Twins/Tigers Players Vote to Postpone Tonight's Game

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

That being said, I'm completely confused as to why an officer telling a black person "I haven't shot you yet" is worse than an officer saying the same thing to  a brown/yellow/red/white person.  Absent additional evidence of racism (again, not being familiar with the situation, I can't comment on this point), I am loathe to declare an officer racist based solely on one severely threatening statement made to one individual with a different skin color.  Am I to believe he either says this to every black individual he interacts with, or that this is the first black person he's had a situation with?  If not, it seems more likely to me there were other extenuating circumstances responsible that are not justification for the statement (if, as I suspect, the statement was not warranted), but are not racial in nature.

 

 

The part in the quote above pretty much sums up the problem. You don't understand why that is problematic. It's on you to learn why. Educate yourself on racial issues in America because, frankly, that paragraph suggests you are happily ignorant while talking on an issue you don't understand.

 

Judge Frank, in his decision, stated “A comment — even joking — that infers that an African-American man is fortunate to not have been shot ‘yet’ by a police officer would be problematic. Such a comment ignores the historic context of law enforcement actions against African-Americans.” That's a federal judge calling out police behavior here in Minnesota.

 

In my first post, I gave you a link to a very important decision that was made recently. I suggested you only read three pages. Apparently, that was too difficult for you. I'm not sure what else people should be doing for you. Your posts tonight have been willfully ignorant of the issues people are discussing, full of strawmen that others have continued to point out, and extremely defensive.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

The part in the quote above pretty much sums up the problem. You don't understand why that is problematic. It's on you to learn why. Educate yourself on racial issues in America because, frankly, that paragraph suggests you are happily ignorant while talking on an issue you don't understand.

 

Judge Frank, in his decision, stated “A comment — even joking — that infers that an African-American man is fortunate to not have been shot ‘yet’ by a police officer would be problematic. Such a comment ignores the historic context of law enforcement actions against African-Americans.” That's a federal judge calling out police behavior here in Minnesota.

 

In my first post, I gave you a link to a very important decision that was made recently. I suggested you only read three pages. Apparently, that was too difficult for you. I'm not sure what else people should be doing for you. Your posts tonight have been willfully ignorant of the issues people are discussing, full of strawmen that others have continued to point out, and extremely defensive.

 

Your last paragraph here is frightening to me, given you are an attorney.  You are so convinced of the veracity of your position that you assume anyone who disagrees with you is "willfully ignorant".  I assure you I am nothing of the sort.  I did not initially read the decision--I was doing a number of things, and just didn't feel up to reading what I thought would be a document full of dense legal text I am not equipped to parse--it's why I was careful to state I was not familiar with the specifics of the case, and that I would absolutely change my opinion once I became familiar with the specifics if they so warranted it.  This will be a long post, but after your borderline personal attack on me, I feel a need to fully explain.

 

I went back and read not just the first 3 pages, but the first 14, and found a number of problems.  Let's start with the first 3 however.  This judge, lays forth 19 instances which have no bearing on this case whatsoever, other than they are black individuals who allegedly were killed by white cops.  The judge has to go back to 2014 in order to list these 19 individuals.  Conversely, on his twitter thread, commentator Leonydus Johnson lists 24 white individuals killed by police since the beginning of 2019 (including links to articles with details).  While a number of the individuals Mr Johnson mentions certainly were killed justifiably (it would seem), let's not pretend that is not also the case with some of those listed by Judge Reeves.

 

Specifically, Michael Brown was not killed for jaywalking--he was killed because he refused to stop jaywalking when ordered to do so by Officer Wilson, then resisted arrest, including attempting to seize Officer Wilson's firearm, fleeing, and then returning to charge the officer again.  This happened after Officer Wilson recognized Mr Brown as the suspect in a robbery that had just been reported (to the best of my knowledge, it has been confirmed that Mr Brown did indeed commit said robbery).  Officer WIlson has been vindicated by the legal process multiple times, notably by the Department of Justice under President Obama in an investigation overseen by Attorney General Eric Holder.

 

Rayshard Brooks was not killed because he was asleep in his car--he was killed because he had fallen asleep in a drive-thru lane leading to employees calling the police, who administered a field-sobriety test which revealed Mr Brooks to be legally drunk.  Mr Brooks began to struggle when police attempted to place him under arrest; this struggle escalated to the point where Mr Brooks seized a taser from the officers, shot one with it then punched the other, fled, then turned and fired the taser again.  It was at this point Officer Rolfe shot Mr Brooks--the case is still ongoing.

 

Breonna Taylor was not killed because she was sleeping in her bed--she was killed because she was tragically caught in the crossfire when her boyfriend fired first at officers serving a no-knock warrant (we can debate in a separate place the validity of those)--the case is still going.

 

I don't know much about the other cases, and don't have the ability to spend enough time to familiarize myself, save to say at least 8 of the 20 individuals he mentioned (including Mr Brooks and Ms Taylor) would appear to be potentially still in ongoing legal proceedings, given the dates of the articles Judge Reeves provide come from 2020.  It seems legally dubious to me to cite unsettled cases as supporting evidence in a legal proceeding, but perhaps that's commonplace (I suspect it's not).

