Meet the Next Safe Space–The Jury Room
In an incredibly prescient moment during arguments in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, Justice Alito asked:
But here we have — in this case, we have a very blatant statement, but let’s consider the standard that now applies on a lot of college campuses as to statements that are considered by some people to be racist. What would happen if one of the jurors has the sensibility of a lot of current college students, and thinks that one of the — something that’s said in the jury room that falls into one of those categories was a racious — was a racial comment?
…Even the first time a person says something that is considered improper on a college campus today and another juror thinks that that shows intentional racial bias.
How will the judge decide — how will the judge decide whether the statement is — is racist?
Good question Sam.
Imagine an Asian man is on trial for hate crimes for yelling “…you homo freak get outta there!” while throwing his 8 year old daughter’s red, advanced calculus book at a
black, er, African-American, pre-op transgender “female” body-builder/school teacher (wearing tight translucent yoga pants) who had walked into the girls’ bathroom while his 8 year old daughter was using it to change into her advanced spelling bee outfit. In the jury room there are 3 female college social justice warriors (SJW) who minor in women’s studies at the local, bit city Ivy League college and 9 blue collar guys who are in the construction and building trades.
At the start of jury deliberations a wealthy blonde, blue-eyed SJW of German extraction (who self-identifies as an Asian lesbian because she’s dating a Japanese female) stands up on her chair and declares the jury room is a “safe space.” The other SJWs nod their heads in agreement and appoint the SJW who just stood up as the jury fore
woman, er, -person instead of the plumber who was selected as such randomly by the court clerk.
The 9 guys begin discussing the case: “chinaman,” “oriental,” “immigrant,” “book-smart,” “good-at-math,” “intelligent,” “gifted,” “refugee,” “charlie,” “chink,” “well-spoken” and “yellowman” are all used non chalantly as descriptions of the defendant and child in off-hand ways by the 9 guys during heated deliberations. Upon hearing these words spoken, the 3 SJWs declare that the 9 guys are flaming racists who have perpetrated microagressions against the SJWs because they have violated their safe space with such politically incorrect language. The 3 SJWs immediately demand that the 9 guys apologize to them in writing and offer some type of reparations for the permanent psychological harm they caused the SJWs to suffer. Additionally, they declare that the 9 guys should be charged and tried for committing hate crimes by describing the “victim” in the trial as: “homo,” “homosexual,” “queer,” “queen,” “princess,” “sicko,” “faggot,” “she-male,” “tranny,” “gym bunny,” “black,” “African,” “negro,” “defendant”. The 9 guys decide that a mistrial should be declared because the SJWs seek to have them arrested. The SJWs insist the deliberations must continue because the “victim” cannot be re-victimized by a second trial which would cause permanent psychological damage. Besides, the SJWs tell the 9 guys that they have voted to convict the Asian dad because the evidence was irrefutable since the whole incident was caught on videotape. The videotape showed that the red book grazed the exterior of the victim’s see-through blouse, causing the silicone breast implant of the victim to fall out of her blouse and creating great offense to the victim by exposing it. One of the SJWs wondered aloud why this case was not being tried as a capital case. Cameras had been installed throughout the school (including the bathrooms) out of an abundance of caution during the last un-announced, random active shooter drill for the safety of the children and the teachers–who had declared the 3 miles surrounding the school a gun-free/zero tolerance zone.
When the 9 guys asked the SJWs about the prosecutor’s comment that the Asian dad should’ve known better because he was so smart and was so technically adept that he knew how the cameras worked, the SJWs responded that a transperson was victimized and therefore justice delayed was justice denied. When the 9 guys wondered whether jury nullification or an acquittal should be the outcome because the Asian dad had interposed the affirmative defense of “necessity” because he perceived his child to be in danger, the SJWs stated that such a defense had a technical deficiency which would mean they must follow the jury instructions on the law. When the 9 guys asked the SJWs if they believed this law made any sense at all in light of the state constitution, they responded by saying that they were taught in college that the constitution was written by straight white men who could not predict this type of law to protect this type of victim, and therefore the constitution should not be considered by jurors in some criminal trials. More heated arguments ensued about the politically incorrect phrases uttered by the victim over defense counsel’s objections during her direct testimony. But in the end the 9 guys also voted to convict because the jury instructions were clear about the law and they had taken an oath to follow the law as instructed by the judge.
While in the hallway, defense counsel and his staff overheard the SJWs admonish the 9 guys loudly about the list of politically incorrect and racist terms used during deliberations to describe defendant and his daughter. Weeks later, the defense used affidavits signed by the SJWs affirming that the microagressive terms could support a motion to vacate the conviction and order a new trial. The motion judge was left with the task of deciding whether the terms were racist enough to order a new trial.
How would you decide?
When deciding, bear in mind the little red book of Mao’s student Red Guards and the politically correct speech they brutally policed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution in their quest to rid China of the “Four Olds”.
How was that behavior much different than that promoted by the SJWs?
Also bear in mind what is mentioned in this now infamous article from The Atlantic: