I have refused to take a position on whether she is lying until the facts are in. This young woman grew up in the foster system, was homeless, and there is video of her being sprayed. (I was wrong: there is video of the aftermath of the spraying.) Given how dangerous we know the spray is, it's possible that the spray caused the miscarriage.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that Fox had a history of mental illness. While this may be relevant, it still does not answer the question of whether she was, in fact, pregnant.
Whether she was pregnant or not, we won't know until she chooses to release information after the memorial service she says she is planning for today (Saturday).
Until then, I'm not going to get into a "she said, she said" discussion. I feel to do so would be the equivalent of telling someone they were not raped. Until someone says one way or the other what happened, I will not take a position on her credibility.
If it turns out that I based my blog post on faulty information, I will post on that. It's not that I cannot admit that I was wrong--those of you who know me know that I have published "mea culpas" before.
At this point, we still don't have the facts. And so, rather than apologize, I prefer to wait. Regardless of what happens, this particular incident seems to have brought out a lot of our prejudices.
I trust that we will discuss those, when the time is appropriate.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
Good. That is the way things should work.
The question you ought to be asking yourself is why you didn’t do that earlier…when you rushed to judgement against the police before the facts were in.
Here is what you wrote in your earlier thread, “This poor woman has had the life within her crushed by police brutality. By the brutality of a system that feels threatened.”
And you allowed all sorts of remarks to be made in that thread that made that same unwarranted leap.
But when I suggested everyone ought to withhold judgement until the facts are in, you actually questioned that comment.
All those other comments relying on what may be bad information, you let slide.
That is what you ought to consider apologizing for…not about whether or not the woman is lying or not. The error you made was the rush to judgement…and that error will remain whether facts ultimately prove your rush as correct or not.
By the way, you also said here and back in that other thread, …there is video of her being sprayed.
Would you be so kind as to share a link to that video.
Given your history of jumping on anyone who dares to gore any of your sacred bulls, I wonder how often you have apologized for being wrong. So, I'll post the video.
And then I'll repeat again: IF I WAS WRONG, I will make my mea culpas then. AND IF I WAS RIGHT, what will you do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjFo7Q2cBNY
\\http://tinyurl.com/6n9xgax
I dunno whether she's fibbing or not, either.
If one stands at the edge of a busy street and is told “You mustn't cross. It's not safe.” and simply doesn't believe the advice so dashes across the street, fortunately surviving, one doesn't then usefully proclaim “See? It was safe.” The probability of injury stands notwithstanding the successful outcome. That's what it is to be a probability.
If a weatherman predicts rain and it doesn't rain, the weatherman was not wrong if the prediction was correctly expressed as a probability. 80% probability of rain does not mean “it will rain” but rather “over the long haul, 8 of 10 predictions like the one I'm making today will be true.”
A good friend and fellow writer told me once a bit of advice that went something like “A true story is true of one person. A good work of fiction is true of everyone.” The truth for everyone is that if you hit a woman in the gut with a club, you can't know if she's pregnant. (She might not even know.) So you don't know what risk you are taking on, and you have no business doing it.
Frankly, you don't have any business doing it to a non-pregnant woman, nor even a man, unless very severely threatened by imminent bodily harm. And we're talking police in riot gear carrying weapons up against an unarmed population of people whose chief weapon is occasional loud words and the linking of arms. If even the sitting Right-leaning court calls that imminent risk of harm, I'd be surprised. That would make such a mockery of Constitutional protections for free assembly.
Don't let people fussing over the particulars of whether she in fact was pregnanty blind you to the really core issue which is that the policeman could not have known. The act was reckless and unwarranted regardless merely because of the possibility.
Frank,
Given your history of jumping on anyone who dares to gore any of your sacred bulls…
I do not have a history of jumping on anyone who dares to gore any of (my) sacred bulls. I don’t often have “sacred bulls.” If someone says (here in a public forum) something with which I disagree, I normally express my disagreement. I try to do it respectfully and with a bit of grace…and usually succeed.
I wonder how often you have apologized for being wrong.
Several times, actually. Been complimented for doing so. We all make mistakes.
So, I'll post the video.
And then I'll repeat again: IF I WAS WRONG, I will make my mea culpas then. AND IF I WAS RIGHT, what will you do?
I will say what I said earlier…that it makes more sense to wait until the facts are in before making judgements...especially before castigating the police the way you did.
Your statement was “This poor woman has had the life within her crushed by police brutality. By the brutality of a system that feels threatened.”
I didn’t say it was wrong…in fact, I acknowledge it COULD BE CORRECT. But I suggested, respectfully, that it made more sense to wait until the facts were in.
You originally said, “…there is video of her being sprayed.” I see you have corrected that. Good!
Here is the video. I don't have a video of her being blasted in the face. I have the aftermath--and who knows, if Frank is correct, she started making this up right from the beginning. Just as I'm sure the 80+ year old woman made up her being blasted.
That is nonsense, FLW. AT NO POINT HAVE I SUGGESTED that she is making this up right from the beginning…or that she is making up any part of it.
I DO NOT KNOW!
That is all I’ve ever said. I've asked for waiting until the facts were in...and not presenting statements from the woman that might be self-serving...as fact.
Why are you distorting what I said? What is this about?
Mea culpa.
I apologize. I made a mistake...and I acknowledge it.
I still have a problem with that. I still call it police brutality. Maybe that's where the problem is. I see police brutality, and you want to wait until the facts are in. But there's no doubt that the police pepper sprayed those folks. Maybe not Jennifer Fox. But they did pepper spray the protesters. No one is questioning that.
My intention is to apologize for jumping the gun if that's what I did. I do not knowingly spread falsehoods. BUT, with all due respect, I know that there are good cops out there, and one of my friends is married to one. I cannot imagine him hitting a protester who was offering no resistance with a club.
If you would like me to start producing those videos, and those statements, I'd be happy to do it.
As I said, if I'm wrong about her having been pregnant, I'll apologize. Will I apologize for the brutality remark? Well. I guess if someone is able to prove that entire event--the entire attack on the protesters in a public place--well, we'll have to see.
You are right that I have been harsh with you, and I apologize for that. You obviously pushed a button, and I am sorry if I jumped on you.
Were the unarmed protestors presenting a threat of violence to the police or anybody else? If not, then there is no reason for the police to respond with violence - which batons and pepper-spray are.
There was a lot of to-do in the comments to your original post about irrelevant matters. What's relevant is the police action.
But that's not what the original post was about.
Rated for open minded reflection...
Lorraine, you're a fine writer and I enjoy your blog but I felt that particular post was reckless and inflammatory, especially when you tie it in with your own miscarriage. (I also had a miscarriage at three months - but I felt no connection with the protestor. I didn't get the point of that, unless you'd taken a different tack, writing about the pain of a miscarriage for example.)
Why some people here choose to jump all over Frank and throw irrelevant punches is beyond me. His points are valid and sensible and deserve to be considered - without emotion and vitriol.
"At this point, we still don't have the facts. And so, rather than apologize, I prefer to wait. Regardless of what happens, this particular incident seems to have brought out a lot of our prejudices."
The only prejudice it brought out in me is a prejudice for the facts and against injecting emotion, before something is written.
Going to NYC with Nancy to see the parade of the Lighted Boats...annual boat parade around the tip of Manhattan with all the boats decked out in holiday lights.
I'd like to repair anything wrong between us, because I see you as a person interested in making the world a better place in which to live. I am also...and I think we both got on each other a bit too much.
I apologize for my part in the matter.
Love the Finger Lakes region. Spent two years back in the 50'd at Sampson Air Force Base in Geneva...part of the happiest time of my life.
Hope everyone involved in the movement keeps their cool. Cops gotta remember that beating on people is not s good idea...and I think most will. But it doesn't take many bad apples to spoil that bunch, because the damage a bad cop does is disgusting to see. We all agree on that.
Have a good day. We'll talk more.
In these times, we don't need to manufacture anger or promote hatred. Is there a mea culpa coming for taking a page out of the Fox News playbook?
On a side note, I would find it easier to take Frank's criticisms of the first post seriously if he didn't haunt so many thread dealing about the Occupy movement making statements like this:
I hate to see it…would give anything to prevent it…but in many cases, the people getting bashed are asking (begging) for it...The occupiers are acting like a rabble…and they are going to be treated as a rabble."
For Mr. Apisa, it's obvious that the issue isn't whether the woman was or was not pregnant or that excessive force may have been used; it is that the occupiers are *rabble* who are asking (begging!) for whatever happens to them, and in that context it's easy to see his motivation here. Said motivation wouldn’t bother me much if he was honest about it, but he is anything but honest. He has a passive-aggressive tendency to get in your face wagging his finger and then to act all surprised and wounded when you respond less than favorably to his shrill, hectoring diatribes, and that passive-aggressive streak is made even less attractive by his inconsistency - one day Frank is denigrating the protesters and anyone who supports them and the next day he is professing solidarity with their goals. Frankly (ha!), the man is either suffering from MPD or has the backbone of a jellyfish; either way it’s impossible to take anything he says seriously.
You'll have to take my word on that, since I was the one who received comments from folks who couldn't understand why I was upset about a second-trimester miscarriage. (It's not as if you lost a real baby.) So, that's why I identified with her loss.
@nanatehay: "For Mr. Apisa, it's obvious that the issue isn't whether the woman was or was not pregnant or that excessive force may have been used; it is that the occupiers are *rabble* who are asking (begging!) for whatever happens to them, and in that context it's easy to see his motivation here."
It's that obvious? Really? Can you get inside his head? How do you know what Frank's motivation is - and why is it even important? Hurling insults, crowing that you can't take anything he says seriously because he has a different viewpoint than you do, calling both Frank and Gordon Osmond "specimens," questioning their right to be on OS. Did you come here to make an intelligent comment, as you're capable of, or to start a dust-up.
Since I don't know your motivation, I won't question it. But I took the liberty of editing your lengthy and exhausting remarks to include only what was pertinent to this discussion:
"....I wish your original post had been less certain in its tone;...."
You're welcome.
It not about the miscarriage or who does or does not identify with it. It is about "reporting" about it as if it were theroven truth and further inflaming the situation with a lot of unnecessary emotional baggage.
“This poor woman has had the life within her crushed by police brutality. By the brutality of a system that feels threatened.”
Since we still do not know the facts on whether there was a life or a miscarriage or any brutality towards her beyond some evidence of pepper spraying, I think your commentary was needlessly inflammatory. As I said, there is enough anger and the police brutality does not need this event to make it more egregious. It stands on its own.
That sense of connectedness and need for respect is not lessened an iota by learning that that woman was or was not pregnant because the fabric of women, and more generally of people, that is disturbed when you injure one of us offended by the injury, even if the injury is more or less permanent. The permanence of the injury is just a way of saying “See, there was risk,” or “See, there was visible, lasting effect.” and it is no defense to say “Nope, there wasn't any lasting effect this time.” There could have been. It is the same. It's one of those “Ich bin ein Berliner” kind of things where we stand as one against that which must not happen. And even if it doesn't turn out the original moment was correctly described, that does nothing to negate the legitimacy of feeling expressed in Lorraine's original piece.
People are rightly revulsed by the mere concept that the police should be taking violent action against the non-violent, and there's been quite enough of that lately that (a) has been documented, (b) has been [to all anyone can tell] minimally investigated and, (c) has not been prosecuted [that anyone can tell], and (d) no steps have been taken to prevent, most critically the allowing of the sunshine of cameras. There is very little evidence that these crowds are in any danger of violence except where the police are moving in and provoking things. And it should come as a surprise to no one that people are giving the police no benefit of the doubt after the numerous egregious accounts, none of which have been followed up by clear public statements from any police organization that such actions are absolutely not appropriate. The mere fact that journalists are being kept from easy filming is the most damning evidence in this regard.
And to ask a person to report in sterile form merely because they do not have complete facts is to ask that no useful journalism be done anywhere. Life is a work in progress and we never have complete knowledge. The original piece cites sources and leaves it to people to check the sources if they like; the rest is plainly personal feelings to give the story texture, and I think it did a good job.
there are a lot of products on sale. Which one is better for 48 years old mom? Handbag,glasses or biniki? Please help.
****rated with kisses ****
Lorraine ties in her own emotional experience with a miscarriage and makes the assumption that "This poor woman has had the life within her crushed by police brutality." That is a huge and unsubstantiated leap. If it had been about empathy or how awful the experience for Jennifer Fox was, it should have been qualified with something like "If this turns out to be true..." or "Regardless of whether or not the police brutality is the cause of her miscarriage..."
You say "People are rightly revulsed by the mere concept that the police should be taking violent action against the non-violent.." Of course they should be. But we're not talking about a "concept" here. It was written as if it was fact. No one benefits from adding fuel to the fire and now that this woman is being discredited, it looks bad.
By the way, here is an update from the unimpeachable Crooks & Liars original report. Please note the date:
UPDATE December 26, 2011: Reports are surfacing that Jennifer Fox has had a tenuous relationship with the truth in the past and is not very credible. If she offers any proof of her ordeal we will gladly update this update.
@nanatehay: If by "snark away" you mean, "Please continue to point out irrelevant and long-winded distractions that add nothing to a discussion," rest assured, I shall; I give you my oath on that. And if by "lofty status" you're referring to the height of my chair, actually it is sitting a little low. I should adjust it. Thank you for the reminder and no need to apologize.
Incidentally, not that it matters, but C&L isn't where I got the news. I saw that Lorraine linked a source, but I didn't feel a need to follow it because, rightly or wrongly, the info she relied on was consistent with what I'd already read. As it happens, I had seen a Business Insider article dated 2011-11-22, titled “
Pregnant Seattle Protester Says She Miscarried After Being Kicked And Pepper Sprayed By Police.” The article goes on to reiterate what is succinctly summarized in the headline.
Also, the fact that this is what I was reading when I learned of the piece will not tell you anything about my primary source of news, not that where I generally get my news is relevant. (So while we're talking unwarranted inferences, you might take note of at least one of your own.)
I think this discussion is going in circles. I'm comfortable I've made my point, if not to you then to others following along, so this will be my last response on this thread. Feel free to take an unrebutted reply if it gives you a better sense of closure. I yield the floor.
"97.3 KIRO FM has learned that Fox was once suspected of trying to lure two young children away from their mother. In a police report dated August 3, 2011, a mother stated a young woman had approached her daughters at Seattle's Pritchard Beach Park during a swimming lesson. Police sources confirm that woman was Fox."
"Fox stated she had just returned from Greece where she had won every event she had entered in a swim meet," according to the report. The girls told their mother Fox had asked them to leave with her, and had offered them a ride if they came to Bellevue to swim with her.
Lifeguards at the facility decided to call police, who questioned Fox upon arrival.
"(Fox) stated she had been trained as a swimming coach while on the 'Special Olympics team.' (Fox) stated she had 48 gold medals."
Officers determined Fox "may be suffering from a mental illness or drug addiction," and allowed her to leave, with the condition that she not return to the park. But, the incident adds to the growing suspicion that Fox was not pregnant during the clash with Seattle police last week that she said resulted in a miscarriage."