• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The web of lies in Ferguson

I wouldn't say a "special predisposition" to lie, but rather a somewhat ordinary post-disposition to given the nature of this case.

Please elaborate because you are perilously close falling into Loren's hole.

They've rallied around the racist nature of the event and they grow tried of the perceived racism of the police force, so they'll lie or be heavily biased to further the narrative. Blacks aren't special in this manner, but the particulars of the event make them more likely to have heavily biased testimony bordering on lies.

How else do you explain the witnesses who have stated that Wilson shot Brown in the back of the head while he was kneeling, execution style?
 
The bolded is incorrect. It was Darren Wilson and only THREE witnesses (and one of them actually said "I thought he was trying to charge him at first" which sounds like maybe not)

Then we have the other witnesses:

"and he started feeling the pain or something like that, where like he couldn't you know, pick up his pace because of the shot. "

"and then he started going down."

"like he was stumbling and like I said, the officer lets out some more shots and that's when he hit the ground.”

"and he just went all the way down as the shots hit him.”

“And so by the time I made it to where I could see what was going on, Michael Brown was on his knees.”

"it appears to me that he was just catching his balance."

"And next thing I know, I don't know where it hit, but when the boy fell"

"he turned around, and I'm assuming that he was just stunned, that's how it appeared to me. That he looked down at his hands and he saw blood.

So we actually have SEVEN witnesses (not zero as you stated) that testified to some version of "falling forward" plus one more stating that Michael Brown was looking down at his wounds.
I think maybe you misunderstood. Everyone actually agrees that Michael Brown fell on the ground. No disagreement there. :thinking: The relevant claim is that Michael Brown was shot as he was falling. Such a witness testimony is the only way that explanation would not be completely ad hoc. Out of that list, there is one such testimony, though it is ambiguous: "and he just went all the way down as the shots hit him." So there is something, not nothing. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I think maybe you have misunderstood. You said that SIX witnesses plus Darren Wilson claimed Michael Brown was "charging" (& you apparently conclude this means he was "charging" with his head down like a bull). Only THREE witnesses other than Darren Wilson claimed he was "charging" (& one was very wishy-washy uncertain about that). NONE claimed he was "charging" with his head down, which means NONE of the witness testimony supports your claim. (Neither does common sense as Shadowy Man and Laughing Dog have already pointed out to you)

On the flip side, you claimed that NONE of the witnesses testified that Michael Brown was falling forward as he was being shot at, yet we actually have eight witnesses stating some version of just that. One said he was stumbling forward, one said he was looking down, one said he was falling to his knees, etc.

If you are going to dismiss eight witnesses because they didn't say the exact words you are looking for, well then you have exactly ZERO people stating that Michael Brown was "charging" with his head down to explain why the kill shot entered the top of his head.

You insist that we need a combination of forensics, witness statements and our own rational thinking to come to a conclusion. I agree. Forensics confirms the shot entered the top of his head which does certainly imply some sort of head down position just prior to the kill shot. As to witness statements, we have zero stating that Michael Brown was "charging" with his head down; but we have multiple witnesses stating that Michael Brown was stumbling forward (watch someone stumble - their head is usually down), looking down, and/or falling forward. And finally, as already noted, it defies common sense that Michael Brown would be "charging" into a hail of bullets, especially with his head down such that the kill shot enters the top of his head. Common sense indicates that after being shot at the car, Michael Brown tried to run away but after additional shots from Officer Wilson, he turned around, stumbling due to the other shots, leaned forward/fell forward/doubled-over due to the other bullet wounds, and a bullet entered the top of his head killing him.
 
Please elaborate because you are perilously close falling into Loren's hole.

They've rallied around the racist nature of the event and they grow tried of the perceived racism of the police force, so they'll lie or be heavily biased to further the narrative.
and white people don't do this?
Blacks aren't special in this manner,
then why call out black people? wouldn't a white person who has grown tried of the "perceieved racism" also lie?
but the particulars of the event make them more likely to have heavily biased testimony bordering on lies.
and your proof of this is what exactly?
How else do you explain the witnesses who have stated that Wilson shot Brown in the back of the head while he was kneeling, execution style?

Because that is what they remember seeing?
 
AthenaAwakened, I have read a lot of scientific racist literature, much of which I largely agree with, but none of it claims that blacks on average are innately more likely to tell lies than other racial groups, and there is likewise little to lead me to believe such a thing. There is, however, evidence of the tendency to lie about a limited topic: drug abuse. It came to my attention when it was claimed somewhere on Facebook that blacks are equally likely to use drugs as whites. I looked into it, and I found a counter-argument that the statistic was based on self-reports and assumed racial equality of truth-telling, and a different study found that blacks were far more likely than other races to lie about their own drug abuse, comparing their statements to blood or urine tests (I will hunt down that study tomorrow if interested). It could easily be attributed to the black tendency to distrust white authorities, and not such a good argument for the tendency for blacks to lie about all topics generally, let alone the INNATE tendency to lie generally. It remains possible, but the evidence seems scarce to me at this point. I would attribute the lies among the Ferguson witnesses to an in-group-vs-out-group mentality, as Ferguson is an environment with a common perception (if not a reality) of white police abuse against blacks.

Uh huh,

So what does this study have to do with what Loren has said?
 
I don't think its blacks having a predisposition to lie. The lying going on is more related to socioeconomic conditions than skin color. Ferguson is not an affluent community. The lower the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood/community, the greater the tendency for people to cheat, steal, rob, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that lying would part of that way of life too? I think you would see the same thing happening in poor, white (or Asian or Eskimo or whatever) communities.
 
Ummm... Wall Street, Koch Brothers, the Walton's and thousands of other examples show that a low socio-economic status isn't a pre-requisite to a "tendency for people to cheat, steal, rob" or lie. :p
 
I don't think its blacks having a predisposition to lie. The lying going on is more related to socioeconomic conditions than skin color. Ferguson is not an affluent community. The lower the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood/community, the greater the tendency for people to cheat, steal, rob, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that lying would part of that way of life too? I think you would see the same thing happening in poor, white (or Asian or Eskimo or whatever) communities.

So now poor people are more likely to lie than say rich people?

Actually the opposite may be true.

The study, and several that followed, came to some unsettling conclusions: as people climb the social ladder, their compassion for others declines. In fact, research has repeatedly demonstrated that high earners behave less ethically than low earners. They are more likely to make morally dubious decisions, to lie, and to cheat. All these traits, researchers found, were created in part by more favorable attitudes toward greed.

And what does any of this have to do with what Loren said?
 
The lower the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood/community, the greater the tendency for people to cheat, steal, rob, etc.
Do you have some evidence for this?

Why is it so hard to believe that lying would part of that way of life too?
Why is it so easy to believe that?

Is robbing a convenience store more dishonest than robbing clients and tax payers via white collar dishonesty?
 
I don't think its blacks having a predisposition to lie. The lying going on is more related to socioeconomic conditions than skin color. Ferguson is not an affluent community. The lower the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood/community, the greater the tendency for people to cheat, steal, rob, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that lying would part of that way of life too? I think you would see the same thing happening in poor, white (or Asian or Eskimo or whatever) communities.

premise not accepted, get out
 
Did you not note the post where I said KKKers would react in a similar fashion when a white was shot by a black policeman?
KKKers are a fringe group. Black people are not. So I find it hard to believe your comment is meant to be taken seriously.

Bad comparison--it's not all the black people that blindly jump on the black guy's side. It's just we don't have any convenient group name for such blacks, unlike we have "KKK" for the biased whites.
 
KKKers are a fringe group. Black people are not. So I find it hard to believe your comment is meant to be taken seriously.

Bad comparison--it's not all the black people that blindly jump on the black guy's side....
I agree you made a bad comparison. There was and is nothing stopping you from clearly stating your position instead of choosing to use broad generalizing language. At best, your "we don't have any convenient group name for such blacks" excuse is an admission of lazy and sloppy thinking.
 
AthenaAwakened, I have read a lot of scientific racist literature, much of which I largely agree with, but none of it claims that blacks on average are innately more likely to tell lies than other racial groups, and there is likewise little to lead me to believe such a thing. There is, however, evidence of the tendency to lie about a limited topic: drug abuse. It came to my attention when it was claimed somewhere on Facebook that blacks are equally likely to use drugs as whites. I looked into it, and I found a counter-argument that the statistic was based on self-reports and assumed racial equality of truth-telling, and a different study found that blacks were far more likely than other races to lie about their own drug abuse, comparing their statements to blood or urine tests (I will hunt down that study tomorrow if interested). It could easily be attributed to the black tendency to distrust white authorities, and not such a good argument for the tendency for blacks to lie about all topics generally, let alone the INNATE tendency to lie generally. It remains possible, but the evidence seems scarce to me at this point. I would attribute the lies among the Ferguson witnesses to an in-group-vs-out-group mentality, as Ferguson is an environment with a common perception (if not a reality) of white police abuse against blacks.

The root cause....ingrained memes in officer Wilson and other cops in Ferguson:
brn1 copy.jpg
These cops do not have an organized well armed opposition facing them. They have unarmed protesters who indeed are angry that cops are killing people and then demonizing them. I inserted the template for their meme. We have to reject the constant demonization of black men. Much of the debate centered around whether underclass blacks were more apt to be liars than whites or upper class people. All of this sidesteps the real issue...."he was a demon." Wilson even used the word demon in his testimony. In all fairness to officer Wilson, he could not have come to this conclusion by himself. No doubt his fellow racist cops helped reinforce the meme. I am glad to see that the furror over this type of incident is NOT DYING DOWN. It may not generate sufficient momentum to generate real change, but we know the anger is there and the need is there for change. Just like with Martin...the details are actually not that important. There have already been so many interations of events like this, our posters start their post with the word "another." What is important is that we are cursed with too many mentally unstable and often racist cops and they are arming themselves to the teeth.
 
AthenaAwakened, I have read a lot of scientific racist literature, much of which I largely agree with, but none of it claims that blacks on average are innately more likely to tell lies than other racial groups, and there is likewise little to lead me to believe such a thing. There is, however, evidence of the tendency to lie about a limited topic: drug abuse. It came to my attention when it was claimed somewhere on Facebook that blacks are equally likely to use drugs as whites. I looked into it, and I found a counter-argument that the statistic was based on self-reports and assumed racial equality of truth-telling, and a different study found that blacks were far more likely than other races to lie about their own drug abuse, comparing their statements to blood or urine tests (I will hunt down that study tomorrow if interested). It could easily be attributed to the black tendency to distrust white authorities, and not such a good argument for the tendency for blacks to lie about all topics generally, let alone the INNATE tendency to lie generally. It remains possible, but the evidence seems scarce to me at this point. I would attribute the lies among the Ferguson witnesses to an in-group-vs-out-group mentality, as Ferguson is an environment with a common perception (if not a reality) of white police abuse against blacks.

The root cause....ingrained memes in officer Wilson and other cops in Ferguson:
View attachment 1705
These cops do not have an organized well armed opposition facing them. They have unarmed protesters who indeed are angry that cops are killing people and then demonizing them. I inserted the template for their meme. We have to reject the constant demonization of black men. Much of the debate centered around whether underclass blacks were more apt to be liars than whites or upper class people. All of this sidesteps the real issue...."he was a demon." Wilson even used the word demon in his testimony. In all fairness to officer Wilson, he could not have come to this conclusion by himself. No doubt his fellow racist cops helped reinforce the meme. I am glad to see that the furror over this type of incident is NOT DYING DOWN. It may not generate sufficient momentum to generate real change, but we know the anger is there and the need is there for change. Just like with Martin...the details are actually not that important. There have already been so many interations of events like this, our posters start their post with the word "another." What is important is that we are cursed with too many mentally unstable and often racist cops and they are arming themselves to the teeth.

Whatever words are used to describe Michael Brown, there was clearly something not right in his head based on his conduct throughout that whole ordeal.
 
Michael Brown at that point is already confirmed to have physically assaulted the same man with the same gun in the police vehicle.

What evidence confirms an "assault". As far as I know, all there is evidence for is a struggle in the vehicle including a discharge of the firearm, resulting in Brown being hit in the hand and running away. We have only two testimonies about what happened at the vehicle and they are in conflict with each other. I ask yet again: were Brown's fingerprints found on Wilson's gun?
 
"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson

While the “hands-up” account of Dorian Johnson is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment, “Witness 40”’s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation. The “Witness 40” testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.

However, unlike Johnson, “Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.

Well, I mean how could we expect the prosecutor to know all this before getting McElroy on the stand?
 
"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson

While the “hands-up” account of Dorian Johnson is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment, “Witness 40”’s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation. The “Witness 40” testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.

However, unlike Johnson, “Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.

Well, I mean how could we expect the prosecutor to know all this before getting McElroy on the stand?

Theres a big surprise.

It bothers me that this story claims that McElroy was nowhere near Ferguson that day, but says nothing about how they know that.
 
Really, she was bipolar and had a history of trying to inject herself into high profile cases. Why is she a witness?
 
"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson



Well, I mean how could we expect the prosecutor to know all this before getting McElroy on the stand?

Theres a big surprise.

It bothers me that this story claims that McElroy was nowhere near Ferguson that day, but says nothing about how they know that.
It is a good question, but she suddenly decided to testify four weeks later and her testimony exactly matched Wilson's account as stated in the press. And the reasons for "at the scene" did change dramatically.
 
Back
Top Bottom