User Jasmine’s opinions regarding the US system of jurisprudence

The BBQ Pit
41

I cannot believe anyone would defend this guy. He shot a person to death in broad daylight, on camera. Took off. Got caught.
Probably taped a semi-confession.

Yes, yes, yes. Give him a trial. A fair trial.
Let him be judged by a jury of his peers.
I believe in all that.
Let him exhaust all his appeals.
I feel like he’ll be judged guilty. And should be.

I never said put him to death. I never said L------g. YOU said that. That’s kind of an offensive thing to say to a homespun southern gal like me. I’m pretty sure no l-------gs have happened in my general region for several decades if ever. We’re kinda nice down here. Y’all come.

I have a real problem with capital punishment. Not real clear how I feel about the legalities of it. But I do not like it.

So, lump me in with other Dopers. I can make a list, as well.
Isn’t that what we did in grade school?
Remember those books that would go around school with names and vile descriptions of the unpopular.

So so childish.

42

That attitude you get when people try to judge you going on what you think is insufficient information?
Go take a long, hard look in the mirror.

43

What’s being ‘defended’ is the fundamental concept of Due Process.

Here. I can help:

44

No, although Khan does anachronistically make reference to a supposed Klingon proverb “that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold”, even though he’s never met a Klingon and should know essentially nothing about them.

Stranger

45

Theres no commercials?

46

It has been, admittedly, a minute or two since I’ve seen Undiscovered County. The anachronistic Khan quote was the one I was thinking of.

47

We interrupt this thread to bring you this important message!

Have you been having ‘senior moments’?
Walking into rooms and not knowing why you are there?
Are you just not as sharp as you used to be?

Prevagen is made with an ingredient found in jellyfish!
It is not supported by evidence of any kind!
You should run out an buy some before senility destroys what little memory you have left!

48

I totally get that. And I want him to have his day. Judged by a jury.

Not be adored by idiot fan girls, given lots of money and waste anymore taxpayer money than necessary.

Yes he should get his fair trial.

And @Czarcasm , I can’t look in a mirror for staring at your avatar. You so funny.

49

One more, @Beckdawrek – largely because your knowledge on these things generally tends to be a millimeter wide and a millimeter deep (thus failing to inform your ardent, ubiquitous, and irrepressible ‘opinions’):

TL;DR: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

–Evelyn Beatrice Hall (probably)

50

All evidence to the contrary.

But who would you be if you weren’t exactly who you are?

I’d love to find out.

51

And you seem to want the jury, who will see much more evidence than you could ever hope to see, to come to the same conclusion you jumped to from the convenience of your couch.

52

And just where are you sitting?
Aren’t we all making judgement calls from the comfort of our lives.

53

Someone mentioned me? Not even sure what this thread is about, lol.

54

This may come as a complete and utter shock to you, but as far as this case is concerned I have made no decision whatsoever, because I realize that my uninformed opinion is by its very nature inferior to the informed opinions of those that will sit on the jury and hear the evidence.
It is much easier to accept a correct decision if one is not first barricaded by an incorrect decision.

55

Thank you. I hear you.

56

I’d like to ask if you meant “Murdered” instead of “kills”. If you kill someone, it can mean many different things, right? Including murder?

57

The modern and polite way to say “You said something, and I acknowledge that you said something while seeming to agree with what you said.”

58

Umm..ok. Huh?

59

That is the clearest thing you’ve said all day.

60

If I may interrupt the argument, and briefly return to the Pitting, I do want to mention that @Jasmine did acknowledge that the post was inappropriate for a FQ thread after @Chronos noted the thread.

Which brings us back to the Pitting. I see a common thread between the posters arguing here, and frankly, in the greater world. Emotionally driven posts, and legally driven posts. Not (to be extra clear) that either of these things is wrong precisely, but it’s apples and oranges.

Emotionally, we the public may either by sympathetic to Luigi, due to a large amount of hate (often earned) at our for-profit health system, the slow working of the legal system, how better justice is available for a price, or any other number of issues.

Alternately, emotion can drive disgust at Luigi for the (accused) cold blooded and premeditated murder of someone who had done him no direct harm, the fact that others are treating him as a hero for it, or that the assumption that “justice” (however you choose to define it) -WON’T- be done.

If you’re coming into the argument from a position of emotion, no, you’re not going to be happy with the legally driven counters.

I -get- it, I really do. I have lost track of how many times I have been volcanically angry at miscarriages of justice, of how power and privilege have short-circuited attempts to hold certain persons responsible for their crimes, or just how people don’t care. It is maddening.

BUT.

That doesn’t mean that the legal principles being brought up by the posters in this thread are wrong. Or even unjust. The legal system, threadbare and corrupt as it is, was built around the Presumption of Innocence. It is NOT unique to the USA (despite some who claim that), but it isn’t universal either. It is generally an assumption that should protect the people from overreach of government, though that too has been largely eroded. Still, especially considering the shit-storm of unitary executive actions, it is one worthy of respect and defense.

So, let’s take a step back, do not discard or disregard your emotions if you chose not too. Similarly, do not further sabotage the ideal of the rule of law (tarnished through it is) in service of said emotion. We currently have little-to-no evidence that any sort of “fix” is in to get Luigi off, or to sentence him to an excessive (per US standards at least) punishment.

IF, and I say IF, we see evidence of such, that would be a better time to rise to this level of anger. We’re no where near that now (no matter how much it might frustrate the Pitee).

Let us at least try to be better than the mobs of the past, but not so trusting that we throw away our hopes of justice in search of false calm.

Okay, I’ll return to my nice, perhaps overly Lawful Neutral corner (I own it), and stop moralizing.