Ex-KKK Member Convicted in 1964 Killings

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.

This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.

To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.

I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal

Also, your last comment makes you officially the ost racist person in here, assuming all white people like seeing negros and jews killed.

Also... I like how the kkk is negative to you, and yet for the "white conservative" to be killed by a black extremest group they must have been "in the worng place at the wrong time"... I mean, it's not like a black panther ever PURPOSELY killed a white man... geesh...

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.

This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.

To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.

I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal

Also, your last comment makes you officially the ost racist person in here, assuming all white people like seeing negros and jews killed.

It is called sarcasm

 

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.

This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.

To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.

I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal

Also, your last comment makes you officially the ost racist person in here, assuming all white people like seeing negros and jews killed.

It is called sarcasm

So, answer me honestly. A white man, former kkk, is in a room, locked with 3 black men. Someone tell them there is a strong reason to believe that he killed other black men, or that he killed people trying to help their race gain freedom. Come back to that room in 3 hours. What condition do you think the white man is in?

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
25% free? so out of three black jurors (who have made it through jury selection) all will be racist to the point of ignoring evidence? i doubt it.

My point is they aren't racist... they are BIAS which is different all together. This man could be white, hispanic, asian, but as soon as you present he is a memeber of a group who hates YOU you develop a negative conotation.

you maybe but not me. i would base my decision on the facts presented in the case. his being in the KKK doesn't really determine his guilt or innocence. though it may be a factor in other aspects of the case, testimony and evidence.

bias exists in racism cases because racisim exists. as a matter of fact BIAS will always exist. i believe that is why we have jury selection and 12 jurors not just 3.

 

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
25% free? so out of three black jurors (who have made it through jury selection) all will be racist to the point of ignoring evidence? i doubt it.

My point is they aren't racist... they are BIAS which is different all together. This man could be white, hispanic, asian, but as soon as you present he is a memeber of a group who hates YOU you develop a negative conotation.

you maybe but not me. i would base my decision on the facts presented in the case. his being in the KKK doesn't really determine his guilt or innocence. though it may be a factor in other aspects of the case, testimony and evidence.

bias exists in racism cases because racisim exists. as a matter of fact BIAS will always exist. i believe that is why we have jury selection and 12 jurors not just 3.

See, you say this, but... psychological evidence done on hate crime jurors has shown that it does create a subconcious bias against them. Maybe not 100% from the start he is guilty, more of a change from "He's most likely guilty, but I'm not sure enough to say so" to "I'm sure enough that I'm voting he did"

Let me phrase it like this. I have no clue what race you are, so lets just say you are black. If you are given the option of standing in a secluded subway car with a black panther, or a kkk member, which would you choose? If the term kkk member makes you prefer the black panther, you are biased already.

(And, I want to add, rightfully so. That is my point, hate crimes need some special type of jury processing I think)

 

[skace]

I have a hard time believing some 80 year old cares what he did a billion years ago. Justice at that point is almost insulting to the victim.

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.

This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.

To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.

I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal

Also, your last comment makes you officially the ost racist person in here, assuming all white people like seeing negros and jews killed.

It is called sarcasm

So, answer me honestly. A white man, former kkk, is in a room, locked with 3 black men. Someone tell them there is a strong reason to believe that he killed other black men, or that he killed people trying to help their race gain freedom. Come back to that room in 3 hours. What condition do you think the white man is in?

You can't compare that situation to a jury that consist of your peers. If it was an all black jury I would have a problem with it, similiarly to all an white jury rigged to let the accused go free. The OJ trial is a great example of it in reverse.
This was a balanced jury that consisted of more whites than blacks. They obviously debated and settled for a manslaughter conviction. All of them voted for that conviction, so you can not say that the blacks on the jury were the reason for the conviction.
If you want to debate the politics of this, that the state wanted to set an example or to make amends for past misdeeds, then OK. But as I stated earlier, murder is the most heinous of crimes, and I have no problem seeing a murderer go to jail 20 years later, 50 years later, black, white mexican or whatever race. The dead did not get to enjoy the rest of their lives, did not get to have families, did not get to relax and live their lives, while he did. So let him sweat in jail to ponder his early retirement from normal society.

 

[imported_LoKe]

When I first saw the thread title, I thought it meant he killed 1964 people. --v

 

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.

This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.

To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.

I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal

Also, your last comment makes you officially the ost racist person in here, assuming all white people like seeing negros and jews killed.

It is called sarcasm

So, answer me honestly. A white man, former kkk, is in a room, locked with 3 black men. Someone tell them there is a strong reason to believe that he killed other black men, or that he killed people trying to help their race gain freedom. Come back to that room in 3 hours. What condition do you think the white man is in?

You can't compare that situation to a jury that consist of your peers. If it was an all black jury I would have a problem with it, similiarly to all an white jury rigged to let the accused go free. The OJ trial is a great example of it in reverse.
This was a balanced jury that consisted of more whites than blacks. They obviously debated and settled for a manslaughter conviction, all of them voted for that conviction, so you can not say that the blacks on the jury were the reason for the conviction.

Different situation. OJ killed a white woman (or so was said), but it wasn;t a hate crime, so being white or black shouldn;t effect your perception nearly as much. If OJ said that he hated all white people, then hell yeah, white people would be really really harsh on him

 

[stonecold3169]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The guy was directly involved in murdering innocent civilians. There is no statue of limitations for murder because murder is the ultimate crime. You can not heal someone that is dead, you can not repay them, you can not do anything for their families that continue to suffer. The only thing you can do is ensure that the guilty are tried and convicted in a court of law.

This man was nearly convicted once and was clearly involved in this case. He deserves to be punished and will ultimately stand before God with blood all over his hands.

To say that the jury is biased because three members are black is a testament to some of the stupidity in here.. The typical knee-jerk reaction that is so prevalent. The jury was balanced for once, all it would have taken was one white juror to holdout and a mistrial would have been called. Perhaps the poster wishes for a time where all white juries were the norm when going after KKK members or other race baiters.

I just wonder how the reaction would be if the roles were reversed, if a member of the Black Panthers from the 1960?s killed a bunch of white conservatives who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. People would be screaming for blood, but in this case I guess it?s ok to forgive and forget about the murderer of a couple of jews and negroes. No big deal

Also, your last comment makes you officially the ost racist person in here, assuming all white people like seeing negros and jews killed.

It is called sarcasm

So, answer me honestly. A white man, former kkk, is in a room, locked with 3 black men. Someone tell them there is a strong reason to believe that he killed other black men, or that he killed people trying to help their race gain freedom. Come back to that room in 3 hours. What condition do you think the white man is in?

You can't compare that situation to a jury that consist of your peers. If it was an all black jury I would have a problem with it, similiarly to all an white jury rigged to let the accused go free. The OJ trial is a great example of it in reverse.
This was a balanced jury that consisted of more whites than blacks. They obviously debated and settled for a manslaughter conviction, all of them voted for that conviction, so you can not say that the blacks on the jury were the reason for the conviction.

And I think that situation is comparable. I'm assuming you think that white man would be pummled. So lets say 3 hours pass, we go back, and the guy who told the black people that they had strong suspicion was that he heard it from his 3rd cousins uncle that he did it. Those black people beat the hell out of him without knowing because THEY ASSUMED HE WAS GUILTY

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: skace
I have a hard time believing some 80 year old cares what he did a billion years ago. Justice at that point is almost insulting to the victim.

Wow.

Thansk for reading my post earlier in this thread. And thanks for not holding any position to have anything to say about this.

'preesh.