That Sounds Racist, Murderer You're Free To Go

[JimBeam]

While I think we can probably all agree that the prosecutor might've failed to use the best terms/phrases do we really think that should allow him to get away w/ the murder of another person ?

No argument at all about the evidence against him being bad just that he used some offensive language.

Who the hell is the court to interpret how the jury voted ?

If it had come out that one or more of the jurors convicted based on the way the prosecutor spoke then mayeb there'a an argument but to throw out the conviction because of what these 8 judges " think " goes completely against the jury system.

Are juries not free to make decisions if they can be overtruned because some judge is assuming how they thought ?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015279772_overturned10m.html

[KnoxHarrington]

I dunno, reading the story, I think this prosecutor really went over the line.

During the trial, Konat questioned witnesses, many of them black, about a purported street "code" that he claimed prevented some from talking to the police, according to the Supreme Court's majority opinion written by Justice Tom Chambers. In questioning some witnesses, Konat made references to the "PO-leese," the justices found.

During his closing argument to jurors, Konat also said that while witnesses denied the presence of such a code, "the code is black folk don't testify against black folk. You don't snitch to the police," according to the Supreme Court decision.

So it sounds like the prosecutor wasn't getting what he wanted out of these witnesses, so he said to the jury, "Come on, you know how these people are." You can't do that.

And he's not free to go. His conviction was overturned, but there will be another trial.

[JimBeam]

Is it any different than when they prosecute mobster and make reference to people not being " rats " ?

It's the same exact thing unless we let our hypersensetive thoughts of racism blur everything.

The jury knew damn well people were black as they were watching them testify.

So all evidence, physical and otherwise, was ignore because of a few poorly chosen comments ?

Sure they'll be another trial with more expense to the state.

[hanso]

Is this the OJ thread?

[sailor]

Last night on law & order it was "lie or die."

[JimBeam]

At least in the OJ trial they made it seem as though the police investigators were racist and might've planted evidence.

That's not the case here.

It was the tone in which the claims were made.

It's ridiculous.

[StanUpshaw]

It's kind of hard to believe this is a tactic he just invented on the spot -- he and others have probably been doing it for years. I have no idea about how the courts actually work, but on TV it seems like whenever a prosecutor gets busted for some sort of malfeasance, it instantly calls years of convictions into question.


What they're describing doesn't really strike me as someone having their rights trampled, but whatever...I'm happy anytime the deck gets a little less stacked in The Man's favor.

[sailor]

What they're describing doesn't really strike me as someone having their rights trampled, but whatever...I'm happy anytime the deck gets a little less stacked in The Man's favor.

so, we should have less people convicted for gang shootings? i guess we all win in that case.

[StanUpshaw]

so, we should have less people convicted for gang shootings? i guess we all win in that case.

I don't know how many murder cases are dependent on the prosecutor walking over to the jury box, leaning on the rail, pointing a thumb over his shoulder and whispering, "fuckin' niggers...am I right guys???"

But if that does indeed happen, then yes, I think we should have fewer of those prosecutions.

[Snoogans]

also lets keep in mind they didnt throw out the conviction and let the guy go free. They are going to retry him, and, according to what one of the supreme court justices said, they had enough other evidence to easily convict. It makes that prosecutor look like shit but chances are this guy is gonna be right back to serving his life sentence after the next trial

[cougarjake13]

if they had that much evidence why did the guy even bring up the racial stereotype

[foodcourtdruide]

Is it any different than when they prosecute mobster and make reference to people not being " rats " ?



lol, yes it's totally different. Mobsters are a part of organized crime, the prosecuter seemed to be speaking in general about a group of people based on their race.

The correct analogy would be if a prosector made reference to ITALIANS not being "rats", which yes, would be insane.

[foodcourtdruide]

This is crazy.

This happened:

He is lead prosecutor in the trial of Isaiah Kalebu, who is charged with aggravated murder in the slaying of Teresa Butz and the rape of her partner in their South Park home in July 2009.

And the main story is a racist comment!

[JimBeam]

lol, yes it's totally different. Mobsters are a part of organized crime, the prosecuter seemed to be speaking in general about a group of people based on their race.

The correct analogy would be if a prosector made reference to ITALIANS not being "rats", which yes, would be insane.

Not sure if I just assumed it or it was mentioned but if this guy was in a gang wouldn't that associate him as much as a mobster ?

Either way it seems very possible that the guy he murdered was aslo black so haven't we failed to give him justice ?

It's OK to kill blacks if you're black and if the prosecutor used naughty tone of voice ?

[JimBeam]

And plus the term " black " is the race.

Italians would be considered " white " ( to some I guess ) no ?

So your analogy fails in that one case we reduce it to the actual nationality but the other we blanket it to any mumber of nationalities.

[sailor]

lol, yes it's totally different. Mobsters are a part of organized crime, the prosecuter seemed to be speaking in general about a group of people based on their race.

The correct analogy would be if a prosector made reference to ITALIANS not being "rats", which yes, would be insane.

Ok, just read the article. The prosecutor said black folk don't testify against black folk. What's wrong with that (or saying the same of Italians or Irish)? Next you won't be able to say there's a blue wall of silence. It's a simple fact that such a thing exists. Of course it's nor universal, but to pretend it's not real is childish.

[sailor]

And plus the term " black " is the race.

Italians would be considered " white " ( to some I guess ) no ?

So your analogy fails in that one case we reduce it to the actual nationality but the other we blanket it to any mumber of nationalities.

Isn't that just a representation of how the groups identify themselves? Whites identify themselves as Irish or Italian, where most black folk I've known identify with their race or as African-American.

[hush]

I dunno, reading the story, I think this prosecutor really went over the line.



So it sounds like the prosecutor wasn't getting what he wanted out of these witnesses, so he said to the jury, "Come on, you know how these people are." You can't do that.

And he's not free to go. His conviction was overturned, but there will be another trial. So a guy is charged with rape and murder, both of which the evidence leans heavily in the favor of him being guilty of, and Knox here shows displeasure with some innocent comments made by the prosecutor...which Knox deems went "over the line"... THAT'S WHAT KNOX IS FOCUSING ON!!! NOT THE MURDER... NOT THE RAPE...

Meanwhile, the prosecutor said NOTHING bad. Will you people stop this sensitive crap!!!

A black guy rapes and murders someone, and Knox can't even put his white guilt away for that!!

[PapaBear]

!
Have you EVER posted anything that didn't contain the words "liberal" or "black"? You're even too lame to ban anymore (even though it's been done to death).

[Syd]

So a guy is charged with rape and murder, both of which the evidence leans heavily in the favor of him being guilty of,

This is America, you commie. Innocent until proven guilty.

[hush]

Have you EVER posted anything that didn't contain the words "liberal" or "black"? You're even too lame to ban anymore (even though it's been done to death).

Please keep the thread on topic... Thanks!

[JimBeam]

This is America, you commie. Innocent until proven guilty.

But that's just it, he was found guilty.

But some judges though they should interpret how a jury voted and overturned what was probably a slamdunk conviction.

And again nobody is at all worried about the rights of the guy this POS actually murdered.

[Syd]

But that's just it, he was found guilty.

But some judges though they should interpret how a jury voted and overturned what was probably a slamdunk conviction.

And again nobody is at all worried about the rights of the guy this POS actually murdered.

They didn't interpret how a jury voted, they interpreted the argument the prosecution made.

A) welcome to the Justice system I hope you understand that just because something bad happened we shouldn't shit over everyone's rights. Your line of thinking is the exact sort of shit that allowed the Patriot Act to happen. OH MAN 9/11 SUCKED JUST DO WHATEVER WHO CARES KEEP US SAFE THROUGH SECURITY THEATER

B) he'll be re-tried by a guy who is smart enough not to use dogwhistle racism to convict someone

[JimBeam]

They didn't interpret how a jury voted, they interpreted the argument the prosecution made.

A) welcome to the Justice system I hope you understand that just because something bad happened we shouldn't shit over everyone's rights. Your line of thinking is the exact sort of shit that allowed the Patriot Act to happen. OH MAN 9/11 SUCKED JUST DO WHATEVER WHO CARES KEEP US SAFE THROUGH SECURITY THEATER

B) he'll be re-tried by a guy who is smart enough not to use dogwhistle racism to convict someone

The questioning of the witnesses and the closing arguments was probably just icing on the cake.

I'm sure they had physical evidence that sealed his fate.

Sure, retry him. Let the city pay more money on a trial that already happened.

So when this guy is found guilty again, on the same evidence, won't it be evident that he was guilty the first time ?

I'm sure they haven't found anything new.

[Jujubees2]

The questioning of the witnesses and the closing arguments was probably just icing on the cake.

I'm sure they had physical evidence that sealed his fate.

Sure, retry him. Let the city pay more money on a trial that already happened.

So when this guy is found guilty again, on the same evidence, won't it be evident that he was guilty the first time ?

I'm sure they haven't found anything new.

It may be evident that he was guilty the first time but this time he won;t have a case for an appeal.

[JimBeam]

So again he's being retired, and a conviction by a jury of his peers has been overturned, not because of some proven bias but an assumed bias.

Let's say the guy was caught holding the knife/gun, dripping in blood, and the prosecution used these same pharses, would that make the guy any less guilty ?

You have the right to be given a fair and speedy trial and have to be convicted beyound a reasonable doubt.

12 people and 1 judge obviosuly didn't think there was doubt regardless of what words the prosecutor used.

Any 1 of the 12 could've voted not guilty.

Are we saying that 12 people were all swayed by a prejudice and that's the only reason he was convicted ?

[Jujubees2]

So again he's being retired, and a conviction by a jury of his peers has been overturned, not because of some proven bias but an assumed bias.

Let's say the guy was caught holding the knife/gun, dripping in blood, and the prosecution used these same pharses, would that make the guy any less guilty ?

You have the right to be given a fair and speedy trial and have to be convicted beyound a reasonable doubt.

12 people and 1 judge obviosuly didn't think there was doubt regardless of what words the prosecutor used.

Any 1 of the 12 could've voted not guilty.

Are we saying that 12 people were all swayed by a prejudice and that's the only reason he was convicted ?

You hit the nail on the head:

You have the right to be given a fair and speedy trial and have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

[sailor]

I still don't get what he did wrong. Mentioning a code that actually exists, just because it's not universal?

[JimBeam]

Again we don't know that even one word of what the prosecutor said, outside of the evidence he presented, swayed a jurors opinion.

So we retry him because maybe, just maybe the fact that the gun was found on him and he had an issue with the guy meant ( not sure any of this is accurate but I'm using it as an example ) nothing but it was because he was black that 12 people voted for conviction ?

Nothing implies that the jury voted on anything other than the actual evidence so this appeal shouldn't have been granted.

Why don't we make every trail best 3 out of 5 just to be sure that people aren't being convicted based on the naughty words a prosecutor uses ?

[StanUpshaw]

I still don't get what he did wrong. Mentioning a code that actually exists, just because it's not universal?

He's substituting innuendo for evidence.

[KnoxHarrington]

He's substituting innuendo for evidence.

Well, here's the thing...the comparison to a lawyer calling a mobster testifying against the Mob a "rat" has been made. But in that case, it's actually kind of a fair point to make. That person is basically a scumbag who's turned on his "friends" to save his own ass. He might have done shit as bad as, if not worse, than some of the people he's testifying against. The point can be raised that he's just saying this to save his own ass, so maybe he's embellishing his story, or saying what the prosecution wants him to say. There's a real question to be raised about his reliability and honesty.

In this case, though, this dude just threw out a vague blanket statement that doesn't really come from anything the witnesses have done, beyond their being black. So it's a pretty transparent appeal to racist sentiment: "You can't believe those people."

[Syd]

Again we don't know that even one word of what the prosecutor said, outside of the evidence he presented, swayed a jurors opinion.

We don't know, but a considerable number of judges ruled that he wasn't given a fair trial. You know, a constitutional right. Sorry that you want to shit on the Constitution like that but here in America it's one of the fundamental rights our soldiers die for and why Al Qaeda hates us.