The Troubled Rule Of Law

[bripat9643]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

That's because it's patently false.

 

[bripat9643]

Do any of us, black or white, really want our justice system influenced by mob intimidation?
The Chauvin Verdict and America’s Troubled Rule of Law (city-journal.org)

Mob intimidation had a big part in the conviction of Derek Chauvin. The triak should have been conduct well out of the area of Minneapolis.
Judge Cahill should have called a mis-trial after Congresswoman Maxine Waters went to Minneapolis to stir up the mob.
Then there's the fact that the District Attorney called in heavy guns from law firms to prosecute the Chauvin trial.
I still wonder why Jonathan Turley and/or Alan Dershowitz didn't come to the aid of Chauvin. I did notice there were several attorney's pontificating on HLN and CNN but none offeredassistance to the only and sole Attorney representing Chauvin.

Maybe because there really was nothing to defend in the case of Chauvin. If even they didn't...that says something don't you think?

How about the fact that Chauvin didn't kill him?

 

[bripat9643]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Most Americans regardless of political point of view agree with verdicts.
Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds
The survey found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty, and most Americans surveyed followed at least some coverage of the three-week trial. When participants were identified by political affiliation, Democrats strongly concurred, at 85%, with Republicans at 55% and independents at 71%. The results were based on an online survey of 1,000 American adults from all states.

Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds

In the hours a verdict was announced in the Derek Chauvin murder trial, a USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty.

www.usatoday.com

You stated the mob psychology, perfectly.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do any of us, black or white, really want our justice system influenced by mob intimidation?
The Chauvin Verdict and America’s Troubled Rule of Law (city-journal.org)

Mob intimidation had a big part in the conviction of Derek Chauvin. The triak should have been conduct well out of the area of Minneapolis.
Judge Cahill should have called a mis-trial after Congresswoman Maxine Waters went to Minneapolis to stir up the mob.
Then there's the fact that the District Attorney called in heavy guns from law firms to prosecute the Chauvin trial.
I still wonder why Jonathan Turley and/or Alan Dershowitz didn't come to the aid of Chauvin. I did notice there were several attorney's pontificating on HLN and CNN but none offeredassistance to the only and sole Attorney representing Chauvin.

Maybe because there really was nothing to defend in the case of Chauvin. If even they didn't...that says something don't you think?

How about the fact that Chauvin didn't kill him?

He was responsible for his safety once he cuffed him.

 

[justinacolmena]

How about the fact that Chauvin didn't kill him?

Was he in fact doing street drugs? More than they let on, rather than less?

 

[bripat9643]

I suppose the only good thing to come out of this scandal/stitch-up trial is the blacks and their leftist pals can't say with a straight face is the justice system is biased against blacks anymore. This stitch-up has blown that conspiracy theory out the water for good.

Watch them do it.

 

[bripat9643]

Do any of us, black or white, really want our justice system influenced by mob intimidation?
The Chauvin Verdict and America’s Troubled Rule of Law (city-journal.org)

Mob intimidation had a big part in the conviction of Derek Chauvin. The triak should have been conduct well out of the area of Minneapolis.
Judge Cahill should have called a mis-trial after Congresswoman Maxine Waters went to Minneapolis to stir up the mob.
Then there's the fact that the District Attorney called in heavy guns from law firms to prosecute the Chauvin trial.
I still wonder why Jonathan Turley and/or Alan Dershowitz didn't come to the aid of Chauvin. I did notice there were several attorney's pontificating on HLN and CNN but none offeredassistance to the only and sole Attorney representing Chauvin.

Maybe because there really was nothing to defend in the case of Chauvin. If even they didn't...that says something don't you think?

How about the fact that Chauvin didn't kill him?

He was responsible for his safety once he cuffed him.

That still doesn't mean he killed him.

 

[themirrorthief]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Not really. Two types of murder plus man-slaughter?
I think on appeal on or two of them will be thrown out.

If you read the description of the charges....they don't fit the statutes as written.

I'm not familiar enough with the state statutes or how they go about charging to know but I would think it were that inaccurate a semi-competent defense would have picked up on it.

same with the Judge....

if it were not codified in their State law that all these separate charges could be brought at once, then it would not have been allowed, in court.

though I will admit, it does seem strange or repetitive of the same crime.....???

what I do know, it is state law in Minnesota to be able to do such.....end of story.....even if I personally think it seems strange to do such.

just pull all cops out of urban areas and ship in illegal aliens...its the democrat way, will solve allthe problems except of course black on black murder

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Obviously the point of the article went right over your head.

 

[task0778]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

You are in effect saying the outcome justified the intimidation, like it doesn't matter. We cannot have witnesses and jury members afraid to convict or acquit somebody for fear of retaliation against themselves or their families, homes, and businesses after the trial is over. Justice requires a fair and impartial trial; if there was undue pressure or tampering applied before or during the trial then a fair and impartial trial has not been guaranteed and THAT is not the way our judicial system is supposed to work.

MAYBE the jury was right and MAYBE the rule of law prevailed, BUT if undue influence or intimidation occurred, THEN justice was not done. Under our Constitution, everyone is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial; there is some doubt that was the case here. Do we really know for sure than a single juror would have voted NOT GUILTY on one or more of the charges, absent any intimidation? No, we do not, but we sure a hell do know that there was intimidation. It's not simply a matter of whether the outcome was correct, it's a question of whether the process was tainted. In this country we can't or shouldn't have that happen. EVER.

 

[BULLDOG]

I suppose the only good thing to come out of this scandal/stitch-up trial is the blacks and their leftist pals can't say with a straight face is the justice system is biased against blacks anymore. This stitch-up has blown that conspiracy theory out the water for good.

No. One jury trial did not eliminate the unfairness that happens in our courts every day. This was a big one, and it is to be accepted as a sign of progress, but sadly it is not the end of what is normally expected.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It makes you wonder how much longer will we NORMAL folks put up with the mob?

 

[White 6]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Most Americans regardless of political point of view agree with verdicts.
Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds
The survey found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty, and most Americans surveyed followed at least some coverage of the three-week trial. When participants were identified by political affiliation, Democrats strongly concurred, at 85%, with Republicans at 55% and independents at 71%. The results were based on an online survey of 1,000 American adults from all states.

Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds

In the hours a verdict was announced in the Derek Chauvin murder trial, a USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty.

www.usatoday.com

You stated the mob psychology, perfectly.

Was not decided by a mob. We just agree, based on watching the trial, or what we saw of it.

 

[Lastamender]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Most Americans regardless of political point of view agree with verdicts.
Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds
The survey found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty, and most Americans surveyed followed at least some coverage of the three-week trial. When participants were identified by political affiliation, Democrats strongly concurred, at 85%, with Republicans at 55% and independents at 71%. The results were based on an online survey of 1,000 American adults from all states.

Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds

In the hours a verdict was announced in the Derek Chauvin murder trial, a USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty.

www.usatoday.com

You stated the mob psychology, perfectly.

Was not decided by a mob. We just agree, based on watching the trial, or what we saw of it.

Tell Dershowitz.

 

[Couchpotato]

What was the predicate felony for the Murder 2 conviction?

 

[Vel]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

You are in effect saying the outcome justified the intimidation, like it doesn't matter. We cannot have witnesses and jury members afraid to convict or acquit somebody for fear of retaliation against themselves or their families, homes, and businesses after the trial is over. Justice requires a fair and impartial trial; if there was undue pressure or tampering applied before or during the trial then a fair and impartial trial has not been guaranteed and THAT is not the way our judicial system is supposed to work.

MAYBE the jury was right and MAYBE the rule of law prevailed, BUT if undue influence or intimidation occurred, THEN justice was not done. Under our Constitution, everyone is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial; there is some doubt that was the case here. Do we really know for sure than a single juror would have voted NOT GUILTY on one or more of the charges, absent any intimidation? No, we do not, but we sure a hell do know that there was intimidation. It's not simply a matter of whether the outcome was correct, it's a question of whether the process was tainted. In this country we can't or shouldn't have that happen. EVER.

The jury was not sequestered and had access to news like this.. Vandals leave pig’s head, smear blood on former NorCal home of Derek Chauvin defense witness | KTLA

 

[HenryBHough]

Had the jurors paused to consider evidence their homes would have been burned, their daughters raped and their sons buggered. In today's atmosphere there is no deliberation except in contemplating what will be done to you, your home, your family if you don't go along with the Progressive Democrat Mob.

Chauvin may well have been guilty but we'll never know.

Show trials are not real trials.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Most Americans regardless of political point of view agree with verdicts.
Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds
The survey found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty, and most Americans surveyed followed at least some coverage of the three-week trial. When participants were identified by political affiliation, Democrats strongly concurred, at 85%, with Republicans at 55% and independents at 71%. The results were based on an online survey of 1,000 American adults from all states.

Exclusive: Americans overwhelmingly approve of Chauvin guilty verdict, USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll finds

In the hours a verdict was announced in the Derek Chauvin murder trial, a USA TODAY/Ipsos snap poll found 71% of Americans agreed Chauvin was guilty.

www.usatoday.com

You stated the mob psychology, perfectly.

Was not decided by a mob. We just agree, based on watching the trial, or what we saw of it.

Yes it was.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Well we will see whether this biased verdict results in a retrial or not.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Funny.

No one seems to want to consider the fact that maybe the jury was right and indeed the rule of law prevailed.

Involuntary manslaughter I can see. 2nd and 3rd degree murder, no. Thats ludicrous based on the facts presented.