Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon 95 Replies latest forum announcements

  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    edited to say: Rather be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt:)

  • minimus
    minimus

    If this is the rule, I would gave to ask, what about situations like Oj Simpson?

  • Simon
    Simon

    OJ Simpson is a pretty unique case. The chance of it happening again is pretty remote so I see no reason to try and figure out how to handle a similar case in advance.

    Pacopoolio. Its unbelievable that you still don't get the point and choose to try and repeat the claims about the evidence on *this* topic (removed). Yes, there is a chance I could be wrong but isn't there is a chance that you are? After all, a jury has heard all the evidence and decided against your interpretation. So give it up. I don't give a damn about your theory! If you care so much then start a blog, post it on facebook, anywhere - just not here. How is that difficult to understand?

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    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.

    So no real discussions on Bill Cosby then. No charges, no justice system involvement. He's not a convicted rapist.
    I know there's a problem in Ferguson, but I believe this verdict was correct. Sometimes, it can be both a problem and a correct decision.

    I am pretty sure Bill did something wrong, but I wouldn't want to be accused of slander.

  • Balaamsass2
    Balaamsass2

    I have no dog in this fight....but the U.S. Supreme court ruled slavery legal in times past. So were abolitionist wrong?

    P.S. I upset a judge a few years ago by saying this in court...and she ordered me off the jury and out of her court.

    However I agree that he who owns the chat room makes the rules to ensure order.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @Simon:

    What if the WTB&TS wins its appeal in the Candice Conti case? Are we obligated to agree with the court (in regards to our posts on this site) in such a scenerio? What about discussing Supreme Court rulings that we may disagree with? I am not trying to give you a hard time - I agree with your position on MB. But I am worried the rule has far reaching consequences.

    MMM

  • Simon
    Simon

    Debating a law isn't debating a case. Some laws were clearly unjust and in need of reform. That is a different issue entirely.

  • Simon
    Simon

    MMM - I don't know think there would be any controversy or argument over such a decision being challenged on this site.

    People need to stop looking for issues.

  • sooner7nc
    sooner7nc

    If we could have all acted like adults this wouldn't happen. I include myself in this as well. I don't blame Simon one bit.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    The way I'm reading what Simon said is that once a legal verdict has been given on a case, the facts of the case must be considered solid. In otherwords, you can have an opinion but you can't change the facts of the case to support your opinion. If the facts of the case prove a person is guilty - you can't change the facts to support your opinion or theory of innocence. If no facts are presented to a court of law - then one has only opinions or theories to base a discussion on.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit