Why Is There No Outrage About This Police Shooting?

[Turtle]

The paragraph relating the events in Ferguson, MO completely misrepresents the facts of the case, along with the all-encompassing conclusions saying what evil American police and grand juries do. That blows the author's credibility all to h*ll.

Why does it blow his credibility? Everything stated in the paragraph is factually accurate. Stating something factually inaccurate would blow his credibility, you simply not agreeing with how he stated the facts does not.

It's obvious he's promoting a liberal utopian agenda that has nothing to do with reality or justice in the American legal system.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not to anyone who has read the entire article and understands the complexity of the realities that are happening. There is no Utopia being promoted at all in that article.

Albert Burneko should stick with his expertise as a food critic; he's certainly not a legal expert.

Well, the article isn't about legal issues, it's about social and societal issues. But in any case, he's certainly entitled to his opinion and conclusions. Using your logic that he should stick to writing about food and shouldn't comment on societal issues, you're not exactly a legal expert, either, so what does that mean?

In the post above where I added the link to this article, note that the Reason For Editing was: "Added second article to see who has the guts to try and dispute it on its merits."

Imagine my surprise when you responded here by ignoring the bulk of the merits (the inherent right or wrong of the issues at hand, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, or personal feelings), incorrectly mischaracterized the few issues you did address (in no small part by changing the context of the entire article with the invention of the "evil" straw man logical fallacy), and instead moved directly to an ad hominem logical fallacy attack on the author.

 

[muttly]

The paragraph relating the events in Ferguson, MO completely misrepresents the facts of the case, along with the all-encompassing conclusions saying what evil American police and grand juries do. That blows the author's credibility all to h*ll. It's obvious he's promoting a liberal utopian agenda that has nothing to do with reality or justice in the American legal system. Albert Burneko should stick with his expertise as a food critic; he's certainly not a legal expert.

A factually inaccurate statement by Burneko--'and his own face contradicting Wilson's own narrative of events'.
The pictures of Wilson show redness in the face and on the back of his neck. It should also be noted that the pictures were taken on the night of the incident. Further discoloration of an injury to the face generally takes a couple of days.

 

[Turtle]

A factually inaccurate statement by Burneko--'and his own face contradicting Wilson's own narrative of events'.
The pictures of Wilson show redness in the face and on the back of his neck. It should also be noted that the pictures were taken on the night of the incident. Further discoloration of an injury to the face generally takes a couple of days.

Wilson's own narrative on the night of the incident was multiple lacerations (those are cuts and gashes), multiple contusions, massive swelling with one eye swollen shut with a possible orbital socket fracture, all of which would show up in a picture taken moments after the incident, and certainly later that night.

 

[muttly]

Wilson's own narrative (Grand Jury testimony and evidence)didn't mention anything about an orbital socket fracture injury,cuts and gashes. He had a redness on the side of his face and on his neck along with an abrasion.
Burneko -- factually inaccurate statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

 

[Turtle]

You put "Grand Jury testimony and evidence" inside parentheses almost as if you think that's what "narrative' means. Lol

 

[muttly]

You introduced an erroneous narrative that Wilson himself never gave. Lol

 

[Turtle]

You introduced an erroneous narrative that Wilson himself never gave. Lol

I didn't introduce it, and yes he did. But here we go again... you have your own definitions of words, and you don't understand what you read. You read things that aren't even there, because you want them to be there, and you change the context of what's there to suit your needs. The only thing I introduced was a link to an article specifically to see if and who "has the guts to try and dispute it on its merits." Not surprisingly, our resident superhero Gobblerman and his faithful sidekick Squab Boy, are unable or unwilling to do that, and insist on trying to make it about something else entirely.

 

[muttly]

Burneko wrote--
Ten days ago, despite multiple eyewitness accounts and his own face contradicting Wilson's narrative of events, a grand jury declined to indict Wilson. That is what American grand juries do.

Wilson gave testimony of what happened to the Grand Jury , which was consistent with the injuries that he sustained. All documented by photos and also presented to the Grand Jury. It's how Grand Juries work. Erroneous information like him having a broken orbital bone , lacerations, or a eye swollen shut wasn't introduced to a Grand Jury. It's how Grand Juries work. It's interesting that you would mention all of that erroneous information considering it wasn't even presented to the Grand Jury and wasn't anything Wilson claimed to have happened to him.
If you're so interested in the truth, why would you try to distort it? Why would you do that?

 

[Turtle]

See? I can't have a conversation with you, because you don't understand the meanings of words or what you read. For one, you have no friggin' clue how grand juries work, which you've proven beyond all doubt, and reinforced it with with your comments here about how grand juries work. In both instances in the above paragraph, no, that's not how grand juries work.

Two, none of this meaningless minutiae to which you are grasping so tightly has anything to do with the the substance of the linked article. I'd tell you to go read the entire article, but I know that you doing so will be a waste of time. You'll either not read it and say you did, and that you disagree with it and won't discuss it for whatever reason, or you'll read it and not understand it and won't discuss, and will want to push the discussion to some minute perceived inconsistency that has nothing to do with the article.

And three, circling back, the "narrative" is not what was presented to the grand jury. The narrative had already happened before the grand jury has even convened for this case. That's why it's so funny that you have and are trying to define Wilson's "narrative" as "(Grand Jury testimony and evidence)". You're changing the meaning of the word "narrative" to mean what you want and need it to be, in order to make your argument. Wilson gave his narrative, then weeks later testified before the grand jury. Two different events, two different accounts, one being Wilson's own narrative and the other being Wilson's testimony. (And actually, at the grand jury testimony, he was in fact asked by a juror about his claim of an orbital fracture. He said he had only claimed that it might be possible that his eye socket might have been fractured but turned out it wasn't.)

If you want to discuss the merits of the article, the primary issues it raises, the main thought the article conveys, then great. Otherwise we're done. Here's to hoping you'll surprise me.

 

[muttly]

Meaningless minutiae? You yourself stated the following excerpt 'perfectly sums up' and then thought it was IMPORTANT ENOUGH to paste it from Burneko's article.
You went on to say that everything he wrote was factually accurate.
EXCERPT from article:
'In August, Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed black teenager Michael Brown to death in broad daylight. That is what American police do. Ten days ago, despite multiple eyewitness accounts and his OWN FACE contradicting Wilson's narrative of events, a grand jury declined to indict Wilson. That is what American grand juries do.'

You want to talk about Grand Juries, but bring up erroneous information that was OUTSIDE OF THE GRAND JURY , wasn't from Wilson, and wasn't something that was provided to the GRAND JURY.
Everything in Wilson's GRAND JURY TESTIMONY is consistent with the injuries that occurred.
It's also factually incorrect to attribute FALSE INFORMATION from some political blog or news agency about his injuries and attach it to Wilson and call it 'Wilson's narrative'.

 

[Turtle]

Meaningless minutiae?

Yes. What you are focusing on has nothing to do with the substance of the article. We're done.

 

[Pilgrim]

Why does it blow his credibility? Everything stated in the paragraph is factually accurate. Stating something factually inaccurate would blow his credibility, you simply not agreeing with how he stated the facts does not.

Here's the paragraph (my thoughts in blue):

In August, Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed black teenager (he's an adult according to MO law) Michael Brown to death in broad daylight. (After Brown was caught on video committing a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store, refusing to comply with police orders and attacking the policeman with intent to take his service weapon) That is what American police do. (Wrong - they do not. They do however, have the right to defend themselves when physically attacked. The percentage of arrests that result in fatal shootings is miniscule.) Ten days ago, despite multiple eyewitness accounts and his own face contradicting Wilson's narrative of events, a grand jury declined to indict Wilson. (Some eyewitness accounts were proven to be outright lies that did were not supported by the physical evidence. Other eyewitness accounts, along with the physical evidence supported Wilson's testimony) That is what American grand juries do. (He keeps repeating this mantra to establish a false premise)

The author intentionally misrepresents the case by editing/omitting critical facts of the event to the extent his ridiculous screed sounds like a Daily Show skit. Burneko is promoting a liberal agenda, which is fine; problem is, he can't make his case when all the facts are included. He's a liar, and thus has no credibility.

