How is the juror in question being partial?
How is the juror in question being partial?
Optio, Legio I Latina
From a human standpoint no juror is impartial. It’s a matter of whether he was at an MLK Anniversary March or it was converted to something else in his opinion as he answered the questions.
But no juror is impartial and any judge that tries to say they are is naive. There has been rulings that both prosecution and defense get to be aware of their leanings before the trial however.
From the defense attorney side, if he’s not throwing wet pasta at the wall to see what sticks he’s not doing his job. Get the frak over it.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
I'm quite satisfied with the sentence, the guy got what he deserved. This was an important court decision and i hope it has a lasting effect in form of a reform of policing in the US. I suppose he's getting a minimum of 12.5 years, so hopefully something around 18 years.
In my opinion, historically? Nothing. It's a matter of whether he as a juror thought he was at a MLK March or at some BLM march and answered it as such on the questionnaire.
This may shock you, but they expect you to tell the truth on these forms to the point that it's a crime not to.
Might not do a damn bit of good for Chauvin. But may hurt the juror depending on how things come down.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Federal charges against all the officers involved for hate crimes and more. Seems they were guilty. Society has spoken.
To clarify: none of the officers involved have been charged with "hate crimes".
Last edited by Cope; May 11, 2021 at 10:36 PM.
You would know. I defer.
Anyone who did a cursory Google search would know. The DoJ released a statement regarding the federal charges.
The allegations relate to the excessive use of force by a law officer; they are not even descriptively "hate crimes".
A report by the Interior Office found that the protest at Lafayette Park in 2020 was not cleared by police for a Trump photo op at St John's church. Liberal news outlets had rushed to accuse the president of ordering an unnecessary, forceful dispersion of the demonstrators to take a photograph at the church. (NPR, NBC, WaPo).
Last edited by Cope; June 10, 2021 at 08:21 PM.
Most religious leaders of note in the US condemned the photo op period and it wasn’t just the big liberal news outlets who so reported. You familiar with a rag called
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bar...rotest-remarks
The Fox article attempts to present the conflicting versions of events (as they were known at the time) in a manner consistent with objective reporting:
The cited NPR and NBC articles were solely interested in disseminating the narrative (now contested by the Interior Office investigation) that peaceful protesters had been violently dispersed to facilitate a photo op. The cited WaPo article used the incident primarily as an excuse to print a banal comparison between Trump and Putin based on the militarization of the capitol complex (a perspective which was conveniently forgotten when 20,000 troops occupied the area for Biden's inauguration).There have been differing accounts about who gave the order and why.
Some vocal anti-Trump critics, like Episcopal bishop Mariann Budde, claimed Trump himself "sanctioned" having the park cleared so he could participate in a photo op at St. John's Church.
But a local news outlet in D.C. reported Tuesday that sources at the U.S. Park Police told them the park was cleared because some protesters were attacking police officers.
And while many critics claimed tear gas was used, the Park Police told WTOP it was smoke canisters that were deployed.
Later Tuesday, the Park Police went on the record to deny that tear gas was used, while also saying “violent protestors” began throwing projectiles including “bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids” before officers dispersed the crowd.
“No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park,” United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan said.
Of course, Biden and Harris themselves were quick to jump on the hysteria and amplify it:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Fox News is known the world over for its fair and balanced reporting.
This is an easy accusation to make. When in fact, Fox News' reporting is fairly accurate. They syndicate Reuters and Associated press for news articles.
Their bias lies in their editorial content, the emphasis they give to particular stories over others, and the slant they add to straight news articles through emotive article headers.
And in this they are probably better for bias than say CNN (their closest competitor in the space) - who don't use syndicated news and thus also add a slant to their article content.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM