Re: Walter Scott. When DA sounds like the defense, can't really be surprised by a mistrial. This is incredible.https://t.co/ZWHnM1jAnQ pic.twitter.com/DeRIoNrGSX— Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 5, 2016
The verdict is a travesty, but it’s not crazy or weak for prosecutor to address defense case head on, or to concede points they can’t win on https://t.co/iLMUrUGGuL— (((Megan McArdle))) (@asymmetricinfo) December 8, 2016
Coates is perfectly clear; when both sides believe that a Black man should expect to be murdered if he is disobedient to authority, the Black man never has a chance for justice. The problem is that Megan McArdle agrees with the prosecutor and defense. McArdle is so authoritarian that she assumes the cop had a right to shoot and kill a man for not following orders. (Coates' commenters pointed out that Black men get shot for sitting in a car as well, which McArdle ignored.)
The problem with saying, "Eh, he should have expected to be killed," is that it sounds racist to normal people and McArdle has an image to uphold, at least in her own mind. So McArdle must come up with some socially acceptable reason to be an authoritarian racist (maybe!), and she quickly latches on the idea of pretending Coates is talking about legal strategy, not systemic racism.
Her idiocy was noticed:
@asymmetricinfo @tanehisicoates That's such baloney. The victim had no effective representation. This makes me sick.— (((Deborah))) (@DebFenning) December 8, 2016
@DebFenning @tanehisicoates The purpose of representation is to win the case, not to make stirring speeches.— (((Megan McArdle))) (@asymmetricinfo) December 8, 2016
The purpose of a defense is to convince 12 men/women to acquit the defendant. If a stirring speech sways the jury, the defendant wins. It is moronic to pretend persuasion is never attempted or is never successful. But that's our libertarian princess; the point is not to be smart, it's to look smart enough to fool her readers and keep the money flowing into her bank account and out of her Amazon account.
McArdle knows she must make a nod towards humanity but it's clear that she doesn't care about justice. She does, however, care about pecking away at her Black former colleague and defending her race.
10 comments:
Meanwhile, see the quite different outcome for a nice young white feller with an assault weapon, who fired the thing several times in an occupied restaurant: http://www.wral.com/pizza-shop-gunman-s-life-showed-recent-signs-of-turbulence/16318969/
The defense should quit before they begin because you must concede the other side's argument from the beginning.
A DA who wanted to win would have the jurors convinced that Scott ran because he was rightfully terrified of Slager.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that part of your job as defense attorney is to give plausible explanations for your client's actions. It's up to the jury to either accept or reject them.
The utterly maddening thing about this is that there is very well established rule of law that the police can not shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect unless the officer has a reasonable cause to believe that his or other people's lives are in danger.
In basic English just because you're running from the police does not give them an automatic right to gun you down. (which alas does seem to be current view here in the us especially if the person running is black) And it's pretty obvious from the tape that Sager was in no danger when he fired the shots and there was nobody else around.
I guess can't quite understand the mental gymnastics required to make Sager the one in peril, unless you're just looking for an excuse to vote not guilty.
McArdle usually thinks purely in terms of self-interest. She likes police protection. She doesn't care about the poor and powerless.
Her latest - on Sears - is really amazing. Sears under Eddie Lampert has been a total circus of fail. She doesn't even mention him. I'd have to guess she wrote the entire story without doing 10 minutes of reading.
The Prosecution, and everyone else for that matter! should explain the actua,l factual reason WHY the officer shot at the suspect.
I mean, the real reason, not the "I was afraid" reason he gives.
The Prosecution should point out that cops are TRAINED to shoot first and say "I was scared" after, whenever they commit a boo-boo. Why this isn't the first thing Prosecutors -and our glorious Media- point out when a suspect is killed, I can't figure.
The Prosecution should point out that cops are TRAINED to shoot first and say "I was scared" after, whenever they commit a boo-boo. Why this isn't the first thing Prosecutors -and our glorious Media- point out when a suspect is killed, I can't figure.
I'm going with they want to stay in good with their foot soldiers
This is where janegalt.net refers to now
http://www.new-york-hotels-ny.com/en/janegalt.html
I wonder if Megan owns it as a side business for referral money.
Post a Comment