As I see nothing indicating any real curiosity about cops as witness testimony nor an acknowledgement of the repeated bad faith behavior, I will not be replying further.
If you have strong data to the contrary on the accuracy of police testimony, then just present it, and we can get to the bottom of this.
I will gladly spend the time compiling this once you fully acknowledge the bad faith I've had to deal with in this engagement and when you show any curiosity whatsoever in learning about this topic. I am not going to compile and explain this information while receiving bad faith pushback, as the conclusion would surely just be me receiving more dismissive comments that do not address what I say and probably without even reading the references I produce.
You would have done this already if you weren't so busy trying to bait me.
I am spending basically all of my time trying to get you to read and respond to what I say and not make things up. I gave you many early opportunities to do so and now have to say it directly. The behavior does not seem to be improving.
Since you haven't, I assumed your rationale is not based on hard facts at all. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong.
This is a highly entitled position and I doubt many people indulge you this way.
Yes, a technicality was employed, I've not denied that either.
What I said was that you missed the point and have ignored me mentioning it (twice). You still are not responding to what I have actually said about the technicality. I told you why. I explained it.
Do you see why I am not going out of my way to preemptively compile educational resources for you? We are currently working at the level of, "can this person read and respond germanely and not resort to straw men".
I don't see the problem with it. The prosecutor should follow the letter of the law and use their most effective tools.
What did I have to say about this and where is the error in my thinking?
He was just in a bar fight, you very conveniently quoted me around that part.
I literally included your mention of a bar fight. Do you know how to quote text? This would help with understanding exactly what you are responding. You know, you have already skipped over entire sets of paragraphs that I wrote in response. Just ignored them.
This will be my last response to you until you can demonstrably engage in good faith.
Ah, I see. "Match works cited", I did gloss over that part.
Yes the part that is most directly in opposition to your entire complaint that I have repeated 4 times.
So you're saying that if I click on the link part of OPs post that says the man did not commit the crime, I will encounter that claim within that article? Because I'm pretty sure it was the one I personally linked to, and I don't recall that being in it. Perhaps they mixed the links up though, mistakes do happen.
OP had several links, remember? You remember saying that early on? One of them, as I have said several times now, has exactly the claim OP made that you dispute.
Regarding your six, defense lawyer incompetence I already granted.
Do you think so? Review what I said about it and tell me how you "granted" it.
The technicality is irrelevant.
I explained how it is relevant and you had failed to recognize the claim at all and have still failed to dispute it.
Cop unreliability awaits data, otherwise I addressed it.
It awaits you learning about this topic and not appreciating your own ignorance over knowledge of systemic functions and outcomes. Or even just any personal experience, as that tends to teach this lesson. On this topic you have expounded at length about irrelevancies and straw men but not my direct challenges.
Other witnesses I addressed in my first comment.
You discussed it in your third comment as a way to inaccurately summarize the dispute and ignored my response to that and subsequent mentions of it.
One witness being a cop is irrelevant.
I have mentioned how it is relevant and you had neither acknowledged me pointing this out and have yet to dispute what I said.
It is clear that you prefer to claim irrelevance as an excuse to avoid engaging with what is said.
Presumption of innocence I'll grant since the conviction was thrown out.
Do you also grant that you ignored this point and are thus completely and utterly wrong in your mischaracterization of my sentiment as just "acab"? Did you forget why I was listing numbers of points?
This does not automatically grant release though, any more than you'd automatically go free while awaiting an initial trial.
Again, the rationale given was a technicality and not something based on a merit. You've gotta remember the basic facts and think of them consistently together, not inconsistently in isolation. Otherwise you will be confused and wrong.
OPs verbatim I've just addressed.
And you were simultaneously condescending amd confused and wrong about that. And, again, are forgetting why this list was presented and why I challenged you to respond to it.
And the rest of that looks like more bait.
" I will continue ignoring the things I don't know how to respond to buy also feel the need to project that I am still right to do so".
The heart of this disagreement is about the accuracy of police testimony, as best as I can tell.
I literally just got done listing 7 points, only one of which is about that, and you just got done providing inadequate or wrong responses to them. You are now fully aware that it would be a lie to try and yet again try to simplify it down to this alone.
And if I were to describe the heart of this disagreement, it is actually that you are wrong about OP being misleading and that you should apologize, but instead of acting in good faith you are engaging in fibs and deflections and ignoring what is said. I believe that you can do better, but you will have to respect yourself more first.
Can you actually back your words? I'm open to changing my mind
Exhibit A in contradiction of this: this entire conversation, pulling teeth to get you to almost respond to what I say instead of making things up.
In short, I, reasonably, do not believe you. You have to dig yourself out of a hole first to have any presumption of good faith or curiosity. The fact that you want to wait around for the person you're ignoring to lay it out for you on a platter is contradictory of this.
but it's going to take more than clever rhetoric to do it.
My rhetoric is not clever, it is very basic and direct.
I like numbers, and I am deeply suspicious of people that think they can predict the actions of individuals based on the systems they are in or their group membership.
Contradictory exhibit B: the entire field of sociology.
Wait is Dracula a predator of the sun or is the sun a predator of Dracula
There is really no better situation for a party that serves the status quo faction of the bourgeoisie to promise nothing and depend entirely on claiming, "but the other guy is worse". It isn't that different from promising policies you know you won't fight for and for which you can manufacture scapegoats (Congress, half-assing court cases, etc), not in terms of actual policy changes. But it does suppress consciousness that a better world is possible, for people to become disillusioned from the planned "failure". This is all consistent with Democratic political strategists doubling down on trying to cow and disregard its left flank, to prevent another Bernie. A revanchist position that is trying to create a base that fully serves the party regardless of what it does. They certainly envy the GOP.
The selection of Harris is of course a result of this. There was no last-minute primary, no opportunity for political struggle. No acknowledgement that Biden stepped down for a reason that should invoke the 25th amendment. Just accept this genocidal neoliberal ghoul we chose for you, swine. Embrace JOY. Are you not satisfied!?
I am not being misleading at all, this is strongly slanted content.
I have explained how your claim is misleading twice now and you have not responded to that.
Your "correct about power structures" betrays you.
Betrays me how? You never elaborate on this later on.
I think it is quite reasonable to see even police as individuals, capable of individual action.
And yet the system produces a legalized gang that watches each others' backs and routinely lies on reports and on the stand. You can't just ignore that reality away, though clearly you would like to because knowing that cops are unreliable witnesses against defendants blows up the entirety of the prosecurion's case. It is an absurd thing, and gullible, to think that cops' testimony is enough to presume any level of guilt.
To me it's testimony of two against two.
"If you stop making me think about context and facts, it's simple, really! My position is nuanced!" lmfao
The defense attorney's incompetence is another issue entirely
No it is not. It also undermines the original conviction, highlights the cruelty of Harris' intervention, and provides a hint at the systemic issues re: the criminal punishment system that should lead you to have a less pro-cop, pro-prosecutor bias.
but does not make the man innocent. Maybe he threw the knife, maybe he did not. Until we get a better answer in court, that's all we've got.
The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Claims of crimes are not, by default, ambiguously true just because they are prosecuted or because there is cop testimony. Your logic is that of the southern white lynch mob.
And it reflects poorly on your comments, not on OP. You should withdraw your claim and apologize.
I really don't think we need to consider temporal bias [...]
I was obviously being absurd on purpose in both cases. Bias is inherent to having a correct understanding of something. The problem here is not bias at all, it's being biased towards cops and prosecutors. You should be biased against them in these examples as they have a poor track record and it is for systemic reasons. And, to boot, they were contradicted by others, including another cop. This normally puts a huge target on the back of a "snitch". See how useful bias is? It means you understand the forces at work and can judge the value of actions in context.
Simply bias towards the witnesses. You are disregarding two of them due to your own perceptions of structural power, I am disregarding none of them. I prefer my way. The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.
I have actually listed at least 6 arguments around this, from different aspects of the case, and you have ignored nearly all of them. Noting the irrationality of your problem bias is just one part of explaining one of those angles.
Because I think you have forgotten, I will remind you that you are claiming the OP is being misleading and that the content of the articles does not match the claims, listing one example so far (and in a different misleading way, as I have noted twice!): that it isn't kosher to say an innocent man was convicted (despite one of the articles saying this verbatim), that it is actually ambiguous and man, you just can't tell. I will add a 7th argument: you are entirely missing the real point of those articles anyways, which is that Harris stepped in to harass this man in a technicality, i.e. the exact timing of challenges and the presentation of witnesses.
The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.
Oh dear.
I read a few of these this morning, and saw legitimate cause for concern.
Yet you have only listed one example and didn't even characterize it right in its basic framing, as it was only stated in one bullet point.
I do not recall which specific ones I clicked on though, I tried to pick a handful at random.
By this I will take it to mean you refuse to provide more examples despite claiming to have them.
Regardless, a cautioning to be wary about internet spin is far from misleading, and this is definitely spjn.
Only if you are biased towards cops and prosecutors and do things like, say, try to remove context from consideration or look at the case in its totality because that would contradict your narrative. You don't see the irony in this behavior while decryjng "internet spin"?
I strongly suspect you simply like the spin out of an acab position, which I clearly do not ascribe to.
Feel free to respond directly to what I say and ask questions and you might be able to make accurate conclusions about my positions.
You can call me naive if you like, I am certainly aware of the incentives for police to get convictions.
And this describes the totality of your understanding of how much and why cops lie in reports and in court?
I do not find such a position sufficient to simply disregard all police testimony, however. That simply should not be good enough, regardless of your philosophical leanings.
I will take that as a "yes" to my question.
The criminalized immigrant labor underclass is part of and subjected to key contradictions (in the dialectical sense) of American and therefore international capital. You're 100% right that there is a substantial economic (capiralist) force that benefits from the systemic underpayment of this labor force, so they push for policies that ensure it is present and that the owner class never pays too big of a price for "enforcement" of anti-immigrant laws. At the same time, being able to underpay undocumented immigrants requires that they stay precarious and delineated into that underclass. They must be kept unable to demand better working conditions and pay through fear of ICE and deportation. So the capitalist class also pushes for precarity and criminalization so that the immigrant labor underclass is regularly disciplined.
Compounding this, they also need to deflect from their practices, for why the higher-paid jobs disappear, and rather than accept blame for trying to pay horrendously low wages, they employ the oldest of American owner class dupes: they spread a racist, xemophobic false consciousness that transfers blame to to desperate people, trying to make them both undeserving and villains for having to take shot pay under bad conditiobs., which the owner class frames as "stealing jobs". Thus in deflecting blame they create a force against their policy of a disciplined but present undocumented labor underclass, creating a huge number of absolute racists that would restrict that labor force (through cruelty and violence) below what the owners actually materially want. And at some point, psychology and ideology begin to have a substantial impact - that point is when the direct material impacts become somewhat detached from the policy, e.g. when employers get unlimited bailouts and profits are more from finance than production.
Re: COVID, I think their primary weapon there is to drive up unemployment overall and to make workers poorer and less able to withstand longer periods of unemployment, which does include the undocumented immigrant labor underclass but also every other worker.
Re: Being anti-immigrant, the regime depends on terrorizing the underclass and also must contend with an increase in attempted crossings, so that population can increase even as anti-immigrant policies go into effect.
Re: Kamala, parent asked how this regime had anti-immigrant policies. I listed examples. I also referred to anti-immigrant policies originally because these policies are social violence of which Kamala was an active part of selling. She was and is an import piece of adopting the rightward anti-immigrant push of the Democratic political class as a whole, in contrast to any attempt to distance Harris from the Biden-Harris administration.
Creating much higher bars for seeking asylum. Ramping up mass deportations. Building and populating more facilities that Dems called "kids in cages" when Trump did it (naturally liberals stopped caring about immigrants once a Democrat was in office). Encouraging or tolerating making the border itself more dangerous to cross. Doing an anti-immigrant PR push to shift the burden ("do not come"). Maintaining the detention centers and their horrible overall treatment, including just dumping people on the street when they are released, with no money or support, even if they don't know the language, often thousands of miles from where they entered. Doing a hard push from the right on border policies in Congress, held back only by a contrarian GOP, then incorporating what they could into executive orders, declaring a crisis, deporting asylum seekers that cross the border. Negatively restricting immigrant protections for people from designated imperialist target countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, using families as a maximalist foreign policy push. Continuing ICE-related anti-immigrant policies and even dialing up "enforcement" (cops and prosecutors) in several instances.
This has also barely touched on their overall continuation of Trump's policies that now fall under their right shift to being "tough" on the border and "illegal" immigrants.
It was also a point of at least one of the other bullets.
It was mentioned in a summary article of Kamala's reactionary behavior as AG that is at the head of the other bullet points about this. It was a small part of a summary article that is entirely correct in its thesis.
You are being misleading in your criticisms and should retract your false framing of OP's post.
Also need to read them without an anti-cop bias
No I don't. An anti-cop bias means being correct about power structures and, in this case, why you cannot trust them to tell the truth in court, let alone as the primary or sole evidence for guilt. In contrast, a pro-cop bias suggests either naivete or knowing sympathy with the legalized gang boot.
it's about conflicting witnesses.
It's about the primary evidence being the claims of two cops that were later contradicted by other witnesses (one of whom was also a cop!), the incompetent atyorney and the impact it had on the defense, like I said. Please address what I actually said, this is becoming repetitive and you are saying things already contradicted by myself and the articles in question. You read them, right? You recommended everyone do so. Why are you mischaracterizing them by omitting important information?
I didn't even mention how this reflects on Harris, who used a technicality to keep harassing this person rather than address or accept the material facts.
This puts the case into question based on an unbiased reading of the evidence at hand.
It puts the conviction and its fundamental basis into question, making it spurious. That is, unless you have the misapprehension that cops don't routinely lie in their reports and in court. It is laughable to take the original case seriously.
Definitely read them critically, certainly. But remove all bias, not just pro-cop bias.
It speaks to a status quo naivete to presume the best position is one "without bias". That is not only an impossible thing, it is a counter-productive thing to persue. Are you going to read the article without a language bias, where the words could mean anything or something, it is all the same to you? Will you be reading the case without a temporal bias? Maybe the events happened in a totally different order, who knows! Maybe 27 years is actually a day. Understanding the world and its systems necessitates bias.
Such as that a case built on the testimony of two cops is, to make it simple, horseshit.
There's a whole bunch of nuance in the handful I clicked on that the pithy shorts neglect or outright spin.
Given that you were wrong and misleading about this one, I am not optimistic about this, but feel free to share your other critical readings.
Many of these are about a case of a man supposedly throwing a knife under a car, for instance.
So far as I can tell, a single bullet point is about this, just with multiple links.
"A crime he didn't commit" is inaccurate, it remained very much in question.
It's a claim straight from one of the links and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that a conviction based solely on cop testimony, later contradicted by other witnesses, with an incompetent defending lawyer that was later disbarred, is plenty enough to make that claim.
Really, I recommend reading through any that strike your interest, and not simply trusting the one-shot summaries provided by a random person on the internet.
Sure, but read them critically and not with a pro-cop bias.
You should organize against genocide, not support its perpetrators.
A nationalist "tough on crime" anti-socialist with a deep appreciation for cops-for-capitalism pining for a return to "glory days" for a subset of residents while scapegoating others via racist and xenophobic policies? While pushing a genocide? Whose supporters can't even name the parts of her platform that appeal to them, instead trying to build a cult of personality and identify through who they reject?
To the extent anyone is fascist any longer she's right up there. But she uses rhetoric that is normalized for liberals and flies under the radar because the oppression she supports is sanitized and "politely" obfuscated.
TheOubliette
joined 1 year ago
One of the things I said she did was lockstep promote genocide as part of the Biden-Harris regime. You seemed to be saying that it this is normal because VPs should be lockstep. But... it's genocide. Genocide is not something to normalize by saying things like, "well she has to because she is veep [no further explanation given]." Maybe you don't think of yourself as normalizing genocide, but in reality that is the meaning if what you are saying. To downolay the social violence she supported as part of this administration, to say it is her role, it is normal. I listed genocide and anti-immigrant policy.
Appealing the lesser evil canard when the topic is genocide is also an attempt to normalize genocide. You should fight and oppose genocide not try to justify why you support 99% Hitler over 100% Hitler (in your mind).
No, exactly the opposite. I work to make empathetic people realize that they do not, in fact, have to support genocide, and can build political power against this evil.
We could talk about how your lesser evilism is poor political calculus, but frankly it should be enough for you to simply say, "I will never vote for a genocide candidate". You should be able to say that. Let me know if you do.