Conquer Club

During the O.J. Simpson trial, there was an endless media obsession with the fact that a majority of blacks thought Simpson was innocent and a majority of whites thought he was guilty. These numbers were re-examined by every talking head on the tube over and over again ad nauseam.

I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story. A more interesting, and by far more important aspect of the Simpson affair was: that a majority of those who thought he was innocent were sure he would be convicted, and a majority of those who thought he was guilty were sure he would get off. That should have been a real wake-up call coming from the Simpson trial: that by and large, people no longer trust the courts to deal out justice.

So here we are at the ZImmerman trial. This time, no one disagrees that he shot Martin, but a jury will have to decide if it was homocide or self-defense. Once again, strong racial overtones surround the case and poll numbers show significant racial differences, but once again that's all a big yawn to me. What I want to know is, regardless of which side you're on, are you confident that the courts will again get it wrong?

Dukasaur wrote:I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story.

I don't agree at all that the media wants to fuel worsening race relations. What the media wants is sensationalism in some form. But I don't see how worsening race relations is a goal of theirs...it doesn't make sense.

Dukasaur wrote:A more interesting, and by far more important aspect of the Simpson affair was: that a majority of those who thought he was innocent were sure he would be convicted, and a majority of those who thought he was guilty were sure he would get off.

That's interesting...I'd not heard this information previously.

And no, I'm not confident the courts will get it wrong (perhaps because I don't have a strong feeling of guilt either way). That's not an option in your poll though.

Normally, I would have voted for the last option, but I think the prosecutor made it much tougher to actually get a conviction because she over-charged.

inb4 Phatscotty "politics, obama, ron paul, tea party, dont tread on me, fox news, minority bullying, batman"

Dukasaur wrote:During the O.J. Simpson trial, there was an endless media obsession with the fact that a majority of blacks thought Simpson was innocent and a majority of whites thought he was guilty. These numbers were re-examined by every talking head on the tube over and over again ad nauseam.

I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story. A more interesting, and by far more important aspect of the Simpson affair was: that a majority of those who thought he was innocent were sure he would be convicted, and a majority of those who thought he was guilty were sure he would get off. That should have been a real wake-up call coming from the Simpson trial: that by and large, people no longer trust the courts to deal out justice.

So here we are at the ZImmerman trial. This time, no one disagrees that he shot Martin, but a jury will have to decide if it was homocide or self-defense. Once again, strong racial overtones surround the case and poll numbers show significant racial differences, but once again that's all a big yawn to me. What I want to know is, regardless of which side you're on, are you confident that the courts will again get it wrong?

It's likely that they'll get it wrong but it depends on the conviction in order to say whether one thinks the ruling was wrong or right. For example, I think he's being tried for 1st degree homicide (or 2nd degree). If that's knocked down to manslaughter, would that be the correct ruling? If he's completely acquitted, would that be the correct ruling?

Dukasaur wrote:I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story. A more interesting, and by far more important aspect of the Simpson affair was: that a majority of those who thought he was innocent were sure he would be convicted, and a majority of those who thought he was guilty were sure he would get off. That should have been a real wake-up call coming from the Simpson trial: that by and large, people no longer trust the courts to deal out justice?

I don't know. This set of questions has a huge potential for "my side is the oppressed one" bias, for lack of a better term. Asked in separate surveys with a different sampling of people, I'd agree with the premise. But the potential for bias is just too big for those numbers to be trustworthy.

Woodruff wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story.

I don't agree at all that the media wants to fuel worsening race relations. What the media wants is sensationalism in some form. But I don't see how worsening race relations is a goal of theirs...it doesn't make sense.

You haven't listened to the Obama administration or MSNBC very much then. Of course it's a goal of theirs: that's why they have to break the entire country up into segments and pit them against each other to win re-election. It's always a war on women, evil rich people, or racist white tea-baggers to divide up the populace and make us resent each other. We need a candidate who will campaign on actual issues and not cater to whichever demographic he's speaking to today. And although I doubt Romney is that type of candidate, the fact that he went to the NAACP and didn't change his message to cater to the crowd does speak volumes.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story.

I don't agree at all that the media wants to fuel worsening race relations. What the media wants is sensationalism in some form. But I don't see how worsening race relations is a goal of theirs...it doesn't make sense.

You haven't listened to the Obama administration or MSNBC very much then. Of course it's a goal of theirs: that's why they have to break the entire country up into segments and pit them against each other to win re-election. It's always a war on women, evil rich people, or racist white tea-baggers to divide up the populace and make us resent each other. We need a candidate who will campaign on actual issues and not cater to whichever demographic he's speaking to today. And although I doubt Romney is that type of candidate, the fact that he went to the NAACP and didn't change his message to cater to the crowd does speak volumes.

Serious question...Do you ever get the feeling that you're being played? Even a hint of it, from time to time?

Or do you just not care that you are?

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story.

I don't agree at all that the media wants to fuel worsening race relations. What the media wants is sensationalism in some form. But I don't see how worsening race relations is a goal of theirs...it doesn't make sense.

You haven't listened to the Obama administration or MSNBC very much then. Of course it's a goal of theirs: that's why they have to break the entire country up into segments and pit them against each other to win re-election. It's always a war on women, evil rich people, or racist white tea-baggers to divide up the populace and make us resent each other. We need a candidate who will campaign on actual issues and not cater to whichever demographic he's speaking to today. And although I doubt Romney is that type of candidate, the fact that he went to the NAACP and didn't change his message to cater to the crowd does speak volumes.

Serious question...Do you ever get the feeling that you're being played? Even a hint of it, from time to time?

Or do you just not care that you are?

Played by whom? People on this site? Irrelevant.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story.

I don't agree at all that the media wants to fuel worsening race relations. What the media wants is sensationalism in some form. But I don't see how worsening race relations is a goal of theirs...it doesn't make sense.

You haven't listened to the Obama administration or MSNBC very much then. Of course it's a goal of theirs: that's why they have to break the entire country up into segments and pit them against each other to win re-election. It's always a war on women, evil rich people, or racist white tea-baggers to divide up the populace and make us resent each other. We need a candidate who will campaign on actual issues and not cater to whichever demographic he's speaking to today. And although I doubt Romney is that type of candidate, the fact that he went to the NAACP and didn't change his message to cater to the crowd does speak volumes.

Serious question...Do you ever get the feeling that you're being played? Even a hint of it, from time to time?

Or do you just not care that you are?

Played by whom?

By the people who are allegedly looking out for your interests. So that's a "no", then?

I don't know if OJ was guilty or not of killing his wife and her friend. What I do know about the case is how badly the cops messed up with the chain of evidence regarding the supposed blood samples found that allegedly "proved" OJ was there at the scene. A detective supposedly collected blood at the scene and instead of immediately entering it into evidence he put it in his pocket and took it home. In the interim between the collecting and cataloging that piece of evidence the police sought and got (with OJ's permission) a sample of OJ's blood.
After getting the sample of his blood, then the supposed evidence collected at the scene was submitted to forensics.

Now that is some shady crap right there. The police said it was merely a mistake and that it was all legit, but tell me, if any of us were brought in for a questioning in a crime, the cops take a blood sample or DNA sample from you, then miraculously the next day they "find" DNA/blood evidence. Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but that shit shouldn't stand.

Thus, OJ was rightfully acquitted. He may have been guilty, true enough. But damn, there are procedures and rules in place for the custody of evidence for a reason.

Dukasuar wrote:are you confident that the courts will again get it wrong?

But the courts, jury, didn't get it wrong in the OJ case. The case was botched by the police and the prosecution. Botched badly. Hell, even I would have voted to acquit if I'd have been on the jury and I am of the personal opinion that OJ probably did commit murder. It's just that it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and with the cops messing with the evidence so badly, well, that leads to reasonable doubt.

patches70 wrote:I don't know if OJ was guilty or not of killing his wife and her friend. What I do know about the case is how badly the cops messed up with the chain of evidence regarding the supposed blood samples found that allegedly "proved" OJ was there at the scene. A detective supposedly collected blood at the scene and instead of immediately entering it into evidence he put it in his pocket and took it home. In the interim between the collecting and cataloging that piece of evidence the police sought and got (with OJ's permission) a sample of OJ's blood.
After getting the sample of his blood, then the supposed evidence collected at the scene was submitted to forensics.

Now that is some shady crap right there. The police said it was merely a mistake and that it was all legit, but tell me, if any of us were brought in for a questioning in a crime, the cops take a blood sample or DNA sample from you, then miraculously the next day they "find" DNA/blood evidence. Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but that shit shouldn't stand.

Thus, OJ was rightfully acquitted. He may have been guilty, true enough. But damn, there are procedures and rules in place for the custody of evidence for a reason.

Yes, you're absolutely right. At the time, I tended to believe the police. But as much actual criminal activity we've seen from police forces around the country (to include that area) in the time since, my thoughts on that case have absolutely changed and I'm not at all as willing to believe it was just a mistake.

patches70 wrote:But the courts, jury, didn't get it wrong in the OJ case. The case was botched by the police and the prosecution. Botched badly. Hell, even I would have voted to acquit if I'd have been on the jury and I am of the personal opinion that OJ probably did commit murder. It's just that it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and with the cops messing with the evidence so badly, well, that leads to reasonable doubt.

It really was a terrible job and you're right...NOT on the part of the jury.

Dukasaur wrote:During the O.J. Simpson trial, there was an endless media obsession with the fact that a majority of blacks thought Simpson was innocent and a majority of whites thought he was guilty. These numbers were re-examined by every talking head on the tube over and over again ad nauseam.

I think that in their frenzy to fuel worsening race relations in the U.S., the media missed the real story. A more interesting, and by far more important aspect of the Simpson affair was: that a majority of those who thought he was innocent were sure he would be convicted, and a majority of those who thought he was guilty were sure he would get off. That should have been a real wake-up call coming from the Simpson trial: that by and large, people no longer trust the courts to deal out justice.

So here we are at the ZImmerman trial. This time, no one disagrees that he shot Martin, but a jury will have to decide if it was homocide or self-defense. Once again, strong racial overtones surround the case and poll numbers show significant racial differences, but once again that's all a big yawn to me. What I want to know is, regardless of which side you're on, are you confident that the courts will again get it wrong?

I think the justice system will almost always be compromised whenever there is an orchestrated attempt to threaten street justice, especially when those in the justice system are up for re-election.

The question "are USA courts corrupt" - fundamentally they are not. The way they operate is sound and more or less ideal under our circumstances . Since they aren't functionally corrupt, that means any corruption comes from the PEOPLE adminstering them. So if these race trials are biased, that simply means that the American people are biased in regards to race.

Also considering that blacks "won" Simpson's trial and are likely to win Zimmerman's trial as well, their charges of corruption can only be levied at themselves. That's not to say that Simpson or Zimmerman were/weren't brought to justice, but rather that the black nationals claim there's corruption, and yet they keep on winning, so logically they are the ones who are corrupt. Basically blacks are biased and liable to vote for their own interests rather than for justice, by their own admission.

In before the manchildren stalking me on this forum make nonsensical replies.

What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

That's because Congress thinks they have the power to hold hearings into the business practices of private businesses.

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

My opinion on that is...fucking Congress has more important things to worry about than a goddamn game.

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

My opinion on that is...fucking Congress has more important things to worry about than a goddamn game.

But....but....it's in the national interest to protect the integrity of the national sport!

They try and throw Clemens in jail for lying to Congress, when are they going to try and throw Eric Holder in jail for lying to Congress?

patches70 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

My opinion on that is...fucking Congress has more important things to worry about than a goddamn game.

But....but....it's in the national interest to protect the integrity of the national sport!

They try and throw Clemens in jail for lying to Congress, when are they going to try and throw Eric Holder in jail for lying to Congress?

EXACTLY!

patches70 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

My opinion on that is...fucking Congress has more important things to worry about than a goddamn game.

But....but....it's in the national interest to protect the integrity of the national sport!

They try and throw Clemens in jail for lying to Congress, when are they going to try and throw Eric Holder in jail for lying to Congress?

Well you know...that's different!

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

Federal government normally makes examples out of celebrities. It's a way to perpetuate their power as well as send a very loud message about whatever kind of policy they are promoting or enforcing, especially when people all across the country are paying attention.

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

My opinion on that is...fucking Congress has more important things to worry about than a goddamn game.

You miss the point. They don't care or worry about the game, they care about flexing their power, and controlling the people in the game

Night Strike wrote:

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

That's because Congress thinks they have the power to hold hearings into the business practices of private businesses.

This deserves some commentary. After the 94 strike MLB was in trouble, and I think they sort of allowed the steroids thing to happen to recover. Not necessarily that they planned the steroids thing, only they didn't put a stop to it. And, thanks in part to that, MLB recovered.

Also, steroids don't make muscle for you, they only allow you to work out more. You work out more you get more muscle.

We don't know if MLB was going to put a stop to the steroids thing, but I think they would've eventually realized they needed to enforce the rules, as any business eventually realizes what's best for it.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:What about the Clemens perjury trial?

Clemens was my favorite baseball player ever, and the senate had to mess with a childhood idol of mine, just so the court could acquitted him.

My opinion on that is...fucking Congress has more important things to worry about than a goddamn game.

You miss the point. They don't care or worry about the game, they care about flexing their power, and controlling the people in the game

I didn't miss the point at all. How does that counter what I said?

Because you didnt address/confirm how bloated and corrupt the government is durr!