#BLM thugs beat up a high schooler

[Derec]

Four charged with assault, including politician's son, in beating of Alabama HS student who expressed support for 'Blue Lives Matter' movement

Four young men, including the son of a councilwoman-elect who recently preached about parenting, have been charged with assault in the beating of an Alabama high school student who used social media to support police and the "Blue Lives Matter" movement.
The suspects, all recent Sylacauga High School students, were arrested Tuesday following the Sept. 30 attack against 17-year-old Brian Ogle.
The teen had suffered serious head injuries after responding to students wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts by posting his pro-police views.
[..]
Nix is the son of Tiffany Nix, newly-elected councilwoman for Sylacauga, according to the Daily Home. She told the newspaper last week that parents need to be accountable for the actions of their children.[..]
All four suspects are black, and the victim is white. Cops have said the attack may have been racially motivated.

A few years ago there was something similar that happened where a group of blacks beat up a white kid. The black perps (named "Jena 6") were declared "victims" and were given a slap on the wrist by the authorities and were rewarded for their deed with scholarships.
I hope these thugs serve some serious prison time for a change.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I hope these thugs serve some serious prison time for a change.

Why do you hate the system of justice that all people are innocent until proven guilty?

It's the hoodies, right?

 

[Derec]

Why do you hate the system of justice that all people are innocent until proven guilty?

Is there any reasonable chance that these four are not guilty as charged? Any at all?

How about you be reasonable for once?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why do you hate the system of justice that all people are innocent until proven guilty?

Is there any reasonable chance that these four are not guilty as charged? Any at all?

How about you be reasonable for once?

How should I know? I haven't reviewed case evidence or what the defense says.

I DO find it interesting that in other threads you claim others hate the system of justice or that they are regressive or that they are illiberal when they've decided someone is guilty before a court says so. EVEN IF it's obvious they are guilty (based on evidence before a trial).

So, again, why the double standard?

Is it the hoodies?

 

[Derec]

How should I know? I haven't reviewed case evidence or what the defense says.

Read the fucking article at the vert least.

I DO find it interesting that in other threads you claim others hate the system of justice or that they are regressive or that they are illiberal when they've decided someone is guilty before a court says so. EVEN IF it's obvious they are guilty (based on evidence before a trial).

Wrong. I do that when there is actual uncertainty or even strong evidence of non guilt.

Again, do you see any potential evidence that these guys are not guilty? If not, what is the point of your comments? Are you saying what you are saying because they wear hoodies? Or because they belong to a politically correct racial group and their victim does not? Would you be making the same comments if it was a bunch of white guys beating up a black kid, causing severe head injuries?

So, again, why the double standard?

The only double standard I see is that black thugs are often portrayed as "victims" for racist reasons, like for example the Jena 6. I really hope this doesn't happen here, even if it is already happening with you at least.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Read the fucking article at the vert least.

Now I didn't read the article??? It clearly does not present evidence. Or the defense's case. Just says what cops think very briefly. It also calls them "suspects" and "alleged attackers," unlike you. Perhaps the difference is that since BLM is your hobby horse you've read scores of articles on your favorite topic by now and have gotten confused over which articles present which evidence. BUT as for this article, it doesn't present any.

I DO find it interesting that in other threads you claim others hate the system of justice or that they are regressive or that they are illiberal when they've decided someone is guilty before a court says so. EVEN IF it's obvious they are guilty (based on evidence before a trial).

Wrong. I do that when there is actual uncertainty or even strong evidence of non guilt.

Please show where the article presents evidence of guilt and provides a quote from the defense team.

Again, do you see any potential evidence that these guys are not guilty?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence UNLESS there is a high degree of expectation that such evidence be present. Ergo, why should I expect to DEFINITELY see such evidence in such a news article?

If not, what is the point of your comments? Are you saying what you are saying because they wear hoodies? Or because they belong to a politically correct racial group and their victim does not? Would you be making the same comments if it was a bunch of white guys beating up a black kid, causing severe head injuries?

This tangent is irrelevant since I do not have an expectation of evidence in the article.

So, again, why the double standard?

The only double standard I see is that black thugs are often portrayed as "victims" for racist reasons, like for example the Jena 6. I really hope this doesn't happen here, even if it is already happening with you at least.

I still see a double standard unless you can prove they are guilty which you definitely did not address in your OP. You just called them "thugs."

Therefore, my question still stands. Are they guilty because they are wearing hoodies? Or do you have some other evidence for us?

Yes, Derec, if you post in a rational discussion forum that people are guilty of something, you should naturally be expected to provide evidence...

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you hate the system of justice that all people are innocent until proven guilty?

Is there any reasonable chance that these four are not guilty as charged? Any at all?

If they were charged with rape would that thought even enter your mind?

 

[untermensche]

This place has become a cesspool of racist ignorance.

If these young men assaulted somebody then that should be dealt with in a fair and impartial manner where all suspects are assumed innocent and must be proven guilty.

But the BLM movement cannot be reduced to any four students.

It is an important movement pointing out gross inequality and injustice.

To oppose it is to merely oppose equality and justice for black people.

 

[RavenSky]

If these young men assaulted somebody then that should be dealt with in a fair and impartial manner where all suspects are assumed innocent and must be proven guilty.

But the BLM movement cannot be reduced to any four students.

It is an important movement pointing out gross inequality and injustice.

To oppose it is to merely oppose equality and justice for black people.

^^^ that

 

[fast]

Presumed, not assumed.

Just sayin'

 

[untermensche]

Presumed, not assumed.

Just sayin'

I think language is a fun tool too.

But is there a difference?

 

[Arctish]

I've looked around for more information, but so far I haven't found anything that wasn't in the OP. There's no indication why people are supposing the fight was in response to posts on social media as opposed to something more immediate. There's no indication how long the fight lasted, if it was a blow to the head or a fall that caused the brain injury, or whether all 4 suspects participated equally.

I'm finding it s impossible to form an opinion on the matter without at least knowing how the fight started.

 

[zorq]

Presumed, not assumed.

Just sayin'

I think language is a fun tool too.

But is there a difference?

In common lay usage of the words, no, there's no real difference. Though really "presumed" is meant to imply a stronger belief than "assume." Where "assume" might be roughly a wild guess, "presume" indicates there are reasons to think this belief is true.

Legally, in the US these words have special meanings. The accused in a criminal trial are always "presumed" innocent even if the accused has previously signed a confession and there are 12 different video tapes capturing her committing the crime. Whereas judges must caution jurors from "assuming" the accused is guilty just because the state has gone through the trouble of bringing the defendant up to stand trial.

 

[untermensche]

I think language is a fun tool too.

But is there a difference?

In common lay usage of the words, no, there's no real difference. Though really "presumed" is meant to imply a stronger belief that "assume." Where "assume" might be roughly a wild guess, "presume" indicates there are reasons to think this belief is true.

Legally, in the US these words have special meanings. The accused in a criminal trial are always "presumed" innocent even if the accused has previously signed a confession and there are 12 different video tapes capturing her committing the crime. Whereas judges must caution jurors from "assuming" the accused is guilty just because the state has gone through the trouble of bringing the defendant up to stand trial.

It's a very hard thing to do.

Presume somebody on trial is innocent.

It takes being able to question the system.

The Milgrim studies show that people have trouble questioning even dubious authority. To the point of inflicting serious pain and against the expressed wishes of the person being "tortured".

Questioning the system is rare.

The norm is to think that which exists is legitimate.

Even if it is a system where racial injustice occurs, beginning with economic and educational injustice, and ending with injustice on the streets and in the courts.

 

[fast]

Presumed, not assumed.

Just sayin'

I think language is a fun tool too.

But is there a difference?

It's what shifts the burden.

If we assume the accused is guilty, there's really no need to prosecute the accused. If he can provide no good reason for the state to think he's not guilty, just sentence him and be done. If he wants to shift the burden, he first needs to provide a defense.

If we presume the accused is innocent, enough weight has been added to the teeter totter of reason to shift the burden of proof from the accused to the accusers. So, if the accusers want to move forward with a case, then it's incumbent upon them to be first at shouldering the need to furnish good reason to think the accused is guilty.

 

[untermensche]

I think language is a fun tool too.

But is there a difference?

It's what shifts the burden.

If we assume the accused is guilty, there's really no need to prosecute the accused. If he can provide no good reason for the state to think he's not guilty, just sentence him and be done. If he wants to shift the burden, he first needs to provide a defense.

If we presume the accused is innocent, enough weight has been added to the teeter totter of reason to shift the burden of proof from the accused to the accusers. So, if the accusers want to move forward with a case, then it's incumbent upon them to be first at shouldering the need to furnish good reason to think the accused is guilty.

Why don't we assume he is innocent?

What is wrong with that?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/assume-or-presume

 

[fast]

It's what shifts the burden.

If we assume the accused is guilty, there's really no need to prosecute the accused. If he can provide no good reason for the state to think he's not guilty, just sentence him and be done. If he wants to shift the burden, he first needs to provide a defense.

If we presume the accused is innocent, enough weight has been added to the teeter totter of reason to shift the burden of proof from the accused to the accusers. So, if the accusers want to move forward with a case, then it's incumbent upon them to be first at shouldering the need to furnish good reason to think the accused is guilty.

Why don't we assume he is innocent?

What is wrong with that?

That would be as foolish as assuming he's guilty. Are you one of those that trusts others until shown a reason otherwise?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are you one of those that trusts others until shown a reason otherwise?

Isn't that exactly what the court system is supposed to do? The prosecution is supposed to PROVE (with like 99.9% certainty) the accused is guilty.

Also, mathematics. When you do a proof, you may use a method where you assume X and then reach a contradiction, thereby showing X is not true. It doesn't mean you really TRUST X. It just means you are following an established practice.

Did you look at the link from Oxford English dictionary?

*shrug*

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've looked around for more information, but so far I haven't found anything that wasn't in the OP. There's no indication why people are supposing the fight was in response to posts on social media as opposed to something more immediate. There's no indication how long the fight lasted, if it was a blow to the head or a fall that caused the brain injury, or whether all 4 suspects participated equally.

I'm finding it s impossible to form an opinion on the matter without at least knowing how the fight started.

Reality: It doesn't matter if they participated equally or not. Any participation makes them equally guilty.