NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 And that's fucking stupid, like when people use the word theory to mean guess and you have people talking about how evolution is "just a theory". Common usage doesn't mean it's good usage. "Legal usage" doesn't necessarily means it's good usage either. This is not a matter of people using a term correctly or incorrectly. The issue is that a person's standard for accepting whether something actually happened differs depending on context. Even in a legal setting we have different standards - preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Did OJ kill his wife? Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt but held to be responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. What does that mean for the average person? Not a hell of a lot, because most people don't make these decisions in a legal context. All of us are tasked with making decisions about whether something happened or not on a daily basis without the benefit of formal discovery and cross-examination, and somehow we manage to do just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Definitely the latter. They deny the obvious proof and excuse it because Brown wasn't charged and convicted. By their own logic, wouldn't Wilson also be considered innocent? Uh oh... No, its also that in this case, we don't know that the cop knew about the alleged robbery when he stopped Brown. In which case it couldn't possibly inform his.actions when he allegedly murdered Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Definitely the latter. They deny the obvious proof and excuse it because Brown wasn't charged and convicted. By their own logic, wouldn't Wilson also be considered innocent? Uh oh... This is all a distraction from the fact that whatever Brown did before he was killed by Wilson, it's not justification for shooting him in the street. So why keep banging on this topic? Because you feel that strong-arming a clerk and stealing a pack of blunts is justification for execution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Definitely the latter. They deny the obvious proof and excuse it because Brown wasn't charged and convicted. By their own logic, wouldn't Wilson also be considered innocent? Uh oh... But that would be a contradiction or hypocrisy. And that never happens here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Definitely the latter. They deny the obvious proof and excuse it because Brown wasn't charged and convicted. By their own logic, wouldn't Wilson also be considered innocent? Uh oh... Difference being Wilson gets his day in court... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 "Legal usage" doesn't necessarily means it's good usage either. This is not a matter of people using a term correctly or incorrectly. The issue is that a person's standard for accepting whether something actually happened differs depending on context. Even in a legal setting we have different standards - preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Did OJ kill his wife? Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt but held to be responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. What does that mean for the average person? Not a hell of a lot, because most people don't make these decisions in a legal context. All of us are tasked with making decisions about whether something happened or not on a daily basis without the benefit of formal discovery and cross-examination, and somehow we manage to do just fine. I thought prominent legal opinion was that the OJ criminal trial effectivelt legalized murder in CA.Ok I got that from SNL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 In this case where there is video proof of the "suspect" committing the crime yes. In 99.999999999% of all other cases, no. But go ahead and play your "what if" games. What if we had a situation where people like you look at the video evidence and conclude he was obviously guilty, and other people watch the video and do not so conclude, and so maybe that's all that video is - evidence, not proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Difference being Wilson gets his day in court... After failing to file an incident report and getting to tailor his testimony to the evidence gathered by the rest of his department. Nice work if you can get it: having power of life and death over others, with minimal oversight and a department who will back you up even when you killed an unarmed teenager in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 No, its also that in this case, we don't know that the cop knew about the alleged robbery when he stopped Brown. In which case it couldn't possibly inform his.actions when he allegedly murdered Brown. Since you answered the only question asked that means that you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. And from what I have read online Wilson did not know that Brown had just committed a robbery. Strong arm or otherwise. Again from what I have read all Wilson knew was that Brown was walking down the middle of the street when he confronted Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 What if we had a situation where people like you look at the video evidence and conclude he was obviously guilty, and other people watch the video and do not so conclude, and so maybe that's all that video is - evidence, not proof? And people here call me a troll. smh. And I fell for it. I'm now smh at myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 I think if any anger should be directed, it should be towards the media for creating this gentle giant narrative. Immediately, the Ferguson PD was under fire because of this bs. I think the video of Brown stealing was released to show that the narrative was not even close to the truth. It definitely says something about the character of Brown.There was anger and protests before the media created any narrative. People aren't angry because he was a "gentle giant", people are angry because black men are killed extrajudicially quite frequently in this country and usually nothing happens to the cop, even if the person dies and was unarmed. People are angry because this is a form of modern day lynching that allows cops to kill black people with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 What if we had a situation where people like you look at the video evidence and conclude he was obviously guilty, and other people watch the video and do not so conclude, and so maybe that's all that video is - evidence, not proof? Was just about to say this. I haven't studied the video closely, only watched it when it was released. It's not at all clear to me what happened at the store and there are a lot more questions than answers. Did Brown try to pay and the clerk wouldn't take his money because Brown lacked a necessary ID for tobacco products? Did Brown leave cash on the counter? Why did the clerk place his hands on Brown? Was Brown's response to this appropriate or criminal (Brown pushing the Clerk away)? Why did a store clerk feel so unthreatened by Brown (the man placed his hands on Brown and followed him out of the store twice) and yet an armed and trained police officer was so threatened that he shot him multiple times? So yeah, simply watching the video isn't any sort of proof to claim Michael Brown committed a crime here. Not that his actions at a convenience store has bearing on an officer gunning him down several minutes later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.