Mayor: No matter what the jury says, he's guilty ?
(media.communities.win)
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Watch, it'd be the first cut for getting rid of jury trials, to be replaced with star chambers with "right-thinking" tribunals/judges. Because juries are made up of wrong-thinking rednecks and randos and such, how can you trust them to make proper decisions? :P This will be a push eventually, just watch. Even if they have to manufacture a dog and pony trial. "No pox found guilty, no white found innocent".
I predict a guilty verdict. The Jurors know it's their necks on the line, and when the choice comes between voting guilty and going home to your wife and kids, or voting innocent at great personal risk, few would be willing to follow the intent of a system that did not care enough to protect its guardians.
Yeah, especially now that someone left a pig's head and smeared pig blood at the (former, luckily) residence of one of the witnesses. The mob is out for blood.
The moment it comes down to a non Asian brown person vs a white woman IX will be rewritten or thrown out. Can't have nogs going to prison for raping their colonizers.
They're already turning on WW.
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/15/22231079/capitol-riot-women-qanon-white-supremacy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maiahoskin/2021/02/21/dear-white-women-are-you-abusing-your-racial-privilege/?sh=24cebbe83174
Once they're no longer useful they'll be walled next.
So, now we have a sitting US congressional rep saying that people need to get confrontational if he's not found "guilty, guilty, guilty!", and the mayor of Minneapolis saying that the jury's decision is essentially irrelevant. Waters on her own was - according to the judge - likely grounds for an easy appeal, and this just makes it more likely an appeal will succeed.
They're out for blood. I have trouble understanding their groupthink mindset.
It's a mass hysteria.
There seems to be quite a lot of that going around lately.
Mass Hysteria means they can pass draconic laws and ignore the constitution, so they want it to exist for as long as possible.
Let Mark Twain explain it to you:
They're actually not out for blood, only a few people even want that.
Most are just cowards who are virtue signaling that they are good people to their social clique.
Lynchings are the final form of a virtue signal.
Even the Romans could see through the scheme of the Sadducees and Pharisees both before the crucifixion, and after the crucifixion when they wanted guards posted to keep Jesus' followers from stealing the body.
I loved the part in the movie "Jesus of Nazareth" when the religious leaders asked for the tomb guard, and the solider looked right in their faces and said "What kind of people are you?"
I'm not familiar with these characters, but I did find the scene:
"What kind of person are you?" is what he asked.
What's the story here with Sadducees and Pharisees? I'm not a Christian so this level of minutiae is well beyond me.
It seems logical to keep a religious cult from stealing a body and claiming that their leader had risen from the dead, at least from a tactical perspective of an establishment force fighting an anti-establishment group who just had a martyr created. It sounds like the individual in black is, frankly, using the pagan Romans as independent observers. The followers of Jesus could rationalize as the individual in black describes.
What was these individual's scheme?
Why do you even need a jury or a even trial if he's already guilty no matter what? Reads like third world mentality.
Import the third world Elect the third world Become the third world
Witches had trials.
Do you guys think there is any chance in hell that he will be found not-guilty? If you were on that stand would you risk being killed by the mob on the likely chance that your identity will be made public?
The proper tin foil hat is: it was almost guaranteed so they're deliberately gunning for mistrial/appeal etc. to make faith in the system plummet. Not guilty would be a failure of the system despite the supporting evidence while mistrial etc. could be spun as the system being incapable of prosecuting because [insert racist reasoning] so burn loot murder until we reform that system.
That's too muh tinfoil for my blood but still not outside the realm of possibilities, shockingly. (They're too independantly retarded and ideologically driven for it, those above them though?)
I don't think that is tinfoil at all.
I have heard a few progressives openly say they hope Chauvin is acquitted so they can say the system is broken and fully accelerate.
I just don't think the rank and file are doing it knowingly, only reacting to stimuli as trained.
Oh, it'll accelerate alright.
They'll find out just how fast people will wake up and start defending themselves.
Yes frankly. They aren't public yet and from what I understand the prosecution overcharged and is getting blown out in the proceedings despite how the media's been trying to spin it.
It's entirely possible. I have no idea how this jury is going to rule. It's entirely possible that by becoming the target, they may resist and generate blowback. On the other hand, they may succumb to power.
A master and individualist mentality would be to respond with spite and anger to these threats.
A slave and collectivist mentality would be to respond with submission and prostration to these threats.
They way it's looking, he gets manslaughter then mistrial for sure, without even a shadow of a doubt.
Prime the populace for the destruction of your city
Apply for federal aid after city is destroyed, knowing current administration will give any anount you ask for
Get paid and apologized to, attribute violence to the actions of any ethnic or political group of your choice
I wonder which it could be...
When they burn down his shit city he will have earned it.
I admit that the thing on the left is funny as hell.
The Democrats have re-introduced
Lyncherdom
http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam482e/lyncherdom.html
When you remove the jury box there’s only one box left....
And that shelf's been empty for a year now...
Is that a white gorilla beating it's chest?
I am astounded by the sheer emotion in this picture....
How is this even legal?
How is this not interfering with a trial?
How are these people not hauled into a cell right now?
What the fuck is that bald dyke retard doing? Speaking chimp out?
That's just the usual understanding of justice of the left: anyone not on the left is always guilty no matter what they did, anyone on the left is always innocent no matter what they did.
The left is more on the person is guilty because they are not on the left so if it is not guilty it means that the laws are broken and we need to change them.
Good way of looking at it, they are never wrong and the laws are there to enforce their views. Not unlike religious fanatics.
That's not true. If they are accused of something by someone with more oppression points, then a left winger is always guilty as well. Though, they're then retroactively branded as "Far Right", so I guess you're sort of right.
Eh, it's more they need to evict somebody from the left before they can gulag them.
which is why I support doing the same wagon circling for our side since they keep picking us off
"I had a dream he was guilty so he's guilty!"
(an ex literally said this to me once. She was serious.)
It's easy to say this from the comfort of anonymity; but I figure if I were on the jury then I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, so I'd vote based on the evidence.
Then I'd immediately follow newly made plans to stock up on ammo and move to another state where I have good job opportunities.
Hey now. My female brain is more capable of unbiased critical analysis than many males I see spewing ignorant assumptions and jumping to unwarranted conclusions on this board and elsewhere. Am I an exception? Perhaps. But you should not paint ANY demographic with a single brush. C’mon, man!
Males have more variance. This is a known phenomenon.
NOT ALL
It is wrong to generalize all men as a monolith of abusers and monsters.
It is perfectly fine to generalize all women as a monolith of abusers and monsters.
Apparently.
Appeal to Minority Fallacy. You've become the very thing you set out to destroy.
I knew nuance was dead on the left. I hate to see it croak here too.
Huh? That was no attack. Sheesh! Just a reminder not to make such sweeping generalizations.
But your defensive hostility has been noted.
I believe he was making a point
I was on a jury last year, consisting of twelve white guys. Shit was cash. We had some twists and turns, but we pretty much arrived at a consensus that the accused was guilty of all charges. We only had two emotional holdouts, because the charges were pretty severe for the acts involved, even though they technically qualified.
One of the holdouts relented on the final charge, while the other admitted that while he believed the defendant did what he was accused of, he couldn't in good conscience say he was guilty, because he felt the court's charges were overzealous. It wasn't his place to do this, but thankfully, the judge told us that 11-1 would suffice in that scenario and finally let us go free.