Who should be arrested?

[nonlnear]

With recent headlines about various miscarriages of justice I can't help but wonder about the relative importance of various notorious stories to the fabric of American society. Consider two men who some people allege "should be arrested" for various reasons. Which of these alleged miscarriages of justice is symptomatic of greater systemic injustices? Comparing the evolution of the media profiles of the two stories, what can we infer about the media's role in bringing alleged injustices of various types to the public's attention?

Poll coming.

 

[Craig234]

I don't care to play justice off each other this way. They're separate issues and there's no need to choose.

 

[nonlnear]

I don't care to play justice off each other this way. They're separate issues and there's no need to choose.

I'm not really getting at a weighting of various evils (which I agree is a silly direction to take it), but comparing the media profiles with the relative significance of the public interests that these incidents represent.

 

[QuantumPion]

Why arrest either one? If they are accused of a crime, indict them. If grand jury finds sufficient evidence, then go to trial. If convicted by a jury, then send to prison. That's how our justice system works in this country. Neither person is a violent offender whom poses immediate harm to society. If either one was indicted, they would surely be eligible for bail.

 

[nonlnear]

Why arrest either one? If they are accused of a crime, indict them. If grand jury finds sufficient evidence, then go to trial. If convicted by a jury, then send to prison. That's how our justice system works in this country.

Are you sure about that? The first step in the process you laid out is broken in at least one of these cases.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not really getting at a weighting of various evils (which I agree is a silly direction to take it), but comparing the media profiles with the relative significance of the public interests that these incidents represent.

These things are easy to create confusion about. What's more important, one person's life or a billion dollars - and what do our policies say is how we answer that?

 

[QuantumPion]

Are you sure about that? The first step in the process you laid out is broken in at least one of these cases.

Well no, I'm not a lawyer. But I'm pretty sure that's how things work. So is your question which of those two individuals should be indicted? Because I think the district attorney of Florida is currently investigating the facts of the Zimmerman shooting to determine whether an indictment is warranted. As for Corzine, well, obviously his political connections keep him shielded.

 

[nonlnear]

These things are easy to create confusion about. What's more important, one person's life or a billion dollars - and what do our policies say is how we answer that?

Your second sentence is an interesting accompaniment to the first. The way you phrased your question is an example of how easy it is to create confusion about these issues. Framing the legal response to a death as being about the importance of a life detracts from the real issues: evidence and, (presuming that there is evidence sufficient to indict) how society ought to react to said evidence. Society's reaction to a death can never really be abotu the "value of a life" as that is an absurdly unquantifiable thing. (Or rather, people who talk abotu the value of life in the ordinary sense are generally repulsed by any substantial attempt to answer it with economic analysis. I infer from that that the question is generally posed in bad faith or ignorance of its meaning.)

Granted I don't think you were deliberately trying to muddy the water here, but these ordinary terms that we are used to jumping to (the value of a life, etc.) are actually damaging to any efffective discussion about what society ought to do.

No law can restore the value of a life. Even people who talk about the value of a life don't actually expect that. The "value of a life" is a rhetorical device used to polarize the discussion. (This is almost universally true in all policy discussions where it is used.) The real issue in the Martin/Zimmerman incident (and all homicides) is the value of a reaction to a death.

 

[nonlnear]

So is your question which of those two individuals should be indicted?

I phrased the question using arrest because that is the terminology I have heard used by many protesting the handling of the Martin case. My mind keeps replaying a certain sound clip of a man saying "Arrest Zimmerman!". That's what was on my mind when I wrote the poll. In hindsight it might have made more sense to ask about indictment.

 

[QuantumPion]

I phrased the question using arrest because that is the terminology I have heard used by many protesting the handling of the Martin case. My mind keeps replaying a certain sound clip of a man saying "Arrest Zimmerman!". That's what was on my mind when I wrote the poll. In hindsight it might have made more sense to ask about indictment.

As I said, the DA is currently investigating the evidence to determine whether to indict Zimmerman. Our justice system is not based on lynch mobs. We do not arrest people because a mob demands it. As for Corzine, I imagine that there just is not enough direct evidence to prove there was a crime committed or that he was involved.

 

[werepossum]

At this point I'm not sure either should be arrested, but I'm not prepared to say neither should be arrested without qualifying it "until there is sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime." I'm more inclined to declare Corzine guilty, but generally a life taken is more important than a billion dollars taken, so I can't place a hierarchy between the two.

 

[FoBoT]

you either believe/trust our justice system works or you don't
this idea that the public has enough information within a short time about these types of situation to act as judge/jury/executioner with any accuracy is laughable

 

[nonlnear]

you either believe/trust our justice system works or you don't

I don't know what this means. Is this like when Bush said you are either with us or you are against us?

this idea that the public has enough information within a short time about these types of situation to act as judge/jury/executioner with any accuracy is laughable

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[BoberFett]

Why should George Zimmerman be arrested? What do you have against the Men's Wearhouse?

 

[woolfe9999]

Corzine's conduct, whether criminal or not, has much further reaching consequences to society than Zimmerman's. The Z case will be largely forgotten in a year. Whether Corzine's case is forgotten or not, it's impact will continue. The disparate media profile between the two is inevitable. Deaths that meet certain criteria for high profile media coverage attract more attention than white collar crimes.

 

[Infohawk]

What are the claims against Corzine?

 

[nonlnear]

What are the claims against Corzine?

Using client funds to cover expenses which are not allowed to be paid with client funds. He did the standard bankster "I didn't know about the details until way after the fact" dance before Congress a few months ago but it's little more than a bad joke.

link

Diane Genova, the JPMorgan deputy general counsel, says in her prepared testimony that the bank "reached out" to Corzine on Oct. 28 to discuss money transferred from a customer account to settle an overdraft on the firm's account in London. The bank asked Corzine for written assurance that the funds met federal regulations.

"Mr. Corzine said he understood the request and would have someone within his organization review it," Genova says in her testimony. She says JPMorgan received "multiple clear oral assurances" from senior MF Global executives that the firm complied with the rules in the transfer.

Edith O'Brien, a former assistant treasurer at MF Global, has been subpoenaed to testify. She did not submit any prepared testimony for the year.

But lawmakers will press her about an email she wrote, which was cited in a memo released by the panel on Friday. It refers to the transfer of $200 million that was made "per JC's direct instructions."

 

[Moonbeam]

With recent headlines about various miscarriages of justice I can't help but wonder about the relative importance of various notorious stories to the fabric of American society. Consider two men who some people allege "should be arrested" for various reasons. Which of these alleged miscarriages of justice is symptomatic of greater systemic injustices? Comparing the evolution of the media profiles of the two stories, what can we infer about the media's role in bringing alleged injustices of various types to the public's attention?

Poll coming.

I really don't know but the only things that occur to me are these:

In the case of the banker, I think both sides of the political spectrum are owned by them, and the folk who own the media are in the bankers camp so there will be little in the way of motivation to get him.

In the shooting case, there is a charge of racial discrimination which the Right will want to deny and the left to prosecute, so MSNBC etc, will go after him and Fox will defend him.

The truth, it would seem, is always about whose ox gets gored.

But as I have come to the conclusion that you are a far more subtle and deep thinker than what I'm used to dealing with it's not that hard for me to imagine you may be getting at something I don't begin to understand.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Why should Zimmerman be in jail? Until he is charged, which is to say, until they have evidence, he cannot and should not be arrested.

And they have no evidence on him, eyewitness accounts at odds with each other.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why should Zimmerman be in jail? Until he is charged, which is to say, until they have evidence, he cannot and should not be arrested.

And they have no evidence on him, eyewitness accounts at odds with each other.

The evidence that Zimmerman is quilt of murder is practically incontrovertible. The problem is going to be convincing those who do not want to see it and in overcoming the problems with those who were instrumental in covering it up.

 

[monovillage]

Thanks nonlnear! I love voting in these polls.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The evidence that Zimmerman is quilt of murder is practically incontrovertible. The problem is going to be convincing those who do not want to see it and in overcoming the problems with those who were instrumental in covering it up.

Really? Did you not read that there is a witness saying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him? And that Cutcher's account only places Zimmerman over the dead body - not over Martin before the shot was fired. That the injuries Zimmerman sustained match the story that his head hit the pavement.

Is Zimmerman a moron for pursuing Martin? Yes. Did he murder in cold blood? With all I've read from news articles, no he did not.

More to the point, that you think the evidence is incontrovertible is just funny. Even if you forget the witness saying Zimmerman was being beaten, Cutcher's account doesn't give conclusive evidence. But feel free to wear your tin foil hat.

 

[nonlnear]

More to the point, that you think the evidence is incontrovertible is just funny. Even if you forget the witness saying Zimmerman was being beaten, Cutcher's account doesn't give conclusive evidence. But feel free to wear your tin foil hat.

I don't think Moonbeam is particularly concerned with the legal question of murder.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think Moonbeam is particularly concerned with the legal question of murder.

Well, as I said, I am not sure I am capable of seeing what you mean. I am not sure I understand what the legal question of murder is so I can't really know if I'm concerned or not. I am sure you mean something quite relevant by the 'legal question of murder' but I don't know what.

All I know is that a man with a gun went after a teen with candy walking home from a store and the kid wound up dead. I know that the man was told not to go after the kid and did anyway. I also know that by Florida law the kid had a right to kill the man because a man with a gun coming after you is a deadly threat. So the Florida law designed to protect the kid got turned on it's head. Of course, had he beaten the man to death before he got shot, he would likely have been arrested and charged with murder.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Well, as I said, I am not sure I am capable of seeing what you mean. I am not sure I understand what the legal question of murder is so I can't really know if I'm concerned or not. I am sure you mean something quite relevant by the 'legal question of murder' but I don't know what.

All I know is that a man with a gun went after a teen with candy walking home from a store and the kid wound up dead. I know that the man was told not to go after the kid and did anyway. I also know that by Florida law the kid had a right to kill the man because a man with a gun coming after you is a deadly threat. So the Florida law designed to protect the kid got turned on it's head. Of course, had he beaten the man to death before he got shot, he would likely have been arrested and charged with murder.

Negative on Martin being allowed to kill: If you believe Zimmerman's account, he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him. If this is true, both Martin AND Zimmerman are complete idiots. If Zimmerman just was following Martin and then Martin turned to confront Zimmerman and then Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin is still in the wrong.

You must fear for your life (or in my state, the lives of others) before lethal force is allowed. If someone just walks up to me, gets in my face and yells at me...or is just following me around, I cannot turn around and shoot him. If when I turn around he brandishes a gun while moving towards me, or pointing it at me...or even a knife...then I fear for my life, can stand my ground and blow a hole through him.

My point is that we have ONE witness account of the attack itself, the rest are people in their homes who did not see clearly, or people commenting on what they say AFTER shots were fired. That singular witness account says Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shot was fired. That's not to say this clears him, for all we know he started a fight and ended up losing badly, so he pulled his gun. But evidence does seem to support that at some point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him.

The burden for the law is to prove that Zimmerman killed while not fearing for his life, or that he started the fight himself (following != starting) - if they cannot prove that, Zimmerman walks. And if Zimmerman walks, I fully expect to see a repeat of the Rodney King riots.