Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
Again I can't comment on that specific case either way as I don't know enough about it.
After googling though I find this interesting
https://abc17news.com/news/columbia/2020...
Why did he plead guilty and not raise issue at the time re the plea? Why didn't his lawyer? Why did his lawyer go with the guilty plea? More mental instability? You any evidence he's mentally un
It's a very unusual set of circumstances but he was basically obsessed with the murder and had been out drinking the night it happened. Because he was blacked out or didn't remember, he became obsessed with the idea that he might have done it, and talked to people he knew about it. Those people reported him to the police and they supplied all of the details and got a confession from him without there being any physical evidence that tied him to the scene.
You didn't answer my questions. Why did he freely and knowingly plead guilty and not raise an issue at the time and why did his lawyer agree to the guilty plea?
Physical evidence isn't required for a criminal conviction so your point is irrelevant.
You didn't answer my questions. Why did he freely and knowingly plead guilty and not raise an issue at the time and why did his lawyer agree to the guilty plea?
Physical evidence isn't required for a criminal conviction so your point is irrelevant.
I explained it to you-- he plead guilty because he thought he did it.
The fact that physical evidence isn't required for a conviction doesn't invalidate any point I made. His lawyer went ahead with the plea because his lawyer likely thought he did it too.
The justice system isn't really equipped to handle false confessions very well.
I explained it to you-- he plead guilty because he thought he did it.
The fact that physical evidence isn't required for a conviction doesn't invalidate any point I made. His lawyer went ahead with the plea because his lawyer likely thought he did it too.
The justice system isn't really equipped to handle false confessions very well.
Why would his lawyer think he did it? Why didn't the judge see anything amiss? You sound like you're simply making this up as you go along, sorry. I'm not saying your points are validated or invalidated, just don't bring up irrelevant issues such as physical evidence as you're simply raising the burden of proof bar for special little snowflakes it seems. Again I've no idea if they're innocent or not and from what little I read there were brady violations re Ferguson anyway so he definitely deserved his conviction being vacated. But this discussion with you and the fact that his co defendant pleaded guilty (and I'm currently taking your explanation as to why he did, with a grain of salt) tells me that this case evidently isn't as clear cut as you claim, and again that doesn't mean I suspect guilt but it obviously warrants study and if I ever get around to it, I'll let you know.
Why would his lawyer think he did it? Why didn't the judge see anything amiss? You sound like you're simply making this up as you go along, sorry. I'm not saying your points are validated or invalidated, just don't bring up irrelevant issues such as physical evidence as you're simply raising the burden of proof bar for special little snowflakes it seems. Again I've no idea if they're innocent or not and from what little I read there were br
I've explained everything to you at this point.
The criminal justice system is not equipped to handle people who confess to crimes when they are innocent. You thinking that somehow his attorney or the judge should have caught onto the fact that he was actually innocent just proves my point about you believing in the sanctity of the system and process.
In the American legal system if you've got a prosecutor saying this is the person, and you've got a suspect saying that they did it, and a lawyer for the suspect (probably a public defender I'm not sure there) going along with it-- then no judge is going to be like "wait a minute this doesn't add up"-- that just doesn't happen and I'm not even sure if that is their job or responsibility to do so if they did have doubts-- Rococo I'm sure could chime in on that.
He thinks that everyone is guilty.
And of course 99+ percent of the time he is going to be correct. His issue though is that when there is actual controversy and serious dispute about the guilt or innocence of a person up to and including when organizations devoted to freeing innocent people are fighting for their release-- he still thinks they are guilty.
In the Corpus world prosecutors do not make mistakes or railroad innocent people.
theres a lot of people he doesnt think are guilty. and they are the ones who murder more children than anyone else. its kinda ironical I guess.
I've explained everything to you at this point.
The criminal justice system is not equipped to handle people who confess to crimes when they are innocent. You thinking that somehow his attorney or the judge should have caught onto the fact that he was actually innocent just proves my point about you believing in the sanctity of the system and process.
Oh I get your explanation. But I don't believe his appeal was denied because "The criminal justice system is not equipped to handle people who confess to crimes when they are innocent", sorry. If your explanation is correct it beggars belief such an explanation wasn't considered upon appeal, even if no actual violation of due process was found. So again I'm taking your explanation with a grain of salt. Not sure why you're continuing this as I haven't opined one way or the other on whether I think they did it or not, as I've readily stated I'm not knowledgeable enough on the case. Your explanations and thoughts aren't going to convince me, nor would they if you thought both were guilty, as yet again I know essentially sfa about the case at present mate so I don't have an opinion on either former defendants.
theres a lot of people he doesnt think are guilty. and they are the ones who murder more children than anyone else. its kinda ironical I guess.
For the nth and last effin time bruv HAT McCULLOGH IS INNOCENT AND KILLED THOSE BABIES IN SELF DEFENCE 😡
That's the hill I'll die on and besides he's out now and there ain't nuthin you can do about it! 
lol
For those not familiar, the Central Park 5 were exonerated by both DNA evidence and the confession of the actual rapist, the city wound up paying them millions, only the mostly absolutely deranged wingnuts think they did it.
This is just complete nonsense. Typical Trolly.
In the American legal system if you've got a prosecutor saying this is the person, and you've got a suspect saying that they did it, and a lawyer for the suspect (probably a public defender I'm not sure there) going along with it-- then no judge is going to be like "wait a minute this doesn't add up"-- that just doesn't happen and I'm not even sure if that is their job or responsibility to do so if they did have doubts-- Rococo I'm sure cou
Judges hear appeals and can vacate due to violation of due process which is precisely what happened with Ferguson. If Ericson's appeal was denied then he didn't suffer an unfair due process or brady violation or that his rights were violated and the confession wasn't deemed coerced. I'm surprised he was even able to appeal after pleading guilty.
Whatever legal jargon makes you feet better, fact is, the guy who actually did the crime freely confessed and his story was corroborated by DNA evidence. The CP5 were pretty blatantly railroaded and only the absolute weirdest ghouls on the internet are still clamoring for their execution.
Thanks for another zero-content contribution to the discussion!
Not just legal jargon. Exoneration and a vacated conviction are totally different things. One implies factual innocence, the other doesn't.
Whatever legal jargon makes you feet better, fact is, the guy who actually did the crime freely confessed and his story was corroborated by DNA evidence. The CP5 were pretty blatantly railroaded and only the absolute weirdest ghouls on the internet are still clamoring for their execution.
It's not legal jargon, there's a huge diff between an actual exoneration and a vacated on a technicality conviction, and if you can't see this then you really should use google to clear up your apparent confusion in this regard.. There were multiple attackers, despite your insistence that Reise acted alone.
They weren't blatantly railroaded and in the last thread you provided zero credible evidence to back up your claim in this regard, particularly the blatant part. If you wish to regard those who agree with the verdicts of a trial court of law as weird ghouls then okay. I disagree but okay. I'm against the death penalty and have never called for the execution of anyone including the CP5.
Thanks for another zero-content contribution to the discussion!
You're projecting and stick me on ig, problem solved mate. And stop trying to resurrect a long dormant topic, you had your chance to make your case in the actual CP5 thread and blew it. Don't whinge about it now.
Eh I reckon they did (and "that woman" has a name btw, it's Trisha Meili) and I did a much better job of stating my case for guilt than you did for innocence so it's all good in the hood.
Anyone impartial interested in learning more about the case btw, should read the Armstrong report.
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelf...
You guys should just put your differences aside and all be the Central Perk six.
I'm not having sex with trolly. Oh wait I misread your post my bad.
Also, a vacated conviction is not an acquittal, and the defendant can be re-tried. It's essentially a mistrial. An exoneration is essentially the same as a not guilty verdict.
It's not legal jargon, there's a huge diff between an actual exoneration and a vacated on a technicality conviction...
Yes, fascinating stuff indeed as d2 already explained to me, but it still remains that the kids didn't do the crime they were accused of.
I take it you're a DA? It's genuinely puzzling why anyone else would be this committed to such a hopelessly lost cause. Even Trump stopped caring about executing these kids.
Yes, fascinating stuff indeed as d2 already explained to me, but it still remains that the kids didn't do the crime they were accused of.
I take it you're a DA? It's genuinely puzzling why anyone else would be this committed to such a hopelessly lost cause. Even Trump stopped caring about executing these kids.
You provided zero evidence for your innocence claim and your mere repetition of your tired bullshit doesn't magically give it gravitas.
You provided zero evidence for your innocence claim and your mere repetition of your tired bullshit doesn't magically give it gravitas.
CV, I don't think it is incumbent on someone to provide links to support undisputed facts. Someone else confessed to the crime. The DA announced that there was DNA evidence tying that person to the crime. The DA stated that the office believed that the confessor likely acted alone.
These facts are undisputed. You can't make them go away with some sort of "fake news" routine.
If you want to argue that the DA's office was wrong or went in the tank, the onus is on you imo.
