Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 22, 2015, 05:12:15 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/darren-wilson-ferguson-doj_n_6518824.html
Good - fu liberal twats
-
i'd say this is a win for cops that shoot people and botch major details when retelling the story.
Also, a huge victory for police that don't call in shootings, and instead run half a football field to finish that shit solo, like a real man does.
I hope one day, one of us getbiggers might get wasted by a police officer... and he won't have the details right and he'll never call it in... and as we're bleeding out on the ground about to receive that 2nd headshot, we can smile and remember we celebrated the right of police to handle shit vendetta-style with only the vaguest accountability.
-
i'd say this is a win for cops that shoot people and botch major details when retelling the story.
Also, a huge victory for police that don't call in shootings, and instead run half a football field to finish that shit solo, like a real man does.
I hope one day, one of us getbiggers might get wasted by a police officer... and he won't have the details right and he'll never call it in... and as we're bleeding out on the ground about to receive that 2nd headshot, we can smile and remember we celebrated the right of police to handle shit vendetta-style with only the vaguest accountability.
Who would want the job?
Spineless Liberal mayor trying to stab you in the back at every turn. Internet detectives(not operating in real time like the police) criticizing every minute detail. Maniacs who appear to be "unarmed" like this guy pulling a gun out of nowhere and putting you six feet under in a pine box.
-
It would have been bitter sweet had they cleared him on MLK day.
-
Good.
-
I wonder if andreisdaman gonna piss himself again
-
I think this isn't enough.
We should pass laws that police no longer have to call in backup when dealing with shootings. Just let the first cop on the scene handle it, no matter the distance.
Also, this bullshit about "police must file accurate reports"... way too much paperwork, taking up time they could be doing their one-man vendetta missions. I don't think anyone cares if a cop chases a dude 10 feet to shoot him, or has to travel 3 time zones. Mind your own business people, if a cop feels the need to shoot someone, we shouldn't demand accurate reports or even efforts to call it in.
-
good news for america.
-
i'd say this is a win for cops that shoot people and botch major details when retelling the story.
Also, a huge victory for police that don't call in shootings, and instead run half a football field to finish that shit solo, like a real man does.
I hope one day, one of us getbiggers might get wasted by a police officer... and he won't have the details right and he'll never call it in... and as we're bleeding out on the ground about to receive that 2nd headshot, we can smile and remember we celebrated the right of police to handle shit vendetta-style with only the vaguest accountability.
Next time you're involved in a shooting, let us know how accurate you were initially...
-
i'd say this is a win for cops that shoot people and botch major details when retelling the story.
Also, a huge victory for police that don't call in shootings, and instead run half a football field to finish that shit solo, like a real man does.
I hope one day, one of us getbiggers might get wasted by a police officer... and he won't have the details right and he'll never call it in... and as we're bleeding out on the ground about to receive that 2nd headshot, we can smile and remember we celebrated the right of police to handle shit vendetta-style with only the vaguest accountability.
as a young officer I was involved in a burglary call where the officer got shot twice. During my initial statement I told the investigators the length of time between the two shots was "3 or 4 seconds". Days later during the follow up questioning the investigator again asked me how long it was between shots, and again I said about 3 or 4 seconds. So he got a stop watch, hit the table...waited 3 seconds and hit it again and asked me if that was about right. It wasn't so he did it at 2 seconds, then 1 second. Turns out the actual time between shots was about 1 second. I wasn't lying about my first answer. However if you were reading about it in the news you would say I was..
-
as a young officer I was involved in a burglary call where the officer got shot twice. During my initial statement I told the investigators the length of time between the two shots was "3 or 4 seconds". Days later during the follow up questioning the investigator again asked me how long it was between shots, and again I said about 3 or 4 seconds. So he got a stop watch, hit the table...waited 3 seconds and hit it again and asked me if that was about right. It wasn't so he did it at 2 seconds, then 1 second. Turns out the actual time between shots was about 1 second. I wasn't lying about my first answer. However if you were reading about it in the news you would say I was..
That is a realistic, good example.
-
as a young officer I was involved in a burglary call where the officer got shot twice. During my initial statement I told the investigators the length of time between the two shots was "3 or 4 seconds". Days later during the follow up questioning the investigator again asked me how long it was between shots, and again I said about 3 or 4 seconds. So he got a stop watch, hit the table...waited 3 seconds and hit it again and asked me if that was about right. It wasn't so he did it at 2 seconds, then 1 second. Turns out the actual time between shots was about 1 second. I wasn't lying about my first answer. However if you were reading about it in the news you would say I was..
he repeated the "30 feet" answer during the grand jury, and again on the news. The PD repeatedly gave the same # in the press. The actual measurement is 153 feet, but they had what was, IMO, a concerted and organized effort to minimized the perceived distance from the initial conflict, so that they could attach the two.
If he said "I got out and ran 150 feet and confronted him without calling it in, even though he was like godzilla and I was a little kid", it makes people wonder why he ran that far without calling in backup, and how helpless he really felt.
Same way the PD kept leaking "fractured orbital bone". Concerted PR effort, and the cop was a part of that too. The punk deserved to die, but the cop fudging numbers on public record intentionally, months afterward, in concert with the police dept - shady as fck.
-
he repeated the "30 feet" answer during the grand jury, and again on the news. The PD repeatedly gave the same # in the press. The actual measurement is 153 feet, but they had what was, IMO, a concerted and organized effort to minimized the perceived distance from the initial conflict, so that they could attach the two.
If he said "I got out and ran 150 feet and confronted him without calling it in, even though he was like godzilla and I was a little kid", it makes people wonder why he ran that far without calling in backup, and how helpless he really felt.
Same way the PD kept leaking "fractured orbital bone". Concerted PR effort, and the cop was a part of that too. The punk deserved to die, but the cop fudging numbers on public record intentionally, months afterward, in concert with the police dept - shady as fck.
And here we have an example of a liberal lackey lying his rear end off.
-
And here we have an example of a liberal lackey lying his rear end off.
I don't think Officer Wilson is a liberal. But yes, he was lying his ass off about that one detail continually, you are correct.
Again, why do you feel the need to defend a cop that has consistently given that wrong piece of data, over and over? Just say "hey, yeah, he fudged that"... cause while the shoot was legal, that one piece of info has been lied about, by the cop and the PD, the entire time.
-
he repeated the "30 feet" answer during the grand jury, and again on the news. The PD repeatedly gave the same # in the press. The actual measurement is 153 feet, but they had what was, IMO, a concerted and organized effort to minimized the perceived distance from the initial conflict, so that they could attach the two.
If he said "I got out and ran 150 feet and confronted him without calling it in, even though he was like godzilla and I was a little kid", it makes people wonder why he ran that far without calling in backup, and how helpless he really felt.
Same way the PD kept leaking "fractured orbital bone". Concerted PR effort, and the cop was a part of that too. The punk deserved to die, but the cop fudging numbers on public record intentionally, months afterward, in concert with the police dept - shady as fck.
If you say so
-
I don't think Officer Wilson is a liberal. But yes, he was lying his ass off about that one detail continually, you are correct.
Again, why do you feel the need to defend a cop that has consistently given that wrong piece of data, over and over? Just say "hey, yeah, he fudged that"... cause while the shoot was legal, that one piece of info has been lied about, by the cop and the PD, the entire time.
Why are you such a pathological liar? Is it because you're a liberal lackey or is it unrelated to your political beliefs and practices?
-
If you say so
I dont think the cop should be charged with anything.
But I think atthe very least, people need to ask why he misjudged that distance so much, even in his testimony, and ever when talking to 60 minutes... he's on TV when it's all over - and he STILL believed it was only 30 feet?
Either he cannot measure distance, or he got his bell rung so hard he didn't know how to estimate it.
And nobody reviewed that testimony with him? lol, he never looked at a map? He STILL believes it was 30 feet?
Either way, i'm glad he's off police force - cause he's lying or dumb or reckless - any of them and I don't want him carrying a gun and trying to enforce the law. (And I STILL cannot understand whythe FergusonPD kept repeating that 30 feet lie.)
-
Why are you such a pathological liar? Is it because you're a liberal lackey or is it unrelated to your political beliefs and practices?
it's public record. He kept claiming 30 feet. It was 150+ feet.
you can keep calling names. I'll keep stating facts of this case.
-
it's public record. He kept claiming 30 feet. It was 150+ feet.
you can keep calling names. I'll keep stating facts of this case.
Whatever you lying liar. You are often the only screwball spouting this loony crap. Nobody cares.
-
I dont think the cop should be charged with anything.
But I think atthe very least, people need to ask why he misjudged that distance so much, even in his testimony, and ever when talking to 60 minutes... he's on TV when it's all over - and he STILL believed it was only 30 feet?
Either he cannot measure distance, or he got his bell rung so hard he didn't know how to estimate it.
And nobody reviewed that testimony with him? lol, he never looked at a map? He STILL believes it was 30 feet?
Either way, i'm glad he's off police force - cause he's lying or dumb or reckless - any of them and I don't want him carrying a gun and trying to enforce the law. (And I STILL cannot understand whythe FergusonPD kept repeating that 30 feet lie.)
I'm semi curious about your claim that the distance of the chase was 153ft and he maintains after the conclusion of the investigation that it is 30 ft. That is weird. I can fully understand getting the distance wrong. I don't understand the point of staying with the 30ft after it's shown to be wrong. Rather than me spending a lot of time finding the 2 distances, ( I will if need be) can you supply a link or links to support your claim?
-
I think this isn't enough.
We should pass laws that police no longer have to call in backup when dealing with shootings. Just let the first cop on the scene handle it, no matter the distance.
Also, this bullshit about "police must file accurate reports"... way too much paperwork, taking up time they could be doing their one-man vendetta missions. I don't think anyone cares if a cop chases a dude 10 feet to shoot him, or has to travel 3 time zones. Mind your own business people, if a cop feels the need to shoot someone, we shouldn't demand accurate reports or even efforts to call it in.
I read the grand jury transcript. Interesting testimony. Heres what I learned reading from the source..
1. He DID call for back up
2. He NEVER mentions a distance for the chase
3. Investigators DO tell the grand jury it was 160 ft.
240 it seems your version of the "facts" are a little off.... might want to reconsider
-
I read the grand jury transcript. Interesting testimony. Heres what I learned reading from the source..
1. He DID call for back up
2. He NEVER mentions a distance for the chase
3. Investigators DO tell the grand jury it was 160 ft.
Don't listen to me, or beach bum. Google "Darren Wilson 30 feet" - you'll see stories with links to statements.
He and the PD made a concerted effort to keep saying a measurement they knew was incorrect.
He even says it in the ABC news interview. Don't listen to either of us. Google it. See that single inconsitenty. That's half the reason people are rioting - cause the cop and PD can't say "150 feet" after all this time :(
And he called for another car when he arrived at the scene. He NEVER called for backup after shooting the idiot in the car. He claims it was a radio malfunction or something. He didn't use his body radio either. Just took punch, shot, then ran 150 feet to shoot. I couldn't care if he admitted he didn't think of it, or he didn't want to call in the shooting (at the very least so backup didn't walk into a gun battle unknowingly!) - but to SAY he called it in - then later, claim his radio must have malfunctioned? NO, I dont buy it... that's CYA time right there.
-
I knew it would come down to whether there was enough evidence to charge him or not.
-
Don't listen to me, or beach bum. Google "Darren Wilson 30 feet" - you'll see stories with links to statements.
He and the PD made a concerted effort to keep saying a measurement they knew was incorrect.
He even says it in the ABC news interview. Don't listen to either of us. Google it. See that single inconsitenty. That's half the reason people are rioting - cause the cop and PD can't say "150 feet" after all this time :(
And he called for another car when he arrived at the scene. He NEVER called for backup after shooting the idiot in the car. He claims it was a radio malfunction or something. He didn't use his body radio either. Just took punch, shot, then ran 150 feet to shoot. I couldn't care if he admitted he didn't think of it, or he didn't want to call in the shooting (at the very least so backup didn't walk into a gun battle unknowingly!) - but to SAY he called it in - then later, claim his radio must have malfunctioned? NO, I dont buy it... that's CYA time right there.
He DID call for backup... Read his testimony.
When Brown first says Fu*k you he uses the car radio to call for assistance. Then Brown attacks him in the car... he then uses his hand held radio to call for assistance "shots fired".. and gives chase. Only after the shooting and the ride back to the station does he hear the in car radio transmitting, but nothing from his hand held does he figure out during the scuffle his channel changed from Channel 1 to Channel 3. Having had that happen to me on many ocassions it's very plausible and very likely. Nothing sinister about it. I have a hard time seeing a CYA in this shooting. Read the grand jury testimony.
-
Officer Wilson should get a medal for performing a public service for shooting Brown.
After all, it's not as though anyone of any value to humanity died.
-
Officer Wilson should get a medal for performing a public service for shooting Brown.
After all, it's not as though anyone of any value to humanity died.
Mmmmm, well he did litter.
-
On Ferguson, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris Told a Terrible Lie
By DAVID FRENCH
August 12, 2019
Their falsehoods were immoral, divisive, and quite possibly unlawful.
On Friday afternoon, two of the leading contenders in the Democratic presidential primary lied. There’s no other fair way to put it. They flat-out spread fiction, libeled an innocent man, and stoked American divisions — all for political gain.
Five years ago, a Ferguson, Mo., police officer named Darren Wilson shot a young black man named Michael Brown to death after an altercation in the street. False rumors about Brown’s death — namely that he was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender with his hands in the air — ignited violent protests in Missouri and revulsion across the United States.
“Hands up, don’t shoot” became a national rallying cry — until the Obama Department of Justice comprehensively and thoroughly debunked it in a lengthy report published on March 4, 2015. Writing in December of the same year, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler called the slogan one of “the biggest Pinocchios of the year.”
But Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren ignored the Obama DOJ. They blew straight through the facts of the case and published these accusations:
Kamala Harris
✔
@KamalaHarris
Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.
3,091
8:24 AM - Aug 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
6,767 people are talking about this
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@ewarren
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
37.2K
8:59 AM - Aug 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
35.1K people are talking about this
To demonstrate just how preposterous it is to accuse Wilson of murder, it’s worth revisiting the actual facts of the case, according to the best evidence available to the investigators. On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street shortly after Brown had stolen cigarillos from a local market and shoved away the store clerk when he tried to intervene.
NOW WATCH: 'Sanders Losing Ground in Straw Poll'
When Wilson first spotted Brown and his friend, he told them to walk on the sidewalk. He then realized that they matched the description of the theft suspects and blocked their path with his vehicle.
Wilson tried to open his door, but it either bounced off Brown or Brown slammed it shut. Brown then reached into the vehicle and started punching Wilson. As Wilson fended off the blows, he reached for his gun. Brown allegedly tried to take the gun from Wilson, and Wilson managed to get a shot off, injuring Brown in the hand. Eyewitnesses corroborated Wilson’s claims that Brown was reaching in the car, and these claims were further corroborated by “bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm.”
Brown then started to run away. After a brief pause Wilson pursued, ordering Brown to stop. Brown then turned back to Wilson and started running toward him. According to the report, “several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson.” Wilson fired again, striking Brown several times, yet Brown kept moving toward Wilson until the final shot hit him in the head, killing him.
The report’s conclusion was crystal clear:
Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of [Brown’s friend], there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. [Emphasis added.]
The report flatly declared that Wilson “did not act with the requisite criminal intent.”
“No credible evidence” is a powerful statement, but if you read the report, it’s a powerful statement based not just on extensive forensic evidence but also on the courageous testimony of witnesses who feared reprisal for speaking the truth. One witness, a 58-year-old black male, told prosecutors that there were signs in the neighborhood that said “Snitches get stitches.” Yet he spoke the truth anyway. Other witnesses overcame their fears and spoke the truth.
How do we have confidence that they spoke the truth? Because, as the report notes, their statements “have been materially consistent, are consistent with the physical evidence, and . . . are mutually corroborative.”
To be sure, there were other witnesses. Some neither incriminated him nor fully corroborated him. And there was an entire category of witnesses whose accounts were “inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence,” the report noted, adding:
Some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible [or] otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media.
There are few more fraught issues in American public life than the question of police shootings — especially police shootings of black men. I’ve written about the issue time and time again and have come to believe not only that too many American police officers resort to deadly force too quickly but also that there is an unacceptable pro-police bias in our criminal-justice system. There is also evidence that race plays a more malignant role in policing than many of us hoped.
Indeed, while we must of course remember the DOJ’s report exonerating Darren Wilson, we should also remember that there was a second DOJ report in 2015 that found systematic misconduct at the Ferguson Police Department, misconduct that disproportionately affected Ferguson’s black citizens. I urge you to read both reports, and if you read the second report with an open mind, you’ll almost certainly come to believe that Ferguson’s black residents possessed legitimate grievances against their police department.
That’s the complicated nation we inhabit, but the complexity does not mean there aren’t simple obligations that attach to every politician, activist, and member of the media. And the simplest of those obligations is a commitment to the truth. We know that lies and falsehoods can cause riots. They can cause city blocks to burn. They can destroy a man’s life. At the very least, they can further embitter an already toxic public discourse. When issues are most fraught, the obligation of courageous, honest leadership is most imperative.
But Warren and Harris’s failure is more than a failure of leadership. The publication of a false accusation of a crime like murder is libelous under American law. In other words, their lies may well have been illegal. Democrats — especially Democrats who seek to address the very real challenges surrounding police violence in the United States — should demand better. Harris and Warren should do better. They should correct and retract their false statements. There is no excuse for their inflammatory lies.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-ferguson-michael-brown/
-
F thug brown.
-
On Ferguson, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris Told a Terrible Lie
By DAVID FRENCH
August 12, 2019
Their falsehoods were immoral, divisive, and quite possibly unlawful.
On Friday afternoon, two of the leading contenders in the Democratic presidential primary lied. There’s no other fair way to put it. They flat-out spread fiction, libeled an innocent man, and stoked American divisions — all for political gain.
Five years ago, a Ferguson, Mo., police officer named Darren Wilson shot a young black man named Michael Brown to death after an altercation in the street. False rumors about Brown’s death — namely that he was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender with his hands in the air — ignited violent protests in Missouri and revulsion across the United States.
“Hands up, don’t shoot” became a national rallying cry — until the Obama Department of Justice comprehensively and thoroughly debunked it in a lengthy report published on March 4, 2015. Writing in December of the same year, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler called the slogan one of “the biggest Pinocchios of the year.”
But Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren ignored the Obama DOJ. They blew straight through the facts of the case and published these accusations:
Kamala Harris
✔
@KamalaHarris
Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.
3,091
8:24 AM - Aug 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
6,767 people are talking about this
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@ewarren
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
37.2K
8:59 AM - Aug 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
35.1K people are talking about this
To demonstrate just how preposterous it is to accuse Wilson of murder, it’s worth revisiting the actual facts of the case, according to the best evidence available to the investigators. On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street shortly after Brown had stolen cigarillos from a local market and shoved away the store clerk when he tried to intervene.
NOW WATCH: 'Sanders Losing Ground in Straw Poll'
When Wilson first spotted Brown and his friend, he told them to walk on the sidewalk. He then realized that they matched the description of the theft suspects and blocked their path with his vehicle.
Wilson tried to open his door, but it either bounced off Brown or Brown slammed it shut. Brown then reached into the vehicle and started punching Wilson. As Wilson fended off the blows, he reached for his gun. Brown allegedly tried to take the gun from Wilson, and Wilson managed to get a shot off, injuring Brown in the hand. Eyewitnesses corroborated Wilson’s claims that Brown was reaching in the car, and these claims were further corroborated by “bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm.”
Brown then started to run away. After a brief pause Wilson pursued, ordering Brown to stop. Brown then turned back to Wilson and started running toward him. According to the report, “several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson.” Wilson fired again, striking Brown several times, yet Brown kept moving toward Wilson until the final shot hit him in the head, killing him.
The report’s conclusion was crystal clear:
Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of [Brown’s friend], there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. [Emphasis added.]
The report flatly declared that Wilson “did not act with the requisite criminal intent.”
“No credible evidence” is a powerful statement, but if you read the report, it’s a powerful statement based not just on extensive forensic evidence but also on the courageous testimony of witnesses who feared reprisal for speaking the truth. One witness, a 58-year-old black male, told prosecutors that there were signs in the neighborhood that said “Snitches get stitches.” Yet he spoke the truth anyway. Other witnesses overcame their fears and spoke the truth.
How do we have confidence that they spoke the truth? Because, as the report notes, their statements “have been materially consistent, are consistent with the physical evidence, and . . . are mutually corroborative.”
To be sure, there were other witnesses. Some neither incriminated him nor fully corroborated him. And there was an entire category of witnesses whose accounts were “inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence,” the report noted, adding:
Some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible [or] otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media.
There are few more fraught issues in American public life than the question of police shootings — especially police shootings of black men. I’ve written about the issue time and time again and have come to believe not only that too many American police officers resort to deadly force too quickly but also that there is an unacceptable pro-police bias in our criminal-justice system. There is also evidence that race plays a more malignant role in policing than many of us hoped.
Indeed, while we must of course remember the DOJ’s report exonerating Darren Wilson, we should also remember that there was a second DOJ report in 2015 that found systematic misconduct at the Ferguson Police Department, misconduct that disproportionately affected Ferguson’s black citizens. I urge you to read both reports, and if you read the second report with an open mind, you’ll almost certainly come to believe that Ferguson’s black residents possessed legitimate grievances against their police department.
That’s the complicated nation we inhabit, but the complexity does not mean there aren’t simple obligations that attach to every politician, activist, and member of the media. And the simplest of those obligations is a commitment to the truth. We know that lies and falsehoods can cause riots. They can cause city blocks to burn. They can destroy a man’s life. At the very least, they can further embitter an already toxic public discourse. When issues are most fraught, the obligation of courageous, honest leadership is most imperative.
But Warren and Harris’s failure is more than a failure of leadership. The publication of a false accusation of a crime like murder is libelous under American law. In other words, their lies may well have been illegal. Democrats — especially Democrats who seek to address the very real challenges surrounding police violence in the United States — should demand better. Harris and Warren should do better. They should correct and retract their false statements. There is no excuse for their inflammatory lies.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-ferguson-michael-brown/
If they weren't already eliminated from contention, this should do it. Lying from any candidate or sitting politician should not be tolerated. Why we tolerate it is beyond me.