Capitol Mob - "Pretty Normal People"

[ajohnstone]

I know when i link to studies they are quickly dismissed as having a
leftist liberal bias. But i'm not so sure this one will receive such a
reception.

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/This-Is-Our-House.pdf

Nearly 90% of the people charged in the Capitol riot so far have no
connection with militias or other organized extremist groups, according to
a new analysis from George Washington University’s Center on
Extremism. It found that more than half of people facing federal charges
over the 6 January attack appear to have planned their participation
alone, not even coordinating with family members or close friends. Only 33
of the 257 alleged participants appear to have been part of existing
“militant networks”, including the Proud Boys and the Oath
Keepers anti-government militia.

The largest category according to the report, was a
“hodgepodge” of individuals with a variety of extremist
beliefs who made plans to come to the rally on their own.

A separate analysis of court records by the Chicago Project on Security
and Threats, looking at 290 arrests connected to the Capitol attack, found
very similar results to the George Washington University report, including
that only 12% of alleged participants were part of militias or other
organized violent groups.

https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/cpost/i/docs/americas_insurrectionists_online_2021_02_26.pdf?mtime=1614612718

Which also concluded that the supposed cure - arresting members of those
extremist groups- is worse than the disease

Reported in that unreliable newspaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/04/us-capitol-attack-individual-extremist-far-right-groups

This a confirmation of what i already stated and others i think concurr
that the riot at the Capitol was not a pre-meditated insurrection and
certainly no coup but a situation that simply got out of control.

[John McAdams]

On 5 Mar 2021 14:44:00 -0000, ajohnstone <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>I know when i link to studies they are quickly dismissed as having a
>leftist liberal bias. But i'm not so sure this one will receive such a
>reception.
>
>https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/This-Is-Our-House.pdf
>
>Nearly 90% of the people charged in the Capitol riot so far have no
>connection with militias or other organized extremist groups, according to
>a new analysis from George Washington University’s Center on
>Extremism.

I've heard Tucker Carlson say the same thing.

>It found that more than half of people facing federal charges
>over the 6 January attack appear to have planned their participation
>alone, not even coordinating with family members or close friends. Only 33
>of the 257 alleged participants appear to have been part of existing
>“militant networks”, including the Proud Boys and the Oath
>Keepers anti-government militia.
>
>The largest category according to the report, was a
>“hodgepodge” of individuals with a variety of extremist
>beliefs who made plans to come to the rally on their own.
>
>A separate analysis of court records by the Chicago Project on Security
>and Threats, looking at 290 arrests connected to the Capitol attack, found
>very similar results to the George Washington University report, including
>that only 12% of alleged participants were part of militias or other
>organized violent groups.
>
>https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/cpost/i/docs/americas_insurrectionists_online_2021_02_26.pdf?mtime=1614612718
>
>Which also concluded that the supposed cure - arresting members of those
>extremist groups- is worse than the disease
>

A sensible conclusion. Although I wonder whether it was driven by the
knowledge that a Republican Administration might start arresting
Antifa and BLM militants.

>Reported in that unreliable newspaper.
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/04/us-capitol-attack-individual-extremist-far-right-groups
>

Ideologically biases newspaper. But they can't be wrong all the time.

>This a confirmation of what i already stated and others i think concurr
>that the riot at the Capitol was not a pre-meditated insurrection and
>certainly no coup but a situation that simply got out of control.

It's pretty much a cliche, and true, that if you put people in crowds,
you might get a mob action.

So let's apply that idea to BLM and Antifa too.

The difference, however, being that BLM and Antifa have a coherent
ideology that condones violence.

The rioters at the Capitol didn't.

It was pretty much a pure mob action.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

All of which seems to exonerate Trump. About half the people arrested had
already planned to do something before they even got to Washington and the
other half went along with it once it started. All of them ignored Trump's
directive to protest peacefully.

Nobody should every be arrested for belonging to a group whether that be
Proud Boys, Antifa, BLM, KKK, or the American Communist Party. People
should only be arrested if they break the law. They also should not be
excused for breaking the law if they belong to any of the above.

[Bud]

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 9:44:02 AM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:

I suppose I have an advantage over you because I never believed anything
the Democrats or the mainstream media had to say about the event. They
both hit the ground lying and never stopped. They create some false
narrative and they repeat it and repeat it with no regard for facts or
truth.

Here`s a small example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V--Z7xTOlfE

He wasn`t killed at the riot. He texted his brother that the only thing
that happened to him was that he was hit by some bear spray. He went back
to the precinct and had a heart attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9V7gZtiztk&t=14s

[ajohnstone]

>I suppose I have an advantage over you ... He wasn`t killed at the riot.

>He texted his brother that the only thing that happened to him was that
>he was hit by some bear spray. He went back to the precinct and had a
>heart attack.

Sorry to rain on your parade but i had already linked to this incident in
an earlier post

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims

The author went into some detail about the Sicknick death and explained
the motive behind the deliberate misrepresentation.

"...Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher,
there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate
violence by pro-Trump protesters..."

You are not the only one who accesses information from sources other than
the mainstream media.

[donald willis]

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 6:06:54 PM UTC-8, ajohnstone wrote:
> >I suppose I have an advantage over you ... He wasn`t killed at the riot.
> >He texted his brother that the only thing that happened to him was that
> >he was hit by some bear spray. He went back to the precinct and had a
> >heart attack.
> Sorry to rain on your parade but i had already linked to this incident in
> an earlier post
>
> https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims
>
> The author went into some detail about the Sicknick death and explained
> the motive behind the deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> "...Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher,
> there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate
> violence by pro-Trump protesters..."

Reminds me of the treatment of the death by gunshot of the girl in San
Francisco a few years ago. All the stories (could they have been on Fox?)
were saying how the illegal immigrant deliberately shot the girl, or at
least implying that, and not telling the whole story. I was stunned when
it came out that she was hit by a ricochet, not shot deliberately. But if
you're playing with fire extinguishers and other weapons, accidents are
bound to happen....

[Bud]

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 9:06:54 PM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:
> >I suppose I have an advantage over you ... He wasn`t killed at the riot.
> >He texted his brother that the only thing that happened to him was that
> >he was hit by some bear spray. He went back to the precinct and had a
> >heart attack.
> Sorry to rain on your parade but i had already linked to this incident in
> an earlier post

I brought it up three weeks ago over in the nuthouse in a post to Don
Willis. He actually believes what the mainstream media tells him.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wudxrx_FIjo/m/8UyZ1ybLBQAJ

> https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims
>
> The author went into some detail about the Sicknick death and explained
> the motive behind the deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> "...Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher,
> there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate
> violence by pro-Trump protesters..."
>
> You are not the only one who accesses information from sources other than
> the mainstream media.

You quoted me out of context. What I said was...

"I suppose I have an advantage over you because I never believed anything
the Democrats or the mainstream media had to say about the event."

I don`t believe anything they say unless I can corroborate it myself
using sources I trust. They don`t have zero credibility, they are in the
red. The idea that five people died as a result of the Capitol incident
was never the default that needed to be disproven with me.

Do you think that if a cop went back to his precinct after battling BLM
rioters and died of a stroke you would have heard about it? Other than Fox
news the MSM is all spin, lies and propaganda for the Democratic Party.
And liberals seem to think that holding Fox as an exception is
hypocritical, but not when they expose lies like this cop being killed by
violent Trump supporters. When they tell the truth and expose lies that
gains them credibility in my eyes, leftists seem to prefer the lies they
are told, they tenaciously hold onto these false narratives.

[Bud]

Worth a watch...

https://youtu.be/bqb3UOiIF9E

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 12:54:39 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 6:06:54 PM UTC-8, ajohnstone wrote:
> > >I suppose I have an advantage over you ... He wasn`t killed at the riot.
> > >He texted his brother that the only thing that happened to him was that
> > >he was hit by some bear spray. He went back to the precinct and had a
> > >heart attack.
> > Sorry to rain on your parade but i had already linked to this incident in
> > an earlier post
> >
> > https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims
> >
> > The author went into some detail about the Sicknick death and explained
> > the motive behind the deliberate misrepresentation.
> >
> > "...Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher,
> > there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate
> > violence by pro-Trump protesters..."
> Reminds me of the treatment of the death by gunshot of the girl in San
> Francisco a few years ago. All the stories (could they have been on Fox?)
> were saying how the illegal immigrant deliberately shot the girl, or at
> least implying that, and not telling the whole story. I was stunned when
> it came out that she was hit by a ricochet, not shot deliberately.

What do you mean "it came out"? A San Francisco jury accepted the
defense`s version of what occurred, that does not establish that this is
what occurred.

You can believe he *happened* to find a gun, and it *happened* to
discharge, and it *happened* to strike the woman if you like. Perhaps it
was also happenstance that he was deported five times, was convicted of
prior felonies while here and just happened to select a sanctuary city to
reside in if you like. Just an unfortunate series of events that show
nothing of significance to a liberal, if anything they would think the guy
was the victim.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-crime-immigrant-idUSKBN1DV3CR

>But if
> you're playing with fire extinguishers and other weapons, accidents are
> bound to happen....

What evidence do you have that Sicknick was struck by a fire
extinguisher?

[John Corbett]

It's a sad commentary on the mainstream media that we can't take their
word for ANYTHING. How can I trust people to accurately report the news
when they have such an obvious bias and agenda. Even if they are telling
me the truth, they are only telling half of it, the half they won't me to
know.

It is an absolute disgrace that they ran with the story for weeks that a
Capitol cop had been murdered during the riot and when they finally did
fess up, they did so without a hint of remorse. Most of the people who
control the information that the public is receiving are complete scumbags
who don't deserve an ounce of respect and most people don't give them any.
I have more respect for drug dealers, pimps, and whores than I do for the
most of the people that report the news. At least they are giving people
what they pay for.

[Bud]

This new liberalism seems totally unprincipled to me, it seems very "the
end justifies the means", if they can fib or spin information it is ok if
it helps save the planet (in their eyes) or helps fight racism (in their
eyes). Since all the people at the Capitol event are convicted racists in
the eyes of the left anything done to them is fine.

I generally avoid the MSM, but when I sign out of my email on AOL there
are usually some headlines and I might click on one if the headline baits
me.

Today it was this one...

"Fighting Biden virus aid, GOP rekindles Obama-era strategy."

I clicked to find out what "strategy" was being "rekindled" and found
out the strategy was telling the truth. The first paragraph has this...

"Republicans have one goal for President Joe Biden’s $1.9
trillion COVID-19 relief package: to erode public support for the rescue
plan by portraying it as too big, too bloated and too much wasteful public
spending for a pandemic that’s almost over."

Calling it what it is is portrayed as some ploy to fool the public.

https://www.aol.com/news/fighting-biden-virus-aid-gop-052006685-125614295.html

A huge chunk of money is going to bail out blue states so they can
continue to do the things that put them in the red in the first place.

Another headline was about the impending Chauvin trial. There will be
nationwide riots because, why not? Looting and destruction has been
decriminalized. The only thing that will stop this from occurring time and
time again is a zero tolerance policy like that shown with the Capitol
protests.

https://www.aol.com/news/minneapolis-prepares-potential-unrest-ahead-110046142.html

You see a lot of talk about emotion in these articles, unfortunately it
carries no weight in a courtroom (or shouldn`t, anyway). These people are
bound to be disappointed.

Democrats are always there to throw fuel on the fire...

“We know that this trial is going to reignite the same kind of
emotional and social response that we saw last summer,” the
councilman said.

Hilarious that they are afraid that white supremacists are going to show
up and start trouble. That is the least of their worries.

[John Corbett]

That's pretty much how I stay current. My homepage brings up headlines
froa variety of sources. Mostly liberal ones but a few conservative sites.
The sad thing is NOBODY is reporting straight news any more. I quit
subscribing to the Columbus Dispatch years ago. I can't remember the last
time I watched the nightly news on any of the networks. It used to be I
couldn't watch MSNBC or CNN for more than 30 seconds before I was ready to
punch somebody in the mouth but I've moved beyond that. Now I want to
strangle them.

> Today it was this one...
>
> "Fighting Biden virus aid, GOP rekindles Obama-era strategy."
>
> I clicked to find out what "strategy" was being "rekindled" and found
> out the strategy was telling the truth. The first paragraph has this...
>
> "Republicans have one goal for President Joe Biden’s $1.9
> trillion COVID-19 relief package: to erode public support for the rescue
> plan by portraying it as too big, too bloated and too much wasteful public
> spending for a pandemic that’s almost over."
>
> Calling it what it is is portrayed as some ploy to fool the public.

The one thing the MSM can't stand is somebody telling the truth. That's
dirty pool.

>
> https://www.aol.com/news/fighting-biden-virus-aid-gop-052006685-125614295.html
>
> A huge chunk of money is going to bail out blue states so they can
> continue to do the things that put them in the red in the first place.
>
> Another headline was about the impending Chauvin trial. There will be
> nationwide riots because, why not? Looting and destruction has been
> decriminalized. The only thing that will stop this from occurring time and
> time again is a zero tolerance policy like that shown with the Capitol
> protests.
>

Last summer the left decided that rioting was a legitimate form of protest
as long as it is the left that is doing the rioting. If the right does it,
it's an insurrection.

> https://www.aol.com/news/minneapolis-prepares-potential-unrest-ahead-110046142.html
>
> You see a lot of talk about emotion in these articles, unfortunately it
> carries no weight in a courtroom (or shouldn`t, anyway). These people are
> bound to be disappointed.
>
> Democrats are always there to throw fuel on the fire...
>
> “We know that this trial is going to reignite the same kind of
> emotional and social response that we saw last summer,” the
> councilman said.
>
> Hilarious that they are afraid that white supremacists are going to show
> up and start trouble. That is the least of their worries.

I think it's going to be very difficult to get a conviction one the murder
charge and some level manslaughter is the likely result with Chauvin
serving no more than a couple of years. A hung jury is a distinct
possibility too. Neither one of those will appease the left and we can
count on renewed rioting, excuse me, I meant renewed mostly peaceful
protests.

[Bud]

Something new in the Chauvin case. A year almost to the day of the fatal
Chauvin police stop Floyd swallowed drugs during a police stop and almost
died. The court wasn`t going to allow this, but it seems like the judge
changed his mind and is going to allow it.

Lawyers discuss it here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVIhEsR9GBU

[John Corbett]

It would seem that is pertinent to the question of the cause of death
which is central to the case. I still think Chauvin's actions were
inexcusable but if reasonable doubt can be raised as to thecause of death,
there shouldn't be a homicide conviction, even for the lesser charge of
manslaughter.

My hunch is we will get a hung jury. That will probably mean either a plea
bargain or a retrial and likely another hung jury.

[Chuck Schuyler]

I'm at Ground Zero. In fact, I dove by the courthouse last week when I
took my wife to get her COVID shot. Barricades, fencing, and protesters
already.

The pressure to convict him is immense. If the jury does it's job, I don't
think Chauvin is convicted of second degree murder, but then again, I
thought there was no way a jury would find OJ not guilty. Tough to tell
what a jury will do nowadays in the grips of the secular religion of Woke.

I'm glad I'm not on the jury, but I also know there's no way I'd ever be
asked to serve on a trial like this. When questioned in the jury pool, I'd
tell the attorneys that my mind is made up: George Floyd died of a drug
overdose while the cops tried to reasonably restrain him and called for an
ambulance. No murder. Chauvin may well be guilty of something, but not
second degree murder. I don't think he did anything to intentionally harm
this man. I don't see how the other cops even remotely did ANYTHING wrong.
One cop had been on the job for four days. I think another cop was also
brand new, and they reasonably deferred to Chauvin on the actions to take.

I shudder to think what this town will look like if Chauvin is found not
guilty. Glad I'm armed.

[Bud]

Notice that when a white guy shot those Asian workers at the massage
parlors a few days back the immediate contrived narrative of the
Democrats/Media was that racism was the cause. When a brown person shoots
a bunch of white people in Boulder, the immediate contrived narrative of
the Democrats/Media is that the gun is to blame.

[John Corbett]

Already they are pushing for new gun control measures in Congress. WOW,
who could have seen that coming. They don't even wait until the bodies are
cold.

[John Corbett]

What could they be protesting at this time. Maybe they are just
practicing. In any case, it is a little disturbing to think our justice
system could be influenced by an angry mob but that seems to be the
reality. Those jurors are going to pass by those protesters on their way
into the courthouse. Is that going to influence them. That will depend on
the mental strength of the jurors and that can vary greatly from one
person to the next.

>
> The pressure to convict him is immense. If the jury does it's job, I don't
> think Chauvin is convicted of second degree murder, but then again, I
> thought there was no way a jury would find OJ not guilty. Tough to tell
> what a jury will do nowadays in the grips of the secular religion of Woke.
>

I served on a jury in a murder case. Not a high profile one like this. The
pressure came from inside the jury room as it should be. Early on we
determined the accused was guilty but we deliberated for three days as to
the degree of murder. Ten wanted aggravated murder which is the Ohio
equivalent of murder one. Two wanted just murder (murder two). I was one
of the two and despite immense pressure from the ten we stood our ground.
Maybe it was my background as a professional umpire which had conditioned
me to making unpopular decisions. It was myself and another woman and
eventually the ten realized we weren't going to budge and reluctantly
agreed to the murder conviction rather than have a hung jury.

> I'm glad I'm not on the jury, but I also know there's no way I'd ever be
> asked to serve on a trial like this. When questioned in the jury pool, I'd
> tell the attorneys that my mind is made up: George Floyd died of a drug
> overdose while the cops tried to reasonably restrain him and called for an
> ambulance. No murder. Chauvin may well be guilty of something, but not
> second degree murder. I don't think he did anything to intentionally harm
> this man. I don't see how the other cops even remotely did ANYTHING wrong.
> One cop had been on the job for four days. I think another cop was also
> brand new, and they reasonably deferred to Chauvin on the actions to take.

You could always use the old line, "I think we should give him a fair
trial and then hang him.". That should get you excused. A friend of mine
told me, only half in jest, that nobody is innocent. If they weren't
guilty they wouldn't be there. I've been on jury duty twice and it was an
interesting experience. The first time I spent three weeks in the jury
pool in Columbus, OH and sat on three jury panels, two criminal and one
civil. The other criminal trial was a forgery case which was a slam dunk
conviction. The civil case lasted almost a week and after the plaintiffs
had presented their case, the judge dismissed it without the jury every
deliberating. In the rural county I live in now, they call for jurors as
needed. I sat on another civil trial and the same thing happened.

>
> I shudder to think what this town will look like if Chauvin is found not
> guilty. Glad I'm armed.

I initially thought that Chauvin's actions were inexcusable and still do.
Whether they were the primary cause of death or not now seems to be in
doubt. It might come down to the nuances of the law and whether Chauvin's
actions contributed to Floyd's death even if the drugs were the primary
cause. I don't know the answer to that and will probably be a question the
jury will have to wrestle with.

[Bud]

I expect that jury selection is the most important aspect of this case.
I expect that for most people their mind is made up and their bias will
outweigh the evidence presented. I also expect most jurors are deceitful
abut their true feelings in order to get on the jury (you watch, the media
will uncover biased statements made by some of these jurors made on social
media *after* they return a verdict).

I looked at the questionnaire they presented the jury, and I thought a
question like "Would you think it to be an injustice if Chauvin was found
not guilty of all charges?' or something along those lines should have
been asked. If they don`t see this as a viable possibility they shouldn`t
be allowed to serve.

> > The pressure to convict him is immense. If the jury does it's job, I don't
> > think Chauvin is convicted of second degree murder, but then again, I
> > thought there was no way a jury would find OJ not guilty. Tough to tell
> > what a jury will do nowadays in the grips of the secular religion of Woke.
> >
> I served on a jury in a murder case. Not a high profile one like this. The
> pressure came from inside the jury room as it should be. Early on we
> determined the accused was guilty but we deliberated for three days as to
> the degree of murder. Ten wanted aggravated murder which is the Ohio
> equivalent of murder one. Two wanted just murder (murder two). I was one
> of the two and despite immense pressure from the ten we stood our ground.
> Maybe it was my background as a professional umpire which had conditioned
> me to making unpopular decisions. It was myself and another woman and
> eventually the ten realized we weren't going to budge and reluctantly
> agreed to the murder conviction rather than have a hung jury.

Maybe it was your background as an umpire that conditioned you to stick
with your initial call even if it was wrong.

> > I'm glad I'm not on the jury, but I also know there's no way I'd ever be
> > asked to serve on a trial like this. When questioned in the jury pool, I'd
> > tell the attorneys that my mind is made up: George Floyd died of a drug
> > overdose while the cops tried to reasonably restrain him and called for an
> > ambulance. No murder. Chauvin may well be guilty of something, but not
> > second degree murder. I don't think he did anything to intentionally harm
> > this man. I don't see how the other cops even remotely did ANYTHING wrong.
> > One cop had been on the job for four days. I think another cop was also
> > brand new, and they reasonably deferred to Chauvin on the actions to take.
> You could always use the old line, "I think we should give him a fair
> trial and then hang him.". That should get you excused. A friend of mine
> told me, only half in jest, that nobody is innocent. If they weren't
> guilty they wouldn't be there. I've been on jury duty twice and it was an
> interesting experience. The first time I spent three weeks in the jury
> pool in Columbus, OH and sat on three jury panels, two criminal and one
> civil. The other criminal trial was a forgery case which was a slam dunk
> conviction. The civil case lasted almost a week and after the plaintiffs
> had presented their case, the judge dismissed it without the jury every
> deliberating. In the rural county I live in now, they call for jurors as
> needed. I sat on another civil trial and the same thing happened.
> >
> > I shudder to think what this town will look like if Chauvin is found not
> > guilty. Glad I'm armed.
> I initially thought that Chauvin's actions were inexcusable and still do.

I still think it is possible that it plays out exactly the same had the
cops played "patty-cake" over Floyd.

> Whether they were the primary cause of death or not now seems to be in
> doubt. It might come down to the nuances of the law and whether Chauvin's
> actions contributed to Floyd's death even if the drugs were the primary
> cause. I don't know the answer to that and will probably be a question the
> jury will have to wrestle with.

I think the worst this is the mainstream media is reluctant to make
public the mitigating factors that could contribute to the verdict. They
should be informing the public, instead they add to the hysteria. I think
they like to see cities burn, a lot of leftists have an anarchist
streak.

[Bud]

And the measures they want to implement are always ones that wouldn`t
have impacted the event they are responding to had they been in place.

And if it was a white supremacist who did the shooting, his beliefs
would be very significant. Since it is a Muslim, his beliefs aren`t seen
as significant.

[Chuck Schuyler]

...or that we need to gather more information before the motives of the
shooter are known, along with the obligatory plea not to jump to
conclusions because he was a Muslim.

That would be Islamophobia.

Six dead Asian sex workers killed by a white guy? MSM before the bodies
cool: "RACISM!!!!". (Who cares about the two Caucasian sex workers that
were killed.) Instant pop-up protests around the country with placards
reading, "End Anti-Asian Racism!" "Whiteness is a Disease!"

Follow up stories on the front page of the NYTs, Washington Post, lead
story on the ABC, NBC, CBS nightly news for days on end, and on and on.

Ten dead Caucasians including a Christian cop who left a wife and seven
children, killed by a Trump hating, pro-ISIS Muslim immigrant? MSM: "Hey,
be careful of the Islamophobia. Let's hold off until all the motives are
known. Oh, gun control."

Follow up story weeks later in a few papers buried on pg. 14 under the
headline, "Republicans Pounce on News Boulder Shooter Devout Muslim."

[John Corbett]

There are rules that attorneys must follow during the voir dire process
although it would probably require a lawyer to tell us just what those
rules are. I'm not sure a question that specific would pass muster. I do
remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.". The lawyer's
facial expression revealed his dismay. The lawyer used one of his
peremptory challenges to dismiss that juror. Both sides are given a fixed
number of peremptory challenges which they can use to dismiss a juror
without cause. Sometimes he can be because he didn't like a juror's answer
as in the case above and sometimes it is just a hunch. Lawyers can also
have as many jurors dismissed for cause when such cause arises. That same
lawyer dismissed another juror for cause because another of his clients
was accused of burglarizing that juror's apartment.

> > > The pressure to convict him is immense. If the jury does it's job, I don't
> > > think Chauvin is convicted of second degree murder, but then again, I
> > > thought there was no way a jury would find OJ not guilty. Tough to tell
> > > what a jury will do nowadays in the grips of the secular religion of Woke.
> > >
> > I served on a jury in a murder case. Not a high profile one like this. The
> > pressure came from inside the jury room as it should be. Early on we
> > determined the accused was guilty but we deliberated for three days as to
> > the degree of murder. Ten wanted aggravated murder which is the Ohio
> > equivalent of murder one. Two wanted just murder (murder two). I was one
> > of the two and despite immense pressure from the ten we stood our ground.
> > Maybe it was my background as a professional umpire which had conditioned
> > me to making unpopular decisions. It was myself and another woman and
> > eventually the ten realized we weren't going to budge and reluctantly
> > agreed to the murder conviction rather than have a hung jury.

> Maybe it was your background as an umpire that conditioned you to stick
> with your initial call even if it was wrong.

You'd never expect me to admit that would you?

Jurors are instructed to avoid any news coverage of a trial. Except in the
rare event of a sequestered jury, jurors are on the honor system to adhere
to that. I can say that in none of the jury deliberations I was a part of,
no juror brought up anything they had heard outside the courtroom.

[Bud]

I saw "My Cousin Vinny" also.

> although it would probably require a lawyer to tell us just what those
> rules are. I'm not sure a question that specific would pass muster.

Several jurors said they saw that tape of the incident. Is it possible
to see the video and not form some opinion?

> I do
> remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
> lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
> guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
> see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
> wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".

I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
the matter and decided the person is guilty. The best I can say is you
will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.

Are umpires allowed to change a call?

I remember a story a ball player told where the ump told him "You know
you`re safe, and I know you`re safe, but 40,000 people see my hand up
calling you out, so you`re out".

I meant the general public. The MSM should have some obligation to tell
people the facts that mitigate against the emotionalism of the angry mobs.

[John Corbett]

I knew that term long before I saw that movie. I will admit I had to look
up how to spell it.

> > although it would probably require a lawyer to tell us just what those
> > rules are. I'm not sure a question that specific would pass muster.
> Several jurors said they saw that tape of the incident. Is it possible
> to see the video and not form some opinion?

It's possible. It's also possible for someone to set aside their earlier
opinion and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented at
trial.

> > I do
> > remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
> > lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
> > guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
> > see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
> > wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".
> I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
> innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
> the matter and decided the person is guilty.

The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to
decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers.
Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty.

> The best I can say is you
> will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.

You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
is innocent.

They are now. It used to be a judgement call was final. Now the emphasis
is on getting the play right either through consulting with your fellow
umpires or now through replay. It began back in the 1960s when Plate
umpires started asking the base umpires if a batter swung. It expanded
from there. Not all calls are subject to being reversed.

>
> I remember a story a ball player told where the ump told him "You know
> you`re safe, and I know you`re safe, but 40,000 people see my hand up
> calling you out, so you`re out".

That's an old story. I don't know if it every actually happened but it's
been repeated often.

You talked about contributing to the verdict. Nothing the MSM tells the
general public should have any effect on the verdict because the jury
should not be listening to the MSM.

The MSM has no obligation. They are free to be as bias as they want in
their reporting and most of them take full advantage of that. It used to
be despite their bias, reporters would at least try to report the news
fairly. Those days are long gone. Most of them have an agenda and it is
pretty obvious what that is. I have started watching News Nation on cable.
It's produced by WGN, the longtime superstation out of Chicago. It's more
like news reporting was 50 years ago. I think they have a bias, but they
aren't blatant about it. They attempt to get both sides of a story by
interviewing people with conflicting opinions and for the most part, keep
their own opinions to themselves.

[Bud]

For those that don`t know about that to which we allude...

https://youtu.be/GTPUzRXozF0

> > > although it would probably require a lawyer to tell us just what those
> > > rules are. I'm not sure a question that specific would pass muster.
> > Several jurors said they saw that tape of the incident. Is it possible
> > to see the video and not form some opinion?
> It's possible.

You think it is possible to look at that video and come away with no
opinions about what you saw?

>It's also possible for someone to set aside their earlier
> opinion and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented at
> trial.

The video has a strong emotional impact on a lot of people who saw it.
In a courtroom it will be a cold, analytical assessment of what the film
shows, which might serve to limit visceral reactions. But I think it will
be hard for some jurors to overcome the idea that Chauvin has to be found
guilty of *something*.

> > > I do
> > > remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
> > > lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
> > > guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
> > > see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
> > > wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".
> > I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
> > innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
> > the matter and decided the person is guilty.
> The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to
> decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers.
> Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty.

But as I said, I know that people who know the law and are familiar with
crime (both the initial police and the prosecutors/DA) have looked at the
evidence and deemed the person to be guilty of the crime. To presume the
person is innocent is also to presume these experts are wrong. A
presumption of innocence makes that assumption.

