289 replies to this topic

[mtdesmoines]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 12:05 AM, said:

So cliff notes for those of you who don't want to read:LLY tried to cheat the bank for a free calender, this has resulted in declaring the death penalty okay only for farmers, not for mass murders because all courts are corrupt, while all farmers are stupid.

Sounds about right.

[ShakeZuma]

hblask, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 10:17 PM, said:

I grew up in the heart of America's Dairyland... and I don't know whether to agree with this or not.

well in all honesty, I was just being a provocateur (please end that word in a french accent). but to be fair, the majority of people I know are fucking idiots, farmers or not.

[mrdannyg]

AmScray, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:27 PM, said:

It would explain why a Jew might wear a mustache and hat like that- to trick the farmers into believing you're "one of them". Too bad about the nose.

Fair enough. The nose is unhideable though, as well as skin several shades darker than my customers. I don't try to 'fit in' with the farmers though - I'm a behind-the-scenes guy who they probably assume is talking to them from Toronto, and therefore Jewish. Amazingly, I also typically do not wear a terrible trucker 'stache and Milf Hunter hat to client meetings.

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 2:03 AM, said:

First, all these people investigated were already found guilty, not found not innocent. You are mixing the pre-trial assumption of innocence with the post trail facts of guilt.The article clearly says no person has been freed after these so called investigations.That's all I am referring to, no assumptions are being made.This article also clearly is debunking the Columbia Report, which was some leftist attempt to muddy the waters with half truths, not declaring what has occurred throughout history in the entire legal system.Even if there have been people found innocent on death row, this article isn't making any judgement on their cases, only the ones discussed in the Columbia Report.

I'm not mixing the pre-trial assumption. There is guilty, not guilty and innocent. People are rarely found innocent, typically just not guilty. In every case under discussion, the person was found guilty. On appeal, to my knowledge, a verdict is never changed from guilty to innocent. That is not the job of an appeals court. Even if, on appeal, someone is completely exonerated, they would not be deemed innocent, just not guilty.So the article's assertion that no one found guilty has ever been found to be innocent is a purposeful misstatement.As for the bolded - are you sure? That is a key point in your argument. I'm too lazy to find and reread the article, but I'm pretty sure it only says no one was found innocent, not that no one was ever freed.

[ajs510]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 1:05 AM, said:

So cliff notes for those of you who don't want to read:LLY tried to cheat the bank for a free calender, this has resulted in declaring the death penalty okay only for farmers, not for mass murders because all courts are corrupt, while all farmers are stupid.

Ah, off-topic general.

[speedz99]

mtdesmoines, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 9:35 PM, said:

You guys are so funny.

Sad mtdesmoines is sad.

[Skeleton Jelly]

I know a farmer; she's smart. I don't know her position on the death penalty though.I skipped the last page, but luckily BG summarized for me.

[Balloon guy]

mrdannyg, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 5:36 AM, said:

Fair enough. The nose is unhideable though, as well as skin several shades darker than my customers. I don't try to 'fit in' with the farmers though - I'm a behind-the-scenes guy who they probably assume is talking to them from Toronto, and therefore Jewish. Amazingly, I also typically do not wear a terrible trucker 'stache and Milf Hunter hat to client meetings.I'm not mixing the pre-trial assumption. There is guilty, not guilty and innocent. People are rarely found innocent, typically just not guilty. In every case under discussion, the person was found guilty. On appeal, to my knowledge, a verdict is never changed from guilty to innocent. That is not the job of an appeals court. Even if, on appeal, someone is completely exonerated, they would not be deemed innocent, just not guilty.So the article's assertion that no one found guilty has ever been found to be innocent is a purposeful misstatement.As for the bolded - are you sure? That is a key point in your argument. I'm too lazy to find and reread the article, but I'm pretty sure it only says no one was found innocent, not that no one was ever freed.

I am not really sure, no, and unfortunately for all the people on the sidelines waiting for our debate to reach a crescendo, I also am too lazy to go back and read it to see if I am right or not.as such I offer a draw and free our time to consider which calender LLY was gipped out of.I think it was this one:Or this one:I hope it wasn't this one...cause I can see him on a clock tower with a slide ruler if it was:

[mrdannyg]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 3:12 PM, said:

I am not really sure, no, and unfortunately for all the people on the sidelines waiting for our debate to reach a crescendo, I also am too lazy to go back and read it to see if I am right or not.

Since I'm at a computer that actually works, curiosity got the best of me. Not surprisingly, we're both wrong. Quoth:"Using the authors’ misleading definition, the ‘study’ does, however, conclude that 64 Florida post-conviction cases were rife with ‘error’ -- even though none of these Florida cases was ultimately resolved by a ‘not guilty’ verdict, a pardon or a dismissal of murder charges."So I was wrong - this quote is not just referring to innocents, but to any situation where the charges were dismissed. Unfortunately the "correction" is from a Florida government official, and only relates to the fraction of cases from Florida.What I was thinking of was this passage:"After reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, the study’s authors (like other researchers) were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. Thus, the most important error rate -- the rate of mistaken executions -- is zero."This is the misinformation. Of course no one was ever proven innocent after execution. Why would someone be tried...after they are executed? This statement does not disqualify that there may have been serious errors, including questions of guilt. Guess this is why people generally cite academic works instead of ideological editorials.

[Balloon guy]

mrdannyg, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 11:30 AM, said:

Not surprisingly, we're both wrong.

High five

[hblask]

ShakeZuma, on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, 4:36 AM, said:

well in all honesty, I was just being a provocateur (please end that word in a french accent). but to be fair, the majority of people I know are fucking idiots, farmers or not.

I'm just trying to pay enough attention to this thread to see where it goes without actually reading more than a few words from any post.