God damn you’re a douchebag.
Many lynchings were justified by claims of self-defense (often “defense” of white women from the supposed depredations of black men).
Why is lynching a “form of murder” if the killers were never indicted, prosecuted, or convicted? I thought you’ve said that it’s not murder if the killer was not convicted of murder.
But as those fears were unreasonable it wasn’t self-defence.
We can prove someone was murdered without finding the specific murderer. Or, in relatively rare cases, we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a murder without a court - the Emmett Till case is a relevant one, where we can see the evidence that was withheld from the jury.
The argument in this thread is not about that, though. It’s about cases where the killer is known, the jury has more information than the people claiming guilt, and the jury found them not guilty.
You have, though, reinforced my point by hinting that society considered lynching morally acceptable in the past, but not now - that is, whilst we consider it, and define it as, murder, that is not how it would have been seen then. Which is presumably why some juries with full information acquitted lynchers.
There’s a lot of people on this board who support jury nullification - the problem is, juries with different morals can also nullify.
At least we can agree on something.
Ahh, so it’s okay sometimes to use your own judgment to analyze whether an incident was justified when the law didn’t prosecute and convict a killer?
There are cases in which, perhaps, reasonable people can disagree what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to think that no possible reasonable person could conclude that any of these shootings that didn’t result in convictions were murder. I disagree. Reasonable people really might well disagree on some of these things. Further, some reasonable people really might look at our history and police activity and apparent huge disparities in how people are treated (one example is that 50% of black Americans report that they have personally been mistreated by law enforcement, compared to a 3% of white Americans who report this) and conclude that there might be a systematic problem in the way law enforcement treats black people in America.
Nah bro, that just shows black people lie a lot.
/s
I think that that is the disconnect here. The jury is not given more information that the public, the jury is given less.
All info that the jury gets is vetted by the attorneys, and much of what we see in public is not seen by the jury. In the recent castille case, the jury asked to see the transcripts, and was denied by the defense (and the prosecution didn’t challenge that, which was a mistake, IMHO), just as one quick example of information that the public has, that the jury does not.
We can read court records of the case, we can see all of the evidence that the jury can. They do not have an bit more information than the public. The public has more information than the jury.
In the same post that you claim that the jury has more information, you also point out a case where the jury was denied information that, IYHO, should have convicted. Could it not be the case that in many of the cases that we are complaining about with police, that we feel that information was with held from the jury, that IOHO, should have resulted in a conviction?
If the only people opining on these cases were those that had looked at all the information the jury have, you’d have a point. But the whole argument was started by someone who claimed that by seeing one video, a small fraction of the evidence the jury saw, he could none the less judge the case better than they could. Which is obvious nonsense.
Anyway, the only things the jury are prevented from knowing are irrelevant things that might prejudice them, such as in many cases the past history of parties to the case. If either side fails to produce appropriate evidence, that’s a different issue - and one that can lead to convictions being appealed.
Basically, it’s OK when talking in a historical context to show how things have changed, or in a controversial case to discuss how the law should be changed going forward.
It’s not OK to call the jury biased, say the verdict is wrong, or call for revenge against an innocent person.
Reasonable people disagreeing means, by definition, that there’s reasonable doubt.
Also, none of this argument is about race, and I’ve repeatedly said all people should be treated equally by the legal system, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. As I’ve also repeatedly said, it’s wrong to pre-judge people whether they are black, they are cops, or anything else.
Who says it’s okay to call for revenge against an innocent person? As for whether a jury is biased or a verdict could be wrong, those are actually events that might sometimes occur in the real world. Those aren’t unicorns or dragons. It’s okay to talk about such things – we shouldn’t pretend they don’t exist.
Is the guy pulling something out of his pocket after you gave him a lawful order not to? Was he non-compliant with your other lawful orders, perhaps given at gunpoint? Were you sent to investigate this guys behavior? Is this guy fleeing from you? You who have the authority, granted by society, to put him in jail? Your overly-simple hypothetical is a fine example of why each of these incidents have to be judged on their own merits.
Society had deemed that, under most circumstances, citizens must retreat from threats if they can do so safely. Police do not. Society expects them to face the threats and use force, if necessary. That’s what they’re paid for. At the same time society does not expect them to place their lives at risk unreasonably. (Like waiting to be SURE its a gun.) If you are unhappy with the laws as they exist contact your legislators.
BTW, as far as I know, if your life has been placed in immediate danger and you can’t retreat safely, you may use deadly force lawfully. YMMV depending on where you live.
Budget Player Cadet, specifically, and all the many people who want action taken against acquitted police officers.
A guilty verdict, sure, that can be appealed. Not an acquittal. If someone is acquitted, that is (or should be) the end of the matter. It can’t, necessarily, be wrong, as someone is innocent until proven guilty - if someone has been acquitted they have, by definition, not been proven guilty. Innocence is the default state.
If a jury is biased, I believe they would be dismissed, in the unlikely event they got through voir dire in the first place.
In some places at least, this is not true. There are Stand Your Ground or Castle laws in at least several states. IMHO, this should be the general standard - someone should not be able to use force to make you leave anywhere you’re entitled to be, especially not your home.
You are, of course, right about the police having to put themselves in dangerous situations that other individuals don’t, and that they have the right to defend themselves.
Two questions:
(1) “especially not your home” – is there any state that does not implicitly allow stand-you-ground when you’re in your own home?
(2) “police … dangerous … have the right to defend themselves” 
Is there anyone here remotely suggesting otherwise? No? Why then do you prattle it out as though it weren’t obvious?
What humans object to — but you seem to support — is craven cowardice by police, the hiring by police forces of maladjusted sadists, and the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians.
That’s different than what you said. “Acquitted” is different than “innocent”.
So all the people who were acquitted of lynchings, or civil rights murders, or other such unjust killings, are innocent? It’s wrong to say that those verdicts and acquittals were wrong?
So all those juries that acquitted killers and assassins and lynchers in the 20th century were unbiased?
I think you get what we’re getting at – the fundamental disagreement is to whether all those injustices which the legal system failed to address in the past still exist to some degree. Many of us think that while things have improved greatly, these sorts of fundamental injustices still exist to a lesser extent, and the justice system still is significantly flawed, especially when it comes to the treatment of black people.
It’s not about wanting to kill cops, or wreak vengeance upon the innocent. Such arguments are bullshit straw-men. If you’re serious about an actual discussion, then address the fundamental point of disagreement, not straw man silliness. I know that you don’t support lynchings, or civil rights murders and such – my questions above are rhetorical. The real disagreement is that I (and others) think that a lot of the racism and bigotry baked within the justice system still exists to some degree, even though it’s improved by a great deal, and this results in cops who mistreat people (especially black people) being quite likely to get away with it, especially in certain localities. I believe it was much, much worse in the past, but still exists to a significant degree – thus the fact that 50% of black Americans report that they, personally, have been mistreated by police, compared to only 3% of white Americans.
I’ll know if you’re serious about discussion if you cut out the straw man silliness. There is a fundamental disagreement, but it’s not about vengeance or wanting to hurt innocent people.
Not really. Being acquitted just confirms that someone is innocent.
Yes. And yes.
They (presumably, based on what I know) reflected the views of their societies. Those views are different from ours, so appear biased. Bias, like morality, is relative, not absolute, so calling for an “unbiased” jury really just means calling for one that adequately reflects society.
This kinda sucks, I admit. It would be much easier if there was absolute knowledge, absolute morality, and a privileged position to see things from so we could avoid any problems. But there isn’t, so we do the best we can, and create institutions that are the best substitute we can manage for these nonexistent absolutes.
Then you fundamentally misunderstand what I am saying. It’s not that the system was unjust in the past. It’s that what is just has changed. If we judge the past by current standards it appears unjust, but so what? Those were not the standards at the time, so it’s irrelevant.
It mat not even about that for you, but it’s about that for plenty of people, some on this board and many more in the real world. Whether it’s right wing fundamentalists wanting to kill all Muslims because of a few terrorists, or left wing idiots wanting to punish cops who’ve done nothing wrong, it’s happening a great deal. It’s still a minority of people, I hope, who think that way, but looking at politics in several countries it looks bad. You elected Trump, and have regular violent race-related protests…
I don’t believe that 50% statistics for a moment, as most people don’t have any dealings with the police, good or bad. But it’s not relevant whether it’s 3% or 93%, people should be treated correctly and equally. The thing is, unlike in the past, we live in a society where it’s legally required that people are treated that way. Maybe it’s not happening yet, but the mechanisms exist to make it happen, if people choose to use them.
Not for you, certainly. But it is about that for a lot of people. Including people on this board who have repeatedly said that certain people should be punished despite being acquitted. Until that stops, it’s not a straw man argument, it’s a direct response to those people.
That’s rather horrifying that you believe this. I don’t believe in absolute morality – morality is entirely objective. Nonetheless, I choose to believe that lynching was wrong, and that it was morally wrong to excuse and allow lynchers and assassins and terrorists to go free. That you choose otherwise is rather horrifying to me, and makes me think much, much less of you as a person.
Unfortunately it sounds like you’d join Smapti in turning in your Jewish or other minority neighbors for government processing if, at some point, the law demanded that you do.
It’s a fact, at least in that poll, that 50% of black respondents reported mistreatment by police. This matches the many, many personal conversations I’ve had with black people on this issue.
Why would you believe they’re lying? Do you think black Americans are less honest than white Americans?
Implicit is dubious at best in this circumstance. All states bar Rhodes Island and Vermont make it explicit, based on some very brief research.
It’s not obvious because so many people are acting as though they don’t have that right, or claiming they shouldn’t. Of course I oppose all those things, but those things are not what has happened in the cases discussed.
If someone was a coward, they wouldn’t be a cop in the first place. Hell, I wouldn’t do it, I’ve no desire to put myself in that sort of danger.
Had I been brought up in that society, and agreed with those laws, or disagreed with them but was too scared of the consequences, then yes, I probably would. I’m not particularly special, I’d probably be acting fairly similarly to the rest of that society.
Were I to be transported through time as the person I am now, fuck knows. I’d probably just try to avoid it being an issue so I didn’t have to actively harm someone I (but not society in general) consider an equal. I doubt that, lacking the safety and anonymity of the internet, I’d be willing to risk fighting the system. Because, as I alluded to in my last post, I may possess a touch of cowardice.
Do you think, had you grown up in Germany in the 20s and 30s, with the same education and upbringing as others, you would have the same morality you have now? Would you be able to fight as hard against the system as you think people should, knowing what’s in store for you?
You may be a truly exceptional person, who could come to that position despite the circumstances, but the odds are against it.
I’m sceptical that 50% of people come into contact with the police often enough to be mistreated by them. As to why they are lying, no idea. People lie, a lot, regardless of skin colour. They may not even be lying - they may simply be wrong about being mistreated. People speak falsely a lot, even when they don’t realise it. Which means, of course, that I could be wrong without realising it.
You’re the one advocating the lynching of people found innocent by juries, but I’m the douchebag?
Why do you melt so badly when the truth is pointed out to you?