Iris lilies, how are things in your hood?

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rob - remember Mark Fuhrman?

Once a jury thinks the police are tampering with/fabricating/misrepresenting/mishandling evidence, "reasonable doubt" is pretty hard to meet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

See also:

http://www.policeone.com/crime/artic...a-crime-scene/

You have a point. I'd still side with the prosecution (believe it or not) but I do believe Mark Fuhrman introduced issues to the case that let OJ go free.....and I can see where this botched the prosecution's case, yes. Rob

[bae]

I'd still side with the prosecution (believe it or not)

The thing is, you aren't supposed to "side" with the prosecution or the defense. You are supposed to "side" with the law, and the facts as extracted from the evidence presented.

[gimmethesimplelife]

The thing is, you aren't supposed to "side" with the prosecution or the defense. You are supposed to "side" with the law, and the facts as extracted from the evidence presented.

I don't know if you will understand this, Bae, but I'm going to post this anyway. Though I am law abiding - and I am - I don't really believe in the law (in general) for the most part - there are exceptions to this, though. Too many laws seem designed to protect the rich and seem to work against the poor - I lost my faith in US law somewhere in high school - I think the summer after my Freshman year. I comply with the law as I don't want the hassles that come with being caught doing otherwise.

How this ties into your post? Given that I don't believe much in the law - once again, let me state that A. there are exceptions to this, this is not 100%, and B. I do comply with the law to spare myself potential hassles and grief - I can't really "side" with the law. For me it's all about siding with the defense or the prosecution, and the OJ trial was a real revelation for me as it was one of the rare times I've ever sided with the prosecution and as I already posted, I would side with the prosecution again if the case were presented the same way today. Rob

[bae]

So, not a fan of the rule of law? We knew that.

Have you ever served on a criminal jury and been through the whole process? The *text* of the law matters, the jury instructions matter, the standard of proof matters, the *process* matters, etc. etc. - otherwise we don't have civilization.

You want mob/playground justice. Or some sort of demented popularity contest.

I would not live in such a society. Most people, upon any serious reflection, would not want to either.

Here's a book to read:

"A Theory of Justice", John Rawls.

[gimmethesimplelife]

So, not a fan of the rule of law? We knew that.

Have you ever served on a criminal jury and been through the whole process? The *text* of the law matters, the jury instructions matter, the standard of proof matters, the *process* matters, etc. etc. - otherwise we don't have civilization.

You want mob/playground justice. Or some sort of demented popularity contest.

I would not live in such a society. Most people, upon any serious reflection, would not want to either.

Here's a book to read:

"A Theory of Justice", John Rawls.

It's not that I'm against the rule of law per se, Bae. I don't want to live in anarchy - and I understand that some measure of law in necessary for a society to even hope to run somewhat smoothly. My issue is with laws the work to the benefit of those at the top and to the detriment of those at the bottom, and these days, the middle, too. The America I know is sifting upwards these days, Bae. I never thought I'd see that one happen but it is happening. Expect more people to be disillusioned and adopt thinking more along my lines than yours - it comes with the territory of inequality. But I digress. I'm not against the idea of law per se - I'm against the REALITY of how some laws work. I abide with laws - other than those I do believe in - so that I don't have to deal with consequences for being caught not following such laws, and for no other reason really. Rob

[flowerseverywhere]

It's not that I'm against the rule of law per se, Bae. I don't want to live in anarchy - and I understand that some measure of law in necessary for a society to even hope to run somewhat smoothly. My issue is with laws the work to the benefit of those at the top and to the detriment of those at the bottom, and these days, the middle, too. The America I know is sifting upwards these days, Bae. I never thought I'd see that one happen but it is happening. Expect more people to be disillusioned and adopt thinking more along my lines than yours - it comes with the territory of inequality. But I digress. I'm not against the idea of law per se - I'm against the REALITY of how some laws work. I abide with laws - other than those I do believe in - so that I don't have to deal with consequences for being caught not following such laws, and for no other reason really. Rob

I continue to be perplexed why you don't leave the US. Or do something to change what you don"t like in the confines of the system. Because change won't be generated from anonymous Internet forum comments.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I continue to be perplexed why you don't leave the US. Or do something to change what you don"t like in the confines of the system. Because change won't be generated from anonymous Internet forum comments.

On this one I'm sorry to say I'm confused. Did I not make clear that I am law abiding, following laws I find repulsive and or ridiculous, along with laws I believe in? Really, does it even matter that I don't believe in some laws as long as I am following them?

Given that the thread here has to do with Ferguson, MO, I am going to tie this back in to Ferguson by saying that's one thing I hope that happens as a result of what took place there - some laws getting updated/changed/thrown out, along with some policies getting updated/changed/thrown out. We'll see. Rob

[dmc]

Interesting.....Turns out that the police stopped blacks twice as often as whites in Ferguson and two other nearby communities but were less likely to find contraband in the vehicles of African Americans than whites.....Methinks the lawsuits and challenges to the police department and the courts in Ferguson have only begun to start. And if the above is true - it is highly discriminatory and how do we as a society even BEGIN to make restitution to the black community in Ferguson? I don't know that large sums of mere money would even be enough at this point.....Rob

If 70% of the town is black, why is this a suprise? Shouldn't 70% of the stops be of black motorist? Are you saying that the police should be profiling the minority white drivers?

[Gregg]

If 70% of the town is black, why is this a suprise? Shouldn't 70% of the stops be of black motorist?

Is that what's known as an inconvenient truth? Maybe they can use Common Core math to spin it back the other way.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Here's something interesting. It turns out that CNN is reporting that two white witnesses who say they were fifty feet away from the shooting - construction contractors working in the area - claim that Michael Brown DID have his hands in the air when he was fatally shot and according to them, Michael Brown was shot dead when he presented no threat. OUCH! I don't read the future and I don't know how this is going to play out but at the moment I'm thinking somebody better get a printing press ready for the lawsuit settlements, and I hope nobody settles for the first offer if Ferguson tries settling out of court.....If anyone is interested google two new Ferugson witnesses. Rob