Willing to ask, what is truth: We’re happy to say that the new Salon has done something journalistic!
To convince yourselves, click here. A bright young kid named Joanna Rothkopf is the virtuous party. (Middlebury, class of 2012!)
Working from a New York Times report, Rothkopf said there are conflicting accounts of the way Michael Brown came to be shot and killed. She said the grand jury which convenes today will have to figure out what actually happened.
Rothkopf didn’t do a perfect job of paraphrasing the Times. Still, it’s nice to see Salon step outside the realm of hard scripting for once.
Here’s what the New York Times said at the start of today’s report, Frances Robles reporting:
ROBLES (8/20/14): As a county grand jury prepared to hear evidence on Wednesday in the shooting death of a black teenager by a white police officer that touched off 10 days of unrest here, witnesses have given investigators sharply conflicting accounts of the killing.According to Robles, “the accounts of what witnesses have said come from some of those witnesses themselves, law enforcement authorities and others in Ferguson. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.”
Some of the accounts seem to agree on how the fatal altercation initially unfolded: with a struggle between the officer, Darren Wilson, and the teenager, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car at the time, while Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was leaning in through an open window.
Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.
But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed.
Who are these witnesses? We don’t know.
How sharp are the differences in their accounts? We don’t know that either. Nor do we have any way of knowing what actually happened when Brown was killed, beyond the obvious.
That said, this report from the New York Times is important. Here’s why:
If you watched cable news last night, you saw the world splitting in two. In our view, Our Own Liberal World was on the wrong side of the divide once again.
On Fox, you heard complaints about prejudgment. On MSNBC, prejudgment was being applauded. Many people spoke as if the purpose of our justice system is to reach the verdicts which will calm those who have prejudged.
What actually happened when Brown was killed? We can’t tell you that. But once again, we liberals have cast ourselves on the side of old-fashioned southern justice.
The claim that Brown was shot “in the back” has already turned out to be wrong. But then, many of our claims turned out to be wrong in the Trayvon Martin killing, including the early heinous claim that two shots were fired that night—a warning shot and a second “kill shot.”
That heinous claim appeared in the New York Times, courtesy of lawyers for the Martins. The claim that Brown was shot “in the back” was being repeated on the front page of the Washington Post last Sunday, long after it should have been clear that newspapers should be careful.
How does southern justice work, whether performed by red or blue cadres? Wesley Lowery’s report in today’s Washington Post describes the ugly two-step which has wreaked havoc all through our American history.
Let’s hear it for southern justice! Fresh from his recent imprisonment, Lowery describes the way the mob burned the QuikTrip down:
LOWREY (8/20/14): The red and white gas station at the corner of West Florissant Avenue and Northwinds Estates Drive was the victim of a rumor.There you see the ugly two-step, live and direct from American history:
On Sunday, there was a false report that employees of the gas station had called 911 to report that Michael Brown, whose fatal shooting by police 11 days ago precipitated the crisis in the city, had robbed the place. Enraged protesters burned the gas station to the ground.
Destroyed, it sat unattended for days, emerging as the depressing backdrop for cable news live reports—a sign of the chaos and destruction that engulfs the streets of Ferguson after each nightfall.
First step: Rumor starts; enraged mob believes it.Or kills bad person. Whatever!
Second step: Mob burns store to the ground.
This is a time-honored part of our American history. The embarrassment in recent years involves the way the liberal world has cast itself in the role of the mob.
Last night, The One True Channel was prejudging rather hard. Our stars discussed the way the grand jury has to please the angry people in the street.
Many people in the street have prejudged the facts. In part, this has happened because of the failure of our alleged journalists.
This morning, Salon is saying the facts aren’t settled yet. Such words have never pleased the mob. In comments, Rothkopf is getting pounded by advocates of Our Own Southern Justice.
Journalistic values have often been AWOL in the past week. This morning, Salon and Rothkopf clambered back on board the bus.
This just in from Postscript land: We understand. In this case, you know what happened.
Please understand one basic fact. The mob has always said that!
Interesting. Lowery says "enraged protesters". Somerby says, "mob."
ReplyDeleteSo how many "enraged protesters" does it take to make a "mob"? Bob doesn't know. Bob wasn't there. But let that not stop his fertile imagination from running wild.
After all, it could be 1. Or it could be 100. Bob doesn't tell us because he doesn't know.
Don't you watch TV?
DeleteYes I do. In fact, I saw the raw footage taken by cell phone video of about 10 people looting the QuikTrip shortly before it wass set on fire.
DeleteI suppose "10" can be a "mob." After all, they were all black.
I also saw some rather interesting footage on TV just the other day of looters going into the market where Brown apparently stole the cigarillos after the police chief painted a target on that place.
Very interesting. Another "mob" immediately threw the looters out then stood guard in front of the market, with the cops standing across the street twiddling their AK-47s.
By the way, if Bob wants to correlate the "mob" that burned the QuikTrip to historical mobs, he might look up the 1921 Tulsa riot.
DeleteAnd if he has finally discovered "google" he might look up some real lynch mobs from history.
What about the market in Dellwood and the meat market in Ferguson.
DeleteFrom WIKI:
Mob = Mob commonly refers to a crowd of people (from Latin mobile vulgus, ).
Crowd = A crowd is a small and definable group of people.
Yes, let's argue about how many people constitue a "mob." Let's also argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
DeleteThe thing is, Bob in his rush to judgment also rushed to not only type the word "mob" but to equate them with "mobs" throughout U.S. history.
His analogy kinda falls short there.
Mobs think differently than individuals. When they clamor for justice bad things happen. Throughout history.
DeleteI think enraged protesters who burn something down count as a mob. Expecting Bob to do extra fact checking is also OK, given it's his schtick.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the southern justice thing reminded me of the observation that black culture is, in fact, a subset of southern culture. Interesting to think about, anthropologically. Questionable relevance, though.
"Also, the southern justice thing reminded me of the observation that black culture is, in fact, a subset of southern culture. Interesting to think about, anthropologically." No. Black culture (as an ethnicity) is a lot more complicated than that. Just saying.
DeleteIf the commenter had said "just a subset of southern culture," your complaint might be justified. There are strong southern influences (shared with southern whites) to black culture, even when transplanted to Chicago or Detroit. Yes, it is more complicated than that but there are strong southern influences reflected in black culture. Why argue with that?
DeleteBecause there are blacks, and there are black cultures, in the north (e.g., New England) and west that have very little to do with southern cultures of any stripe. At least one African slave in the north preceded the Puritans. Maybe I'm sensitive to this because of my northern and southern ancestries (and my husband's and children's Indian ancestry). I'd note, too, that many New England Indians (people who identify themselves as such) "look" (black) African rather than Indian (which happens elsewhere, too, of course). There's a history there, too. I'm just tired of whole groups of Americans being treated as if they had never existed and no longer exist, even when we all live among one another.
DeleteSo do we know, as Bob states as fact, rumor caused the mob to burn down QuickTrip? How do we know it wasn't a single looter with stolen cigarillos out back who got careless with a match?
ReplyDeleteSouthern Justice by Bob!
Of course we know it as a fact. After all, it was reported by The Washington Post. Bob has spent years telling us how reliable the Post's reporting is. At least, when it fits his script.
DeletePraise the Lord and call Mom! Seems like only yesterday it was the NY Times giving us the one true fact in the case. First time I have believed them since Kitty Genovese.
DeleteSo now the trolls want Somerby to have personally witnessed everything he talks about?
Delete"Journalistic values have often been AWOL in the past week. This morning, Salon and Rothkopf clambered back on board the bus."
ReplyDeleteAnd what ladder did they use to climb aboard this bus?
"Working from a New York Times report . . ." Which he quotes briefly. Then completely disappears by the end of his post.
Bob may or may not rather jump off the Chrysler building than to praise the New York Times. But he would certainly rather praise the vile, hated Salon for cribbing off the NYT's work.
Bob would rather jump off a 13 and a half inch penis than praise a young woman working for Salon. And if it came to praise for Joan Walsh he would rather cut off his own.... well, you get the picture.
DeleteYeah, yeah some wrong "facts" have been reported.
ReplyDeleteBut god do I hate me some Somerby.
Me too but I've got a spell for that. All you need is a couple of pollywogs from a cruddy ditch near Yorba Linda and a stadard size bottle of Summer's Eve.
DeleteI admire the honesty of E.D. Troll, who just comes out and says he hates Somerby. It's sickening, but honest, and required no snide, snarky, self-congratulatory posing, just a simple statement of fact.
DeleteGo away.
DeleteHey, the 2-word mental giant (552) is back. Is there anyone more consistent and predictable? I like stuff you don't have to think about.
DeleteI admire the effort kholmst made in demonstrating the perceptiveness of the TDH readership. Unlike 5:58 I am not certain 5:52 is THE two word giant since the real TWG has become more expressive of late and this offering could be directed at any or all of the three it follows.
DeleteLots of people here want the trolls gone.
DeleteI am not sure @ 10:58. Only somebody named Anonymous has complained recently. Others named Anonymous seem to keep calling Anonymous a troll.
DeleteCute. This a great example of why people dislike trolls.
DeleteYes. @ 10:58 should be ashamed. So should @ 10:22 if he/she is the same as @ 10:58. I think both might be EDT @ 5:53.
DeleteGo ahead and prejudge this one. An innocent police department doesn't hide every detail it possibly can, then go on Hannity.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course "moving towards him in a threatening manner" is not a capital offense.
633: G-E-T H-E-L-P N-O-W!!
DeleteFailure to obey the orders of a cop while seeming to pose a danger to that cop or others is a shooting offense. It doesn't matter what the person does to place himself in that jeopardy.
DeleteFailure to obey the orders of a cop while seeming to pose a danger to that cop is no more than a misdemeanor in Missouri.
DeleteSomeone who threatens a cop is going to get shot. How hard is that to understand? That fact is so well known that distraught people go out deliberately to commit suicide by cop -- witness the video of the St. Louis officer and the mentally ill man who asked the cop to shoot him while advancing on him with a knife. What kind of job places a person in the position of having to kill another in order to protect his own life and the lives of bystanders?
DeleteThe cop has injuries to show that he was attacked. Witnesses report seeing it. Are you now going to argue that those injuiries were self-inflicted? Or is the cop supposed to allow himself to be beaten up, then let that attacker go back into the community to attack someone else? Someone who will attack a cop will not hesitate to attack another unarmed person with less authority.
What person, black or white, reaches the age of 18 with the belief that it is OK to hit a police officer? A person who is 6 ft 4 and weighs 290 and has that belief, is dangerous, demonstrably so given the injuries to the police officer. Note that I am setting aside what happened to the convenience store clerk.
"Seeming to pose a danger" means that whether the attacker is actually dangerous or not does not need to be established in order for the cop to defend himself using deadly force. It doesn't mean the cop can imagine danger where it does not exist.
There are numerous videos of cops shot while making routine traffic stops, because they happened to stop someone who had just committed some other crime (robbery or homicide). A cop never knows whether someone who appears innocent might actually be very dangerous. They must approach everyone with caution. Arguing that someone who is innocent should not be treated as if they were dangerous is not justified by the danger cops would place themselves in if they were to take that approach and guess wrong. So, joking that people committing misdemeanors are not dangerous makes no sense and is unfair to police officers. Timothy McVeigh was caught during a routine traffic stop.
Not every threat is a death threat. If a guy is threatening, make him non-threatening without killing in one of the innumerable ways that _training_ teaches you to do.
DeleteIf cops are really living in such desperate terror that anyone they approach is going to whip out a concealed gun and start blasting, then the cops wouldn't be approaching anyone. They'd call in three cars to bust jaywalkers.
And no one has a response to the cops concealing evidence and running to Hannity.
I'm tired of being told by Bob how I (as one of "us liberals") responded to an MSNBC (or other "liberal" report). It's one thing to warn allies (I'm framing this generously) of pitfalls in their/our thinking, responses. It's another to hector someone, telling them what they think or feel. Really offensive.
ReplyDeleteYou won't get any argument from me.
DeleteDeadrat?
Are you offended enough to go away?
DeleteAre you offensive enough to fail to respond to the argument?
DeleteThe only good Indian is a dead one, or one who isn't here anymore. So that makes me an Indian. (I am not deadrat, in any case.)
I am not a troll. I first discovered Bob S a few years ago and found some of his insights interesting (as, apparently, Drum and others do now and then). But over time I've come to worry about a pathology in him that I might just shrug off -- what's one blogger? -- if I didn't see something insidiously exemplary in his games, examples of how privileged white men justify themselves to themselves. It's almost as if those of us who are not Bobfans (but decent human beings who care about other real human beings) want to save him from himself, but he simply will not listen, even to consider our perspectives. A self-destructive self-justification....
Love is NOT not having to say you're sorry.
If you've been here any time you know he doesn't read his comments. You are a troll because it is idiotic to expect to agree with a blog and silly to call the stuff you don't like pathological. So you are just another waste of breathe troll here to annoy Somerby readers, who may not agree with all he says either but now cannot discuss anything because of turds like you.
DeleteWell, turds like me spend some time at other actually liberal sites (and with actually liberal to truly left people in person) that are being inundated these days with trolls who disrupt what might otherwise be interesting conversation, but really, ask yourself. Is a site that proclaims "we liberals," but whose fans are almost entirely right-wingers/libertarians, promoting interesting and productive conversation? A self-justificatory site for tedious white men.
DeleteAnonymous @7:13P,
DeleteI think you've confused me with the Somerby-whisperer. You'll have to consult the real thing. Ask Anonymous @12:19A.
Is TDH "really offensive"? I can answer if you tell where TDH falls on the offensive scale where 0 is video of cute puppies and 10 is the recent murder of Yazidis.
"If you've been here any time you know he doesn't read his comments."
DeleteDear 12:25, I know no such thing, and neither do you. The only thing we know is that he does not engage his readers in his own combox, at least under his own name. But he still could be commenting. We don't know.
But 12:19 never said he reads his own combox. What he said is that Somerby doesn't listen. And if you are correct and he doesn't even bother to read the comments, pro and con, then that is a pretty damning statement. It means Bob isn't even interested in any other viewpoint than his own.
I've been reading this blog on and off since the campaign of 2000. I've learned that since he tried to join the late 20th Century, his combox is often far more insightful -- not to mention concise -- than the actual posts themselves, and this includes people across the Somerby spectrum -- his "fans" and his "trolls." I often find myself learning something new only from them.
That's because this blog has become like a tired old TV show, say "Gunsmoke" or "Bonanza" that has long since run out of fresh ideas, but doesn't know how to end it. So it just keeps dusting off old scripts and recycling them, including the specter of a 70-year-old Matt Dillon or Ben Cartwright still engaging in fist fights and gun fights in the street.
In other words, Bob has become a parody of himself as he moves farther and farther to the extreme right, to the point of congratulating Fox News for the "wider spectrum of views" they present, while he continues to pose as "we liberals" who are, of course, soooo dumb!
He is trying to model evenhandedness and openmindedness when he compliments Fox on something, not declaring himself a conservative. It is pretty dumb of you to miss that point, among others.
DeleteYes, how evenhanded of him to talk about the salary of a certain MSNBC host and her clown shoes while trolling every personality profile for any sign of inconsistency to accuse her of lying while praising Fox for presenting a "wider spectrum of views."
DeleteBob on his best days is merely boring. On his worst days, he's an apologist for the right-wing noise machine. In between? Well, he ran out of good, solid, well-thought-out "in between" ideas a long time ago.
And before you start crying, "Oh yeah? Then why are you still here?" I've already told you. It's to read the combox. It's damned interesting, far more than the poorly conceived and lazily written screeds that precede them.
I can only imagine what it would be like without all the "trolls." Nothing but Bobfans telling Somerby how brilliant he is. And getting no response.
So, you may be a long time reader of this blog but you are not a Somerby admirer and clearly are in line with all the other trolls here. Your beef is that he picks on Maddow for doing a lazy job.
DeleteAll those "interesting" comments you refer to are being squeezed out by all the sarcastic comments about Somerby's posts and the garbage KZ posts. There is too much annoying stuff to wade through to get to any substantive remark someone might make on the topic of the day. If you are contributing to that clog, please stop so that people who can and do want to post things relevant to discussion can do so. THAT will make the combox worth reading again. Your complaints about Somerby do not.
The comments here are "often more insightful."
DeleteHere's an insight for you: No, no they aren't.
Congratulations to @ 11:16 for insightful self perspective. Now go away.
DeleteThey would have emerged on day 1 if they exist, so we don't even have to wait to find out that you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you do when you're wrong? Change your mindset? Stop listening to the liars who told you to be wrong? Make another prediction and cross your fingers really hard?
We all gained insight into Brown after witnessing a video showing him committing a violent felony minutes before he was shot. This insight is enough for a reasonable person to believe the officer unless and until any new evidence disproving his claim comes out. Which it won't.
ReplyDeleteFox News has now reported
ReplyDeleteDarren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
Fox confirms the report I previously posted from the blogger Gateway Pundit (a report I was insulted for posting). Sometimes blogs do get it right, and sooner than the mainstream media. IMHO the mainstream media should be faulted for not learning about these severe injuries or choosing not to report them. The injuries may or may not exculpate Wilson, but they are an important part of the story
IMHO these injuries do not automatically clear Wilson. As I understand the reports, Wilson did not shoot Brown while Brown was hitting him in the face. Rather, Wilson shot Brown later, after Brown had run off and then, allegedly, come back and charged at Wilson. In my mind, it's not proved that Wilson had grounds to shoot Brown at the time he shot him.
You invite insult. It would be impolite not to accept.
DeleteWell, if Fox confirms Gateway Pundit, then it must be true. After all, it's on the Internet.
DeleteThat and the source allowed himself to be chracterized as "close to to the top brass." Who other that someone
Deletehigh up in the cop shop would be so brassy as to use such a term.
This is supported by witnesses who say Brown attack Wilson, so why deny it?
DeleteThere are witnesses to the orbital bone breakage and near unconsciousness of the officer?
DeleteThey're called emergency room staff. Do you imagine such injuries would go untreated or that there wouldn't be medical evidence?
DeleteLocal ABC affiliate has similar report: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson---who-shot-michael-brown---had-serious-facial-injury-source-sa.html
DeleteI can see why you lily-livers use those Anonymous monikers. You're always wrong in the end.
ReplyDeleteYeah? Well if I packed concealed heat I could use my real name just as you do.
DeletePut down your heat and call me lily livered to my face you copologist pig.
Anony, at 9:44, that is a real strange comment. To you Daily Howler posters really run into each other and wave weapons around. Oh well. The thing is, at this point, if you are going to participate with regularity in these exchanges thinking up a handle would simply be common courtesy to those who might want to read what you have to say and consider your opinion. If you are afraid of being stalked, you could maybe try changing your name in every thread.
DeleteThanks Greg. You're swell!
DeleteEven if there aren't photos of a roughed-up officer (and not even a doctor's testimony that the officer had been hit), there is still the officer's own testimony and that of most observers that there was some sort of struggle.
ReplyDeleteWhen people watch COPS, they generally root for the cops. That's just a fact of life. Most people don't like robbers...or looters or journalists being disrespectful to cops in McDonald's. And when I say people, I mean voters. This is going to be a disaster for Dems.
Do you want to be the party that offers a fair opportunity to everyone? Sure. The party that helps grandparents and single mothers and children. Yes, again. The party that thinks riots are a legitimate form of protest? Uh, no.
While the reaction to events in Ferguson has not been particularly partisan so far, there can be little doubt which party is perceived as for "law and order" and which is seen as defending the rights of the accused. And, like I said, most people root for the cops.
So Somerby is right that media, especially media that is identified with progressive causes and interests, should not rush to judgment.
...most people root for the cops.
DeleteLet me guess. You're white, middle-aged, and male.
How'd I do?
Let me guess. The party which blamed the economic crash on the Community Redevelopment Act, and not on the epidemic of fraud perpetrated by the banks and Wall Street are the "law and order" party.
DeleteAm I right?
Berto
Thugs and the deranged masochists who root for thugs even after witnessing heir thuggery on a store video never root for cops.
DeleteYour playing broad strokes. Many people (like me) realize that why these high profile cases are argued dishonestly by "progressives", that the broad strokes problems with The Police Force in Black Neighborhoods are legitimate issues. And liberals aren't the only ones who have hectored bad cases into Court.
DeleteBerto,
DeleteWhile Eric Holder hasn't prosecuted any "epidemic of fraud" in this world, I agree that the GOP should not be perceived as effective and just administrators of law and order.
But if you think that Bill de Blasio has the same tough on crime image as Rudy Giuliani, I think you're mistaken. Since I vastly prefer de Blasio to Giuliani on issues regarding policing as well as everything else, I don't want elections to be focused on who is tougher in crime.
deadrat,
DeleteYou didn't do so good. You didn't hit the trifecta, but you did reveal how you think about people and ideas.
I was hoping to read more of your legal analysis today, it's always good for a laugh.
The "tough on crime" thing is about incarceration of certain types of people.
DeleteRemember: It's never about race.
Berto
Trollmes,
DeleteIt's always about the projection, isn't it? You're the one who reveals how he thinks: "Most" people root for the cops, eh?
I'm just talking about you. And I'll bet you do root for the cops. I'll also bet I hit the trifecta.
My legal analysis is usually pretty good. That's because I actually look up the statutes and court decisions. Of course, you're free to laugh at my analysis in place of being able to contradict it.
People seem to think that if evidence has not been made public, it doesn't exist. That is incorrect. There is a legitimate process for investigating and deciding what happened and who is responsible. That does not involve immediate release of all information to the public. That is the point of waiting and not jumping to conclusions, including the conclusions urged by Brown's family or the self-serving statement of his companion. This matter is not tried by the public, which was Somerby's point about mob justice.
ReplyDeleteI heard several people on call-in radio shows today who think it is the prosecutor's job to prove that Brown was murdered.
Yes, that's why we have a justice system. But I hardly blame Brown's family or his friend for responding as they have. Do you?
DeleteMob justice is a different matter. And Somerby has merely inflamed things (which he likes to do -- so much for his journalistic integrity) by conflating mobs/crowds (call them what you will) in the streets with the justice system, which will go on its merry way, mob or crowd, or no mob or crowd.
Let me emend: does bob truly believe that Brown's death would be getting proper legal investigation without that mob or crowd? (Bob is Irish-American, right? He must has some grand or great-grand parents in Ireland. Is he really so simple-minded? Or is he running away from that past? Ah, maybe I have cracked the dense mystery of his psyche.)
But I forgot. His blogs are all about journalists. Ah, the shifting grounds of argument this Harvard philosophy undergrad who taught black kids in Baltimore for awhile many years ago offers us.
Yes, I am truly tired of Bob's diversionary tactics. Here, Ta-Neshisi Coates (a black man from Baltimore, btw):
“The politics of respectability are, at their root, the politics of changing the subject—the last resort for those who can not bear the agony of looking their country in the eye. The policy of America has been, for most of its history, white supremacy. The high rates of violence in black neighborhoods do not exist outside of these facts—they evidence them.
Yup. History is bunk, alright.
DeleteBerto
It is no more OK to say cops are always racist than to say blacks always steal.
DeleteSo jaundiced eye on both or neither?
DeleteBerto
Disregard my post at 2:48 pm.
DeleteThe police are given special rights and must be held to the higher standard.
Berto
Any insight on the Ferguson Police, given their history?
ReplyDeleteBerto
Bob's account that Fox News is just waiting for the facts to come in is proved wrong by David in Ca. They are playing to their audience as well.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't what Somerby said about Fox.
DeleteWell, no, it isn't. Didn't you know Greg can't read?
DeleteIf you didn't know that, you're forgiven -- on the other hand, if you did know, well then you're just rubbing it in his face, in which case you deserve high praise.
So far, what I've seen as "history" is one case. I did see some stats on traffic stops, reporting that they were about 80+% black in a town that is more than 66% black. That is a bit above expectation but not a lot over what would be expected if such stops were performed randomly. I heard a few intemperate statements from cops made in the heat of dealing with protesters. I also heard lots of intemperate statements shouted at the cops, but then they are trained to resist such provocations. But a few examples like that don't constitute a "history" of bad dealings with members of the minority community. What history are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteThis article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives indepth information. Thanks for this nice article.
ReplyDeletemovies123 app apkxyz