November 12, 2004

What will the reaction be if he is found not guilty...

Will white folk react with shock and horror if Scott Peterson is set free. We will know in a few short minutes. This will only be interesting if he is found not guilty. Will there be talk about the incompitence of the Jury, will there be talk about changing the whole legal system as in the O.J. case. I have not followed this case enough to really know one way or the other of his guilt or innocence but I know one thing, if he is found not guilty we should expect a white backlash, or does that only happen in cases involving a Black person?

11 Comments:

At 1:13 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

That a good point my brother...excellent point. However, you and I both know that question is rhetorical....because we kkknow the nature of the country that we live in.

 
At 1:23 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

Well he has been found guilty, faith has been restored in the system. It works. White folk were clapping outside the courtroom, but I have not seen the Black reaction yet. There was no cheering like in the OJ case, I guess we just was not interested in this trial. :(

 
At 8:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am posting anonymously in hopes to get an honest answer to an honest question and to not start some sort of fight. I have read some of your recent posts and I am wondering, do you both dislike all white people? If so, why? If not, why are you so mad?

Let me also ask you why it would have been more interesting if Peterson had been found not guilty? Lets be honest. A woman and her child were murdered. If he did it and was found not guilty, there should be backlash from EVERYONE, not just white people. I have followed the case as I did the OJ case and the fact is, they both did it. One got off and one didn't.

Racism still exists. It's unfortunate but true. I am white. I live in the south. I voted for Bush. Do I hate all of those who voted for Kerry? Do I hate all of those who live in Blue States? Do I hate all non-white people? Do I hate you because you are black? Do I hate you because you talk bad about the country you live in?
The answer is no to all these questions. Do you dislike me because I am white? Because I think OJ did it? Would you be able to talk like you do about your country if you lived in Iraq?

I don't know what I am trying to say really. It just seems you don't like white people and it bothers me. You don't know me. Don't dislike me or my people because of the wrongs that were done 250+ years ago. And when I say my people, I don't mean white people. I mean Americans. The great thing about this country is that if you don't like it you can leave. You can't right wrongs that were done so long ago because the people that committed those wrongs are long gone. People are being wronged today. Black and White people alike. Lets right those wrongs. I will help.

I'm just speaking my heart here and I am not going back to change any of it or fix typo's or grammar errors so if none of this makes sense then just ignore it. Sometimes it's hard to convey what we have in our heart because we just speak it, but if you don't do it right away it can be altered by thinking about it.

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

We allow anonymous posting because you can leave your name at the end of what ever it is you write like Peg K does. It is not hard at all. I will respond to what you have written this time but if you want to continue this discussion beyond this point you will need to identify yourself, we could not care less if you call yourself Becky or Tammy just pick a name so we can know who it is we are conversing with.

It is ridiculous to extrapolate from any of what we have written that we dislike all white people or any one particular white person. Why is it that you think we are mad, we present logical arguments for everything we write, there is no anger involved. We argue our positions as any rational human being does. You need to ask yourself; why are you interpreting our writings as that of two mad men. Could that be your own fear coming out?, Could it be your own stereotypical view of Black men as being violent and angry even when they are presenting logical answers that anyone can try to refute? I would like for you to point to one instance on this Blog where what we wrote were the ranting of a mad man.

As far as the Peterson case, it would have been interesting to see white reaction to a not guilty verdict to chronicle their reaction to a white man being found not guilty versus a Black man being found not guilty. We are still being presented with some interesting things that are being reported differently for instance, this jury as whole deliberated for an hour and a half one day and possibly an hour the next day and they had a verdict. As a whole the full jury deliberated less than the OJ jury and found Scott guilty and this is acceptable. Where in the case of the OJ Jury they said there was no way for a jury to come back so soon with a verdict of not guilty so soon, but in this case it is ok for a jury to come back with a guilty verdict and the jury is being heralded as ingenious while the mostly black OJ jury was considered incompetent.

Lastly, if you have really read this Blog as you say you have, there is no way you would write that we are writing about wrongs that happen 250 years ago. One thing you should ask yourself since you do admit that there were wrongs 250 years ago is how have those wrong been corrected. What was done to repair all that was destroyed? And since those wrongs have gone uncorrected is it possible what we have to today is the fallout from wrongs that have never been corrected?

 
At 5:33 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Anonymous, the summation of your tirade was predicated on bearing false witness. Were you a fly on the wall at both murders of these women and can therefore bare witness to the truth? If not, you are not qualified, in any credible way, to say who is guilty. Furthermore, the court system has not proven to be an infallible instrument of justice. If you do not believe that, take a look back at the Emit Til case, 250 years ago in Mississippi. The system of justice is not impervious to the system of white supremacy and their biases.

In regards to us being mad at white people, that is something else that you have bared false witness to. Maybe we should be, is how I am interpreting you statement, after all the truths that we simply present here about white America. However, we are not mad at white people….just affected by them. All we talk about on this forum is cause and effects. We have not attached any emotions to those causes and effects. It is simply meant to be a logical analysis of how the black present was created and we all realize, or should, that the present is simply the creation and summation of the past.

You would best be served to attack our facts and reasoning, because that you have access to from our words. You do not, however, have access to our emotion and thus make your self look silly by erroneously attempting to misdirect and obfuscate what we write because you cannot contradict those truths. You have presented NOTHING that contradicts what we have written.

It seems to me that if you were a good white person, you would be more upset and more focused on the wrongs that white people commit, which are abundance in evidence from the native to the Africans, and work on changing your people. Instead, you come on this Blog wondering why black people being mad for being stepped on in white peoples step up or ascent, playing the incredulous role. Do you go on Native American web blogs and ask them if and why they are mad at the white man, for things that happened 250 years ago…or do you just bless black folk with your keen insight, compassion and Solomon like Wisdom?

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger EG said...

I have served on several juries (once as a foreperson) over the past 20 years and know that the verdict and the deliberation time rarely have anything in common.

I have never served on a jury with such publicity as the Peterson case but I have served on a jury that involved the Mafia (the jury was thrown out after several jurists were 'tainted' by the mob).

A case lasting as long as this one, each member of jury had their mind made up when they went into deliberation. The jury did not have access to all the information as the public as they were instructed to ignore all newspapers, TV, etc. about the case.

According to the press, it sounded to me that the foreperson was the holdout. Once he was removed, the guilty verdict was rendered quickly.

In the case of OJ, the defendant’s attorneys showed how much a police force could not show credible evidence (e.g., the blooding glove) and questioned Nicole Simpson’s moral virtues. The LA police force was known for questionable behavior toward minorities so that also led the jury’s verdict.

The Peterson prosecution did an excellent job at selecting a jury who could empathize with the victims. Laci Peterson’s character was never questioned, Scott’s character was always on parade (Amber Frye). Although the police made several mistakes, I don’t think the evidence was tainted and questionable evidence was not allowed to be presented.

I think most Americans (not just white) would have been surprised if Scott was found not guilty given what they had heard from the media.

 
At 11:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can call me Maat.(Character from a game I used to play.)

I am not going to spend a lot of time responding. Just some basic thoughts.

"Why is it that you think we are mad, we present logical arguments for everything we write, there is no anger involved. We argue our positions as any rational human being does."

You are both obviously intelligent human beings. I never questioned the fact that you argue your points and positions well.

"You need to ask yourself; why are you interpreting our writings as that of two mad men. Could that be your own fear coming out?, Could it be your own stereotypical view of Black men as being violent and angry even when they are presenting logical answers that anyone can try to refute?"

I find this funny. I stereotype no one. Unlike you two, I don't see color. I see people. As far as you sounding mad in your writings, I decided in fairness I would let a co-worker read whatever she wanted on your blog and get her thoughts. After reading a few of your posts she looked at me and said, "Damn, they are pissed off at the world." It's not just me who took your writing this way. Oh, and she is black.

I don't fear anyone, except God and my mother. Certainly not someone who is intelligent and is able to express their thoughts well. It bothers me you would think this. I am not against you. I am not your enemy. I am on the side of all people, black, white, hispanic, Native American, whoever. I expected to get a good response but it almost looked like I got attacked.

"Lastly, if you have really read this Blog as you say you have, there is no way you would write that we are writing about wrongs that happen 250 years ago."

Any mention of slavery is writing about wrongs that happened 250+ years ago.

"One thing you should ask yourself since you do admit that there were wrongs 250 years ago is how have those wrong been corrected. What was done to repair all that was destroyed?"

Slavery no longer exists. All people are equal.

"Were you a fly on the wall at both murders of these women and can therefore bare witness to the truth? If not, you are not qualified, in any credible way, to say who is guilty."

I followed both cases very closely and I am just as qualified as anyone to say who I think is guilty and who I think is not. Especially in the OJ case when the whole thing was televised. The Scott Peterson case I followed since day one as best I could on TV and through the internet.

"Furthermore, the court system has not proven to be an infallible instrument of justice."

Nobody is perfect and no one should argue that something should be.

"If you do not believe that, take a look back at the Emit Til case, 250 years ago in Mississippi."

I assume your talking about the murder of Emmit Till in Mississippi in 1955. One of the most horrific things I have ever heard about. I hope the recent things I have read and seen on TV will come to pass and those that are still alive that were involved will get what's coming to them.

"You would best be served to attack our facts and reasoning, because that you have access to from our words. You do not, however, have access to our emotion and thus make your self look silly by erroneously attempting to misdirect and obfuscate what we write because you cannot contradict those truths. You have presented NOTHING that contradicts what we have written."

I wasn't trying to attack anything. I just asked some questions about some conclusions I had drawn from some of your posts. Nothing more. I will have to disagree however that I did not have access to your emotions. There is emotion in writing and there is emotion in your writing in some instances. Some of your "truths" I might be able to contradict, maybe, but I don't want to argue. I was just hoping to have a conversation about some of your beliefs and thought it best to see what your intentios were with your writing before I continued. I like your writing. I like your site. I did not make myself look silly by posting and you should not try to attack someone who comments on something of yours. If you do not want comments then disable them.

"It seems to me that if you were a good white person,"

Again you are seeing color. Do not see color. I am a good PERSON who happens to be white.

"you would be more upset and more focused on the wrongs that white people commit, which are abundance in evidence from the native to the Africans, and work on changing your people."

I do what I can, believe it or not. Anyone who attempts to talk bad about anyone in front of me knows that I do not stand for it. I tell them that if the person is not their to defend themselves then I don't want to hear it. Any racists talk about any race in front of me is met with anger towards that person and a lecture about how he/she is no better than anyone. If you don't like someone, fine with me. I don't like a lot of people. But if the person I don't like happens to be black, I don't hate the whole race because of that persons actions.

I like your blog and will continue reading your blog. You provide views which are not always given openly and I respect that you give your opinion on how you think things are. I especially like this post and agree with the basic thought behind most of it.

 
At 11:49 AM, Blogger Faheem said...

"I think most Americans (not just white) would have been surprised if Scott was found not guilty given what they had heard from the media."

I think you are terribly mistaken. Most television commentators that are Lawyers had no idea how the jury was going to go and they of course knew more about the case than most americans and they wrestled with it every night and many thought Scott Peterson was going to go free because they did not believe the prosecution proved their case beyong a reasonable doubt.

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger EG said...

I'm not sure which television commentators you are referring to but on Court TV, a cable channel dedicated to court proceedings, Nancy Grace (a former prosecutor) was very anti-Scott Peterson and said so. Although I don't watch Fox News often, Rita Cosby wore her opinion of Scott Peterson in a 'fair and balanced' way.

The problem with this case was the emotional tone in which it was presented. Most murder cases have some emotion but the media constantly portrayed Laci as the dutiful wife while the villainous Scott plotted her death. There was little chance that a jury trial would have found Scott completely innocent of all the counts.

Scott Peterson wasn’t found guilty by physical evidence but by his motive and opportunity. The phone calls to Amber are not proof of guilt but they were admitted into evidence. Scott’s behavior after Laci’s death was also brought up as evidence. I believe there was no physical evidence linking Scott to the murder but all of the other data pointed to him.

 
At 2:11 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

The commentators I am talking about are Greta Van Sustren of Fox, Dan Abrahams of MSNBC and the various legal commentators they had on their respective shows. The porky pig Rita Cosby is a gossip reporter, she is no lawyer.

The jury would not have to find him not guilty of all counts, they only had to find reasonable doubt in the prosecutors case and that would have been enough but most juries behave like they are in a civil case anyhow and go by the proponderance of the evidence unless both the defense and judge spell it out to them several times that if they feel the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt they must aquit and this is why OJ was found not guilty.

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Maat, I do not care how many hours you sit in front of a TV watching televised trials. You still did not bare witness, first hand, to the events in question. All that you have bared witness to was the trials and information presented in the trial. That is not the same thing as knowing the truth, from baring direct witness. The only way a person can KNOW, is to bare witness and even that is not always infallible. Therefore, you are not qualified to speak as an authority on guilt in these cases, lest you are God or the guilty parties. So don’t even go there.

The fact that you got a black person opinion on this blog means what? Can you bare witness to the TRUTH of her thoughts? NO. You can only bare witness to what she told you and you do not know if she was being honest or simply telling you what she thinks you wanted to hear, out of fear of compromising her relationship with you or how you see and interact with her. Thus, she is not a credible witness. Besides, the interpretation of being “mad” at the world was obviously born from true facts that would warrant such. But again, both of you are baring false witness…because you cannot see our emotions.

Its very telling when a person feels that they have to embellish to make point. Based upon my public school education, slavery ended about 140 years ago….not 250. Yes, to talk about slavery does include 250 years ago as well, by why did you not say 150 years ago? You are either ignorant of the truth or attempting to lessen the burden upon the present by making it more distant in the past…that it truly was. That is deception and deceit whether out of will or ignorance….either way, it discredits and makes you look disingenuous…and or ignorant. Ignorance and deceit are common in racist people…especially those people who do not know they are racist.

Funny, If all people are equal…I need to start spending some of the Bill Gates money. All that time I thought I had less money and options than they did. Glad you shared the fact that we are all equal so I can go out and get that yacht I always wanted. I also should go tell all the kids living in housing projects that they got an equal chance to make it as the children and grand children of Sam Walton. They only have themselves to blame if they have less wealth than the Walton’s. Yeah…every thing is clear now. The playing field is finally even! No one can accuse you of not having a keen grasp of the unobvious.

Oh well…glad to have you visit our site and let me share a quote of wisdom for you:

“The only way that a person can truly be happy is to divorce themselves of the needs and concerns of others”. I do not have the authors name to give proper credit…but suffice it to say, if we are mad on this blog, that quote likely explains why.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums