search results matching tag: settlement

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (79)     Sift Talk (7)     Blogs (4)     Comments (312)   

A Scary Time

Mordhaus says...

The alleged victim's testimony was the extent of the prosecution's case against Perry and Counts. There was no physical evidence linking them to the crime.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/07/convictions-vacated-26-year-old-rape/588406002/

It was Banks’ word against hers and she was not likely to change her story. After all, Gibson sued the Long Beach Unified School District claiming the school’s lax security provided an unsafe environment that led to the fraudulent rape. She would eventually receive a settlement of 1.5 million dollars.

Brian Banks was faced with an impossible decision at the time – either fight the charges and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal and spend a little over 5 years of actual prison confinement. Although it would mean destroying his chance to go to college and play football, a lengthy probationary period, and a lifetime of registration as a sex offender, Banks chose the lesser of two evils when he pleaded no contest to the charges.

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/brian-banks/


I'd look up more, but I have to go pick up my wife from work.

ChaosEngine said:

You can totally be against both. Most reasonable people are.

What you shouldn't do is assume that they are both equally bad and equally prevalent (important note: I'm not saying @bcglorf is doing this.... but other people are definitely doing this).

Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave.

Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence. The numbers are hard to come by, but it's not even 1% of actual rapes (nevermind lesser sexual assault like groping, etc).

Finally, where is the abandoning of proof and evidence? Show me someone who has been convicted of sexual assault without any evidence. There's a big difference between accepting an allegation is worth looking into and convicting that person.

If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean their alleged assailant is guilty though.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies are basically inventing this narrative of victimhood where women are on the lookout for men to falsely accuse of rape, which is patently bullshit.

Can I have my rims back?

bcglorf says...

Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

Drachen_Jager said:

People in Canada ARE talking about it for the first time.

First Nations people had their entire culture turned upside-down by the government of Canada and the Catholic Church. They were torn from their homes, raised in abusive conditions in institutions that expected them to conform to European norms, and even when they met those norms they were mentally and physically abused.

Now people are surprised that a generation of abused children makes for poor parents? The criminal problem with First Nations people is one that European Canadians created. It is a problem that's been ignored for far too long.

People like this need help. They do not need to see the inside of yet another cell.

Man sues city for discriminatory hiring...

Mordhaus says...

My biggest issue with these settlements is that, instead of finding the person (or people) that discriminated against him and punishing them, they simply award a massive monetary amount to the victim.

Now unless the city has a special insurance to cover situations like this (most don't), that money isn't coming out of the pockets of the guilty only. It is coming out of the pockets of all of the taxpayers, of ALL ethnic groups. So not only are you punishing the 'evil' 40ish percent of white taxpayers, you are actually punishing more non-white ones.

You might say, "Well, it is only some additional property taxes." Typically, though, even small increases in property tax hit the poorest people first and can lead to gentrification as property values increase as well.

Ironically if he doesn't end up moving, he'll actually be paying for a proportionally small part of his own settlement.

Ladies.. here is why 99% of Guys don't approach you..

newtboy says...

Sorry, but I disagree.

Touching a shoulder or hand can be enough to be accused of abuse.
Shit, just look at Shawn White, who was in a band with friends, and is now accused of sexual harassment for telling bandmates how he wants them to dress on stage, like most band leaders do, and for "making" her (and other friends) watch 2 girls 1 cup, like most teenagers/immature people did....publicly accused after settling with the band member who complained long after the fact and who accepted a settlement to drop it.
If that's sexual harassment, every man is guilty....as is every woman. Your parents are monsters, they actually forced you to wear what they said. Context is irrelevant.

Yes, today, asking a co-worker out and nothing more can and has led to harassment accusations and removal from their job....Jeffrey Tambor today, and he's never even heard what the accusations against him are or who made them, but he's already fired and his show, transparent, is certainly cancelled.

It's not that the whole world paints all men as rapists, it's that when any one person does paint any man (except Trump) as an abuser, the whole world seems to back them up without investigation or evidence. That's a problem, and is terrifying to many single men.

And women wonder why sexbots are becoming more popular daily, it's because to many men, their precious fairy vaginas aren't worth the risk of permanent scarlet lettering when there's a safe alternative. I just hope this has the positive effect of slowing population growth.

It's not about doing something that one thinks might lead to accusations, it's that any interactions can, and there's no recourse at all if you're accused, you're considered guilty off the bat.

