Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The Clinton email scandal is one of those manufactured witch hunts that spun off of the Benghazi investigation. "Everyone does it", but because she got pinned down for it, suddenly it's a big deal.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
"Caught" is the operative word. But that is, after all, the way it works. It's fine until you get caught.
There are a number of politicians on- and off-record as having done it. I'll do some digging when I have a chance.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fixed.
The artist formally known as Deviant BraeburnThere's a strong belief that we shouldn't export stuff that we also import, because to the layman it sounds insane, never mind the way it works out in terms of relative price and trade advantage.
Edit: I'm having trouble finding detailed information about other government people who used private email servers because the searches all come up with news and opinion pieces from March, April, and May about the initial furor. Predictably, conservative-leaning sites declare it the "Death of Hillary" whereas centrist sites adopt a "this might hurt her campaign but does not appear illegal" tone, and the more left-leaning sites declare it the "Rise of Bernie".
edited 19th Aug '15 11:52:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
A sorta similar controversy happened in 2007, over Karl Rove's use of private email accounts.
But there are some differences.
According to NY DAILY NEWS Palin, Romney, and Andrew Cuomo
have also faced controversies regarding there use of emails. But like Rove, there are differences.
Outside of lead AND FREEDOM, that is.
Fixed that for you.
edited 19th Aug '15 12:21:30 PM by AngelicBraeburn
The artist formally known as Deviant BraeburnHe might have been armed with cutting sarcasm and seething racial anger.
edited 19th Aug '15 12:25:48 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Stories like that irritate me. Because the guy wears a prosthetic leg and uses crutches, the police shouldn't take him down if he resists arrest? Or maybe they should only use one officer, to make it more sporting? The fact of the matter is that "excessive" force (in terms of having multiple officers subdue a single suspect, not in terms of shooting people, I mean) makes things safer and easier for everyone involved, police and suspects both. If you have one officer grabbing each limb and another holding their torso, then you don't have to physically slam them around to force compliance, and there's less risk of them striking back at the officers, so it's a win-win situation.
But people like to continue the narrative of "cops are evil sadistic power-hungry bullies, look at them gang up on that poor defenseless man!" so we get stories like this. The article itself is remarkably information-free, as well — for example, nothing is said about why he's being restrained (though they do mention that the police were called because he was "waving sticks" that turned out to be his crutches) or what happened between "police are called" and "homeless man is wrestled to the ground".
For the record, I'm not saying that police overusing force doesn't happen, I'm just saying that people focus too much on, essentially, "fighting fair" when you don't want a physical struggle to be "fair" because that's how people get hurt.
Still, the language used is just so overblown. The article quotes someone as saying "An officer can be seen at the 5 second time-mark stomping on the man’s prosthetic leg. In further efforts to subdue a man already on the ground with four people on top of him, they stood on his leg, held it, and twisted it around even after they had cuffed him and pinned him to the piss-stained concrete." Uh, because the guy was still struggling. He wasn't under control yet, despite five guys holding him down. So they pinned him further. That's not excessive force, that's just how policing works. If you make the decision to restrain someone, then you make sure they're physically under control. You don't say "well, we've got him on the ground so I guess that's good enough even though he's still kicking his legs around trying to get free".
edited 19th Aug '15 12:36:11 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Umm, no. Not giving a pass on this one. Police are trained to subdue unruly suspects, and sending an entire squad of them for a single man is overkill no matter what. Show me examples of a white homeless man being taken down by 14 cops and we'll talk.
It is the duty of the police to ascertain the danger of a situation before intervening, not after. A guy waving crutches is not a credible threat.
edited 19th Aug '15 12:34:32 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Which is why I complained about the lack of information on how it went from "police are called in" to "guy is restrained". It's entirely possible that the decision to restrain him was the wrong one. It's also possible that it was legitimate. We don't know because nothing was said about it.
My point is that sending a squad to deal with one guy isn't overkill.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Hell, if they think he's that much of a threat, they should send SWAT. Sending 14 street cops makes it look like they are trying to recreate a fight scene from Roadhouse, and each one imagines himself to be Patrick Swayze.
edited 19th Aug '15 12:53:36 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And this is the exact attitude I'm talking about.
What makes it overkill? Because five-on-one is "unfair"? It's not a game, the idea is to control the suspect as quickly and thoroughly as possible, not to give him a sporting chance at resisting. Having multiple officers restrain one suspect reduces the possibility of injury for both officers and suspect. It's not overkill, it's just good policing. Having one officer try to restrain a suspect by himself results in things like the chokehold that killed Eric Garner. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but it's certainly not ideal. If you have the additional officers available, then you should absolutely use them. (You can argue that sending that many officers on a routine call is a waste of police resources, and I'd probably agree, but again, we have no information on the context of the call or the response, so it's difficult to make that judgement.)
A SWAT team is something else entirely. You only call a SWAT team when you expect the suspects to be shooting at you. Their equipment and methodologies are tailored accordingly. Ironically (at least in terms of this conversation), the overuse of SWAT teams in situations that really don't require it is a legitimate problem that actually does constitute "overkill" (in the sense that it makes it more likely for people on both sides to get hurt, not less).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Eric Garner had four cops subduing him, if I remember correctly, and was not a threat until the police escalated the encounter. This is very simple: police are trained and inclined to view black men as mortal threats in all cases, without any form of critical judgment or due process.
Again, show me 14 cops subduing an unarmed white homeless man and we can have a meaningful conversation.
edited 19th Aug '15 1:15:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"More specifically, it's a matter of establishing any real trends of parity or near-parity in situations like that. You can possibly find the occasional white homeless person who is, in fact, subdued by a dozen police officers, but the likelihood with which that will happen to a non-white person is statically far greater.
I'm just getting that tidbit out of the way right now before someone comes along to find an example and pretend that it invalidates the narrative of racial bias in our justice system.
![]()
You're missing my point. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not saying that cops treat white suspects and black suspects the same. I'm not saying that there's no such things as institutional racism, or that it's okay for cops to use excessive force.
I'm saying that using five officers (I'm not sure where the 14 number comes in — the video shows five, quickly reduced to two when it's clear the suspect is under control. There are other officers on-scene, but they don't interact with the suspect at all) to subdue one suspect isn't overkill, and acting like it is does a disservice to basically everyone by distracting from the real issue. It's artificial outrage that adds nothing to anything and only serves to lower the signal to noise ratio.
You see the same thing with headlines that emphasize things like "COP SHOOTS SUSPECT SIX TIMES!", as if it makes a difference compared to shooting them once. If a shooting is justified (and that's a huge "if"), then police are trained to keep shooting until the suspect falls over and stops moving. Once you've moved on to deadly force, you don't half-ass it in the hopes that that'll keep things from being too bad. Either deadly force was justified, in which case stopping before you're sure the situation is under control is dangerous, or else deadly force wasn't justified, and you shouldn't have started shooting at all.
edited 19th Aug '15 1:32:17 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
Apparently a Scottish Politician is also involved.
Keep Rolling On