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

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.

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

Simon,

So, since you agree that much is about wealth and inequality, and that most people will stay in their class range, and that America is bad when it comes to supporting the lower classes in various ways to the point where it becomes ridiculously hard to get out...

...why were you arguing so vehemently against people who were explaining to other people that the relative high percentages of African Americans who are in poverty now, is because historical factors outside of their control forced large percentages of the race into poverty years ago?

Does the past matter or not?

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

Here's another article on the subject, that cites more research:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Relevant quotes:

"At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes."

"Even by measures of relative mobility, Middle America remains fluid. About 36 percent of Americans raised in the middle fifth move up as adults, while 23 percent stay on the same rung and 41 percent move down, according to Pew research. The “stickiness” appears at the top and bottom, as affluent families transmit their advantages and poor families stay trapped."

"The United States maintains a thinner safety net than other rich countries, leaving more children vulnerable to debilitating hardships.

Poor Americans are also more likely than foreign peers to grow up with single mothers. That places them at an elevated risk of experiencing poverty and related problems, a point frequently made by Mr. Santorum, who surged into contention in the Iowa caucuses. The United States also has uniquely high incarceration rates, and a longer history of racial stratification than its peers."

---------------

In other words, black people are only worse in total percentages as compared to race because more black people started off poorer than other races in the first place. They still basically follow the horrible mobility rates of America in general, which is particularly horrible when it comes to poor people escaping poverty. Blaming the issues on some internal community because of some quotes from people on television is basically missing the mountain for the molehill.