• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What the Derek Chauvin trial is focused on

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
About 8 to 10 years ago didn't a media personality, maybe a radio talk show host, go to jail because he said an illegal political opinion in Australia?

The only talk show host that I remember going to jail was Darryn Hinch :

"In October 2013, Hinch was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching a suppression order by revealing details of the criminal history of Jill Meagher's killer, Adrian Ernest Bayley. The judge gave Hinch 90 days to pay the fine, or else face 50 days in prison. On 16 January 2014, one day prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, Hinch advised that he would not pay the fine 'on principle'. He was imprisoned on 17 January 2014"

We also had a well known politician, Pauline Hanson, go to jail for irregularities over the registration of her political party :

"On 20 August 2003, a jury in the District Court of Queensland convicted Hanson and David Ettridge of electoral fraud. Both Hanson and Ettridge were sentenced to three years imprisonment for falsely claiming that 500 members of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement were members of the political organisation"

Neither case accurately fits your description.

As far as I know, you cannot go to jail in Australia for expressing any kind of opinion.

We do have laws that forbid hate speech of any kind....but only when the speech is made in public.

Australia has a long history of racism, which I hope is long behind us now.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trump and the Central Park Five: Paid thousands for ads in the newspapers saying he wanted to hate them.

So are you saying it is wrong to hate those who have confessed to rape?
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"The Court cannot imagine a more prejudicial extraneous influence than that of a juror discovering that the City he or she resides in is bracing for a riot,"


The jurors in the Chauvin trial were only appointed AFTER BLM and other racists said that cities would go up in flames if Chauvin was not found guilty.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
2,530
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The only talk show host that I remember going to jail was Darryn Hinch :

"In October 2013, Hinch was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching a suppression order by revealing details of the criminal history of Jill Meagher's killer, Adrian Ernest Bayley. The judge gave Hinch 90 days to pay the fine, or else face 50 days in prison. On 16 January 2014, one day prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, Hinch advised that he would not pay the fine 'on principle'. He was imprisoned on 17 January 2014"

We also had a well known politician, Pauline Hanson, go to jail for irregularities over the registration of her political party :

"On 20 August 2003, a jury in the District Court of Queensland convicted Hanson and David Ettridge of electoral fraud. Both Hanson and Ettridge were sentenced to three years imprisonment for falsely claiming that 500 members of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement were members of the political organisation"

Neither case accurately fits your description.

As far as I know, you cannot go to jail in Australia for expressing any kind of opinion.

We do have laws that forbid hate speech of any kind....but only when the speech is made in public.

Australia has a long history of racism, which I hope is long behind us now.

I think I remember...Alan Jones. He was in trouble alot and the subject of court suits but I was wrong, he didn't go to jail over incorrect speech.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So are you saying it is wrong to hate those who have confessed to rape?
Except of course they were innocent, railroaded into jail to please people like the orange oaf. They were not interested in justice, just to make the case go away.

And the hatred is more the fact that he still claims they were guilty and should have been executed.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And, if nothing else, there was certainly reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death.

But unfortunately, not in the eyes of the mob, Joe Biden and other bigots who were not concerned that Chauvin should get a fair trial.
Except the mob, Joe Biden or others (only your illogical mind would call them bigots but that is a whole different issue) were in the court room, listened to the evidence and convicted him of murder/homicide. They are the ones who count, they were influenced by the evidence presented to them.

And they had no doubt about the cause of death. Neither did the other autopsy. There was no doubt as to why he died for the jurors and they acted accordingly. And Chauvin got a fair trial, the only one who did not get a fair shake at continued living was the man he illegally killed.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But you can't call out of you can't breathe at all....as Floyd claimed.

Do you not understand the difference?
Actually you can call out that you cannot breathe if you cannot breathe. You lambasting someone else on what you are mistakenly claiming is just plain illogical on your side.

Experts have testified that you can call out "I cannot breathe" while you are not able to breathe.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/medical-experts-floyds-speech-breathe-71701574

Just because you speak, or in other words have enough air in your upper airway, trachea and bronchi, no oxygen goes from the air into the body in those areas of your respiratory system, that happens deeper in the lungs, speaking does not imply gas exchange in your lungs.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
16,438
Reaction score
4,702
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So are you saying it is wrong to hate those who have confessed to rape?
They were innocent. The text of his ads were Lynch Mob Rhetoric 101. In a different time he would have looked on black bodies hanging from trees and smiled. To be fair, he could have believed that the youths, who had never been arrested before, were actually guilty. But Trump’s true colors were shown when they were exonerated. The asshole didn’t even have the stones to apologize, to admit he might have been wrong. George Wallace apologized for what he did. Trump’s psychosis doesn’t admit he is wrong. Ever. He is one sick puppy. America dodged a bullet last November.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The evidence suggest you are 100% correct.

When even the President is praying for a conviction, it is self evident that a fair trial is impossible.

Studies have shown that human beings value the safety of their families and themselves above all else.

When a trial is held with mobs outside the Court threatening countrywide violence should the jurors not deliver the verdict they demand, again a fair trial is impossible.
Biden was praying for the right verdict based on the evidence, the jury was at that moment deliberating so nothing Biden said could influence their judgement and unlike Floyd, Chauvin had his day in court and lost..
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Er no : It was Biden who was praying for a conviction :


I would still like to know if there has ever been another leader of a Western Nation that has been idiotic enough to make a similar statement?

Your President is way out of line.

And are you so misguided that you believe that being "sequestered" means anything when the jurors have to travel to Court through the mobs vowing violence and when they witnessed the same threats even before being appointed as a juror?

You surely can't be so naive?
I would have preferred he kept his mouth about this until after the verdict but his comments had no bearing on the outcome of this case.

And the whole US legal system is based on the jurors only using what they hear in court to base their verdict on. So if it is naive here you must feel the same about any other legal case ever held in the US.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The world needs a strong America. We, in Australia, would probably be speaking Japanese now if it wasn't for your country and the UK.

And I believe it is only the USA that can stop the Chinese taking over this part of the world, albeit after I'm pushing up daisies.

Probably the worst thing coming out of the USA (and we in Australia are slowly following the trend set by yourselves) is the lack of respect for free speech. If you have an opinion different to someone else, you are immediately demonised or insulted.

True story : On my first visit to the USA, a couple of decades ago now, we went to Time Square and came across some black guys wearing all black clothes with some kind of Star of David on them racially insulting white men, calling them faggots etc. A couple of days later we were in West Virginia at a flea market where there were people selling white supremacist t shirts. Both groups had a right to express their opinions freely, however racist they may have seemed to some. There will always be racists. We just need to ignore them and possibly laugh at them....but we must never deny people the right to free speech, otherwise we will end up like the Communist states or Nazi Germany where only one train of thought is allowed and acceptable.
Which is a Biden USA and not a Trump USA because under Trump China had almost free play, under Biden it will be different as he wants to work with other countries to stop the Chinese taking over.

And there is a huge chasm between prosecuting some racist statements and ending up with Nazi Germany like situations/soviet occupation like situations.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would have preferred he kept his mouth about this until after the verdict but his comments had no bearing on the outcome of this case.

How do you know that?

Did you know that the case is not even finished?

Chauvin will appeal the verdict.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
They were innocent.

They confessed to rape.

Most people, including Trump, would not expect several people to jointly confess to raping someone.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Chauvin had his day in court and lost.

In an environment where a fair trial was impossible.

There was a mob outside the Courthouse threatening that US cities would be burned and looted if they didn't get the verdict they demanded and a President praying for a guilty verdict.

If you think that was fair, then I can only shake my head.

The US Courts have a history of delivering unjust verdicts if there there would be looting and pillaging if the "right" verdict wasn't delivered.

Ever heard of the O.J. Simpson trial?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
16,438
Reaction score
4,702
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
They confessed to rape.

Most people, including Trump, would not expect several people to jointly confess to raping someone.
I repeat, 120 or so years ago, his words in the ad would have been those of the leader of a lynch mob. They were intimidated into confessing. They were cleared by DNA evidence and the confession of another man. Even granting that he might have thought they did it, Trump didn’t even have the balls to admit he was wrong, to apologize. And of course, I assume you are aware that on another occasion, Trump spread clearly false info on black on white homicide. Didn’t apologize for that either. I have to admit, the man is consistent. No matter what the issue, if it involves someone racially different, he will say or do the most low-life thing possible. Remember, this is a guy who wants US soldiers to commit war crimes. You know, the sort of thing we hanged Nazis for.
 
Last edited:

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How do you know that?

Did you know that the case is not even finished?

Chauvin will appeal the verdict.
So what? He did not influence the verdict, the evidence influenced the verdict. The witnesses influenced the verdict. The video of the murder influenced the verdict.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In an environment where a fair trial was impossible.

There was a mob outside the Courthouse threatening that US cities would be burned and looted if they didn't get the verdict they demanded and a President praying for a guilty verdict.

If you think that was fair, then I can only shake my head.

The US Courts have a history of delivering unjust verdicts if there there would be looting and pillaging if the "right" verdict wasn't delivered.

Ever heard of the O.J. Simpson trial?
You are just giving an opinion. The OJ Simpson trial was won by grandstanding lawyers and not great prosecuting. There was no smoking gun as was available in the Chauvin case, you know, seeing the actual murder taking place.

The verdict was very fair because it was based on the evidence of witnesses, not on the president or protesters.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You are just giving an opinion.

Er, that's what we do here.

Haven't you noticed yet?

Your following sentence is also an opinion :

The OJ Simpson trial was won by grandstanding lawyers

The Chauvin trial was won by grandstanding politicians and mobs threatening that US cities would be looted and pillaged if Chauvin was not crucified.

Justine Damond : Had her head blown off by a black policeman after calling the police for help. Policeman found guilty of THIRD degree murder.....should be free after 6 years in prison.

Floyd : A convicted criminal, high on drugs violently resisting arrest. Witnesses disagreed over the cause of his death. Cop found guilty of Second degree murder.

The difference : Floyd is a black man killed by a white cop. Damond is a white woman killed by a black cop.

No mobs threatening violence or President praying for a conviction.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
the evidence influenced the verdict.

What influenced the verdict was the mobs outside threatening widespread violence.

Studies tell us that the primary concern of most humans is the safety of their families.

Neither the jurors nor their families would have been safe from the racists claiming that Floyd was the victim of a racially based murder.

We now know the name of every single juror in the OJ trial. To the best of my knowledge, none have been harmed or threatened because the mob were provided with the verdict they demanded.
 

Ginza

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
They were cleared by DNA evidence and the confession of another man.

The DNA evidence was of a still unidentified man, who may have been with the accused.

The "confession" was made by a criminal who had nothing to lose.

All of the gang confessed.

You say "they were innocent."

They were, in fact, NOT found to be innocent but it was decided that the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt.....a massive difference.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Er, that's what we do here.

Haven't you noticed yet?

Your following sentence is also an opinion :



The Chauvin trial was won by grandstanding politicians and mobs threatening that US cities would be looted and pillaged if Chauvin was not crucified.

Justine Damond : Had her head blown off by a black policeman after calling the police for help. Policeman found guilty of THIRD degree murder.....should be free after 6 years in prison.

Floyd : A convicted criminal, high on drugs violently resisting arrest. Witnesses disagreed over the cause of his death. Cop found guilty of Second degree murder.

The difference : Floyd is a black man killed by a white cop. Damond is a white woman killed by a black cop.

No mobs threatening violence or President praying for a conviction.
So you must have missed the comments of the jurors about the evidence leading to their view of guilty, but sure, opine a lot of nonsense why don't you but you will never be able to make believable that the president or the protesters lead to his conviction as none of them were on the witness stand.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,976
Reaction score
12,446
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What influenced the verdict was the mobs outside threatening widespread violence.

Studies tell us that the primary concern of most humans is the safety of their families.

Neither the jurors nor their families would have been safe from the racists claiming that Floyd was the victim of a racially based murder.

We now know the name of every single juror in the OJ trial. To the best of my knowledge, none have been harmed or threatened because the mob were provided with the verdict they demanded.
wrong, it was the witnesses as specified by the jurors. Now you may not believe that jurors listen to the witnesses but in this case it seems that happened.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
16,438
Reaction score
4,702
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The DNA evidence was of a still unidentified man, who may have been with the accused.
++ And the DNA of the accused was where
And the "confession" was made by a criminal who had nothing to lose.
++ What did he have to gain?
All of the gang confessed.

You say "they were innocent."
++ There were questions about their interrogation.
They were, in fact, NOT found to be innocent but it was decided that the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt.....a massive difference.
++ So what's your point? They should return the money they got for their unjust imprisonment? How did they possibly win the civil case? What was wrong with the court that awarded them compensation for their aggregate 40 years in confinement? (BTW, check out Ken Burns documentary on the five.)
++ The main point I was trying to make was Trump's inability to accept the possibility that he might in any context, just possibly MIGHT be wrong about anything, anytime: this case, the path of a hurricane, his electoral college victory in 2016, the 2020 election. Add to that his appeals to racial fears and you have one miserable human being who, if he hadn't been in a position of power, I might feel sorry for. This is a guy who couldn't accept that Obama was a legitimate president, who spread patently false information on black on white homicide, and more than once - as president of our country - referred to immigrants as poisonous snakes. He would have been a disgrace even in the old segregationist South. As I noted, he'd be from central casting to play the leader of lynch mobs. (I was pleasantly surprised, however, at his out of character reaction to the Chauvin-Floyd video. Good for him.)
 
Top Bottom