White Kids from Oklahoma Beaten and Called Crackers

devincf wrote: In a rape, which is a violent assault, the perception is to give the victim the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of what doubt? I'm really confused by this. If you're talking about newspaper articles about reported rapes, I guess it's up to the journalist as to how the rape victim is portrayed, and how the rapist is portrayed. Not sure how there's any "benefit of the doubt" anywhere in that.

In a criminal court, an accused criminal is given the 'benefit of the doubt' and presumed innocent -- that person is consitutionally guaranteed that right. But that has nothing to do with newspaper articles. so ... ?

:?

EmilyM wrote: I think he means "benefit of the doubt" in the sense that journalists/law officials can't/won't say "well, she was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it"--that they treat it as a potential crime rather than a false accusation.

okay, but that's not a benefit of the doubt. or whatever. hrm. I'll post a new reply b/c I don't want this to sound like I'm irritated at any person.

one thing re: the rape 'analogy' and the 'benefit of the doubt':

if someone is raped, it doesn't matter if they are wearing a mini-skirt, walking alone at 3 a.m., out on a date with their rapist, whatever. rape is still a crime, the victim didn't ask to be raped.
if someone is beaten up, it doesn't matter if they were talking shit to someone, or a total outsider, or minding their own business. assault is still a crime, the victim didn't ask to be beaten up.

I think we can all pretty much agree on the above.

as such, I think it is totally normal to question the circumstance of crime, wonder why it happened, where it happened, if there was a 'cause', who was present, what was said, etc, without ever saying that a crime didn't occur, or that anyone is being given (or not) the 'benefit of the doubt' (whatever that means) and without 'blaming the victim'.

that said, I used to be a criminal defense lawyer.

daveb wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]
that said, I used to be a criminal defense lawyer.

Dear god, look what became of you. We had such hopes, your parents and I.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

You really don't know what "benefit of the doubt" means?

Idiom: give someone the benefit of the doubt

In a case where some doubt remains: to assume that they are telling the truth, or are innocent, because there is not enough evidence to be certain that they are not.

Jack wrote: I say we should keep it open in light of the fact that your claim of this is all being used for political motives has not really been proven or disproven.

Seriously.

If you're going to criticize others, you should really come clean about your own cynical belief that this is just going to be used as a political ploy.

Hmmm, Jack, how'd you miss this:

I already acknowledged myself as an extreme cynic in terms of how media stories can sometimes be used as a divisive tool. Which is what I meant in terms of the potential political fallout.

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=devincf]You really don't know what "benefit of the doubt" means?

Idiom: give someone the benefit of the doubt

In a case where some doubt remains: to assume that they are telling the truth, or are innocent, because there is not enough evidence to be certain that they are not.

let's just say I don't give that shit away.

Oh. I usually do to victims of violent assaults.

devincf wrote: [quote=alafairnadia][quote=devincf]You really don't know what "benefit of the doubt" means?

Idiom: give someone the benefit of the doubt

In a case where some doubt remains: to assume that they are telling the truth, or are innocent, because there is not enough evidence to be certain that they are not.

let's just say I don't give that shit away.

Oh. I usually do to victims of violent assaults.

so questioning the circumstances = not giving the benefit of the doubt?

Jack wrote: I didn't miss it. But while you call 'bullshit' on others, you're not facing the inherent falseness of your political paranoia. Others get their views called 'buillshit' while you can't even face the falseness of your own claims.

Yeah, the news is never used as a public opinion tool for political purposes. And my original statement (with some helpful bolding for you):

But the cynic in me can't help but note that the whole story just reads as a sensationalistic typical election time hot button issue for the candidates to grandstand and stake their positions on, while stirring up local racial/social-based anxiety.

And why did I say that: "Students victims of race hate, mom sez;" "Mom Lisa Brown, 33, told the Daily News she relocated her family from their small Oklahoma town so her husband, a Brooklyn native and social worker, could more easily find work and her sons could experience different people and ways of life;" "But when the boys, who are white, showed up, their mom said, they got a chilling indication of what was to come.

"Oh my gosh, we are going to have fun this year," a security guard muttered, according to Brown." "The brothers skipped school all last week while their parents tried to sort out the mess.
"Do I have to send the National Guard in to get my children an education?" asked the distraught mom."

