We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, April 21. 2021
Scott Adams seems to feel that the verdict serves the greater good.
I call BS on that principle.
Powerline reminds us of America's proud heritage of equal justice
Good rules of thumb for life: Don't break laws, don't abuse substances, never resist arrest. Just be a good, useful, productive citizen.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I have always loved Dilbert. I don't always understand Scott Adams' commentary.
How does a miscarriage of justice serve the greater good? How does trial by mob rule serve the greater good?
How did human sacrifice in earlier cultures serve the greater good? Why would we want to return to that practice. even if it is done in a sanitized form and called justice?
There are only two alternatives here. There's the jury's opinion, and there's everyone else's. Only the first counts.
Like it or not, that's the only system that works, even if not perfect (where "perfect" means the choice you want). The alternatives are trial by social media, what used to be called "lynching." Look it up.
This WAS a trial by social media. Some of us are willing to face the truth that the jury was influenced by the coverage, the media, and the implicit threat of violence if they didn't find Chauvin guilty.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, is, IMO, not thinking clearly or honestly.
Misrepresenting an argument the way you just did would, in a real court, would get you bitchslapped by the judge, but there's no reason you'd know that, "counsel."
We have basically two choices in this country. Formal adjudication or, since we've largely given up lynching, trial by the internet (whether that means something like daily kos or twitter or maggies farm and I don't know which of those three is the worst).
I don't know what kind of law you pretend to malpractice, whether writing wills for hogs or pleading out DUIs but I know you've never tried a jury case. That jury, and most other juries in criminal cases, made up its mind in the first few minutes of the trial. This has always been a fact, long before social media, and yet for all that, they still get it right the vast majority of the time. And that is infinitely preferable to trial by electronic lynching.
Scott Adams is a wanna-be gadfly. He's unctuous, arrogant, and quite taken with himself. Fancies himself a top persuader. He sure persuaded me...not to like him. I knew his take on the verdict would be the opposite of his followers. Who knows what he actually believes - if anything.
My POV is that while I personally feel it's a miscarriage of justice, Chauvin is guilty of something - probably a form of manslaughter. And I do think it serves a greater good, particularly for one reason.
Once Maxine Waters opened her fat, stupid mouth and wanted him found guilty of Murder 1 (which he was not on trial for) and called for more violence, they opened the door for appeal.
Without the change of venue, and without sequestering, Waters created the perfect appeal opportunity. In other words, the verdict gives one side what it wants, but her fat mouth allows the man to have an opportunity to free himself.
That, and the fact is the guilty verdict was achieved (as Jonathan Turley points out) by basically undermining their cases against the other officers. So that's a good thing, too.
The Chauvin manslaughter case might have been justified. The murder charges were not, considering Floyd was already dying of fentanyl overdose. This is a blatant case of "Guilty because we're afraid of the mob".
Which part of the 'mob' were the jurists most afraid of, do you think?
- The BLM part, the extortive group whose very existence is predicated on proven narrative lies (Trayvon, Michael, George, etc etc)
- The 2021 year-of-the-riot part, where the riot/destruction narrative is described as 'justified', 'undersdtandable'?
- The Minneapolis $27 million gift settlement to the Floyd family just-before-the-trial part?
- The Judge's failure to move the venue to a more neutral, less volatile and mob-charged part?
- The excused prospective jurors who feared for their life part?
- The local newspaper's publishing "bio's of the jury", allowing internet sleuths to identify and dox them, on the day before the verdict part?
- The Maxine Waters / Al Sharpton rallies in Minneapolis to help the jury 'get confrontational / take to the streets' part?
-or the Joe Biden Most-Powerful-Man-In-The-World hoping they find the 'right' verdict part?
And now we have virtually all the news organizations telling us to be comforted that due process and fair trial principals have been served.
ProTip: if you strangle someone who is dying anyway, and even if you shorten his life by five minutes, and even if he "deserves to die" it's still murder.
There was no medical support for the theory that he was "strangled" or in any way prevented from breathing by anything other than his own respiratory system seizing up from fentanyl. But feel free to keep making up "facts" to make yourself feel better.
I used "strangled" as an example that the other simpletons here could grasp. It's called an "analogy."
Now, while I understand that you don't see a lot of crimes other than those involving controlled substances in Gooberville, but even at Hick State Law School you would have learned in your first year that, with some exceptions not relevant here, being a contributing cause to the death of another, who may or may not have been dying, is some grade of homicide.
Feel free to ask for help with the big words.
This was always going to be guilty of all charges...or else. The state payed out a 27 MILLION dollar settlement even before the case began! You can call this 'justice' if you like...just count me out. I'm familiar with history and the results of 'mob rule'. Cheer it on all you like. Eventually they will come for you and not one of your 'neighbors' will ever admit that they ever even knew you...
You don't have a grasp of what's going on here, kid. The city paid out $27mil because the city assumed correctly that a civil jury would likely have awarded far more.
I have a test for incidents like the one involving Mr. Floyd.
It goes like this: Assume all other facts equal and start changing the color\race of the people involved.
1). Guy on ground white, officers black, result zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Crickets.
2). Guy on ground black, officers black. Crickets.
3). Guy on ground black, officers white. Outrage.
I think the "correct " verdict should have been dismissed with prejudice.
"Dismissed with prejudice" is not a verdict. Before you give your legal opinion, look up Dunning Kruger.
Scott Adams is running a doll house. His insights, his rules, work the dolls. Some good, some not.
I vaguely recall this silly notion that we should let several guilty people go, than wrongly convict one innocent person. Pro bono lawyers helping out the prosecution???? Dumping hundreds of documents, during the trial, in the lap of the sole defense attorney????
It was a travesty.
Worse, we'll see more of this.
Re: Our Fictional Justice System
If you want, you can believe the "verdict" in the Chauvin trial, but remember that government employees may never be convicted of a crime. A guy could could chop-off the heads of a dozen orphans, but if he's drawing a government paycheck, he's a free man.
What we saw on T.V. was a show trial. Everything looked good on camera. But the assailant, in this case a police officer, won't actually serve any time. Sure, he might get "sent" to prison for a couple of weeks to cement the story, but that's it. Then they'll whisk him away to the Ukraine, where he will live out the rest of his days in the government employee protection program. Cops don't do time. They can't. The "Color of Law Doctrine" states that police officers are protected against liability in connection with an arrest.
I deem you a wannabe nazi and a complete idiot.
On a forum where internet lawyers are unusually ignorant, you are, by far, the worst.
Did anyone see that vignette of the Floyd family celebrating the verdict? Man those cats were styling; no track suits just $1000 suits.
We are going down, big time.
re Good rules of thumb for life: Don't break laws, don't abuse substances, never resist arrest. Just be a good, useful, productive citizen.
And don't ever become a cop.
As my uncle, a police officer for over 40 years, summed it up, "Don't do anything the cops can't ignore."
Adams is wrong on the principle and wrong on the notion that a greater good will emerge. BLM, Antifa, and the rioting will not end as a result of this travesty.
I learned something from this discussion.
SalD is a pompous blowhard, (blowhard substituted for "Ass") and I will overlook any further comments from him.