Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to garytx's comment:

    Well I guess nobody is responsible any more.  Blame it on a society or a culture and you're free.  There are all sort of walks of life in any occupation let alone sports.  Drugs, murders and theft all happen in corporate america.   You hear it about doctors and lawyers.   




    Someone is responsible:  Aaron Hernandez

    The Pats shouldn't have had such a bubbling caldron of scum on the team, but they didn't make him kill anyone.  He didn't (allegedly) commit murder because he was a Patriot.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Whitock never says Hernandez isn't responsible for his crime.  All he is saying is that he believes the culture of sports needs to change and that, rather than relying solely on punishment after the fact, the league should be doing more to help change the culture of sports at the junior and college levels.  I'm not sure I agree with Whitlock, but you completely misread him if you think he's saying Hernandez is a "victim". 

    RESPONSE: Oh prolate! Being your foolish little self again, I see. When you read his former article written yesterday, and compare it to this one, his intent is obvious.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Whitock never says Hernandez isn't responsible for his crime.  All he is saying is that he believes the culture of sports needs to change and that, rather than relying solely on punishment after the fact, the league should be doing more to help change the culture of sports at the junior and college levels.  I'm not sure I agree with Whitlock, but you completely misread him if you think he's saying Hernandez is a "victim". 

    RESPONSE: Oh prolate! Being your foolish little self again, I see. When you read his former article written yesterday, and compare it to this one, his intent is obvious.  



    Yeah, his intent is obvious. He thinks the culture of sports needs to change.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I have a feeling this issue will get a lot more attention when Lloyd's family sues the deep pocketed Pats and the NFL, maybe even UF and the NCAA. You know it's coming. They ignored the warning signs and enabled Hernandez, blah, blah...

    It's a variation on the claims made against Penn State by Sandusky's victims.



    Big difference... Sandusky committed the crime on PSU property, more than once. I am not aware of a crime that AH allegedly committed on Pats property.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I have a feeling this issue will get a lot more attention when Lloyd's family sues the deep pocketed Pats and the NFL, maybe even UF and the NCAA. You know it's coming. They ignored the warning signs and enabled Hernandez, blah, blah...

    It's a variation on the claims made against Penn State by Sandusky's victims.



    RESPONSE: Sorry...but you're grossly over-reacting, my friend.

         Sue the Pats?? Sue the NFL?? For what? Because Hernandez was a member of the Pats, and the NFL? Because the Pats/NFL could or should have known about his violent tendencies, and chained him to his bed every night? Because the Pats/NFL knew of A. H.'s involvement in the double shooting in July of 2012, and covered it up?

         There's nothing similar with the Penn State/Sandusky matter and the Hernandez matter. Penn State knew about Sandusky molesting boys on their campus for years...yet kept it quiet, and did little or nothing to stop him. None of the Hernandez murderous acts took place at Patriots'/NFL facilities...and there's no evidence that the Pats/NFL knew of, covered up, or were in a position to stop the murderous acts of this warped individual.

         A suit against the University of Florida and/or the NCAA would be even more ludicrous...for the same reasons as cited above.  

           

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    Salcon, completely mis-read your original post, that's my bad. I agree with you :)

    Hate to bring up the racism thing again, but I was unable to respond before and want to put my thoughts out there. I'll preface this post by saying that a few things: 1. I am the last person you'll ever see pull the race card and 2. I am a Hispanic male, born in Bolivia, and adopted by a white family when I was 9 months old. Believe me, that certainly has impacted my view on race, as for much of my younger years I was race-blind. Anyway, though technically, Hispanic heritage doesn't count as a "race" by its traditional definition, it doesn't mean that prejudice and unfair treatment towards those seen as Hispanic can't happen.

    Tex, saying that America isn't racist because we have a black president breathes an air of naivety at best. Statistical analysis of American criminal records show an overwhelming support to the contention that race plays a part in the judicial process, whether that be in interrogation, at arrest, at arraignment, in the trial itself, or in sentencing/post-trial appeals. This is essentially true for almost all jurisdictions in the US across almost all time frames. Sometimes, the intent may not be clear, but the effect nonetheless is evident. And sometimes you have to look at the numbers outside the box. Sometimes it's not about the perpetrator, but about the victim. I don't recall what year it was, but in Florida, of all the death row inmates, 94% had killed exclusively white victims, 4% had killed exclusively black victims, and the other 2% had killed both. If that doesn't scream racial bias I don't know what else would.

    I am in NO way saying that race somehow played a roll in Hernandez's case. I just wanted to point the numbers out. And to be honest, I think that we all harbor some internalized notion of biases toward given races or people- it's a natural response that we've developed over thousands and thousands of years. Our most important sense is sight, and the ability to differentiate between friend or foe many times is what had made the difference between life and death in humanity's more primative years. I don't hold that natural response against people. What I do take issue with is when we allow it to make a material impact on our decisions after we've had time to rationalize the situation and act one way or another.

    Just my $.02

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    Salcon, completely mis-read your original post, that's my bad. I agree with you :)

    Hate to bring up the racism thing again, but I was unable to respond before and want to put my thoughts out there. I'll preface this post by saying that a few things: 1. I am the last person you'll ever see pull the race card and 2. I am a Hispanic male, born in Bolivia, and adopted by a white family when I was 9 months old. Believe me, that certainly has impacted my view on race, as for much of my younger years I was race-blind. Anyway, though technically, Hispanic heritage doesn't count as a "race" by its traditional definition, it doesn't mean that prejudice and unfair treatment towards those seen as Hispanic can't happen.

    Tex, saying that America isn't racist because we have a black president breathes an air of naivety at best. Statistical analysis of American criminal records show an overwhelming support to the contention that race plays a part in the judicial process, whether that be in interrogation, at arrest, at arraignment, in the trial itself, or in sentencing/post-trial appeals.

    RESPONSE: This proves nothing about the country being racist. The majority of crimes are usually committed by those coming from economically deprived neighborhoods...as those folks living there strive to make a decent amount of money to support themselves and their families...and raise themselves out of poverty.

         During the 20s , 30s, and 40s...it was the Irish and Italians immigrants who were the folks living and striving to escape those neighborhoods. Now, it's the African American, Hispanic, Russian, Asiatic, and Carribean folks inhabiting those neighborhoods. Over the past 20 years, there's been a large increase in ethnic based gangs, that pretty much run the drug trade, gambling, and prostitution.

         Prejudice against those of different races are not the reason for lots of minorities inhabiting jails. The reason for the high stats are that the majority of criminals who commit violent offenses are arising from those economically deprived, minority groups.        

    This is essentially true for almost all jurisdictions in the US across almost all time frames. Sometimes, the intent may not be clear, but the effect nonetheless is evident.

    RESPONSE: People don't throw Hispanics or members of any other race in jail, just because of race. Poorer folks from ethnic groups are the people that are committing most of the violent crimes. This has always been the case...for years. This doesn't mean that all Hispanics, African Americans, or other ethnic minorities are all bad people...just those committing the crimes.    

    And sometimes you have to look at the numbers outside the box. Sometimes it's not about the perpetrator, but about the victim. I don't recall what year it was, but in Florida, of all the death row inmates, 94% had killed exclusively white victims, 4% had killed exclusively black victims, and the other 2% had killed both. If that doesn't scream racial bias I don't know what else would.

    RESPONSE: Please show me your stats. They can be cited to indicate whatever you want them to indicate. Killing police officers is a capital offense. Gang members tend to be indiscriminate as to whom they shoot. How many of these killings were cop killings? How many were aggrevated robberies? How many of these victims were members of the Arian Brotherhood (a white supremacist gang)? What's the racial make-up today of the Florida population? Please...stop making excuses for bums like Hernandez...who is a disgrace to any race, and to humanity. 

    I am in NO way saying that race somehow played a roll in Hernandez's case. I just wanted to point the numbers out.

    RESPONSE: Than why bring this topic up? By "the numbers", you mean cherry picked stats from an unknown year in the State of Florida, which has a high amount of minorities. Many of the whites who live in Florida are older people, who moved to the warmer weather in their later years. Are those types likely to be criminals, or victims? Or, is the poorer, minority segment (which may no longer be a minority in Florida) more likely to commit crimes against the more well to do?

    And to be honest, I think that we all harbor some internalized notion of biases toward given races or people- it's a natural response that we've developed over thousands and thousands of years.

    RESPONSE: I don't. But, evidently, you do. 

    Our most important sense is sight, and the ability to differentiate between friend or foe many times is what had made the difference between life and death in humanity's more primative years.

    RESPONSE: So...are you saying that when you see a Anglo or  African American, you form an opinion as to whether they're friend or foe, based on race? 

    I don't hold that natural response against people. What I do take issue with is when we allow it to make a material impact on our decisions after we've had time to rationalize the situation and act one way or another. 

    RESPONSE: Sorry, but, evidently, and sadly, you do...by your own admission. You seem to hang an automatic strike on folks of other races...before you take the time "to rationalize the situation, one way or another."




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    RESPONSE: This proves nothing about the country being racist. The majority of crimes are usually committed by those coming from economically deprived neighborhoods...as those folks living there strive to make a decent amount of money to support themselves and their families...and raise themselves out of poverty.

         During the 20s , 30s, and 40s...it was the Irish and Italians immigrants who were the folks living and striving to escape those neighborhoods. Now, it's the African American, Hispanic, Russian, Asiatic, and Carribean folks inhabiting those neighborhoods. Over the past 20 years, there's been a large increase in ethnic based gangs, that pretty much run the drug trade, gambling, and prostitution.

         Prejudice against those of different races are not the reason for lots of minorities inhabiting jails. The reason for the high stats are that the majority of criminals who commit violent offenses are arising from those economically deprived, minority groups. 

    I don't think anyone would deny that socioeconomic factors certainly play a large role in crime. The issue I have is that even when controlling for factors like social class, family income, geography, etc. statistics show that minorities tend to have a higher chance of being incarcerated and for a longer period of time than nonminorities. This leaves 3 possible explanations: 1) Minorities commit more crimes/worse crimes than nonminorities of the same socioeconomic status, 2) Minorities are more likely to be caught than non-minorities for  the same crimes, or 3) Race plays a prejudicial role in the administration of justice. The first explanation would signal simply a correlation, but with no disparate impact of racial bias within the system. The second implies equal treatment, but could also be subject to racially-driven factors like racial profiling that results in more targeting of minorities. The third would obviously be a violation of equal protection. To assume that all jurisdictions fall within the first (and partially second) explanation is naive, much like assuming that they all are the explained by the third. It likely is some combination of the three, but that still means that race does affect the implementation of justice. Where I truly take issue is when individuals are punished disproportionately for the same crime (like the statistic I posted).

    RESPONSE: People don't throw Hispanics or members of any other race in jail, just because of race. Poorer folks from ethnic groups are the people that are committing most of the violent crimes. This has always been the case...for years. This doesn't mean that all Hispanics, African Americans, or other ethnic minorities are all bad people...just those committing the crimes.    

    Of course not all minorities are bad people, as not all non-minorities are bad people or the contrary.

    RESPONSE: Please show me your stats. They can be cited to indicate whatever you want them to indicate. Killing police officers is a capital offense. Gang members tend to be indiscriminate as to whom they shoot. How many of these killings were cop killings? How many were aggrevated robberies? How many of these victims were members of the Arian Brotherhood (a white supremacist gang)? What's the racial make-up today of the Florida population? Please...stop making excuses for bums like Hernandez...who is a disgrace to any race, and to humanity. 

    Please explain to me when I made an excuse for Hernandez. I even immediately stated afterwards that I didn't necessary think race played a role in his scenario. I was speaking on a macro-level view that may or may not impact Hernandez's case (it likely did not). Those numbers came from Hans Zeinsel's "Race Bias in the Administration of the Death Penalty: The Florida Experience" in the Harvard Law Review. It appears that's dated 1981, but the results are still relevant. If you want more evidence pertaining specifically to race's impact on the death penalty, a more recent study by Harmon shows that prosecutors are more likely to pursue the death penalty for minorities than for non-minorities for crimes with fewer types of evidence. He lists the four types of evidence as eyewitness testimony, confessions, circumstantial evidence, and expert testimony. Accordingly, cases with one or two types of evidence for nonwhites were tried for capital murder in 16% and 35% of the cases, respectively, whereas for whites those numbers were 7% and 18%, respectively. This study was performed in 2001, so it's a bit more recent. If you want more evidence, google is a wonderful friend.

    RESPONSE: Than why bring this topic up? By "the numbers", you mean cherry picked stats from an unknown year in the State of Florida, which has a high amount of minorities. Many of the whites who live in Florida are older people, who moved to the warmer weather in their later years. Are those types likely to be criminals, or victims? Or, is the poorer, minority segment (which may no longer be a minority in Florida) more likely to commit crimes against the more well to do?

    Well you have my sources that I references, you go ahead and do the reading and research those 114 cases. I've done extensive research in the area, as it is one of my two areas of study in school, so I don't need to re-immerse myself in material I already know or prove myself to you.

    RESPONSE: I don't. But, evidently, you do. 

    RESPONSE: So...are you saying that when you see a Anglo or  African American, you form an opinion as to whether they're friend or foe, based on race? 

    No, I think you grossly misunderstood me or grossly misrepresented what my point was. In more general terms, appearance plays a large role in how we see others. So this more refers to the notion of "judging a book by its cover." I think it's fairly obvious that all people do this. Perfect example is people referring to Hernandez's tattoos as some kind of negative reflection of his person. Race is a physical factor, one that is easily observed at first glance, and falls within the realm of what one would take in within the first few seconds of observing a stranger. All I was saying is that the reaction to "judge a book by its cover" likely stems from an evolutionary response humans had to have in order to survive in more primative times, like our early nomadic stage. Such a quick read could make the difference between life and death. It's a natural response now, but should not be an end all-be all response for us now. Such an inclination should be harbored until we can actually get to know a certain person. Unfortunately, we do not have the time nor the means to get to know all people we come in contact with, so initial first impressions based upon appearance (which includes one's race) serve as the majority of our interpretations of others. That is all.

    RESPONSE: Sorry, but, evidently, and sadly, you do...by your own admission. You seem to hang an automatic strike on folks of other races...before you take the time "to rationalize the situation, one way or another."

     This is a complete mis-statement of what I said. When did I ever say, or even imply, that I "hang an automatic strike on folks of other races?"




     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    RESPONSE: This proves nothing about the country being racist. The majority of crimes are usually committed by those coming from economically deprived neighborhoods...as those folks living there strive to make a decent amount of money to support themselves and their families...and raise themselves out of poverty.

         During the 20s , 30s, and 40s...it was the Irish and Italians immigrants who were the folks living and striving to escape those neighborhoods. Now, it's the African American, Hispanic, Russian, Asiatic, and Carribean folks inhabiting those neighborhoods. Over the past 20 years, there's been a large increase in ethnic based gangs, that pretty much run the drug trade, gambling, and prostitution.

         Prejudice against those of different races are not the reason for lots of minorities inhabiting jails. The reason for the high stats are that the majority of criminals who commit violent offenses are arising from those economically deprived, minority groups. 

    I don't think anyone would deny that socioeconomic factors certainly play a large role in crime. The issue I have is that even when controlling for factors like social class, family income, geography, etc. statistics show that minorities tend to have a higher chance of being incarcerated and for a longer period of time than nonminorities. This leaves 3 possible explanations: 1) Minorities commit more crimes/worse crimes than nonminorities of the same socioeconomic status, 2) Minorities are more likely to be caught than non-minorities for  the same crimes, or 3) Race plays a prejudicial role in the administration of justice. The first explanation would signal simply a correlation, but with no disparate impact of racial bias within the system. The second implies equal treatment, but could also be subject to racially-driven factors like racial profiling that results in more targeting of minorities.

    RESPONSE: Could the second reason be because wealthier people live in areas which are better patrolled by police? Why must race always figure into the equation? 

    The third would obviously be a violation of equal protection. To assume that all jurisdictions fall within the first (and partially second) explanation is naive, much like assuming that they all are the explained by the third. It likely is some combination of the three, but that still means that race does affect the implementation of justice. Where I truly take issue is when individuals are punished disproportionately for the same crime (like the statistic I posted).

    RESPONSE: People don't throw Hispanics or members of any other race in jail, just because of race. Poorer folks from ethnic groups are the people that are committing most of the violent crimes. This has always been the case...for years. This doesn't mean that all Hispanics, African Americans, or other ethnic minorities are all bad people...just those committing the crimes.    

    Of course not all minorities are bad people, as not all non-minorities are bad people or the contrary.

    RESPONSE: Please show me your stats. They can be cited to indicate whatever you want them to indicate. Killing police officers is a capital offense. Gang members tend to be indiscriminate as to whom they shoot. How many of these killings were cop killings? How many were aggrevated robberies? How many of these victims were members of the Arian Brotherhood (a white supremacist gang)? What's the racial make-up today of the Florida population? Please...stop making excuses for bums like Hernandez...who is a disgrace to any race, and to humanity. 

    Please explain to me when I made an excuse for Hernandez.

    RESPONSE: You're using race as an excuse for why more Hispanics end up in jail. Hernandez is Hispanic.

    I even immediately stated afterwards that I didn't necessary think race played a role in his scenario.

    RESPONSE: "Didn't necessarily think that race played a role"...in other words, you're not ruling it out. Please tell me how race could possibly have played a role in the Hernandez case?

    I was speaking on a macro-level view that may or may not impact Hernandez's case (it likely did not).

    RESPONSE: Okay. Then why get into the ravThank youce question any further...just because I used the election of O"Bama as an example of how race relations are no where near the problem that they once were? A great deal of Whites voted for him. If they were racists, why would they have done that? What you have to understand is that it's politically advantageous for a certain political party, and their willing accomplices in the Press, to keep race an issue.

    Those numbers came from Hans Zeinsel's "Race Bias in the Administration of the Death Penalty: The Florida Experience" in the Harvard Law Review. It appears that's dated 1981, but the results are still relevant.

    RESPONSE: Who is far more likely to commit capital murder? Ypur middle-upper class suburban neighbor, or some economically disadvantaged person who runs with a gang? Those stats are indicative of nothing.   

