Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question for you: do you think there's anything inappropriate about a judge abruptly ending a court case and while striking testimony of a defendant? Jurors said that played a part in their decision. It was clear to them that the government wasn't interested in a full accounting of the events. How can a juror, with a clear conscience, sentence someone to life in prison when that person isn't even allowed to verbally defend their actions?
Get over the gun issue for a minute, and try to think about how you would see this if it applied to a different case. What if a different defendant was being railroaded in a courtroom for a different charge? This is NOT okay, no matter who it applies to.
I have several questions about this whole deal. One of the primary ones is "what is the judge/government afraid of when it won't allow BOTH sides to testify to the whole,complete story?" Isn't that what juries and trials are all about? Allow ALL of the facts to come out so they can decide if a crime was in fact committed?
I guess with some the government is ALWAYS right, no matter what...
I have several questions about this whole deal. One of the primary ones is "what is the judge/government afraid of when it won't allow BOTH sides to testify to the whole,complete story?" Isn't that what juries and trials are all about? Allow ALL of the facts to come out so they can decide if a crime was in fact committed?
I guess with some the government is ALWAYS right, no matter what...
Well aside from pointing a gun and threatening a federal officer Parker and the defense lawyer did not follow instructions. They continued to testify over the objections of the prosecution and ignore specific guidelines. Why shouldn't the testimony be struck from the record.
Well that claim about Parker is unproven no? He may have done so, and may have been justified, or not, but right now we don't know because, well, the judge kind of tried to hamstring the defense who traditionally is given more latitude than prosecution. It's how things like the mental capacity of the defendant comes into play, you know if a Judge determined that wasn't pertinent to a defense in another case, it may seem a bit odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Obviously they wanted to challenge a slew of constitutional issues and expand, that was not the intent of this trial.
Well clearly the Jurors determined that the Judges intent also wasn't to determine a verdict. And in that I agree with them, if I were a juror on a case where the judge told me that there were 20-30 different things that were not pertinent to the defense that say included the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then I'm going to be looking far harder at the Judge than the defendants, because I may get the feeling that they want a rubber stamped conviction, and that being so they don't need a Jury, let the Damn Judge pronounce guilt and be damned.
Well that claim about Parker is unproven no? He may have done so, and may have been justified, or not, but right now we don't know because, well, the judge kind of tried to hamstring the defense who traditionally is given more latitude than prosecution. It's how things like the mental capacity of the defendant comes into play, you know if a Judge determined that wasn't pertinent to a defense in another case, it may seem a bit odd. .
I don't know how you would justify the actions of Parker or others, the threats are not clear but there are images of him pointing a rifle at the agents. I don't see that his mental capacity entered into the equation, was that issue raised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Well clearly the Jurors determined that the Judges intent also wasn't to determine a verdict. And in that I agree with them, if I were a juror on a case where the judge told me that there were 20-30 different things that were not pertinent to the defense that say included the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then I'm going to be looking far harder at the Judge than the defendants, because I may get the feeling that they want a rubber stamped conviction, and that being so they don't need a Jury, let the Damn Judge pronounce guilt and be damned.
Like I indicated this case was quite different from others, those lawyers and their defendants wanted to expand well beyond the charges to make a statement. They wanted this judge recused, I'm sure they could find reason to find fault in any judge so I am sure she wanted to avoid making the verdict. The defendants are not there to provide information that is not directly related to their charges, that is true in many trials but particularly in this one.
I don't know how you would justify the actions of Parker or others, the threats are not clear but there are images of him pointing a rifle at the agents. I don't see that his mental capacity entered into the equation, was that issue raised.
Like I indicated this case was quite different from others, those lawyers and their defendants wanted to expand well beyond the charges to make a statement. They wanted this judge recused, I'm sure they could find reason to find fault in any judge so I am sure she wanted to avoid making the verdict. The defendants are not there to provide information that is not directly related to their charges, that is true in many trials but particularly in this one.
If the government official is acting outside of the law, then pointing a gun at them to prevent them committing that crime and in self defense is permissible. You know that the government is not (supposed to be) above the law do you not?
How do you determine relevance before evidence is presented? Its relevant that the defendant believed that the government was acting illegally and why they thought that. Thus the Constitution and Amendments are relevant to the defense. It's for the Jury to determine whether or not those arguments carry the weight of law, or not.
Now if the Judge does not want some legal circus, then they are permitted to dismiss and avoid that (and this is the second hearing on the same case, because of the same result in the previous hearing), what they should not be doing is attempting to restrict the defense from presenting a case in which they believed they were the victims of criminal action by the government, and the reasons they believed this because it may be messy. Too bad, due process is due process and to permit the broad restriction of legal defense from strategies that may incriminate the government is a violation of that due process.
If the government official is acting outside of the law, then pointing a gun at them to prevent them committing that crime and in self defense is permissible. You know that the government is not (supposed to be) above the law do you not?
How do you determine relevance before evidence is presented? Its relevant that the defendant believed that the government was acting illegally and why they thought that. Thus the Constitution and Amendments are relevant to the defense. It's for the Jury to determine whether or not those arguments carry the weight of law, or not.
Now if the Judge does not want some legal circus, then they are permitted to dismiss and avoid that (and this is the second hearing on the same case, because of the same result in the previous hearing), what they should not be doing is attempting to restrict the defense from presenting a case in which they believed they were the victims of criminal action by the government, and the reasons they believed this because it may be messy. Too bad, due process is due process and to permit the broad restriction of legal defense from strategies that may incriminate the government is a violation of that due process.
So it's up to each individual to determine if the government is operating outside the law and if they see fit then take action into their own hands, not go through the courts but use violence. The Bundy's already lost in the courts, did the BLM have the right to confiscate his cattle or not. They already lost in court but they didn't like the decision so they took the next step, is that what you're condoning for every individual.
If your house is foreclosed because you didn't pay your mortgage then you have the right to threaten law enforcement.
Defendants are not there to tell a story, they are there to testify on facts that are pertinent to the charges leveled against them. There are restrictions in every trial, this one was no different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
