The problem we have is that juries unanimously find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I doubt that anyone accused of right-wing extremist violence is going to be unfortunate enough to have 12 completely unbiased jurors. There will always be at least one juror who believes that they’re justified, no matter how horrible their crime is.
That’s why Trump’s going to get off scot-free for January 6, too, unfortunately. 46.9% of the country voted for him in 2020, and most of them would vote for him again in 2024, while at least some liberals are experiencing buyer’s remorse over Joe Biden. (Personally, Biden wasn’t my first choice; I wanted Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as president). I find it hard to believe that any prosecutor will be able to seat a jury with no Trump voters on it.
Which it has been for most of the history of the United States (see above article on racist American lynch mobs and their typical immunity from punishment).
I mean, nice try attempting to blame right-wing extremist violence on liberals there, but it’s liberalism which in the past half-century or so has made political violence unprecedentedly de-legitimized.
The current trial of the Unite the Right mayhem organizers in Charleston is a civil trial, a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who were damaged in some way. According to at least some articles I read, they openly acknowledge that their goal is to bankrupt the M-Fers. A civil lawsuit trial like this does not require a unanimous jury. So cases like this have a chance. Criminal trials, like the Kyle Rittenhouse case, are going to be much harder.
Yeah. A few have pleaded guilty. But I can’t see any convictions in a jury trial. It could hurt them in other ways, though. Would you hire any of them? If you did you might face a boycott. Some have already lost their jobs. But a few are running for congress or other office.
