Ahmaud Arbery Case

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Then why would you consider a system that roots out and punishes corruption within its ranks to be broken?

Because I believe the evidence shows that the system failed to “root out and punish” the corruption within its ranks.

@Samm

… the system worked exactly as it should …

It did not.

Your belief is not evidence.

Not in a straight line maybe, but yes, it worked just fine. Justice for everyone, including the corrupt DA. It doesn’t get better than that.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

The problem is this:

I have no doubt that all of them honestly believed they were acting righteously - because that’s how the system works, from their perspective. Two different district attorneys agreed.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Not in a straight line maybe, but yes, it worked just fine.

Only because of luck and social pressure did it “work” in this case.

This sort of resolution is the aberration.

[DougBH]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

No they are not … Corrupt people are an aberration to the system.

The system is just people filling roles.

Some of those people will be corrupt. Some will be racists. Some will be just be dumb.

The system doesn’t exist as a platonic ideal.

Why not? We were told antifa is just an idea.

But no, the system is the planned distribution of authority and control. Switching out inadequate people for capable, honest people isn’t necessarily changing the system itself…unless you have a method in the system to always find the best people (once you define “best”). That has not been done yet or utopia would have been reached.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

Why not? We were told antifa is just an idea.

I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean.

@DougBH

But no, the system is the planned distribution of authority and control. Switching out inadequate people for capable, honest people isn’t necessarily changing the system itself…unless you have a method in the system to always find the best people (once you define “best”). That has not been done yet or utopia would have been reached.

The people are the system.

[DougBH]

People haven’t changed much in several thousand years…and are not likely to do so soon.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

People haven’t changed much in several thousand years…and are not likely to do so soon.

No, I changed my mind. I don’t agree.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Not in a straight line maybe, but yes, it worked just fine.

Only because of luck and social pressure did it “work” in this case.

This sort of resolution is the aberration.

Yes, it was lucky that these idiots had videoed their own crime. (Just as it was lucky that Rittenhouse’s defense of his life was videoed.) Many crimes go unpunished because there is no evidence. But convicting people without evidence is less just than letting them go for lack of evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a clever slogan. It’s a cornerstone of our justice system.

I certainly hope you are not advocating doing away with that principle.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The problem is this:

I have no doubt that all of them honestly believed they were acting righteously - because that’s how the system works, from their perspective. Two different district attorneys agreed.

What would you do about that? How would you change the system so that that could not happen?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Yes, it was lucky that these idiots had videoed their own crime. Many crimes go unpunished because there is no evidence.

That’s not the problem. The evidence has always been there. This was “investigated” by the system - and no one was charged.

Until the story broke nationwide.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

What would you do about that? How would you change the system so that that could not happen?

There’s no magic solution. I don’t have an answer.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Yes, it was lucky that these idiots had videoed their own crime. Many crimes go unpunished because there is no evidence.

That’s not the problem. The evidence has always been there. This was “investigated” by the system - and no one was charged.

Until the story broke nationwide.

My post was in the hypothetical … what would have happened if there was no video? What other evidence existed that could have been used to indict them, let alone convict them?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

What would you do about that? How would you change the system so that that could not happen?

There’s no magic solution. I don’t have an answer.

Then what are you complaining about?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

My post was in the hypothetical … what would have happened if there was no video?

Even without the video, police had more than enough evidence to arrest them at the scene - and would almost certainly have done so, had not the county DA called them at the scene and told them not to arrest the McMichaels.

It wasn’t the video that convicted them.

[Samm]

Like what?

How can you say that the video was not the key to conviction?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Like what?

Their statements to the cops. As caught on camera.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Like what?

Their statements to the cops. As caught on camera.

Their testimony was in concert with the video. Without the video, they could have told any story they wanted to tell.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Their testimony was in concert with the video. Without the video, they could have told any story they wanted to tell.

There were no real material facts in dispute, in this case.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

How can you say that the video was not the key to conviction?

Because it wasn’t. Have you followed the case?

[DougBH]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Yes, it was lucky that these idiots had videoed their own crime. Many crimes go unpunished because there is no evidence.

That’s not the problem. The evidence has always been there. This was “investigated” by the system - and no one was charged.

Until the story broke nationwide.

If you believe the system is people, then just say this was investigated by people until the story broke nationwide. No need to call people “the system”.