Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon 95 Replies latest forum announcements

• 

  Simon

  Yes. And people have to understand that even with quite clear-cut cases there will be witness contradictions or minor inconsistencies in statements or facts. This is because humans are involved (even for a non-controversial case without the challenges of this one). But you can't cling to minor issues or small areas that aren't 100% clear-cut as proof that the weight of all the other evidence is wrong.

  Its been decided by people with more access to witnesses and testimony than we will ever have. Accept it.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  I read most of the posts you erased on the topic in the last couple of days, and none of them were posting "theories," nor were they saying an "interpretation" in most instances. In fact, some think the jury ruled correctly with the evidence as presented.

  Some people aren't understanding the core arguments being expressed. It's not a bunch of people saying "he's innocent" and others saying "no he's not." It's some people arguing he's innocent against others saying "we need reform in the legal system and police training and some way to monitor police better so it's not just one person's word against the other all of the time and so that so many unarmed people stop getting shot, see the flaws and issues with this case to see why." And then when people post the flaws/issues in the case to show why the system is flawed, Simon replies "no they said he's innocent you're wrong" and deletes it. That makes the threads specifically about a group of 4 posters talking about how thuggy those people are and posting stuff about thugs being thugs, because the more nuanced discussion about the flaws in the legal and police systems are shut down.

  If you actually think the system is great as is, and this case was handled fantastically, and don't want counter-opinions around (note how one-sided discussions are getting lately), then that's fine, I (and others probably) will take our discussions elsewhere. The -only- reason I even keep trying here is because I think you're missing big parts of the argument due to possibly not being as famililar with the large controversy regarding American law enforcement and weapon usage - and framing it strictly about guilt vs. innocence - and I am trying to come up with different ways to re-frame it to reach a common ground so you understand the perspective of why so many people are fed up.
• 

  new hope and happiness

  In England the death penalty was abolished in 1969.

  Executed but later proved innocent.

  1966 Tomothy Evans.

  1968. Mahmood Matton

  Derek Bentley

  I think it very naive to think the evidence convicts. And the above proove that.

  In the case of David Bentley he was convicted not for shooting a policeman, but for shouting " let him have it" and his partner shot the policeman.

  He was 19 years old.

  Quite rightly the majority of the Brittish public were opposed to the verdict. How could it be said his shout of " let him have it" was not ineffect a request for his partnet to give the gun to the policeman?

  Whilst it could be argued that the above cases were in the distant past they are a reminder of why the death penalty was abolised in England.

  A good job as more recently we have had the false conviction of Jill Dundoe a T.V celebrity and conviction on evidence. He was later aquitted. The same with a deputy head convicted of killing his daughter. A man falsly convicted of killing a girl on Wimbledon common, verdict later overturned. So thankfully the death penaltu was over turned in 1969.

  But sometimes the evidence does'nt or shouldn't convict, and i think people should be able to express there opinion. But maybe debating forums on the internet are not that platform?
• 

  sooner7nc

  Paco just proved Simon's point.
• 

  Chaserious

  Debating a law isn't debating a case. Some laws were clearly unjust and in need of reform.

  I think he was referring to the Dred Scott case, which found that slaves were property and thus couldn't sue in court. Korematsu is another example, where the Supreme Court allowed people to be placed in internment camps based upon their race, or Bowers v. Hardwick, which found that sodomy could be considered a felony. Often the two overlap. The Zimmerman case related to laws that some may have believed were in need of reform, e.g. self-defense/concealed carry statutes.
• 

  Simon

  If you think there is a problem with the criminal justice system then trying to argue it on a topic about a specific case that isn't an example of the problem being claimed is bound to cause confusion. It's a little silly to claim outrage and people failing to understand the point.

  The fact is pacopooli you are now being completely untruthful: the posts I removed were consistently about *this* case and your insistence that the evidence or the interpretation of it was wrong. You have to accept that many don't agree with your view including, most importantly, the people serving on the grand jury.
• 

  Simon

  There are many cases where we can have debate about whether a verdict is fair or not. The Dando case is a good example - I don't think anyone was convinced that was a legit conviction.

  But those cases are not the problem.

  Let's be frank: we just can't have a discussion if it involves anyone who is black.

  Black people don't want to accept a guilty verdict for one black guy because they want it to be about treatment of black people in general (which any sngle case is never going to be about).

  White people don't want to accept that they are all guilty of having white privilege or otherwise causing the problem.

  A fight ensues and then I'm blamed for it.
• 

  Simon

  I think he was referring to the Dred Scott case, which found that slaves were property and thus couldn't sue in court.

  Wow, when was that? The ruling in the UK that people could not be owned (and therefore slavery wasn't legal) was made in the mid-late 1700's.

  The Zimmerman case related to laws that some may have believed were in need of reform, e.g. self-defense/concealed carry statutes.

  This is another example of people arguing on the case about something that the case wasn't about. The defense wasn't invoking the stand-your-ground law at all, it was all media hype and incitement so claiming any result is incorrect because that law is bogus is pure fiction. Same with MB and some laws that it wasn't being judged on at all (why some claimed the verdict was wrong).
• 

  Lightgrowsbrighter

  I've read through many of the emotional pros and cons about this case. One of the things I learned early in life is that things are sometimes just not fair. But somtimes, what's fair or not fair is simply the perception of each individual. What seems fair to one seems unfair to another. This MB deal is a perfect example of perception. One thing that helps me is still having faith that there is a loving personal being(s) (Jehovah/Jesus) that will make things right. Most people participating on this website have some JW background as I do (45+ years). I know many have been burned by the controlling WT tactics and may have lost faith in a loving being. Perhaps I come accross naive and some will belittle my comment. But nevertheless, my belief helps me deal with injustice or perceived injustice. I hope and pray that things will ultimately work out well for everyone. In the meantime, we can all treat those in our personal circle with love, respect, and be peaceful. If everyone did that instead reacting with anger and violence, even this messed up world would be a much better place. To quote Rodney King, 'Can't we all just get along?'
• 

  Pacopoolio

  What are you saying "my view" is, exactly, then? I possibly would have ruled the same way as the grand jury with the evidence presented by the prosecutor. So how do they disagree with me?

  And, yes, myself and others posted things related to this specific case, using it as a case example of how police in general are trained in possibly using deadly force too quickly where alternatives would probably be better in the end, the usage of on-person cameras and other similar things to make cases not all based on conflicting testimony, and an overhaul of the current police/legal system in which prosecuters typically avoid taking police to actual court (of which a grand jury is not) when they do shoot a suspect, and police are held to different standards in various ways and generally protected by their own. All perfectly applicable to what transpired there, or the 10 other cases that -I- happened to read about this year where an unarmed suspect (of various races) was killed by the police.
  
  You and others are arguing "I see why he would be shot in that situation, that's how it works," and other people are saying, "well maybe it shouldn't work that way."