MaTT4281 wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Another one...happened in June, but a newspaper showed it for the first time recently.

Hard to believe this stuff...suppose that technology has lifted up a rock and exposed certain things, but some of this stuff is ridiculous.

Jesus Christ. The guy goes John Cena on her. Couldn't make out the audio at the beginning, does it even say why she was arrested?

gma.yahoo.com
Austin Police Chief ‘Sickened and Saddened’ at Arrest of Breaion King
By AVIANNE TAN 12 hours ago

Two Austin Police Department officers are now under investigation after dash-cam video shows one of the officers throwing a black woman to the ground during a traffic stop. A second video taken from inside the police car after the woman was arrested shows another officer suggesting to the woman that black people have "violent tendencies" and that’s "why a lot of white people are afraid of them."

Although the incident occurred in June 2015, Austin's police chief Art Acevedo said that it only came to his attention on Tuesday, when Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg called him and advised him that a reporter from the Austin American-Statesman was working on a story on the incident.

Video from the traffic stop, publicly released by police today, shows the woman, identified by police as 26-year-old Breaion King, stepping out of her car. An officer, identified as Austin officer Bryan Richter, then commands her to get back in her vehicle.

"Okay ma’am you’re being pulled over right now, so I need you to take a seat back in the car," Richter says.

“Are you serious?” King responds.

“Yes, ma’am, I’m not joking,” Richter replies. King appears to go back into her car, leaving the driver's door open.

Richter then tells King he needs to see her driver’s license and explains that she was stopped for speeding. He then asks her to put her feet in the car.

King asks Richter if he can "please hurry up," and Richter then tells her to "stand up" and he appears to try to pull her out of her car.

King starts screaming and says, “No! Why are you doing this to me? Oh my God!"

Richter tells her to "stop resisting" and an altercation ensues. He then yells, "Get out of the car!"

King responds, "I’m getting out, let me get out. Do not touch me."

Richter appears to forcibly pull King up and throw her down to the ground. On the ground, King yells, “Oh my God!” and Richter tells her she was "resisting."

Richter then appears to struggle handcuffing King, who asks him, "Why are you doing this to me?"

King attempts to stand up but Richter throws her back down to the ground before handcuffing her and escorting her into the police car.

On a different piece of video, inside the police car, King seems to calmly converse with another officer identified by police as Austin police officer Patrick Spradlin.

He asks King if she believes racism goes both ways, and she says, "I do," but "I believe that the Caucasian class has more supremacy over black people, just to be honest. They have more rights." She adds that a lot of people are “afraid of black people."

Spradlin then asks her why she thinks a lot of people are afraid of black people, and King replies, "That's what I want to clear out."

Spradlin then says, "I can give you a really good idea why it might be that way -- violent tendencies. And I want you to think about that. I'm not saying anything. I'm not saying it's true. I'm not saying I can prove it or nothing. But 99 percent of the time, when you hear about stuff like that, it's the black community that's being violent. That's why the white people are afraid, and I don't blame them."

He later adds, "By no means am I saying that there is no racism, because I know there is and everybody knows there is. Black people tend to be violent and that’s why a lot of white people are afraid, and I don’t blame them."
Therapist Shot by Cop in Florida Is a 'Hero,' Boss Says'Video of Deadly Police-Involved Shooting in Houston Released

View gallery
Austin Police Chief ‘Sickened and Saddened’ at Arrest …

Austin Police Chief ‘Sickened and Saddened’ at Arrest of Breaion King (ABC News)
Minnesota Officer Who Fatally Shot Philando Castile Had an Interaction With Him in 2011, Records Show

According to the police report, obtained by ABC affiliate KVUE, Richter wrote that he acted quickly because he "was increasingly concerned with King's "uncooperative attitude." He added that King "began reaching for the front passenger side of the vehicle." He noted that he was unaware if there was a weapon in the vehicle and that King resisted by pulling her arms away from him and wrapping “her hands and arms around the steering wheel.”

King told KVUE on Thursday that she was "genuinely fearful" for her life during the incident and that she "literally didn't understand what was happening."

She added that she wanted something done and that she had "become afraid of the people who are supposed to protect me and take care of me."

"If you’ve wronged someone and you haven’t been reprimanded, then how do you know that you’re wrong?” King asked.

At a news conference evening, Acevedo said his "heart was sickened and saddened" when he first learned about the two videos.

"First and foremost, let me just say this to Breaion King, her family, her friends, her neighbors, her supporters: 'I’m sorry that on the day that you were stopped for going 15 mph [above the speed limit], you were approached in a manner and then treated in a manner that is not consistent with the expectations of this police chief," Acevedo said. "There’s a way to do this job, and that day, we did not approach it anywhere near the way we should’ve approached it."

Acevedo said that "the chain of command" who reviewed Richter's use of force in the incident determined that "the incident was not consistent with the expectations of the department." Richter was told to attend training and counseling.

The chief added that the incident was never brought to his attention nor the attention of other executive members of the department and that an administrative inquiry has now been launched "into the chain of command decision-making process."

As for the second video showing Spradlin suggesting to King that black people have "violent tendencies," Acevedo claimed that the no one in the department had ever uncovered that video before until the District Attorney's Office brought it to the department's attention.

When asked by a reporter at the news conference if he thought Spradlin's comments were "racist," Acevedo replied, "Yes."

"This is not, I believe, reflective of the quality of this organization that we run," he said. "I want you to listen to that conversation and tell me that we don’t have social issues in this nation, issues of violence, issues of racism, issues of people being looked at differently because of their color."

The police chief said that his department has opened investigations into the incident and into the conduct of Richter and Spradlin. He added that both have been placed on paid administrative leave.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg has also requested the Austin Police Department's Special Investigations Unit to "conduct a criminal investigation of the arresting officer’s actions that are well documented on that video," so she can decide whether or not to present the case to a grand jury and decide whether Richter's conduct rises to a criminal offense," Acevedo said. He added that Lehmberg's office has since dropped the charges of resisting arrest against King.

King told ABC affiliate KVUE today that she appreciated the chief's public apology and that she believed what happened to her "is an opportunity to make things better and to change things for the better."

An Austin Police Department public information officer referred ABC News' questions today to the Austin Police Association.

A representative from the Austin Police Association told ABC News it was not immediately clear if Richter and Spradlin "have obtained outside council but all officers are represented by the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas (CLEAT).

CLEAT did not immediately respond to ABC News' requests for information. The Travis County District Attorney's Office also did not immediately respond to ABC News' requests for additional information and comment.

The Austin Police Association's vice president, Anthony Nelson, added in a statement to ABC News that the association understood "the public’s reaction to Officer Richter’s response to resistance" and that the association believed "Officer Spradlin’s comments were wrong and not reflective of the values and beliefs of the men and women who serve this community."

"We recognize how incidents such as these can divide our city and cause mistrust," Nelson added. "We have met with community stakeholders and begun a dialogue. We hope that the conversation will lead to substantive changes that will help bridge that divide."

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:When did I reject Schwartz's insight?

Since you seem to put weight in those with direct access/interaction, do you have any reason to dismiss this person?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-remorseful-ghostwriter

Yes, and as you say, we can play this game all day.

Did I misunderstand you when i asked if you have any reason to dismiss this person and you responded "yes" without qualification?

I am sure I cannot change your mind and be sure, you will not change mine either.

Ad you just identified the problem.

As for your comment here:

The fact is that the man is interested in things because he reads a ton of books and like it or not that is a sign of intelligence. His art is another sign of an interest to expand his mind. Just Because he has not "impressed" YOU with his intellect does not mean it is not there. It is just a personal attack used by the left to be little the man. I get it, its politics.

You're working a little too hard here, wanting to squeeze me into the perpetrators of the satirical caricature that offends you.

I have made it clear I have not claimed he is stupid, you just really seem to prefer it if I had.

And I don't know know exactly what your point is, if we're talking politics, the economic collapse 2008 happened during the culmination of his administration. 9/11 happened under his administration. The invasion of Irag happened during his administration, be a product of a lie or a failure of the intelligence it was sold on.

If you'd like to weigh his effectiveness as president independent of his personal intelligence, that is up to you.

All I've said it I question his intelligence in respects to the type of mind I think best suited for the job. And that is based as much on his actions than how he presents.

I'll be happy to rephrase to appease you. I question his intellectual ambition, and no, that he is an avid reader doesn't make me question that assessment.

The second he shows an ability to express an complex idea is maybe when I'll change my mind.

You did misunderstand me and it was probably my fault. I meant yes to the article and that I acknowledge its existence. I did not mean yes to dismissing it. As I said before, I would weigh his opinion and as with everything see if it is political or genuine in nature.

To say I am working hard is dismissive of the facts. A great thinker does not necessarily make a great President either. Although we have never seen any of BO's transciprts or papers, he is regarded as a brilliant mind. So far his foreign policy and decisions have been awful, IMO.

9/11 could have happened on anyone's watch and probably had more to do with the prior 8 YEARS than the 8 months of Bush. But of course, your bias would not allow you to accept that. The housing crisis has its roots in the late 70's. In fact the Bush administration tried to get banks to stop offering the sub-prime loans but the Democrat congress rejected it.

Failure of intelligence? Lies? Hmmm, should I bring up the many You Tube videos of virtually every prominent democrat politician, including Bill and Hillary, saying that they knew SH had WMD? Lies, in Bob Woodward's book, he claims, that it was GWB who instruced his CIA team that they had to be sure of the intelligence. He was the one with reservations according to Woodward. Sounds like a thoughtful President who was concnerned about putting men in harm's way for the right reasons.

As for him expressing a complex idea to you that is just hiding behind your elitist mind BS, in my opinion, of course.

Oh and the whole caricature thing came up because you were complaining about HRC being described by caricatures of her. I would like to know what you meant by that but I brought up the caricature of Bush being stupid as a real caricature that has been endlessly perpetuated by the left and I think you proved it perfectly.

Lots of anti-intellectualism going on these days, but it has been a tradition in some quarters for decades. If you are curious, think, question why, or give too much thought to both sides of an argument your are an elitist intellectual. Folks want instant answers and simplistic ways to look at an issue, whatever it is.

The anti-science theme from some on the right is just astounding at times, and as a former educator it is embarrassing to see the ignorance which many of our elected officials have today.

Obama has been brutalized by many on the right, and caricatured in some racially tinged ways at times...but you never go after him for his knowledge and intelligence. There is also a lot of misogyny behind some of the hatred for her, but that is another issue, I suppose.

George Bush Jr. was not like his dad, who was a solid moderate republican until he teamed with Reagan. Intelligent or not, though, Jr's biggest problem was falling in behind his fellow Chicken Hawks on the push to go to war in Iraq.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:You did misunderstand me and it was probably my fault. I meant yes to the article and that I acknowledge its existence. I did not mean yes to dismissing it. As I said before, I would weigh his opinion and as with everything see if it is political or genuine in nature.

Fair enough.

A great thinker does not necessarily make a great President either.

We're getting away from what's at dispute and it's complicating the issue. I said I question his intelligence, was specific as to what I meant when asked, and made it clear I offered my opinion as what sort of mind is well suited to be a president.

So now I don't know by that response if you're now arguing GWB was a great thinker or if you agree he is not one but didn't need to be?

9/11 could have happened on anyone's watch and probably had more to do with the prior 8 YEARS than the 8 months of Bush. But of course, your bias would not allow you to accept that.

This is what I mean by working too hard. You just made a leap of assumption about me and what I think that you're in no position to. I'm responding to your words, you're responding to what you assume I think.

There is no argument here. That is what you just did, and you should not.

The rise of Al-Quada is certainly a complicated issue and by no means is Bush II responsible, not even a little bit.

But 9/11 happened on his watch. The specific attack occurred while he was president. And we know about the intelligence briefings leading up to it. To absolve his administration of what happened that morning and the weeks and months leading up to that morning because his administration wasn't responsible for the attacker's rise as an organized terrorist group is a naked stretch of tortured partisan logic.

And since it appears I need to be clear - I'm not saying 9/11 was his fault. It happened during his administration. To whatever level the event could or could not have been prevented (and none of us have that answer, including me) is on his record, period.

Now I responded to that not because I'm interested in a piecemeal review of Bush's administration, but because you committed the error of assuming you knew what i was thinking and I had to correct you.

If you'd like to further absolve Bush of any responsibilities for the crises' during his terms, you may. Just understand you seem to be painting him with your arguments as a intelligent thinker ineffectually swept up in matters beyond his ability to correct curtail or positively influence in any way.

If that is how you choose to think of him, I don't begrudge you that.

As for him expressing a complex idea to you that is just hiding behind your elitist mind BS, in my opinion, of course.

What if it was? What if I had intellectual standards for world leaders that hopes they are the best of the best minds? So what if I wanted our president to be more intellectually capable then you or I?

'Elite' by any standard definition of the word is a superlative, but the right has turned it into a derogatory word that means what? That we want more than the everyman to be our leaders?

Oh and the whole caricature thing came up because you were complaining about HRC being described by caricatures of her. I would like to know what you meant by that but I brought up the caricature of Bush being stupid as a real caricature that has been endlessly perpetuated by the left and I think you proved it perfectly.

Nobody has argued the caricature of Bush isn't as a bumbling idiot. Why do you think this is in dispute?

All I've done is argued that he doesn't appear to be an intellectual heavyweight, which is not at all the same thing as stupid.

You seem to be seeing what you want to see rather what I have written clearly and repeatedly, including I don't think he's stupid 3 separates times now.

You ought to earnestly consider why you can't seem to take yes for an answer.

BRIGGS wrote:This thread has taken on a life of its own.

Now this is something I can agree with.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:You did misunderstand me and it was probably my fault. I meant yes to the article and that I acknowledge its existence. I did not mean yes to dismissing it. As I said before, I would weigh his opinion and as with everything see if it is political or genuine in nature.

Fair enough.

A great thinker does not necessarily make a great President either.

We're getting away from what's at dispute and it's complicating the issue. I said I question his intelligence, was specific as to what I meant when asked, and made it clear I offered my opinion as what sort of mind is well suited to be a president.

So now I don't know by that response if you're now arguing GWB was a great thinker or if you agree he is not one but didn't need to be?

9/11 could have happened on anyone's watch and probably had more to do with the prior 8 YEARS than the 8 months of Bush. But of course, your bias would not allow you to accept that.

This is what I mean by working too hard. You just made a leap of assumption about me and what I think that you're in no position to. I'm responding to your words, you're responding to what you assume I think.

There is no argument here. That is what you just did, and you should not.

The rise of Al-Quada is certainly a complicated issue and by no means is Bush II responsible, not even a little bit.

But 9/11 happened on his watch. The specific attack occurred while he was president. And we know about the intelligence briefings leading up to it. To absolve his administration of what happened that morning and the weeks and months leading up to that morning because his administration wasn't responsible for the attacker's rise as an organized terrorist group is a naked stretch of tortured partisan logic.

And since it appears I need to be clear - I'm not saying 9/11 was his fault. It happened during his administration. To whatever level the event could or could not have been prevented (and none of us have that answer, including me) is on his record, period.

Now I responded to that not because I'm interested in a piecemeal review of Bush's administration, but because you committed the error of assuming you knew what i was thinking and I had to correct you.

If you'd like to further absolve Bush of any responsibilities for the crises' during his terms, you may. Just understand you seem to be painting him with your arguments as a intelligent thinker ineffectually swept up in matters beyond his ability to correct curtail or positively influence in any way.

If that is how you choose to think of him, I don't begrudge you that.

As for him expressing a complex idea to you that is just hiding behind your elitist mind BS, in my opinion, of course.

What if it was? What if I had intellectual standards for world leaders that hopes they are the best of the best minds? So what if I wanted our president to be more intellectually capable then you or I?

'Elite' by any standard definition of the word is a superlative, but the right has turned it into a derogatory word that means what? That we want more than the everyman to be our leaders?

Oh and the whole caricature thing came up because you were complaining about HRC being described by caricatures of her. I would like to know what you meant by that but I brought up the caricature of Bush being stupid as a real caricature that has been endlessly perpetuated by the left and I think you proved it perfectly.

Nobody has argued the caricature of Bush isn't as a bumbling idiot. Why do you think this is in dispute?

All I've done is argued that he doesn't appear to be an intellectual heavyweight, which is not at all the same thing as stupid.

You seem to be seeing what you want to see rather what I have written clearly and repeatedly, including I don't think he's stupid 3 separates times now.

You ought to earnestly consider why you can't seem to take yes for an answer.

Regardless. You don't GWB think is stupid, I get it. So is the caricature unfair?

As for HRC, what is the caricature of her, I ask again.

WaltLongmire wrote:Obama has been brutalized by many on the right, and caricatured in some racially tinged ways at times...but you never go after him for his knowledge and intelligence. There is also a lot of misogyny behind some of the hatred for her, but that is another issue, I suppose.

There is a conspiracy among the many birther-esque theories that claim Obama was actually dumb and got terrible grades in college: The implication being Obama was a dumbass who benefitted from affirmative action type advancement policies. Actually, the head Birther aka the current GOP nominee for president a couple years back offered a cash reward for anyone who could produce Obama's college transcripts because he didn't believe he was smart and thought that would prove it.

Uptown wrote:

misterearl wrote:For Michael Jordan, A Chance To Speak Up (For Once)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/sports/basketball/michael-jordan-charlotte-nba-all-star-game.html?ref=sports

Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade LeBron James and Chris Paul use their platform to make a powerful statement. Michael Jordan may be regarded (by some) as the best player ever, but he has no voice. Being an agent of change is never convenient.

Dont hold your breath. Its sad when you think of the influence Jordan has had over so many inner city kids, that he couldn't use his stature to direct these kids in a more positive direction.

Jim Brown used to take shots at OJ Simpson, Jordan, and other black athletes who did not voice their concerns over social inequalities.

At times it seems that athletes feel they are not part of the real world.

Knickoftime wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Obama has been brutalized by many on the right, and caricatured in some racially tinged ways at times...but you never go after him for his knowledge and intelligence. There is also a lot of misogyny behind some of the hatred for her, but that is another issue, I suppose.

There is a conspiracy among the many birther-esque theories that claim Obama was actually dumb and got terrible grades in college: The implication being Obama was a dumbass who benefitted from affirmative action type advancement policies. Actually, the head Birther aka the current GOP nominee for president a couple years back offered a cash reward for anyone who could produce Obama's college transcripts because he didn't believe he was smart and thought that would prove it.

To dovetail into another discussion. You can be intelligent by not present that way, that's entirely possible. But it doesn't work in reverse.

If you can't recognize Obama's intellect just by observing him, seeing him think and speak on the fly, there's a good reason for that - because you can't.

I don't know what kind of a student he was, obviously people have hard and fast idea of what kind of president he was been, but his intellect is perfectly plain to see.

For sure. It's just another ****amamie conspiracy theory to smear the guy apart from any logic or reason. People just come up with this stuff and do the proverbial throw it all against the wall to see if any of it sticks.

When Obama won in 2008 there was a concerted effort from day one to delegitimize his presidency. Forget the "respect for the office" that the GOP would crow about when W was president and the shoe was on the other foot. Mitch McConnell said it himself on the record "the goal was to make Obama a one term president". Forget any and all compromise on Obama's policy objectives which in non la la land were pretty much straight down the line centrist fare. Hell, 20 years ago Obama would be a moderate republican. But that just shows how far to the right the GOP has been pulled in its nativist paranoid death spiral. And Trump is the logical conclusion of this.

For example: The basic ideas of Obamacare were outlined first by the heritage foundation as a market based solution alternative to Clintons attempt to extend a Medicare for all solution to healthcare in this country. Romney did it in Mass and said to the world that this was how the republicans could reform the healthcare system. He ran on it in 2008. Even Jim DeMint was all over TV talking about Romneycare being exhibit A1 in why he should be their nominee (YouTube the clip).