|
koreban posted:I can't wait to read/watch the interviews with the jurors to explain this. I'm guessing you can't "impede federal employees" when you occupy a building during a time that they normally shut down operations.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
quote:Defense lawyers urged jurors in closing arguments not to mix-up the "effect'' of the occupation – which undoubtedly kept federal employees from doing their jobs - from the "intent'' of the occupiers. So just to be clear, they didn't intend to intimidate with weapons federal employees. They just happened to be occupying the building with rifles... gently caress our justice system...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Hahaha. quote:Juror 4 plainly stated that fellow Juror 11, during the initial round of deliberations, "had zero business being on this jury in the first place.'' This is why it's important for jurors to have a say in the voir dire process. Thank god juror 11 was able to ensure we followed the constitution's assurance that a jury should be able to select who amongst it should be considered a peer. This guy sounds more and more like every self important quasi-libertarian business school guy I've ever met.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
xrunner posted:This is why it's important for jurors to have a say in the voir dire process. Thank god juror 11 was able to ensure we followed the constitution's assurance that a jury should be able to select who amongst it should be considered a peer. Maybe that person is a jerk or libertarian or whatever, but it seems like the process supported their assertion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So just to be clear, they didn't intend to intimidate with weapons federal employees. They just happened to be occupying the building with rifles... gently caress our justice system...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I can't imagine a room full of people who don't want to be there coming up with a less than optimal verdict. Truly, it boggles the mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:"The court, flummoxed by the development, a day later dismissed Juror 11 for "good cause,'' after the prosecution and defense teams agreed to the dismissal." Maybe it's just me, but if jurors are arguing over whether their fellow jurors should be considering the case, it sounds like grounds for a mistrial. Jurors don't get a say in who gets picked, and the court boned this one up (believe it or not, trial courts sometimes get things wrong). The prosecutor really screwed it up by agreeing to let it happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Maybe it's just me, but if jurors are arguing over whether their fellow jurors should be considering the case, it sounds like grounds for a mistrial. Jurors don't get a say in who gets picked, and the court boned this one up (believe it or not, trial courts sometimes get things wrong). The prosecutor really screwed it up by agreeing to let it happen. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Which BLM are we talking about here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Jurors don't get a say in who is picked, but they are typically human beings with various sensory organs, and so are capable of detecting a fellow juror actually say they are unfit to be a juror and report that experience to the judge who does get a say in who is a juror and who isn't. That doesn't sound like what happened, though. It sounds like number 4 got most of the jury to see things his way, and, frustrated he couldn't convince the last hold-out, accused him of bias. 4 wanted this outcome and he maneuvered to make it happen. As an aside, here's a rather limited conversation with the dismissed juror. https://www.myeasternoregon.com/2016/10/28/baker-city-exclusive-conversation-with-juror-dismissed-from-trial/
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
xrunner posted:That doesn't sound like what happened, though. It sounds like number 4 got most of the jury to see things his way, and, frustrated he couldn't convince the last hold-out, accused him of bias. 4 wanted this outcome and he maneuvered to make it happen. There was a photo of the juror note in the USPOL thread, the dismissed juror apparently kept starting every other sentance with "Well I'm very biased but..." at that point as a judge you kinda have to do something I would think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
xrunner posted:That doesn't sound like what happened, though. It sounds like number 4 got most of the jury to see things his way, and, frustrated he couldn't convince the last hold-out, accused him of bias. 4 wanted this outcome and he maneuvered to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Doccers posted:There was a photo of the juror note in the USPOL thread, the dismissed juror apparently kept starting every other sentance with "Well I'm very biased but..." The note alleged that he said "I'm very biased" but it didn't state that he said it more than once, if I remember correctly. That said, I think what the judge has to do is either let it go to a verdict or to have a mistrial. Dismissing a juror on a hearsay note from another juror without inquiring into it (which Judge Brown probably correctly refused to do) seems like an idiotic move. twodot posted:I mean maybe 4 lied, but reporting a juror stating they are biased is a fundamentally reasonable thing to do. Even assuming 4 lied, none of the interested parties objected to removing the juror, so I can't see how anyone could think this is a problem. Yeah, the prosecutor really blew it on this point. Probably going to hurt his career pretty badly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Which BLM are we talking about here? The BLM which previously employed juror 11 - which is why he was considered biased and removed from the jury, because you know corrections officers get tossed out as witnesses and poo poo all the time
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Yeah, the prosecutor really blew it on this point. Probably going to hurt his career pretty badly. Good. gently caress him. He's an incompetent moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dirquez/status/792108200669478912
