Not intended that way. It is more explaining why I think a court will not find an issue. Not that it is wrong to look.That’s the inference I took from the implication of your second paragraph.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt grinds along
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
It theoretically does though.
If I have a case before me and the law says, "This government agent has the legal authority to have done X based on these agreed upon facts" and I still vote to find him guilty (and 11 other people agree) that is theoretically jury nullification of that law.
Seems to me you are simply disregarding a defense position. Not nullifying a law the state is using to prosecute a defendant. Your example seems pretty much backwards of how criminal law works.
Doesn't really matter what you call it. Crazy is flat out saying he's ready to disregard the rule of law in order to make political points.
No, I am willing to disregard them in pursuit of social justice.
ETA: See where I am going with this? Justice is blind or it isn't. And if it isn't, why should I ignore my pet issues when others are allowed/encouraged to pursue theirs?
True. I agree. That doesn't seem to be the wisdom that some of your Progressive friends agree to though. For instance, the current leader of the Democrats and candidate to lead the country apparently holds the opinion that some violent riots are understandable and people engaged in them shouldn't be dealt with and those that are in contact with the justice system are worthy of being bailed out. She also comes from a state where prominent leaders of her party have determined that theft is OK as long as it occurs against the correct targets and isn't too much money. She picked the guy who basically let part of his most prominent city burn down because some riots are not as bad as others.
So what does one do when they believe that wrong should be wrong but their partners in running the country do not and have shown time and time again that they are unconvinced by your argument? In my opinion, you suffer as a second class citizen or you play by their rules.
Playing by those rules, Ashley Babbitt was an unarmed protestor expressing her grievances against her government and we are not able to judge her on the actual validity of her beliefs but must instead accept that her perception of reality is her reality. She was shot by an officer who did not share her skin color and was also the only officer to discharge his firearm in that entire fracas. Wonder why that one guy felt so threatened when hundreds of other officers didn't feel the need to shoot anyone. Maybe it was racism? That must be it. And even though she was technically in the wrong and wasn't behaving well, that is no reason to kill someone right? I mean we threw a cop in jail for being present when a violent convict OD'd on the fentanyl he ingested so I would think shooting someone should entail some kind of sentence. Isn't that social justice? Where I get to weigh how bad something is based on my perception of how someone is treated in the world?
If all that sounds insane, thank you. That's the point.
Cops have sop’s that govern their reactions. Elevated threat elicits elevated response etc. Experts will opine whether his reaction was reasonable within those sops and that defines his criminality. 99 percent of the time the cop will get off. On the civil side if the plaintiff survives sj all bets are off as a jury can do whatever. You don’t want to be a cop/city defendant in a civil suit with a black jury pool. The city will payyyyyyy. You like that @crazed_hoosier2. Many cities are self insured to a certain amount then insurance kicks in
If it's a just verdict, sure. I support all just outcomes to civil disputes.
It's the unjust ones that drive me batty. And, yeah, I know that it all depends on who you ask. I get that. But some things are just....well, obvious. And, once again, I think it's largely just become a racket for lawyers -- the "tort industry." Too often, it isn't about justice.
But when it is: I'm 100% supportive.
I do believe the mountain of soft tissue bs is a racket and I trust @larsIU would agree
Great. That isn't my point though. You are going the lawyer route (which I understand given your profession) but for the sake of optics, most people don't care. "Hands up, don't shoot" was a lie and nobody in the progressive world that Harris orbits gave a crap. Facts have no business in Social Justice. Law has no business in Social Justice. All of these are merely tools that oppressors use to oppress and oppressed should ignore to restore balance.
Would it be relevant to know why only one cop felt he was within protocol to shoot someone that day? How many police were in his general vicinity facing the same threat and held their fire? Yeah, interesting questions if we had a justice system. We don't though. Progressives argue repeatedly that other factors should be taken into consideration. They just always expect that it will be THEIR factors instead of MY factors. And they usually get away with it. I am merely suggesting that if it is okay for the left to think outside the box in considering what is truly a crime and what punishment is right and deserved, then the same would apply this way.
What I am offering isn't polite or really stabilizing but I don't think you arrive at a point where my political opposition is willing to have a real conversation until they experience some of the things they champion.
I hear what you’re puttin down. I just wanted to offer a little context as I think this shit gets conflated. This is in the context of a wrongful death suit. Much different calculus
We do know that the people Rittenhouse killed were committing crimes, attempted assault, hence the not guilty verdict. Man you’re dumb.
I agree it's a racket but only b/c we ALLOW it to be.
Much like a great many things.
So rioters and looters during the summer of love should have been shot?
So is the correct answer, you live in your mom’s house or does she live in yours?
And I was talking about the fools that want to compare to that summer of protests/riots.
Ashli got what she deserved when she tried to go through the barricade.
This didn't move the needle here. Nothing compared to the evil crap that was posted during covid "**** everybody but me, I ain't gettin no shot"
twentyIQ is just trolling. It's what he does.
He has no core beliefs, so he likes to say outragious things to get a reaction - he's not to be taken seriously.
So, were the cops standing right next to Babbitt negligent in their duty to kill her?
In your opinion, shouldn't they be dismissed for negligence?
And you know who the defense attorney was in the Boston Massacre trial.....
Similar threads
