Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Airhead Celebrities Tout Ferguson Lies


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The number one kicker about the Ferguson thing, that to my knowledge has never been mentioned by anyone, is: Where is the second lying police report from Darren Wilson?

My meaning: People are up in arms claiming that Wilson has lied about the Michael Brown shooting.

Now, I don't think that police, as a whole, are particularly truthful, and for that they share nearly none of the blame, compared with the blame that is the Supreme Court's to be had.

I think: Not every cop is a liar, but every good cop has to decline a bounteous feast which dishonesty offers.

The thing of it is, if the Michael Brown police report is a lie, where is a second lying police report from Darren Wilson? Where is it that a pattern of his lying can be established?

To my knowledge, no one in Ferguson or elsewhere, has stood up with a fistful of police report papers and said, "Here it is! Another lying police report from Wilson, and this is how you can know of his lies!"

Honest to goodness, Darren Wilson needs to stand up and be recognized, by answering that question: Why has no one accused you of any other lying police reports?

Because the only answer we're left with, as of now, is that no one has done so, because there are no other lying police reports, and that Wilson is a good cop, and has discharged his duties faithfully andtruthfully, and to the best of his ability.

So I challenge anywhere, in Ferguson or elsewhere, to produce a second lying police report, and if no one comes forth, for Wilson himself to step forward and make plain what it is that we can, as of now, only infer: that there isn't any lying police reports, because he hasn't taken to lying.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is copied and pasted from another source - http://www.reddit.com/r/ferguson/comments/30bpjh/darren_wilson_and_lying/: Here are a couple of articles that go a long way in explaining Ferguson. Having lived in the St.Louis area for a couple of decades, I was suprised at how this became such a huge story. So I did some searching back in August & found this article, written with crowdsourced material, that goes a long way in explaining not only the genesis of the 'hands up, don't shoot' meme, but also how the DOJ became involved in the case.


The DOJ report on the shooting completely exonerates Wilson. I'd suggest reading it. You can also find a good summary here, written by a St.Louis area officer.

A small section:

Eight (8) witnesses verified Wilson’s account and were deemed credible by the FBI

Zero (0) witnesses who verified the “Hands up” account were deemed credible by the FBI

Seven (7) witnesses articulated a fear of reprisal from the community.

One (1) witness barricaded her door with a couch after being asked to testify following recanting the official Canfield narrative.

One (1) witness started receiving threatening phone calls (plural) in an effort to scare her into maintaining the official Canfield narrative.

One (1) witness indicated that there were signs around Canfield after Mike Brown died stating that “snitches get stitches.” This may be in reference to QuikTrip as it was tagged with that phrase during the arson.

Others indicated more vague fear through their actions by coming forward after the fact, refusing to meet at their homes, or recanting with vague explanations about the community. More than one witness fled town and had to be located in other states after giving an initial witness statement.

6:30 PM  
Blogger Kirby Olson said...

Tawana Brawley lied. CHRYSTAL lied. Those who claim Michael Brown was a Ghandi writ large lied. Eric Garner had an endless rap sheet and Trayvon had a history of trouble. Officer Wilson told the truth and even Holder's entire department could get nothing on him. Hollywood stands truth on its head and spits wooden nickels.

5:09 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

None of us know what happened during the Michael Brown incident. That said, I ask Walter-Marie to prove that John Wilkes Booth had murdered before he killed Lincoln, otherwise we have no reason to believe he's guilty. If somebody is having their first affair, and you can't prove a previous one, the first affair must not have happened. See the problem with your logic?

9:41 AM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

"...there isn't any lying police reports..."
- This blog's resident English professor

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually had noticed that error.

Nevertheless, resorting to your current course is so opprobrious that I, myself, simply could not bear the disgrace.

The wretchedness of your new writings, after my having correctly predicted them, is beyond measure.

I'm blushing for you.

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In order to give weight to your remark about Wilson we have to deny ourselves every rule of evidence and theoretical thought ever adhered to.

To take seriously your claims we have to surrender the reasoning faculty.

Left entirely without any substantiated claims against him, rather than concede to the self-evident truth of his innocence, Wilson's accusers now defame themselves by resorting to what I call "an appeal to the extravagant."

Wilson's accusers' case-in-principle is now: He began lying that day.

The volumes of evidence against Booth afforded his accusers the luxury of not needing to lower themselves to such contemptible measures.

Wilson's accusers don't has that luxury.

6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wanted to add that KeynesianPacker resorts to a false imputation of sufficiency concerning my remarks.

I nowhere claim that Wilson's "zero-history of lying" is sufficient or dispositive to declare him innocent in the matter of Michael Brown.

KeynesianPacker lowers himself to a simple straw man as he labors unsuccessfully to refute me.

A remark I've recently admired from psychologist William James that may be helpful here: Truth is verifiable to the extent that thought and statements correspond with actual things, as well as to the extent to which they "hang together," or cohere, as pieces of a puzzle might fit together. [my emphasis]

Wilson's untarnished record of truthfulness is, however, a perfectly-fitting puzzle piece in the elegant theory of his innocence: A truthful cop, again truthful, and corroborated ad nauseum.

7:22 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

None of us know what happened during the Michael Brown incident.

Actually, we pretty much do. The evidence makes it quite clear that Brown attacked the officer in his vehicle, and tried to take his gun.

Even the Eric Holder Justice Department exonerated the officer.


8:34 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

McAdams, explain the blood trail and how it doesn't at all fit Wilson's account. I don't claim to know what happened because I think the whole incident is hazy. You are the one who says it's a cut-and-dried case. There is doubt about the shooting incident but there is no doubt that the Ferguson Police Department engaged in discriminatory practices. You just don't mention that because it doesn't fit your narrative. Kind of like how you assign readings for your classes.

4:22 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

W-M: "Wilson's accusers don't has that luxury."

Please keep using thesaurus.com and telling me how to write. You spent two posts explaining, without citing a single legal precedent, why a lack of previous convictions is only relevant when you want it to be.

4:36 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

there is no doubt that the Ferguson Police Department engaged in discriminatory practices.

Actually, there is.

The data show blacks disproportionately stopped by Ferguson cops, but that proves nothing unless one knows that blacks do not more often do things that might legitimately result in a stop.

The Justice Department also reported that Ferguson uses fines to help balance the town budget. That's not good public policy, but it's done by a lot of jurisdictions, including heavily white jurisdictions.

Kind of like how you assign readings for your classes.

You think I have some things on my reading list that students should not be allowed to read?

That's not very open-minded of you.

4:46 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

I didn't say your assigned reading shouldn't be allowed. I could comment on the respectability and academic credentials of some of the authors you assign but that's a different discussion. My point was that you only assign readings from your point of view. Your students don't read Stiglitz, Krugman or Reich. That's not very open minded of you.

7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my studies I come across things I love that I disregard to my unending regret.

The most famous in my own life is a vignette offered in the introduction of an eminent figure in the history of letters - whose identity escapes me to my unending consternation - who heard of a young lady lovesick for him, and, though occupied by other matters in his life and at first reluctant, nevertheless did indeed, after hearing the continued testimonies of her pining, resign himself to go marry her-only to find upon his arrival that she was dead, succumbed to her grief.

If anyone out there can put a historical figure to that story I will be unendingly grateful. I have wondered for years without encountering the story except the once.

But let’s not allow such fascinations to make us forget the squalidness of KeynesianPacker’s complaint, as now, I draw comparison to a like (but far less leonine) circumstance in the matter of his defaming himself by searching for errant usage: his low and disgraceful, vituperative tact to avoid my reasons.

I've read of an incredibly well-thought of scholar issuing a scathing condemnation of such conduct as yours: nitpicking about usage in order to avoid the force of my reasons. But, again, his identity escapes me.

I don't care all that much who it was.

I don't care to begin a conversation on the admissibility of "prior bad acts" in criminal prosecutions. Which is, I think, where your latest remark intends to guide me.

Quite frankly, my remarks are offered outside of a courtroom. And if we are to accept your critique, then an absolutely flawless, never-trammeled record of truthfulness, as possessed by Darren Wilson, isn't even worth mentioning even in the context of the theoretical puzzle.

My meaning: Here you have the Darren Wilson Ferguson puzzle. And every piece of the puzzle fits perfectly in place to reveal the whole, which reads: Innocent.

And you claim that the piece of the puzzle that I offer: His immaculate record of truthfulness, cannot be offered.

I disagree.

If we are to agree with you we have to disavow that someone’s life history contains anything by which any conclusions or inferences can be drawn.

Moreover, and adding an avalanche of absurdity to your thinking, is our move to the concrete-to the instant case. In which my appeal to Wilson’s honesty is bolstered by open floodgates gushing forth corroboration.

Never mind the fact that, in the matter of Wilson, we're not talking about "prior bad acts" (we're in fact talking about "prior good acts") and never mind that, yes, Wilson, if brought to trial, would have had ample opportunity to offer "character witnesses" that additional weight be given to his attestations.

The thing is: You resort to pointing out that I fail to mention legal precedents. But I simply have no need of them. I’m only claiming Wilson’s untarnished record of truthfulness, as evinced by there never, ever having been anyone in Ferguson lay claim to possession of a second lying police report-that that is noteworthy in the public square.

That there was no probable cause precludes my making further judicial inquiries, because there’s to be no criminal trial.

In this way you simply haven't made a meaningful claim. You're guilty of the fallacy of false attribution, or false relevance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution.

You don’t present an impediment over which my thoughts must triumph in order that they be shown valid.

You don’t offer a meaningful objection, you only offer an irrelevancy. You can appeal to the rules of evidence in a courtroom in an effort to stand athwart me, but that does nothing to thwart me.

I will be nowise palsied by your irrelevancies.

3:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is or is not allowed in a court does nothing to refute my claim that no one has come forth with a second lying police report.

It seems you’re suggesting that “A good life” be made always and forever a nullity: inadmissible even in casual discourse. Because you can offer that a record of truthfulness which the clergy would be proud of is meaningless, because Wilson could have begun lying that day; as an adultress begins infidelity or a murderer begins killing. At that, at the very least, we have an appropriate circumscription of the topic. Luckily, the instant case, that of Darren Wilson, which you use to broach your false point about adultery and murder, is a veritable cup running over with reasons why it should not be nullified.

Perhaps you might well argue that it should not be the first point made. But, to my knowledge, it has been just about the last point made.

And nothing changes the fact that it is only by the squalid failings of Wilson’s accusers that we arrive at such base considerations. I spoke previously of sufficiency. Here is a fantastic place to use the term. If Wilson’s accusers had any leg to stand on at all that would be sufficient to preclude this conversation which we are now having.

This conversation is your squalid last resort. Your pitiable, laughable reconnoiter. But let’s not forget that because it is pitiable and laughable does not forgive it for being disgraceful and evil. Here I hearken back for the first time to the remarks of Shapiro.

Also you’re using your own imprecision to your benefit. Rather than bow to the truth and admit defeat, you resort to an irrelevant mentioning of “legal precedents” as the basis of your squalid and failed reconnoiter. He resorts to "shiftiness" or "misdirection." He offers no rebuttal, no reason why I'm compelled to reference legal precedent, yet still convicts me of not having done so.

It might very well be that your remarks are so vague and ridiculous as to be nonfalsifiable. But I think not. Because you can’t offer why legal precedents are relevant. You could suggest that they would be relevant in a supposed hypothetical instance, but not in the instant case.

There is simply nothing in my original remark that necessitates consideration of legal precedent.

And I want to point out to any Reader that I’m diligently seeking out KeynesianPacker’s strongest points in order to vanquish them. Because a large portion of his response concerns my three very short (with very short paragraphs) responses being too long and him falsely claiming that “a lack of previous convictions is only relevant when you want it to be.” My writings were brief, and I’ve nowhere made that claim. I even included an intentional error - which he referenced in disgraceful fashion - in order to soften the hammer blows of my reasons as they rain down upon him.

For any Reader, herein lies a fantastic means by which to improve your divining of truth. Notice how KeynesianPacker cannot engage me. Witness the squalidness of his complaints. Contrast that with the Magnificence of my Triumphs. That I can diagnose all of his errors and topple all of his constructs, and effortlessly. It is akin to my being someone who has well done his homework now embarking upon my show-and-tell, and he is left only with the unutterable disgrace, amidst the low circles of Hell, of shooting spitballs. And recognize how lowly that conduct is, just what an abasement it is.

And then there's me: A quarterback that only throws touchdown passes.

3:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, you accuse me of using thesaurus.com. Some might say that your accusation in fact disguises a compliment you’ve given my vocabulary.

But, in actuality, it’s far graver sins that I'm guilty of.

"Those who have knowledge desire to appear learned." I'll provide the link that you might read the second chapter of Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ for yourself. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1653/pg1653.html

Guilty as charged.

So vain and wicked is my striving that even your disgraceful and utterly contemptuous complaints about my usage make it so that I do indeed issue a demerit to myself for imperfection. Please God, that I may be an ever-better workman in His service.

I've even told McAdams of my fondness for the asterisks and daggers:

*, †, ‡, §, ‖, ¶

-I wonder if I’m absolved of vanity as I admire those footnotes, so pleasing do I think them to the Divine Palate.

And that’s the lesser sin of which I’m guilty. The greater one is despair. You see, nearly no one in the history of the world has had the scholarly advantages which I’ve had-my father being a lawyer, my mother being a librarian. My goodness the list might go: Mill and Montaigne, then me.

But despite those advantages for long stretches of my life I was little better than a wastrel, being so even when in fact McAdams once knew me.

So it is by vanity and despair that I may not need thesaurus.com as often as you might think.

And as sure as there’s ground beneath my feet I’m sure your plaintive eye will take exception to those remarks; but then, rather fittingly, you can only accuse me of vanity.

Why not throw in despair?

So, yes, there is a long record of contempt for learned knowledge: in Montaigne, Bacon and the saints. And certainly, in discourse with them, feel free to agree.

But here at the Warrior - the very battleground of ideas - that you resort to contemn learned knowledge for the sheer fact of its having been learned, well, that, I’m quite sure, is not the most seductive allurement I’ve seen offered towards the wooing of Readers to your side of it.

This, as I empurple the earth with your failed reasons, no less.

By the way, KeynesianPacker, you had mentioned that the blood trail raises questions in a response to McAdams. That seems like a fantastic and rigorous point of departure for further inquiry. But you only offer a vague reference, giving us no place of departure for investigation, you again fail to recourse to document. I have to say I don’t know anything about it. I only know of the volumes of exculpations for Wilson, including his exoneration by Justice. About that, though - the blood trail - I would love to hear from McAdams: has KeynesianPacker offered a factoid? With that - about the blood trail - have we begun to see the emergence of factoids in the Ferguson case? And I would love for KeynesianPacker to substantiate that claim about the blood trail with documentation so

But, more than anything, I would love to find out again who was the author of that story of dutiful and manly love.

3:37 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I could comment on the respectability and academic credentials of some of the authors you assign but that's a different discussion.

In fact, the people on my reading list are quite respectable and well credentialed.

Your students don't read Stiglitz, Krugman or Reich.

The fact that I don't assign your favorite leftists doesn't mean my students don't get different perspectives.

I have Brookings liberals Arthur Okun and Charles Schultz on my reading list, and socialist Steve Kelman, and (sort of) socialist Christopher Jencks.

Do the leftist professors you have taken have any pro-market readings on their reading lists?

12:06 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

W-M, you owe me five minutes. That's how much of my life I just wasted reading your comical attempt to sound like a Victorian novelist. Your ego is nauseating. "Then there's me, a quarterback that only throws touchdown passes." Do you really think having a librarian mother and attorney father merits comparing yourself to Mill? It would be funny if you weren't serious. Get over yourself.

6:22 PM  
Blogger Kirby Olson said...

They released the terrible emails from the Ferguson police today. I was expecting really horrible extensive monstrous stuff. I'm sure there's worse on Hillary's server, but we will never get that.

7:03 PM  
Blogger KeynesianPacker said...

This blog hasn't posted any links to the recent cases in which white officers were caught on video shooting unarmed black men from behind. I'm just shocked!

9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listen I don't love those remarks either - conspicuous display - and I'm not going to continue to post on this post after this comment, just because it's run its course.

I had found this from James Harvey Robinson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harvey_Robinson

it is very very good.

"We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to them. The result is that most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."

Brilliance here. Draining the abscess of this trait in our lives: very helpful.

One last word to KeynesianPacker. Definitely respect you, anybody that comes to the Warrior. Listen I'm gonna be cool with you in the future or silent I just wanted to say.

Dr. McAdams sets a very civil and collegial standard here, which makes the accusations levelled against him all the more repugnant, and, sure a little sparing session here, great. But I want to aim my comportment toward that very highest of standards which is indeed set here.

So all the best and I'll likely see you soon.

3:29 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

This blog hasn't posted any links to the recent cases in which white officers were caught on video shooting unarmed black men from behind.

If you are talking about the South Carolina case, that's not actually controversial. Pretty much everybody agrees the officer was out of line, and indeed he has been charged with murder.

11:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home