7
   

Trump and the Central Park Five

 
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 11:24 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Spare your false calls of racism Snood. You're an asshole no matter your color.

Nothing I have said here is even remotely racist so take off your tainted goggles and show that you actually understand what is being said.


Yeah, because it's really very important to me that you believe I understand, McG. I'll get right on that. Why don't you hold your breath and wait for it?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 09:59 am
@McGentrix,
I see you didn't read the article. The five young guys were exonerated when DNA testing was done several years later. They described being roughed up by police and (if I remember) not having been read their rights and didn't have attorneys when they were individually interrogated but could here another being hit. The DNA was long later done after another guy, already incarcerated for something else, fessed up, and his DNA was a match with that found on the rape victim. Only his DNA.

It's not faux rage. Your insults point to your life of privilege.

This thread is not about Hillary.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 11:24 am
@ossobuco,
You're spot on, osso. Here's proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Central_Park_Five
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 11:27 am
@ossobuco,
You're the man, osso (so to speak). Smile
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 11:31 am
@snood,
Yeah, but dammit, I spelled 'hear' wrong.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 11:36 am
@cicerone imposter,
I've not seen that film and probably won't since I see few films these days. Interesting though, both the film making and the way the film was perceived.

My comments are related to The Guardian article cited on the opening post.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 11:40 am
@ossobuco,
It's on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQzmoBwNyTw

if your computer has a good day ... give it a go
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 12:00 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I see you didn't read the article. The five young guys were exonerated when DNA testing was done several years later. They described being roughed up by police and (if I remember) not having been read their rights and didn't have attorneys when they were individually interrogated but could here another being hit. The DNA was long later done after another guy, already incarcerated for something else, fessed up, and his DNA was a match with that found on the rape victim. Only his DNA.

It's not faux rage. Your insults point to your life of privilege.

This thread is not about Hillary.


Yea, I actually did read the article. The 5 were exonerated, you are correct. Nothing I've said would contradict that or give any indication that I disagreed with that.
The point was that just like WMD's in Iraq and Hillary's vote, she made a decision before all of the facts were known. All the facts that Trump knew, was that 5 black kids had plead guilty to raping and abusing a white woman in Central Park. Do you suppose that Trump was in the interrogation room with the police when they made their statements? Do you think that Trump had something to do with their being arrested? Do you think Trump had some kind of insider knowledge that no one else had that he knew they were really innocent but he wanted to blame them specifically because they were black? Is Trump a psychic?

The article is clear that they admitted guilt, were tried and convicted. Later evidence showed that they were in fact innocent and were let go, as they should have been. After they were released, did Trump continue demanding they get the death penalty? (I'll give you hint, he didn't)

Do you see the pattern? People have access to "facts" and make decisions based on the "facts" they have. Trump demanded punishment, Hillary voted for invading Iraq. Later evidence shows that both were wrong. So, if you want to have a moral outrage for one, have the shame outrage for the other. I mean unless you want to continue being a hypocrite. You don't get to have outrage against one and not the other though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 12:19 pm
@McGentrix,
There's a big difference. The US intel claimed Iraq had WMD's. How would you have voted with that info?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 12:19 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Do you see the pattern? People have access to "facts" and make decisions based on the "facts" they have. Trump demanded punishment, Hillary voted for invading Iraq. Later evidence shows that both were wrong. So, if you want to have a moral outrage for one, have the shame outrage for the other. I mean unless you want to continue being a hypocrite. You don't get to have outrage against one and not the other though.


OK, I'll grant you all that. There is an important difference though. Hillary has been called to task and admitted her mistake several times. That is something I don't think Trump is capable of. And that inability to see any error in what he does is one of many reasons he shouldn't be POTUS.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 12:22 pm
@snood,
I also think the Iraq WMD question is moot. If intel informs the security council that Iraq has WMD's, who is going to question that? 20/20 vision is after the facts are known.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 12:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
If intel informs the security council that Iraq has WMD's, who is going to question that?


Canada, among others
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 12:29 pm
@ehBeth,
Who would listen to 'outsiders' in such situations? We are talking about the US involvement in the war in Iraq.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 04:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Why? the question is about the police interrogation, apparently brutal or at least scary city, dunno (I haven't read everything) with scared kids and none of the modes for protection of defendant(s), young ones, in a major place in the world, New York City, and a set of boys serving time they didn't warrant, with Trump being if not a complete instigator, a money funded demander for these guys deaths.

My rage is not faux or recent either, I felt this way when I first heard of the exoneration.

I'll add that I am not against police in general as, like the rest of us, they vary. I've recommended both Conlan's non fiction and fascinating book, Blue Blood, several times here on a2k and countless police procedurals set in all sorts of parts of the world.

I don't like scummy methodology, much less it being enhanced by Trump calling for death.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You're talking about the Security Council. It is part of the UN - it is not a US institution.

Other countries questioned what was said. The US didn't listen.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 05:09 pm
@ehBeth,
I remember that, probably not as well as you do, but aware of the consensus, which I agreed with.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 05:11 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Who would listen to 'outsiders' in such situations? We are talking about the US involvement in the war in Iraq.

The US Congress made the determination for the war in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 05:23 pm
Why is the UN in this thread about Central Park and a rape of sorrow?

I'm sorry that I reflexively responded.

I am interested in what happened with those five boys. Not to mention Trisha Meili.

I may be interested in the attacker and his background.

Instead it's all about politics now. F'annoying.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 05:50 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Instead it's all about politics now. F'annoying.


mentioning Trump in the OP and the thread title automatically turns a thread into a politics thread (when Trump is running for the Republican nomination for the presidency).
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2016 06:03 pm
@ehBeth,
There are many threads re all that, infinity coming to mind.

This one is what happened to those people.

I gather I wasn't articulate enough about that when I first posted. Even given the climate, could I guess the diversion? Yes, I suppose, as I mentioned Trump as a part of it.

I'm odd on Trump, seeing him as a possible self amusing prankster, we'll deserve what we get, but also vacuuming up all hate furls, which sets me to no, I think not a prank.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/10/2023 at 07:03:57