News that makes you say WTF! (24 Viewers)

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
72,639
who? also how do they know he was attacked
He's a Championship/League 1 over here, bit of a bonehead, not the best background.

Could well have been a fall to create a "serious head injury" but I'd assume that witnesses came forward to turn it into a murder enquiry.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
72,639

icemaη

Rab's Husband - The Regista
Moderator
Aug 27, 2008
35,047

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,294
Dafuq is it with Netflix subscribers wanting to replace our due process judicial system with binge-watching entertainment as the standard of justice? :sergio:

Over 200,000 people have signed petitions to free Steven Avery of the Netflix show “Making a Murderer”
http://qz.com/585709/over-200000-pe...-avery-of-the-netflix-show-making-a-murderer/

I live in a nation of morons.
It's weird that you should say it like that, when it's pretty damn clear that Steven Avery's rights were not respected. I can only assume you haven't watched the documentary, because the standard of the American legal system seems incredibly low. I understand that it's Wisconsin and not New York, but to be frank that shouldn't matter.

Combine this sort of stuff with atrocities such as the Texas felony murder rule or the random imprisonment of alleged terrorists and at times your legal system looks like something from the Dark Ages.

Replacing it with binge-watching entertainment is not such a bad idea to be fair.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,519
Give it another 50 years, Idiocracy might have got it spot on.

Ow! My balls! :tup:

It's weird that you should say it like that, when it's pretty damn clear that Steven Avery's rights were not respected. I can only assume you haven't watched the documentary, because the standard of the American legal system seems incredibly low. I understand that it's Wisconsin and not New York, but to be frank that shouldn't matter.

Combine this sort of stuff with atrocities such as the Texas felony murder rule or the random imprisonment of alleged terrorists and at times your legal system looks like something from the Dark Ages.

Replacing it with binge-watching entertainment is not such a bad idea to be fair.
Dude, you're one of the gullible. You're lead to believe you are taken through an unbiased -- or at least equal-opportunity review and counterreview -- of what constitutes evidence and not evidence. None of that is of concern to a documentary. A documentary has no obligation to include facts or details that may run counter to their point of view. A documentary has no rules about what constitutes hearsay, what constitutes admissible evidence versus inadmissible. A documentary has no obligation to allow for counter-examination.

What is of concern to a documentary on Netflix is viewership. Entertainment.

When that becomes the standard of law, and when the populace believes what they see on TV replaces the checks and balances of a court of law, then we have all failed to the tyranny of Facebook like buttons as a form of defining justice. (Or as Time magazine put it...)

And no, I haven't seen it. No interest in seeing it, either. I don't have 10 hours of my life to donate to Netflix and some director's world view on some guy in Wisconsin.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,294
Ow! My balls! :tup:



Dude, you're one of the gullible. You're lead to believe you are taken through an unbiased -- or at least equal-opportunity review and counterreview -- of what constitutes evidence and not evidence. None of that is of concern to a documentary. A documentary has no obligation to include facts or details that may run counter to their point of view. A documentary has no rules about what constitutes hearsay, what constitutes admissible evidence versus inadmissible. A documentary has no obligation to allow for counter-examination.

What is of concern to a documentary on Netflix is viewership. Entertainment.

When that becomes the standard of law, and when the populace believes what they see on TV replaces the checks and balances of a court of law, then we have all failed to the tyranny of Facebook like buttons as a form of defining justice. (Or as Time magazine put it...)

And no, I haven't seen it. No interest in seeing it, either. I don't have 10 hours of my life to donate to Netflix and some director's world view on some guy in Wisconsin.
Dude. You need to see it first. Really. Of course it's not objective. It's likely he did do it. But Brendan Dassey's testimony alone is enough to make any lawyer vomit. Seriously, watch the damn thing then talk about the checks and balances of a court.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,519
Dude. You need to see it first. Really. Of course it's not objective. It's likely he did do it. But Brendan Dassey's testimony alone is enough to make any lawyer vomit. Seriously, watch the damn thing then talk about the checks and balances of a court.
10 hours? Sorry, but...



It's bad enough that I have to see things like this in my newsfeed:

'Making a Murderer’ Prosecutor Emails Us 9 Reasons Steven Avery Is Guilty
http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-steven-avery-9-reasons-guilty/

The Court of Public Opinion is the most b.s. court around. It's wholly the wrong forum for this discussion.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 17)