|
Azathoth posted:I think about journalists who went out to cover BLM protests and got caught up when things turned violent, and how I'd hate to see them get charged for covering it, just because their personal social media accounts say good things about BLM and encourage them. Santelli could have embedded himself in Tarpland, maybe camped out to the side, documented day to day stuff but effectively remained an observer. He didn't do that, like at all. For all intents he was an occupier with access to a media pass and a megaphone.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
FilthyImp posted:BLM is a different matter since the floppy dick of Sgt Law was trying to impose some bizarre martial law no press poo poo and overstepped a bunch of boundaries. Even so, the press there wasn't running into stores and throwing molotovs along with the I'm not sure what event tangential to (Black) BLM you're referring to, but a huge number of demonstrations by people claiming that banner weren't like that. Many (probably most?) have been non-violent, and sometimes the cops are nice and protect protestors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Did that happen like at all? If Eyewitness News is at a bank robbery and they start shooting, the guy holding the mic isn't going to be blamed for poo poo. BLM is a different matter since the floppy dick of Sgt Law was trying to impose some bizarre martial law no press poo poo and overstepped a bunch of boundaries. Even so, the press there wasn't running into stores and throwing molotovs along with the In retrospect, I shouldn't have brought up BLM. I was just trying to find a recent example on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I should have went with my first thought and gone with protests against the IMF/World Bank instead. And, for the record, I agree wholeheartedly about Santilli, he did stop being a reporter at some point or never was one to start with, but that's a real hazy line, and I don't like anything that might discourage reporters from getting close to controversial topics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:During the rioting in Ferguson, the police would either arrest or use the threat of arrest to intimidate reporters pretty regularly, and a quick Google search shows that my scenario happened in Rochester, NY during a BLM protest, but I think you're missing my point. The point is that a ruling against Santili would open the door for police to suppress reporting on <cause you believe in> on the grounds that reporters who agree with the people on which they're reporting forfeit their status as reporters. I wasn't saying that it has happened, I was saying that a ruling against Santili, robbed of context by time and dry legal documentation, would make it easier for it to happen in the future. I agree, if you muddy the waters enough around the definition of reporter it can eventually be applied to anyone doing anything Santilli wasn't "reporting", he was participating. He identified himself as the spokesman of the occupiers, he walked around armed on occupied land, in the military uniform of the terrorist cell. Sorry, but he's not a reporter and if he doesn't go to jail the real precedent it's going to set is that the only thing you need to do to get away with a serious crime is wear a badge with your face on it that says "PRESS" Dropping the Malheur charges against him was stupid and the government deserves this poo poo the next time it happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Today is the day!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
These are federal prosecutors. They're being conservative with their charges and avoiding any scenario in which any of the defendants can get any sort of vindication from a not guilty finding. Santilli's remaining charges from the previous incident are much more serious, and are more definite to stick.Mirthless posted:Dropping the Malheur charges against him was stupid and the government deserves this poo poo the next time it happens. Ah, no. Baka-nin posted:I don't think either statement is true, I've checked and subjective entrapment seems to only apply in the US and even there a number of states don't use it. And given that all applications of objective entrapment I've seen leave less room for abuse by the authorities, and some were brought in specifically to curb previous abuses, I'd say there's a good case there's plenty wrong with it. It's more prevalent than objective standards in the US. This is for good reason- the reasonable person standard applied in the objective test creates its own set of interpretation problems, frequently producing seemingly incoherent case outcomes because it ignores individual predisposition that is normally a factor in the design of actual police sting operations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/773558713118359553 https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/773558081854726145
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
It begins... https://twitter.com/rwoolington/status/773573342309806080 quote:Before prospective jurors file into Courtroom 9A in the federal courthouse in downtown Portland Wednesday morning, the judge is expected to rule on whether the defendants in the Oregon standoff case who are in custody can wear neckties, belts and boots at trial as requested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
I can sum this up in one emote: "  "
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
"Mr. Bundy, in line with your request to dress in a manner appropriate to your profession, that of Fleet Manager, the court has granted you dispensation to wear this blue Helpful Honda Person polo."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
