- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: “When they see us” Netflix -- Political Discussion -- Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:44 am to imjustafatkid
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:44 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
They are guilty. The evidence overwhelmingly favors them having attacked the jogger, and they even confessed to it (multiple times, sometimes on camera and sometimes with their parents present). One guy even admitted to a fried that he held down her arms while another one raped her, and that friend only gave that information to the police because she thought it would help him. These guys had already assaulted people in Central Park in the past, were specifically in the park to assault and rob people that night, and did so to the jogger. It's hard for me to even say they were wrongly convicted of rape, because it is highly unlikely that she would have been raped if they had not beaten her and left her in that position.
This has to be a troll
0
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:54 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Rape was only one of the charges they were convicted of.
right
but rape and attempted murder were, by far, the most serious charges and the ones with the least amount of evidence
its why people focus on those
you just can't hand wave those charges and convictions away
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:57 am to jchamil
quote:
quote:
But going off the show alone
It seems like a lot of these shows/documentaries are heavily slanted in favor of one side. I wouldn't base my opinion just on a show, and I'm not saying you are
that's why I flat out said I was going off of the show alone, I'm definitely not discounting that the possibility that they were involved in jumping and beating joggers, and it's possible the show put a favorable spin on that aspect.
But conversely it's funny for someone to whine about the the media having a bias but then completely adopt every self serving story the cops put out.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:23 pm to REG861
quote:
But conversely it's funny for someone to whine about the the media having a bias but then completely adopt every self serving story the cops put out.
I know right? Instead of trusting a panel that included the former chairman of the Knapp Commission, we should take the word of a convicted rapist.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:25 pm to REG861
quote:
But going off the show alone....
Jezus Western Civilization is fked.....
Yep, a TV Show has never, ever, ever been biased....
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:26 pm to Salmon
quote:
you just can't hand wave those charges and convictions away
I mean...that's what they did...
quote:
but rape and attempted murder were, by far, the most serious charges and the ones with the least amount of evidence
Only one of them was convicted of attempted murder. One of them was never even convicted of rape, so it doesn't look like they would have gotten any lesser sentences than they did even without the rape or attempted murder convictions. Only one assailant was sentenced to more than 10 years, and he only got 15. I contend they all should have been convicted, and don't really care to feel sympathetic to them at all. They definitely were involved in beating a woman within an inch of her life and did deserve the punishments they received.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:27 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
They definitely were involved in beating a woman within an inch of her life
Based on what evidence?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:29 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I mean...that's what they did...
Right. Due to new evidence.
You are hand waving those convictions away as if no one should care that they were possibly wrongfully convicted because they probably committed lesser crimes.
quote:
They definitely were involved in beating a woman within an inch of her life and did deserve the punishments they received.
There is nothing "definitive" about this case.
These types of statements show your clear bias.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:33 pm to Salmon
quote:
There is nothing "definitive" about this case.
Of course there is. This woman was, definitively, beaten within an inch of her life, and raped, and the "Central Park Five" were definitely involved in it.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:33 pm to imjustafatkid
:sigh:
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:34 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Based on what evidence?
Are you going to ever read the responses to this question, or just keep asking it?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:35 pm to Salmon
quote:
:sigh:
What investigation has ever claimed these boys were innocent of these crimes? They were simply fortunate enough that they could not be retried because the statute of limitations had expired once the convictions were set aside.
Not even the NYDA filing that set the convictions aside claims they were innocent. They simply came to the conclusion that they would have gotten verdicts that were "more favorable."
quote:
In sum, there was no significant evidence at trial establishing the defendants' involvement in the other crimes of which they stand convicted that would not have been substantially and fatally weakened by the newly discovered evidence in this matter. In the original investigation, a number of individuals identified one or more of the defendants Richardson, McCray, Santana, and Salaam in connection with the attack on John Loughlin, and statements also placed Wise at the scene of earlier incidents. In interviews in 2002, both Richardson and Santana candidly acknowledged involvement in criminal incidents that occurred on April 19, while steadfastly asserting their innocence of rape. But none of this additional evidence was before the trial juries. Accordingly, it cannot be considered in evaluating the newly discovered evidence claim.
These guys admitted to being involved even in 2002 when the charges were set aside, long after they were already out of prison. What reason would they have to lie at that point?
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:37 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
What legitimate panel has ever claimed these boys were innocent of these crimes? They were simply fortunate enough that they could not be retried because the statute of limitations had expired once the convictions were set aside.
well one could argue that no legitimate panel has ever claimed they were guilty either
the jury didn't have all the evidence and the other panel was working on the behest of the NYPD
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:38 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
What legitimate panel has ever claimed these boys were innocent of these crimes?
Muh television show.....?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:43 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
quote:
Based on what evidence?
quote:
Are you going to ever read the responses to this question, or just keep asking it?
Maybe if you'd actually tell us what evidence there is outside of withdrawn confessions.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:43 pm to Salmon
quote:
well one could argue that no legitimate panel has ever claimed they were guilty either
This is incorrect. See my edit above.
quote:
other panel was working on the behest of the NYPD
Who on that panel are you claiming was biased and should not be believed?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:44 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Maybe if you'd actually tell us what evidence there is outside of withdrawn confessions.
Withdrawn confessions? When did that happen?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:44 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
Yep, a TV Show has never, ever, ever been biased....
quote:
oogabooga68
oh boy, the incels are showing up now. must be a slow day in the Q thread/behind the counter at GameStop
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:45 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Withdrawn confessions? When did that happen?
Retracted confessions.
But again, you won't tell us what physical evidence there is that makes the Central Park 5 guilty of beating that woman.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:48 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Retracted confessions.
But again, you won't tell us what physical evidence there is that makes the Central Park 5 guilty of beating that woman.
Why are you specifying merely physical evidence? Their confessions were not the only evidence against them. Others testified to witnessing the crime or about statements made to them by the criminals. Am I supposed to disregard all witness testimony simply because it's inconvenient to your bias?
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News