Dammit, I can't find the links now. Yeah, it wasn't even a trial, it was a class activity that was a mock trial. OP is drastically wrong on this one, taken in by a random tweet.
It's not great evidence, but there's literally just the (now-deleted) tweet for evidence that she was a juror, and we really should be better about not taking the bait. And you're misquoting her pretty badly too.
I think a lot of people are missing the point. Chauvin’s life was over already. He was never going to be acquitted. It isn’t right, but I have no sympathy for him. Any cop that is too unsophisticated to understand optics and how the media can spin things doesn’t belong on the force.
Whatever the juror’s individual political positions are, they knew damn well it wasn’t Chauvin’s life that was on the line, it was theirs. If they had found him innocent, they, and likely their immediate families, would have all been murdered. They know it, we know it. Chauvin is irrelevant. What this represents is the final death of justice, where outside coercion can always determine the outcome of trials.
This has actually been a thing since Rodney King, you likely just haven't noticed.
Hell, when the cops who killed Malice Green went on trial, the glipglops were all gathered on street corners, just waiting to riot if they didn't like the outcome. But they were found guilty (as everyone knew they'd be), and they all went home without bothering to do anything. I'm damn sure this sort of thing has played out in different cities since.
This is just higher profile stuff, crap shoved in your face for political reasons.
If her she's had a birthday since she wrote her age on her twitch account, and she's mixed race, it could be true. Closest match was "super excited" for jury summons. Probably just a twitch thot though.
This is why jury duty and voting should have a check and balance other than age. She might be old enough on paper to vote, but she's still a bloody child.
Personally I don't see that as being an important investment in one's country. Especially when you're compelled to do so by law. I think the problem. Is the required methods have all been implied fascist, such as Minimum Service.
Personally, I'd say birth in a country is not a right to vote. You still get all your other rights based on human health and wellbeing but a citizenry test should be given and passed at a certain level for the right to vote. During possession of a right to vote, citizens should also then have criteria to meet to keep it. For example as you said, maintaining a net tax payment or in lieu of, proving work effort (ie volunteering).
However that isn't to say that there aren't problems with that as it brings us back towards hierarchical systems akin to feudalism (serfs weren't slaves, but couldn't vote thing).
The problem is, like most thi ngs it takes common sense to know when a system is being abused and the will to not abuse it in the first place.
It could even be much simpler I guess and instead of blind jury, we acknowledge opposing jurors and take people on specifically who think one way or another about the case at hand. In this case, three pro chauvin, three negative, three ambivalent and an elder who has seen/voted in a prior similar case (if not similar they're the tiebreak).
You shouldn't get to decide how money is spent if you aren't contributing any of the money. It's a pretty simple concept. People just vote to take other people's money otherwise.
So should voting but then you would only have the super rich vote.
With the amount of money our governments are spending no one is a net positive.
I paid 24k(income) in taxes up here in Canada but our government spent almost 40k per payer. Which would mean that rich and super rich would only get to vote since they are the only ones making over 40k.
I am not a zero sum game type were you hate on the rich.
If by "super rich" you mean someone who is a net positive to the text base? That's not super rich. That's just not a communist parasite voting for other people's money. Not a very high bar.
We're just taking random tweets at face value now?
Dammit, I can't find the links now. Yeah, it wasn't even a trial, it was a class activity that was a mock trial. OP is drastically wrong on this one, taken in by a random tweet.
but but 4chan said....
4chan also called you a fag, and you're not even a mod!
Yes, that adds up completely
As I said, I don't have the link anymore, but I was able to find one of her own comments in a screenshot.
It's not great evidence, but there's literally just the (now-deleted) tweet for evidence that she was a juror, and we really should be better about not taking the bait. And you're misquoting her pretty badly too.
believe all women
I think a lot of people are missing the point. Chauvin’s life was over already. He was never going to be acquitted. It isn’t right, but I have no sympathy for him. Any cop that is too unsophisticated to understand optics and how the media can spin things doesn’t belong on the force.
Whatever the juror’s individual political positions are, they knew damn well it wasn’t Chauvin’s life that was on the line, it was theirs. If they had found him innocent, they, and likely their immediate families, would have all been murdered. They know it, we know it. Chauvin is irrelevant. What this represents is the final death of justice, where outside coercion can always determine the outcome of trials.
This has actually been a thing since Rodney King, you likely just haven't noticed.
Hell, when the cops who killed Malice Green went on trial, the glipglops were all gathered on street corners, just waiting to riot if they didn't like the outcome. But they were found guilty (as everyone knew they'd be), and they all went home without bothering to do anything. I'm damn sure this sort of thing has played out in different cities since.
This is just higher profile stuff, crap shoved in your face for political reasons.
So those without personal responsibility are expected to be responsible in a court of law?
So they hired antifa
goth girls are antifa now?
That’s a goth girl?!
If her she's had a birthday since she wrote her age on her twitch account, and she's mixed race, it could be true. Closest match was "super excited" for jury summons. Probably just a twitch thot though.
FYI that could be fake. I saw other twitter screenshots alleging that.
[EDIT] https://twitter.com/undeadscribe/status/1384645691696365568 another screenshot but no real source.
This is why jury duty and voting should have a check and balance other than age. She might be old enough on paper to vote, but she's still a bloody child.
Voting and jury duty should be tied to the individual being a net tax payer.
Personally I don't see that as being an important investment in one's country. Especially when you're compelled to do so by law. I think the problem. Is the required methods have all been implied fascist, such as Minimum Service.
Personally, I'd say birth in a country is not a right to vote. You still get all your other rights based on human health and wellbeing but a citizenry test should be given and passed at a certain level for the right to vote. During possession of a right to vote, citizens should also then have criteria to meet to keep it. For example as you said, maintaining a net tax payment or in lieu of, proving work effort (ie volunteering).
However that isn't to say that there aren't problems with that as it brings us back towards hierarchical systems akin to feudalism (serfs weren't slaves, but couldn't vote thing).
The problem is, like most thi ngs it takes common sense to know when a system is being abused and the will to not abuse it in the first place.
It could even be much simpler I guess and instead of blind jury, we acknowledge opposing jurors and take people on specifically who think one way or another about the case at hand. In this case, three pro chauvin, three negative, three ambivalent and an elder who has seen/voted in a prior similar case (if not similar they're the tiebreak).
You shouldn't get to decide how money is spent if you aren't contributing any of the money. It's a pretty simple concept. People just vote to take other people's money otherwise.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
Having served and would again (for a legitimate service), Yes.
So should voting but then you would only have the super rich vote.
With the amount of money our governments are spending no one is a net positive. I paid 24k(income) in taxes up here in Canada but our government spent almost 40k per payer. Which would mean that rich and super rich would only get to vote since they are the only ones making over 40k.
I am not a zero sum game type were you hate on the rich.
If by "super rich" you mean someone who is a net positive to the text base? That's not super rich. That's just not a communist parasite voting for other people's money. Not a very high bar.
Clown world.
Voluntary Separation is inevitable.
Good Fences make good neighbors.
I can't believe it.
this is Larping.
Correct! Almost literally, it was a class trial.