Posted on 11/15/2021 12:51:37 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
What do y’all think? In this upside down world it’s hard to read the jury. Gut feeling...No matter how good or bad Kyle’s defense is I believe the jury has been mentally poisoned and have already decided this young man’s future. In this moment in our history everything good is bad and bad is good we are so divided that at one time the doctrine of fairness was our nation’s motto...innocent until proven guilty. But now it’s the opposite. And no matter the evidence before their eyes they will convict him. I pray I am totally wrong.
The judge does speak in disjointed thought fragments, but if you watch him over time, you can tell he is walking this case along with discipline.
The judge does speak in disjointed thought fragments, but if you watch him over time, you can tell he is walking this case along with discipline.
If Satan did show up he would have Hollywood good looks and speak in the most reasonable terms. Abortion and mass murder would seem a public good. He’d be very popular.
I see the judge seriously holding his own tongue often, before he says something to the prosecution that would be an automatic mistrial.
When facts are on your side, bang on the facts. When the law is on your side, bang on the law. When neither are on your side, bang on the table.
Binger is rhetorically “banging on the table”.
Post 1:::::
Those words are exactly what I was going to say.
Partisan Media Shills alert.
Facts? Facts? Do we need facts in a show trial?
Yes, I understand the prosecutor’s closing argument: “Damn the weak set of facts, i.e., ignore the truth and lynch him!”
Sadly, he may be saying this to an OJ jury that will completely ignore the facts.
That is why they call them lawyers. All of them.
And that is why we have problems in this government. It is infested with lawyers.
That is proof right there..It is even on his right!
Gonna need a whole state to use as an asylum for the wackos because there aint enough room in any building or group of buildings.
Bkmk
CNN is driving the struggle bus trying to spin this thing.
“Liberals” have no logic.
Mrs. Chandler’s cousin was a locally famous attorney who spoke in court like a cowboy, dropping his “g”s, using double negatives, etc. But at sidebar and in chambers he spoke like an Ivy League lawyer.
It’s all about what the jury feels.
Let’s hope the jury is smarter than Paul Callan.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...In reading the Federalist Papers, it is clear that the Framers intended the militia to be the armed people-at-large.
From Federalist 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.Alexander Hamilton expected the militia to be made up of everyday "ordinary" working people.There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia... Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?
In Federalist 46, James Madison writes:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties...Again, Madison saw the militia as the "gallant" citizenry. The rioters are " the debased subjects of arbitrary power."Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of...
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
The Constitution's Articles refer to the militia in several place; the 2nd Amendment further clarifies that the militia is the armed citizenry of the United States, and the 5th amendment protects the citizen militia when acting to prevent "public danger."
It's clear from Federalist 29 that Hamilton expected the people to be very casually trained.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
That meant people keeping their arms in good working order, and demonstrating proficiency in its use.
The 5th amendment should be interpreted to say that people who use arms to defend their communities from harm during "public danger" (like organized riots) are protected against indictment.
-PJ
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.