The SEIU thugs who beat down Kenneth Gladney in Saint Louis walk.
From a cursory read, this looks like a case where a baby prosecutor got flim-flammed by the expensive defense lawyer, who was apparently abetted by the judge. It looks like the defense turned the trial backwards - and made the guilt or innocence phase really about the extenuating and mitigation phase of sentencing. I.e., didn't really argue whether or not the beat down occured, (i.e., guilt or innocence) but instead argued that in the context of things, the beating was understandable (and even possibly deserved) and got the jury in the mindset of "Well, he had it coming." I.e., the political thuggery version of a rape defense.
In high-drama cases, it really does look a lot more like jury lotto than it does justice. And who you get for a judge and lawyers matter. Which, of course, means that money matters a lot more than it should, but that's not news.
Makes you wonder about the jury system and people's understanding of their role in it. Of course, that would mean we'd actually have to teach civics, and not "social justice" and "nullification" which are Lefty and Righty versions of the same thing - i.e., criminal trials are actually places of political contention. There are reports that the jury was stuffed full of union members, which makes the "social justice" theory stand out a bit.
Gag.
H/t to Cortillaen for the link.
From a cursory read, this looks like a case where a baby prosecutor got flim-flammed by the expensive defense lawyer, who was apparently abetted by the judge. It looks like the defense turned the trial backwards - and made the guilt or innocence phase really about the extenuating and mitigation phase of sentencing. I.e., didn't really argue whether or not the beat down occured, (i.e., guilt or innocence) but instead argued that in the context of things, the beating was understandable (and even possibly deserved) and got the jury in the mindset of "Well, he had it coming." I.e., the political thuggery version of a rape defense.
In high-drama cases, it really does look a lot more like jury lotto than it does justice. And who you get for a judge and lawyers matter. Which, of course, means that money matters a lot more than it should, but that's not news.
Makes you wonder about the jury system and people's understanding of their role in it. Of course, that would mean we'd actually have to teach civics, and not "social justice" and "nullification" which are Lefty and Righty versions of the same thing - i.e., criminal trials are actually places of political contention. There are reports that the jury was stuffed full of union members, which makes the "social justice" theory stand out a bit.
Gag.
H/t to Cortillaen for the link.
However, having said that, I remind myself - and would like to remind everyone else - that this loss of confidence is the goal of the Left's strategies of "demoralization" and Gramsci's "long march through the culture".
We can't let them win.
First, we need to determine if we have enough TIME to try to do this peacefully through attrition and cultural changes within these institutions. If we do, then we should pursue this route. Peaceful and lawful methods are ALWAYS preferable.
However, if we don't believe that we have the time to do it this way, then something more drastic will need to occur to bring about a more immediate correction. It may take more than a few elections. It may take a genuine, nasty, bloody revolution. Those who hold power usually don't relinquish it without a fight.
The questions are these:
1) Do we like the American system and culture that we've had?
2) Do we recognize the genuine threat(s) to that system and culture, both foreign AND domestic?
3) Do we recognize the strategies and tactics that the threat(s) is / are employing to undermine America and to effect "fundamental transformation"?
4) Do we continue to fetishize "diversity" and "compromise" as if they themselves are the ultimate goals of our political dialogue instead of the protection of the US Constitution, our civil liberties, and the welfare of the Republic?
5) Do we have the will to stop the threat(s) through whatever means are necessary?
All of us who served swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
At what point do we legitimately recognize that some of our most prominent political, social, and educational leaders don't just have a "difference of opinion" or an "alternative approach" to our problems but have, in fact, become "enemies" and are actively engaged in activities that threaten what we've sworn to protect?
NOTE TO ALL: These are the sole opinions of the author, and have not been approved by the blog owner.
You are a good example, in your final “NOTE TO ALL: These are the sole opinions of the author, and have not been approved by the blog owner.” I figure John is way too wise to write like what I have written.
To both of you, Thanks.
America is a center-right country and the leftists are trying to change it into a leftist, European style socialist nation. That just won't fly here. Well, at least not yet.
We have to stop letting the left define the arguments. When they start crying "It's for the kids" we need to point out the negatives to those kids. I think some of that is happening now but we need to step it up and fight fire with fire.
Yup. Union Special Privilege #1, courtesy of the Supreme Court of these here United States.
Odd that the people who fling that in our faces the most are invariably pro-abortion, innit?
The Color of Crime may be an Hate Fact, but it is a fact.
I do feel so sorry for the Kewl&Sensible black folks like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, that Mississippi gal at the local 7-11, and of course Mr. Gladney. They get it from both races. I betcha smart black guys eat blood-pressure medicine like candy.