I really resented my parents growing up because they would never let me play outside. I was raised in Central Brooklyn in the 90s and stories like The Central Park Five and Abner Louima were cautionary tales in our neighborhood. We were too broke for summer programs so I spent a lot of my summers watching daytime TV, playing video games and browsing the internet. Brooklyn has changed a lot since the Regan / Bush days, but when you look closely you can see the scars of crime hysteria and the drug war still here.
The Central Park Five
11–20 of 83 posts
Re: The Central Park Five
#12I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.
I know you probably didn't mean mistake in this way, but for the record: the conviction was a mistake, but the corrupt investigation and aggressive prosecution were entirely intentional. NYC's criminal justice system is structured to produce these kinds of outcomes for minorities accused of crimes.
Re: The Central Park Five
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand why someone should NOT put “too much stock” into what a politician says. If anything, as much stock as possible should be put in. Especially in context of executing 5 innocent people.
I said I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Everyone else does, which is why politicians get a lot of votes by offering up what are obviously patent falsehoods about, say, black guys.
The problem is, you're down playing this as regular and accepted behavior. We should never accept politicians calling for the execution of people especially innocent people, regardless of how often politicians like.
One of the causalities of the Trump era is how fatigued everyone is to the constant lies and ugliness that we've become densentized to it and are expected to dismiss it.
Re: The Central Park Five
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Everyone else does, which is why politicians get a lot of votes by offering up what are obviously patent falsehoods about, say, black guys.
The problem is, you're down playing this as regular and accepted behavior. We should never accept politicians calling for the execution of people especially innocent people, regardless of how often politicians like. One of the causalities of the Trump era is how fatigued everyone is to the constant lies and ugliness that we've become densentized to it and are expected to dismiss it.
I don't know man?
If it weren't regular and accepted, it wouldn't get any votes.
I think that's pretty clear evidence that it is regular and accepted.
But I guess we can agree to disagree. No worries man.
Re: The Central Park Five
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians say a lot of things in the US. Especially when it comes to black guys. Obviously, not much of it is true, and I wouldn't put too much stock in it, but the thing is... as horrible as this may sound to say... it can get a lot of votes.
He was not politician back then. Edit: I don't mean it as defense people. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with politicians as a group. Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such policies). Don't understand why people…
He said this as recently as October 2016. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Acc...
Re: The Central Park Five
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians say a lot of things in the US. Especially when it comes to black guys. Obviously, not much of it is true, and I wouldn't put too much stock in it, but the thing is... as horrible as this may sound to say... it can get a lot of votes.
He was not politician back then. Edit: I don't mean it as defense people. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with politicians as a group. Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such policies). Don't understand why people…
He wasn't running for office then, though he has toyed with it since the 80s, hinting he was going to run then ultimately not.
All the same, politician or not, he hasn't changed since then. While a candidate for president, he retweeted a "crime statistic" that said 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people. The actual number is 15%; whites are killed by whites 82% of the time. When it was pointed out how terrible wrong it was, he didn't apologize -- in fact, he just said, I didn't say it, I just retweeted it, as if he bears no responsibility for the things he amplifies with his megaphone.
The fact that he read the tweet and his BS detector didn't go off tells you that that fake news is consistent with his internal view of the world.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov...
Re: The Central Park Five
#17I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.
Racism is a hell of a drug.
Re: The Central Park Five
#18I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.
> I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator?
It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recommend reading both the recommendation from Morgenthau to vacate the convictions[1] (which ended up happening) and the Armstrong report[2] (which came to the conclusion that the Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack). Doctors involved in the case as well as the victim still believe that there were more than one attacker[3] (the victim has no memory of the attack). The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
Like I said, the best way to get an idea about the case is to read the two reports. Most of the news articles that cover the story don't do a great job.
[1] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf [2] https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf [3] https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jog...
Re: The Central Park Five
#19I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.
I know you probably didn't mean mistake in this way, but for the record: the conviction was a mistake, but the corrupt investigation and aggressive prosecution were entirely intentional. NYC's criminal justice system is structured to produce these kinds of outcomes for minorities accused of crimes.
Stop-and-frisk is ongoing in New York despite years of data on the fact that police almost exclusively target young Black and Latino men and that the policy has little to no discernible effect on crime prevention or criminal apprehension. The NY branch of the ACLU is a good place to find a summary of the data[1], such as: "in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops." If the NYPD were doing this to white people to the same extent it would have stopped by now. The policy is a direct violation of the fourth amendment.
Re: The Central Park Five
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians say a lot of things in the US. Especially when it comes to black guys. Obviously, not much of it is true, and I wouldn't put too much stock in it, but the thing is... as horrible as this may sound to say... it can get a lot of votes.
He was not politician back then. Edit: I don't mean it as defense people. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with politicians as a group. Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such policies). Don't understand why people…
>Since then, he has repeatedly reiterated the guilty verdict of the men, even though their convictions were vacated. “They admitted they were guilty,” the then-candidate said in a CNN interview the month before the 2016 election. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.”