Choi Takes the Stand, Delivering Tense Testimony and Impassioned Speeches

[FreeState]

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/08/choi-takes-the-stand-delivers.html

Former Army Lt. Dan Choi took the witness stand today during the second day of his federal trial for failing to obey a lawful order by a police officer, where he delivered several impassioned speeches protesting his prosecution in U.S. District Court for actions that, he believes, are protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

......

On the stand, Choi said the First Amendment provides for the right of people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which also, he said, is a moral responsibility of patriotic Americans. Choi responded under questioning by Feldman that he believed his actions were a form of speech, and that the government did not have a right to censor them by arresting him.

At times, Choi raised his voice and spoke in such a tone that he almost seemed close to shouting, especially when asked about his arrest. Under cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, he compared the various protests against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the 1960 sit-in by students in Greensboro, N.C., at a Woolworth’s department store and said he was “insulted” by his prosecution on federal charges.

“The November 15th arrest is surprising in my mind,” Choi said, comparing the tactics used by police officers to remove him from the fence and transport him to the police wagon to procedures taught to soldiers in war. Choi said his left arm had been twisted and he could not feel his index finger for two weeks afterward, statements he said were reinforced by videos showing his arrest.

[Tx4obama]

1. Choi turned down a 'not guilty' plea deal

Excerpt:

SNIP

Twelve other demonstrators arrested with Choi previously accepted deal with prosecutors, agreeing to plead guilty in federal court but serve no jail time if they were not re-arrested within four months. Feldman said his client rejected a similar plea deal prosecutors offered Friday, though he would not have had to plead guilty.

SNIP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/dan-choi-trial-dadt-white-house_n_941287.html

[FreeState]

2. So? He shouldnt have been charged in the first place n/t

[Tx4obama]

3. The point is that ...

if he had accepted the plea deal prosecutors offered on Friday he could have plead not guilty and there wouldn't have been a trial.
Now there's a possibility that this will not come out very well for him in the long run.

[FreeState]

4. Why should he take a plea if he's inoccent?

He's doing a good thing here.

[Historic NY]

5. Yup

[dsc]

6. I highly doubt that

he likely would have had to plea no contest, where you say you don't admit guilt but do admit that there is sufficient evidence of your guilt to sustain a conviction. On edit, not having to plead guilty isn't the same as being permitted to plea not guilty.

[William769]

7. The same can be said about the ones prosecuting him

And the one pressuring the prosecution.

[MuseRider]

8. I don't think he is the point.

I think the point he is trying to make is far larger than him or what happens to him. He is willing to risk this.

I am not speaking for him but this is the point I got just from talking to him and spending the time risking arrest with him. He is not the point, individually we were not the point as long as we were willing to risk it.

[dsc]

9. You are not interpreting that accurately

Not having to plead guilty isn't the same as being able to plea not guilty. He would most likely have had to plea nolo contedere which means you say you are not guilty but that there is enough evidence to convict you. It is treated in every way, shape, and form as if you pled guilty. On edit, for example he would have a conviction on his record which might well keep him out of the army.

[ruggerson]

10. There were people on the sidelines harrassing MLK too

good thing he didn't listen to them.