King Cobra said:
Nope. What it says is: if I go around objecting to much of what is said in the news, then I'll never learn anything from it. But let's say that it did give power to the state. I don't care.
I don't object to the media saying these things. All they're doing is reporting on what the police said. I object to people not seeing this for what it is: Nothing even remotely interesting until someone's proven guilty.
Again, we don't even know if there is any hard evidence to show a crime was actually committed here!
King Cobra said:
The police and Sgt. Ken Henning have no accountability??
That's exactly what I'm saying--in this context, the police are never held to account if their press releases turn out to be total lies.
When's the last time you heard (outside from in the movies) a police department apologize for falsely accusing a suspect? They don't even care. A lot of the time they STILL think the person is guilty even after they're found not guilty in court.
You know in some states, there's a
maximum IQ for cops?
That's their job though, I don't hold it against them. They're supposed to be thugs who run around bagging people and it's the JUDICIAL branch who sorts out the mess they made.
The thing I'm pointing out is: we should recognize that fact, and not assume these people are right all, or even most the time.
King Cobra said:
Well let's say that the boy was found not guilty, regardless of all the odds against him, and that we (the readers of the report, first assuming his guilt) find out that he was not guilty.
Would we? When's the last time you heard of one of these cases ending in acquittal? I
ASSURE you they have a good portion of the time, it just doesn't make headlines.
Think about it: Why are they reporting on this to begin with? Was the lady someone famous? Will it effect anyone aside from people in that community?
The answer is, to sell newspapers. They don't want to tell you that crime is at an all time low, or that things are, in some ways, better than ever. That doesn't sell.
Don't blame the media though, just blame the people who don't have the common sense to see the obvious.
King Cobra said:
The thing is: It would only be a once in a while case in which the minority of odds won, i.e., the minority of news reports state one thing about a legal case, but are then refuted by later reports. (O.J. Simpson anyone?). Had the majority of news reports been false or refutable, then we would spot obvious contradictions in most news articles we read about an issue with regard to the central idea of the issue and not just little points each would make. Thus, it makes more logical sense to assume (or imply) that what the media says is true rather than false.
There's been ONE juvenile petition, and that's where ALL the news reports are coming. If they contradicted eachother, that'd be just ridiculous.
THE REPORT IS MERELY QUOTING POLICE, NOT INVESTIGATING THE CLAIM.
The media is not lying, no matter what. The police are the ones who would have fouled up, if indeed the boy is innocent.
King Cobra said:
But now let's say that he is guilty. His life is still ruined, because he faces humiliation in jail, and then humiliation back out on the streets. Had he never terrorized the lady in the first place, he wouldn't have done that damage to himself.
If he's guilty, fry his ass. Until I find out conclusively that he is, I'm not going to run around saying "oh what a world, what a world."