Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[Tambora]

You should apologize to @ok doser for your false accusation.

Should Doser apologize for his false drunkard accusation against me and Glorydaz and AurthurBrain?
Doser is notorious around these parts for whining about and reporting the very things he does to others.
Please don't follow in his footsteps in that regard.

 

[ok doser]

Well, it's not like you an ok doser aren't basically a reflection of each other so.. there's that

:darwinsm:

How about you apologize for double teaming against a poster :think:

i apologize for not realizing that you were a special snowflake who required kid gloves handling

please forgive me

 

[Crucifer]

:darwinsm:

Ok Doser 4:11
Those who shall speaketh against me shall receive internet laffs

 

[ok doser]

Should Doser apologize for his false drunkard accusation against me and Glorydaz and AurthurBrain?
Doser is notorious around these parts for whining about and reporting the very things he does to others.
Please don't follow in his footsteps in that regard.

This Post Has Been Reported For Being Mean And Making Me Cry

 

[Tambora]

This Post Has Been Reported For Being Mean And Making Me Cry

Exactly what a special snowflake who required kid gloves handling would say.

 

[ok doser]

Exactly what a special snowflake who required kid gloves handling would say.

 

[ok doser]

You're embracing the very thing we fought against.

Which very thing did we fight against? :freak:

and exactly who did you mean by "we"?

 

[Crucifer]

Which very thing did we fight against? :freak:

Fascism

Don't know how that could've gotten lost in the context lain:

 

[ok doser]

Take the case of Herman Atkins. You're the judge. Do you execute him? Cause, if so, you also would not survive your own legal system.

On April 8, 1986, in Lake Elsinore, a female clerk was working at a shoe store when, sometime between 11:30 AM and 12:00 PM, she was raped and robbed at gunpoint. During the rape, the assailant ejaculated and wiped semen onto her sweater. Investigation and Trial Following the rape, the victim was taken to the hospital where vaginal swabs were collected. Her clothing, including the sweater with the semen stains, was collected and marked for identification. She then went to the police station and was shown yearbooks from a nearby high school but was unable to find her assailant. In fact, she did not identify Atkins until she saw a wanted poster for him on unrelated charges, and was then shown a photo lineup where she identified Atkins as her assailant witness #1. A witness who worked at the store next to where the rape occurred was shown the wanted poster with Atkins’ picture and identified him as a man who had been in her store earlier that day witness #2. At trial, in addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with a state laboratory, who testified that the semen found on swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A and PGM 2+1+, which are consistent with Atkins’ typing witness #3. Atkins was charged with robbery and rape and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. Post-Conviction Investigation Atkins’ case was accepted by the Innocence Project in 1993. After locating the sweater and vaginal swabs in 1995, the Innocence Project began trying to gain access to the evidence for DNA testing, which was granted in 1999. After receiving the specimens, Forensic Science Associates performed DNA testing on the evidence collected at the crime scene. Testing was conducted on three separate areas of the sweater. In all three areas, the results were consistent and excluded Atkins. Based on the test results, Herman Atkins was released from prison in February 2000, after spending twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

if i had been the judge in 1988...

i would have discounted witness #2 as she did not witness the rape

i would have questioned whether the victim had seen Atkins' picture (in the yearbooks, for example) and rejected it before seeing his wanted poster

i would have questioned the circumstances of the victim's having seen the unrelated wanted poster

based on the answer to those two questions, i might have discarded the victim's "evidence" (testimony) as unreliable

and i would have questioned the relevance of the blood evidence - what percentage of the population would present with that phenotype?


and if i had been in a real justice system, in which my mistakes as a judge had real consequences, more than just an "oops - sorry :idunno: ", i would have been damn sure to be more cautious

 

[ok doser]

futhermore, I would have been very interested in determining the veracity of any alibi Atkins might have offered - do you know any details of that?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, it's overzealous.
When you see people getting shut down selling lemonade, but reject the fact that this extends to people getting charged with crimes due to the same outrageous technicality, you are perpetuating a loaded bias.

And why do you suppose they go after the small stuff?

Could it be because the big stuff, like murder, rape, theft, adultery, perjury, etc, are all too difficult to go after in that you have tons of laws that prevent justice from happening?

:think:

Such matters shouldn't even be recognized by 'the law' as criminal-

Hence "TOO MANY LAWS!"

:AMR:

the problem isn't the Left being overly liberal but rather the Right trying to be fascists.
You're embracing the very thing we fought against.

Is it just the "Right" that are being detrimental?Isn't it BOTH sides?

 

[WizardofOz]

if i had been the judge in 1988...

i would have discounted witness #2 as she did not witness the rape

i would have questioned whether the victim had seen Atkins' picture (in the yearbooks, for example) and rejected it before seeing his wanted poster

i would have questioned the circumstances of the victim's having seen the unrelated wanted poster

based on the answer to those two questions, i might have discarded the victim's "evidence" (testimony) as unreliable

and i would have questioned the relevance of the blood evidence - what percentage of the population would present with that phenotype?


and if i had been in a real justice system, in which my mistakes as a judge had real consequences, more than just an "oops - sorry :idunno: ", i would have been damn sure to be more cautious

So you would have let him off altogether? It doesn't seem like this legal system being proposed leaves a lot of wriggle room. It's either freedom or execution.

 

[WizardofOz]

futhermore, I would have been very interested in determining the veracity of any alibi Atkins might have offered - do you know any details of that?

Only this:

Atkins's defense was mistaken eyewitness identification. He presented an alibi witness and testified on his own behalf. In addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with the State of California's Riverside Laboratory. The criminalist testified that the semen found on vaginal swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A and PGM 2+1+. This typing was consistent with both the victim and Atkins. The criminalist also testified that the semen stain recovered from the victim's sweater revealed the presence of a type A secretor and that about 25.9% of the black population have type A blood, and 80% of the population are secretors. Further, he testified that approximately 21.4% of the population (both caucasian and black) have PGM Type 2+1+. He concluded that, based on these numbers, Atkins was included in a population of approximately 4.4% of people who could have committed this rape. The prosecutor argued during summation that this evidence was "evidence [which] can't be used to say this is exactly [the defendant], but it excludes a large percentage of the people, and does not exclude him, and that's corroboration." Here

 

[ok doser]

So you would have let him off altogether? It doesn't seem like this legal system being proposed leaves a lot of wriggle room. It's either freedom or execution.

Yes, depending on the answers to the questions I raised, I probably would have let him off.

Would it have been more just if i had found him "not really really guilty, but you're a black dude, so you get seven years" ?

'cause I don't think that's a thing

 

[ok doser]

Only this:

Atkins's defense was mistaken eyewitness identification. He presented an alibi witness and testified on his own behalf. In addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with the State of California's Riverside Laboratory. The criminalist testified that the semen found on vaginal swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A and PGM 2+1+. This typing was consistent with both the victim and Atkins. The criminalist also testified that the semen stain recovered from the victim's sweater revealed the presence of a type A secretor and that about 25.9% of the black population have type A blood, and 80% of the population are secretors. Further, he testified that approximately 21.4% of the population (both caucasian and black) have PGM Type 2+1+. He concluded that, based on these numbers, Atkins was included in a population of approximately 4.4% of people who could have committed this rape. The prosecutor argued during summation that this evidence was "evidence [which] can't be used to say this is exactly [the defendant], but it excludes a large percentage of the people, and does not exclude him, and that's corroboration." Here

again, more questions - why was the alibi witness' testimony disregarded?

as for the DNA evidence - Lake Elsinore has a current population of 60,000 - the 4.4% population of people who could have matched the DNA evidence equals some 2640 people

add to that the fact that Lake Elsinore is an hour or so from LA and San Bernadino, a little more to San Diego, and is on the major corridor between San Diego and LA, and you're talking about potential matches in the range of one million

so again, I'd disregard or severely discount the witness' testimony based on the way she identified Atkins and the fact that she didn't witness the rape

I'd disregard or severely discount the DNA evidence

I'd severely question the veracity of the victim's identification of Atkins

and I'd want to know more about why the alibi witness' testimony was disregarded


at this point, I wouldn't see a reason to convict.


well, beside the fact that Atkins was a young black man :banana:

 

[ok doser]

i was working in a forensics lab doing research at the time this incident with Atkins happened (i wasn't aware of it at the time) - i remember the excitement around the potential of the science that was being developed, and i remember the warning voices at the time in the scientific community that, while we who worked with the technology understood its limitations and weaknesses, the popular press' embrace of this was based on a poor understanding, or misunderstandings of what it could and couldn't do, and how easily that could be used carelessly or maliciously in a court.


in fact - lemme do a little digging...

oh yes - this didn't come to light until 2008 - got a huge amount of press in Canada, but didn't involve DNA : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Smith_(pathologist)

still, an example of prosecutorial zeal allowing the unquestioning acceptance of "evidence" (expert testimony) that should have been examined more closely

and i lay that squarely at the feet of the judge in each case

 

[fool]

So you would have let him off altogether? It doesn't seem like this legal system being proposed leaves a lot of wriggle room. It's either freedom or execution.

Innocence or guilt is like that.
I really don't like the way we intimidate people into taking a plea in our current system.

 

[fool]

Only this:

Atkins's defense was mistaken eyewitness identification. He presented an alibi witness and testified on his own behalf. In addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with the State of California's Riverside Laboratory. The criminalist testified that the semen found on vaginal swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A and PGM 2+1+. This typing was consistent with both the victim and Atkins. The criminalist also testified that the semen stain recovered from the victim's sweater revealed the presence of a type A secretor and that about 25.9% of the black population have type A blood, and 80% of the population are secretors. Further, he testified that approximately 21.4% of the population (both caucasian and black) have PGM Type 2+1+. He concluded that, based on these numbers, Atkins was included in a population of approximately 4.4% of people who could have committed this rape. The prosecutor argued during summation that this evidence was "evidence [which] can't be used to say this is exactly [the defendant], but it excludes a large percentage of the people, and does not exclude him, and that's corroboration." Here

That ain't corroboration and the Judge should have declared a mistrial the second that came out of the Prosecutors mouth.
That's what they do, they keep multiplying percentages of unique things to a person until they say "Fat Bald Middle Aged White dudes with Goatees are only .00002% of the global population and fool is one of them!"

 

[fool]

Yes, depending on the answers to the questions I raised, I probably would have let him off.

Would it have been more just if i had found him "not really really guilty, but you're a black dude, so you get seven years" ?

'cause I don't think that's a thing

Oh that's a thing alright, that's the thing we got now.

 

[fool]

I'd disregard or severely discount the DNA evidence

It wasn't DNA evidence it was blood type evidence.