Jump to content

Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events


Tigerbomb13

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, buddha said:

you guys should watch some voir dire sometime and see what shows up.

it will give you a good idea of what america really is.

I'll bet it would and it's a surprisingly good idea for a reality show.  Change the city every week.  "This Week in Jury Selection".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, buddha said:

you guys should watch some voir dire sometime and see what shows up.

it will give you a good idea of what america really is.

The times I’ve been on jury duty only strengthened my resolved to never pursue a life of crime… because no way in hell would I ever want to take a chance with my freedom in front of “a jury of my peers”. 🙄

People are scary.. and jurors , for the most part, don’t pay attention either during the trial or in deliberations. They also lie about having pre-conceived notions of innocence or guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smr-nj said:

The times I’ve been on jury duty only strengthened my resolved to never pursue a life of crime… because no way in hell would I ever want to take a chance with my freedom in front of “a jury of my peers”. 🙄

People are scary.. and jurors , for the most part, don’t pay attention either during the trial or in deliberations. They also lie about having pre-conceived notions of innocence or guilt.

two of my jurors are currently sleeping as i type this, lol.

(i'm just monitoring the case, and quite frankly its a little boring at the moment...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Archie said:

I've only had jury duty one time and I was the first person excused after being called.  They didn't even ask me a question.  Must be because I'm a grumpy white man.

Both the prosecutors and the defenses have an image of who they want as a jury, and neither get exactly what they want.

 I found the voir dire the most interesting of the processes. 
 

Sometimes you’re the wrong sex, wrong age, wrong color.  And then sometimes, your profession is a problem/or/asset.

Often, as soon as I said I worked for a bank, any financial case I’d get tossed. Other times, when I answered that I was a business analyst… well, you don’t want anybody analyzing what happened… both prose and defense would stand and say “excused”. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smr-nj said:

 

Often, as soon as I said I worked for a bank, any financial case I’d get tossed. Other times, when I answered that I was a business analyst… well, you don’t want anybody analyzing what happened… both prose and defense would stand and say “excused”. lol

The one time I did get chosen I told them I was a former traffic reporter, and occasionally covered other stories. Was really surprised when they kept me.

Was even more surprised when we all voted fairly quickly not to convict. Even the judge stuck his head in after the case to quiz us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone watching/following the Rittenhouse or Arbery trials?  I've watched a little of the Rittenhouse one, doesn't seem to be going well for the prosecution IMO.  Outside of Buddha, any other lawyers?  From a legal standpoint, very curious about the one lesser charge, the curfew.   The defense indicated they were done to the judge, the defense than asked for the curfew charge to be dismissed for lack of evidence, citing the only mention of it was a detective mentioning there was a curfew.  Now the judge is allowing the prosecutor to submit further evidence to prove the curfew, which now is also under question as another court has stated the curfew was not legal.   It's just a mess, and pretty much sums up everything else I saw from the prosecution.

For Arbery, sounds like the prosecution is doing well building the case outside of just the video for the Arbery trial. I still feel that video alone gets the guilty verdict there, but good to build around it as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Anyone watching/following the Rittenhouse

I suppose no advocate wants to lose a high profile case but if they are bumbling it's hard not to ask how seriously they want the conviction. Then again, as the OJ trial demonstrated, there are some pretty poor prosecutors out there. I wonder if they get too used to only facing perfunctory public defender defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Anyone watching/following the Rittenhouse or Arbery trials?  I've watched a little of the Rittenhouse one, doesn't seem to be going well for the prosecution IMO.  Outside of Buddha, any other lawyers?  From a legal standpoint, very curious about the one lesser charge, the curfew.   The defense indicated they were done to the judge, the defense than asked for the curfew charge to be dismissed for lack of evidence, citing the only mention of it was a detective mentioning there was a curfew.  Now the judge is allowing the prosecutor to submit further evidence to prove the curfew, which now is also under question as another court has stated the curfew was not legal.   It's just a mess, and pretty much sums up everything else I saw from the prosecution.

For Arbery, sounds like the prosecution is doing well building the case outside of just the video for the Arbery trial. I still feel that video alone gets the guilty verdict there, but good to build around it as well. 

i havent watched it.

the press coverage hasnt been very flattering to the prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pfife said:

 

 

funny and all, but while on vacation, this trial is about the only thing I've been paying attention to and man, MSM manages to screw it all up.  

Is the kid an idiot, yup.  But based on the law, there just isn't anything there.  Plus MSM is trying to turn this into a racial thing, as the reason Rittenhouse was there was because of the race related event, but he killed two white guys and the third was white as well.  The world is better off with both of them dead, but legally, that shouldn't score Rittenhouse points.  

Should a 17 year old bring a rifle to a hostile protest, nope.  Should there be a law against it....i'd support it.  But he didn't do anything illegal in doing so.  Crazy how the media portrays it and uses the prosecutor for all their soundbites.  Also ironic that the media by and large supported BLM and the overall idea behind them.  I'm not saying the media and all the left were ACAB supporters, but they were definitely ACAB sympathizers.   This prosecutor has ben  misrepresenting and over-charged this kid, while painting him as 'bad' while offering so little evidence he did anything legally wrong.  The entire closing arguments they clearly pushed for a 'well, if you don't like him, just convict him' approach.

MSNBC and all the left wing media sites are going to celebrate unrest, that they created by not providing the facts of the trial and preparing folks for it.  Instead they won't just celebrate the unrest, they will bring more folks on to help further incite.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

funny and all, but while on vacation, this trial is about the only thing I've been paying attention to and man, MSM manages to screw it all up.  

Is the kid an idiot, yup.  But based on the law, there just isn't anything there.  Plus MSM is trying to turn this into a racial thing, as the reason Rittenhouse was there was because of the race related event, but he killed two white guys and the third was white as well.  The world is better off with both of them dead, but legally, that shouldn't score Rittenhouse points.  

Should a 17 year old bring a rifle to a hostile protest, nope.  Should there be a law against it....i'd support it.  But he didn't do anything illegal in doing so.  Crazy how the media portrays it and uses the prosecutor for all their soundbites.  Also ironic that the media by and large supported BLM and the overall idea behind them.  I'm not saying the media and all the left were ACAB supporters, but they were definitely ACAB sympathizers.   This prosecutor has ben  misrepresenting and over-charged this kid, while painting him as 'bad' while offering so little evidence he did anything legally wrong.  The entire closing arguments they clearly pushed for a 'well, if you don't like him, just convict him' approach.

MSNBC and all the left wing media sites are going to celebrate unrest, that they created by not providing the facts of the trial and preparing folks for it.  Instead they won't just celebrate the unrest, they will bring more folks on to help further incite.

why is the World better off with the people dead? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

funny and all, but while on vacation, this trial is about the only thing I've been paying attention to and man, MSM manages to screw it all up.  

Is the kid an idiot, yup.  But based on the law, there just isn't anything there.  Plus MSM is trying to turn this into a racial thing, as the reason Rittenhouse was there was because of the race related event, but he killed two white guys and the third was white as well.  The world is better off with both of them dead, but legally, that shouldn't score Rittenhouse points.  

Should a 17 year old bring a rifle to a hostile protest, nope.  Should there be a law against it....i'd support it.  But he didn't do anything illegal in doing so.  Crazy how the media portrays it and uses the prosecutor for all their soundbites.  Also ironic that the media by and large supported BLM and the overall idea behind them.  I'm not saying the media and all the left were ACAB supporters, but they were definitely ACAB sympathizers.   This prosecutor has ben  misrepresenting and over-charged this kid, while painting him as 'bad' while offering so little evidence he did anything legally wrong.  The entire closing arguments they clearly pushed for a 'well, if you don't like him, just convict him' approach.

MSNBC and all the left wing media sites are going to celebrate unrest, that they created by not providing the facts of the trial and preparing folks for it.  Instead they won't just celebrate the unrest, they will bring more folks on to help further incite.

If there are riots after the verdict the MSM is to take the majority of the blame for how slanted and untruthful their reporting has been. They have labeled him a racist for no reason at all.

Also, Jen Psaki called him a vigilante yesterday, which is also a long way from the truth.  This is all after Biden called him a white supremist.  Its too bad even our highest elected officials don't beleive in innocent until proven guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Whether or not that was useful, what is your criteria for excluding Rittenhouse's activity from the common definition of 'vigilante'? i.e. "Self-appointed law enforcer"

 

Killing people because they have or are committing crimes is being a vigilante.  Rittenhouse is doing what he needs to do to protect his safety and life. Everything he did was self defense.  If he wasn't attacked I don't think he would have killed or hurt anyone and nobody would ever have heard of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...