 

A certain amount of bias also seems present in this case.  In relating the specifics of the case, Judge Reeves states that Officer McClendon and Mr Jamison have different versions of how the incident started.  Officer McClendon's version is given less than one paragraph, and comes after Judge Reeves uses the word "admitted" to describe Officer McClendon's testimony wherein he states he attempted to obtain permission to conduct a search (as if an officer of the law wanting to secure the legal right to conduct an investigation for potential illegal activity is somehow morally problematic).  Mr Jamison's version gets close to two pages, and as best I can tell from my parsing of the rest of the document is accepted by Judge Reeves as at least the more likely scenario, despite providing no evidence as to why Officer McClendon's testimony should not be given the same weight (if I missed where Judge Reeves did this, I apologize for my oversight.  That said, I doubt it, as Judge Reeves includes a claim made by Mr Jamison about a statement made by Officer McClendon on page 9, and plainly states Officer McClendon was lying.  Judge Reeves does state in a footnote that Officer McClendon disputes Mr Jamison's statement, but footnoting this detail, while providing no reason as to why Officer McClendon's assertion is less believable than Mr Jamison's, suggests to me Judge Reeves has decided on a preferred narrative, an argument which is supported by the fact that later on the same page, Judge Reeves again states unequivocally that Officer McClendon lied about the same statement).

 

Further, if Judge Reeve's aim in this decision is to attempt to eliminate the doctrine of QI (which by the way, he did grant to Officer McClendon), it seems interesting that the only cases he cites in the beginning feature black individuals, when citing cases such as Tony Timpa or Daniel Shaver, both of whom are white, would be extremely helpful to his goal.  As such, it reads to me that Judge Reeves is more interested in furthering the idea that police are disproportionately shooting/killing black men, which is not borne out by any data I've seen (again, if there is non-anecdotal data that demonstrates this, I would love to read it).

 

Based on stats from the FBI and the Washington Post's database of police killings of unarmed people, police kill more white people annually, both armed and unarmed, than they do black.  While whites are a larger percentage of the population, a key factor would logically seem to be crime rates in the two populations; as it turns out, black people commit (at least in 2019) 33.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people, compared to 11.6 violent crimes per 100,000 white people.  That 2.8x disparity is essentially identical to the 2.8x disparity in the rate of individuals killed by police (5.6 black people per million, 2 white people per million).

 

As you can see, I have spent time and effort to educate myself.  I do not deny the horrific crimes that reside in this nation's history, and were directed mainly (but not entirely) towards non-whites.  However, those crimes are in the past, and I do not support the idea of applying punishment for crimes to individuals who did not commit said crimes.  As I've said all along, absent any proof that Officer McClendon is a racist, and my reading of this case reveals none despite what Judge Reeves appears to think, I will not call him one.  I read nothing that made me believe Officer McClendon would not have stopped a white individual (indeed, it's possible Officer McClendon had no idea the race of who he was stopping, as it's rather hard to see inside darkened cars at night while they're driving at 70 MPH.  There was no indication I read that Officer McClendon had any idea what race Mr Jamison was before pulling him over, and I'm aware of no data that demonstrates the race of drivers is easily determinable at night while driving on the interstate). 

 

There's further nothing I saw that demonstrates Officer McClendon proceeded in his nearly 2 hour search process based on racial prejudice.  As Judge Reeves points out, the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, and yet he seems to prima facie accept that Officer McClendon acted out of racial animus.  With no evidence to support this, I would propose Judge Reeves' line of reasoning in essentially declaring Officer McClendon a racist to be unfair and unequal to the Officer.

 

Racism is serious.  It is hateful, evil, and a blight on our (or any other) society.  Because of this, allegations of racism are also extremely serious, should not be lightly made, and should require ironclad evidence to be vindicated.  While I find Officer McClendon's actions to be excessive, I see nothing that suggests a racial component, and as such, refuse to assign that motivation when there are any number of other explanations that would plausibly fit the situation.

 

As for the statement in question of "I haven't shot you yet", I read the article provided.  Based on the data there, I agree that the statement was unacceptable--so did his own department which reprimanded and disciplined him.  That being said, while it appears the officer in question was the first to mention race, it is unclear why.  The article states the plaintiff told the officer his neighbors should have talked to him instead of calling the police, and then states "Higgins [the officer], who was wearing a body camera, suggested they [the neighbors] did so because Vernio [the plaintiff] 'is a very loud, boisterous black man.'"  From this, it is entirely unclear what prompted Officer Higgins to make this statement to Mr Vernio; is it Officer Higgin's opinion (and if so, how did he come to this assessment), or was it provided by the neighbors when they called 911?

 

Is it not possible that Mr Vernio has continued to be a loud and inconsiderate neighbor, despite several requests to refrain?  If so, it's logical the neighbors would seek intervention from an authority, and may have provided the statement attributed to Officer Higgins above as their justification for involving the police in an otherwise interpersonal affair.

 

I'm glad Officer Higgins has received consequences for his unacceptable speech, but until racism has been proven, or all other plausible explanations ruled out (I believe that's known as reasonable doubt), I will not assign racial animus to this case, for the same reasons I outlined above.

 

I apologize for the length of this post, but your characterization of me as willfully ignorant, defensive, and dependent on strawman arguments is not in keeping with a site wherein posters are respected for their different views.  I love TwinsDaily, and love interacting with literally every poster on the site.  As that is exceedingly rare for the modern internet, I would hate to see that spoiled simply because I held different opinions on current events.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Yeah, I get what you're saying ... I just don't agree with your conclusions. That's all.

 

Fair enough, run free my woodland friend (if you want to run to Target Field this week and spark the Twins' bats, I wouldn't complain) 

[Squirrel]

 

Fair enough, run free my woodland friend (if you want to run to Target Field this week and spark the Twins' bats, I wouldn't complain) 

 

That would be a long run from Chicago ... and my running days are behind me now by a far distance

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I have reread the original post and I don't think your interpretation is accurate because it is incomplete.  The poster said that the players chose to stop playing for a day because something in the world is unjust and they wanted to raise awareness and add their voice/clout to the conversation.

 

By you limiting the initial clause to a simplified version, you've essentially conducted a strawman argument.  

 

Your version: If everything is not ok, players choose not to play as scheduled

What the poster actually said and better reflects the players: If everything is not ok and the players think their platform can be used to help reverse this injustice and support their teammates who feel strongly, they will choose not to play to make a statement and then continue to fight the injustice in other ways.

 

Those extra conditionals significantly alter the simplicity of the logic you tried to use and explain why it went so far astray at even the most basic analysis.  The players who feel strongly may have needed that show of unity.  They may have needed to exercise their platform to get people talking and paying attention for future actions.

 

Let's use a simple analogy to show the difference:

 

9/11 responders experience(d) significant PTSD and a host of other issues because of their bravery that day.  Many of them suffer daily from it.  Yet I would imagine, no matter how passionately you feel about honoring their sacrifice, you don't stop daily to remember it.  Or donate daily.  Or personally thank each of them daily.  Or make some grand display daily.  Those men and women are still there every day, but you effort isn't the same day in and day out. 

 

Does that, in any way, minimize the complications?  Or minimize your genuine appreciation of those people?  The simple truth is human beings don't have the capacity to be constantly, actively engaged in everything.  We commemorate and honor on particular days, we raise awareness, we throw our full weight behind things for short bursts and then back down to work at it daily.  We simply cannot do much more than that for all the injustices in the world.  Your attempt at logic only works because you ignore what is realistically possible and removes all the complexity that is actually part of the situation.  Which makes it appear easy to poke a hole in, but that's only because you've deliberately chosen to narrow the field to your convenience.

 

I see where you're headed, but the difference here is that I have never said I don't feel it's ok to go to my job until all the concerns of 9/11 first responders are satisfactorily addressed--I understand that even if it was more than just me, and all of us making the same statement were in public and influential positions, one day is not sufficient to create the change.  The same is true here--one day is not enough to create the (I assume) large amount of change the players want.  I say I assume because I can't find a list of demands anywhere--if I've missed it, I would be very interested in reading it.

 

Therefore, a better statement would have been "We the Twins do not believe we can play on Thursday due to the current state of affairs.  We call for a day of thought, prayer, reflection, and discussion to start the process of healing our state and nation.  While we plan to return to the field tomorrow, our commitment to fighting inequality wherever it may be remains undiminished".  Release a specific and quantifiable list of demands with that statement, and it's quite clear where the team is.

 

That being said, that is not the verbiage I was initially responding to--here is the entire statement by the OP; "I believe one aspect of this is being missed. I’ve heard many players simply say that playing in light of what is happening would send a message that things are ok and they obviously are not."  Obviously, this is a poster paraphrasing players, or perhaps even interpreting them, but if this is what players actually believe, then my points stand.  There is no mention of the word day, there are only absolutes.  When absolute statements are being made, absolute conclusions are reached.  If we're in my kitchen and I tell you I have 4 apples, and then ask you if you want me to give you 8 apples right now, you'd look at me like I was crazy.  If I said I was going to buy a new car, and I'd narrowed it down to two options, one of which was red and the other blue, you'd be surprised if I told you my new car was green.  

 

In both of these situations, unless the initial situation has changed, my following statement is nonsensical and illogical.  In regards to the players, their initial statement was absolute (at least as phrased by the poster); we as players cannot play because things are not ok.  Not we can't play today.  Not we can't play until we see some progress.  Things not ok=players don't play.  To point out that if this is honestly what the players think, they either would still not be playing, or they have now changed their minds on if things are ok is not unreasonable, it is following the logical process the players subjected themselves to by making an unqualified and absolute statement.