I think your comment actually helps prove the point of this article more so than not.
Lee-ann Dunton

Really? How so? I ask only because your declaration appears contrary to an ordinary reading of our two positions. Indeed, my position would appear on its face antithetical to the author’s so it is anything but clear how it could “prove the point” of the underlying article. So my question is sincere: Do you have a logical basis for making such a statement or are you merely casting your enigmatic vote without explanation according to what you think is the politically correct position? I’m giving you an opportunity to show that you actually thought about your comment and that you have a rational basis for reaching what would on the surface appear an insupportable position. Please don’t declare that because I disagree with the author it reflects that I am an unfeeling or uncaring person or some other disparaging remark substituted for reasoned argument. Show some independent thinking that is neither conclusory nor disparaging and I’ll listen. I may (or may not) agree with you, but I’ll listen to what you have to say. Here, I’ll make it easier for you by staking out the two positions: The author maintains there is an element of racism reflected in the initial acceptance of Lochte’s preposterous story but there is a “perverse” “wait for the facts” attitude when addressing reports of police misconduct toward persons of color. He cites as support for the latter claim the BLM and Michal Brown as a comparable example. I challenged the author on several levels: (1) I maintain that American’s expressing premature judgment is epidemic, without regard to race; (2) I also maintain that waiting for both sides before reaching judgment is not only not “perverse” but consistent with the founding principals of due process; (3) I also challenge that the author’s BLM/Brown example supports his thesis. In that regard, although the matter involved alleged police misconduct against a black man, there was nevertheless a rush to judgment, so much so that there was corresponding action, including violence. Where the Brown/Lochte examples differ, though, is that BLM still clings to the false story originally reported (with the source attributed to Brown’s criminal accomplice). BLM still chants “hands up; don’t shoot” mantra as attributable to the Brown shooting, even though it has been conclusively shown that Brown was a strong-arm robber (yes, taking the property of another through force or threat of force, even if unarmed, constitutes felony robbery, not shoplifting) who attacked a police officer and was shot in the hand while attempting to wrestle the officer’s gun away while the officer was still in the vehicle, that he then fled the scene and the officer gave chase (as he was obligated by his office to do), that Brown turned and attacked the officer again, and the officer, knowing he could not defeat Brown’s size or strength one-on-one shot him in self defense. These are the true facts revealed after investigation by both federal and state agencies and which are in direct contradiction to the original story. In other words, contrary to the oft chanted mantra “hands up; guns down,” Brown did not have his hands up and was not surrendering when he was shot but actually was engaged in attacking a police officer. Thus, unlike the Lochte situation, where the public has uniformly rejected Lochte’s debunked story and him, BLM still advocates for the original lie told by Brown’s accomplice. Now, in a thinking way, please explain how you conclude that my position “actually helps prove the point of this article.” If you do, I will take you seriously. If you cannot, or if you resort to the customary conclusory statements or ad hominem attacks of the “politically correct,” well I think you know how I’ll regard your non-argument, so enough said about that. xpiry”�6_�,<

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.