Black Lives Matter Thread 4

12357100

Posts

  • HenroidHenroid Seize the Memes Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    They snuck in there with that 100 stealth rating, dude didn't even know they were there. Amazing.
    Kinda makes me wish there was a camera on the audience to see what their reaction was.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    I stream at night - /henroidt on Twitch
    TicaldfjamLabelTonkka
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    I predict a blue lives matter memorial will take place with numerous black and white posters of fallen officers, speeches and tears.

    Then someone will research afterwards and realize that all these officers were not the victims of violence but the victims of retaliation, and that the entire memorial was a defund the police protest.

    ElvenshaeTicaldfjamFencingsaxBlackDragon480Rhesus PositiveSorcechr1sh4ll3ttb3ShadowfireJaysonFourPwnanObrien
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited July 11
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The most shocking thing to me is how blatently mainstream outlets are ignoring the protests after the initial ones. If it weren't for social media, they would maybe have just dissappeared from public consioucness altogether.

    Saw this last night when i was trying to go to bed and it was pretty great and relevant.



    My take away was those guys were legends and.. riots work.

    The silver medalist, Peter Norman from Australia, wore the same Olympic Project for Humans Rights badge and stood in solidarity with them, and more or less sacrificed any chance of his participating in future Olympics because of it.

    There is an Olympic Black Power Statue in Atlanta commemorating the protest, and Norman's place on the pedestal is left empty on his suggestion, to "allow visitors to stand on his spot in solidarity with the civil rights movement for years to come."

    Now that's allyship.

    A longer article about Peter Norman.

    The long and short of it is, he was effectively exiled from the sports community in Australia for his support of John Carlos and Tommie Smith for the rest of his life. His record time in the 200 meter remains unbeaten in Australia to this day. It took until 2012--well after his death--before the country's government formally apologized to him and his family for the way they were treated by literally everyone in the country.

    Hacksaw on
    tynicJoolanderSkeithRoyceSraphimShortyTNTrooperBlackDragon480OlivawTicaldfjamVegemytechr1sh4ll3ttb3DouglasDangerMidniteMagellDarkPrimusHeadCreepsFishmanHappy Little MachinepainfulPleasanceDoodmannRaveWeedLordVegeta
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The most shocking thing to me is how blatently mainstream outlets are ignoring the protests after the initial ones. If it weren't for social media, they would maybe have just dissappeared from public consioucness altogether.

    Saw this last night when i was trying to go to bed and it was pretty great and relevant.



    My take away was those guys were legends and.. riots work.

    The silver medalist, Peter Norman from Australia, wore the same Olympic Project for Humans Rights badge and stood in solidarity with them, and more or less sacrificed any chance of his participating in future Olympics because of it.

    There is an Olympic Black Power Statue in Atlanta commemorating the protest, and Norman's place on the pedestal is left empty on his suggestion, to "allow visitors to stand on his spot in solidarity with the civil rights movement for years to come."

    Now that's allyship.

    A longer article about Peter Norman.

    The long and short of it is, he was effectively exiled from the sports community in Australia for his support of John Carlos and Tommie Smith for the rest of his life. His record time in the 200 meter remains unbeaten in Australia to this day. It took until 2012--well after his death--before the country's government formally apologized to him and his family for the way they were treated by literally everyone in the country.

    I know I bring this up every time, but Peter is my cousin! He was treated like shit and had to give up his life's greatest passion.

    He lived on the opposite side of the country to me and we weren't close at all, but it's something that would come up during family gatherings fairly regularly. He was pretty depressed and adrift after he realised he was on the outer. The Australian athletics community was (probably still is) a pretty tight clique and the people tend to live and breathe it at the highest levels. He also couldn't make much money off it afterwards. Turns out racist Australia isn't very interested in giving ad deals and speaking gigs to 'race traitors'. He is on the record as saying even if he could turn back time, he wouldnt change what he did.

    He was a problematic guy though. That side of the family has quite a few really religious types. They all had a major problem with LGTBQI people

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    facetious wrote: »
    Because they can't give up their military grade weapons, because (they think) that wouldn't make people as sympathetic as the thought of firing personnel, because they're just fucking lying .. I could go on.

    Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that

  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    edited July 11
    A question I brought up with some black teenagers several years ago during the travon Martin protests and stupid girl getting punched out by cop after jaywalking 5 lanes under a bridge, Seattle memories, Was how could one justify joining these infamous police departments knowing their history?

    The answer is you really can't. Especially departments like the LAPD and the NYPD, whose corruption is practically a film genre.

    RoyceSraphim on
    TicaldfjamSorcePwnanObrien
  • turtleantturtleant Gunpla Dad is the best.Registered User regular
    Brainleech wrote: »
    facetious wrote: »
    Because they can't give up their military grade weapons, because (they think) that wouldn't make people as sympathetic as the thought of firing personnel, because they're just fucking lying .. I could go on.

    Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that

    Yo if they got air conditioning I'm on board

    X22wmuF.jpg
  • ThatDudeOverThereThatDudeOverThere Clock King Registered User regular
    hey, remember the gun-toting lawyers from st. louis?

    turns out they're maybe the most heinous people alive!

    chr1sh4ll3ttb3NarbusRoyceSraphimMidniteRhesus PositiveturtleantSorceZonugalOlivawTox3clipsefacetiousTNTrooperStyrofoam SammichFencingsaxSkeithMortal SkyCentipede DamascusShadowfireBlameless ClericHeadCreepsHappy Little MachineJaysonFourVegemytepainfulPleasanceRavePwnanObrienEtchwartsWeedLordVegeta
  • qwer12qwer12 Registered User regular
    Ignore - Forum bug post

    steam_sig.png

    PSN: jrrl_absent
  • JoolanderJoolander Registered User regular
    edited July 11
    hey, remember the gun-toting lawyers from st. louis?

    turns out they're maybe the most heinous people alive!


    What the actual fuck

    I didn’t think I could be madder

    Joolander on
    RoyceSraphimMidniteturtleantJohnny ChopsockyPolaritieSorceOlivawwebguy20Tox3clipsebalerbowertynicBlackDragon480TNTrooperFencingsaxSixshotStrikernever dieSkeithShadowfireDee KaeBlameless ClericCorp.ShephardHeadCreepsTonkkaDevlin_DragonusDouglasDangerHappy Little MachineKetBraShortyJaysonFourpainfulPleasanceRavePwnanObrienEtchwartsWeedLordVegeta
  • chr1sh4ll3ttb3chr1sh4ll3ttb3 A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    Wealthy white couple are stupid greedy entitled assholes, what a shock.

    RoyceSraphimwebguy20ElvenshaeTicaldfjamfacetiousTNTrooperEvilCakeLabelOrcaFencingsaxDee KaeMatevDouglasDangerHappy Little MachineShortyJaysonFourpainfulPleasanceRavePwnanObrienWeedLordVegetaDyvim Tvar
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    turtleant wrote: »
    Brainleech wrote: »
    facetious wrote: »
    Because they can't give up their military grade weapons, because (they think) that wouldn't make people as sympathetic as the thought of firing personnel, because they're just fucking lying .. I could go on.

    Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that

    Yo if they got air conditioning I'm on board

    Made by Carrier
    Still when they wanted to take their business Hecho En Mexico and the troll said he saved the jobs but they ended up cutting them and moving anyways
    waiting until a more politically opportune moment to do so

    Fencingsax
  • turtleantturtleant Gunpla Dad is the best.Registered User regular
    hey, remember the gun-toting lawyers from st. louis?

    turns out they're maybe the most heinous people alive!


    Fucking mind boggling. Mfer like a real life version of a family movie villian. Air Bud gonna pee on his leg at the end lookin ass.

    X22wmuF.jpg
    OlivawElvenshaetynicTicaldfjamTNTrooperEvilCakeLabelJoolanderStiltsFencingsaxnever dieSkeithShadowfireKayne Red RobeHappy Little MachineJaysonFourRavePwnanObrienEtchwartsWeedLordVegetaDyvim Tvar
  • NeveronNeveron SwedenRegistered User regular
    A question I brought up with some black teenagers several years ago during the travon Martin protests and stupid girl getting punched out by cop after jaywalking 5 lanes under a bridge, Seattle memories, Was how could one justify joining these infamous police departments knowing their history?

    The answer is you really can't. Especially departments like the LAPD and the NYPD, whose corruption is practically a film genre.

    I feel like at this point the justification is probably mostly just that you want in on that corruption. You want to legally murder nonwhite people but don't want to join the army for whatever reason, so instead you join the police.

    It's really easy to justify if you agree with the racism and police brutality, which is part of the problem.

    ssEXN.png
    painfulPleasance
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    Joolander wrote: »
    hey, remember the gun-toting lawyers from st. louis?

    turns out they're maybe the most heinous people alive!


    What the actual fuck

    I didn’t think I could be madder

    One hopes they have the same joy returned to them that they've put into the world.

