Reply to Man from New Yorker article about Rikers commits suicide

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Man from New Yorker article about Rikers commits suicide"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.[/quote]

Your reading of that article is highly selective.  "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial.  There was no evidence to work through.  His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not.  Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.[/quote]

And he could have pushed for a speedy trial because the state also has the right it drag its feet as it builds its case. It's up tI the defendant to say Nope! Speed this up, (remember: Oftentimes they're out on bail and don't care about speed.) let's also remember that KaliEd was initially denied bail because his arrest was a probation violation. The other accused was released without bail. Then when he was allowed bail. It was only set at $3,000 but the family could not or refused to come up with $300. After so many run ins with the law, the mother could've very well decided she was fed up and he needed to learn a lesson.

My problem is the selective retelling of this story. This was no saint who was unfairly railroaded, put into a dangerous prison with adult men (he was with teens), beaten for no reason (we saw him throw the 1st punch AND guards actively protect him, even pushing him into a safe room), thrown into solitary confinement for no reason (by his own admission he was fighting), and just screwed over because police decided to pick on him for no reason. It's possible he and a friend DID rob that boy. If he stole and crashed a vehicle just 8 months prior and whatever other crimes he engaged in, I wouldn't put a robbery past him.

I feel badly for his loss, but there's no proof 1. He was treated any worse than any other prisoner 2. The state of NY was the cause of his demise. He was tdoubled before Rikers and headed in the wrong direction.[/quote]

Your argument is that some people are less deserving of their constitutional rights.  [/quote]

My argument is that some rights must be demanded. If he felt the state was dragging, he could've had his attorney go to court and press for a speedy trial. They don't always happen immediately.

My 2nd argument is that people need to look at the REAL story instead of rewriting a tale filled with lies. This is not innocent angel, maliciously plucked off his cloud and thrown into a prison system by meanies out to beat, deny bail and solitarily confine a poor black kid.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics