login
Tookie Williams (Page 7)
-
No new posts
|
 2005-12-13 4:21 PM in reply to: #304875 |
Buttercup  14334    |  Subject: RE: Tookie WilliamsRocket Man - 2005-12-13 3:50 PM I have been following this discussion all day and have held off adding my opinion but I just can't stay quiet anymore... Not to open up another can of worms, but this sounds alot like the whole argument on the Patriot Act. In my opinion you shouldn't care if you don't have anything to hide. Same for capital punishment, if you aren't planning to kill someone then it shouldn't matter. Seems to me wholly unAmerican to not care when the PowersThatBe (government) make dodgy moves to strip me of my civil liberties. My civic Fathers warned me over 200 years ago to never trust government and those who would rob me of my liberties. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. If none were to have Liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the world. All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual In a government bottomed on the will of all, the... liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Edited by Renee 2005-12-13 4:27 PM |
| 2005-12-13 4:22 PM in reply to: #304890 |
Elite 2733  Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Opus - 2005-12-13 4:02 PM ASA22 - 2005-12-13 4:41 PM There is no seperate standard for physical and testimonial evidence. While there is no separate standard for physical and testimonial evidence, when the jury is presented with two opposing versions of what transpired by two witnesses to the same event, are they allowed to make a judgement on credibility? I would say that the answer is probably yes (otherwise few people would ever be convicted). If this is the case, and the jury is allowed to determine who is credible and who is not, then it would seem to me that even if testimonial evidence carries the same legal weight as physical evidence, the fact that inanimate physical evidence does not lie or contradict itself and others not only automatically lends it more weight than testimonial evidence, but also makes it of a completely different character. So, legally they are the same, but it would seem to me that the jury would believe evidence of the bloody fingerprint before the cries of "I'm innocent" by its owner. All correct. But, it has been inferred that a conviction that is based on a case where there is no physical evidence is somehow lacking. I would love to have physical evidence in all cases. What I'm trying, and apparently not doing a very good job of it, is to get across the fact that 1) physical evidence is not required; 2) The vast majority of cases tried in the country on a daily basis have little to no physical evidence; 3) The average person often has unrealistic expectations regarding what type of physical evidence they expect to find in a case. You mention the bloody finger print (hardly ever actually happens, it does, but it's rare) anyway, you only get the bloody finger print if there is contact with blood. I just had a case where a defendant slashed two victims with a razor knife, victim one was cut under the left ear, down across the cheek under the chin, under the adams apple in a diagonal, with the wound ending at the right collar bone. Victim two was slashed three times forming the literal "zoro" mark on her back. The only blood that was on the defendant was one drop of blood on the tip of his shoe. This spot tested negative on a presumptive reactive test. Only after going to a special lab did it test positive. His hands failed to react for the presence of blood, his shirt was clean, his pants were clean. There was ALOT of blood on the scene. The expectation would be that he would be covered in blood. But the reality was different. There's also this inference that cops and prosecutors are out there fabricating evidence and trumping up charges against the innocent. Does it happen, of course. But it's rare! We try to do the right thing. We try to only file charges on those case we feel we can prove. Police want to solve the crime, not finger the innocent. I started all of this by saying I understand and respect the views of the anti-death penalty camp. My purpose was to show that often the facts portrayed in the media and by certain groups are skewed for there own agenda. Also to try to point out that this idea of no physical evidence and the CSI effect is bunk. I've tried over 60 sexual battery cases and I've had DNA in only 2 of those cases! If you're interested in the specifics of why DNA isn't found in the majority of sexual battery cases let me know and I'll tell you. |
| 2005-12-13 4:22 PM in reply to: #304875 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Rocket Man - 2005-12-13 2:50 PM I agree that when there is direct physical evidence, the error rate is much lower. However, there is a very high margin for error when there is only testimonial evidence that leads to a conviction ( see my previously cited cases for examples ).I have been following this discussion all day and have held off adding my opinion but I just can't stay quiet anymore. 1) The argument of "not sentencing an innocent man/women to die"- It seems to me that anyone even suspected of capital murder has some criminal history or incredibly bad luck. Last time I checked they didn't go and jerk random people out of their homes and convict them of capital murder. These suspects must have had SOMETHING to tie them to the victims or they would have never been involved in the case from the get go. Secondly, a jury must find someone guilty beyond a resonable doubt.If there is not enough evidence or testimony to create resonable doubt then these people are somehow involved or know who is involved. I really think that the error rate here is very low. You can't fake physical evidence (i.e fingerprints, DNA, etc.). 2) The "we are no better than the killers" argument-what a bunch of crap! If you make the conscious decision to end another person's life then you forfeit your life PERIOD! Apply that to the instruments of the legal system who make a concious decision to end another person's life. Or does it not work that way too? Not to open up another can of worms, but this sounds alot like the whole argument on the Patriot Act. In my opinion you shouldn't care if you don't have anything to hide. Same for capital punishment, if you aren't planning to kill someone then it shouldn't matter. -C |
| 2005-12-13 4:33 PM in reply to: #304907 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams ASA22 - 2005-12-13 3:22 PMThere's also this inference that cops and prosecutors are out there fabricating evidence and trumping up charges against the innocent. Does it happen, of course. But it's rare! We try to do the right thing. We try to only file charges on those case we feel we can prove. Police want to solve the crime, not finger the innocent. I defininitely don't think the vast majority have anything but the highest ideals and the best intentions. However, there is a non-zero number that don't, as you admit. As long as the system is human, it is and will always be, failable. -C |
| 2005-12-13 4:38 PM in reply to: #304912 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams coredump - 2005-12-13 4:33 PM ASA22 - 2005-12-13 3:22 PMThere's also this inference that cops and prosecutors are out there fabricating evidence and trumping up charges against the innocent. Does it happen, of course. But it's rare! We try to do the right thing. We try to only file charges on those case we feel we can prove. Police want to solve the crime, not finger the innocent. I defininitely don't think the vast majority have anything but the highest ideals and the best intentions. However, there is a non-zero number that don't, as you admit. As long as the system is human, it is and will always be, failable. -C I fully uinderstand the notion that if we cannot ensure that everyone that is executed is 100% guilty, then we shouldn't execute anyone. I don't agree with it. But I understand it, respect it, and find it morally compelling, and a solid argument. point well taken. |
| 2005-12-13 4:41 PM in reply to: #304917 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams ASA22 - 2005-12-13 3:38 PM coredump - 2005-12-13 4:33 PM I fully uinderstand the notion that if we cannot ensure that everyone that is executed is 100% guilty, then we shouldn't execute anyone. I don't agree with it. But I understand it, respect it, and find it morally compelling, and a solid argument. point well taken.ASA22 - 2005-12-13 3:22 PMThere's also this inference that cops and prosecutors are out there fabricating evidence and trumping up charges against the innocent. Does it happen, of course. But it's rare! We try to do the right thing. We try to only file charges on those case we feel we can prove. Police want to solve the crime, not finger the innocent. I defininitely don't think the vast majority have anything but the highest ideals and the best intentions. However, there is a non-zero number that don't, as you admit. As long as the system is human, it is and will always be, failable. -C And I respect that I will be unable to convince you otherwise.  I certainly have respect for the job that you do in dealing with some very very unpleasant portions of our society, and hope that I didn't give the impression otherwise.-C |
| 2005-12-13 4:44 PM in reply to: #304076 |
COURT JESTER 12230 ROCKFORD, IL | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams This all I have to say about this.....
| |
| 2005-12-13 5:10 PM in reply to: #304906 |
Expert 906 Olathe, KS | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Renee - 2005-12-13 3:21 PM Rocket Man - 2005-12-13 3:50 PM I have been following this discussion all day and have held off adding my opinion but I just can't stay quiet anymore... Not to open up another can of worms, but this sounds alot like the whole argument on the Patriot Act. In my opinion you shouldn't care if you don't have anything to hide. Same for capital punishment, if you aren't planning to kill someone then it shouldn't matter. Seems to me wholly unAmerican to not care when the PowersThatBe (government) make dodgy moves to strip me of my civil liberties. My civic Fathers warned me over 200 years ago to never trust government and those who would rob me of my liberties. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. If none were to have Liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the world. All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual In a government bottomed on the will of all, the... liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. A- FRIGGIN-MEN on that Renee. "You shouldn't care if you have nothing to hide????" for pete sake this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. |
| 2005-12-13 5:32 PM in reply to: #304917 |
Champion 11641 Fairport, NY | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams ASA22 - 2005-12-13 5:38 PM..... I don't agree with it. But I understand it, respect it, and find it morally compelling, and a solid argument. point well taken. Post of the The basis of a civilized society demonstrated in two sentences. |
| 2005-12-13 7:56 PM in reply to: #304774 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams crusevegas - 2005-12-13 3:38 PM It was due to the fact that he thoguht Tookies celebrity status was a good thing. [/QUOTE OK...catching up after being away for the past 5 or so hours. I never said his celebrity status was a good thing. I never even said the word "celebrity." I did say that I thought what he did while incarcerated was good. If his work kept one kid form joining a gang, or encouraged one gang member to disassociate, then yes, I think that's good. Call me crazy. Again, I never condoned what he was convicted of doing. And again, my argument against the death penalty has nothing to do with the victims, as tragic as they are. And since victims aren't germain to my argument, I didn't feel it necessary to offer an obligatory offering of sympathy for them. My argument against the death penalty is based on my Christian faith and my morality. Because of that, it's just *understood* that I feel sympathy for them and completely understand that it is human for them to want revenge. BUt I didn't feel the need to bog down my position with sympathy for them. |
| 2005-12-13 8:10 PM in reply to: #304863 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams While all evidence must be considered equally, all evidence is clearly not equal. That's why there are juries. If evidence was evidence was evidence, why have juries? Why not just have a clerk tallying evidence the way fight judges count punches? Prosecution: 56 points of evidence. Defense: 48 points of evidence. Prosecution wins! Guilty! In my example, if you sat on a jury and herad an associate of the accused drop dime on his buddy under an agreement that he himself wouldn't face charges, would you consider that a more powerful peice of evidence than DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime? Under the rule of law, you're no doubt right that circumstantial evidence is equivalent to physical evidence. But be serious. If you're prosecuting a case and all you have is he said she said stuff, then how are your chances of winning vs. if you have a bunch of direct physical evidence? Equal? If not, why? ASA22 - 2005-12-13 4:41 PM Re garding your statement that it is not true that physical evidence and testimonial evidence are not judged by the same standard, you're totally wrong on this issue. There is a legal standard for how juries are to weigh the evidence, in Florida it is contained in standard jury instruction number 3.7 and 3.9. Contrary to your assertion there is no legal difference in how a jury is to weigh the credibility of evidence. The jury is instructed that failing to follow the law as set out in the jury instructions is a miscarriage of justice. There is no distinction made between testimonial and physical. On this I'll take my 10 years of actual criminal trial experience and my involvment in the actual trial of well over 2000 cases over your experience. You may think there is a legal difference, or you may want there to be a legal difference but there isn't any. And again this idea that the "forensics and police work are" pretty accurate is such BS! having been involved in the investiagtion of hundreds and hundreds of cases, I'm telling you from my actuall experience, not just my experience watching TV, that the efficacy of the forensic specialists on that show are at the very least, highly exagerated. The show gives the impression that some form of forensic evidence is found or could be found at every crime scene. It's bunk!!!! I'll take almost anything on this board and not strike back in a personal way. But I wont' take someone telling me I'm wrong about a criminal procedure matter. Such as, that I am wrong about the legal standard for weighing the credibility of evidence. There is no seperate standard for physical and testimonial evidence. Let me say this: by examples I'm trying not to illustrate the specifics in a particular case. I am trying to illustrate some of the unrealistic expectations regarding physical evidence that the general public has. I'm also trying to show that there are two sides to each case. I've yet to see a jury convict someone on no evidence. And as an aside, if the police and prosecutors fabricated evidence to gain a conviction, if they took affirmative steps to lie about a defendant, any defendant, I don't care if that defendant is charged with stealing a pcak of gum, those individuals should go to jail for the maximum sentence allowed by law. As a prosecutor my job is as follows 1) Uphold the laws of the State of Florida, 2) Seek Justice, 3) Do what is right and fair; 4) candor toward the Court and the System. |
| 2005-12-13 8:23 PM in reply to: #304847 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Here's what I make of the CSI syndrome: Juries are more educated than ever in what to expect in the way of evidence. To me, it seems like it would make things easier in some ways and harder in others for attorneys presenting their cases. Easier because juries are smarter...they have to do less explaiing, less teaching. But also harder because it forces them to present really good cases. There IS always phsical evidence. I'm a microbiologist and know all about particle shedding. Even in a moon suit in a clean room environment, people shed. Just because police and forensics types aren't adept in collecting it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ASA22 - 2005-12-13 4:28 PM I want to address coredump's post regarding physical evidence. There is a new issue that prosecutors deal with, it's so prevelant now that it has a name it's called the "CSI" syndrome. It is where people have come to unrealistically expect certain physical evidence. Again I don't know the specific facts of this case. And as I argued before I make a decision I would want to make an informed decision. that is I would want to read the trial transcript. That said lets talk about finger prints. Was the suspect a secretor or not? What conditions was the weapon exposed to prior to it being found? These conditions can effect whether or not prints can be recovered. When you say no prints were found, is it that no prints of anyones were found, or no prints of value were found, or prints were found and the defendant was elliminated as the contributor of those prints, or prints were found but there were only 1,2,3,4,5,6, areas of similarity not the required number of similarities to give a definitive positive match. Let's talk about fiber evidence. Why would you expect fiber evidence? Is there something in the facts of the case to suggest that there should be fiber evidence here? (I"m asking I don't know) was there a struggle? Where was the crime committed, outside, inside. If inside what was the ventalation situation. All can effect the finding of fiber evidence. Look all I'm saying is that people have unrealistic expectations of what they think should be found at a crime scene, largely based upon a cop show (CSI) which is total and complete BS. Some of the stuff they do doesn't even exist!!!! |
| 2005-12-13 8:25 PM in reply to: #305054 |
| Subject: RE: Tookie Williams run4yrlif - 2005-12-13 5:56 PM crusevegas - 2005-12-13 3:38 PM It was due to the fact that he thoguht Tookies celebrity status was a good thing. [/QUOTE OK...catching up after being away for the past 5 or so hours. I never said his celebrity status was a good thing. I never even said the word "celebrity." I did say that I thought what he did while incarcerated was good. If his work kept one kid form joining a gang, or encouraged one gang member to disassociate, then yes, I think that's good. Call me crazy. Again, I never condoned what he was convicted of doing. And again, my argument against the death penalty has nothing to do with the victims, as tragic as they are. And since victims aren't germain to my argument, I didn't feel it necessary to offer an obligatory offering of sympathy for them. My argument against the death penalty is based on my Christian faith and my morality. Because of that, it's just *understood* that I feel sympathy for them and completely understand that it is human for them to want revenge. BUt I didn't feel the need to bog down my position with sympathy for them. Jim this will be my last post on the topic & first let me say that my comments were not direct at your personal character. They are and were directed toward your attitude which I perceive that you see that it is OK for Tookie and or any other criminal, has the ability to become a paid successfull author. If I have concluded wrongly based on what you have stated about his status, I apologize and will be happy to discuss this further in private with you. When someone is conviced of something like Tookie was and has the ability to become a paid author or anything else that gets him media attention, I have the same feeling and fire for that situation that I know you do for the Death Penalty. As far as this being construed as personal, could somene tell me how you discuss a combination topic of relegion and politics, (and I think that was how this topic was started out) without it being a personal subject. What if my relegion says it's ok to take the life of someone who has taken the life of another? Who should decide which relegion is more moral? A personal decesion I should guess. Jim, thanks for all the great information I have seen you post in the past. On this topic I think we will only be able to agree to disagree. Jim,, ah the other Jim in Vegas Jim,,,,, the less than moral one. |
| 2005-12-13 9:02 PM in reply to: #305061 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams run4yrlif: I might agree with you except the vast majority of cases that go to trial are not sexual batteries and murders. They are more mundane cases like grand thefts and batteries. The problem that we as prosecutors face is the fact that juries now expect some type of CSI evidence in these mundane cases. Also, don't confuse circumstantial evidence with testimonial evidence. There is circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. There is testimonial evidence and physical evidence. Testimonial evidence can be either circumstantial or direct, but is usually direct. E.G. person A testifies that he saw "x" occurr, that's direct evidence. Physical evidence can also be either direct or circumstantial, but is most often circumstantial. The victim's blood on the suspects shoes is circumstantial. Just a minor pooint of clarification on terms. I understand your point, of course I'd love to have overwhelming evidence in any case. I'd love to have some form of scientific physical evidence to corroborate my testimonial evidence. The fact remains it doesn't occurr in all cases. |
| 2005-12-13 9:03 PM in reply to: #305061 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams run4yrlif: I might agree with you except the vast majority of cases that go to trial are not sexual batteries and murders. They are more mundane cases like grand thefts and batteries. The problem that we as prosecutors face is the fact that juries now expect some type of CSI evidence in these mundane cases. Also, don't confuse circumstantial evidence with testimonial evidence. There is circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. There is testimonial evidence and physical evidence. Testimonial evidence can be either circumstantial or direct, but is usually direct. E.G. person A testifies that he saw "x" occurr, that's direct evidence. Physical evidence can also be either direct or circumstantial, but is most often circumstantial. The victim's blood on the suspects shoes is circumstantial. Just a minor pooint of clarification on terms. I understand your point, of course I'd love to have overwhelming evidence in any case. I'd love to have some form of scientific physical evidence to corroborate my testimonial evidence. The fact remains it doesn't occurr in all cases. |
| 2005-12-13 9:04 PM in reply to: #305061 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams run4yrlif: I might agree with you except the vast majority of cases that go to trial are not sexual batteries and murders. They are more mundane cases like grand thefts and batteries. The problem that we as prosecutors face is the fact that juries now expect some type of CSI evidence in these mundane cases. Also, don't confuse circumstantial evidence with testimonial evidence. There is circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. There is testimonial evidence and physical evidence. Testimonial evidence can be either circumstantial or direct, but is usually direct. E.G. person A testifies that he saw "x" occurr, that's direct evidence. Physical evidence can also be either direct or circumstantial, but is most often circumstantial. The victim's blood on the suspects shoes is circumstantial. Just a minor pooint of clarification on terms. I understand your point, of course I'd love to have overwhelming evidence in any case. I'd love to have some form of scientific physical evidence to corroborate my testimonial evidence. The fact remains it doesn't occurr in all cases. |
| 2005-12-13 9:05 PM in reply to: #305089 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Yes folks it was so important I posted it three times!!!!! I'm such a computer idiot! |
| 2005-12-13 9:52 PM in reply to: #304076 |
| Elite Veteran 781 | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams ASA, I sincerely appreciate what you are doing for us. When I was a USAF squadron commander, I felt that taking care of the good people also meant taking care of the bad. Easy to say, hard to do. Thank you for what you do. And to those of you morally opposed to capital punishment. Fair enough. You just won't change MY mind. I'm not going to change yours. I'm not going to argue. I'm not saying that you're wrong. Just that I've also considered it as well (and I trust that you aren't arguing that I'm so stupid that I don't get it, I do), and I come down on the side of condoning it. I'm allowed. I think it is legal in these parts. |
| 2005-12-14 8:08 AM in reply to: #304907 |
| Pro 4040 | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams ASA22 - 2005-12-13 5:22 PM All correct. But, it has been inferred that a conviction that is based on a case where there is no physical evidence is somehow lacking... Excellent reply! Thanks! Edited by Opus 2005-12-14 8:09 AM |
| 2005-12-14 5:13 PM in reply to: #304076 |
Champion 6931 Bellingham, Washington | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams CSI, they've got Las Vegas (the best-especially Willows) CSI Miami (David Caruso is such a badass/hoot-but really watch it for Calleigh Duquesne -who was featured in Runnersworld) and CSI NY, I only catch it once an awhile. But no CSI LA? Is LA burning yet from the predicted violence? |
| 2005-12-14 5:47 PM in reply to: #304076 |
| Subject: RE: Tookie Williams I've stayed out of this, but let me check out my Century City office window...Hmmmmm... I see the ocean, some clouds, no burning though. Having been thru it in 92, it's not fun, and I am VERY GRATEFUL that we are not seeing that kind of violence, especially since most of it was wrought in the poorer neighborhoods that simply can't afford it I can respect people's views who are anti death penalty, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. I understand being anti death penalty and believing in redemption are different, but when people claim a man is redeemed because of the books he's written, one of which is dedicated to a man who participated in a raid on a courtroom where the judge had a shotgun taped to his neck and had his head blown off and who participated in a jail break leaving 3 guards dead, and because of his work in prison, while in which he planned (in writing) to escape, including violence on the guards, and who has never renounced the Crips, nor has he ever atoned for the murders, I have a hard time buying redmeption. Don't you need a "deem" to be "redeemed" from?. For those people, had tookie been executed within a year or so of the crime the arguments fall apart. Edited by ChrisM 2005-12-14 5:49 PM |
| 2005-12-14 5:58 PM in reply to: #305683 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams BellinghamSpence - 2005-12-14 2:13 PM Is LA burning yet from the predicted violence? That was all media hype. The NAACP and pretty much all black civic leaders came out against Tookie (except Jesse Jackson who didn't even know the victims family names). Media coverage was completely one sided. A demonstration downtown of his supporters turned out 18 people. They planned to walk 10 blocks with their signs raising all hell but when the turnout was so low, they decided to drive the 10 blocks.... The flipside was that over 300 people showed up to a rally against Tookie. There was no media coverage whatsoever. It was only a week after the fact that it was brought up on talk radio that it even came out that there was a rally. |
| 2005-12-15 9:02 AM in reply to: #304076 |
Champion 6931 Bellingham, Washington | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Thank goodness LA is ok. Now just wait for those nasty Miami Heat to arrive to battle the Lakers.  |
| 2005-12-15 3:17 PM in reply to: #305953 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams BellinghamSpence - 2005-12-15 6:02 AM Thank goodness LA is ok. Now just wait for those nasty Miami Heat to arrive to battle the Lakers. Haha, I'm still bitter about that. I'd rather have Shaq than Kobe in a heartbeat  |
| 2005-12-15 8:04 PM in reply to: #304076 |
Member 34 | Subject: RE: Tookie Williams Someone has made the statement that Tookie should have outed the other gang members, stating that doing so would have a similar effect as if a mob boss were to out the rest of their outfit. Unfortunatly, the Crips are not organized crime (like the mafia is) - Tookie could have outed all the people he knew, but the Crips would still function - they are more of an everyman for themselves group. The mafia OTOH is run much like a corporation, and as such, needs a system in place to work. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK