#BLM thugs beat up a high schooler

[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.

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

Reality: It's not clear that they participated at all. We haven't seen the evidence.

How did the fight start? Who did what to whom? Is there a video record of events, or forensic evidence, or eye witness testimony? How can anyone be convinced that all 4 are equally guilty of something when they haven't seen evidence indicating guilt for even one of them?

I'm not going to jump to conclusions based on one news story containing almost no verifiable facts. YMMV, and probably does.

 

[fast]

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.

Jurors should be reasonably confident that the accused is guilty before rendering a guilty verdict. There can always be room for doubt, as no one can be so certain such that making an error is impossible, but the line in the stand is drawn at what is reasonable. Overcoming unreasonable doubt is not a hurdle for the jurors. The courts don't assume the accused is innocent; if they did, they wouldn't prosecute. The courts presume the accused is innocent so that the burden of proof rests initially on the prosecution.

We as individuals ought not assume either way; moreover, neither should the courts. There is good reason (very good reason) for why the justice system should presume innocence, but for the life of me, I can't quite grasp why on earth we as individuals should presume either innocence or guilt. Seems rather ... presumptuous.

Did you look at the link from Oxford English dictionary?

Yep

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... but for the life of me, I can't quite grasp why on earth we as individuals should presume either innocence or guilt. Seems rather ... presumptuous.

That's not my standard. It's Derec's that he has espoused in other threads regarding other persons. Thus the double standard for this thread.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

The guilt can be determined on the base of indefeasible evidence where the accused are convicted in a proper trial without any doubt (shadow of a doubt) otherwise. Until such a trial takes place we can speculate.

However there is nothing to suggest that the BLM is in anyway linked to this, where it also has no policy that encourages such behaviour.

 

[untermensche]

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?

It is no more foolish than presuming he is innocent.

It is the same thing.

 

[fast]

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

It is no more foolish than presuming he is innocent.

It is the same thing.

If we have no reason to think someone is innocent, then we should not assume innocence.
If we have no reason to think someone is guilty, then we should not assume guilt.
If we have no reason to think either way, then we should not assume either way.

Many people, however, will assume innocence when there is no reason to suspect guilt. That's a problem.

Likewise, many people will assume guilt without good reason, and that's a problem.

All of the above has to do with assumptions without good reason.

If I have good reason to suspect innocence, then what I will do will not be to assume innocence but rather to presume innocence--kind of like a cautiously held belief subject to change should prevailing counter evidence surface to think otherwise.

Same thing with a good reason to suspect guilt. If I have good reason to base a belief of guilt, my view ought not be characterized as an assumption but rather a presumption based on reason.

The basis for my presumption that someone is (oh say) innocent will not be for the same reason the justice system should do so. We, as a society, value freedom, and in there, an argument can be made to reflect the notion that there is good reason born of principle to presume innocence in a court of law. If I personally presume the person is innocent, the basis will be predicated on factors that are weighed against each other--an entirely different basis than why courts make the presumption of innocence.

If I (personally) presume that someone is guilty; hence, if I hold the position based on reason, then do not make the claim that I'm making an assumption with no reason for thinking as I do; instead, understand that I'm presuming (until shown otherwise) and with reason that the person is guilty.

It's okay for me to presume guilt while a court justifiably presumes innocence.

Person assumes innocence: not good
Court assumes innocence: not good
Person assumes guilt: not good
Court assumes guilt: not good

Person presumes innocence: acceptable with good reason
Person presumes guilt: acceptable with good reason
Court presumes guilt: not acceptable by today's standards
Court presumes innocence: acceptable (as there's good reason)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This semantic hair-splitting about presumption versus assumption belongs in the metaphysics forum in a thread about fictional characters watching a play about nested deeper fictional characters having an argument about whether their play's message is more important than the message of the first-order fictional characters. It has no tangible relationship to anything else in reality that anyone cares about except mistaken persons about definitions. Please for the love of his noodly appendage, stop! ...and don't ask me what I meant by "his" or tell me I spelled "noodly" wrong either.

 

[fast]

Okay, but you mayn't use the words, "hoodie" or "hoodies" anymore; creative words like, "hoodlings,"however, is permitted with a smile.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This semantic hair-splitting about presumption versus assumption belongs in the metaphysics forum in a thread about fictional characters watching a play about nested deeper fictional characters having an argument about whether their play's message is more important than the message of the first-order fictional characters. It has no tangible relationship to anything else in reality that anyone cares about except mistaken persons about definitions. Please for the love of his noodly appendage, stop! ...and don't ask me what I meant by "his" or tell me I spelled "noodly" wrong either.

The words are similar but not identical in meaning.
Assume in the required sense means accepting something or believing something without checking.
Presume means acting as if something is true before all the evidence is in, hence presumed innocent before being proven guilty (beyond a shadow of doubt).

 

[repoman]

Hey Derec,

if you want the motherload of black on white crime check out this website:

http://newnation.org

Often when a crime is mentioned and I have a hard time finding the race of perpetrator and victim that website comes through with the info.

 

[JonA]

No true BLMer × 2.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hey Derec,

if you want the motherload of black on white crime check out this website:

http://newnation.org

Often when a crime is mentioned and I have a hard time finding the race of perpetrator and victim that website comes through with the info.

This publication seems to show a series of crimes except any done by persons classified as white.

 

[Ford]

Hey Derec,

if you want the motherload of black on white crime check out this website:

http://newnation.org

Often when a crime is mentioned and I have a hard time finding the race of perpetrator and victim that website comes through with the info.

Oh crap...you've found his secret source of material!


I'm going to have to bookmark that site for the next time I need to feel angry at black people.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

And if these boys are Alabama fans, does that mean that The Crimson Tide is to blame?

 

[Trausti]

And if these boys are Alabama fans, does that mean that The Crimson Tide is to blame?

And if they're Clinton supporters, does that mean Hillary is to blame?

 

[Derec]

Oh crap...you've found his secret source of material.

Except I've never been to that website. Nice try, but a swing and a miss.

 

[Derec]

And if these boys are Alabama fans, does that mean that The Crimson Tide is to blame?

If they beat up an Auburn fan, you would certainly expect Alabama athletics to condemn the crime. Have Patrisse Cullors, DeRay et al said anything about this? I guess Patrisse is too busy disturbing city council meetings over a shooting of a guy who ran from police with a gun and DeRay is probably defending looting somewhere.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And if these boys are Alabama fans, does that mean that The Crimson Tide is to blame?

If they beat up an Auburn fan, you would certainly expect Alabama athletics to condemn the crime. Have Patrisse Cullors, DeRay et al said anything about this? I guess Patrisse is too busy disturbing city council meetings over a shooting of a guy who ran from police with a gun and DeRay is probably defending looting somewhere.

Unless you can prove that these boys liking BLM is the reason they beat up the white kid, I am not getting your point.

My brother is the biggest Redskins fan there is. And his name is Dallas. That doesn't mean that when he was mad at our folks it was because of the name they chose.

 

[Derec]

However there is nothing to suggest that the BLM is in anyway linked to this, where it also has no policy that encourages such behaviour.

The whole motive for the crime was #BLM. And the #BLM leaders are certainly not condemning this crime.

 

[Derec]

That's not my standard. It's Derec's that he has espoused in other threads regarding other persons. Thus the double standard for this thread.

There is no double standard. The defendants should get their due process and should only be convicted if the guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's criminal justice system though. As far as this thread and discussion of this crime is concerned, do we have any reason to doubt that they are guilty? For example, are they even denying guilt?
I purposely linked to a NYDN article because that rag is rather friendly toward #BLM - so if there was even a hint of reason to doubt their guilt, they would have written about it. Since the article contains nothing of the sort, a reasonable working hypothesis is that these guys are indeed guilty.
Of course, I can change my opinion if and when new evidence comes to light. Can you?