TrueMetis Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Is the accused not presumed innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt? They don't say innocent because they weren't deciding whether he was innocent. Doesn't mean he isn't presumed to be innocent. Being presumed innocent doesn't mean you are innocent. After all there have been cases of people not being found guilty of a crime than latter either evidence proving it beyond a reasonable doubt coming up or them admitting to it. Are those people innocent? Fuck no. Because there was no crime to judge innocence or guilt Al Capone was never charged with anything other than tax fraud, they couldn't find evidence of anything else. Are you gonna argue that he didn't commit any other crime? Just because you have not found evidence of a crime, doesn't mean the crime didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 No. I refuse to be the one who stricks the match that sets fire to your straw man. Well, that was specifically for shryke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Being presumed innocent doesn't mean you are innocent. After all there have been cases of people not being found guilty of a crime than latter either evidence proving it beyond a reasonable doubt coming up or them admitting to it. Are those people innocent? Fuck no. Al Capone was never charged with anything other than tax fraud, they couldn't find evidence of anything else. Are you gonna argue that he didn't commit any other crime? Just because you have not found evidence of a crime, doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.What I'm arguing is that 12 people listened to the evidence and testimony. Evidence and testimony that you nor I know anything about, and decided that Wilson's actions were justified. Which means no crime was committed. You're trying to spin this into something is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yeah, but there were witnesses. Black witnesses that corroborated Wilson's version of events. So...I'm sorry I think you confused ridiculing your argument for engaging with it. Whether a crime was committed or not is not definitively determined by the outcome of a flawed (at best) legal system.And there would need to be some pretty fucking compelling evidence to make me think it shouldn't even go to trial which is what it would take to make me think this Grand Jury wasn't a corrupt farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 What I'm arguing is that 12 people listened to the evidence and testimony. Evidence and testimony that you nor I know anything about, and decided that Wilson's actions were justified. Which means no crime was committed. You're trying to spin this into something is not. I'm not trying to spin it into anything, the juror's found that there wasn't enough evidence to go forward with an indictment. That is in no way saying that same thing as no crime was committed. You're the one saying by not indicting someone that they are saying that no crime was committed, the logic that would make someone say that Al Capone wasn't a mob boss and drug lord. What you (and gears) seem to be forgetting is the justice system is heavily flawed, which makes it fall in favour of letting the guilty go under the justification that it's better to let the guilty free than imprison the innocent. (that it still does imprison the innocent is a testament to just how bad things still are) ETA: Probably cause for those who don't know "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". That's what the jury is looking for, no were are they saying whether or not a crime was committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'm sorry I think you confused ridiculing your argument for engaging with it. Whether a crime was committed or not is not definitively determined by the outcome of a flawed (at best) legal system.And there would need to be some pretty fucking compelling evidence to make me think it shouldn't even go to trial which is what it would take to make me think this Grand Jury wasn't a corrupt farce.Technically, it is. The jury wasn't determining guilt or innocence. Only if a crime was committed and if a criminal trial would be necessary. What, in your opinion, was flawed about the system? Specifically the grand jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'm not trying to spin it into anything, the juror's found that there wasn't enough evidence to go forward with an indictment. That is in no way saying that same thing as no crime was committed. You're the one saying by not indicting someone that they are saying that no crime was committed, the logic that would make someone say that Al Capone wasn't a mob boss and drug lord. What you (and gears) seem to be forgetting is the justice system is heavily flawed, which makes it fall in favour of letting the guilty go under the justification that it's better to let the guilty free than imprison the innocent. (that it still does imprison the innocent is a testament to just how bad things still are) ETA: Probably cause for those who don't know "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". That's what the jury is looking for, no were are they saying whether or not a crime was committed.Probable cause for what? A criminal trial. If probable cause was absent, how was crime present? "What you (and gears) seem to be forgetting is the justice system is heavily flawed, which makes it fall in favour of letting the guilty go under the justification that it's better to let the guilty free than imprison the innocent. (that it still does imprison the innocent is a testament to just how bad things still are)"This seems to be in conflict with you and other posters thoughts on institutional racism. Kind of hypocritical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I said the whole system is flawed, because it can't perfectly determine the truth and because its influenced by the prejudiced society its a part of.The Grand Jury I'd start with the Prosecutor having familial ties to the PD for a start, someone without at minimum the appearance of a conflict of interest should have been the prosecutor. A racial break down not representative of the area also strikes me as an issue in a case where racism is good to feature prominently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Being presumed innocent doesn't mean you are innocent. After all there have been cases of people not being found guilty of a crime than latter either evidence proving it beyond a reasonable doubt coming up or them admitting to it. Are those people innocent? Fuck no. Right, we don't know that he is innocent because that hasn't been determined. The default position is that he is innocent until it can be demonstrated otherwise because the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion. He could have actually committed the crime but that has to be demonstrated. To give an analogy: I'm an atheist, it has not been demonstrated that no god exists so it's possible that a god does in fact exist and if that is demonstrated my position will change. However, the default position is that no god exists until the one making the assertion can demonstrate otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I said the whole system is flawed, because it can't perfectly determine the truth and because its influenced by the prejudiced society its a part of.The Grand Jury I'd start with the Prosecutor having familial ties to the PD for a start, someone without at minimum the appearance of a conflict of interest should have been the prosecutor. A racial break down not representative of the area also strikes me as an issue in a case where racism is good to feature prominently.You mean twelve protestors? That doesn't sound like blind justice. I honestly don't see how they found twelve jurors in the first place. I definitely see your point about the prosecutor, though. But it really comes down to the jurors. They decided the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Probable cause for what? A criminal trial. If probable cause was absent, how was crime present? Fine you know what I'll agree that because there was no indictment there was no crime, but in the future I expect to see you defending Capone against those slanderous accusations that he was a drug lord. "What you (and gears) seem to be forgetting is the justice system is heavily flawed, which makes it fall in favour of letting the guilty go under the justification that it's better to let the guilty free than imprison the innocent. (that it still does imprison the innocent is a testament to just how bad things still are)"This seems to be in conflict with you and other posters thoughts on institutional racism. Kind of hypocritical No it's not, I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion... Right, we don't know that he is innocent because that hasn't been determined. The default position is that he is innocent until it can be demonstrated otherwise because the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion. He could have actually committed the crime but that has to be demonstrated. To give an analogy: I'm an atheist, it has not been demonstrated that no god exists so it's possible that a god does in fact exist and if that is demonstrated my position will change. However, the default position is that no god exists until the one making the assertion can demonstrate otherwise. If that was true than they would say innocent when not enough evidence was found to prove guilt. There's a reason we use not guilty rather than innocent, to continue you're analogy there's a difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god". Innocent is the former, guilty is the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I feel like the people that really care for Michael Brown are at home mourning. The people that just want to destroy stuff are out doing it. I still don't understand how burning businesses and cars in your neighborhood helps anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 What's this criminal charge from the DOJ I keep hearing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You mean twelve protestors? That doesn't sound like blind justice. I honestly don't see how they found twelve jurors in the first place. I definitely see your point about the prosecutor, though. But it really comes down to the jurors. They decided the verdict.1) 7 black people to 5 white people would have been more representative of the area from what I understand. But I'm sure only white people can be reasonable in this, presumably unbiased?2) You don't think prosecutors can make a case seem weaker than it actually is if they have motivation to do so?Loving the "people who cared about him wouldn't be out protesting his killing", next you'll be saying MLK would be appalled (wouldn't be the first place I've seen it today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 What's this criminal charge from the DOJ I keep hearing about? I don't know. What is this charge you keep hearing about? There's an investigation, launched back in September, which is separate from the DoJ investigation into the shooting itself. If it's not one of those things, you're going to have to provide a little more detail than 'that thing I hear'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yeah I have no clue about the DOJ. They were speaking earlier and mentioned a civil suit was probably and possible a charge from the DOJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If that was true than they would say innocent when not enough evidence was found to prove guilt. There's a reason we use not guilty rather than innocent, to continue you're analogy there's a difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god". Innocent is the former, guilty is the latter. No! That's not true at all. They wouldn't say that because they aren't determining innocence, they are determining guilt. Which part of what I said do you actually think is not true? Because, the fact that the default position is innocence does not mean they will determine innocence in a trial, your logic does not follow at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I don't know. What is this charge you keep hearing about?There's an investigation, launched back in September, is separate from the DoJ investigation into the shooting itself.If it's not one of those things, you're going to have to provide a little more detail than 'that thing I hear'.Yeah that's it. A civil rights charge. What is that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Snow Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I get your point TrueMetis, but I don't think Capone sold drugs. His main rackets were alcohol, prostitution, and gambling. I'm pretty sure the Chicago Outfit intentionally stayed away from drugs under the "Vito Corleone policy". Their politicians, cops, and judges on their payroll were okay with "harmless vices" like hookers, booze, and gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If these protestors are legit, why cover the face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.