Georgia Rep. Park Cannon Speaks Out for First Time Since Arrest
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Is this really the news article you're going to use for this thread? I'm supposed to consider this an honest news article free from bias? I guess journalistic standards CAN go even lower than I thought.
Last edited:
Skipping past the angle the article has, are the basic facts wrong that a legislator was arrested for knocking on a door and faces charges with a potential 8 year sentence?
* * *
I'm slightly curious about the accusations that she "stomped" on the officer's foot three times. I cannot help but wonder if this was actually that she trod on his foot whilst she was being manhandled? Because I can't honestly see that someone seriously resisting arrest would use such an absurdly ineffective tactic, never mind that the video of them arresting her clearly do not show her resisting.
Those facts are wrong. First, the "knocking to door" is the basic fact when you get rid of context, which is just as much a lie as adding false information. If I fed the homeless poisoned food, and then made a headline "man arrested for feeding the homeless", you wouldn't say the basic facts are right. She was knocking on the door with the intent of deliberately disrupting the processes of government. That isn't the same as "knock, knock, let me in".
Second, the potential 8 year sentence is actually factually incorrect, unless she has already been convicted of the same crimes in the past. 8 years is what you get when you add up the maximum possible sentence for the crimes she's accused of. That assumes the charge of hindering law enforcement is done as a felony, the charge of disrupting the general assembly is on a 3rd-time offender, a jury convicts on both charges, and the maximum sentence is picked for both. Assuming any of those things is being willfully ignorant, but the 8 is probably actually impossible, because they break down to a 5 and 3 year maximum sentences, and the 3-year only applies if you are convicted 3 or more times for disrupting the general assembly. So either she can't get 8 years on those charges no matter what, or she's got a messed up history already.
Regardless, the minimum combined sentence, assuming conviction, is a fine.
Edit: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-11/article-2/16-11-34-1/
"(h)(1) Any person violating this Code section for the first time shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Any person violating this Code section for the second time shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
(3) Any person violating this Code section for the third or any subsequent time shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years. "
That is the law they are pulling a maximum 3-year sentence out of, it requires 3 convictions.
Last edited:
It was a signing ceremony she was legally entitled to be present for. If you have to work this hard to get pissed off at her, it ain't worth it and you're wasting your own time.
Do you have evidence she was legally entitled to be present for the bill signing?
Furthermore, do you have evidence her goal was even to be inside? She has stated the intention to "make sure that the voices of the voters in her district and around the state of Georgia were amplified." I'd hardly expect she wanted them to open the door so she could stand and watch. Disruption was the intention.
And this stopped someone signing a document how, precisely?
It strikes me as much less disruptive than storming a confidential committee. But I guess that's the privilege of power: laws are for the little people.
So no, she's not entitled to be there, and you were making things up.
So first things first, I'm taking this as acceptance that you agree now that those "basic facts" are not factual.
Now, to acknowledge your point after that large sidestep here, yes it is less disruptive. One could argue your counter-example was more called for as it was legislators disrupting the legislative process, where this was a legislator disrupting the executive after the bill had already passed, but that's not really necessary to argue. Both were political theater. She wanted to be arrested. She went there to cause a stir, did it in front of police, was told to stop or be arrested, continued after being warned, got her photo-op being arrested, and made the story go viral. This whole thing is deliberate, just the same as that was, Republicans were basically demanding to be removed and charged with contempt. They wanted that photo op.
And like, we can talk about unequal application of laws after she gets anything more than a slap on the wrist.
Let's be fair to tstorm here. He likely would demand this standard of evidence for a white man, as long as that white man wasn't a Republican.
Yes, she's probably wrong on the assumption she could get eight years. It's actually "only" five. The rest seems to be accurate.
It's not that you're wrong, but it fundamentally does reveal differences. Georgia is run by Republicans, for Republicans. The cops can feel happy to drag off a black woman Democrat - member of the legislature notwithstanding - because they know where the centre of power is in the state, and it's with her opponents. For all her status, she's still an outsider. A bunch of yahoos can dick around with a Federal committee without accountability because they are insiders and no-one has the power (or is willing to take the risk of exercising it) to do anything about them. The comparison of the two is a graphic example of disparity of power.
I suspect if the police have any sense, they'll drop the charges.
