- 55,216
- 146,257
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Instead of name calling and back and forth (that has little to do with the film itself), we can talk intelligibly.
For such an accusation, do you think it's best to have the standard of "guilty until proven innocent" in place from a public perception standpoint?
In a case where inebriation is involved, how do you adequately determine consent?
After all facts are presented, and justice can truly be thought to have been carried out properly, should the public immediately dispel any ideas of guilt associated with the person accused? To do the other would suggest that the judicial system is flawed; if flawed, why trust it?
Let me put it like this.
If 17 years later George Zimmerman wrote a directed a potential oscar winning film. (a film that has a shooting scene in it.)
Don't you think it would be completely fair for him to receive enormous amount of criticism and scrutiny for it?
and don't you think that him coming out and saying "that happened 17 years ago, I was cleared of it, that's that" would only add fuel to the fire?
and even if you think that Zimmerman was innocent and fairly acquitted would you HAVE to acknowledge that the criticism and scrutiny that he received would still be fair given the grey area circumstances of the crime?
Comparing him to George Zimmerman, though?
The guy has actively continued to remind us that he killed someone with his antics. How is that a valid example?
He's showed no remorse, and hasn't become a productive member of society after the fact.
If George Zimmerman was proven not guilty and went on to be a law abiding, tax paying citizen I'd say the same about him 17 years later.Comparing him to George Zimmerman, though?
The guy has actively continued to remind us that he killed someone with his antics. How is that a valid example?
He's showed no remorse, and hasn't become a productive member of society after the fact.
cmonm, I'm obviously not comparing the two on a 1 to 1 basis.
im not talking about zimmermans actions afterwards, or even zimmerman as a person, I'm saying the zimmerman case, if zimmer dissapeared for 17 years and came back with a movie wouldn't it be fair for him to criticized and scrutinized vigorously?
If zimmerman is too sensitive, use x person who got off on a crime that involved a grey area situation.
Most rape cases were founded on subjective proof though.I find arguments like this similar to religious arguments, but flipped.
The party that DOESNT believe this was a rape is required to provide objective proof... When those that DO believe it's rape are fine with subjective proof if it supports their argument. The burden of objective proof falls on those that DON'T believe.
It's weird because most of those that are fine with subjective proof in this instance would absolutely CRUSH someone that came into a religious argument with subjective proof.
Of course it's to be expected, but I don't think that makes it fair.fine Zimmerman is too sensitrive.
A man gets charged with a crime. the crime has a whole bunch of gray are stuff in it. 50% think he did it, 50% think he was innocent. but ultimately there wasn't enough to convict so the charges are dropped.
17 years late, the culture attitude towards that type of crime has hardened.
Could you expect to take a very public job, that involved talking to the media, being the public face of a large financial and cultural conversation and NOT expect to face criticism related to the case?
and don't you think saying "you 17 years ago, I was cleared, that's that, it's all good" would be a terrible place to start?
what is happening to Nate is FAIR man. \
thats Ill i have left to say on this
Of course it's to be expected, but I don't think that makes it fair.
If he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, he shouldn't have to continue to deal with the consequences of something that he wasn't convicted for. Of course it's going to happen. Men are generally guilty until proven innocent in this country when it comes to rape. You shouldn't continue to be guilty after being proven innocent, but that's what's happening here.
fine Zimmerman is too sensitrive.
A man gets charged with a crime. the crime has a whole bunch of gray are stuff in it. 50% think he did it, 50% think he was innocent. but ultimately there wasn't enough to convict so the charges are dropped.
17 years late, the culture attitude towards that type of crime has hardened.
Could you expect to take a very public job, that involved talking to the media, being the public face of a large financial and cultural conversation and NOT expect to face criticism related to the case?
and don't you think saying "you 17 years ago, I was cleared, that's that, it's all good" would be a terrible place to start?
what is happening to Nate is FAIR man. \
thats Ill i have left to say on this
1. He's dealing with the consequences of a rape that he was proven not guilty of. Jail time isn't the only consequence. Ostrasization is also a consequence, and he's dealing directly with that now.Of course it's to be expected, but I don't think that makes it fair.
If he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, he shouldn't have to continue to deal with the consequences of something that he wasn't convicted for. Of course it's going to happen. Men are generally guilty until proven innocent in this country when it comes to rape. You shouldn't continue to be guilty after being proven innocent, but that's what's happening here.
1. he's not dealing with the consequences of being convicted, the consequences of being convicted are jail, Nate not in jail.
2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?
We see why he beat the case.
1. He's dealing with the consequences of a rape that he was proven not guilty of. Jail time isn't the only consequence. Ostrasization is also a consequence, and he's dealing directly with that now.
2. No, I never said you shouldn't be able to. I just disagree with you, and think it's unfair. You're entirely free to act as you wish, because I don't know all the answers and I can't make the rules for someone else. I just choose not to hold him accountable for something that a jury let him off for.
Replace "man" with "Kobe"
View media item 2144366
View media item 2144370
Same he say she say circumstances, white ***** lying on the black ****, case thrown out....One is an Athlete generating billions for "white ppl" and one is an Actor/Director who is trying to tell the story of one of the most important figures for slavery revolts...we see who is who.
1. I'm not talking about who's responsibility it is to ostracize, my point is I don't think he should be dealing with ostracization 17 years after being proven not guilty.1. No the only consequence of trail is jail.1. He's dealing with the consequences of a rape that he was proven not guilty of. Jail time isn't the only consequence. Ostrasization is also a consequence, and he's dealing directly with that now.
2. No, I never said you shouldn't be able to. I just disagree with you, and think it's unfair. You're entirely free to act as you wish, because I don't know all the answers and I can't make the rules for someone else. I just choose not to hold him accountable for something that a jury let him off for.
Ostrasization is the public's job, and that isn't beholden to the criminal justice system.
2. I think you wanna live in a fantasy world where courts are infallible paragons of justice. They ain't.
Who watches the watchmen tho? It's totally fair to call things out if you think they are wrong. You guys are acting like Nate was framed.
We do it every time these murderers disguised as cops get off. It's only a problem when you agreed with the not guilty verdict.2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?
Perhaps, we all have biases so I'm sure I do too.We do it every time these murderers disguised as cops get off. It's only a problem when you agreed with the not guilty verdict.2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?
Perhaps, we all have biases so I'm sure I do too.
We do it every time these murderers disguised as cops get off. It's only a problem when you agreed with the not guilty verdict.2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?
But if an officer killed a black man 17 years ago, and there is no video, and that officer went on in the 17 years since that case being a productive citizen, why continue to ostracize? I'd like to think I wouldn't hold that against him 17 years later if a jury of his peers came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty.
being famous helped clearly helped kobe duck that L.
but he did lose endorsements for a bit.
unfotunatley being an actor in two ensamble cast middle brow black history movies isn't going to help you duck rape accusation blow back as much as being 3 time champion on the NBA's premiere franchise.
who knew?
In the thread ..People more mad about this then the white boy at Stanford that was caught raping a girl.
Where was the feminist on that?