Culture Man charged with murder of Black man who complimented his girlfriend

Archive

"A grand jury indicted Ian Mackenzie Cranston on Thursday with a charge of second-degree murder and five other charges in connection with the Sept. 19 shooting death of Barry Washington Jr., a young Black man, Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel said during a rare downtown press conference Thursday night.

Bend Police arrested Cranston, of Redmond, late Thursday. He was lodged in the Deschutes County jail and is being held without bail, said Hummel, who held his press conference across the street from where the shooting took place. Cranston faces charges of second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, first-degree assault and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon.

“Our country has a disgraceful history of denigrating, prosecuting, and lynching black men for talking to white women,” Hummel said in a statement issued after the press conference. “Over the last week, hundreds of people called and emailed me to remind me of this history; I responded to every one of you.”

Authorities have previously said the 22-year-old Washington was shot about 12:11 a.m. Sept. 19 after leaving the Capitol nightclub in downtown Bend. Cranston, 27, is alleged to have pulled a gun and shot Washington after Washington spoke to Cranston’s girlfriend, which angered Cranston. Cranston, who is white, was initially arrested at the scene on suspicion of second-degree manslaughter, but he later posted $10,000 bail and was released, angering many in the community.

After Hummel announced the charges to a crowd of about 20 people, there were audible expressions of relief.

Before the press conference, Hummel told Washington’s mother, Lawanda Roberson, of the indictment. He expressed his condolences for the loss of her son. She thanked God, Hummel said."

Video of the incident taken from the girlfriends phone shows the black man complimenting both the man and his girlfriend with his fists.

This is allegedly from his tiktok.

​

 

[Ser Prize]

Imaging admitting that a racial group globally commits more crime wherever they go and then say it's not racial in any way.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Gotta say, I appreciate how this thread immediately degraded into an autistic slapfight about whether black people, immigrants, or single mothers are the worst when none of those things are even relevant to the story (since there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence the races of any of the people involved had a role in what happened).

Thunderdome.

"If you bf White you single to me. Fuck timmy gon do " The guy who was shot sounds like he was making a racial targeting to me. Notice unlike one of the new dating coach beliefs that "All non-married women are single" he made a specific racial focus. Sorry cheif, that claim is not supported by the details put forth by the "victim." In this case.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and the shooter made a tick tock saying "If you bf Black you single to me. Fuck tyrone gon do." Then doing the same nonsense this guy did and arguing it wasn't racially targeted. You'd be laughed at.

 

[Freesia]

whites do more financial crimes and asian do more academic cheating

No, not per capita. Check for yourself.

Table 43

ucr.fbi.gov

Don't take me out of context.

I didn't. I provided a quote where you equated blacks from all over the place. You also told me that black people from different countries are apparently inherently different from one another to the point where I can't equate them. You have to pick one or the other.

Didn't realize South Africa took over the rest of the continent, or that the kind of Africans in South Africa were the same kind anywhere else on the continent.

Now you're just being retarded. My initial statement was:
>Even in African countries where they're the majority and whites are the minority, they still commit way more crime.
You then replied:
>Not only do I not entirely believe you
So I provided a specific example backed by a research paper. Now your response is basically that not all blacks are the same therefore I can't use any example whatsoever from Africa. So what was even the point of your reply then?

Situation" is "situation". What is happening in that country? What are the immediate explanations for crime there?

This argument that you keep repeating makes no sense. Saying that there are context clues to explain various trends doesn't invalidate the association between crime and race.

The only thing you can say is "these people here are black and they commit crime here, and those people there are black and they also commit crime" without attempting to demonstrate the similarities between the different groups of black people in order to begin establishing that there's a point to that statement beyond the literal observation.

No, what I said is that blacks commit the MOST amount of crime literally everywhere where statistics are taken. So I came to the logical conclusion that those things must be tied. The similarity is the race, obviously. That's the association.

If I made the claim that men commit way more crime per capita than women in literally every country on the planet, and you made the argument that "all men are different, you have to establish context and prove association between men", would that seem like a good counter-argument, in your opinion? It's nothing but deflection.

The bottom line is that I can actually provide a working theory

No, you can't. The only thing you can provide is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that provides the possibility of there being alternate explanations that invalidate the connection between race and crime. You can't back up your "theory" with any statistics or facts because they aren't on your side. A working theory would have practical applications and could be independently verifiable, neither of which apply to your vague assertions.

Is it because they're poor?

Is what because they're poor? Are you asking me if the higher chance of poor people to commit crime compared to rich people is due to the variation in wealth? Isn't that proven just by the statement that "poor people are more likely to commit crime"?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I didn't. I provided a quote where you equated blacks from all over the place.

In order to refute the point that blacks cannot function in society, not in order to make any point about alleged proclitivites to crime. If I can produce numerous examples of "black people" that can "function in society" (aside from literal African societies), then the idea that they can't is obviously rubbish. In that situation, I'm not the one equating black people to begin with, but I operate with that equating to refute an argument that does equate black people.

You also told me that black people from different countries are apparently inherently different from one another to the point where I can't equate them.

Are you going to demonstrate that they aren't inherently different? Because if you know anything at all about Africa, you'd be aware that the point of difference doesn't even stop at the country borders given that those countries often house Africans of various different sub-ethnic groups.

So I provided a specific example backed by a research paper. Now your response

which was what I was saying all this time, well before you cited an article about specifically South Africa. I said that I didn't entirely believe you, as in I didn't trust that every single African country committed "way more crime" (and then we need to talk about those stats discretely and longitudinally in order to determine if there were distinct events or trends that caused crime rates to be what they are at present).

Saying that there are context clues to explain various trends doesn't invalidate the association between crime and race.

You're not invoking that association for its own sake. Don't phrase yourself as if you are.

No, what I said is that blacks commit the MOST amount of crime literally everywhere where statistics are taken. So I came to the logical conclusion that those things must be tied.

I can come up with a correlation between any two things. The point of correlation is to spur additional research, not make a conclusion wholesale. How are you even able to grasp any of the context you're missing or otherwise not factoring in, if this was your actual thought process? What is this Dunning-Kreuger bullshit?

If I made the claim that men commit way more crime per capita than women in literally every country on the planet, and you made the argument that "all men are different, you have to establish context and prove association between men", would that seem like a good counter-argument, in your opinion? It's nothing but deflection.

Not an equivalent comparison to the argument you're posing or my counterargument. Not even fundamentally.

No, you can't. The only thing you can provide is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that provides the possibility of there being alternate explanations that invalidate the connection between race and crime. You can't back up your "theory" with any statistics or facts because they aren't on your side.

In contrast, if I say that a significant portion of the issue is "single motherhood", then I can add more credence to my point by pointing out a cascading chain of events caused by mass single motherhood as well as its normalization within a community. I can talk about the welfare state concurrently destabilizing community bonds by making people within said community less reliant on each other compared to the state, and the implications of replacing necessarily reciprocal obligations with the unilateral and unfeeling subsidy of the state. I can line up the times of events like the sustained increase in single motherhood (which affected all races) and sustained drug use/crime increases with events that promoted the aforementioned issues (namely, the sexual revolution and the war on poverty). I can even point out that Northern blacks weren't fond of Southern blacks post-Civil War (or perhaps before it, as well) because of their rowdy behavior which was identical to their Southern white neighbors.

Here are several falsifiable points. Are you suggesting that I can't do what I bolded out?

Meanwhile you have a black box that spits out "niggers".

Is what because they're poor? Are you asking me if the higher chance of poor people to commit crime compared to rich people is due to the variation in wealth?

No, I'm asking "what exactly about the reality of being poor makes them more predisposed to crime"? If you can't come up with an adequate answer that relies on the reality of being poor, then it's very well possible that there's something being overlooked as you focus on the poverty factor.

And this is the crux of my point: you're not using the correlation you found in order to investigate a proper explanation that would explain the correlation. You're deriving an explanation from the correlation itself. That's not how you use a correlation, because a correlation is inherently narrow. It's baffling how much conversation I can have with someone who doesn't understand this.

 

[Overly Serious]

Getting punched once in the face can kill you. If you don't want to get shot don't start throwing hands. But that's a big ask for the people that can't resist fighting uniformed cops so I don't know what to tell you.

This really deserves highlighting. How many judges have actually been in a real streetfight? Yes, if you get punched you might be fine but you can also suffer serious injury. And whose to say once someone has knocked you down they're not going to follow up with stamping on your skull? One elbow to the top of the head and you can be in a wheelchair for life.

If someone is attacking you, and you don't know them, it's reasonable to act as though your life is in danger. And in this case, I think it's reasonable to act as though your girlfriend is in danger.

 

[Squid Diddler]

They don’t speak Spanish in Portugal.

I'm well aware. It's close enough.

 

[JohnDoe]

This really deserves highlighting. How many judges have actually been in a real streetfight? Yes, if you get punched you might be fine but you can also suffer serious injury.

Australia had such a problem with cases of one-punch kills that they changed laws and did a bunch of campaigns about it.

 

[Standardized Profile]

This really deserves highlighting. How many judges have actually been in a real streetfight? Yes, if you get punched you might be fine but you can also suffer serious injury. And whose to say once someone has knocked you down they're not going to follow up with stamping on your skull? One elbow to the top of the head and you can be in a wheelchair for life.

If someone is attacking you, and you don't know them, it's reasonable to act as though your life is in danger. And in this case, I think it's reasonable to act as though your girlfriend is in danger.

There's a reason why "life, limb, and eyesight" are usually put together. If you lose the use of your limbs or your eyes during a fight, your life is pretty much over. And it looks like the attacker was going for the defender's eyes, or at least it can be interpreted that way.

 

[murdered meat bag]

freesia privated his account that yellow bellied coward.

heres the report that shows different races do different crimes.

 

[Freesia]

In order to refute the point that blacks cannot function in society, not in order to make any point about alleged proclitivites to crime.

How is that relevant? You still equated them.

Are you going to demonstrate that they aren't inherently different?

I made an assertion and then backed it up by a research paper. You then deflected by saying that all blacks are different while refusing to address anything I said. Which is typical of this convo so far.

You're not invoking that association for its own sake. Don't phrase yourself as if you are.

Your posts are getting less and less decipherable as we go. I have no clue what you mean by this.

I can come up with a correlation between any two things. The point of correlation is to spur additional research, not make a conclusion wholesale.

There are weak correlations and strong correlations. Like the graph I posted before that showed race and crime are strong correlators, and poverty and crime are weak correlators. If you want to show that a strong correlator is actually due to random chance then there are ways for you to prove that. But I'll remind you that you haven't provided ANY additional research so far or any evidence whatsoever. You have no stats and you have no data. The only thing you have is the implication that other factors are important and that invalidates race.

Not an equivalent comparison to the argument you're posing or my counterargument. Not even fundamentally.

Why?

Here are several falsifiable points. Are you suggesting that I can't do what I bolded out?

Meanwhile you have a black box that spits out "niggers".

We've been over this. If you believe that single motherhood is what makes the difference, then provide a crime statistic that takes into account the family background. If you believe it's single motherhood + poverty, then provide a stat that takes those into account. The issue is that you fundamentally cannot do that. You cannot show that in a completely equivalent environment black people and white people act the same on average.

Also, I have no idea what your dumb strawman of "black box that spits out niggers" has to do with anything. My point is that race is statistically relevant. I never said it's the only factor that matters, in fact I specifically said it wasn't several times already.

No, I'm asking "what exactly about the reality of being poor makes them more predisposed to crime"? If you can't come up with an adequate answer that relies on the reality of being poor, then it's very well possible that there's something being overlooked as you focus on the poverty factor.

Saying that "it's possible" that I'm wrong is meaningless. The possibility exists even if I would provide whatever you would consider to be an "adequate answer". This is a non-statement. If you'd like to show that poverty and crime either don't correlate or that the correlation is random then go ahead. But saying "it's possible" that I'm wrong is meaningless.

you're not using the correlation you found in order to investigate a proper explanation that would explain the correlation. You're deriving an explanation from the correlation itself.

I'm sorry if I sound illiterate here, but it looks to me like you've repeated yourself. Is using the correlation to investigate a proper explanation not deriving an explanation from the correlation? I mean yes, you've added an additional step but those look like the same thing to me.

If what you're trying to say is that I'm biased and I cherry pick data, then it's up to you to show how I'm biased and how the data is cherrypicked. You haven't done that so far.

 

[mr.moon1488]

No, not per capita. Check for yourself.

Table 43

ucr.fbi.gov

I didn't. I provided a quote where you equated blacks from all over the place. You also told me that black people from different countries are apparently inherently different from one another to the point where I can't equate them. You have to pick one or the other.

Now you're just being retarded. My initial statement was:
>Even in African countries where they're the majority and whites are the minority, they still commit way more crime.
You then replied:
>Not only do I not entirely believe you
So I provided a specific example backed by a research paper. Now your response is basically that not all blacks are the same therefore I can't use any example whatsoever from Africa. So what was even the point of your reply then?

This argument that you keep repeating makes no sense. Saying that there are context clues to explain various trends doesn't invalidate the association between crime and race.

No, what I said is that blacks commit the MOST amount of crime literally everywhere where statistics are taken. So I came to the logical conclusion that those things must be tied. The similarity is the race, obviously. That's the association.

If I made the claim that men commit way more crime per capita than women in literally every country on the planet, and you made the argument that "all men are different, you have to establish context and prove association between men", would that seem like a good counter-argument, in your opinion? It's nothing but deflection.

No, you can't. The only thing you can provide is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that provides the possibility of there being alternate explanations that invalidate the connection between race and crime. You can't back up your "theory" with any statistics or facts because they aren't on your side. A working theory would have practical applications and could be independently verifiable, neither of which apply to your vague assertions.

Is what because they're poor? Are you asking me if the higher chance of poor people to commit crime compared to rich people is due to the variation in wealth? Isn't that proven just by the statement that "poor people are more likely to commit crime"?

It would be interesting to see how fast the white numbers would go down if they accounted for the other group of "white" people.

There are plenty of blacks that don't act like complete retard niggers and actually have regular jobs and contribute to their communities. The issue is that even the vast majority of these blacks will defend and coddle their less intelligent brothers and sisters out of a bizarre sense of tribalism and will advocate for the exact same policies that allow retard niggers to be retard niggers with impunity. It's like a crab bucket but the crabs who actually managed to escape put a lid on the bucket.

Whites don't have this issue. When we see Johnny Methmouth get ventilated by cops or rivals we just say "lol what a retard" and get on with our lives.

There's a pretty easy-to-do fix for that problem, but it's simply not possible in this system.

 

[Freesia]

freesia privated his account that yellow bellied coward.

heres the report that shows different races do different crimes.

I didn't private anything. Your initial claim wasn't that "different races do different crimes". You said: "whites do more financial crimes and asian do more academic cheating". I replied that they don't per capita. The pic shows that I'm right.

Do you not understand what per capita is? What are you not getting?

 

[LatinasAreTheFuture]

Kill all the niggers! He was asking for a fight! He said he was gonna take the white girl, what do blacks do with white women? Rape! They rape them! I’m glad there’s another dead subhuman nigger in the ground, and I’m glad a meme er of our white race was the one to do it.

 

[Ruin]

Can you guys take your sperging about how 13 does 50 to pms please? This shit is unreadable.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

How is that relevant? You still equated them.

No, I didn't. I refuted an argument on its own grounds, and "its own grounds" involved that equation.

I made an assertion and then backed it up by a research paper. You then deflected by saying that all blacks are different while refusing to address anything I said.

You started talking about South African farm attacks in service of a general point about black people after being told what you claim I deflected with. What would be the point of talking about a specific country to a person who asserted that you need to consider the scenes in individual countries in response to someone merely grouping black people together?

Your posts are getting less and less decipherable as we go. I have no clue what you mean by this.

Stop pretending you're bringing up information for its own sake during the course of an argument, it's effeminate. Is that clearer?

There are weak correlations and strong correlations.

Correlations are correlations. No matter how strong the correlation, it doesn't explain itself and can only be used in service of an argument that seeks to find causality behind it.

Why?

Because we're not talking about males and females? Because any explanation for those statistics would be head-and-shoulders different than any explanation given for race-categorized crime stats?

If you believe that single motherhood is what makes the difference, then provide a crime statistic that takes into account the family background.

Okay.

The issue is that you fundamentally cannot do that. You cannot show that in a completely equivalent environment black people and white people act the same on average.

Nor do I have to, because I never asserted that they do. I am asserting that the problem is as bad as it currently is because of a cascade that likely has its root cause in the explosion in single motherhood, at percentages that just do not exist in any other racial (or ethnic, for that matter) category.

Also, I have no idea what your dumb strawman of "black box that spits out niggers" has to do with anything. My point is that race is statistically relevant. I never said it's the only factor that matters, in fact I specifically said it wasn't several times already.

Earlier on, you batted for others in this thread arguing about the place of race in analyzing these stats:

What people in this thread are arguing is that race is clearly a very important factor as well.

except that said people were dismissing other factors outright:

Single motherhood is just cope. It is racial.

No fuck off nigger. Every time it comes to looking at criminal behavior as it relates to niggers, it's always the same shit.

*Crime data gets posted*
NO IT'S SOMETHING ELSE I SWEAR! um uh socio-economic status!

*Socioeconomic status gets factored into the statistics*
No it's something else! um uh SINGLE MOTHERHOOD!

No one is arguing that having an absent father figure makes you more predisposed to crime. The issue is that being a nigger makes you more predisposed to having an absent father figure.

I recognize your arguments in that frame ("race is the primary or even sole factor in crime"). I find it more likely that, if you didn't believe that, you'd properly recognize all that race encapsulates instead of pointing to correlation graphs. Better yet, you'd have actually explained why race plays a factor, as you alleged.

Saying that "it's possible" that I'm wrong is meaningless. The possibility exists even if I would provide whatever you would consider to be an "adequate answer".

But the possibility is demonstrably diminished with an "adequate answer" (i.e. one that appeals to the reality of being poor).

If you'd like to show that poverty and crime either don't correlate

Not particularly interested in doing that as much as I am in reading you propose a theory for the correlation.

I'm sorry if I sound illiterate here, but it looks to me like you've repeated yourself. Is using the correlation to investigate a proper explanation not deriving an explanation from the correlation?

I had already explained this earlier: "the point of correlation is to spur additional research, not make a conclusion wholesale."

If what you're trying to say is that I'm biased and I cherry pick data

I'm saying you have no idea how to apply the data you're using, in the first place, and I already demonstrated that-- especially in regards to your use of correlations.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

Australia had such a problem with cases of one-punch kills that they changed laws and did a bunch of campaigns about it.

“OK.”

There's a reason why "life, limb, and eyesight" are usually put together. If you lose the use of your limbs or your eyes during a fight, your life is pretty much over. And it looks like the attacker was going for the defender's eyes, or at least it can be interpreted that way.

I could see that.

 

[mold]

Can you stop blaring bullshit /pol/ memes instead of doing any investigation of the issue?

>the poorest whites have less crime than the richest blacks!
You took two data points out of thousands, across fifty states, in order to make this point. No discussion about any other social phenomena there. Shit, you don't even discuss single motherhood in said towns in an attempt to refute what I invoked. The table takes a broader view, but it still averages out statistics from every single reporting unit across 50 states of a massive country.

And it doesn't even work as a beginning to discuss what the underlying issues are.

>the richest blacks perform poorly versus the poorest whites in SAT scores!
The distortive effects of averaging aside (especially within smaller populations) and the fact that there's no source or year for that table (either of them, really), what is a non-IQ test supposed to demonstrate here?

It's really strange how you spazzed out, asserted "single motherhood" is just a cope, and then proceeded to go "muh rich blacks commit more crime than poor whites" even though that wasn't what you called out and it's not what I mentioned. Race realists-- or whatever they take to calling themselves-- are extremely invested in the "poverty causes crime" argument, to the point that approaching the issue any other way that isn't "those niggers ain't right" breaks their programming and leads them to waste everyone's time.

if it were just single motherhood then Oregonians would be shooting each other up all day every day

 

[CharlesBarkley]

Seriously if women shot every dude that catcalled us most of us would have kill counts of like 50+ by age 30 that started when we were children in elementary or middle school.

Is making whale noises at a woman and dancing around while doing the Humpty dance considered cat calling?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

if it were just single motherhood then Oregonians would be shooting each other up all day every day

I have a feeling they are shooting themselves up... but with drugs.

 

[mold]

I have a feeling they are shooting themselves up... but with drugs.

yep

and they manage to do it very, very quietly