Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 28 Next >>
Topic: George Floyd Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
Posted: 20 April 2021 at 6:57pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Neil,

Congresswoman Waters was exercising her First Amendment rights.  She was not on the jury and not an officer of the court.  What you have here are two possibly conflicting rights: Freedom of Speech and the Right of a Defendant to a Fair trial.  

To overturn a jury verdict based on ANY American exercising a FUNDAMENTAL right would amount to a judicial "heckler's veto" and I don't believe any appeals court will overturn this or any other similar verdict if the attorneys arguing for the state are intelligent enough to present it that way.  

I mean play this out logically, to overturn a jury verdict because someone SAID something in public or on the air, would mean every time someone wanted a mistrial or directed acquittal in any trial, anywhere, they would have only to get on CNN of FOX or their local new station and open their mouth.  It would mean judicial anarchy.

Marc


Edited by Marc Baptiste on 20 April 2021 at 7:01pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4939
Posted: 20 April 2021 at 8:07pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

She not just a citizen but a member of the government, someone with incredible influence and power and the ability to change and modify laws and to put pressure on people. She should have known better than to say anything until the trial was over, then she is free to respond as she sees fit. 
I live in a country where every trial is already decided, depending on the whims and influence of the government. Canada has gone down that path as well, which is very dangerous. 
"March the guilty bastard in" is what it comes down to, which is not something any modern country wants. 
(Before someone jumps on me for being a right-wing troll or something, I believe the jury came to the correct conclusion. My issues are more philosophical).


Edited by Neil Lindholm on 20 April 2021 at 8:10pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 20 April 2021 at 8:42pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

"What you have here are two possibly conflicting rights: Freedom of Speech and the Right of a Defendant to a Fair trial."

I think you're 100% correct.  Unfortunately, none of this happens in a vacuum.  The more publicity a case gets, the harder it is to find a jury that is completely impartial.  

Neil, your concerns are valid too.  A good chunk of the news media, along with some members of Congress are portraying Rep Waters' remarks as a call for violence, which could easily be seen as jury intimidation.  

Tough situation for the court.  


Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14812
Posted: 20 April 2021 at 9:08pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

She not just a citizen but a member of the government, someone with incredible influence and power and the ability to change and modify laws and to put pressure on people.

———

Judge Cahill, while criticizing Maxine Waters for commenting on the case, also said this, which is accurate:


 QUOTE:
A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14812
Posted: 20 April 2021 at 9:17pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

It was ultimately more the unprecedented multiple sources and viewpoints audio-visual documentation that had greater weight than the extensive and deliberately confusing testimonies allowed.

———

I disagree. I think it was testimony, specifically the testimony of police officers willing to throw Chauvin under the bus to say that his use of force was not appropriate and that he should have known that it would be potentially fatal. That’s the sort of thing jurors need to hear to remove reasonable doubt. 

Now I’m a bit cynical and think that those officers testified against Chauvin to portray him as a loose cannon and absolve law enforcement in general of any systemic issues in policing. Regardless, it’s still factual that Chauvin’s use of force was inappropriate and that he should have known that George Floyd could die. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Paul Kimball
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2163
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

It sounds like we're all in agreement for a change, that the conviction was just.

Edited by Paul Kimball on 21 April 2021 at 1:12pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jabari Lamar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 October 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 351
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 2:25pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

I'm not a lawyer, but I do follow on many on Twitter. General consensus is that this idea that Maxine Waters has in any way damaged the case or strengthened the possibility of an appeal succeeding is ridiculous. People have sited tons of other cases of public figures speaking out before and during trials. This IS just a rightwing talking point trying to change the narrative. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4939
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 4:38pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Jabari, you are okay with the government interfering in the court system? This might not have happened directly in this case but there should not be a whiff of collusion in any free system between government and the courts. My original comments were about the President (didn’t even know who Maxine Waters was until she was mentioned here and I looked her up). Just because it has happened before does not make it right. 
Nothing “left wing” or “right wing” about it. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14812
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 5:07pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Jurors in Minnesota generally don’t give a shit about what a congressperson in Los Angeles says. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jabari Lamar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 October 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 351
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 5:17pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

@Neil None of that happened. So you can calm down.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 5:33pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

This horrible crime that happened to George Floyd should have never been politicized in the first place. Minneapolis is one of the most Democratic cities in America. There hasn't been a Republican in the mayoral seat since the 60's. The police chief there is appointed by the mayor. The police chief is Black. From the start this has been about one bully cop and colleagues too cowardly to reign him in. 

Unless of course the Democrats have been part of this systemic racism thing as well. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4939
Posted: 21 April 2021 at 5:34pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

@Jabari, with all due respect, piss off. I am not excited about this but am concerned about real and potential government involvement in the court system. Like I mentioned before, I live in a country where the government decides before every trial who wins or loses. A hallmark of a free country is the separation between the government and the court system. When, during a high-profile court case, senior government officials openly desire a certain outcome, this brings the entire system into question. 

To add, how do you know none of that happened? By wading in where they didn't belong, they can throw the entire judgement into doubt. The second the outcome was released, they can feel free to comment but those comments should be limited to "the courts have decided". That's it. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 28 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login