Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

[JoeMorgue]

It's the "If there's 100 speeders on the road, 25 black and 75 white, and the cops only pull over the black speeders and none of the white speeders it's not racism because well they were speeding, do you deny they were speeding, let's talk about how they were speeding and refuse to discuss any other context" form of racism.

As you say either laughable doing a terrible job of hiding it racism or really bad math skills.

 

[Darat]

It's the "If there's 100 speeders on the road, 25 black and 75 white, and the cops only pull over the black speeders and none of the white speeders it's not racism because well they were speeding, do you deny they were speeding, let's talk about how they were speeding and refuse to discuss any other context" form of racism.

As you say either laughable doing a terrible job of hiding it racism or really bad math skills.

Going to call you out on that out.


False dichotomy!

 

[plague311]

Caught the ass end of opening statements. Seems the prosecution had a bit of an issue staying on point.

 

[plague311]

Wow, already asking for a mistrial. I didn't hear what the prosecutor said, but she apparently overstepped the bounds quite a bit.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wow, already asking for a mistrial. I didn't hear what the prosecutor said, but she apparently overstepped the bounds quite a bit.

Maybe I've watched too much law and order, but I am shocked by how routine it is for prosecutors to be bad at their jobs.

 

[Thermal]

It's the "If there's 100 speeders on the road, 25 black and 75 white, and the cops only pull over the black speeders and none of the white speeders it's not racism because well they were speeding, do you deny they were speeding, let's talk about how they were speeding and refuse to discuss any other context" form of racism.

As you say either laughable doing a terrible job of hiding it racism or really bad math skills.

And that's what you need to show. A pattern. One cop with a one-off interaction in Albuquerque, comparing with another cop with a one-off interaction in NYC five years later is not establishing a pattern. Police are no more a monolithic group than black people, or white people, or line cooks or any other group.

What would be meaningful is to show exactly what you claim: individuals following a pattern. When we have a story about accused racists, that's what I want to see, the accused's prior interactions with black people. Is this following a pattern?

When a white woman won't let a black man bypass a security checkpoint, and it turns out she is freaking married to a black man, I'm going to lean towards "probably not a Klanswoman. Probably a city dweller suspicious of anyone trying to duck a security swipe". Because being married to a black man does not fit the pattern.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And that's what you need to show. A pattern. One cop with a one-off interaction in Albuquerque, comparing with another cop with a one-off interaction in NYC five years later is not establishing a pattern. Police are no more a monolithic group than black people, or white people, or line cooks or any other group.

What would be meaningful is to show exactly what you claim: individuals following a pattern. When we have a story about accused racists, that's what I want to see, the accused's prior interactions with black people. Is this following a pattern?

When a white woman won't let a black man bypass a security checkpoint, and it turns out she is freaking married to a black man, I'm going to lean towards "probably not a Klanswoman. Probably a city dweller suspicious of anyone trying to duck a security swipe". Because being married to a black man does not fit the pattern.

It's not like the world's largest police force ever adopted an explicit policy of harrassing black and brown people who lived in poor neighborhoods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Prove it's racism!"
"Is there literally any level of proof that will satisfy you?"
"LOL no."

Just like I said. Any, literally any, level of plausible deniability is enough for the apologist to declare racism "a strawman hyperbolic overreaction virtue signaling"

If your opinion is that you can take 11 of 12 potential black jurors out of a jury pool and a racism motivation still has to be proved, you are not worth talking to.

 

[Thermal]

It's not like the world's largest police force ever adopted an explicit policy of harrassing black and brown people who lived in poor neighborhoods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

Exactly. Here, you can show a clear, wide pattern with this group of police. So when an Eric Garner gets killed, the needle can fairly be tipped hard in that direction. you could argue it, of course. You could say crime is exponentially higher in these neighborhoods, so police are more suspicious of the population. They may even be familiar with the "random" individuals they are stopping. But at least you have a solid pattern to fall on to have that presumption of guilt.

My argument, as always, is that this presumption does not fairly apply to all cops across the continent, and decades. It doesn't demonstrate ACAB.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And that's what you need to show. A pattern.

When a system inevitably permits a lawyer to stack a jury in favour of one, and only one, ethnicity, as here, then the system discriminates in favour of that ethnicity. The arithmetic itself demonstrates the bias.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

11 out of 12 isn't "a pattern?" In what cuckoo world?

 

[Thermal]

"Prove it's racism!"
"Is there literally any level of proof that will satisfy you?"
"LOL no."

Just like I said. Any, literally any, level of plausible deniability is enough for the apologist to declare racism "a strawman hyperbolic overreaction virtue signaling"

If your opinion is that you can take 11 of 12 potential black jurors out of a jury pool and a racism motivation still has to be proved, you are not worth talking to.

Not sure if this is addressed to anyone, but I'm agreeing with you. 11 of 12 is a damn clear pattern. Confederate flags on the truck of a murderer is a damn clear pattern of racist background. That's why there is no argument about racism, here. It's crystal clear.

The DA still needs to go down hard for this one. She's getting swept under the rug.

 

[Warp12]

"Prove it's racism!"
"Is there literally any level of proof that will satisfy you?"
"LOL no."

Just like I said. Any, literally any, level of plausible deniability is enough for the apologist to declare racism "a strawman hyperbolic overreaction virtue signaling"

The way it works around here is that even with zero evidence, the burden is always to prove that racism wasn't involved. Fortunately that is not how the justice system works. Normally evidence and that sort of thing are required when dealing with accusation.

This trial, and others, would play out a lot differently under ISF rules, no doubt. They would be starting off with a presumption of guilt.

 

[Warp12]

Not sure if this is addressed to anyone, but I'm agreeing with you. 11 of 12 is a damn clear pattern. Confederate flags on the truck of a murderer is a damn clear pattern of racist background. That's why there is no argument about racism, here. It's crystal clear.

The DA still needs to go down hard for this one. She's getting swept under the rug.

Was the jury selection result because of blatant racism, or smart strategy by the defense? They aren't supposed to try to lose the case for their clients. As I have said, the prosecution would be wetting their pants in joy if they could have wrangled an all-black jury.

 

[Thermal]

Was the jury selection result because of blatant racism, or smart strategy by the defense? They aren't supposed to try to lose the case for their clients. As I have said, the prosecution would be wetting their pants in joy if they could have wrangled an all-black jury.

Well, it would be a racism-based strategy, if a practically effective one. I talked to my freshly-Barred NJ lawyer kid about this. She agreed- perfectly legal but transparently reprehensible. Skin color shouldn't factor in when selecting an impartial jury if your case is in the right.

 

[Warp12]

Skin color shouldn't factor in when selecting an impartial jury if your case is in the right.

Skin color shouldn't matter...in a perfect world.

But, this isn't a perfect world. The implication is something like, "With a good case, no matter how biased the jury, it shouldn't matter." That is just not reality.

I bet if the jurors were split 50/50 in race, or even predominantly black, nobody here would be complaining about the demographics of the county as compared to the jury composition. That is because most are already operating under a presumption of guilt.

 

[Suddenly]

Maybe I've watched too much law and order, but I am shocked by how routine it is for prosecutors to be bad at their jobs.

It is like that in a lot of places because they get away with crappy work as some judges will bail them out whenever possible. Plus sometimes every case pleads out and they can go years without being in front of a jury. When they do try something all too often the case is so open and shut that they literally can't screw it up.

When they wind up doing a case with eyeballs on it and/or against a team of well bankrolled lawyers rather than some public defender it can get messy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It is like that in a lot of places because they get away with crappy work as some judges will bail them out whenever possible. Plus sometimes every case pleads out and they can go years without being in front of a jury. When they do try something all too often the case is so open and shut that they literally can't screw it up.

When they wind up doing a case with eyeballs on it and/or against a team of well bankrolled lawyers rather than some public defender it can get messy.

You're probably right, our system is so stacked for the prosecution, it's making them soft. When they actually have to run a trial they're tripping over their own dick left and right.

What an easy gig. Throw the accused in jail pretrial and watch as their life falls apart, stack up a bunch of charges to scare the bejesus out of them, offer a lesser sentence in a plea bargain, and have judge rubber stamp it. 8hrs a day just cranking the plea bargain machine.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So apparently the prosecution just isn't allowed to mention the fact that there was a huge gap in time between the incident and the arrest.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So apparently the prosecution just isn't allowed to mention the fact that there was a huge gap in time between the incident and the arrest.

To be fair, the fact that the local cops and DA conspired to cover up a lynching speaks very poorly for them, but doesn't really have much to do with the question of the three killers' culpability.