POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

And again, why does context matter for Maxine Waters and not Trump?

 

The context does not matter for my point, which is that neither is responsible for incitement, but Waters is closer to being responsible because her language was more specific than Trump's.

I'm simply debating the context piece because these guys are convinced it matters. I've already stated that I don't think it does. It just so happens that context doesn't really help their arguments either.

 

See above.

 

If a riot is the maximum confrontation, and there are already riots... then she can't be talking to the place that is already turned up. Because it can't get no more turned up.

Is she talking to riots or not?

 

Chauvin's counsel is suggesting there should be a mistrial in part due to Waters' comments.

 

This was my next point, who is her audience here? She isn’t addressing a crowd of rioters

 

Seems like you should take that concern to Maxine Waters. She's the one calling for more confrontation where there's already riots.

But no, I wouldn't say a riot is the maximum confrontation. Riots can always get bigger. More confrontation in a place that already has a riot just means a bigger riot.

If there are already 500 people rioting, then more turned up is 2,000 people rioting. And more turned up than that is 5,000 people rioting. Etc.

 

They must be real confident in their case

 

It's relevant due to the post I was responding to

 

Judge dismisses motion for mistrial, but mentioned earlier that it may be something worth including in an appeal and admonished Waters for her comments as being not in keeping with her oath to the constitution and respecting co-equal branches of government.

 

If we are talking about who is more or less responsible, and ignoring the context, then the debate is useless. Because context matters

 

Ok, then by that logic, 500 people rioting can be made more confrontational by adding 2,000 people yelling.

So... your statement "But they're not "more confrontational" than riots," is arguable, in that the yelling can grow to be bigger than the rioters. If 5,000,000 people are yelling, that's probably a bigger confrontation than 500 people rioting.

 

As well he should, as her comments were not at all helpful to anything

 

We got away from it, but that was the most alarming part of what she said, to me. This whole idea of "we get the verdict we want or we burn shit" is incredibly dangerous.

The only motivation any juror should have to convict someone of a crime is that, based on the evidence, the juror believes the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't want other motivations coming into play, or else we get verdicts we shouldn't be getting.

There were already a number of reasons for a mistrial prior to Waters even making her comments, though.

 

Lost me with the last sentence. But I guess it is moot now, judge disagrees. We will see if the verdict gets appealed.

 

No. Think of it as levels and degrees. There are levels of confrontation. For example, level one can be verbally disagreeing. Level two can be yelling. Level three is physical altercation. Level four is rioting (burning & breaking shit + physical altercations).

Within those levels, there are degrees. Adding curse words to level one or two, for example, increases the degree, but it's not enough to take it to the next level, alone. Including a knife in level three takes it up a degree, but it's not enough to push it to level 4.

Adding something from a previous level is not enough to increase the degree of a later level. If we are already in a physical altercation with a knife, it doesn't add any degree to it if we are also cursing at each other. We are still at the same level and degree, whether there's cursing or not.

So no, adding 2,000 people yelling does not add "more confrontation" to 500 people rioting.

 

To clarify:

Even if Waters had not made her comments, there are already a number of details that could justify a mistrial.

 

Such as?

 

Simple yes or no: do you believe Maxine Waters shares the Indy definition/interpretation of "levels of confrontation?"

Simple yes or no.

 

You don't have to get to the context because the language tells us all we need to know.

One person called for specific violent action. The other called for figurative fighting and peaceful protest. You can stop at language because it's clear which one is worse. There's no need to keep going.