Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 08, 2019

The lawyer for a 39-year-old man in Montana who fractured the skull of child for wearing a hat during the national anthem at a rodeo says his client believed he was acting on behalf of President Trump. "His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished," Jasper said. "He certainly didn't understand it was a crime."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Guess this then explains the attacks on and killing of police during the obama administration.

#1 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-08 02:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Who attacked police and believed he was acting on behalf of President Obama?

Your talking points, explained.
Spoiler alert: You're spewing racist garbage!
www.washingtonpost.com

But it was the police-involved deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner on Staten Island in 2014 that kicked the Obama-hates-cops sentiment into overdrive. Brown's death prompted Obama to release a statement offering his condolences to the family and calling for calm. The failure of grand juries to indict the officers involved in either man's death gave rise to the politically contentious Black Lives Matter movement -- which itself was blamed for the murders of two police officers in a patrol car in New York that December.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani traced those officers' deaths back to the president. "We've had four months of propaganda, starting with the president," he said on "Fox News Sunday" that month, "that everybody should hate the police." Our Fact Checker gave that assertion four Pinocchios, meaning it lacked any truth. That verdict was supported by a look at what Obama had actually said, and found no evidence that he'd said anything of the sort. (That article also includes a comment from Joe Walsh, arguing that Obama was to blame.)

Ever since, as tension between the community and the police has persisted, so have charges that Obama is hostile to the latter. In October 2015, for example, Obama was criticized for supporting changes to police practices and for meeting with members of the Black Lives Matter movement who "appear to hate all cops," a New York Post report said at the time.

It's impossible not to note that each of these incidents centers in some way on race: Gates, rap music, Black Lives Matter. That Obama has been receptive to the concerns of protesters is clearly amplified by how Obama is himself black and that he has framed some of what police departments need to improve upon in explicitly racial terms. Some small part of the interest in siding with the police in opposition to Obama -- if one chooses to look at the two in opposition -- is probably motivated by race-based assumptions. More broadly, though, it's Obama's focus on problems in police work that happen to deal with race, which are blended into a sense that he opposes law enforcement broadly.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-08 02:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 7

He couldn't help it. He was a intelligence-challenged military vet-- he was conditioned to act like a killing machine and support his POS GOP POTUS unconditionally, like any faithful, MIC cult member would.

It used to be that one could feel a bit sorry for these pathetic folk-- back in the day when they were being drafted against their will. But now their "service" is completely voluntary, so I have no qualms about calling them out as the uber-violent cult-trash they oh-so-often are.

#3 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2019-08-08 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Clearly this guy has been playing too many video games.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-08 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

I'd love to ask the Trumper if Trump told him to pleasure a horse if he'd do it.

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2019-08-08 03:22 PM | Reply

If he gets away with this ........ sad.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-08-08 04:36 PM | Reply

Thank you for posting this, so people can discuss it without having to endorse a hate speech headline.

It sounds like the lawyer came up with this as a defense strategy. It won't work.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-08 04:44 PM | Reply

"His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished,"

----

Digest that.

#8 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-08-08 09:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Guess this then explains the attacks on and killing of police during the obama administration.

#1 | Posted by MSgt

No the police attacking and killing innocent people explains that.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-08 09:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Brockway suffered a traumatic brain injury in a vehicle crash in 2000 that has affected his decision making, Jasper said, and he plans to raise that in his client's defense." - www.armytimes.com

The guy is brain damaged, and believes Trump is his commander in chief and speaks to him.

He needs a foam helmet, harness, leash, and happy meal.

#10 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-08 10:29 PM | Reply

This attorney is competing with Michael Avenatti for this year's Sleaziest Lawyer in America award.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-08 10:36 PM | Reply

It's creepy how similar the guy in the photo looks to a guy I used to work with. Different name, though.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-08 11:38 PM | Reply

This attorney is competing with Michael Avenatti for this year's Sleaziest Lawyer in America award.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian

Your master has no competition for the sleaziest president of all time award.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-09 12:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Nulli, what is in this for you to look like such a tool? What happened to BillO?

#14 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-08-09 12:54 AM | Reply

Point to where Obama touched you.

#15 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-08-09 12:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#3 | Posted by pumpkinhead, Here are the facts, that should make you recoil like a vampire before a cross or a string of garlic.
Your local veteran is much less libel to be charged with a crime than you. With about 5 million of them among you you can find a few that are crazy, and probity were long before they were in the service. Turning a person into a pile of meat is no great accomplishment. Raising kids to be productive adults is hard. That is something to be proud of.

