Kenosha

[The Sultan]

Well it is if you're losing members to online nut job forums and conspiracies. Take the Ashli Babbit who died, she was an ardent Obama supporter who felt alienated by the party. Same with the mother of that 18yr old in Massachusetts who turned her into the feds. If your options are "chill and understand that people have different world views and political leanings are a grey scale not black & white" or "you aren't liberal enough so GTFO" then those people then go off the deep end.

Well I'd take the first option.

What you are describing isn't "cancel culture."  Cancel culture is the supposed loss of voice that someone has when they speak opinions that differ from the elites.  But that really isn't happening.

[Galway Eagle]

What you are describing isn't "cancel culture."  Cancel culture is the supposed loss of voice that someone has when they speak opinions that differ from the elites.  But that really isn't happening.

I'm confused, JK Rowling was definitely subjected to "cancel culture" but I don't believe any "elite" was the one that she was speaking out against. (Just the first example that popped into my head)

[JWags85]

What you are describing isn't "cancel culture."  Cancel culture is the supposed loss of voice that someone has when they speak opinions that differ from the elites.  But that really isn't happening.

Yea, it's the radicalizing of viewpoints, where far right or far left, and lambasting people, who may actually lean your general way, for not going far enough.   It's not cancel culture, but it's a big problem.

I'm confused, JK Rowling was definitely subjected to "cancel culture" but I don't believe any "elite" was the one that she was speaking out against. (Just the first example that popped into my head)

Well that's a bit different than what you described.  It's the same idea as "if you consider yourself straight and don't date trans, you're transphobic".  It's removing all nuance.

Rowling expressed a viewpoint that offended a group of people, not that she was pushed away for not being radical enough.

It's like someone saying "Marquette is a good team with some flaws" and being excoriated and cancelled by Marquette fans for it, as opposed to the scenario you described which would be someone alienated and disenfranchised by fellow Marquette fans for not having season tickets or traveling to away games or something

[Galway Eagle]

Yea, it's the radicalizing of viewpoints, where far right or far left, and lambasting people, who may actually lean your general way, for not going far enough.   It's not cancel culture, but it's a big problem.

Well that's a bit different than what you described.  It's the same idea as "if you consider yourself straight and don't date trans, you're transphobic".  It's removing all nuance.

Rowling expressed a viewpoint that offended a group of people, not that she was pushed away for not being radical enough.

It's like someone saying "Marquette is a good team with some flaws" and being excoriated and cancelled by Marquette fans for it, as opposed to the scenario you described which would be someone alienated and disenfranchised by fellow Marquette fans for not having season tickets or traveling to away games or something

Well sounds like you get my general point while that Tsmith seemed to only blame the right he missed the broader point that both sides are going to  have to have a reckoning with the ugly sides of their constituents or else this time bomb is going to keep ticking away. I know at this point I'm much more willing to side with one that would throw me out for being too centered than one that is actively courting conspiracies but different strokes for different folks.

[The Sultan]

I'm confused, JK Rowling was definitely subjected to "cancel culture" but I don't believe any "elite" was the one that she was speaking out against. (Just the first example that popped into my head)

She's not an example of cancel culture.  She expressed an unpopular opinion and there was backlash.  She still has every ability to express whatever beliefs she feels fit to express.  But just because you are free to express yourself, that doesn't mean you are free from every consequence from that expression.

Josh Hawley has the right to take whatever stance he wants to take on the 2020 election.  But he also wants that stance to be free from consequence in the marketplace.  That can't happen in a free society.

[The Sultan]

Yea, it's the radicalizing of viewpoints, where far right or far left, and lambasting people, who may actually lean your general way, for not going far enough.   It's not cancel culture, but it's a big problem.

I agree with this.  But this isn't cancel culture.  Frankly I would argue that the lack of consequence from having a radical opinion on either side has taken the guardrails off the road. 

[rocky_warrior]

It's not impossible the DA is screwing up the investigation.  But to date, his process is -- by a factor of a million -- better than anyone else's.

I guess it's all perspective.  You watch the DA's news conference and think " wow, they spent a lot of time and came to the right conclusion!", I watched it and though "Wow, they spent a lot of resources to convince themselves that Blake was attacking the officer in that single moment that the officer was tugging at Blake's shirt and Blake was moving away, which then justified 'self defense'"

And moreso, in the presser, they say Sheskey doesn't even know about the knife:

The primary officer involved, and that's Officer Sheskey, has not seen a knife, but he believes that Blake is going for a weapon and he describes that in his report.

Because really, that's all they had to decide.  Was the officer acting in self defense.  They said yes.  I say - ehhh.  But again, I believe (and agree with them) that it would be difficult to charge the officer.  I also believe the officer did not act appropriately.  The two can be true.

[Galway Eagle]

She's not an example of cancel culture.  She expressed an unpopular opinion and there was backlash.  She still has every ability to express whatever beliefs she feels fit to express.  But just because you are free to express yourself, that doesn't mean you are free from every consequence from that expression.

Really this isn't a problem.

What I'm saying the problem is is when you have people seeing that and feeling alienated and leaving. My bad about the cancel culture term, clearly I'm not up to date on the hip lingo.

1. We agree you're free to express yourself.

2. We agree you are not free from consequence.

3. I think we agree that if a person feels alienated because of the intense reactions and goes to court conspiracy theories that is a problem that the left needs to work out. Whether it's a trans example with JK, someone saying "I support BLM but not the org", or a person saying "I support the second amendment". We can't be sending those people off to the right and alienating them.

[The Sultan]

What I'm saying the problem is is when you have people seeing that and feeling alienated and leaving. My bad about the cancel culture term, clearly I'm not up to date on the hip lingo.

1. We agree you're free to express yourself.

2. We agree you are not free from consequence.

3. I think we agree that if a person feels alienated because of the intense reactions and goes to court conspiracy theories that is a problem that the left needs to work out. Whether it's a trans example with JK, someone saying "I support BLM but not the org", or a person saying "I support the second amendment". We can't be sending those people off to the right and alienating them.

Yes, I agree with you.  "Purity tests" on either side are a problem.

[skianth16]

I guess it's all perspective.  You watch the DA's news conference and think " wow, they spent a lot of time and came to the right conclusion!", I watched it and though "Wow, they spent a lot of resources to convince themselves that Blake was attacking the officer in that single moment that the officer was tugging at Blake's shirt and Blake was moving away, which then justified 'self defense'"

Because really, that's all they had to decide.  Was the officer acting in self defense.  They said yes.  I say - ehhh.  But again, I believer (and agree with them) that it would be difficult to charge the officer.  I also believe the officer did not act appropriately.  The two can be true.

Honest question here - Did you watch the press conference, or is your ehhh assessment based on other coverage?

[rocky_warrior]

Honest question here - Did you watch the press conference, or is your ehhh assessment based on other coverage?

I watched it a few weeks ago.  I went back and read it again to grab the quote that I remembered:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kenosha-da-press-conference-transcript-no-officers-charged-over-jacob-blake-shooting

I'm really not sure what others see in the news conference that makes them go "oooh...wow, that clears it all up".

edit again: Trying to be clear.  We know Blake had the knife, and may have "turned" towards the officer (while his shirt was being tugged).  I still don't think that justifies shooting him.  They also didn't charge Blake with attacking a police officer - so they also don't have enough evidence or eyewitnesses to prove that.  In fact, that may be their downfall in the civil case.  We'll see.

[skianth16]

I watched it a few weeks ago.  I went back and read it again to grab the quote that I remembered:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kenosha-da-press-conference-transcript-no-officers-charged-over-jacob-blake-shooting

I'm really not sure what others see in the news conference that makes them go "oooh...wow, that clears it all up".

And just a few sentences after the quote you shared, we see this:

"And once he picks the knife back up and as he starts to move around, that is actually the first time that the primary officer in this, Officer Sheskey, sees the knife."

Wray was detailing a timeline of events, and the quote you grabbed is from an earlier portion of the whole sequence. To present that as representative of the complete event is pretty misleading. I'm surprised anyone could come to the conclusion that Sheskey didn't know there was a knife if you listen to the whole thing.

For me, the clarity from the press conference comes from the use of a variety of sources, including Blake himself and an unaffiliated expert in the field to come to review all the information they could find. You may think there's enough gray area here that the DA's office simply found what they were looking for, but to me, the transparency of the process and the way they shared all of this information seems like a good example of what should be done in situations like this. Maybe I'm being naive here, but this came across as a genuine effort to explain the information the led to their decision.

[rocky_warrior]

I'm surprised anyone could come to the conclusion that Sheskey didn't know there was a knife if you listen to the whole thing.

A few sentences after that, Wray says:

The two officers saw the knife. Two of the officers saw the knife at the beginning, but because, and this is what I surmise, but because Officer Sheskey was so involved with the struggle that they could not back away, because what you're trained to do is create distance and space, so you can take evasive action and maybe take cover, maybe create dialogue, and that's what they did in the end. They created distance and space as you can see in that video.

His comments make it very confusing about when/if Sheskey saw the knife.  The initial quote I included also says "he believes that Blake is going for a weapon and he describes that in his report" - that comment HAS to be immediately before shooting him, right?  At that point, he didn't know about a knife, and thought he was going for a weapon.  Why else would you utter those words.  That had to be when he shot, right?  I'm not sure we have access to his statement, but I'll look to see if we do.

Edit: the statement from Sheskey:
https://www.kenoshacounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/11827/Report-on-the-Officer-Involved-Shooting-of-Jacob-Blake

Officer Sheskey stated that Jacob Blake started to lean into the
vehicle as Officer Sheskey was pulling Jacob Blake's shirt. As Jacob Blake was reaching
into the car, Jacob Blake turned his torso from right to left towards Officer Sheskey and
Officer Sheskey saw that the knife was now in Jacob Blake's right hand, under Jacob Blake's
chest and coming towards Officer Sheskey, under Jacob Blake's left arm. Jacob Blake's left
shoulder came up slightly and his right shoulder dipped underneath and the knife was moving
towards Officer Sheskey. Officer Sheskey stated the knife was approximately two feet away
from him.

So, the dude has a pocket knife in his right hand, reached across the front of his body, under his left arm.   Hah, that's even more ridiculous.  How far can you reach in that position? Maybe I'm not flexible, but that's basically the equivalent of a  a poket knife blade duct taped onto my back.  It would also be in line with Blake's statement that he was putting the knife into the car (door pocket?).  Maybe the officer mistook the motion in that moment - while he was tugging on Blake's shirt.

It's just not cut & dry in my book.  But my quote about the knife sighting was ill-informed.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Congrats on missing his point and falling into the easy "it's clearly just the other side's fault". Very on brand and emblematic of the sh**show this country is in, beyond just the most recent fiasco.

Because Bothsiderism is complete bullsh!t. It's a cowardly way for the Chicos of the world to absolve themselves of the raging, anti-democratic authoritarian party one side has become.

Whatever excesses the far left has are drops in the fucking ocean in comparison. Both sides did not elect a man that told more than 25,000 demonstrably false lies over the course of the last 4 years. Both sides have not invested in creating an alternate reality that is demonstrably false or constructed a sprawling, interconnected media operation that amplifies those lies through thousands of channels. Both sides have not intentionally created and then promoted conspiracy theories that are every bit as radicalizing as ISIS's. And both sides did not elect a President that incited insurrection against the government of the United States.

Bothsiderism.  You let me know when both sides storm the Capitol in an attempt to hang the Vice President, K?

[skianth16]

It's just not cut & dry in my book. 

And since you've had access to and taken the time to review all this information, I think that's a perfectly fair opinion. And it's inevitable that reasonable people will see complicated information and have different conclusions. But the fact that you have all this information seems like a good step. This doesn't feel like the norm to me. It would be better if there were bodycams, like the DA suggested. However, given the actual information available, this feels like an attempt at transparency, even if many people disagree with the outcome.   

[mu_hilltopper]

I guess it's all perspective.  You watch the DA's news conference and think " wow, they spent a lot of time and came to the right conclusion!"

I thought the DA, and the use-of-force expert transparently laid out their process and what the catalog of evidence contained.  There is no "right" conclusion, there is only a conclusion that's supported by what evidence that exists, that they've found.

I misspoke earlier, I said that there was a citizen that saw Blake reach across his torso that corroborates the officer's report.

It was TWO civilians, one of whom is "friendly" with Blake who saw him "suddenly" move in the car.   

So we have video that is obscured, plus 4 eye-witness reports, two officers, two civilians, each confirming that he reached across his torso.    (Ignoring other evidence, like struggling with police, being tased twice, and being ordered to drop a knife.)

It's not about "perspective" and there is no "right" conclusion.  There is only where the evidence leads you.     

[rocky_warrior]

It's not about "perspective" and there is no "right" conclusion.  There is only where the evidence leads you.   

Evidence (to me) says Blake did several things wrong that day.  Sheskey did one thing terribly wrong (shooting Blake), but Blake put him in a more difficult situation than it should have been. 

[MU82]

I guess one of the questions I might ask is, "Weren't the first 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 shots in Blake's back enough? Or were the cops dealing with Bizarro Superman here?"

[mu_hilltopper]

Evidence (to me) says Blake did several things wrong that day.

Evidence to all of us says that, good good.

Sheskey did one thing terribly wrong (shooting Blake), ...

Wrong by what standard?  Rocky's Standard of Policing?   

That's where we diverge, as I don't think that's fair to the police.  The police need one standard, a unity between federal, state, local law/operating procedure. 

That standard says that if an officer is in danger of serious bodily harm, they may defend themselves with lethal force. 

Does the evidence meet that burden?  Is Blake armed?  Yes, with a knife.  Is Blake's arm moving toward the officer?  4 eye-witnesses say yes.  Is the knife found in the car?  Yes. 

This evidence points the District Attorney, who is charged to determine if the office broke the law finds that the shooting was justified under the standards the police are given.

Is it evidence that we don't like the outcome?  No. 
Can we change the standards retro-actively?  No.
Can we change the standards for future policing?  Sure, although letting a kidnapping car thief drive off might raise some eyebrows.

[skianth16]

I guess one of the questions I might ask is, "Weren't the first 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 shots in Blake's back enough? Or were the cops dealing with Bizarro Superman here?"

I think this is where it would be great if we could dig into the training more. Seven shots from point blank range feels excessive. But if that's in line with training, then it's more understandable. In a tense situation like that, it seems likely that muscle memory from training would take over.

So what do police practice? What has been drilled into them over the years? And why is that the standard? These seem like questions we could easily get answers to if the right people are asked.

Also, to your point of whether Blake is superhuman, he was tased multiple times with little to no effect and successfully rebuffed physical restraining efforts. I know your comment was tongue in cheek, but it doesn't seem out of the question that the failure of continued escalation of force tactics played some role in the number of shots fired here.

[rocky_warrior]

Sigh.

That standard says that if an officer is in danger of serious bodily harm, they may defend themselves with lethal force. 

Does the evidence meet that burden?  Is Blake armed?  Yes, with a knife.  Is Blake's arm moving toward the officer?  4 eye-witnesses say yes.  Is the knife found in the car?  Yes. 

You actually didn't answer the first part of your question "Does the evidence meet that burden? " - the burden being "danger of serious bodily harm".  Would you tug on someone's shirt, after having tased them, and had them in a headlock (read the report, it's very odd, the officer seems to switch his position about who had who in a headlock) if you thought you were in danger of serious bodily harm?  What is serious bodily harm, getting sliced by a pocket knife?  I'm not certain it meets that burden.

This evidence points the District Attorney, who is charged to determine if the office broke the law finds that the shooting was justified under the standards the police are given.

You're actually putting words in the DA's mouth.  He decided there he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that charges should be  brought.  I agree with this.  The "independent investigator," and ex cop, "determined" that the use of force was justified.  I disagree with this.

Don't forget that they also couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blake was assaulting a police officer.  That's big too, and being glossed over.

So, we disagree.  Can we still meet at Arbys later?   

[rocky_warrior]

And since you've had access to and taken the time to review all this information, I think that's a perfectly fair opinion. And it's inevitable that reasonable people will see complicated information and have different conclusions. But the fact that you have all this information seems like a good step. This doesn't feel like the norm to me. It would be better if there were bodycams, like the DA suggested. However, given the actual information available, this feels like an attempt at transparency, even if many people disagree with the outcome.

While I certainly am skeptical of cops looking out for cops, I agree, they have been transparent about what everyone has said. 

[MU82]

I think this is where it would be great if we could dig into the training more. Seven shots from point blank range feels excessive. But if that's in line with training, then it's more understandable. In a tense situation like that, it seems likely that muscle memory from training would take over.

So what do police practice? What has been drilled into them over the years? And why is that the standard? These seem like questions we could easily get answers to if the right people are asked.

Also, to your point of whether Blake is superhuman, he was tased multiple times with little to no effect and successfully rebuffed physical restraining efforts. I know your comment was tongue in cheek, but it doesn't seem out of the question that the failure of continued escalation of force tactics played some role in the number of shots fired here.

Seems a bit excessive to me, but I wasn't there, and you are right that I don't know what police there are trained to do.

[naginiF]

I didn't watch the whole show but as we were flipping channels we stopped on CBS's One Nation Indivisible and Kenosha had an interesting representation while we were watching.

When you have prominent members of your community willing to go on national TV with that message it speaks a lot about a community.