Full Version: A dog's life more important than a black kids?
A note on the second autopsy, which put the cause of death on asphyxiation.
According to the sources above:
The carbon dioxide level in his blood rules out asphyxiation.
According to the sources above:
QUOTE
“And for the possibility of severe laryngeal spasm or lung damage, as rarely reported in industrial accidents where pure ammonia gas is released and inhaled, it takes up to 5,000 ppm (parts per million) ammonia,” Eichner said. “It follows, then, that the ammonia concentration inhaled by Anderson was many thousand times too weak to do any harm whatever.”
He said Anderson only could have suffocated if a guard had blocked his mouth and nose for 2 to 3 minutes. Eichner said there is no evidence that anything was put in Anderson’s nostrils during his interaction with the guards.
“The videotape shows this did not happen,” he said. “In fact, nothing in the videotape suggests that Anderson stopped breathing at any time, and the paramedics said he was breathing 14 times a minutes when they arrived.”
Eichner said the level of carbon dioxide in Anderson’s blood was significantly lower than would be expected in someone who had suffocated. Carbon dioxide is removed from the blood during breathing, just as oxygen is added to it. Suffocation causes a build-up of carbon dioxide that was not present in Anderson’s blood.
He said Anderson only could have suffocated if a guard had blocked his mouth and nose for 2 to 3 minutes. Eichner said there is no evidence that anything was put in Anderson’s nostrils during his interaction with the guards.
“The videotape shows this did not happen,” he said. “In fact, nothing in the videotape suggests that Anderson stopped breathing at any time, and the paramedics said he was breathing 14 times a minutes when they arrived.”
Eichner said the level of carbon dioxide in Anderson’s blood was significantly lower than would be expected in someone who had suffocated. Carbon dioxide is removed from the blood during breathing, just as oxygen is added to it. Suffocation causes a build-up of carbon dioxide that was not present in Anderson’s blood.
The carbon dioxide level in his blood rules out asphyxiation.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 15 2007, 09:49 AM) 
A note on the second autopsy, which put the cause of death on asphyxiation.
According to the sources above:
The carbon dioxide level in his blood rules out asphyxiation.
According to the sources above:
QUOTE
“And for the possibility of severe laryngeal spasm or lung damage, as rarely reported in industrial accidents where pure ammonia gas is released and inhaled, it takes up to 5,000 ppm (parts per million) ammonia,” Eichner said. “It follows, then, that the ammonia concentration inhaled by Anderson was many thousand times too weak to do any harm whatever.”
He said Anderson only could have suffocated if a guard had blocked his mouth and nose for 2 to 3 minutes. Eichner said there is no evidence that anything was put in Anderson’s nostrils during his interaction with the guards.
“The videotape shows this did not happen,” he said. “In fact, nothing in the videotape suggests that Anderson stopped breathing at any time, and the paramedics said he was breathing 14 times a minutes when they arrived.”
Eichner said the level of carbon dioxide in Anderson’s blood was significantly lower than would be expected in someone who had suffocated. Carbon dioxide is removed from the blood during breathing, just as oxygen is added to it. Suffocation causes a build-up of carbon dioxide that was not present in Anderson’s blood.
He said Anderson only could have suffocated if a guard had blocked his mouth and nose for 2 to 3 minutes. Eichner said there is no evidence that anything was put in Anderson’s nostrils during his interaction with the guards.
“The videotape shows this did not happen,” he said. “In fact, nothing in the videotape suggests that Anderson stopped breathing at any time, and the paramedics said he was breathing 14 times a minutes when they arrived.”
Eichner said the level of carbon dioxide in Anderson’s blood was significantly lower than would be expected in someone who had suffocated. Carbon dioxide is removed from the blood during breathing, just as oxygen is added to it. Suffocation causes a build-up of carbon dioxide that was not present in Anderson’s blood.
The carbon dioxide level in his blood rules out asphyxiation.
Though the interview on the additional examinations are of the examiner, I would still want to see the court records. There are a lot of possible extinuating circumstances that have not even been discussed. The lack of the incident on video is crucial.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 13 2007, 09:59 PM)
He was beaten for thirty minutes. The youtube video is not thirty minutes long. In fact- no one disputes it went on for thirty minutes- they dispute that it was anything other than business as usual, and policy for them to do this, every day.
the very fact that they were even allowed to have this as policy is bizarre to me- we are not allowed to treat adult convicts in that manner.
Once again- Michael Vick's case, the Jena 6 and this case are very, very inter-related when it comes to the justice leveled at and for blacks.
You had thousands of mostly white poeple calling for, basically, Michael Vicks death and castration. Where are all the white poeple now, with signs decrying the killing of this kid? Why is a dog's life worth so much more than one black boy's life? Why is the beating of a white kid in Jena so much more horendous than this beating?
That was the question the mother of this child asked, and has asked- why is a dog's life, getting justice for a freakin' dog, so much more important to America than getting justice for a murdered white boy?
Why do white juries have such a hard time convicting poeple when the victim is black, and all the perps are not black (this was a mixed group)- to me, yes, the jury was a bunch of racists, at the very least, very biased against black victims. Like I said- there is no way in hell that this jury would have let those poeple go had that been a white girl in that videotape.
the very fact that they were even allowed to have this as policy is bizarre to me- we are not allowed to treat adult convicts in that manner.
Once again- Michael Vick's case, the Jena 6 and this case are very, very inter-related when it comes to the justice leveled at and for blacks.
You had thousands of mostly white poeple calling for, basically, Michael Vicks death and castration. Where are all the white poeple now, with signs decrying the killing of this kid? Why is a dog's life worth so much more than one black boy's life? Why is the beating of a white kid in Jena so much more horendous than this beating?
That was the question the mother of this child asked, and has asked- why is a dog's life, getting justice for a freakin' dog, so much more important to America than getting justice for a murdered white boy?
Why do white juries have such a hard time convicting poeple when the victim is black, and all the perps are not black (this was a mixed group)- to me, yes, the jury was a bunch of racists, at the very least, very biased against black victims. Like I said- there is no way in hell that this jury would have let those poeple go had that been a white girl in that videotape.
No one would argue a young man--even a kid in the kid's equivalent of prison--should be beaten to death.
The kid, according to the coroner, was not beaten to death, but died of other causes. Perhaps the beating contributed, but it was not the cause of death.
What were the elements of the crime charged? Most non-lawyers immediately run to the equity mindset--what is "fair"? It is not "fair" that this group of mixed-race guards weren't convicted.
Well, the criminal law looks at it entirely differently, as it seeks to take notions of equity out of play--those were used by the legislature in crafting the statute--as everyone's notions of equity vary.
Let me give you an example:
The classic common law definition of burglarly is as follows: "The breaking and entering into a dwelling house at night for the purpose of committing a felony therein." If you break in during the day time it is not a burglarly under this definition; if you break into a business rather than a dwelling it is not a burlgarly under this definition.
The definition, like so many criminal charges, is designed to give objective standards for the crime so as to take race, wealth, status, etc., out of the equation as much as possible. The word "fair" never appears in the statute....
Since I do not know the elements of the crime with which these guards were charged, then I have no idea if this is the correct verdict. Perhaps the prosecutor went for too much in his charges and all elements couldn't be shown. Maybe a lesser charge should have been pursued. In any event, you can be sure that the judge gave detailed jury instructions on these elements. I also suspect the jury followed them to the letter--I've never seen a flippant jury.
The system works pretty well--just park your ordinary citizen sense of equity at the door when you look at things like this.
I wonder why it is the same people who claim Martin Lee Anderson died of sickle cell anemia seem to overlook a few facts?
The guards at Bay Boot Camp in Panama City kneed, kicked and hit Martin, 14, after he stopped running during an orientation drill on Jan. 5
Dr. Michael Baden, a pathologist who attended the second autopsy on behalf of Martin's family, told a legislative committee in Tallahassee on Friday that Martin had most likely suffocated during the incident and was brain dead by the time an ambulance carried him away.
"There was a time when there were hands over Anderson's mouth," Dr. Baden said in an interview, noting that the guards held ammonia capsules under the boy's nose several times during the incident. "There may have been ammonia capsules blocking his nose, hands blocking his mouth — that could contribute to asphyxia." link
Anderson was black; the guards were black, white and Asian. The jury was all white.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
An initial autopsy by Dr. Charles Siebert, the medical examiner for Bay County, found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
The Legislature agreed to pay Anderson's family $5 million earlier this year to settle civil claims. link 2
Despite the smug (and incorrect) assertions by quick, the original finding of the coroner was invalidated by the second autopsy. Additionally, despite the "mixed race" make-up of the guards that suffocated Anderson, their race is not relevant to whether or not they brutalized the boy. Where does it say that a Black cop or guard won't brutalize another Black person? If anything, Black cops often are compelled to prove their loyalty to the "blue" trumps loyalty to the "black."
Particularly when the system is trying to protect the system and the victim happens to be Black. It works really well--just not for the Martin Andersons of the world. Just another reminder---as if one were needed---that Black life is cheap and not particularly valued by the judicial system.
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
The guards at Bay Boot Camp in Panama City kneed, kicked and hit Martin, 14, after he stopped running during an orientation drill on Jan. 5
Dr. Michael Baden, a pathologist who attended the second autopsy on behalf of Martin's family, told a legislative committee in Tallahassee on Friday that Martin had most likely suffocated during the incident and was brain dead by the time an ambulance carried him away.
"There was a time when there were hands over Anderson's mouth," Dr. Baden said in an interview, noting that the guards held ammonia capsules under the boy's nose several times during the incident. "There may have been ammonia capsules blocking his nose, hands blocking his mouth — that could contribute to asphyxia." link
Anderson was black; the guards were black, white and Asian. The jury was all white.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
An initial autopsy by Dr. Charles Siebert, the medical examiner for Bay County, found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
The Legislature agreed to pay Anderson's family $5 million earlier this year to settle civil claims. link 2
Despite the smug (and incorrect) assertions by quick, the original finding of the coroner was invalidated by the second autopsy. Additionally, despite the "mixed race" make-up of the guards that suffocated Anderson, their race is not relevant to whether or not they brutalized the boy. Where does it say that a Black cop or guard won't brutalize another Black person? If anything, Black cops often are compelled to prove their loyalty to the "blue" trumps loyalty to the "black."
QUOTE(quick)
The system works pretty well--just park your ordinary citizen sense of equity at the door when you look at things like this.
Particularly when the system is trying to protect the system and the victim happens to be Black. It works really well--just not for the Martin Andersons of the world. Just another reminder---as if one were needed---that Black life is cheap and not particularly valued by the judicial system.
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 04:49 PM)
I wonder why it is the same people who claim Martin Lee Anderson died of sickle cell anemia seem to overlook a few facts?
The guards at Bay Boot Camp in Panama City kneed, kicked and hit Martin, 14, after he stopped running during an orientation drill on Jan. 5
Dr. Michael Baden, a pathologist who attended the second autopsy on behalf of Martin's family, told a legislative committee in Tallahassee on Friday that Martin had most likely suffocated during the incident and was brain dead by the time an ambulance carried him away.
"There was a time when there were hands over Anderson's mouth," Dr. Baden said in an interview, noting that the guards held ammonia capsules under the boy's nose several times during the incident. "There may have been ammonia capsules blocking his nose, hands blocking his mouth — that could contribute to asphyxia." link
[i]Anderson was black; the guards were black, white and Asian. The jury was all white.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
An initial autopsy by Dr. Charles Siebert, the medical examiner for Bay County, found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
The guards at Bay Boot Camp in Panama City kneed, kicked and hit Martin, 14, after he stopped running during an orientation drill on Jan. 5
Dr. Michael Baden, a pathologist who attended the second autopsy on behalf of Martin's family, told a legislative committee in Tallahassee on Friday that Martin had most likely suffocated during the incident and was brain dead by the time an ambulance carried him away.
"There was a time when there were hands over Anderson's mouth," Dr. Baden said in an interview, noting that the guards held ammonia capsules under the boy's nose several times during the incident. "There may have been ammonia capsules blocking his nose, hands blocking his mouth — that could contribute to asphyxia." link
[i]Anderson was black; the guards were black, white and Asian. The jury was all white.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
An initial autopsy by Dr. Charles Siebert, the medical examiner for Bay County, found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
Nighttimer, I have a physical condition and pass out from time to time. It could be for any reason, from giving blood to feeling overheated, to feeling anxious, ect.... When I go unconcious, the modus operandi for whatever healthcare provider might be present is to break an ammonia capsule and hold it under my nose to wake me up. After I wake up, I feel great and good to go...In fact I'm in very good shape. The term for my condition is orthostatic impairment, it's hereditary, and it isn't rare. Ammonia is used to revive people from a faint. I don't believe this is an unusual phenomenon...when I volunteered to work at the clinic in my highschool that was what they used as well.
The boot camp instructors were obviously remiss. I can't conclude, based on the evidence, that this was a clear case of homicide. Obviously they were relieved of authority, as they should have been. I've read that sickle-cell trait leads to a 7000 percent higher mortality rate during boot camp than average ( the UK won't permit anyone with this trait to serve in the military). That's rather significant. All attendants of juvenile detention boot camp programs should be aware of this problem, but there is a bit of a fine line between negligence and homicide. I do not believe that the attendants intended to kill this child. They abused their authority and should never have authority over another human being again.
And CR, to answer your baited question, a person is never above an animal in the criminal justice system. I seem to remember a black man who got away with murdering two rich white people in a very high profile case. Anyone could arbitrarily choose some random case in the criminal justice system and use said 'example' of how a cow/white person/ black person/ dog life takes precedence...there are millions of lawsuits in this country. Sometimes (like my high profile example) people get away with murder, sometimes people have to spend a few nights in jail for strangling a puppy. Personally, I don't feel much sympathy for those who kill animals simply because anyone else might have gotten away with doing something worse.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 01:49 PM)
I wonder why it is the same people who claim Martin Lee Anderson died of sickle cell anemia seem to overlook a few facts?
Probably for the same reason that the same people here who pull the race card anytime a Black individual is involved seem to overlook some facts themselves.
FACT: Michael Vick PLEADED GUILTY to a federal crime. He had millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and mount a defense if he wished, but he chose to PLEAD GUILTY. Could it possibly be because he was GUILTY?
Now, if one doesn't think the crime Michael Vick PLEADED GUILTY to should be a crime, ok, then lobby to have it changed, but don't pull the race card. He had his day in court. Nothing racial there at all.FACT: Those accused of killing this boy were tried. They had their day in court and obviously the jury in the trial had reasonable doubt as to their guilt. That's how the system works. I didn't see all the evidence like they did, but I can understand why there might be reasonable doubt in this case. Two conflicting autopsies and opinions on the cause of death? Sounds like a reason to doubt things to me.
To try and play the race card here and tie it into the Michael Vick case is ludicrous..... and unfortunately typical for some posters here.
Aquilla
QUOTE
Particularly when the system is trying to protect the system and the victim happens to be Black. It works really well--just not for the Martin Andersons of the world. Just another reminder---as if one were needed---that Black life is cheap and not particularly valued by the judicial system.
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
Aren't the prosecutors on the same side of the law as the defendants were in this case? How is it that the system is protecting the system when the system is trying the system in court? I don't follow your logic.
If you look at the post by Amlord posted at 9:00am this morning, you will see that just because another autopsy was performed, doesn't mean the air is cleared. With two autopsies having two seperate conclusions, there is absolutly nothing to conclude. If I were to have to pick between the two, I would go with the autopsy from the state medical examiner. The state medical examiner would be considered the state's witness, but that examination didn't prove the state's case. The autopsy requested by the family comes to an opposite conclusion as the state medical examiner. Having an expert witness testify to support your charges is very convenient when an expert witness already testified to the contrary. The difference is that if the state medical examiner was going to report what was needed to send the defendants to jail, his conclusions wouldn't have been what they were. Did the family pay a forensic pathologist to testify to something that wasn't true? I can't say that they did, or that they did intentionally. It wouldn't be the first time that an attorney got the answers they needed in judicial history though.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 03:49 PM)
Particularly when the system is trying to protect the system and the victim happens to be Black. It works really well--just not for the Martin Andersons of the world. Just another reminder---as if one were needed---that Black life is cheap and not particularly valued by the judicial system.
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
Here's what I don't get:
QUOTE
"There was a time when there were hands over Anderson's mouth," Dr. Baden said in an interview, noting that the guards held ammonia capsules under the boy's nose several times during the incident. "There may have been ammonia capsules blocking his nose, hands blocking his mouth — that could contribute to asphyxia."
The man says "MAY"....
As near as I can tell, nothing has been invalidated. It seems that the 2nd opinion doesn't necessarily agree. This is one of the most common things you'll find in medicine, particularly outside of issues such as the common cold.
Why does anyone ever get a 2nd opinion? Is the 2nd opinion more valid? I suppose it could be, but of course it also could be not.
The issue I have here is that only partial evidence is presented, and of course there are two differing opinions. If you take a peek at the articles written, it appears as if the jurors acquitted the guards under the assumption that the death was related to the Sickle-Cell condition. Maybe that's pure conjecture, but I would have to assume that in this case, the jurors used the evidence presented to let the guards go.
QUOTE
If anything, Black cops often are compelled to prove their loyalty to the "blue" trumps loyalty to the "black."
I seriously think that NYPD Blue has somehow permeated the psyche of the United States. It's not a conspiracy in most cases. I know black people that have been pulled over less than I, and know a handful who have never been in handcuffs (not always the case for me).
What does that mean? I dunno. Nothing maybe. However- I don't think that it's surprising that people are using the race card and defending M Vick for brutally abusing dogs for profit.
As I see this, if the death was at the hand of a guard it was obviously not intentional. The tactics used were (according to the article) "standard", which very apparently doesn't usually kill kids, as they'd probably change the procedures manual!
Again, it's a tragedy. It doesn't seem (and again, maybe I don't know) that this kid had been a violent criminal or did anything unforgivable. Just a wrong place/wrong time gig. I hate it for his family.
I can't comment on whether or not the beating was racially motivated but to rule out racism because the thugs-in-charge were black and Asian is to suggest that minorities can't be racist. I can't say that an all-white jury wasn't biased because juries are more likely to recommend the DP if the victim is a white female. That's just one type of jury bias.
I can say people passing judgment on the "goodness" of this kid make me wonder if they're freaking vapid. He may or may not have been in boot camp because of a felony, but his rap sheet wasn't the cause of death.
I can also say that I think this is just the latest death in our "tough love" crime culture. Parents need to stop listening to Dr. Phil—Your kids are out of control; get help fast!—and take ownership of their responsibilities over minors. Barring that, they should be inducted into boot camp and risk death or injury themselves. Parents would be behind bars themselves if they pulled off half the crap these institutions do. For some reason privatizing child abuse legalizes child abuse legal.
One drill instructor from my sister platoon put a hand on me. Once. None of these drill instructor flunkies and wannabes should ever have to lay a finger on these kids, and if they do, perhaps they should be handled by mental health experts that don't use electrodes.
140 pounds.
I can say people passing judgment on the "goodness" of this kid make me wonder if they're freaking vapid. He may or may not have been in boot camp because of a felony, but his rap sheet wasn't the cause of death.
I can also say that I think this is just the latest death in our "tough love" crime culture. Parents need to stop listening to Dr. Phil—Your kids are out of control; get help fast!—and take ownership of their responsibilities over minors. Barring that, they should be inducted into boot camp and risk death or injury themselves. Parents would be behind bars themselves if they pulled off half the crap these institutions do. For some reason privatizing child abuse legalizes child abuse legal.
One drill instructor from my sister platoon put a hand on me. Once. None of these drill instructor flunkies and wannabes should ever have to lay a finger on these kids, and if they do, perhaps they should be handled by mental health experts that don't use electrodes.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 15 2007, 12:03 AM)
This was a 170lb 6' felon not some little innocent middle schooler.
140 pounds.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 15 2007, 02:54 PM)
I can't comment on whether or not the beating was racially motivated but to rule out racism because the thugs-in-charge were black and Asian is to suggest that minorities can't be racist. I can't say that an all-white jury wasn't biased because juries are more likely to recommend the DP if the victim is a white female. That's just one type of jury bias.
I can say people passing judgment on the "goodness" of this kid make me wonder if they're freaking vapid. He may or may not have been in boot camp because of a felony, but his rap sheet wasn't the cause of death.
I can also say that I think this is just the latest death in our "tough love" crime culture. Parents need to stop listening to Dr. Phil—Your kids are out of control; get help fast!—and take ownership of their responsibilities over minors. Barring that, they should be inducted into boot camp and risk death or injury themselves. Parents would be behind bars themselves if they pulled off half the crap these institutions do. For some reason privatizing child abuse legalizes child abuse legal.
One drill instructor from my sister platoon put a hand on me. Once. None of these drill instructor flunkies and wannabes should ever have to lay a finger on these kids, and if they do, perhaps they should be handled by mental health experts that don't use electrodes.
140 pounds.
I can say people passing judgment on the "goodness" of this kid make me wonder if they're freaking vapid. He may or may not have been in boot camp because of a felony, but his rap sheet wasn't the cause of death.
I can also say that I think this is just the latest death in our "tough love" crime culture. Parents need to stop listening to Dr. Phil—Your kids are out of control; get help fast!—and take ownership of their responsibilities over minors. Barring that, they should be inducted into boot camp and risk death or injury themselves. Parents would be behind bars themselves if they pulled off half the crap these institutions do. For some reason privatizing child abuse legalizes child abuse legal.
One drill instructor from my sister platoon put a hand on me. Once. None of these drill instructor flunkies and wannabes should ever have to lay a finger on these kids, and if they do, perhaps they should be handled by mental health experts that don't use electrodes.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 15 2007, 12:03 AM)
This was a 170lb 6' felon not some little innocent middle schooler.
140 pounds.
140??? Holy moly.... I'm 6' and 185lbs and people tell me I need to eat all the time. So, even 170 is pretty darn skinny, but 140? He was a twig.
Skinny or not, this whole thing is a mess. I keep thinking about this kid's mother who was so motivated to find justice that she actually allowed them to exhume her son's body and then rebury him. I can't even imagine what that must be like for her.
This was a case of a botched prosecution. As far as the jury being racists.... I don't see it. When I was selected for jury duty, there were about 30 randomly selected people there, the defense and prosecution took turns asking questions. Do you have any idea what the probability is to go through that and select 12 people that are ALL racists? That would be a tough sell even in a rural community in northern Idaho, and a statistical impossibility for a place like Florida. The idea that all twelve jurors walked in, did their Klan secret handshake, and found everyone not guilty is absurd. It was a botched job on the prosecution to sell their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I served in the Marines and went through the toughest boot camp our government has to offer. We were not allowed to be touched by our Drill Instructors. There is no dispute amongst any United States citizen that the US Marines isn't the finest organization our country has to offer. If you modeled a boot camp after an organization like the Marines, you would not have a group of thugs beating a child to obtain discipline.
People quit when they couldn't handle, or didn't want to handle the physical exercise. They were given time to regain their strength and then the DIs went right back at them. It was the persistence that paid off. Discipline isn't fast. It took 14 years to get this kid to where he was at in life. It wasn't going to take one day to change all of that. The greatest mistake the simple minded fools that run our nation's orrectional facilities make is increase the suffering when they do not get the desire effect from the initial suffering. Have we learned nothing from Jesus, Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr?
What I would like to do is take a knife and jam it in the throat of each one of these bullies. However, the correct response is to allow them to do this to another person, and another, and another, and another, until people start asking questions. Maybe it takes the beating of a white girl to get the public's attention on this sort of thuggery.
People quit when they couldn't handle, or didn't want to handle the physical exercise. They were given time to regain their strength and then the DIs went right back at them. It was the persistence that paid off. Discipline isn't fast. It took 14 years to get this kid to where he was at in life. It wasn't going to take one day to change all of that. The greatest mistake the simple minded fools that run our nation's orrectional facilities make is increase the suffering when they do not get the desire effect from the initial suffering. Have we learned nothing from Jesus, Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr?
What I would like to do is take a knife and jam it in the throat of each one of these bullies. However, the correct response is to allow them to do this to another person, and another, and another, and another, until people start asking questions. Maybe it takes the beating of a white girl to get the public's attention on this sort of thuggery.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 15 2007, 05:13 PM)
The boot camp instructors were obviously remiss. I can't conclude, based on the evidence, that this was a clear case of homicide. Obviously they were relieved of authority, as they should have been. I've read that sickle-cell trait leads to a 7000 percent higher mortality rate during boot camp than average ( the UK won't permit anyone with this trait to serve in the military). That's rather significant. All attendants of juvenile detention boot camp programs should be aware of this problem, but there is a bit of a fine line between negligence and homicide. I do not believe that the attendants intended to kill this child. They abused their authority and should never have authority over another human being again.
"Remiss," Mrs. Pigpen? Wow. That's pretty harsh. If the sickle-cell trait leads to a 7000 percent higher mortality rate during boot camp, I wonder what percentage it goes to when seven wannabee D.I.'s in Smokey the Bear hats are kicking, punching, dragging and stuffing ammonia caps under someone's noise and smothering them? Ten-thousand percent, maybe?
They didn't just abuse their authority. They abused Martin Anderson. Abused him to death.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 15 2007, 05:15 PM)
FACT: Michael Vick PLEADED GUILTY to a federal crime. He had millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and mount a defense if he wished, but he chose to PLEAD GUILTY. Could it possibly be because he was GUILTY? Now, if one doesn't think the crime Michael Vick PLEADED GUILTY to should be a crime, ok, then lobby to have it changed, but don't pull the race card. He had his day in court. Nothing racial there at all.
FACT: Those accused of killing this boy were tried. They had their day in court and obviously the jury in the trial had reasonable doubt as to their guilt. That's how the system works. I didn't see all the evidence like they did, but I can understand why there might be reasonable doubt in this case. Two conflicting autopsies and opinions on the cause of death? Sounds like a reason to doubt things to me.
To try and play the race card here and tie it into the Michael Vick case is ludicrous..... and unfortunately typical for some posters here.
Now, if one doesn't think the crime Michael Vick PLEADED GUILTY to should be a crime, ok, then lobby to have it changed, but don't pull the race card. He had his day in court. Nothing racial there at all.FACT: Those accused of killing this boy were tried. They had their day in court and obviously the jury in the trial had reasonable doubt as to their guilt. That's how the system works. I didn't see all the evidence like they did, but I can understand why there might be reasonable doubt in this case. Two conflicting autopsies and opinions on the cause of death? Sounds like a reason to doubt things to me.
To try and play the race card here and tie it into the Michael Vick case is ludicrous..... and unfortunately typical for some posters here.
Your antipathy for Michael Vick is well-established, Aquilla. However, next time you might want to read before you rant. I never mentioned Michael Vick. I feel no responsiblity for anyone else that may have.
What is ludicrous is how casually you throw out that tired old cliche of "playing the race card" whenever you don't believe it applies. Which is pretty much never. Do you and Aevans176, Amlord, Ted, deng, Blackstone and quick have a little club that gets together and determines when the race card is permitted to be played?
You can sell that crap about "that's how the system works." If your precious system doesn't protect the innocent and sanctions the killing of a 14-year-old boy, then I submit that your system SUCKS and doesn't deserve to be held in such high esteem.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 15 2007, 05:30 PM)
Aren't the prosecutors on the same side of the law as the defendants were in this case? How is it that the system is protecting the system when the system is trying the system in court? I don't follow your logic.
Allow me to simplify it for you then, scubatim with a easy math lesson. Black male victim + All-White jury=Assailants walk.
That clear it up for you?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 15 2007, 05:53 PM)
As near as I can tell, nothing has been invalidated. It seems that the 2nd opinion doesn't necessarily agree. This is one of the most common things you'll find in medicine, particularly outside of issues such as the common cold.
Why does anyone ever get a 2nd opinion? Is the 2nd opinion more valid? I suppose it could be, but of course it also could be not.
The issue I have here is that only partial evidence is presented, and of course there are two differing opinions. If you take a peek at the articles written, it appears as if the jurors acquitted the guards under the assumption that the death was related to the Sickle-Cell condition. Maybe that's pure conjecture, but I would have to assume that in this case, the jurors used the evidence presented to let the guards go.
What does that mean? I dunno. Nothing maybe. However- I don't think that it's surprising that people are using the race card and defending M Vick for brutally abusing dogs for profit.
As I see this, if the death was at the hand of a guard it was obviously not intentional. The tactics used were (according to the article) "standard", which very apparently doesn't usually kill kids, as they'd probably change the procedures manual!
Why does anyone ever get a 2nd opinion? Is the 2nd opinion more valid? I suppose it could be, but of course it also could be not.
The issue I have here is that only partial evidence is presented, and of course there are two differing opinions. If you take a peek at the articles written, it appears as if the jurors acquitted the guards under the assumption that the death was related to the Sickle-Cell condition. Maybe that's pure conjecture, but I would have to assume that in this case, the jurors used the evidence presented to let the guards go.
What does that mean? I dunno. Nothing maybe. However- I don't think that it's surprising that people are using the race card and defending M Vick for brutally abusing dogs for profit.
As I see this, if the death was at the hand of a guard it was obviously not intentional. The tactics used were (according to the article) "standard", which very apparently doesn't usually kill kids, as they'd probably change the procedures manual!
Ah, more "race card" rhetoric. What's that? The secret code word for this little boys club you guys have got going, Aevans176?
Over the years both on this board and off, I've heard rationalizations for the barrage of 41 shots that mowed down Amadou Diallo and the raping of Abner Louima with a plunger and the shooting of Sean Bell and the beating of Rodney King and time and time again one of the constant refrains is, "You're playing the race card." After all this time, we're still living the legacy of the O.J. Simpson trial.
What is it called when White people "play the race card" and the way they play the game is race has nothing-nada-zero to do with whatever Black people are bent about? If Black people pull the race card it's deemed as "paranoia." It seems to be when it's White people pulling the card it should be called "denial."
QUOTE(Ataal @ Oct 15 2007, 11:05 PM)
This was a case of a botched prosecution. As far as the jury being racists.... I don't see it. When I was selected for jury duty, there were about 30 randomly selected people there, the defense and prosecution took turns asking questions. Do you have any idea what the probability is to go through that and select 12 people that are ALL racists? That would be a tough sell even in a rural community in northern Idaho, and a statistical impossibility for a place like Florida. The idea that all twelve jurors walked in, did their Klan secret handshake, and found everyone not guilty is absurd. It was a botched job on the prosecution to sell their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It doesn't take 12 people on a jury to be closet racists to absolve the defendants of responsiblity for Martin Anderson's sudden demise. It really only takes one skillful attorney playing on the fear of an all-White jury of young, dark-skinned males with strange hairstyles and alien attitudes. If you can take one Black kid and turn him into the embodiment of all the crazy, out-of-control "thugs" (a term we've seen thrown around in this thread and others) then Martin Lee Anderson ceases to be a human being and instead he becomes something White people have always feared and loathed: the wild, untamed and brutish "bad nigger." And once Anderson becomes less than just a troubled teenager who made some bad decisions as teenagers do with incredible frequency, he becomes a symbol of something people recoil from in disgust. Then it doesn't seem like such a bad thing that he's no longer among the living.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 15 2007, 11:28 PM)
What I would like to do is take a knife and jam it in the throat of each one of these bullies. However, the correct response is to allow them to do this to another person, and another, and another, and another, until people start asking questions. Maybe it takes the beating of a white girl to get the public's attention on this sort of thuggery.
Oops, got me there, barnaby2341. I forgot to add pretty White girls right along with adorable dogs on the short list of things guaranteed to get people all hopped up and concerned about. Guess it was just bad luck for Anderson he wasn't a dog OR a White girl. Better luck next time on the reincarnation train.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 10:55 PM)
QUOTE(Ataal @ Oct 15 2007, 11:05 PM)
This was a case of a botched prosecution. As far as the jury being racists.... I don't see it. When I was selected for jury duty, there were about 30 randomly selected people there, the defense and prosecution took turns asking questions. Do you have any idea what the probability is to go through that and select 12 people that are ALL racists? That would be a tough sell even in a rural community in northern Idaho, and a statistical impossibility for a place like Florida. The idea that all twelve jurors walked in, did their Klan secret handshake, and found everyone not guilty is absurd. It was a botched job on the prosecution to sell their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It doesn't take 12 people on a jury to be closet racists to absolve the defendants of responsiblity for Martin Anderson's sudden demise. It really only takes one skillful attorney playing on the fear of an all-White jury of young, dark-skinned males with strange hairstyles and alien attitudes. If you can take one Black kid and turn him into the embodiment of all the crazy, out-of-control "thugs" (a term we've seen thrown around in this thread and others) then Martin Lee Anderson ceases to be a human being and instead he becomes something White people have always feared and loathed: the wild, untamed and brutish "bad nigger." And once Anderson becomes less than just a troubled teenager who made some bad decisions as teenagers do with incredible frequency, he becomes a symbol of something people recoil from in disgust. Then it doesn't seem like such a bad thing that he's no longer among the living.
I see, so all 12 jurors weren't racists before the trial, they were converted into racists right there in the courtroom.
That is one hell of a lawyer!!! Anyone have his number? I'm going to give him a call the next time I have to wait 6 hours at the DMV and go postal on everyone there. Honestly, "he becomes something White people have always feared and loathed: the wild, untamed and brutish "bad nigger.""? That's quite a blanket statement about white people, don't you think? There is nothing anyone can say to me to make me regard that boy's life any less important than anyone else I know, regardless of his criminal past. I've been in jail before, not everyone is "bad" in there. I think the second autopsy was a key role in their acquittal. Even though it questioned the validity of the sickle cell trait being the cause of death, it also called into doubt, reasonable doubt, as to how he died. I think they would've had a slightly stronger case even if his death was due to the sickle cell trait.
Do you believe the statement that America cares more for a dog's well being than a 14 year old black kid to be true?
This is a very difficult question to answer because the question relies so heavily on interpreting isolated incidents to form a generalization about a very large group of people.
I am certain that there are many racists and animal rights fanatics who would care more for a dog than a 14 year old black kid, but to go from that to saying America as a society does is a bit rich. What of all the people who don't? don't they count as America just as much as the racists who do?
Are we speaking about a majority percentage then? Does a majority of Americans care more for a dog's well being than a 14 year old black kid? I really can't believe that. I feel that this sort of case becomes inflamed because people on both sides of the argument make ridiculous generalizations to bolster their own flawed perceptions.
Do you believe the all white jury that aquitted these drill instructors did the right thing in aquitting the instructors?
One has to accept the possibility that a jury can be wrong, but given that they had all the facts presented to them, then one must accept that they aquitted the instructors within the parameters of the law. I know of no better system of finding guilt than a panel of 12 citizens.
I do not automatically assume that 12 'white' jurors are racists because they aquitted people accused of a racist act. I also trust the law to take racism into consideration and allow for a retrial if there is any doubt as to the motives of a jury. I believe that these jurors did the right thing. I have to trust that a court of law in a society built on the principle of law, is fair and not racist.
Do you think that the punishment for Micheal Vick, who killed dogs, should be more severe than the punishment than the drill instructors?
I've read whats been said in this case and I have to shrug and answer I don't know how this comparison bears water. The two cases are unrelated. In the one a man has accepted his own guilt, the other is ambiguous. I could understand the comparison if guilt had been established so firmly in both cases, but otherwise I feel this debate is posed in such a way as to maximize the argument.
I think proven cruelty to animals should be a heavier punishment than unproved murder, yes.
If the latter case had proven guilt, then I am certain the punishment would have reflected the severity of the crime accordingly.
Having said that, I find it deplorable that a 14 year old can be brutalized to death, regardless of who they are. The killers may be innocent due to a legal technicality or medical condition, what ever, but kicking and beating some one 'for their own good', is just wrong. This ought to be considered man slaughter at the least. Were it up to me I'd convict these people of assault, battery and violence leading to death (not sure what you call that in th USA).
This is a very difficult question to answer because the question relies so heavily on interpreting isolated incidents to form a generalization about a very large group of people.
I am certain that there are many racists and animal rights fanatics who would care more for a dog than a 14 year old black kid, but to go from that to saying America as a society does is a bit rich. What of all the people who don't? don't they count as America just as much as the racists who do?
Are we speaking about a majority percentage then? Does a majority of Americans care more for a dog's well being than a 14 year old black kid? I really can't believe that. I feel that this sort of case becomes inflamed because people on both sides of the argument make ridiculous generalizations to bolster their own flawed perceptions.
Do you believe the all white jury that aquitted these drill instructors did the right thing in aquitting the instructors?
One has to accept the possibility that a jury can be wrong, but given that they had all the facts presented to them, then one must accept that they aquitted the instructors within the parameters of the law. I know of no better system of finding guilt than a panel of 12 citizens.
I do not automatically assume that 12 'white' jurors are racists because they aquitted people accused of a racist act. I also trust the law to take racism into consideration and allow for a retrial if there is any doubt as to the motives of a jury. I believe that these jurors did the right thing. I have to trust that a court of law in a society built on the principle of law, is fair and not racist.
Do you think that the punishment for Micheal Vick, who killed dogs, should be more severe than the punishment than the drill instructors?
I've read whats been said in this case and I have to shrug and answer I don't know how this comparison bears water. The two cases are unrelated. In the one a man has accepted his own guilt, the other is ambiguous. I could understand the comparison if guilt had been established so firmly in both cases, but otherwise I feel this debate is posed in such a way as to maximize the argument.
I think proven cruelty to animals should be a heavier punishment than unproved murder, yes.
If the latter case had proven guilt, then I am certain the punishment would have reflected the severity of the crime accordingly.
Having said that, I find it deplorable that a 14 year old can be brutalized to death, regardless of who they are. The killers may be innocent due to a legal technicality or medical condition, what ever, but kicking and beating some one 'for their own good', is just wrong. This ought to be considered man slaughter at the least. Were it up to me I'd convict these people of assault, battery and violence leading to death (not sure what you call that in th USA).
QUOTE
Allow me to simplify it for you then, scubatim with a easy math lesson. Black male victim + All-White jury=Assailants walk.
That clear it up for you?
That clear it up for you?
Everytime in judicial history when there is a black male victim and an all white jury, that was chosen by both the prosecutor and the defense, the assailants walked? Don't you think this is a little simplistic? Don''t you think that maybe there are more factors in a case than just race? If a racist was sitting on that jury and had the opportunity to send three black men and an Asian man to jail, don't you think they would have jumped all over it? It is the racists dream; these minorities killed a black kid, and now is an opportunity to get them in prison too!
No, you really don't clear anything up, you simply avoid facts in the case to make an emotionally driven argument that doesn't hold water with me. Are they guilty? I don't know. Did they get off because the entire jury was racially scared of the defendants, I highly doubt it. Is it possible that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the charges that they were charged with, more likely than not.
QUOTE
Oops, got me there, barnaby2341. I forgot to add pretty White girls right along with adorable dogs on the short list of things guaranteed to get people all hopped up and concerned about. Guess it was just bad luck for Anderson he wasn't a dog OR a White girl. Better luck next time on the reincarnation train.
I put statements like these into the same category of conspiracy theorists. It seems, nighttimer that you can find fault in everything that blames the system of being wrong. Isn't it possible that the system worked and the state didn't fulfill it's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of those that were charged, or would that be too much of a stretch to be reality? I know innocent people go to jail and guilty people walk. But to say that dogs and white girls will gaurantee to get people concerned and a black kid has no chance is a little bit of a stretch. Help clear this up for me.
Do you believe the statement that America cares more for a dog's well being than a 14 year old black kid to be true?
One has nothing to do with the other. And I'd like to say I find the title of this thread and its entire premise offensive and inflammatory.
Arguments like this always irritate the ---- out of me. It’s like saying since my pets are healthy and well-fed, they are more important than [pick your deserving human charity]. It’s a silly, facetious argument used to inflame emotion (and in this case, racial animus).
Do you believe the all white jury that aquitted these drill instructors did the right thing in aquitting the instructors?
I have no doubt that this incident, like so many others, is a whitewash (if you’ll pardon the expression) of overly zealous law enforcement personnel’s actions. I don’t know what evidence was presented at the trial, but when a teenager dies in their custody, it would seem they would have to receive some sort of punishment. Additionally, I disagree with the whole concept of these teenage “boot camps”. To me, they are just approved, institutionalized abuse and attract the worse sort of abusers, and yes, sometimes racists (as the following article points out).
It's a travesty of justice, but sadly not surprising in a southern community that is 86% white.
Do you think that the punishment for Micheal Vick, who killed dogs, should be more severe than the punishment than the drill instructors?
I’m not even going to address this question, because one event has absolutely nothing to do with the other – they have nothing in common. There are other threads dealing with Michael Vick and his situation.
One has nothing to do with the other. And I'd like to say I find the title of this thread and its entire premise offensive and inflammatory.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Why is a dog's life worth so much more than one black boy's life?
QUOTE(Nighttimer )
Too bad he wasn't a dog. Somebody might have been punished for brutalizing him then.
Arguments like this always irritate the ---- out of me. It’s like saying since my pets are healthy and well-fed, they are more important than [pick your deserving human charity]. It’s a silly, facetious argument used to inflame emotion (and in this case, racial animus).
Do you believe the all white jury that aquitted these drill instructors did the right thing in aquitting the instructors?
I have no doubt that this incident, like so many others, is a whitewash (if you’ll pardon the expression) of overly zealous law enforcement personnel’s actions. I don’t know what evidence was presented at the trial, but when a teenager dies in their custody, it would seem they would have to receive some sort of punishment. Additionally, I disagree with the whole concept of these teenage “boot camps”. To me, they are just approved, institutionalized abuse and attract the worse sort of abusers, and yes, sometimes racists (as the following article points out).
QUOTE
But despite expert testimony that Martin Lee Anderson was suffocated last year by the guards -- who clamped his mouth shut while forcing ammonia into his nose -- an all-white jury let the guards, and the nurse who stood by, go free.
<snip>
Last year, former Bay County Sheriff Guy Tunnell, who set up the boot camp, had to resign as commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after e-mails showed his agency intended to block public viewing of the Anderson video.
His e-mails also contained racist jokes.
Florida Today
<snip>
Last year, former Bay County Sheriff Guy Tunnell, who set up the boot camp, had to resign as commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after e-mails showed his agency intended to block public viewing of the Anderson video.
His e-mails also contained racist jokes.
Florida Today
It's a travesty of justice, but sadly not surprising in a southern community that is 86% white.
Do you think that the punishment for Micheal Vick, who killed dogs, should be more severe than the punishment than the drill instructors?
I’m not even going to address this question, because one event has absolutely nothing to do with the other – they have nothing in common. There are other threads dealing with Michael Vick and his situation.
It seems odd, that the jury involved in this case was all white to start with.
Here is a link on Panama City's racial makeup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_City,_Florida
In that prosecution and law enforcement are usually on the same side, I wonder if prosecutors put on their "best" case.
Whether it involves illegal wiretapping or prison guard thugs, there is an element of people who now seem willing to accept anything if they think it keeps them safe.
Yeah, it might work. I know one 14-year-old boy who won't be a problem for the Florida legal system again.
Here is a link on Panama City's racial makeup.
QUOTE
As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 36,417 people, 14,819 households, and 9,039 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,774.8 people per square mile (685.2/km²). There were 16,548 housing units at an average density of 806.5 per square mile (311.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 73.64% White, 21.45% African American, 1.55% Asian, 0.63% Native American, 0.08% Pacific Islander, 0.75% from other races, and 1.89% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.91% of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_City,_Florida
In that prosecution and law enforcement are usually on the same side, I wonder if prosecutors put on their "best" case.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 15 2007, 10:28 PM)
However, the correct response is to allow them to do this to another person, and another, and another, and another, until people start asking questions. Maybe it takes the beating of a white girl to get the public's attention on this sort of thuggery.
Whether it involves illegal wiretapping or prison guard thugs, there is an element of people who now seem willing to accept anything if they think it keeps them safe.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 14 2007, 11:03 PM)
This case effectively closed ALL "Boot Camp" style Juvenile facilities in florida... sad really the recivitism rate was less than 1/3 of other types of facilities, we actually got at the root causes and taught the kids to grow up.
Yeah, it might work. I know one 14-year-old boy who won't be a problem for the Florida legal system again.
No Lesley- I am afraid the two, or three, if you count the Jena issue- is all inter-related in a race debate. Martin Anderson's mother, in her anguish asked this very question- "why is a dog's life so much more important that a black boy's?"
You can see the racism right here in this thread - the black boy just gets bigger and more threatening with the telling "6 foot tall 170 pound thug"- 35 years ago it would have been a "buck nigger" instead- but we are more sophisticated in our racism now- a more generic "thug" with the modifier of "black"- had that been a gang-banging white girl that wieghed 140 pounds, or even 180 pounds- there is no way that all white jury would have allowed those poeple to walk.
Yes, there was far more outcry in this nation, by primarily white poeple, over the fate of some freakin' dogs than there has been for this young man. Therein lies the racism of this country- and we should be ashamed.
You just can't get an all white jury in the south to convict evil-doers as long at the victim is black.
Had that nurse and those so called "DIs" NOT beaten that boy for so long, and ignored his medical conditions as "faking" that boy would be alive today- no matter if he had sickle cell or not. It is just something for all white juries to latch on to for justifying aquitting someone of the murder they committed.
You can see the racism right here in this thread - the black boy just gets bigger and more threatening with the telling "6 foot tall 170 pound thug"- 35 years ago it would have been a "buck nigger" instead- but we are more sophisticated in our racism now- a more generic "thug" with the modifier of "black"- had that been a gang-banging white girl that wieghed 140 pounds, or even 180 pounds- there is no way that all white jury would have allowed those poeple to walk.
Yes, there was far more outcry in this nation, by primarily white poeple, over the fate of some freakin' dogs than there has been for this young man. Therein lies the racism of this country- and we should be ashamed.
You just can't get an all white jury in the south to convict evil-doers as long at the victim is black.
Had that nurse and those so called "DIs" NOT beaten that boy for so long, and ignored his medical conditions as "faking" that boy would be alive today- no matter if he had sickle cell or not. It is just something for all white juries to latch on to for justifying aquitting someone of the murder they committed.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 16 2007, 12:39 PM)
- had that been a gang-banging white girl that wieghed 140 pounds, or even 180 pounds- there is no way that all white jury would have allowed those poeple to walk.
Had the perpetrators dropped their pants and violated a person it would have been a lot harder to make a case that the consequences were unintentional, wouldn't it? I do believe that if the culprits had repeatedly sodomized this 14 year old, they would in fact be behind bars for a long, long time.
QUOTE
You just can't get an all white jury in the south to convict evil-doers as long at the victim is black.
Then why the hostility towards the person who accused the Duke Lacross team? That was in the south, the (ostensible) victim was black and the culprits white....would have been an open and shut case, right?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 16 2007, 12:39 PM)
No Lesley—I am afraid the two, or three, if you count the Jena issue—is all inter-related in a race debate. Martin Anderson's mother, in her anguish asked this very question: "Why is a dog's life so much more important that a black boy's?"
I can overlook people misspelling my name as long as they're talking to me. I'm not DaffyGrl. I am CatGrl if anything. Cease this quackery!
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 14 2007, 11:03 PM)
This case effectively closed ALL "Boot Camp" style Juvenile facilities in Florida. Sad, really. The recidivism rate was less than 1/3 of other types of facilities; we actually got at the root causes and taught the kids to grow up.
Where do you get this less than 1/3? That's pretty generous for any program. Are you or someone you know out of a job now? According to the article I linked: The state Department of Juvenile Justice's records show that 62 percent of graduates from the several camps around the state are re-arrested after release.
Root causes, eh? I'm guessing the Tough Love script doesn't mention poverty.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 16 2007, 12:09 PM)
Root causes, eh? I'm guessing the Tough Love script doesn't mention poverty.
Daffy... er... cat... er.. Lesly.
I don't suppose all poverty stricken people become criminals. I'm literally sick of hearing that poverty causes crime. Poverty stricken people with sketchy values might become criminals, but there are millions of poor law abiding citizens.
Lesly- ever take a trip on back roads through the south? How much small town crime is there? How rich are little towns like Minden Louisiana? Seriously. Think about what you're saying. Small towns don't have high crime rates (usually) due to the likelihood of being caught (lack of anonymity) and the existence of shame (people might know it was you who did it).
There was a time in America where a large portion of Americans were really poor by today's standards, when agrarian society dominated the South. Were they criminals?
QUOTE(CR)
Yes, there was far more outcry in this nation, by primarily white poeple, over the fate of some freakin' dogs than there has been for this young man. Therein lies the racism of this country- and we should be ashamed.
What do you want? You want PETA and the ASPCA to take up this boy's cause? Because then you open up a whole 'nother can of worms about human vs. animal! Different organizations support/defend different things. I'm sure the ACLU is involved in this case. They aren't known for media shyness. How about shuffling some of the blame onto the lazy-a$$ media? Please, get OFF this "dog got better treatment than human" kick. It's stupid, and inaccurate.
Why wasn't there more press for the guy who microwaved his baby? Isn't that worse than this boy's death? Why hasn't there been more national coverage of the loss of life in the horrific accident on I5 this weekend, or the fact that CalTrans is allowing traffic on the (possibly damaged) road overhead? Jeez, this could go on and on.
QUOTE(Lesly)
I can overlook people misspelling my name as long as they're talking to me. I'm not DaffyGrl. I am CatGrl if anything. Cease this quackery!
I'm not sure if I've just been insulted...or not.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 15 2007, 09:13 PM)
The boot camp instructors were obviously remiss. I can't conclude, based on the evidence, that this was a clear case of homicide. Obviously they were relieved of authority, as they should have been. I've read that sickle-cell trait leads to a 7000 percent higher mortality rate during boot camp than average ( the UK won't permit anyone with this trait to serve in the military). That's rather significant. All attendants of juvenile detention boot camp programs should be aware of this problem, but there is a bit of a fine line between negligence and homicide. I do not believe that the attendants intended to kill this child. They abused their authority and should never have authority over another human being again.
Homicide wasn't the charge; manslaughter was. And I must say, it looks trasparently like manslaughter to me. I have every confidence that, fortunately, these people will be convicted on federal charges and given the imprisonment they deserve.
I hope nobody thinks that those of us arguing that no, a young black man isn't valued below a dog actually approve of the way he was mistreated and the jury's decision.
We've got to remember that the jury was obligated to decide based on the merits of the prosecution's case and the instructions given to them by the judge before they were dismissed to deliberate.
I do think it very irregular that the prosecution and defense ultimately decided on seating an all-white jury. But I am just not convinced that that fact alone means that the result was skewed in favor of the defendants.
We've got to remember that the jury was obligated to decide based on the merits of the prosecution's case and the instructions given to them by the judge before they were dismissed to deliberate.
I do think it very irregular that the prosecution and defense ultimately decided on seating an all-white jury. But I am just not convinced that that fact alone means that the result was skewed in favor of the defendants.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 16 2007, 03:00 PM)
Daffy... er... cat... er.. Lesly. I don't suppose all poverty stricken people become criminals.
Why would you suppose that?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 16 2007, 03:00 PM)
I'm literally sick of hearing that poverty causes crime. Poverty stricken people with sketchy values might become criminals, but there are millions of poor law abiding citizens.
Poverty is a root cause of crime.
Poverty is a root cause of crime.
Poverty is a root cause of crime.
Hopefully you're too sick to post.
I probably have to point out how characteristically conservative your assumption that poverty and crime's common denominator is a deficiency in character is (and the unspoken implication: rich and middle class earners have good values). I could quote papers like "Labor Stratification and Violent Crime" by Crutchfield, "Inequality and Crime" from The Review of Economics and Statistics, or "The Truly Disadvantaged, Public Assistance, and Crime" from Hannon and Defronzo, but why bother? Go ahead and reject hundreds of periodicals. And who needs the FBI's input on poverty as a crime factor?
We had a local judge show up to class yesterday. Someone asked him, in his opinion, what class of people did he send to jail most often. He said the poor, and most cases dealt with drug offenses or property crime. You go ahead and reject his experience with a wave of your hand, too.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 16 2007, 03:00 PM)
Lesly—ever take a trip on back roads through the south? How much small town crime is there? How rich are little towns like Minden Louisiana? Seriously.
Srsly, ignoring "population density and degree of urbanization" and "stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors" is easy as pie.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 16 2007, 03:00 PM)
Think about what you're saying. Small towns don't have high crime rates (usually) due to the likelihood of being caught (lack of anonymity) and the existence of shame (people might know it was you who did it).
Could a smaller population be a coinkidink? I also found out yesterday that rural convicts serve harsher penalties compared with urban convicts because of the volume of cases and the resources required to incarcerate comparable percentages of the population.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 16 2007, 03:00 PM)
There was a time in America where a large portion of Americans were really poor by today's standards, when agrarian society dominated the South. Were they criminals?
No, just slaves.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 16 2007, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 16 2007, 01:09 PM)
I can overlook people misspelling my name as long as they're talking to me. I'm not DaffyGrl. I am CatGrl if anything. Cease this quackery!
I'm not sure if I've just been insulted...or not.
Not my intention to, Daffy. This is the second time (I think) CR has mixed us up and I'm ribbing him.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 16 2007, 03:16 PM)
We had a local judge show up to class yesterday. Someone asked him, in his opinion, what class of people did he send to jail most often. He said the poor, and most cases dealt with drug offenses or property crime. You go ahead and reject his experience with a wave of your hand, too.
Rock on Judge. Ok, but umm... Lesly, did he say that poverty causes crime, or did he say that poor people commit more crime?
While we're being partisan (you said my view is characteristic), the problem I find with liberal thought in many cases is causality. In America, one can draw a correlation to convictions and poverty, but does that mean that poverty causes crime or does that simply mean that poor people have less to lose?
Do rich people ever go to jail? Why don't they go as often?
I believe that the fast dollar is found in all walks of life, but less likely to happen in people who have homes, families, and lives to lose. It's simple to understand really. Someone who might have a nice home, car, and life might think before he/she embezzled money from a company.
Take Larry Levin for instance, in the 80's, he was Philadelphia's largest Coke dealer... but also a DENTIST! It happens. Need I say Enron?
In America, poverty does not in itself cause crime. However, the lack of social value on staying out of trouble does aid in this correlation.
If what you're saying is true, in reference to causality, it's like saying living in Colorado causes the flu. Why? People in Colorado get the flu the most.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...118/ai_n9998040
Does living in Colorado really cause the flu, or do people in Colorado make choices or perpetuate living conditions that cause the disease to spread?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 16 2007, 12:39 PM)
You just can't get an all white jury in the south to convict evil-doers as long at the victim is black.
I can tell you from personal experience as a member of the bar in a Southern state that this happens with majority white juries, and it happens frequently. It is rare that you ever see all-white or all-black juries in any major metropolitan area.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 10:55 PM)
Your antipathy for Michael Vick is well-established, Aquilla. However, next time you might want to read before you rant. I never mentioned Michael Vick. I feel no responsiblity for anyone else that may have.
What is ludicrous is how casually you throw out that tired old cliche of "playing the race card" whenever you don't believe it applies. Which is pretty much never. Do you and Aevans176, Amlord, Ted, deng, Blackstone and quick have a little club that gets together and determines when the race card is permitted to be played?
You can sell that crap about "that's how the system works." If your precious system doesn't protect the innocent and sanctions the killing of a 14-year-old boy, then I submit that your system SUCKS and doesn't deserve to be held in such high esteem.
What is ludicrous is how casually you throw out that tired old cliche of "playing the race card" whenever you don't believe it applies. Which is pretty much never. Do you and Aevans176, Amlord, Ted, deng, Blackstone and quick have a little club that gets together and determines when the race card is permitted to be played?
You can sell that crap about "that's how the system works." If your precious system doesn't protect the innocent and sanctions the killing of a 14-year-old boy, then I submit that your system SUCKS and doesn't deserve to be held in such high esteem.
No, you never mentioned Michael Vick (even though he is mentioned in questions for this thread), but you did reference dog-fighting.
1+1 = ? As far as your claim that "my antipathy for Michael Vick" is concerned, you're wrong there too. I dislike what Vick did, and what he pled guilty to doing. I even started a thread here concerning more charges against him in state court and questioned whether that was Constitutional or not. As yet, nobody has responded.This entire thread was based on charges of racism because the individual who died was Black. The assumption of some here seems to be that it must have been racism that resulted in a jury finding the defendants in this trial not-guilty. And, that's why you claim the system is "crap" I suppose. Well, there is another explanation that goes to the heart of our system of justice and that's called "reasonable doubt". From what little I know of the actual evidence in this case as opposed to the inflammatory rhetoric we see from you, CR and others is that there is reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. Two autopsies, two conclusions. Who to believe? To make the claim that the "system SUCKS" as you did or that the jury was full of racists as CR ignores the actual facts as we know them. When you ignore the known facts and instead make a claim of "racism" because you don't agree with the finding of a jury because the "victim" is black, you're playing the worn out "race card". And, if you don't appreciate me or any others pointing that out to you, fine, stop playing it.
Aquilla
Well, I can pretty tell from your posts on this subject vs your outrage on the Vick subject Aevens- you really don't give a flip that these poeple killed this kid. And therein lies the "race card" and part of the divide between whites and blacks in this country. A black person turns on CNN and sees 24/7 coverage of protests and outrage because Michael Vick killed some dogs. Big whoop. These poeple murdered a 14 year old boy. IN a program where, apparently-beating kids was SOP- someone said that this was a successful program, because of "only" a 33% recidivism. Man, we don't place kids in RTCs outside of this state (residential treatment centers- for about the same thing the victim here was dealing with, if not EXACTLY the same thing) - unless there is AT LEAST an 80% success rate. Usually that is only the case with hard core personalty disorder issues- like borderline personality disorder with self harm- the cutters. But just conduct disorder type kids like we see in the victim here- it has to be closer to 95% success rate.
Bottom line is- the "it was reasonable doubt" types here- you really don't care that a kid was killed here- you are just outraged because someone called you on it with the "race card".
There is no way in hell any body that wasn't pre-disposed to racism would have come up with "reasonable doubt" in any way shape or form. That kid would be alive if they wouldn't have been kicking the tar out of him, period.
Oh, and Mrs P- "gang banging" means, um, running with a gang- has nothing to do with a sexual act. I think maybe you missed the slang?
Bottom line is- the "it was reasonable doubt" types here- you really don't care that a kid was killed here- you are just outraged because someone called you on it with the "race card".
There is no way in hell any body that wasn't pre-disposed to racism would have come up with "reasonable doubt" in any way shape or form. That kid would be alive if they wouldn't have been kicking the tar out of him, period.
Oh, and Mrs P- "gang banging" means, um, running with a gang- has nothing to do with a sexual act. I think maybe you missed the slang?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 16 2007, 03:28 PM)
Bottom line is- the "it was reasonable doubt" types here- you really don't care that a kid was killed here- you are just outraged because someone called you on it with the "race card".
I'm calling bovine manure here. I am outraged. I'm outraged that a boy was killed. I'm outraged that a mother had to exhume her son's body and rebury it for nothing. I am outraged that not one person was held responsible. I am outraged that someone can so quickly dismiss SOP courtroom tactics such as reasonable doubt for a conspiracy of 12 randomly selected people to so overtly acquit 7 guards and a nurse on the basis of racism. Occam's Razor comes to mind.
Reasonable doubt is for the protection of the innocent. All of those "driving while black" cases, the robbery of a store and the police bring in the first black guy found near the scene cases, those kinds of cases are where reasonable doubt is there for their protection.
Except in this case, because it's convenient for the "race card" types. Pure bovine manure.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 16 2007, 06:28 PM)
Well, I can pretty tell from your posts on this subject vs your outrage on the Vick subject Aevens- you really don't give a flip that these poeple killed this kid. And therein lies the "race card" and part of the divide between whites and blacks in this country. A black person turns on CNN and sees 24/7 coverage of protests and outrage because Michael Vick killed some dogs. Big whoop. These poeple murdered a 14 year old boy.
When was the last time you saw mass outrage about a white person beaten to death by an abuse of authority? I can't remember one time. That's not because it never happens. We watched a man fired on at point blank range by a policeman while he was on his knees, then kicked after he was shot, on video tape. That didn't make headline news...I think it was on page D next to the article about a squirrel eating a lollypop.
QUOTE
Mrs P- "gang banging" means, um, running with a gang- has nothing to do with a sexual act. I think maybe you missed the slang?
Oh. Oops. 
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 16 2007, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE
Mrs P- "gang banging" means, um, running with a gang- has nothing to do with a sexual act. I think maybe you missed the slang?
Oh. Oops. Yeah, slang changes with the wind these days, but don't feel too bad Mrs. P, at least Wiki agrees with you.
I'm sorry did I miss the part where the 14 year old boy was killed and did not die of a blood disorder?
Now we have already debunked the 30 minute beating and any similarity between Jena, Vick and this case... so where does that leave us?
So if the guards didn't MURDER him, and were negligent, but found innocent....
Where's the racism?
Oh and I'm thinking movie night at Mr & Mrs Pigpen's house is pretty... um... yeah.
Now we have already debunked the 30 minute beating and any similarity between Jena, Vick and this case... so where does that leave us?
So if the guards didn't MURDER him, and were negligent, but found innocent....
Where's the racism?
Oh and I'm thinking movie night at Mr & Mrs Pigpen's house is pretty... um... yeah.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 16 2007, 05:54 PM)
When was the last time you saw mass outrage about a white person beaten to death by an abuse of authority? I can't remember one time. That's not because it never happens. We watched a man fired on at point blank range by a policeman while he was on his knees, then kicked after he was shot, on video tape. That didn't make headline news...I think it was on page D next to the article about a squirrel eating a lollypop.
There is a reason that stuff like this is on page D, because when it happens to a white person, justice is forthcoming. The thing that is newsworthy about this story is not that the kid was beaten, that's what anybody that wears a badge does to people that don't wear badges. Man in uniform beats man or woman not in uniform. In other words, Tuesday.
What is newsworthy, is the fact that these wannabe DIs are free and stand innocent of any wrongdoing. This was murder and they are free. That is why it makes the news. If these guys were in prison, there wouldn't be any reason to show this.
It's a simple case that can be summed up in three questions.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
There are only two types of people that would think that this beating was not murder; racists and people with authoritarian fascinations.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 16 2007, 07:45 PM)
It's a simple case that can be summed up in three questions.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
This is unequivocally the worst logic I've ever seen.
X then Y equal paperclip. You've really outdone yourself with you logic above. Every doctor who's ever had a patient die is clearly a murdering racist by your random stream of ... stuff.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 16 2007, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 16 2007, 07:45 PM)
It's a simple case that can be summed up in three questions.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
This is unequivocally the worst logic I've ever seen.
X then Y equal paperclip. You've really outdone yourself with you logic above. Every doctor who's ever had a patient die is clearly a murdering racist by your random stream of ... stuff.
Do doctors beat their patients? I wasn't aware of that field of medicine. Oh wait, pugilism is known as the sweet science. So maybe you're right.
Try to address the point before you slather such foolishness across the screen.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 16 2007, 06:45 PM)
that's what anybody that wears a badge does to people that don't wear badges. Man in uniform beats man or woman not in uniform. In other words, Tuesday.
This statement is just as outrageous as saying that black people are criminals. Do you even hear what you are saying? Read this outloud to yourself and see if this makes any sense? Every person that wears a badge beats people that don't. Well, since I never beat anyone while wearing a badge, I need to go out and make up for lost time. Your statement is indefensible.
QUOTE
What is newsworthy, is the fact that these wannabe DIs are free and stand innocent of any wrongdoing. This was murder and they are free. That is why it makes the news. If these guys were in prison, there wouldn't be any reason to show this.
Apparently this wasn't murder by definition of the law. One possible reason that they are free is because their actual level of responsibility wasn't reflected in the charge that was presented to the jury. If they had been charged with criminal negligence, they may have been found guilty, but by legal definition, maybe they weren't guilty of the charge they were defending themselves from. But that would be too easy of an answer, wouldn't it?
QUOTE
It's a simple case that can be summed up in three questions.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
There are only two types of people that would think that this beating was not murder; racists and people with authoritarian fascinations.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
There are only two types of people that would think that this beating was not murder; racists and people with authoritarian fascinations.
And you are the authoritarian of this issue, so you set the only parameters of these people? Really? This statement is so closed minded that I don't know if there is anything anyone can say that you won't respond to as calling them racists.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 16 2007, 07:10 PM)
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 16 2007, 06:45 PM)
that's what anybody that wears a badge does to people that don't wear badges. Man in uniform beats man or woman not in uniform. In other words, Tuesday.
This statement is just as outrageous as saying that black people are criminals. Do you even hear what you are saying? Read this outloud to yourself and see if this makes any sense? Every person that wears a badge beats people that don't. Well, since I never beat anyone while wearing a badge, I need to go out and make up for lost time. Your statement is indefensible.
QUOTE
What is newsworthy, is the fact that these wannabe DIs are free and stand innocent of any wrongdoing. This was murder and they are free. That is why it makes the news. If these guys were in prison, there wouldn't be any reason to show this.
Apparently this wasn't murder by definition of the law. One possible reason that they are free is because their actual level of responsibility wasn't reflected in the charge that was presented to the jury. If they had been charged with criminal negligence, they may have been found guilty, but by legal definition, maybe they weren't guilty of the charge they were defending themselves from. But that would be too easy of an answer, wouldn't it?
QUOTE
It's a simple case that can be summed up in three questions.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
There are only two types of people that would think that this beating was not murder; racists and people with authoritarian fascinations.
Was he alive before you touched him? Yes.
Was he alive after you beat him? No.
How did he die? Sickle Cell.
There are only two types of people that would think that this beating was not murder; racists and people with authoritarian fascinations.
And you are the authoritarian of this issue, so you set the only parameters of these people? Really? This statement is so closed minded that I don't know if there is anything anyone can say that you won't respond to as calling them racists.
I'm always glad to meet a fan of my writing.
You never beat anyone because you play with the definition of words. It's not a beating if I wear a badge, it's called discpline, or restraining, or some other technical euphemism for breaking some guys arm because he didn't use his blinker.
This sort of discipline is the least effective way and nobody that is on the delivering end, that is, the one striking the blow, ever considers how they would respond to the treatment they are doling out. What person with any dignity would cower in the face of confrontation? The natural response, the human respose, is to stand up for your self. In order to change people's behavior you must change their mind. In order to change their mind you must figure it out. It's difficult, it doesn't yield immediate McDonald's drive-through results, but it works. Talking to people is effective, clubbing them like a baby seal is not.
In response to your second statement, the law is the tool of the powerful. It means one thing today, and another tomorrow. If the law was so clear cut, then why does it take a team of competing lawyers, a judge, and a 12-person jury to figure it out? The law is a tool for the rich to manipulate to do whatever they want. Example: Drugs are illegal, but I can buy cigarettes, beer, and penis hard-on pills. The law is a joke.
Apparently Martin Lee Anderson has his own Wiki . I thought this was the best one-stop-shop on the case and provides more details than anywhere else I've found about the actual proceedings of the trial. It's a good read for anyone who may be sitting on the fence, but I have to warn you, it may put more people on the fence.
The prosecution side:
1. Although there has never been a case of ammonia capsules causing death, they were not FDA approved to be used on children.
2. The second autopsy showed that he died of asphyxiation from the guards covering his mouth and making him breathe the fumes of the ammonia capsules.
The Defense side:
1. Martin had a blood test done when he was a baby and showed that he had the sickle cell trait. However, on the medical form he provided the facility, that box was not checked. (Would that have made a difference? I guess we'll never know)
2. The charge of manslaughter of a minor could carry a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. (Would a lesser charge gotten a conviction?)
3. More doctors than not said that the actions the guards alone could not have caused his death. (later the prosecution urged the jury to not consider ANY of the medical testimony)
If this doesn't scream reasonable doubt, I don't know what does.
This whole thing is a tragedy, in so many ways. After reading everything, I'm still outraged that no one is held responsible, but at the same time I'm forced to acknowledge the circumstances as well. Very frustrating!
The prosecution side:
1. Although there has never been a case of ammonia capsules causing death, they were not FDA approved to be used on children.
2. The second autopsy showed that he died of asphyxiation from the guards covering his mouth and making him breathe the fumes of the ammonia capsules.
The Defense side:
1. Martin had a blood test done when he was a baby and showed that he had the sickle cell trait. However, on the medical form he provided the facility, that box was not checked. (Would that have made a difference? I guess we'll never know)
2. The charge of manslaughter of a minor could carry a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. (Would a lesser charge gotten a conviction?)
3. More doctors than not said that the actions the guards alone could not have caused his death. (later the prosecution urged the jury to not consider ANY of the medical testimony)
If this doesn't scream reasonable doubt, I don't know what does.
This whole thing is a tragedy, in so many ways. After reading everything, I'm still outraged that no one is held responsible, but at the same time I'm forced to acknowledge the circumstances as well. Very frustrating!
QUOTE(Ataal @ Oct 16 2007, 07:58 PM)
2. The charge of manslaughter of a minor could carry a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. (Would a lesser charge gotten a conviction?)
From what I saw on MSNBC and confirmed through FindLaw.com, the jury did have the option of finding the defendants guilty on leser charges.
QUOTE
The defendants would have faced up to 30 years in prison had they been convicted of aggravated manslaughter of child. The jury also decided against convicting them of lesser charges, including child neglect and culpable negligence.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-12-2...02d29c5b8d.html
Can some one tell me what the deal is with the ammonia capsules? I don't understand what they're meant to do. I looked them up and they appear to be a sports aid...
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 16 2007, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE(Ataal @ Oct 16 2007, 07:58 PM)
2. The charge of manslaughter of a minor could carry a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. (Would a lesser charge gotten a conviction?)
From what I saw on MSNBC and confirmed through FindLaw.com, the jury did have the option of finding the defendants guilty on leser charges.
QUOTE
The defendants would have faced up to 30 years in prison had they been convicted of aggravated manslaughter of child. The jury also decided against convicting them of lesser charges, including child neglect and culpable negligence.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-12-2...02d29c5b8d.html
I misread the part where that was covered in the Wiki page. I thought it said they could lessen the sentencing, not the actual charge. My bad.
Even with that part thrown out of the equation, the primary focus of this trial was on the cause of death. To drive home the point of bad prosecution methods from the wiki link:
QUOTE
The prosecution case was hampered by a shifting theory on the medical cause of death. The prosecution proposed that Mr. Anderson died of improper use of force, then of suffocation, then of failure to act. The fact that the two prosecution medical expert witnesses proposed different causes of death was also problematic.
Every first year law student knows not to put anyone on the stand unless you know what they're going to say.
QUOTE(Moif)
Can some one tell me what the deal is with the ammonia capsules? I don't understand what they're meant to do. I looked them up and they appear to be a sports aid... huh.gif
Ammonia capsules (aka smelling salts)
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 16 2007, 07:45 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 16 2007, 05:54 PM)
When was the last time you saw mass outrage about a white person beaten to death by an abuse of authority? I can't remember one time. That's not because it never happens. We watched a man fired on at point blank range by a policeman while he was on his knees, then kicked after he was shot, on video tape. That didn't make headline news...I think it was on page D next to the article about a squirrel eating a lollypop.
There is a reason that stuff like this is on page D, because when it happens to a white person, justice is forthcoming.
You think so?
Criminals get off all of the time on technicalities, plea bargains, ect...and people in authority abuse it quite often. If people were happy with the way the legal system works we wouldn't have shows like Dexter to fulfill our fantasies about murderers really getting what they deserve. It's still a better system than Saudi, where murderers really do get what they deserve, and then some...and there is one penalty per type of crime regardless of extenuating circumstance or even proven guilt beyond doubt. In the case I am speaking of, which was just settled in July, the policeman was absolved of wrongdoing. I'm hard pressed to think of a more clear cut case of wrong (from the outside, we don't actually know the facts the jury received, nor can we be certain the charges fit). The man (in California) was on his knees with his hands in the air, the cop told him to get up several times, he responded, "I'm getting up" and the policeman shot him three times. Then, while he lay writhing on the ground in pain the policeman kicked him. And it was all caught on tape.
In the post I was responding to, CR accused anyone who might think there is any reasonable explanation for this verdict to be racist. Yet these same people believe there is usually a reasonable explanation for most verdicts. I don't see them shouting about injustices when something like the above happens. They (and I) just don't change their opinions because the victim is black. I can look at this case, just as I can look at the other one, and conclude that there must be some explanation that I am unaware of, likely that the charges didn't fit (which can happen with aggressive prosecutions...happens sometimes in friendly fire cases too).
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 16 2007, 10:20 PM)
Can some one tell me what the deal is with the ammonia capsules? I don't understand what they're meant to do. I looked them up and they appear to be a sports aid...
Ammonia capsules are what used to be called 'smelling salts'. They are sometimes used to revive people when they pass out...clinic usually have them handy. The inhalant comes in little capsules that you break, then it gives off a noxious odor that makes the person 'come to'.
Edited to add:
QUOTE(Ataal @ Oct 16 2007, 08:58 PM)
1. Although there has never been a case of ammonia capsules causing death, they were not FDA approved to be used on children.
I believe the FDA standard for children applies only to the age of 12 (I'd have to ask Victoria, but that's what my children's medicine bottles indicate). It's based on height and weight, not legal adulthood. I know they used these on me when I was in Middle School.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Oct 16 2007, 07:29 PM)
I'm always glad to meet a fan of my writing.
You never beat anyone because you play with the definition of words. It's not a beating if I wear a badge, it's called discpline, or restraining, or some other technical euphemism for breaking some guys arm because he didn't use his blinker.
This sort of discipline is the least effective way and nobody that is on the delivering end, that is, the one striking the blow, ever considers how they would respond to the treatment they are doling out. What person with any dignity would cower in the face of confrontation? The natural response, the human respose, is to stand up for your self. In order to change people's behavior you must change their mind. In order to change their mind you must figure it out. It's difficult, it doesn't yield immediate McDonald's drive-through results, but it works. Talking to people is effective, clubbing them like a baby seal is not.
In response to your second statement, the law is the tool of the powerful. It means one thing today, and another tomorrow. If the law was so clear cut, then why does it take a team of competing lawyers, a judge, and a 12-person jury to figure it out? The law is a tool for the rich to manipulate to do whatever they want. Example: Drugs are illegal, but I can buy cigarettes, beer, and penis hard-on pills. The law is a joke.
You never beat anyone because you play with the definition of words. It's not a beating if I wear a badge, it's called discpline, or restraining, or some other technical euphemism for breaking some guys arm because he didn't use his blinker.
This sort of discipline is the least effective way and nobody that is on the delivering end, that is, the one striking the blow, ever considers how they would respond to the treatment they are doling out. What person with any dignity would cower in the face of confrontation? The natural response, the human respose, is to stand up for your self. In order to change people's behavior you must change their mind. In order to change their mind you must figure it out. It's difficult, it doesn't yield immediate McDonald's drive-through results, but it works. Talking to people is effective, clubbing them like a baby seal is not.
In response to your second statement, the law is the tool of the powerful. It means one thing today, and another tomorrow. If the law was so clear cut, then why does it take a team of competing lawyers, a judge, and a 12-person jury to figure it out? The law is a tool for the rich to manipulate to do whatever they want. Example: Drugs are illegal, but I can buy cigarettes, beer, and penis hard-on pills. The law is a joke.
First, if the law is a joke, take it up with your elected officials or to the Supreme Court, I am sure they will give you their undivided attention.
Second, to compare illegal drugs such as meth to penis hard-on pills is a little extravegant, don't you think?
Third, it doesn't take competing lawyers, a judge and a 12-person jury to figure out the laws, there are 9 judges in Washington D.C. that do that. The lawyers, a judge and the jury is to determine if the defendant is guilty or not. They aren't there to interpret the law, they are there to enforce the law if it has been violated.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 16 2007, 10:57 AM)
Everytime in judicial history when there is a black male victim and an all white jury, that was chosen by both the prosecutor and the defense, the assailants walked? Don't you think this is a little simplistic? Don''t you think that maybe there are more factors in a case than just race? If a racist was sitting on that jury and had the opportunity to send three black men and an Asian man to jail, don't you think they would have jumped all over it? It is the racists dream; these minorities killed a black kid, and now is an opportunity to get them in prison too!
Your reasoning is both flawed and overly simplistic. The majority of American citizens have an unflagging and unwavering belief in authority. They recall from their childhood when Officer Smith came to school and told them the policeman is their friend. They see a man in black robes and convince themselves that all of his biases and prejudices magically vanish when he slips on the garment. They sit in the courtroom and sincerely believe that there will be justice dispensed that will be blind to race, creed, and color.
There is a predisposition in many people to side with the powerful and the authoritative over the powerless and ordinary person. So, no scubatim, it doesn't surprise me in the least that jurors would side with several rent-a-cops in uniforms, boots and Smokey the Bear hats than a 14-year-old Black kids sporting dreads.
QUOTE
No, you really don't clear anything up, you simply avoid facts in the case to make an emotionally driven argument that doesn't hold water with me. Are they guilty? I don't know. Did they get off because the entire jury was racially scared of the defendants, I highly doubt it. Is it possible that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the charges that they were charged with, more likely than not.
You say I avoid facts and make an emotionally-driven argument? What about you?
You ask, "Are they guilty?" Your