OK, I’m taking an extended break from the CR in about two hours, so let’s get this over with as soon as possible.
Let’s leave our personal views aside for one moment, and look at the facts. The facts were that a legal process determined by years of democracy was carried out, and there was not deemed enough evidence to go to trial on. Incidentally, it takes a lot less evidence to indict than to convict, so it is safe to say that in a similar courtroom scenario it would have been even less likely he would be found guilty of a crime.
You believe the Jury was wrong. It’s possible, I’ll grant you that. But the fact is, both of us have acknowledged that we are unsure of the law in this case. For example, you have gone from calling it murder to manslaughter over the last few posts. You have admitted that you do not know the legal status of the chokehold, and neither do I. We have both got our colouring of the case from the media. which will always look for a story and is hardly a reliable source, and an edited video on YouTube (and you haven’t contested that it’s obviously edited). This is not clear evidence, and neither of us have all the facts. The Jury certainly got access to clearer and more evidence than we did. And therefore, when they make a decision, based on more evidence than we had, and with clear guidance on what the law is, which we definitely don’t have, don’t just write them off as biased or misinformed.
And even if you will stick to your assertion that the Jury was mistaken in some way, and that you know better, can you think of a better system? This mimics a court system, and is as impartial as humanely possible. You said you have ideas. They are on topic, so let’s hear them.
That is what Congress is for (Yes, of course it was a joke, is there any other way you can read it? OH, and thanks). The country votes for (officially) clever people whose job it is to represent their constituent’s, and who come up with the relevant laws.
And yes, you have a right to protest about this, and I have a right to protest about the offside rule and marshmallows. But having an idea of what needs to be fixed lends your case legitimacy. You can see what you perceive to be injustice, but don’t know what justice should look like. With details, please.
And as concerns the asthma, they didn’t see him panting or being unable to run. They didn’t chase him. They arrested him. And in the moments prior to the arrest, he appears to be healthy. Overweight, but not obviously asthmatic or in any way ill enough that the chokehold would kill him. And they had the right to arrest him, and he was resisting arrest. All that is clear from the video. Whether what they did was illegal is not. And a jury with access to guidance from a judge, who does know. And access to clear evidence, which is not apparent from an edited video. So it is not a stretch to trust their decision. And process was followed, which is what must happen in a democracy, not a lynching.
And let’s put OJ to one side for a moment. I don’t know that much about this case, not being American. But from what I know, comparisons are unfair. Firstly, that was a trial based on evidence. The jury was there to make a judgement call as to whether the evidence available tied OJ to a crime. And the decision was wrong, but that will happen in a democracy, where we put people through a process to decide if they have committed a crime, not the court of public opinion. And in that process, mistakes can be made, and occasionally are. But in the Garner case, the evidence was clear and uncontested. We know who did what to whom where and when. What is in question here is whether a crime was committed. And that is much less of a judgement call, as it is a question of Law. Therefore, the chances of Jury error are far smaller. Secondly, they were simply there to look at the law and decide if there was even the remotest possibility that it had been broken, just enough to go to trial, and they decided there wasn’t. And that was not in a courtroom where it is a yes/no question (I was going to say black/white but decided against it), but simply a question of balance. And they, far better informed (by which I mean, access to more information) than either of us, decided no. And that is that. Do you have any actual suggestions as to what should be improved here that would change the process?