(06-30-2021 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2021 07:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad -
Your assumption that Chauvin is guilty because a jury found him guilty flies in the face of previous rantings from the left about how disproportionate numbers and sentences of black people displays racial bias in the justice system.

Either (A), A conviction means means you are guilty, or B), it may not, even if you are a white cop.

Pick one.

I think that is a false choice you're presenting. Most notably because you're talking about how court decisions for black defendants are biased and the fact that Chauvin isn't black...

One of the more famous cases of false convictions was that of the West Memphis (Arkansas) Three.

Three 18yr old boys that were convicted of murdering three 10yr olds back. One of them, Damien Echols, was put on death row. a decade later, he was given an Alford plea, which essentially means the conviction is voided, but with the state doesn't admit any guilt/violation of his rights.

The convicted AND the victims were white. Somewhat interesting to the issue we're discussing, there was (at the time) a report of a black man, covered in blood who cleaned himself up at a local fast food joint... and the police ignored that completely. Arkansas, especially West Memphis isn't exactly known as being especially 'minority friendly', yet this was an example of an easily viable minority perpetrator who was ignored in favor of a white perpetrator.... and this was decades ago, reflecting a different time.

I bring this up to note that while minorities may make up a disproportionate number of those 'wrongfully convicted' (i have not independently verified but do not have a purpose to question it... they also make up a disproportionate number of those convicted at all), there are still significant numbers of people wrongfully convicted for reasons other than race.... which strongly implies that at least SOME are convicted for reasons, even biases other than racism.

This is another of those examples where some confuse volume with weight. There are enough people fairly obviously wrongfully convicted or poorly treated because of race to need for it to be addressed, without adding examples where things are more in doubt. In fact, it is the inclusion of these other events that actually detract from the message and create unnecessary division. Similarly, making Chauvin 'pay' for sins other than his own (which are bad enough on their own) creates a similar push-back, which is incorrectly labeled as being supportive of racism.

No. Making Chauvin pay for the sins of others lets others off the hook (in the minds of some). Convict those who need to be convicted; not merely those that you 'can', and just 'double punish' them.