Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "Julius Jones Is Guilty And Here's Why" video.
-
54
-
27
-
17
-
14
-
6
-
6
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@kariahl8845 ... The issue with American criminal justice system, as with ALL systems, ultimately falls to the people who operate it. Our criminal justice system is the FINEST ON PLANET EARTH without one microscopic iota of a doubt..... on paper! I don't know how to stop corruption, ignorance or those who would lie, cheat or steal to gain political, financial or societal gain by doing so. Sometimes... people are NOT any of those things, but are just wrong, biased or some of each. There is no justice system in the world that is without such problems, but I can tell you this. I would not want my fate in the hands of ANY other countries justice system and I think you would probably agree :)
.
At the end of the day, the overwhelming VAST majority of why we have so many anti-social people, is that too many parents fail their children. For this, we can only look at ourselves and accept our responsibility for the society that WE have created :(
1
-
Mark Harris ... I would approach it in the identical way. While all of these things were 100% true at the time of his murder, it takes a certain amount of time for ALL of it to not only be digested by the legal parties, but accepted as well. Once a trial has ended, the losing party examines it all and looks for things that may have been illegal or mishandled in some way and we need to allow time for that to happen. We HAVE seen cases, Thin Blue Line being an example, of when someone was wrongly convicted and may have been put to death. Such events MUST give us pause, if we are to be a morally grounded society that is based upon tenants of the Ten Commandments.
.
What we see here is that the system worked as it should, in the sense of exercising appeals and making sure we don't get a person recanting testimony and the like. What happened in THIS case, as with many.... activists! They, HollyMarx in this particular case, have VASTLY more influence on society than they aught to and for unconscious reasons, people will hear a very famous actress make a claim of racism or something and the idea catches fire among media and then society. There is literally ZERO reason why Denzel Washington should have any more credibility than you, me or any random stranger on the street.... but they do :(
.
Once a large contingent of very influential people get involved, we all pop our heads out the window to see what all the fuss is about. When we have social and mainstream media willing to outright LIE, either by playing semantics, obfuscating or omission, people find it difficult to dismiss, because it is done with not only great conviction, but on video. Such communication is a POWERFUL thing and its influence should never be underestimated.
1
-
@kariahl8845 ... I apologize :( I did not mean to suggest that you did, but I can see how I wrote my comment, it might have suggested that :)
.
As for the actual "system" being at fault, I would 100% disagree, as it is the people who mess things up. If ALL arrests were handled in a completely objective manner and to the letter of how it is written on that paper, we would have exceedingly few complaints about it at all. As far as I can tell, this case was textbook per that "paper", but only got screwed up now because of activists getting activated.Of course, we humans are NEVER 100% objective and there in lies the rub!
.
I am sure if we looked at all legal proceedings of all cases ever tried, we would find things that fell through the cracks, so to speak. There are literally infinite variables that can happen and there is NO system of any kind that can account for them all in every way possible. This is why we have a lengthy appeals process, court appointed lawyers and such, because we sometimes see long after the trial, that someone has a few too many and spilled the beans to someone and perjured him / her self. It is for this reason that I am not in favor of immediate execution, if a verdict of capital punishment is given.
.
Again, we can always find cases that were seemingly failed by the system, but we can look at every one and find where someone intentionally or otherwise, failed procedure in some way. Bill Cosby is a perfect example. While he admitted to drugging one woman, he had a deal with the then prosecutor that it would not be charged, in order to plea to other things. This is EXCEEDINGLY common in the system, but it was a replacement prosecutor who used that protected admission to imprison Cosby. While all of us may agree that he is among the worst of the worst, when it comes to how he treated many women, it was absolutely the correct thing to do, by letting him out of prison. It is the prosecutor and not Cosby who royally F'd up here, as far as his release from prison is concerned.
.
Derek Chauvin has filed an appeal and is likely due to the images we have all seen of one jury member who was well aware of BLM and even had a t-shirt in that photo, yet claimed non-bias when he was being selected for jury duty. While this does not exonerate Chauvin's behavior, there was VERY clear misconduct by a jury member and he is the one who should be blamed, if Chauvin gets a new trial. If BLM rampages through America again, I will blame them for what they do as well. There are many issues about that particular case that were not handled well, but in the court of public opinion, rightly or wrongly, a MASSIVE amount of earths population witnessed what they believe to be the murder of George Floyd.
.
Hopefully, this governor will get the message from objective observers and see that commuting his sentence would be a slap in the face, not only for justice, but for the family of the victim :(
1
-
@kariahl8845 ... Your right! After I wrote 100%, I took a little pause, but I believe I covered those anomalies a bit later in my comment. However, the judge determines bias is true, but a judge has bias of his / her own, so this STILL falls back to the people who operate the system. Based on this criteria, it can never be possible to have a "fair" (literally impartial) trial, therefore would be grounds for a mis-trial 100% of the time... see where I am going with this? The idea being is that both attorneys have the ability to challenge the judge on a particular ruling he or she makes during the trial and that is a check and balance thing, as written on that "paper". Of course, BOTH attorney's have a bias, as well as the jury members and we can go on and on. The system understands there is bias, but since it cannot be removed from the equation, there are ways to address an issue when bias is believed to be influencing the proceedings and there is literally no other way we can do this.
.
Both attorneys even have such power to ask the judge to recuse him / herself and there are other procedures that can get other judges involved to determine bias, if the issue is pressed hard enough. Yes, there are most certainly rulings that enable the ability for others to abuse, but again.... this is absolutely unavoidable and there are procedures in place for an attorney to call out bias, mistrial or other when it is believed to have occurred. Sometimes this is not noticed or picked up until well after the trial has concluded.
.
As for mandatory minimums, yes.... that would seem to be a "hard line" as dictated by legislation or laws passed by citizens. However, no matter HOW definitive that law or legislation, there is going to be extenuating circumstances in nearly 100% of those cases. That is why a judge has to do exactly that... judge. It then becomes the attorneys job to decide if that judgement was fair or shows a perceived bias.
.
As for underpaying for a soda, seems like you may be getting at the 3rd strike laws? If so, we have to consider that a person has already had 2 felony convictions, so when he steals a piece of pizza, which was one highly publicized case, he goes to prison for life or whatever the mandatory sentence is for that crime in that state. Such a sentence is NOT because he stole a piece of pizza, it is because he used a knife and has gotten two chances already and failed to live up to the agreement he made when released from that second conviction. I get that it sucks going to prison for stealing a slice of pizza, but that is NOT the actual reason he is going away again.
.
If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that the judge should have called for a mis-trial, once it became known that the jurist lied... am I correct? If so, than this again falls back to bias, procedure failure or whatever legal reason and is but one of the way in which the system works to correct human "errors", let's call them. I am not a lawyer, nor was I involved in that trial, obviously, but IMO, the judge seems to have violated Chauvin's rights and hence the appeal that has been make is all but guaranteed to include that action within the document filed by his attorney.
.
In conclusion here... I do get that no matter HOW hard we try, no matter HOW many procedures we have and no matter HOW much we want to get it right, there are just too many people involved. 100% of them, through action or inaction due to personal bias, has the possibility to have a direct impact on the outcome of a trial. Since we cannot possibly remove all of those from the equation, we also have done our best to not put the death penalty on a perfect citizen in EVERY single societal valued way, until that one day commits the most horrific crime imaginable. When this happens, such a case is always tried as a mentally deficient person, maybe a minor, and we don't sentence capital punishment on such people.
.
So, we have to make a decision. Either we do the best we can as a people, and admittedly we certainly fail at times, and permit capital punishment in states that allow it OR lock them away until the end of time. We have to weigh these options as they BOTH come with a very high price. One in living with the execution of a person who may be found innocent at a later date, although exceedingly rare, it has happened. Or two... lock them away and pay a monetary price in building more prisons and taxpayer support until the end of their life. Or three... discuss rehabilitation and all three have drawbacks that can have a VERY difficult outcome with which we as a society must reconcile.
1
-
@kariahl8845 ... As I mentioned earlier, we can ALWAYS take individual cases and hold them up as a good or bad example of 3 strikes. There are going to be just as many that were fairly administered, in a sense we would have agreement, as those that were not. Specifically in the case of the person who failed to put the correct amount of money, I am not familiar, but that is also a petty crime and not a felony that led to a 3rd strike and therefore life in prison. If it DID, than I would need more information, as I would be willing to bet there is more to the story, even if you are not aware. I am not seeking to be an apologist for any type of failure upon the criminal justice system, but you and I both understand there is always more to a story than gets reported. We need only look at the exceedingly left-leaning media which painted The Covington Kids as white supremacists, very simply because some were wearing MAGA hats. The mainstream media is ALWAYS going to seek the heart-strings point of view to paint a picture of unfair treatment in the justice system, as that is what they do. Just look at the case of JJ right here and how many have very high profile platforms and flat out lying about this case. Again, we can go tit for tat forever. There was a case in my home town, where a drunk driver on a motor cycle blew a stop sign and struck a man walking his daughter in a crosswalk. She was killed, he lost a leg and was hospitalized for many months. The driver....? he already had something like 8 felony convictions for driving under influence and proceeded to covertly flip the bird to the victims family when he was in court.
.
Just like the example you gave that appears to be a miscarriage of justice, so is this one. He was given WAY too many chances and continued to piss them away. Just like virtually EVERY criminal that has been convicted several times, it is not realistic to assume these are the ONLY times he she committed such a crime and got caught 100% of the times he perpetrated one. I get that you are not for capital punishment, as you are certainly not alone. This topic is might be 2nd in controversial, to that of Rowe vs Wade.
.
I think that you and I have gone about as far as we can with this and we just disagree on a few points. While these may or may not be about lives being unfairly taken, they are points that will NEVER be rendered "acceptable" to both sides of the opinion on capital punishment. I will add one more thing, that I forgot to include in earlier comments. Just because a person has a bias, does NOT mean he / she is is automatically going to be driven to error because of it and therefore incapable of being objective. While you may be more inclined to spot the times punishment was incorrect or in humane, as you put it. I am more inclined to point out where the system failed, by giving a person too many chances and left one or more victims on a long list, that should NEVER have been victimized at all, for a system that failed in the opposite direction.
.
Peace, Kariah L. I think we had a good exchange here and while I don't think either of us changed our position, I think it fair to say we gave each other something more to consider when forming our own position, at least I hope so :). This conversation is EXACTLY why this nation will forever be divided, as to how we deal with those who enter the criminal justice system. It is most certainly difficult to get out of a revolving door, we must remember that before one seems trapped within that door, he / she had plenty of chances to avoid it, likely many years earlier via programs specifically designed to support 1st time offenders. Some will get trapped easier than others, but we are a forgiving nation. However, seeing the injustice perpetuated upon THIS family, by way of possible release in lieu of death sentence or even life in prison for JJ, is every bit as unfair as the guy and the soda can :)
1
-
@kariahl8845 ... Good morning, Kariah :)
We also must recognize that the initial 2 crimes were likely NOT served to full term and release was a condition of accepting the harsher punishment, should they be caught offending again. At some point, we MUST hold people accountable and very often that accountability is harsher than would be otherwise, because they were given a second, and in these cases... a 3rd chance. To be clear... I am NOT defending the punishment of soda can guy's punishment. I doubt that YOU have any such criminal history to be concerned with 3 strikes, so why would that be? Well, because you have not engaged in the behavior that leads to those strikes, just as I have, along with the overwhelming vast majority of people. On that note, I would also look to the state that declares failure to pay for an item of less than $10.00 is considered a felony. By any metric, there is most certainly an issue there and it was peoples error to write such a statue into state law.
.
3 strikes laws were not born out of whim or to just randomly punish people for instances like the case you cited. No, they were created as a response to many criminals who CONTINUE to victimize people time and time and time again, so the victimized got fed up. I understand that they are not always adjudicated in the manner in which they were intended, but the perpetrator CONTINUED to pursue crime at the expense of society. The case you cited, not withstanding, we can BOTH go back and forth with examples of how the people were seemingly over punished for a crime, as those who were given too many chances, by all objective measures (the DD I mentioned earlier as an example). I am not going to sit here and defend what happened to the soda can guy, because it does not sound like justice. However, 3 strikes was ONLY created after horrible continued abuses by career criminals, even if THIS particular one was unjust.
.
I suppose the best way to address such things as 3 strikes is a panel of judges who's job it is to consider specific situations in which 3 strikes law is specifically charged. I think this would be a fantastic way to avoid abuses, but there is one single problem. 3 strikes laws were a direct response to campaigns of victims and families pleading the cases of their HORRIBLE experience with criminals that repeatedly got released, only to kill or murder their mother, father, sister or brother :( Those exact same heart-strings you feel for the soda can guy are just not as powerful as a grieving mother in front of 20 microphones, tears running down her face, eyes bloodshot from crying holding a picture of her 5 yo boy who was ruthlessly killed by a multiple felon released on parole who promised to clean up his act.
.
BOTH of these are injustices, but how we proceed to fix them is the key. Due to many, many reasons, those who commit crimes are released from prison. Some have served their time and "appear" to be rehabbed, based on the panel that decides such matters, while others are released because of over crowding or maybe a procedural thing, like Bill Cosby was. In the end, we are human and there will ALWAYS be someone who rightly or wrongly got screwed over.
.
I certainly don't have all the answers, any more than you do. However, personal responsibility is at the heart of 100% of those we have spoken of in this thread and includes JJ. We, as a nation, must decide if imprisonment is designed for punishment, rehabilitation or both. Sadly, there are some, and I would say that JJ falls into this category, who will NEVER be "rehabilitated" and there is just no way to determine that, based solely on his earliest criminal conviction. Unless we as a society are willing to invest many times the amount of resources into rehabilitation facilities that can spend the time necessary in an attempt to undo the damage that leads to repeat offending, we will always have the soda can guy who was over-punished and 8 time DD who was released only to commit a 9th time.
.
society has a difficult time in accepting the amount of resources that go into addressing criminal behaviors, when the majority of us will never see that system, outside of a speeding or parking ticket. Just like ALL things, it comes down to money far too often. Paying ever higher and higher taxes to help those who perpetuate crimes against us all, don't get much sympathy and that is a powerful incentive to those who support harsh punishments.
1
-
1
-
@DeffoZappo ... Sadly, pretty much all we have ever come to know is now become political and due to leftist ideology.... drawn along tribal lines. What we see to day is almost ALL been turned on its head. I remember that Tipper Gore, while atypical for a Democrat, spoke out against lyrics in rap music and the GOP was all over it with her. However, the vast majority of liberals in this country could see the danger of rampant censorship that was lurking in the shadows of the bill that eventually got "Parental Advisory" stickers on the front of music deemed with offensive lyrics. Today, it is conservatives protesting violations of 1a, but is unfamiliar territory as the Democrats have ALWAYS been vigilant on that front, say the rare exception of Tipper Gore. I remember the ACLU defending Nazi rallies down Main Street USA, but not any longer.
.
The leftist, more than ANY other political affiliation in my lifetime has driven just about everything under the umbrella of politics. Politics have always been a divisive subject, so it is no surprise that when we now speak of male and female as a political position... we know we are fucked!
1
-
@learningtocrash4030 ... I am not being fooled by anyone :) I am completely cognisant of what the leftist is doing and push back on them literally every single day! I absolutely agree that they are drunk with power and have been insanely enabled by multiple entities, not the least of which are nearly ALL of big tech, certainly all of the most populated ones, but mostly from Joseph Goebbles Propaganda Machine.
.
I will admit that I have lost a bit of context with THIS particular thread, as I am involved in several ongoing VERY detailed discussions on both "a zero borders for the entire globe" and "issues of capital punishment and 3 strikes laws". The latter being on THIS very video here :) That said, I don't care if anyone "feigns" they are being censored, I care only if they ARE being censored. I also don't care WHO is being censored, I will defend their right to speak, 100% irrespective of whether or not I agree with them. While I most certainly disagree with, safe to say.... 99.9% of the positions held by leftists, I will defend their right to say whatever it is they have to say, but draw the line on being told that it is I who have to follow whatever it is they say.
.
I am certain that you and I agree on that last point for sure, even if not on all others :)
1
-
@learningtocrash4030 ... I hear what you are saying, but we CANNOT allow ourselves to believe that you or I should be the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable speech. Yes... We can see ALL over big tech, that conservatives are most certainly and openly demonized by leftists, while they do ZERO to curb or punish it in any way. However, we CANNOT become that which we are fighting! I am fully aware of the evils that are perpetuated by leftists, but I have and WILL CONTINUE to be civil in the face of it, so long as it is confined to issues of dialog. To that end, this is where I draw the line!
.
To this very day, I have worn a Covid mask twice... EXACTLY TWO TIMES! Once to vote Trump last year and again to vote Larry Elder and oust Grewsom. I obviously live in Comifornia, so BOTH were wasted votes, beyond any possible "manipulation" that absolutely DID occur (careful with words as some WILL get comments deleted by algorithm). I am not vaxxed nor will I EVER be and is not because I am anti-vax. I have not taken a vaccine for literally 40+ years and that last one was for tetanus, as I was cut by a VERY rusty nail at work. All indications are that the vax IS helping to save lives and lessen the strain on health system. I understand the jury is still out on things, but debating Covid is another way to get comments deleted).
.
I will continue to believe in 1a, as I am as nearly an absolutist as ANYONE you will ever meet, when it comes to free speech. Even if that speech is allowed to tell ME I have no right to it, because "my speech" is that of a conservative... and moderate one at that!
1
-
@learningtocrash4030 ... It may be due to how you wrote the above, but not completely following you :(
1. You won't vote for Trump.... gotcha! I did not vote in 2016, but I did vote Trump 2020. However, I cannot imagine voting for him if he runs in the future and is NOT because I no longer support him. I cannot and will not speak to every claim that everyone has made against him, but I do not know what you mean by "repeatedly denounced normal Americans", so if you care to clarify, I will be listening :)
.
2. I would give serious push back against the notion that 90% of the population supports the erosion of free speech, if I am reading your comment correctly. Again, if I misunderstood, please clarify, as I will NEVER intentionally straw-man another nor will I assume the least generous interpretation of what someone says. it may appear that I have done one or both, but NEVER by intention :)
1
-
1