Why Is There No Outrage About This Police Shooting?

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The article is misleading and omits critical facts, so it doesn't take much to discredit it.
The facts you assert are missing aren't in the least little bit critical to the article. You simply want a different story told. Like I said, re-read the article while completely skipping the second paragraph and any references to it, and the subject issues of the article doesn't change. At all. The facts you are so bent out of shape over are, quite literally, meaningless minutiae in the context of that article.

I do want to thank you for one absolute gem, however. That being the infamous "factually inaccurate by omission." I participate in several Web and Usenet forums that focus on a wide variety of topics. One deals with linguistics, grammar and etymology, another with debate, another with general academia, one with political science, one with social science, and there are others. I introduced the phrase to some of those forums and it has brought great joy and laughter (including many instances of people falling on the floor, and in a few cases people PIP) to a multitude outside of EO. I gotta give you props for inventing it, though. You're one of the best at seamlessly using logical fallacies in your arguments, usually more than one at a time, sometimes even more than one in a single sentence. But you really outdid yourself with that one. A brilliant and valiant effort, indeed.

Unfortunately you don't get naming rights, as one other, single, solitary, other person, came up with it first. Do a Google search on that phrase, being sure to use enclose the phrase in quotes so you are searching for that specific phrase. You'll get a single hit. It was the author himself who provided the link in one of the forums to his Blog. But maybe it'll catch on and you'll get credit for it anyway, like Marconi, or the Wright Brothers, or Betsy Ross.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The facts you assert are missing aren't in the least little bit critical to the article. You simply want a different story told. Like I said, re-read the article while completely skipping the second paragraph and any references to it, and the subject issues of the article doesn't change. At all. The facts you are so bent out of shape over are, quite literally, meaningless minutiae in the context of that article.
That's absolute nonsense. I've already listed some of the omitted facts that are without a doubt critical to the Ferguson case, but there are other misrepresentations and outright falsehoods throughout the article. I hate to quote the whole thing here, but since you brought it up here it goes, with the BS emphasized in brown.
In July, New York police officer Daniel Pantaleo choked unarmed black man Eric Garner to death, in broad daylight, while a bystander caught it on video. That is what American police do. Yesterday, despite the video, despite an NYPD prohibition of exactly the sort of chokehold Pantaleo used, and despite the New York City medical examiner ruling the death a homicide, a Staten Island grand jury declined even to indict Pantaleo. That is what American grand juries do. 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.


In November 2006, a group of five New York police officers shot unarmed black man Sean Bell to death in the early morning hours of his wedding day. That is what American police do. In April 2008, despite multiple eyewitness accounts contradicting the officers' accounts of the incident, Justice Arthur J. Cooperman acquitted the officers of all charges, including reckless endangerment. That is what American judges do.
In February of 1999, four plainclothes New York police officers shot unarmed black man Amadou Diallo to death outside of his home. That is what American police do. A year later, an Albany jury acquitted the officers of all charges, including reckless endangerment. That is what American juries do.
In November of 1951, Willis McCall, the sheriff of Lake County, Fla., shot and killed Sam Shepherd, an unarmed and handcuffed black man in his custody. That is what American police do. Despite both a living witness and forensic evidence which contradicted his version of events, a coroner's inquest ruled that McCall had acted within the line of duty, and Judge Thomas Futch declined to convene a grand jury at all.
The American justice system is not broken. This is what the American justice system does. This is what America does.

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates has written ****ingly of the American preference for viewing our society's crimes as aberrations—betrayals of some deeper, truer virtue, or departures from some righteous intended path. This is a convenient mythology. If the institutions of white American power taking black lives and then exonerating themselves for it is understood as a failure to live out some more authentic American idea, rather than as the expression of that American idea, then your and my and our lives and lifestyles are distinct from those failures. We can stand over here, and shake our heads at the failures over there, and then return to the familiar business, and everything is OK. Likewise, if the individual police officers who take black lives are just some bad cops doing policework badly, and not good cops doing precisely what America has hired and trained them to do, then white Americans may continue calling the police when black people frighten us, free from moral responsibility for the whole range of possible outcomes.
The murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Sam Shepherd, and countless thousands of others at the hands of American law enforcement are not aberrations, or betrayals, or departures. The acquittals of their killers are not mistakes. There is no virtuous innermost America, sullied or besmirched or shaded by these murders. This is America. It is not broken. It is doing what it does.
America is a serial brutalizer of black and brown people. Brutalizing them is what it does. It does other things, too, yes, but brutalizing black and brown people is what it has done the most, and with the most zeal, and for the longest. The best argument you can make on behalf of the various systems and infrastructures the country uses against its black and brown citizens—the physical design of its cities, the methods it uses to allocate placement in elite institutions, the way it trains its police to treat citizens like enemy soldiers—might actually just be that they're more restrained than those used against black and brown people abroad. America employs the enforcers of its power to beat, kill, and terrorize, deploys its judiciary to say that that's OK, and has done this more times than anyone can hope to count. This is not a flaw in the design; this is the design.
(Comment: this is liberal pap at its best, and clearly displays his agenda: the victimization of minorities in the USA despite the opportunities they will find nowhere else in the world. - P.)


Policing in America is not broken. The judicial system is not broken. American society is not broken. All are functioning perfectly, doing exactly what they have done since before some of this nation's most prosperous slave-murdering robber-barons came together to consecrate into statehood the mechanisms of their barbarism. Democracy functions. Politicians, deriving their legitimacy from the public, have discerned the will of the people and used it to design and enact policies that carry it out, among them those that govern the allowable levels of violence which state can visit upon citizen. Taken together with the myriad other indignities, thefts, and cruelties it visits upon black and brown people, and the work common white Americans do on its behalf by telling themselves bald fictions of some deep and true America of apple pies, Jesus, and people being neighborly to each other and betrayed by those few and nonrepresentative bad apples with their isolated acts of meanness, the public will demands and enables a whirring and efficient machine that does what it does for the benefit of those who own it. It processes black and brown bodies into white power.

That is what America does. It is not broken. That is exactly what is wrong with it.


The American Justice System Is Not Broken
I do want to thank you for one absolute gem, however. That being the infamous "factually inaccurate by omission." I participate in several Web and Usenet forums that focus on a wide variety of topics. One deals with linguistics, grammar and etymology, another with debate, another with general academia, one with political science, one with social science, and there are others. I introduced the phrase to some of those forums and it has brought great joy and laughter (including many instances of people falling on the floor, and in a few cases people PIP) to a multitude outside of EO. I gotta give you props for inventing it, though. You're one of the best at seamlessly using logical fallacies in your arguments, usually more than one at a time, sometimes even more than one in a single sentence. But you really outdid yourself with that one. A brilliant and valiant effort, indeed.
I suppose I should be crushed by being exposed to the above ridicule from so many experts in semantics and etymology. However, it's likely that if you actually participate in such groups (assuming they exist) their likely expertise is in bovine scatology, since not one of them thought to equate this with "Lie by Omission" or "Omission of facts in arguments". You and they can find quite a few definitions online supporting my inarticulate phrase - for which I apologize. However, the fact remains that this concept applies precisely to this article and your indirect petty personal cheap shots don't refute anything.
Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation.

A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. "Dissembling" likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.

Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It can also be determined fraudulent, if lies of omission are attempted in court or in a legal transaction.

"Fraud, To Defraud" Defined & Explained
Unfortunately you don't get naming rights, as one other, single, solitary, other person, came up with it first. Do a Google search on that phrase, being sure to use enclose the phrase in quotes so you are searching for that specific phrase. You'll get a single hit. It was the author himself who provided the link in one of the forums to his Blog. But maybe it'll catch on and you'll get credit for it anyway, like Marconi, or the Wright Brothers, or Betsy Ross.
Since "dissimulation" and "lying by omission" have been common terms in the English language for many years, I guess my insignificant phrase will be subordinate to those more established terms. I'm surprised that not one of your intellectual cyber-collegues made the connection; maybe it hasn't yet appeared on one of their vocabulary tests.:p
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I wonder how this "factually inaccurate by omission" thingie would work if one applied it in the arena of foreign policy ... say along the lines of US meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations ...

Seems like that might be fertile ground to plough ...

In another thread of course ... lol ...
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
That's absolute nonsense. I've already listed some of the omitted facts that are without a doubt critical to the Ferguson case, but there are other misrepresentations and outright falsehoods throughout the article. I hate to quote the whole thing here, but since you brought it up here it goes, with the BS emphasized in brown.
Yes, you most definitely have listed some of the omitted facts that are without a doubt critical to the Ferguson case. The problem is, the article isn't about the Ferguson case. Nor do the omitted facts somehow make the stated facts somehow, magically, inaccurate. The misrepresentations and outright falsehoods throughout the article which you so thoughtfully highlighted in brown are simply conclusions, and realities that you disagree with, for whatever possible reasons, including straight-up denial, or viewing the past and present through rose colored (albeit lily white) glasses, and you may very well be (understandably and not surprisingly) one of the many "common white Americans" found in the second to last paragraph of the article who is steeped in the "deep and true America of apple pies, Jesus, and people being neighborly to each other and betrayed by those few and nonrepresentative bad apples with their isolated acts of meanness."

I suppose I should be crushed by being exposed to the above ridicule from so many experts in semantics and etymology. However, it's likely that if you actually participate in such groups (assuming they exist) their likely expertise is in bovine scatology, since not one of them thought to equate this with "Lie by Omission" or "Omission of facts in arguments".
Crushed? Hardly. It's merely an opportunity to combat ignorance.

They, and I, fully understand that a "lie by omission" is an actual thing in certain contexts, as is an "omission of facts in arguments." We also understand that a "lie by omission" and an "omission of facts in arguments" are two different things, and neither one can equate to "factually inaccurate by omission," which isn't a thing.

You and they can find quite a few definitions online supporting my inarticulate phrase - for which I apologize. However, the fact remains that this concept applies precisely to this article and your indirect petty personal cheap shots don't refute anything.
The only online definitions which support your inarticulate statement (thanks for apologizing, BTW) are those which must be externally interpreted to be the equivalent of a "lie by omission," which isn't a thing. And the indirect petty personal cheap shots are neither indirect (they're very direct), nor petty (they go directly to the basis of your argument), nor cheap (the shot is not unfair or unsupported).

Since "dissimulation" and "lying by omission" have been common terms in the English language for many years, I guess my insignificant phrase will be subordinate to those more established terms. I'm surprised that not one of your intellectual cyber-collegues made the connection; maybe it hasn't yet appeared on one of their vocabulary tests.:p
That you're surprised doesn't surprise me, but like I said, maybe it'll catch on and become a thing (although becoming a thing isn't really possible) and you'll get credit for it. You'll be rich and famous. :D
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I wonder how this "factually inaccurate by omission" thingie would work if one applied it in the arena of foreign policy ... say along the lines of US meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations ...

Seems like that might be fertile ground to plough ...

In another thread of course ... lol ...
It would apply to foreign policy the same way it applies to everything else. It's not a thing. If a statement is made that is factually accurate, the absence of additional facts doesn't somehow alter the factual accuracy of the original statement.

A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity to make an informed decision.

For example, someone looking to sell their Sprinter may say, "It has been serviced regularly, faithfully following the Maintenance Schedule in the Maintenance Manual. And there are no fault codes in the system that need to be addressed."

If indeed the maintenance has been performed in that manner, and the DRB III tool shows no fault codes in need of attention, then it is a factually accurate statement.

However, if he omits an important fact, like engine has Black Death, that's a "lie by omission" since the original statement conveys the vehicle is in good working order and in top mechanical condition, and the omitted fact results in a failure to correct a misconception. However, this lie by omission does not somehow make the original statement factually inaccurate. Everything about the original statement remains true and accurate. It's either factually accurate or it's not. Which is why "factually inaccurate by omission" isn't a thing, nor can it be.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Mr Pilgrim's account of Ferguson is every bit as "factually inaccurate by omission" as any he singles out for ridicule, because he leaves some important [contextual] details out as well.
History, being written by the victors, has been especially 'kind' to the white Europeans who founded the US, and to the black & brown people, not so much. And the conservatives in Texas are fighting to have the history and sociology textbooks do an even bigger 'whitewash' right now. And they're winning. :(
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Former NY mayor Giuliani and police officers saved black lives.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
From article--
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told Fox News he takes offense at current Mayor Bill de Blasio's implication that police target black people.

"For the last 20 years, between [Michael] Bloomberg and me, we have saved more black lives than any mayor in the history of the city," Giuliani said Thursday on "The O'Reilly Factor."

De Blasio, in a speech following Wednesday's announcement that a white police officer would not be indicted in the death of a black man, Eric Garner, said the case points to a need to fix policing and that the struggle with race goes back to the days of slavery.
Giuliani said the insertion of race into the case is unwarranted and that a white man breaking the law would have seen the same result.

Garner was confronted by police because he had been selling unlicensed black-market cigarettes on the street. When he refused to comply he was wrestled to the ground and can be seen on video repeatedly telling officers he couldn't breathe. He died en route to a hospital.

Giuliani said there were 2,200 murders a year in New York when he took over, and he brought the number down to 340. With 75 percent of murder victims being black, Giuliani said that most of those lives saved were African-American.
"We were concentrating on the real problem: the 96 percent of blacks killing other blacks," Giuliani said.

He admitted police misconduct is a problem, but challenged de Blasio's assertion that young black men face harassment from police.

"If you're a father … and you're trying to keep your son safe, the thing to keep him safe from is black violence — not police officers," he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Giuliani-Garner-new-york-police/2014/12/04/id/611216/
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Former NY mayor Giuliani and police officers saved black lives.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
From article--
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told Fox News he takes offense at current Mayor Bill de Blasio's implication that police target black people ...
Great stuff Barf ... you be sure to keep 'em comin' ... lol ...

image-442789120.jpg
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You didn't include the black reporters/ contributors on Fox News. Lie by omission.
Doesn't surprise me coming from Lentil Poup.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
You didn't include the black reporters/ contributors on Fox News. Lie by omission.
I didn't create the graphic.

BTW - It also didn't include O'Reilly, Stossel, or Cavuto, none of who are blonde.

Nevertheless, it is largely representative of Fox News on an overall, general basis.

Which is why most normal folks probably get a chuckle out of it ...

Of course, that doesn't include the extremist fanatics, whose own demented ideology can tolerate no criticism or critique of Faux News ...
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You didn't include the black reporters/ contributors on Fox News. Lie by omission.
Stop it. Just stop. You don't know what you're doing. That some fact or facts are omitted from anything isn't the litmus test for being a lie by omission. I realize you think "meaningless minutiae" means "really big and important," but it doesn't.

The black reporters / contributors on Fox News are rare, exceedingly rare, they are the exception to the rule. The rule being: Fox News is very, very white. The fact that Fox News has a small handful of black reporters and contributors is not a significant fact, thus not a significant factor of the statement that would qualify as a lie. The back reporters / contributors on Fox News is so insignificant in the context of Fox News that they can be (and often are) referred to as tokens. Santa Clause is, after all, white, you know, according to Fox News.

The article you posted on Giuliani is just loaded with omitted facts. Millions of them. Maybe even an infinite number of them. Does that make the article a lie, because of these omitted facts?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Lentil wrote-- 'I didn't create the graphic.'

Lentil meant-- Mommy, mommy, it wasn't me.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Stop it. Just stop. You don't know what you're doing. That some fact or facts are omitted from anything isn't the litmus test for being a lie by omission. I realize you think "meaningless minutiae" means "really big and important," but it doesn't.

The black reporters / contributors on Fox News are rare, exceedingly rare, they are the exception to the rule. The rule being: Fox News is very, very white. The fact that Fox News has a small handful of black reporters and contributors is not a significant fact, thus not a significant factor of the statement that would qualify as a lie. The back reporters / contributors on Fox News is so insignificant in the context of Fox News that they can be (and often are) referred to as tokens. Santa Clause is, after all, white, you know, according to Fox News.

The article you posted on Giuliani is just loaded with omitted facts. Millions of them. Maybe even an infinite number of them. Does that make the article a lie, because of these omitted facts?

What a load of dung.
I'll respond later to such drivel.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
What a load of dung.
I'll respond later to such drivel.
No you won't. You'll divert it to something else.

Or, you'll assert that a wide aerial shot of the Ferguson protests show thousands of black Fox News contributors.

On the Fox News website, they feature photos of their 42 program hosts. How many of them are black? One. That's 2%, just like milk.

Of the 162 Fox News contributors listed on their site, 13 are black. That's a massive 8%. Woot! They don't contribute a whole lot, though. The 8% of black contributors contribute less than 3% of the news reports.

But wait, there's more!

Just 17% of the commercials shown on Fox News feature blacks (compared to 30% on CNN).

When Fox News interviews a black person, it is virtually always via satellite instead of having them there in the building in-studio. Of all of the Fox News guests, 88% are white, 2.7% are Latin, 1.8% of Middle Eastern descent, .8% are Asian, other and undetermined. 6.7% are black.

Fox News averages just under 29,000 black viewers in Prime Time. That's a paltry 1.38% of the massively massive #1 Cable News Network.
 
Last edited:

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
No you won't. You'll divert it to something else.

Or, you'll assert that a wide aerial shot of the Ferguson protests show thousands of black Fox News contributors.

On the Fox News website, they feature photos of their 42 program hosts. How many of them are black? One. That's 2%, just like milk.

Of the 162 Fox News contributors listed on their site, 13 are black. That's a massive 8%. Woot! They don't contribute a whole lot, though. The 8% of black contributors contribute less than 3% of the news reports.

But wait, there's more!

Just 17% of the commercials shown on Fox News feature blacks (compared to 30% on CNN).

When Fox News interviews a black person, it is virtually always via satellite instead of having them there in the building in-studio. Of all of the Fox News guests, 88% are white, 2.7% are Latin, 1.8% of Middle Eastern descent, .8% are Asian, other and undetermined. 6.7% are black.

Fox News averages just under 29,000 black viewers in Prime Time. That's a paltry 1.38% of the massively massive #1 Cable News Network.

Just what are you trying to say? :cool:
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Lentil wrote-- 'I didn't create the graphic.'

Lentil meant-- Mommy, mommy, it wasn't me.

No ... What I meant was what I actually wrote ...

Now I do realize that for the functionally illiterate who are utterly incapable of comprehending the written word and the intent of others it might seem that I meant something else.

But that's largely because ... you can't fix stupid ...
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
What a load of dung.
I'll respond later to such drivel.

Oh ... this ought to be really good ...

Maybe you could ring up the Bubster and the two of ya's could do a tag team ... could be real entertaining.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I didn't create the graphic.

BTW - It also didn't include O'Reilly, Stossel, or Cavuto, none of who are blonde.

Nevertheless, it is largely representative of Fox News on an overall, general basis.

Which is why most normal folks probably get a chuckle out of it ...

Of course, that doesn't include the extremist fanatics, whose own demented ideology can tolerate no criticism or critique of Faux News ...

Except the picture didn't have one minority in it, which is factually untrue.
The implication from the photo was that they have ZERO blacks and minorities and are ALL white on Fox News,(not a large representative, as most do) and they are racist.

Good to know you were just looking for a chuckle and not actually looking for accuracy. Doesn't surprise me on the latter though.
 
Top