US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands

[Martell Spy]

Sorry, accidental double post.

[Mudguard]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL!  Yep, that's exactly my point.  You, as many lawyers tend to do, like to preserve this legalistic fantasy that such obvious but "legally irrelevant" factors do not play a role in decision-making among all people including jurors.  The logical conclusion of your position here is the racial composition of the jury would not ever play a role in their decision - only "the facts."  Which is of course absurd based on the entirety of American history and basic common sense.   

The opposite is true.  We are well aware that biases can play a part, and that's why juries are all instructed by the judge, or at least they should be, to do their best to put aside their biases and anything they already know of the case and come to a decision based purely on the facts presented at trial.  I think most juries try to do this, but obviously, some don't.  But acknowledging this doesn't mean that I'm going to assume an all white jury would have acquitted Chauvin despite a mountain of evidence.  Do I think that an all black jury or a mixed jury would be likelier to convict Chauvin than an all white jury?  Sure, but I think all three types of juries would have convicted him, so what's there really to discuss about this case if the result is likely the same?

ETA: It's also the main purpose of the jury selection process, to weed out jurors that are more likely to be biased one way or the other.  The process isn't perfect by any means, but it's obvious that the legal professionals are aware of biases and the need to try and reduce their effects.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

But acknowledging this doesn't mean that I'm going to assume an all white jury would have acquitted Chauvin despite a mountain of evidence.

When did I ever say I assumed this?  Perhaps stop ascribing positions to my argument that aren't there.  I said it was an interesting hypothetical and that the all-white jury would be more likely to acquit Chauvin, that's all.  If you think the case against Chauvin is strong enough an all-white jury would have convicted him too, fair enough.  But acting like it was absurd or "idiotic" of me to raise the fact all-white juries are significantly more sympathetic to white defendants in a comparison of two high-profile racially-charged cases only suggests your argument is absurd.

Anyway, before all this tediousness, one of the reasons I think the hypothetical is interesting is because maybe the notion of having more racially diverse juries - even ones more diverse than their jurisdiction like the Chauvin case - is a good idea.

[HoodedCrow]

I don’t think reasoning is the problem. 

Lawyers do try to manipulate prejudices. It’s part of their job to do that in a legal DMC, we agree on most things, but I’ll never tell:) 

This is not a jury and it is not my job to convince anyone:)

If it were me, I would say, under 18, be gentle. First time offender should be taken into account. Killer cop after many complaints, life without parole. No death penalty at all. It isn’t even cost effective, and it is barbaric. The next time I rule the world, I will make it so:)

[Mister Smikes]

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

Every legal expert who isn't a maga white supremacist is APPALLED by how this judge behaved in the court room.  

All this proves is that a certain crowd likes to insult everyone who disagrees with him as white supremacists.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I'm against riots I think it's unproductive and gives racist jerkwads a reason to come murder protesters.

Eh. I can see a use for some of them. Without the riots in the 60s I think it'd been easier to ignore the efforts of activists. 

I just think however the people who are hurt in them don't need to be brushed off as if unimportant.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So which PD would hire that guy? 

Many perhaps if they see Rittenhouse the same way as you unfortunately.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Posters need to hit that perfect window on the spectrum of riots from concern tempered against criticism to outright condemnation.  The radio window.  Anything else will be dismissed on extremist grounds.

-,the Princess Irulan, In My Carpenters House

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

And for good reason, these irrelevant facts are excluded from the trial.

He liked trump and maybe got into a fight with a girl. Why weren't those facts included in the trial?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Perhaps this is simply an indication he doesn't want his job prospects to be limited to interning for either Matt Gaetz or Paul Gosar.  And who can blame him?

Well, there's also Taylor-Green(e) - too lazy to check for spelling, and that gun nut lady from Colorado.

It's not like the GOP is short on supply for crazy. He could conceivably be interning for all of them. Interning for Gaetz might be short lived, as Gaetz is still in legal trouble himself, isn't he. 

Once Rittenhouse's infamy levels drop below a certain point, or another MAGAt of the month pops up in another news cycle his value would be greatly decreased anyway.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It's not like the GOP is short on supply for crazy. He could conceivably be interning for all of them.

I mentioned Gaetz and Gosar because of this:

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yeah, but I was thinking about him making a career out of it, by rotating between all of them. Which is probably not a sustainable career path. 

If he wanted to gamble, he could've doubled down and picked a deep red seat in Illinois or Wisconsin and turned his new found infamy into a run for state legislature or congress himself. Certainly a more sustainable career path than getting pimped out by the likes of Gosar and Gaetz.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If he wanted to gamble, he could've doubled down and picked a deep red seat in Illinois or Wisconsin and turned his new found infamy into a run for state legislature or congress himself.

Well, he's certainly too young for US Congress.  And even still too young for Illinois state legislature.  But not Wisconsin!

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Interesting, I assumed voting age (active) means voting age (passive).

I was aware of the min age of POTUS being higher and just assumed it might also be a bit higher for the senators. But didn't think congress (you can usually I meant the House, when I write congress and not the Senate) does have an min age above voting age.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But didn't think congress (you can usually I meant the House, when I write congress and not the Senate) does have an min age above voting age.

Yeah it's 25 for the US House.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

as Gaetz is still in legal trouble himself, isn't he. 

It's feeling more and more like this will amount to nothing as well. 

[JGP]

Anyone ever feel like taking a file to Gaetz's chin? Just me?

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

It is not analogous.

Yeah, Marissa Alexander's case for self-defense was much stronger and, more importantly, she didn't kill anyone. In an ideal world she should have barely spent any time in jail.