Don't Laugh!

[Perknose]

In today's news from the American annals of justice, I've got some good news and some bad news.

The bad news? A woman was arrested and convicted for laughing during J. Beauregard "Russians? Waht Russians" Sessions confirmation hearing. You heard that right! The charges carried up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.

The good news is that a D.C. judge threw out the woman's conviction and called for a new trial.

Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post reports that Chief Judge Robert Morin decided that the government improperly argued that Fairooz's laugh alone — not her reaction to being removed from the courtroom — would be enough to find her guilty. Reilly reports:

"Morin said it was 'disconcerting' that the government made the case in closing arguments that the laughter in and of itself was sufficient.

" 'The court is concerned about the government's theory,' Morin said. He said the laughter 'would not be sufficient' to submit the case to the jury, and said the government hadn't made clear before the trial that it intended to make that argument."

"While speaking in support of Sessions, Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said that his Senate colleague's 'extensive record of treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.'

"At that line, Fairooz let out two snorts of laughter.

According to D.C. court records, a hearing date has been set for Sept. 1.

All I can add is that this is no laughing matter!

 

[Jaskalas]

...the government improperly argued that Fairooz's laugh alone — not her reaction to being removed from the courtroom — would be enough to find her guilty.

I'd agree with the Judge's notion... however, it appears there was some sort of altercation with security? Those missing details would explain a lot. I dug through your own link and found these:

Jurors say it’s not about her laugh, it’s about her post-laughter conduct.

Video of the disruption.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd agree with the Judge's notion... however, it appears there was some sort of altercation with security? Those missing details would explain a lot. I dug through your own link and found these:

Jurors say it’s not about her laugh, it’s about her post-laughter conduct.

Video of the disruption.

So what? Her laughter was insufficient cause for arrest.

The DoJ argued that it was, which was the whole rationale for the charges.

 

[Paratus]

I'd agree with the Judge's notion... however, it appears there was some sort of altercation with security? Those missing details would explain a lot. I dug through your own link and found these:

Jurors say it’s not about her laugh, it’s about her post-laughter conduct.

Video of the disruption.

It's the same thing as being convicted of resisting arrest when what you were arrested for was actually legal.

 

[brycejones]

I'd agree with the Judge's notion... however, it appears there was some sort of altercation with security? Those missing details would explain a lot. I dug through your own link and found these:

Jurors say it’s not about her laugh, it’s about her post-laughter conduct.

Video of the disruption.

Sorry but when the original act was a legal act her reaction to an illegal arrest should not be a criminal act.

The capital police and the doj way over reacted here.

 

[Jaskalas]

So what? Her laughter was insufficient cause for arrest.

I do not believe that is for you or me to decide. Do you want to take this discretion away from capitol police?

And who called the original confrontation an arrest? Perhaps she was only being removed from the hearing until she caused a greater disruption. Conduct matters when being confronted by security / police. A wrong move and you've assaulted them and/or resisted arrest. Shout in a Senate hearing and you have disrupted it and committed a criminal offense.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's the same thing as being convicted of resisting arrest when what you were arrested for was actually legal.

Disrupting a Senate hearing is not the same as walking down the street. Capitol police have every right to clear the building based on their own discretion, do they not?

 

[Commodus]

Disrupting a Senate hearing is not the same as walking down the street. Capitol police have every right to clear the building based on their own discretion, do they not?

This is water under the bridge given that a judge just ruled that the laugh alone wasn't sufficient grounds for arrest.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Disrupting a Senate hearing is not the same as walking down the street. Capitol police have every right to clear the building based on their own discretion, do they not?

And every American has the right to point and laugh when they do.

 

[Paratus]

Disrupting a Senate hearing is not the same as walking down the street. Capitol police have every right to clear the building based on their own discretion, do they not?

The articles I read said the judge said she involuntarily laughed which was the instigator for the arrest. If an involuntary laugh is enough to bring police then the 1st amendment is useless.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I'd agree with the Judge's notion... however, it appears there was some sort of altercation with security? Those missing details would explain a lot. I dug through your own link and found these:

Jurors say it’s not about her laugh, it’s about her post-laughter conduct.

Video of the disruption.

Did not know you pronounce "Jaskalas" as lickspittle.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Plummer vrs. State you may resist a false arrest to the point of taking the arresting officers life.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I'd agree with the Judge's notion... however, it appears there was some sort of altercation with security? Those missing details would explain a lot. I dug through your own link and found these:

Jurors say it’s not about her laugh, it’s about her post-laughter conduct.

Video of the disruption.

However? NO, NO and NO!

 

[Moonbeam]

Plummer vrs. State you may resist a false arrest to the point of taking the arresting officers life.

No it doesn't. It says you may resist the illegal use of force to make an unlawful arrest but the general law is that you may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

 

[Moonbeam]

Disrupting a Senate hearing is not the same as walking down the street. Capitol police have every right to clear the building based on their own discretion, do they not?

The new authoritarian vigilante liberal mirror image of conservatives say they get to make up their own rules.

 

[Jaskalas]

The articles I read said the judge said she involuntarily laughed which was the instigator for the arrest.

• Jurors who spoke anonymously to Huffington Post said it was her behavior when asked to leave

The instigator for the arrest was refusing to obey a lawful order to leave. Compounded by shouting and being very disruptive. And are you forgetting the circumstances? A code pink protestor who came prepared both dressed in uniform and carrying a sign. Premeditation and escalation do not make an innocent bystander.

People are fixating on the laugh as a ploy to give legal cover to a political ally who broke the law. Or, would you argue Capitol Police cannot ask a protestor to leave?

 

[Moonbeam]

What I want to know is why Sessions wasn't arrested for disruption of a serious confirmation hearing by staging a clown act so hilarious it forced people to laugh.

 

[Jaskalas]

What I want to know is why Sessions wasn't arrested for disruption of a serious confirmation hearing by staging a clown act so hilarious it forced people to laugh.

A question I might share, in the other topic.

 

[Jhhnn]

• Jurors who spoke anonymously to Huffington Post said it was her behavior when asked to leave

The instigator for the arrest was refusing to obey a lawful order to leave. Compounded by shouting and being very disruptive. And are you forgetting the circumstances? A code pink protestor who came prepared both dressed in uniform and carrying a sign. Premeditation and escalation do not make an innocent bystander.

People are fixating on the laugh as a ploy to give legal cover to a political ally who broke the law. Or, would you argue Capitol Police cannot ask a protestor to leave?

The judge ruled that there was insufficient cause to "ask" her to leave. Framing it as a request is bullshit.

 

[brycejones]

• Jurors who spoke anonymously to Huffington Post said it was her behavior when asked to leave

The instigator for the arrest was refusing to obey a lawful order to leave. Compounded by shouting and being very disruptive. And are you forgetting the circumstances? A code pink protestor who came prepared both dressed in uniform and carrying a sign. Premeditation and escalation do not make an innocent bystander.

People are fixating on the laugh as a ploy to give legal cover to a political ally who broke the law. Or, would you argue Capitol Police cannot ask a protestor to leave?

I think the capital police need to use a bit more discretion when dealing with the public in the people's house. A single laugh is far different from someone jumping up and yelling. You've made much of her dress and having a sign, obviously neither of these was a violation of the rules and you bringing it up is just a red herring and not really germane to the events as they unfolded.

As much as the current congress has gone to great lengths to isolate itself from having to deal with actual members of the public its more important than ever that our representatives not have the capital as some sort of safe space where their actions are free from criticism and interaction on even a limited level with the public.