Jump to content

Are You Showing Support for Black Lives Matter in Second Life?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 320 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:
1 hour ago, Janet Voxel said:

First you have to realize "Defund the Police" doesn't necessarily mean stop paying for police or disband the police and realize the police in the US have a huge burden placed on them as far as their role in inner cities. They are called upon to do jobs, they aren't qualified or trained for on a daily basis. In some cases it does work and has already happened. What I was trying to point out yesterday was the US spends far more on the military and police than other "rich" countries do and its not working. Why not spend the money on social services or something more productive to communites?

https://mynorthwest.com/1928786/protesters-call-defund-the-police/

It's happened in Camden, NJ

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html

@Janet Voxel...I was referring to this post and the articles as I have not read them yet.  

Anyhow, I'm confused too as it was my lunch hour but @Mollymews you may want to read these above articles too.  

But, I'm calling it "defunding" because that is what the articles I've read said.  Both Biden and Trump say no to defunding.  I am not sure at this time what defunding means.  Both agree to reform, I already said that.  

 

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not as such, no. We don't really have that kind of thing here as, well, our law enforcement seldom gun down people - and whilst I obviously do not condone of it, I'm hesitant to give my 'official' (i.

Alrighty, now that I've gone ahead and cleared out some not so pleasant posts from this thread I wanted to drop a quick note here. As many of you have seen me say several times before, delving in

Thank you for this.   Black woman here.  Of A Certain Age.  I have my BLM shirt.   For whatever that means. (freewheeling it here, went from wanting to say something to not wanting to say anythi

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:
22 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You are guilty if you see people being harmed and choose to do nothing.

You are not. That's the law in most of the free world because that's what most of the free world agrees is morally right.

Yeah, it can definitely suck. I'd hate if nobody helped me during my time of need when I was being attacked, but at the same time it's not my right to anybody else's time words or actions, to expect that anybody would put themselves in danger for me etc.

We're not talking about legal definitions.  This is morality, ethics. To stand by and see fellow citizens harmed yet do nothing to help is agreeing with the violence others are committing. We are giving our permission for those violent acts to occur if we don't intervene in some way.

* I think you see society far differently than I do.  I see a community where people help each other, but you see society as individuals who impose on each other with their needs.

* It's not about putting yourself in danger for someone else.  There are many ways one can choose to help.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds a whole lot like that "burning house" cartoon posted earlier in this thread. "It's my right to ignore your burning house and instead stay over here spraying water on my own, not-burning house."  

That may be technically correct as far as (some) laws go, but "screw you, MY house is not on fire" is a crappy hill to choose to die on.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

 @Mollymews you may want to read these above articles too. 

i did

the first article talks about defunding a police department to bring about change

the second article talks about replacing a police department to bring about change

Joe Biden is not in favor of either of these approaches. He is not interested in using budget constraints to induce behavioural change. And he would rather reform police departments than replace them entirely

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

This sounds a whole lot like that "burning house" cartoon posted earlier in this thread. "It's my right to ignore your burning house and instead stay over here spraying water on my own, not-burning house."  

That may be technically correct as far as (some) laws go, but "screw you, MY house is not on fire" is a crappy hill to choose to die on.

And there are too many walking among us, on both sides of the pond it seems. I can no longer see it as a valid viewpoint or just a separate way of viewing the world that I might just not understand well...it's some sort of aberration.

* Ragu, really, you don't have to go to a protest or even particularly like BLM if you don't understand it fully. Just donate to a "Send a Black kid to college" fund or something!

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

i did

the first article talks about defunding a police department to bring about change

the second article talks about replacing a police department to bring about change

Joe Biden is not in favor of either of these approaches. He is not interested in using budget constraints to induce behavioural change. And he would rather reform police departments than replace them entirely

Sorry, yes I'm just pressed for time.  I was trying to state I'm putting preliminary breaking news about all of this defunding and the presidential candidates and what they are saying today because I have to attend to real life issues now.   For further information as to what Trump and Biden are saying, people would need to Google for more information cuz I gotta go do real life stuff but I think it's important to hear what our presidential candidates are saying about the issue of defunding as people are painting in the streets "defund the police".  But, I don't think that is going to happen, not from my understanding from what both presidential candidates in the news articles I've just currently read.  

Okay, going to do real life stuff now.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

You are not. That's the law in most of the free world because that's what most of the free world agrees is morally right.

Yeah, it can definitely suck. I'd hate if nobody helped me during my time of need when I was being attacked, but at the same time it's not my right to anybody else's time words or actions, to expect that anybody would put themselves in danger for me etc.

 

It's clearly a difference in age and background, but way back when I was a child, I was brought up to believe that certain kinds of behaviour are shameful, and that while it may be the case that no one has the right to demand my support when they're in difficulties, there are certain circumstances when it's my duty to offer it.

This, to my mind, is one of them.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

It's clearly a difference in age and background, but way back when I was a child, I was brought up to believe that certain kinds of behaviour are shameful, and that while it may be the case that no one has the right to demand my support when they're in difficulties, there are certain circumstances when it's my duty to offer it.

This, to my mind, is one of them.

A shameful action is not an illegal action.

Being a coward, being selfish are not crimes. When you criminalize them, you create a very dangerous world.

I'm not advocating acting in a selfish manner, what I'm saying is, there is a big difference between acting because you're a good person, and acting under threat of punishment. Good Samaritans should be just that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always believed in noblesse oblige, those that have are obliged to help those that don't have.OR as Marvel comic's Spiderman tells us, "with great power, comes great responsibility".  That's the way I was brought up. It's what I tell my daughter.  Now mind you, I'm not rich or powerful.  White working class born of white working class parents.  But I do know that there are others that are less fortunate than me. And I do what I can to help. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

A shameful action is not an illegal action.

Being a coward, being selfish are not crimes. When you criminalize them, you create a very dangerous world.

I'm not advocating acting in a selfish manner, what I'm saying is, there is a big difference between acting because you're a good person, and acting under threat of punishment. Good Samaritans should be just that.

You're the one going about punishment.   The rest of us are talking about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I talk about punishment as it is usually something that comes with committing an act of violence.

It's all in the language. When inaction gets called an act of violence, it has the (perhaps unintentional) implication that it can be punished as such. I think there are definitely people out there who would pick up on a rhetoric like this and use it for bad purposes. That is why I point it out.

Re Luna. I appreciate that you recognize my concern. I will look and see what I can do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FairreLilette said:
3 hours ago, FairreLilette said:
1 hour ago, Janet Voxel said:

First you have to realize "Defund the Police" doesn't necessarily mean stop paying for police or disband the police 

Okay, there was some confusion here about Janet's post to me that defunding does not mean paying for police and disbanding.  However, those articles are wrong because yes defunding DOES mean not paying for police and disbanding.  

Protesters have been writing in the streets with huge letting that takes up the width of the street and is quite large plus protesters carrying signs that say "DEFUND THE POLICE" in the BLM protests.  

Both Trump and Biden have said no to defunding the police.  I know this thread is supposed to be about SL.  But, this is a pretty big deal and I don't want people to be hurt by things they cannot accomplish.  

For this movement, it would have better, imo, if they had elected Spokesperson's to speak on the matter so they would have more negotiating power such as assembled peacefully in a rally.  

Here is the definition of defund:

1) to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control
2) to deplete the financial resources of
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I saw this graphic in another newsgroup -- it helps explain a lot, I think.

5505dc4ddab8eb6c5a1cf336ba89c54d.jpg

However, this morning I was reading someone with a large liberal-leftist following on Twitter who noted that  it really is somewhat concerning that when he'd earlier asked people what they meant when they said they wanted to "defund the police" and what kind of policing, if any, they wanted to see, and he'd received so many different, and frequently incompatible, replies.

When local activists sit down and try to draw up proposals for how to defund the police in their communities, and how to redirect the spending, it may be difficult to reach a consensus on the extent and scope of the reforms.

I don't know at this time what reforms may entail but both Trump and Biden and others say reform will happen especially retraining of officers.  But, to say, "Defund The Police", is quite a far stretch.  If that is truly what the protesters want, then I think they are entering very, very risky territory with their lives.    

It is better to talk and negotiate than go for an all or nothing such as "defunding the police" that is for sure.  It is not worth losing their life over by demanding things that are out of the question altogether.  Our presidents have to protect all citizens; they cannot defund the police.  

 

 

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

Okay, there was some confusion here about Janet's post to me that defunding does not mean paying for police and disbanding.  However, those articles are wrong because yes defunding DOES mean not paying for police and disbanding.  

Protesters have been writing in the streets with huge letting that takes up the width of the street and is quite large plus protesters carrying signs that say "DEFUND THE POLICE" in the BLM protests.  

Both Trump and Biden have said no to defunding the police.  I know this thread is supposed to be about SL.  But, this is a pretty big deal and I don't want people to be hurt by things they cannot accomplish.  

For this movement, it would have better, imo, if they had elected Spokesperson's to speak on the matter so they would have more negotiating power such as assembled peacefully in a rally.  

Here is the definition of defund:

1) to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control
2) to deplete the financial resources of

The definition you have given is not the same as the disbanding you have taken it to mean.

Withdrawing support, depleting the resources is to take some money from the budgets of the police. not all of it.

 

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My company did a very surprising thing for us.  They offered us a paid day off to be taken between now and July 10, called a June day of Unity, so we could participate in the events in response to George Floyd's death, educate ourselves about racial injustice, celebrate Juneteenth,  and it's our choice how we use this day.

So anyway, since I am high risk and can't go marching in the streets, I downloaded another book, the White Fragility one by Robin J. DiAngelo so I can get more woke.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

The issue I have is that it is wrong to put a 'guilty' label on people who do nothing. It is tyrannical in nature.

Well then, don't move to my tyrannical state of Wisconsin or even Minnesota!*

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/05/in-which-states-do-i-have-a-duty-to-help.html

Anyone up for a "lighthearted" tune?...

*Yes I know the idea is different, but it rhymes.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

i just add a bit more about Joe Biden and what he wants to do should he be elected US President. And a further bit about celebratory symbols of oppression

Mr Biden wants to spend more federal money than is spent now

specifically on: federal crime reduction and prevention grants to States, community policing, victims of crime financial rehabilitative assistance, child abuse prevention, school counsellors, public defenders, primary and gynecological care of incarcerated women, education and trade training for incarcerated people, transitional housing for people on release from prison, juvenile offenders rehabilitation programs and statistical policing data collection   

the above items are the things Mr Biden is going to ask Congress to provide more funding for should he be elected US President

i am not going to link to Mr Biden's justice election policy platform. It can be found tho by googling on keywords: joe biden justice

when asked if he supports a local body council's determination to re-allocate their policing budget, Mr Biden says that he supports their right to do this as it is the elected representatives job to make these decisions. Mr Biden is well aware that a President has no authority to direct how local bodies spend their own money. The President can only direct that federal money, for which the US Executive branch is accountable (him if elected President), must be spent on what it is that Congress grants
 
and Mr Biden is going to beef up Justice Department oversight of conduct in police departments and prosecutors offices. Using the existing legislation which he secured when he was Vice-President

from my own pov I get all this. Even when I might quibble about some of the details of his policy platform. And I probably more into dismantling than Mr Biden is. But I am not running for US President tho

i am more a grassroots activist, and volunteer to work on election campaigns for people with who I have shared goals that we both want to achieve. Do what I can from the ground

I do tho like seeing celebratory symbols of oppression getting chucked into the harbour as happened in Bristol. I like seeing USA army officers calling out CSA generals as traitors to their country. US Marine Corps saying they are done with all the CSA bs. US mayors giving the finger to their State governments over even more CSA bs. I like it when a thing is so messed up that decision-makers go: fi and dismantle it and start over with something that will work

celebratory symbols can shackle us to the past. We can accept our ancestors but we shouldn't rub the bad stuff that our ancestors did in the faces of their descendants

on a more personal note.  I have a ancestor Hongi Hika. He was horrible. He led my tribe to kill more people in one day than anyone else ever in New Zealand history, along with suppressing, enslaving and killing countless other people on his way down country. Is nothing to celebrate in what he led my own people to do. Even now today, it still hurts the people of the victim tribes when the matter comes up between us. And all I can do is offer myself to them, which does get rejected sometimes still, nearly 200 years later. And I have to take that. Because I accept my ancestor for what he was, not for what I would like him to have been. And most importantly I and my tribe are not the victims, my tribe were the killers. I have to own this. And when I am rejected, or not offered a hug, by a member of a victim tribe then I have to suck it up and be understanding that they still need more time. There is no time limit on pain and sorrow or forgiveness

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to post a link to a video here and I want to warn anyone who watches that it is full of really vulgar profanity and violence so you've been warned. 

I'm posting it mainly for non-Americans, but it also occurs to me they may not be able to see it. I'm going to try anyway.

Hollenbeck Area Use of Force

I just saw this video from the Los Angeles Police Department because the officer has just been charged with 'assault under the color of authority' today, even though this happened at the end of April. 

This is not unusual. This is the bully cop behavior we're talking about. This is the state of policing in the United States especially for minorities and people living in poverty. 

First off, listen to the original 911 call at the beginning, and the 911 operator. Her disdain is evident. Rather than listening to what he was saying to her, she just plowed over him with questions, and when he answered the question (not a house or apartment, but an empty lot) she got snotty with him saying "That doesn't answer my question." You can hear the resignation in his voice when he just says "house" instead of bothering to try explain it to her again. He's been through this before. 

The 911 operators and the radio dispatchers aren't talked about enough. They're the ones speaking with the public to hopefully get an accurate picture of what is happening, and the dispatchers are in charge of giving that background to the officers. I listen to the police scanner in my city a lot, years before all of this started happening because I loved the police. There was a time I wanted to be a cop. I get a kick out of hearing them talking. Most of the radio dispatchers in Louisville are wonderful, but there is one... no idea what her name is, but she's just a snotty little brat. It's clear that she think very little of the people who call 911, and that attitude goes straight in the ear of the cops. There is not a single ounce of empathy towards these people who are calling for help. When she's on duty and I'm listening, it drives me nuts. I've never done anything about it - I think it's time I do. 

But back to this video - this guy was behaving absolutely terribly and saying the most offensive things he could think to say to these cops. The male cop gave it right back to him. How is that deescalating anything? This is typical. This is normal. This is how cops across the US behave. And then he (the cop) lost his fricking marbles. He absolutely lost complete control of himself. The way he beat that man who never once swung back at him ought to scare everyone. 

We have it pounded into our heads that the cops are the good guys - and that they're supposed to deescalate the situation. That's the company line, and it's simply false. You think this is the first time the guy lost his temper, or the first time he lost his temper when it was being filmed from across the street and given immediately to a supervisor who, miraculously, did the right thing? And did he do it because it was the right thing, or did he do it because she had the video and could post it to Twitter in seconds? I don't know.

This cop is being charged with a felony now. Has he lost his job? Nope. He's been "relieved of duty" and is "working from home." 

Should this guy ever be trusted to police the streets again? Of course not. He lost his damn mind over nothing. If he's that easily set off with a temper that is so bad he cannot physically restrain himself, should he be trusted with a gun? Of course not. There is no reason for this man not to be fired, but the unions have so much power, he's protected. He can't be fired. Isn't that disgusting? He has absolutely no business being a police officer. He is unfit for the job. He abysmally failed in his duties. 

And what about his partner, the woman? She was useless. Why the hell didn't she pull out that taser of hers and tase her partner who was pummeling a guy who wasn't fighting back? How about the other cops patting him on the back and gently telling him to calm down? Why did no one say, "Gee, we just witnessed a brutal assault. Give us your badge and gun and put your hands behind your back"? 

Because this is normal behavior for cops in the United States. This guy was Hispanic. No, they aren't only beating black people, but that is, as Fairre put it, the piece of the pie we're looking at right now. If that piece gets fixed, the others will as well. 

@Extrude Ragu - Tell me what is more tyrannical - this behavior from police officers, or citizens being expected to help people in need? Because from my seat here in the US, we're already living in a state of tyranny. 

  • Thanks 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

The definition you have given is not the same as the disbanding you have taken it to mean.

Withdrawing support, depleting the resources is to take some money from the budgets of the police. not all of it.

 

Where do you have a reference for this though?   I already know this is what is going to happen in the City of Los Angeles which includes the whole county of Los Angeles where I reside.   

However, it is what is it...it is what the signs and protesters are saying - DEFUND THE POLICE.  ABOLISH THE POLICE.  So, both Trump and Biden have had said no to DEFUND THE POLICE but reform is needed.   The protesters should have been carrying signs such as PROGRAMS NOT POLICE or something to get their point across in a better way.  

Current White House Police Reform article: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-looks-to-unveil-its-police-reform-proposals-soon/ar-BB15fY6G?li=BBnb7Kz

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

I'm going to post a link to a video here and I want to warn anyone who watches that it is full of really vulgar profanity and violence so you've been warned. 

I'm posting it mainly for non-Americans, but it also occurs to me they may not be able to see it. I'm going to try anyway.

Hollenbeck Area Use of Force

I just saw this video from the Los Angeles Police Department because the officer has just been charged with 'assault under the color of authority' today, even though this happened at the end of April. 

This is not unusual. This is the bully cop behavior we're talking about. This is the state of policing in the United States especially for minorities and people living in poverty. 

First off, listen to the original 911 call at the beginning, and the 911 operator. Her disdain is evident. Rather than listening to what he was saying to her, she just plowed over him with questions, and when he answered the question (not a house or apartment, but an empty lot) she got snotty with him saying "That doesn't answer my question." You can hear the resignation in his voice when he just says "house" instead of bothering to try explain it to her again. He's been through this before. 

The 911 operators and the radio dispatchers aren't talked about enough. They're the ones speaking with the public to hopefully get an accurate picture of what is happening, and the dispatchers are in charge of giving that background to the officers. I listen to the police scanner in my city a lot, years before all of this started happening because I loved the police. There was a time I wanted to be a cop. I get a kick out of hearing them talking. Most of the radio dispatchers in Louisville are wonderful, but there is one... no idea what her name is, but she's just a snotty little brat. It's clear that she think very little of the people who call 911, and that attitude goes straight in the ear of the cops. There is not a single ounce of empathy towards these people who are calling for help. When she's on duty and I'm listening, it drives me nuts. I've never done anything about it - I think it's time I do. 

But back to this video - this guy was behaving absolutely terribly and saying the most offensive things he could think to say to these cops. The male cop gave it right back to him. How is that deescalating anything? This is typical. This is normal. This is how cops across the US behave. And then he (the cop) lost his fricking marbles. He absolutely lost complete control of himself. The way he beat that man who never once swung back at him ought to scare everyone. 

We have it pounded into our heads that the cops are the good guys - and that they're supposed to deescalate the situation. That's the company line, and it's simply false. You think this is the first time the guy lost his temper, or the first time he lost his temper when it was being filmed from across the street and given immediately to a supervisor who, miraculously, did the right thing? And did he do it because it was the right thing, or did he do it because she had the video and could post it to Twitter in seconds? I don't know.

This cop is being charged with a felony now. Has he lost his job? Nope. He's been "relieved of duty" and is "working from home." 

Should this guy ever be trusted to police the streets again? Of course not. He lost his damn mind over nothing. If he's that easily set off with a temper that is so bad he cannot physically restrain himself, should he be trusted with a gun? Of course not. There is no reason for this man not to be fired, but the unions have so much power, he's protected. He can't be fired. Isn't that disgusting? He has absolutely no business being a police officer. He is unfit for the job. He abysmally failed in his duties. 

And what about his partner, the woman? She was useless. Why the hell didn't she pull out that taser of hers and tase her partner who was pummeling a guy who wasn't fighting back? How about the other cops patting him on the back and gently telling him to calm down? Why did no one say, "Gee, we just witnessed a brutal assault. Give us your badge and gun and put your hands behind your back"? 

Because this is normal behavior for cops in the United States. This guy was Hispanic. No, they aren't only beating black people, but that is, as Fairre put it, the piece of the pie we're looking at right now. If that piece gets fixed, the others will as well. 

@Extrude Ragu - Tell me what is more tyrannical - this behavior from police officers, or citizens being expected to help people in need? Because from my seat here in the US, we're already living in a state of tyranny. 

I couldn't see much in the video at all.

First, there is a man speaking while sitting at a desk...so I fast-forward.  Then police arrive and a man in a sport's jersey gets up against a fence and then profanity occur written out in words on the screen but the video is blocked out for a long time as to the people.  Then, I fast forward again and it's the man at the beginning of the video speaking again.  Do you have any time frame where to watch this wherein violence ensues?  Such as watch at 9:33 or anything?  

ETA:  This reminds me of that "Bad Boys" TV show.  I've seen very few bits of that show but most things are blocked out like in this video.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Where do you have a reference for this though?   I already know this is what is going to happen in the City of Los Angeles which includes the whole county of Los Angeles where I reside.

I’m sorry, but what?! Slicing a little snip off the LAPD budget is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to disbanding the LAPD. The budget cut isn’t a done deal, either. The police union in LA is fighting it tooth and nail.

Also Los Angeles county has something like 40 different independent police departments. The LAPD isn’t even the largest one - the LA County Sheriff’s Department is.

5 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Such as watch at 9:33 or anything?

About 11:20 to see the beating from the female officer’s body cam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

Because this is normal behavior for cops in the United States. This guy was Hispanic. No, they aren't only beating black people, but that is, as Fairre put it, the piece of the pie we're looking at right now. If that piece gets fixed, the others will as well. 

The first thing I thought was, "They didn't even let him get his things." Then, when he went and stood at the corner I was thinking, "He's waiting for them to leave, so he can go back and get them." Clearly, the guy was homeless and a little off, give him the dignity of getting what little he had.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago, I was called to jury duty for a case involving a drunk young man who'd had a scuffle with police outside a bar. He was charged with half a dozen misdemeanors and one felony. During the trial, the prosecution grilled the defendant, who was clearly an arrogant asshat. I was inclined to throw the book at him until the defense attorney called in the involved officers. Two of them were okay, but the third officer, the one most involved during the altercation was, for lack of a better description, Wyatt Earp. He was arrogant to the point of being repulsive. In a masterful exploit of the officer's narcissism, the defense attorney guided him through an impressive array of unforced errors.

During jury deliberations, we wrestled with the letter vs intent of the law, ultimately deciding the officer's conduct made convicting on the felony impossible, even though the defendant's behavior met the criteria. Though the judge had admonished us to not "send a message", that's precisely what we did. We cleared the felony and convicted on the misdemeanors.

Before releasing us, the judge entered the jury room and said, approximately "I'm glad you faithfully followed my instructions about not "sending a message". You all did the right thing. That was my first inkling that the system had internal strife. I hope we're witnessing a watershed moment here.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 320 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...