Not to mention the bureaucratic doors slammed in her face at every opportunity. And then the evil bureaucracy chastised her for sticking up for her kids! This story is about as shlocky and manipulative as it can get.

2) Not only are the 2005 Democratic Primaries over, they were nowhere near the level of political bile that existed in 2001. So wrong again on two counts. The Democratic Primary over and past news (count one) and this round of the primaries were nowhere near the level of contention of 2005 (count two).

And this mayoral race isn't that nice. Remember the other week's mini-tempest about Ferrer's website saying that he went to public school when he didn't? If I recall correctly, the DN was especially proud to have a side by side comparison of Bloomberg's public school education and Ferrer's private school one. And a few months back, the scandal with Virginia Fields' campaign brochure, as well as Gifford Miller being accused of using public funds for postage. But, it's not racial, so it's no big deal, right?

devincf wrote: Oh. I usually do to victims of violent assaults.

Also, in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, that extends towards someone reporting a crime.

Yes, people lie. And people deceive. But in the case of violence committed on others, the victim doesn't have much to gain--in many cases--by lying.

In the case of rape, the process of going to trial is a real nightmare. This past winter I was a juror on a trial in which a guy was accused of theft, attempted kidnapping (one person), kidnapping (another person) and rape (the person he kidnapped). Did the victim have anything to gain by accusing this guy of anything? Nothing at all. And what did she lose? Probably more than a few night's sleep from having to deal with Grand Jury testimony and trial testimony. Why does someone go through it? To simply get the person who did it off of the street. But that's a painful process.

The concept of 'don't blame the victim' basically recognizes that in 99% of most claims of violence, the victim is honest.

In the case of these parents specific claims, very few parents I have ever met would put their child under public scrutiny to falsify a claim. The family is exposed to the world; including the children. That's quite traumatic. But when compared to being beaten up and victimized by racism, that trauma is overwhelmed by that. It's not pleasant but it's the lesser of two evils.

Let's see how this plays out. But even if everything is brought to light, I really wonder how some people on this board would react if it's proven without a doubt that these kids did nothing and were simply the victims of hate, violence and racism.

Candicissima wrote: Yeah, the news is never used as a public opinion tool for political purposes.

I never said that the news--in general--is not used as a political tool. But in this case there is no indication of this being used for anything by anyone in anyway.

It's all your pressumption. And I call a hearty 'bullshit' on that pressumption.

Carnivore wrote:
We don't actually know the "does nothing wrong" part, do we? Do you think there's no chance that there might have been some epithets in the other direction coming from the Oklahoma kids? All we have is one side of the story, and the Daily News isn't exactly a paragon of journalism.
I agree, the thing sucks, but let's not embellish the story with flourishes that aren't necessarily based in reality.

Candicissima wrote: I highly doubt that these kids were just skipping along when the big bad black kids decided it was "pick on a cracker" day and beat the sunshine and love out of the innocent little southern boys.

Candicissima wrote: Are you two for real? No one has said anywhere that these kids and/or their parents are lying. Who are you even arguing with? I'm officially retired from this thread.

Ummm, you did not use the word 'lying' so technically you are true but you have said the following:

Candicissima wrote: There's two sides to every story and I highly doubt that these kids were just skipping along when the big bad black kids decided it was "pick on a cracker" day and beat the sunshine and love out of the innocent little southern boys.

So you 'highly doubt' and then push foward your own prejudice about two 'innocent little southern boys'.

Sorry, buy not saying the word 'lying' and conveying the implication that they are lying is walking a thin political line yourself.

Candicissima wrote: This story is about as shlocky and manipulative as it can get.

With the implication being that it's false. Since if it were not manipulative it would be true.

Candicissima wrote: I'm an ex-sociology/cultural studies major hopefully soon to be going to grad school for media studies. I really can't help myself in the focusing on that.

And as Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

If you're going to be paranoid and read political cyncism into everything then you place a higher burden of proof on people's claims that is often necessary.

KateBklyn wrote: Can we do an in person debate at Soda? Although I will only show if someone starts throwing around yo mama jokes. My money would be on alafairnadia.

heh. I love semantic brawls. I haven't had one in awhile. maybe we could fight and watch gay porn? in crown heights?

alafairnadia wrote: heh. I love semantic brawls. I haven't had one in awhile. maybe we could fight and watch gay porn? in crown heights?

ummm, hello!? have you been to my house, because if not it sounds like you might just fit in.