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
So homeless people can just occupy city hall now, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:So homeless people can just occupy city hall now, right? https://twitter.com/dirquez/status/792113959037915137
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Arent most of these folks going to end up on trial in Nevada too? Maybe that federal prosecutor isn't a bonehead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Schwack posted:Arent most of these folks going to end up on trial in Nevada too? Maybe that federal prosecutor isn't a bonehead. e: also don't forget that we arrested Cliven Bundy when he flew to Portland to visit anthonypants fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
So maybe a dumb question, but does WA-1433 apply the sick leave requirement to everyone, or just hourly workers? From my quick glance at the initiative it looks like everyone, but was just curious if anyone had a definitive answer. EDIT: Well, after reading the voters guide more, I'm thinking that those folks who are exempt from the minimum wage act (executives, professional, computer nerds, sales people) would also be exempt from the sick leave requirements, but I'd still appreciate if someone else had a better insight! Maneki Neko fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Testing doesn't mean that the problem has been solved. What exactly are you even trying to say, it's pretty obvious you don't have a single clue how any of it works anyway, it's like listening to a 5 year old talk about calculus. computer parts posted:It honestly probably is that much if you're relying on software that has to read the paint on the ground to stay in its lane. lol welcome to 4 years ago, like seriously why do people comment on things they clearly have no knowledge of?? TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:lol welcome to 4 years ago, like seriously why do people comment on things they clearly have no knowledge of?? Well, you keep doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:why do people comment on things they clearly have no knowledge of?? It's a discussion board, not a peer reviewed journal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
This crop of initiatives has been a real doozy to hear about at work. I have a co-worker who told me i-1491 is going to cause the following chain of events to happen to him: 1) his spiteful relatives will report him to the authorities saying he is a mental health risk 2) the accusation isn't vetted and action is taken in 7 days 3) the police come to his house with a no-knock warrant to take his guns and they kill him. He says he won't let that happen because he will move out of WA if it passes. I guess we sorta solved it for him at the end when he told me that. DR FRASIER KRANG fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
It's a valid complaint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:What exactly are you even trying to say, it's pretty obvious you don't have a single clue how any of it works anyway, it's like listening to a 5 year old talk about calculus. It's clear that I believe that fully automated cars are not just around the corner and that the problems keeping them from full use by the public are non-trivial. I don't see why you're so upset about this or why you felt the need to respond to it a week or so after I made the statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Yeah, cops should have to knock
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Yeah, cops should have to knock Nosy relatives should have some sort of proof before they get to have you legally swatted. Innocent until proven guilty yadda yadda
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
The language I read in the initiative said the accuser had to provide "grounds for the claim" but I don't know if that is a legal term or what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:The language I read in the initiative said the accuser had to provide "grounds for the claim" but I don't know if that is a legal term or what. quote:Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period of one year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
That sounds super clear and not subject to interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:That sounds super clear and not subject to interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:That sounds super clear and not subject to interpretation. If you're concerned about how judges will interpret the law, ask them when they run. We have elected judges here, you can ask them questions and vote based on what they say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:If you're concerned about how judges will interpret the law, ask them when they run. We have elected judges here, you can ask them questions and vote based on what they say. Nothing brings truth out like asking a candidate what they think while they are running a political campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I voted against it, but only because it turns someone who supposedly has mental issues into a felon. I feel like that's pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
I also voted against it, because I saw the Magical Policeman Just Knows provision to be a Ferguson-esque municipal enrichment scheme. A police officer deciding to turn you into a criminal at your expense to disprove it is garbage on the jump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I'm glad we cleared this up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
I would be more ok with it if it was some sort of civil procedure, but as designed it basically puts the cops right back into the "you are a military force going potentially into a hot zone" Seems like it was written by somebody with the right intent but poor conception of the real world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
I would pay a lot of money to never hear about Measure 97 (on either side) again. Fortunately, I just have to wait a week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 04:17
|
|