I’m certainly curious about your serious response to this – Trump did continue to insist they were guilty, refusing to apologize for his earlier call for execution, of five young men whose convictions were vacated based on new evidence after this new evidence came to light and the convictions were vacated. Isn’t it very reasonable to harshly criticize Trump for continuing to call for the imprisonment and execution of men after new evidence causes their convictions to be vacated?
Trump supporters don’t need to explain why they voted for Trump. I can see why. They’ve lost their mind. And I don’t mean that in a hyperbolical “they are crazy for voting for Trump” sort of way. I mean their mind has literally snapped from the cognitive dissonance of reconciling all that Right-Wing bullshit with reality.
I’m not sure why you think those two things are mutually exclusive.
Because he probably assumes that he can negotiate some sort of deal with Trump that works out in his favor. Like the German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact to carve up Poland.
I’m betting the deal he wants most is for the Prime Minister of Exxon to partner up with Trump, remove those pesky sanctions and start exploiting that Arctic oil. In the cold and ruthless light of realpolitik, that would seem a pretty good deal: buy him off. Pushing the Baltic States around is good clean fun, but a healthy treasury and a reliable source of money…
I don’t really get why The Atlantic gave this guy this much column space. He’s clearly uninformed of the facts on the ground about his own damn criteria; never mind more complex things like what’s actually more likely to accomplish those goals, or whether the party he voted for even holds those goals (they quite explicitly do not, and reject that the government can provide that function - “Government is the problem, not the solution”). He’s an idiot. Yes, we get it, a lot of idiots voted in this election, and there are a lot of incredibly stupid people in the USA. But why waste time reporting on the opinion of an irrelevant 20-year-old with a political philosophy comparable in depth, understanding, and complexity to my own back when my main source of political commentary was Michael Moore books and I still slept with a teddy bear?
If the evidence says they’re not guilty, then of course they shouldn’t be imprisoned and/or executed.
It’s one thing to criticize; it’s another entirely to claim some insidious plot to keep us Black folk in our places. That is over the top and extreme the histrionics.
I don’t see how any “insidious plot” can be rebutted, since no such plot is suggested. Trump was dead wrong about those young men, as were so many. The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time.
And, yet he had no doubt. He didn’t even have doubt about his judgement, when the available facts clearly were at odds with his views. As a flaw for an ordinary shlub, well, who cares? But not for a man who says “Give me a metric buttload of power, because I am a responsible adult and a rigorous thinker.”.
It simply won’t do. Oh, wait, it will have to, won’t it, because somebody done made Leeroy Jenkins team leader. Oh, goody.
Irony of this post is that you’re clearly uneducated about “those young men” and yet you’re commenting pretty strongly on the subject and have no doubt about your own assertions.
Perhaps a bit more similar to Trump than you’d like to think.
Okay, so according yo you, they should not be imprisoned or executed.
According to trump, they should.
Who do you think I should believe?
Did you have evidence that did not come up yet that they are guilty?
I’d like to see it if so.
The premise of your question is that to this point no evidence has come up that they’re guilty. So you’re probably ignorant of the case too.
You can start with the Wiki article on the story.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I was responding to the notion that Trump wants to “intimidate” Blacks.
Strong evidence of innocence is not the same thing as no evidence of guilt. You might discover your sneakers went missing last night and find them in my car parked outside my house with a signed confession from me stating that I stole them, and have some evidence of my guilt; but if court records show I’ve been dead for twenty years, that’s strong evidence of my innocence.
If you disagree that there’s strong evidence of their innocence, you disagree with elucidator, but should probably make your case more clearly.
Again. Anyone who claims that “The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time” is simply not familiar with the details of this case.
I’ve suggested just reading the Wikipedia article on the subject. But you can do a google search and come up with other reliable sources of info.
If someone can’t be bothered to educate themselves at the most minimal level and insists on just asserting incorrect statements with no basis about a subject about which he clearly knows almost nothing, then that person should not be criticizing Trump for doing the same.
I am aware of the case.
I am questioning you on it.
And yes, if you are being pedantic, there was “evidence” at the time of their conviction. All of which has been proven to be irrelevant. So, while I can understand how in a fit of pedandicism, you could see how I was claiming that there never was any evidence produced, any reasonable reading would indicate that I was aware of such, and was asking for any new evidence that had not come to light.
You are defending trump for calling for their execution, after they had been exonerated.
You seem to be indicating that there is new evidence that only you and trump are aware of, that either proves their guilt in spite of evidence to the contrary, or disproves their exculpating evidence.
Okay, educate us. Please give us a link to the evidence that these people are guilty. It’s not on the wiki page, it’s not in a google search. It is almost like you just made it up.
At this point I am confused, to be honest.
Are you trying to make some sort of pedantic point about ho they were originally found guilty, and even though they have been exonerated, they still technically were guilty at some point, or are you actually trying to make a point that in any way furthers discussion and understanding?
The former, fine, you are right. There was evidence, they even confessed, which is evidence. It’s a stupid argument to be made, in that you are defending trump’s statements from years after the they were exonerated, so you are either saying he was ignorant and spouting off that innocent people should be executed without knowing at all what he was talking about, and that’s fine, or that he knew he was calling for the death penalty for innocent people, and that’s fine.
The latter, you are doing a poor job of it.
Have you read the Armstrong report?
Have you read about the Armstrong report?
Have I read the whole thing? Nah. Got better things to do than to read a bunch of lawyer’s speculation. I had heard of it in passing before, knowing that it was a panel of lawyers that did not agree with the vacating of the sentences, but not much more than that, honestly. Having reviewed it in brief, I do not find it overly compelling. There is no new evidence, it’s pretty much just them speculating on how it could be that, even though all previous evidence was shown to be pretty much unreliable, they could still get a conviction.
Do you find a panel of lawyers compelling? Is a panel of lawyers who are tasked with coming up with new charges for you what you would prefer to have rather than juries and judges?
But, you are correct in that there was a panel that determined that it was “likely” that they had had something to do with the rape. this was a “conclusion” by a few lawyers. There is no new evidence in it, and it even concludes as “The panel’s report to Police Commissioner Kelly in 2003 suggested that it was “probable” that the defendants participated only in a preliminary “hit and run” attack on the jogger, similar to the other assaults for which they had been convicted. If that theory is correct, it seems clear that they served excessive prison terms. Others, pleading guilty to such offenses occurring on the same night, served two to three years, not six or 13.” So even your armstrong report disagrees that they actually raped her, and also says that they already served more time than they should have, if they had committed the crimes that the panel accuses.
You are still left with defending Trump’s calls for their punishment, long after they should have been released anyway, according to the source you find most reliable.
It is a dissenting opinion. Nothing wrong with that. But its not really about Mr Armstrong, is it? It is about a man with the legal qualifications of the average Perry Mason fan contradicting the legal procedures and suggesting that these men deserve to die. This is irresponsible, and could incite to action. What kind of man takes such a chance?
Mr Trump could reasonably express his doubts and put forth whatever evidence he deemed appropriate. He did more than that. If some unbalanced person had “taken the law into his owh nands”, a reasonable man would have been contrite about any responsibility he may have had. I sincerely doubt that Mr Trump is such a man. YMMV. Personally, I shudder to think that any person with his reckless disregard for the rule of law and evidence would be in a position to make his half-assed opinions into fact.
ETA: What Dogbuddy said. I could just “NM” but I had to do all that typing!
Do you appreciate the vast gulf between “The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time” “I do not find [conclusions of guilt] overly compelling”?
If you do, then you shouldn’t try to bolster the former by saying the latter.
OK, so it sounds like you’re backing off your original assertion. Which is good. I would have preferred a bit more explicit, but you take what you can get.
As for your new version, that’s fine. Trump is Trump, no doubt about that. Though the one thing that should be pointed out is that he wasn’t issuing a renewed call for them to be executed, but defending his earlier positions - made at a time when the new confession had not come out yet - as having been correct. The continuing uncertainty over what actually happened gave him something to hang his hat on.
Yes, at this time he should be more circumspect about it. But again, that’s Trump, and this statement would apply to a zillion other things he’s said.
The only evidence against them is their confessions. They claim to have made these under duress. Without any other evidence to exonerate, I do not know that I would believe their recanting.
However, the best scientific evidence that we can provide does in fact exonerate. DNA shows that it was another party that raped her, and there was no evidence of any of their DNA found at the scene.
So, yes, I do agree with the statement “The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time”.
If you found science to offer more reliable evidence that contradicts the DNA evidence, I would love to hear it.
Is this your way of condemning his remarks? If so, I agree with you. I would even agree that this is not the most outrageous or damaging thing he has said, not by a bit, but it did come across as though you were specifically defending his statements, and agreeing with him that the Central Park 5 were in fact guilty of rape.
So your claim is that the lack of DNA evidence is “evidence of their innocence [which] is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time”? So any time someone is accused of assaulting someone, sexually or otherwise, and there’s no DNA evidence, that they need to be found innocent because “the evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time”?
If you ask me, this is much much sillier and more ignorant than Donald Trump’s position in this case.
The SDMB is a fine place in many ways. But one downside is that even if you explicitly say one thing there are posters who will pretend that you’ve said something different based on their claim that “it did come across as though you were” saying something else, that they want to attack. So it goes.
The reality is that other guy had his DNA in the scene of the crime, not the 5 that the police got confessions that they had raped her or assaulted.
Well, the 5 are more likely to be innocent of the rape or assault they allegedly committed. BTW about the Armstrong report it is clear that was not given too much validity as it did not generate any other accusations and in the end it had to resort of just declaring that “it was probable” but that did not work much in the courts nor it could be considered evidence.