Posted Without Comment

Campaign billboard, 1949:

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share/Save

54 Responses to “Posted Without Comment”


  1. 1 1 Bennett Haselton

    And some werewolves, I suppose, are good people.

  2. 2 2 Roger

    Only one party is siding with cop killers.

  3. 3 3 Zazooba

    Ok.

    So …… people who talk about crime are stupid because a 67-year-old anti-crime billboard looks amateurish when photographed in black and white?

    I’m convinced.

  4. 4 4 Harold

    OMG- That child has a GOLLIWOG! Who will protect us? Is that the hands of the Republicans, come to protect us from non-PC dolls? Surely not.

  5. 5 5 Will A

    @ Roger #2

    So in your mind, being sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement is siding with cop killers?

  6. 6 6 Ken B

    @Will A, #5

    I think Roger is referring to the Democrats inviting someone to speak who tweeted “Woke up in a GREAT MOOD this morning. 2 Cops got Shot in FERGUSON lastnight. You ant seen sh** yet, wait till this SUMMER”

    http://twitchy.com/twitchys-3839/2016/07/18/outrageous-why-is-this-anti-cop-activist-headlining-the-dnc/

  7. 7 7 Ken B
  8. 8 8 Ken B

    Sigh. I tried to post another campaign ad, also with a young girl. But perhaps comments won’t display images.

    http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b2976077b3b3b63c1d7325a2e5c37b473ab4b295/c=0-97-966-638&r=x633&c=1200×630/local/-/media/Phoenix/2014/09/07/pnidaisygirl5.jpg

  9. 9 9 Roger

    @Will, Ken: No, I am not just referring to anonymous tweets. All of the leaders of the Democrat Party are now siding with attempted murders. See the convention stage tomorrow.

    “Tuesday will feature the roll call vote and how Hillary Clinton has spent her entire career working to make a difference for children, families and our country. The Mothers of the Movement participating include Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontré Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lezley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland.”
    http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486188836/we-now-know-what-the-democratic-convention-will-look-like

    Yes, this is a good reason to vote Republican.

  10. 10 10 Harold

    KenB I was not familiar with that ad. Full story here.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(advertisement)

    It is hard to know quite how nuclear bombs were thought of-they were pretty new then. We have lived with them for decades now and perhaps they do not have quite the same visceral punch. Although shown only once it is credited with great success. The poster shown in this article – is that believed to have been succesful?

  11. 11 11 Will A

    @ Roger #9

    I figured it was something like that. It’s really shows how law and order has gone to hell in this country when people like Gwen Carr and Eric Garner are never charged with attempted murder.

  12. 12 12 Zazooba

    @Roger#19

    Are the Democrats really going to have the mother of attempted-cop-killer Michael Brown speak at their convention?

    I find that very hard to believe.

    I assumed Hillary would pivot to the center after winning the nomination and do something bold like apologize to Officer Wilson.

  13. 13 13 Ken B

    Roger, I didnt quote an anonymous tweet. That was from one of those mothers, invited to speak at the convention.

    Harold, I posted that without comment :)

  14. 14 14 Travis

    @Ken B, @Roger

    The ‘tweet’ might not be what it seems to be:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/lesliemcspadden.asp

  15. 15 15 Ken B

    @Travis 14
    That’s a convincing debunking of the tweet.

  16. 16 16 Adama

    Yeah, I’m not what we’re supposed think about this. I’m assuming the main thrust here is demagoguery?

  17. 17 17 Harold

    As Trump says “What do I know about it. All I know is what’s on the internet.”

  18. 18 18 Will A

    @ Travis #14

    You probably only needed to direct your comment to Ken B.

    Roger strikes me as a Real American who doesn’t need to be told what the facts are because he knows the real facts.

    It’s much more interesting asking people like Roger to expound on their beliefs than it is to question them.

  19. 19 19 Advo

    @Roger 9:

    What attempted murder? Are you referring to Brown?
    Now obviously his shooting was justified, but rushing towards a policeman unarmed (and getting shot) isn’t exactly “attempted murder”.

  20. 20 20 Will A

    @ Advo #19

    From Roger’s blog:
    “He is right that most of those pursuing a white genocide are not Jewish. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not Jewish, and they are doing everything they can to flood the USA with non-whites and non-Christians.”

    It is hard to argue that a person participating in white genocide isn’t an attempted murderer.

  21. 21 21 Dave H.

    @Roger

    Inviting someone to appear at your convention does not mean you are “siding with cop killers”. More to the point, “free speech” in the United States does not only extend to speech that you approve of and agree with.

    The point of political advertisements (including conventions) is not to change minds, but to convince people to act on the decision they have already made in their minds.

    I have family who decided months ago to vote for Trump. When I ask them why, they roll out lies, racism, and hatred. Usually, the list starts with “Obama is a Muslim”, and ends with “Hillary wants to kill cops.”

    Even the darkest, most hate-filled half-wits at the Republican Convention don’t believe that Hillary wants to kill cops. That is just a shorthand way of saying that she is not far-right enough to stand up for racist cops, but she is far left enough to stand up for a mom who lost her son and has nothing left in her heart for police except hatred.

    I get it. If my son had been killed the same way, I might give in to hatred as well.

    But the hate-fest at the GOP has no excuse. Hillary didn’t kill your son, and Benghazi was not her responsibility. Hillary didn’t personally let 11 million immigrants into the US, and she didn’t personally take away your Confederate flag, your guns, your job at the VCR factory, or the copy of the 10 Commandments that you honor by carving into graven images instead of living it.

    At the end of the day, you are still going to have to decide how you can support a candidate who cheats on his taxes, cheats on his wives, cheats his employees out of wages, and promises to bring back torture, war, tax cuts for billionaires, and segregated restrooms.

    That would be a lot tougher sell for me than embracing a handful of mothers who watched their sons die at the hands of police.

  22. 22 22 nobody.really

    I assumed Hillary would pivot to the center after winning the nomination….

    I has assumed that as well. Why have former Attorney General Eric Holder speaking at the convention, when he’s a well-known lightning rod for white working-class people? Do the Democrats really need to shore up their support among black voters?

    Perhaps so. There’s a growing sense that 1) there just aren’t that many undecided voters, and it’s hard to persuade them to your side, while 2) there are LOTS of votes in the Democratic base who just don’t bother to vote. So arguably Democrats have more to gain by pandering to their base (including Bernie voters) than by pivoting to the center.

    That may be a good strategy for winning an election, but it’s a sure strategy for polarization after the election. Yet I suspect everyone acknowledges that polarization will be unavoidable, regardless. Bipartisanship is something you engage in when you want to pass bills, win the White House—you know, govern. Republicans long ago determined that these goals are beyond their reach, and that their voters will reward them more for ideological purity than for compromise. So Polarization R Us.

  23. 23 23 Zazooba

    @Dave H #21

    “I have family who decided months ago to vote for Trump. When I ask them why, they roll out lies, racism, and hatred. Usually, the list starts with “Obama is a Muslim”, and ends with “Hillary wants to kill cops.””

    I’m curious about people who believe Obama is a Muslim. If asked to state what they sincerely believe (rather than what insults they hurl in heated political arguments), what exactly do they believe?

    Do they believe Obama is an actual practicing Muslim who prays to Allah regularly, performs the ritual cleansings, goes to a mosque, and adheres to the Five Pillars of Islam?

    Or, do they believe that he is a Muslim in his heart, i.e., that he believes that “there is one God, and Muhammad is his messenger”, even though he doesn’t perform the outward acts of a practicing Muslim?

    Or, do they believe that he is sympathetic to Muslims because he grew up around Muslims, and perhaps he is more sympathetic to Muslims than to Christians, and perhaps he doesn’t particularly like Christians?

    I would genuinely like to know.

  24. 24 24 Zazooba

    @nobody.really #22

    What an utterly bizarre presidential election. There have been literally dozens of utterly bizarre events so far, and certainly more to come.

    Hillary actually put the mother of an attempted cop-killer on the stage yesterday. It must be that a very large fraction of voters do not know the facts about Michael Brown and Ferguson. The whole Ferguson thing has made me question much of what I was taught about U.S. history.

  25. 25 25 Harold

    Zazooba. I have seen Michael Brown referred to as an attempted cop killer before. Yet the articles I have read make no mention of this attempted killing. Can you point to the information please?

    There does seem to be some evidence that there was an altercation in the car, but the evidence is woefully short of beyond reasonable doubt for attempted killing and nowhere near enough to make accusations of attempted killing. Is there another attempt to kill a cop I am unaware of?

  26. 26 26 Roger

    Brown tried to kill the cop twice. Once with a gunshot in the car, and again by charging the cop who had a gun pointed at him.

    All accusations that the cop shot out of racism were proved 100% false by media investigations, Missouri grand jury, and US DoJ reports.

    Any statement in defense of Brown or his mother is just an endorsement of black thugs murdering white cops.

  27. 27 27 Ken B

    Harold, I call your attention to this.

    Forensic tests found the blood of Michael Brown on the gun, uniform and … Report: Michael Brown’s blood found on Officer Darren Wilson’s gun, car door ….. the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown’s arm …

    Two shots were fired *inside the vehicle*. That does suggest a struggle for the gun. It seems clear Brown reaching in to grab the gun. I think it’s got to be at least arguable that Brown was trying to seriously injure the cop. I might balk at “tried to kill the cop twice” but I certainly think “tried to attack and injure the cop twice” is correct.

    And there’s a sauce for the goose issue here. We repeatedly hear the cops “wanted” or “intended” to kill when all we really know is they used force that *might* kill. If we apply that standard to Brown …

  28. 28 28 Zazooba

    @Harold #25

    Eric Holder’s Department of Justice issued an exhaustive report regarding Michael Brown’s attack on Officer Wilson. At page 78 of the report under “Legal Analysis” there is a good summary.

    The key sentences is: “Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence.”

    More fully, the report says:

    “Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions,if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. Even if the evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the government would also have to prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a specific intent to violate the law. As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not permitted by Department of Justice policy or the governing law.”

    The full report is at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

  29. 29 29 Zazooba

    @Harold #25

    “There does seem to be some evidence that there was an altercation in the car, but the evidence is woefully short of beyond reasonable doubt for attempted killing and nowhere near enough to make accusations of attempted killing.”

    I am not a judge, so I am not making a judgment “beyond reasonable doubt.” I am trying to succinctly summarize what happened.

    You tell me. A 300 pound criminal reaches into a cop’s car to repeatedly hit the cop in the head, then tries to grab the cop’s gun, then walks/runs/charges at the cop after being told to stop and even after being shot repeatedly. How likely is it that Brown contemplated the cop’s death as a possible outcome of his actions? What would Brown have done if he had gotten control of the cop’s gun? What would have happened if he hadn’t been killed and had reached the cop the second time? Is it reasonable to believe he would have again punched Wilson and tried to take his gun?

    I am not certain of what Michael Brown was thinking at the time, so I cannot know his intentions with certainty. But I believe it is reasonable to believe that Brown considered the cop’s death to be one possible outcome of his intended actions.

  30. 30 30 Zazooba

    @Harold #25

    I just re-read the detailed description of Brown’s attack on Office Wilson in the Dept of Justice Report. Below are some excerpts.

    “To Wilson’s surprise, Brown then leaned into the driver’s window, so that his arms and upper torso were inside the SUV. Brown started assaulting Wilson, “swinging wildly.” Brown, still with cigarillos in his hand, turned around and handed the items to Witness 101 using his left hand, telling Witness 101 “take these.” Wilson used the opportunity to grab Brown’s right arm, but Brown used his left hand to twice punch Wilson’s jaw. As Brown assaulted Wilson, Wilson leaned back, blocking the blows with his forearms. Brown hit Wilson on the side of his face and grabbed his shirt, hands, and arms. Wilson feared that Brown’s blows could potentially render him unconscious, leaving him vulnerable to additional harm.”

    “Consequently, while the assault was in progress and Brown was leaning in through the window with his arms, torso, and head inside the SUV, Wilson withdrew his gun and pointed it at Brown. Wilson warned Brown to stop or he was going to shoot him. Brown stated, “You are too much of a pussy to shoot,”5 and put his right hand6 over Wilson’s right hand, gaining control of the gun. Brown then maneuvered the gun so that it was pointed down at Wilson’s left hip. Wilson explained that Brown’s size and strength, coupled with his standing position outside the SUV relative to Wilson’s seated position inside the SUV, rendered Wilson completely vulnerable. Wilson stated that he feared Brown was going to shoot him because Brown had control of the gun.”

    Later:

    “Brown kept running, but when he was about 20 to 30 feet from Wilson, abruptly stopped, and turned around toward Wilson, appearing “psychotic,” “hostile,” and “crazy,” as though he was “looking through” Wilson. While making a “grunting noise” and with what Wilson described as the “most intense aggressive face” that he had ever seen on a person, Brown then made a hop-like movement, similar to what a person does when he starts running. Brown then started running at Wilson, closing the distance between them to about 15 feet. Wilson explained that he again feared for his life, and backed up as Brown came toward him, repeatedly ordering Brown to stop and get on the ground. Brown failed to comply and kept coming at Wilson. Wilson explained that he knew if Brown reached him, he “would be done.””

  31. 31 31 Harold

    Ken B. ” I might balk at “tried to kill the cop twice” but I certainly think “tried to attack and injure the cop twice” is correct.”

    I am surprised that you go as far as you do. We have no testimony from Mr Brown since he is dead, so we must take with caution the one-sided testimony we do have. We do not know that Brown tried to injure the cop. We are pretty certain that that there was an altercation inside the car. One interpretation is that Brown tried to injure the cop but there are other interpretations. Brown may have been trying to disarm the cop. Maybe Wilson was afraid, tried to draw his gun for protection, Brown became afraid and wrestled for the gun. One thing led to another. We simply do not know. We do not know enough to assert with conviction even that Brown tried to attack and injure the cop.

    Zazooba. You must try to separate Wilson being justified for shooting Brown and Brown attempting to kill Wilson. If Wilson feared he was being attacked that is enough to justify his actions. I am not sure what “reasonableness” test is applied in the US. In the UK the fear does not need to be “reasonable” but “genuine”. It is possible that Wilson was legally justified in killing even if Brown was not attempting to kill or injure him.

    #28. This describes why it is not possible to prosecute Wilson. Wilson’s evidence is consistent with the physical evidence and there is no evidence to prove his testimony is wrong. That is a very, very long way from proving his testimony is right.

    #29. You presume Wilson’s account is true and accurate in every respect. All we know (from your previous comment) is that we cannot prove him wrong. That does not mean we simply accept as true everything he says.

    “I am not a judge, so I am not making a judgment “beyond reasonable doubt.” I am trying to succinctly summarize what happened.”

    No, you are going well beyond summarizing what happened by attributing motive to someone that you have no way of knowing. All you have is one side of the story. It is not a case that either Wilson is a murderer or Brown is an attempted murderer. By calling Brown an attempted cop killer you are just as guilty as those that castigated Wilson before the facts were known.

  32. 32 32 Ken B

    “We are pretty certain that that there was an altercation inside the car. One interpretation is that Brown tried to injure the cop but there are other interpretations. Brown may have been trying to disarm the cop. Maybe Wilson was afraid, tried to draw his gun for protection, Brown became afraid and wrestled for the gun. One thing led to another. We simply do not know. We do not know enough to assert with conviction even that Brown tried to attack and injure the cop.”

    This is the very definition of grasping at straws. We do not know, as I said, but we have a pretty strong inference.

    “ou presume Wilson’s account is true and accurate in every respect. All we know (from your previous comment) is that we cannot prove him wrong. That does not mean we simply accept as true everything he says.”

    Again, special pleading of the rankest sort. All we know is that
    1. his testimony is consistent with all the physical evidence
    2. his testimony is consistent with the eyewitnesses whose testimony has not been disproved (eg hands up”)
    3. his testimony is corroborated by other witnesses
    4. his testimony is internally consistent
    5. his testimony adumbrates an inherently plausible story

    I am curious if there are people in other situations where we know more. Can we ever infer intent from actions?

    What’s your story. Michael Brown, having just roughed up a clerk and robbed a store, sees a rogue cop with no history of roguery sitting in his car brandishing a gun, calmly crosses to the car, and politely tries to wrest the gun from the cop? But then this gun wielding cop does not shoot Brown as he is going away? And then Brown charges the cop not to attack him but to give him a hug?

    You haven’t answered my point about sauce for the gander.

  33. 33 33 Harold

    Come on Ken B, you can do better. We have one side of the story. It is simply not enough to draw the conclusions you do.

    It is not my story you need, but Mr Browns. I cannot give that, nor can he.

    I can construct scenarios that are consistent with the physical evidence I am aware of and not contradicted by other testimony I am aware of except Wilson. If there is conflict with Wilson’s testimony we would simply be in a position of one word against the other.

    Here is one where Brown is almost wholly innocent.
    Michael Brown, having stolen a few cigarillos, is told to get off the pavement by the cop. He and his mate are not entirely respectful. The cop passes the reverses back towards them quickly. Brown believes this can have nothing to do with the cigarillos, because that was not mentioned when the cop first spoke to them. He believes that the cop is going to beat him up like he has seen video of cops beating up other people. Why else would he reverse rapidly towards him?

    Wilson tries to open the door, but Brown in his fear tries to stop him. He leans into the car to talk to Wilson and tries to prevent Wilson from getting out. Wilson believes he is being attacked and tries to draw his gun. Brown panics. He has seen footage of black men being shot by police. He tries to stop Wilson pointing the gun at him and hits Wilson to try to get him to drop the gun. Wilson is now equally afraid as he thinks Brown is trying to kill him. He manages to shoot Brown in the hand.

    Brown flees. He has been shot and is in shock. He is terribly afraid and panicking. He sees Wilson get out of the car with his gun. Brown is convinced he is about to be shot. He stops and turns towards Wilson. Wilson sees him turning and starts to raise his gun. Brown sees this and in his fear and panic is convinced he is about to be shot. Running out of options he tries to get close to Wilson so he can get control of the gun. He is killed on the way.

    As far as I know this is consistent with all witness evidence except maybe some of Wilsons, and where it conflicts with Wilson it is understandable that Wilson and Brown could perceive things differently. If there is some evidence I am not aware of I think the story could be tweaked to fit.

    If we had this testimony from Brown it would fit the following:
    1. his testimony is consistent with all the physical evidence
    2. his testimony is consistent with the eyewitnesses whose testimony has not been disproved (eg hands up”)
    3. his testimony is corroborated by other witnesses
    4. his testimony is internally consistent
    5. his testimony adumbrates an inherently plausible story

  34. 34 34 Zazooba

    @Harold #33

    So, your “inherently plausible story” is that Brown repeatedly attacked an armed police officer after disobeying repeated lawful orders to desist in self defense, and even after being shot a few times?

    Ok.

    I’d be willing to bet that this defense would not be very successful in court.

    You started by saying the evidence was woefully short of attempted killing. Now you are down to arguing that the obvious interpretation of the facts is not the only one, and there may exist some not-very-believable explanation for the facts. I can agree with this interpretation.

  35. 35 35 Ken B

    Come on Harold, you can do better. We have one side of the story. It is simply not enough to draw the conclusions you do.

    It is not my story you need, but Mr Klebold’s. I cannot give that, nor can he.

  36. 36 36 Ken B

    Seriously Harold. You think your story about Brown is “inherently plausible”?
    Even as you tell it, would it match the witness statements and physical evidence? How do you know that? Really, I want to know, how? You are freaking out about a natural inference from behavior, and yet you claim this will match all the physical evidence, and all the other witnesses? Incroyable! Do you know where all the blood was found, where all the powder residue was found, where all the handprints were, etc, to match up to your tale? No. But you baldly assert it is consistent with all that evidence. So your last little riff is just silly. But I am citing a very detailed report by trained investigators who did all that detail work against the actual story told by the cop.

  37. 37 37 Sub Specie Æternitatis

    @Will A#11 really shows how law and order has gone to hell in this country when people like … Eric Garner are never charged with attempted murder.

    Or perhaps that is just because in this country dead people are rarely charged with any crimes they may have committed?

    More seriously, even if Garner had survived his encounter with the police and regardless of how one judges his refusal to instantly comply with police orders, I find it extremely difficult to derive any intent to commit murder on his part from the available evidence.

  38. 38 38 Ken B

    @Sub 37
    I think you missed Will A’s irony.

    (The wisest policy is to never take seriously what Will A says :) )

  39. 39 39 Sub Specie Æternitatis

    @Ken B:38

    Sorry about that. :) I console myself that missing people’s irony seems to be as aggravating to them as to me.

  40. 40 40 Ken B

    “I console myself that missing people’s irony seems to be as aggravating to them as to me.”

    Then I hope Will never figures out I caught his.

    ;)

  41. 41 41 Harold

    Ken B. The trained investigators were not investigating my scenario so we do not know what they would have concluded. All they tested was that Wilson’s version was plausible and could not be proved wrong.

    Would my story match the evidence? I believe so. Since my scenario is consistent with the actions of Wilson that he gives in his own account and only differs in matters of motivation and small differences in timing, the physical evidence will fit my story as well as Wilson’s. That is how I know that the physical evidence will be consistent with my story.

    “Do you know where all the blood was found, where all the powder residue was found, where all the handprints were, etc, to match up to your tale?”

    If you want to see where the blood was found Wikipedia has a plan and it is consistent with my story. Similarly the other physical evidence. This is not totally comprehensive but all evidence I have accessed is consistent with my story. Unless you have extra knowledge not available to me I don’t see how you could conclude otherwise.

    Your argument is that if my story had been investigated then there would have been inconsistencies found. You cannot know that because my story was not investigated.

    So, I ask you, what do find not plausible about my story? have you spotted a conflict with known evidence?

    Zazooba “So, your “inherently plausible story” is that Brown repeatedly attacked an armed police officer after disobeying repeated lawful orders to desist in self defense, and even after being shot a few times?”
    I suggest you re-read my scenario.

  42. 42 42 Zazooba

    “I suggest you re-read my scenario.”

    Here is your scenario:

    “He believes that the cop is going to beat him up like he has seen video of cops beating up other people. … Wilson tries to open the door, but Brown in his fear tries to stop him. He leans into the car to talk to Wilson and tries to prevent Wilson from getting out. … Brown panics. He has seen footage of black men being shot by police. He tries to stop Wilson pointing the gun at him and hits Wilson to try to get him to drop the gun. … Brown flees. … He is terribly afraid and panicking. … Brown is convinced he is about to be shot. … Wilson … starts to raise his gun. Brown sees this and in his fear and panic is convinced he is about to be shot. Running out of options he tries to get close to Wilson so he can get control of the gun.”

    You arguing self defense just like I said, “Brown repeatedly attacked an armed police officer after disobeying repeated lawful orders to desist in self defense, and even after being shot a few times?”

  43. 43 43 Ken B

    Harold, do you know what a parlay is?

    You have become like the Austrians at Murphys, you demand 100% proof your scenario is logically impossible. But no one claims it is or needs to prove it is. It is a long, long parlay of implausible steps. The simple explanation is Brown got aggressive.

  44. 44 44 Zazooba

    Harold,

    I’m getting deja vu here. Have we been through this before? I have a memory of a prior discussion where someone vigorously argued that “we can never really know what happened in Ferguson with certainty.”

  45. 45 45 Ken B

    Harold, as for your claim of consistency with all the facts, the mind boggles. The cop’s story was gone over minutely. It all checked out, every material detail. You make up a story, assert flatly and the it will also check out and hold up to equal scrutiny. Thousands of details. Can you not see how silly that is? You seem to think matching, in a contorted fashion frankly, five points guarantees a match on all the unknowns.

  46. 46 46 Harold

    Ken B I m not saying it would stand up to minute scrutiny. I am saying it stands up to all you know about it. I don’t know why your mind boggles. Just point out where my story is inconsistent with the facts. You say “I might balk at “tried to kill the cop twice” but I certainly think “tried to attack and injure the cop twice” is correct.” You obviously think you know enough about the minutae to conclude Brown was trying to injure the cop.

    Now, if you are prepared to qualify that by adding “possibly in self defence” then I might go along with it. In the same way the cop was obviously trying to kill or injure Brown by shooting him.

    We cannot know that without Brown’s testimony. I have shown that there are plausible scenarios where Brown was not trying to injure the cop. Therefore we cannot conclude that he was trying to do so. It is clearly absurd to say “attempted cop killer”

    You say it is a long parlay of implausible steps. Which steps are implausible?

  47. 47 47 Ken B

    Harold,
    The cops story DOES hold up to intense, detailed scrutiny. The simple explanation is that it’s true. That’s how detailed scrutiny works. You sound like an Intelligent Design type here. We know, by any rational standard, that evolution happened, precisely because it is consistent with so many details. The section of the report you harp on is the recommendation. That is phrased negatively because the question it addressed is whether there should be prosecution. But the details of all the investigation are what matter.

    You have NOT shown there are plausible scenarios where Brown acted as you said because you have not tested it against all the evidence. This is exactly like an IDer claim.

  48. 48 48 Ken B

    And Harold, please be accurate in representing me. I already said Roger went too far in flatly asserting the desire to kill. I asserted something else, right?

  49. 49 49 Harold

    Ken B #48. Sorry if you feel I have misrepresented you. I did quote you directly and was not insinuating that you had said attempted cop killer.

    You are usually sharp as a razor, so I just want to check what it is you are claiming. I think you are claiming that Brown criminally attacked or attempted to attack Wilson with intent to injure, without justifiable provocation, on two occasions.

    We have two stories
    1) Brown (unarmed) attacked and armed police officer, unprovoked, with criminal intent.
    2) Brown (unarmed) felt himself to be threatened (by an armed officer), so attacked in self defense.

    Noe there is no requirement in my story for Wilson to actually be threatening Brown, only that Brown perceived it that way. The difference in the stories is about the state of mind of Brown.

    You claim that we must accept your story, but mine must be rejected. Since we have zero evidence about the state of Brown’s mind I don’t see why you conclude this.

    The investigation did not find that Brown attacked with criminal intent, so this intention has not been tested against the evidence any more than my story has.

    If you actually know of some evidence that supports your story and is inconsistent with mine, then please put me straight on this. But if you don’t then your version is no more the truth than mine.

  50. 50 50 Harold

    Basically, we are not debating the cop’s story against my story, but your story against my story.

  51. 51 51 Ken B

    Harold
    “I think you are claiming that Brown criminally attacked or attempted to attack Wilson”

    I think that is the most reasonable reading of the evidence.
    without justifiable provocation, on two occasions.

    “with intent to injure,”

    Again, I think that’s likely. The cop, whose story seems true, implies such, as do Brown’s actions. I agree I am inferring intent from action. If I charge you I am probably intending to smack you. I think the inference is even strong if I just roughed a clerk.

    I quite agree the study did not address Brown’s intent. Brother Occam did.

  52. 52 52 Ken B

    I’m happy to leave it there Harold. My theory is that the simplest explanation is that a man, whom we saw moments before on videotape getting aggressive and violent, got aggressive and violent.

  53. 53 53 Harold

    I think you infer too much. You have to be a crazy fool to attack an armed man for no apparent reason. I don’t think your explanation requires fewer assumptions than mine. We saw him aggressive and violent, to the extent of a push, against an unarmed man, with a specific benefit of getting the cigarillos. You then say he attacked an armed man that had the ability to call for armed back-up, for no apparent gain.

    Either way we require assumptions. It is not clear cut that there are fewer with your story.

    Anyway, I am happy to agree to differ here. You believe your story, and I’ll believe the true story :). (That is of course a joke, as I have no greater claim on the truth here.)

  54. 54 54 JB

    Wow, 53 (some rather visceral) responses to a picture of an old billboard. I’d assumed Steve just found it sort of amusing and wanted to share it. I for one got a kick out of it.

Comments are currently closed.