American cops and legal system aren't perfect, as demonstrated by the Garner case that turned out wrong. But most of the time they get it right, as demonstrated by the Ferguson case. We have yet to see what happens with the Tamir Rice case, but my money is on the cops getting indicted and going to trial.

 

[Turtle]

Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen
Sixteen
Seventeen
Eighteen
Nineteen

All teens, man.

Stating that eighteen is a legal adult in some legal jurisdictions is fine, and 100% correct. But saying eighteen is not a teen is simply wrong, and would be marked wrong even in the new Common Core Math.

n August, Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed black teenager Michael Brown to death in broad daylight.
That's a factual statement. Michael Brown was both unarmed and a teenager when Darren Wilson shot him to death. It happened just after noon when the sun was high in the sky, with daylight stretching from one horizon to the other, making the daylight about at broad as it can get.

That is what American police do.
You say that's a factually incorrect statement, despite the fact that American police have, in fact, been known to have shot and killed unarmed black teenagers, sometimes even in broad daylight. In broad light of the facts, that's a factual statement. Sorry

Ten days ago, despite multiple eyewitness accounts and his own face contradicting Wilson's narrative of events, a grand jury declined to indict Wilson.
There is nothing about that statement that is factually incorrect. It was ten days earlier, there were multiple eyewitnesses that contradicted Wilson's narrative, as did Wilson's own face. And, the grand jury declined to indict Wilson. All 100% true and factual.

That is what American grand juries do.
You're uncomfortable with his premise, and that's fine, but the fact is grand juries fail to indict police offers all the time even when there is clear probable cause to do so. So, that's a factual statement, as well.

I'm left but to simply repeat my comment, which is "Everything stated in the paragraph is factually accurate," as you have done nothing to show any of it was inaccurate. You're just uncomfortable with it, is all it is, and have a need to spin it into a more comfortable place. instead of addressing the issues at large in the article, you want to focus on one rather insignificant part of it (go ahead, re-read the entire article without including that paragraph or any references to it, and the article doesn't change). And, you want to take an article that's not political at all and make it about liberals versus conservatives in bringing up the "liberal agenda."

You know what the liberal agenda in that article is? It's stop killing unarmed black people and then patting yourself on the back for doing it!

Clearly, you are opposed to such an agenda.

 

[Turtle]

You wanna see something really funny? You're not gonna like it much, probably.

Who Killed Michael Brown? (Vimeo)

 

[cheri1122]

I wouldn't call the demand to hold LEOs accountable a "liberal utopian agenda", but if it is, count me in.

 

[Turtle]

When Is It OK for a Cop to Kill Someone?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I wouldn't call the demand to hold LEOs accountable a "liberal utopian agenda", but if it is, count me in.

Accountable? Absolutely. But not a scapegoat.

 

[Turtle]

Accountable? Absolutely. But not a scapegoat.

One problem is, the pendulum is going to swing back the other way, and that's exactly what's going to happen, where an officer is unjustly accused and convicted for a truly justifiable shooting.

 

[Pilgrim]

Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen
Sixteen
Seventeen
Eighteen
Nineteen

All teens, man.

Stating that eighteen is a legal adult in some legal jurisdictions is fine, and 100% correct. But saying eighteen is not a teen is simply wrong, and would be marked wrong even in the new Common Core Math.

n August, Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed black teenager Michael Brown to death in broad daylight.
That's a factual statement. Michael Brown was both unarmed and a teenager when Darren Wilson shot him to death. It happened just after noon when the sun was high in the sky, with daylight stretching from one horizon to the other, making the daylight about at broad as it can get.

Here's another example of a "factual statement" similar to those: On the night of August 20, 1989 the parents of Lyle Menendez and his teenage brother Eric were brutally murdered in a shotgun slaying at their home in Beverly Hills. Lyle Menendez reported the crime to 911 saying "somebody killed my parents!" after he and his brother returned that evening from a James Bond movie.

One can only imagine the outpouring of sympathy for these two orphans under the circumstances described above.

That is what American police do.
You say that's a factually incorrect statement, despite the fact that American police have, in fact, been known to have shot and killed unarmed black teenagers, sometimes even in broad daylight. In broad light of the facts, that's a factual statement. Sorry

Sorry - but the statement is factually incorrect by omission. The goal of the author is to get his readers to infer "that's what American police do" routinely; that is patently false. This is typical of the spin we see practiced by politicians and pundits with an agenda.

Ten days ago, despite multiple eyewitness accounts and his own face contradicting Wilson's narrative of events, a grand jury declined to indict Wilson.
There is nothing about that statement that is factually incorrect. It was ten days earlier, there were multiple eyewitnesses that contradicted Wilson's narrative, as did Wilson's own face. And, the grand jury declined to indict Wilson. All 100% true and factual.

Once again - pure spin due to its inaccuracy and omitting critical facts. Also, the pictures of Wilson's face depict injuries obvious to anyone not legally blind. The author simply lied about that.

I'm left but to simply repeat my comment, which is "Everything stated in the paragraph is factually accurate," as you have done nothing to show any of it was inaccurate. You're just uncomfortable with it, is all it is, and have a need to spin it into a more comfortable place. instead of addressing the issues at large in the article, you want to focus on one rather insignificant part of it (go ahead, re-read the entire article without including that paragraph or any references to it, and the article doesn't change). And, you want to take an article that's not political at all and make it about liberals versus conservatives in bringing up the "liberal agenda."

You know what the liberal agenda in that article is? It's stop killing unarmed black people and then patting yourself on the back for doing it!

Clearly, you are opposed to such an agenda.

Clearly, I'm opposed to the false narrative and liberal agenda of this author. One needs to consider the facts of the situations that the police in this country face every day. Here are three to consider (bold emphasis mine):

• Violent Crime Index arrest rates increased substantially for juveniles in all racial groups between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. The rate peaked in 1994 for black and white juveniles, in 1995 for American Indians, and in 1996 for Asians. Following these peaks, the rates declined through 2011 for Asian (78%), American Indian (68%), white (59%) youth and black (61%) youth.
• The Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2011 for black juveniles (627) was 5 times the rate for white (125) youth, 6 times the rate for American Indian juveniles (105), and 15 times the rate for Asian juveniles (41).
• In the 1980s, the Violent Crime Index arrest rate for black juveniles was 6 times the white rate. This ratio declined during the 1990s, holding at 4 to 1 from 1998 to 2004. Since 2004, the racial disparity in the rates increased, reaching 5 to 1 in the late 2000s.

Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends

All this leads to a better understanding of the situation as summed up in the following article

If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police.


Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger.


After adjusting for murder rates, black male teenagers are still killed by the police 2.3 times as often as whites. This is a considerable difference — but again, over-representation of urban areas in the data set could be a big part of the explanation.


Screaming “racism!” may attract a TV audience. But uncritically spreading bad information is downright dangerous.

John Lott: Dangerous distortions on cops shooting black men - NY Daily News

 

[Turtle]

"Factually incorrect by omission" isn't even a thing. LOL

It's a whopper of a logical fallacy, though, which isn't surprising coming from the king of same.

That's like saying the statement, "2+2=4" is factually inaccurate, because 1+3 also equals 4. It's like saying, "All thumbs are fingers," is factually inaccurate because not all fingers are thumbs. Something is either factual or it's not. The totality of facts presented isn't the determining factor of fact. It's a fact that all thumbs are indeed fingers.

The rest of your post is just more evidence that the police suspect, stop, arrest and charge blacks more than they do whites.

Since you've deemed the article itself to be a false narrative and one with a political agenda, you choose not to discuss the primary issue of the article. That's fine. I do have one question for you, though. How many deaths of unarmed black people at the hands of the police is acceptable to you?