I really resented my parents growing up because they would never let me play outside. I was raised in Central Brooklyn in the 90s and stories like The Central Park Five and Abner Louima were cautionary tales in our neighborhood. We were too broke for summer programs so I spent a lot of my summers watching daytime TV, playing video games and browsing the internet. Brooklyn has changed a lot since the Regan / Bush days, but when you look closely you can see the scars of crime hysteria and the drug war still here.
To be clear, since it might not be obvious to some readers: the fear your parents had about playing outside is what the police might do to you, as opposed to concerns about crime or general violence, is that correct?
Yes, and for good reason. NYC had a high crime rate in the 80s and 90s, once I was able to have my own day to day autonomy (mid teens, mid 2000s) the city was much safer.
I understand the push for crime reduction policies, lots of minorities (who are victims of crimes themselves) wanted a tougher approach. Unfortunately the politics of the day was that the cruelest types of punishments won out. Three strikes and stop and frisk have devastated the community.
Stop-and-frisk feels like a major violation of rights, but it does work well. I think that doing this by surprise, or around where people live, is problematic. Setting up a limited region, with posted signs, is pretty reasonable. For example, the park might be such a region.
Three strikes doesn't seem to be a violation of rights, and it simply makes sense. Removing bad people will improve the community. Some people simply will not abide by the rules of civilized society, and it is a dangerous mistake to pretend otherwise.
If you're in America, that would (arguably) be a violation of your constitutional rights. Basically, the gov't isn't supposed to bother you until you committed a crime (until they have reasonable suspicion & a warrant or are in hot pursuit). The same thing bothers me about databases, surveillance, biometrics, TSA, stop-and-frisk: the government has no business treating me like a criminal, collecting my information, etc. until they've got a warrant.
If it's any consolation; your parents must really have loved you since they kept you inside. I have three kids and I cherish every moment that I get to send them outside to play.
But I live in a safe place and honestly, "random murder and rape" might change my mind.
I might be wrong, but I get the sense that his parents were not concerned about random murder and rape. More about the cops coming after their kids.
Just pointing that out because I don't think you would agree with that sentiment. So you might want to adjust your comment to indicate that you would be more afraid of criminals than cops.
Surely your parents also wanted to stop you falling in with "the wrong crowd"? I'd wager a lot of people in jail are good people who fell in with the wrong crowd.
But the thing is a Black kid who gets in minor mischief is a criminal in the waiting. A white kid doing the same thing is “kids will be kids” and “that could be my child”.
> I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator?
It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recommend reading both the recommendation from Morgenthau to vacate the convictions[1] (which ended up happening) and the Armstrong report[2] (which came to the conclusion that the Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack). Doctors involved in the case as well as the victim still believe that there were more than one attacker[3] (the victim has no memory of the attack). The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
Like I said, the best way to get an idea about the case is to read the two reports. Most of the news articles that cover the story don't do a great job.
The Armstrong report is problematic. Its main goal is to justify the conduct of the NYPD and it does so by inventing new theories of the crime. In presenting the report the committee members themselves said that they could not rule out the possibility that the defendants are completely innocent of the crime (which is the definition of “reasonable doubt “).
For some reporting on this committee at the time see
The Armstrong Report was also authored by someone who had previously worked in the Knapp Commission, which investigated and exposed corruption in the NYPD. Additionally, reasonable doubt isn’t the standard in the court of public opinion and history. Obviously the conviction itself must live or die based on whether reasonable doubt exists. But if we want to sit here on a message board and speculate about what really happened, the reports conclusion of what “probably” happened may be a better standard. (There is an important distinction between the state’s failure to meet the burden of proof, and complete exoneration, as recent goings-on with Bob Muller demonstrate.)
They didn't find DNA from any of the five. They found the DNA from a sixth person the couldn't identify. This person confessed to the crime years later (after the statute of limitations passed), and also claimed he acted alone in that particular attack (the five were part of a larger group participating in multiple random assaults on bystanders that night).
Got it. Then this sentence is incorrectly phrased:
> The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
Should be:
> The only person whose DNA was found there is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
I would argue that your comments in brackets are also irrelevant, because it appears to be suggesting something for which there is no basis for. In other words, he confessed to the crime, period. And his DNA was found on the victim. So we know he is guilty, period.
Your edit removes a vital piece of info, that the person whose DNA was found at the scene was not one of the five. The ops statement makes it clear the DNA comes from a sixth person, while your edit doesn't. In fact I don't even see how you asked your question.
I know you probably didn't mean mistake in this way, but for the record: the conviction was a mistake, but the corrupt investigation and aggressive prosecution were entirely intentional. NYC's criminal justice system is structured to produce these kinds of outcomes for minorities accused of crimes.
Stop-and-frisk is ongoing in New York despite years of data on the fact that police almost exclusively target young Black and Latino men and that the policy has little to no discernible effect on crime prevention or criminal apprehension. The NY branch of the ACLU is a good place to find a summary of the data[1], such as: "in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops." If the NYPD were doing this to white people to the same extent it would have stopped by now. The policy is a direct violation of the fourth amendment.
To be frank I wonder if the best solution to the major NYPD institutional issues is a purge in the entirety - let none who worked there ever work again.
It is only "radical" as a notion because they are in power - we wouldn't bat an eye at banning gang members from high trust jobs even if they were never convicted of anything - just being part of an organization party to such crimes makes them unworthy of the priveledge. So why treat this bad apple orchard any differently?
I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think there are more politically feasible solutions:
1. Expand the CCRB[1], both in number of civilian investigators and their authority to pursue investigations without interference from the mayor/city council/police commissioner. A line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of power granted to an independent review board, but I don't think we've even approached that line yet.
2. Change city/state law to prevent police misconduct settlements from coming out of city coffers. The public shouldn't have to pay twice (or three times, depending on how you look at it) for crimes perpetrated by the police. Settlements should come out of NYC PBA funds, insurance, or some other source that disincentivizes the force as a whole from covering for "bad apples."
The Armstrong report is pretty clear in saying how likely it is the 5 were involved in the assault:
> The report concluded that the five men whose convictions had been vacated had "most likely" participated in the beating and rape of the jogger and that the "most likely scenario" was that "both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively."
The report is incredibly damning. Just to use one example, Korey Wise is in the NYT, described as:
Wise, 16, wasn’t a suspect, but he agreed to go with his friend for moral support. He ended up being charged as well
No description of why he would be charged. Clearly a gross miscarriage of justice.
Armstrong report:
In addition, several statements were made by witnesses to officers investigating the incident and by the defendants, speaking outside the formal interrogation process, which directly contradict Reyes’s claim that he acted alone, and evidence the participation of the defendants. They include inculpatory statements by defendants Wise, Richardson and Santana both to police officers and to civilian witnesses who reported the statements to police. Santana and Richardson separately pointed out the location of the rape when brought to Central Park. When Wise was questioned, he made reference to a man named “Rudy” who took the jogger’s Walkman; the description of the jogger’s “Walkman pouch” was similar to Reyes’s description of a “fanny pack.” At the time of this interview, the police had no way of knowing that the jogger had a Walkman or that she carried it in a pouch. Wise also commented on the amount of blood at the spot where the rape occurred. When asked why he was so surprised by the amount of blood, he answered, “I knew she was bleeding but I didn’t know how bad she was. It was really dark. I couldn’t see how much blood there was at night.”
Shit like this significantly contributes to the legitimacy of calling the NYT "fake news".
When you tell a story from one side, and one side only...
(I don't mean that it's a good thing to call news orgs "fake news". I mean that if someone is already calling you "fake news", you should really take care to have impeccable reporting to avoid giving those accusations weight)
The accusation was that all five participated in the assault. This wasn’t an isolated rape in a park. It happened on the same night as mass assaults in the park that resulted in 30 arrests. There was physical evidence that the five had participated in some of the other attacks: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...
> Was what happened to the Central Park Five completely wrong, or simply incomplete? I read Sarah Burns’ book, The Central Park Five, expecting a plaintiff’s brief, and it is that—she was an intern for lawyers pursuing civil claims on their behalf as a college student, in the summer of 2003. She believes passionately that the Five hadn’t raped the jogger; she is more circumspect in her treatment of their other felonies: “At some point, the metal bar from Korey’s house that Yusef had carried in the park had been used to beat Laughlin.” She is enthusiastic in her support of Ryan’s assessment, but doesn’t include this quote on their conduct that night: “The other crimes committed on April 19 were grave and inexcusable—unprovoked attacks on strangers, apparently undertaken for the fun of it, which left some terrorized, two knocked into unconsciousness, and one seriously injured.”
This is what makes criminal justice reform so hard. If it was just a matter of not taking completely unconnected people and beating confessions out of them, reform would be easy. What’s hard is giving due process and the benefit of the doubt to bad people, or people who committed some crimes but not others.
This is a recurring pattern in exoneration stories (and criminal defense generally). Very often the accused are bad people—the question is whether they did the specific thing they’re accused of doing.
>They were convicted based partly on police-coerced confessions, and each spent between six and 13-plus years in prison for charges including attempted murder, rape and assault.
In fact the supposed perpetrator confessed after he met at least one of the 5 in prison. I say supposed as he was never actually convicted of the crime.
One of the things I hate about coverage of false convictions is that all the nuance gets lost. It’s important to note that the Central Park five were convicted of multiple attacks in the park, of which the rape of the jogger was one. Their responsibility for the other felonies are not seriously contested: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...
> Was what happened to the Central Park Five completely wrong, or simply incomplete? I read Sarah Burns’ book, The Central Park Five, expecting a plaintiff’s brief, and it is that—she was an intern for lawyers pursuing civil claims on their behalf as a college student, in the summer of 2003. She believes passionately that the Five hadn’t raped the jogger; she is more circumspect in her treatment of their other felonies: “At some point, the metal bar from Korey’s house that Yusef had carried in the park had been used to beat Laughlin.” She is enthusiastic in her support of Ryan’s assessment, but doesn’t include this quote on their conduct that night: “The other crimes committed on April 19 were grave and inexcusable—unprovoked attacks on strangers, apparently undertaken for the fun of it, which left some terrorized, two knocked into unconsciousness, and one seriously injured.”
Obviously that doesn’t justify the false conviction or some of the associated tactics. But it is important context. As we saw with “Making of a Murderer,” these investigations are complex. It’s easy to portray a one-sided narrative that obscures how the justice system can be led to the wrong result, to make it seem like this black box that capriciously chews up and spits out totally random people. Usually, when it happens, there is an explanation. The explanation might involve racism, or human error, or misconduct. But it’s almost never totally the result of those things.
Yeah but for all we know, they didn't commit those crimes either. I mean, they, "confessed", to a lot right. There were "witnesses", to them doing a lot right.
They may have done all of what they confessed to, or they may have been tortured and done none of it. That's the problem with bent police forces and court systems, there's just a baseline confidence issue. That baseline confidence issue creates the conditions that make people perfectly justified in being skeptical. And winning that confidence back is extremely difficult. In fact, depending on how bad the conditions are, it may not even be possible.
When torture is allowed into the judicial process either overtly or covertly, the integrity of the entire system eventually degrades over time.
EDIT:
On re-reading that, it sounded bad. I didn't mean that they might have been tortured. I understand that torture was part of the process. So perhaps I should have written:
"...or they may have done none of it, and the torture prompted confessions..."
They were beating random people with metal pipes and knocked two unconscious the same night? Funny, I've previously watched a long documentary on this trial (not the new Netflix show) and I don't remember this part at all. It's interesting to contrast the popular perception of the case with the on-the-ground reality.
It seems one of the reports concluded that either one or some of the boys were there before/after the rape based on their detailed statements related to the crime scene and knowledge of the exact location.
I'm curious if the boys knew the Reyes guy whose DNA was found on the victim beforehand or if they happened to come across the crime scene during a particularly violent night in Central Park and/or were in a particular section of the park where local kids tended to congregate.
Not much nuance to this: They were guilty and they are guilty.
From the Armstrong Report:
We believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants' descriptions of the attack on the female jogger: she was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several defendants, sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs, and left semiconscious in a state of undress.
Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or another.
Not much being said about the fact that they were children and that even if they did commit another crime at another time or were witnesses to the crime or whatever, it's not necessarily a "good thing" that they were in jail long into adulthood.
HN is a statistical cloud of millions of people. Since you're commenting here, you're as much a part of it as anyone.
A run of comments sharing a common quality doesn't show anything about "true colors"—pure randomness exhibits the same patterns. What happens, though, is that after seeing a few (say, 3) comments taking an offensive or opposing position, people feel surrounded by hostile voices, and that feeling 'sticks' to the community in the form of the perception "HN is X". HN isn't X. It just feels that way after a few noticeable signals in a row.
None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand that difference.
I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling.
Correct my thinking:
They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children.
Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? Another way to ask, were these sentences just (not asking for your opinion personally but is this typical for those types of cases)
And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it?
My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.
> Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are.
I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling.
Correct my thinking:
They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present?
Yes. But he (Salaam) claimed to be sixteen and produced a transit document to that effect.
> Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer?
It matters, but that doesn’t mean it automatically invalidates the conviction or the evidence. When an accused lies about their age and the police them without a parent, that’s a violation of the law. (At least the law here in New York.) But automatically vacating the conviction based on that would not be fair to the state: the police proceeded in good faith, based on the accused’s lie. So the judge tries to figure out whether that error was really prejudicial enough to warrant excluding the evidence.
> If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example.
In Maryland, the age of consent is 14 for people who are close in age. That recognizes that teenagers are able to consent to certain adult behavior. Now, it’s 16 if the partner is much older, because there could be coercion. Here, if there was a much older ringleader I’d support a more lenient treatment for the teenagers.
> I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children.
The question isn’t whether brain development is complete. The question is whether it is sufficiently far along that they can understand the consequences of their actions and distinguish right from wrong.
There is evidence that teenagers are, for example, more impulsive than adults. But if you look at the data, adult criminals also tend to have problems with impulse control. That’s not an excuse.
> Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them?
If they were guilty of the other assaults of which they were convicted, I don’t see that sentence as unreadable, especially given the concerted action.
> And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it?
I think they were probably not guilty of the rape, based on the DNA evidence. So the vacated of the conviction was correct. But note that DNA testing was pretty new and not routine during the original trial. Also note that the evidence for their other convictions that occurred at the same time are stronger. E.g., o e defendant was carrying a pipe that was used to beat someone else at the park.
> My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.
Those are all fair comments. Thanks for adding them. I'll read the article you posted. I'm still unhappy that as a society we put 14 year olds in jail, but your comments clarify things about the case for me.
I will add that the fact that the 15 yr old suspect lied reflects even more poorly on the police. It's really strange that they wouldn't have told him "if you are under 16 we have to have your parents here" and then he would have lied. That looks very strange to me and makes me speculate there was more there in the confessions.
What's missing? Is this inaccurate? Where can I read about the evidence you are noting?
Edit: I misread the article, it doesn't say entirely based on confessions. There is still lots of contradictory information in this article to things said in other places here on HN.
The motion to vacate the convictions actually has some of the evidence. The conviction for the rape was mostly based on the confessions, but there was also hair evidence. (Hair evidence isn’t very reliable.) https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/CPJ.... I don’t think it’s in the motion, but there was also a witness, Melody Jackson, who testified that one of the defendants told her (while incarcerated waiting trial) that he hadn’t raped the victim, but had held her down while another did. Also, another one of the young men arrested that night named one of the accused as the rapist: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...
> In addition to the confessions, one of the other boys, while in the back of a patrol car, cried that he “didn’t do the murder,” but that he knew who did: Antron McCray. The boy beside him, Kevin Richardson, agreed: “Antron did it.” The jogger hadn’t yet been found. Later on, after Raymond Santana had been interrogated about the rape, he was being driven to another precinct. Without prompting, he blurted out, “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel her tits.”
However, several of the five were also convicted of other attacks. Indeed, part of the motion to vacate rests on the notion that they couldn’t have participated in the rape together, because they were involved in the other incidents:
> And, beginning at about 9:24 p.m. and continuing until roughly 9:45, a series of four male joggers were set upon on the jogging path at the northern end of the Central Park Reservoir. Two of the male joggers escaped essentially unharmed, but two, Robert Garner and John Loughlin, were assaulted. Garner was not seriously hurt. Loughlin, however, was knocked to the ground, kicked, punched, and beaten with a pipe and stick. He was knocked unconscious, and sustained significant but not life-threatening injuries.
(It’s essentially undisputed that Salaam had carried a pipe into the park that night.)
> 98. An additional issue is raised by the other incidents which took place in the park. For while the nature and locations of those incidents made it seem logical to believe that the defendants had attacked the jogger, the timing of events made it hard to understand when they could have. Shortly after their initial entry into the park, the larger group of which the defendants were a part temporarily split up. As a result, not all of the defendants participated both in the incidents that occurred along the East Drive and in the attacks at the reservoir; but at least some of them did. Given the times when each of those events were estimated to have occurred, it is difficult to construct a scenario that would have allowed the defendants the time to interrupt their progression south, detour to the 102nd Street transverse, and commit a gang rape.
The whole document dump is here: http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/central-park-five. You’re not going to find accurate commentary about this topic, so I’d go ahead and read the primary materials. (For example, some of the facts Ann Coulter recites in her article on this are factually correct, for example the fact that the accused admitted to coming to the park to commit crimes and never retracted that part. I’m not going to link it here because the article also has a lot of garbage commentary.)
Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we believe the one sided narrative of the NY Times camp, or we believe the one sided narrative of the Trump-like camp.
The only things we really know as fact, is that the DNA at the scene belonged to the perp. Which perp turned out to be none of the people we actually convicted of the crime.
Everything else requires us to believe suspect entities. Were the confessions uncoerced? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe the NYPD and the courts.
Was it actually these kids who committed all these other crimes? Well, again, depends on whether you want to believe the NYPD and courts, or the guys who are now speaking without fear of further torture.
This whole thing went off the rails when the initial exculpatory evidence was ignored. From that point on, every decision just made things worse and worse.
Again, if you trust the entities producing the evidence, there was.
List the evidence, and an intellectually honest guy would have to concede that it's all based on trust.
So it really does come down to, who do you trust?
I think the only thing we can say for certain is none of these guys committed the crime they were convicted of. And even that is only because we actually have the DNA, not because we trust the actual perp who confessed to the crime.
They were convicted of more than just that crime, first of all. Second, I don’t think there is any indication the police fabricated evidence here. I think confessions are weaker evidence than we assume, and should be treated with more suspicion. I think the police and prosecution pursued a case while ignoring the inconsistencies in the confessions. But there is no indication that anyone manufactured evidence or tried to frame these young men.
And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.
I know they were convicted of more than one crime. That's my entire point. We have no idea which crimes they were guilty of, if any, or which they were innocent of.
The only thing we know is, they didn't commit the crime that we have the DNA for. And again, we know that because we have DNA, not because we have to trust some perp or some cop.
Point is, any evidence that requires trust in the police, or the defense, is suspect. And you have to choose who you should believe. But you really won't be able to say with certainty that such evidence is not of tainted colour. You just don't have honest enough people in the system to do that. What happened here, is that people ignored all the exculpatory evidence. Even though it certainly agitated against the veracity of other "evidence" that had been "collected" by the police. Once that decision was made, a bad outcome was a virtual certainty.
Do you want everyone to talk about this to the exclusion of other aspects of the case? Or if there is some room for other topics, as long as there exists a certain percentage of us giving perfunctory agreement on this point?
Your post reads to me as a roundabout saying-without-saying accusation of moral failing among people who very well may agree with you, for wishing to discuss other aspects of this case.
The New York Times article doesn't mention the role Trump played in the story, about his spending $85,000 placing ads calling for a return of the death penalty.
Even after the exonerations, Trump has continued to maintain that the five men had been criminals.
To be fair, it’s not just Reyes’s “word “. If you read the motion to vacate, Reyes gives a full account of the rape beginning to end that is consistent with the evidence and included some details only the attacker would know. There is also evidence that he was later in the park by himself and not with this group of teen agers.
Reyes's testimony was after he spent a year in prison with one of the men originally convicted.
