No disciplinary action for the cops involved in trying to convict innocent boys, and harassing one to the extent that he’s now dead. If their own freedom was on the line, they’d not be so motivated. Time to hold the police accountable:
Dont forget that the whole police qualified immunity was a fiction created out of nothing from SCOTUS. Its not federal law. Not state law.
Pierson v. Ray (1967) is the start of this farce.
And these police, due to non-law SCOTUS making shit up, are able to hound an innocent person for decades and suffer absolutely no punishments for that.
Irony: the real killer was arrested 2 days later and had the murder weapon on him, but it was never matched against the Austin murders. He killed himself in 1999.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eugene_Brashers
Fascinating history. 3 years for a 12 year sentence as the result of good behavior, huh. Amusing. I suppose if someone were to attempt to murder you or someone you love, your best shot is to kill them after their release and then behave well. Then you will have likely saved society from a repeat offender and perhaps you’ll serve a few years. A sacrifice well worth it.
Turns out I work a couple blocks away from the strip model where that shop was. One day I walked by and saw a memorial placard in the ground and started googling to find out what happened there. Pretty nuts. There’s been so much gentrification since the time of the murders that it’s hard to understand what kind of neighborhood it was back in the day.
It's honestly not all that different today. The Shoal Creek neighborhood behind it was well established then, and the mall buildings were the same. North of Anderson has changed a bit more, but not radically.
> In February, Forrest was officially declared innocent, and a few months later he was granted millions of dollars in compensation from the City of Austin. In August, he turned fifty, and his mom and the patrons of the Manchaca Springs Saloon threw him a big party. Sixty friends—many of whom he didn’t even know two years ago—toasted him, hugged him, and gave him raucous high fives. You would think Forrest would, finally, be happy.
I see the argument thrown around a lot that it's unethical to impose the death penalty because it can't be reversed.
This has never made any sense to me. If you put someone in prison for 40 years, you can't reverse that either. If you spread baseless rumors about someone being a murderer, never charge him with anything, and just quietly let everyone in the state shun and despise him for 40 years...
If someone is falsely convicted we may not be able to rewind time but we can publish their innocence widely and give them monetary compensation, and whatever portion of their life remains is returned to them.
Two of the other boys were tried, convicted, and one given the death sentence. The death sentence was later commuted, and eventually they were freed due to the violations of their sixth amendment rights.
I think it's very obvious why your argument is incorrect. All you have to do is apply it assuming it happened to you, then you'll understand the difference.
> If you put someone in prison for 40 years, you can't reverse that either.
If I walk past you on the street and accidentally sneeze at you, I can't reverse that either. But sneezing at you is less of a harm than putting a person in prison for 40 years, which, you know, is less of a harm than murdering a person.
No disciplinary action for the cops involved in trying to convict innocent boys, and harassing one to the extent that he’s now dead. If their own freedom was on the line, they’d not be so motivated. Time to hold the police accountable:
Dont forget that the whole police qualified immunity was a fiction created out of nothing from SCOTUS. Its not federal law. Not state law.
Pierson v. Ray (1967) is the start of this farce.
And these police, due to non-law SCOTUS making shit up, are able to hound an innocent person for decades and suffer absolutely no punishments for that.
Irony: the real killer was arrested 2 days later and had the murder weapon on him, but it was never matched against the Austin murders. He killed himself in 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eugene_Brashers
I had heard about this case but I didn't realize they had finally identified the perpetrator. What an awful human being he was.
Fascinating history. 3 years for a 12 year sentence as the result of good behavior, huh. Amusing. I suppose if someone were to attempt to murder you or someone you love, your best shot is to kill them after their release and then behave well. Then you will have likely saved society from a repeat offender and perhaps you’ll serve a few years. A sacrifice well worth it.
And I suppose their loved ones should then kill you, to save society from another killer...
And I suppose your loved ones should then kill their loved ones...
And so it goes..
Turns out I work a couple blocks away from the strip model where that shop was. One day I walked by and saw a memorial placard in the ground and started googling to find out what happened there. Pretty nuts. There’s been so much gentrification since the time of the murders that it’s hard to understand what kind of neighborhood it was back in the day.
It's honestly not all that different today. The Shoal Creek neighborhood behind it was well established then, and the mall buildings were the same. North of Anderson has changed a bit more, but not radically.
Another example of why the death penalty should not exist. One of the boys spent five years on death row for a crime he didn't commit.
The HBO documentary about this case was excellent and you really feel for Forrest and his family. Highly recommended watch.
> In February, Forrest was officially declared innocent, and a few months later he was granted millions of dollars in compensation from the City of Austin. In August, he turned fifty, and his mom and the patrons of the Manchaca Springs Saloon threw him a big party. Sixty friends—many of whom he didn’t even know two years ago—toasted him, hugged him, and gave him raucous high fives. You would think Forrest would, finally, be happy.
I see the argument thrown around a lot that it's unethical to impose the death penalty because it can't be reversed.
This has never made any sense to me. If you put someone in prison for 40 years, you can't reverse that either. If you spread baseless rumors about someone being a murderer, never charge him with anything, and just quietly let everyone in the state shun and despise him for 40 years...
If someone is falsely convicted we may not be able to rewind time but we can publish their innocence widely and give them monetary compensation, and whatever portion of their life remains is returned to them.
We cannot resurrect a dead person.
Millions of dollars isn't a reversal of 40 years in jail or 40 years of humiliation, but it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.
How does that work? Was he indicted and put on trial?
Two of the other boys were tried, convicted, and one given the death sentence. The death sentence was later commuted, and eventually they were freed due to the violations of their sixth amendment rights.
I think it's very obvious why your argument is incorrect. All you have to do is apply it assuming it happened to you, then you'll understand the difference.
> If you put someone in prison for 40 years, you can't reverse that either.
If I walk past you on the street and accidentally sneeze at you, I can't reverse that either. But sneezing at you is less of a harm than putting a person in prison for 40 years, which, you know, is less of a harm than murdering a person.