Growing back pushing

Against the tide… over at Cone’s place, in response to a Roch Smith, Jr. comment, a fellow name of ‘william’ says this, emphatically, about line-up books that are kept in black binders…

The fact remains that there was no photographic line up or line ups of any white officers, even though Sanders states the victim said that a white officer was present. i don’t care how you all twist the facts or other details. the issue of discrimination rest soley on this fact and the fact that there has never been any attempt to identify any white officer in any investigation using the same method.”

That is a significant point, but my guess is this: unless you have been paying close attention, you will likely have no idea about what is unfolding on these-here blogs.  Sorry ’bout that but I don’t know how to catch you up right now.

This entry was posted in Blogging and Blogs, Greensboro Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Posted February 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    “That is a significant point…”

    It would be if supported by the facts, but unless William has access to some information that isn’t in the public realm, his assertions are incongruent with the facts as known.

  2. Spag
    Posted February 8, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Hogg, go back and read my latest comment on that thread and you will see that “William” doesn’t have his facts straight.

  3. Posted February 8, 2008 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    Of course there were no white officers in the line up book. As a matter of fact of the 60 or so pictures in the line up book (19 of which were GPD officers) none of the photos were of white officers.

    There were also no women, Asians, Indians or other minorities in the book because the “victim” had already made the claim that the officer was a black male.

    Why would anyone other than black males be put in a line up book when she had already claimed the officer was black and had already stated she never got a good look at the white officer who remained at the door?

  4. Posted February 9, 2008 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    Thanks, Sam, I read it.

    It seems to me, however, that “william” is credible and is making valid points. Especially this, which was posted late last evening…

    “By the way did you all notice that James Hinson was not in the Black Book that was viewed by city council, even though Sander says in his memo that this information pertains to investigations that were conducted on James Hinson?”

    While I remain convinced that the handling of this week’s events was an unforgivable misstep, I’m still not convinced that Johnson’s handling of Wray was completely out of line. Big problems existed under Wray’s command. I’m certainly aware of the fact that they weren’t all of his making, but they came to a head on his watch.

    ‘william’ obviously knows things and I find his rebuttals compelling. In other words: my mind is still open. Others have their minds made up about all of this and dismiss anything that gets in the way of their pre-conceptions. I don’t have that affliction. There are still two sides to this thing.

  5. Spag
    Posted February 9, 2008 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    That’s because Hinson wasn’t on duty the night that the incident allegedly occurred. The memo refers to an investigation of Hinson “and any other investigations of City employees” conducted by Sanders.

    It seems pretty clear that Sanders was investigating Hinson about other matters and during that investigation, this incident occurred. Because it involved GPD officers, Sanders was part of the investigation. Hinson couldn’t have been involved because he wasn’t on duty, but nevertheless, Sanders still had to investigate because a crime was alleged to have occurred. The fact that Hinson was NOT in the lineup actually dispels the myth that GPD was out to get Hinson for no reason.

    The lineup was limited to those black officers on duty when this incident occurred.

    Sanders is merely saying “In the course of my investigation of James Hinson and any other criminal acts by GPD officers, these are the only photo lineups I used.”

    William is wrong about every “fact” he claims. I wonder who put him up to his lame postings.

    If you read his latest stuff, it reminds me of Connie Mack Jr, just a rant with total disregard of the facts.

  6. dhoggard
    Posted February 9, 2008 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    As I look into this, I tend to agree. The City is now saying that the memo was NOT found in Hinson’s file.

  7. Posted February 9, 2008 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Hoggard wrote:
    ———
    It seems to me, however, that “william� is credible and is making valid points. Especially this, which was posted late last evening…

    “By the way did you all notice that James Hinson was not in the Black Book that was viewed by city council, even though Sander says in his memo that this information pertains to investigations that were conducted on James Hinson?�
    ———-

    No, I didn’t notice that Hinson was not in the black book. Did you, David? Where?

  8. Old Casey
    Posted February 9, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Has william seen the black book? If so, he must be an insider. Maybe Mitch himself?