|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:36 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:29 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years. We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society. However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you. I'm saying that people should simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed. They are free to advocate (even aggressively) their position. What they cannot do, however, is use the force of government to silence their opponents. That is fascist. The unfortunately reality of an open and democratic society is that there will be bad results in the court of public opinion. However, what truly matters is the sanctity of the process, not the results themselves. Once you start focusing on the results, then you're on the path to something totalitarian. Speaking of all of this, whatever happened to paralleluniverse? Historically, he was the champion of this issue around here (and he and I disagreed over damned near everything). Imagine a hypothetical case in which a company publicly stated belief in one model to their shareholders regarding a controversy while privately maintaining another, much more scientifically rigorous, stance which projected a much less profitable outcome. Their public stance was not the one that they privately believed in but it was the one that was likely to cause least damage to the share prices, until reality caught up. Would you agree that in that case the shareholders were being defrauded by the board? I would argue yes.
I don't think daunt's position is that they should hide their most confident belief from the public until it is widely accepted, only that they shouldn't impose policies based on beliefs until they are widely accepted. But that's just a guess, I shouldn't speak for him. To me, in your hypothetical scenario, the defrauding happens from their failure to disclose their best model of reality, not their failure to enforce their policies based on said model.
Of course, the analogy might be a little faulty as well, because I wouldn't begrudge a private company from imposing company policies based on unpopular beliefs, but if a government official did the same thing, it would be much more questionable.
|
On July 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:36 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:29 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years. We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society. However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you. I'm saying that people should simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed. They are free to advocate (even aggressively) their position. What they cannot do, however, is use the force of government to silence their opponents. That is fascist. The unfortunately reality of an open and democratic society is that there will be bad results in the court of public opinion. However, what truly matters is the sanctity of the process, not the results themselves. Once you start focusing on the results, then you're on the path to something totalitarian. Speaking of all of this, whatever happened to paralleluniverse? Historically, he was the champion of this issue around here (and he and I disagreed over damned near everything). Imagine a hypothetical case in which a company publicly stated belief in one model to their shareholders regarding a controversy while privately maintaining another, much more scientifically rigorous, stance which projected a much less profitable outcome. Their public stance was not the one that they privately believed in but it was the one that was likely to cause least damage to the share prices, until reality caught up. Would you agree that in that case the shareholders were being defrauded by the board? I would argue yes.
Yep, and the law imposes fiduciary duties upon the officers of the company to act in the best interest of the shareholders as it pertains to managing the company and disclosing information related to the company.
|
United States44191 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:51 The Bottle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:36 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:29 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years. We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society. However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you. I'm saying that people should simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed. They are free to advocate (even aggressively) their position. What they cannot do, however, is use the force of government to silence their opponents. That is fascist. The unfortunately reality of an open and democratic society is that there will be bad results in the court of public opinion. However, what truly matters is the sanctity of the process, not the results themselves. Once you start focusing on the results, then you're on the path to something totalitarian. Speaking of all of this, whatever happened to paralleluniverse? Historically, he was the champion of this issue around here (and he and I disagreed over damned near everything). Imagine a hypothetical case in which a company publicly stated belief in one model to their shareholders regarding a controversy while privately maintaining another, much more scientifically rigorous, stance which projected a much less profitable outcome. Their public stance was not the one that they privately believed in but it was the one that was likely to cause least damage to the share prices, until reality caught up. Would you agree that in that case the shareholders were being defrauded by the board? I would argue yes. I don't think daunt's position is that they should hide their most confident belief from the public until it is widely accepted, only that they shouldn't enforce policies based on beliefs until they are widely accepted. To me, in your hypothetical scenario, the defrauding happens from their failure to disclose their best model of reality, not their failure to enforce their policies based on said model.
But in this case the plaintiffs would be asking the state to make a ruling on the validity of the model the board presented to the shareholders, which is what xDaunt said the state should keep out of and leave to the marketplace of ideas. And yet it's immediately obvious that their actions were defrauding the shareholders. The board can state with a straight face that their model is one of many and that shareholders should judge it for themselves but the defrauded shareholders want the state to intervene and slap the board down for it.
|
On July 28 2016 05:28 biology]major wrote:
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort.
I can accept the position that poorly-handled US climate legislation has the potential to be counterproductive. But that is not the same as denying climate change altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 28 2016 05:06 pmh wrote:
Think its not a bad idea to go after kaine. The choice for kaine did disappoint quiet a few democrats,if the republicans can manage to cast doubts about him during the next few weeks then that wound might stay open.
I don't think Kaine is without flaws. But attacking Hillary's VP invites comparisons to his own, which are not at all favorable for Pence.
In particular, Trump supporters are selling him on the narrative of him being more socially moderate, and thus more palatable than the rest of the backwardly social conservative GOP. Running alongside one of the most extreme social conservatives the GOP has to offer directly injures this narrative. If Trump wants to make himself out to be better than these people, keeping them around simply because they're willing to kowtow to him isn't a good way to sell himself on that.
Pence hasn't received as much media scrutiny since the day of the announcement because of how Trump is so good at keeping himself in the spotlight. But at the same time, inviting such a closer examination of the VPs isn't going to make things better for him.
|
On July 28 2016 06:03 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:06 pmh wrote:
Think its not a bad idea to go after kaine. The choice for kaine did disappoint quiet a few democrats,if the republicans can manage to cast doubts about him during the next few weeks then that wound might stay open.
I don't think Kaine is without flaws. But attacking Hillary's VP invites comparisons to his own, which are not at all favorable for Pence. In particular, on some level, Trump supporters are selling him on the narrative of him being more socially moderate, and thus more palatable than the rest of the backwardly social conservative GOP. Running alongside one of the most extreme social conservatives the GOP has to offer directly injures this narrative. If Trump wants to make himself out to be better than these people, keeping them around simply because they're willing to kowtow to him isn't a good way to sell himself on that.
That's part of why I wasn't that surprised to hear that Trump was apparently trying to find a way out of having picked Pence as VP within a day of having picked him
|
Public opinion has no relevance in science. The people actually doing the work required 8+ years of specialization to even begin the work they do. It is not realistic to expect the public to know anything about science. The barrier to entry is enormous and is a career decision, not just something you can pick up. I'm an expert in my field, but I would never try to comment on even realms of chemistry outside my specialization. I don't personally know the gritty details of why climate change happens, but I trust in the scientific method and the wide scope of the (highly competitive, willing to kill each other) climate science community.
I can say with absolute confidence that if there was some kinda intentional skewing of data to support political goals, there are many people who would gladly take that opportunity to publish in a high impact journal and reap those delicious references. Taking down competing scientists/labs would also be excellent and irresistible.
|
On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists.
I just want to use the force of government to radically change society to prepare ourselves for climate change and to prevent what little we sitll can, dont care about prosecuting people who disagree. when it comes to climate change im a bit of a fascist, admittedly
|
On July 28 2016 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. Mindless mob rule is closer to fascism than actually having an intellectual foundation to how your country operates. I am not a constitutional scholar but I believe that the much celebrated founding fathers had similar ideas in mind when they created a constitution. If the marketplace of ideas is so great we should just strawpoll every political decision Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:28 biology]major wrote:
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort. we have created this last year, the first time in human history. It's called the Paris climate change agreement and is signed by 196 countries on this earth. Needlessly to say Trump wants to pull the US out of it
I would disagree with Trump on that one. Also I am surprised to see China signed off on that agreement, good to know.
|
On July 28 2016 06:08 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. Mindless mob rule is closer to fascism than actually having an intellectual foundation to how your country operates. I am not a constitutional scholar but I believe that the much celebrated founding fathers had similar ideas in mind when they created a constitution. If the marketplace of ideas is so great we should just strawpoll every political decision On July 28 2016 05:28 biology]major wrote:
My concern with climate change is not that it is real or not, it probably is, but it has to be a united global effort. we have created this last year, the first time in human history. It's called the Paris climate change agreement and is signed by 196 countries on this earth. Needlessly to say Trump wants to pull the US out of it I would disagree with Trump on that one. Also I am surprised to see China signed off on that agreement, good to know.
China has quickly become aware of the problems with pollution. Their aggressive moves to industrialize have caused a lot of health problems and erosion of their infrastructure. It was quickly becoming a critical issue for them. They would love less polluting alternatives to a lot of things and sadly our nation is not developing those technologies.
|
On July 28 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 05:51 The Bottle wrote:On July 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:36 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:29 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 05:15 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 05:08 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether all of you who are shitting on DEB's point are dishonest or inept. His ultimate point truly has nothing to do with whether man-made global warming is real or not, but y'all just can't help yourselves but argue over that red herring.
Here's a novel idea. If y'all truly believe in the intellectual superiority of your position, then why not let the court of public opinion sort things out instead of using the force of government to prosecute people who disagree with you? Of course, if you disagree with this approach, feel free to openly declare that y'all are a bunch of fascists. You're in some way involved with the legal profession, right? What is your view on the court of public opinion? Do you think that the public are able to collectively arrive at a correct conclusion when provided with evidence, regardless of the delivery and the context that evidence is placed in? It's bizarre to me that people seem to defend this Randian marketplace of ideas which applies capitalism to philosophy and claims that the good ideas and the bad ideas openly compete and that the good ideas will naturally outcompete the bad ones until the bad ones die out. I like capitalism as much as the next man but it is simply a means of distributing value, it isn't a religion. Good ideas are not like well run businesses which can naturally best their inefficient and illogical rivals. Good ideas are things like "eat fruit and vegetables and try to get 30 minutes exercise five times a week". Bad ideas are things like "discover this one trick discovered by a local housewife that will allow you to eat yourself thin, fitness trainers hate it". The bad ones outcompete the good, even when reality obviously favours one side, because humans are not rational actors capable of impartially judging the quality of an idea. I'll be very first to admit that I'm an elitist asshole who thinks that people are largely a bunch of morons. However, and as an attorney, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. This necessarily means that I often have unenviable task of defending the rights or morons to be morons, but that's the price of a free society. None of this should be a surprise to any of you who have followed my posts over the years. We're basically on the same page I feel. The public are morons but they still have free speech and we don't have a better system than everyone having the same rights because that's what it takes to have a free society. However it feels dishonest of you to argue that if people believe in the superiority of their position then they must simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed by the masses when you know damn well that the masses are incapable of sorting these things out. It's that specific part of your point that I objected to. The marketplace of ideas is itself a failed idea that continues to endure precisely because of the flawed mechanics which ought to condemn it. It's a useful rhetorical device to throw at people but not one that you actually believe in, unless I'm misinterpreting you. I'm saying that people should simply wait until their position is universally acclaimed. They are free to advocate (even aggressively) their position. What they cannot do, however, is use the force of government to silence their opponents. That is fascist. The unfortunately reality of an open and democratic society is that there will be bad results in the court of public opinion. However, what truly matters is the sanctity of the process, not the results themselves. Once you start focusing on the results, then you're on the path to something totalitarian. Speaking of all of this, whatever happened to paralleluniverse? Historically, he was the champion of this issue around here (and he and I disagreed over damned near everything). Imagine a hypothetical case in which a company publicly stated belief in one model to their shareholders regarding a controversy while privately maintaining another, much more scientifically rigorous, stance which projected a much less profitable outcome. Their public stance was not the one that they privately believed in but it was the one that was likely to cause least damage to the share prices, until reality caught up. Would you agree that in that case the shareholders were being defrauded by the board? I would argue yes. I don't think daunt's position is that they should hide their most confident belief from the public until it is widely accepted, only that they shouldn't enforce policies based on beliefs until they are widely accepted. To me, in your hypothetical scenario, the defrauding happens from their failure to disclose their best model of reality, not their failure to enforce their policies based on said model. But in this case the plaintiffs would be asking the state to make a ruling on the validity of the model the board presented to the shareholders, which is what xDaunt said the state should keep out of and leave to the marketplace of ideas. And yet it's immediately obvious that their actions were defrauding the shareholders.
The problem that you're going to run into with this analogy revolves around the nature of the duties that the board and officers owe shareholders. In short, what is happening here isn't in the marketplace of ideas due to the legal relationships that are in place between the various parties.
|
Trump picking pence was probably a compromise with the remaining of the establishment willing to potentially support him. Agree that bringing pence in the picture is probably not a good idea for trump at this moment and the attack on kaine might invite that. Maybe they got bored with going after Hillary all the time.
Asking for the russians (I now see that trump did more or less ask for it in a television statement,its not only the tweet) was most likely a blunder. I don't think it is particulary harmfull to trump but it does allow the democrats to divert and the media is jumping on the occasion.
On cnn amanpour now has a piece on it with leon panetta in the studio, its all about trumps plea to the Russians and nothing about DWS though they would have ignored that issue most likely anyway.
Its tricky for trump,his controversial behavior and statements did bring him very far but I it is a thin line he has to walk now that he has to appeal to a wider audience then during the primary.
|
The Freddie Gray prosecutions are officially over. All of the charges against the remaining officers have been dropped. I found this quote from the Baltimore Sun to be amusing:
In clearing Nero, Goodson and Rice, [Judge] Williams had repeatedly said that prosecutors presented little or no evidence to support their broader theory in the case — that the officers acted unreasonably, and willfully disregarded their training and general orders, when they decided not to secure Gray in a seat belt in the back of a police transport van, and that the decision directly led to his death.
Someone fucked up badly -- either by horrifically screwing up the prosecution or by bringing charges that never should have been brought in the first place.
|
Today seems to be Asia pandering day at the DNC
|
On July 28 2016 06:22 zeo wrote:
Today seems to be Asia pandering day at the DNC
Gaysian.
|
Well, I guess that means only the civil judgment against the city will be their punishment. I wonder how much the officers get in trouble behind the scenes (unofficially) for costing the city so much money.
|
On July 28 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:The Freddie Gray prosecutions are officially over. All of the charges against the remaining officers have been dropped. I found this quote from the Baltimore Sun to be amusing: Show nested quote +In clearing Nero, Goodson and Rice, [Judge] Williams had repeatedly said that prosecutors presented little or no evidence to support their broader theory in the case — that the officers acted unreasonably, and willfully disregarded their training and general orders, when they decided not to secure Gray in a seat belt in the back of a police transport van, and that the decision directly led to his death. Someone fucked up badly -- either by horrifically screwing up the prosecution or by bringing charges that never should have been brought in the first place.
I'm starting to lose faith that the justice system can indict officers. Including the officer that assaulted that old immigrant grandpa. I always had faith in the justice system because of the jury, but I'm not so sure anymore. Not really familiar with all of the details of the Freddie gray case though.
|
On July 28 2016 06:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:The Freddie Gray prosecutions are officially over. All of the charges against the remaining officers have been dropped. I found this quote from the Baltimore Sun to be amusing: In clearing Nero, Goodson and Rice, [Judge] Williams had repeatedly said that prosecutors presented little or no evidence to support their broader theory in the case — that the officers acted unreasonably, and willfully disregarded their training and general orders, when they decided not to secure Gray in a seat belt in the back of a police transport van, and that the decision directly led to his death. Someone fucked up badly -- either by horrifically screwing up the prosecution or by bringing charges that never should have been brought in the first place. I'm starting to lose faith that the justice system can indict officers. Including the officer that assaulted that old immigrant grandpa. I always had faith in the justice system because of the jury, but I'm not so sure anymore. I don't really know the details of the Freddie gray case though.
It's hard to comment without looking at the evidence. One thing that we do know, however, is that you can't trust the media to accurately report the case. See Trayvon Martin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
