This reminds me of something that came out just after 9/11.
If a Christian burned down a synagogue, Christian leaders would come on tv and say “That’s not real Christianity.” If a Jewish person blew up a mosque, Jewish leaders would come on tv and say “That’s not real Judaism.” If a Buddhist group destroyed a Hindu temple, Buddhist leaders would come on tv and say “That’s not real Buddhism.” But if a Muslim group committed terrorism, Muslim leaders would come on tv and say…”Well, you’ve got to understand their political position.”
How would you suggest we handle trials, if we don't have juries? The judge, the lawyers, and an AI? I mean, with juries you get twelve people who don't have jobs, or want to miss work, or are devoted citizens.
I read this and found it troubling. And then got to the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd section and realized the authors are either liars or completely ignorant.
There is no doubt that George Floyd died because of the officers kneeling on his neck, back, and legs, not from an overdose:
The fact that the authors of this piece are trying to convince you otherwise utterly undermines their credibility. And it's a shame because the authors may well have identified a problem worth worrying about. But they are so clearly untrustworthy that it's not worth engaging with them.
If his 'struggling' caused his death, it was his own fault. Why blame the 'restraint' when he was asked multiple times to stop. He was an imbecile made even more stupid by drugs.
I watched the Floyd documentary. You can come with the conclusion he died of the overdose but having a struggling person forcibly restrained when pleading for help, even if the medical condition was self inflicted, I believe that cannot be successfully defended.
I’m also old enough to remember the OJ case. I do think he was guilty but Johnny Cochrane and the defence team were technically formidable. In a system where you only have to succeed in injecting reasonable doubt, I can see why some jurors acquit more rich defendants (who can hire a team of aggressively competent lawyers) irrespective of race. Maybe you should look into this too
As for the statistical effect measures, as you say neither crossed the deterministic threshold. Comparing one as 15 times the other is technically true but interpretatively an overstatement
As for the anecdotal evidence you surely know this is is little value
If his 'struggling' caused his death, it was his own fault. Why blame the 'restraint' when he was asked multiple times to stop. He was an imbecile made even more stupid by drugs.
You watched a piece of propaganda carefully constructed to get you to think that the problem was the police response and not the response of the counterfeit-bill-passing drug addict. The simple fact is that Floyd killed himself by being a belligerent American Negro. Go look at the timeline. Medical assistance was requested right way when he claimed he could not 'breef'. He died because he was a drug addict. Eventually, police are going to 'no go' different neighborhoods and Arab store owners are going to have to deal with the Ineffable Darkie all on their own. Derek Chauvin was punished because he was White even though he was a race-mixing piece of trash. It just goes to show anyone willing to *see* that no amount of race-mixing immunizes a White person from Darkie Vengeance.
Forget the neck compression part, that itself can trigger a cardiac arrest in the fittest least drugged least “belligerent” least “Negro” person you can think of…
if that officer of the law merely stood there completely hands off knees off while the man was collapsing for whatever reason, the cop incurs a guilt of neglect for failing his duty of care
Maybe that’s a duty of civil society that your counter propaganda was too obtuse to explain to you. Shop around for propaganda that works because the case was settled for a huge sum
That is enough to change behaviour. your opinion needs to catch up
I'm not necessarily convinced of the "the nonwhites can't be trusted" part of your argument--I'd need a lot more data, and also an actual debate requires two sides of the case, not just one, with a common discovery process to assess statistical findings, including a more complete breakdown of the particular offenses being tried than you've supplied. I'm certainly not going to be persuaded by your introducing a handful of hot-button cases under a media spotlight. The notion that one reaction photo to the OJ verdict--by a group of TV viewers, not a jury--provides evidence to support your contention is absurd. The rhetorical editorializing you've appended to the picture does nothing to bolster your credibility on that score.
Your use of a selected handful of anecdotal cases to support your claims is already spurious. Leading off with the OJ Simpson acquittal is especially gratuitous. If we're going to extend the window of scrutiny of jury verdicts across a 30-year time span, there's no end to it. My recollection of the OJ Simpson media spectacle is that my entire society was suffering an episode of mass insanity--beginning with the "Bronco chase" non-event that somehow held most of the country spellbound. But then, I had banished the superficiality and conditioning influence of television from my house at least a dozen years earlier. I don't know what the nationwide audience ratings were for the Bronco chase. I do recall that on Friday afternoon, the downtown streets of Sacramento were vacant. I walked past a bar packed with people riveted to a TV screen showing the bathetic spectacle of a bunch of LAPD cars and the Bronco going 15 miles an hour with Al Cowlings at the wheel and OJ playing to the gallery with a gun to his head, and I thought everyone watching had lost their minds.
I'm just telling it like it is. I learned a lot from that day and the tediously drawn-out from the OJ trial, but they weren't about American race relations. They were about the Society of the Spectacle, Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Really, as if the case was going to be decided by a plebiscite of the TV audience for the trial, rather than the impaneled jury.
But, hey, what else was the American public going to do with all those months of being riveted to the TV set--ponder the inter-generational implications of the recent escalation of the American Drug War?
As for myself, I admit to harboring some doubt as to whether OJ did it; not only was there some indication of the police outsmarting themselves in regard to some tampering with material evidence, I've also read the books Missing Time by Donald Freed, and OJ Simpson Is Innocent And I Can Prove It by William C. Dear. The books bring up some intriguing details supporting a possible alternative narrative of the events immediately before and after the murder was committed. And contrary to the misleading title of his book, William Dear actually does not exculpate OJ from participating in the murder. He merely claims that OJ didn't do the cutting. Freed's book doesn't claim to exonerate Simpson from active involvement in the murder, either. He simply presents an account of events that contradicts the one presented by the prosecutors.
On the offhand chance that those still reading might harbor some curiousity about my own ethnic ancestry: I'm a WASP. Native US-born.
It's worth noting that Alan Dershowitz stated at the time of the verdict that even if Simpson had been found guilty, in his opinion there was reversible error.
So maybe not guilty verdict in the OJ case wasn't the example of Racial Jury Nullification that you're inferring.
With that digression out of the way, I've long held the position that it's a bad policy to require a unanimous verdict from 12 jurors. 10 or 11 votes should be considered sufficient for a verdict.
I'm also increasingly inclined to agree with the UK position on the "right to remain silent"--that a defendant can remain silent under questioning, but in the case of at least some criminal offenses, their silence can be used by the prosecution as evidence of their culpability. In the US the 5th Amendment would need to be modified in order for that position to be adopted.
Anyone still reading? I can't help thinking I've introduced too much torque into my commentary here.
The jury has yet to be impaneled, of course, much less delivering a verdict. Karmelo Anthony's case may not even go to a jury trial. Given those facts, its relevance to the topic at hand is questionable. Imbuing it with special importance to a discussion about jury decisions is more like a trace in the wiring of logical circuitry, so to speak. The discussion calls out for more perspicacity than that.
I do get that it's a Poster Child case, made for Internet media broadcast coast to coast nationwide--what am I saying? around the world. The sort of series-of-one incident that axe-grinders from all over get to politically exploit/cash in on as if it was emblematic of...you name it. Whatever they feel like finding in it, given the Magic of Social Media. To quote Ashton Kutcher's hand-waving summation from the 2022 film Vengeance, by B. J. Novak: "Once everything can mean everything, nothing means anything." Best American film of the last 25 years, and I've seen most of the movies that people mention in their top ten lists. Everyone should see Vengeance 2022. It speaks to our times.
"I think ‘White Supremacy’ if [sic] fine for White people. Don’t you?"
@Hamburger Today , Racial Supremacy is a game for insecure individuals who insist on the paramount importance of their birth status group membership in order to mask their personal deficiencies and make up for their own lack of personal achievements. Demanding advantages--or Supremacy--based on birth status spares such people the effort required to build their own track record of personal accomplishments and improvement on an individual basis. A handy cop-out excuse. Vanity. Which is merely pathetic, until it turns into a political agenda of deception and coercion.
This reminds me of something that came out just after 9/11.
If a Christian burned down a synagogue, Christian leaders would come on tv and say “That’s not real Christianity.” If a Jewish person blew up a mosque, Jewish leaders would come on tv and say “That’s not real Judaism.” If a Buddhist group destroyed a Hindu temple, Buddhist leaders would come on tv and say “That’s not real Buddhism.” But if a Muslim group committed terrorism, Muslim leaders would come on tv and say…”Well, you’ve got to understand their political position.”
And then Bush let in far more Muslim migrants anyway. The intentional destruction to which America has been subjected is truly insane
Anyone who watched the OJ trial has understood this reality since then. Anyone who doubts it is simply not very bright or outright lying.
Agreed. I’ve heard the same thing from many trial lawyers since this article came out
The solution is obvious: Jury nullification by Whites coupled with vigilantism by Whites.
Forget about justice. What's needed is 'hands-on order' by Whites.
How would you suggest we handle trials, if we don't have juries? The judge, the lawyers, and an AI? I mean, with juries you get twelve people who don't have jobs, or want to miss work, or are devoted citizens.
I’m not sure. Judges increasingly have the same problem and AI is notoriously anti-white
I read this and found it troubling. And then got to the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd section and realized the authors are either liars or completely ignorant.
There is no doubt that George Floyd died because of the officers kneeling on his neck, back, and legs, not from an overdose:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyds-death-response-to-comments
The fact that the authors of this piece are trying to convince you otherwise utterly undermines their credibility. And it's a shame because the authors may well have identified a problem worth worrying about. But they are so clearly untrustworthy that it's not worth engaging with them.
If his 'struggling' caused his death, it was his own fault. Why blame the 'restraint' when he was asked multiple times to stop. He was an imbecile made even more stupid by drugs.
I watched the Floyd documentary. You can come with the conclusion he died of the overdose but having a struggling person forcibly restrained when pleading for help, even if the medical condition was self inflicted, I believe that cannot be successfully defended.
I’m also old enough to remember the OJ case. I do think he was guilty but Johnny Cochrane and the defence team were technically formidable. In a system where you only have to succeed in injecting reasonable doubt, I can see why some jurors acquit more rich defendants (who can hire a team of aggressively competent lawyers) irrespective of race. Maybe you should look into this too
As for the statistical effect measures, as you say neither crossed the deterministic threshold. Comparing one as 15 times the other is technically true but interpretatively an overstatement
As for the anecdotal evidence you surely know this is is little value
If his 'struggling' caused his death, it was his own fault. Why blame the 'restraint' when he was asked multiple times to stop. He was an imbecile made even more stupid by drugs.
Rightful custody is one thing. Wilfull neglect of someone in need of assistance is another
You watched a piece of propaganda carefully constructed to get you to think that the problem was the police response and not the response of the counterfeit-bill-passing drug addict. The simple fact is that Floyd killed himself by being a belligerent American Negro. Go look at the timeline. Medical assistance was requested right way when he claimed he could not 'breef'. He died because he was a drug addict. Eventually, police are going to 'no go' different neighborhoods and Arab store owners are going to have to deal with the Ineffable Darkie all on their own. Derek Chauvin was punished because he was White even though he was a race-mixing piece of trash. It just goes to show anyone willing to *see* that no amount of race-mixing immunizes a White person from Darkie Vengeance.
Forget the neck compression part, that itself can trigger a cardiac arrest in the fittest least drugged least “belligerent” least “Negro” person you can think of…
if that officer of the law merely stood there completely hands off knees off while the man was collapsing for whatever reason, the cop incurs a guilt of neglect for failing his duty of care
Maybe that’s a duty of civil society that your counter propaganda was too obtuse to explain to you. Shop around for propaganda that works because the case was settled for a huge sum
That is enough to change behaviour. your opinion needs to catch up
I'm not necessarily convinced of the "the nonwhites can't be trusted" part of your argument--I'd need a lot more data, and also an actual debate requires two sides of the case, not just one, with a common discovery process to assess statistical findings, including a more complete breakdown of the particular offenses being tried than you've supplied. I'm certainly not going to be persuaded by your introducing a handful of hot-button cases under a media spotlight. The notion that one reaction photo to the OJ verdict--by a group of TV viewers, not a jury--provides evidence to support your contention is absurd. The rhetorical editorializing you've appended to the picture does nothing to bolster your credibility on that score.
Your use of a selected handful of anecdotal cases to support your claims is already spurious. Leading off with the OJ Simpson acquittal is especially gratuitous. If we're going to extend the window of scrutiny of jury verdicts across a 30-year time span, there's no end to it. My recollection of the OJ Simpson media spectacle is that my entire society was suffering an episode of mass insanity--beginning with the "Bronco chase" non-event that somehow held most of the country spellbound. But then, I had banished the superficiality and conditioning influence of television from my house at least a dozen years earlier. I don't know what the nationwide audience ratings were for the Bronco chase. I do recall that on Friday afternoon, the downtown streets of Sacramento were vacant. I walked past a bar packed with people riveted to a TV screen showing the bathetic spectacle of a bunch of LAPD cars and the Bronco going 15 miles an hour with Al Cowlings at the wheel and OJ playing to the gallery with a gun to his head, and I thought everyone watching had lost their minds.
I'm just telling it like it is. I learned a lot from that day and the tediously drawn-out from the OJ trial, but they weren't about American race relations. They were about the Society of the Spectacle, Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Really, as if the case was going to be decided by a plebiscite of the TV audience for the trial, rather than the impaneled jury.
But, hey, what else was the American public going to do with all those months of being riveted to the TV set--ponder the inter-generational implications of the recent escalation of the American Drug War?
As for myself, I admit to harboring some doubt as to whether OJ did it; not only was there some indication of the police outsmarting themselves in regard to some tampering with material evidence, I've also read the books Missing Time by Donald Freed, and OJ Simpson Is Innocent And I Can Prove It by William C. Dear. The books bring up some intriguing details supporting a possible alternative narrative of the events immediately before and after the murder was committed. And contrary to the misleading title of his book, William Dear actually does not exculpate OJ from participating in the murder. He merely claims that OJ didn't do the cutting. Freed's book doesn't claim to exonerate Simpson from active involvement in the murder, either. He simply presents an account of events that contradicts the one presented by the prosecutors.
On the offhand chance that those still reading might harbor some curiousity about my own ethnic ancestry: I'm a WASP. Native US-born.
It's worth noting that Alan Dershowitz stated at the time of the verdict that even if Simpson had been found guilty, in his opinion there was reversible error.
So maybe not guilty verdict in the OJ case wasn't the example of Racial Jury Nullification that you're inferring.
With that digression out of the way, I've long held the position that it's a bad policy to require a unanimous verdict from 12 jurors. 10 or 11 votes should be considered sufficient for a verdict.
I'm also increasingly inclined to agree with the UK position on the "right to remain silent"--that a defendant can remain silent under questioning, but in the case of at least some criminal offenses, their silence can be used by the prosecution as evidence of their culpability. In the US the 5th Amendment would need to be modified in order for that position to be adopted.
Anyone still reading? I can't help thinking I've introduced too much torque into my commentary here.
It also needs to be noted that at least in Federal criminal cases, the vanishingly small percentage of cases that are brought to trial instead of a guilty/nolo plea have a much higher acquittal rate from judges (38%) than from trial juries (14%.) https://www.jprattorney.com/blog/2020/04/whats-the-federal-governments-conviction-rate/
Then, of course, more recently there's Anthony Metcalf and Karmelo Anthony.
Oh yes, but Karmelo hasn’t been allowed to get away with it by a jury yet
The jury has yet to be impaneled, of course, much less delivering a verdict. Karmelo Anthony's case may not even go to a jury trial. Given those facts, its relevance to the topic at hand is questionable. Imbuing it with special importance to a discussion about jury decisions is more like a trace in the wiring of logical circuitry, so to speak. The discussion calls out for more perspicacity than that.
I do get that it's a Poster Child case, made for Internet media broadcast coast to coast nationwide--what am I saying? around the world. The sort of series-of-one incident that axe-grinders from all over get to politically exploit/cash in on as if it was emblematic of...you name it. Whatever they feel like finding in it, given the Magic of Social Media. To quote Ashton Kutcher's hand-waving summation from the 2022 film Vengeance, by B. J. Novak: "Once everything can mean everything, nothing means anything." Best American film of the last 25 years, and I've seen most of the movies that people mention in their top ten lists. Everyone should see Vengeance 2022. It speaks to our times.
You ignore race because to deal with race would result in you being 'racist'. Which is the Great Heresy of the West.
The Darkie doesn't care about justice. The Darkie only cares about hating Whites.
@Hamburger Today, you're so monomaniacally obsessed with White Supremacy that it's the sole topic of your commentaries on Substack.
I think ‘White Supremacy’ if fine for White people. Don’t you?
"I think ‘White Supremacy’ if [sic] fine for White people. Don’t you?"
@Hamburger Today , Racial Supremacy is a game for insecure individuals who insist on the paramount importance of their birth status group membership in order to mask their personal deficiencies and make up for their own lack of personal achievements. Demanding advantages--or Supremacy--based on birth status spares such people the effort required to build their own track record of personal accomplishments and improvement on an individual basis. A handy cop-out excuse. Vanity. Which is merely pathetic, until it turns into a political agenda of deception and coercion.