    If you want more evidence pertaining specifically to race's impact on the death penalty, a more recent study by Harmon shows that prosecutors are more likely to pursue the death penalty for minorities than for non-minorities for crimes with fewer types of evidence. He lists the four types of evidence as eyewitness testimony, confessions, circumstantial evidence, and expert testimony. Accordingly, cases with one or two types of evidence for nonwhites were tried for capital murder in 16% and 35% of the cases, respectively, whereas for whites those numbers were 7% and 18%, respectively. This study was performed in 2001, so it's a bit more recent. If you want more evidence, google is a wonderful friend.

    RESPONSE: Who needs a study? Common sense tells you who are far more likely to commit capital murder.

    RESPONSE: Than why bring this topic up? By "the numbers", you mean cherry picked stats from an unknown year in the State of Florida, which has a high amount of minorities. Many of the whites who live in Florida are older people, who moved to the warmer weather in their later years. Are those types likely to be criminals, or victims? Or, is the poorer, minority segment (which may no longer be a minority in Florida) more likely to commit crimes against the more well to do?

    Well you have my sources that I references, you go ahead and do the reading and research those 114 cases. I've done extensive research in the area, as it is one of my two areas of study in school, so I don't need to re-immerse myself in material I already know or prove myself to you.

    RESPONSE: So, they taught you at school that it has to be due to racism...rather than due to socio-economical reasons? Are you arguing that Whites are excused for capital murder...or that they never catch the right guys who perpetrated these henious crimes?

    RESPONSE: I don't. But, evidently, you do. 

    RESPONSE: So...are you saying that when you see a Anglo or  African American, you form an opinion as to whether they're friend or foe, based on race? 

    No, I think you grossly misunderstood me or grossly misrepresented what my point was.

    RESPONSE: Go back and look at what you said...and tell me how I grossly misunderstood? Perhaps you failed to adequately express your true feelings?

    In more general terms, appearance plays a large role in how we see others. So this more refers to the notion of "judging a book by its cover." I think it's fairly obvious that all people do this.

    RESPONSE: How is this "fairly obvious"? Isn't this at the core of the exact thing you're complaining about...racism?

    Perfect example is people referring to Hernandez's tattoos as some kind of negative reflection of his person.

    RESPONSE: No. People are bothered by tons of tattoos because they are an indication that someone may be involved in a gang. That's quite different from looking at a man, and drawing a negative opinion of him just because he's African American, or Hispanic. 

    Race is a physical factor, one that is easily observed at first glance, and falls within the realm of what one would take in within the first few seconds of observing a stranger. All I was saying is that the reaction to "judge a book by its cover" likely stems from an evolutionary response humans had to have in order to survive in more primative times, like our early nomadic stage. Such a quick read could make the difference between life and death. It's a natural response now, but should not be an end all-be all response for us now. Such an inclination should be harbored until we can actually get to know a certain person. Unfortunately, we do not have the time nor the means to get to know all people we come in contact with, so initial first impressions based upon appearance (which includes one's race) serve as the majority of our interpretations of others. That is all.

    RESPONSE: Sorry...no sale. If you have negtive feelings about a person just because they are Hispanic, that defines racism. Of course, there are degrees of racism. Not everyone who feels this way ends up being a member of the Klan.

    RESPONSE: Sorry, but, evidently, and sadly, you do...by your own admission. You seem to hang an automatic strike on folks of other races...before you take the time "to rationalize the situation, one way or another."

     This is a complete mis-statement of what I said. When did I ever say, or even imply, that I "hang an automatic strike on folks of other races?"

    RESPONSE: By the following statements made in your previous post: "...And to be honest, I think that we all harbor some interalized notion of biases toward givens races and people. - it's a natural response that we've developed over thousands and thousands of years. Our most important sense is sight, and the ability to differentiate between friend or foe many times is what had made the difference between life and death in humanity's more primative years.

     

     

     

     




     

     




     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    RESPONSE: Could the second reason be because wealthier people live in areas which are better patrolled by police?

    Let me make sure I follow what you're saying. My second possibility was that minorities are more likely to be caught than non-minorities for the same crime. I listed that as a possible explanation for why minorities are more likely to be incarcerated and for a longer time than nonminorities. The main inputs to this incarceration would be chance of being investigated/accused (arguably a function of police presence), chance of being found guilty, and then the prison term applied. My point rested mainly on the fact that minorities are more likely to be found guilty and tend to serve longer prison sentences than nonminorities for the same exact crime. Increased police activity should theoretically increase the chance of catching a perpetrator. If the increased activity happens in wealthy neighborhoods (inhabited by mostly white people) and crime is carried out by members of that populous, then crime would more likely be committed by white people in that area. So no, better policing in wealthy areas does not lead to a greater possibility of minorities being incarcerated and for longer sentences for the same crime than nonminorities.


    Why must race always figure into the equation? 

    I'll just quote what I said before: The third would obviously be a violation of equal protection. To assume that all jurisdictions fall within the first (and partially second) explanation is naive, much like assuming that they all are the explained by the third. It likely is some combination of the three, but that still means that race does affect the implementation of justice. 

    It may not affect all cases, but it does have an adverse quantifiable effect on many cases in the judicial system.

    RESPONSE: You're using race as an excuse for why more Hispanics end up in jail. Hernandez is Hispanic.

    I wouldn't call it an excuse, as that implies a lack of responsibility by an otherwise guilty party. It is an explanation. If they face greater odds of being incarcerated and tend to receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, then it would follow that they represent a disproportionately large population within prison, at least in relation to the proportion of total crime they're responsible for.

    RESPONSE: "Didn't necessarily think that race played a role"...in other words, you're not ruling it out. Please tell me how race could possibly have played a role in the Hernandez case?

    I'm not going to bother with arguing this point. I never once claimed that race certainly did or did not affect his case. Do you know the prosecutor's internal processes? What if he or she actually does have a vendetta against Hispanics? I'm not claiming that such is the case by any means so don't attack me for that. You asked for a possible way that race could factor into this case, so there you have it. It's possible, yet highly highly improbable.

    RESPONSE: Okay. Then why get into the ravThank youce question any further...just because I used the election of O"Bama as an example of how race relations are no where near the problem that they once were? A great deal of Whites voted for him. If they were racists, why would they have done that? What you have to understand is that it's politically advantageous for a certain political party, and their willing accomplices in the Press, to keep race an issue.

    You responded to prolate0spheroid's comment that "(race) has been and continues to be a major issue in American society" by sarcastically noting that "this country is so racist that it elected an African-American president." I took that to mean that you thought that race no longer is a major issue in America today, which I think is a logical interpretation given the content of prolate's original post. Had you said that they are nowhere near the problem they once were, I would have agreed with you. Improvement does not mean we've overcome them completely though.

    RESPONSE: Who is far more likely to commit capital murder? Ypur middle-upper class suburban neighbor, or some economically disadvantaged person who runs with a gang? Those stats are indicative of nothing.   

    In this instance, who is more likely to commit capital murder is completely irrelevant. The stats focus specifically on who the victim of the crime was and showed that if the victim is white, the prosecutor in Florida over that time period was 24x more likely to try and convict the perpetrator for capital murder than if the victim was black.

    RESPONSE: Who needs a study? Common sense tells you who are far more likely to commit capital murder.

    Listen, the issue isn't who's likely to commit capital murder. And first off, murder is only capital murder if it's tried as such. It could just as easily be tried as first degree murder. It comes down to prosecutorial discretion, which is likely a root cause of the disparity in numbers. If minorities commit 60% of the capital murder-eligible offenses, then they should be tried and sentenced for capital offenses at approximately the same proportion. If instead they make up, say 94% of capital murder trials and convictions despite accounting for only 60% of capital murder-eligible ofenses, a disparity exists and should be examined. Disparity =/= Discrimination necessarily, but that can be a leading cause and, in reality, likely plays a pivotal role.

    RESPONSE: So, they taught you at school that it has to be due to racism...rather than due to socio-economical reasons? Are you arguing that Whites are excused for capital murder...or that they never catch the right guys who perpetrated these henious crimes?

    No, not that it HAS to be due to racism and not that it HAS to be due to socioeconomical factors. Rather, that the numbers suggest that BOTH of those MAY play a major role, whether directly or indirectly, in how justice is served in America. And I stated multiple times previously that race MAY have an impact and purposely avoided absolutes like "has," which you arbitrarily inserted to spin my words around on me.

    RESPONSE: How is this "fairly obvious"? Isn't this at the core of the exact thing you're complaining about...racism?

    RESPONSE: No. People are bothered by tons of tattoos because they are an indication that someone may be involved in a gang. That's quite different from looking at a man, and drawing a negative opinion of him just because he's African American, or Hispanic. 

    You literally just proved my point. Tattoos are a physical quality, and though there may be a correlation between gangs and tattoos, tattoos are not necessary for gang membership, nor is gang affiliation a necessary condition for one having tattoos. My assertion was that people are forced to judge others by their appearance. You just claimed that people are bothered by Aaron's "tons of tattoos because they are an indication that someone may be involved in a gang." This is exactly the surface-level, reactionary judgment that we as humans are so prone to making on a daily basis. The fact that some people (potentially yourself included) make that association between gangs and tattoos and automatically make inferences about a person is testament to that fact. My point was that race is a typically obvious physical feature and people MAY  be prone to letting that create knee-jerk reactions about a person's inner qualities. Of course the merit of judging a person by their appearance is questionable at best, whether that judgment be based on tattoos, clothing, associates, accents, the cologne they wear, the car they drive, or their race. Regardless of the merit of such an approach, the reality is that people do use it in various forms. Accordingly, self-image is an exceptionally important concept to grasp. I value it highly, because I anticipate that people I come into contact with will certainly harbor internalized notions of my persona because of my appearance: clothing, personal upkeep, cleanliness, body language, etc. I try to ensure I send a consistent message with my appearance and with what I personally value so that when others inevitably form their first impressions of me with only my appearance as their basis, their impression should match what I want to transmit. I can't control my natural complexion, and it MAY affect people's first impression of me. I understand that, it is what it is, and it's up to me to prove that the factors I can control are more indicative of myself than those that I am born with.




     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    RESPONSE: Could the second reason be because wealthier people live in areas which are better patrolled by police?

    Let me make sure I follow what you're saying. My second possibility was that minorities are more likely to be caught than non-minorities for the same crime. I listed that as a possible explanation for why minorities are more likely to be incarcerated and for a longer time than nonminorities. The main inputs to this incarceration would be chance of being investigated/accused (arguably a function of police presence), chance of being found guilty, and then the prison term applied. My point rested mainly on the fact that minorities are more likely to be found guilty and tend to serve longer prison sentences than nonminorities for the same exact crime. Increased police activity should theoretically increase the chance of catching a perpetrator. If the increased activity happens in wealthy neighborhoods (inhabited by mostly white people) and crime is carried out by members of that populous, then crime would more likely be committed by white people in that area. So no, better policing in wealthy areas does not lead to a greater possibility of minorities being incarcerated and for longer sentences for the same crime than nonminorities.


    Why must race always figure into the equation? 

    I'll just quote what I said before: The third would obviously be a violation of equal protection. To assume that all jurisdictions fall within the first (and partially second) explanation is naive, much like assuming that they all are the explained by the third. It likely is some combination of the three, but that still means that race does affect the implementation of justice. 

    It may not affect all cases, but it does have an adverse quantifiable effect on many cases in the judicial system.

    RESPONSE: You're using race as an excuse for why more Hispanics end up in jail. Hernandez is Hispanic.

    I wouldn't call it an excuse, as that implies a lack of responsibility by an otherwise guilty party. It is an explanation. If they face greater odds of being incarcerated and tend to receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, then it would follow that they represent a disproportionately large population within prison, at least in relation to the proportion of total crime they're responsible for.

    RESPONSE: "Didn't necessarily think that race played a role"...in other words, you're not ruling it out. Please tell me how race could possibly have played a role in the Hernandez case?

    I'm not going to bother with arguing this point. I never once claimed that race certainly did or did not affect his case. Do you know the prosecutor's internal processes? What if he or she actually does have a vendetta against Hispanics? I'm not claiming that such is the case by any means so don't attack me for that. You asked for a possible way that race could factor into this case, so there you have it. It's possible, yet highly highly improbable.

    RESPONSE: Okay. Then why get into the ravThank youce question any further...just because I used the election of O"Bama as an example of how race relations are no where near the problem that they once were? A great deal of Whites voted for him. If they were racists, why would they have done that? What you have to understand is that it's politically advantageous for a certain political party, and their willing accomplices in the Press, to keep race an issue.

    You responded to prolate0spheroid's comment that "(race) has been and continues to be a major issue in American society" by sarcastically noting that "this country is so racist that it elected an African-American president." I took that to mean that you thought that race no longer is a major issue in America today, which I think is a logical interpretation given the content of prolate's original post. Had you said that they are nowhere near the problem they once were, I would have agreed with you. Improvement does not mean we've overcome them completely though.

    RESPONSE: Who is far more likely to commit capital murder? Ypur middle-upper class suburban neighbor, or some economically disadvantaged person who runs with a gang? Those stats are indicative of nothing.   

    In this instance, who is more likely to commit capital murder is completely irrelevant. The stats focus specifically on who the victim of the crime was and showed that if the victim is white, the prosecutor in Florida over that time period was 24x more likely to try and convict the perpetrator for capital murder than if the victim was black.

    RESPONSE: Who needs a study? Common sense tells you who are far more likely to commit capital murder.

    Listen, the issue isn't who's likely to commit capital murder. And first off, murder is only capital murder if it's tried as such. It could just as easily be tried as first degree murder. It comes down to prosecutorial discretion, which is likely a root cause of the disparity in numbers. If minorities commit 60% of the capital murder-eligible offenses, then they should be tried and sentenced for capital offenses at approximately the same proportion. If instead they make up, say 94% of capital murder trials and convictions despite accounting for only 60% of capital murder-eligible ofenses, a disparity exists and should be examined. Disparity =/= Discrimination necessarily, but that can be a leading cause and, in reality, likely plays a pivotal role.

    RESPONSE: So, they taught you at school that it has to be due to racism...rather than due to socio-economical reasons? Are you arguing that Whites are excused for capital murder...or that they never catch the right guys who perpetrated these henious crimes?

    No, not that it HAS to be due to racism and not that it HAS to be due to socioeconomical factors. Rather, that the numbers suggest that BOTH of those MAY play a major role, whether directly or indirectly, in how justice is served in America. And I stated multiple times previously that race MAY have an impact and purposely avoided absolutes like "has," which you arbitrarily inserted to spin my words around on me.

    RESPONSE: How is this "fairly obvious"? Isn't this at the core of the exact thing you're complaining about...racism?

    RESPONSE: No. People are bothered by tons of tattoos because they are an indication that someone may be involved in a gang. That's quite different from looking at a man, and drawing a negative opinion of him just because he's African American, or Hispanic. 

    You literally just proved my point. Tattoos are a physical quality, and though there may be a correlation between gangs and tattoos, tattoos are not necessary for gang membership, nor is gang affiliation a necessary condition for one having tattoos. My assertion was that people are forced to judge others by their appearance. You just claimed that people are bothered by Aaron's "tons of tattoos because they are an indication that someone may be involved in a gang." This is exactly the surface-level, reactionary judgment that we as humans are so prone to making on a daily basis. The fact that some people (potentially yourself included) make that association between gangs and tattoos and automatically make inferences about a person is testament to that fact. My point was that race is a typically obvious physical feature and people MAY  be prone to letting that create knee-jerk reactions about a person's inner qualities. Of course the merit of judging a person by their appearance is questionable at best, whether that judgment be based on tattoos, clothing, associates, accents, the cologne they wear, the car they drive, or their race. Regardless of the merit of such an approach, the reality is that people do use it in various forms. Accordingly, self-image is an exceptionally important concept to grasp. I value it highly, because I anticipate that people I come into contact with will certainly harbor internalized notions of my persona because of my appearance: clothing, personal upkeep, cleanliness, body language, etc. I try to ensure I send a consistent message with my appearance and with what I personally value so that when others inevitably form their first impressions of me with only my appearance as their basis, their impression should match what I want to transmit. I can't control my natural complexion, and it MAY affect people's first impression of me. I understand that, it is what it is, and it's up to me to prove that the factors I can control are more indicative of myself than those that I am born with.

     



         Yeah, right...I proved your point. Time for us to agree to disagree, and move on. No hard feelings.   

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Excellent Article on Pats' Role in the AH Situation

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I have a feeling this issue will get a lot more attention when Lloyd's family sues the deep pocketed Pats and the NFL, maybe even UF and the NCAA. You know it's coming. They ignored the warning signs and enabled Hernandez, blah, blah...

    It's a variation on the claims made against Penn State by Sandusky's victims.

     



    RESPONSE: Sorry...but you're grossly over-reacting, my friend.

     

         Sue the Pats?? Sue the NFL?? For what? Because Hernandez was a member of the Pats, and the NFL? Because the Pats/NFL could or should have known about his violent tendencies, and chained him to his bed every night? Because the Pats/NFL knew of A. H.'s involvement in the double shooting in July of 2012, and covered it up?

         There's nothing similar with the Penn State/Sandusky matter and the Hernandez matter. Penn State knew about Sandusky molesting boys on their campus for years...yet kept it quiet, and did little or nothing to stop him. None of the Hernandez murderous acts took place at Patriots'/NFL facilities...and there's no evidence that the Pats/NFL knew of, covered up, or were in a position to stop the murderous acts of this warped individual.

         A suit against the University of Florida and/or the NCAA would be even more ludicrous...for the same reasons as cited above.  

           

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't misunderstand. I'm not advocating it or supporting it. But, I think it will happen.

    If you understand the legal system, you know that plaintiff's lawyers don't care if there's ultimate merit to a claim, only that they can make out a claim that withstands summary judgment so that they're in a position to cost the defendant time, money, embarrassment or unwanted attention, and thus force a settlement.

    Without getting lost in the legal morass, the claims against the Pats/NFL are that they knew/should have known of AH's proclivity to violence, his gang affiliation, etc. and did nothing to stop him. It makes no difference where the crimes occurred or if, there is anything the team or league could have reasonably done, as long as a credible claim can be drafted. I suspect neither the Pats or the NFL want there to be discovery in this case. It would seem that might get uncomfortable.

    I think the case against Florida is even stronger at this point. It looks like Meyer actually went out of his way to keep stuff quiet. We really don't know much about what the Pats knew, but it seems as if Meyer knew a fair amount.

    The Sandusky case is just an extreme, clearer cut example, of apparent negligence. But, we're talking degrees here and negligence is negligence, whether it's obvious or less so. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share