tpaine posted:it's your mistake for bringing a new thing into the world
Schopenhauer Was Right
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:i ask everyone who believes in, if not the essential decency of the human race, then at least in hope for the american people: how do you justify the behavior of americans wrt cop worship
"Police just shot a man in the head 10 times for no reason right in front of me holy fuck"
[LA]
HenryKrinkle posted:doesn't t-paine work at one of those hellish amazon warehouses?
wow that totally makes sense and completely explains his burning hatred of both the human race and rap music
wasted posted:also manager "pitching-in" working alongside the workers as some weak ass attempt at solidarity while actually slowing down the rhythm. also manager bitching at you to step it up because of his failed effort at "pitching-in".
this! THIS!!!!!!!
"The first defense strategy that Charles Garry (Newton's lawyer) decided upon was a series of pretrial motions in state and federal courts questioning the validity of grand juries - to prove that my indictment was both illegal and unjust. Garry not only presented arguments against the composition of grand juries, which rarely represent a cross-section of the community, but also maintained that the system itself is unconstitutional. An indictment by a grand jury, he argued, imperils the right to a fair trial. In a grand jury hearing, which are always held in secret, the defendant and his lawyer are not present. Evidence is presented to the jury by the district attorney, but no cross-examination is allowed, and no evidence can be introduced by the defendant. While it is true that grand jury testimony is inadmissible at trials, the fact that the transcript of a grand jury hearing can be published by the press offers little chance of public impartiality towards the accused. Public opinion can be greatly influenced by these transcripts, especially since all evidence and testimony are presented by the district attorney, who is out to prove the defendant's guilt. So it hardly seems fair that a trial jury can then be selected from citizens who have heard of or read the evidence that was responsible for an indictment.After all, an indictment means only that the grand jury felt there was enough evidence of guilt to bring the accused to trial." Huey P. Newton (Revolutionary Suicide pg 202-3)
Pretty interesting analysis of a system we've just seen used in a very different way then the author envisioned. The bolded quotes, for example, are proof of how the system can be altered to punish the unjustly accused or protect the stooge. Obviously there may be differences between the two trials in different states and eras, but for a layman it helps me see the bullshit.
Superabound posted:wasted posted:also manager "pitching-in" working alongside the workers as some weak ass attempt at solidarity while actually slowing down the rhythm. also manager bitching at you to step it up because of his failed effort at "pitching-in".
this! THIS!!!!!!!
Don't know if you're being facetious, but start saving your money (i.e. beyond rent, food, providing morsels for your family, etc.) and apply to other jobs. The guys you're working under will kill you with less apathy than an Auschwitz prison guard.
Red_Canadian posted:So I said awhile ago I was going to type a relevant passage from Revolutionary Suicide so here's my laziest effort.
"The first defense strategy that Charles Garry (Newton's lawyer) decided upon was a series of pretrial motions in state and federal courts questioning the validity of grand juries - to prove that my indictment was both illegal and unjust. Garry not only presented arguments against the composition of grand juries, which rarely represent a cross-section of the community, but also maintained that the system itself is unconstitutional. An indictment by a grand jury, he argued, imperils the right to a fair trial. In a grand jury hearing, which are always held in secret, the defendant and his lawyer are not present. Evidence is presented to the jury by the district attorney, but no cross-examination is allowed, and no evidence can be introduced by the defendant. While it is true that grand jury testimony is inadmissible at trials, the fact that the transcript of a grand jury hearing can be published by the press offers little chance of public impartiality towards the accused. Public opinion can be greatly influenced by these transcripts, especially since all evidence and testimony are presented by the district attorney, who is out to prove the defendant's guilt. So it hardly seems fair that a trial jury can then be selected from citizens who have heard of or read the evidence that was responsible for an indictment.After all, an indictment means only that the grand jury felt there was enough evidence of guilt to bring the accused to trial." Huey P. Newton (Revolutionary Suicide pg 202-3)
Pretty interesting analysis of a system we've just seen used in a very different way then the author envisioned. The bolded quotes, for example, are proof of how the system can be altered to punish the unjustly accused or protect the stooge. Obviously there may be differences between the two trials in different states and eras, but for a layman it helps me see the bullshit.
Thanks for this.
The grand jury system seems bizarre to me. As an australian I found this helpful to understand what the heck it even is: http://theconversation.com/only-in-america-why-australia-is-right-not-to-have-grand-juries-34695
stegosaurus posted:thats fucking boston though.
boston is fucking cool i dont give a fuck
getfiscal posted:i was going to make a joke about like harvard grad students not being the vanguard or whatever but in reality a whole bunch of them formed radacads which was one of the precursors for the revolutionary communist party.
glad you decided to make the joke anyway