Serial Episode 3

Leakin Park

 

              I think Mr. S is fishy because his story of how he found the body is off like it was hidden so well that a trained professional that knew where the body was couldn't find it. Why would he have gone out so far if he had to pee so bad? Wouldn't he have just peed in a cup or one of the cans like not out so far? If you really had to pee so bad you could settle for a little shrub instead of a 127ft walk and a log. I'm more frustrated with the police because as police officers they are supposed to collect the evidence and run it though forensics to see if they could find any evidence because if the case was like Sarah said important wouldn't they have taken every bit of evidence into consideration instead of totally disregarding it? They should have ran the blockbuster movies and seen who they were rented to. As police officers they are supposed to follow every lead even if it leads to a dead end instead of totally disregarding it. They should have also traced the gun or the bullets but that may have lead to a dead end as well. What is also unclear is what kind of questions did they ask Mr. S? If they say he failed because of his pressure from his work why didn't they polygraph him later with the same questions instead of different ones? Why didn't the run the rope through forensics too? Now a days that's what every detective/cop would do. Why didn't they? Adnan wouldn't have been able to drive all that way to a park he didn't even know existed. 

Serial Episode 2

The Break Up

 

             After listening to episode 2 I feel as though Adnan is looking kind of suspicious because of the one piece of information  that says Adnan asked Hae for a ride and killed her in her car. At first Adnan told Officer Adcock that he did ask Hae for a ride but after Hae had been missing for a while and the pressure to find her had risen Adnan changed his story and said that he didn't ask Hae for a ride because he had his own car and he knew she wouldn't give him one. I think this piece of information coming from Jay is unreliable because he has changed his story numerous times to get himself less jail time because after all he was an accomplice to this murder. So I feel like he's just trying to cover his own butt by just throwing random information out there about Adnan. And even if Adnan had asked for a ride she would have denied it because she was already busy enough like she had to pick up her cousin and then go to the mall and me being a big sister I would never ditch my sister to drop off a guy especially if he was my ex. Like I wouldn't do anything that was going to make me late for one of my responsibilities. Hae seems like a responsible person. In one of the interviews someone said that Adnan's car was in the dealership getting fixed that's why he asked Hae for a ride if this was true where is the evidence from the dealership of the car being there and getting fixed? Like I feel like that piece of information should be disregarded because its not set in stone as to if it really happened or not because people admitted he asked but no one knows for sure if he even got in the car.

Harvard Justice Video

Comments

     I believe that it was not morally permissible to kill the cabin boy because its not the cabin boys fault that the rest of the men on the ship weren't responsible enough to bring food if they did end up lost at sea. It is also the cabin boys right to a long and happy life and its his right to live even if that means for a short period of time and no one has the right to take that away from him. If anything I feel like maybe the oldest guy on the boat should give himself for the rest of the group to eat because he has lived the longest and has experienced more things than everyone else on the boat.

     I feel as though consent would have made it okay because the cabin boy would have been signing his life away to them and that would have made it morally permissible because he is actually agreeing to it rather than them just taking his right of living away from him. And if those men have that consent then they can prove that the cabin boy agreed to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

     I feel like if they had a lottery it would also make it morally permissible because all four men had an equal opportunity to win and to defy the odds and not to lose. No one knows who would have won so it all depends on the odds.

     Utilitarianism is a controversial topic because in certain situations yes utilitarianism is right like for instance in the pervious case with the train or trolley and the workers yes it was okay to kill that one worker than the rest of the workers because its better to kill one than all. Like no one could live with themselves knowing they killed all those workers rather than just that one worker. But for instance in that other case where you could push the fat man that's leaning over the bridge looking at the crash that's about to happen utilitarianism wouldn't work in this case because that guys just an onlooker and didn't sign up to work where those workers work so they know the danger of working there. Whereas the onlooker doesn't because he didn't sign up for that so it wouldn't be right to kill him because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.



                                            Garner Case

      
      In New York on July 17 2014 forty three year old Eric Garner was getting arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes. And was put on the floor by 4 police officers for resisting arrest. Garner was held in a choke hold by an officer before being put on the floor. Officers then put Garner on his back and proceeded to put handcuffs on Garner while one officer knelt near Garners head shoving Garners head on the cement. Garner then yelled "I can't breathe. I can't breathe." And a few minuets later was pronounced dead. This happened because police suspected that Garner was selling unlicensed cigarettes like he had in the past. No one is sure what happened before the video so we can't say for sure why officers approached Garner.

      I believe that this case is controversial because yes the police were doing their job by protecting their city from criminals and they also try to keep up with criminals. But they used excessive force with Eric Garner because he was trying to resist arrest but there was like 8 or 7 other police officers so they should have taken him down in a different way. Police officers learn other ways to take down criminals that are trying to resist arrest. I believe the poliece were right for questioning what he was doing because they were trying to prevent crimes from happening.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-eric-garner/