Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default Democrats Defining Murder

    it's a bit different than the legal definition, but what the heck. It's a new day!

    I suppose one should think about the 'Ferguson Effect?' Then again, what's a bit of water or buckets thrown at cops? What is wrong with cops only reacting to 911 calls, not acting proactively at all? Literally doing just what they are told to do? Self-monitoring so they are more likely to go home safely and not lose their jobs.

    Yesterday while many were watching the hostage shooting in Philadelphia yesterday, perhaps said a prayer for the 6 shot or those remaining in the way of danger. More than a few of the residents though, pushed, cursed, and further ridiculed the police. Indeed even those that rescued the Muslim women that were trapped close to the shooter's home and those that carried infants and toddlers out of harm's way that had been in a daycare center ran the gauntlet of verbal abuse. Yet they persevered.

    Why would anyone bring up those Dallas police killed in 2016? Or the two NYC police sitting in their squad car? Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon? Why would offense be taken? Why would they choose to go the easier way for themselves, instead of going beyond?

    Anyways, back to the Democrats and revisionist language:

    https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/mich...-or-something/

    Michael Brown PolitiFact Check: Murder Is What Democrats Say It Is, or Something
    BY STEPHEN GREEN AUGUST 15, 2019

    When is it OK to call a not-murder a murder? When Democrats need it to call it one for political gain, if I'm reading PolitiFact's Louis Jacobson correctly.

    The big stink this week, "largely ignored" by the Mainstream Media, is over false claims by United States senators and Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris that Michael Brown was "murdered" by a white policeman five years ago.
    Here are the candidates' own tweets:

    Kamala Harris



    Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.


    3,175

    11:24 AM - Aug 9, 2019



    Elizabeth Warren


    5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.


    38.1K

    11:59 AM - Aug 9, 2019


    The legal definition of murder is "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority." Or murder in the second degree, which "is such a killing without premeditation."

    Brown, a young black man shot to death by Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson, was not murdered. Wilson, as the facts eventually made plain, fired in self-defense while under attack by Brown. That's a legally justified killing, which is pretty much the exact opposite of murder.


    You'd think that for a fact-checking organization, this would be an open-and-shut case. And for at least two lefty publications, it was.



    To date, the New York Times has ignored the story, because apparently two big-name Democratic presidential contenders with deep pockets libeling a young Midwestern police officer isn't news that's fit to print. But the Washington Post's Fact Check column gave Harris' and Warren's claim Four Pinocchios, the polite equivalent of "Liar, liar, pants on fire." Progressive young adult infotainment site Vox explained that Brown was not murdered, because "the evidence, including a report released by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, says otherwise."


    But apparently all that's not good enough for PolitiFact's Louis Jacobson, who chose instead to muddy the waters with his so-called "fact check."


    Now if it were me running a fact-check site, I'd look at the claim ("he was murdered") and the facts ("the law says that a legally justified shooting isn't murder"), and tell my readers whether the claim stood up to the facts. Which seems to me not-at-all-unreasonable for a fact-checker.

    But here's Jacobson's not-quite just-the-facts-ma'am take:

    In discussing the case with legal experts, however, we found broad consensus that "murder" was the wrong word to use — a legal point likely familiar to Harris, a longtime prosecutor, and Warren, a law professor.

    In fact, two other Democratic senators with law degrees now running for president — Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand — more accurately referred to it as a killing.


    That said, experts who have studied police-related deaths and race relations said that focusing too much on the linguistics in controversial cases comes with its own set of problems.

    Let me parse that for you. Jacobson admits that Brown was not murdered, but then goes on to argue that "murder" might be a good word to use anyway, because doing so fits a particular agenda.

    Jacobson then quotes Jean Brown, a communications instructor (not a legal scholar) at Texas Christian University arguing, "I don’t know if the legalistic distinction intensifies the anger, but it does feel like an attempt to shift the debate from a discussion about the killing of black and brown people by police." Which is a fancy way of saying, "Brown wasn't murdered, but it suits my agenda to say that he was." And that's a fancy way of saying, "I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of stoking racial hatred."

    "Quite frankly," she says, "it’s a distraction that doesn’t help the discussion."


    Precisely, although perhaps Brown admitted more than she meant to.

    Muddying the waters further, Jacobson says that "some legal experts argued that there’s a difference between being legally precise and using language more informally."


    Well, sure -- but is it factual, Mr. Fact-Checker?


    I'd have to rate Jacobson's fact-check: Four Muddy Waters.


    Jacobson concludes his piece with a quote from Joy Leopard, an assistant professor of media communications (not law) at Webster University. "Focusing on the language opens up the opportunity for some to discredit the conversation about police brutality and the criminal justice system in general." I'd argue that conflating a justified shooting with murder makes it impossible to have a real conversation about police brutality (which is a genuine concern) in order to perpetuate a permanently aggrieved victimhood class. But that's just me and my opinion, and I'd expect you to treat it as such.



    Jacobson, for his part, "won’t be rating" Harris' and Warren's tweets "on the Truth-O-Meter," because "the significance of Harris’ and Warrens’ use of the word is open to some dispute." Forget weighing the facts, he's saying; PolitiFact is here to judge the "significance."


    That's not fact-checking -- it's opinion. And that's a fact you should keep in mind when forming your opinion about PolitiFact.





    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Now if you take all the crap the Dems/left are pulling simultaneously, non-stop, what do you come up with? They're MURDERING the US Constitution and the English language and they don't care. Not one bit. The end justifies the means. I seriously doubt few of them are beyond actual, by-definition murder so long as they get the power and control.

    If I was a cop? I'd quit. Seek alternative employment. Same thing I said (admittedly after the fact) about Obama. Had he been elected while I was still on active duty I'd have retired before he got sworn in. No way would I put with this crap for doing my job.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  3. Thanks Kathianne, Elessar thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    USA East Coast
    Posts
    3,091
    Thanks (Given)
    3048
    Thanks (Received)
    2042
    Likes (Given)
    4798
    Likes (Received)
    1751
    Piss Off (Given)
    230
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6803333

    Default But they won't admit this is????



    I may be older than most. I may say things not everybody will like.
    But despite all of that. I will never lower myself to the level of Liars, Haters, Cheats, and Hypocrites.
    Philippians 4:13 I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me:

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    https://townhall.com/columnists/mich...-card-n2551783

    Will Fact-Checkers Foil Democrats' Attempts to Play the Race Card?
    Michael Barone Michael Barone |Posted: Aug 16, 2019 12:01 AM

    Fact-checking journalists lean left, as Mark Hemingway documented in a canonical Washington Examiner analysis that is just as valid today as when it was published in 2011. But as John F. Kennedy once said, when asked why he wasn't supported by an odoriferous Massachusetts Democrat, "sometimes party loyalty asks too much."


    Case in point: the two solemn statements by Democratic presidential candidates. Last Friday at 2:24 p.m., Kamala Harris tweeted, "Michael Brown's murder forever changed Ferguson and America." Half an hour later, Elizabeth Warren got more specific: "5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri." They weren't the only candidates noting this fifth anniversary, but others carefully avoided the M-word.


    Correctly so, as the intensive investigation by Barack Obama's and Eric Holder's Justice Department concluded that the officer fired on Brown in justified self-defense. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler awarded Harris and Warren "four Pinocchios" and called their dismissal of the Justice Department report "even more galling."


    Vox's German Lopez wrote, "Five years after the shooting, though, major presidential campaigns are still getting the details wrong."


    "Harris, Warren wrong about Brown shooting," reads the headline on a FactCheck.org story by Lori Robertson.


    Were these fact-checkers' responses an attempt to uphold the repute of the Obama administration, so many of whose policies have been attacked and scorned by many Democratic candidates? Unlikely. The candidates' errors were too blatant.

    ...


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  6. Likes Elessar liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums