Birth of a Nation sounds INSANE. vol. Nat Turner Slave Rebellion Movie (Teaser Trailer - p. 5)

[wavycrocket]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Instead of name calling and back and forth (that has little to do with the film itself), we can talk intelligibly.

For such an accusation, do you think it's best to have the standard of "guilty until proven innocent" in place from a public perception standpoint?

In a case where inebriation is involved, how do you adequately determine consent?

After all facts are presented, and justice can truly be thought to have been carried out properly, should the public immediately dispel any ideas of guilt associated with the person accused? To do the other would suggest that the judicial system is flawed; if flawed, why trust it?

The public can't have standards because the public is not an institution, and thus the perception of any situation is going to be determined by the perceptions of individual. rightly or wrongly, thats the way it's going to always work so I see no point in hand wringing about it.


personally It doesn't bother me. I will see the movie, and if I was an Oscar voter I could vote for the film without issue.
I can watch woody allen, roman polanski, r kelly stuff a separate the art from the artist. but I can't get mad at other people who aren't willing or can't do that.


It can be difficult to disentangle consent when alcohol, becuase of that having sex with alchol involve will always carry the risk of something like this happening to you, it's the risk you take for mixing alchol with sex.

If you want to take that risk take it, but don't cry if it blows up in your face.


The justice system is flawed, it's really difficult, many people don't trust it, as a black dude I don't trust it half the time. IMO the public and the press do have a role to play a in holding the people in the system accountable. I think it ultimately helps to stregthen the system over time.

 

[the 7th mile]

Let me put it like this.


If 17 years later George Zimmerman wrote a directed a potential oscar winning film. (a film that has a shooting scene in it.)


Don't you think it would be completely fair for him to receive enormous amount of criticism and scrutiny for it?

and don't you think that him coming out and saying "that happened 17 years ago, I was cleared of it, that's that" would only add fuel to the fire?



and even if you think that Zimmerman was innocent and fairly acquitted would you HAVE to acknowledge that the criticism and scrutiny that he received would still be fair given the grey area circumstances of the crime?

Apples and Oranges my brother..I don't know why y'all keep bringing Zimmerman up in this thread [emoji]128514[/emoji] You can't compare homicide to rape. There is a such thing as justifiable homicide, not a such thing as justifiable rape. If you kill somebody, it's not just an open and shut case....With Rape, you either did it or you didn't...You can't rape somebody and claim you did it because you were "Standing your ground" or "feared for your life".

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Comparing him to George Zimmerman, though?

The guy has actively continued to remind us that he killed someone with his antics. How is that a valid example?

He's showed no remorse, and hasn't become a productive member of society after the fact.

cmonm, I'm obviously not comparing the two on a 1 to 1 basis.

im not talking about zimmermans actions afterwards, or even zimmerman as a person, I'm saying the zimmerman case, if zimmer dissapeared for 17 years and came back with a movie wouldn't it be fair for him to criticized and scrutinized vigorously?






If zimmerman is too sensitive, use x person who got off on a crime that involved a grey area situation.

 

[handullz]

I find arguments like this similar to religious arguments, but flipped.

The party that DOESNT believe this was a rape is required to provide objective proof... When those that DO believe it's rape are fine with subjective proof if it supports their argument. The burden of objective proof falls on those that DON'T believe.

It's weird because most of those that are fine with subjective proof in this instance would absolutely CRUSH someone that came into a religious argument with subjective proof.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Comparing him to George Zimmerman, though?

The guy has actively continued to remind us that he killed someone with his antics. How is that a valid example?

He's showed no remorse, and hasn't become a productive member of society after the fact.

cmonm, I'm obviously not comparing the two on a 1 to 1 basis.

im not talking about zimmermans actions afterwards, or even zimmerman as a person, I'm saying the zimmerman case, if zimmer dissapeared for 17 years and came back with a movie wouldn't it be fair for him to criticized and scrutinized vigorously?






If zimmerman is too sensitive, use x person who got off on a crime that involved a grey area situation.

If George Zimmerman was proven not guilty and went on to be a law abiding, tax paying citizen I'd say the same about him 17 years later.

 

[the 7th mile]

Why don't you compare him to somebody who beat a rape case....If Brian Banks or Kobe Bryant wrote and directed an oscar worthy film with a rape scene, would it be fair for either of them to receive criticism and scrutiny for it?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

fine Zimmerman is too sensitrive.




A man gets charged with a crime. the crime has a whole bunch of gray are stuff in it. 50% think he did it, 50% think he was innocent. but ultimately there wasn't enough to convict so the charges are dropped.


17 years late, the culture attitude towards that type of crime has hardened.



Could you expect to take a very public job, that involved talking to the media, being the public face of a large financial and cultural conversation and NOT expect to face criticism related to the case?



and don't you think saying "you 17 years ago, I was cleared, that's that, it's all good" would be a terrible place to start?



what is happening to Nate is FAIR man. \

thats Ill i have left to say on this

 

[heliumclinton]

I find arguments like this similar to religious arguments, but flipped.

The party that DOESNT believe this was a rape is required to provide objective proof... When those that DO believe it's rape are fine with subjective proof if it supports their argument. The burden of objective proof falls on those that DON'T believe.

It's weird because most of those that are fine with subjective proof in this instance would absolutely CRUSH someone that came into a religious argument with subjective proof.

Most rape cases were founded on subjective proof though.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

fine Zimmerman is too sensitrive.





A man gets charged with a crime. the crime has a whole bunch of gray are stuff in it. 50% think he did it, 50% think he was innocent. but ultimately there wasn't enough to convict so the charges are dropped.



17 years late, the culture attitude towards that type of crime has hardened.



Could you expect to take a very public job, that involved talking to the media, being the public face of a large financial and cultural conversation and NOT expect to face criticism related to the case?




and don't you think saying "you 17 years ago, I was cleared, that's that, it's all good" would be a terrible place to start?




what is happening to Nate is FAIR man. \


thats Ill i have left to say on this

Of course it's to be expected, but I don't think that makes it fair.

If he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, he shouldn't have to continue to deal with the consequences of something that he wasn't convicted for. Of course it's going to happen. Men are generally guilty until proven innocent in this country when it comes to rape. You shouldn't continue to be guilty after being proven innocent, but that's what's happening here. 

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Of course it's to be expected, but I don't think that makes it fair.

If he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, he shouldn't have to continue to deal with the consequences of something that he wasn't convicted for. Of course it's going to happen. Men are generally guilty until proven innocent in this country when it comes to rape. You shouldn't continue to be guilty after being proven innocent, but that's what's happening here. 

1. he's not dealing with the consequences of being convicted, the consequences of being convicted are jail, Nate not in jail.

2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?

 

[the 7th mile]

fine Zimmerman is too sensitrive.




A man gets charged with a crime. the crime has a whole bunch of gray are stuff in it. 50% think he did it, 50% think he was innocent. but ultimately there wasn't enough to convict so the charges are dropped.


17 years late, the culture attitude towards that type of crime has hardened.



Could you expect to take a very public job, that involved talking to the media, being the public face of a large financial and cultural conversation and NOT expect to face criticism related to the case?



and don't you think saying "you 17 years ago, I was cleared, that's that, it's all good" would be a terrible place to start?



what is happening to Nate is FAIR man. \

thats Ill i have left to say on this

Replace "man" with "Kobe"

View media item 2144366
View media item 2144370
Same he say she say circumstances, white ***** lying on the black ****, case thrown out....One is an Athlete generating billions for "white ppl" and one is an Actor/Director who is trying to tell the story of one of the most important figures for slavery revolts...we see who is who.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

Of course it's to be expected, but I don't think that makes it fair.

If he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, he shouldn't have to continue to deal with the consequences of something that he wasn't convicted for. Of course it's going to happen. Men are generally guilty until proven innocent in this country when it comes to rape. You shouldn't continue to be guilty after being proven innocent, but that's what's happening here. 

1. he's not dealing with the consequences of being convicted, the consequences of being convicted are jail, Nate not in jail.

2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?

1. He's dealing with the consequences of a rape that he was proven not guilty of. Jail time isn't the only consequence. Ostrasization is also a consequence, and he's dealing directly with that now.

2. No, I never said you shouldn't be able to. I just disagree with you, and think it's unfair. You're entirely free to act as you wish, because I don't know all the answers and I can't make the rules for someone else. I just choose not to hold him accountable for something that a jury let him off for.

 

[richiecotite]

We see why he beat the case.

I'm sure him being a well known athlete was an absolute non factor.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

1. He's dealing with the consequences of a rape that he was proven not guilty of. Jail time isn't the only consequence. Ostrasization is also a consequence, and he's dealing directly with that now.

2. No, I never said you shouldn't be able to. I just disagree with you, and think it's unfair. You're entirely free to act as you wish, because I don't know all the answers and I can't make the rules for someone else. I just choose not to hold him accountable for something that a jury let him off for.

1. No the only consequence of trail is jail.

Ostrasization is the public's job, and that isn't beholden to the criminal justice system.



2. I think you wanna live in a fantasy world where courts are infallible paragons of justice. They ain't.

Who watches the watchmen tho? It's totally fair to call things out if you think they are wrong. You guys are acting like Nate was framed.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Replace "man" with "Kobe"

View media item 2144366
View media item 2144370
Same he say she say circumstances, white ***** lying on the black ****, case thrown out....One is an Athlete generating billions for "white ppl" and one is an Actor/Director who is trying to tell the story of one of the most important figures for slavery revolts...we see who is who.

being famous helped clearly helped kobe duck that L.

but he did lose endorsements for a bit.




unfotunatley being an actor in two ensamble cast middle brow black history movies isn't going to help you duck rape accusation blow back as much as being 3 time champion on the NBA's premiere franchise.

who knew?

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

1. He's dealing with the consequences of a rape that he was proven not guilty of. Jail time isn't the only consequence. Ostrasization is also a consequence, and he's dealing directly with that now.

2. No, I never said you shouldn't be able to. I just disagree with you, and think it's unfair. You're entirely free to act as you wish, because I don't know all the answers and I can't make the rules for someone else. I just choose not to hold him accountable for something that a jury let him off for.

1. No the only consequence of trail is jail.

Ostrasization is the public's job, and that isn't beholden to the criminal justice system.



2. I think you wanna live in a fantasy world where courts are infallible paragons of justice. They ain't.

Who watches the watchmen tho? It's totally fair to call things out if you think they are wrong. You guys are acting like Nate was framed.

1. I'm not talking about who's responsibility it is to ostracize, my point is I don't think he should be dealing with ostracization 17 years after being proven not guilty.

2. The criminal justice system is FAR from infallible. They could have very well got this case wrong too, but I don't have the information to make a judgement either way. I don't know without a shadow of a doubt what happened, so why should I self-righteously pass judgement on the man? I'd much rather respect and trust the opinions of the jury who lived with the information of this case and came to a conclusion.

 

[heliumclinton]

2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?

We do it every time these murderers disguised as cops get off. It's only a problem when you agreed with the not guilty verdict.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?

We do it every time these murderers disguised as cops get off. It's only a problem when you agreed with the not guilty verdict.

Perhaps, we all have biases so I'm sure I do too.

But if an officer killed a black man 17 years ago, and there is no video, and that officer went on in the 17 years since that case being a productive citizen, why continue to ostracize? I'd like to think I wouldn't hold that against him 17 years later if a jury of his peers came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty.

 

[KingParappa]

 

2. So if I think someone is guilty, and they get off, but looking at the evidence I still think they are guilty I lose all right to criticize them not see their movie? wut?

We do it every time these murderers disguised as cops get off. It's only a problem when you agreed with the not guilty verdict.

Perhaps, we all have biases so I'm sure I do too.

But if an officer killed a black man 17 years ago, and there is no video, and that officer went on in the 17 years since that case being a productive citizen, why continue to ostracize? I'd like to think I wouldn't hold that against him 17 years later if a jury of his peers came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty.

Bad choices follow you for life.

 

[the 7th mile]

being famous helped clearly helped kobe duck that L.

but he did lose endorsements for a bit.




unfotunatley being an actor in two ensamble cast middle brow black history movies isn't going to help you duck rape accusation blow back as much as being 3 time champion on the NBA's premiere franchise.

who knew?

Lol that's my whole point, If Nate Parker were an athlete this would be a non-issue. ppl are picking and choosing what to be outraged about by basing it on the accused person's choice of employment. Kobe gets a pass and nobody speaks about that **** 12 yrs later meanwhile 17 years later Parker is being publicly tried because his specialty is "middle brow black history movies"...You don't see the problem with that?

 

[Maximus Meridius]

People more mad about this then the white boy at Stanford that was caught raping a girl.

Where was the feminist on that?

 

[heliumclinton]

People more mad about this then the white boy at Stanford that was caught raping a girl.

Where was the feminist on that?

In the thread ..

 

[Maximus Meridius]

Definitely wasn't this much outrage.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

People were defending that.