Texas Gov. pursuing pardon for Army sergeant convicted of murdering armed BLM protester

SFC Casey O'Mally this is not a presidential pardon. Its a governor responding to a Fox news individual immediately after conviction.

SGT (Join to see) Of course it is not a Presidential pardon. Because it was not a federal conviction. President has exactly zero power to pardon in this case. Aside from the 10th Amendement, which CLEARLY puts this in the hands of Texas, US Constitution doesn't enter into it. But insofar as the US Constitution is concerned, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this pardon. It also established the precedent of the head executive having pardon authority....
...which Texas copied and modified slightly.

The Texas Constitution CLEARLY gives Abbott this authority.

One of the primary purposes of the pardon power is to correct miscarriages of justice. Which this certainly appears to be.

Utilizing the Constitution and following the Constitution - and both State and US Constitution are being utilized and followed here - is no cause to call for burning them.

This authority is not just implied in these Constitutions, it is EXPLICITLY STATED.

Abbott replied even BEFORE conviction, stating he had to wait, and could not do anything until after trial. He would have dismissed the case if he had the authority. But, since he actually follows his Constitution and cares about the rules, unlike many of his Democratic colleagues in other states, he waited.

SFC Casey O'Mally You missed the point. The pardon is being given because a TV personality demanded it. It also occurred immediately after the conviction. It speaks volumes about the state my state and nation is in with the possibility we won't survive much longer.

SGT (Join to see) No, the pardon is on the table because there was a gross miscarriage of justice. It so happens that a TV personality highlighted it.

In Texas, unlike the President at the federal level or the Governors of many other states, Abbott, does NOT have unilateral pardon authority. He can ONLY pardon after a recommendation from the Board of Pardons. Which means that if he does follow through and issue the pardon, it is not just Abbott saying that the pardon is appropriate.

Again, it is moving immediately after conviction only because Abbott DOES respect the Constitution and had no Constitutional authority to squash the case prior to conviction. This guy acted in self-defense, which means he is actually innocent. At least that is what Abbott (and apparently most of Texas) believes. If an innocent person is in jail, the government should do everything it can to release that person as quickly as possible. But you think that he should sit and rot for a year or two before the pardon, just because it looks bad?

I have sat on a jury, a grand jury, been a witness, a plaintiff, a defendant. I have argued cases in mock trial for both prosecution and defense, and sat in judgment. I have been a non-lawyer part of the legal team for the state in actual courts, and sit "past the bar" routinely for my job. I have seen legal cases from just about every seat in the courtroom. I am NOT a legal expert, I am NOT a lawyer, I am NOT a judge. But I have a pretty clear understanding about the way things work. I have seen convictions where the prosecutor CLEARLY failed to prove guilt (jury operated from a presumption of guilt, not presumption of innocence), and have seen bona fide perpetrators go free due to prosecutor incompetence or law enforcement misconduct (evidence being dismissed because of no warrant, for example). I have watched public defenders completely fail to actually defend.

So, while a jury trial is still the best system we have been able to come up with, please do not pretend that it is perfect. Juries get it wrong. They get it wrong much more often when the prosecutor is more concerned with a "win" than they are the truth, as appears to have happened here.

This is NOT a sign of bad things, but rather good things. This is the system WORKING, not breaking down.