Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri (Page 47)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  ...  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Pete,

You are saying that if more police resources were allocated to urban areas, the "racial distrust" would disappear?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It may be the core problem, but the mistrust goes both ways. American blacks are more likely to be killed by cops, and cops are more likely to be killed by American blacks. changing the allocation of urban resources to be based on state rather than local, would end the situation where cops are most overworked in high crime high minority areas. This ends the mistrust on both ends. Minorities stop getting summary justice, and cops stop being disproportionately threatened by minorities.
More than just numbers, an effort needs to be made to switch to community oriented policing- where officers are permanently assigned to a given area, with their primary responsibility being to integrate into the community and build trust relationships with the people there. Similarly, prosecutors need to try cases that demonstrate to the community that they will make an earnest effort to hold accountable those that are perceived to have wronged it, even if that means losing cases because the trial shows that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that harm was done (or helps to better bring to light clear evidence that exonerates the actions)

The justice system exists to provide people with a clear trust that public enforcement is being carried out justly and for the benefit of the community it serves, not simply to win as many cases as possible.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... even if that means losing cases because the trial shows that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that harm was done (or helps to better bring to light clear evidence that exonerates the actions)"...

Ah, you have just described the function of a grand jury.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The justice system exists to provide people with a clear trust that public enforcement is being carried out justly and for the benefit of the community it serves... "...

Is the procurement of justice ever separable from a "community benefit"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"... even if that means losing cases because the trial shows that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that harm was done (or helps to better bring to light clear evidence that exonerates the actions)"...

Ah, you have just described the function of a grand jury.

No- a grand jury exists to determine whether there is enough evidence to hold a trial, without regard to whether there is enough evidence to win a trial. If you're going to determine whether a trial can be won, then you're already holding the trial, since the point of the trial is to see if the evidence is sufficient to prove the case.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"The justice system exists to provide people with a clear trust that public enforcement is being carried out justly and for the benefit of the community it serves... "...

Is the procurement of justice ever separable from a "community benefit"?

Misleading question. The fact that we call out system of law enforcement and courts a "Justice System" does not implicitly imply that it procures justice. In fact, the entire point is that by focusing purely on convictions and not trying cases that it doesn't want to win, it is actively failing to procure justice, particularly where the process of demonstrating that it is in fact just requires holding a trial that it knows it can't win for the explicit sake of publicly demonstrating that the evidence does not support the claim at hand, particularly when it comes to active distrust of the enforcement officers who are reporting the evidence.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

There is no such thing as a misleading question... only misleading answers.

Can you answer the question?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Justice is a public benefit. Our current justice system does not reliably provide that benefit due to its biases.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So Pete,

You are saying that if more police resources were allocated to urban areas, the "racial distrust" would disappear?

No. [Big Grin] I don't think that a few more dollars allocated to urban areas would cause a racial kum ba ya.

I'm saying that the if EQUAL or EQUITABLE police resources were allocated to urban areas, that one pernicious source of escalating mutual racial distrust would be eliminated. When I say escalating, I mean that the news, the poverty of police resources, and the concentrated violence and want of the inner cities have created a feedback loop of resentment and mutual fear where police rightly fear minorities and minorities rightly fear police.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It may be the core problem, but the mistrust goes both ways. American blacks are more likely to be killed by cops, and cops are more likely to be killed by American blacks. changing the allocation of urban resources to be based on state rather than local, would end the situation where cops are most overworked in high crime high minority areas. This ends the mistrust on both ends. Minorities stop getting summary justice, and cops stop being disproportionately threatened by minorities.
More than just numbers, an effort needs to be made to switch to community oriented policing- where officers are permanently assigned to a given area, with their primary responsibility being to integrate into the community and build trust relationships with the people there. Similarly, prosecutors need to try cases that demonstrate to the community that they will make an earnest effort to hold accountable those that are perceived to have wronged it, even if that means losing cases because the trial shows that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that harm was done (or helps to better bring to light clear evidence that exonerates the actions)

The justice system exists to provide people with a clear trust that public enforcement is being carried out justly and for the benefit of the community it serves, not simply to win as many cases as possible.

