this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
294 points (99.7% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4524 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 78 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

Republican Mark Edgington, 53, told the New Hampshire Bulletin last week that he had hoped voters would look past his 1989 second-degree murder conviction, but that it becoming public had caused him and his family distress.

What

He maintains his innocence and told the Bulletin that he was hiding in the motel bathroom during the killing was carried out by a friend.

Great leader he would be

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (5 children)

"Who among us hasn't hidden in a motel bathroom while their friend murdered the manager outside? I ask you! When brought to justice, where I was innocent, I instead pled 'no contest' as an innocent person would. I'll paraphrase my Lord and savior Jesus Christ when I say 'Let ye who hasn't been convicted of murder cast the first stone'!" -Edgington probably

[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Innocent people plead guilty or no contest to charges all the time, tbh. I think what's crazy is running for office as a member of the party famous for its calls of "law and order" after spending eight years in the big house at the hands of the "law." You might think that would clue you in that maybe the legal system is not all it's cracked up to be.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Eight years in the clink? The slammer? The hoosegow?

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, the first part is fucked up too, y'all just normalised it - as if falsely pleading guilty falls under telling the truth.

And all for the sake of the system itself to function normally or by direct & intentional design, to make professionals (judges, lawyers, etc) appear more successful by some counting metric.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No contest isn't "I'm guilty", it's more like "I choose not to fight this". It isn't inherently dishonest by itself.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

I said 'falsely pleading guiltily', not 'choosing to not contest'.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)