Originally posted by Holly Danks in the 5/31/2004 OregonianA Portland lawyer says suffering by African Americans at the hands of slave owners is to blame in the death of a 2-year-old Beaverton boy.
Randall Vogt is offering the untested theory, called post traumatic slave syndrome, in his defense of Isaac Cortez Bynum, who is charged with murder by abuse in the June 30 death of his son, Ryshawn Lamar Bynum. Vogt says he will argue -- "in a general way" -- that masters beat slaves, so Bynum was justified in beating his son.
I am so sickened by this I don't know where to start. The fact that this son-of-a-bitch likely beat his son to death is so repulsive that it dwarfs any of the other accentuating factors that make this case newsworthy.
But then, the sheer GALL of his lawyer to blame slavery for the beating death is repulsive beyond all belief. Last I chcecked, the accused was not born prior to 1865, so this could be the most ludicrous defense in the history of trial by jury.
It's this kind of stuff that gives lawyers a bad name...
"If we will keep closing our eyes to evil, then that evil will defeat us tomorrow. Unfortunately there's more hatred in men than love. Those who murder understand only force and nothing else. And the only force that is able to stand against them is the American democracy."- Marek Edelman, last surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
"The Geneva Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution."- Alan Dershowitz
Three points for creative legal thinking, minus a million billion points for the blatant attempt to exploit both historical shame and current negative race relations to try and justify a totally appalling crime. As someone who feels that often the legal system is the only place that truly aggreived parties can find any justice I get pissed off seeing this ludicrous an attempt at abusing the system.
I think the only solution to these frivolous lawsuits & defenses, is to start threatening the lawyers who bring these cases with penalties & eventually with disbarment.
Right now there is nothing in place to stop a lawyer from throwing these ridiculous theories against the wall & hoping one sticks. If they thought it would cost them money & even their jobs, they might think twice before wasting the court's time...
Originally posted by JayJayDeanThis sorta thing could ONLY happen in Oregon.
Actually, this sounds more like something that would occur in California or Massachusetts. Of course, there probably would be at least a 50-50 shot they could find a judge who would go along with it in those 2 states.
Considering Yogi Bear doesn't wake up until noon, yet gets every picnic basket that is in Jellystone Park, wouldn't it behoove Ranger Smith to advise those entering the park to consume the contents of said picnic baskets before noon?
Originally posted by JayJayDeanThis sorta thing could ONLY happen in Oregon.
Actually, this sounds more like something that would occur in California or Massachusetts. Of course, there probably would be at least a 50-50 shot they could find a judge who would go along with it in those 2 states.
You're all really underestimating Florida's penchant/gift for producing idiotic legal cases, in that this sounds like one of those cases that could have happened only HERE. But then again it could just be we're all biased about our home turfs.
I just sent that story to a friend of mine who works in child services here, and the first thing my friend wrote back was "that has to be in all the years I've handled cases, the most ridiculous justification for child abuse I've ever heard, and I've heard every ridculous justification 3 times each"
Originally posted by Von MaestroI think the only solution to these frivolous lawsuits & defenses, is to start threatening the lawyers who bring these cases with penalties & eventually with disbarment.
Right now there is nothing in place to stop a lawyer from throwing these ridiculous theories against the wall & hoping one sticks. If they thought it would cost them money & even their jobs, they might think twice before wasting the court's time...
I'm not familiar with the US state legal systems, but this type of argument would not likely be tolerated in B.C. The judiciary here takes a very dim view of lawyers abusing the system with such patently ridiculous arguments. Recent arguments of this type (though nothing so offensive) have seen contempt citations from the Bench and investigations and disciplinary proceedings from the Law Society. Other remedies open to the Court for such flagrant abuses of process are awarding legal costs to the other side, to be paid personally by the offending counsel.
The remedies and sanctions are available, Courts merely need to apply them.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts" --Bertrand Russell
I have said this before and I will say it again. Slavery arguments are BS until Americans start telling the truth about slavery. It is sad that the majority of Americans base their "knowledge" of slavery off the miniseries Roots. Not even the book but the t.v. show. Slavery was wrong and is still wrong. One of the greatest evil of mankind's. But to believe that only white people in the Southern US had slaves is complete crap. Tell the truth about the current state of slavery and also the past. Slavery is common for a certain level of technology and dies out as transport for bulk food grows cheaper. Also the specific argument even if true is complete crap. If the defendant is black then wouldn't his son be black? How does killing his own son make life better for the black community? Or make life worse for the white community? There is still a lot of racism out there. I am a white man so I am sure there is a lot more than I know but murdering a toddler isn't ever justified. I live in Oregon which isn't all the liberal just the 3 cities where all the newspapers and t.v stations are based out of. Is this going to get the same press as the cops who killed the unarmed black man? The one who was on crack and was reaching for something that didn't end up being a gun? Of course not.
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
The point we are missing in the discussion, is that the father said (basically) "YES, I DID IT! But, here is my excuse......"
Anybody who harms a child, especially murders thier own child, should be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment, until they are dead, however long that may take.
Originally posted by canuckloverI'm not familiar with the US state legal systems, but this type of argument would not likely be tolerated in B.C. The judiciary here takes a very dim view of lawyers abusing the system with such patently ridiculous arguments. Recent arguments of this type (though nothing so offensive) have seen contempt citations from the Bench and investigations and disciplinary proceedings from the Law Society. Other remedies open to the Court for such flagrant abuses of process are awarding legal costs to the other side, to be paid personally by the offending counsel.
The remedies and sanctions are available, Courts merely need to apply them.
The problems with the US legal system is that such bunk is tolerated. And it is enabled by judges on certain benches that allow such bunk to continue, as well as sympathetic juries. If this case were tried in a city with a large black population, I would say that it would be very likley he would be acquitted based on that argument solely by jury nullification.
"If we will keep closing our eyes to evil, then that evil will defeat us tomorrow. Unfortunately there's more hatred in men than love. Those who murder understand only force and nothing else. And the only force that is able to stand against them is the American democracy."- Marek Edelman, last surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
"The Geneva Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution."- Alan Dershowitz
Originally posted by GrimisIf this case were tried in a city with a large black population, I would say that it would be very likley he would be acquitted based on that argument solely by jury nullification.
This is insane. Please give us a little more credit than that. Black people can see that this is rediculous just as easily as anybody else.
Originally posted by GrimisIf this case were tried in a city with a large black population, I would say that it would be very likley he would be acquitted based on that argument solely by jury nullification.
This is insane. Please give us a little more credit than that. Black people can see that this is rediculous just as easily as anybody else.
Besides, even in, say, Mobile, Alabama, the odds are extremely against forming a jury of twelve without one of us whiteys getting in there to prevent it. Because we're white.
“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreezeThis is insane. Please give us a little more credit than that. Black people can see that this is rediculous just as easily as anybody else.
OJ....
OJ is the poster child for jury nullification. I would hope that a jury would not buy this guy's load of bunk. But given the prevelance of jury nullification in big-city trials, I wouldn't be that confident of it.
"If we will keep closing our eyes to evil, then that evil will defeat us tomorrow. Unfortunately there's more hatred in men than love. Those who murder understand only force and nothing else. And the only force that is able to stand against them is the American democracy."- Marek Edelman, last surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
"The Geneva Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution."- Alan Dershowitz
Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreezeThis is insane. Please give us a little more credit than that. Black people can see that this is rediculous just as easily as anybody else.
OJ....
OJ is the poster child for jury nullification. I would hope that a jury would not buy this guy's load of bunk. But given the prevelance of jury nullification in big-city trials, I wouldn't be that confident of it.
Remember, If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreezeThis is insane. Please give us a little more credit than that. Black people can see that this is rediculous just as easily as anybody else.
OJ....
OJ is the poster child for jury nullification. I would hope that a jury would not buy this guy's load of bunk. But given the prevelance of jury nullification in big-city trials, I wouldn't be that confident of it.
I am a white cracker from the burbs who at the time of the OJ trial was Newt Gingrich's biggest fan. And having watched that trial (I was laid up with a broken leg all that summer, nothing else was on) I understood how a jury could find "Reasonable Doubt". That was the most botched prosecution imaginable, they muffed what should have been a totally easy to nail case. OJ's lawyers were so far ahead of the DA's crew it was not even funny. And yes, African-Americans were more likely to believe he was innocent, but on the flipside whites were ready to write him off from the get-go, so to me you have two equally closed-minded approaches at work here.
And again, the white folks on the OJ jury have never complained about the verdict they rendered. Something must have convinced them as well.
I told myself to stay out of this kind of thread but Oh Well. You can put forth any defense you want but it doesn't mean the courts will alllow it or the jury will buy it. They wanted pub and golly their getting it.
I keep hoping race baiting and responses to it will stop but I am naive. Why let your blood boil over every idiot out there.
The guy sounds like scum and I hope if he did it he is convicted. He does sound nuts though.
Originally posted by spf2119I am a white cracker from the burbs who at the time of the OJ trial was Newt Gingrich's biggest fan.
For some reason, I can picture this almost as much as I can picture myself wearing a Yankees cap and celebrating Ted Kennedy Day.
(edited by redsoxnation on 2.6.04 2021) Considering Yogi Bear doesn't wake up until noon, yet gets every picnic basket that is in Jellystone Park, wouldn't it behoove Ranger Smith to advise those entering the park to consume the contents of said picnic baskets before noon?
Originally posted by spf2119And again, the white folks on the OJ jury have never complained about the verdict they rendered.
Because stupidity shows no racial prejudice?
Originally posted by Grimis And it is enabled by judges on certain benches that allow such bunk to continue, as well as sympathetic juries. If this case were tried in a city with a large black population, I would say that it would be very likley he would be acquitted based on that argument solely by jury nullification.
While I agree that there are certain judges that are idiots, the second part of this quote is ridiculous. Come on Grimis, you're better than that, no?
Originally posted by spf2119I am a white cracker from the burbs who at the time of the OJ trial was Newt Gingrich's biggest fan.
For some reason, I can picture this almost as much as I can picture myself wearing a Yankees cap and celebrating Ted Kennedy Day.
That's nothing - back in the early days of the Clinton administration, I watched Rush Limbaugh's syndicated show religiously and took half of my political belief system from it, no questions asked.
('Course, I was twelve. And I took the rest of my political belief system from Michael Moore's "TV Nation", and I still don't fully understand how both shows could've jived in my head at once, but they did.)
Why shouldn't he be allowed to try this defense? If it really is shit, he won't win his case, and he will go to prison. If he has a valid case, which from the looks of things he does not, he will go free. This is little more than a variation of a plea of insanity. He says he's insane because of slavery, which is stupid, but it's insanity all the same. You can't tell the guy he isn't allowed to defend himself just because you've decided before the trial even begins that his defense is invalid.
Thread ahead: MSNBC Report: Operative Warned FBI of 9/11 Attack in September 2000 Next thread: Sen. Murray: Students should ponder bin Laden's popularity Previous thread: Kerry's Veep
Napoleon Dynamite, that is. I know this isn't anything new, but I don't remember seeing this posted anywhere on here. My roommate just pointed it out to me today.