Well said and agreed. This isn't a new idea that we're toting here; best TV show I've seen re community policing is Car 54, from the 1950s
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

"No. [Big Grin] I don't think that a few more dollars allocated to urban areas would cause a racial kum ba ya.

I'm saying that the if EQUAL or EQUITABLE police resources were allocated to urban areas, that one pernicious source of escalating mutual racial distrust would be eliminated. When I say escalating, I mean that the news, the poverty of police resources, and the concentrated violence and want of the inner cities have created a feedback loop of resentment and mutual fear where police rightly fear minorities and minorities rightly fear police. "...

Okay, how big a factor do you believe this one pernicious source is? I appreciate your candor in criticizing the liberal default platitudes, but the more specific your solution, the less efficacious the effort seems to be even by your estimate.

If New York was populated by a community of Amish overnight, I doubt any of the problems manifest over the last two weeks would have culminated in the assination of racial minority officers. Would you feel comfortable in saying that the change in dynamic necessary for a permanent fix rests in the hands of law-abiding blacks? It is really not all that complicated, or nuanced.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Similarly, prosecutors need to try cases that demonstrate to the community that they will make an earnest effort to hold accountable those that are perceived to have wronged it, even if that means losing cases because the trial shows that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that harm was done (or helps to better bring to light clear evidence that exonerates the actions)

You've made this claim repeatedly through out this ridiculously overly large thread.

I'd just like to point out that what you want is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of individual civil rights that exists in this country, and one would expect that someone who is arguing for civil rights would understand that. There can be no amount of acceptable trials for the 'community's benefit' without completely undermining the rights of the individual to equal protection under the law and justice. I think you know this, which is why you spend so many pages trying to divert the debate from Wilson's rights under the law and onto Michael Brown's presumed "innocence" and asserting almost that we have to have a trial else we deem him guilty (when his "guilt" is irrelevant). Michael Brown wasn't "executed" for his crime, as you previously stated, he didn't deserve to die for the crimes he committed. He died because he acted stupidly and aggressively against a police officer, and its very likely he'd had the same result if he was a similarly proportioned white Hell's Angel, or really any body that a police officer would have cause to doubt they could control with less violent means.

Every argument you've made on here rests on the premise that people should be treated as categories not individuals. That is not however, how rights in this country have been understood, or how most people believe them to be construed (at least as a matter of intellectual construction). It seems to be how certain people want them to be constructed down the road.

Whether white privilege exists is immaterial to whether a particular event harms or helps a specific person, and no amount of collective punishment can be justified in a system like ours to address such wrongs by causing specific harms to individuals. Even kindergartners understand that two wrongs don't make a right.
quote:
The justice system exists to provide people with a clear trust that public enforcement is being carried out justly and for the benefit of the community it serves, not simply to win as many cases as possible.
No. The justice system exists to provide justice to individuals and correct and punish the harms those individuals cause. Public trust comes as a result of a well functioning justice system, it is NOT the goal of that system.

The fact that public trust is degraded is a flag that says, look at me, there may be a problem with how things are working. But when we look, we still have to decide if the problem is an unfairness that's real or anger over a "result" that is "wrong". Michael Brown's case is anger over a result, the only way to correct would have been a show trial or worse a conviction that wasn't justified. That's not justice, and it certainly isn't something that rightly calls for correction.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He died because he acted stupidly and aggressively against a police officer
Because a police officer claims he acted stupidly and aggressively, while competing testimony exists that suggests he was active defensively against aggression from the police officer.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The justice system exists to provide justice to individuals and correct and punish the harms those individuals cause.
You seem to be improperly conflating justice and punishment here. The people who have been harmed are the ones that receive justice, one possible way might be through punishment of those that have harmed them. The mentality that justices is all about punishment is part and parcel of the problem- because that attitude only exacerbates harm, rather than looking for the most effective ways to reduce or rectify it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He died because he acted stupidly and aggressively against a police officer...
As far as I can tell, whether one accepts this as the truth follows from prejudice.

At the very least, there is pretty strong evidence that some of the corroboration for Wilson's claims was completely fabricated. I don't think the facts are as clear as to warrant this summary.

Yes, Pyrtolin is wrong about when and how a trial is warranted. But I think the system was biased to protect Wilson in this case, and it's not really clear that a trial would have been unwarranted or a conviction unjust.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if the cops behaved perfectly for the circumstances, chances are that systemic inequities injustices (some based on race, some not) that led to these deaths.

Handing cops over to the mob in some sort of mock trial will not address these inequities. (What the cop did in the Louima case was abhorrent, but he did NOT get competent counsel or a fair trial).

The race-baiting left colludes with the bromide popping right to dupe us into believing their rabble rousing lie that national race issues and social justice hinge on whether individual cops are guilty or not guilty of abuse. Some of the lefty "news"ies are citing the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party to justify campaigns of misinformation and violence to elicit change. While it's true that some colonists used misinformation and violence in conjunction with both of those incidents, for the purpose of achieving independence, the whole notion that either of those two campaigns was pivotal in achieving our independence and nationhood is just one big lie we've told our children.

In actual history (as opposed to the crap we spoonfeed our kids in junior high history class), the British government actually turned over the British soldiers that fired on the rock mob in Massachusetts. The crown wanted to pacify the mob, and was willing to let innocent soldiers take the fall. To our credit, Americans did not take the bait. Some of the Founding Fathers actually represented the soldiers in a Massachusetts court, and an all-American jury found the soldiers NOT guilty, because they had fired in self-defense. As to the guilt of the soldiers, it makes no bloody difference whether their aggressors had legitimate grievances. Self-defense is self-defense, and so shall be so long as America is America.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That trial, of course, did a lot of positive things for Boston. It didn't solve the underlying issues, but it cooled tempers for a while, giving a space during which competent government would have been able to start addressing legitimate grievances.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The race-baiting left colludes with the bromide popping right to dupe us into believing their rabble rousing lie that national race issues and social justice hinge on whether individual cops are guilty or not guilty of abuse.
That is completely made up nonsense. In fact, the point is just the opposite- the system is corrupt enough that all law enforcement operations needs to be viewed with suspicion and subjected to very careful and public analysis until the bad actors can no longer count on reflexive cover from the better elements and trust in the system can reasonably begin to take root. If a cop kills someone, then that action has to be publicly and transparently analyzed by the community. In most places, trials are the only process we have in place that provides such public analysis, and so would be the default option unless other types of citizen review boards and the like can be put in place to provide a more targeted process for providing independent oversight.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As far as I can tell, whether one accepts this as the truth follows from prejudice. "...

No.

"At the very least, there is pretty strong evidence that some of the corroboration for Wilson's claims was completely fabricated. I don't think the facts are as clear as to warrant this summary. "...

How many times is it going to be necessary to post testimony (volume, and page) from three corroborating, and unchallenged witnesses before this class of inane response stops appearing from intellectually lazy lefties?

"Yes, Pyrtolin is wrong about when and how a trial is warranted. But I think the system was biased to protect Wilson in this case, and it's not really clear that a trial would have been unwarranted or a conviction unjust. "...

So, yes... Pyrtolin does not understand our constitutional system of government, but... hang the cop for "community benefit" anyway?

If this thread serves any purpose, it is to illustrate the invincibility of some varieties of ignorance.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
That trial, of course, did a lot of positive things for Boston. It didn't solve the underlying issues, but it cooled tempers for a while, giving a space during which competent government would have been able to start addressing legitimate grievances.

Exactly. Can you explain that to Pyr, and what I said? He doesn't seem to grasp what I am saying. The actual trial was good for Boston, but the false story as propagated in american schools for the last 250 years has left some people dismally misinformed and dull as to political ethics.

d

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The justice system exists to provide justice to individuals and correct and punish the harms those individuals cause.
You seem to be improperly conflating justice and punishment here. The people who have been harmed are the ones that receive justice, one possible way might be through punishment of those that have harmed them. The mentality that justices is all about punishment is part and parcel of the problem- because that attitude only exacerbates harm, rather than looking for the most effective ways to reduce or rectify it.
I highlighted the part of your comment I'd like to address. I'm already aware of your general misunderstanding of the justice system, insofar as you think it's there to make the community feel good, whereas its real purpose is to actually remove most methods of choosing an outcome based on 'what seems like a better result' in favor of an unbiased system that can't be used for political ends on a case by case basis.

But with regard to this comment of yours, you have made an even bigger mistake than you make regarding justice in general. Justice is not designed to only apply to those who are harmed, but rather is meant to require that the law be applied equally to all people, accused or accusing, to protect all involved. I know you want to think that justice is about making people feel protected from the bad guy, but I'm sorry to tell you that if anything it's more about protecting the 'bad guy' from the preconceived ideas of his accusers. Justice just means "equal treatment under the law"; it has zero to do with "the result being good." If the laws are good then the result will be good, and if they're bad then the result may be bad, but justice just means applying whatever the law is equally to everyone.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"As far as I can tell, whether one accepts this as the truth follows from prejudice. "...

No.

There's a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide on which facts seem credible to whom. You're no exception. There are a few moderates who don't think they know the truth of what happened. I happen to be one.

quote:
... hang the cop for "community benefit" anyway?
No, and if you want to be credited with more intellectual work ethic than the people you are insulting, you'll need to avoid this kind of completely unwarranted inference.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifibum,

"There's a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide on which facts seem credible to whom. You're no exception. There are a few moderates who don't think they know the truth of what happened. I happen to be one. "...

This is a paradigmatic example of what I am referring to.

I will repeat; do you need me to cite, once more, volume and page, why remaining uncertain at this stage is evidence of intellectual sloth?

To leap from your self-acknowledged ignorance to this: "But I think the system was biased to protect Wilson in this case, and it's not really clear that a trial would have been unwarranted or a conviction unjust."... goes beyond the hallmark laziness repeatedly parroted on this thread, and enters into an anti-constitutional lynch-mob mentality.

(Noel)- "... hang the cop for 'community benefit' anyway?"

(Scifibum)- "No, and if you want to be credited with more intellectual work ethic than the people you are insulting, you'll need to avoid this kind of completely unwarranted inference."...

Unwarranted? We're the last few posts too distant in your recollection to reconstruct your argument in favor of Pyrtolin's "community justice"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel: Please see your email.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SciFi, I disagree that Noel's inference (other than the arguable hyperbole of hanging) is unwarranted. I thought that Pyr meant something more benign, and he angrily corrected my interpretation. I'm not sure what Pyr means nor am I sure that Pyr knows himself beneath all of his habitual obscurity and ambiguity, but Noel's interpretation cannot at present be ruled out.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I objected to noel's inference about what I meant/wanted. I wasn't responding on behalf of Pyrtolin.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Pete, I objected to noel's inference about what I meant/wanted. I wasn't responding on behalf of Pyrtolin.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Agreed that interpretation doesn't reasonably flow from what you'd said. I'd assumed he was interpreting someone else.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently there is a video floating around the net which shows Michael Brown bearing a senior citizen while the senior lays on the ground and pleads for Mike to stop.

I think this helps us ascertain Brown's character and supports the idea he was a crazed and bloodthirsty thug who would have attacked a police officer.

[ January 03, 2015, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would it be the video referenced in this link?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/shawnspall.asp

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think this helps us ascertain Brown's character and supports the idea he was a crazed and bloodthirsty thug who would have attacked a police officer.
I think it would be nice to fact check rumors before spreading them further and pointing people to the conclusions they should draw from them.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if that video wasn't accurate, which there isn't solid proof that it isn't and it does look like it could be Brown, the forensic evidence was never disproved.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
nd it does look like it could be Brown,
You understand the video does not show Michael Brown, right?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifibum,

"Yes, Pyrtolin is wrong about when and how a trial is warranted. But I think the system was biased to protect Wilson in this case, and it's not really clear that a trial would have been unwarranted or a conviction unjust. "...

- You think the system was biased.

- You think a trail was warranted.

- You think a conviction could be just.

- Finally, as a (self-styled) unprejudiced moderate you do not believe the truth of the matter has yet been made known to you.

The due process clause of the fifth, and fourteenth, amendment has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years.

Under our system of government, a grand jury acquital is the safeguard preventing trial on putatively incriminating facts deemed reasonably doubtful by a jury of peers.

To suggest personal ignorance permits license for community (mob) justice, by going forward with a feel-good trial *is* metaphorically "hanging the cop". Any trial has the element of unexpected outcomes... for this reason they are not held to quell community anger, or improve law enforcement public relations.

The testimony, and physical evidence, supplying reasonable doubt has been in the public forum for quite some time now. If you elect not to avail yourself of it, you ought also to refrain from posturing as above the fray in some sort of middle-ground state of restrained enlightenment.

You can chose to take offense, or look at the facts, but you cannot reasonably do both simultaneously in this case.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the funeral for the two slaughtered police officers, many turn their backs again on DeBlasio/Wilhelm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/nyregion/police-officers-gather-for-the-funeral-of-wenjian-liu-killed-in-an-ambush.html?_r=0

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The due process clause of the fifth, and fourteenth, amendment has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years.
This would be news to 100% of constitutional scholars, unless you so deem yourself, in which case... this would be news to 100% of constitutional scholars less one.

quote:
Under our system of government, a grand jury acquital is the safeguard preventing trial on putatively incriminating facts deemed reasonably doubtful by a jury of peers.
I know this has been pointed out to you numerous times on this very thread, but no: a) a grand jury does not acquit and b) 'reasonable doubt' is not the threshold by which grand juries base their decisions.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DonaldD,

"This would be news to 100% of constitutional scholars, unless you so deem yourself, in which case... this would be news to 100% of constitutional scholars less one. "...

This should be fun. When do you believe the presumption of innocence originated within Western jurisprudence?

"I know this has been pointed out to you numerous times on this very thread, but no: a) a grand jury does not acquit and b) 'reasonable doubt' is not the threshold by which grand juries base their decisions. "...

Unless Holder wants to put his money where his mouth is, and lay a federal civil rights case before a grand jury... this is over with the Ferguson GJ's refusal to issue a true bill. I am mocking those that treat this as denial of justice.You probably pointed out to someone else that grand juries do not "acquit".

You seem to be confused on the "reasonable doubt" issue also. If evidence does not surmount a probable cause threshold, it certainly will not reach the level required for a criminal conviction.

Do you consider yourself a constitutional scholar?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Under our system of government, a grand jury acquital is the safeguard preventing trial on putatively incriminating facts deemed reasonably doubtful by a jury of peers.
You seem to have inserted a number of assumptions about what I want to happen. I don't think due process should be violated. I don't think the grand jury's decision should be disregarded. When I say that I think a trial may have been warranted, I'm saying that I don't think the grand jury's decision was necessarily just or correct - many of the preceding events from how the investigation and reporting of the incident was handled, as well as the prosecutor's evident biases in the case, may have led them to the wrong decision.

I'm not really interested in rehashing anything else, so if you still feel smugly convinced that I'm calling for mob justice, oh well. Your opinion of my opinion isn't of much import.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifibum,

"When I say that I think a trial may have been warranted, I'm saying that I don't think the grand jury's decision was necessarily just or correct - many of the preceding events from how the investigation and reporting of the incident was handled, as well as the prosecutor's evident biases in the case, may have led them to the wrong decision. "...

... Yet you have a complete lack of interest in challenging your own thinly laid evidentiary assumptions.

"I'm not really interested in rehashing anything else, so if you still feel smugly convinced that I'm calling for mob justice, oh well. Your opinion of my opinion isn't of much import. "...

I think you clarified that...

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
DonaldD,
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
The due process clause of the fifth, and fourteenth, amendment has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years.

This would be news to 100% of constitutional scholars, unless you so deem yourself, in which case... this would be news to 100% of constitutional scholars less one. "...
This should be fun. When do you believe the presumption of innocence originated within Western jurisprudence?
When exactly do you think the 5th and 14th amendments were ratified or even just authored?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When exactly do you think the 5th and 14th amendments were ratified or even just authored? "...

You are a Canadian, correct? I will grant that you could be somewhat back-woods, but are you under the impression Americans invented the concept of due process in 1789?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  ...  53  54  55   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1