PayPal

Thursday, January 10, 2019

More on Political Prisoner Michael Slager


[Re: “Breaking News: Judges Deny Appeal of Michael Slager's 20-Year Sentence.”]


By Nicholas Stix

Slager’s defense,based on the law, should have been that Scott was a fleeing prisoner. According to the law, policemen have the right to use deadly force against fleeing prisoners. However, the law has been “sociologically” nullified by the media, judges, and law schools, such that a defense attorney must now come up with euphemistic, disingenuous defenses that are weak, to begin with, and which lead to contradictions.

This ruling is so many kinds of crazy and unjust that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Slager wasn’t even charged federally with Murder Two; he was charged with the political crime of “civil rights” violations. He was charged on the state level with Murder, but the case was so weak that the black jury foreman (sole black member) kept the jury from even voting on Murder, and instead had them vote on Voluntary Manslaughter (which the racist black judge had offered the jury at the last minute as an alternative, to save the prosecution), for which Slager had never been charged, and on which the jury hung.

If that all sounds loopy, it’s because it is.

Thus, Slager was implicitly acquitted of the charge of Murder at the state level, and when the federal judge says that Slager’s civil rights violation translates to Murder Two, it just completely removes the mask that federal prosecutors and judges typically use to hide unconstitutional double jeopardy.

The Framers noted that without a ban on double jeopardy (in whatever deliberate disguises), zealous prosecutors would charge someone they wanted to imprison or hang again and again, until they won.



1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What made our system of justice superior was that it was the rule of law, not of men. Now that has been changed. Prosecutors go after people for political reasons. They can level a great many charges for a single action. Then if they can't get a conviction on one charge they can still get one on a different charge--but for the same "crime." The accused know that they cannot escape this injustice and are forced to plead guilty and accept a plea bargain rather than spend decades in prison. In this way the government can create a reign of terror where people will not dare go against government dictates. The way it is supposed to work is one trial and if the jury thinks you are not guilty you go free and that is the end of it. And some Founding Fathers thought the jury should be able to rule on the Constitutionality and justice of the law itself. This has been practiced many times in the past as when juries refused to accept the Fugitive Slave Law. Now judges ask if the jurors are willing to accept the dictates of the judge and if not, they are thrown off the jury. Next time you are called for jury duty, try telling the judge that your conscience demands you consider the justice of the law itself and you won't automatically accept the judge's instructions--and see what happens! You won't be serving on the jury.