Give it to 'em whottt! Yawww!!
Oh really? In what way is my philosophy inconsistent?
Give it to 'em whottt! Yawww!!
You'd rather see innocent people dead if they aren't Americans.
"Rather" as opposed to what?
One situation is a war, a guerilla war at that, and the other is domestic crime.
Huge difference there...wars are extremely large groups of people attempting to do nothing other than kill each other. Guerilla wars and terrorists deliberately place civillians at risk, in fact they want civillian casualties for PR puproses.
And yes, you are absolutely right, I choose our soliders over their civillians, and those civillians would pretty much choose the exact same thing.
But these are two drastically different situations.
the 'whottt the fock' analogy of the day
whottt:
Not sure who you hate more, this woman or Scola?
Gosh that's horrible. The poor man- to die wrongly convicted and in prison.
And I am sure he is not the first and unfortunately likely will not be the last.
And how courageous of him to never take a plea when he knew he was innocent.
I don't hate Scola...I think he's overrated...it's Scola's fans that I hate.
I don't really hate this woman either...I just think she's an irresponsible idiot who needs to be punished for her carelessness with a another persons life. The same way just about anyone else would be if they hadn't been raped. I don't consider being raped a good excuse for killing someone who is completely innocent...but that's just me and my ed sense of priorities.
Well...drunk divers don't intend to kill other people, it's just those damn cars have that stupid habit of going where those drivers drive them. It's really almost the exact same excuse people are making when they excuse this false ID and act like the system is the only cause behind it.
Anyway, you can guys think I am being unempathic or cold or whatever...
But the chance that Tim Cole might be the rapist and she might miss the chance to send the guy to jail, was more important to her than the fact he might not be and she might send a completely innocent man to jail. She wasn't convinced it was Tim Cole that raped her, it's just the most important thing to her was there was a chance he might be, and that he might walk and deny her her revenge. And she wasn't going to let the bas that raped her walk...she wasn't going to miss that chance.
That's exactly what she did...and now she needs to pay the price for that decision. Especially since with regularity the first words out of her mouth are about her rape and not Tim Cole's death.
Legal heads definitely need to roll over this...whoever supressed the evidence the rapist was a smoker and Cole had asthma...the fact she never got to see the actual rapist.
But ultimately I still say, if she hadn't been more concerned with making sure someone goes to jail than whether or not she was 100% certain...Tim Cole wouldn't have gone to jail...and the rapist likely would have. No one knew for sure what the rapist looked like but her. That responsibility was hers. 100%.
So what should happen to her?
At the minimum she needs to be charged with perjury or lying under oath for falsely identifying an innocent man as a rapist while under oath. Because that's exactly what she did. She said she was 100% certain he was the man raped her...and she couldn't have been, since he wasn't.
It's the reason Tim Cole went to prison and died...it's the reason the jury convicted him.
Make no mistake about it...the attorneys and judges who supressed vital evidence and the police who encouraged her to make that ID need to go to prison too. Everyone that failed this man needs to be punished for it.
It needs to be a general practice...that's the only way to make sure people take this great responsibility seriously.
And yes...it might mean some guilty people go free, which is far less of a crime than innocent people going to prison.
And yes I still support the death penalty.
Last edited by whottt; 02-11-2009 at 04:33 PM.
if she honestly believes that she is 100% certain, then it's not lying or perjury.
wrong. The jury decided he was guilty too. Are they going to jail in whottt's world?It's the reason Tim Cole went to prison and died...it's the reason the jury convicted him.
Make no mistake about it...the attorneys and judges who supressed vital evidence and the police who encouraged her to make that ID need to go to prison too. Everyone that failed this man needs to be punished for it.
If it's the way the system is set up, then they did nothing wrong.
The system might need to be changed, but nobody is going to jail.
It's why your car analogy is bad. A drunk getting behind the wheel of a car is illegal. A person getting up on a stand and pointing out someone she feels raped her is still legal.
well , let's just scrap the entire prison system because there's probably somebody innocent sitting in a jail cell somewhere.It needs to be a general practice...that's the only way to make sure people take this great responsibility seriously.
And yes...it might mean some guilty people go free, which is far less of a crime than innocent people going to prison.
And yes I still support the death penalty.
gimme a break.
It's the preference for a conviction over the truth that's the problem. Again, the Truth movement is coming, but conviction-hungry prosecutors in many places are resisting its efforts and, even where the effort is well-received, the resources to support its work are limited. Having listened, within the last year, to Barry Scheck talk about this sort of problem, I'm hopeful that things will get better -- that funding will be available to ensure that even if objective truths about guilt and innocence aren't the aim of criminal prosecution, those objective truths will carry the day where they are knowable.
The facts show that she lied about her level of belief. She said she was 100% certain that Cole did it. The facts show that she was not 100% certain, and was maybe only 50% certain at best. She is a racist on a power trip.
The reality is that six random young black men were put in front of her. The odds that any were the real rapist was extremely low from the get-go. She even said she wasn't sure who was even the closest looking to the real rapist, let alone actually identifying him, yet she changed her testimony out of her hatred.
The critical factor for the jury verdict was the 100% certainty, and she needs to be severly punished for this lie which cost Tim Cole his life, all his money, his reputation, and his chance to start his own family. The entire Cole family was disgraced and losts thousands of dollars they couldn't afford, and were inconvenienced with countless court appearances that they didn't have time to attend, and which were very unpleasant.
The court system is filled with liars of this type, those who lie about their level of belief. The only way to stop it is to punish those who do it.
The is no single crime worse than falsely accusing a person of rape. This crime is even worse than 1st degree murder. No one is safe when liars are allowed to run free in the courtroom.
Send Michele "all black men look alike" Mallin to Gitmo.
I'm not sure how you know that as a certainty. The fact that she identified Cole and the fact that Cole was convicted does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that her belief in the identification was the deciding factor in guilt or innocence.
Juries in criminal cases are, I think, predisposed to find guilt. The fact that a witness states an unequivocal belief in her identification of the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime might reassure the jury's predisposition, but I don't think it determines guilt or innocence in most cases.
Are you saying that if she had testified to a 90% belief in her identification that the jury would have acquitted Cole?
I think the bigger issue is seeking to assure certainty in identification of suspects. There are people who falsely identify suspects with no bad intention at all; it's not as if people are cool, calm, and collected when they're victimized by a crime -- or even when they witness one.
The ramifications of imposing criminal liability upon anyone who incorrectly identifies a suspect would be terrible. It would basically make most people reluctant to identify anyone, even if they believed themselves to be 100% certain. The problem, again, is the manner in which identifications are obtained and the certainty that prosecutors and juries ascribe to identifications that haven't been corroborated in any way.
Yeah, that's a stretch. A false accusation of rape is a hideous thing, no doubt. But the idealistically speaking, the criminal justice system affords substantive and procedural safeguards to those who are so accused and offers them an opportunity to negate the charge.
The victim of a homicide has no such protection.
The family of a victim of a homicide is much better off than the family of a victim of a false rape accusation.
First of all, if someone in your family is murdered, then you get sympathy and can collect on life insurance policies, and will typically get help from the community.
If someone in your family is the victim of a false rape accusation, you get no sympathy and no money, and you probably spend your life savings on legal fees. And you don't get any finality.
Tim Cole lived a living and then he died. The people responsible for it; the judge, the prosecutor, the detectives, the jurors, and Michele "all black people look alike" Maillin, are a threat to do it again and again and again.
so you have evidence that she committed perjury?
quick, go give it a prosecutor to press charges and to Cole's family so they can win a wrongful death suit.
you have nothing but your own opinion.
There's three pieces of evidence that shows its not reasonable to believe that she just made a mistake:
1)
She admits right on the video that she's not certain. She says she just pointed to one black guy and said I think its him.
Watch the video, dufus.
2)
Cole does not look like Johnson, so it is not reasonable to believe that an honest person would be 100% certain that Cole was Johnson. There is no evidence that Mallin could name even one characteristic of Johnson that would back up her claim that she saw Johnson well enough to be 100% certain that Cole was Johnson.
3)
Mallin testified intentionally against Cole. She did not accidently testifiy against Cole. She also claimed on the stand that she was not mistaken when she ID'd Cole.
The point is that in one case you protect the innocent even if that means the guilty go free because you feel it is far worse to punish an innocent incorrectly. In many other situations you throw that belief out the window and drop your threshold for that. You've gone as far to call for the nuking of other cities in the middle east.
Its a clear inconsistency in what your philosophy.
what are you doing in here then?
get that evidence to a prosecutor so that they stick her behind bars right away.
I watched the video.1)
She admits right on the video that she's not certain. She says she just pointed to one black guy and said I think its him.
Watch the video, dufus.
She says she pointed to one of the pictures and said "I think it's him."
She never says she's not certain, dufus.
1. the attack was at 10 at night2)
Cole does not look like Johnson, so it is not reasonable to believe that an honest person would be 100% certain that Cole was Johnson. There is no evidence that Mallin could name even one characteristic of Johnson that would back up her claim that she saw Johnson well enough to be 100% certain that Cole was Johnson.
2. the picture you see in the video of Johnson is relatively current.......which means that there is about a 20 year age difference between the two pictures, dufus
because she had it in for Cole? what proof do you have of that?3)
Mallin testified intentionally against Cole. She did not accidently testifiy against Cole. She also claimed on the stand that she was not mistaken when she ID'd Cole.
She claimed she was certain on the stand because she believed she was certain.
That's not lying so it's not perjury.
you're a pretty sick bas to suggest that this girl go to jail for a crime she didn't commit.
Um...Manny, they are totally different situations as I said, and it's not that I callously don't care about the innocent civillians of other Nations dying...it's that I am choosing our troops not being forced to fight with one arm tied behind their back or become a dumbass ing target over their civillians. For it is their job to defend this Nation first and foremost...not the civillians of other Nations, and since they are fighting on behalf of this Nation in a war, this Nation that I live in...I choose give them a chance to actually win the war and defend themselves as opposed to being bogged down in political bull and propaganda and dying.
If those civillians don't want to die then perhaps they should either move(homelessness > death) tell the guerillas and terrorists to stop putting them at risk, or rat them out.
But to do nothing but sit there and allow themselves to be used a human shields and enemy propaganda...well, I'll choose the soliders fighting on behalf of my country, every ing time.
When Nations are no longer the dominant form of organized society I might change that perspective...but as of now they still are.
I do not have to choose between my soldiers and an innocent civillian in a domestic crime case. Especially in this case...Tim Cole was not allowing himself to be used as a human shield or death propaganda by Guerillas and Terrorists that we are war with, and in fact, Tim Cole was a ing veteran of the US Military.
If People in America are dying because an innocent civillian is too ing stupid to move away from a Guerilla or Terrorist, or allowing themselves to be used, covertly supporting Terrorists and Guerillas that deliberately place civillians at risk...I will like choose those that are fighting the Guerillas over them in that case as well.
The Criminal Justice System does not have the same responsibilities as the US Military...they basically have one job, catching criminals and deciding guilt or innocence...that's it. No soldiers have to die, stupidly, for them to make sure the innocent aren't imprisoned...so I ing expect them to do that to best of their ability...otherwise, what is their purpose?
And you grossly mistate my Nuclear Weapons stance...it's always been about retalliation for a nuked US City...
And remember, Nuclear Radiation is organic.
Last edited by whottt; 02-13-2009 at 01:24 AM.
Military FAIL.
Indescriminant use of force that does not take into account reaction of the civilian population to casualties causes more insurgents to take up arms, and that ends up killing more of your troops than allowing yourself to be shot at in the first place and not engaging.
Random Fail.
Indescriminant use of force that does not take into account reaction of the civilian population to casualties causes more insurgents to take up arms, and that ends up killing more of your troops than allowing yourself to be shot at in the first place and not engaging.
Paradox 15:
Random guy considering a socialist who got the surge shoved up his ass as some kind of expert...or perhaps, not so paradoxical at all.
Better to be shot at? Let's see him illustrate it for us...it's not a better option to be shot at if you're the guy being shot at... .
And if they are future insurgents, then they aren't innocent civillians now are they?
Last edited by whottt; 02-13-2009 at 04:12 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)