this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
402 points (94.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7142 readers
682 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading about it I am not completly convinced that he is innocent, but I think that there is 100% plausible reason to doubt that he is guilty. This should defintly be enough to stop an execution.
Edit: Maybe read the whole statement before getting a rage fit? I said he shouldn't have been killed. I am also not moderate and (according to US standards) I am apparently not white as a muslim turkish person.
It doesn't matter if he did it or not, honestly. If the state can't be 10000% certain the person they are about to murder is guilty of a heinous crime then it shouldn't be possible to fucking murder them.
This isnt about innocence. This is about the state denying this Black Muslim man due process and constitutional protections.
And on that note, its impossible to prove guilt in these cases, which is why the death penalty needs to be abolished. Are you comfortable with the idea of bring executed for a crime because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Because I'm sure fucking not.
Maybe you should have read my whole statement before writing this wall of text?
I'm agreeing with your conclusion but not with your reasoning.
You reason that since it looks like he might be innocent, he shouldn't have been executed. Extrapolating from this yields that you also believe that if you felt he was definitely guilty, he should have been executed.
I'm saying that because this uncertainty exists at all as a concept the death penalty should be abolished. Its impossible to prove someone's guilt 100% in these cases, therefore the death penalty is immoral. Not just in this case but in every case.
I am just arguing about his case within the local law. Not about the sanity of the local within moral boundaries. So we two are having two different arguments here.
they're agreeing with you and taking it further, i'm pretty sure
After the reams and reams of verifiable miscarriages of justice against Black people, after 160 years of carceral slavery being the law of the land, after 50+ years of the school-to-prison pipeline disproportionately affecting Black people, you still trust the settler's 'court of law'?????????
That'd be laughable if it wasn't so damn typical.
I think there's an interesting phenomenon where even white normies understand how demonically racist the American institutions are. Ideologically committed racists don't, but everyone else sees at least part of it. However, because this only gives you a negative assertion (don't trust what the courts say) and the isn't really a normative, absolute system we can trust in the absence of any reliable rulings from the hegemonic institutions, we're just left with a wide space of viable interpretations of reality, which lets people get off the hook for assuming reality must be close-ish to what said racist institutions uphold. That closeness between imagined reality and the reality white supremacy wishes to impose is what allows for people who aren't ideologically committed racists to passively accept the brutalization and murder of marginalized people. "Oh, I can't support those cruel acts, but the sad reality is they probably didn't happen for no reason either" is the refrain of the embarrassed white moderate.
I'm ashamed to admit that specifically with regard to police brutality, I was in the "they must have had a reason" camp (without looking any further into it) for many more years than I had any excuse to be. Rodney King put a crack in that, but I was still pretty young then, and surrounded by my own privilege. It was many years later before I realized that sort of shit and worse was happening constantly.
At least you understand why it's fucked up that you were, unlike a couple other settlers and their waterbearing emigré lapdogs in this thread.
Thanks, but the unfortunate problem I see among many of my white peers is that's a deep valley. You don't get to the other side of "they must have had a reason" without exposing yourself to multiple instances where they clearly had no such reason.
And it's not exactly something you can force on people. A couple people I know have started paying a bit more attention when cop videos float across their tiktok feed based on comments I've made, and they are coming around too, but folks need to want to see to the other side of that valley, and it's a very comfortable valley to live in - and more importantly you've always got a fresh batch of people moving into the valley.
legal prison slavery* (for those of you who don't know that word)
They just said they do not trust it though.
"Not completely convinced of his innocence" even in the face of DNA evidence invalidates everything else they said. Like, you do not get to couch white moderate "oooooh, I don't know" bullshit when the DNA already exonerated mans. Fuck outta here.
hey dickhead, their pronouns are right in their username. don't accuse non-men of "toxic masculinity"
This implies there is a non-zero chance he was guilty. In reality, there is a zero percent chance he was guilty. Even implying there is a small chance he was guilty is white supremacy.
Typical liberal grasping at straws when your bigoted worldview is challenged.
English doesn't have a word for how much I despise condescending, know-nothing dogs like them. Whether settler or minstrel, there is not a word, slur, or malediction in this language to properly encompass the contempt I feel for them.
Nope. They opened with white moderate bullshit. I don't give the first fuck what they have to say after that; I do not humor white moderates, non-whites who bear their mentalities, or those who disregard the evidence that 100% exonerates a Black man to still fix their face to "mmmmmmh..."; especially not when it's in defense of murderous carceral slave-masters.
Typical Karen-assed settler tryna talk over actual abolitionists.
Lemmy is tree-structured. Can't talk over nobody.
Nobody asked, Karen; move along. I don't discourse with people John Brown would've vented.
No. You opened with white moderate, frankly blatantly-supremacist bullshit in service of the "legal" system, you can fuck right off, peckerwood. It's super-cute how you settlers keep ignoring my 'no' to try and make me accept supremacist thought, btw. Even more shameful that you're apparently not even white and doing that; do you realize whose shoes you lick?
Every single possible person from the screw on his prison row all the way up to the FAMILY OF THE VICTIMS were out here saying "well I don't think he did it", the DNA said he didn't do it, and waterbearers like you will still sit there, fixing your face the whole time to play the "well, he was no angel" card why on Allah's green creation would any self-respecting Black person continue listening to your fuckery after an opener like "wellllllll I am not completly convinced that he is innocent, buuuuuuuuuuut..."???
You. Cape. For. Dead. Black folk. Get the fuck out of my inbox. Get the fuck out of it twice for not even fuckin being from here and thinking you have a right to opine on innocent dead Black men, or run defense for the crackers who murdered them. Piece of shit.
that comment is the opinion of like, the average person? Why is it problematic, did they edit out a huge chunk between this post and now or something?
Is "almost" anywhere in your definition of conviction? If so, you lack conviction.
The DNA evidence was enough to prove him innocent, he was 100% not guilty.
I'm convinced he is innocent. If he was not they would have evidence instead of paid testimonies against him.
That's fine with a sentence of a couple years. But for how hard we've seen it become to commute a sentence, we need to be 100% sure for the death penalty.
I basically said that it is not okay, maybe you should have read the second sentence as well. But even with a "sentence of a couple years", guilt has to be profen, not innocence. If there is plausible doubt of guilt, there shouldn't be a guilty sentence.
Yeah, sorry it's just worded weirdly and I didn't get that you were referencing the reasonable doubt standard.