The Dutch Empire, Slavery, and Historical Memory

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't regard lying about something to be an acceptable strategy on a Debates Forum as you obviously do.

Would you care to retract your false claim about the defense strategy in this case? i.e. Duchy: "Their excuse was they had thought that Vincent Chin was Japanese, and they blamed
him personally for unemployment among Detroit auto workers."

And would you care to explain why you are a better judge of the evidence based on your reading of news articles and internet stories than the jury that heard all the legally relevant evidence and found "no racial motivation in the killing of Vincent Chin."?

The rest is your worthless, lying personal attacks which are not worth responding to. And I won't respond to any further ones that don't deal with the issues I have raised.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchy: I am NOT LYING (knowingly making a false statement) when I attribute racism to the motivations of Vincent Chin's murderers and the judge who freed them.


But you are lying when you claim that the "excuse" the defendants gave was what you said in your initial post, aren't you? i.e. ""Their excuse was they had thought that Vincent Chin was Japanese, and they blamed
him personally for unemployment among Detroit auto workers."

That isn't true, is it?

And the rest of the post is just more lies attributing to me positions that you are perfectly aware that I do not endorse. I've already said, as I have said many times before, that I do not feel qualified to criticize a factfinder in a trial when they saw all the legally relevant evidence and I did not. Your Appeal to Popularity is logically fallacious and just one of the many logical fallacies you are relying on including an Appeal to Emotion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, in Federal Court they would have had to prove exactly what you have repeatedly claimed i.e. that the crime was committed because of a racist motive. In fact, they wouldn't even have to prove that but rather "a substantial motivating factor for the defendants' actions was Mr. Chin's race, color,
or national origin." They failed to do so after the result in the first trial was overturned for grievous prejudicial errors. The "coaching" had to do with getting several witnesses together to make their stories compatible and then the court refusing to let the defence put into evidence a tape of that coaching. As the court said:

"Ebens should have been permitted to introduce into evidence the entire contents of the tapes at least insofar as they involved conversations occurring at the time the government witnesses were present. The three witnesses were the most crucial of all witnesses for the government. Each testified as to events inside the Fancy Pants Lounge and to verbal exchanges between Ebens and Chin. The Chan tapes were offered to support Ebens' claim that Choi, Koivu and Sirosky did not tell the truth when they testified that they heard the racial statements. Since the physical facts of the assault were essentially undisputed, the entire defense hung upon Ebens' claim that the fight was not racially motivated."

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-ebens#:~:text=Ebens%20had%20killed%20Chin%20in,occurred%20on%20June%2019%2C%201982.&text=We%20cannot%20permit%20the%20judgment,to%20toe%20crime%20of%20manslaughter.

This is not a "technicality" but an error that seriously undermined the defense's case in a blatantly unfair matter. Impeachment of government witnesses is generally the heart of a defence case and to erroneously omit evidence going to the heart of the credibility of crucial witnesses is a denial of the basic right to a fair trial.

Duchy makes two claims that are nowhere supported by her source:

1) "In contrast, the extremely lenient sentence was popular with Detroit's white people."

The evidence for this is ....................................... what?

2) That the Cincinnati jury was an all-white one.

The evidence for this is ..................................... what?

The idea that a jury in 1986 had never heard of anti-Asian racism is too absurd to even respond to.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

These are just more pathetic lies. I didn't "fiercely defend" Brock Turner's sentence and I certainly haven't shown any sympathy for the killers of Vincent Chin. In both cases, I have merely pointed out the many untrue statements you made regarding the cases.

Your Appeal to Emotion is transparently fallacious; families of victims are not generally considered impartial observers of what is or isn't "justice".

Again, I was not on the Cincinnati jury and did not hear all the evidence so I cannot say how well " the US justice system worked for Vincent Chin". I have already said the manslaughter sentence was apparently lenient though, again, the judge had more facts at hand than I or you do.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You did lie in claiming that it was their "excuse". You should just admit it.

You also keep leaving out the words "allegedly" as to any racial slurs or racist motivations the defendants had. A jury found no such motivations and a more simple explanation is that the defendants pursued and killed Chin as the result of a barroom fight in which it is undisputed that Chin threw the first punch and then challenged the defendants outside to continue the fight. Of course, that does not legally justify what the defendants did but it makes the case a bit different from a couple of white guys deciding to kill a "Japanese" guy because of global changes in auto sales.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your memory sucks; I opposed the recall and vigorously said so. That was the main topic of conversation in the Brock Turner thread.

I did say the judge's sentence was legal and in line with the Probation Officer's recommendation but again made no claim of what a sentence should be in the case. I hardly "fiercely defended it" as you, with your usual tendency to falsely exaggerate, claim.