What happened to the posters supporting the hot car baby killer?

[Michigander_Life]

There were SEVERAL posters in the first couple threads on this story who were extremely condescending in their disdain for anyone who supported the arrest of the father in this case. They were vocal and loudly proclaimed how the murderer's search history was irrelevant and that we were wrongfully convicting this man in the court of public opinion.

Their voices are curiously absent from the recent threads detailing the mounting, crushingly-overwhelming evidence of his knowledge and his premediation -- evidence of his guilt.

I'm glad that the father gave a statement to police without counsel. He may have gotten away with this if he had invoked his right to remain silent.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Hot car distraction is what it is, another sentencing first, verdict later in the media circus court

[Michigander_Life]

7. Really?

Distracted in the 45 seconds it took to go from breakfast to his work? The premeditation shown by his searches? Viewing a video about it? His lies to police about his activities dring the day? His participation in child free groups? His life insurance policies on the child coupled with financial difficulties? His wife asking if be "said too much?"

And on and on...

Disgusting! Anyone who supports this obvious murderer has an agenda. There are cases of people wrongfully convicted in the court of public opinion, but not ALL people convicted in the court of public opinion are convicted wrongfully. In fact, most deserve it and are later convicted in a court of law.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Evidence deduced from the media is not evidence, and it is still not the media, or you, that gets

to weigh that evidence and draw conclusions of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why do so many want to shred the golden thread in criminal law of innocent until prove guilty in a court of law? Because it is fun, I guess, highly amusing, no real harm done.

Speculation is the stock in trade of the media, evidence is the stock in trade of courts, speculation is not allowed, period.

[MohRokTah]

20. "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"...

only applies to judges and juries in a court of law.

Prosecutors must determine in their mind the person is guilty in order to prosecute effectively, so that standard does not hold for prosecutors at all.

There is precisely ZERO chance I could ever be on the jury and no way in hell I could ever be a judge, ergo, I have a constitutionally protected right to formulate my opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the charged and to convey that opinion openly as I so choose.

Why do you hate the standard of the First Amendment?

[TorchTheWitch]

28. most of the evidence came at his preliminary hearing today

And the media was right all along seeing they got their info from the press conferences the police did and the actual warrant.

Guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is for a court of law. Anyone is free to give their opinions on guilt or not based on the reported evidence.

Incidentally, the media hasn't been giving opinions on guilt or innocence unlike many other cases. They've just presented the known facts... like the media is supposed to. Would you rather just not have any media so we don't get to know anything and thus can't form our own opinions about various issues and remain woefully ignorant?

What do you care about any case where people make decisions on guilt or not? Hell, we do a hell of a lot worse here on DU accusing people of this or that based on next to nothing every day.

[Fred Sanders]

29. The standard of proof at a preliminary hearing is "could be guilty" and the evidence admission

standards are let it all in for now. It the not the same at trial, trials outside the court of public opinions presided over by internet pretend lawyers and judges.

Remember the Central Park Five?

Armchair criminal lawyers are as useful as armchair brain surgeons.

[TorchTheWitch]

30. I'll remember you said that when he's found guilty

And won't you be just amazed that the evidence presented at trial is going to be the same stuff reported by the media and what we've been talking about since the information was revealed and backed up with documentation and witness testimony.

You're the only one here that's been armchair lawyering. The rest of us have been merely absorbing the information presented and forming opinions on the matter. And somehow you're ever so grieved by it imagining that the media is making shit up and so are the police and DA's office, and they just must have arrested the guy on a lark because Central Park Five... or something.

[Fred Sanders]

31. No problem.. When anyone is found guilty, no problem at all, that is my point.

And straw man arguments are so droll.

[MoonRiver]

32. The evidence is NOT being deduced from the media.

It was presented by a prosecutor in a cause hearing televised on national t.v.

[Fred Sanders]

33. Yes, a day ago it was, is that when the armchair verdicts were made, just yesterday?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I dunno, I must have missed the disdainful ones.

But if you want to do a call out, maybe you should actually name names, or post some links to people doing what you're talking about.

[Michigander_Life]

9. I'm not going to do a call out

If someone wants to out themselves, they may. But their disdain and condescension was very rude and obviously WRONG.

[Nye Bevan]

3. I suspect that some folks found it hard to believe

that a father would intentionally bake his child to death.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I guess they should slink away in shame for not rushing to judgment

in this situation? Or for sticking up for somebody's presumed innocence until time and more information say otherwise? Is this really a "yay, I was right" kind of moment?

[Fred Sanders]

14. Shameful how some people prefer evidence over speculation, the scoundrels.

[Rex]

5. Yeah, funny that...they pretend the court of public opinion will decide his fate in RL.

AS IF.

[JHB]

6. Links?

[Swede Atlanta]

8. The original petition to the DA to drop the charges was withdrawn but

another was raised.

Please change your headline from "baby killer"......you have convicted him without a trial. That is something worthy of Rick Perry or Sarah Palin but not of progressives. If you are a worthy member of DU you will change the headline to something like...."What happened to the posters who were asking the DA to drop the charges against the father ACCUSED of murdering his son". If you don't you don't believe in our system of justice.

I listened to the entire hearing today. Yes there were some startling facts like he was sexting with potentially underage girls while his son sat in the hot car and that the vehicle reeked of the smell of death.

But I believe Mr. Harris deserves the constitutional right of a fair and impartial trial. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The facts as they are coming out are not overly favorable to him but, as an attorney, have seen cases that looked to be a slam dunk in one direction completely turn around. Facts are important.

Both the prosecution now that they have established probable cause and will likely get a Grand Jury indictment will collect additional evidence and dissect what they have. The defense will do the same. That is the nature of our adversary legal system.

But I would refrain from your conclusory statements of "baby killer". They may be part and parcel of the trolls at FR but not here.

[Michigander_Life]

12. Baby killer isn't debatable

He killed the baby whether through negligence or premeditation.

[MohRokTah]

21. He's a baby killer.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[uppityperson]

11. Seriously, how dare anyone want to wait for more facts to be released before condemning?

I'm SERIES!!!!!1111

[Michigander_Life]

13. It wasn't "wait for the facts"

It was the condescension toward posters who thought the known facts were damning.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. I think you meant "condescension". n/t

[uppityperson]

24. link? I've been off du so missed earlier coverage.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. I dunno...the court of public opinion is still in session.

If the evidence that I've read here accurately describes the evidence that'll be presented to the grand jury, I think it's likely that he'll be charged and eventually convicted and sentenced.

... But at this stage of the process that was also true of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans.

[arcane1]

17. Who cares? Should we demand apologies?

Some people rush to judgement, some others don't. Sometimes the rushing ones are correct, sometimes not.

What is to be gained from showing condescension to them now?

[FSogol]

19. "What is to be gained from showing condescension to them now?" - Good question

It is almost like the Nipple Alerter craves attention.

[FSogol]

18. Benghazi!

What a ridiculous thread.

[newcriminal]

22. Don't you have a nipple to alert on?

[Skittles]

23. people should not be tried in the press

no one should feel bad for not rushing to judgement

[Michigander_Life]

25. Should they feel bad for belittling posters for believing the evidence was convincing?

[Igel]

26. Oh, goodie.

Another "either you rush to judgment based on partial information spun in an inflammatory way or you knowingly side with a child-killer" poster.

The ultimate "if you're not with me, you're against all that's good and sane in life." I don't play well with that kind of manipulation and linguistic bullying. I recognize it for what it is. I also look at the psychology behind this kind of game and find it embarrassingly puerile.

Now, sometimes rushing to judgment results in a verdict that agrees with what jurors, looking at all the facts in context, decide. That's a bit of a head rush because, well, it means "we" are right. In some cases it's a downer, because obviously the jury failed to consider things properly and don't agree with us. In most cases it doesn't matter, we know we're right and stop following the media circus, barely noticing that we're obviously wrong.

All that remains is the sense of outrage that we weren't right in some instances--outrage that is fairly quickly forgotten--and the intensely memorable intense dopamine rush of being proven to be right. So we remember all the times we're awesome, downplay the times we suck, and ignore the vast number of times when ... What was that? Squirrel! In short, vigilantism is sometimes right and that's what we remember, so we get an inflated sense of our incredible awesomeness and wonderfulness.

I don't rush to judgment. And I'm usually too busy trying to understand what's going on to worry about immediate outrage, which has little to do with justice or thinking in general. Justice delayed it justice denied (a nice Anglophone saying), but justice rushed is justice buried (a nice Pakistani saying).

[cali]

27. oh for pete's sake. there were posters who said don't rush to judgment

and they aren't absent. One of them at least, has posted repeatedly that he/she was wrong.

[etherealtruth]

34. Since this is a tragedy that occurs yearly, perhaps

People wanted to have compassion for the family before the facts were out.

It is actually laudable to react with compassion when not in full possession of the facts

[Orrex]

35. I blame Ralph Nader.