Posts: 10835
Threads: 29
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 2:24 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2021 at 2:26 am by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:Not irrelevant at all.
Yes, it is and it will change nothing. The trial was fair by any legal standard. End of story
Quote:You would not be cool with a pro Chauvin shirt juror who ended up voting not guilty.
Kindly stop telling me what I would and would not be cool with. If one of the jurors went to a Blue lives matter rally and voiced his support for the cops. It would have no bearing on wheater or not the trial was fair. Stop projecting your opinions onto me.
Quote:Fact. The trial does not seem to have been a fair trial at this point. I will not get over it.
The trial was fair. So no you still need to get over it 
Quote: Of course these new developments do not get posted by anyone in the Chauvin thread,
Because everyone with an active brain knows this changes fuck all.
Quote:because people don't care whether it was a fair trial or not.
No because they know this changes fuck all.
Quote:I personally care about the legal system operating in a proper and fair fashion
Bullshit
Quote:however, so I'll keep defending Chauvin where it seems the right thing to do, and the principal of people having the right to a fair trial. You get over it.
You would do that no matter what. If this fails as it will you will still defend him with a new excuse then another one then another one. No one is buying your posturing and yes you need to get over it
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 1627
Threads: 0
Joined: September 6, 2020
Reputation:
5
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 2:46 am
Whoops. The juror with the Get Your Knees Off Our Necks shirt was mentioned at the bottom of the page of a link posted in the Chauvin thread. I missed that and apologize for my comment about that. Still, no one seems to care that this is the case or that the juror said jury duty needs to be looked at as a way to enact social change.
Can you explain what you think that comment means, sungula? If you were on a jury, do you think your job is to precisely follow the jury instructions, or is it your job to use being a juror as a way to enact social change? Which way would you go, and why, and please explain precisely why you didn't go with the opposite choice.
Posts: 10835
Threads: 29
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 3:09 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2021 at 3:16 am by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:Can you explain what you think that comment means, sungula? If you were on a jury, do you think your job is to precisely follow the jury instructions, or is it your job to use being a juror as a way to enact social change? Which way would you go, and why, and please explain precisely why you didn't go with the opposite choice.
What I believe the comment means or my choices as a juror is of no relevance. The defense has the nigh-impossible task of proving Brandon Mitchell was dishonest during jury selection or his opinions had any significance on the outcome of the trial. It's not happening and the verdict will stand.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 1627
Threads: 0
Joined: September 6, 2020
Reputation:
5
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 4:22 am
At least we agree that what the juror said is f'd up. Respect to you for not trying to defend what he said.
Did he believe what he said? Your position seems to be that we can't prove that he believes what he said himself. That could be true. Maybe he doesn't believe it or stopped believing it at some point, but when something is said by someone, generally people take them on their word that that is what they genuinely believe.
Posts: 10835
Threads: 29
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 7:59 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2021 at 7:59 am by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:At least we agree that what the juror said is f'd up. Respect to you for not trying to defend what he said.
Where did I say that? I said it was irrelevant.
Quote:Did he believe what he said?
No, it's a fact he didn't lie during jury selection. Which kills the defense's complaint.
Quote: Your position seems to be that we can't prove that he believes what he said himself.
No, my position is the defense is going to have a near-impossible time showing that he lied during jury selection or that any potential bias seriously impacted the verdict. A point that some lawyers have already pointed out.
Quote:That could be true.
It is true because he didn't lie. Which kills the defense's complaint.
Quote: Maybe he doesn't believe it or stopped believing it at some point, but when something is said by someone, generally people take them on their word that that is what they genuinely believe.
My point once again is the defense will have to prove he lied during jury selection and that he did so with malice as well as proving that it significantly impacted the verdict. That's pretty much impossible.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 2872
Threads: 8
Joined: October 4, 2017
Reputation:
22
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 9:46 am
(April 30, 2021 at 11:04 am)Brian37 Wrote: The hell I am not. ABBA is the best fucking band in the universe. THERE, I said it. Looks for rotten tomatos and ducks. Really? I will admit to getting it on in my youth to the tunes of ABBA. Abba was simply background muzak. It would not matter a whit once the blood was up. One could have played any darn thing. I was sinking the meat regardless of whatever was blaring out.
We were all young once.
In hindsight, abba is mere eurovision fodder.
Posts: 67036
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 10:15 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2021 at 10:18 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(May 6, 2021 at 2:02 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Not irrelevant at all. You would not be cool with a pro Chauvin shirt juror who ended up voting not guilty. Fact. The trial does not seem to have been a fair trial at this point. I will not get over it. Of course these new developments do not get posted by anyone in the Chauvin thread, because people don't care whether it was a fair trial or not. I personally care about the legal system operating in a proper and fair fashion however, so I'll keep defending Chauvin where it seems the right thing to do, and the principal of people having the right to a fair trial. You get over it.
All jurors are assumed to have opinions on issues. The absence of jurors with opinions on issues is not a requirement of a fair trial.
Some rando may be accused of murder. Every single juror has a very negative view of murder and murderers. If feeling nothing about this issue were a requirement for a fair trial, as you define fairness - then there could be no fair trials for anything, anywhere, at any time. Perhaps you should face your assumptions and apprehensions for what they are? The trial was fair - but even so..you still don't feel comfortable with it. Your objections are rooted in that - whatever that is. Not some lunatic shit about a cop not getting a fair trial in the US.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 1627
Threads: 0
Joined: September 6, 2020
Reputation:
5
RE: Politics and Twitter.
May 6, 2021 at 10:49 pm
(May 6, 2021 at 10:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: (May 6, 2021 at 2:02 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Not irrelevant at all. You would not be cool with a pro Chauvin shirt juror who ended up voting not guilty. Fact. The trial does not seem to have been a fair trial at this point. I will not get over it. Of course these new developments do not get posted by anyone in the Chauvin thread, because people don't care whether it was a fair trial or not. I personally care about the legal system operating in a proper and fair fashion however, so I'll keep defending Chauvin where it seems the right thing to do, and the principal of people having the right to a fair trial. You get over it.
All jurors are assumed to have opinions on issues. The absence of jurors with opinions on issues is not a requirement of a fair trial.
Some rando may be accused of murder. Every single juror has a very negative view of murder and murderers. If feeling nothing about this issue were a requirement for a fair trial, as you define fairness - then there could be no fair trials for anything, anywhere, at any time. Perhaps you should face your assumptions and apprehensions for what they are? The trial was fair - but even so..you still don't feel comfortable with it. Your objections are rooted in that - whatever that is. Not some lunatic shit about a cop not getting a fair trial in the US.
I hope you never become a juror if you think it's cool for jurors to talk about using jury duty as a way to enact social change. That's going quite a bit further than just having a bias against murderers.
|
