Re: Capitol Mob - "Pretty Normal People"

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: 
> > On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5:25:20 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 9:51:58 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 8:09:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 11:10:12 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, March 22, 2021 at 9:28:58 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, March 22, 2021 at 6:38:31 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 12:34:41 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 3:56:46 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 12:55:13 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > > There are rules that attorneys must follow during the voir dire process 
> > > > > I saw "My Cousin Vinny" also. 
> > > > I knew that term long before I saw that movie. I will admit I had to look 
> > > > up how to spell it. 
> > > 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? 
> > 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?
> 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. 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.

> 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? 

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.