open your yap again.
You can thank me later mutt's for taking the spotlight off of you for now. That is, until you decide to open your yap again.
Almost a year later, and the prosecution has lined up their "experts" to support the police as they prepare to take the case to the grand jury. Of course the evaluation "...stressed that they did not look at whether Loehmann or his partner Frank Garmback violated Ohio laws, made tactical mistakes or broke with department policy in the moments leading up to the shooting."
Tamir Rice shooting was tragic but reasonable: prosecution experts
It's interesting that both experts dismissed as irrelevant any of the factors that fail to support the police. One expert is a former FBI agent and the other is a prosecuting attorney (Lamar Sims) who is an expert at finding ways to justify police shootings. He gives lectures to police officers about use-of-force and why it's virtually impossible to indict a police officer in a shooting, particularly if the police officer does this and says that. His report cites case after case that absolves the police officer, but gave no space in his report to the contrary. Despite him creating vacuum of a cherry-picked set of facts vacuum to reach his conclusions, he didn't approach the case in a vacuum, that's for sure. He was one of the key speakers at a day long use-of-force by police event by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office back in March. He's very pro-cop, very anti-prosecution of use of force by police, and he's black, which makes him the ideal "expert" for a prosecution office that should have presented the case to the grand jury 8 months ago and are looking for a way to avoid holding Loehmann and Garmback accountable.
Kimberly Crawford is a retired FBI agent who was a legal instructor at the FBI and at its academy in Quantico. She was never a field agent and completed her law degree under the direction of, and while at the FBI. One of her jobs was to teach agents how to follow the letter of the law in officer-involved shootings, and under what circumstances officer could be prosecuted, and how to avoid those circumstances. She was also a regular contributor to the monthly FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin writing on legal issues such as the need for a warrant at most crime scenes and why it's important to follow things like the 4th Amendment.
These two experts were handpicked to give their reports, because both of them have a history of providing reports with the same conclusions, and their reports came as no surprise to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor who requested them. I do find it interesting that the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor sat on these reports for 4 days and didn't release them until Saturday 8PM on Columbus Day weekend. And to top that off, the prosecutor says these two reports will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not he decides to present the case to the grand jury. If that were true, then the reports would have never been requested, as the case should have gone to the grand jury 2 or 3 months before the reports were requested in the first place.
Kimberly Crawford is a retired FBI agent who was a legal instructor at the FBI and at its academy in Quantico. She was never a field agent and completed her law degree under the direction of, and while at the FBI. One of her jobs was to teach agents how to follow the letter of the law in officer-involved shootings, and under what circumstances officer could be prosecuted, and how to avoid those circumstances. She was also a regular contributor to the monthly FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin writing on legal issues such as the need for a warrant at most crime scenes and why it's important to follow things like the 4th Amendment.
These two experts were handpicked to give their reports, because both of them have a history of providing reports with the same conclusions, and their reports came as no surprise to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor who requested them. I do find it interesting that the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor sat on these reports for 4 days and didn't release them until Saturday 8PM on Columbus Day weekend. And to top that off, the prosecutor says these two reports will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not he decides to present the case to the grand jury. If that were true, then the reports would have never been requested, as the case should have gone to the grand jury 2 or 3 months before the reports were requested in the first place.
A miscommunication between police dispatch and the officers about the possible 'fake gun' that he had.
The officers came upon the person who was reaching in his waist band for his real looking toy gun. In that instance, how is it unreasonable for officers to defend themselves?
What specific charge should be brought towards the officers when it appears that they thought the individual was pulling out a real weapon to use on them?
The officers came upon the person who was reaching in his waist band for his real looking toy gun. In that instance, how is it unreasonable for officers to defend themselves?
What specific charge should be brought towards the officers when it appears that they thought the individual was pulling out a real weapon to use on them?
The dispatcher is hardly blameless in this, and should be charged as an accomplice to aggravated murder, or separately for negligent homicide.
The officers arrived in an offensive tactical manner not in a position of defense, never saw the gun before they fired, never even attempted to assess the threat in an open carry state, and as the 2 seconds showed, had already made the decision to get him before he got them. Which is kind of part of the problem with law enforcement today, where instead of erring on the side of those whom they have sworn to protect and serve will err on the side of shooting first and asking questions later to protect themselves because they know they can play the "I feared for my life card" and probably get away with murder.
Since Rice was under 13 years old, and it appears the shooting was carried out with prior calculation and design, 2903.01 Aggravated Murder applies, as does 2903.02 Murder since the actions of the officers immediately after the shooting indicate they wanted him dead.
But 2903.03 Voluntary Manslaughter will be the easiest to prove and prosecute. Both Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter involve purposefully killing someone, however, it is Voluntary Manslaughter when the killer's thinking was disturbed by emotional excitement to the point that a reasonable person might have acted on impulse without thinking twice. The killing itself must be the result of the emotional excitement, which this certainly appears to be. Voluntary Manslaughter typically happens when a person is acting in self-defense, but overreacts and kills another person. The person technically acted with the intent to kill, but the self defense was "in the heat of passion" so the court will likely find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
Turtle, do you have any law enforcement experience? I am just curious because of the content of your posts. There are good and bad in all professions and nobody wants to be judged by the actions of the least of us in any profession. I would offer that whenever a municipality faces a potential civil suit, their motivations on prosecution of a state actor are adulterated in that they do not want a conviction to support or exponentially increase a civil settlement.
Last edited:
Regardless of department tactics and policies, OH law will likely play a large part in whether or not a grand jury returns an indictment; there's also the sticky matter of the video, which offers nothing to absolve these officers of criminally negligent behavior. Even if none of that sticks, the civil suit against the officers and the city will likely produce a substantial settlement. Personally, I'm still surprised there isn't more media coverage of this matter.