Posts by Pacopoolio

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

Pacopoolio

The sentiment of the OJ case around the black people in my area was basically "we're happy that the system worked in favor of a black man for once and we can benefit from the same tehcnicalities as everyone else, there -is- hope," and not necessarily that he was innocent (some did think that, but it was not necessarily a majority or that significant of a number from what I saw). That was from being in a 98% black school at the time and being in an 85% black city at that time and EVERYONE around talking about it. I don't know if this represents overall opinion, but it could be the difference between observing people were happy and assuming they thought he was innocent, as opposed to hearing the actual conversations.

Still an anecdote, but a little more precise and broad than "I know some black people and they said this, so this is what overall opinion was."

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

Pacopoolio

The grand jury is more "is there the chance of a case". Idnictment means "you get to face a court". For them to say "no" is more substantial than a regular court jury although in this case I think the line was blurred more because the regular process was disrupted because of the need for transparency.

Grand juries are typically a mix of "does the prosecutor want to take it to court" mixed with "is there enough evidence to conduct a proper case?"

People are misinterpreting the ruling as if the jurors believed the officer or witness 10's testimony OVER other testimony combined with the evidence, and thus taking a mix of those two testimonies as fact, which is not known. There's a wide range of reasons why they could have felt it was not fitting for court. If I were on the jury, I would have it not go to court because every single claim had serious problems with it, when combined with the evidence, and with all of the conflicts, it would be obviously impossible to prove a definitive narrative in court.

Also, Simon if you look at multiple posts above who are actually posting their interpretation of events as conclusive- that's why people kept posting the actual facts we know about the case, and why I attempted to post the exact known narrative so it could be referenced.

People are again, posting one-sided testimony as if it's proven fact, which it's not. When we are correcting them, we're not saying, "Michael Brown didn't reach for the gun," for instance. We aren't even saying we disagree with that intepretation by default, ourselves. We're saying, "the evidence strictly states that Brown's hand was near the gun when the first shots were fired, which backs up multiple testimonies brought up with multiple different interpretations of events, some making his gun reach in defense, others in offense." "Don't retell certain testimonies as proven fact, as that's not what the grand jury ruling shows or means, and it muddies the water of any discussion by shifting the narrative to favor a "side."" This is specifically not saying the case or ruling is wrong, it's telling people to get their facts right before they post about the event. The people breaking the "rules" in those instances, are not the ones correcting them, but those misunderstanding how the case works. The grand jury does not say the officer's testimony is the true interpretation of events, or even that it's more plausable than others. It's simply saying that the evidence against him as presented is not damining enough to make a proper case. Any statement beyond that is assumption.

I don't see why those corrections would escalate as a default, as they are simple quote/counter/evidence of counter posts that aren't arguing the validity of the case, but showing why you don't make personal interpretations and assumptions beyond what is known evidence. Outside, of course, of reading responses wrongly because of assumed motive, as mentioned earlier.

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

Pacopoolio

I only saw posts from myself and Coded Logic today about the evidence in particular. If there were more, I missed them, and you could be referring to them.

Neither he and I, from what I saw, were posting that the jury's interpretation of the evidence was wrong. We were posting why people on this forum and on various sites interpreting the jury as ruiling him innocent as based on that evidence was incorrect. That's not what a grand jury does, nor what it is focused on. There's a big difference there. Many people interpret a grand jury as working like a court case, or having the same type of judgments, where it does not.

As I stated I'd probably side similar to the grand jury in that case because there simply was too much of a lack of enough definitive evidence against the officer in that instance to have a trial. That doesn't necessarily reflect what I -assume- happened; it just means that by the letter of the law, I don't see a conviction coming out of what that prosecutor was presenting.

As you said, I think the issue is that with hot button topics that involve race, sex, and gender, there's a point where people put assumptions of intent on people they're arguing against, and read that intent into the arguments, devolving them into shouting matches, basically. It's not impossible to hold these discussions, but it's sometimes hard to moderate between them with all of the flinging back and forth.

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

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."

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

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.

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

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."

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

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.

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.

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

Pacopoolio

You keep focusing on "the black community" voting, as far as a solution.

Who or what are they voting for? The political process in America is a corporation run (corporations by and large not run by members of the so-called black community), either/or dichotomy based system distilled to the citizens by mass corporation run media (see above). On top of that, laws and candidates do not properly represent someone's interests in many or even most cases, and it becomes a lesser of two evils thing. Or, you're zoned in a way where you're still a ridiculously large minority. Or, there's a bill written that represents your interests, but has other things tacked on that works against them. Or, the public passes something, but it's overwritten by someone in power. Etc.

What's an instance where poor black people should have voted on something in particular that they did not, in your estimation?

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

Pacopoolio

Focusing on one issue in one instance does not by default mean that you aren't focusing others as well.

Just because someone is protesting against police treatment one day does not mean that they aren't working towards education reform the next. Nor does working towards police reform take anything away from working on improving education in inner cities. It's not an all or nothing situation.

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

Pacopoolio

There isn't a single instance of myself or anyone in any of these threads that said this or anything like it:

Well you were blaming it all on what was shown on TV earlier.

By adding the qualifier "all" into it, you are creating a strawman that no one said.

What was said, by myself, and others, that things like racial presentation in media and other things are factors that contribute to work against people's upward mobility. This is completely different than what is quoted above.

I'm not sure if you're actually interjecting or removing qualifiers into people's posts and arguments when you read them and comprehending them that way, or doing it on purpose in your responses to attempt to create easier things to argue against at this point. This keeps happening.