I am observing human interaction and behaviour in the continental United States of America. For the past month, the most popular news event has been the case of a Kobe Bryant. It has now been 'dubbed' the 'new Crime of the Century'. I ask why is the interest in this particular case so strong? Maybe it is because Kobe Bryant is a popular athlete-celebrity? That cannot be the case. There are and have been other cases of popular athletes convicted of sexual assault that did not generate this much attention. A more popular star, Mike Tyson, was accused and convicted of rape and the case did not garner as much attention nor was it 'dubbed' Crime of the Century. Ok, so I move on. Maybe it was because of shock value: Kobe Bryant has a 'clean image' and the accusation was such an acute contradiction to his carefully cultivated image that the reaction was immediate. Then I think, well if this is the case, then a similar pattern must have resulted previously. So I pick the most popular athlete of the last century: Muhammed Ali. I come up with nothing comparable. I pick the second: Michael Jordan. Wow, what coincidence! A basketball player. Surely if there is a pattern, it must exist here. The comparisons between the two are uncanny: carefully cultivated images, great players, etc. Ok now the crime so accused...Not the same, but if shock value is what is in question, then let's consider: Michael Jordan was accused of extramarital affairs, one which resulted in a child out of wedlock. Surely such damage to the image of such a reputed and respected celebrity athlete will cause a stir. Not even close. So I continue on and on and on...and I realize I must be missing something. But what? Then it hits me: the PREVIOUS crime of the Century. The double murder case of one Oriental James Simpson. A celebrity athlete who likewise had a cultivated image. What was so peculiar about that case? Oh yea, before the trial and facts, most already had opinions about the case. Why? Shock? No! What? Stop it! What? ...The victims were 'White' and OJ was 'Black'. And before the trial, the vast majority of Whites thought he was guilty whilst the majority of Blacks thought he was innocent. The media thus cultivated this polarity and reaped the rewards of more viewership. Ok then the same pattern amongst the races must exist, and lo and behold, it does: Blacks: Whites 66% innocent 38% 25% guilty 41% http://www.msnbc.com/news/949835.asp?0cv=SB10&cp1=1 But why????
black people hope that he isn't guilty. and are all well aware of this contry's history of railroading inocent black men. so they may see this as posibly another instance of this patern. it was the same with the OJ case IMO. white people, well I don't know what's going on with them. maybe some a little quick to assume guilt. I dunno. anyway, anyone who thinks they know what happened is making a wild guess. None of the relevant details have been made public yet. in the words of Chris Rock on the OJ case "black people too happy, white people too mad"
Antarctica, obviously. spacemanspiff, you'll have to do better than that. You make an allegation, back it up. It may seem "obvious" that America has "railroaded" the "black man", but in what trial was an obviously innocent black man convicted? Was this the norm? Above all can you prove your opinions or merely appeal to popular prejudice?
Xev and Guyute, instead of lambasting the guy, can you please provide what you think is an answer to my question? Why all the attention? Are the parrallels between the OJ case relevant? If not, why? Can you provide a better parralel/example to explain your reasoning as to the root cause? Thanks I don't want to assume what space... means by the 'South...', but I hope you are not oblivious to the fact that Blacks and minorities on average get longer sentences for like crimes than their White counterparts; this pattern is more apparent n the historic "South"--USA. Oy, Fuck it, I speculatedwhen I said Ishould not. i remind myself of all the so clalled experts on CNN and the like. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/projects/prison/po111500s2.shtml http://www.terry.uga.edu/economics/papers/97/97-458.html
LMAO!!!!!Fuck, that is funny. Call it an optical illusion. I will correct myself: Xev and Redoubtable... Apologies.
O.J was found not-guilty just because he was black. No wait, color has nothing to do with it(just a little) he was found not guilty because HE WAS RICH! If he was a poor black man......Guilty-------->electric chair.
i just assumed it was a rape because the victim doesn't get anything out of reporting it. no money, no fame, no notoriety. it will only hurt her in the long run no matter the outcome. it could have been argued that she just wants a settlement out of him but then it came out that she wants no money, only justice. i wouldn't convict a man based on that but it is pretty convincing. tell you the truth, the perp doesn't even factor into my thinking on this case.
I would agree with the notion of blacks getting shafted in the South and it is thought to continue today. A lot of opinions on white or black thoughts towards trials comes from the media. Case in point: Rodney King Let's see, the guy was resisting arrest as well as speeding off in reckless manner. Somehow the media made a huge deal out of it as if it were a 'race crime'. Even Eazy-E (of all people) would come to the defense of one of the white officers declaring who unjustly he was accused of race violence. Furthermore, Rodney King was busted a year ago for drinking and crashing into trees. Surprise. The blacks 'knew' he was being beaten because he was black. They 'knew' he was surrendering peacefully and obviously not attacking police, so they went and started a riot.
