three republicans voted against making lynching a hate crime

[fabulouslyghetto]

I don't see both sides of this. The absolutely best interpretation of it is that she didn't know it was a lynching, and then crapped her panties when proof turned up, but even if that's the case (don't buy it) she STILL cared far more about herself than the fact that there was a murdered Black man in the morgue who who's killers were going to walk.

yeah I don't see how "the system worked" here. When bad things happen to wypipo we get Kaitlyn's law or Connor's law or Ryan's law to make sure this awful thing that happened to this one white person never happens to any one (who's white) ever again. we been gettin lynched since they set us free where's Ahmed's law or george floyd's law?

the exposure of racist corruption in the court system doesn't mean it's working it means it's proof that it's broken. how close were ahmed's parents to being just another statistic of black parents burying a child with no justice? this correction happened in spite of the system not because of it. if the original courts bothered hearing this case it'd have been an immediate dismissal of all charges and maybe some harassment charges against ahmed's parents for disturbing the three heroes' lives.

 

[KaraBulut]

^That last sentence. there's the reality of white america vs black america in the court system.

I don't agree with this statement.

My take:
...there's the reality of white america vs black america in the [strike]court[/strike] criminal justice system
...but...
...there's the reality of [strike]white[/strike] rich america vs [strike]black[/strike] poor america in the court system

The majority of poor defendants never get their day in court because they can't afford the legal fees. They take the plea deal .

I don't see both sides of this...

Again, the system is designed to assume that the accused are innocent until either they plead guilty or they are found guilty.

No DA will take a criminal case to a court unless they are sure they will win.

The State court in the Arbery case required an unanimous verdict. Keep in mind that the defense had a video or Arbery wandering around at a neighborhood construction site. That jury was composed of 11 white men and women and one black man. Do you really think you could have gotten a guilty verdict without that video of the shooting?

Without the video, the best that would have happened is a plea to a lesser charge. But given the way that people in South have written laws with the "stand your ground" and "self-defense" loophole, most DAs would have not wasted the State's time or money on a case they could not get a conviction for.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't agree with this statement.

My take:
...there's the reality of white america vs black america in the [strike]court[/strike] criminal justice system
...but...
...there's the reality of [strike]white[/strike] rich america vs [strike]black[/strike] poor america in the court system

The majority of poor defendants never get their day in court because they can't afford the legal fees. They take the plea deal .

Again, the system is designed to assume that the accused are innocent until either they plead guilty or they are found guilty.

No DA will take a criminal case to a court unless they are sure they will win.

The State court in the Arbery case required an unanimous verdict. Keep in mind that the defense had a video or Arbery wandering around at a neighborhood construction site. That jury was composed of 11 white men and women and one black man. Do you really think you could have gotten a guilty verdict without that video of the shooting?

Without the video, the best that would have happened is a plea to a lesser charge. But given the way that people in South have written laws with the "stand your ground" and "self-defense" loophole, most DAs would have not wasted the State's time or money on a case they could not get a conviction for.

I understand well enough how the DA operates, there is no jury at all until there are charges, and all criminal cases require a unanimous verdict. This DA didn't bother until there was a video, then she tried to bury the evidence and suborn perjury. If it was just a good faith lack of evidence problem, why the conspiracy to bury it?

This was not a failure of the "system" per se, it was an unwillingness to use the "system," then an attempt to subvert it.

 

[TX-Beau]

Which really shouldn't surprise anyone, those little cameras we all carry around have pretty much exposed just how common this actually is.