Despite an international outcry over its medieval legal system, Iran has announced a real crowd pleaser: eight women and one man will be stoned to death for adultery. Iran applies Sharia law and will execute them in the name of Islamic justice.
There remain a few unstoned women who are fighting against such outrages. One is Shadi Sadr. Her colleague, Mohammad Mostafai represents one woman, Malak Qorbani, whom he insisted plead guilty to adultery even though she did not know the meaning of the charge. That would seem likely since the penalty is stoning.
Stoning remains the rage among Islamic countries who continue to mete out religious codes through their court systems, click here and here .
Mespo,
You and I have been speaking quite rationally to an irrational person who is convinced that everyone else is irrational, as opposed to himself.
As much as I regret saying it, sometimes the BEST treatment is NO treatment. Until HE makes a change, there isn’t much else to do but stand your ground!
Some things are not negotiable.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Talking to me must really be educational for you
Well, I suppose one might call it an “education”…. of sorts.
😐
Like your interpretation of the concept of “civilian oversight” to mean state and local government, elected officials, judges, and other enforcement officials of the criminal justice system.
😐
That was like learning a whole new language.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight.
That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials, most of whom are not cops.
😐
Are we having an issue understanding the meaning of the word, “civilian” in the term, “civilian oversight?
Bartlebee:
“Now you can tell me how they all probably deserve to be there”
****************
As the advancer of the proposition that the police abuse somehow put them there, the burden is on you to prove how that follows. I merely question your premise. Here’s another Latin phrase for your study”
“argumentum ad ignorantium”
That’s the logical fallacy of attempting to improperly shift the burden of proof. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Talking to me must really be educational for you. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear you never heard of this stuff before!
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight
😐
Then what the hell are you ballin about?
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
There are myriad explanations for this, not all of which are nefarious or racial, and most have little to do with police abuse. Demographics, poverty, decaying family structure, expansion of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah…
I gave you the shortened version a half hour ago.
😐
Here, I’ll repost it for you since you forgot.
—
BARTLEBEE
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Now you can tell me how they all probably deserve to be there
—
Bartlebee:
“We have more of our people in our prisons, and our criminal justice system, than any industrialized nation on the planet.”
*****************
And based on that purported fact you presume what? There are myriad explanations for this, not all of which are nefarious or racial, and most have little to do with police abuse. Demographics, poverty, decaying family structure, expansion of criminal statutes, sentencing guidelines, and lack of parole are just a few of the possible causes, and none address police actions. Staying on topic or relevant appears a challenge for you. Try looking up these words, they may help:
non sequitur
composition fallacy
observational selection
excluded middle fallacy
Halo Effect
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight. That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials, most of whom are not cops.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I actually thought you could understand argument on a higher level
If by higher, you mean inaccurate, incomplete arguments, then yea,..sure.
You’re “higher” than me.
😐
..course thats a given.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Bartlebee:
it’s just the one I researched and if one leg of your argument is utter BS, why should we accept or care about the rest.
…uhhh…”researched”?
😐
As in saw the update in Yahoo News?
As for the “BS” portion, I took that story, along with one of the other two, off of THIS website.
😐
The bold type is for the reading impaired.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I never said it was the only example you cited
😐
Do we really have to do this?
Ok…. yes..you did as you IMPLIED it.
But it’s the one you cited and you were reckless in your conclusion because you couldn’t wait for the entire story to to come out
By saying “IT’S” the “ONE” you cited, while never bothering to include the OTHER TWO I also cited, but instead saying “ITS” the “ONE” you were “IMPLYING” that I only cited the one.
If you didn’t mean to leave readers of your retort with that impression, you would have said “its ONE of the ONES that you cited”.
But you didn’t.
You said “ITS THE ONE YOU CITED”.
Which makes it clear you wanted to imply I cited only the one.
😐
Nice try Billo.
We have more of our people in our prisons, and our criminal justice system, than any industrialized nation on the planet.
Thats no anecdote. Thats a travesty of a nation calling itself the land of the free.
Its in fact, a sick joke when considering the boast.
I agree we need better pay for police, and better training. But we also need OVERSIGHT.
And until we get CITIZEN OVERSIGHT of the enforcement agencies that rule our communities, nothing is going to change.
And oversight is not “reckless”.
Its our right, as supposed “free” Americans.
Bartlebee:
Ok you have me you clever boy. You’re only one part crazed chicken little, and two parts foolish ideologue. By the way, I never said it was the only example you cited, it’s just the one I researched and if one leg of your argument is utter BS, why should we accept or care about the rest. My error. I actually thought you could understand argument on a higher level. Should have known better–the smiley faces gave it away.
Maybe I should play your game and cite all the stories of officers saving kids from burning buildings or rescuing hostages or even rescuing cats from trees, and ignore the counter-examples. That would prove about as much as your extreme examples of abuse, and would make me as guilty as you of confirmation bias, which as any student of logic knows is a classic fallacy. I am amazed at your utter inability to think rationally. You really should be a neo-con; they check their brains at the door of emotional argument too.
Tolstoy had “thinkers” like you pegged long ago:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Careful, you’re proving russ more prescient every day.
And while you’re asking them, take a brief poll of how many people in the country have been actually “helped” by police, as opposed to being harrassed or harmed by them in some way.
And as for “anecdotal” trends, the US now puts more of its citizens into prison than any other industrialized nation in the world. Red China puts less of its people into prison than us.
—-
Summary findings
On June 30, 2007 —
– 2,299,116 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 1.8% from yearend 2006, less than the average annual growth of 2.6% from 2000-2006.
– 1,528,041 sentenced prisoners were under state or federal jurisdiction.
– there were an estimated 509 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents – up from 501 at yearend 2006.
– the number of women under the jurisdiction of state or federal prison authorities increased 2.5% from yearend 2006, reaching 115,308, and the number of men rose 1.5%, totaling 1,479,726
US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Justice Statistics
—
So much for anecdotes, ay?
😐
Now you can tell me how they all probably deserve to be there.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. God forbid.
Just ask Americans who they’re really more afraid of.
Criminals?
😐
Or cops.
Now the officer, since fired, could end up facing criminal charges in Pikes’ January death after medical examiners ruled it a homicide.
Dr. Randolph Williams, the Winn Parish coroner, told CNN the 21-year-old sawmill worker was jolted so many times by the 50,000-volt Taser that he might have been dead before the last two shocks were delivered.
Williams ruled Pikes’ death a homicide in June after extensive study
And here. Here’s another one you can also forget to count if you like.
Ex-cop may be charged in case of man Tasered to death
From Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick
CNN
WINNFIELD, Louisiana (CNN) — A police officer shocked a handcuffed Baron “Scooter” Pikes nine times with a Taser after arresting him on a cocaine charge.
He stopped twitching after seven, according to a coroner’s report. Soon afterward, Pikes was dead.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 7:57 am
Bartlebee:
“And thats just ONE incident. Just ONE.”
******************
But it’s the one you cited and you were reckless in your conclusion
No slick, I cited THREE incidents…in my “reckless conclusion”.
Not “one”.
THREE.
😐
Learn to count…or read….before coming at me again.
Bartlebee:
“And thats just ONE incident. Just ONE.”
******************
But it’s the one you cited and you were reckless in your conclusion because you couldn’t wait for the entire story to to come out. If you want to opine that because there are excesses in police conduct that the whole system is corrupt, you’d best account for the majority of cases where the arrests are proper and by the book. They don’t make the paper. Yours is a classic hasty generalization, and you simply cited it because it fits into your rigid mindset. That is the mark of an ideologue and not a person determined to follow the truth wherever it might lead. No one defends excesses, but your error was extrapolating to the whole in some wild hyperbole. While there might be some disturbing trends (and I haven’t seen any data besides anecdotal evidence of that), that does not call for such blanket condemnation of those who patrol your streets while you blissfully sleep at night.
Like a Waffen on a Jew.