Holder Admits "Hands Up" Was Lie

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Your heading implies that Eric Holder had something to do with the evolution of the "Hands Up" narrative. He wasn't "admitting" anything; he was stating what the Justice Department had determined.

Explain to me what is ridiculous about pointing out that there is an established pattern of racial bias in Ferguson. Do you dispute it? Do you think it's not true?

I wasn't implying that Holder came up with the "hands up don't shoot" slogan. I was implying that from the very beginning Holder acted like the officer committed a crime. If you listened to all of his statements from the time he first arrived in Ferguson, it was clear whose side he was on. He was extremely sympathetic to the family of Brown, but not to the officer.

I already answered your question about why it was ridiculous for you to change the subject and talk about other instances of police misconduct. I will repeat the reason: Let's say we were debating a different case. Let's say we we were debating a case where I kept saying I thought a black man was guilty of a crime and you thought he was innocent. If it turned out that he was innocent, how ridiculous would it be if I then changed the subject and posted an article about how high the crime rate is among black people? That would have nothing to do with the specific case we were talking about.

With regards to the findings in the report, I wouldn't go as far as say I dispute it. I obviously have no knowledge of what goes in Ferguson. However, I will say that the DOJ did have an agenda, so I would take the findings with at least somewhat of a grain of salt. If the tobacco industry did an investigation on the effects of smoking, I would take the findings with a grain of salt. When a report is done by someone with an agenda, you have to consider that the findings may be biased. This Attorney General has totally politicized his office and he has this "activist/progressive" agenda. I think that is very dangerous to have an AG with his own agenda. The office loses so much credibility.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I wasn't implying that Holder came up with the "hands up don't shoot" slogan. I was implying that from the very beginning Holder acted like the officer committed a crime. If you listened to all of his statements from the time he first arrived in Ferguson, it was clear whose side he was on. He was extremely sympathetic to the family of Brown, but not to the officer.

I already answered your question about why it was ridiculous for you to change the subject and talk about other instances of police misconduct. I will repeat the reason: Let's say we were debating a different case. Let's say we we were debating a case where I kept saying I thought a black man was guilty of a crime and you thought he was innocent. If it turned out that he was innocent, how ridiculous would it be if I then changed the subject and posted an article about how high the crime rate is among black people? That would have nothing to do with the specific case we were talking about.

With regards to the findings in the report, I wouldn't go as far as say I dispute it. I obviously have no knowledge of what goes in Ferguson. However, I will say that the DOJ did have an agenda, so I would take the findings with at least somewhat of a grain of salt. If the tobacco industry did an investigation on the effects of smoking, I would take the findings with a grain of salt. When a report is done by someone with an agenda, you have to consider that the findings may be biased. This Attorney General has totally politicized his office and he has this "activist/progressive" agenda. I think that is very dangerous to have an AG with his own agenda. The office loses so much credibility.

http://www.newsweek.com/eric-holder-...erguson-265982

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-81128218/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...dued-protests/

there's three articles about his visit so far.
could you show me where it indicates whose 'side he was on'?

and GR didn't 'change the subject'. it's all part of the subject.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_blacks.html


As it stands, we have good evidence that Brown committed criminal acts, as well as a firm conclusion from the Justice Department that there aren’t sufficient facts to support a criminal indictment against Wilson and that the officer is neither guilty of a civil rights violation nor culpable under federal law. As far as the state goes, the evidence shows that he did what he had to do.


But this conclusion shouldn’t lead anyone to dismiss the discord in Ferguson, which was fueled by stronger forces than Brown’s death. The reason it happened as it did—the reason the anger spilled into protests and rioting—is because of a long history of police mistreatment and unfairness. Journalists covered much of this in the weeks and months after the August protests. But a new review from the Justice Department goes beyond what we know to expand on the Ferguson police practices. The department didn’t just discriminate against black Americans; it targeted them for fines and fees and knowingly violated their constitutional rights.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

But this conclusion shouldn’t lead anyone to dismiss the discord in Ferguson, which was fueled by stronger forces than Brown’s death. The reason it happened as it did—the reason the anger spilled into protests and rioting—is because of a long history of police mistreatment and unfairness.

That is a matter of opinion. I would totally disagree with that. Has there been discrimination against black people in this country over the last 60 years? The answer is yes. But is that the reason those people were rioting, looting, and burning down businesses? Absolutely not! The people committing the violence were just opportunists using the Brown shooting as an excuse to behave bad and loot. I don't think there were too many law abiding citizens (who have been treated unfairly in the past by the police) that were looting and burning down buildings.

[Pants II]

No race hates and is biased more against black people than...black people.

Unfortunately that's not a divisive issue so it's hardly addressed by the controlled liberal media and the one 'conservative' media outlet that has its content looked over by the Saudi royals.

But oh well as long as white women can be outraged about something on the internet...that's all that matters.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is a matter of opinion. I would totally disagree with that. Has there been discrimination against black people in this country over the last 60 years? The answer is yes. But is that the reason those people were rioting, looting, and burning down businesses? Absolutely not! The people committing the violence were just opportunists using the Brown shooting as an excuse to behave bad and loot. I don't think there were too many law abiding citizens (who have been treated unfairly in the past by the police) that were looting and burning down buildings.

I am in no way, shape or form talking about the looters. I have no use for anyone who breaks the law.
what I'm discussing are those who live in the town, who have dealt with this issue for years.

I think how the police there handled the protests is a clear example of them doing their level best to escalate things in a hurry. the attitude in that department and city towards it's black population has been that way for years. resentment has built over a period of time, and they finally said enough.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.newsweek.com/eric-holder-...erguson-265982

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-81128218/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...dued-protests/

there's three articles about his visit so far.
could you show me where it indicates whose 'side he was on'?

and GR didn't 'change the subject'. it's all part of the subject.

In the end, I think Holder's specific characterizations about the shooting were fair. I am pleased with that. At least in the end, he admitted that Officer Wilson did nothing wrong. But early on when the case first came to light and during the time leading up to the grand jury verdict and even right after the verdict, most of his behavior was very biased against the officer and in favor of Michael Brown. He met with Brown's family. He sent 40 FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate. Do you think that would have happened if Officer Wilson was black and Michael Brown was white? The White House sent representatives to the funeral. Would that have happened if Brown was white? The White House and DOJ totally took sides throughout the thing. The good news is that in the end they were fair. But I think their handling of the whole thing was extremely destructive. They basically encouraged the protesters and acted like people should be protesting the case. In reality there was nothing to protest about in this case. In other cases maybe, but not this case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

So, all of that looting turned out to be unnecessary.

looting is always unnecessary.