Heroic Story, Contradictory Calls
Yet another example of people running with a story, apparently based on emotion instead of facts. It seems the reports of this heroic football player jumping to the rescue of his young nephew from drowning were perhaps premature. There are now questions about the truthfulness of Josh Shaw's statements.
I wonder if the truth will eventually get out, or if the first reports will be the lasting images and memories. In America's quest for a story many are forgetting to gather facts and evidence yet again.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
More Evidence Not Needed
Former Marine Brutally Beaten
So here we have vigilante justice. A group of men took it upon themselves to beat two men up, apparently because someone had to pay for Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, MO. As I made clear in my previous post, people are jumping into the fray without knowing any or all of the evidence in this case. And here justice means beating two white men in Mississippi, hundreds of miles away from Ferguson. No connection to the events in Ferguson at all, just vigilante justice. I hope all 20 of these men are found and brought to justice. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder puts all the resources of the FBI and DOJ on this case also.
So here we have vigilante justice. A group of men took it upon themselves to beat two men up, apparently because someone had to pay for Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, MO. As I made clear in my previous post, people are jumping into the fray without knowing any or all of the evidence in this case. And here justice means beating two white men in Mississippi, hundreds of miles away from Ferguson. No connection to the events in Ferguson at all, just vigilante justice. I hope all 20 of these men are found and brought to justice. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder puts all the resources of the FBI and DOJ on this case also.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Wait for the Evidence
I am truly disheartened by what has transpired in Ferguson, MO this month. I find that people who hare proclaiming guilt or innocence without fact or evidence are trampling on the rights of all of us to a fair trial. Claiming fairness to justify unfair treatment is true hypocrisy. Blaming the cop for shooting an unarmed black teen without evidence or fact is no difference that if that were truly the case. Those assuming facts not in evidence is exactly what you accuse this officer of doing.
In several cases in recent and not so recent history, Americans have jumped into the fray by taking sides of one party or another to claim guilt or innocence. When a high profile athlete is accused of rape, others rush in to claim he would never do it. When a white police officer shoots and kills a black teenager, many blacks and whites like jump in to claim murder by the cop.
If you were not in the hotel room with that man and that woman, you cannot possibly know if he did or did not. If she said yes or no. Without witnessing or without evidence, you cannot know if that shooter was defending himself legitimately or if he was being attacked.
What do any of us really know? With all the cases that have been made public, when someone is found either guilty or innocent in a court of law, why do so many people continue to take sides in the absence of evidence or fact?
Just this week we had a police officer in Texas shot and killed during a traffic stop. In recent years there have been many police shot with their own weapons, presumably by someone without his own weapon, or he would not have taken the officer's. It happens. It could have happened again.
Would you recommend someone you do not know for a job or cosign for a bank loan? Of course not, since you do not know who you would be endorsing. That person could be a high integrity individual who does not have the experience for the job, or the income for the loan payments. That person could be a criminal with violent history, or other reasons why you would not offer a job or loan. So why would you endorse the cop or the victim that was shot?
Without knowing exactly the events that lead to the shooting, or the knowledge that either party had as the encounter began, or the conditions of the parties involved, jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence is a bad thing. Our justice system, flawed as it may be, is designed to bring facts to bear so that an impartial party can decide the case. We must let that play out before the lynch mobs prevails.
When we have other high profile individuals, such as governors, cabinet members, and people who just show up on the scene, to decide without evidence of fact, we have gone wrong. Very wrong.
If we allow the presumption of guilt to be the force to decide all cases, we lose. Let's all think about the possibilities, wait for evidence to be discovered, then decide.
In several cases in recent and not so recent history, Americans have jumped into the fray by taking sides of one party or another to claim guilt or innocence. When a high profile athlete is accused of rape, others rush in to claim he would never do it. When a white police officer shoots and kills a black teenager, many blacks and whites like jump in to claim murder by the cop.
If you were not in the hotel room with that man and that woman, you cannot possibly know if he did or did not. If she said yes or no. Without witnessing or without evidence, you cannot know if that shooter was defending himself legitimately or if he was being attacked.
What do any of us really know? With all the cases that have been made public, when someone is found either guilty or innocent in a court of law, why do so many people continue to take sides in the absence of evidence or fact?
Just this week we had a police officer in Texas shot and killed during a traffic stop. In recent years there have been many police shot with their own weapons, presumably by someone without his own weapon, or he would not have taken the officer's. It happens. It could have happened again.
Would you recommend someone you do not know for a job or cosign for a bank loan? Of course not, since you do not know who you would be endorsing. That person could be a high integrity individual who does not have the experience for the job, or the income for the loan payments. That person could be a criminal with violent history, or other reasons why you would not offer a job or loan. So why would you endorse the cop or the victim that was shot?
Without knowing exactly the events that lead to the shooting, or the knowledge that either party had as the encounter began, or the conditions of the parties involved, jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence is a bad thing. Our justice system, flawed as it may be, is designed to bring facts to bear so that an impartial party can decide the case. We must let that play out before the lynch mobs prevails.
When we have other high profile individuals, such as governors, cabinet members, and people who just show up on the scene, to decide without evidence of fact, we have gone wrong. Very wrong.
If we allow the presumption of guilt to be the force to decide all cases, we lose. Let's all think about the possibilities, wait for evidence to be discovered, then decide.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Turn the Economy Loose
John Heyward of Human Events has a fine column today about corporate taxes and it shows the best way to really allow the US economy to fire on all cylinders.
Economic Patriotism and the End of Corporate Taxes
I"n the column Heyward makes reference to the Fair Tax. The learn more about that proposed change to our tax code, visit their site at FairTax Organization.
Economic Patriotism and the End of Corporate Taxes
I"n the column Heyward makes reference to the Fair Tax. The learn more about that proposed change to our tax code, visit their site at FairTax Organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)