quote:Philpot added later in the day in a written motion, "These men are cowboys, and given that the jury will be assessing their authenticity and credibility, they should be able to present themselves to the jury in that manner.'' used car salesman = cowboy construction worker = cowboy Solid logic, I see where they're coming from
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
"Sorry, but we only have one cowboy outfit. The other one of you will have to pick from leatherman, Indian chief, construction worker, or policeman."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
"But if I'm not in my cowboy costume, the jury will know I'm a used car salesman!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/leah_sottile/status/773594755682832384
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
That is perhaps the most hilarious and pathetic thing I've heard from the Bundys in a while. "Your honor I request you allow me to pretend to be a cowboy"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
I thought you weren't allowed to serve on a jury if you knew the concept of jury nullification?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
That's a great idea. Going to screen-print a shirt that says "Dear beautiful jury, plz find me innocent. TIA." Just in case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Wall Is Life posted:I thought you weren't allowed to serve on a jury if you knew the concept of jury nullification? No, only if you say you'll apply it. Otherwise any lawyer would be banned from a jury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Wall Is Life posted:I thought you weren't allowed to serve on a jury if you knew the concept of jury nullification? I'm sure you are, it's probably like every other thing they ask about during voir dire or however you spell it. ie "Do you believe the drug laws of the US are unjust" "Yes I do" "Will this affect your ability to impartially apply the law?" "Yes/No" This is different from walking in screaming about jury nullification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
quote:Philpot added later in the day in a written motion, "These men are cowboys, and given that the jury will be assessing their authenticity and credibility, they should be able to present themselves to the jury in that manner.'' lol ammon bundy does not have a good lawyer
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
"Your honor, my client self-identifies as a judge. It would be discrimination not to let him wear robes and wield a gavel, as his lifestyle demands."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Your honor my client's reputation relies on his authenticity as a cowboy, can we please dress him up as a cowboy to show that he is in fact a cowboy despite not having ever earned a living as a cowboy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
nm posted:No, only if you say you'll apply it. Otherwise any lawyer would be banned from a jury. Lawyers are almost never admitted onto juries though. Dr Pepper posted:That is perhaps the most hilarious and pathetic thing I've heard from the Bundys in a while. There's a fursuit joke in this somewhere, not quite sure how to structure it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
"Your honor, I request that I be allowed to dress as a cowboy and casually twirl a lasso while giving testimony, Will Rogers style."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
For the record I believe that Ammon and Ryan should be allowed to dress as cowboys, but only if the rest of the occupiers get dressed up in similar costumes. We could have a native american, and a biker, and a firefighter, and a policeman...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Showed this to my lawyer best friend, who I've been introducing to sovcit hilarity all summer. "The quote is inaccurate and the citation is wrong." I feel like that can apply to anything sovcits say when quoting the law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
*Ammon hops in and out of lasso* "Hey, maybe sometime when those FBI guys are out shooting at some patriots they'll get lucky and hit a criminal!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Discussion > Debate and Discussion: You have a constitutional right to be a dumbass > C-SPAM > The Bundy Trial: "The quote is inaccurate and the citation is wrong."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
sithwitch13 posted:Showed this to my lawyer best friend, who I've been introducing to sovcit hilarity all summer. "The quote is inaccurate and the citation is wrong." That's mentioned in the line of tweets: https://twitter.com/gshevlin/status/773599068048068608 https://twitter.com/gshevlin/status/773599206653046784 https://twitter.com/gshevlin/status/773599355202703360 Guy who pointed it out is pretty cool, as are a lot of the twitter folk who've followed the occupation and legal proceedings. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 21:00 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
cumshitter posted:*Ammon hops in and out of lasso* your honor my clients should be able to carry revolvers into the courtroom, their reputation as rooten, tooten sons of guns depends on it. The jury cannot fairly judge my clients if they are not constantly twirling their pistols and firing their six shooters into the air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Per my client's traditional customs bureau of land management staff must only be addressed as "varmints"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
If the prosecution is laughing too hard does that count as no objection?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Lawyers are almost never admitted onto juries though. Yeah, but you have to use a prempt, not a cause challenge. Which in a case likr this can be big given the type of jury either side would want. Also, I know several lawyers who have been on juries. Yeah, you mostly want to kick em, but not always and sometimrs you're almost out of challenges and wanna kick a prison guard or a cop's mom or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
nm posted:Yeah, but you have to use a prempt, not a cause challenge. Which in a case likr this can be big given the type of jury either side would want. Completely off-topic but, how does jury selection actually work? I was called to jury duty once but I got the summons like a day before I was set to move across the state and they were like "oh we'll just take your name off the list then never mind" so I didn't get the, uh, privilege of jury duty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
it's a bit like the pick/ban system in dota
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Completely off-topic but, how does jury selection actually work? I was called to jury duty once but I got the summons like a day before I was set to move across the state and they were like "oh we'll just take your name off the list then never mind" so I didn't get the, uh, privilege of jury duty. My one experience with jury duty is that I got a note saying I had jury duty and then a robocall the day before telling me that I didn't have to report in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
nm posted:Yeah, but you have to use a prempt, not a cause challenge. Which in a case likr this can be big given the type of jury either side would want. You're absolutely right, I should've been clearer on this. Also, Lutha Mahtin posted:it's a bit like the pick/ban system in dota nm can explain it better, and probably in DOTA terms. Jury selection's an interesting thing. I wish I'd get called for jury duty...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
I went outside the courthouse a bit ago, there's only a handful of supporters. The feds have taped laws about carrying guns on federal property to the building and there's still the dude with a Guy Fawkes camo mask and someone handing out jury nullification pamphlets. I'm gonna attempt to be there tomorrow morning to catch some actual occupiers - I wanna have my photo taken with Shawna Cox
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Completely off-topic but, how does jury selection actually work? I was called to jury duty once but I got the summons like a day before I was set to move across the state and they were like "oh we'll just take your name off the list then never mind" so I didn't get the, uh, privilege of jury duty. nm will probably explain it from the lawyer side I've only experienced the juror side of it because I'm such a lucky person. Whats being talked about is something called "voir dire" which is where they whittle down a large jury pool to the 12 (or 6 or whatever) members of the actual (petit) jury. The prosecution and defense asks a bunch of questions of the pool like "Do you trust cops more than other people" or "Do you know the defendant, any of the witnesses or anyone else in the court room?" and if you raise your hand you go up and give a brief explanation about your answer. The judge will strike you from the pool for some reasons otherwise the prosecution and defense get a number of strikes remove jurors for any reason. After they're done with all that they draw the numbers of 12 jurors+alternates or whatever the number is out of a basket. Being a juror would actually be kinda interesting if things went for more than 60s of a time without conferences between the two lawyers and the judge. Free pizza at least. (though knowing the state the judge probably bought it out of his pocket)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Completely off-topic but, how does jury selection actually work? I was called to jury duty once but I got the summons like a day before I was set to move across the state and they were like "oh we'll just take your name off the list then never mind" so I didn't get the, uh, privilege of jury duty. It actually depends. The most common for "normal" cases in california is called the six-pack. Basically, 18 people get seated. 12 are seated in the jury box, they are presumed to be the jurors, 6 are seated in temporary seats in front. When a juror gets kicked from the 12, the first person in the 6 pack moves into their seat. You then voire dire the entire panel. This way you know who you will get when you kick someone and you don't have to redo your voire dire everytime a new juror is selected. When you run out of 6, a new set of 6 are picked at random from the rest of the pool (who are generally seated in the audience) and then you voire dire the six. Tinse and repeat. When you get a jury the first two of the remaining six pack are the alternates, though you can kick them too. You have unlimited cause kicks (which must be approved by the judge - these are for people who say they cannot be unfair) and a fixed number of pre-empts which can be made for any reason but race, gender, etc. Fun fact: we generally know when people are bullshitting us to try to get kicks. The prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney will even conspire to keep them as long as possible to gently caress with them. We'll kick you eventually (generally) because we want people who take jury duty seriously, but we'll try to make sure you have to come back the nrxt day. Just be honest. Also note that if you want to say someghing private (medical condition, rape victim, etc), you can always do that, and it will always be respected. Just ask the judge to go private or tell the bailiff. Serious or high profile case may have questionaires or individual questioning, but that is pretty rare. Other judges may do modified versions of the six pack, but the six pack is the best and the fastest in a case where you don't need to really closely examine each juror or are worried about jury contamination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:58
|
|