Hawaii Five-O: Any Fans?

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

The Bomber and Mrs. Moroney

Enjoyed this episode.

Bringing it back to Danno’s shooting from a season or two was excellent.

Thought about the current anti-police sentiment these days.

The bomber assumed Danno couldn’t care less about shooting his brother... yet it tore him up inside.

Same today I’m sure vast majority of the time.

Yep you don't hear on the news what the police are going through. The media won't report that. You get the picture on the news of the police being just a bunch of racist trigger-happy cops. If a cop gets killed in some other city or state I sure don't hear about it on the news here where I live. But if a black man is killed by a WHITE cop the whole country hears about it. Notice also that you don't hear when a white person is killed by a cop. Because that doesn't sell a particular narrative. Same thing with black on black crime - that doesn't get reported either. Unfortunately that's the current climate we live in. Not a good time to be wearing the uniform, that's for sure.

CNN has reported on what happened to many Capitol Police officers for several days now. They’ve had stories about the officer who was crushed in the mob, the officer killed by the fire extinguisher, and about the officer who has resigned since the experience. They’re pretty heart wrenching stories. They’ve also covered the story of the officer who fired on and killed the woman rioter who was in the Air Force. I believe he was black and she was white. I’ve watched these myself and it’s not accurate to say they don’t report on these stories.

Of course CNN has been reporting on what happened at the Capitol. That's ALL they've been reporting. Because according to them what happened on that day (which lasted just a few hours, by the way) is the worst thing that has happened to our country. Somehow they didn't feel the same way when rioters and looters pillaged and destroyed everything in their wake for weeks and months on end this spring and summer. And a certain party even downplayed it by calling it "peaceful protests". People's businesses and lives were destroyed, homes broken into, cops attacked and beaten, but all you heard from the media was how "justifiably angry" the mob was. Because you see, when you riot and pillage in the name of "social justice" then it's ok. We call that progress now. Well, guess what, those rioters at the Capitol were also justifiably angry. They weren't breaking into the Capitol just for the hell of it. They had their cause too. Except they're being branded as "terrorists" whereas the summer rioters were "social justice warriors". Sorry but I hate the double standards from the left.

[Pahonu]

The Bomber and Mrs. Moroney

Enjoyed this episode.

Bringing it back to Danno’s shooting from a season or two was excellent.

Thought about the current anti-police sentiment these days.

The bomber assumed Danno couldn’t care less about shooting his brother... yet it tore him up inside.

Same today I’m sure vast majority of the time.

Yep you don't hear on the news what the police are going through. The media won't report that. You get the picture on the news of the police being just a bunch of racist trigger-happy cops. If a cop gets killed in some other city or state I sure don't hear about it on the news here where I live. But if a black man is killed by a WHITE cop the whole country hears about it. Notice also that you don't hear when a white person is killed by a cop. Because that doesn't sell a particular narrative. Same thing with black on black crime - that doesn't get reported either. Unfortunately that's the current climate we live in. Not a good time to be wearing the uniform, that's for sure.

CNN has reported on what happened to many Capitol Police officers for several days now. They’ve had stories about the officer who was crushed in the mob, the officer killed by the fire extinguisher, and about the officer who has resigned since the experience. They’re pretty heart wrenching stories. They’ve also covered the story of the officer who fired on and killed the woman rioter who was in the Air Force. I believe he was black and she was white. I’ve watched these myself and it’s not accurate to say they don’t report on these stories.

Of course CNN has been reporting on what happened at the Capitol. That's ALL they've been reporting. Because according to them what happened on that day (which lasted just a few hours, by the way) is the worst thing that has happened to our country. Somehow they didn't feel the same way when rioters and looters pillaged and destroyed everything in their wake for weeks and months on end this spring and summer. And a certain party even downplayed it by calling it "peaceful protests". People's businesses and lives were destroyed, homes broken into, cops attacked and beaten, but all you heard from the media was how "justifiably angry" the mob was. Because you see, when you riot and pillage in the name of "social justice" then it's ok. We call that progress now. Well, guess what, those rioters at the Capitol were also justifiably angry. They weren't breaking into the Capitol just for the hell of it. They had their cause too. Except they're being branded as "terrorists" whereas the summer rioters were "social justice warriors". Sorry but I hate the double standards from the left.

I was responding to your original statement that the news wasn’t covering what the police have had to go through. I maintain it’s still not accurate and provided evidence of such. You can qualify it however you wish.

We can certainly discuss the difference between protesting peacefully, which many did last week and many also did last spring and summer, versus the violence that occurred in BOTH cases. The news media certainly condemned the looting last summer and I know that as fact because there was significant damage near me in Long Beach and I watched the news that evening as they condemned it. Your statement above, characterizing the protests as weeks and months of pillaging and looting is hyperbolic.

I would also point out that the earlier protests were based on specific events of documented police brutality. Wednesday’s protest was based on dissatisfaction with an election result that has no documented evidence provided, even after dozens of court cases and analysis by the intelligence community and the attorney general. I’m not doubting both sides are angry, I’m just not going to believe there was mass voter fraud because it’s a possibility but there’s not sufficient evidence of it, versus specific acts of police brutality that there is clear evidence of.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion and feelings about things, but expressing those ideas doesn’t make them factual. When the courts across the nation asked for the facts and evidence of voter fraud that was being suggested, no meaningful evidence was presented. The courts deal in facts not suspicion or anecdotes.

[T.Q.]

NOOOO

Didn't mean to start any political crap.

If I make an observation about an episode it doesn't mean some big debate (argument) needs to start.

It's just my opinion on what stood out about the episode.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Pahonu, we're obviously going to disagree on these issues because we see them quite differently. Documented or not, when you look at all shootings (including blacks killing blacks) the cases of white cops shooting blacks are EXTREMELY low, yet the media keeps talking about it as if every black man is the target of the police. What about the white people who get killed by cops? What about other races? You don't hear about those nor do you see any protests or riots when they get killed. Clearly there's an agenda favoring one particular race. And then all of a sudden the police as a whole are bad??? Since when? Since when do we vilify an organization as a whole because of the actions of a few rotten apples? Talking about disbanding the police?? Seriously?? Why does a cop need to be attacked for something that he didn't do? Why does an ordinary citizen (who's not even a cop) get attacked or his business torched?? Because "people are justifiably angry" we are told by the media. Sorry, that doesn't fly. That's why I made the comparison to the Capitol. Just because you're angry doesn't mean you turn to violence and hurt innocent people. Yet in the Capitol case they're taking down names and adding them to some terrorist watch list but in the summer rioters case I bet not a single one of those culprits was added to any terrorist list. After all, what's a few thousand shops destroyed and ordinary citizens maimed? Small fry. But here we have powerful politicians - uh oh, that's a big deal. Can't have them harmed. Gotta make a Capitol (pardon the pun) case out of this one. Plus it's Trump supporters - all the better!

Sorry T.Q. but I'll bring this back to Magnum. To prove my point - if you get cheated by one pickled egg seller do you wage war on all pickled egg sellers???

[T.Q.]

Sorry T.Q. but I'll bring this back to Magnum. To prove my point - if you get cheated by one pickled egg seller do you wage war on all pickled egg sellers???

Well, in this case, bring it back to Hawaii Five-0.

[T.Q.]

The Grandstand Play

Not rated high. Some really bash it on IMDb.

I really loved the 2-parter though.

Thought Gary did a great job.

And young Josie Over again. Shwing shwing.

[Pahonu]

Pahonu, we're obviously going to disagree on these issues because we see them quite differently. Documented or not, when you look at all shootings (including blacks killing blacks) the cases of white cops shooting blacks are EXTREMELY low, yet the media keeps talking about it as if every black man is the target of the police. What about the white people who get killed by cops? What about other races? You don't hear about those nor do you see any protests or riots when they get killed. Clearly there's an agenda favoring one particular race. And then all of a sudden the police as a whole are bad??? Since when? Since when do we vilify an organization as a whole because of the actions of a few rotten apples? Talking about disbanding the police?? Seriously?? Why does a cop need to be attacked for something that he didn't do? Why does an ordinary citizen (who's not even a cop) get attacked or his business torched?? Because "people are justifiably angry" we are told by the media. Sorry, that doesn't fly. That's why I made the comparison to the Capitol. Just because you're angry doesn't mean you turn to violence and hurt innocent people. Yet in the Capitol case they're taking down names and adding them to some terrorist watch list but in the summer rioters case I bet not a single one of those culprits was added to any terrorist list. After all, what's a few thousand shops destroyed and ordinary citizens maimed? Small fry. But here we have powerful politicians - uh oh, that's a big deal. Can't have them harmed. Gotta make a Capitol (pardon the pun) case out of this one. Plus it's Trump supporters - all the better!

Sorry T.Q. but I'll bring this back to Magnum. To prove my point - if you get cheated by one pickled egg seller do you wage war on all pickled egg sellers???

Hey Ivan, lots to unpack there.

I used the argument of documented facts to distinguish between the motivations of the protests at the Capitol and
the protests about police brutality, not regarding any specific shootings. I maintain that the BLM protests are based on documented grievances compared to the Capitol protestors who are certainly upset with the political loss, but have only suspicions not documented evidence of mass voter fraud. I was a little surprised that you so quickly wrote “documented or not.” Facts and evidence matter. Saying that evidence and suspicion are equally valid is at odds with our entire judicial system. That’s essentially the rationale of the various courts in all the election cases. The plaintiffs provided suspicions and possibilities but failed to present evidence.

Defund the police does not mean disband the police. That’s not being suggested. I find it hard to believe that you honestly think millions of Americans want zero law enforcement? It’s a phrase that predates the BLM protests and it refers to shifting some of law enforcement’s budget to other areas. An example would be in dealing with mental health issues. Police departments spend an inordinate amount of time and resources on calls involving mental health. This wasn’t always the case and there are other models to consider that might work better. Defund does not mean stop funding.

You have also conflated the number of police brutality cases with rates of overall homicide which is statistically meaningless. Why not compare the number of deaths in military conflict with the number of deaths in skydiving. It’s apples and oranges. Comparing a death as a result of a criminal act by an individual to a death caused by a person in a position of authority, such as an officer is also invalid. These officers are placed in a position of authority with specific training and limits to their actions and the trust that they will abide by these. You then argue that all the cases involve white officers and black victims. I would simply point out that three of the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore were black. You characterize this as an issue solely involving white officers and black victims which is incorrect. The higher rates of violent death among black men by police is documented. The view that only white officers are responsible and being prosecuted is incorrect. This is an issue about policing not just white policing.

Your argument about vilifying the whole institution because of a few bad apples leaves out a very important detail. The concerns of the BLM movement originate NOT in the fact that their are a few bad apples, no organization is perfect. The criticism come from the fact that these bad apples are historically almost never held accountable for their actions. That fact should absolutely call into question the whole institution, as it is there that the failure of accountability originates. The system needs to be reevaluated or the repeated acts of brutality by bad apples will continue.

Lastly, the events at the Capitol carry a bigger significance than simply protecting powerful politicians as you stated. The actions of those individuals were an attempt to stop the process outlined in law and our constitution. The elected officials selected by all of us, even those who opposed ratification, were following the constitution in that chamber, as was Vice President Pence. The fact that all of these politicians were following the constitution was the point of anger for the rioters and they attempted to influence the process violently. There is a reason that federal law carries higher penalties for obstructing government or seditious acts threatening our constitutional system. It is not on the same level as property crime such as typical looting entails. I would hope you believe that attempting to violently influence our government is different than damaging or destroying a business, for example. It’s the basis for the various levels of criminality in our justice system and the resultant penalties.

I agree that we disagree on many things , but facts and evidence should not be one of them. That’s the frustrating thing about facts and evidence. One can choose not to believe them or pretend they don’t exist, but in the end they’re still facts and evidence. Just ask any scientist when their experiment doesn’t yield the results they were expecting or hoping for. They have to go with the evidence or they will achieve nothing.

I would also like to return to the topic of the show, and I apologize to TQ for this tangent. To make a contrary point: if a pickled egg seller cheats you, and is allowed to cheat you over and over again, do you not question the rules that apply to all pickled egg sellers allowing this cheating of you to continue?

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

The Grandstand Play

Not rated high. Some really bash it on IMDb.

I really loved the 2-parter though.

Thought Gary did a great job.

And young Josie Over again. Shwing shwing.

Didn't know what you'd make of the episode but put me in the camp that isn't too crazy about it. I think it would have played better if it weren't a 2-parter. There seemed to be quite a bit of filler, especially in the second half when Gary tries to make friends with some local kids and then tries to sneak with them into the stadium. Some of that went a bit too long. The first part was much better though. Of course I'm a fan of BONANZA so seeing Pernell Roberts as baseball star Lon Phillips was a cool treat. And I agree that Elliott Street was really good as the developmentally challenged son Gary. Wait till you see him in a season 6 episode - it's a classic! He plays another mentally "challenged" individual, but in a totally different way. Way more disturbed!

Yep, Josie was hot! She was married to Don Over, who was also a "stock" local actor who popped up a few times on the show. All I can say is he was overweight, not attractive, and old enough to be her father. But apparently they were happily married, right up until her untimely death at the age of 49 due to cancer. He actually outlived her by a few years. How they ended up together I don't know but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Lucky guy!

EDIT: Josie and Don even had 8 kids together. WOW!

[Pahonu]

The Grandstand Play

Not rated high. Some really bash it on IMDb.

I really loved the 2-parter though.

Thought Gary did a great job.

And young Josie Over again. Shwing shwing.

Didn't know what you'd make of the episode but put me in the camp that isn't too crazy about it. I think it would have played better if it weren't a 2-parter. There seemed to be quite a bit of filler, especially in the second half when Gary tries to make friends with some local kids and then tries to sneak with them into the stadium. Some of that went a bit too long. The first part was much better though. Of course I'm a fan of BONANZA so seeing Pernell Roberts as baseball star Lon Phillips was a cool treat. And I agree that Elliott Street was really good as the developmentally challenged son Gary. Wait till you see him in a season 6 episode - it's a classic! He plays another mentally "challenged" individual, but in a totally different way. Way more disturbed!

Yep, Josie was hot! She was married to Don Over, who was also a "stock" local actor who popped up a few times on the show. All I can say is he was overweight, not attractive, and old enough to be her father. But apparently they were happily married, right up until her untimely death at the age of 49 due to cancer. He actually outlived her by a few years. How they ended up together I don't know but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Lucky guy!

EDIT: Josie and Don even had 8 kids together. WOW!

Hey Ivan, also not a fan of this episode. I think you’re comments are referring to Elliott Street’s role in Draw Me a Killer, and that is a great episode. I remember it featured Tom Hatton who also hosted the Sunday morning Popeye cartoon show here in the LA area when I was a kid. Elliott Street also shows up in a late episode of my favorite show ever, The Rockford Files, and in a pretty solid episode of The Streets of San Francisco involving international terrorists.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Pahonu, we're obviously going to disagree on these issues because we see them quite differently. Documented or not, when you look at all shootings (including blacks killing blacks) the cases of white cops shooting blacks are EXTREMELY low, yet the media keeps talking about it as if every black man is the target of the police. What about the white people who get killed by cops? What about other races? You don't hear about those nor do you see any protests or riots when they get killed. Clearly there's an agenda favoring one particular race. And then all of a sudden the police as a whole are bad??? Since when? Since when do we vilify an organization as a whole because of the actions of a few rotten apples? Talking about disbanding the police?? Seriously?? Why does a cop need to be attacked for something that he didn't do? Why does an ordinary citizen (who's not even a cop) get attacked or his business torched?? Because "people are justifiably angry" we are told by the media. Sorry, that doesn't fly. That's why I made the comparison to the Capitol. Just because you're angry doesn't mean you turn to violence and hurt innocent people. Yet in the Capitol case they're taking down names and adding them to some terrorist watch list but in the summer rioters case I bet not a single one of those culprits was added to any terrorist list. After all, what's a few thousand shops destroyed and ordinary citizens maimed? Small fry. But here we have powerful politicians - uh oh, that's a big deal. Can't have them harmed. Gotta make a Capitol (pardon the pun) case out of this one. Plus it's Trump supporters - all the better!

Sorry T.Q. but I'll bring this back to Magnum. To prove my point - if you get cheated by one pickled egg seller do you wage war on all pickled egg sellers???

Hey Ivan, lots to unpack there.

I used the argument of documented facts to distinguish between the motivations of the protests at the Capitol and
the protests about police brutality, not regarding any specific shootings. I maintain that the BLM protests are based on documented grievances compared to the Capitol protestors who are certainly upset with the political loss, but have only suspicions not documented evidence of mass voter fraud. I was a little surprised that you so quickly wrote “documented or not.” Facts and evidence matter. Saying that evidence and suspicion are equally valid is at odds with our entire judicial system. That’s essentially the rationale of the various courts in all the election cases. The plaintiffs provided suspicions and possibilities but failed to present evidence.

Defund the police does not mean disband the police. That’s not being suggested. I find it hard to believe that you honestly think millions of Americans want zero law enforcement? It’s a phrase that predates the BLM protests and it refers to shifting some of law enforcement’s budget to other areas. An example would be in dealing with mental health issues. Police departments spend an inordinate amount of time and resources on calls involving mental health. This wasn’t always the case and there are other models to consider that might work better. Defund does not mean stop funding.

You have also conflated the number of police brutality cases with rates of overall homicide which is statistically meaningless. Why not compare the number of deaths in military conflict with the number of deaths in skydiving. It’s apples and oranges. Comparing a death as a result of a criminal act by an individual to a death caused by a person in a position of authority, such as an officer is also invalid. These officers are placed in a position of authority with specific training and limits to their actions and the trust that they will abide by these. You then argue that all the cases involve white officers and black victims. I would simply point out that three of the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore were black. You characterize this as an issue solely involving white officers and black victims which is incorrect. The higher rates of violent death among black men by police is documented. The view that only white officers are responsible and being prosecuted is incorrect. This is an issue about policing not just white policing.

Your argument about vilifying the whole institution because of a few bad apples leaves out a very important detail. The concerns of the BLM movement originate NOT in the fact that their are a few bad apples, no organization is perfect. The criticism come from the fact that these bad apples are historically almost never held accountable for their actions. That fact should absolutely call into question the whole institution, as it is there that the failure of accountability originates. The system needs to be reevaluated or the repeated acts of brutality by bad apples will continue.

Lastly, the events at the Capitol carry a bigger significance than simply protecting powerful politicians as you stated. The actions of those individuals were an attempt to stop the process outlined in law and our constitution. The elected officials selected by all of us, even those who opposed ratification, were following the constitution in that chamber, as was Vice President Pence. The fact that all of these politicians were following the constitution was the point of anger for the rioters and they attempted to influence the process violently. There is a reason that federal law carries higher penalties for obstructing government or seditious acts threatening our constitutional system. It is not on the same level as property crime such as typical looting entails. I would hope you believe that attempting to violently influence our government is different than damaging or destroying a business, for example. It’s the basis for the various levels of criminality in our justice system and the resultant penalties.

I agree that we disagree on many things , but facts and evidence should not be one of them. That’s the frustrating thing about facts and evidence. One can choose not to believe them or pretend they don’t exist, but in the end they’re still facts and evidence. Just ask any scientist when their experiment doesn’t yield the results they were expecting or hoping for. They have to go with the evidence or they will achieve nothing.

I would also like to return to the topic of the show, and I apologize to TQ for this tangent. To make a contrary point: if a pickled egg seller cheats you, and is allowed to cheat you over and over again, do you not question the rules that apply to all pickled egg sellers allowing this cheating of you to continue?

It's interesting that you mention how important facts are.

FACT is the majority of black deaths are not at the hands of cops but at the hands of other blacks - gangs, drugs, all that. That's a cold hard FACT! Yet you want to "rehabilitate" the entire police department (99% of which is good) instead of rehabilitating the gangs (which are 100% bad). How does that make any sense to you? So basically let's not tackle the real problem in the inner cities but let's instead target the cops because that's so much easier. Here's another fact to question - why do black lives matter only when they're killed by cops? What about the rest that get killed every night on the streets of Chicago? How many of those names can you recite? Why do we only remember names like George Floyd (who was a career criminal by the way, no angel) and not the names of all those other black kids that die every day??? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when they die? Why do they only pop up when there's a police shooting????? Like clockwork, like a jack-in-the-box, up they pop ranting on and on about racism in our society. I'm sorry but racism in our society isn't causing young black men to shoot and kill each other in the inner cities. Where are their parents? Do they know who their daddy is? Who raises them - their parents or the street? Those are the real issues. Facts, Pahonu, facts! Time for Jackson and Sharpton to roll up their sleeves and get in there and fix that problem. But oh wait... they can't fix that. That's right. Not so easy, eh? Easier to just talk and yell from a podium and throw out buzz words like "racism" and "police brutality" and "white privilege". After a while this all becomes a joke because no one is seriously trying to fix the real issue.

As you said, FACTS matter. What I just gave you are real honest FACTS. But of course those are inconvenient facts for the left so they brush them aside. They only cherry-pick those facts which suit their cause. After all, it's so much more difficult to address those inner city problems which have been plaguing those cities for over half a century. Much easier to find a scapegoat and cry "racism"!

Seriously, does it not make sense to tackle the bigger issues first? Why are we reforming the police when they aren't the biggest threat to the African American community??? Poverty, crime, drugs, illnesses - all those things. Shouldn't we be breaking our backs tackling all that??? Where do we hear anything about this on the news? I expect 24/7 coverage of this every evening on the news because that's the real epidemic. Yes, I look at the big picture. Yes, I look at the statistics involving all shootings and murders. But for whatever reason you just want to focus on the police. Like you said yourself - facts matter and you can't just ignore them.

Anyway, I'll just put an end to this right here. I'm sure you'll just disagree with my points anyway. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I feel I needed to point out that facts do very much matter to me. I don't make things up. What I gave you above are facts. You may do with them what you like. But like you said, facts aren't something we should disagree on.

AND NOW.... BACK TO THE SHOW... UP NEXT... SEASON 4.... "Highest Castle, Deepest Grave"

[T.Q.]

Didn't know what you'd make of the episode but put me in the camp that isn't too crazy about it.

It was a good double-episode.

That is FACT*.

Proof: 4 out of 5 people (80%) agreed with this 9/10 rating.

9/10
Excellent
bellevuewa27 March 2015
What a great story, and script, and even better, that it was a two-part episode.

The great Pernell Roberts, does a fine job of portraying a baseball star, as well as his sensitivity to his son,the wonderful Elliott Street, who, in addition to the fantastic "Draw Me a Killer" 5- 0 episode, had a classic role in the great Room 222, as the so- called " fat boy", or " class clown", comforted by Pete Dixon.

Anyway, it is wonderful to have this one, in a two part episode. Street does a superlative job, portraying a man with mild, yet significant mental challenges, especially the overemphasis on eating.

First rate show all the way, and one of the strongest episodes, no thanks to Plankton.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

* "Facts" are funny things these days.

[Pahonu]

Pahonu, we're obviously going to disagree on these issues because we see them quite differently. Documented or not, when you look at all shootings (including blacks killing blacks) the cases of white cops shooting blacks are EXTREMELY low, yet the media keeps talking about it as if every black man is the target of the police. What about the white people who get killed by cops? What about other races? You don't hear about those nor do you see any protests or riots when they get killed. Clearly there's an agenda favoring one particular race. And then all of a sudden the police as a whole are bad??? Since when? Since when do we vilify an organization as a whole because of the actions of a few rotten apples? Talking about disbanding the police?? Seriously?? Why does a cop need to be attacked for something that he didn't do? Why does an ordinary citizen (who's not even a cop) get attacked or his business torched?? Because "people are justifiably angry" we are told by the media. Sorry, that doesn't fly. That's why I made the comparison to the Capitol. Just because you're angry doesn't mean you turn to violence and hurt innocent people. Yet in the Capitol case they're taking down names and adding them to some terrorist watch list but in the summer rioters case I bet not a single one of those culprits was added to any terrorist list. After all, what's a few thousand shops destroyed and ordinary citizens maimed? Small fry. But here we have powerful politicians - uh oh, that's a big deal. Can't have them harmed. Gotta make a Capitol (pardon the pun) case out of this one. Plus it's Trump supporters - all the better!

Sorry T.Q. but I'll bring this back to Magnum. To prove my point - if you get cheated by one pickled egg seller do you wage war on all pickled egg sellers???

Hey Ivan, lots to unpack there.

I used the argument of documented facts to distinguish between the motivations of the protests at the Capitol and
the protests about police brutality, not regarding any specific shootings. I maintain that the BLM protests are based on documented grievances compared to the Capitol protestors who are certainly upset with the political loss, but have only suspicions not documented evidence of mass voter fraud. I was a little surprised that you so quickly wrote “documented or not.” Facts and evidence matter. Saying that evidence and suspicion are equally valid is at odds with our entire judicial system. That’s essentially the rationale of the various courts in all the election cases. The plaintiffs provided suspicions and possibilities but failed to present evidence.

Defund the police does not mean disband the police. That’s not being suggested. I find it hard to believe that you honestly think millions of Americans want zero law enforcement? It’s a phrase that predates the BLM protests and it refers to shifting some of law enforcement’s budget to other areas. An example would be in dealing with mental health issues. Police departments spend an inordinate amount of time and resources on calls involving mental health. This wasn’t always the case and there are other models to consider that might work better. Defund does not mean stop funding.

You have also conflated the number of police brutality cases with rates of overall homicide which is statistically meaningless. Why not compare the number of deaths in military conflict with the number of deaths in skydiving. It’s apples and oranges. Comparing a death as a result of a criminal act by an individual to a death caused by a person in a position of authority, such as an officer is also invalid. These officers are placed in a position of authority with specific training and limits to their actions and the trust that they will abide by these. You then argue that all the cases involve white officers and black victims. I would simply point out that three of the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore were black. You characterize this as an issue solely involving white officers and black victims which is incorrect. The higher rates of violent death among black men by police is documented. The view that only white officers are responsible and being prosecuted is incorrect. This is an issue about policing not just white policing.

Your argument about vilifying the whole institution because of a few bad apples leaves out a very important detail. The concerns of the BLM movement originate NOT in the fact that their are a few bad apples, no organization is perfect. The criticism come from the fact that these bad apples are historically almost never held accountable for their actions. That fact should absolutely call into question the whole institution, as it is there that the failure of accountability originates. The system needs to be reevaluated or the repeated acts of brutality by bad apples will continue.

Lastly, the events at the Capitol carry a bigger significance than simply protecting powerful politicians as you stated. The actions of those individuals were an attempt to stop the process outlined in law and our constitution. The elected officials selected by all of us, even those who opposed ratification, were following the constitution in that chamber, as was Vice President Pence. The fact that all of these politicians were following the constitution was the point of anger for the rioters and they attempted to influence the process violently. There is a reason that federal law carries higher penalties for obstructing government or seditious acts threatening our constitutional system. It is not on the same level as property crime such as typical looting entails. I would hope you believe that attempting to violently influence our government is different than damaging or destroying a business, for example. It’s the basis for the various levels of criminality in our justice system and the resultant penalties.

I agree that we disagree on many things , but facts and evidence should not be one of them. That’s the frustrating thing about facts and evidence. One can choose not to believe them or pretend they don’t exist, but in the end they’re still facts and evidence. Just ask any scientist when their experiment doesn’t yield the results they were expecting or hoping for. They have to go with the evidence or they will achieve nothing.

I would also like to return to the topic of the show, and I apologize to TQ for this tangent. To make a contrary point: if a pickled egg seller cheats you, and is allowed to cheat you over and over again, do you not question the rules that apply to all pickled egg sellers allowing this cheating of you to continue?

It's interesting that you mention how important facts are.

FACT is the majority of black deaths are not at the hands of cops but at the hands of other blacks - gangs, drugs, all that. That's a cold hard FACT! Yet you want to "rehabilitate" the entire police department (99% of which is good) instead of rehabilitating the gangs (which are 100% bad). How does that make any sense to you? So basically let's not tackle the real problem in the inner cities but let's instead target the cops because that's so much easier. Here's another fact to question - why do black lives matter only when they're killed by cops? What about the rest that get killed every night on the streets of Chicago? How many of those names can you recite? Why do we only remember names like George Floyd (who was a career criminal by the way, no angel) and not the names of all those other black kids that die every day??? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when they die? Why do they only pop up when there's a police shooting????? Like clockwork, like a jack-in-the-box, up they pop ranting on and on about racism in our society. I'm sorry but racism in our society isn't causing young black men to shoot and kill each other in the inner cities. Where are their parents? Do they know who their daddy is? Who raises them - their parents or the street? Those are the real issues. Facts, Pahonu, facts! Time for Jackson and Sharpton to roll up their sleeves and get in there and fix that problem. But oh wait... they can't fix that. That's right. Not so easy, eh? Easier to just talk and yell from a podium and throw out buzz words like "racism" and "police brutality" and "white privilege". After a while this all becomes a joke because no one is seriously trying to fix the real issue.

As you said, FACTS matter. What I just gave you are real honest FACTS. But of course those are inconvenient facts for the left so they brush them aside. They only cherry-pick those facts which suit their cause. After all, it's so much more difficult to address those inner city problems which have been plaguing those cities for over half a century. Much easier to find a scapegoat and cry "racism"!

Seriously, does it not make sense to tackle the bigger issues first? Why are we reforming the police when they aren't the biggest threat to the African American community??? Poverty, crime, drugs, illnesses - all those things. Shouldn't we be breaking our backs tackling all that??? Where do we hear anything about this on the news? I expect 24/7 coverage of this every evening on the news because that's the real epidemic. Yes, I look at the big picture. Yes, I look at the statistics involving all shootings and murders. But for whatever reason you just want to focus on the police. Like you said yourself - facts matter and you can't just ignore them.

Anyway, I'll just put an end to this right here. I'm sure you'll just disagree with my points anyway. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I feel I needed to point out that facts do very much matter to me. I don't make things up. What I gave you above are facts. You may do with them what you like. But like you said, facts aren't something we should disagree on.

AND NOW.... BACK TO THE SHOW... UP NEXT... SEASON 4.... "Highest Castle, Deepest Grave"

Ivan, the basis of your argument above seems to be that we shouldn’t try and solve one problem (in policing) because there’s another bigger problem (criminal homicide). That’s a false dichotomy. It IS possible to work toward solving more than one problem at a time. You seem to make the assumption that nothing is being done concerning violent crime in urban communities or communities of color. That’s not accurate. Based on that false assumption, you then argue that dealing with the problems of policing those very same communities shouldn’t occur until the other problem is solved first. That’s overly simplistic. It’s the walk and chew gum trope. Both can be addressed simultaneously.

Concerning your argument about the 99% of good cops, they’re not the ones being prosecuted. Are random officers being criminally charged who haven’t been involved in a killing? I’ve not seen examples of that. The problem is the 1% who ARE involved in these killings that are not being held accountable. That’s the crux of the issue. How is it possible that essentially all of these killings are found to be justified? Do officers never do anything wrong? You yourself have said there are bad apples. They should be held accountable but historically they have not been.

Regarding facts, I have no issue with the facts you stated. I question how a statistic about murder in a criminal activity is relevant to a statistic about police killings. Those two numbers are factual but are meaningless when compared. Are you comparing them because they are homicides or homicides of black men? By that logic I could compare the number of black men killed in hunting accidents which is likely lower than the number killed by officers. Therefore police killings are a far bigger problem. But it doesn’t mean anything to compare those things and that’s what you are doing. The facts are correct but the comparison isn’t meaningful. You use the phrase cherry picking facts and that essentially what you have done in making that comparison.

I do not mean this as any kind of personal insult because I believe argument and debate are a good thing. Name calling and insults come with fighting, not argument. There are however, some significant rhetorical flaws in your arguments. We can agree to disagree but it doesn’t change those logical inconsistencies.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Yes, Pahonu, I know, I know. You're right and I'm wrong. Way to go off topic by bringing hunting accidents into the mix. Again, as I mentioned, moving the target away from the REAL problem. How typical.

The only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. Let's leave it at that.

[Pahonu]

Yes, Pahonu, I know, I know. You're right and I'm wrong. Way to go off topic by bringing hunting accidents into the mix. Again, as I mentioned, moving the target away from the REAL problem. How typical.

The only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. Let's leave it at that.

The hunting accident example is not moving the target or changing the subject. It is illustrative of a meaningless comparison. It isn’t relevant, and shouldn’t be used, in the same way your comparison of criminal homicide isn’t relevant to police killings. You also imply again that there can be only one problem worth fixing, the REAL problem in your view. More than one problem can be addressed.

If you want to agree to disagree that’s fine. I first responded to a comment about policing you made in regards to an episode. You responded to that with your ideas, and so I responded with mine. We can leave it there, but you continue to make arguments with each post and so I respond to those. In reading this post it seems to be upsetting you in some way. I’m sorry if that’s happening.

[ConchRepublican]

A warning here . . . so far this discussion has been pretty OK, but please be careful. These discussions are important to have to understand each other, and these topics are being used in current shows so it can be hard to avoid, but this is not a political forum and I don't want this to descend into something we are not around here.

Cool?