|
shrike82 posted:Can the Rice family sue the local government/police dept/shooter for a poo poo load of money? They can probably get a wrongful death suit out of it. God help us if they actually do, though. The right wing hate sphere is going to have a field day on that. You're going to hear nonstop "they're just greedy jerks using the tragedy for a quick buck."
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:It doesn't work like that, a defense attorney has an ethical duty to defend his client regardless of guilt, a DA has an ethical duty to not pursue charges against people they think are innocent. You say that like the American legal system gives a single gently caress about ethics at this point. Some individuals might but the system does not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:American Society doesn't cherish democracy at all. Nearly half of the people don't vote mostly because they don't want to and even those who do tend to still have a cynical view of the system. There are also many who support making voting more difficult, and plenty who at least oppose making voting easier. There are also a disturbing number of people who think certain demographics shouldn't be allowed to vote. I've met a distressing number of people that thought poll taxes were a great idea and need to be brought back.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:So in a situation where a racist prosecutor has enough votes to stay in office, what recourse do black people have, and what recourse do you think they should have? Well move, obviously, and if they can't afford it then they should work harder. Bootstraps themselves into a better neighborhood, as it were. (and before anybody asks yes I'm being sarcastic and don't actually mean that)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:I know this was a few pages back, but it's been something I've been wondering about, too. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that minorities are still very much vested in changing the system through non-violent, "official" channels and methods, otherwise it would have been all too easy to end up with a Provisional IRA-type form of homegrown terrorism. If the non-violent, official channels turn out to not be listening or actively resist positive change you're going to end up seeing more violence. The 1960's had militant black groups and violent student groups specifically because the official channels went "lol nope" or just outright attacked peaceful protests. Peaceful protests are a threat of violence. I know some people are going to argue with that but it's true. Peaceful protests are "hey here is a large number of people who are very unhappy about something." If you ignore peaceful protests long enough some of the people doing the protesting are going to resort to less peaceful means to get attention or force things to change. One of the reasons militant black groups went away is because things actually started to change. Desegregation happened, the civil rights act happened, it became illegal to prevent blacks from voting...poo poo got better and the people in power finally said "ok yes racism is a problem here have some fixes." There's still a long way to go but really that was the core of it; violence was part of why the government finally paid the gently caress attention. As much as people like Martin Luther King were like "no violence is always wrong knock that poo poo off" a 100% peaceful movement could have been ignored. Now, everybody on both sides would certainly like it if nothing became violent but that's one of the unspoken threats. "Address our concerns or some of us will begin to break things." If the movement is large enough that bears a great deal of weight.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 03:34
|
|