Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Gwazi Magnum
Raw
OP
Avatar of Gwazi Magnum

Gwazi Magnum

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

News story here

Ran across this story here.

Though, when showed this story I was also showed a Devils Advocate post that people might also want to look at.



As usually I won't influence starting opinions by giving my own, I'll let people voice theirs first.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

If it was written by a reporter then it was written with an agenda, and I categorically reject it. We have an established system for determining blame in any such situation, and it's called 'Court,' and it never goes there unless there's a suit. So..... what's the big damn deal? It'll go to court and get settled, or it'll get settled before it goes to court. And after it's settled, the news will smell more blood and head back in for the feeding frenzy. I won't be a part of it.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

mdk said
If it was written by a reporter then it was written with an agenda, and I categorically reject it. We have an established system for determining blame in any such situation, and it's called 'Court,' and it never goes there unless there's a suit. So..... what's the big damn deal? It'll go to court and get settled, or it'll get settled before it goes to court. And after it's settled, the news will smell more blood and head back in for the feeding frenzy. I won't be a part of it.


Is it not important to be aware of the decisions being made by the judiciary system? If we, as a society, pay no attention to these things, then the potential for injustice and abuse of power increases exponentially. Taking a slightly charged example, look at the Trayvon Martin case - the courts decided in a manner people found unquestionably unjust. If everyone took your point of view, nothing would have been said, and the blatant racism that exists in court would never have been questioned and brought back into the spotlight as an issue.
Now, I'm not trying to spark a Trayvom Martin case debate. I'm just using it as an example. In essence, the courts cannot simply be left to do as they wish without the knowledge or mediation of wider society, meaning it's important to pay attention to and discuss controversial court cases.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

Halo said
Is it not important to be aware of the decisions being made by the judiciary system? If we, as a society, pay no attention to these things, then the potential for injustice and abuse of power increases exponentially. Taking a slightly charged example, look at the Trayvon Martin case - the courts decided in a manner people found unquestionably unjust. If everyone took your point of view, nothing would have been said, and the blatant racism that exists in court would never have been questioned and brought back into the spotlight as an issue.Now, I'm not trying to spark a Trayvom Martin case debate. I'm just using it as an example. In essence, the courts cannot simply be left to do as they wish without the knowledge or mediation of wider society, meaning it's important to pay attention to and discuss controversial court cases.


Perfect example to talk about what I mean. Before the trial (before the **arrest** for god's sake) we had 24/7 coverage in the media proclaiming Zimmerman's guilt. There was never any chance of a fair trial, because the sharks in the media were in full-frenzy, making bookoo dollars off the corruption of every conceivable pool of jurors. To demonstrate just how complete their deception -- have you heard of 'Stand Your Ground?' Of course you have, probably a lot -- it was never once invoked, at any point of the legal proceedings.

I could go on a whole tangent about the trial, because I've actually spent a substantial amount of time reading the depositions, court documents, applicable laws and legal precedents. The short version is, the outcome was decided legally when the prosecutor filed for murder 2 -- but it was decided by MSNBC, CNN, CBS and company on day one of their coverage, by the NRA and the NAACP about an hour later, and the rest of the general public just moments after that. That frenzy is basically the entire reason race relations took a gargantuan nose-dive. It's literally, demonstrably, all the media's fault. Fuck them.

....anyway, let's pretend for a minute that none of that happened, and the Martin case was a legitimately botched trial. It's hard to argue that the news could *ever* cover a case more extensively than they covered this. What did all that mobbish outrage accomplish? Did popular oversight impact that poor decision in a meaningful way? Did our collective outcry make them throw out the jury's decision and hang the killer? I'd argue that the Martin case aptly demonstrates just how pointless it is to involve the general public in any legal proceeding, other than the appropriate jury requirement. We say 'innocent until proven guilty,' and 'habeus corpus,' and 'confrontational clause,' and if we mean any of it, we really need to put a stop to this bullshit.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

mdk said
Perfect example to talk about what I mean. Before the trial (before the for god's sake) we had 24/7 coverage in the media proclaiming Zimmerman's guilt. There was never any chance of a fair trial, because the sharks in the media were in full-frenzy, making bookoo dollars off the corruption of every conceivable pool of jurors. To demonstrate just how complete their deception -- have you heard of 'Stand Your Ground?' Of course you have, probably a lot -- it was invoked, at any point of the legal proceedings. I could go on a whole tangent about the trial, because I've actually spent a substantial amount of time reading the depositions, court documents, applicable laws and legal precedents. The short version is, the outcome was decided legally when the prosecutor filed for murder 2 -- but it was decided by MSNBC, CNN, CBS and company on day one of their coverage, by the NRA and the NAACP about an hour later, and the rest of the general public just moments after that. That frenzy is basically the entire reason race relations . It's literally, demonstrably, all the media's fault. Fuck them.....anyway, let's pretend for a minute that none of that happened, and the Martin case was a legitimately botched trial. It's hard to argue that the news could *ever* cover a case more extensively than they covered this. What did all that mobbish outrage accomplish? Did popular oversight impact that poor decision in a meaningful way? Did our collective outcry make them throw out the jury's decision and hang the killer? I'd argue that the Martin case aptly demonstrates just how pointless it is to involve the general public in any legal proceeding, other than the appropriate jury requirement. We say 'innocent until proven guilty,' and 'habeus corpus,' and 'confrontational clause,' and if we mean of it, we really need to put a stop to this bullshit.


Again, I really don't want to get bogged down in whether the Trayvon Martin case was botched, legitimate, or anything else. It was merely an example that sprang to mind, and I honestly don't know enough about it to argue the matter either way.

Whether the media dealt with it appropriately or not in this specific case is sort of irrelevant, in my mind. I'm arguing the principle that we should pay some attention to what goes on in courts and the kinds of decisions being made. Now, in this case, it was perhaps handled poorly and in a very biased manner, and that's fucked up and detrimental. But the overall idea, I'm fully behind. It's important to pay attention to these things, to be aware, to pay attention, because sometimes trials are botched, and poor decisions are made, and often they highlight very important things about our society and its flaws. And there has to be an accountability for these things - judges cannot be allowed to make whatever decisions they want while the public turn a blind eye. For someone who argues for individualistic rights, you're shockingly in support of allowing judicial officials to do whatever the fuck they like, without media coverage and without public knowledge.

Did the public outcry overturn the decision? No, of course it didn't, that would be ridiculous. Judicial officials must be accountable, but neither should they be pressured by public opinion. What it did do, however, is draw national attention to a serious, all-pervading issue in American society, one that needs to be discussed and addressed. Let's say it was a poor decision, whether you believe that or not - the question was then asked, "how did this poor decision come about, and what does that say about us?". In your world, where nobody pays attention to such cases and the media do not cover them, that question would never have been asked, and the issue of institutionalised racism - which needs to be discussed, whether you think it exists or not - would not have been addressed or brought back into the public consciousness.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

This might be a product of different legal systems (You're in GB, right?).... There are certain foundational values in the American legal system that are totally overridden by media involvement. The bulk of our 'Bill of Rights' is about trial proceedings, including rights to representation, rights to privacy, rights to impartiality, rights against search without a warrant... these are fairly central tenets of our whole country, really, and our news agencies ignore them without fear of reproach. Now certainly, we should talk about things from time to time, like 'It's not okay to gun down black people.' That's a great lesson to teach the kids!! But what actually happens -- the practical history here -- is that news agencies whip up a lynch mob with their left hand so that they can sell torches with the right. That's how we operate and it's appalling, and I sincerely hope it's different in Britain.

people should be angrier about this.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by So Boerd
Raw

So Boerd

Member Seen 9 yrs ago

I don't think MDK is advocating ignorance, I think he's advocating not trying this in the court of public opinion. However, since there's no jury and the case is in Canada, I feel no compunction in saying this woman is a clown.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

mdk said
This might be a product of different legal systems (You're in GB, right?).... There are certain foundational values in the American legal system that are totally overridden by media involvement. The bulk of our 'Bill of Rights' is about trial proceedings, including rights to representation, rights to privacy, rights to impartiality, rights against search without a warrant... these are fairly central tenets of our whole country, really, and our news agencies ignore them without fear of reproach. Now certainly, we should talk about things from time to time, like 'It's not okay to gun down black people.' But what actually happens -- the practical history here -- is that news agencies whip up a lynch mob with their left hand so that they can sell torches with the right. That's how we operate and it's appalling, and I sincerely hope it's different in Britain.people should be angrier about this.


I'm certainly not arguing that the media handle these things in a responsible way. All I was ever arguing was that it's important for the individual to pay attention to court decisions. The lens through which they do that - the media - may be very faulty, but it is still an individual's responsibility to pay attention to these things, to ensure that if there is some problem with the way things are being done that that issue is addressed.
Taking your logic, people should not pay attention to voting candidates and their policies because the media may screw around with the facts, be biased, and encourage extreme or oversimplified, polarised views of things. We know the media does this, but regardless of that, it is still important for people to pay attention to political candidates, parties, and policy, no?
Maybe I'm simply missing your point - I get the impression we are talking at slight cross-purposes here.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

Halo said
I'm certainly not arguing that the media handle these things in a responsible way. All I was ever arguing was that it's important for the individual to pay attention to court decisions. The lens through which they do that - the media - may be very faulty, but it is still an individual's responsibility to pay attention to these things, to ensure that if there is some problem with the way things are being done that that issue is addressed. Taking your logic, people should not pay attention to voting candidates and their policies because the media may screw around with the facts, be biased, and encourage extreme or oversimplified, polarised views of things. We know the media does this, but regardless of that, it is still important for people to pay attention to political candidates, parties, and policy, no? Maybe I'm simply missing your point - I get the impression we are talking at slight cross-purposes here.

I think we're talking about two different things, or perhaps, you're talking about the end result when I'm only talking about the means. There's a great quote by Thomas Jefferson — 'The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.' I *detest* our national media, not for bias or one-sided-ness but for a pervasive incompetence and repugnant business practices. As relating to this thread, I'm reacting to the media's involvement in national discourse, specifically in legal cases, and I'm arguing that it's almost entirely a destructive influence, with few-if-any redeeming qualities. If I'm reading you right, you're arguing that 'we still need to talk about these things,' and I agree, but if that means we need to rely on the news corps to mediate the conversation, then I want nothing to do with it. I made a thread a while ago about how I get informed on a topic -- it's worth dragging out again, stand by for an edit, I'll find it for ya....

EDIT: Here it is! Not a thread after all, just an atypically long and thoughtful response in a Turt thread, which explains why it took so long to find. Fair warning, 'guide to the news' was written while I was plastered, but I stand by it sober. The TLDR is that 'news' is not a source of information, nor a lens for viewing information.... it's pig slop for pigs, nothing more, nothing less. Pick out the chunks of corn if you must; I'll be eating steak.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

mdk said
I think we're talking about two different things, or perhaps, you're talking about the end result when I'm only talking about the means. There's a great quote by Thomas Jefferson — 'The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.' I *detest* our national media, not for bias or one-sided-ness but for a pervasive incompetence and repugnant business practices. As relating to this thread, I'm reacting to the media's involvement in national discourse, specifically in legal cases, and I'm arguing that it's almost entirely a destructive influence, with few-if-any redeeming qualities. If I'm reading you right, you're arguing that 'we still need to talk about these things,' and I agree, but if that means we need to rely on the news corps to mediate the conversation, then I want nothing to do with it. I made a thread a while ago about how I get informed on a topic -- it's worth dragging out again, stand by for an edit, I'll find it for ya....EDIT: ! Not a thread after all, just an atypically long and thoughtful response in a Turt thread, which explains why it took so long to find. Fair warning, 'guide to the news' was written while I was plastered, but I stand by it sober.


I'm saying that the courts cannot be allowed to do whatever they want, to make whatever decisions they want, without public knowledge. Let me put it this way:
Laws are made in order to act as a moral code for a society. You break the law, you've done something bad, you get punished. You follow the law, you're doing okay. That moral code is, in a democratic society, set by the public (in theory) - we vote in those who're gonna make the laws what we think they should be.
This moral code we have decided upon as a society is upheld in courts - it is where we determine whether that moral code has been broken, and the appropriate punishment if it has. It is therefore in public interest to ensure that the moral code is being upheld in the intended way - that what we think is "right" or "wrong" is what is actually being reflected in court, which should only be making decisions based on what society has, through law, decided is "right" or "wrong".
If we do not ensure that court decisions (and laws, for that matter, though one way to do that is through court) are actually reflecting our ideas of right and wrong, then we give the court free reign to do as they like and to flaunt the moral code they're designed to be upholding.

From what I can gather, you agree with me in principle, but think that the practical way we do that - through the media - is fundamentally flawed. And I agree with that. My experiences with American media reflect exactly what you're saying, and I think it's appalling. Thing is, there are ways to do the principle I'm discussing, without using the faulty lens of biased media - principally, by researching things in the exact manner you highlighted in that 'guide to the news' you posted. By doing that, you avoid biased media, and still keep abreast of what the courts and government are doing - which is what I am saying is so important to do.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

yep.

I think at some point I impressed upon you the notion that I have no interest in the court proceedings. What should have been communicated, instead, is that I have no interest in joining the (currently active) mob of reactionists, who, having read the news about a filing of a case, are already rendering their verdicts. I won't be at that circus. Nothing about the circus is good or productive or admirable or even fun, really, nobody likes being pissed off about the news story they just read, they just like the catharsis they get from venting their rage onto a social blog. No thanks.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Halo
Raw
Avatar of Halo

Halo

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

mdk said
yep.I think at some point I impressed upon you the notion that I have no interest in the court proceedings. What should have been communicated, instead, is that I have no interest in joining the (currently active) mob of reactionists, who, having read the news about a filing of a case, are already rendering their verdicts. I won't be at that circus. Nothing about the circus is good or productive or admirable or even fun, really, nobody being pissed off about the news story they just read, they just like the catharsis they get from venting their rage onto a social blog. No thanks.


In which case, I very much agree. Can't even count the amount of times I've pulled people up for the same thing. Ah, dialogue de sourds, it haunts us all. Apologies for the misinterpretation on my part.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Gwazi Magnum
Raw
OP
Avatar of Gwazi Magnum

Gwazi Magnum

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

*Was about to step in to clarify miscommunication*
*See's it's been sorted out already*

Ah, Glad to see. Rare when a miss-communication fixes itself on the Internet rather than snowball. :)
And as far as your consensus goes in regards to it's important to pay attention to the legal workings and how cases are going, but media does a terrible job in representing it I have to agree completely.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Goldmarble
Raw

Goldmarble Old

Member Seen 15 days ago

Awww, no snowballing?

Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

Goldmarble said
Awww, no snowballing?


I'm capable of being reasonable. I just don't usually exercise that option.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Gwazi Magnum
Raw
OP
Avatar of Gwazi Magnum

Gwazi Magnum

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

Goldmarble said
Awww, no snowballing?


No not this time. :P
This a rare moment where it does not snow in Canada. XD
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Goldmarble
Raw

Goldmarble Old

Member Seen 15 days ago

Magic Magnum said
No not this time. :PThis a rare moment where it does not snow in Canada. XD


Rare? I haven't seen snow since early December.
Course, the rest of Canada will argue the validity of Vancouver Islanders claiming Canadian citizenship at times....
Today was a nice, balmy 26 C aroun my home, and up to 30 C up island a little.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by HeySeuss
Raw
Avatar of HeySeuss

HeySeuss DJ Hot Carl

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Journalistic summaries of pending court cases tend to leave out the actual arguments (which haven't been made, since it was only filed) and I tend to find myself skeptical of the media in these cases. Call it a burnout from seeing Nancy Grace on the warpath and watching the Duke Rape Case, among others, but I am willing to wait out the verdict before commenting.

The news is entertainment, try to keep it in mind that they ham up the story to keep you riveted because keeping you riveted keeps you exposed to their advertising. One of the reasons I love Gawker is that they don't even pretend -- they find all sorts of ways to outrage you...like this: http://gawker.com/some-jersey-frat-bros-apparently-tagged-a-dead-whale-1570828786
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Revans Exile
Raw
Avatar of Revans Exile

Revans Exile

Banned Seen 9 yrs ago

The families lying about the driver are guilty of libel and/or slander. They deserved to be sued.

The families raised morons that caused damage to the drivers property, said morons are under the age of 18. They deserved to be sued.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Gwazi Magnum
Raw
OP
Avatar of Gwazi Magnum

Gwazi Magnum

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

Revans Exile said The families lying about the driver are guilty of libel and/or slander. They deserved to be sued.


There hasn't been anything to confirm if the family was lying or not.
Innocent until proven guilty and so far the family looks innocent.

Besides, even if the driver killed the children by accident it's a natural result for parents to be devastated, and for those who saw/heard of the case to see the driver as a murderer, even if the parents were 100% quiet (as in didn't even openly grieve) the driver would get a lot of the hate she claims is due to the parents.

Revans Exile said The families raised morons that caused damage to the drivers property, said morons are under the age of 18. They deserved to be sued.


Obvious trolling is obvious.

They were riding they're bikes, they got hit.

Yes it may of been easier to happen cause it was night but that doesn't mean they're idiots for having been killed.
And if anything them being under 18 has nothing to due with the parents being sued for the claims the driver is making.
↑ Top
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet