In hindsight, the extensive reporting on the jury was obviously a misdirect. Leftist media wasn't intimidating anyone. All of these jurors were radical leftists who planned to vote guilty the moment they were selected. They dishonestly claimed varied and diverse viewpoints and impartiality, and the media broadcast those claims so that the masses would believe it was a legitimate trial. Anyone who actually watched the fucking thing knows that this immediate guilty verdict on all counts is fucking insane.
By the way, we have a serious problem when it comes to "red pilling" left-wing people in this country: these people don't actually watch or read news. No one I know actually watched the trial. They only watched what leftist media said about the trial. The same thing happened on election night; people who honestly believed it was the most important election in history went to bed at 11pm. Why? Because they had work on the morning? No. They just didn't want to see the blatant steal that occurred at 3am.
It's all as Yuri said. You can show these people hard evidence that disproves what they believe, and they simply won't see it.
I don't really disagree. I think that's why the prosecution behaved the way it did. It didn't matter what the facts were because the jury was being persuaded by emotional rhetoric and absolutely nothing else.
Absolutely concur. Prosecutor's argument was pathos-based trash. In my experience, if you have to resort to pathos, your factual case is in bad shape. Disgusting that this ruling even happened. Hopefully, the appellate court throws this shit out.
Unfortunately, it seems that pathos based arguments are way better than fact based ones... or maybe fact based ones aren't better than threats of violence.
Both points are absolutely true. You can mitigate the first to some degree by refusing a jury and allowing the judge to be both the trier of law and fact. Not much can be done against the second.
In hindsight, the extensive reporting on the jury was obviously a misdirect. Leftist media wasn't intimidating anyone. All of these jurors were radical leftists who planned to vote guilty the moment they were selected. They dishonestly claimed varied and diverse viewpoints and impartiality, and the media broadcast those claims so that the masses would believe it was a legitimate trial. Anyone who actually watched the fucking thing knows that this immediate guilty verdict on all counts is fucking insane.
By the way, we have a serious problem when it comes to "red pilling" left-wing people in this country: these people don't actually watch or read news. No one I know actually watched the trial. They only watched what leftist media said about the trial. The same thing happened on election night; people who honestly believed it was the most important election in history went to bed at 11pm. Why? Because they had work on the morning? No. They just didn't want to see the blatant steal that occurred at 3am.
It's all as Yuri said. You can show these people hard evidence that disproves what they believe, and they simply won't see it.
I don't really disagree. I think that's why the prosecution behaved the way it did. It didn't matter what the facts were because the jury was being persuaded by emotional rhetoric and absolutely nothing else.
Absolutely concur. Prosecutor's argument was pathos-based trash. In my experience, if you have to resort to pathos, your factual case is in bad shape. Disgusting that this ruling even happened. Hopefully, the appellate court throws this shit out.
Unfortunately, it seems that pathos based arguments are way better than fact based ones... or maybe fact based ones aren't better than threats of violence.
Both points are absolutely true. You can mitigate the first to some degree by refusing a jury and allowing the judge to be both the trier of law and fact. Not much can be done against the second.
Based Yuri reference.