> > The best I can say is you
> > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
> You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
> perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
> panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
> is innocent.

The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
show me that I was looking at a guilty person.

I meant informing the public about why the verdict was reached, the
factors that were given weight in the courtroom. As long as the public is
largely ignorant of the "how`s" and "why`s" emotionalism will rule their
response.

> The MSM has no obligation.

If Trump can be held responsible for not dissuading the Capitol mobs,
why not the MSM? They often refer to the "climate of hate" that Trump is
supposedly responsible for, yet their reporting directly throws gasoline
on volatile situations.

They even tried to tie Trump to the Asian attack because he told the
truth about China being responsible for the COVID-19 crisis. Tenuous
connections are fine, while direct connections are ignored (like BLM
rhetoric getting cops killed).

[John Corbett]

Yes, possible. Not likely, but possible.

> >It's also possible for someone to set aside their earlier
> > opinion and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented at
> > trial.

> The video has a strong emotional impact on a lot of people who saw it.
> In a courtroom it will be a cold, analytical assessment of what the film
> shows, which might serve to limit visceral reactions. But I think it will
> be hard for some jurors to overcome the idea that Chauvin has to be found
> guilty of *something*.

Based on your earlier statements in other threads, it doesn't seem you had
the same reaction that most people had. On the other hand, a few lines
below this you stated, "I know that experts on law and crime have already
looked into the matter and decided the person is guilty.". Do you apply
that thinking to Chauvin?

> > > > I do
> > > > remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
> > > > lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
> > > > guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
> > > > see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
> > > > wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".
> > > I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
> > > innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
> > > the matter and decided the person is guilty.
> > The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to
> > decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers.
> > Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty.
> But as I said, I know that people who know the law and are familiar with
> crime (both the initial police and the prosecutors/DA) have looked at the
> evidence and deemed the person to be guilty of the crime. To presume the
> person is innocent is also to presume these experts are wrong. A
> presumption of innocence makes that assumption.

No, that is not true. By presuming an accused person is innocent, you are
saying to the people that have decided he is guilty that they are going to
have to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do
that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or
not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real
possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but
if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is
guilty.

> > > The best I can say is you
> > > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> > > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
> > You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
> > perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
> > panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
> > is innocent.

> The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
> show me that I was looking at a guilty person.

If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much
easier. You would almost certainly be asked if you are willing to presume
the accused is innocent and if you gave the same answer you have given
here, you would be dismissed for cause.

The criminal justice system stacks the deck against the prosecution and
for good reason. It is considered a much more serious travesty of justice
for an innocent person to be convicted than it is for a guilty person to
be acquitted.

The MSM does a very poor job of doing that. I remember when one of the
Kennedy cousins got acquitted of rape. He claimed it was consensual sex.
His accuser claimed he forced himself on her. More than one reporter said
that in the end, the jury chose believe him instead of her. That is not
what that verdict meant. The jury might well have found her to be more
credible but if they had reasonable doubt, they were required by law to
acquit.

> > The MSM has no obligation.
> If Trump can be held responsible for not dissuading the Capitol mobs,
> why not the MSM? They often refer to the "climate of hate" that Trump is
> supposedly responsible for, yet their reporting directly throws gasoline
> on volatile situations.
>

Trump is not responsible and neither are the MSM.

[Bud]

No, because I understand the political considerations outweigh the legal
ones in cases like this.

Like in the Trayvon Martin case...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

"The State Attorney's office initially determined there was insufficient
evidence to charge Zimmerman and did not file charges based on the capias
request."

"On March 16, Serino [the investigating detective] told the Orlando
Sentinel that his investigation had turned up no reliable evidence that
cast doubt on Zimmerman's account; that he had acted in self-defense. "The
best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says
the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event, everything I
have is adding up to what he says."

It wasn`t evidence that changed things, it was intense political
pressure. Jesse Jackson was saying...

"Jackson predicted that the protests will continue to multiply in number
and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.

“As long as he is outside of the court system, the protests will
intensify and spill over into other dimensions,” Jackson said.
“His lack of appearance in the court system is a source of
embarrassment and humiliation. He needs to face the court.”

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2012-mar-23-la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-jesse-jackson-20120323-story.html

Also the Arbery case should have never seen the inside of a courtroom,
the initial prosecutor saw no grounds for charges. Political pressure
changed that.

And even in the Chauvin case the political pressure is evident. Why were
all the cops charged with crimes, even the one who merely was holding back
the crowd?

These are all the product of political considerations, not legal ones.
If Zimmerman stops a white guy and the guy attacks him and Zimmerman
shoots him, does this go to court? Not a chance. Blacks have a gut feeling
that these things play out like they do because of race, and the system is
bending over backwards to appease them.

> > > > > I do
> > > > > remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
> > > > > lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
> > > > > guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
> > > > > see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
> > > > > wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".
> > > > I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
> > > > innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
> > > > the matter and decided the person is guilty.
> > > The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to
> > > decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers.
> > > Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty.
> > But as I said, I know that people who know the law and are familiar with
> > crime (both the initial police and the prosecutors/DA) have looked at the
> > evidence and deemed the person to be guilty of the crime. To presume the
> > person is innocent is also to presume these experts are wrong. A
> > presumption of innocence makes that assumption.
> No, that is not true. By presuming an accused person is innocent, you are
> saying to the people that have decided he is guilty that they are going to
> have to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt.

They would still have to do that even if I don`t presume innocence.

Facts are pesky things, and the fact is that most of the people who go
to trial are guilty of the crimes they are being charged with. Knowing
that, an assumption of innocence is absurd.

> If they fail to do
> that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or
> not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real
> possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but
> if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is
> guilty.

All that is possible without the presumption of innocence. A blank slate
where neither guilt or innocence is presumed works just as well.

> > > > The best I can say is you
> > > > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> > > > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
> > > You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
> > > perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
> > > panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
> > > is innocent.
>
> > The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
> > show me that I was looking at a guilty person.
> If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much
> easier.

No, because a juror isn`t tasked with determining innocence.

[John Corbett]

Since prosecutors represent an elected office, it would be naive to think
politics don't enter into their decisions. That is one more good reason
why our justice system raises the bar for getting a criminal
conviction.

Your attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are.
You're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence but for others
you give credence to the fact that cops and prosecutors have decided the
accused is guilty.

We will find out at their trials what evidence the prosecutors have that
the other cops were complicit. Until then all of them should be afforded
the presumption of innocence.

>
> These are all the product of political considerations, not legal ones.
> If Zimmerman stops a white guy and the guy attacks him and Zimmerman
> shoots him, does this go to court? Not a chance. Blacks have a gut feeling
> that these things play out like they do because of race, and the system is
> bending over backwards to appease them.

That might very well be true. In other times and places the political
pressure has been to crack down on crime which has on occasions resulted
in innocent people being prosecuted, many of them minorities. We have many
documented cases in which overzealous prosecutors withheld exculpatory
evidence in order to get a conviction. This is why we have a presumption
of innocence whether the accused is a cop, George Zimmerman, or some black
guy accused of a drive by shooting.

> > > > > > I do
> > > > > > remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
> > > > > > lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
> > > > > > guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
> > > > > > see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
> > > > > > wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".
> > > > > I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
> > > > > innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
> > > > > the matter and decided the person is guilty.
> > > > The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to
> > > > decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers.
> > > > Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty.
> > > But as I said, I know that people who know the law and are familiar with
> > > crime (both the initial police and the prosecutors/DA) have looked at the
> > > evidence and deemed the person to be guilty of the crime. To presume the
> > > person is innocent is also to presume these experts are wrong. A
> > > presumption of innocence makes that assumption.
> > No, that is not true. By presuming an accused person is innocent, you are
> > saying to the people that have decided he is guilty that they are going to
> > have to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt.
> They would still have to do that even if I don`t presume innocence.

You have already state that you give weight to the fact that the people
who have investigated a crime believe the accused is guilty. You have a
selective bias in favor of the prosecutors unless the accused is a cop.

>
> Facts are pesky things, and the fact is that most of the people who go
> to trial are guilty of the crimes they are being charged with. Knowing
> that, an assumption of innocence is absurd.

There is nothing absurd about it. It is one of the safeguards we as a
society have against an oppressive government. Countries which don't have
our safeguards make it easy for those in power to jail their opponents.

> > If they fail to do
> > that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or
> > not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real
> > possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but
> > if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is
> > guilty.
> All that is possible without the presumption of innocence. A blank slate
> where neither guilt or innocence is presumed works just as well.

You don't have a blank slate. You start with the inclination that the
accused is guilty unless the accused is a cop.

> > > > > The best I can say is you
> > > > > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> > > > > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
> > > > You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
> > > > perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
> > > > panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
> > > > is innocent.
> >
> > > The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
> > > show me that I was looking at a guilty person.
> > If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much
> > easier.
> No, because a juror isn`t tasked with determining innocence.

A juror is tasked with requiring the prosecutors to present compelling
evidence that the accused is guilty. You seem to find it compelling that
the prosecutors have made the judgement that the accused is guilty.

[Bud]

There isn`t the same tremendous pressure in the vast majority of
criminal cases as there is in these high profile, racially charged cases.
That is why I recognize this as a different animal.

>That is one more good reason
> why our justice system raises the bar for getting a criminal
> conviction.

I have no problem where the bar for conviction is. I was talking about
the starting point, the presumption of innocence. It is an absurd
assumption.

> Your attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are.

Not who the defendants are, what the situation is. Clearly the rules
change in these high profile, racially charged cases.

> You're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence

I looked at the tape and I read the autopsy report. I looked at the
arrest procedures in place at the time of Floyd`s arrest. It isn`t
presumption when you look at information, it is concluding.

> but for others
> you give credence to the fact that cops and prosecutors have decided the
> accused is guilty.

The lynch mobs have decided Chauvin is guilty. The system is all too
willing to appease the violent mobs.

Or you can look at the tape and use the brain you were born with. A cop
doing crowd control, *with his back to the arrest* was charged. This
doesn`t scream political pressure?

> Until then all of them should be afforded
> the presumption of innocence.

With the possible exception of Chauvin none of them should have even
been charged. The only reason they were is because cities were burning.

> > These are all the product of political considerations, not legal ones.
> > If Zimmerman stops a white guy and the guy attacks him and Zimmerman
> > shoots him, does this go to court? Not a chance. Blacks have a gut feeling
> > that these things play out like they do because of race, and the system is
> > bending over backwards to appease them.
> That might very well be true.

In which case this is injustice. Lady justice is wearing a blindfold for
a reason. We abandon principles for the sake of political expediency.

> In other times and places the political
> pressure has been to crack down on crime which has on occasions resulted
> in innocent people being prosecuted, many of them minorities.

Which has nothing to do with anything. Two wrongs aren`t going to make a
right. Doing things to assuage the feelings of a violent mob isn`t going
to accomplish anything.

>We have many
> documented cases in which overzealous prosecutors withheld exculpatory
> evidence in order to get a conviction.

And the reason they are documented is because they were exposed.

In the Trayvon Martin case the prosecution did not give the defense the
things on his phone, which the defense could have used to contest the
"good boy" persona being advanced. The problem is that all the powers the
be (media/politicians/bureaucrats) decide on the official narrative, and
anything that goes against the "lie agreed upon" is squashed. There were
things on Trayvon Martin`s phone that weren`t allowed to be heard in court
that did have a bearing on his character and conduct.

"Kruidbos was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6
that he believed prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense, as
required by evidence-sharing laws, potentially embarrassing evidence
extracted from Martin’s cell phone."

"Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found
photos on Martin’s phone that included pictures of a pile of
jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, and a hand
holding a semi-automatic pistol."

That Trayvon was a thug did have a bearing on the case.

I see no correlation between the absence of an assumption of innocence
and conviction of guilt. One is a starting point and the other is a
destination.

> > > If they fail to do
> > > that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or
> > > not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real
> > > possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but
> > > if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is
> > > guilty.
> > All that is possible without the presumption of innocence. A blank slate
> > where neither guilt or innocence is presumed works just as well.
> You don't have a blank slate.

You do if you don`t assume guilt or innocence.

> You start with the inclination that the
> accused is guilty unless the accused is a cop.

I assume political considerations are outweighing legal ones when I see
that political considerations outweighing legal ones.

> > > > > > The best I can say is you
> > > > > > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> > > > > > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
> > > > > You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
> > > > > perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
> > > > > panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
> > > > > is innocent.
> > >
> > > > The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
> > > > show me that I was looking at a guilty person.
> > > If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much
> > > easier.
> > No, because a juror isn`t tasked with determining innocence.
> A juror is tasked with requiring the prosecutors to present compelling
> evidence that the accused is guilty.

They would need to do this with me even if I didn`t presume innocence.

>You seem to find it compelling that
> the prosecutors have made the judgement that the accused is guilty.

Not compelling. A weatherman predicts the weather, using his expertise.
They are sometimes wrong, but the predictions are the product of a
process, they are noteworthy and significant. You shouldn`t assume it
isn`t going to rain just because a weatherperson says that it will, and
you shouldn`t assume a person is innocent despite a prosecutor telling you
he is guilty.

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 9:20:43 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:32:48 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 8:35:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> > > > Based on your earlier statements in other threads, it doesn't seem you had
> > > > the same reaction that most people had. On the other hand, a few lines
> > > > below this you stated, "I know that experts on law and crime have already
> > > > looked into the matter and decided the person is guilty.". Do you apply
> > > > that thinking to Chauvin?
> > > No, because I understand the political considerations outweigh the legal
> > > ones in cases like this.
> > >
> > Since prosecutors represent an elected office, it would be naive to think
> > politics don't enter into their decisions.
> There isn`t the same tremendous pressure in the vast majority of
> criminal cases as there is in these high profile, racially charged cases.
> That is why I recognize this as a different animal.
> >That is one more good reason
> > why our justice system raises the bar for getting a criminal
> > conviction.
> I have no problem where the bar for conviction is. I was talking about
> the starting point, the presumption of innocence. It is an absurd
> assumption.

There is nothing absurd about it. It simply requires the prosecutors to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. If they fail
to do that, the jury is supposed to acquit the accused even if they have
doubts about his innocence. It means that in cases of doubt, the jury
rules the accused is not guilty. They aren't necessarily saying he is
innocent. They are saying the prosecution failed to prove its case and
therefore it is presumed the accused is innocent.

> > Your attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are.
> Not who the defendants are, what the situation is. Clearly the rules
> change in these high profile, racially charged cases.
> > You're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence
> I looked at the tape and I read the autopsy report. I looked at the
> arrest procedures in place at the time of Floyd`s arrest. It isn`t
> presumption when you look at information, it is concluding.

None of us has enough information to decide whether Chauvin is guilty or
innocent because the evidence against him is just now being presented. It
seems to me the key questions are whether Chauvin's actions contributed to
Floyd's demise and whether Chauvin's actions were justified under the
circumstances. I don't know what the Minnesota law says in the case where
the accused contributed to a person's death even if he wasn't the primary
cause of it. No doubt that will be explained in the judge's instructions
to the jury. Until these issues are resolved, I am perfectly fine with
giving Chauvin the same presumptions of innocence I would give to a gang
banger accused of murder. In both cases the prosecution bears the burden
of proving that the accused is guilty.

> > but for others
> > you give credence to the fact that cops and prosecutors have decided the
> > accused is guilty.
> The lynch mobs have decided Chauvin is guilty. The system is all too
> willing to appease the violent mobs.

The jury is the safeguard against mob rule. It proved to be in the George
Zimmerman trial. It has been my experience in the four jury panels I
served on that the jurors take their job very seriously and do their best
to find what they believe is a just verdict. I believe that even about the
10 people whom I disagreed with in the murder trial I served on.

The tape doesn't tell us everything. It shows us somethings.

> > Until then all of them should be afforded
> > the presumption of innocence.
> With the possible exception of Chauvin none of them should have even
> been charged. The only reason they were is because cities were burning.

I am fine with giving all of these cop the presumptions of innocence. We
shall see if the prosecutors have compelling evidence of their guilt.

> > > These are all the product of political considerations, not legal ones.
> > > If Zimmerman stops a white guy and the guy attacks him and Zimmerman
> > > shoots him, does this go to court? Not a chance. Blacks have a gut feeling
> > > that these things play out like they do because of race, and the system is
> > > bending over backwards to appease them.
> > That might very well be true.
> In which case this is injustice. Lady justice is wearing a blindfold for
> a reason. We abandon principles for the sake of political expediency.

It would have been had George Zimmerman been found guilty. Fortunately, we
have a criminal justice system that presumed he was innocent and 12 jurors
after hearing the case against him ruled that the prosecutors failed to
prove that George Zimmerman was not justified in taking Treyvon Martin's
life.

> > In other times and places the political
> > pressure has been to crack down on crime which has on occasions resulted
> > in innocent people being prosecuted, many of them minorities.
> Which has nothing to do with anything. Two wrongs aren`t going to make a
> right. Doing things to assuage the feelings of a violent mob isn`t going
> to accomplish anything.

Our criminal justice system is designed to be a check on prosecutorial
misconduct no matter what form it takes. Presumption of innocence is a key
component of that. The burden is on the state to prove the accused is
guilty and that is true whether the accused is a cop or a gang banger. All
should be treated equally under the law.

> >We have many
> > documented cases in which overzealous prosecutors withheld exculpatory
> > evidence in order to get a conviction.
> And the reason they are documented is because they were exposed.
>
> In the Trayvon Martin case the prosecution did not give the defense the
> things on his phone, which the defense could have used to contest the
> "good boy" persona being advanced. The problem is that all the powers the
> be (media/politicians/bureaucrats) decide on the official narrative, and
> anything that goes against the "lie agreed upon" is squashed. There were
> things on Trayvon Martin`s phone that weren`t allowed to be heard in court
> that did have a bearing on his character and conduct.

Judges make decisions all the time on what is admissible based on their
interpretation of the law. They do not base those decisions on what the
MSM is reporting. If judges err in making those judgements, that is
grounds for an appeal in the event of a conviction.

>
> "Kruidbos was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6
> that he believed prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense, as
> required by evidence-sharing laws, potentially embarrassing evidence
> extracted from Martin’s cell phone."
>
> "Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found
> photos on Martin’s phone that included pictures of a pile of
> jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, and a hand
> holding a semi-automatic pistol."
>
> That Trayvon was a thug did have a bearing on the case.

This is why we have laws and legal precedence to decide what is and what
is not admissible. If prosecutors withhold evidence from the defense, that
too can be grounds for an appeal.

Your attitude gives the prosecution a head start they are not entitled to.

> > > > If they fail to do
> > > > that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or
> > > > not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real
> > > > possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but
> > > > if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is
> > > > guilty.
> > > All that is possible without the presumption of innocence. A blank slate
> > > where neither guilt or innocence is presumed works just as well.
> > You don't have a blank slate.
> You do if you don`t assume guilt or innocence.
> > You start with the inclination that the
> > accused is guilty unless the accused is a cop.
> I assume political considerations are outweighing legal ones when I see
> that political considerations outweighing legal ones.

When I served on a jury in two criminal trials, I began with the
presumption of innocence for both, one an accused murderer and one an
accused forger. The prosecution only partially proved its case against the
accused murderer. It failed to prove to my satisfaction that the element
of premeditation so I presumed there was no premeditation and refused to
vote for conviction to the most serious charge. In the case of the forger,
there was no doubt in anybody's mind he had passed some bad checks. The
physical evidence alone was enough to convince us. He had even given the
cops a confession which his lawyer recanted at the trial. We didn't even
need to consider the confession. We found him guilty based solely on the
physical evidence. We convicted him in less than an hour.

> > > > > > > The best I can say is you
> > > > > > > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
> > > > > > > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
> > > > > > You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
> > > > > > perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
> > > > > > panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
> > > > > > is innocent.
> > > >
> > > > > The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
> > > > > show me that I was looking at a guilty person.
> > > > If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much
> > > > easier.
> > > No, because a juror isn`t tasked with determining innocence.
> > A juror is tasked with requiring the prosecutors to present compelling
> > evidence that the accused is guilty.
> They would need to do this with me even if I didn`t presume innocence.

It doesn't sound like you would need much convincing for most people
accused of crimes. You seem very willing to defer to the judgement of the
cops and prosecutors.

> >You seem to find it compelling that
> > the prosecutors have made the judgement that the accused is guilty.
> Not compelling. A weatherman predicts the weather, using his expertise.
> They are sometimes wrong, but the predictions are the product of a
> process, they are noteworthy and significant. You shouldn`t assume it
> isn`t going to rain just because a weatherperson says that it will, and
> you shouldn`t assume a person is innocent despite a prosecutor telling you
> he is guilty.

If I am a juror, I am supposed to presume innocence. The burden is on the
prosecutor to change my mind.

[Bud]

That has nothing to do with the point I am making. The verdict comes at
the end, I`m talking about walking into a courtroom and seeing a defendant
and presuming his innocence based on nothing. The only thing I have at
that point in time to draw inference from is that he *is* charged with a
crime in a court of law. It is absurd to presume innocence under these
circumstances.

> If they fail
> to do that, the jury is supposed to acquit the accused even if they have
> doubts about his innocence. It means that in cases of doubt, the jury
> rules the accused is not guilty. They aren't necessarily saying he is
> innocent. They are saying the prosecution failed to prove its case and
> therefore it is presumed the accused is innocent.
> > > Your attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are.
> > Not who the defendants are, what the situation is. Clearly the rules
> > change in these high profile, racially charged cases.
> > > You're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence
> > I looked at the tape and I read the autopsy report. I looked at the
> > arrest procedures in place at the time of Floyd`s arrest. It isn`t
> > presumption when you look at information, it is concluding.
> None of us has enough information to decide whether Chauvin is guilty or
> innocent because the evidence against him is just now being presented.

I`ve caught a little of the case on CourtTV. So far it seems to be just
witnesses relating things that I can see for myself in the video.

Thought it was kind of weird that the witnesses have been allowed to say
prejudicial things like "I`ve never seen a person murdered before".

It is still an injustice when a person is taken to court who the
prosecutors know to be innocent of any crimes.

You`d be naïve to think these things are handled in a evenhanded
manner. You can be sure that things found on the phones of the people who
participated in the 1-6 Capitol event are being used against them, along
with anything they posted on social media.

Starting at zero isn`t a head start.

Probably not all that much different than you.

>You seem very willing to defer to the judgement of the
> cops and prosecutors.

What you see as deference is merely acknowledging the reality of the
situation. When you went to these courthouses you probably passed by a lot
of people. It would be fine to presume them all not to be guilty of any
crimes because you have no reason to believe they are. When you go in the
courtroom and see someone who has been charged with crimes it is absurd to
assume that person is innocent. You served on two trials and found both
people guilty of crimes, you think that is a coincidence?

[John Corbett]

The presumption of innocence is based on the principle that an accusation
of guilt is not evidence of guilt. The prosecution must start from the
ground floor and build the case against the accused from scratch. Until
the jury sees actual evidence of guilt, they are not supposed to even lean
in that direction. Jurors are instructed to not even form an opinion until
the defense has presented its case. That's probably unrealistic to think
people aren't going to at least be swayed after hearing just one side, but
the jury still must be willing to listen to the other side before coming
to a decision.

> > If they fail
> > to do that, the jury is supposed to acquit the accused even if they have
> > doubts about his innocence. It means that in cases of doubt, the jury
> > rules the accused is not guilty. They aren't necessarily saying he is
> > innocent. They are saying the prosecution failed to prove its case and
> > therefore it is presumed the accused is innocent.
> > > > Your attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are.
> > > Not who the defendants are, what the situation is. Clearly the rules
> > > change in these high profile, racially charged cases.
> > > > You're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence
> > > I looked at the tape and I read the autopsy report. I looked at the
> > > arrest procedures in place at the time of Floyd`s arrest. It isn`t
> > > presumption when you look at information, it is concluding.
> > None of us has enough information to decide whether Chauvin is guilty or
> > innocent because the evidence against him is just now being presented.
> I`ve caught a little of the case on CourtTV. So far it seems to be just
> witnesses relating things that I can see for myself in the video.

I've been rather surprised that witnesses have been allowed to describe
their emotional response to Floyd's death. I'm not a lawyer but it seems
to me that is somewhat prejudicial. Witnesses should be limited to
describing what they saw and heard. I've just been watching the news clips
so I didn't see the context but what difference should it make to the jury
what a witness felt after the event was over.

>
> Thought it was kind of weird that the witnesses have been allowed to say
> prejudicial things like "I`ve never seen a person murdered before".

I typed my response above before I even read your comment so it seems we
are both thinking along the same lines on that point.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say the prosecutors knew the
accused to be innocent. Prosecutors make decisions based on whom to charge
with crimes and those decisions are influenced by a prosecutors own
biases. I'm not willing to say the prosecutor believed Martin's death was
a justifiable homicide but charged him anyway. It might be that the
initial decision was based on the prosecution believing they couldn't
prove guilt, not that they initially believed the killing was justified.
I'm not defending the decision to yield to political pressure but I don't
think we can conclude the prosecutor knew Zimmerman was innocent.

Zero is a presumption of innocence. That is the starting line. The
prosecutors must present evidence that takes their case to the finish
line.

Presumption of innocence is not based on probabilities. It is a principle
that has been put in place to require the prosecution to do the heavy
lifting of proving that the accused is guilty. If I as a juror go into a
case with the attitude that most people charged with crimes actually
committed the crime, that is prejudicial against the defendant. It means I
am going to be much more inclined to lean toward a guilty verdict in cases
of doubt. That makes the prosecution's task much easier. If I presume
innocence, in cases of doubt, presumption of innocence compels me to vote
for acquittal. The prosecution has failed in its responsibility to prove
the accused is guilty. Our criminal justice system does stack the deck in
favor of the accused as it should.

It makes it far less likely that innocent people are going to be
convicted. That contrast to civil trials where the stakes are money and
property. In those cases, the defendant is entitled to no such
presumptions. The plaintiffs only have to present enough evidence to make
it seem more likely than not that their action against the defendant is
justified. They only need to tip the scales of justice ever so slightly
against the defendant.

[Bud]

Or even felt during. I suppose the defense sees no point in contesting
these feelings, might serve to underline them more. In a case like the
Kennedy assassination (to bring it slightly on topic) it would be fine for
witnesses to say they witnesses a murder, because it is a clear case of
murder. In this case "murder" is the point of contention, so I would
expect the defense to object to these types of observations.

In a related note, the Floyd family`s lawyers are doing their job of
lying to the public...

"As Ross delivered her testimony, Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci,
attorneys for Floyd’s family, issued a statement to reporters that
criticized the defense team for attempting to “construct the
narrative” that the fentanyl discovered in Floyd’s system
was the cause of his death.

“We want to remind the world who witnessed his death on video that
George was walking, talking, laughing, and breathing just fine before
Derek Chauvin held his knee to George’s neck,” the
attorneys said in a statement released to reporters as Ross testified."

https://www.aol.com/key-takeaways-day-4-chauvin-231634175.html

Two things. One, Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe before
Chauvin`s knee was on his neck. Two, almost everyone is doing those things
at some point prior to dying.

If Floyd did take a lot of drugs to hide them from a police search then
you would expect a delay where he could function normally.

Zero would be making no presumptions at all.

[John Corbett]

I don't know if they made an objection to this line of questioning but if
they are on record as objecting, this could be grounds for appeal. If they
sat mute, I don't think they can appeal later.

>
> In a related note, the Floyd family`s lawyers are doing their job of
> lying to the public...
>
> "As Ross delivered her testimony, Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci,
> attorneys for Floyd’s family, issued a statement to reporters that
> criticized the defense team for attempting to “construct the
> narrative” that the fentanyl discovered in Floyd’s system
> was the cause of his death.
>
> “We want to remind the world who witnessed his death on video that
> George was walking, talking, laughing, and breathing just fine before
> Derek Chauvin held his knee to George’s neck,” the
> attorneys said in a statement released to reporters as Ross testified."
>
> https://www.aol.com/key-takeaways-day-4-chauvin-231634175.html
>
> Two things. One, Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe before
> Chauvin`s knee was on his neck. Two, almost everyone is doing those things
> at some point prior to dying.
>
> If Floyd did take a lot of drugs to hide them from a police search then
> you would expect a delay where he could function normally.

The family lawyers are speaking to the jury pool for their expected civil
suit. Doesn't seem very ethical to me but it's what ambulance chasers do.

Not in our criminal justice system. It was designed to make it more
difficult for the prosecution than for the defense. The prosecution is
taking legal action that could deprive the accused of life, liberty, or
property. They should have a high hurdle to clear. If they fail to clear
it, the jury is supposed to presume innocence.

If at the end of Chauvin's trial the jury is unsure whether Chauvin
criminally caused Floyd's death, they are supposed to acquit him. That's
where the presumption of innocence comes into play.