News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Buddy, he stands accused of sexually assaulting over 100 people including drugging and gang-raping children. You don’t need to play devil’s advocate for the defense here.
They're not. They're pointing out problems with the legal system as it stands. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Honestly, it's sad that my first thought was, "Oh? They're all women? That's progress!".
They are.
They’re pretending that Diddy’s defense team’s unsubstantiated innuendo of racial bias is a valid point worth entertaining. It’s not.
It’s a desperate attempt at deflecting that trivializes the real issues in the legal system that you note.
Literally the judge said “this is not a statement an officer of the court or bar member should be making”. That isnt saying that there are valid times to say it. That is him saying the lawyer said something that should never be said by a lawyer.
You really ought to reconsider, but Im done trying to convince you of anything. You dont seem to want to accept that this has nothing to do with Diddy, other than his case is the reason we are talking about this issue right now.
This judge could have said the same to any lawyer in any case. Would it have been appropriate then? If it wasnt Diddy’s case?
Yes. Implying the prosecution is racially motivated with no evidence to support it, doing so by calling them a “six pack of white women” is indeed inappropriate. Add onto that the particulars at play here? I’m with the judge, pretty outrageous.
Yeah, but they didn’t.
Depends on the case.
I’d say calling them a “six pack of white women” would never be acceptable in a profession setting (ie a lawyer commenting on a trial his daughter is working for the defense on.)
There’s better ways to phrase it that is far from being so disparaging.
If figured with what Trump is doing that people would realize that it's always worth defending things like "due process" and the rights to a good legal defence. Especially when the defendant is unlikeable since that's when such rights are often eroded.
Diddy is doing exactly what Trump did in his court cases and that's discrediting the process with unfounded allegations.
False equivalency.
People in Diddy’s camp are making a naked ploy to baselessly undermine the credibility of the prosecution - presumably because Diddy is cooked - and we’ve got some folks here lapping it up.
He stands accused, not convicted, which may not matter to you but it should
Me defending the lawyer’s ability to make comments on the racial politics of the situation really has nothing to do with Diddy in any way, other than that Diddy is a black man and high profile enough for the lawyer to have been talking about the case on a podcast
“Playing the devil’s advocate” doesnt mean whatever you think it means based on how you just used it
To me, this whole thing has nothing to do with Diddy so much as it is about a judge who is uncomfortable with the fact that there are valid criticisms to be had surrounding race and the courts.
Playing the devils advocate would be saying something like “Can Diddy get a fair trial if the prosecution is 6 white women?”. I think he can, but I also think those prosecutors and especially the judge should be cognizant of how the racial politics could impact the trial. To ensure that he gets a fair trial and is rightfully convicted if guilty (as we all anticipate he is)
Correct. By over 100 people, many of whom were minors when they were allegedly sexually abused.
I agree with your argument in the abstract, but given the nature of the case I don’t think I’d be choosing to carry water here.
Or, have you considered it could be that the judge is familiar with the circumstances of the case, and in this instance finds the defense’s argument unsubstantiated, gross, and totally inappropriate?
Here's the thing tho, that lawyer isn't even part of the defense team. He's simply a spectator in the courtroom who happens to be a lawyer and that's what the judge is holding him accountable for, ie: he should know the rules and keep his mouth shut.
There may very well be an issue of racism. That’s for comb’s actual defense team to bring to the judges attention.
Further, there absolutely is a better way to express that concern. It was an absolutely sexist comment and highly inappropriate. as a lawyer Geragos should know better.
Especially as he is loosely connected to the defense team and could potentially taint the jury pool.