| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
"I support the message that every life should matter equally. I don't think the organization necessarily stands for that." Yikes. Honestly not necessarily the sentiment but my experience with folks who hold said sentiment is really not positive at all. | ||
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On March 10 2021 02:59 WombaT wrote: Juror #2 when questioned about his opinions on "Black Lives Matter" said he supports the movement and the message but not the "organization." "I support the message that every life should matter equally. I don't think the organization necessarily stands for that." Yikes. Honestly not necessarily the sentiment but my experience with folks who hold said sentiment is really not positive at all. I think that’s fine. Supporting the Black Lives Matter movement and that every life should matter is good. It’s like he said he believes in animal welfare but doesn’t support PETA. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 10 2021 02:59 WombaT wrote: Juror #2 when questioned about his opinions on "Black Lives Matter" said he supports the movement and the message but not the "organization." "I support the message that every life should matter equally. I don't think the organization necessarily stands for that." Yikes. Honestly not necessarily the sentiment but my experience with folks who hold said sentiment is really not positive at all. dude literally says "every life" and they are like "cool sounds good". | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On March 10 2021 03:05 Simberto wrote: Also, i am pretty sure that if you say that you support BLM, you will not get to be a juror on that trial. I doubt that the defense will allow that. Indeed, I think there's tea leaf reading going on that is being mistaken for something more certain. Getting a juror on record saying they support BLM can go either way in terms of setting things up for both conviction and appeal. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
Although what Nevuk said, it’s just my particular bias for my particular exposure to other folks, I see ‘I support x but...’ followed by some kind of bullshit deflection that my brain filled in the blanks erroneously there. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On March 10 2021 03:24 Nevuk wrote: The objection is more that he used a phrase about every life mattering equally : ie a synonym of "all lives matter", a dog whistle for fascists and racists. As a practical matter, the prosecution only has three peremptory challenges and there's no way they pick a fight over excusing a juror for cause predicated on use of "all lives matter" language. Despite how incredibly loud that dog whistle is, there can still be valid strategic reasons why that dude wasn't shown the door. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On March 10 2021 04:18 farvacola wrote: As a practical matter, the prosecution only has three peremptory challenges and there's no way they pick a fight over excusing a juror for cause predicated on use of "all lives matter" language. Despite how incredibly loud that dog whistle is, there can still be valid strategic reasons why that dude wasn't shown the door. In this case they have 9. ...each side will have to decide whether they want to use one of their "peremptory challenges" to strike that person. Prosecutors have nine peremptory challenges, and Chauvin's defense team has 15. www.wkyc.com Juror 5 (Edit: I think his number was 8 but he was the 5th person I've heard) is definitely worse (actually expressing strong support for "blue lives matter" as well as the same sort of "Black lives matter yeah, sure, but...") though, so it's certainly possible the rest of the pool is notably even worse based on their questionnaires. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
Edit: Thanks for the source, that article is wrong (unless I've missed something). Here's what you should be looking at: Subd. 6.Peremptory Challenges. In cases punishable by life imprisonment the defendant has 15 peremptory challenges and the prosecutor has nine. For any other offense, the defendant has five peremptory challenges and the prosecutor has three. In cases with more than one defendant, the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. The prosecutor's peremptory challenges must be correspondingly increased. All peremptory challenges must be exercised out of the hearing of the jury panel. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On March 10 2021 04:32 farvacola wrote: None of the charges they've brought against Chauvin carry the potential for a life sentence (not even the third degree murder charge that's still up in the air), so where are you getting that nine peremptory challenge number from? Edit: Thanks for the source, that article is wrong (unless I've missed something). Here's what you should be looking at: Source I heard that it was unusual in this case because of what you say, but I've heard this repeatedly everywhere. Prosecutors have nine peremptory challenges and Chauvin's lawyers have 15. www.insideedition.com Some jurors can also be dismissed without cause (known as a “peremptory challenge”), though Chauvin’s lawyers will only be able to do this 15 times, and the prosecution just nine. www.rollingstone.comThe defense can object to up to 15 potential jurors without giving a reason; prosecutors can block up to nine with no reason given. www.pbs.org | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On March 10 2021 05:49 Silvanel wrote: Since we are already talking about it, here is a question i always wodnered. Is US justice system really such circus/show as presented in TV shows? I’d guess 1 out of every 100 criminal cases that actually go to trial on the merits, which is already a small number of criminal cases filed overall, might have a day or two where there is some interesting or sensational testimony/lawyering, but the other 99 are regarded as boring and are full of dry exchanges. That holds generally true for civil cases as well, hearings of all kinds are typically very slow or very brief and full blown jury trials are rare. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States832 Posts
On March 10 2021 03:24 Nevuk wrote: The objection is more that he used a phrase about every life mattering equally : ie a synonym of "all lives matter", a dog whistle for fascists and racists. Had he responded immediately with “all lives matter!” I think you might have a point. But what he said is perfectly fine. Attaching so much righteousness to Slogans and mantras is fucking barbaric in my view. I mean you have two perfectly fine sentences. Black Lives Matter. All lives matter. And yet if you say either one apparently half of the country shrivels up. I can support the protests and want police reform and yet at the same time not care about BLM or the pushback against it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44375 Posts
On March 10 2021 09:13 Husyelt wrote: Had he responded immediately with “all lives matter!” I think you might have a point. But what he said is perfectly fine. Attaching so much righteousness to Slogans and mantras is fucking barbaric in my view. I mean you have two perfectly fine sentences. Black Lives Matter. All lives matter. And yet if you say either one apparently half of the country shrivels up. I can support the protests and want police reform and yet at the same time not care about BLM or the pushback against it. The context and implications of slogans matters too. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States832 Posts
On March 10 2021 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The context and implications of slogans matters too. For you perhaps. For me they are just empty slogans to batter the public and divide the country. Gay liberation / pride in the 70s is something that was daring and badass. There is nothing badass about Disney advertising with Black Lives Matter, or right leaning radio talk show hosts declaring All Lives Matter and not understanding that BLM does not mean white lives matter less. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44375 Posts
On March 10 2021 11:33 Husyelt wrote: For you perhaps. For me they are just empty slogans to batter the public and divide the country. Gay liberation / pride in the 70s is something that was daring and badass. There is nothing badass about Disney advertising with Black Lives Matter, or right leaning radio talk show hosts declaring All Lives Matter and not understanding that BLM does not mean white lives matter less. Why is your metric for this how "badass" the slogan is? I'm not sure where that characteristic fits in. I mean, catchy rhymes are great and all, but wouldn't it be nice to support civil rights without needing to lean on an earworm? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Summer Champion…
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL Team Wars
Team Dewalt vs Team Bonyth
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