Further, his testimony was not consistent with the physical evidence:
> Reyes, 31, doesn’t mention using a knife, and a law-enforcement source said that when he was interviewed by prosecutors, he never mentioned using a knife or a razor. The medical source said this makes it doubtful Reyes acted alone because the scalp wounds that made her lose 75 to 85 percent of her blood volume were caused by a sharp object.
> if you are going to flag or downvote please tell me what the article gets factually wrong
Half the articles on the "Weird Republic" web site you link to are bashing a host of various black people and things. Jesse Jackson, Kwanzaa, reparations for slavery, it's just article after article bashing blacks. I don't have time to read this white trash gutter nonsense, I've heard it enough before.
Two comments back you're talking about "white people were specifically being targeted for violence" and on and on racist white trash David Duke like gutter talk. I don't have the time to go out and research the falsity of every little thing. You probably don't even deserve the time I expend for this comment, I'm not going to waste my day seeing why every point of that nonsense anti-black site is wrong.
I am white and I do not look down on blacks who were not even allowed to vote or drink from water fountains in my parent's time. I look down on pathetic white trash who have accomplished nothing and have some sick desire to continue to suppress the black African nation that was kidnapped by the white American nation.
This web site has comments from white billionaires, white millionaires, extraordinary white programmers and such, and ordinary but hard working, hard studying white programmers like me, and we have no desire to waste our time exploring or even exposing the sewer that you and the Weird Republic David Duke people dwell in.
Please don't break the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how bad another comment was. Racial and ideological rants are not ok here, let alone "I look down on pathetic white trash".
Hi dang, thanks for all the work you do around here moderating. The article georgemonck linked goes into a lot of details of the case others here ignored, and yet he was banned while peisistratos is using racial slurs and mockingly refusing to discuss a single thing georgemonck's article gets wrong. It seems like peisistratos is not interested in engaging in meaningful conversation.
georgemonck isn't banned. What made you think he was?
In terms of HN moderation, please remember two things: (1) one user's bad behavior does not justify another's breaking the guidelines (a.k.a. two wrongs don't make a right), and (2) HN moderators don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted, so consistent moderation isn't possible–we just don't have the resources. If you see a bad comment go unmoderated, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it.
Politicians say a lot of things in the US. Especially when it comes to black guys. Obviously, not much of it is true, and I wouldn't put too much stock in it, but the thing is...
I don’t understand why someone should NOT put “too much stock” into what a politician says. If anything, as much stock as possible should be put in. Especially in context of executing 5 innocent people.
The problem is, you're down playing this as regular and accepted behavior. We should never accept politicians calling for the execution of people especially innocent people, regardless of how often politicians like.
One of the causalities of the Trump era is how fatigued everyone is to the constant lies and ugliness that we've become densentized to it and are expected to dismiss it.
It's a sensitive subject but I appreciate you pointing to the reality of what attracts voters. It seems raitonal to consider that many qualities repelling to one set of voters is an attractant to another. Or at least what else could explain the success of such a polarizing figure as DT?
Edit: I don't mean it as defense people. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with politicians as a group.
Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such policies). Don't understand why people think otherwise.
He wasn't running for office then, though he has toyed with it since the 80s, hinting he was going to run then ultimately not.
All the same, politician or not, he hasn't changed since then. While a candidate for president, he retweeted a "crime statistic" that said 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people. The actual number is 15%; whites are killed by whites 82% of the time. When it was pointed out how terrible wrong it was, he didn't apologize -- in fact, he just said, I didn't say it, I just retweeted it, as if he bears no responsibility for the things he amplifies with his megaphone.
The fact that he read the tweet and his BS detector didn't go off tells you that that fake news is consistent with his internal view of the world.
>Since then, he has repeatedly reiterated the guilty verdict of the men, even though their convictions were vacated. “They admitted they were guilty,” the then-candidate said in a CNN interview the month before the 2016 election. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.”
I am not defending it. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with politicians as a group.
Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such policies). Don't understand why people think otherwise.
It’s a little scary that the same guy who makes these statements also can make decisions that may lead to war. Lets hope his other decisions are a little more fact based but I have my doubts.
