Trump's Central Park Five - Closure?

it wasn't aborted or miscarriaged. The child was born alive, and treated the best the doctors could do, they decided they couldn't do any more...other hospitals...40 plus, were contacted, a medical ethics committee reviewed the doctors decision and there was no more treatment that could be done...more over prolonging the life only caused more pain for the child. This wasn't a case where the child could have been saved.

I have no problem with the Govt passing a law that goes against the will of the mother, if proper Due Process is followed...this law gave great due process...and as your link highlighted the child and mother were given great opportutnity.....before the Doctors decided the child could not be treated. Read your own link

 

the next of kin shoudl always be the one to decide to pull the plug, not the government

 

The doctors made the call...the Govt simply provided a Due Process route. Also the law didn't kill the child...the fatal, non-curable illness did.

 

against the mothers wishes

 

That's true. The Doctors,, and 40 plus different hospitals, and the Medical Ethics Committee. This wasn't the Govt's choice....it was the medical personal. Sounds like the right call given the child was in constant pain, and had no chance of being cured. I certainly can understand the mother being emotional at the time. Doctors and medical personal have to make choices routinely that aren't based on emotion but reality.

 

None were charged with the rape they were charged with acting in concert with others in multiple attacks on multiple persons including the rape victim.

Netflix’s False Story of the Central Park Five
Ava DuVernay’s miniseries wrongly portrays them as totally innocent—and defames me in the process.
....Reporters and filmmakers have explored this story countless times from numerous perspectives, almost always focusing on five attackers and one female jogger. But each has missed the larger picture of that terrible night: a riot in the dark that resulted in the apprehension of more than 15 teenagers who set upon multiple victims. That a sociopath named Matias Reyes confessed in 2002 to the rape of Ms. Meili, and that the district attorney consequently vacated the charges against the five after they had served their sentences, has led some of these reporters and filmmakers to assume the prosecution had no basis on which to charge the five suspects in 1989. So it is with filmmaker Ava DuVernay in the Netflix miniseries “When They See Us,” a series so full of distortions and falsehoods as to be an outright fabrication....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflixs-false-story-of-the-central-park-five-11560207823

 

Trump maintained they were guilty of carrying out the attack even after the actual rapist confessed and never apologized or withdrew his wish for them to be executed

 

After they confessed to the crime.. Is it really that difficult to understand, or are you now just pissed off because he didn't apologize? Who cares? I bet their were thousands of people all around the country saying the same thing at work, bars, dinner tables or where ever so in my opinion this subject is just a bunch of nitpickers looking for something to complain about ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Do you struggle with timelines? Which bit of "Trump maintained they were guilty of carrying out the attack even after the actual rapist confessed" did you not understand?

 

Really? He continued to call for their death after they were cleared? Well you throw up a link confirming that with a date

 

Trump maintained they were guilty:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/...central-park-five-calls-settlement-outrageous

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-central-park-five-5-guilty-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

 

I don't think Trump's ever veered from this line "they're guilty of something." Linda Fairsteen is of the same vein. I know of other prosecutors who also stick to the line "they had to be guilty of at least helping in the crime" even after it's proven scientifically that what the prosecution convinced a jury happened, never happened, and there was good reason to know long before appeals courts affirmed the convictions that something wrong happened in the investigation.

What floats Trump's boat on this is more and different from a prosecutor trying to convince themselves they didn't do something monsterously wrong.

 

Meh, democrat mayor. What would you expect.

 

Pretty tricky wording NYTimes is behind a pay wall, but

Actual statement at the time they plead guilty

You didn't prove a thing Moral of the story, don't be a moron and plead guilty to something you didn't do You know! If there was really any concern for this travesty it would be towards the snakes that Coerced these fine upstanding teen into pleading guilty, but that not really important, now is it

 

LOL I proved to you that "Trump maintained they were guilty of carrying out the attack even after the actual rapist confessed"

 

No you didn't Nowhere in your links does it say that and I pasted them word for word.. Now you understand how gullible the left is and WHY they have such a difficult time with logic

Again the question is..

Your links don't say that ​

 

Do you struggle with reading comprehension? You even quoted the extract "Donald Trump has stood by his decades-old claim that the group of five men blamed for a 1989 rape and beating in Central Park before being exonerated were actually guilty. "

and quoted the extract

"Trump maintains guilt of Central Park Five, calls settlement 'outrageous'"

You do know that the settlement took place AFTER the rapist confessed, don't you?

Why should i prove something that I never said?

 

Yes but what you fail to see is

You do understand the wording YOU OWN SOURCE is printing right

 

Yep, you struggle with reading comprehension.

'Outrageous': Donald Trump stands by claim that exonerated 'Central Park 5' are guilty

Donald Trump has stood by his decades-old claim that the group of five men blamed for a 1989 rape and beating in Central Park before being exonerated were actually guilty.

I presume you know the meaning of the words "exonerated" and "stands by" and I presume you know the minimum length of time expressed in the word "decades"?

ie he stands by his claim that they were guilty even AFTER they were EXONERATED

and

Stood by his "DECADES" -old claim as in more than 20 years of him maintaining that they were actually guilty. To make this simpler for you, they were EXONERATED 13 years after they were sentenced, NOT "decades" after

 

Granted I struggle with exonerated, but at least I have a pretty good working knowledge of the word BEFORE

You post where Trump says

What you're doing is using the opinion of the interviewer and not something that can be quoted coming from Trump! Yes I read the links

 

LOL You still can't comprehend the statement you quoted!

"Donald Trump has stood by his decades-old claim that the group of five men blamed for a 1989 rape and beating in Central Park before being exonerated were actually guilty."

There is no way of making it simpler for you to understand such a simple sentence, perhaps one more go: The group of five men were blamed for a 1989 rape and beating in Central Park before being exonerated. Trump has stood by his decades-old claim that the group of five men were actually guilty.

A decades-old claim means Trump has maintained the claim for over twenty years. The length of time between rape attack to exoneration was little over 10 years .

And I gave three links, not one opinion piece

 

BB is arguing against something that's been known and documented long before Trump invented his birtherism. Posting to him is a futile use of bloodpressure.

 

Sure there is, just link a "QUOTE" where Trump actually says "AFTER they were exonerated" that they were still guilty ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

The above is the OPINION of the interviewer and nothing more than that But hey, if that how you roll being told OPINION MATTER then that's your bag bro

 

You are welcome to post where Trump actually claimed they were still guilty after being exonerated

 

LMAO, from your own link! So what's 2002-1989? So the whole decade they were still guilty by admission

And then there is this from your link

Gee wiz, that's odd