#16 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-09 01:32 AM | Reply

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly Seems there are more cops killed on duty every year, does that make you warm at night in your empty bed?

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-09 01:35 AM | Reply

This attorney is competing with Michael Avenatti for this year's Sleaziest Lawyer in America award.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian

Avenatti advocated for his client, Stormy Daniels, just fine. The stealing is what made him sleazy.

This attorney is a sleazebag for even suggesting his client didn't know it was wrong to bash in the skull of a child.

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-09 03:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It sounds like the lawyer came up with this as a defense strategy.

It sounds like you have a reflexive need to defend your cult leader 100% of the time no matter what so you're just making ---- up.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-09 04:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly Seems there are more cops killed on duty every year, does that make you warm at night in your empty bed?
#17 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2019-08-09 01:35 AM"

It might seem that way, but it is not confirmed by the data.
The number of cops killed on duty has been generally decreasing for almost fifty years and, significantly, during a time when the number of cops on-duty has been increasing.

www.vox.com

Granted, there was an increase (~13%) in 2018 over 2017, but it's essentially within statistical variance.

#20 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-08-09 06:03 AM | Reply

Hmmm.
Just following orders.
Just following orders...
Just...following...orders...

Where have we heard that before? Oh, I know--that place over in Germany, after WWII.

Let's hope this scum gets sentenced to 15 minutes in a locked room with the boy's father and uncles and three softball bats. Or a visit from the Bear Jew...

#21 | Posted by catdog at 2019-08-09 07:53 AM | Reply

I think this man is a victim of deinstitutionalization the mentally ill. There were many good reasons for deinstitutionalization, including cost savings and more humane treatment, but there were many promises made to the mentally ill and their families that they would be adequately provided for outside of mental hospitals through outpatient treatment programs, supportive housing and emergency psychiatric beds. Very often these promises were not kept:

Deinstitutionalization: A Psychiatric Titanic
www.pbs.org

TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences
How deinstitutionalization moved thousands of mentally ill people out of hospitals -- and into jails and prisons.

www.motherjones.com

#22 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-09 07:59 AM | Reply

#22 | Posted by Petrous, We used to have a concept that if an individual couldn't care for themselves, society should. That is why they called mental institutions "asylums" (a place of refuge). Of course if we give the state to do that and like any institution governed by state, they get to be inhuman. Did we improve those institution when we were confronted with the condition of these hospitals? Na, that would be too hard, we dumped these patients on the street instead.

#23 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-09 08:19 AM | Reply

#22 | Posted by Petrous, We used to have a concept that if an individual couldn't care for themselves, society should. That is why they called mental institutions "asylums" (a place of refuge). Of course if we give the state to do that and like any institution governed by state, they get to be inhuman. Did we improve those institution when we were confronted with the condition of these hospitals? Na, that would be too hard, we dumped these patients on the street instead.

#24 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-09 08:19 AM | Reply

DOC - I helped at an insane asylum when I was much younger. Wouldn't want to do it again. Don't get me wrong, what I did was good for the patients, but it took a lot to control your own reactions when the inmates would act crazy. There was always security and for good reason. I was asked to help out to make them feel better - music has a way of soothing people and so I tried. So, I did, for months.

I loved the patients that sat in their straitjackets listening calmly. Too bad some of my audiences weren't in such gear, I've gotten better over the years performing. But, the nut cases were exactly that - nuts. They were dangerous. When the asylum I worked at shut down and released them, I was sad and scared. If you knew these people, met with them, saw them, you'd know that it was so wrong to release them.

They were a danger to themselves and to others. Letting them loose was dangerous and uncaring. I would rather lock people away with outside supervision, spot inspections, etc. to make sure the care was proper. Closing was one of the worst things I've ever seen my gov't do to the people (inside and out of the institution).

#25 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-09 08:48 AM | Reply

I guess God was too busy that day to give the command.

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-09 08:58 AM | Reply

I worked at a mental hospital from 78 to 80 about the time the big dump happened. The population of the hospital went from 2100 to 900. Many were the very old, and were sent to rest homes. Many others were marginally mental, or episodic. Some were criminal. Honestly some were a threat to other patients, seriously dangerous. But most were just helpless. I wonder if those nice public servants that did this are proud of their accomplishment.

#27 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-09 09:05 AM | Reply

#20 | Posted by TrueBlue 13% is statistically significant in any text book I have had to read. 3% is debatable or of a marginal significance. That equates to 40 odd deaths, but who's counting.

#28 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-09 09:17 AM | Reply

#17 | Posted by docnjo

That was an ambiguous comment but police deaths in every way have been steadily declining year over year since the 1970s. And the trend line down is actually rather steep on the decline with less than half the number of deaths since the late 70s. On average fewer police die in every category: from being shot, other assaults, accidents and duty related health issues every year. Yes there are anomalies - 9/11 being the big one.

But yes, in fact police do still die on the job yes so there are technically "more" every year. But so do paramedics, firefighters, coal miners, factory workers, hospital staff, retail workers, etc. People die on the job and from job related illnesses every day. When you have a job with greater risk the rate of death is generally higher.

#29 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-09 09:25 AM | Reply

This sounds like Son of Sam.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-09 09:27 AM | Reply

"#20 | Posted by TrueBlue 13% is statistically significant in any text book I have had to read. 3% is debatable or of a marginal significance. That equates to 40 odd deaths, but who's counting.
#28 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2019-08-09 09:17 AM"

Not correct.
Sounds like you're confusing p value with percentage.
They are not equivalent.

The problem here, as noted regarding the decreasing number, is determining what is statistically significant from a small sample size (not to mention the problems dealing with samples that are not normally distributed).

To help illustrate this difficulty:
What if one had only two deaths per year, but then next year there were three deaths. That would, technically, be a 50% increase but no knowledgeable statistician would claim that is statistically significant even though it's much greater than a 13% change.

A useful rule-of-thumb is to take the square root of the value in the sample and use that for an approximation of the statistical variance. In this case, that would be about ten percent which is essentially the change from 2017 to 2018 (as noted).

Regardless of that little review of how to use statistics, a 13% increase in one year from a previous year is hardly indicative of a substantial change, especially when compared to the previous decades of data.

#31 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-08-09 10:37 AM | Reply

"It sounds like you have a reflexive need to defend your cult leader 100% of the time no matter what so you're just making ---- up."

What is wrong with you people? You make excuses and deflections for a guy who attacked a 13 year old kid and then literally make stuff up about me for calling you out on it.

#32 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-09 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You make excuses and deflections for a guy who attacked a 13 year old kid

What? I didn't do that, his attorneys did.

then literally make stuff up about me for calling you out on it.

You claimed his lawyers were lying. You have no way of knowing whether what they say is true. Considering other violent people have been inspired by this ------- "president," odds are against your claim. Regardless, your reflexive need to make a claim you cannot support speaks volumes about your dedication to the cult.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-09 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished," Jasper said. "He certainly didn't understand it was a crime.""

All arguments are invalid if the true problem isn't addressed. Having ANYONE on the streets who doesn't understand that picking a child up and slamming him on the ground is a crime should be in a ward. And that's not hate, that's concern for the guy who doesn't understand. He is a danger to himself and others.

All other partisan hate rhetoric is just letting the true problem go ignored. Obama said "You didn't build that" and the Dems were light-speed quick to defend his statement and basically said anyone who thinks he was being literal is stupid. Well, welcome to the other side. If you are a person who can't understand Obama's intent or Trump's intent and cause physical harm doing so...the problem isn't the President. Any of you with hearts so full of hate that you blame the President should move out of the country. Seriously, leave. This isn't a "hate my country" thing, this is a "someone has a problem grasping reality and your only solution is to blame someone else" so you are a serious danger to ANY society. Move and be a danger to another country, not ours.

#34 | Posted by humtake at 2019-08-09 11:44 AM | Reply

"What? I didn't do that, his attorneys did."

So you're saying that you disagree with his lawyer? Your crazy accusations and attacks against me make it sound like you agree with him.

"You claimed his lawyers were lying."

Where did I say that?

"Regardless, your reflexive need to make a claim you cannot support speaks volumes about your dedication to the cult."

McCarthyism noted.

#35 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-09 11:52 AM | Reply

Curt Brockway, who was charged this week with felony assault on the 13-year-old boy, suffered a traumatic brain injury and was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army over his disability, which his lawyer Lance Jasper said contributed to his actions. "His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished," Jasper said. "He certainly didn't understand it was a crime."

Did Brockway's traumatic brain injury play a part in his assaulting the hat-wearing teen? If so, how big and what kind of factor was it? I believe traumatic brain injuries can make someone angry and be unable to control that anger. Did the injury contribute to Brockway not understanding what he did was a crime? Sounds like a current psych evaluation and a review of his medical records is in order.

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-08-09 11:55 AM | Reply

I think this man is a victim of deinstitutionalization the mentally ill. There were many good reasons for deinstitutionalization, including cost savings and more humane treatment, but there were many promises made to the mentally ill and their families that they would be adequately provided for outside of mental hospitals through outpatient treatment programs, supportive housing and emergency psychiatric beds. Very often these promises were not kept:
Deinstitutionalization: A Psychiatric Titanic
www.pbs.org
TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences
How deinstitutionalization moved thousands of mentally ill people out of hospitals -- and into jails and prisons.
www.motherjones.com
#22 | Posted by Petrous

You could at least give me credit for my post in another thread instead of plagiarizing it. Thanks.

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-08-09 11:59 AM | Reply

Hi, Gal. I didn't because I wanted the responses to it to reflect my shared opinion. I didn't want your connection to it to fog the response.
I am not always on your page, so I'm sorry to have placed us at odds.

#38 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-09 12:12 PM | Reply

#38 Oh, I see. How would you say your experiment turned out?

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-08-09 12:14 PM | Reply

Having ANYONE on the streets who doesn't understand that picking a child up and slamming him on the ground is a crime should be in a ward.

#34 | Posted by humtake

Save it. Child abuse terrorism in order to discourage refugees is your party's official position.
Dont act like you care about kids all of a sudden.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-09 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't get attacked by the usual characters. Perhaps I chose a position more to their liking.
I don't know.

Either the guy is copping out of his own responsibility for being an ass or he's has issues - both probably true.

#41 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-09 12:34 PM | Reply

He looks like the caricature of Trump supporters I see in my head whenever I read a post from ---------, phester, humtake and the other pro-Trump goobers.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-09 12:58 PM | Reply

Either the guy is copping out of his own responsibility for being an ass or he's has issues - both probably true.

I used to know a woman online who had a mentally disabled son. I think he had Asperger's and apparently all his life was a tremendous handful. She used to say, Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean they aren't an $$$hole.

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-08-09 01:05 PM | Reply

So you're saying that you disagree with his lawyer?

No, idiot. Let's review. You claimed, with no supporting information, that "the lawyer came up with this as a defense strategy." I said you were making things up - because you have no way of knowing one way or another whether this man was actually influenced by Trump. You then claimed I was "making excuses and deflections for a guy who attacked a 13 year old." But i never did that - i just criticized your obvious reflexive need to ------ the story and claim the lawyers made it up.

McCarthyism noted.

You wouldn't know McCarthyism if it took your kids from you and threw them in a cage.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-09 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Either the guy is copping out of his own responsibility for being an ass or he's has issues - both probably true.

#41 | Posted by Petrous

Of course he has issues. He's a trump supporter.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-09 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump speaks directly to potentially violent followers many times a day, urging them to hurt others. We've seen the resulting mass murders and hate crimes. To pretend this isn't a story that will get worse is foolish.

#46 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-08-09 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump speaks directly to potentially violent followers many times a day, urging them to hurt others. We've seen the resulting mass murders and hate crimes. To pretend this isn't a story that will get worse is foolish.

#46 | Posted by BruceBanner

Imagine what these people will do if trump loses the election and says it was rigged against him.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-09 03:09 PM | Reply

Yes. Exactly. Stepping back to look at the systematic establishment of his plan, we can see why the violence will only increase. There is no check or balance to him.

#48 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-08-09 04:36 PM | Reply

Yes. Exactly. Stepping back to look at the systematic establishment of his plan, we can see why the violence will only increase. There is no check or balance to him.

#48 | Posted by BruceBanner

Sane repubs were supposed to be that check on him. Instead they all joined the cult and kicked out those who wouldnt join.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-09 05:06 PM | Reply

De-institutionalization is still happening. Now our society is basing decisions on putting people away solely on cost, with the net effect of not putting people away who need to be given some kind of time-out.

#50 | Posted by john47 at 2019-08-10 11:40 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort