That’s ridiculous. Waters isn’t being condemned for expressing a view about Chauvin’s guilt, though that wouldn’t have been wise, either, at least before the jury was sequestered. She’s being condemned for essentially putting everyone (including possibly the jury) on notice that if Chauvin isn’t convicted, mob violence will result. The Nixon and Waters situations are not at all equivalent.
The irony of it all is that everyone is already very well aware of the tense situation and the likely consequences of Chauvin being acquitted. So flapping her mouth accomplished absolutely nothing except to undermine her own cause.
Look, only the jury (and other court room persons) has heard all the evidence. No one here has. The Jury, and only the jury are the best judges of guilt or innocence. That is how Democracy works. Mob rule is wrong. No matter what the verdict of the jury is, I will respect it.
I suspect strongly it will be manslaughter. The defense has thrown up enough doubting points and again, there is no motive. Juries like motives.
So what Rep Waters seems to want it this: (Jury room in any police shooting of a black man) “Hey, you know that original short video made this cop look really guilty. Yeah, but now that we have seen ALL the evidence it is clear the officer is innocent. Sure, but if we acquit him, there will be riots. Yeah, so Guilty it is, right?” is that what we want?
She called for protest, not violence. Again, this is a reflection of the implicit idea that large groups of Black people protesting is the same as a violent mob.
BLM is largely peaceful. But they will be infiltrated by Black Bloc anarchists, radicals, professional looters, and even right wing reactionaries trying to start a riot.
On the other hand, the trial was televised. The evidence is out there. And just about everyone in the country has seen the video of Derek Chauvin murdering (I’m not a lawyer, and I’m using that word in a moral sense, not a legal sense) George Floyd.
People, including Rep. Waters, are going to have strong reactions to that.
Also, anyone condemning Rep. Waters for what she said has to make the case that the jury heard what she said and was influenced by it.
She called for something that was widely interpreted as a call to violence, and even if she meant it differently, it was a wildly reckless thing to do in the middle of a hugely tense situation simmering with potential violence. And what she notably did NOT do was explicitly call for peaceful protest.
As for “the implicit idea that large groups of Black people protesting” might turn violent, there’s nothing racist in the factual observation that many protests – by Blacks and by Whites – have turned violent.
Is it racist to think that in the present circumstances, if Chauvin were acquitted, it would be a miracle if there were not violent protests? What do you think will happen if Chauvin is acquitted?
Only the jury gets to decide. Not the Mob, not a Congresswoman. Yes, the protests can and should demand JUSTICE and justice is a fair trial, even if the mob disagrees with the verdict.
So in your mind, the OJ verdict, reached in four hours after a trial that lasted eight months, served the cause of justice? Maybe you should tell your theory of justice to every innocent Black man who has ever been falsely convicted in a southern courtroom in the course of the twentieth century. And every guilty white man who has not.
If you mean “only the jury gets to decided guilt or innocence as far as the law is concerned,” I could not agree more.
That doesn’t mean I’m not entitled to an opinion about the events of that day, and Derek Chauvin’s guilt over his role in George Floyd’s death. And it doesn’t mean Rep. Waters isn’t either.
Lets not bring up stuff that happened decades ago. Did you knwo that in Roman times juries were routinely bribed?
and the Jury in the OJ case made exactly the right call- once it was shown that a racist cop was planting evidence- that is the very definition of “reasonable doubt”. Now in the civil case, where the bar is lower- that jury made the right call also.
That is a total non sequitur. Just because a single cop does something wrong, that doesnt mean the entire justice system is broken. No matter how perfect the system, humans will be imperfect and make mistakes.
The jury was very carefully selected. I doubt if a single KKK member is on it.
Did you knwo that in Roman times juries were routinely bribed?