Re: Capitol Mob - "Pretty Normal People"

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 11:07:32 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:37:18 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:30:26 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 9:20:43 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:32:48 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > 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: 
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > There isn`t the same tremendous pressure in the vast majority of 
> > > > > criminal cases as there is in these high profile, racially charged cases. 
> > > > > That is why I recognize this as a different animal. 
> > > > > >That is one more good reason 
> > > > > > why our justice system raises the bar for getting a criminal 
> > > > > > conviction. 
> > > > > I have no problem where the bar for conviction is. I was talking about 
> > > > > the starting point, the presumption of innocence. It is an absurd 
> > > > > assumption. 
> > > > There is nothing absurd about it. It simply requires the prosecutors to 
> > > > prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. 
> > > That has nothing to do with the point I am making. The verdict comes at 
> > > the end, I`m talking about walking into a courtroom and seeing a defendant 
> > > and presuming his innocence based on nothing. The only thing I have at 
> > > that point in time to draw inference from is that he *is* charged with a 
> > > crime in a court of law. It is absurd to presume innocence under these 
> > > circumstances. 
> > The presumption of innocence is based on the principle that an accusation 
> > of guilt is not evidence of guilt. The prosecution must start from the 
> > ground floor and build the case against the accused from scratch. Until 
> > the jury sees actual evidence of guilt, they are not supposed to even lean 
> > in that direction. Jurors are instructed to not even form an opinion until 
> > the defense has presented its case. That's probably unrealistic to think 
> > people aren't going to at least be swayed after hearing just one side, but 
> > the jury still must be willing to listen to the other side before coming 
> > to a decision. 
> > > > If they fail 
> > > > to do that, the jury is supposed to acquit the accused even if they have 
> > > > doubts about his innocence. It means that in cases of doubt, the jury 
> > > > rules the accused is not guilty. They aren't necessarily saying he is 
> > > > innocent. They are saying the prosecution failed to prove its case and 
> > > > therefore it is presumed the accused is innocent. 
> > > > > > Your attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are. 
> > > > > Not who the defendants are, what the situation is. Clearly the rules 
> > > > > change in these high profile, racially charged cases. 
> > > > > > You're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence 
> > > > > I looked at the tape and I read the autopsy report. I looked at the 
> > > > > arrest procedures in place at the time of Floyd`s arrest. It isn`t 
> > > > > presumption when you look at information, it is concluding. 
> > > > None of us has enough information to decide whether Chauvin is guilty or 
> > > > innocent because the evidence against him is just now being presented. 
> > > I`ve caught a little of the case on CourtTV. So far it seems to be just 
> > > witnesses relating things that I can see for myself in the video. 
> > I've been rather surprised that witnesses have been allowed to describe 
> > their emotional response to Floyd's death. I'm not a lawyer but it seems 
> > to me that is somewhat prejudicial. Witnesses should be limited to 
> > describing what they saw and heard. I've just been watching the news clips 
> > so I didn't see the context but what difference should it make to the jury 
> > what a witness felt after the event was over.
> Or even felt during. I suppose the defense sees no point in contesting 
> these feelings, might serve to underline them more. In a case like the 
> Kennedy assassination (to bring it slightly on topic) it would be fine for 
> witnesses to say they witnesses a murder, because it is a clear case of 
> murder. In this case "murder" is the point of contention, so I would 
> expect the defense to object to these types of observations. 

I don't know if they made an objection to this line of questioning but if 
they are on record as objecting, this could be grounds for appeal. If they 
sat mute, I don't think they can appeal later.

> 
> In a related note, the Floyd family`s lawyers are doing their job of 
> lying to the public... 
> 
> "As Ross delivered her testimony, Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, 
> attorneys for Floyd’s family, issued a statement to reporters that 
> criticized the defense team for attempting to “construct the 
> narrative” that the fentanyl discovered in Floyd’s system 
> was the cause of his death. 
> 
> “We want to remind the world who witnessed his death on video that 
> George was walking, talking, laughing, and breathing just fine before 
> Derek Chauvin held his knee to George’s neck,” the 
> attorneys said in a statement released to reporters as Ross testified." 
> 
> https://www.aol.com/key-takeaways-day-4-chauvin-231634175.html 
> 
> Two things. One, Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe before 
> Chauvin`s knee was on his neck. Two, almost everyone is doing those things 
> at some point prior to dying. 
> 
> If Floyd did take a lot of drugs to hide them from a police search then 
> you would expect a delay where he could function normally.

The family lawyers are speaking to the jury pool for their expected civil 
suit. Doesn't seem very ethical to me but it's what ambulance chasers do.

> > > Thought it was kind of weird that the witnesses have been allowed to say 
> > > prejudicial things like "I`ve never seen a person murdered before". 
> > I typed my response above before I even read your comment so it seems we 
> > are both thinking along the same lines on that point. 
> > > > It 
> > > > seems to me the key questions are whether Chauvin's actions contributed to 
> > > > Floyd's demise and whether Chauvin's actions were justified under the 
> > > > circumstances. I don't know what the Minnesota law says in the case where 
> > > > the accused contributed to a person's death even if he wasn't the primary 
> > > > cause of it. No doubt that will be explained in the judge's instructions 
> > > > to the jury. Until these issues are resolved, I am perfectly fine with 
> > > > giving Chauvin the same presumptions of innocence I would give to a gang 
> > > > banger accused of murder. In both cases the prosecution bears the burden 
> > > > of proving that the accused is guilty. 
> > > > > > but for others 
> > > > > > you give credence to the fact that cops and prosecutors have decided the 
> > > > > > accused is guilty. 
> > > > > The lynch mobs have decided Chauvin is guilty. The system is all too 
> > > > > willing to appease the violent mobs. 
> > > > The jury is the safeguard against mob rule. It proved to be in the George 
> > > > Zimmerman trial. It has been my experience in the four jury panels I 
> > > > served on that the jurors take their job very seriously and do their best 
> > > > to find what they believe is a just verdict. I believe that even about the 
> > > > 10 people whom I disagreed with in the murder trial I served on. 
> > > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > Or you can look at the tape and use the brain you were born with. A cop 
> > > > > doing crowd control, *with his back to the arrest* was charged. This 
> > > > > doesn`t scream political pressure? 
> > > > The tape doesn't tell us everything. It shows us somethings. 
> > > > > > Until then all of them should be afforded 
> > > > > > the presumption of innocence. 
> > > > > With the possible exception of Chauvin none of them should have even 
> > > > > been charged. The only reason they were is because cities were burning. 
> > > > I am fine with giving all of these cop the presumptions of innocence. We 
> > > > shall see if the prosecutors have compelling evidence of their guilt. 
> > > > > > > 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 which case this is injustice. Lady justice is wearing a blindfold for 
> > > > > a reason. We abandon principles for the sake of political expediency. 
> > > > It would have been had George Zimmerman been found guilty. 
> > 
> > > It is still an injustice when a person is taken to court who the 
> > > prosecutors know to be innocent of any crimes. 
> > I don't know if I would go so far as to say the prosecutors knew the 
> > accused to be innocent. Prosecutors make decisions based on whom to charge 
> > with crimes and those decisions are influenced by a prosecutors own 
> > biases. I'm not willing to say the prosecutor believed Martin's death was 
> > a justifiable homicide but charged him anyway. It might be that the 
> > initial decision was based on the prosecution believing they couldn't 
> > prove guilt, not that they initially believed the killing was justified. 
> > I'm not defending the decision to yield to political pressure but I don't 
> > think we can conclude the prosecutor knew Zimmerman was innocent. 
> > > > Fortunately, we 
> > > > have a criminal justice system that presumed he was innocent and 12 jurors 
> > > > after hearing the case against him ruled that the prosecutors failed to 
> > > > prove that George Zimmerman was not justified in taking Treyvon Martin's 
> > > > life. 
> > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > Which has nothing to do with anything. Two wrongs aren`t going to make a 
> > > > > right. Doing things to assuage the feelings of a violent mob isn`t going 
> > > > > to accomplish anything. 
> > > > Our criminal justice system is designed to be a check on prosecutorial 
> > > > misconduct no matter what form it takes. Presumption of innocence is a key 
> > > > component of that. The burden is on the state to prove the accused is 
> > > > guilty and that is true whether the accused is a cop or a gang banger. All 
> > > > should be treated equally under the law. 
> > > > > >We have many 
> > > > > > documented cases in which overzealous prosecutors withheld exculpatory 
> > > > > > evidence in order to get a conviction. 
> > > > > And the reason they are documented is because they were exposed. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the Trayvon Martin case the prosecution did not give the defense the 
> > > > > things on his phone, which the defense could have used to contest the 
> > > > > "good boy" persona being advanced. The problem is that all the powers the 
> > > > > be (media/politicians/bureaucrats) decide on the official narrative, and 
> > > > > anything that goes against the "lie agreed upon" is squashed. There were 
> > > > > things on Trayvon Martin`s phone that weren`t allowed to be heard in court 
> > > > > that did have a bearing on his character and conduct. 
> > > > Judges make decisions all the time on what is admissible based on their 
> > > > interpretation of the law. They do not base those decisions on what the 
> > > > MSM is reporting. If judges err in making those judgements, that is 
> > > > grounds for an appeal in the event of a conviction. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Kruidbos was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 
> > > > > that he believed prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense, as 
> > > > > required by evidence-sharing laws, potentially embarrassing evidence 
> > > > > extracted from Martin’s cell phone." 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found 
> > > > > photos on Martin’s phone that included pictures of a pile of 
> > > > > jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, and a hand 
> > > > > holding a semi-automatic pistol." 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That Trayvon was a thug did have a bearing on the case. 
> > > > This is why we have laws and legal precedence to decide what is and what 
> > > > is not admissible. If prosecutors withhold evidence from the defense, that 
> > > > too can be grounds for an appeal. 
> > > You`d be naïve to think these things are handled in a evenhanded 
> > > manner. You can be sure that things found on the phones of the people who 
> > > participated in the 1-6 Capitol event are being used against them, along 
> > > with anything they posted on social media. 
> > > > > > 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. 
> > > > > I see no correlation between the absence of an assumption of innocence 
> > > > > and conviction of guilt. One is a starting point and the other is a 
> > > > > destination. 
> > > > Your attitude gives the prosecution a head start they are not entitled to. 
> > > Starting at zero isn`t a head start. 
> > Zero is a presumption of innocence.
> Zero would be making no presumptions at all.

Not in our criminal justice system. It was designed to make it more 
difficult for the prosecution than for the defense. The prosecution is 
taking legal action that could deprive the accused of life, liberty, or 
property. They should have a high hurdle to clear. If they fail to clear 
it, the jury is supposed to presume innocence.

If at the end of Chauvin's trial the jury is unsure whether Chauvin 
criminally caused Floyd's death, they are supposed to acquit him. That's 
where the presumption of innocence comes into play.