|
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 |
On September 18 2024 01:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
Could he be referring to double jeopardy, not getting that MP specifically said 'a higher court' or not getting the meaning behind that?
That’s a good guess. If you are acquitted on the merits by a trial court (or jury) of a crime, double jeopardy usually attaches and there’s no way to ask an appellate court to review that acquittal.
|
On September 18 2024 01:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2024 00:56 oBlade wrote:On September 18 2024 00:42 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2024 00:31 oBlade wrote:On September 18 2024 00:11 Gorsameth wrote:
Wow, how many people have you now entered into a criminal conspiracy who all have to payed off to keep silent?
fucking hell, going off the deep end all to justify Vance saying Haitians are eating pets. FML
I didn't mean to imply anyone being paid off, just that the profiteer mayor has demonstrable interests in rental properties. It doesn't take a conspiracy - people are smart enough to fall in line to protect themselves and their ilk. Most sides here at some point or other recognize that there is a two tiered justice system. Either divided along race, along party lines, wealth, or all of the above. We recognize it with the affluenza kid. The alleged video of cat barbecuing was Dayton, not Springfield, not done by Haitians, and has nothing to do with what we're talking about now if you follow. It's a fair question to anyone. You killed a grandmother collecting her garbage cans with your car. What do you reasonably think should happen to you? Anyone can lose control of their car, it happens regularly. People die. If a court decides you're innocent, then you're innocent, until a higher court overrules the decision. End of story. That's the opposite of the 5th Amendment. Isn’t that one the right to remain silent without an implicit assumption of guilt? As in “pleading the 5th”?
It also contains the concept of double jeopardy which is why the idea of being found not guilty in court only for a higher court to retry you and "overrule" it is absurd. Austrian legalese aside the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "proved innocent until we find a high enough court to fry you."
|
This is all beside the more basic point that there is nothing strange about someone not being prosecuted for an act deemed an accident by investigating authorities.
|
A higher court can overrule an innocent ruling, this is not considered double jeopardy.
Anyway, the point is what farva said. It's that, when you were found innocent, you're innocent. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
The only reason why I mentioned a higher court overruling the ruling of a lower court is because that IS an option and in that way a defendant CAN be found guilty after being found innocent - meaning an innocent ruling is not literally always the end of the story. It's just an exception to the rule.
|
United Kingdom9761 Posts
On September 18 2024 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:
A higher court can overrule an innocent ruling, this is not considered double jeopardy.
Anyway, the point is what farva said. It's that, when you were found innocent, you're innocent. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
The only reason why I mentioned a higher court overruling the ruling of a lower court is because that IS an option and in that way a defendant CAN be found guilty after being found innocent - meaning an innocent ruling is not literally always the end of the story. It's just an exception to the rule.
Is this true?
From what I've read, the US government or any prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty finding in court (or it is ridiculously rare for them to even try).
I know they can in the UK, which doesn't have an equivalent to double jeopardy. In the UK it would go to a higher court as you suggest.
I assumed you were correct, but upon reading it appears not.
|
United States43419 Posts
On September 18 2024 01:49 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2024 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:
A higher court can overrule an innocent ruling, this is not considered double jeopardy.
Anyway, the point is what farva said. It's that, when you were found innocent, you're innocent. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
The only reason why I mentioned a higher court overruling the ruling of a lower court is because that IS an option and in that way a defendant CAN be found guilty after being found innocent - meaning an innocent ruling is not literally always the end of the story. It's just an exception to the rule. Is this true? From what I've read, the US government or any prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty finding in court (or it is ridiculously rare for them to even try). I know they can in the UK, which doesn't have an equivalent to double jeopardy. In the UK it would go to a higher court as you suggest. I assumed you were correct, but upon reading it appears not.
UK does have double jeopardy. The US got it from us. There was a big deal about it in the Jamie Bulger case (from memory and dating myself there somewhat).
|
United Kingdom9761 Posts
On September 18 2024 02:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2024 01:49 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 18 2024 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:
A higher court can overrule an innocent ruling, this is not considered double jeopardy.
Anyway, the point is what farva said. It's that, when you were found innocent, you're innocent. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
The only reason why I mentioned a higher court overruling the ruling of a lower court is because that IS an option and in that way a defendant CAN be found guilty after being found innocent - meaning an innocent ruling is not literally always the end of the story. It's just an exception to the rule. Is this true? From what I've read, the US government or any prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty finding in court (or it is ridiculously rare for them to even try). I know they can in the UK, which doesn't have an equivalent to double jeopardy. In the UK it would go to a higher court as you suggest. I assumed you were correct, but upon reading it appears not. UK does have double jeopardy. The US got it from us. There was a big deal about it in the Jamie Bulger case (from memory and dating myself there somewhat).
Well fuck. You're right.
I guess I must just be getting confused when I've read stories of people appealing guilty verdicts to higher courts.
|
On September 18 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2024 02:00 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2024 01:49 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 18 2024 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:
A higher court can overrule an innocent ruling, this is not considered double jeopardy.
Anyway, the point is what farva said. It's that, when you were found innocent, you're innocent. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
The only reason why I mentioned a higher court overruling the ruling of a lower court is because that IS an option and in that way a defendant CAN be found guilty after being found innocent - meaning an innocent ruling is not literally always the end of the story. It's just an exception to the rule. Is this true? From what I've read, the US government or any prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty finding in court (or it is ridiculously rare for them to even try). I know they can in the UK, which doesn't have an equivalent to double jeopardy. In the UK it would go to a higher court as you suggest. I assumed you were correct, but upon reading it appears not. UK does have double jeopardy. The US got it from us. There was a big deal about it in the Jamie Bulger case (from memory and dating myself there somewhat). Well fuck. You're right. I guess I must just be getting confused when I've read stories of people appealing guilty verdicts to higher courts.
In the U.S., the constitutionality of appealing guilty verdicts is very different from acquittals. The former can wind on for years and can involve what’s called a collateral attack on the verdict, which often takes the form of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If a judge or jury rules a defendant innocent, the prosecution cannot appeal that verdict or pursue lesser included offenses. Sometimes a different prosecutorial authority can try again and sometimes there are charges that seem similar to those ruled on, but aren’t subject to double jeopardy. This can get very complicated, but the general rule is simple enough.
|
And none of this is remotely relevant to the basic idea that hitting someone with your car doesn't automatically mean you are guilty of manslaughter, so congrats to oBlade on derailing the thread away from his obviously dumb take.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On September 18 2024 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2024 02:00 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2024 01:49 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 18 2024 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:
A higher court can overrule an innocent ruling, this is not considered double jeopardy.
Anyway, the point is what farva said. It's that, when you were found innocent, you're innocent. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
The only reason why I mentioned a higher court overruling the ruling of a lower court is because that IS an option and in that way a defendant CAN be found guilty after being found innocent - meaning an innocent ruling is not literally always the end of the story. It's just an exception to the rule. Is this true? From what I've read, the US government or any prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty finding in court (or it is ridiculously rare for them to even try). I know they can in the UK, which doesn't have an equivalent to double jeopardy. In the UK it would go to a higher court as you suggest. I assumed you were correct, but upon reading it appears not. UK does have double jeopardy. The US got it from us. There was a big deal about it in the Jamie Bulger case (from memory and dating myself there somewhat). Well fuck. You're right. I guess I must just be getting confused when I've read stories of people appealing guilty verdicts to higher courts.
Aye, I’d sorta made that assumption myself but come to think of it I’ve seen guilty verdicts overturned on appeal, but not an innocent converted to guilty
So it seems you can have a guilty overturned if there’s some procedural gripe that’s agreed to have been problematic by a higher court. But not be found innocent and then tried again by another, or a higher court.
Least is my understanding
|
Surely there must be more competent ways to argue against immigration than by combing through every traffic incident in an Ohio town and speculating about them.
|
On September 18 2024 03:51 Dan HH wrote:
Surely there must be more competent ways to argue against immigration than by combing through every traffic incident in an Ohio town and speculating about them.
Considering there’s already been evidence posted in this thread that vehicle accidents have surged over the last couple years and the governor is sending in state troopers to help enforce the traffic laws, it seems unnecessary to go through them one by one to come to a conclusion.
|
There is no need to conflate accidents with crime. I am sure that many issues will arise with regards to the integration of the Haitians within the community. It also comes with many upsides.
|
Rising vehicle accidents? Are you referring to this?
"Fatal car accidents in Springfield, Ohio, increased four-fold last year, The Post has learned — as residents say a surge of Haitian migrants unfamiliar with US driving has turned their streets into the Kentucky Derby."
"Traffic accidents involving injuries in Springfield have also risen, climbing to 414 so far this year compared to 362 in 2023 — a 14% increase."
This is a story from the New York Post, which is a right-wing outlet with a mixed credibility rating according to MBFC.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fatal-accidents-in-springfield-ohio-jumped-four-fold-last-year-as-residents-say-migrants-unfamiliar-with-us-rules/ar-AA1qCLfv
Further research directly contradicts the claim of rising vehicle accidents.
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/despite-migration-surge-springfield-reported-fewer-crashes-last-year-over-past-years
So in 2023 they reported fewer accidents than in previous years. The increase in 2024 appears to be a small rise. This would correlate with a population increase from immigration. So if there are more crashes, it's likely because there are more people on the roads.
Fatal accidents allegedly increased four-fold, but that is an unconfirmed claim.
So we have a non-credible right-wing source claiming a four-fold increase in fatal accident, unconfirmed. We have a left-leaning source with high credibility pointing to a reduction in overall accidents, also unconfirmed.
|
On September 18 2024 04:41 Magic Powers wrote:Rising vehicle accidents? Are you referring to this? "Fatal car accidents in Springfield, Ohio, increased four-fold last year, The Post has learned — as residents say a surge of Haitian migrants unfamiliar with US driving has turned their streets into the Kentucky Derby." "Traffic accidents involving injuries in Springfield have also risen, climbing to 414 so far this year compared to 362 in 2023 — a 14% increase." This is a story from the New York Post, which is a right-wing outlet with a mixed credibility rating according to MBFC. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fatal-accidents-in-springfield-ohio-jumped-four-fold-last-year-as-residents-say-migrants-unfamiliar-with-us-rules/ar-AA1qCLfvFurther research directly contradicts the claim of rising vehicle accidents. https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/despite-migration-surge-springfield-reported-fewer-crashes-last-year-over-past-yearsSo in 2023 they reported fewer accidents than in previous years. The increase in 2024 appears to be a small rise. This would correlate with a population increase from immigration. So if there are more crashes, it's likely because there are more people on the roads. Fatal accidents allegedly increased four-fold, but that is an unconfirmed claim. So we have a non-credible right-wing source claiming a four-fold increase in fatal accident, unconfirmed. We have a left-leaning source with high credibility pointing to a reduction in overall accidents, also unconfirmed. Ah but your ignoring the conspiracy to just not report ... stuff.
because reasons.
|
NYP being "right-wing" on your widget doesn't mean they are not credible. Deaths increased 4-fold because you can physically count the 2 people died in 2022 and 8 people who died in 2023. They don't invent numbers, the bias is that if the deaths had dropped to 0 they wouldn't have reported it.
Made-up facts are led with words like "reports say" or "sources claim" not basic police stats.
|
On September 18 2024 05:04 oBlade wrote:
NYP being "right-wing" on your widget doesn't mean they are not credible. Deaths increased 4-fold because you can physically count the 2 people died in 2022 and 8 people who died in 2023. They don't invent numbers, the bias is that if the deaths had dropped to 0 they wouldn't have reported it.
Made-up facts are led with words like "reports say" or "sources claim" not basic police stats.
They're not credible because they have a mixed credibility rating, not because they're right-wing. MBFC has two different ratings, one for bias and one for credibility.
8 deaths vs 2 is a statistically insignificant increase, this is completely normal variation. All it takes is two or three accidents to go slightly worse and you have a few more deaths.
|
Norway28731 Posts
'four fold increase' does sound quite a bit worse than 'increased by 6', almost like there's some intention behind that phrasing. If there's also a big increase in accidents (significantly beyond the % of population increase) that'd be a better tell.
And how many of those 8 fatal accidents featured haitian drivers, anyway? If it's all 8 I could get how one might find that significant, I guess.
I'm not entirely dismissing the idea that foreign drivers might be more likely to be involved in accidents. In Norway, I've seen statistics showing that foreign truck drivers are 2.5 times more likely to be involved in accident than Norwegian truck drivers. But an increase from 2 to 8 doesn't really show anything - the numbers in Norway relate to 'amount of accidents per 1 million kilometers'.
|
I mean also, even if it were true, wouldn’t you change the driving licence transfer for people moving in rather than vilify an entire population and making it a national election priority to expel every single one of them? Seems more rational to address there driving standard than destroy the lives of thousands of families, wouldn’t you think?
Also if driving badly was a criteria for refusing immigrants, we wouldn’t take Americans in Europe. We can compare the driving standards required to pass a driving license in the US and in Norway, for a laugh. For reference i spent the equivalent of 8000 dollars to pass mine in Oslo.
|
Norway28731 Posts
I actually knew a girl who was an exchange student in the US, got her licence in the US, drove a car in the US for half a year, and then failed her driver's test in Norway. (Licenses from countries outside EU are only valid for up to 3 months in Norway).
That said (this does back up the idea that it might be true that people from certain countries might be less safe drivers than people from other countries, even if it's hard for me to accept that the US would be the latter and not the former in that equation), obviously your first paragraph is correct. If it's true that haitians/immigrants from x region are unsafe drivers, then you implement some type of course or program for haitians/immigrants from x region who want to drive in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
