My AP US History teacher was kinda racist. But she really liked me even though I challenged her all the time. We did the civil war and of course argued it was states rights and I said "yes to own slaves" and she gave me flak for that. So in response I said I'll pull up primary documents proving it and if I didn't she can fail me for the six weeks. She agreed. Next day I bring in multiple state secession documents that all, in basically the first line, outright state it's about the right to own black people.
Got an A for the rest of the year. Supposedly she used those docs to teach that it was about slavery.
+87
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My AP US History teacher was kinda racist. But she really liked me even though I challenged her all the time. We did the civil war and of course argued it was states rights and I said "yes to own slaves" and she gave me flak for that. So in response I said I'll pull up primary documents proving it and if I didn't she can fail me for the six weeks. She agreed. Next day I bring in multiple state secession documents that all, in basically the first line, outright state it's about the right to own black people.
Got an A for the rest of the year. Supposedly she used those docs to teach that it was about slavery.
Additionally, the southern states were complaining about the lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the north. They were actively arguing that the federal government needed to step in and impose its will on the northern states.
So in a way, there was a grievance about state's rights, just in the exact opposite way that people who say "it was about state's rights" think.
My AP US History teacher was kinda racist. But she really liked me even though I challenged her all the time. We did the civil war and of course argued it was states rights and I said "yes to own slaves" and she gave me flak for that. So in response I said I'll pull up primary documents proving it and if I didn't she can fail me for the six weeks. She agreed. Next day I bring in multiple state secession documents that all, in basically the first line, outright state it's about the right to own black people.
Got an A for the rest of the year. Supposedly she used those docs to teach that it was about slavery.
Additionally, the southern states were complaining about the lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the north. They were actively arguing that the federal government needed to step in and impose its will on the northern states.
So in a way, there was a grievance about state's rights, just in the exact opposite way that people who say "it was about state's rights" think.
Oh no. It's absolutely how they think. We demand our states rights be respected. But fuck your states rights.
Conservatives didn't give a fuck about liberal states wanting legalization, gay marriage*, sanctuary cities, trans rights, or even fucking gas mileage. No, those have to be beholden to conservative principles until well past where it should.
* Sure, gay marriage has the equal acknowledgement clause (can't recall the proper name).
RICHMOND — Workers have taken down the statue of Gen. J.E.B. Stuart on Monument Avenue, the fourth and final Confederate memorial located on city-owned property along the iconic thoroughfare.
A crane arrived early Tuesday, and the traffic circle around the statue was blocked off. A crowd of several hundred looked on quietly as workers prepared to lift the equestrian statue.
They erupted in cheers, applause and chants of “Black Lives Matter” and “Hey, hey, goodbye” around 10:44 a.m., as the statue came off its base and was lowered to the ground.
Only the titanic monument to Robert E. Lee remains standing on Monument Avenue, a Paris-like boulevard designed to highlight the Confederate memorials.
Lee is on state property, and while Gov. Ralph Northam (D) has ordered it taken down, a judge has imposed an injunction against removal because of a lawsuit involving the deed that conveyed the statue site to the state.
Another day, another statue of a traitor taken down in Richmond.
It shouldn't be (legal, that is), but prosecutors have broad discretion to boot your ass from the pool for any reason they like, including not fellating the cops sufficiently.
Commander Zoom on
+16
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
When lawyers undertake the civil-jury selection process, they often look for clues that, they hope, will provide insight into a potential juror’s political outlook. To many lawyers, a juror’s political perspective is so important that litigation teams nationwide spend time and resources determining whether a prospective juror has donated to or is affiliated with a political party. If such an inquiry is fruitless, even more time may be spent trying to deduce party identification. Does a certain juror have on his car an Obama sticker, a McCain sticker, or any sticker indicating candidate preference? When summoned on the first day of trial, is a particular juror reading about the virtues of Reaganomics or is she more interested in learning about how left-leaning approaches to economic stewardship are a recipe for financial success? Does a juror appear to be pro-choice, pro-death penalty, anti-tax, anti-government, or pro-environment? These inquiries assume that when a person’s political compass is revealed, a host of other litigation-related attitudes, beliefs, and opinions become evident and will reveal how a juror will render a verdict. Especially for attorneys who are involved in politics, the most imperative task for providing insight into how jurors will assess damages is to determine jurors’ political points of view.
+3
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Jury selection is a super important thing that the attorneys do
There’s a CBS show about it
+4
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Jury selection is a super important thing that the attorneys do
There’s a CBS show about it
So the defence or prosecution interview the jurors and select them? I didn't know that
In the UK you can get a juror replaced if you can evidence that they are definitely biased, but you need to prove to the judge they are, and apparently it's difficult and rare for it to happen. Most of the time you get your random selection and that is it.
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
The law shouldn’t be a board game. The only reason for dismissing a juror should be a personal interest in the outcome of a trial.
Well I am not an expert in these things and I am not sure which is the better way, although personally I find the idea that you get a number of exclusions you can use for anyone strange (this person seems educated in financial matters, I'll exclude them because my client has committed a financial crime and therefore it'll be harder to convince them they haven't do it, for example) but yeah I just didn't know that. Presumably it varies from state to state?
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
The law shouldn’t be a board game. The only reason for dismissing a juror should be a personal interest in the outcome of a trial.
Makes sense as a position right up until you get the guy that doesn't know anyone but is all "Eh, he's black, he's guilty."
Jury selection is a super important thing that the attorneys do
There’s a CBS show about it
So the defence or prosecution interview the jurors and select them? I didn't know that
In the UK you can get a juror replaced if you can evidence that they are definitely biased, but you need to prove to the judge they are, and apparently it's difficult and rare for it to happen. Most of the time you get your random selection and that is it.
In the US, jury selection is used by both sides to (try to) get juries that are at least neutral and at best "definitely biased" towards your client.
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
The law shouldn’t be a board game. The only reason for dismissing a juror should be a personal interest in the outcome of a trial.
Makes sense as a position right up until you get the guy that doesn't know anyone but is all "Eh, he's black, he's guilty."
That's obvious bias though. If they say that, and you go to the judge and say "well I mean look at what he said" then the judge should then exclude them. That seems fair. The Judge is supposed to maintain the impartiality of the court right, so that's them doing that.
Jury selection is a super important thing that the attorneys do
There’s a CBS show about it
So the defence or prosecution interview the jurors and select them? I didn't know that
In the UK you can get a juror replaced if you can evidence that they are definitely biased, but you need to prove to the judge they are, and apparently it's difficult and rare for it to happen. Most of the time you get your random selection and that is it.
In the US, jury selection is used by both sides to (try to) get juries that are at least neutral and at best "definitely biased" towards your client.
Seems very strange to me. But again, not an expert.
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
The law shouldn’t be a board game. The only reason for dismissing a juror should be a personal interest in the outcome of a trial.
Seems like it's advantageous to dismiss all the racists
all the people who were robbed by someone who looks like the victim
all the sovereign citizens
all the conspiracy theorists
all the nullification proponents
all the death penalty advocates
all the death penalty opponents
all the people who've been convicted of a bullshit crime
all the people convicted of a heinous violent crime
all the people who said on twitter that the defendant is guilty
all the people who said on twitter that the defendant is innocent
etc...
Is it legal to ask a juror's political orientation? I imagine this would be along the same lines.
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
The law shouldn’t be a board game. The only reason for dismissing a juror should be a personal interest in the outcome of a trial.
Makes sense as a position right up until you get the guy that doesn't know anyone but is all "Eh, he's black, he's guilty."
The problem seems to be that right now, that guy would be a highly valued member of the jury by lawyers.
To be fair, a lot of those qualifications are things that defense lawyers value too, especially the ones that are good at their job.
Johnny Cochran wasn't exactly looking for free thinkers or moral juggernauts when he was defending OJ, he was just much better then the DAs at leading around gullible morons.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Our attempt to break through the stereotyping that characterized this depiction of the murdered women was partially undermined by law enforcement’s response to the project. On the day the billboards went up, in one of his rare public responses to the project, Richard Lewis, head of the task force assigned to investigate the murders, told reporters: “NHI is an old term that goes way back in murder history, back to the old days on the East Coast” Lewis fictionalized the term, stating he first heard it “when I was a young kid reading detective magazines.” He also said police officers did not use the term in reference to the murders under investigation by the task force. Lewis’ spin on the meaning of NHI was quickly adopted by electronic and print media alike. Ninety percent of the stories about the project referred to NHI as “an old time police term,” i.e., a bit of folksy nostalgia without contemporary currency.
Lewis’ claim that officers don’t use NHI is refuted by published accounts of police officers who admit to using the term. In 1990, the Sacramento Bee quoted a San Diego police officer: “These were misdemeanor murders, biker women and hookers. we’d call them NHI’s-no humans involved.” While the exhibit was open, a police officer and a paramedic both wrote comments in the gallery book acknowledging ongoing use of NHI. Calling himself an investigator of misdemeanor murders, the police officer said he had been trained to disregard the humanity of victims from the “darker side” of life.
One of the most troubling pieces of information presented in the film is that police officers are reported to have used the unofficial acronym “N.H.I.” (“no humans involved”) to describe the slayings of prostitutes and drug addicts, such as the Grim Sleeper’s victims. “This film is a story of disposable human beings,” Broomfield said. “Certain sections of the LAPD perceive these people as their enemies. They consider them to be nonhumans, not in any way a useful section of the community. This behavior wouldn’t be tolerated for a minute in a white, affluent neighborhood . . . It’s easy for [the L.A.P.D.] to say, well, we’ve got Lonnie now. But they don’t want to answer why it took so long, because they can’t answer it. There is no way of answering it.”
Basically, a part of the problem is people incapable of empathy for a large portion of the population being at nearly every level of law enforcement and the justice system.
Couscous on
+1
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I like how part of the training is to make them feel what you want them to feel
that sounds like a great way to get justice
oh that's not what the Justice Department is about?
huh
funny, that
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
To be fair, a lot of those qualifications are things that defense lawyers value too, especially the ones that are good at their job.
Johnny Cochran wasn't exactly looking for free thinkers or moral juggernauts when he was defending OJ, he was just much better then the DAs at leading around gullible morons.
Watching OJ: Made in America made it clear to me that for some of those jurors it wasn't about OJ's guilt or innocence, it was about being able to tell the LAPD to go fuck itself.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Social workers - possibly understand that it's not deep moral perversion that drives most people to crime
Scientists - might understand when an anti or pro forensics argument is horseshit
Lawyers - nothing more threatening to a magician pulling rabbits out of their ass then another magician calling out the trick before it happens
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Social workers - possibly understand that it's not deep moral perversion that drives most people to crime
Scientists - might understand when an anti or pro forensics argument is horseshit
Lawyers - nothing more threatening to a magician pulling rabbits out of their ass then another magician calling out the trick before it happens
The lawyer might know that law enforcement lies all the time even if they don't do that kind of law.
Posts
Got an A for the rest of the year. Supposedly she used those docs to teach that it was about slavery.
Additionally, the southern states were complaining about the lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the north. They were actively arguing that the federal government needed to step in and impose its will on the northern states.
So in a way, there was a grievance about state's rights, just in the exact opposite way that people who say "it was about state's rights" think.
Oh no. It's absolutely how they think. We demand our states rights be respected. But fuck your states rights.
Conservatives didn't give a fuck about liberal states wanting legalization, gay marriage*, sanctuary cities, trans rights, or even fucking gas mileage. No, those have to be beholden to conservative principles until well past where it should.
* Sure, gay marriage has the equal acknowledgement clause (can't recall the proper name).
Another day, another statue of a traitor taken down in Richmond.
JEB!
Come the fuck on, prosecutors.
I mean, that’s a good litmus and it might even work both ways!
https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=81&Issue=12&ArticleID=1573
You cannot straight up ask someone what their party is and then exclude them based on that.
You can ask a lot of fishing questions to figure out their party and then exclude them based on those answers.
Nah. It says right there that people clapped. Unprompted.
Wait, you can just exclude someone from the Jury in the US? Like, the judge does that right?
There’s a CBS show about it
No. Each side gets a certain number of exclusions. Selecting a jury is an important skill and there are attorneys that specialize in it the same way there are those that specialize in trials.
So the defence or prosecution interview the jurors and select them? I didn't know that
In the UK you can get a juror replaced if you can evidence that they are definitely biased, but you need to prove to the judge they are, and apparently it's difficult and rare for it to happen. Most of the time you get your random selection and that is it.
The law shouldn’t be a board game. The only reason for dismissing a juror should be a personal interest in the outcome of a trial.
Basically assume the silliest possible thing with trials in the USA and you will be right most of the time.
Makes sense as a position right up until you get the guy that doesn't know anyone but is all "Eh, he's black, he's guilty."
In the US, jury selection is used by both sides to (try to) get juries that are at least neutral and at best "definitely biased" towards your client.
That's obvious bias though. If they say that, and you go to the judge and say "well I mean look at what he said" then the judge should then exclude them. That seems fair. The Judge is supposed to maintain the impartiality of the court right, so that's them doing that.
Seems very strange to me. But again, not an expert.
Preemptive challenges need to be made illegal.
Seems like it's advantageous to dismiss all the racists
all the people who were robbed by someone who looks like the victim
all the sovereign citizens
all the conspiracy theorists
all the nullification proponents
all the death penalty advocates
all the death penalty opponents
all the people who've been convicted of a bullshit crime
all the people convicted of a heinous violent crime
all the people who said on twitter that the defendant is guilty
all the people who said on twitter that the defendant is innocent
etc...
It is really messed up.
The problem seems to be that right now, that guy would be a highly valued member of the jury by lawyers.
Wait
Teachers? Social Workers? You can exclude them on the basis that they're too moral? Jesus Christ come on
It just straight up says to get rid of people who can think for themselves there...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Johnny Cochran wasn't exactly looking for free thinkers or moral juggernauts when he was defending OJ, he was just much better then the DAs at leading around gullible morons.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If you aren't sure what it means,
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/12/tales-of-the-grim-sleeper-nick-broomfield Basically, a part of the problem is people incapable of empathy for a large portion of the population being at nearly every level of law enforcement and the justice system.
that sounds like a great way to get justice
oh that's not what the Justice Department is about?
huh
funny, that
Watching OJ: Made in America made it clear to me that for some of those jurors it wasn't about OJ's guilt or innocence, it was about being able to tell the LAPD to go fuck itself.
Scientists - might understand when an anti or pro forensics argument is horseshit
Lawyers - nothing more threatening to a magician pulling rabbits out of their ass then another magician calling out the trick before it happens
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The lawyer might know that law enforcement lies all the time even if they don't do that kind of law.
Voir dire sucks! But, it’s really hard to design a better system
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget