Panel votes to suspend Ms. Lawson-Muhammad

Its now just the same stuff, over and over, with changes in punctuation.

Give it a f...... rest.

Same stuff over and over?  On this site?  

I don’t believe it.

dave said:
This is entirely silly.  Didn't Lawson-Muhammed apologize to the officer, chief, and Sheena?  Weren't those apologies accepted?  Continually picking at a tiny healing scab, particularly when race is involved, serves no purpose, especially in the era of peak white identity politics and judgment is being handed down by a group of white men.   Don't excuse the behavior, but keep it in perspective.
Regarding the personal attacks in this thread, just stop or I'll call Sheena.

 Did you hear or read the "apology"?  She apologized that "some folks"

were upset by her "uncharacteristic behavior" and turned it into an attack on her political opponents.  Absolutely no ownership of her wrong behavior or contriteness.  Like the traffic stop, she was belligerent.  So, maybe her conduct on camera was not so "uncharacteristic."

dave said:
This is entirely silly.  Didn't Lawson-Muhammed apologize to the officer, chief, and Sheena?  Weren't those apologies accepted?  Continually picking at a tiny healing scab, particularly when race is involved, serves no purpose, especially in the era of peak white identity politics and judgment is being handed down by a group of white men.   Don't excuse the behavior, but keep it in perspective.
Regarding the personal attacks in this thread, just stop or I'll call Sheena.

 The part of this that you’re missing is that the Ethics Committee has rendered a judgement against SLM and just like in the traffic stop, she’s going to fight against it and make it all about race and she’s got folks like you and others on this thread willing to spread that smokescreen.

It’s not about ice cream cones or race or de-escalation training or even whether SLM was bad for speeding and reacting badly to a police officer.  Now it’s just about whether the Ethics Comittee or SLM is the higher authority and whether the community wants to be complicit in SLM’s entitlement to subvert authority and dodge accountability generally.

kmt said:

Now it’s just about whether the Ethics Comittee or SLM is the higher authority and whether the community wants to be complicit in SLM’s entitlement to subvert authority and dodge accountability generally.

Race aside, I made a case for rejecting the commission’s interpretation of Rule (e) and, given the double jeopardy, its application of the comps in determining the punishment. Did you, on the contrary, find the commission’s reasoning persuasive? Or is that beside the point of its authority?

And mayhewdrive remains welcome, in between hitting Like buttons, to share his or her opinion on those questions as well.

kmt said:

dave said:
This is entirely silly.  Didn't Lawson-Muhammed apologize to the officer, chief, and Sheena?  Weren't those apologies accepted?  Continually picking at a tiny healing scab, particularly when race is involved, serves no purpose, especially in the era of peak white identity politics and judgment is being handed down by a group of white men.   Don't excuse the behavior, but keep it in perspective.
Regarding the personal attacks in this thread, just stop or I'll call Sheena.

 The part of this that you’re missing is that the Ethics Committee has rendered a judgement against SLM and just like in the traffic stop, she’s going to fight against it and make it all about race and she’s got folks like you and others on this thread willing to spread that smokescreen.


It’s not about ice cream cones or race or de-escalation training or even whether SLM was bad for speeding and reacting badly to a police officer.  Now it’s just about whether the Ethics Comittee or SLM is the higher authority and whether the community wants to be complicit in SLM’s entitlement to subvert authority and dodge accountability generally.

 Who has the dead horse gif?

“True character is revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure - the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character's essential nature.”

― Robert McKee

dave said:

 Who has the dead horse gif?

Scabs, horses, f...... rests. There’s nothing more to be gained if we keep discussing a white panel’s judgment against a black woman who deserves all the comeuppance that can be mustered, whatever the panel’s reasoning. (The more you Like it, the more you can reassure yourself.) Let’s focus instead on what kmt aptly called “the real problems with racism in this country.”

bak said:

“True character is revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure - the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character's essential nature.”
― Robert McKee

In case others are unfamiliar with the quotation’s source, it’s “Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting.” Robert McKee was talking about creating a fictional film character. 

If she is not already embarrassed by her actions, nothing is going to do that, including a suspension. I assume that she is. 

A Village Green update includes a link to an article in The Intercept (Glenn Greenwald’s outlet) that says the School Ethics Commission is indeed all men, none of them African-American. It adds that one of the members, who did not recuse himself, is a former DEA officer who was indicted — and cleared — after fatally shooting a black man in the back in 2002 while on duty.

The Village Green article: https://villagegreennj.com/police-and-fire/lawson-muhammad-to-challenge-nj-school-ethics-commission-ruling/

The Intercept article: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/05/stephanie-lawson-muhammad-new-jersey/

Took me literally two google clicks to find this Second Circuit opinion (Yeah, that Sotomayor).

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/374/141/505763/

Guy was a reputed drug dealer and firearms trafficker. Hint:  Not the DEA agent.

Robert_Casotto said:
Took me literally two google clicks to find this Second Circuit opinion (Yeah, that Sotomayor).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/374/141/505763/
Guy was a reputed drug dealer and firearms trafficker. 

 Yup....and resisting arrest.  If Ms Muhammad actually used her experience to be an example on respect for authority and the Police, maybe some of these incidents wouldn't occur.

mayhewdrive said:

Robert_Casotto said:
Took me literally two google clicks to find this Second Circuit opinion (Yeah, that Sotomayor).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/374/141/505763/
Guy was a reputed drug dealer and firearms trafficker. 

 Yup....and resisting arrest.  If Ms Muhammad actually used her experience to be an example on respect for authority and the Police, maybe some of these incidents wouldn't occur.

An example... just because... she's Black?  And maybe the police wouldn't shoot unarmed ....  ?

I can't even continue parsing this.

It sounds like the logic of my prejudiced grandma when she was in her 90's and in a memory care unit.

There you see the sad last step of this self-aggrandizing virtue signaling.

First you make an objective judgment based on equal treatment before the law, and you’re racist because SLM is black and you pretended to ignore it.

You say that maybe her being black gives her an opportunity (which she squandered) to find a reasonable middle ground to respect the role of law enforcement, and you’re racist because you pointed out that she’s black.

This is ridiculous, and the people playing this game are not serious.

kmt said:
There you see the sad last step of this self-aggrandizing virtue signaling.

First you make an objective judgment based on equal treatment before the law, and you’re racist because SLM is black and you pretended to ignore it.

You say that maybe her being black gives her an opportunity (which she squandered) to find a reasonable middle ground to respect the role of law enforcement, and you’re racist because you pointed out that she’s black.

This is ridiculous, and the people playing this game are not serious.

First you claim equal treatment under the law by a Jim Crow jury that turned one deed into two crimes.

Then you say that maybe her being black is meaningful insofar that it’s a responsibility.

This is ridiculous, and the people playing this game are not serious. (I mean, look which side mayhewdrive chose to be on, am I right?)

See what I mean?  A “Jim Crow” jury.  That is so arrogant and out of touch.  Get a grip dude, SLM is not Rosa Parks.

All men, none black. 

“Out of touch,” he says.

Does anybody believe that the members of the commission are not suitable persons to hold their positions?

If so, why?

TomR

DaveSchmidt said:
All men, none black. 
“Out of touch,” he says.

 You may have a point there. As I recall, it took an all black Supreme Court to overturn Plessy-Ferguson. White folks can't decide things fairly.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

DaveSchmidt said:
All men, none black. 
“Out of touch,” he says.

 You may have a point there. As I recall, it took an all black Supreme Court to overturn Plessy-Ferguson. White folks can't decide things fairly.

I know right?  'Cause for White folks, all it takes is one good example to demonstrate how they generally do good things -- and we should trust them without challenge. 

While for Black folks, all it takes is this one bad example to demonstrate how they generally do bad things -- and we should over-punish her without letting her challenge.

DaveSchmidt said:

kmt said:
There you see the sad last step of this self-aggrandizing virtue signaling.

First you make an objective judgment based on equal treatment before the law, and you’re racist because SLM is black and you pretended to ignore it.

You say that maybe her being black gives her an opportunity (which she squandered) to find a reasonable middle ground to respect the role of law enforcement, and you’re racist because you pointed out that she’s black.

This is ridiculous, and the people playing this game are not serious.

First you claim equal treatment under the law by a Jim Crow jury that turned one deed into two crimes.
Then you say that maybe her being black is meaningful insofar that it’s a responsibility.
This is ridiculous, and the people playing this game are not serious. (I mean, look which side mayhewdrive chose to be on, am I right?)

This is not a criminal trial.  It's an ethics hearing for an elected official. 

Henceforth, all musings of white persons are to be ignored entirely.

There, that should unclog the MOL politics page.

yahooyahoo said:

This is not a criminal trial.  It's an ethics hearing for an elected official. 

I trusted that my point, like my earlier one about double jeopardy, would survive a loose use of familiar terms.

Tom_R said:
Does anybody believe that the members of the commission are not suitable persons to hold their positions?
If so, why?
TomR

If the Intercept article is correct, I believe that Jude Tanella should have recused himself from this case. Beyond that, it’s not a question of individual suitability. It’s a question of the suitability of the group as a whole. Which should be clear enough, unless the idea of all-white juries, all-male electorates, single-party Congresses, all-righty pitching staffs, etc., doesn’t trouble you.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

 You may have a point there. As I recall, it took an all black Supreme Court to overturn Plessy-Ferguson. White folks can't decide things fairly.

Did you read the white folks’ ruling this time? Well reasoned, was it?

Did the BOE ever comment on the part of the ruling that called them out for not dealing with the incident?

SLM should fight the suspension.  She was elected to serve.  if people are not happy with her because of this incident, they will not vote for her again.  And I do think SML was wrong and there were no excuses for her behavior that day.  

And the panel needs to change to be look more like the population they serve.  

As for Ms. Baker, I hope people remember that she tried to sweep this under the rug and is not in favor of transparency.  

mayhewdrive said:

Robert_Casotto said:
Took me literally two google clicks to find this Second Circuit opinion (Yeah, that Sotomayor).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/374/141/505763/
Guy was a reputed drug dealer and firearms trafficker. 

 Yup....and resisting arrest.  If Ms Muhammad actually used her experience to be an example on respect for authority and the Police, maybe some of these incidents wouldn't occur.

This is astoundingly nonsensical- maybe even stupid. Unless you really think the actions taken in Ms. Lawson-Muhammad's daily life in suburban New Jersey will somehow find their way to and then influence the decisions made by common criminals across the country (presumably because they share skin color).

Criminals get shot by police because they're criminals- and as such do not have respect for authority. Innocent, unarmed Black people get shot by police because they are Black and because law enforcement operates within and at the behest of a racist society that devalues the humanity of Black people. Having 'respect' for authority has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If Ms. Lawson-Muhammad lived in a society where Black life wasn't automatically discounted she'd have less reason to be apprehensive about being stopped by law enforcement. Unfortunately, that isn't the case and as long as that is the reality, not a single one of you has the right to dismiss her claims of being in a heightened emotional state.

flimbro said:

If Ms. Lawson-Muhammad lived in a society where Black life wasn't automatically discounted she'd have less reason to be apprehensive about being stopped by law enforcement. Unfortunately, that isn't the case and as long as that is the reality, not a single one of you has the right to dismiss her claims of being in a heightened emotional state.

Understood, but are we allowed  to opine on whether her heightened emotional state justified her specific behavior in this case? 

flimbro said:
This is astoundingly nonsensical- maybe even stupid. Unless you really think the actions taken in Ms. Lawson-Muhammad's daily life in suburban New Jersey will somehow find their way to and then influence the decisions made by common criminals across the country (presumably because they share skin color).
Criminals get shot by police because they're criminals- and as such do not have respect for authority. Innocent, unarmed Black people get shot by police because they are Black and because law enforcement operates within and at the behest of a racist society that devalues the humanity of Black people. Having 'respect' for authority has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If Ms. Lawson-Muhammad lived in a society where Black life wasn't automatically discounted she'd have less reason to be apprehensive about being stopped by law enforcement. Unfortunately, that isn't the case and as long as that is the reality, not a single one of you has the right to dismiss her claims of being in a heightened emotional state.

 I disagree - the vast majority of police interactions that go bad are because the suspect tries to run or resist arrest.

Ms. Muhammad became a National figure (whether she liked it or not) with her behavior and she missed a huge opportunity to make it a teaching moment about respecting authority - both for our local communities and for the larger national audience that was watching. Instead she chose to portray herself as a victim.