"Nancy Pelosi's stunningly tone-deaf quote on George Floyd" Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large; April 21, 2021.
Here's a skeletonized version of what the CNN Editor-at-large has reported.
quote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had months (and months) to ponder what she would say if and when former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of the murder of George Floyd. Which makes what she did say on Wednesday -- in the immediate aftermath of the Chauvin verdict -- all the more baffling. . . .
Pelosi sought to clean up the mess she had made. She took to Twitter, writing this:
"George Floyd should be alive today. His family's calls for justice for his murder were heard around the world. He did not die in vain. We must make sure other families don't suffer the same racism, violence & pain, and we must enact the George Floyd #JusticeInPolicing Act."
Which, well, yeah. But why didn't [Speaker Pelosi] say that -- or anything close to that -- the first time around? . . .
Pelosi's comments will be a historical footnote to the broader story of Floyd's death -- and what it meant for the country. But that fact doesn't excuse her from coming off so tin-eared in such a big moment.
It's a high bar of legalities to get past, in order to send someone like a "Maxine Waters" to the "cross-bar hotel" to spend time behind bars for the crime of intimidating a jury.
So you admit that there are different levels of justice, based on social stature?
Originally posted by olejoedad: So you admit that there are different levels of justice, based on social stature?
Oh, I certainly agree with that. However, that was not the point that I wanted to make.
It's a high bar of legalities to get past, for any prosecutor to prosecute anyone for any crime and have them convicted and sent to prison.
At least, that's the ideal or aspiration for our system of justice. Due process. Proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Due process and proof beyond any reasonable doubt that stands up even if the conviction were to be appealed.
A high bar of legalities to get past, even in the (as yet hypothetical) context of legal action against Maxine Waters for incitement to violence or intimidation of jurors during a trial that was still in progress.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-21-2021).]
You have proof that any of the 12 jurors were cowards?
(A judge has ordered their identities be sealed)
And our elected should not share information with other foreign nations but **** happens. Just saying the entire thing was a mess from the start. Did the cop **** up, yes and should be held accountable but the punishment should fit.
We don't know yet what the 'punishment' is. I'm pretty sure tho, it won't be the "An eye for an eye" as stated in Hammurabi's code and the biblical version stated in Deuteronomy 19:21 and Leviticus 24:19.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-28-2021).]
As someone who has not followed this, how does someone get charged with 2 counts of murder for 1 man's death?
Did he kill him twice on purpose and once accidentally?
The charges are levied not by the # of deaths or victims, but by the different possible mental states of the perpetrator as the event unfolds. It doesn't mean all 3 of the offenses occurred simultaneously. The second-degree unintentional murder charge is what's known as felony murder, or when a person commits an *underlying felony* and someone unintentionally dies.(creating an unreasonable risk, by consciously taking the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to someone else)
The third-degree murder charge alleged that Chauvin had a "depraved mind, **without regard for human life." (unintentionally causing a death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life)
Finally, the second-degree manslaughter charge relies on "culpable negligence," which has been interpreted to mean gross negligence combined with recklessness. (causing the death of a human being, without intent, while committing or attempting to commit an assault)
*the underlying felony was the assualt that was part and parcel of 2nd degree manslaughter.
** 'Without regard to human life' came about (according to the prosecution) when Chauvin kept his knee on the victim's neck even after the victim said he couldn't breath and even after the EMT told him there was no pulse.
Originally posted by maryjane: The charges are levied not by the # of deaths or victims, but by the different possible mental states of the perpetrator as the event unfolds.
The possible mental states of the perpetrator, possible ? Never proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no testimony about Chauvin's mental state.
The jury obviously disagreed with that assessment Cliff. Juries are more often than not, required to weigh all testimony and evidence to come to a conclusion and the speed at which they did in this case is telling. Considering it only takes one juror to acquit, and that they found guilty on all 3 charges, I suspect they saw more in this case than we did on the outside looking in.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-28-2021).]
Lots of fail here. Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before he asked to be laid down. Because he had so much Fentanyl in his system.
The jury convicted because they weren't sequestered so they saw the reports that people were taking pics of them in the courtroom to dox them after the trial. They saw what Maxine, someone in their government, threatened about how they should decide. They convicted so BLM wouldn't burn their house down later or attack their family.
Chauvin was kneeling closer to his shoulder blade.
Feds are waiting for 23 person grand jury's vote to convey charges
According to sources who spoke to the Minneapolis Tribune, prosecutors out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota and the Justice Department have been building out their own criminal case in private before a grand jury. If the jury of 23 votes to indict, Chauvin and the others — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — will face new charges in federal court.
For Chauvin, the case not only relates to his involvement in Floyd’s death, but also to a 2017 incident in which the former cop allegedly hit a 14-year-old repeatedly with his flashlight while arresting him, and subsequently knelt on his back while the teenager complained that he could not breathe.
The 14 year old didn't die, right? Because he could breath and didn't OD onFentanyl.
Meanwhile Hilary stole classified documents and walked them to an unsecured server at her house and accepted donations to The Clinton Foundation, and no federal charges.
"Other Secretaries [of State, or their staff] Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes" Justin Fishel for ABC News; March 4, 2016. https://abcnews.go.com/Poli...pt/story?id=37404084
quote
The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries [Secretaries of State who served before Hillary Clinton's tenure] handled classified material on unclassified email systems.
I am "eyeballing" this as a 4-minute read.
ABC News. "Always Be Closing."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-30-2021).]
"Other Secretaries [of State, or their staff] Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes" Justin Fishel for ABC News; March 4, 2016. https://abcnews.go.com/Poli...pt/story?id=37404084
I am "eyeballing" this as a 4-minute read.
ABC News. "Always Be Closing."
So, according to that article from 2016, John Kerry's state department said, "Don't worry about it."
Now, is this the same John Kerry who also sent classified materials over unsecured channels and the same John Kerry who recently passed classified information to Iran?
"Other Secretaries [of State, or their staff] Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes" Justin Fishel for ABC News; March 4, 2016. https://abcnews.go.com/Poli...pt/story?id=37404084
I am "eyeballing" this as a 4-minute read.
More zero relevance posts in the same day. Rinselberg thinks 2 wrongs make a right. So and so did it. It might not have been against the law when so and so did it, but was definitely a felony when Hilary did it. She committed a felony and the law is written that imple negligence is enough to convict.
So you should check out "BLM Brandon Mitchell" and see what he recently participated in.
Click to show
Well, there's a relevant bit of information that will no doubt be a reason for a mistrial. A change of jurisdictions should also be granted to get a "more" impartial jury but, that may not be possible.
Well, there's a relevant bit of information that will no doubt be a reason for a mistrial. A change of jurisdictions should also be granted to get a "more" impartial jury but, that may not be possible.
Much of how we are regarded is dependent on what others believe. It's his story (the link you posted) and he should probably stick to it. That doesn't mean it's believable.
Much of how we are regarded is dependent on what others believe. It's his story (the link you posted) and he should probably stick to it. That doesn't mean it's believable.
Rams
That's the mindset that former police officer (now convicted murderer) Chauvin had too. How did that work out for him?
It's very possible that an appeals panel will overturn the conviction on various grounds and a new one held. I honestly don't think it will turn out much, if any differently than the 1st one did.
I saw a post on a military forum last week by a former military and current LEO that said the jury should have been made up of all male all white people and Chauvin should have gotten no more than probation, if that.
There are probably a few on PFF that feel the same way.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-04-2021).]
That's the mindset that former police officer (now convicted murderer) Chauvin had too. How did that work out for him?
It's very possible that an appeals panel will overturn the conviction on various grounds and a new one held. I honestly don't think it will turn out much, if any differently than the 1st one did.
I saw a post on a military forum last week by a former military and current LEO that said the jury should have been made up of all male all white people and Chauvin should have gotten no more than probation, if that.
There are probably a few on PFF that feel the same way.
Interesting that you interpreted my post as you apparently did. I have offered no opinion on a guilt or innocent verdict, only initially stating that some political statements were condemning and well out of order and now we find what appears to be a lying jurist with potentially preconceived opinions. I agree that another may find Chauvin guilty but, then again, it may not. I haven't seen the real evidence presented. I have no doubt there was an intimidation factor to the jury though.
Edited: BTW, I thought the judge sealed the jurist's identities............... hmm
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-04-2021).]
That's the mindset that former police officer (now convicted murderer) Chauvin had too. How did that work out for him?
It's very possible that an appeals panel will overturn the conviction on various grounds and a new one held. I honestly don't think it will turn out much, if any differently than the 1st one did.
I saw a post on a military forum last week by a former military and current LEO that said the jury should have been made up of all male all white people and Chauvin should have gotten no more than probation, if that.
There are probably a few on PFF that feel the same way.
So how did the majority of the forum members react?
Interesting that you interpreted my post as you apparently did. I have offered no opinion on a guilt or innocent verdict, only initially stating that some political statements were condemning and well out of order and now we find what appears to be a lying jurist with potentially preconceived opinions. I agree that another may find Chauvin guilty but, then again, it may not. I haven't seen the real evidence presented. I have no doubt there was an intimidation factor to the jury though.
Edited: BTW, I thought the judge sealed the jurist's identities............... hmm
Rams
I don't see anyone printing tshirts and putting up murals. it is my opinion that Chauvin should have been tried and convicted of manslaughter. He should never again hold a law enforcement job, or any job working with the public. He should be held accountable and made to pay back the money that was given to the family. LOL wouldn't that be a hoot, make people responsible.
I don't see anyone printing tshirts and putting up murals. it is my opinion that Chauvin should have been tried and convicted of manslaughter. He should never again hold a law enforcement job, or any job working with the public. He should be held accountable and made to pay back the money that was given to the family. LOL wouldn't that be a hoot, make people responsible.
I haven't offered an opinion on his guilt or innocence. I simply (initially) had a problem with elected officials offering their opinions when they hadn't seen any more evidence than I have/had. I also was not surprised by the jury's findings but everything I saw was from a source I don't have a lot of confidence in, a very biased press. Who tend to take a liberal view on just about everything. I have several personal friends who are LEOs. Pretty much, all agree with your quoted and bolded statement above.
Chauvin was tried and convicted by the press long before he ever went to trial IMO. That's not to suggest the jury was wrong but, if the purported jurist did lie, then Chauvin deserves a new trial and a new jury IMO. And, that jurist should be held liable, in contempt and what ever other charges applicable and serve some time.
I haven't offered an opinion on his guilt or innocence. I simply (initially) had a problem with elected officials offering their opinions when they hadn't seen any more evidence than I have/had. I also was not surprised by the jury's findings but everything I saw was from a source I don't have a lot of confidence in, a very biased press. Who tend to take a liberal view on just about everything. I have several personal friends who are LEOs. Pretty much, all agree with your quoted and bolded statement above.
Chauvin was tried and convicted by the press long before he ever went to trial IMO. That's not to suggest the jury was wrong but, if the purported jurist did lie, then Chauvin deserves a new trial and a new jury IMO. And, that jurist should be held liable, in contempt and what ever other charges applicable and serve some time.
Rams
The questions asked at voir dire are usually pretty general in nature and if an issue is found, one of the things I always heard the presiding judge ask was something along the lines of "Do you believe you can still be objective and come to a conclusion regarding innocence's or guilt based only on the evidence presented at trial?"
Public opinion and opinion in the press in regards to court cases has been prevalent if not a mainstay of Americana since colonial days. Controversial issues began to appear in the press of the colonies almost immediately after Ben Harris started his paper in the late 1600s. By the mid 1700s and especially after the Peter Zenger trial, newspapers were deeply involved in bot politics and court case opinion pieces. By the 1830s, the penny press like the The Sun. The Burr/Hamilton duel came about because of an article printed in a newspaper and after the duel, the press all but lynched Burr for alleged 'treason'. It's nothing new. The only thing that is different is that instead of taverns and 2 page dailies, it's now the internet and 24 hr TV news. Get used to it. It's not going away, but neither is the seriousness with which jurors take their oath to 'do the right thing' and find justice based only on the evidence presented at trial.
Well, there's a relevant bit of information that will no doubt be a reason for a mistrial. A change of jurisdictions should also be granted to get a "more" impartial jury but, that may not be possible.
Rams
I have three words:
JURY NULLIFICATION
PERJURY
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
It's not going away, but neither is the seriousness with which jurors take their oath to 'do the right thing' and find justice based only on the evidence presented at trial.
You either have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek and are being sarcastic or you have no idea what really goes on in courts these days, especially in voir dire.
I have several practicing attorney friends who regularly conduct voir dire and empanel at least two or more juries a month.
ALL of them have said that they discover AT LEAST ONE prospective juror LYING at EVERY voir dire.
They lie either to get excused, (most common) OR, (more nefariously) to get SELECTED for a jury.
The situation for ALL attorneys, (both defense and prosecution), has gotten so bad that they routinely have to use laptops connected to public records search in court during voir dire to check criminal and public records of prospective jurors to help try to ferret out liars, also known as PERJUORORS.
The most common LIES from prospective jurors are in response to these questions:
1. Have you or someone in your household ever been arrested, (regardless of if you or they were ever convicted or found innocent)?
2. Have you ever been the defendant in a civil lawsuit?
3. Have you ever sued someone in civil court?
4. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-05-2021).]
Get used to it. It's not going away, but neither is the seriousness with which jurors take their oath to 'do the right thing' and find justice based only on the evidence presented at trial.
Get used to it? Maybe when it appears that justice is blind but, she's been peeking for a while now.
Jurors taking their oath seriously is another matter. Whether guilty or innocent, I'll always remember the juror that gave OJ the Black Power fist as the jury left the court room. One should wonder about that and now this. Not suggesting the jury was wrong, just noting what occurred.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-04-2021).]
it is my opinion that Chauvin should have been tried and convicted of manslaughter. He should never again hold a law enforcement job, or any job working with the public.
