RugbyRebels

Boston Globe investigation found that “between [George] Floyd’s death on 25 May 2020 and 30 September 2021, vehicles drove into protests at least 139 times”, injuring at least 100 people. In fewer than half of the cases the driver was charged, and only four drivers have been convicted of a felony.

But but freedom

And today I learned about this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi ... niel_Woods

I clicked on the link, expecting this to be a case from the 1980s or 1990s, because apparently I haven't had all the faith in humanity beaten out of me yet, but the killing he wasn't involved in happened in 2004 and his state-authorised murder happened in 2020.

"prosecutors successfully excluded every qualified black prospective juror, except for two, in a city that is majority black"

"the jury voted 10-2 in favor of execution. Unlike most states that allow capital punishment, Alabama does not require death sentence verdicts to be unanimous"

"Woods turned down a plea deal of 20 to 25 years in prison, believing that he could not be given the death penalty as he did not commit the murders. Lauren Faraino, a lawyer and supporter of Woods, has since criticized his legal team for misleading him, "at literally every step of the way, Nate's counsel has let him down.""

"During Woods's trial, his state appointed appellate lawyer abandoned him and failed to file a brief on his behalf, consequently preventing the Alabama Supreme Court from reviewing his case. Woods did not learn of this until months after the deadline to file had passed. When new counsel petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court, and later the United States Supreme Court, both courts refused."

"[Alabama Republican Governor] Ivey told Woods's attorney that she denied his request for clemency, arguing that he was an "integral participant in the intentional murder of these three officers", and calling him a "known drug dealer", though she never cited any proof for these accusations."

Sickening.

Puja

paddy no 11 wrote:Acquitted, no surprise

Absolutely disgusting, probably not shocking as this felt like it was always possible.

I don't have an issue with self defence in general, but in this case how can you argue you were defending yourself if you have put yourself in that position deliberately. Walking home from the cinema and attacked - self defence. House break in - self defence. Going to a riot armed with an assault rifle - looking for trouble.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ry ... eased-bail

These cases are crazy, woman kills her trafficker and faces life in prison

When John Wayne does this he's the embodiment of America

Sandydragon wrote: Absolutely disgusting, probably not shocking as this felt like it was always possible.

I don't have an issue with self defence in general, but in this case how can you argue you were defending yourself if you have put yourself in that position deliberately. Walking home from the cinema and attacked - self defence. House break in - self defence. Going to a riot armed with an assault rifle - looking for trouble.

It's precedent explicitly to legalise vigilante action through the back door.
But only anti-left / anti-black vigilante action.

Some of the archaic laws that are being unearthed by these trials are unbelievable. Basically formed during the days of slavery and immediately after in order to allow extrajudicial punishment/killing of black people by whitey.

I'd missed that what with all the murders. Toxic shit, this is going to blow sooner rather than later

paddy no 11 wrote:I'd missed that what with all the murders. Toxic shit, this is going to blow sooner rather than later

It's in the fuckin post mate. Definitely. That fat kid vigilante is the new wingnut meme all over social media. That chinless cunt Zuckerberg will just sit back and do nothing to tone it down either.

So fucking tired of living in a blooper reel from Red Dawn.

The three man Georgia lynch mob found guilty of murder.

morepork wrote:The three man Georgia lynch mob found guilty of murder.

I am genuinely startled by that. I mean, they were clearly guilty as sin, but I didn't think that'd mean they'd actually get convicted.

Puja

Yeah I'm surprised too

I'm sure there's a world where these 3 aren't bad people, where they are not bent by the hatred and racism of the their environment, unfortunately for them and moreso the victim this isn't it

I've never quite understood the role of man 3 in the lynching, so what he might have been guilty of I don't know. But the father and son double act didn't look to have any hope of being home for Christmas

Digby wrote:I've never quite understood the role of man 3 in the lynching, so what he might have been guilty of I don't know. But the father and son double act didn't look to have any hope of being home for Christmas

Driving the second truck that chased the victim down and rounding up the victim on foot with the other two. WTF is wrong with you?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I've never quite understood the role of man 3 in the lynching, so what he might have been guilty of I don't know. But the father and son double act didn't look to have any hope of being home for Christmas

Driving the second truck that chased the victim down and rounding up the victim on foot with the other two. WTF is wrong with you?

I haven't followed the trial. For all I know he was following to try and dissuade the father and son from acting in so brutal and frankly deranged fashion. For all I know he was threatened to be there. I simply hadn't jumped from man was driving vehicle, and I also don't know in what fashion he was driving his van, to man needed to be sentenced for murder, if the trial has shown he was active or an accessory then it's fine he's been duly sentenced.

There is of course plenty wrong with me, but I don't think not taking a stance on something I didn't know about is one of those things.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I've never quite understood the role of man 3 in the lynching, so what he might have been guilty of I don't know. But the father and son double act didn't look to have any hope of being home for Christmas

Driving the second truck that chased the victim down and rounding up the victim on foot with the other two. WTF is wrong with you?

I haven't followed the trial. For all I know he was following to try and dissuade the father and son from acting in so brutal and frankly deranged fashion. For all I know he was threatened to be there. I simply hadn't jumped from man was driving vehicle, and I also don't know in what fashion he was driving his van, to man needed to be sentenced for murder, if the trial has shown he was active or an accessory then it's fine he's been duly sentenced.

There is of course plenty wrong with me, but I don't think not taking a stance on something I didn't know about is one of those things.

Rudy Guiliani level logic. Well done.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Driving the second truck that chased the victim down and rounding up the victim on foot with the other two. WTF is wrong with you?

I haven't followed the trial. For all I know he was following to try and dissuade the father and son from acting in so brutal and frankly deranged fashion. For all I know he was threatened to be there. I simply hadn't jumped from man was driving vehicle, and I also don't know in what fashion he was driving his van, to man needed to be sentenced for murder, if the trial has shown he was active or an accessory then it's fine he's been duly sentenced.

There is of course plenty wrong with me, but I don't think not taking a stance on something I didn't know about is one of those things.

Rudy Guiliani level logic. Well done.

Piffle.

I only noted I didn't understand the role of the 3rd person in the attack, and thusly had no particular opinion on what should happen to that individual. I had seen footage detailing the actions of the father and son, and thus the comment they had little hope of being home for Christmas, because I was confident they'd be found guilty of murder.

Giuliani logic would be to not know something and still take a declarative position and castigate anyone who argued with you. And that's not really the same thing at all.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:
I haven't followed the trial. For all I know he was following to try and dissuade the father and son from acting in so brutal and frankly deranged fashion. For all I know he was threatened to be there. I simply hadn't jumped from man was driving vehicle, and I also don't know in what fashion he was driving his van, to man needed to be sentenced for murder, if the trial has shown he was active or an accessory then it's fine he's been duly sentenced.

There is of course plenty wrong with me, but I don't think not taking a stance on something I didn't know about is one of those things.

Rudy Guiliani level logic. Well done.

Piffle.

I only noted I didn't understand the role of the 3rd person in the attack, and thusly had no particular opinion on what should happen to that individual. I had seen footage detailing the actions of the father and son, and thus the comment they had little hope of being home for Christmas, because I was confident they'd be found guilty of murder.

Giuliani logic would be to not know something and still take a declarative position and castigate anyone who argued with you. And that's not really the same thing at all.

You could have known the third person's role in the crime if you had taken the time to initiate yourself with the details of the incident before making that declarative statement.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I've never quite understood the role of man 3 in the lynching, so what he might have been guilty of I don't know. But the father and son double act didn't look to have any hope of being home for Christmas

Driving the second truck that chased the victim down and rounding up the victim on foot with the other two. WTF is wrong with you?

I haven't followed the trial. For all I know he was following to try and dissuade the father and son from acting in so brutal and frankly deranged fashion. For all I know he was threatened to be there. I simply hadn't jumped from man was driving vehicle, and I also don't know in what fashion he was driving his van, to man needed to be sentenced for murder, if the trial has shown he was active or an accessory then it's fine he's been duly sentenced.

There is of course plenty wrong with me, but I don't think not taking a stance on something I didn't know about is one of those things.

As you haven't followed the trial and don't know what's going on, why the fuck are you musing about "I don't know what man 3 might have done, maybe he was simply trying to help or being threatened to be there"? A quick google would've given you the answers without you needing to try and offer the benefit of the doubt and presumption of good intentions to someone so very guilty of lynching a black man that he's actually been convicted of it a court in the American South.

Puja

cashead wrote:Thread's unlocked now, I see.

Yeah, it would be good to understand why it was locked.

Thanks for showing those posts from the old thread. An eye-opener to say the least . . . I must have been too deeply involved in the 6N to notice it at the time.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

cashead wrote:Thread's unlocked now, I see.

Yeah, it would be good to understand why it was locked.

seconded

The thread was locked because numerous complaints were made and the moderators wanted time to review.

All complaints were reviewed and none met the threshold for a ban. Since you are aiming your remarks at me Cas, you should be aware that no mod felt your complaint was worthy of a ban.

If anyone has a complaint against another poster then make it via the complaint function. Do not accuse another payer of racism in this forum and start a campaign to get them removed.

I, for one, am very much appreciating the irony of this all happening in the America thread.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Has a load of stuff been deleted from this thread or something?

Mikey Brown wrote:Has a load of stuff been deleted from this thread or something?

No.