![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I think he’s deserving of an article of his own, frankly, but the disgusting treatment he’s received is pretty much directly in response to his role in publicizing his friend’s murder, and the media has really failed this guy by moving on as soon as Garner stopped being headline news. On the other hand, Orta is still incarcerated, and I fear and more attention to his plight may make his situation worse. Dude was fed rat poison, for God’s sake. There are plenty of reliably sourced interviews detailing his abuse at the hands of NYPD and corrections. 69.124.33.62 ( talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused about two things with Ramsey Orta? One - why is this such a large segment here? It should be broken off as a seperate article and trimmed to specific facts relating to Eric Gardner. Secondly, the accusation that there are pellets and an attempt to poison Mr Orta remains unsubstantied other than his own testimony, and the source article for it is not a reliable source. Stating this as a non-contraversal fact, is incorrect.
Thank You for listening.
166.84.1.3 ( talk) 05:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The most important fact here is did the police see Garner selling loosies before they even approached him? If they did not SEE him selling loosies, but merely suspected that he was selling loosies on no better evidence than that they SAW him out on a sidewalk, that makes the case for murder, because any death that results from an illegal action is murder. . There's a famous case where a kid decided to participate in illegality. He was helping his friend burgle an empty house. They went in, unarmed. The house wasn't empty. The owner legally shot and killed the boy's friend. That boy is now serving a very long prison-sentence for the murder of his friend, because that murder arose as a result of a prior decision to engage in law-breaking. Obviously the boy had no DESIRE to see his friend killed. That's no the theory. The theory is that if you agree to break the law, you have "agreed to" a wide range of consequences that can be foreseen to be possible results of your decision to break the law. One of those possible results is that the house isn't empty and the occupant shoots and kills an accomplice. You know that is a possible result, but, in disregard of the possibility of that happening, you perform the crime anyway. What had been, before, a possible result, then changes into an ACTUAL result, and you are guilty of that, because you went in wide open knowing that it could happen, and the knowledge that it could happen didn't deter you.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I think he’s deserving of an article of his own, frankly, but the disgusting treatment he’s received is pretty much directly in response to his role in publicizing his friend’s murder, and the media has really failed this guy by moving on as soon as Garner stopped being headline news. On the other hand, Orta is still incarcerated, and I fear and more attention to his plight may make his situation worse. Dude was fed rat poison, for God’s sake. There are plenty of reliably sourced interviews detailing his abuse at the hands of NYPD and corrections. 69.124.33.62 ( talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused about two things with Ramsey Orta? One - why is this such a large segment here? It should be broken off as a seperate article and trimmed to specific facts relating to Eric Gardner. Secondly, the accusation that there are pellets and an attempt to poison Mr Orta remains unsubstantied other than his own testimony, and the source article for it is not a reliable source. Stating this as a non-contraversal fact, is incorrect.
Thank You for listening.
166.84.1.3 ( talk) 05:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The most important fact here is did the police see Garner selling loosies before they even approached him? If they did not SEE him selling loosies, but merely suspected that he was selling loosies on no better evidence than that they SAW him out on a sidewalk, that makes the case for murder, because any death that results from an illegal action is murder. . There's a famous case where a kid decided to participate in illegality. He was helping his friend burgle an empty house. They went in, unarmed. The house wasn't empty. The owner legally shot and killed the boy's friend. That boy is now serving a very long prison-sentence for the murder of his friend, because that murder arose as a result of a prior decision to engage in law-breaking. Obviously the boy had no DESIRE to see his friend killed. That's no the theory. The theory is that if you agree to break the law, you have "agreed to" a wide range of consequences that can be foreseen to be possible results of your decision to break the law. One of those possible results is that the house isn't empty and the occupant shoots and kills an accomplice. You know that is a possible result, but, in disregard of the possibility of that happening, you perform the crime anyway. What had been, before, a possible result, then changes into an ACTUAL result, and you are guilty of that, because you went in wide open knowing that it could happen, and the knowledge that it could happen didn't deter you.