|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optik404
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| He might have gotten off if he didn't fire 9-10 shots, 3 of them at a moving car. And if he had called the police afterwards rather than going back to his hotel and ordering a pizza. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Usually juries aren't this far off. Either I am missing something, or some idiot hung the rest from convicting Dunn for first degree murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I suppose you could justify first degree with, he had it on his mind to go shoot somebody for some reason, but also I guess you could justify a first degree charge considering his depraved mind. However the prosecutor has to prove to the jury that he planned to do something or he was depraved,and wasn't an irate wacko probably with a mental disorder of some sort. I would say be patient they'll retry him on the murder charge, unless the other charges are run consecutively by the judge, in which case they might not need to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jessica Williams on Jon Stewart's Daily Show just made a neat analogy when asked if the black survivors shot at by Dunn could have legally shot and killed him under the cloak of self-defense after being scared by his gun: "Stand Your Ground laws are like bleach - they're good for whites but ruin your coloreds ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Jessica Williams on Jon Stewart's Daily Show just made a neat analogy when asked if the black survivors shot at by Dunn could have legally shot and killed him under the cloak of self-defense after being scared by his gun: "Stand Your Ground laws are like bleach - they're good for whites but ruin your coloreds ..." |
Given many Blacks have benefited from "Stand Your Ground" laws in Florida, the answer is probably yes.
| Quote: |
One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.
Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.
Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered “justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.
Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand Your Ground” defendant.
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” cases have resulted in 78 white victims against 40 black victims, including Martin, and 10 Hispanic victims. |
An attempt at linking "Stand Your Ground" laws to anti-Black racism is being made because the political constituency which gets fired up by accusations of anti-Black racism also gets fired up by opposing guns. I'm not any real proponent of such laws, but I'm also no proponent of the kind of race hysterica you're peddling here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A link to the Daily Caller - founded by the honorable/a-hole resembling Tucker Carlson - is hardly a credible source:
Reporter interrupting President
The Daily Caller's White House reporter Neil Munro received criticism for interrupting President Obama's prepared remarks on June 15, 2012.[16] Munro, along with Carlson and Patel, defended his behavior by saying that he tried to time his question to when he thought the president was finishing, though this was disputed by other reporters there.[17][18][19]
Senator Bob Menendez prostitution controversy and FBI investigation
In an article titled "Women: Sen. Bob Menendez paid us for sex in the Dominican Republic",[20] The Daily Caller reported that New Jersey senator Bob Menendez had allegedly paid two prostitutes to have sex with him during a stay at a Dominican Republic resort. The report included videotaped interviews with the women. The allegation came five days before the 2012 New Jersey senate election. News organizations such as the New York Times, ABC News and the New York Post declined to publish the allegations, viewing them as unsubstantiated and lacking credibility.[21][22][23]
The FBI investigated the allegations and found no evidence to substantiate them.[24][25] Subsequently, one of the women who accused Menendez stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate the senator, whom she had never met.[21][25] Menendez's office described the allegations as "manufactured" by a right-wing blog as a politically motivated smear.[26] On March 18, police in the Dominican Republic announced that three women had acknowledged they had been paid $300–425 each to lie about having had sex with Menendez.[27]
According to a spokesperson in the Dominican government, the women in question had been paid to make the false claims in question by someone who identified himself as a Daily Caller employee. The Daily Caller issued a statement denying the claims.[28] The Daily Caller denied having paid any individuals for any participation in the stories about Menendez, and detailed the discrepancies between the new reports from Dominican authorities and the original interviews the outlet had conducted.[29][30][31] The Washington Post was extremely critical of the Caller's "eagerness to publish completely unsubstantiated allegations", concluding that the Caller was "ducking accountability".[32][33][34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller
(OK - linking to Wikipedia isn't exactly authoritative either, but it's less odious than linking to part of the Republican propaganda machine...)
Mega a-hole Ted Cruz also cited Daily Caller's flawed statistical analysis: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/30/heres-the-origin-of-sen-cruzs-claim-that-stand/196667
Last edited by Rteacher on Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Now hold on. I'm not exactly a reader of the Daily Caller myself, but either the number of cases listed and their outcomes are correct, or they aren't (which is why I quoted only the statistics and not the editorialization). Are you saying those specific numbers are lies? If so, provide clear and compelling evidence that they are lies and I'll happily accept it. If not, then truth doesn't cease to be truth just because it's issued from a dirty mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| I don't have the time to carefully research the stats myself ... |
Then you've no grounds to object. Even the articles I've read which try to attack the conclusion still acknowledge the numbers to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Daily Caller is swill.
Race Matters a lot in Stand Your Ground Verdicts
| Quote: |
| "The odds that a white-on-black homicide is ruled to have been justified is more than 11 times the odds a black-on-white shooting is ruled justified," Roman concluded. "No dataset will ever be sufficient to prove that race alone explains these disparities. But there are disparities in whether homicides are ruled to be self-defense, and race is clearly an important part of the story." |
Stand Your Ground has also been applied very poorly.
| Quote: |
| We found cases where I think an average person would think it was crazy that someone got away with killing someone. You know, they were shooting people in the back. They were leaving a confrontation to go get a gun and returning and then killing someone, they were in a gang shootout or a drug deal gone bad, and these defendants were claiming stand your ground under these circumstances and going free. |
And again, with racial disparities.
| Quote: |
| Black defendants and white defendants were treated roughly the same at every level of the process when claiming stand your ground. When you looked at the race of the victim, however, there was a difference. And so if your victim was black, you were more likely to win your stand your ground argument than if your victim was white. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| "The odds that a white-on-black homicide is ruled to have been justified is more than 11 times the odds a black-on-white shooting is ruled justified," Roman concluded. "No dataset will ever be sufficient to prove that race alone explains these disparities. But there are disparities in whether homicides are ruled to be self-defense, and race is clearly an important part of the story." |
Stand Your Ground has also been applied very poorly.
| Quote: |
| We found cases where I think an average person would think it was crazy that someone got away with killing someone. You know, they were shooting people in the back. They were leaving a confrontation to go get a gun and returning and then killing someone, they were in a gang shootout or a drug deal gone bad, and these defendants were claiming stand your ground under these circumstances and going free. |
And again, with racial disparities.
| Quote: |
| Black defendants and white defendants were treated roughly the same at every level of the process when claiming stand your ground. When you looked at the race of the victim, however, there was a difference. And so if your victim was black, you were more likely to win your stand your ground argument than if your victim was white. |
|
Note that the reason the focus on the "prove it's racist" approach has turned the race of the victim is because the courts have treated Black defendants and White defendants relatively equally. This alone raises serious questions about the notion that it's all about race. But let's push past that and consider the evident disparity in results when considered against the race of the person being shot. There are three clear possibilities:
1) Juries simply value non-White lives so little that they're willing to apply the law eroneously.
2) They are generally applying the law correctly with regards to non-Whites, yet reticent to do the same with regards to Whites, and this results in the disparity.
3) It's simply the case that more non-Whites than Whites are shot in situations where the law is actually applicable as written.
#1 might serve to justify some of the race hysteria Rteacher and Kuros are pushing here. #2 would still be an injustice, but not one that necessarily hurt Blacks as a specific group, since all demographics would be affected by it. #3 would outright invalidate the hysteria.
To reach serious conclusions, one would have to actually analyze matters on a case-by-case basis and demonstrate which of these was the prevailing trend. Whether "Stand Your Ground" laws are a good idea or not, given America's criminal statistics, and given an absence of serious evidence that defendants are treated differently along racial lines, I suspect that #3 is the single biggest factor in the above-mentioned disparities. There are probably some irregularities on a case-by-case basis, but that's likely exactly what they are given how vague the NPR interviewee was when speaking of them. If anyone wants to step up and try to demonstrate that the disparity in outcome based on the metric of Black vs. White victims is driven by racism, that would be an interesting case to hear. I'm open to reason. Hopefully that reason won't include yet another ridiculous, irrelevant reminder of the low quality of the Daily Caller. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| "The odds that a white-on-black homicide is ruled to have been justified is more than 11 times the odds a black-on-white shooting is ruled justified," Roman concluded. "No dataset will ever be sufficient to prove that race alone explains these disparities. But there are disparities in whether homicides are ruled to be self-defense, and race is clearly an important part of the story." |
Stand Your Ground has also been applied very poorly.
| Quote: |
| We found cases where I think an average person would think it was crazy that someone got away with killing someone. You know, they were shooting people in the back. They were leaving a confrontation to go get a gun and returning and then killing someone, they were in a gang shootout or a drug deal gone bad, and these defendants were claiming stand your ground under these circumstances and going free. |
And again, with racial disparities.
| Quote: |
| Black defendants and white defendants were treated roughly the same at every level of the process when claiming stand your ground. When you looked at the race of the victim, however, there was a difference. And so if your victim was black, you were more likely to win your stand your ground argument than if your victim was white. |
|
Note that the reason the focus on the "prove it's racist" approach has turned the race of the victim is because the courts have treated Black defendants and White defendants relatively equally. This alone raises serious questions about the notion that it's all about race. But let's push past that and consider the evident disparity in results when considered against the race of the person being shot. There are three clear possibilities:
1) Juries simply value non-White lives so little that they're willing to apply the law eroneously.
2) They are generally applying the law correctly with regards to non-Whites, yet reticent to do the same with regards to Whites, and this results in the disparity.
3) It's simply the case that more non-Whites than Whites are shot in situations where the law is actually applicable as written.
#1 might serve to justify some of the race hysteria Rteacher and Kuros are pushing here. #2 would still be an injustice, but not one that necessarily hurt Blacks as a specific group, since all demographics would be affected by it. #3 would outright invalidate the hysteria.
To reach serious conclusions, one would have to actually analyze matters on a case-by-case basis and demonstrate which of these was the prevailing trend. But let's get real, this isn't about trying to reach serious conclusions, as evinced by the Daily-Caller-directed ad hominem distractions.
Whether "Stand Your Ground" laws are a good idea or not, given America's criminal statistics, and given an absence of serious evidence that defendants are treated differently along racial lines, I suspect that #3 is the single biggest factor in the above-mentioned disparities. There are probably some irregularities on a case-by-case basis, but that's likelyy exactly what they are given how vague the NPR interviewee was when speaking of them. If anyone wants to step up and try to demonstrate that the disparity in outcome based on the metric of Black vs. White victims is driven by racism, that would be an interesting case to hear. I'm open to reason. |
Fox, you were hoodwinked.
Yes, its true that Defendants, i.e., those accused of murder, are treated equally under Stand Your Ground. Blacks and whites are found not guilty under the statute roughly equally.
But the racial disparity charge goes towards the race of the victim, and when the victim is black, the Defendant is more likely to be acquitted than if the victim is white.
To be clear, this means that black versions of Zimmerman do well under Stand Your Ground, but Zimmermans (white, black, or hispanic) are less likely to find acquittals when the Trayvons are white instead of black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, its true that Defendants, i.e., those accused of murder, are treated equally under Stand Your Ground. Blacks and whites are found not guilty under the statute roughly equally.
But the racial disparity charge goes towards the race of the victim, and when the victim is black, the Defendant is more likely to be acquitted than if the victim is white. |
Yes, I read that and responded to it. Can you prove the disparity is unjustified or not? Not even prove, can you give me good reason to think it's unjustified? Or are you just assuming? "Disparity means discrimination" is a tenet of the current ideological orthodoxy, but I'm not interested in orthodoxy. If you've got a serious case -- a compelling line of reasoning, preferably backed by some evidence, which demonstrates that juries are simultaneously race-neutral regarding defendants and highly race-sensitive and discriminatory regarding victims -- of course I want to see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
