Posted March 9, 2021 11 minutes ago, kray said: Does this study you bring up take into account UNARMED victims of police shooting? It doesn't say. It's just a graph with overall police shootings over 5 years broken down by race. That's why I compared the proportions against homicide rates. The real reason why blacks only make up only 30% of police shootings despite higher homicide rates could be anything. What if rural cops have itchier trigger fingers? The answer is we don't know. The fucked up part though is that if the numbers were reversed, you'd conclude systemic racism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 9, 2021 Meh, I usually err on the side of not sending <person> to prison, so I for one am unconcerned if he gets off light. Good... One less person in prison. Unless you think he'll do it again. He probably leant his lesson. If not, who cares. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2021 (edited) Edited April 8, 2021 by Epikur Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 16, 2021 I hate to jump in on an old random relevant thread I found matching some criteria searching for stuff but there is a question or two I'd like to ask. What if you're wrong? What if Derek Chauvin is innocent? Would that be a bigger or a smaller disaster? What if he is tortured or dies in prison? What might the implications be of publicly convicting an innocent man and with it receiving the full support of the public? What new standards of justice would this create and how would we put that into writing as part of an official system of law? What would be the social implications of this and what might it say about people individually, as a whole or in general? Should anyone receive a higher standard of justice or legal rights than Derek Chauvin and if so why? Lets say hypothetically for example that his innocence can be formally proven and there are people who know that Derek Chauvin is innocent as a matter of fact and do not support wrongful convictions. How would people who believe or support his conviction regardless look to those who know the truth and who would not support a wrongful conviction? If someone supports a wrongful conviction of another should they themselves then have any right to complain were they to be wrongfully convicted? Would false prosecutions of such a type at the hands of the crowd be paralleled at all in history? What would be the implications if it turned out that a gross travesty of justice had been committed by a movement whose primary stated aim is to achieve more accurate justice? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
