In the case of the OJ trial, the public had a lot more information than the jury. The media showed everything that went on in the courtroom, while the jury only saw bits the judge allowed them to see. Perhaps the jury should not be allowed to present their opinions as facts, since their information was incomplete? (Didn’t I hear some of the jurors say they changed their minds after they heard all the evidence?)
You really need to stop and think about what Miller said. Your English comprehension skills can’t really be that poor. This was quoted from a book called A Dictionary of Modern American Usage on another thread:
Sorry, Fin_man, but when a poster writes, “The verdict was wrong,” I think that virtually everyone reading that statement understands that the poster is stating an opinion. I don’t think anyone thinks that the statement is an assertion of objective fact. Except you, apparently!
On the other hand, if someone posts, “I don’t see how they could have acquitted OJ - after all, we have a videotape of him committing the murders,” now you’ve got a legitimate beef.
While we’re at it, even if it is just someone’s opinion, why should that person not protest, or write a letter to someone in power? (I’ll grant you that rioting is never a proper way to express one’s opinion.) Is someone allowed to have an opinion only if he or she is willing to keep quiet about it?
Did you see the video in its entirety? Including the first 40 seconds, in which King was resisting arrest? The jury saw all of it; the media broadcast (ad infinitum) a truncated version.
No, I am NOT defending Koon, et. al. If anything, the uncut video is even more damning (judging by how I’ve heard it described) because it shows how the use of force escalated, way beyond what was necessary or legal. But the way the video was presented in the media, it looked like the four officers were beating on King for no reason at all. They still didn’t need to use so much force, for so long, to subdue him…but it was necessary to subdue him some kind of way.
Fin_Man, I think you’re taking the definition of “wrong” way too literally. If I say two plus two equals five, I am wrong. Period. Two plus two equalling four is a fact. If I say it’s wrong to use animals for lab experimentation, then I think anyone I’m speaking with knows that’s an opinion, if from nothing but the sheer controversy surrounding the topic. There is no fact in a statement of that context. The dictionary provides several definitions of wrong, one being: Contrary to conscience, unjust, unfair. Another is: Not in conformity with fact or truth, erroneous. I think the first applies to almost any controversial subject. It’s wrong that Rodney King was beaten that way in the fact that it repulsed me morally and ethically. The square root of forty-nine is twelve. That is wrong factually, erroneously.
That’s what I think, anyway.
Thank you, dictionary.com! I don’t know where I’d be without ya.
Explain how two statments can be the EXACT SAME THING but said two slightly different ways. If they are slightly different, how can they be the exact same thing?
I never said people shouldn’t protest or write a letter. I said “No, I’m not going to protest. No, I’m not going to riot. No, I’m not going to write a letter to somebody in power.” That’s me.
QGG - good points. I guess when I hear “wrong” as in verdicts, I use the definition of “not in conformity with truth or fact”. In other words, the jury did not come to the correct decision. I guess others are using “wrong” as in “contrary to consceince, unjust, unfair” which are all opinions. Just like talking about animal testing, there is no “conformity with truth or fact” to discuss. Nobody can say your opinion is incorrect - it’s your opinion. They can have a different opinion, of course.
So, to sum up, I have no beef with people saying “wrong” as in “unjust, etal” for the verdicts. I guess I’ll ask for clarification on intent before ranting, as assuming the intent would be wrong…um…inappropriate.
So, you are saying that when in doubt, assume opinion? Well, the bandwidth savings from posters no longer needing to type “IMO”, “IMHO”, etal will only be dwarfed by those no longer need to respond with “Cite” when another poster says something questionable. Come on, it is only their opinion, right? There is no way to cite an opinion.
Jesus, has nobody ever taught you how the English-fucking-language works? Ever since grade-fucking-two I was taught “you don’t need to state that something is your opinion, because anybody but the most dimwitted fuckup knows that if you’re saying it, then it’s your opinion.”
Do you really have the brains of a doorknob, or are you just playing at it? Try this:
“The sum of two and two is four”
“Two plus two equals four”
**Fin_Man is also unaware that here in LA, 6 of the 7 local broadcast stations carried the trial live in it’s entirety. Including the discussions on motions that the jury didn’t get to see. CourtTV was not required. You needed cable to see anything BUT the OJ trial.
It was the jury that didn’t get all the facts.
(I still think they came to the right verdict though)
You realize, of course, that the officers were convicted in federal court following their acquittal in state court. They served prison time. Their appeal was denied (although, the prosecutor’s appeal for a more lengthy sentence was also denied). They are criminals and remain convicted felons.
I assume this isn’t the verdict you keep bringing up.
Juries hardly get it right all the time. There is a reason there are directed verdicts, appeals courts ect. Juries get it wrong- they did in O.J. (as the civil trial showed- he was held liable for the double murders, remember?) and probably did in the Rodney King case (guy was resisting at first, but once he stopped resisting they should have stopped too).
The viewing public got much more information then did the jury, and had it carefully explained to them. The O.J. jury shows how certain biases can be played on. It also showed how shitty the L.A. DA’s office was at the time. Yeesh, what a clusterfuck.
Yes. In the OP, I talk about the 1992 verdict. That was the State criminal trial. The 1993 trial (and verdict) was the Federal civil trial. And to nitpick, “the jury found two of the officers, Koon and Powell, guilty. They acquitted Officers Wind and Briseno.” - from The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers’ in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King
When you say “juires hardly get it right”, do you mean right as in correct or right as in just?
And in the case of OJ, one was a criminal trial (with the requirement of reasonable doubt) and one was a civil trial (with the requirement of preponderance of evidence). Two different judgements does not mean one was correct and the other incorrect.
Jeese if you’re going to quote me, don’t add typos! I make enough on my own without you adding to them when attempting to paraphrase me.
Also, a criminal trial standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Right as in “correct”. “Just” is a very loaded term, subject to subjective interpretations. “Just” is more apt to be an issue in the penalty phase of a trial, then in the verdict.
The jury came up with the incorrect verdict. It happens. The system is set-up to be under-inclusive regarding criminal convictions. O.J. killed 2 people. The amounts of evidence are overwelming, including direct DNA evidence. Just because the LA DA’s office royally screwed the pooch (and ruined their legal careers) does not mean O.J. did not murder those poor people. He did. He just was not held criminally responsible for his actions (but was quite easily in the civil action).
Now is that a “just” outcome? To me, no. But most of his assets were taken from him. He is a pariah. He has been arrested a couple more times for violence. And if many of the major religions are correct, he ultimately will pay.
Dude. And I thought Fin_Man’s pitting of ME was lame.
If you have any doubt that the lad doesn’t have the first clue about how language works, check out the thread Miller linked to. Shit – he’s still defending his interpretation of six responses to an IMHO thread as an authoritative source for definitions of words.
Near as I can tell, Fin_Man’s modus operandi is to spout off some stupid shit, get called on it, and escalate, escalate, escalate. He’s not the kind of guy who knows how to back the fuck down and admit he was wrong.
But throw him a face-saving bone (to mix metaphors), and you can at least get him to shut up.
