Op-Ed Calls for Black Jurors to Acquit All Suspects Charged With Crimes Against White Men
Comments
-
I'd be willing to do this on some insider trading, political corruption cases
-
Undefeatable wrote: »An extraordinarily bad idea.
How? -
This idea can work in conjunction with other moves. One play not gonna stick the system but four or five will.
-
None of you niggrums have any better ideas
-
Undefeatable wrote: »An extraordinarily bad idea.
How?
A lot of different reasons. Some are: that same person that we acquit might later harm us (she wants to acquit people who harm white people); blacks would then have an even harder time getting on juries; even more whites would be encouraged to acquit those who harm blacks, which would truly make it open season on us, and not just by cops either (especially since there are more of them and hence more of a chance there will be some whites on juries). -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »They'd just stop putting ? they believed to be sympathetic to black causes in juries. There is a process for weeding this kind of ? out of the jury pool.
This is also good, though. I have never done it but I hear jury duty is woat -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »An extraordinarily bad idea.
How?
A lot of different reasons. Some are: that same person that we acquit might later harm us (she wants to acquit people who harm white people);
Possible but unreasonableUndefeatable wrote: »
blacks would then have an even harder time getting on juries;Undefeatable wrote: »An extraordinarily bad idea.
How?
Oh an even "harder time"? Acknowledging that we already have a hard time nowUndefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »An extraordinarily bad idea.
How?
more whites would be encouraged to acquit those who harm blacks, which would truly make it open season on us, and not just by cops either (especially since there are more of them and hence more of a chance there will be some whites on juries).
" if we do this they're gonna continue to do what they're doing now"
Bad news...this is happening now which is why he's suggesting this
-
It's a start, ? it
-
Will Munny wrote: »manofmorehouse wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I used to be against ? like this because it comes of as a little underhanded. I mean the justice system isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we should be knowingly putting criminals back on the streets. But at this point it's whatever. People have tried protesting the "right" way and that hasn't accomplished anything, so it's time to take more drastic measuring. If finesse boxing won't work, time for the ? boxing.
And that's the point. ? will say ? like this doesn't work but then go picket when some is killed by a cop. This idea actually results in things happening
And what exactly do you think will happen?
Changes in laws where unfairness is accounted for. The same that would happen if men decided to start taking women to court for alimony. Once the side that benefits the most from unjust laws get to experience the same is when significant policy change happens. When whites felt a real threat from blacks rising up in the 60s, they decided to act on civil rights. ? that "we shall overcome" ? . Drastic times always call for drastic measures -
yeaaah not following your logic on how setting criminals free is gonna solve anything. Only people it's gonna hurt are people who follow the law.
