15 Jul 08
Originally posted by dryhumpWell it certainly could be a case of media biased reporting, slanting it how they want it to be perceived, its happened before and will happen again.
You definitely couldn't tell if there was a reason other than race from the cnn interview. What a piece of crap that was.
But one thing for sure, we on the perifery weren't there and have no basis for judgement one way or the other. Maybe on appeal the defendants can make a better case. If they can prove they actively invited the people to hook up and those people refused, maybe the whole case will get chucked.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by dryhumpThere are white neighborhoods all over the country that do not have city water because they are not in the service area, can they sue too? Is the city being racist against them?
You definitely couldn't tell if there was a reason other than race from the cnn interview. What a piece of crap that was.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
According to this story, there were homes - owned by white people - further up the hill which had full running water, despite Coal Run being told their area was "too hilly" to get water to.
The commission found that on Coal Run Road, none of the 17 black or mixed-race homes had city water service, while two white homes did. On nearby Langan Lane, all of the 18 white homes on top of the hill had city water, while five of the eight black or mixed-race homes in the hollow did not.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/10/ap5203804.html
15 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAs I mentioned before, city service does not extend to many rural areas and it is commonplace for homes to be on well water all across America. I once lived in one, I've got family in Iowa and Wisconsin that currently do the same.
Is there a city that's responsible for their water service?
Perhaps living in Los Angeles you were not aware of that.
Here's a tidbit from the article you quoted you failed to mention:
"Landes countered that about half of Muskingum County residents are not tied into the public water system even today. Among those without it are county commissioners, judges and other prominent officials, he said."
Half the county doesn't have city water service, are they going to collect millions too?
15 Jul 08
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedNot to worry, they won't get it. On appeal they'll have a different judge, who most likely will allow the evidence regarding the cities attempts to get the residents to sign up for service, and their refusal because of the hook-up fee involved. The judge who bent over backwards for the plaintiffs here has an ..........interesting background, and a history of bias for certain people and against others.
If you know what I mean.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWho's this judge?
Not to worry, they won't get it. On appeal they'll have a different judge, who most likely will allow the evidence regarding the cities attempts to get the residents to sign up for service, and their refusal because of the hook-up fee involved. The judge who bent over backwards for the plaintiffs here has an ..........interesting background, and a history of bias for certain people and against others.
If you know what I mean.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDon't be too hasty to judge. After all, when it come to race, people tend to go a little crazy. For example, look at the OJ trial. Now who in their right mind thinks the man was innocent after it was all said and done? Well, if you are white chances are you thought he was guilty as sin because the statistics showed that most whites thought he was guilty, however, most blacks thought otherwise. So why the discrepency with the same amount of information?
Does anyone honestly believe that a jury that's been checked out by both attorneys sat down and said "oh, we are going to lie about what happened because the people suing are black?" and that 100% of the jurors were cool with it?
Then we study the jury that set OJ free. I think the clincher that set him free was the doubt placed in the jury's mind that the police behind the arrest were racists. Make no mistake about it, the "R" word is a formidable weapon to use in such circumstances. It tends to trump evidence to the contrary just as we saw with OJ. We even saw glimpses of this with Obama attacking Hillary in regards to her racial views. LOL. The only question is did the same scenerio pan out in this particular case? Then again, we seem to have the evidence plus the emotion generated from the "R" word. I say they are probably guilty.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyI think it will all hinge on whether the plaintiffs were really asked to be part of the water system. They clearly have a motivation not to admit to such so its up to the defendants to prove their side of it. If they garner enough evidence in that direction, maybe the whole case falls apart. and the 70 have to pay court costs too.
Don't be too hasty to judge. After all, when it come to race, people tend to go a little crazy. For example, look at the OJ trial. Now who in their right mind thinks the man was innocent after it was all said and done? Well, if you are white chances are you thought he was guilty as sin because the statistics showed that most whites thought he was guilty, ...[text shortened]... he evidence plus the emotion generated from the "R" word. I say they are probably guilty.
If they just did not want to pay the startup costs and refused because of that there may be some paper trail to that effect. If so, why didn't it show up in the original trial?
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse, you ARE A MAN! It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.
I think it will all hinge on whether the plaintiffs were really asked to be part of the water system. They clearly have a motivation not to admit to such so its up to the defendants to prove their side of it. If they garner enough evidence in that direction, maybe the whole case falls apart. and the 70 have to pay court costs too.
If they just did not want ...[text shortened]... ere may be some paper trail to that effect. If so, why didn't it show up in the original trial?
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI just found out about this today, and have no emotional ties to it. It still may be proven to be racially motivated but time will tell. Like you say, juries have been duped before. Thanks for the comp!
Sonhouse, you ARE A MAN! It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.