Oh, and speaking of problems with our modern criminal justice system: how easy it is to get away with rape or sexual assault, and how hard it is to convict rapists.
I’m sure this is something the Trump administration is going crack down on real hard, right?
Oh. Never mind then.
Yes, yes it is. Maybe next time you think before jumping in and accusing others of being ignorant.
I asked for any evidence that would reaffirm their conviction, you “introduced” the armstrong with no explanation, as if it answered the question, so it would only make sense that it was your claim that it did in fact address the question.
It is not my fault that you did not bother to address the question.
That’s what is called circumstantial evidence. Which is what I said was the limit of what they had.
You claimed they had witnesses. That’s a different claim, one of which you were unable to back up.
No, I did not actually pretend that claim, that was sarcasm. You were though implying that there is more than circumstantial evidence, for which you are incorrect.
I’m done with your hijack, anyway. Actually, almost all I knew about the case coming into this thread was from a college English paper I proofread for a friend a few years back. I did actually learn a few things from about the whole situation from participating in the thread, but not a single thing from you. Did you learn anything? If not, was it actually because no new information was presented to you?
I was mostly just annoyed at your coming into the thread accusing others of ignorance, when it seemed to me (and still seems), as though you are not well versed on this matter.
You have only circumstantial evidence at best. As the “confessions” were inconsistent with each other, and not a one of them “confessed” to the actual rape, there is more than reasonable doubt that those confessions were given under duress.
If you throw out the confessions, what do you have?
So, yeah, I guess it all comes down to whether you believe that the confessions were given under duress or if they made of their own free will. If you are the sort of person who believes that the police never do any wrong and always get the right guy, then I can see why you would have problems accepting that the confessions were forced and false. If you assume that cops are human, make mistakes, and also sometimes go with what is easiest, rather than what is best, then you could see how the police more or less manufactured the case against them and forced the confessions under duress.
Basically, it does come down to how much you unquestioningly trust authority figures. I take it that you put much more trust in them than I.
If you are going to take this sort of stance, then you cannot get upset when others interpret your remarks in the only possible way.
As predicted …
Crime skyrocketed in wake of the counterculture revolution of the late sixties. Violent crime in particular stayed at a much higher level for decades, and now, even after a decade or more in which it’s gone down it’s still higher than it was before. Cite. Murder rates, while also skyrocketing in the aftermath of the sixties, has indeed finally dropped to the levels of fifty years ago (cite), but I’m sure that’s scant consolation to the families and loved ones of all those murdered in the decades since.
But apart from that, who can say why crime levels have been going down? It certainly hasn’t been because of anything Obama’s done. It had been going down prior to his election and I doubt you can point to anything Obama’s done that has reduced crime in the slightest. My guess is that it’s gone down because a significant percentage of people from high crime areas have moved to other areas where the opportunity for and acceptance of crime and criminal activity isn’t nearly as prevalent. And then there are 3-strikes laws (which came about in the first place as a reaction to decades-loag liberal successes in getting criminals freed from jail over and over and over again) which have both a deterrent effect and serve to insure at least a certain number of these douchebags stay in the clink where they belong.
I can tell you how to find them. Next time someone gets arrested for assault or rape or robbery or murder, take a look at their rap sheet. Do this every time such an arrest is reported. You’ll find the vast majority of time these crimes are committed by people with multiple arrests (and often, multiple incarcerations) in their background.
Love the way you guys cause crime to skyrocket, and then when it finally starts to come down decades later but is still higher than it was before, you handwave away the decades-long damage you’ve created and then behave as though the fact crime hasn’t been quite as bad recently as it was at its peak is sufficient to rebut claims that crime is a problem.
But to get back to your point that people only ‘feel’ there’s a problem with crime and how criminals get released over and over and over again to prey on the public, perhaps I was in error there. I should have said they ‘recognize’ there’s a problem instead. And it’s a problem that’s been around and that they’ve resented going on 50 years now.
There’s also the [del]feeling[/del] cognizance that people in general behave more lawlessly now than they did before. Road rage, fights on airplanes, gangs of kids storming shopping malls and other businesses, so-called ‘knockout games’, Black Friday brawls, etc., etc., are but a few examples.
And Trump voters like those in GIGO’s link are hoping that with Trump in office something will finally be done about it. Can’t blame 'em for that IMO.
Well, as **Starving Artist **was shown to be wrong many, many times before about the counterculture one can ignore his last post as usual.
(emphasis added)
Starving, Starving, Starving… you were supposed to put the United Way update between those statements…
However, somebody ping me when he gives us his explanation for how not wearing hats caused crime to rise.
Close to reality, a good reason for the violence and crime one sees nowadays is due to the stupid war against drugs.
So, yet another thing we can condemn Nixon for. Unfortunately the Trump choice of Sessions tell us that the efforts of many states to decriminalize drugs is likely to be turned back.
It’s the new science. We can now also explain how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
It’s an opinion, not anything close to fact, that liberal policies were responsible for increased crime rates. It’s an incredibly complicated topic – crime rates went up all over the world, and then started to settle back down all over the world in the last 20 years or so. There’s data that suggests that fumes from leaded gasoline might be involved… if this is true, then it was government policy that was responsible for reducing the crime rate, since government policy outlawed leaded gasoline. I don’t think we can conclude with certainty that this is the explanation, but it’s plausible, and just as reasonable (or more so, IMO) than your explanation.
This is true, but what you forgot to mention is that it was the counterculture revolution of the 1760’s! Buncha dirty non-hat-wearing anti-monarchists ruining our civilization.
Paine was the Rolling Stones, Hamilton was the Beach Boys.
