Posted on 03/27/2012 3:14:24 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A 13-year veteran of the New Orleans Police Department has been suspended without pay for his comment “Act like a Thug Die like one!” in response to a story about slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin.
Jason Giroir is under investigation by the New Orleans Public Integrity Bureau after a remark was posted on WWLTV.com’s website in response to an article about a rally supporting Martin. The slaying of the 17-year-old, who was shot by a neighborhood watch captain, has drawn nationwide attention.
Giroir has admitted to posting the comment last week. "His statement is, 'Yes, I did it’," Giroir’s lawyer, Eric Hessler, told The Times-Picayune. "He certainly didn't mean it as a racial comment, as an offensive comment, although it came out that way. He acknowledges he should have chosen better words."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.msnbc.msn.com ...
In a situation such as that one, the judge is sometimes going to err in favor of the defendant and let the jury decide if there is probative value to the comment. The prosecution was the opportunity to point out (a) how old the comments were; (b) the circumstances in which they were made; and (c) Fuhrman's relationship with black officers. I don't remember enough of the specifics, nor know enough California law, to know how I would have ruled. How I 'feel' about it matters only within the scope of what California law says.
I heard a judge say that Ito should have declared a mistrial as soon as that testimony was made.
I thought Ito had ruled in camera that the comment was admissible, but it's been a long time. Again, it depends on whether Ito thought Simpson, as a defendant, should be given the opportunity to prevent the defense with the jury allowed to consider (a), (b), and (c). He may not have allowed the comment had it been introduced by the prosecution to discredit a defense witness. Things aren't perfectly even in the courtroom.
A good attorney would argue the definition of ‘thug’. A criminal who outsmarts the system of law enforcement and jurisprudence will still face the consequences of such a lifestyle. (i.e. live like a thug, die like a thug)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one!
After reading again, you raise a valid point.
The glaring problem with the officer’s statement is that it would come up in any deadly force case he was involved in.
Just because something's accurate doesn't mean a public official can say it without repercussions. A judge cannot, in his or her private life, make general but true comments about the statistical likelihood of a black man committing a violent crime compared to an asian man without facing motions to recuse himself every time he or she sits on a case with a black male defendant charged with a violent crime.
The question was obviously intended to bias a mostly Black jury. I will say Furhman should have said “I am sure I, like virtually every other person has used that word before, in fact you just used it yourself.”
The comment was made in New Orleans and would affect any cases that cop was involved in; in New Orleans.
Pray for America
And again, I totally agree. I am looking at this from the point that justice is supposed to be blind. I know that it is not. Nor do I think there are no consequence. In fact, consequence of one’s actions was the defining part of my argument.
That we are at the point that because of PC concerns, not actual legalities and laws, when provably a true statement hinders the course of a legal proceeding (due to the substitution of racial ‘feeling’) is part and parcel why ‘law’ and actual justice are either unobtainable or flatly do not matter.
A/that/any cop, IMO, may or may not have a race issue. But for a cop to say “live like/die like” is a statement based on statistics supporting the claim.
The fact that an officer can be suspended/fired for making a true statement that goes against only PC ‘law’, or that an officer can have this true statement of fact used to disqualify him in testimony/court, is why justice in America in NOT blind and in ‘fact’ just a historical footnote.
In short, if stating the factual is a legal disqualifier, (and obviously it is now) we are doomed as a country.
He may be from California. Enough said.
Having once worked in a publically traded company, I am well aware there exists binding legal agreements forbidding any and all public comments (negative or positive) regarding anything related to the specific company.
As a military veteran, I am also well aware of the public speech restrictions placed on active duty military members regarding personal opinions and chain of command issues, while serving on active duty.
OTOH...There is the perception, one I know to be factual, that outright lies, misleading government propaganda and disinformation are spread by various income generating media entities who claim protected status against libel, treason, incitement to riot, etc., under the 1st Amendment grounds of “freedom of the press”.
Are the citizens of the USA “free” to talk amongst ourselves publically, or are we not?
I agree, has retread written all over it.
Guess we can all say goodbye to free speech.
I read your argument and have to ask you:
1. If the cop was off duty and exercising his right to free speech why isn’t this okay?
My logic is that we are allowed to express our opinions. This cop isn’t even in the same state as the murder victim. He has no involvement in this case. So why is his expression worthy of the punishment he received? This to me seems like PC run amuck.
That probably would have cost him twice as much in time on duty lost.
Why? Afraid of someone telling you what they actually feel?
Horsepussy! You are not trying the case on it's merits, but on an unrelated personal opinion. It's no wonder that people hold lawyers in such low esteem.
Would it be relevant in the specific case?
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.