• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Maxine Waters Incites Riots?

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
If that is not what you were saying, then your reply seems to not have a great deal of connection to my post.

I made the point that had Trump done exactly the same thing, many people would have been howling with outrage over him doing this.

Do you accept this as likely to be true?

Do you accept that had Trump used exactly those words regarding an ongoing criminal trial, much of the media and a large proportion of society would see it as a disgraceful threat to a fair and independent legal process?
I strongly doubt that conservative media would have called his words a threat, disgraceful, or even dared speak about it in a negative tone.


And you are, again, presupposing that there is no real distinction to be made between the words of the POTUS and the words of a congresswoman.

But the latter does not have the power to kill investigations and pardon criminals, while the former certainly does. When someone with the power to interfere in the judiciary makes comments regarding a running trial, those words, I would argue, carry considerably greater weight than the words of a person who has no power, legal or otherwise, to interfere with court procedures.


That is debatable*, but do you not see a problem with an elected official prejudicing a criminal trial by calling for people to be 'more confrontational' if the trial does not return the verdict she wants to see?
I'm sorry - where exactly do you see the problem? What consequences would it have for a court trial if a congresswoman took a position with regards to its outcome?
 
I strongly doubt that conservative media would have called his words a threat, disgraceful, or even dared speak about it in a negative tone.

Pointing out that the media and much of society is hopelessly hypocritical on issues of partisan politics is hardly a refutal of a post about how the media and much of society is hopelessly hypocritical on issues of partisan politics.

And you are, again, presupposing that there is no real distinction to be made between the words of the POTUS and the words of a congresswoman.

But the latter does not have the power to kill investigations and pardon criminals, while the former certainly does. When someone with the power to interfere in the judiciary makes comments regarding a running trial, those words, I would argue, carry considerably greater weight than the words of a person who has no power, legal or otherwise, to interfere with court procedures.

So you agree if Trump had said it, it would have been unacceptable and an incitement to violence that deserved howls of outrage, but because it's merely a high-profile Democratic Congresswoman then we should hold her to lower standards and find excuses?

I'm sorry - where exactly do you see the problem? What consequences would it have for a court trial if a congresswoman took a position with regards to its outcome?

As it is considered fair that people receive due process, it is generally considered not to be a good thing for demagogues to put pressure on juries to produce politically favourable trial results with the threat of civil disorder. Such threats could potentially be considered prejudicial to the trial resulting in a mistrial.

If you were facing a criminal trial and a high-profile elected politician made a public statement that could be perceived as encouraging violence should the jury acquit you in accordance with the law, would you consider that this could be prejudicial towards you receiving a fair trial? Do you believe it impossible that such a threat could sway a jury?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that the high level of media attention was “so profound” and “so pervasive” that it was impossible for the jury to not have been tainted by it.

The Judge felt it was enough that he admonished the jury to not watch any news coverage pertaining to the case, we all know how that probably didn't work. How could it be avoided, entirely?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Judge felt it was enough that he admonished the jury to not watch any news coverage pertaining to the case, we all know how that probably didn't work. How could it be avoided, entirely?
Aye, Chauvin looks conviction-worthy, but an unbiased jury?
Not likely.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Pointing out that the media and much of society is hopelessly hypocritical on issues of partisan politics is hardly a refutal of a post about how the media and much of society is hopelessly hypocritical on issues of partisan politics.

My point is that there isn't a monolithic "the media" on this, or really any, political issue. American media is very clearly split into a conservative and liberal-centrist camp, and this strongly colors American political discourse, down to the everyday person's reaction to a politician's speech.
You could see this here on RF, too.


So you agree if Trump had said it, it would have been unacceptable and an incitement to violence that deserved howls of outrage, but because it's merely a high-profile Democratic Congresswoman then we should hold her to lower standards and find excuses?
No, but it should be scrutinized to a greater extent for its intent and political goals, and examined in the context of when and where that statement was made. Recall Trump's address to a crowd of fired-up, well-armed supporters in front of the Capitol, and the immediate aftermath of that rally.

As it is considered fair that people receive due process, it is generally considered not to be a good thing for demagogues to put pressure on juries to produce politically favourable trial results with the threat of civil disorder. Such threats could potentially be considered prejudicial to the trial resulting in a mistrial.
How far would you extend that argument? Would you argue that reporting of a controversial trial could already put pressure on a jury?

If you were facing a criminal trial and a high-profile elected politician made a public statement that could be perceived as encouraging violence should the jury acquit you in accordance with the law, would you consider that this could be prejudicial towards you receiving a fair trial? Do you believe it impossible that such a threat could sway a jury?
Honestly, I believe that the idea that a court trial exists in a vacuum without any sort of politics and bias, and that a jury is an apparatus that will yield perfectly objective results unless pressured from outside, is already a failed premise. Any politically controversial trial will put pressure on judges, jury, defense and prosecution; and in most cases, I would argue that the prosecution is far more vulnerable to political instrumentation than the other elements here.

Your mileage obviously varies. But personally, I've seen trials that were an absolute politically charged farce and were only brought to a reasonable conclusion by political pressure via public protests and well-meaning articles in a handful of press magazines, so I'm a lot less willing to suspend disbelief for the idea of an objective, impartial court trial than most people, and a lot more lenient on the power of the street to enforce that justice is done correctly.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course it is. It's just recognizing the hypocrisy of those Republicans ignoring much more offensive conduct from their own is inconvenient to partisan tirades. They expect democrats to hold the moral high ground (which they do, none of what Maxine said here is even problematic let alone illegal) while they violate it at every turn. At this point the tactic is so banal it's no wonder it gets commented on.

Trump is out of office and not “inciting riots”. That’s what the left wanted. Yet he’s still taking up so much room in people’s heads. That’s real power. Waters is still in office inciting violence. But she’s not Trump so I guess it’s ok. :rolleyes:
 
My point is that there isn't a monolithic "the media" on this, or really any, political issue. American media is very clearly split into a conservative and liberal-centrist camp, and this strongly colors American political discourse, down to the everyday person's reaction to a politician's speech.
You could see this here on RF, too.

That was the point I made originally

No, but it should be scrutinized to a greater extent for its intent and political goals, and examined in the context of when and where that statement was made. Recall Trump's address to a crowd of fired-up, well-armed supporters in front of the Capitol, and the immediate aftermath of that rally.

Thus it is possible to criticise both parties rather than consider one a disgrace and the other to be beyond reproach.

How far would you extend that argument? Would you argue that reporting of a controversial trial could already put pressure on a jury?

Of course, and that is why many countries place limits on reporting prior to verdicts being announced.

See for example:

Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt of court

Honestly, I believe that the idea that a court trial exists in a vacuum without any sort of politics and bias, and that a jury is an apparatus that will yield perfectly objective results unless pressured from outside, is already a failed premise. Any politically controversial trial will put pressure on judges, jury, defense and prosecution; and in most cases, I would argue that the prosecution is far more vulnerable to political instrumentation than the other elements here.

Of course they are not objective, it's hard to think any juror would want to take the personal risk of finding him innocent anyway.

But that doesn't mean we should allow attempts to further bias the results via intimidation.


Your mileage obviously varies. But personally, I've seen trials that were an absolute politically charged farce and were only brought to a reasonable conclusion by political pressure via public protests and well-meaning articles in a handful of press magazines, so I'm a lot less willing to suspend disbelief for the idea of an objective, impartial court trial than most people, and a lot more lenient on the power of the street to enforce that justice is done correctly.

What examples are you thinking of?

The problem with championing a mob's right to intimidate a trial is that it won't always result in what you believe represents "justice being done", maybe exactly the opposite.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have never condoned the action of anyone or any group that expounds viloence.
Can you say that with a straight face?
I didn't say you did. I was thinking more about your past silence on misdeeds by the right than outright condoning them.

But that's water under the bridge. I understand that your change of heart is sincere. You oppose insurrection generally; you would never selectively throw mud at someone whose positions you disagree with out of mere political opportunism. I admire that. Thank you.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
I didn't say you did. I was thinking more about your past silence on misdeeds by the right than outright condoning them.
It looked like there was not any reason to add my $.02 to the discussion, there was enough. I read and agreed with some points, others not; but why should I have to justify what I think to the rest of you.


But that's water under the bridge. I understand that your change of heart is sincere. You oppose insurrection generally; you would never selectively throw mud at someone whose positions you disagree with out of mere political opportunism. I admire that. Thank you.
tsk tsk, someone has a issue, tough titty.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It looked like there was not any reason to add my $.02 to the discussion, there was enough. I read and agreed with some points, others not; but why should I have to justify what I think to the rest of you.



tsk tsk, someone has a issue, tough titty.
Ever notice how some walk back an erroneous presumption
about one, & explain it by saying one's heart changed?
I too have undergone such transformations...so it's been said.
 
Top