Trump's name made a cameo several times and not in a good way. Great series and it's awful what happened to these kids.
The film was bullshit propaganda. Ask anyone involved or from the area. They were guilty as hell.
I'd call you ignorant, but you know damn well what I was saying and what I wasn't saying. And you know what the D.A. wasn't saying, as well.
4 teenagers under 16 years old served 5 1/2 - 7 years. The 5th teenager (age 16) served 12 years.
And your instinctive reaction is that they were “guilty as hell.”
In your world, it doesn’t matter if they we were unjustly convicted of rape. It doesn’t matter if their confessions were bogus.
In your world, “They did sumthin that night” so they are “guilty as hell.”
(no message)
Then all of the women are liars and DP needs to be followed to the T. Some black kids, nah.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The idea of their "innocence" is a joke.
One of the two assault victims suffered serious injuries.
The adult who served 12 years was acquitted of all charges other than rape/assault of female jogger.
The 4 juveniles’ statements involving other crimes was intertwined with rape of female jogger. They were not deemed credible on post-conviction review.
There were 30+ kids involved in the “wilding” in the park on the night in question. Two persons other than the female jogger were seriously injured. The Central Park Five’s individual culpability re “other crimes” is unknown. Some may have had zero culpability.
They remain presumed innocent.
But, your baseless conclusion that “they assaulted 7 people” reflects how easily “they” can be unfairly pre-judged, as a group vs individual facts.
Donald Trump wanted them executed.
While in the meantime he was grabbing women’s genitals all over the nation.
I don't care what the charges were. There are facts and witness statements that say otherwise of their actions that day.
I agree that they are presumed innocent in a court of law. The general public making rational conclusions and observations does not require that standard.
This was a miscarriage of justice, even if you think they were bad kids. I don't know how it can be seen otherwise.
My point is that this asinine story that portrays these people as harmless, wide-eyed, innocent kids who were accused of violent crimes because of racist whitey is more of the same bullshit propaganda from the victim industry.
Granted, I saw only bits and pieces.
But this was a tremendous miscarriage of justice, and it is just weird to suggest that it wasn't because they were probably guilty of something else (which may or may not be true - they were pretty different kids, and painting with a broad brush is foolish), which is what your post does.
This is a strange stance to take.
(no message)
(no message)
That was a disgrace to the LE and the DA.
Read about this case, beyond some one-sided "documentarian" propaganda. You too, of all people here, should be highly skeptical of any assertions that entail police-judicial conspiracies, cheered on by race hustlers.
This quote captures what has happened with this case:
"The media's fascination with crime and criminals, coupled with marked ambivalence toward the work of the police and prosecutors, reflects a central paradox in our society. Key elites, who are the principal beneficiaries of whatever domestic tranquility the forces of order achieve and who are typically insulated from the ugly consequences of the ethos of the streets, regularly sympathize and side with the forces of disorder whose actions threaten the very groundwork of the elites prosperity. These elites include some members of the forces of order. Such profound social, cultural, and moral confusion, highly irrational on it's face, gets played out against the backdrop of-and sometimes through the peculiar, and often perverse, institutional logistics of -- law and bureaucracy, the rational foundations of modern social order.
Police and prosecutors, themselves sometimes united, often at odds, end up fighting battles on several fronts: against criminals; against intellectuals who champion those criminals by romanticizing them, or by providing them with excuses and justifications for their depredations, or by disbelieving, almost instinctively , the forces of order; against the media, which circulate whatever stories present themselves, the more dramatic and compelling the better, regardless of the sources and with little concern for veracity, since lies and false allegations make stories just as good as, sometimes much better than, truth; and against bureaucratic and legal exigencies as interpreted by their bosses and the courts.
In addition, our society's extraordinarily developed apparatus of advocacy stands at the ready for any group strong and wily enough to commandeer it. With the help of technicians in moral outrage, specialists in transforming particular incidents into symbols of larger social conditions, always with the rhetoric of accusation and blame, one can quickly whip up maelstroms of fervor to serve a cause." (Jackall, Robert (1997) The Wild Cowboys- Urban Marauders & The Forces of Order. Harvard University Press, 314-315)
Never said these guys were choirboys or didn’t commit crimes. That is almost never the case.
But they were clearly not good for rape and this was sloppy and result oriented PD work at its finest. Convict them for what they did, but not for what they didn’t do to get a solve. That’s what happened here.
You're quite aware that rape can happen without a semen sample from the vagina and panties. It was 1989. We both know there was DNA from these suspects all over the victim, they just never collected it. There were confessions made and not simply made to police, and before police interrogation. There was also good circumstantial evidence placing them at that exact spot at the right time.
You're maligning some cops who don't deserve it. The ensuing litigation was political theater,
You also know that kids like these laugh at the naive, gullible dupe-dopes who fall for this kind of stuff.
They don’t dispose of those things. It was very shitty police work under pressure to close a case with easy suspects to get for a rape jolt. That happened and still happens more than it should in cop land.
That’s the long and short of it. I’m not going to support that and neither should you notwithstanding who the suspects were.
By the way, I rarely believe in “actual innocence”. Did they commit crimes, yes. Were they involved with this incident, likely. Was there admissible evidence to convict for rape, nope and double nope.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Even if it’s true - and you have no idea if intel is - they were innocent of the crime they were imprisoned for.
Good for them to be released for not raping the woman. But let's not pretend that these were frightened, innocent kids who somehow had their lives ruined because of racist meanies.
They were violent criminals.
This isn't complicated. All the DNA establishes is that Reyes penetrated her and ejaculated. There were undoubtedly DNA samples left by the others on her body but this was thirty years ago and cops did not think in the same terms they do today. Statements by the the five, some of which were prior to formal questioning by the cops, detailed some of the ways they sexually assaulted her and the violence they used against her, like the violence they used against some other victims that very day.
There is a burgeoning industry that sells one-sided "documentaries" about guilty-as-sin criminals to gullible, naive middle class white people and makes them believe all sorts of improbable things. Like with guilty-as-sin Steven Avery. Or guilty-as-sin Jeffrey MacDonald. And on and on. These filmmakers count on the fact that dopey viewers won't view their works with skeptical eyes. You'll notice that in all these cases, the viewers are asked to believe in large conspiracy theories to explain how these innocent criminals were railroaded. That should probably be a warning sigh to you.
There is one common denominator among inmates in our prison system: they're stupid. When these kids bragged of what they did on the way to the precinct station and in the station prior to being questioned, they demonstrated this. It's amusing to listen to the naive, gullible, dopey people to whom I initially referred, buy hook, line and sinker this idea that these kids just had no idea what to do once taken into police custody. By that point in their lives, they had many experiences lying to adults and authority figures. The problem for them was that the adults they were dealing with after arrest were not naive and gullible and dopey and they weren't smart enough to figure out how to avoid incriminating themselves.
It seems the police often take advantage of people of lesser intelligence.
I haven't read about the original case or anything, but the fact that the case was overturned and they were compensated indicates innocence.
Did you see the documentary? My wife watched it, so I saw bits and pieces.
We know why you think they were guilty. But there is this stuff called “evidence,” and not only was there none incriminating them, but there was a good deal backing them up.
The best evidence: they were released. And compensated.
They were innocent. I know, hard for you to believe, because they were black teens. But still.
Naive, gullible and now, dumb, are the crucial variables here.
Why did several of the boys confess prior to police questioning? Were those people lying, as well?
Here are a few questions for you and the missus to try to answer tonight after social science research is done for the evening:
- How were two of the five able to lead police, independently, to the precise location of the assault if they had nothing to do with it? Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
- How did one of the five reveal that another attacker stole the victim's Walkman when not only had that detail not been made public, but the police themselves hadn't learned that
detail from the victim at that point? Were these boys psychics? Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
- Why did two of that suspect's friends say that he bragged to them about committing the assault a day after the attacks, prior to arrest? Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
- Why did one of the five say this in the police car, prior to interrogation: “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's tits.” Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
- How about the scratches underneath the eye of one suspect, the suspect who explained that he got the scratches because "I got in the way. She got kind of like scratched me a little bit." Isn't it an amazing coincidence, bud, that one of the suspects turns up with facial cuts consistent with what we know was a strong fight put up by the victim at the same exact time that the assault occurred? Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
- Ooh, ooh, ooh, and along those same lines, what a coincidence that another of the five had grass-stained, semen-stained underwear recovered by police right at the same time that the victim was assaulted and raped on the grass in Central Park? Gee, Mr. Science, is it possible for someone to rape someone else yet not have his semen in the vagina? Whaddya think, professor? Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
- Oh, and why were these frightened young boys singing the at the precinct station prior to interrogation, gloating about the assault? Did they cover that in the movie, bud?
You and the missus put your noggins together and get back to me, will ya?
Oh, and bud, I cited the cases of Steven Avery and Jeffrey MacDonald. They're both white, dum-dum. In fact, most of the cases I usually cite as miscarriages of justice where guilsty-as-sin suspects or convicts walk are white. You want me to reel them off?
I could fire back with a series of questions, too - beginning with asking why they would be released and compensated if they were so damn guilty - but that would imply that I gave two shits about what you think.
I just don't.
(no message)
Admittedly a WSJ Opinion Piece
Link: Netflix’s False Story of the Central Park Five
(no message)
(no message)