You, the Juror

[icanhelp1]

I see no problem in being a juror for Trump's trial, have no real social media presence so nothing to find there. He may be an idiot but until you hear the facts you can't truly quantify that.

It’s not against the law to be an idiot.

 

[KeithD]

You can't quantify Trump as an idiot based on existing facts? Or do you mean you would reserve guilt or innocence in the case going to trial on Monday until you hear the evidence?

I believe once an individual repeatedly shows himself/herself to be an idiot, that isn't something that gets undone.

This. Trump has very publicly self-identified as both criminal in multiple dimensions and as morally corrupt. There's really no need for more evidence of any kind to logically reach that conclusion from what Trump himself has done and said in public.

 

[HisArpy]

So are you saying Trump did not falsify his business records?

Are you wanting the charges to be thrown out before they are tried?

No, I'm saying that when you begin with an accusation of criminal conduct for what is legal conduct it shows your bias against the person accused.

For instance, a media headline which states; Trump seeks to delay accountability for his insurrection PROVES bias. It first asserts that there was an insurrection and afterward attempts to make the reader believe that Trump is trying to avoid responsibility for it.

The indictment in this case follows that same line of biased assertion.

 

[HisArpy]

It’s not against the law to be an idiot.

Thank god. Otherwise most of the PB would be in jail.

Which might actually be a good thing.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Thank god. Otherwise most of the PB would be in jail.

Which might actually be a good thing.

I agree, how's your Truth Social stock doing? Asking for a friend....

 

[AlexBailey]

No, I'm saying that when you begin with an accusation of criminal conduct for what is legal conduct it shows your bias against the person accused.

For instance, a media headline which states; Trump seeks to delay accountability for his insurrection PROVES bias. It first asserts that there was an insurrection and afterward attempts to make the reader believe that Trump is trying to avoid responsibility for it.

The indictment in this case follows that same line of biased assertion.

Spin, spin, spin. Trump hires attorneys like you who are willing to carry his water.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Thank god. Otherwise most of the PB I would be in jail.

Which might actually be a good thing.

Ftfy, carbon boy.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm sure that I would be dismissed on the basis of my social media posts, because I've made it very clear in social media that I think Donald Trump is corrupt, fraudulent, and stupid, and that he acted in violation of the Constitution. I've made it clear I think he's vile and loathesome. So it wouldn't matter what my answer would be.

But if asked, I would say that I could be a fair juror, because I believe that. If I felt that in a particular trial the evidence didn't support a conviction, then I wouldn't convict. I wouldn't hesitate to do that. I'm a staunch believer in the system and in the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[desecration]

If I felt that in a particular trial the evidence didn't support a conviction, then I wouldn't convict.

And this is exactly what you should be doing. Take a bow.

Not every jury does this. The appearance of the defendant versus the plaintiff is the biggest factor in bad juries, I think. If they dislike the D there will be jailarity. If they dislike the P, the evidence may prove insufficient.

Another big factor for me is that juries give too much weight to eyewitnesses, whose errors are responsible for 69% of exonerations.

Humans are often not reliable, and racial face blindness is a huge factor.

 

[HisArpy]

Spin, spin, spin. Trump hires attorneys like you who are willing to carry his water.

That you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Your bias shows with every post you make.

 

[dmallord]

That you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Your bias shows with every post you make.

Joan 'Bias' was a really good girl. I like her work particularly "We Shall Overcome." Those words are really moving unlike 'truth being ugly doesn't mean it ain't true.'

That song of yours carries a bucket of carbon water. BTW, don't forget to tune in to CNN for the special ”Blue Carbon: Nature’s Hidden Power” tonight. It's a new series about environmental studies.
His 'Baez' isn't evidenced in his 'every post.' It only shows up about like 99% of yours.

 

[dmallord]

No, I'm saying that when you begin with an accusation of criminal conduct for what is legal conduct it shows your bias against the person accused.

For instance, a media headline which states; Trump seeks to delay accountability for his insurrection PROVES bias. It first asserts that there was an insurrection and afterward attempts to make the reader believe that Trump is trying to avoid responsibility for it.

The indictment in this case follows that same line of biased assertion.

In a court case, a jury is responsible for evaluating the District Attorney's presentation, the relevant laws, and statements given by witnesses before arriving at a decision. It is important for everyone involved to set aside biases and make an informed decision based on the facts presented. This is how the actual case proceedings are supposed to work.

Headlines are written to draw readers' attention to an article's content. In your example, the trial may well have been about a charged insurrection, and Trump is claiming his innocence. Your example is not about this case, an important note: it is irrelevant to this thread.

Context is crucial when it comes to news articles. The example headline you provided may not necessarily indicate bias. If the article is about a case involving insurrection charges and a claim of innocence, then the headline may be an appropriate introduction to the content. The article itself may not have stated that there was an insurrection but rather that it was a charge in the case. The bias would only be evident if the article did not provide a fair and balanced representation of the case. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim that the headline is biased, only your interpretation of it."

Since your example has nothing to do with the thread, the example was just another red herring.

 

[desecration]

I could see nullifying drug cases on a Constitutional basis. The point would be to begin the process of forcing this issue before SCOTUS.