The Troubled Rule Of Law

[Vel]

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)

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

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)

I'm afraid mob intimidation has been around as long as lynching has, hasn't it?

Or maybe a couple years before that?

 

[Coyote]

Funny.

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

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

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.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 one or two of them will be thrown out.

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

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

Funny.

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

Rule of law ... how can you be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the same time? and how can you have the president and senators say they hope he's found guilty and it not be a mistrial or thrown out of court.

Does this rule of law only start and stop when you get a verdict that you like? the justice system isn't about that.

 

[Coyote]

Funny.

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

Rule of law ... how can you be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the same time? and how can you have the president and senators say they hope he's found guilty and it not be a mistrial or thrown out of court.

Does this rule of law only start and stop when you get a verdict that you like? the justice system isn't about that.

Do you actually know what rule of law means?

Extrajudicial killings do not constitute "rule of law".

Giving someone a free pass simply because his victim was less than a stellar citizen does not constitute "rule of law".

Neither do mob violence or the court of public opinion.

I don't recall THIS president saying anything prior to the verdict "hoping he's found guilty". Though....I do recall the LAST president making comments and actions regarding a case that had not yet come to trial.

 

[Vel]

Funny.

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

No, I think Chauvin is right where he deserves to be however, I also think that he'd be there even if he didn't deserve to be there.

 

[Coyote]

Funny.

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

No, I think Chauvin is right where he deserves to be however, I also think that he'd be there even if he didn't deserve to be there.

I don't think so. I have a greater overall regard for our juries and judicial system.

 

[Coyote]

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.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

Funny.

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

Rule of law ... how can you be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the same time? and how can you have the president and senators say they hope he's found guilty and it not be a mistrial or thrown out of court.

Does this rule of law only start and stop when you get a verdict that you like? the justice system isn't about that.

Do you actually know what rule of law means?

Extrajudicial killings do not constitute "rule of law".

Giving someone a free pass simply because his victim was less than a stellar citizen does not constitute "rule of law".

Neither do mob violence or the court of public opinion.

I don't recall THIS president saying anything prior to the verdict "hoping he's found guilty". Though....I do recall the LAST president making comments and actions regarding a case that had not yet come to trial.

Funny.

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

Rule of law ... how can you be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the same time? and how can you have the president and senators say they hope he's found guilty and it not be a mistrial or thrown out of court.

Does this rule of law only start and stop when you get a verdict that you like? the justice system isn't about that.

Do you actually know what rule of law means?

Extrajudicial killings do not constitute "rule of law".

Giving someone a free pass simply because his victim was less than a stellar citizen does not constitute "rule of law".

Neither do mob violence or the court of public opinion.

I don't recall THIS president saying anything prior to the verdict "hoping he's found guilty". Though....I do recall the LAST president making comments and actions regarding a case that had not yet come to trial.

No-one get's a free pass. I could live with manslaughter due to negligence or something.

My issue (and you've just exhibited it there perfectly) is inaccurate, emotive wording like killings/murder .... of course killing flies in the face of "rule of law" but you are redefining terms to fit your argument to make it look like everything that's happened is justified.

I'll say it again - you can't be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

The last president has nothing to do with anything. I'm glad you said that though because it undermines the rest of your POV.

 

[Doc7505]

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 trial should have been conducted well out of the area of Minneapolis and the jury sequestered as soon as the trial began.
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 offered assistance to the only and sole Attorney representing Chauvin.

 

[HenryBHough]

There is no longer justice.

There is mob rule.

They used to be called "Lynch mobs"

But now that's "RACIST!".

So we call them "Heroes of Peaceful Protest"

Two best investments for 2021:

1. Makers of gasoline cans.

2. Makers of rope. Though I personally prefer piano wire.

 

[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

 

[Vel]

Funny.

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

No, I think Chauvin is right where he deserves to be however, I also think that he'd be there even if he didn't deserve to be there.

I don't think so. I have a greater overall regard for our juries and judicial system.

I wish I could agree with you but I think that those jurors knew that anything other than a "guilty on all charges" was going to, quite literally, ignite a firestorm. Who would want that destruction on their conscience? Especially knowing that in today's world that their identities would quickly be leaked if the results didn't please the mob.

 

[justinacolmena]

I'll say it again - you can't be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

Not for killing the same person. And there are two reasons for that.

VICINAGE -- the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law
DOUBLE JEOPARDY -- nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

 

[HenryBHough]

When there is no law there are no rules.

 

[Coyote]

Funny.

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

Rule of law ... how can you be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the same time? and how can you have the president and senators say they hope he's found guilty and it not be a mistrial or thrown out of court.

Does this rule of law only start and stop when you get a verdict that you like? the justice system isn't about that.

Do you actually know what rule of law means?

Extrajudicial killings do not constitute "rule of law".

Giving someone a free pass simply because his victim was less than a stellar citizen does not constitute "rule of law".

Neither do mob violence or the court of public opinion.

I don't recall THIS president saying anything prior to the verdict "hoping he's found guilty". Though....I do recall the LAST president making comments and actions regarding a case that had not yet come to trial.

Funny.

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

Rule of law ... how can you be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the same time? and how can you have the president and senators say they hope he's found guilty and it not be a mistrial or thrown out of court.

Does this rule of law only start and stop when you get a verdict that you like? the justice system isn't about that.

Do you actually know what rule of law means?

Extrajudicial killings do not constitute "rule of law".

Giving someone a free pass simply because his victim was less than a stellar citizen does not constitute "rule of law".

Neither do mob violence or the court of public opinion.

I don't recall THIS president saying anything prior to the verdict "hoping he's found guilty". Though....I do recall the LAST president making comments and actions regarding a case that had not yet come to trial.

No-one get's a free pass. I could live with manslaughter due to negligence or something.

The thing is..."murder" isn't exactly always "murder" in the law. I always assumed murder had to mean killing someone with the intent to kill, with maybe a sprinkling of pre-meditated thrown in. But it's not that straight forward.

Here's one source explaining it that I found: What Is the Difference Between First-, Second-, and Third-Degree Murder?

My issue (and you've just exhibited it there perfectly) is inaccurate, emotive wording like killings/murder .... of course killing flies in the face of "rule of law" but you are redefining terms to fit your argument to make it look like everything that's happened is justified.

I also pointed out how the trial and verdict were within the rule of law. It's how (generally) the way things should work. It's never perfect. But you surely have seen the countless arguments here that because Floyd was less-than-perfect, he somehow deserved his death. That the "rule of law" also has some sort of moral compass that decides some lives are more worthy than others and that seems to be the primary argument made against Floyd.

I'll say it again - you can't be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

I don't know exactly how the charges work, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can answer. If it was unlawful don't you think the defense would have done something?

The last president has nothing to do with anything. I'm glad you said that though because it undermines the rest of your POV.

Well yes, he does, if you are trying to make the selective case that this president's words have caused the rule of law to fail. I still can't find anything said by the current president that would do so.

 

[Coyote]

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?

 

[Care4all]

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.