Posted on 12/22/2017 7:15:06 AM PST by Joe Dallas
WASHINGTON — Six protesters cleared of all charges related to riots that broke out on Inauguration Day were jubilant and declared a victory for lawful dissent after a jury found them not guilty Thursday following a monthlong trial.
“People won’t be afraid to show up and go protest and get in the streets and not be worried that they’ll get mass arrested like we did,” said Michelle Macchio, one of the six acquitted defendants. “This sets a really strong precedent that that’s not OK and you can’t criminalize dissent.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
D.C. voted 94% for HRC.
The jury likely was out there rioting as well.
Had these been ‘right-wing Nazis’ they’ve have been given the chair for the same offenses.
“Defense attorneys had argued their clients should not be held responsible for the actions of others, and called the prosecution politically-motivated, and an attack on First Amendment rights to free speech and association.”
The prosecution may not of had evidence that the defendants were the ones who acted violently.
Exactly. And since when is marching legally and showing dessent the same thing is throwing trash cans through windows and setting cars on fire? Clearly this is a DC jury.
“Exactly. And since when is marching legally and showing dessent the same thing is throwing trash cans through windows and setting cars on fire? “
The question was, not if some people were ‘throwing trash cans through windows and setting cars on fire,’ but if the defendants were the ones who actually did those things.
They did not - or at any rate they did not present any evidence.
This story was posted and discussed yesterday, and it appears the prosecution failed miserably (for whatever reason) to make the case against these individuals.
“Laws for thee but not for me” is one of the prime SOP’s of the Left.
It could be their evidence was suppressed by the judge.
Exactly. During his opening statement, the prosecutor actually stated that he had no evidence that these particular individuals participated in any violence.
It appears that he basically wanted the jury to convict based on the fact that each one of them was wearing at least one black-colored article of clothing, and because he (the prosecutor) said they were bad people. He apparently even stated in open court that “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” was not necessary for a conviction, and he was publically corrected by the presiding judge.
In my opinion, ANY fair-minded jury would have reached a not-guilty verdict based on the case presented by the prosecutor.
No. In this case, it was not.
DC is TOTALLY CORRUPT!!
Smashing windows, burning cars, and assaulting people who are merely suspected of disagreeing with you is now considered legitimate forms of political expression - as long as one is a Democrat (see tagline).
Keep you powder dry and your gun clean. It’s not if, it’s when.
Or the prosecutor threw the case.
Who smashed windows, assaulted people and burned cars?
Was it these defendants, if so, the prosecution had no such evidence, or was it some other people who were not on trial?
Six protesters cleared of all charges related to riots yep D.C. jury wonder how many can read.
Unfair decision, but it doesn’t matter.
These protesters still have serious cases of TDS and other mental disorders I’m sure.
And much more importantly, President Trump is kicking some serious butt.
These hoodlums are simply dust particles on the road to MAGA.
Possibly, but that is on him, not the jury or the judge.
This is why I don’t consider arrests a win. Either the DA will refuse to press charges, the judge will ROR the perps, or the prosecution will be unsuccessful.
THIS is why nobody from the Swamp will ever be convicted.
We’re either going to have to move the trials to Oklahoma
or give ‘em the lamppost treatment.
“DC jury” BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.