From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: The NYPD situation (was: Say it ain't so)
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:26:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.045827.24627@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.022407.13776@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>Not only was Nelson deserving of a fair trial, it was the
>>responsibility of society to give him one.  The "show" trial that
>>acquitted him in spite of the evidence is a shame to us all.

>Oh, again, Jake somehow is smarter than the jurors.  

Oh, again, David knows what's in the mind of the jurors.  

>The fact that the
>evidence convinced *him* is enough.  

I was not the only one enraged by the verdict.  Had you bothered to
read the newspapers - you know, the ones that support that evil WOD
that you so despise - you would have seen that Norman Rosenbaum was
enraged as well.  Not to mention the thousands of people who
demonstrated in Crown Heights after the verdict.  And the tens of
thousands of Jews who have come to see it as a personal threat, since
then. 

>Actually, it wasn't the evidence.
>It was the newpaper reporting of the evidence.

Yeah, right, Norman Rosenbaum just read the papers.

>If the jurors don't draw the same conclusion from the evidence that Jake
>does, they must be biased.

Your presumption only; I have never said this.  Just one of many
things you have been saying erroneously in my name.  Poor debating
technique. 

>>In the US, people go through court before they go to prison.
>
>Not according to you.  According to you, if the evidence is strong
>enough, we ought to convict them.  Not give them a trial, just convict
>them.  

I haven't ever said this.

>If the first jury doesn't do it, we ought to retry them.  You
>said it in an earlier post.  

Well, now that you mention it, this seems to be what they have tried
the Rodney King case in LA, right?  And with a police officer accused
of improperly shooting a Black youth in New Jersey.  It's unfortunate
that people of different skin color are being treated differently by
the courts in the US these days, but such is the price of Political
Correctness, eh?

>>I'm saying that the jury should have considered the evidence, instead
>>of throwing it out in a theory of police conspiracy against minorities.
>
>They did.  Only *you* have a conspiracy theory in this case.  

Don't make this so personal.  Haven't you read the editorials in the
papers?  Oh, sorry, you don't believe anything in the "evil" newspapers.

>A conspiracy theory about black people not being able to be unbiased.

Demonstrated time and again in the court system.  Other posters here
have testified to this in the last 2-3 weeks.  (You probably still
think that it's just *me*, right?)

>They just listened to their evil leader, Mayor Dinkins, as he told them
>to acquit a guilty person.

Dinkins didn't tell the jury to acquit a guilty person.  He has,
however:

- permitted rioting Black mobs to pursue Jews for days on end, without
  providing adequate police protection;
- refused to acknowledge his mistake in this;
- tried to portray Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn as equally guilty when
  they attacked and stopped a burglar from commiting his "craft", even
  declared the Hasidim guilty of a "bias attack" before the police
  even had the information.  
- Dinkins refused to admit mistaken judgement in this case, as well.  
  He keeps on losing White support.

Perhaps the message he is giving the NEXT jury is that they can acquit
a guilty person.

>>This is precisely why I am so incensed that some juries have refused
>>to convict the defendant, irrespective of any evidence that may be
>>brought.  Such actions are indeed substituting mob rule for justice
>>here in the USA.
>
>Or maybe the evidence just wasn't strong enough.

As one judge told me, "There isn't a jury in Brooklyn that would
convict this guy."  Strength of Evidence had nothing to do with it.

>>I've been arguing with lawyers who have steadfastly claimed that their
>>system is working just fine.  It's not.
>
>I'm not arguing that at all, 

What you ar doing certainly doesn't amount to a debate either. 
Should we call it "blather"?

>and I'm not a lawyer.  

Oh, really?  Then what's your excuse for all the religious
obfuscation?

>I'm arguing that
>this trial falls well short of proving your claim that the system is not
>working.

Yankel Rosenbaum's murderer, his 2 dozen accomplices, as well as
the hundreds of rioters who looted and burned Crown Heights, are all
still walking the streets.  The system is not working.  You can't
escape that fact, even if the real murderer was actually a Martian.

>No, Jake.  There's no danger in saying that juries have to vote one way
>or they'll be punished.  It worked great in Stalinist Russia, why can't
>it work here?

Sorry, David, you've missed the point completely - as usual.

I am saying that juries should be UNBIASED, not that they should
automatically convict/acquit based on some external and irrelevant
factor.  The fact is, in the USA today, especially in places like NYC,
unbiased juries are hard to find.

>>I may not have the answers but I can sure say that the current system
>>is infamous for it's expense and for it's inability to achieve a
>>consistent level of justice.  With many juries, we might as well toss
>>a quarter. 
>
>You still haven't shown this.  You've claimed it many times, but that
>doesn't make it true.  And saying "This case didn't turn out how I'd
>like it to, therefore this case was wrong, therefore the system is
>messed up" just won't do it.

How many more murderers will have to be acquitted before you recognize
that the system is seriously flawed.  When an acquitted murderer
returns to kill someone close to you, will THAT be when you wake up? 

>The US is also infamous for having an oversupply of lawyers.  Too bad
>that it isn't true, despite what Dan Quayle said.

Good grief, I see that you really aren't a lawyer, after all!

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish