How do you guys feel about prosecutors using rap lyrics in indictments?

[Present]

Type of cats that agree to roadside searches because they "don't have anything to hide"

 

[Comparison Ford]

How is that example "moving goalposts"?

The goalposts didn't change; the variables did.

 

[Present]

The Question:

"What are your opinions on this tactic? Should prosecutors be able to use lyrics against artists? Does this infringe upon the free speech of these individuals?"

The Answer:

Rather than exclude lyrics from being used in jury trials entirely, the RAP Act’s main function is to take the determination of their relevance out of the hands of jurors and prosecutors by requiring the prosecution to prove their relevance in hearing separate from the jury. In addition to passing these checks, the admissible lyrics must be redacted to include only the relevant facts as approved by the hearing. The bill outlines the requirements for that legal validation as having to prove “by clear and convincing evidence”


"If there was a country musician giving detailed, explicit information on a song about how he molests little kids, something tells me you wouldn't be dying on this hill"

BRUH!

 

[moonman818]

Type of cats that agree to roadside searches because they "don't have anything to hide"

I'm just not the type of cat to tell a pig I have drugs in the car, then get mad when he finds drugs in the car

Yall really pushing 40 years old thinking like this

 

[WASHED KING]

Killing people is worse than sex crimes... so again I don't understand the logic.

But of course, it can't be addressed directly, because you would look silly defending the artist in this case

I disagree with that first statement but that’s irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Comparison Ford]

I disagree with that first statement but that’s irrelevant to the thread.

So is that to say you'd rather your mom be murdered than sexually assaulted?

 

[Present]

I'm just not the type of cat to tell a pig I have drugs in the car, then get mad when he finds drugs in the car

Yall really pushing 40 years old thinking like this

Rap lyrics are not probable cause for search and seizure my G.

Y'all indicting Biggie for shooting Pac or nah?

I mean after all - he had no choice but to separate the weak from the obsolete right?

 

[moonman818]

Today I learned WASHED KING thinks sticking your thumb in a girls butt without consent is worse than slitting her throat

 

[moonman818]

Rap lyrics are not probable cause for search and seizure my G.

So we both agree on something, cool.

 

[letsgetit22]

Rap lyrics are not probable cause for search and seizure my G.

Y'all indicting Biggie for shooting Pac or nah?

I mean after all - he had no choice but to separate the weak from the obsolete right?

Something vague like who shot you lyrics is different than these dudes saying names and exactly how they killed someone.
I agree that lyrics can't be the only evidence, but I do think they can be used as addional evidence when you are detailing how you killed someone, if it matches how someone was killed. How is that different from a confession video used in court?

 

[WASHED KING]

Today I learned WASHED KING thinks sticking your thumb in a girls butt without consent is worse than slitting her throat

Nope you didn’t use that. You can’t bring forth an analogy and then rearrange it to fit your narrative

But yes you did learn I do think SA against an innocent child is worse than killing a rival gang member.

Be consistent.

If there was a country musician giving detailed, explicit information on a song about how he molests little kids, something tells me you wouldn't be dying on this hill

 

[Present]

Thumbs? Butts?

Y'all lunchin

 

[Comparison Ford]

Nope you didn’t use that. You can’t bring forth an analogy and then rearrange it to fit your narrative

But yes you did learn I do think SA against an innocent child is worse than killing a rival gang member.

Be consistent.

...but he made an analogy based off of the statement you made.

He didn't rearrange anything. You just added caveats after the fact.

 

[WASHED KING]

...but he made an analogy based off of the statement you made.

He didn't rearrange anything. You just added caveats after the fact.

That is literally chronologically and factually incorrect.

This was his post. Notice he mentions, little kids.I bolded the statement so you can see it better. This post occurred at 11:32 am today.

If there was a country musician giving detailed, explicit information on a song about how he molests little kids, something tells me you wouldn't be dying on this hill

After that I responded with this. This post occurred at 12:32 pm. I don’t believe time shifted today. So my post was in response to his.

So we're creating a fake child abuser country artist to move goal posts?

Never change NT.

After which he responds to my post with this.

Killing people is worse than sex crimes... so again I don't understand the logic.

But of course, it can't be addressed directly, because you would look silly defending the artist in this case

I responded to this take under the assumption he wasn’t changing the parameters of his argument from child abuse to Thumbs in butts but NT will NT so I’m not surprised.

Today I learned WASHED KING thinks sticking your thumb in a girls butt without consent is worse than slitting her throat

So please show me where EYE added a caveat to my argument because EYE am not the one who created the R Kelly/Luke Bryan collab artist only to remove him from the equation? Comparison Ford

 

[moonman818]

Imagine typing all that because you can't admit you're wrong

Still waiting for someone to address this.

If you clearly state you did something that investigators have evidence that you did, why wouldn't that be admissible?

 

[Comparison Ford]

That is literally chronologically and factually incorrect.

This was his post. Notice he mentions, little kids.I bolded the statement so you can see it better. This post occurred at 11:32 am today.



After that I responded with this. This post occurred at 12:32 pm. I don’t believe time shifted today. So my post was in response to his.



After which he responds to my post with this.



I responded to this take under the assumption he wasn’t changing the parameters of his argument from child abuse to Thumbs in butts but NT will NT so I’m not surprised.



So please show me where EYE added a caveat to my argument because EYE am not the one who created the R Kelly/Luke Bryan collab artist only to remove him from the equation? Comparison Ford

When he introduced the argument as "killing people" and you disagreed. You made no distinction based off of any other variables until AFTER the fact when you factored in sexual assault against an innocent child vs. a rival gang member being killed.

While you're here, please demonstrate how the goalposts moved rather than my assertion that the goalposts remained the same but the variables changed.

*edit: and since you think sexual assault against a child is worse than murder, would you care to go on record and state whether you'd rather have your hypothetical daughter endure a sexual assault or be murdered?

 

[WASHED KING]

When he introduced the argument as "killing people" and you disagreed. You made no distinction based off of any other variables until AFTER the fact when you factored in sexual assault against an innocent child vs. a rival gang member being killed.

While you're here, please demonstrate how the goalposts moved rather than my assertion that the goalposts remained the same but the variables changed.

Introducing child molestation and then downgrading it mid argument to thumbs in butts because you know your analogy has no legs to stand on is in fact moving goal posts.

 

[VARNELL HILL]

Imagine typing all that because you can't admit you're wrong

Still waiting for someone to address this.

They're just to keep saying you wouldn't do this to a country music artist in lieu of being able to answer this question in good faith.

 

[Comparison Ford]

Introducing child molestation and then downgrading it mid argument to thumbs in butts because you know your analogy has no legs to stand on is in fact moving goal posts.

I never said anything about "thumbs in butts."

You've got the wrong guy. Now try again and actually address my questions (take a look at my addendum if you haven't already).

 

[moonman818]

Introducing child molestation and then downgrading it mid argument to thumbs in butts because you know your analogy has no legs to stand on is in fact moving goal posts.

Bruh you literally said I moved the goalpost by changing the subject to a country artist.... Using YOUR own logic

I bow out.

 

[WASHED KING]

Bruh you literally said I moved the goalpost by changing the subject to a country artist.... Using YOUR own logic

I bow out.

No you moved goal posts by bringing in PEDOPHILIA and child abuse and you know it . But I will let you pretend it’s the music genre that’s the issue here and not the crime you used for your “analogy”

 

[Comparison Ford]

No you moved goal posts by bringing in PEDOPHILIA and child abuse and you know it . But I will let you pretend it’s the music genre that’s the issue here and not the crime you used for your “analogy”

but, again, that's not the goalpost. That's the VARIABLE. The goalpost is prosecutors using this content in indictments.

If you're gonna throw around these terms you should know what they actually mean.

 

[WASHED KING]

but, again, that's not the goalpost. That's the VARIABLE. The goalpost is prosecutors using this content in indictments.

If you're gonna throw around these terms you should know what they actually mean.

He wasn’t discussing the prosecutors indicting them he was referencing our “support” so in his analogy our “support” was the goal post.

“Y’all wouldn’t be dying on this hill”. I know what the terms mean.

 

[Comparison Ford]

He wasn’t discussing the prosecutors indicting them he was referencing our “support” so in his analogy our “support” was the goal post.

Again, no. He’s challenging your logical consistency using the same goalpost but different variables. Try again.

…also didn’t I ask you a question up there?

 

[heelsandeers]

For the "what if it was another genre of music" people. 1996 study in which white people were given lyrics from a folk song and told it was either folk, country, or rap lyrics; or were shown a picture of a white or black person and told they were the author of those lyrics

There have been studies conducted since that draw similar conclusions. No one (in here at least) seems to deny that this type of implicit bias exists within the US justice system

Why is that not the #1 consideration? For every rap lyric used in court probative of guilt, there will be more instances of these lyrics being misused and misinterpreted

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01791.x

Bad Rap for Rap: Bias in Reactions to Music Lyrics​

Abstract​

This research examines the recent public outcry against violent rap songs such as Ice T's “Cop Killer.” It was hypothesized that rap lyrics receive more negative criticism than other types of lyrics, perhaps because of their association with Black culture. Two experiments were conducted to examine the effect of musical genre and race of singer on reactions to violent song lyrics. The results support the hypothesis. When a violent lyrical passage is represented as a rap song, or associated with a Black singer, subjects find the lyrics objectionable, worry about the consequences of such lyrics, and support some form of government regulation. If the same lyrical passage is presented as country or folk music, or is associated with a White artist, reactions to the lyrics are significantly less critical on all dimensions. The findings are briefly discussed in terms of various models of racism and stereotyping.