Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon 95 Replies latest forum announcements

• 

  Simon

  I had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the Michael Brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent Trayvon Martin trial discussions.

  Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

  I had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it. Unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me. Many people obviously make their minds up about these cases based on the initial reports and adhere to their beliefs throughout.

  If we allow people free-reign to "discuss" things then the conversation will go "he murdered him", "no he didn't", "yes he did", "no he didn't", "f*** you", "racist scum" , "a**h**", "die m**** f*****" and so on ...

  Obviously that will not work.

  I've tried to allow some limited counter-comments when someone makes a claim on a topic, remind people of the policy and then remove subsequent posts but that makes people unhappy too and I get accused of playing favourites however objective I try to be.

  One alternative would be to ban all discussion and mention of it which seems heavy handed and denies people the right to discuss a current and important topic because of a few that get too heated and personally invested.

  So, I've decided the new rule will be: Whatever the courts have decided.

  • If the justice system decides someone is innocent then you cannot come on here and claim that they are guilty.
  • If the justice system decides someone is guilty then you cannot come on here and claim that they are innocent.

  There is no second guessing, re-interpretation of evidence or supposition about what happened or why. If something is a proven and accepted fact or a decided outcome then that is it. If you want to make a post claiming otherwise then don't be surprised or complain if your post is deleted.

  I'd ask everyone to try to be calm and reasonable. We're not here to fight over things. If that is what you want then I suggest you find another more suitable site to frequent.

  This rule is not open for debate.

  Thank you.
• 

  Shanagirl

  

  http://wtvr.com/2014/11/29/cop-hugs-boy-holding-free-hugs-sign-at-ferguson-rally/

  It’s the picture we needed to see after a week like this.

  Photo of Portland officer hugging crying 12-year-old during Ferguson rally

  A 12-year-old black boy, tears streaming down his face, and a white police officer embrace in the middle of a Ferguson-related demonstration in Portland, Oregon.

  The boy, Devonte Hart, was holding a sign offering “Free Hugs” during a Tuesday protest over a grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

  Portland police Sgt. Bret Barnum approached Devonte and extended his hand, the boy’s mother, Jen Hart, wrote in a Facebook post.

  “He asked Devonte why he was crying. His response about his concerns regarding the level of police brutality towards young black kids was met with an unexpected and seemingly authentic (to Devonte), ‘Yes. *sigh* I know. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.’ The officer then asked if he could have one of his hugs,” Hart wrote, according to the Oregonian.

  Shana
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Those rules will make it very difficult to have a debate about our flawed justice system.

  Just saying.

  But that's not what we come here for anyway.

  Cheers!

  Doc
• 

  Simon

  Those rules will make it very difficult to have a debate about our flawed justice system.

  If there are cases where a case has been appealed / overturned which shows an injustice then this can be discussed as it's then a proven injustice. If it isn't proven then it's just a claim and without any verified evidence any discussion is simply going to be based on people's preconceived opinions and agendas.
• 

  Chaserious

  So if the OJ Simpson trial hadn't yet occurred, and the verdict came out tomorrow, nobody could come on here and opine that the jury got it wrong and he really did it?
• 

  Simon

  So if the OJ Simpson trial hadn't yet occurred, and the verdict came out tomorrow, nobody could come on here and opine that the jury got it wrong and he really did it?

  Not if there were people who wanted to insist that he didn't.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  I'm confused.
  
  The jury in the first OJ case ruled him as not guilty. That means no one could say that "even though the lawyers put forth enough reasonable doubt for a not guilty verdict, there is still suspicion as to whether he killed her." Because, since the jury ruled him as not guilty due to reasonable doubt, he's completely innocent, because the evidence spoke and the glove did not fit.
  
  And that would have held years until the civil suit, where he was then ruled as liable, and then what? Does that mean he's guilty or innocent? I don't understand how that works.
• 

  Chaserious

  Well, it's your site, but that just seems a little silly. People discuss happenings in the justice system here regularly, and certainly you can't think that courts and juries always get it right. When they don't, diaglogue about it is part of a rich tradition in every system of ordered liberty. I suspect it's only a matter of time before anyone who thinks this is a good site policy finds a decision they themselves want to criticize.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  Also, American courts specifically do not prove innocence. Criminal cases are about the government attempting to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Grand juries (in criminal cases) determine whether enough evidence exists to bring someone to trial, and are guided by the prosecutor in the case (typically with their preference on if they -want- to take a case to trial or not), with no judge, cross examination, or defense. One of the first things someone is told on a jury is the difference between "innocence" and "reasonable doubt."
  
  It's set up that way so that the burden of proof errs on the side of caution, which also means, that by default, a lot of people will go free due to technicalities or 50/50 evidence. When you're on a jury, the question is "could they have reasonably not done it" with the evidence presented, not "are they innocent."
• 

  Simon

  It comes down to this: there are some people who will not be happy even when a verdict has been made and they want to keep banging their drum and repeating their claims regardless of the decision and the balance of the evidence.

  What to do about it?

  If we allow the claims on debunked, weak or disputed evidence then we either allow claims to stand unchallenged OR we challenge the claims with the evidence we believe makes sense and the endless back and forth begins.

  Why should both views get equal airtime if the weight of evidence is heavily on one side more than the other?

  Where does that end other than with insults and people getting angry, insulting people and making threats?

  Going with the verdict when the case has been clearly decided seems simplest. In the recent cases the evidence and the verdict have actually been very clear once you strip away the media hysteria. But people who don't understand that life never has "nice clean edges" will always find something to pick at, something to harp on about over and over again as though it's the smoking gun, the consipracy theory.

  Either you want to help and make things work or you want to find ways of making things not work.