You kind have got yourself up on a little pedestal there, don’t you. Anyway, I disagree. cosmosdan’s buddy described to him what happened in the jury room, so that part of the OP is second hand. buddy got the accident info from cops and witnesses, that part of the OP is third hand.
If you and Bill Door want to say “it sounds full of shit” then go right ahead, but you really don’t have to pretend you got it all figured out.
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Ladies and gentlemen, watch my hands.
First-hand account can be told by a participant in an event. Second-hand account can be told by a direct witness to an event. Third-hand account is that told by a direct witness to a non-party, and fourth-hand is the relay of that story to others – i.e., the OP. The “facts” we are given are literally a fourth-hand account of a small-time civil trial whose original sources are at this point inaccessible. But the thrust of the OP isn’t dependent upon a mere four steps between reality and desired conclusion: it relies upon the further unproven assumptions that (1) racism existed in a majority of the jurors, and (2) that such racism overcame the second-hand facts the jury heard and determined its verdict. Not even the third-hand account as originally reported supports the OP’s conclusion.
[/QUOTE]
How very smug of you. You could watch my hand…it’s saying you’re number 1, sort of. As Carnalk pointed out. My story is about what the jury decided based on what a juror told me. My OP has nothing to do with the accuracy of the facts presented to the jury or how they were collected and presented. It has to do with what happened in the jury room. So I really have no interest in watching your hands because you friend, are jerking off.
I’ve made no contention what so ever about what juries in general are doing in TN. I’m discussing one case and one jury only. This is more jerking off.
The rest is snipped because it is also irrelevant to the OP, Good try though You’re still number one.
I wonder…
Did the police determine fault in the accident? I suspect not, since then it wouldn’t be up to the jury to determine it. Also, if the police determined fault, the white woman’s medical bills would be covered by the at fault driver’s insurance.
I think this case was not so open and close as the OP would like us to believe.
[QUOTE=Who_me?]
I wonder…
Did the police determine fault in the accident? I suspect not, since then it wouldn’t be up to the jury to determine it. Also, if the police determined fault, the white woman’s medical bills would be covered by the at fault driver’s insurance.
I think this case was not so open and close as the OP would like us to believe.
[/QUOTE]
The juror that told me seemed to think it was pretty obvious who was at fault. He also added that he thought the injured parties lawyer made a mistake by also assuming it was obvious instead of really hammering the point home in the trial.
That’s his take on it. He felt that when the other juror’s denied the 2nd drivers fault it wasn’t based on the facts as presented.
Again, it’s just a view by one juror relayed by me.
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Oh, well. There’s always someone who’ll rail against affirmative action, for example, because it treats different races differently. These guys are the folks who, after cheating at cards for several hours and winning 90% of the money on the table, and finally getting caught, pull out a brand-new deck and say, “Okay, boys, now, let’s play fair.”
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s that their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers had cheated. And now I want you to pay for what your ancestors did to my ancestors. We weren’t just enslaved. We were massacred, displaced from our homes, rounded up like cattle, and then transported and left to die in barren foreign lands, subjugated to the rule of Washington in perpetuity. You think Blacks have a case against you, just wait until you hear from the Indians.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
And now I want you to pay for what your ancestors did to my ancestors.
[/QUOTE]
My ancestors lived in Europe until the 20th century, do I still have to pay? Or are you more concerned that I happen to have the same skin color as some folks who wronged your ancestors?
What this really amounts to is someone who complains about others cheating , only to go ahead and cheat if he’s confident he won’t get caught.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The juror that told me seemed to think it was pretty obvious who was at fault. He also added that he thought the injured parties lawyer made a mistake by also assuming it was obvious instead of really hammering the point home in the trial.
That’s his take on it. He felt that when the other juror’s denied the 2nd drivers fault it wasn’t based on the facts as presented.
Again, it’s just a view by one juror relayed by me.
[/QUOTE]
Can you understand why some people are having trouble jumping to the conclusions you have? We are hearing this 3rd hand (or 4th hand) from someone who has few other facts to present, other than his friend’s opinions on the matter. You don’t know what the insurance situation was, how fast the cars were going, what the witnesses said, what her injuries were, etc. How can you be so sure that the jury, who probably knows most of those things, was acting in bad faith, and that said bad faith was an attempt to take some revenge on white people for past injustices? Maybe they just like the defendant more that the plaintiff. Race may have nothing or everything to do with it, but you have provided us with no evidence in either direction. To assume there is malice just because you don’t value their decision is a little unfair.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
One much wiser than I once raised and answered a similar question like this:
[/QUOTE]
So, we keep paying until God tells us to stop? That’s reassuring.
I think a lot of people are jumping the gun, here. The OP is an interesting anecdote about the role of race in our justice system. It’s fodder for discussion, not a problem to be solved. There is no data from the trial itself. There is no way of getting data without resorting to trial transcripts. But you don’t need that in order to discuss the issues it brings up. You would need it if we were going to discuss different questions, such as “was this outcome fair?” or “was the jury right to question the plaintiff’s claims?” or “were both drivers at fault in this rear-ending?” But we are not. As several of the posters have thoughtfully but needlessly pointed out, our knowledge of the trial is incomplete as well as several steps removed, so we can’t really engage in an analysis of the facts.
Instead, it seems to me, what we are discussing is “isn’t it amazing that race is still such a strong factor in 2007?” or “are there other anecdotes where people choose racial cohesion over logic / duty in a public context?” A classic IMHO thread. I suppose the pre-derailing is to justify having it in the Pit…
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
My ancestors lived in Europe until the 20th century, do I still have to pay? Or are you more concerned that I happen to have the same skin color as some folks who wronged your ancestors?
[/QUOTE]
Hell no. I think the whole idea of affirmative action is stupid, a point I attempted to make with sarcasm.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Hell no. I think the whole idea of affirmative action is stupid, a point I attempted to make with sarcasm.
[/QUOTE]
Good choice: it’s a point that can’t be made with logic or an appeal to ethical principles.
Don’t assume what case can or can’t be made against me, please. Native Americans can, should and occasionally do benefit from affirmative action – if you haven’t, and deserve to, I’m sorry. Meanwhile, ask a native of the great state of Maine (where I was born) if legal, formal redress – as opposed to a token gift dressed up as the state’s largesse – is a joke.
This thread isn’t about affirmative action, and you, esteemed friend Liberal, are not going to change your mind about it, and I’m not going to try. Only to explain my apparent obstinacy will I mention my plerophory that as the profits and the damages from certain crimes easily outlive the generations that originally committed or suffered them, long-delayed remedies for those injustices should not be ruled out based on the passage of time.
Meanwhile, we are still faced with the second-at-best-hand story of a minority juror criticizing the majority, regarding a decision in which a white woman in Tennessee was given less than the maximum award allowed by law, interpreted by cosmosdan as evidence that there is racism in the Volunteer State, and that it is wielded by black citizens at the expense of whites, without any evidence that such is the case.
Most adults already had some faint suspicion that racism hasn’t been completely eradicated, in Tennessee or anywhere else. To submit a civil case in which a white woman got less than her lawyer was claiming for her in front of a black-majority jury as evidence of the OP’s time-lapse contention that blacks are perpetuating racism in Tennessee is…well, “bombastic nonsense” fails as far too mild a phrase, especially when the OP retreats to “I’m discussing one case and one jury only” the instant he’s called on it.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Can you understand why some people are having trouble jumping to the conclusions you have? We are hearing this 3rd hand (or 4th hand) from someone who has few other facts to present, other than his friend’s opinions on the matter. You don’t know what the insurance situation was, how fast the cars were going, what the witnesses said, what her injuries were, etc. How can you be so sure that the jury, who probably knows most of those things, was acting in bad faith, and that said bad faith was an attempt to take some revenge on white people for past injustices? Maybe they just like the defendant more that the plaintiff. Race may have nothing or everything to do with it, but you have provided us with no evidence in either direction. To assume there is malice just because you don’t value their decision is a little unfair.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I understand except for one little factor… I’m not asking anybody to form a conclusion about the trial. Dr Drake has it right in his post. It’s a story about reported racism, so if it’s close to true, as presented ,…what do you think?"
I’m not asking anyone to examine the outcome and decide if it’s fair or not, racist or not based on evidence they can’t examine. I have zero interest in trying to prove anything or convince anyone of anything. It’s a story up for discussion.
I realize posters don’t know me or my friend but he is a pretty reasonable decent level headed guy so, based on what I know of him I accept his view as probably pretty accurate. And I remind you, he was juror and heard all the evidence and sat in the jury room through deliberations. It seemed very obvious to him, based on the evidence he saw and heard, and several other jurors that one lady was seriously injured by a lady who had rear ended her and was obviously at fault.
The outrageous thing to him wasn’t that other jurors didn’t want to award her as much as he did. It was that they seemed to deny the plain evidence and chose to give her nothing with the only factor he could find was the race of the injured party and the race of the lady who rear ended her.
I’m not out to convince anyone his view is correct. I’m only asking to discuss his view as a possibility. If other posters choose to believe it’s unlikely and he must be mistaken, so be it. That’s their 2 cents. Discussion over.
I’m interested in hearing from people who may have had similar experiences or other thoughts if my friends story is relatively accurate. See?
According to a recent poll,
So are blacks more likely than whites to think a black defendant is not guilty despite overwhelming evidence? I don’t know. But if sorta looks that way.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Also interesting.
I understand the feeling of “we’ve been wronged so often” Very human and in the case of minorities it’s often true. I happen to believe in Karma or something like it , still, at some point humans have to stand up for human rights rather than maintain the gulf under the guise of payback.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. I think the context that I’ve provided (“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away”), as well as other things he said in that very speech as well as elsewhere, indicates that Lincoln would have opposed the deliberate pursuance of one injustice to balance another.
But he certainly seemed to think that, aside from that aspect, it couldn’t in any way be called unreasonable if the injustices visited on Side B eventually equaled those that had been visited on Side A.
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Meanwhile, we are still faced with the second-at-best-hand story of a minority juror criticizing the majority, regarding a decision in which a white woman in Tennessee was given less than the maximum award allowed by law, interpreted by cosmosdan as evidence that there is racism in the Volunteer State, and that it is wielded by black citizens at the expense of whites, without any evidence that such is the case.
Most adults already had some faint suspicion that racism hasn’t been completely eradicated, in Tennessee or anywhere else. To submit a civil case in which a white woman got less than her lawyer was claiming for her in front of a black-majority jury as evidence of the OP’s time-lapse contention that blacks are perpetuating racism in Tennessee is…well, “bombastic nonsense” fails as far too mild a phrase, especially when the OP retreats to “I’m discussing one case and one jury only” the instant he’s called on it.
[/QUOTE]
I know this is the pit but I will refrain from my initial response. This is so ridiculously wrong and so very hypocritical that’s it’s moronic.
So you are criticizing me for drawing bogus conclusions based on sketchy evidence by doing what…the same fucking thing you are accusing me off.
I’ve already explained a couple of times and at least Dr Drake had the sense to grasp and summarize that I’m only telling a story about one incident and it’s up for discussion. That’s it.
For you to read into it that I’m commenting on the general nature of racism in TN is just an incorrect reading. For you to now take my simple honest explanation and refer to it as retreating is just your ego trying to cover your mistake.
It’s a joke. You have nearly non existent evidence to establish your conclusions about how bad my evidence is and how wrong I am about points I’m not even attempting to make. Wow! Talk about bombastic nonsense. What a stellar example of that with a crunchy hypocrite coating.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. I think the context that I’ve provided (“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away”), as well as other things he said in that very speech as well as elsewhere, indicates that Lincoln would have opposed the deliberate pursuance of one injustice to balance another.
But he certainly seemed to think that, aside from that aspect, it couldn’t in any way be called unreasonable if the injustices visited on Side B eventually equaled those that had been visited on Side A.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a fine explanation and it is appreciated.
My question is how long does it take and what do we have to do to realize there is no side A or B?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That’s a fine explanation and it is appreciated.
My question is how long does it take and what do we have to do to realize there is no side A or B?
[/QUOTE]
Damned if I know. Lincoln’s not exactly easy to understand all the time.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
My question is how long does it take and what do we have to do to realize there is no side A or B?
[/QUOTE]
Well, don’t hold your breath…
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Yeah I understand except for one little factor… I’m not asking anybody to form a conclusion about the trial. Dr Drake has it right in his post. It’s a story about reported racism, so if it’s close to true, as presented ,…what do you think?"
[/QUOTE]
But the entire discussion rests on the account of the trial being reliable. If it has nothing to do with the trial, then why even mention it? If you want to know what I think about “reverse-racism”, I think it’s bad. I doubt anyone would defend it, so where is the discussion?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m not asking anyone to examine the outcome and decide if it’s fair or not, racist or not based on evidence they can’t examine. I have zero interest in trying to prove anything or convince anyone of anything. It’s a story up for discussion.
[/QUOTE]
But the story is only relevant or appealing if there was racism going on.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I realize posters don’t know me or my friend but he is a pretty reasonable decent level headed guy so, based on what I know of him I accept his view as probably pretty accurate. And I remind you, he was juror and heard all the evidence and sat in the jury room through deliberations. It seemed very obvious to him, based on the evidence he saw and heard, and several other jurors that one lady was seriously injured by a lady who had rear ended her and was obviously at fault.
[/QUOTE]
I thought this wasn’t about the case?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The outrageous thing to him wasn’t that other jurors didn’t want to award her as much as he did. It was that they seemed to deny the plain evidence and chose to give her nothing with the only factor he could find was the race of the injured party and the race of the lady who rear ended her.
[/QUOTE]
What is his conclusion based on? He doesn’t even know these people. Not to mention that what is plainly obvious to him is not obvious to everyone else. His perception should not be substituted for reality without any corroborating evidence. Hell, it’s plainly obvious to many people that Jesus rose from the dead, or that prayer helps sick people, but that doesn’t mean it is so.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m not out to convince anyone his view is correct. I’m only asking to discuss his view as a possibility. If other posters choose to believe it’s unlikely and he must be mistaken, so be it. That’s their 2 cents. Discussion over.
I’m interested in hearing from people who may have had similar experiences or other thoughts if my friends story is relatively accurate. See?
[/QUOTE]
Really? You’re not trying to convince anyone, yet the thread title is “racism is alive and well”? The proof you submit is the fact that the White lady got screwed by a Black jury. If it is not accurate or relevant, why was this thread necessary? We all know racism still exists in many forms. If you are not trying to sell this story as an example of it, what is the point?
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
But the entire discussion rests on the account of the trial being reliable. If it has nothing to do with the trial, then why even mention it? If you want to know what I think about “reverse-racism”, I think it’s bad. I doubt anyone would defend it, so where is the discussion?
[/QUOTE]
Since my version of the trial came from a juror I know and trust I see his view as reliable but I’m not offering it* as proof*. I am aware that one juror’s view is not proof. If “I think it’s bad” is all you have to offer fine. Say no more. Please.
btw, wouldn’t reverse racism be…equality?
The story was meant to be discussed as is, assumed to be reasonably accurate.
We discuss articles all the time with no more “proof” than what’s in the article. If someone decides that my friend’s view as juror was way off, so be it. I don’t care. I’m not out to prove it, only to discuss it as presented.
It isn’t about retrying the case in this thread and examining the evidence to decide whether my friends view is reasonable or not. It’s just about discussing his view as presented. Did you read Dr Drake’s last post that I mentioned before. He captures it.
Holy fuck. I’ve explained what his conclusions are based on. It’s not intended to be a substitute for reality get it??? If someone started a discussion about the Sermon on the mount and it’s moral value it’s totally asinine to think you’re contributing by saying “Hey you can’t prove Jesus really existed” even though it’s true. Can you grasp that?
NONE OF THESE THREADS ARE NECESSARY!! It’s just discussion. If you can’t grasp that the way I’ve explained it and the way Dr Drake obviously grasped it and explained it then feel free to find a more interesting thread.