    AlexandierRoyceSraphimMaddocToxElvenshaeKristmas Kthulhu3clipsebalerbowerHacksawBlackDragon480facetiousBahamutZEROTNTrooperJoolanderRhesus PositiveMayabirdshoeboxjeddyFencingsaxSixshotStrikerHappy Little MachineShortyJaysonFourRavePwnanObrienWeedLordVegetaDyvim Tvar
  • JayKaosJayKaos Registered User regular

    Honestly, I disagree with this bit; everything about the article screams to me that these are nuts who care only about controlling land. They didn't think it was a mob that had come for them, they thought the protesters might cut through their lawn or drop trash in it and that pointing guns at them was a appropriate level of reaction to this threat.

    Steam | SW-0844-0908-6004 and my Switch code
    JragghenMaddoctynicTicaldfjamTNTrooperJoolanderFencingsaxCentipede Damascus
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people

    chr1sh4ll3ttb3DarkPrimusElvenshaeFencingsaxDevlin_DragonusDouglasDangerHappy Little MachineOlivawShortyJaysonFourLadaiPwnanObrienWeedLordVegetaDyvim Tvar
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people

    Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.

    Metzger MeisterTicaldfjamElvenshae
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    I reject the notion that they have any idea on any level that they have lived their lives wrong or done anything wrong in any way.

    They're totally insulated by money.

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    JayKaosAistanOlivawchr1sh4ll3ttb3Kristmas Kthulhu3clipseBlackDragon480facetiousKetarTNTrooperJoolanderRhesus PositivePsykomadarunia106Moridin889shoeboxjeddyFencingsaxMidniteMagellnever dieSkeithShadowfireDee KaeHacksawSorceMatevHappy Little MachineJaysonFourpainfulPleasancePwnanObrienWeedLordVegetaDyvim Tvar
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people

    Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.

    Their asshole chakra is goatse

    It is large, wide open, and spewing its toxic contents out into the world

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    RoyceSraphimElvenshae
  • XehalusXehalus lofi Registered User regular

    the way he just panics and walks off like he doesn't have actual leadership skills

    how do these people get elected

    TicaldfjamElvenshaeHobnailDevlin_DragonusJaysonFour
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    Xehalus wrote: »

    the way he just panics and walks off like he doesn't have actual leadership skills

    how do these people get elected

    etb8ejs35c3z.gif

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    SleepThatDudeOverThereKristmas Kthulhu3clipseTicaldfjamfacetiousPoorochondriacTNTrooperchr1sh4ll3ttb3turtleantDarkPrimusdarunia106MayabirdBloodsheedshoeboxjeddyElvenshaeFencingsaxMidniteMagellnever dieSkeithShadowfireDee KaeHacksawSorceMillDevlin_DragonusMatevDark Raven XHappy Little MachineOlivawKetBraShortyGONG-00JaysonFourVegemytepainfulPleasanceRavePwnanObrienEtchwartssponoWeedLordVegetaDyvim Tvar
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people

    Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.

    Their asshole chakra is goatse

    It is large, wide open, and spewing its toxic contents out into the world

    Hey, goatse did nothing wrong.

    Unlike these fuckin assholes

    V0iJ9AS.png
    3clipseBlackDragon480TNTrooperJoolanderOrcaElvenshaeMagellHacksawSorcepainfulPleasance
  • ThatDudeOverThereThatDudeOverThere Clock King Registered User regular
    Xehalus wrote: »
    how do these people get elected

    I mean... even if someone hadn't been playing close attention to any prior election, I think the dem primary we allegedly just had illustrated this phenomenon perfectly

    MidniteSorceDouglasDangerYamiB.
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Xehalus wrote: »

    the way he just panics and walks off like he doesn't have actual leadership skills

    how do these people get elected

    I don't think there's a ton of correlation between "actual leadership skills" and getting elected Mayor.

    How often have you voted for a Mayor? How often have you picked a specific person because you were impressed by their leadership skills? How often have you even spent a couple minutes figuring out which of the couple folks running were like not horrendous?

    I've voted for like three mayors ever, and I think only the latest one I've voted for was one where I could catch any event during which I could see all the candidates answer questions and therefore form a remotely reasonable opinion about which one I thought seemed like a better choice.

    If you're in a relatively small city it's extremely difficult to figure out who's running, what their positions are, and whether they seem to be a reasonable person. And then you have the smaller positions like City Council or School Board and like good luck. I only knew not to vote for one asshole for school board because while googling everyone ELSE turned up nothing, googling them turned up a lot of local news articles about how they were a giant asshole crank who'd show up to council meetings to complain about how we should be meaner to kids and cut the school budgets because they're growing up soft.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
    LabelBahamutZERODisruptedCapitalistFencingsax
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Like Columbus already has the next mayor lined up after Ginther and probably the next one after that too

    I’m not even sure mayor means a shit in a lot of cities anyway, Columbus included

    BreakfastPM
  • GustavGustav Registered User regular
    edited July 11
    My history of voting for mayor is much more of a stop the local real estate dudes that want to fuck with some stuff running than it ever really is excitement for another candidate.

    Gustav on
    aGPmIBD.jpg
    BorommakotDisruptedCapitalisttynic3clipseElvenshaeFencingsaxMidniteCaptain InertiaSkeithHacksawdurandal4532DouglasDangerOlivawDoodmann
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    Like Columbus already has the next mayor lined up after Ginther and probably the next one after that too

    I’m not even sure mayor means a shit in a lot of cities anyway, Columbus included
    In most American municipalities, mayor positions do not carry extensive legal power. Real decision making power is usually almost solely invested in an elected council. Again, there are exceptions where mayors are given broad policy making discretion in some areas, but usually a mayor is sort of... "town spokesman" type role. In that sense though they are still pretty important as they are still very important in that they are way, way more visible than town boards. Mayors can put pressure on town councils, to some extent, and they also play an important role in both taking and spreading information about community problems/concerns. Like a mayor can to some extent pop on the radar of a state legislature to potentially get something done.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    The article is almost a year old, but I'm sure the numbers have gotten worse: there are fifteen states that spend more than $27,000 per prisoner than they do per student and at least eighteen that spend more per prisoner than they pay for student. That's just the prison side of the "justice" system, not counting the police and courts and everything else. Part of the school-to-prison pipeline is not having anything at the school level to prevent kids from going down that pipeline. An ounce of prevention doesn't make big bucks for the for-profit prison system.

    Elvenshaechr1sh4ll3ttb3Olivaw
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 11
    This is off-topic but I wanted to talk about it somewhere, so copying from the D&D BLM thread:
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
    In a way, yes, it would.
    It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
    I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
    And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.

    I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
    We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.

    So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.

    Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...

    *(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)

    tynic on
    chr1sh4ll3ttb3DisruptedCapitalist3clipseStraightziToxMidniteSkeithshoeboxjeddyKristmas Kthulhudarunia106ShadowfirePolaritieElvenshaesarukunSporkAndrewDevlin_DragonusDark Raven XHappy Little MachineOlivawJaysonFourTorgaironVegemytepainfulPleasancePwnanObrienWeedLordVegeta
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Ya comparing them to goatse seems unfair , one is a giant gaping asshole filled with toxic horrors, and the other was just a silly internet meme

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
    DarmakHeadCreepsElvenshae
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Ya comparing them to goatse seems unfair , one is a giant gaping asshole filled with toxic horrors, and the other was just a silly internet meme

    Goatse was more than just a meme, he was a dude that liked stretching his butthole

    V0iJ9AS.png
    Metzger MeisterSorce
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    tynic wrote: »
    This is off-topic but I wanted to talk about it somewhere, so copying from the D&D BLM thread:
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
    In a way, yes, it would.
    It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
    I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
    And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.

    I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
    We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.

    So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.

    Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...

    *(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)

    Huh, yeah, I skimmed the first paragraph and this sounds entirely like my thing, please send me a link when you have time!

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
    tynicKristmas KthulhuDevlin_Dragonus
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    tynic wrote: »
    This is off-topic but I wanted to talk about it somewhere, so copying from the D&D BLM thread:
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
    In a way, yes, it would.
    It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
    I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
    And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.

    I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
    We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.

    So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.

    Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...

    *(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)

    prosecutors do not want people who understand the legal system on a jury unless they have an absolutely rock-solid case

    Fencingsax3clipseMidniteSorceMatevOlivawDisruptedCapitalistUsagiMulysaSemproniusShortyJaysonFourVegemytepainfulPleasanceDyvim Tvar
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver Registered User, ClubPA regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    This is off-topic but I wanted to talk about it somewhere, so copying from the D&D BLM thread:
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
    In a way, yes, it would.
    It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
    I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
    And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.

    I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
    We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.

    So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.

    Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...

    *(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)

    prosecutors do not want people who understand the legal system on a jury unless they have an absolutely rock-solid case

    They do not even want them then.

    Because the jury automatically defers to them and you generally have no idea what kind of biases they will have (generally, it’s a lot)

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    3clipseMidniteMatevOlivawDisruptedCapitalistVegemytepainfulPleasance
  • Kristmas KthulhuKristmas Kthulhu Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    This is off-topic but I wanted to talk about it somewhere, so copying from the D&D BLM thread:
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
    In a way, yes, it would.
    It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
    I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
    And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.

    I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
    We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.

    So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.

    Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...

    *(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)

    Huh, yeah, I skimmed the first paragraph and this sounds entirely like my thing, please send me a link when you have time!

    Yo, send that to me, too, please!

    tynic
This discussion has been closed.