Aaron Hernandez indicted on two more murder charges

[Stranger]

So what? That isn't how opinion of the public is formed.

The formation of Public "Opinion" is a science. Those that understand the science know how to manipulate the public in whatever way they wish. Happy to provide references to support this contention.

Take it how you want. You are implying that people should react a certain way because of what the law is rather than how they see things. You're using the right to a fair trial as a reason to suggest that people shouldn't use their freedom of speech.

People can state whatever they want about Hernandez. He will get his day in court.

OJ was found innocent while everyone in the world "knew" he was guilty. It doesn't matter. People can still make up their mind.

We see what we're given. We orient our view based on this. Who owns the media delivers to the public what the ownership wants, in a frame and context that meets with the ownership's view of the world.

This is precisely why the trial by a jury of ones peers was established. It's based upon a set of rules that are transparent, administered by a Judge who is an expert in these rules, and played-out by opposing lawyers who are also experts in the rules. It's the fairest and most transparent process we have.

So, why would one form an opinion based upon a system where there are no rules, and where ownership of the medium has a clear agenda to manipulate the audience? Why wouldn't one rely on the most transparent and fair system that we currently have?

Oh I dont disagree with that, we dont have the ability to control the opinion of the public. We do have the ability to control our own opinion though, and I think its unfair to condemn a guy who hasnt been proven guilty yet. Lets be honest, none of us have put in the effort to research this case and thus we know less than 1% of the facts, and yet, we still feel we can label this man as vile, or human trash, etc simply because ESPN seems to think hes guilty? That's wrong IMO.

Oh yes we do.

 

[NJRamsFan]

Absolutely.

But in this case...this guy sure does have a lot of "alleged" things popping up against him. It's gonna be pretty hard to sit back and not expect some of these to come to light as being anything but true.

I know this much...Hernandez could be found innocent, and even if it was obvious he was innocent based on the facts, evidence, etc...I still wouldn't leave a loved one around him feeling at ease.

I agree with everything you said. I think subconsciously the reason im always quick to defend someone in his position is because I pray that if I ever find myself in a situation like this, others would do the same for me.

Not saying I ever plan on killing someone, but you know, if it happens close to me and I happen to be the suspect that makes the most sense, Id like to believe id be given the benefit of the doubt.

People always tell me im too idealistic but I just feel a lot of "major issues" we face are pretty easily correctable.

 

[Stranger]

I think thats where the disconnect is. I can only speak for myself (although I do think I know what @Stranger was saying) but I don't disagree that people have the right to judge way to early, or that they will do so, I am only encouraging getting more informed before deciding someone is a despicable human being, or human garbage. The world would be a much better place if we all did so. Lost cause? maybe, but ill still try because if we act as if its a lost cause, it certainly will be.

There's no law against stupidity.

 

[NJRamsFan]

The formation of Public "Opinion" is a science. Those that understand the science know how to manipulate the public in whatever way they wish. Happy to provide references to support this contention.


We see what we're given. We orient our view based on this. Who owns the media delivers to the public what the ownership wants, in a frame and context that meets with the ownership's view of the world.

This is precisely why the trial by a jury of ones peers was established. It's based upon a set of rules that are transparent, administered by a Judge who is an expert in these rules, and played-out by opposing lawyers who are also experts in the rules. It's the fairest and most transparent process we have.

So, why would one form an opinion based upon a system where there are no rules, and where ownership of the medium has a clear agenda to manipulate the audience? Why wouldn't one rely on the most transparent and fair system that we currently have?


Oh yes we do.

Theoretically, yes we do. But not without major changes in our society taking place such as a vast majority learning to think for themselves. But, I was referring to this situation that you or I cant change the public opinion because we cant hope to reach as many people as ESPN or other networks do.

Reading your posts I realized how similarly you and I think, I share many of your beliefs that seem to be "controversial" or out of the ordinary.

 

[Stranger]

Theoretically, yes we do. But not without major changes in our society taking place such as a vast majority learning to think for themselves. But, I was referring to this situation that you or I cant change the public opinion because we cant hope to reach as many people as ESPN or other networks do.

Reading your posts I realized how similarly you and I think, I share many of your beliefs that seem to be "controversial" or out of the ordinary.

It's called not being a "bot"

 

[Sum1]

The formation of Public "Opinion" is a science. Those that understand the science know how to manipulate the public in whatever way they wish. Happy to provide references to support this contention.


We see what we're given. We orient our view based on this. Who owns the media delivers to the public what the ownership wants, in a frame and context that meets with the ownership's view of the world.

This is precisely why the trial by a jury of ones peers was established. It's based upon a set of rules that are transparent, administered by a Judge who is an expert in these rules, and played-out by opposing lawyers who are also experts in the rules. It's the fairest and most transparent process we have.

So, why would one form an opinion based upon a system where there are no rules, and where ownership of the medium has a clear agenda to manipulate the audience? Why wouldn't one rely on the most transparent and fair system that we currently have?


Oh yes we do.

Because people come to opinions on many factors, not just facts. The law deals in facts and technicalities. Opinions deal in many other things.

Again, in regard to the law...yes, Hernandez (and every other citizen) will have their day in court. People deciding their view aren't held to those terms. They have the right to voice their opinion.

I won't sit on this website and call him garbage or whatever, mainly because I simply don't care enough about him to do so. Hernandez nor his family is reading RamsOnDemand.com so it's really pointless. But IMO, he's guilty of SOMETHING...not sure to what degree. And I don't need to see him go through the court process to derive that opinion. You don't get caught up in being indicted on 3 murder counts and the other crimes he's facing by coincidence and bad luck.

I mean, raise your hand if you think OJ is innocent? Anyone?

 

[Stranger]

Because people come to opinions on many factors, not just facts. The law deals in facts and technicalities. Opinions deal in many other things.

Again, in regard to the law...yes, Hernandez (and every other citizen) will have their day in court. People deciding their view aren't held to those terms. They have the right to voice their opinion.

I won't sit on this website and call him garbage or whatever, mainly because I simply don't care enough about him to do so. Hernandez nor his family is reading RamsOnDemand.com so it's really pointless. But IMO, he's guilty of SOMETHING...not sure to what degree. And I don't need to see him go through the court process to derive that opinion. You don't get caught up in being indicted on 3 murder counts and the other crimes he's facing by coincidence and bad luck.

I mean, raise your hand if you think OJ is innocent? Anyone?

You're mixing concepts. On the one hand you don't want to be held to the standard of the legal process, on the other hand you use the term "Guilt" to describe how you perceive him. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it to, as "Guilt" is strictly a legal term, meaning a person has submitted themselve to the formal legal process and a judgement of "Guilt" or "Innocence" has been laid. So, if you don't want to be beholden to the most impartical process we have, then don't use it's terminology.

As far as OJ being innocent, he actually is. And the Court of Law said so. You see, innocence is not something that I can personally decide, only a Jury of ones Peers has the power to make this proclamation in the US Legal system.

 

[Sum1]

You're mixing concepts. On the one hand you don't want to be held to the standard of the legal process, on the other hand you use the term "Guilt" to describe how you perceive him. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it to, as "Guilt" is strictly a legal term, meaning a person has submitted themselve to the formal legal process and a judgement of "Guilt" or "Innocence" has been laid. So, if you don't want to be beholden to the most impartical process we have, then don't use it's terminology.

As far as OJ being innocent, he actually is. And the Court of Law said so. You see, innocence is not something that I can personally decide, only a Jury of ones Peers has the power to make this proclamation in the US Legal system.

Ummm, what?

Being guilty or innocent is not strictly a legal term.

You can be found guilty while in reality having not done the crime. The legal process may have found you guilty but that wouldn't rewrite history as it is in truth.

So no, I don't think I am speaking out of turn in that regard.

 

[The Rammer]

What a Moron... Just on throwing his NFL life away he should be executed. So sad. Hope this serves as a listen to all these "NFL thug" type of players. I blame it on hip hop

 

[Stranger]

Ummm, what?

Being guilty or innocent is not strictly a legal term.

You can be found guilty while in reality having not done the crime. The legal process may have found you guilty but that wouldn't rewrite history as it is in truth.

So no, I don't think I am speaking out of turn in that regard.

Definitions follow (I should have said "Not Guilty" instead of innocent)...

Guilty

In a criminal case, the admission by a defendant that he has committed a charged crime, or the finding by a judge or a jury that the defendant has committed the crime.

Not Guilty

A plea entered by a defendant in a criminal case. Often erroneously confused with a claim of innocence, technically a plea of not guilty simply compels the prosecution to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When the jury (or a judge sitting without a jury) acquits a defendant after trial, they return a verdict of "not guilty," which indicates their conclusion that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Ken]

I have Jury duty again next month. It sucks. The 1st time I was selected and sequestered in a capitol murder case in 2001. Luckily Missouri usually conducts their trials in a quick fashion, so the trial started Tuesday morning and we we're finally done Friday evening. Guilty of 2 counts of 1st degree murder. We recommended death for each count.

Believe it or not, the gansta rap music the kid was listening to right before the murders was entered as evidence as to his state of mind (the kid was white btw, and the defense was trying to argue for 2nd degree murder). We ignored the rap music 'evidence' as immaterial.

 

[Sum1]

Definitions follow (I should have said "Not Guilty" instead of innocent)...

Guilty

In a criminal case, the admission by a defendant that he has committed a charged crime, or the finding by a judge or a jury that the defendant has committed the crime.

Not Guilty

A plea entered by a defendant in a criminal case. Often erroneously confused with a claim of innocence, technically a plea of not guilty simply compels the prosecution to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When the jury (or a judge sitting without a jury) acquits a defendant after trial, they return a verdict of "not guilty," which indicates their conclusion that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is one definition, as it applies to the court of law.

The bolded below would be another.

guilty (ˈɡɪltɪ)
adj, guiltier or guiltiest
1. responsible for an offense or misdeed
2. (Law) law having committed an offense or adjudged to have done so: the accused was found guilty.

Either way...you're arguing semantics at that point. You know exactly the what the content of my argument is.


BTW...this is a good discussion. Very entertaining and I think it is thought provoking.

 

[brokeu91]

Man, if this guy did these crimes he is one heck of a sociopath.

Here's some levity:

 

[Stranger]

I have Jury duty again next month. It sucks. The 1st time I was selected and sequestered in a capitol murder case in 2001. Luckily Missouri usually conducts their trials in a quick fashion, so the trial started Tuesday morning and we we're finally done Friday evening. Guilty of 2 counts of 1st degree murder. We recommended death for each count.

Believe it or not, the gansta rap music the kid was listening to right before the murders was entered as evidence as to his state of mind (the kid was white btw, and the defense was trying to argue for 2nd degree murder). We ignored the rap music 'evidence' as immaterial.

The defense attorney was RIGHT. But he should have brought in a social engineer to prove that he was right. That Gansta Rap music most definitely alters the synaptical brain structure in it's target audience to act in a certain manner - some would argue with merit that this is deliberately so. There are behavior evidence to prove this.

So, when a kid who listens to these inputs all his life acts out in a criminal manner, is it really the kid's fault? Or, is it the fault of the music industry for knowingly (or should have known) distributes content that results in violoent behavior. Or, is it the academics who have done the behaviorial research but have not put appropriate warning labels for industry to follow. Or, is it the food industry for knowingly creating products that cause known neurological patterns in the consumers. Or, is it the community for not looking out for this kid and keeping him away from negative inputs. Or, is it the parents for not doing a better job of filtering this kid's inputs.

There's plenty of blame to go around. But no way in hell should these young kids take all of the blame for their plight or their actions. Especially when you have an entire society who invests in creating an environment that promotes the creation of children with these sorts of tendencies. Ultimately, the failure is on all of us. Time to look in the mirror.

 

[Stranger]

That is one definition, as it applies to the court of law.

The bolded below would be another.

guilty (ˈɡɪltɪ)
adj, guiltier or guiltiest
1. responsible for an offense or misdeed
2. (Law) law having committed an offense or adjudged to have done so: the accused was found guilty.

Either way...you're arguing semantics at that point. You know exactly the what the content of my argument is.


BTW...this is a good discussion. Very entertaining and I think it is thought provoking.

Glad you like it

By the way, I'm not just arguing semantics, I'm actually trying to illustrate a larger point. Sure, you have the freedom to make a decision based upon what ever the heck you want to make it on. What I'm saying is that should you hold yourself to a higher standard? Don't you owe that to yourself and to everyone else around you? If so, why would you not wait until all the evidence is out and is presented in a forum where there is transparency and rules? Just seems logical to me.

 

[shaunpinney]

Innocent till proven guilty - but his actions while behind bars has been less than commendable, he doesn't seem to be a decent chap. If he was innocent, surely he'd be trying to be a model inmate?

BTW - one thing I don't understand, and maybe someone can enlighten me, about Hernandez (and other NFL stars) - what is it with the guns?? Why do some players seem to think owning semi-automatic pistols etc is cool??

 

[Ken]

The defense attorney was RIGHT. But he should have brought in a social engineer to prove that he was right. That Gansta Rap music most definitely alters the synaptical brain structure in it's target audience to act in a certain manner - some would argue with merit that this is deliberately so. There are behavior evidence to prove this.

So, when a kid who listens to these inputs all his life acts out in a criminal manner, is it really the kid's fault? Or, is it the fault of the music industry for knowingly (or should have known) distributes content that results in violoent behavior. Or, is it the academics who have done the behaviorial research but have not put appropriate warning labels for industry to follow. Or, is it the food industry for knowingly creating products that cause known neurological patterns in the consumers. Or, is it the community for not looking out for this kid and keeping him away from negative inputs. Or, is it the parents for not doing a better job of filtering this kid's inputs.

There's plenty of blame to go around. But no way in hell should these young kids take all of the blame for their plight or their actions. Especially when you have an entire society who invests in creating an environment that promotes the creation of children with these sorts of tendencies. Ultimately, the failure is on all of us. Time to look in the mirror.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. The prosecuting attorney was arguing that the kid was trying to psyche himself up for the crime by listening to the 'music' (He was listening repetitively to just one 'song' named something like 'mo murda'). The defense was arguing that he didn't plan on killing the jailers. He planned on locking them in a cell while he broke his friend out of jail, but got nervous. There's more to the story, but he was guilty of 1st degree murder whether all he ever listened to was christian rock. I agree with you and the prosecutor that a lot of the crap, especially gansta rap, that is created for 'entertainment' by the music, et. al., industries can be detrimental to impressionable young people. If I was King I would make lots of changes, but I'm not.

 

[Stranger]

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. The prosecuting attorney was arguing that the kid was trying to psyche himself up for the crime by listening to the 'music' (He was listening repetitively to just one 'song' named something like 'mo murda'). The defense was arguing that he didn't plan on killing the jailers. He planned on locking them in a cell while he broke his friend out of jail, but got nervous. There's more to the story, but he was guilty of 1st degree murder whether all he ever listened to was christian rock. I agree with you and the prosecutor that a lot of the crap, especially gansta rap, that is created for 'entertainment' by the music, et. al., industries can be detrimental to impressionable young people. If I was King I would make lots of changes, but I'm not.

Gotcha

 

[Sum1]

Glad you like it

By the way, I'm not just arguing semantics, I'm actually trying to illustrate a larger point. Sure, you have the freedom to make a decision based upon what ever the heck you want to make it on. What I'm saying is that should you hold yourself to a higher standard? Don't you owe that to yourself and to everyone else around you? If so, why would you not wait until all the evidence is out and is presented in a forum where there is transparency and rules? Just seems logical to me.

I'm just saying there is a line between waiting for a court of law to make a determination and letting yourself come to a conclusion on lesser terms.

If I witness a man shoot someone I don't need to wait until a jury tells me he's guilty. I don't need a court to tell me that what's his face from the Clippers is a racist. ...and in a case such as this, if the conclusion I've drawn is found completely wrong it doesn't change anything. Back to the original exchange, you and I and anyone else can draw our conclusions anyway we see fit and voice them. I don't NEED to wait for due process to have my opinion, right or wrong. Not saying that some of us SHOULDN'T be more pragmatic, just that we don't HAVE to be.

 

[Stranger]

I'm just saying there is a line between waiting for a court of law to make a determination and letting yourself come to a conclusion on lesser terms.

If I witness a man shoot someone I don't need to wait until a jury tells me he's guilty. I don't need a court to tell me that what's his face from the Clippers is a racist. ...and in a case such as this, if the conclusion I've drawn is found completely wrong it doesn't change anything. Back to the original exchange, you and I and anyone else can draw our conclusions anyway we see fit and voice them. I don't NEED to wait for due process to have my opinion, right or wrong. Not saying that some of us SHOULDN'T be more pragmatic, just that we don't HAVE to be.

Do you know the circumstances around this shooting. Do you know if the man that was shot just raped the shooter's daughter and had threatened to rape the wife next?

Yes, you don't need to wait for due process to form an opinion. But any jackass (please excuse the reference, which not meant to defame you, just trying to make a larger point) can form an opinion on anything they want to. Is that really what we want as a society? Aren't we different than the animal kingdom or a ruless society? Do we have absolutely no responsbility to be humane in our judgements?