I don’t think he’s talking about Jones directly. He’s talking about the jury that couldn’t condemn a guy to death.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,886
- 11,029
- 136
People keep bringing up getting an unbiased jury but I see an additional issue.
What sort of jury protection is going to happen because they are going to be exposed to a very real threat from the MAGA and Qtard crowd.
What sort of jury protection is going to happen because they are going to be exposed to a very real threat from the MAGA and Qtard crowd.
How the hell are you connecting those dots? Alex Jones has absolutely NOTHING to do with Cruz or the Parkland school shooting. Alex Jones was taken to court in a civil suit over his claim the Sandy Hook School shooting was a hoax. No connection what's so ever other than there was a school shooting involved. He was pulling shit out of his ass or rather immediate limiting what I can and can't use in my response which I will cover in a moment. Besides, why are you telling us what another poster meant by their response? You don't fucking know.. you are guessing, trying to defend his mudding of reality even if what you say is true..
He asked for an example, yet tells me not to use a case about a specific person's case. Which means he already has an example, and he knows it down deep, or at least believes that is the case for that person, otherwise he wouldn't have brought it up telling me I can't use it as an example. He's already telling me what I can and can't use that supports my claim.. he is dictating the evidence HE will except.. Fuck, might as well call it what it is, he's already deflecting a specific case, before I could even answer the question he asked and even think about using Alex Jones as an example.. (I never would have in the first place).
To elaborate on what I said to him: Every juror is vetted, and each side tries to vet a juror that will give back a verdict that will give them the win, and it usually comes down to bias, aka personal feelings.. not evidence. Without naming specific cases, so we don't rehash old arguments, about specific cases, there are tons of criminal cases out there in just the past 10 years, where just that happened, many include people being shot, killed by police, people "acting" like vigilantes, or just people straight up murdering people., who get off Scott free, because of bias feelings rather than what the evidence shown. Why do specific cases want a jury of moistly female, or a jury of mostly men. Or a jury with specific racial makeup? Because they are looking for sympathy, a connection, personal feelings that will diminish or eliminate what impact the evidence has, specially if it's in the defendants favor. It's woven into our legal system. So to sit here and try to imply that evidence isn't ignored, and judgements/verdicts are not based on feelings is naïve and ignorant as hell, as it happens nearly every day in court rooms.
Last edited:
Go read my edit.. and stop cherry picking my responses. It takes everything out of context.. then actually answer my question.. how do you connect those dots, as they have nothing to do with each other? Or are you going to once again cherry pick my response, so you can ignore the question?
to what you said: You read his response, so you are NOT telling me what he meant, you are telling me YOUR interpretation of what he wrote.. So you admit you don't have the first clue about what he meant.. you are talking out of your ass in his defense, or at least trying to defend his bullshit, which is why you resort to cherry picking.. correct?
Last edited:
DaaQ
Golden Member
- Dec 8, 2018
- 1,929
- 1,378
- 136
But didn't the shooter WANT the DP? so in essences the jury gave him the harsher sentence, which is tax dollar cheaper than a DP case?
Then again he may get DP lethal injection if not in solitary confinement his whole life.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,837
- 2,622
- 136
First, please restraint from the personal insults. I certainly didn't direct any you.
Secondly, the impeachment trials you cite as proof are part of the political process, they are designed by the Constitution as part of the legislature's powers and are not criminal trails are you admit. They are not part of the legal system (although they attempt to mimic legal process). The presiding "judge" has no judicial powers, there are no rules of evidence, there is no appeal process. The BS that happened there is not what happens in a real court of law in the US legal system.
As far as your January 6th comments go, please list any SPECIFIC January 6th actual trials that you contend resulted in tainted verdicts. The legal system has mechanisms in place to exclude biased jurors.
My "naïve, ignorant and blind" beliefs are in large part based upon the more than four decades in spent actually practicing law, not upon some simplistic and cynical feelings. If you have some actual specific concrete proposals you contend would be better than our legal system, I'd love to hear them.
I am sorry if I have hit a nerve calling you out on being naïve and blind. Yep, you are demonstrating you are a lawyer, one that manipulates and twists facts about what I said into something completely different. and/or you are completely missed meaning of what I said. so if it's not deliberate manipulation and the twisting my words to mean something else, then it's either due to being naïve or blind, or your lack of comprehension. maybe you should read my response slowly over and over so you can grasp what I said and the meaning behind it. Also read my response to eelw as I expanded on my response to you.
No wonder you don't recognize that our legal system has bias backed into it, all while claiming that their are mechanisms in place to exclude them, because you are knee deep in the middle of it. Yet we have appeals that are granted based on that very fact. as well as many cases ruled on that bias you says is excluded.. You can believe it doesn't exist, and it doesn't happen, but you are only lying to yourself. If what you believe was true, our country wouldn't be where it is politically and socially. And now you are moving the goal posts trying to get me to proposal for a better legal system, which has nothing to do with this discussion, as I never said anything about having a better legal system...
I guess the question is, why are you so quick to defend it, when you know damn good and well we have verdicts that are bias and not based on evidence.. Hell, the current SCOTUS has given a clear example of that... the highest court in the system has based rulings on made up reasons that are not supported by evidence or law.. Which only leaves bias and feelings... and you are trying to sit here and argue that verdicts are free from bias and evidence avoidance.. Or maybe we should get into many cases that are ruled differently just because of the color of the defendants skin..... What do you call that shit if it's not based on bias or the avoidance of the evidence?
Last edited:
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,837
- 2,622
- 136
Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how foolish and/or lacking any empirical foundation. The worst are those who firmly hold opinions they think are absolute without being able to present even one solid objective proof supporting their profound belief.
Good luck in life.
Good luck in life.
except it's not an opinion, it's fact. I have given many broad examples, without giving specific cases, as I won't give specific cases as to not rehash old arguments, or create new ones.
The fact that a person's skin color can effect the outcome of a trial, and you have no way of defending such blatant bias and disregard to actual evidence, that takes place in regards to that basic facts alone. Shows who's the foolish one in this argument, and it sure as hell isn't me.
Before you call someone foolish using terms like absolutes, you should really learn what that term means. Because your whole argument is based on what you are trying to claim is an absolute fact. Which your argument is based on the absolute fact, jurors cannot be bias or evidence can't be ignored in there verdict because I won't give you a specific case as an example And you claim I am the foolish one. Way to self own.
We could get into family law, where verdicts and the law itself is bias against men. If you where ever a father who has had to fight for his kids in states that are very anti male, you would know first hand the bias and disregard to evidence that takes place, both by the courts and the jury that are involved.
So, I don't need you to wish me luck, I have lived first hand what you claim doesn't have an objective foundation supporting it. Even though it's happening all around you on a daily basis, yet you are so blind, or conditioned you don't recognize it. Or do you since it's part of what you have done for 4 decades?
What it comes down to, is you know I am right, but you are hoping to bait me into giving a specific case in hopes you can argue about it and try to prove me wrong. Well you can save your bullshit for someone else. Maybe save it for the clients you represent where you bullshit and manipulation may be useful and is part of your job. After all, you are a liar.. I mean lawyer.
Last edited:
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 26,060
- 24,367
- 136
They could literally have a video of Trump shooting someone and his base would not care. They would excuse it as self-defense or something.
They are fucked in the head.
They are fucked in the head.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,533
- 10,971
- 136
Bonus points if it was a Lib he shot.
It could even be a family member shot and they’d still support the orange monkey.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,160
- 12,606
- 136
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 26,060
- 24,367
- 136
We are literally watching mid stage Nazis at this point. They will excuse anything.
I don't care if they are just ignorant, cuz most our willfully ignorant or just bad soul people. But for the ones that are just truly ignorant, It's no excuse when you become this terrible. You are still a willing part of something horrific.
Lanyap
Elite Member
- Dec 23, 2000
- 8,261
- 2,359
- 136
He would have to be found guilty in a court of law before some people here might accept it. Sound familiar?
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,068
- 14,480
- 146
Even then...it would be a conspiracy by the deep state libruls to bring down the best man since Jeezus...maybe better.
DaaQ
Golden Member
- Dec 8, 2018
- 1,929
- 1,378
- 136
Pohemi
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2004
- 10,860
- 16,930
- 146
Many people are saying he's bigger, better, more popular, and taller than Jeebus was...he's just a fantabulous specimen of a man, really...and his book reads better than the bible. If you don't believe ME, well just ask him!
lol
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,561
- 15,675
- 146
This was basically the last scene in the last episode of The Boys this year except the crowd cheered.
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,684
- 5,227
- 136
Gun loud...make Trump ears hurt.
Besides, what good is a bunch of money if you can't use it to get someone else to pull the trigger for you...and keep your delicate size 0 hands clean.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
His Doctor was said to like to admire the former Presidents nude body it was very masculine nude body.
**Yes the former President really said this or very similar**
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,533
- 10,971
- 136
I will no longer ask "how could 30's Germany happen?".
/waves hand at current situation
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,574
- 6,407
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter