Alright, thanks for the link. That was a moving valediction, earlier, are you off now?

Did we cover the Central Park 5 yet?

You mean the black people he was pushing to execute even after they were exonerated? No, seems like that one slipped through the net.

I didn't realize he used the newspapers to tweet before there was a Twitter. He must love Twitter so much because it saves him a fortune.

He knew he wanted to scream at clouds--if he would've just figured out other people want too as well he could've invented Twitter. Low energy

CP5 weren't exonerated their convictions were vacated.

Why were their convictions vacated?

Is your position that their convictions were vacated on a technicality, and they are in fact guilty?

No it's not my "position" as that would imply it's a subjective claim.

Their convictions were vacated and this isn't up for debate. Exoneration would have required a retrial and actual exoneration (not an acquittal), neither of which ever happened. A vacated conviction in general is mostly due to a technicality or can be at a court's discretion.
That said I reckon their convictions were vacated for probably political reasons.

I used to assume they were innocent until I studied the case. They're certainly guilty of assaulting patrons of the park that night and are almost certainly guilty of assaulting Patricia Meili physically & sexually imo and possibly of rape but again almost certainly of beating her and leaving her for dead. Sickening that they profited from their heinous crimes.

Have you watched the entirety of their confessions or read any of the court sources or are you using the netflix mini series to base your opinion on?

Neither, just what I read on Wikipedia, and it was a while back.

What is an actual exoneration? I've never heard of that before.

An exoneration is a factual finding of innocence, absolving one of blame. Steven Avery was exonerated for rape for example, the San Antonio Four were also exonerated, whereas Robert Durst, George Zimmerman Amanda Knox, OJ Simpson & Casey Anthony were acquitted.There was insufficient evidence to convict for murder but they were never declared innocent. Neither were the CP5.

Its the number one tactic of racists and those who align with and defend them.

Short of saying "I am a racist" they will demand 'proof' that any action is racist. And if there is a 1% chance that the action could have another explanation then they proclaim "you cannot assume it was racist".

- March with the KKK - Maybe you were just out walking that day and it was coincident. Prove otherwise. Checkmate lib's.

- Speak at a KKK rally. Maybe you just speak at any and all rallies. Prove otherwise. Checkmate Libs.

- Carry a torch at Klan rallies. Maybe you just needed the extra light. Prove otherwise. Checkmate Libs.

It is a game people must no play with racists. It is exactly why they will NEVER define for anyone an action they would define as racist as they do not want to be caught with that, if someone they support does it. They want to keep the door open to the 'there is a 1% chance it was not racist, so checkmate Libs'

Don't get dragged into the game. Just identify when something racist is done. know the deniers will flood in hoping to drag you into the 1% arguments and ignore them or just rightly identify them as racists or the people who support them.

D2- you strike me as a genuine enough poster. If you're really interested in the case, I highly recommend this presentation. It's just over an hour but covers the facts and evidence against the 5 very well. If you watch with objectivity you might change your mind on them




Good podcast here from Roberta Glass also


Detective on the case disputes the netflix narrative here and Linda Fairstein took a lawsuit against netflix over their defamation of her.



Hope this helps and again I highly recommend the first presentation in particular, cheers

This is going about as expected.

Yeah and the number one tactic of some segments of the left is to immediately, falsely and very very deliberately brand anyone who disagrees with them as a racist as a form of bullying to make people fall in line and stifle debate due to their fear of being labeled a racist. It makes all leftists or those of us with predominantly leftist sympathies look bad by comparison.

But think what you like, I actually couldn't gaf about your opinion at this stage or whether you think I'm a racist for not buying your dumbass false wailing that Trump called for the murder of black people. Your stupidity is your problem not mine. The only racists here are certain white liberals with their downright patronizing condescending White Man's Burden attitude toward black people and veiled implication that they can't think for themselves without wise white people to guide them. It's quite despicable and must piss off black people no end.

CV, is it your position that Trump's (possibly) racist acts regarding the Central Park 5 are predicated on their actual guilt or innocence? In other words, would you consider his acts racist if they had been, as you put it, exonerated?

Hey Max. How are ya? Have you watched the entirety of their confessions or read any of the court sources? Or did When They See Us pop up on your netflix rec list and you went with that instead?

But they weren't exonerated so it's a pointless question. Hypothetically, had they had have been actually fuhreelz no foolin' exonerated and Trump still said they were guilty it could indeed be due to racism or it could be simply because he's stupid. He insisted Amanda Knox was innocent for example, despite the facts that she's absolutely 100% guilty AF so clearly he never bothered reading the court sources and absolute boatload of evidence against her.

However, again the CP5 were never exonerated or declared innocent so again the question is pointless as we're not indulging in hypothesis.

Oh look, turns out this guy is racist af.

It's not pointless. The point is you are making a big deal, linking youtube and whatnot, about the case, while even in the scenario you present as most damning to Trump (exoneration), you might still not consider him racist. Sounds like a waste of time for anyone to debate it with you, or to spend a lot of time researching "the real truth".

I think Trump's acts are racist regardless. They were not proven guilty. Trump, on the other hand, has been proven guilty of racist acts. Racial discrimination in approving tenants, for example. Not sure why you try so hard to give him the benefit of doubt. (Well, I have a hunch.)

What you are purposely ignoring is that this is a DISCUSSION FORUM and not a court of law where someone is simply demanded to make the case to a bullet proof standard of they fail.

You know that you cannot defend your point and would lose in any debate or discussion so you cowardly try to stick very tightly to the role of lawyer where you think if you can simply establish the possibility of doubt (even at 1%) you have done your job and won the case. 'They cannot convict or claim to win if there is a single doubt'.


That is not the standard for discussion and debate. It is a cowardly role to try and take and it shows you know you could not make your point, if you tried.

wat? clorox is toxic, kids.

I have never seen the netflix doc, fwiw.

Haha, wow.

Nice to see your true colors in your 'the only people who are racists are white liberals' screed.

At least i got you to expose yourself.

FLOL.

Can you answer my question please? Have you watched the entirety of their confessions or read any of the court sources or not?