I think you have to consider context.  

I agree civil rights protests are appropriate, and even crucial to continued progress towards equality.

Over the last year, we've seen tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people appropriately and powerfully express themselves by protesting.  That should be applauded.

Unfortunately, alongside these protests, we've seen bad actors take advantage of the situation to riot, loot, destroy property, and commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people.   

Politicians and the media have handled this situation very badly.  Both the right  and the left twist everything that happens to fit a narrative that supports their agenda.  To be clear, when I say "the right" and "the left" I'm not talking about all of us.  I'm talking about hypocritical political actors (including the media) who are acting in ways that are not consistent with the core principles of conservatism or liberalism.

On the right, some conservative media often lumped the protestors and rioters together, and tried to make it seem like peaceful protestors were culpable for the destruction and violence that played out before us on TV.  It was easy for them, because so many of the faces of looters we saw going in and out of broken storefront windows were black.

On the flipside, some liberal media tried to pretend the riots were a fiction.  Candidate Joe Biden refused to condemn looting and violence for months, until it became clear that his failure to address the issue was negatively impacting his campaign, and he was losing the support of police unions. Some liberal media characterized anyone who objected to rioting (as opposed to protesting) as racist.  

The result?  We have a country that is more divided along partisan lines than ever in our history.  We have a level of political vitriol  that is so high it invades every aspect of our society.  Even here- on a John Byrne message board, how many threads are about comics, as opposed to political debates?  And of course, our trust in the news media has eroded to almost zero.  

In that context, and in a city that was essentially a powder keg awaiting these verdicts; a city that had already experienced protests and riots, I think Rep. Waters acted inappropriately. 

First, the timing of her comments was bad, on the eve of jury deliberations.  Like Biden, she should have waited for the jury to be sequestered, or just spoke out after the verdicts (I'm not saying she had no right to speak when she did; just that it was a bad decision).

Second, understanding the setting in which she was speaking, Rep. Waters should have taken the time to be very clear about what she meant when she encouraged people to be "more confrontational."

To be fair, when the media reached out to her office AFTER she made her remarks, she was clear.  And that is why McCarthy was so wrong for pursuing a censure and turning this into something bigger than it should have been.     

  

I don't watch Tucker Carlson, so I don't know what was said over the course of his entire show.  After reading your post, I did a Google search and came across this video, which appears to be the opening monologue to the show you are referencing:

Here, Carlson is not suggesting the jury reached the wrong verdict.  He is opining that they were influenced by too many outside forces, and that politicians should not have placed their thumbs on the scales.  Essentially, he's making the same argument as Neil; that they may have made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.

I can't speak to Candace Owens, because I haven't seen her comments.  But the panel that was on the news when the verdict was announced was universally in favor of the conviction.  

You said yourself, you don't watch Tucker - so, I am urging you to please, please do a little more research into him and his commentaries before citing him again, at least on THIS message board.

AND, to clarify - John W. can cite whomever he wishes, I just don't think he's going to sway many people in citing Carlson. 

Marc

I'm just saying if we're going to criticize him, lets criticize him accurately, and not put words in his mouth.

There are a lot of negative things you can say about Tucker (See Mark Haslett's post above, which I mostly agree with).  

But Tucker didn't say that Chauvin shouldn't be convicted.  

Understood.  However, we are just going to have to disagree BIG TIME on Tucker and Chauvin verdict. 

Marc

=====================================================

Jabari,

I'll swap out Scott for Colin Powell everyday. Twice on Sunday.

I keep forgetting about JC Watts.

(Thread drift) - JC could run the Wishbone offense with perfection.

Michael listed John Lewis' accomplishments, none of which involved him commenting on a desired outcome in an ongoing case. He then stated a hypothetical situation that again is irrelevant to the conversation because it didn't happen (as far as I know). If it had happened, then yes, it would have been irrisponsible for him to do so, regardless of his past accomplishments. I would hope that John Lewis would also have known what is appropriate and would have done what Biden did, which is to not comment until after the trial had concluded. 

I have been discussing the role of government and the court system. That's it. 

(Perhaps I should have used "not germane" instead of "irrelevant". Poor choice of words on my part.)