Jinx said:

I'm usually more worried that I am going to be rejected by somebody I have to, you know, see again on Monday morning. I kinda feel that If you are genuinely concerned that asking somebody out could be seen as sexual harassment...then you might be doing it wrong. Yeah, I think it is unfair and sexist that men are expected to the ones to initiate (unfair on both sexes actually...), but let's not go overstate things and pretend that our difficulties finding a partner is because the world wants to paint us all as rapists.

Royal Oaks Police Attack Man For Paying Ticket In Pennies

Nurse Arrested For Not Taking Unconscious Victim's Blood

John Oliver - Joe Arpaio

newtboy says...

Jesus Fucking Christ...he was convicted by judges of violating a legal judicial order and the constitution...not by Obama of being an old white guy. You drank more Trump coolaid, but this cup has made you thoroughly un-American.

Is that really what you call the best sheriff...someone who unapologetically violates the law and constitution at every turn, who abuses not only the convicted (still evil and illegal, btw) but also the merely accused in a jail he himself bragged was a concentration camp. That's how he treats American citizens who've not been convicted of a thing....and it's how he deserves to spend the remainder of his life.

If I held you (or your daughter) in a 145 deg tent, feeding you rotten balogne, offering no medical treatment while hoping you die of heat stroke, you would call me a terrorist, but because Joe violated mostly Hispanics (not even Mexicans, mostly legal Hispanic Americans) you call him the best sheriff...and you still tell yourself you aren't racist.

He cost his county well over $140 million in settlements for his victims, with hundreds of millions more in the courts still being litigated. The number of deaths in his jail are exponentially higher than the norm, with most going uninvestigated and fewer (none) being prosecuted (they just pay off the family a few million taxpayer dollars and move on to the next victim).

You really have to be shoving you head even farther up your own ass to even give Arpaio and Trump the benefit of a doubt at this point...he's gleefully admitted all his crimes as if they aren't illegal, and Trump made him right, violating the constitution and thumbing your nose at the court orders is perfectly fine in Trump's America, so long as you support him.

Jesus Fucknig Christ, bob. Next you'll be supporting Trump's pardon of Sheik Muhammad and other Daesh fighters...who were also the victims of an "Obama witch hunt".

You claimed to hate Obama because you've been convinced by drug addled blowhards (Limbaugh, Jones) that he subverted our rule of law to fit his agenda...yet here you are cheerleading Trump and Arpaio uncontrovertibly doing exactly that. Just because you agree with this particular agenda (subverting the constitution to forcefully eject illegal immigrants of one specific nationality) doesn't change the act you claim to hate, subversion of our constitution, laws, and government.

bobknight33 said:

Arpaio's mom told him hill never be a great singer So he became a Americas best sheriff.

Trump just reversing Obama's witch hunt of this man.

What happens when a wild wolf approaches a pet dog

TheFreak says...

I think this narration makes a lot of assumptions.

That wolf was never domesticated. Domestication is a genetic adaptation that involves retaining juvenile traits that allow an animal to overcome the boundary that would instinctively cause them to flee or fight. This would take many generations. You can imagine how that adaptation would be advantageous to animals that benefit from living at the edges of human settlement.

There's no way to know why that wolf interacted the way it did but it was wild and posed a potential risk due to it's instinctive programming.

Happy that it remained an uplifting story. But it's not responsible to spread the narrative that you can domesticate a wild animal.

Lawyer Refuses to answer questions, gets arrested

C-note says...

She's lucky to have been taken into custody with all her teeth and without the beat down she would have gotten if she were a black or brown skinned male. Demonstrating a knowledge of the law has been proven to be the main cause of police escalating a minor road side stop to a violent and possibly deadly encounter if you are not white and male. Hope the settlement includes mandatory training for the municipalities police force.

Lawyer Refuses to answer questions, gets arrested

Diogenes says...

AFAIK, New Jersey doesn't have a "Stop and Identify" law, so this was a Terry stop no-no (Terry v. Ohio). She was under no obligation to answer their questions. As long as she provided her license, registration and proof of insurance, it looked like they had no reasonable basis for the arrest. I'd guess those cops were "rookies" since, as reported, they only had a year-and-change of experience on the force. Supervisor was right to let her go and release her car from impound, but I don't think she'll get any kind of monetary settlement from her suit.

Spawn - The Rise of Image Comics

ChaosEngine says...

I never really got into Spawn and Rob Liefeld... well, google Rob Liefeld and the first result is The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings.

It's also kind of ironic that despite Image's entire raison d'etre being "creator's rights", they ended up in a legal battle with Neil Gaiman over a character Gaiman created for McFarlane.

That said, Image are putting out some amazing work these days. If you like comics or sci-fi and you're not reading Saga or Black Science, you're missing out. Seriously, go read them now.

Side note: I know purists probably hate digital comics, and as someone who owns 5 volumes of Ultimate Sandman, I do like a real book, but digital comics are goddamn awesome.

Man Arrested & Punched for Sitting on Mom's Front Porch

John Oliver - Refugee Crisis

bcglorf (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

If they were really separated populations, that might be OK (immigrating to the Jewish held territories), but they weren't. The lived in the same areas for the most part, they just didn't intermingle so much socially (although WAY more than they do today).....but expansionist settlements were and are a major sticking point to resolving the conflict, so even if there was a Jewish territory to migrate to, they wouldn't stay in it, and that's a major problem. The governing body of the area didn't want them, and the immigrants armed themselves and fought that government (and beat it senseless), to me, invaders. Your feelings may differ, I get it, I think we understand each other and disagree...and that's fine.

I don't think the US was as closed as you imply (but certainly not open to everyone), but it was difficult and expensive to get here, so practically it wasn't an option for most, agreed.

Perhaps the Arab League's intent was truly expansion into Palestine, at least they were 'invited' by the government of the territory! ;-) I agree, their lack of cohesion doomed them before they started, and should be a national shame to all involved.

YIKES! OK, I'll just say that I, in no way, support Daesh or any of their actions, not almost, not nearly, just not. I can sympathize with a few of their complaints, but that's as far as it goes. The Syrian resistance is in no way tied to Daesh, as you mentioned they are fighting each other. I don't get how you go from support of the resistance to 'near yes' to supporting Daesh, especially if you support the Syrian resistance. Huh?

bcglorf said:

@newtboy

you said:
Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.
Hence my making the distinction between Arab and Jewish controlled Palestine. Officially the British were still ruling over Palestine, but in most practical ways, Palestine was already divided before the mass immigration started. There was essentially Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and the normal conflicts between close neighbours with different religion were already significant before the illegal immigration. Of all the places for Jewish Europeans to flee to, the land already in the possession and control of welcoming Jewish Palestinians hardly stinks of invasion to me.

Sorry, I know I tried to refocus on what they should have done and immediately leapt off the rails myself.

You said:
should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians
A majority of them that made it into Britain and America did just that. In fact, so many fought against the Nazis that when the civil war in Palestine came to a head and WW2 veteran Jewish soldiers started showing up it's counted part of the Arab narrative as 'western' support and part of the unfair military advantage that made Israel the mighty power and the Arab league army the underdogs.

You said:
The U.S. was open...if they could get here.
No, nothing was open. As pictures of the camps spread, doors started opening but that was very much after the fact. Leading up to and during WW2 immigration numbers were very restricted to jewish people. There simply was absolutely no legal immigration option for thousands and thousands of Jewish Europeans.

You said:
neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders
You misunderstand my statement on the Arab League member's intentions. They had NO intention of defending their neighbouring Arab Palestinian's land. Sure, publicly they declared a joint effort to liberate Palestine. Each member nation though was stating that as code for liberate a portion of Palestine by making it a part of themselves. Israel was able to take the best equipped and trained Jordanian army out of the battle without a single shot fired by agreeing with them to simply abandon the portion of Palestine that Jordan proceeded to make a part of itself. The other Arab states made similar bids militarily, refusing to co-ordinate their assaults because each wanted to declare the ground gained their own. As they each rushed their offensives and attacked individually Israel had the time to plant 100% of their forces in the path of each of them.

You asked:
Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh?
In the sense that you are asking, it's a near yes. The original Syrian resistance is a group I really do support, and the Kurdish fighters have largely been on their same side and I support their efforts there as well. Daesh was much more interested in killing the 'legitimate' resistance than Assad and Putin's forces. Similarly, the Russians have made it a firm practice to exclusively attack the 'legitimate' resistance and doing their best to largely not bother attacking Daesh unless forced to. The main reason being that once Daesh is all that's left, the scorched earth fix becomes all the more easily justified, and the actual rebels pose a much more real and legitimate alternative to Assad's government than Daesh.

Native American Protesters Attacked with Dogs & Pepper Spray

newtboy says...

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon