Charleston church shooting

[Arkless Electronics]

Because the decision of the court, however dubious we may find it, is "a fact" until otherwise proven.
Therefore until the court has decided, beyond reasonable doubt, then the suspect is innocent until proven. Once proven, it's "proven". End of discussion, that's proof. Even if it later tunrs out to be wrong. It's right until it's proven wrong.

That's the obvious conclusion to how the media sees it yes and is exactly what I too thought.... I don't agree with it though! It's only "a fact" and "proven" as a legal nicety... I've often thought that when a travesty of justice has seemingly occurred and many lawyers are backing the innocence of the accused, pressure groups are calling for a re-trial, series such as "rough justice" are reporting on it etc... then it should go back to "alleged"

 

[stevec67]

No, no legal niceties. It HAS to be this way. The court decision is absolute *until it is overturned*. That's what the courts are for and the minute you doubt this you overturn the whole legal system. Just because you think the decision is wrong, so what? You can't ignore the court once it has judged, you have to go through due process again.

I think that the JC de Menezes case is flawed, I think that he was murdered and the statements of the police that are nothing like we saw on CCTV. They made those statements in court and I think that's perjury. However the court has judged, based on all the info available at the time, so my personal opinion is just that.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

No, no legal niceties. It HAS to be this way. The court decision is absolute *until it is overturned*. That's what the courts are for and the minute you doubt this you overturn the whole legal system. Just because you think the decision is wrong, so what? You can't ignore the court once it has judged, you have to go through due process again.

I think that the JC de Menezes case is flawed, I think that he was murdered and the statements of the police that are nothing like we saw on CCTV. They made those statements in court and I think that's perjury. However the court has judged, based on all the info available at the time, so my personal opinion is just that.

I think it is a legal nicety. Just because a court has determined that someone did commit a crime does not mean that they actually DID commit the crime. It's just the opinion of the judge and jury, based on the evidence available at that time... and how it was presented (or not presented). It is not an incontrovertible fact. If someone is later exonerated then it cannot be a fact that they DID commit the crime until it becomes a fact that they did not!
This is not Papal infallibility....

 

[Hook]

Still Obama has not recognised the racist nature of the crime.

I bet black America wish they had voted for somebody else now!

Incorrect.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...sm-and-calls-for-action-on-guns-10333658.html

I would call you out for posting without doing any research, but yours is only one of several ignorant posts on this thread.

Obama knew the pastor who was murdered in Charleston. If you had actually listened to him speak, you would have understood how deeply and personally this latest in a series of gun-related atrocities has effected him.

I find it concerning that the anti-American sentiment on PFM now seems to go well beyond the fair criticism of government policy, and to that of the American people "as a whole". I would have thought that forming an accurate opinion of 320 million immigrants, people with extremely diverse racial, social and cultural backgrounds, would require just a bit more careful consideration.

Would I be justified in forming my opinion of the UK based solely on the machete murders of Lee Rigby or Palmira Silva? No, that would be crazy. But it would make as much sense as some of what I've read here.

 

[maxflinn]

Hook, I was not aware of a second speech of his. He didn't mention racism in the first one, which was odd, I thought.

FWIW, I think the US is in a bad way for many reasons.

Don't you?

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Hook, I was not aware of a second speech of his. He didn't mention racism in the first one, which was odd, I thought.

FWIW, I think the US is in a bad way for many reasons.

Don't you?

So what's new? The GOP, gun control, neocons, state terrorism, support for well dodgy regimes such as Saudi and Israel, starting illegal wars, far right nutter fundamentalist christians... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Non of it's new and it could be argued that things are at least slightly better under Obama... if a hell long way off what I was hoping from him!

 

[Hook]

Hook, I was not aware of a second speech of his. He didn't mention racism in the first one, which was odd, I thought.

FWIW, I think the US is in a bad way for many reasons.

Don't you?

Compared to what? The U.S. of the 1960's? Some other country? Which one has a comparable history and population?

Of course I think the U.S. has problems. The same ones it has had since the end of the Civil War - poverty, racism, injustice, urban blight and so on. And yet, the standard of living here remains extremely attractive to immigrants from all over the world. They continue to come here in waves. Why do think that is? If the U.S. was in such a "bad way", then why do so many from around the world still want to live here?

Minneapolis, the city I've lived in since 1985, used to be 95% German and Scandanavian. It is now home to the nation's largest concentrations of Cambodian, Somali and Kenyan immigrants. Overall, this diversity has brought a lot of upside to the community. But not all immigrants thrive here, and dozens of disaffected East African youths have become self-radicalized followers of Al Shabaab and ISIS. Haven't they contributed to the U.S. being in a "bad way"? Yes, but thank goodness, this has not stopped the U.S. from opening its doors to political and economic refugees from around the world.

Much has been made here over whether or not the Charleston murderer was a terrorist. Seems pretty clear to me, given what has been reported 7x24 these past few days, that he was. He was as "self-radicalized" as any young Muslim trying to find meaning in ISIS. I do think there is a double standard when it comes to labeling crazed murderers: dark-skinned Muslims are automatically (and often correctly) branded as terrorists, whereas light-skinned Christians are more likely to be labeled as deranged or simply "mentally ill". In either case, and regardless of the impact of nature versus nurture, we are talking about sociopaths that present a clear and present danger. Despite all of the stories of police violence and bigotry, I remain grateful to those good people and true patriots who work tirelessly to prevent such horrors. It is not yet clear whether the Charleston murderer was on any watch lists. Obviously, he should have been, and I wish an effort had been made to entrap him before he could act out his horrible fantasy.

FYI, Obama's first speech was immediately after the shooting, and many details of the shooter's motivations had not yet been confirmed. Obama has spoken repeatedly and eloquently on the subject of racial injustice. Recall the Trayvon Martin killing, where Obama said if he had a son, it would have looked Trayvon?

Sorry for rambling, but you did ask an open-ended question.

 

[Hook]

So what's new? The GOP, gun control, neocons, state terrorism, support for well dodgy regimes such as Saudi and Israel, starting illegal wars, far right nutter fundamentalist christians... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Non of it's new and it could be argued that things are at least slightly better under Obama... if a hell long way off what I was hoping from him!

Do you understand how the U.S. federal government works? The Executive branch is limited in power by the Legislative and Judicial branches. We elected a President, not a Dictator.

Obama inherited, and then led the U.S. out of, the second worst financial crisis in the nation's history. With a congressional majority in his first two years, he helped pass the most sweeping reform of healthcare insurance in the nation's history. But with Republicans taking control of congress in 2010, his ability to effect meaningful change in the last 4+ years has been limited to his use of executive authority.

I don't know what you expected from him. There is certainly no such thing as a perfect President, and Obama has had his fair share of political mistakes. Overall, I still believe history will judge him positively.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Do you understand how the U.S. federal government works? The Executive branch is limited in power by the Legislative and Judicial branches. We elected a President, not a Dictator.

Obama inherited, and then led the U.S. out of, the second worst financial crisis in the nation's history. With a congressional majority in his first two years, he helped pass the most sweeping reform of healthcare insurance in the nation's history. But with Republicans taking control of congress in 2010, his ability to effect meaningful change in the last 4+ years has been limited to his use of executive authority.

I don't know what you expected from him. There is certainly no such thing as a perfect President, and Obama has had his fair share of political mistakes. Overall, I still believe history will judge him positively.

I think the whole world had great hopes for Obama to be a progressive president and that we have all been left disappointed... whatever the reasons for his failure to deliver. What happened to shutting Guantanamo Bay for a start?
As far as financial matters are concerned it's something I really don't care about. People before profit is my maxim.

 

[Hook]

I think the whole world had great hopes for Obama to be a progressive president and that we have all been left disappointed... whatever the reasons for his failure to deliver. What happened to shutting Guantanamo Bay for a start?
As far as financial matters are concerned it's something I really don't care about. People before profit is my maxim.

There were 242 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay when Obama took office. There are now 116. Progress, yes, but not enough in my view. Those that remain are the worst of the worst, but I would still like to see each and every one them either tried in a U.S. court of law, or transferred to another country willing to do the same. While I remain hopeful that this is accomplished before Obama leaves office, I would not want to see a backlash that gives the Republican Presidential candidate an advantage when debating national security.

Your comment of "financial matters" is completely inscrutable. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were running a small business? Is it a not-for-profit organization? Isn't it something you are trying to...grow??

Or are you suggesting that government can or should be a nation's principle employer? By the way, how did that work out for the USSR? How well is that working out in Greece?

Cling to your "maxim" if it makes you feel good, but I do not see how it helps anyone else but you.

 

[Cav]

I think it is a legal nicety. Just because a court has determined that someone did commit a crime does not mean that they actually DID commit the crime. It's just the opinion of the judge and jury, based on the evidence available at that time... and how it was presented (or not presented). It is not an incontrovertible fact. If someone is later exonerated then it cannot be a fact that they DID commit the crime until it becomes a fact that they did not!
...

It is not a legal nicety, it is a legal fact until successfully challenged in a higher court.

If you don't like trial by jury what is your alternative. Trial by pfm, for example, has been found wanting so many times....

 

[Arkless Electronics]

It is not a legal nicety, it is a legal fact until successfully challenged in a higher court.

If you don't like trial by jury what is your alternative. Trial by pfm, for example, has been found wanting so many times....

My point is probably pedantic and also obvious but all I'm saying is that just because a court pronounces you guilty does not mean it's a fact that you committed the crime. If it is later proven that you did not commit a crime and the original judgement is overturned then by the literal interpretation of what you and others have said you must have committed the crime and then not committed it..... trial by Schrödinger doesn't appeal either

 

[PaulMB]

My point is probably pedantic and also obvious but all I'm saying is that just because a court pronounces you guilty does not mean it's a fact that you committed the crime. If it is later proven that you did not commit a crime and the original judgement is overturned then by the literal interpretation of what you and others have said you must have committed the crime and then not committed it..... trial by Schrödinger doesn't appeal either

It is not a legal nicety, but a legal fact. We live in societies that have a criminal legal system that, by established right and through courts of law, establishes If a suspect is guilty or not. So, even if I have confessed to killing my mother, until a court rules that I am guilty I am only a "suspect." Once the court rules that I did murder my mother, anyone can call me a murderer.
Of course it is not perfect and infallible. What is? But it is the best we can do.
Whatever your, Arkless', opinion may be of the guilt or otherwise of a suspect may be of interest in a conversation among friends. But a newspaper cannot legally call me "murderer Paul MB....." until a court has ruled that I am. If a new trial overturns the original verdict, then thaat newspaper can no longer call me "Murderer PaulMB."

 

[clifftaylor]

My point is probably pedantic and also obvious but all I'm saying is that just because a court pronounces you guilty does not mean it's a fact that you committed the crime. If it is later proven that you did not commit a crime and the original judgement is overturned then by the literal interpretation of what you and others have said you must have committed the crime and then not committed it..... trial by Schrödinger doesn't appeal either

Arkle, your point is wholly pedantic - Cav clearly says:

It is not a legal nicety, it is a legal fact until successfully challenged in a higher court.

The important bit is "legal fact", followed by "until successfully challenged in a higher court". He is obviously not saying that a court can change reality in any way.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

It is not a legal nicety, but a legal fact. We live in societies that have a criminal legal system that, by established right and through courts of law, establishes If a suspect is guilty or not. So, even if I have confessed to killing my mother, until a court rules that I am guilty I am only a "suspect." Once the court rules that I did murder my mother, anyone can call me a murderer.
Of course it is not perfect and infallible. What is? But it is the best we can do.
Whatever your, Arkless', opinion may be of the guilt or otherwise of a suspect may be of interest in a conversation among friends. But a newspaper cannot legally call me "murderer Paul MB....." until a court has ruled that I am. If a new trial overturns the original verdict, then thaat newspaper can no longer call me "Murderer PaulMB."

Yes, yes all obvious.. "Once the court rules that I did murder my mother, anyone can call me a murderer" yes but it doesn't mean that you actually ARE a murderer! If it is later shown that someone else was the murderer and you are exonerated then what were you during your incarceration???? Guilty? Innocent? a murderer? not a murderer? both simultaneously?

 

[PaulMB]

It is the best we can do, nothing is perfect.

 

[Cav]

Oh dear...

 

[clifftaylor]

Yes, yes all obvious.. "Once the court rules that I did murder my mother, anyone can call me a murderer" yes but it doesn't mean that you actually ARE a murderer! If it is later shown that someone else was the murderer and you are exonerated then what were you during your incarceration???? Guilty? Innocent? a murderer? not a murderer? both simultaneously?

Er, if you didn't murder her you were innocent.

 

[maxflinn]

Compared to what? The U.S. of the 1960's? Some other country? Which one has a comparable history and population?

Compared to Ireland and many other European countries I guess.

The way I see it is morals and ethics are trumped by money and power.

Millions of the poor locked in jails for a very long time, which is great news for the private prison business.

No free health care, but billions are made from raping the people who have no choice but to pay for it.

Guns everywhere, but it's mostly the poor that die due to gun violence, and billions are made from the gun trade too, so that stays as is.

An insane foreign policy that's mostly dictated by people who have a different country's interests at heart. Billions made for the arms people from that too, and lots of refugees for Europe created.

An insane media. Think FOX News

No doubt there are many good points too. You've mentioned a few, and some great people. I just worry about the way it's all going out there. I don't see much changing either as you've got a choice of very right-wing, pro-foreign terror, and big business oriented, or slightly less right-wing, slightly less pro-foreign terror, and big business oriented. Though Obama seems to have got a grip of himself and pulled back from a terror attack against Iran, for his 'buddies' so that's positive, though what the hell he's doing in Ukraine I don't know!