Remember how we demanded that Barr's "first cut" of the Mueller Report not be accepted fact?

[StarfishSaver]

At the time Barr gave us his version of the Mueller Report, he'd only been on the job a few weeks and had not yet established a reputation as an outright liar and enabler of a criminal president. Yet we all knew he could not be trusted and were furious that so many in the media and elsewhere accepted his characterization of Mueller's findings as true.

Yet many of the same people who knew better than to accept anything Barr said at face value are very quick to accept the "official" version of police shootings of Black civilians. Almost without fail, whenever a cop shoots a Black person, these people - many of whom identify as progressive - immediate believe the cops' story about why the killing or excessive use of force was justified and swallow whole their claims that their victim was a dangerous person who would have caused deadly harm had they not been taken down on the spot.

They give the police this benefit of the doubt despite the fact that, unlike Barr, law enforcement has a long, demonstrable, and tragic track record of not only abusing and killing Black people at an alarming, disproportionate rate, but of lying about it unashamedly, as evidenced AGAIN by the horrifying incident in Louisiana when police tortured and lynched a suspect and then claimed he died in a car accident.

And even worse, these people who believe the police so blindly pretend that they aren't picking sides but are merely refusing to "jump to conclusions," treating the police version of the incident as the objective, non-biased perspective, while insisting everyone should believe the police unless an investigation proves they were wrong. According to them, assuming the police did something wrong is unfair to the police. In the meantime, they adopt, repeat, and disseminate the police smear of the dead person, who, of course, is in no position to tell their side or defend themselves. The police who killed them said they were bad people, so that's good enough for them.

If Bill Barr's version of events shouldn't be believed just because he said so, surely the official police version of events should be treated with considerably more skepticism than it is, especially when the cops have everything to gain by lying about their actions. They long ago relinquished any entitlement to be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Bettie]

1. Very well said

and important for us to remember.

[brooklynite]

2. Who accepted it as "fact"?

[Elessar Zappa]

4. There's always people here

who, in every cop shooting story, tell us to withhold judgement and see how things pan out. No. I will always give the benefit of the doubt to the cop’s victim unless and until the cops are able to show real justification.

[StarfishSaver]

7. And by "withholding judgment," they mean "believe the cops"

They don't actually withhold judgment at all. They simply decide to judge the victim as deserving of whatever happened to them.

[Elessar Zappa]

8. Exactly.

They think they’re hiding behind those kinds of words but we can see them clearly.

[happy feet]

27. This!

[brooklynite]

9. What does this perspective have to do with the Mueller report?

[Elessar Zappa]

11. Sorry,

I misunderstood what part of the post you were referring to.

[KS Toronado]

25. So when "every cop shooting story" hits the airways....

Would you prefer some Judge sitting at home listening to the evening news on TV decide right then and there
who was guilty or innocent? Or would you prefer a Judge who will "withhold judgment" until ALL the FACTS are
presented to him?

[StarfishSaver]

28. You seem confused.

[KS Toronado]

31. You seem confused, allow me to rephrase...

Would you prefer people sitting at home listening to the FIRST evening news coverage of a certain event on TV
and decide right then and there who was guilty or innocent? Or would you prefer people who will "withhold judgment"
until ALL the FACTS are out into the light of day and presented to them?

[StarfishSaver]

33. You still seem confused

Hopelessly so.

[Escurumbele]

15. I have the same the same question...who? please provide names.

I don't know of any progressives who immediately believe cops after a black person has been killed.

I really dislike the generalization without supporting facts...It is the same thing the buffoon always uses..."A lot of people say...", blah, blah, blah, but when asked "who are those people", all he has to say is "a lot of people"...never specifics because he made it up.

I love it when Psaki asks back "who are those people" and the so called "journalists" cannot give specifics, so please, lets not fall on that.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Go back and read some threads here. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about

Last edited Thu May 20, 2021, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

[Elessar Zappa]

17. Please.

Prosecutors all over this country refuse to charge police even when the evidence of a crime is clear. Plus there’s qualified immunity which encourages bad behavior from bad cops.

[KS Toronado]

21. "many of whom identify as progressive" should have read....

"most of whom identify as reQublicans" would be hundreds of times more accurate.
Why attack people within our own party for something a racist cop does?

[ShazamIam]

19. How about the entire media carrying that message," Trump is exonerated."

[brooklynite]

20. I don't recall that happening. Can you provide cites?

Last time I checked, Fox News wasn't the "entire media".

[happy feet]

29. New York Post, Washington Post to name a few I recall top of my head

It was maddening
and, of course, WSJ

Before you say it---no they didn't necessarily say exonerated, but they did parrot what Barr said - no collusion, etc. in their headlines

[ShazamIam]

32. I think you mean citations and I don't mind if your memories are different than mine.

[-misanthroptimist]

3. I never, ever believe a word out of a cop's mouth...

...unless it is corroborated by other valid evidence from an impartial source. They simply can't be trusted.

Republicans are even less trustworthy than that. Their claims require corroborating evidence and detailed scrutiny to assure that such evidence isn't itself fabricated and is in context. They are children who always want to "win", no matter the cost or consequences.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Correction: Many people knew who Barr was...

he was the asshole who got the Iran-Contra crew off with wrist slaps and tut-tuts. His history was as a fixer, plain and simple.

Repubs certainly knew who he was, he served them well in their quest for one-party, authoritarian rule.

[Lars39]

6. Exactly!

[FakeNoose]

10. Are all the police chiefs in the US as crooked as Bill Barr?

I sincerely hope not.

But I do understand your point, we need to be skeptical and unwilling to accept the "official version" at face value. We need to see whatever proof is offered, and if there is none, well ...
I guess the official version isn't worth the paper it was written on.

I regret that we've come to this. But the people in power have abused it for way too long.

[happy feet]

30. We haven't just 'come to this'

It's ALWAYS been this way --- blacks know this throughout time. It's just that today's media environment and police body cams have in a few cases brought to sunlight. There are cases each day of police injustice with black and brown people that the police lie about, file their report and is swept under the rug - victims' families without resources to doggedly pursue for years and years.

Our policing and system of justice needs an overhaul in every way.

[Whiskeytide]

12. White Americans, for the most part, are ...

... raised to trust law enforcement. I know I was. And when something is a part of your upbringing, it takes deep root. A resistance to contradictory ideas is normal, and manifests as what you’ve noted - a need to see clear evidence before we can accept the fact that our indoctrinated belief is wrong.

Only in the last few years have I come to better understand that there are systemic problems with the way law enforcement is carried out in the US. I use to default to the “it’s just a few bad apples” excuse. But I’m beginning to see that a very big part of the problem is that law enforcement attracts, promotes and rewards bad apples.

I think more white Americans are slowly coming around to this realization.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Yes. I think you're right

[PurgedVoter]

14. How many of us have had a police officer lie to us while we both knew better?

The police are trained to lie. I am not making this up, I was trained as a detective. The police, are trained to lie.
My belief is that peace officers should be paid way more, have great retirement benefits and the best health care paid for without needing a contribution. That said, the same peace officers and everyone else, should be banned from ever using a gun if they ever make a mistake with a gun. One strike, your out. Period, end of sentence. If a peace officer is found to have lied, they are out. Retired early at the fraction of retirement they earned.

Here is the problem. They are allowed to lie, and you are not. They are allowed to take lots of actions that you would be facing a trial if you did the same. Until peace officers are responsible to the law and not above the law, they have incentive towards corruption. The corrupt will, like a rotten apple provide an environment that will further corrupt other officers.

[StarfishSaver]

18. They are also allowed to make fatal mistakes while the rest of us must behave perfectly

Link to tweet

[RVN VET71]

26. The cops are always taken at their word by judges

I remember sitting in traffic court, and an angry guy ticketed by an incompetent cop declared to the judge that there was no way he could have been speeding -- something about the malfunctioning of his transmission preventing him from driving faster than 25 mph. The cop insisted he was doing 50 in a 30. Judge said to the guy, and I remember this clearly, “why should I believe that this officer ticketed you maliciously and is lying to me now?” In other words, the judge called the guy a liar -- I think the guy had brought in some kind of documentation about the condition of his car on the day of the ticket, but the judge didn’t examine it, just put it aside.

Clearly the guy should have hired a lawyer -- but he expected, foolishly, fairness from the court.

It was a small matter, of course, but indicative of the edge the police generally have when justice is determining their innocence of any wrong doing.

(I have to add that I know a judge in a neighboring state who was less sanguine about allegations made by police. On more than one occasion he threatened police with contempt of court for claiming things that were not in evidence and there were 2 cops in his district that were told, from the bench, never to dare appear in his courtroom again without firm and undeniable documentation of the charges they were bringing. A rarity, I believe.)

[11 Bravo]

22. Barr is starting to make John Mitchell look like a paragon of virtue.

The sonofabitch is so crooked he has to screw himself into his pants.

[FakeNoose]

34. Low bar if there ever was one

Why is it the Repukes seem so crooked?

[llashram]

23. this

what "horrifying incident" in Lousyanna? Missed that one, big time... okay found it...happened a couple of years ago. And McCarthy wants to investigate why social justice is demanded in the streets by all who have a conscience. I really am beginning to hate ALL repigs...

[StarfishSaver]

24. Be warned

"Horrifying" was not hyperbole.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/20/ronald-greene-louisiana-police-video/