Log in to check your private messages
What Book are you reading now? (Other than Star Wars)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 124, 125, 126
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Mos Eisley Cantina View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 7850
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Ah, Pride and Prejudice. I've started it a couple times, but never finished it. I do plan on finishing it someday...
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:28 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 7850
Location: Sailing into the unknown

The Subtle Knife by Philip Pullman
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:56 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 1689
Location: Simulation and Simulacra

I just watched The People Vs OJ Simpson. Even if you feel like you already know everything about the case, or don't care, the show really is great and deserved all it's awards. So I'm mostly plugging that...

But OT, I'm reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on the trial called Outrage. I think he's a jerk, to put it mildly, and I often disagree with him, but I think he is a very interesting person and his opinion is always worth listening to.

For a long time I didn't have an opinion on the case, because I hadn't studied it. It would be stupid to claim I knew what happened just because I watched the news, like most people did. After I did read up on it, I'm sure he did it, but I am still somewhat conflicted about whether the outcome of the trial was good or bad.

Bugliosi thinks that race had nothing to do with the verdict, which I think is a pretty odd position to take. He makes a lot of use of the term "playing the race card". Besides accepting a narrative that phrase implies, I just think it's pretty intellectually lazy to throw around a buzzword to express a concept like that. Why don't you come up with your own original thoughts?

He says, "I don't call him "OJ." That demonstrates a familiarity and level of respect. I call him "Simpson"." See that is an original thought, and that's what I find interesting.
_________________
Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:33 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Mara Jade Skywalker
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 6308
Location: Beyond Shadows

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
After I did read up on it, I'm sure he did it, but I am still somewhat conflicted about whether the outcome of the trial was good or bad.


I'm genuinely curious, what do you think might have been good about the trial outcome if you're sure he murdered her?
_________________
"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker



View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:39 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 1689
Location: Simulation and Simulacra

Mara Jade Skywalker wrote:
Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
After I did read up on it, I'm sure he did it, but I am still somewhat conflicted about whether the outcome of the trial was good or bad.


I'm genuinely curious, what do you think might have been good about the trial outcome if you're sure he murdered her?


My initial thought was that the defense did a better job than the prosecution. That's what they are supposed to do. If the jury had a reasonable doubt to his guilt, then they were right to acquit him, whether he really did it or not.

The question is were they really right, though? Yes, but not for the reason I initially thought. It wasn't that the defense was better, it was that the prosecution was worse. In other words, the defense didn't really have to do a good job to refute the prosecution because they did such a bad job on their own. The prosecution did a poor presentation and withheld evidence. I believe if it weren't for these two things, even with the defense exactly the same, the jury would have been a lot more inclined to pass guilt.

Here's an example of both things: The prosecution didn't use any testimony from OJ Simpson as evidence. The reason is that they wanted to grill him during cross examination and they were afraid that if they entered those incriminating statements that he had made, that he would refuse to testify. The logic is that the defense would have tried to argue positively against them, and then he wouldn't testify, so he could have it both ways: his version of events, without having to answer for it.

You can see the obvious stupidity in this thinking. He didn't testify and they had nothing to use against him. It's much better to not have to argue at all than to argue against a negative, and they would have been better off to just have included them in the first place.

I'm still not totally convinced that the DNA evidence wasn't compromised and that evidence wasn't planted by the LAPD. The forensics team did a pretty crappy job on it and the lab failed to follow the proper contamination protocol, so at the least their credibility is not to be trusted.

The reason that I'm sure he is guilty is because I've seen all of the evidence, and mostly because of his own testimony on his deposition for his civil suit, which he lost. He is caught blatantly lying under oath and shows open hostility towards the victims, Ron and Nicole. Cochran was very smart not to put him on the stand.

But I'm not too cool with that trial. I know the Goldman's were not motivated by money and they wanted justice, but it's plainly an attempt to get around double jeopardy. It sets a bad precedent and can easily be abused to punish someone who is actually innocent.
_________________
Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:47 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
Master
Master

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 2028
Location: Ontario, Canada

I just finished reading a bunch of comic books about X-23. I blogged about them here: http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca/2017/10/modern-x-men-read-through-x-23-start-of.html

She's a cool character, and her 2010 Team-Up series started out pretty good.
_________________
http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Mos Eisley Cantina

Page 126 of 126
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 124, 125, 126

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield