Was Michael Brown 'murdered'? 2020 Democrats weigh in Michael Brown was shot and killed five years ago by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. His death sparked public outrage and weeks-long protests in Ferguson, Missouri highlighting police brutality and racial disparity in policing. To mark the anniversary, both 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) tweeted (within minutes of each other) about Michael Brown's "murder." In November 2014, a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson after finding that witness reports did not match with evidence. On March 4, 2015, the Obama administration's Justice Department issued an 86-page investigative report, based on testimony from 40 witnesses and a review of forensic evidence, on the shooting that concluded "there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat." The report said the ballistics analysis showed that the officer "fired a total of 12 shots, two from his vehicle and ten on the roadway," in "three gunshot volleys." The autopsy found Wilson's shots struck Brown "as few as six or as many as eight times," killing him. But, the report said, "There is no credible evidence to refute Wilson's stated subjective belief that he was acting in self-defense." The legal definition of murder varies according to jurisdiction, but generally it means killing someone with malice aforethought. One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did or acted appropriately under the circumstances. The racial profiling by the Ferguson Police Department is well documented and fair game for criticism. But Harris and Warren have ignored the findings of the Justice Department to accuse Wilson of murder, even though the Justice Department found no credible evidence to support that claim. They both earn Four Pinocchios.  Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this e-mail was forwarded to you, sign up here. Hear something fact-checkable? Send it here, we'll check it out. The Endangered Species Act didn't save endangered species. Or did it? EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler defended the Trump administration's decision to introduce rules that will weaken the Endangered Species Act of 1973 saying, "In the 40, 50 years of the Endangered Species Act, we've recovered very few species. … The act itself hasn't really been successful in saving very many species." Scientists have credited the ESA with bringing back from the brink of extinction such iconic species as the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, the California condor, the American alligator, the peregrine falcon, the humpback whale, the black-footed ferret, the Florida manatee, the Tennessee purple coneflower and others. Overall, government statistics show that 47 species of plants and animals deemed at risk under the ESA have been "recovered" or taken off the list, out of nearly 2,000 that have appeared — or less than 3 percent. Another 18 species are being considered for delisting. But by focusing just on those statistics, Wheeler is using a very strict definition of what it means to save a species from extinction. A 2015 study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that 41 percent of species improved or stabilized their population — short of the U.S. government's threshold for delisting — under ESA protection. These conservation efforts work over many years, and not all species joined the list in 1973. The ESA could be helping a "threatened" or "endangered" species regrow its population significantly before U.S. officials classify it as "recovered" and take it off the list. Although his comments are technically accurate, the EPA chief leaves out important context, earning Two Pinocchios.  Digital phenotyping The phrase sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, but it's increasingly happening in real life and in real time, according to researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. They coined the term "digital phenotyping." It means "taking information from our digital behaviors — on websites, via our phones — and using it to gain insight into potential health issues," as the New York Times opinion writer Charlie Warzel explains. The constant of smartphones, it turns out, reveals a lot about how people are feeling. Here's how the emerging field of digital phenotyping works, as outlined by MedCity News: "The data generated from extensive smartphone use can shed light on our physical and emotional health. Smartphones generate two forms of digital data: Active or user-generated data including content in texts, calls, and social media (for social engagement); and passive data including spatial location, time spent in various locations, driving speed, and phone usage patterns all collected via the phone's sensors. "J.P. Onnela, an associate professor of biostatistics at Harvard Medical School who is currently developing an analytical model on digital phenotyping using the Beiwe platform, states that data from personal digital devices is more reliable and accurate in understanding social and behavioral phenotypes than data acquired via interviews or surveys. We can use this data to monitor patients for treatment effectiveness, to identify psychiatric disease phenotypes, to predict bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and to support drug trials and precision medicine. The applications are endless." We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can also reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @mmkelly22, @rizzoTK or use #FactCheckThis), or Facebook (Fact Checker). Read about our rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment