Trust implies uncertainty. I know humans s?ck.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:06 pmPizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:03 pmThanks for recognizing the legitimacy of my point, of gracious savant.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:41 pmPizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:08 pmYou think the American “justice” system is “just” and “impartial”? That it ever was?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:55 amcradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:32 amCome on Pete. The damn paramedics showed up and told Chauvin the man had no pulse and to get off of him. Chauvin kept his knee on the neck of an unresponsive dead man for like 3 more minutes. If the dumb cluck had got off of his neck when the paramedics advised him to he might have had a chance of being aquitted.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:40 am Such a great article. Worth reading if you care about justice.
A fair trial might have come to the same conclusion. But we'll never know, and never be able to trust this outcome, because America's left purposefully made a fair trial impossible.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/21/th ... n-verdict/
“....You can’t tell me all of this didn’t affect jurors’ psyche and ultimate decision. They would be superhuman or inhuman if it didn’t. Yet those endorsing mob culture and vigilante “justice” for political ends are working hard to make it impossible to express such reasonable doubts, whether in a column or as a member of a murder jury.
Jurors are always human. There is always room for miscalculation, fear, and error. In this case, however, it is extremely clear that these human weaknesses were deliberately amplified to catastrophic proportions, all because of politics.
A fair trial might indeed have come to the same conclusion for Chauvin. But we’ll never know, and never be able to trust this outcome, because America’s left purposefully made a fair trial impossible, all for political power.
They deliberately perverted justice in favor of violent mob rule to strengthen their political hand. They have done evil and called it justice. They have sown the wind, and the resulting whirlwind has still not fully hit our nation yet. But it will.”
You’re gonna miss the authors point, too?!?
The point is not that he’s guilty, the point is the left has bastardized the justice system to the level where he couldn’t get a fair trial no matter what. You don’t think the jury felt pressure? Not sequestered. Seeing an armed fortress every day.
C’mon.
Naive much or simple-minded?
I’d venture a guess that every poster here was “born on third”. Some of us realize our good fortune, others think
they “hit a triple”.
Which one are you?
Let me answer the only legitimate question your febrile mind spit up. Is the American justice system just and impartial?
To some extent, yes. To some extent, no. But to all extents, not what you’re thinking.
There is a small dirt poor village in southwest Florida called Everglades city. It used to be a purely fishing village. The feds unilaterally took away the fisherman’s rights to fish the waters they used to fish in. No compensation, just the threat of prison if they went out and fished again.
So the residents took to the only manner of making money that was offered. They took marijuana from offshore boats and brought it ashore. The feds investigated this town for years, then one day, they shut off access to and from on the only road to Everglades City. They proceeded to arrest half the town. If you wouldn’t rat on your brother, they threw the book at you. 40 year sentences.
The feds ruined whole families. Now, Democrats love to talk about making marijuana legal and certainly unpunishable.
Where is your sympathy for these poor families whose lives were ruined by your adored federal government? All you complain about is black this and black that, when want it actually is is government abuse. You bozos love racial discord so much, you don’t even know what the real problem is.
Another argument by anecdote — neither strong nor persuasive.
Agreeing with my point about the inequity of the justice system followed by a plaintive bleat about someone done wrong makes you sound like a country and western lyricist.
So we agree that human artifices like government are flawed. Where we differ is in a prescription for corrective action. You appear to believe that human nature unfettered by communal restraints of the the commonweal will be more advantageous. I disagree, vociferously.
That’s because you fundamentally don’t trust other people. Which makes me question why you object to most voting identification laws.
Who said I oppose any voter identification mechanisms? I oppose thinly-veiled disenfranchisement as a remedy for an magnary problem.