|
quote:Tensing said he was often unaware of a driver’s race, did not single people out unfairly and wasn’t racist. quote:He said prosecutors tried to use race as “a smokescreen.”They pointed to Tensing’s T-shirt worn under his uniform that day. The “Great Smoky Mountains” shirt had a Confederate flag on it. Mathews said it had “no evidentiary value.” HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
negromancer posted:I wouldn't mind if a black version of The Punisher existed. One black version, one Native American version, teaming up to cleanse the country of white people. That might actually get me to read comic books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
botany posted:10 white guys and 2 black guys in the jury magically end up deadlocked hmmmmmmmmmm I'm kinda shocked the defense even allowed for two black jurors to make it past the cutting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I'm kinda shocked the defense even allowed for two black jurors to make it past the cutting. I was, sadly, thinking the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Ugh. I'd say juries should be required to be roughly representative of the racial makeup of their community but that's a crude easily twisted system, and doesn't help in the most lily-white places in America. Honestly though this kind of bullshit is built into the system from the outset. Jury nullification was an implicit right of the people under the colonial system; it was thought that the townsfolk would be able to tell if the agents of the crown were making up bullshit about their neighbor. Which does work-- but only if you explicitly don't care about the people shunned by their neighbors for their gender or race or poverty or religion. That's how we got the Salem witch trials, and it's how we got Zimmerman. They're inseparable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I'm surprised that the DA actually tried to convict, rather than acting as a second defense attorney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
If jurors got compensated better for their time I'm sure you'd see more diverse juries. I'm assuming most people that intend to sit on a jury are old white people because they have the privilege of time. If people didn't have to bow out because of financial reasons more people of color could afford to participate. The downside is that the increased cost would just put even more pressure on the DA to get people to plead out, and possibly fewer people would get a fair trial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:If jurors got compensated better for their time I'm sure you'd see more diverse juries. I'm assuming most people that intend to sit on a jury are old white people because they have the privilege of time. If people didn't have to bow out because of financial reasons more people of color could afford to participate. I don't think you are allowed to bow out for financial reasons, are you? The rich white people I know are shocked that anyone might ever not dodge jury duty. It's universal in their set.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:If jurors got compensated better for their time I'm sure you'd see more diverse juries. I'm assuming most people that intend to sit on a jury are old white people because they have the privilege of time. If people didn't have to bow out because of financial reasons more people of color could afford to participate. I thought jobs were required to match your salary/hourly wage when on jury duty
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:I thought jobs were required to match your salary/hourly wage when on jury duty I sat in a conference room for about 8 hours and got 10 bucks, job didn't have to pony up nothing. Maybe because I didn't pass selection I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:I thought jobs were required to match your salary/hourly wage when on jury duty Hahahahhaahaha no. They're required to make up a non-jury-duty-related excuse if they want to fire you for taking the time off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
important update: 10 dollars and a sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:I thought jobs were required to match your salary/hourly wage when on jury duty Unfortunately, there's no federal law requiring it. Some states have laws for it, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:If jurors got compensated better for their time I'm sure you'd see more diverse juries. I'm assuming most people that intend to sit on a jury are old white people because they have the privilege of time. If people didn't have to bow out because of financial reasons more people of color could afford to participate. Jury diversity, or more specifically the lack thereof, is much more a function of jury selection prior to trial where, for totally non racial reasons, minority jurors just always seem to not be the best fit for murder trials where the victim is also a person of color. Sharkopath posted:I sat in a conference room for about 8 hours and got 10 bucks, job didn't have to pony up nothing. I got forty bucks for the one morning I was in jury selection, prior to being challenged by the prosecution and excused (almost certainly because I asked a question and they don't like that).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Answers and thoughts on the various jury questions below: Financial hardship is a valid excuse to get out of jury duty, but it's rarely accepted during phone/registration and requires you to actually show up to your first day of jury duty to plead your case. They're fairly strict about it, but judges are USUALLY pretty good about granting financial hardship, and actually do tend to give the benefit of the doubt to minority groups and single mothers over some middle class white dude complaining about rent. The only real protection in jury duty is that an employer cannot fire, threaten, or punish you for being on a jury, and the courts are HYPERsensitive about this, to the point where I've seen judges regularly get on the phone and scream at employers when a juror even hints their employer is unhappy they're gone. I know people probably end up getting fired anyway, but personally if you or anyone you know got fired even around the time you were on a jury and it wasn't too long ago try to get a hold of the judge on your case because if there's even a tiny percentage change your dismissal was related to jury duty he or she will probably rain hellfire down on your former employer. Some companies will pay people for X amount of days of jury duty, or a small % of their salary while they're gone, but it's totally up to employer discretion. The only thing that doesn't apply to is government work -- federal law states that public employees must be paid their full salary during the entirety of a trial no matter how long it goes, which is (obviously) why the longer trials are, the more government workers end up sitting on those trials. In recent years especially, the courts as a whole have gotten a lot better about responding properly to Batson (Or Wheeler in CA) challenges (the ones made when you think the other side is making a strike based primarily on race/gender), but the fundamental problem is that the jury pools themselves aren't diverse enough even though it's done through random draw, because show rates in courts across America for jury duty are terrible. A good example of this is Detroit, where I did a case a few years ago -- the jury pool that shows up is still hugely majority white in the average case despite the demographics of the area it draws from. There's a lot of reasons people don't even show up to jury duty, and a lot of the people who don't come tend to be POC for many of the reasons mentioned below (and almost everyone working in the court system with juries understands they're valid reasons.) Broadly speaking, it's a combination that the pay is poo poo and that many people in America have been so profoundly failed by the court system in so many ways that they have no personal buy-in in it anyway and why should they? There's been a number of committees and projects and whatever going on for a long time that have actively been looking to increase the diversity of juries on a whole but they all generally end up at the same point -- it would take more funding and that's pretty much not happening ever. Increasing juror pay would immediately solve one of the problems, with the hope that more diverse juries eventually leads to less people being failed by the system more broadly, but it's never going to happen in America pretty much ever. The courts are already severely underfunded as it is, are incredibly resistant to change, and whereas the Republicans are actively working to cut funding from the court system, it's also fairly reliably something that gets thrown on the chopping block as a compromise by the Democrats when they need to get more important stuff in the budget passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
I just wanted to say that arguing against the assholes in USPol trying to say racism had nothing to do with why Trump won is aggravating and exhausting. I can't imagine having to deal with it every single day of your lives whether you wanted to or not. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
POC are way more likely to work for an employer who will fire you just for showing up for jury selection. It's great that judges frown on that, but it doesn't do a drat thing to help you when you're calling in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I just wanted to say that arguing against the assholes in USPol trying to say racism had nothing to do with why Trump won is aggravating and exhausting. I can't imagine having to deal with it every single day of your lives whether you wanted to or not. Don't worry, all the CSPAM brogressives got together and determined that the election was lost because Lena Dunham talks despite not being fuckable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I just wanted to say that arguing against the assholes in USPol trying to say racism had nothing to do with why Trump won is aggravating and exhausting. I can't imagine having to deal with it every single day of your lives whether you wanted to or not. The only part that bugs me is I have to take an incredibly conciliatory tone or be instantly ignored but the jackasses I'm arguing against can call me whatever they want and other posters will have their back because they are nominally on the same side of being smug about clinton being bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Diet Conan Doyle posted:Unfortunately, there's no federal law requiring it. Some states have laws for it, though. Surprisingly, in Alabama, employers were required to match while you were in the courtroom. I lived there my whole life up until 2 years ago so I had no idea it wasn't like that everywhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:POC are way more likely to work for an employer who will fire you just for showing up for jury selection. It's great that judges frown on that, but it doesn't do a drat thing to help you when you're calling in. Yeah, unfortunately there's no immediate solution if for, like most people, being fired on the spot means you're immediately in serious financial trouble. The only recompense I guess is that it's more than judge's frowning on it -- if you call the jury commissoner or the court number on the website or whatever after you've been threatened or terminated for attending jury duty the hammer comes down fast and swift. Actually getting fired has regularly, in the past, gotten managers/employers arrested and hauled into court, a violation put on the record, and an easy open door to a civil settlement. A lot of people usually aren't ready to defend the firing in front of a judge in handcuffs with virtually no warning or prep time and it almost always goes very, very badly for the employer. The protections for jury duty are the exact same for jury selection. That's a shitton of work and mental stress for the fired person though and not an avenue available to everyone, I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
The problem with a lot of well-meaning protections our government has is they're designed by middle-class white people who can't comprehend disenfranchisement. California has some of the most pro-worker labor laws in the country, but they're completely UNenforceable because you have to be able to afford a lawyer and be powerful enough to feel immune to blacklisting within your profession.Aerox posted:Yeah, unfortunately there's no immediate solution if for, like most people, being fired on the spot means you're immediately in serious financial trouble. That's good to hear but I always wonder how it works when the person who complained is back on the job. Retaliatory actions suddenly become a life-threatening risk if you work anywhere where your safety depends on the people around you, like a kitchen or factory. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Yeah, unfortunately there's no immediate solution if for, like most people, being fired on the spot means you're immediately in serious financial trouble. Tennessee makes it a class A misdemeanor for the employer and can get you a lot of money in punitive damages. This really should be this way in every state
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
negromancer posted:I wouldn't mind if a black version of The Punisher existed. Supreme Power has a black Batman who only helps black people and only preys on white criminals, at least early on. He's not the main character of the series, though, and they don't spend enough time on him IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The problem with a lot of well-meaning protections our government has is they're designed by middle-class white people who can't comprehend disenfranchisement. California has some of the most pro-worker labor laws in the country, but they're completely enforceable because you have to be able to afford a lawyer and be powerful enough to feel immune to blacklisting within your profession. The problem is despite a system's best intentions to protect minorities in conflict situations such as these, it's actually really easy to still be racist in the face of them, you just have to be more intelligent than timing/explaining a firing directly in relation to a protected act. In this day and age, racists know what rights are protected, and will just build up enough evidence for some other legitimate reason before pulling the trigger. The consequence of course is you'll catch the stupid racists, leaving behind the intelligent racists, well as intelligent as a racist can be anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The problem with a lot of well-meaning protections our government has is they're designed by middle-class white people who can't comprehend disenfranchisement. California has some of the most pro-worker labor laws in the country, but they're completely enforceable because you have to be able to afford a lawyer and be powerful enough to feel immune to blacklisting within your profession. This is exactly why I yell at supposed fellow travelers when they want to throw groups, particularly black people and trans people, under the bus to get increased employment protections for their identity group of choice. Employment protections under at-will are bunk. They may as well not exist for 99% of people. Sacrificing anything to get them is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The problem with a lot of well-meaning protections our government has is they're designed by middle-class white people who can't comprehend disenfranchisement. California has some of the most pro-worker labor laws in the country, but they're completely enforceable because you have to be able to afford a lawyer and be powerful enough to feel immune to blacklisting within your profession. You're completely right on your first point. The thing I was trying to convey was that unlike almost everything else in the justice system, jury duty employment fuckery is a VERY rare exception to that rule because of the judicial buyin. It's a thing where no lawyer on your end has to get involved and you probably don't even need to personally show up in court -- if your employer threatens/fires you a single phone call to the jury commissioner and then probably a follow up call with a judge will instantly set a process in motion you don't even need to be around for that will likely end up in your favor. When it comes to retaliation stuff of course, if that happens that starts getting into lawyer territory. However, if it's gone that far, while the judge is ripping the employer a new rear end in a top hat he or she will also probably make it very explicit that if you magically get fired or laid off for anything that isn't a super obvious violation over the next X years they'll be right back in front of him again. The process would generally go something like: You call You talk to judge Judge immediately hauls in employer for emergency hearing and demands immediate explanation Judge lists a fun variety of criminal and civil threats and penalties employer will face unless they immediately restore your job usually with additional settlement on the spot Employer agrees if they don't want to initiate a massive battle with the county/feds (99.9% chance) Judge tells employer what will happen if he retaliates again you Judge contacts you and makes sure you can report future retaliation to him/her directly Judges have a lot of bullshit powers and while 99% of the time they're used for evil this is like the one area they're happy to overstep in that isn't awful. It's only because it's so personal to them and the courts, but it's totally unlike most of the bullshit in the rest of the system. Unfortunately, almost no one knows this so it rarely happens, because understandably they think it works like everything else normally does Edit: and just to be clear, all of the above specifically and exclusively applies to firings at, during, or immediately after any portion of serving on a jury or reporting for even a day of jury duty. If your employer is pissed but smart enough to wait until a month after you return from jury duty, forget it. Most companies that punish you for jury duty though are usually so spiteful and impatient they don't wait. Aerox fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Aerox posted:understandably they think it works like everything else normally does This is the key problem though. You're expecting PoC to just suddenly trust that the court system will actually work in their favour, when it has demonstrably always worked against them and been stacked against them in the past. There's no trust in the system to begin with, and little reason for them to expect 'this time'* to be any different. *(protecting them from being fired for jury duty)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
The entire jury system now is suffering from the issue where the attorneys don't want people who are involved or aware of political and social issues on it. They want naive or incurious individuals who are easily swayed.Who What Now posted:I just wanted to say that arguing against the assholes in USPol trying to say racism had nothing to do with why Trump won is aggravating and exhausting. I can't imagine having to deal with it every single day of your lives whether you wanted to or not. Are you really surprised that the people who fussed and whined about how D&D is a hivemind circle-jerk that doesn't tolerate outside opinion are acting that way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Are you really surprised that the people who fussed and whined about how D&D is a hivemind circle-jerk that doesn't tolerate outside opinion are acting that way? No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
There's no protection at all for delayed or plausibly denied retaliation, because POCs (and women) are just crazy, just making things up for attention, just trying to cause trouble. Even allies do this, because when you hear that something outrageous has happened the first instinct is to establish your Reasonable Person bonafides. "Are you sure you aren't overreacting?" will be the last thing ringing in our ears when the bomb falls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I'm kinda shocked the defense even allowed for two black jurors to make it past the cutting. Ran out of peremptories before they ran out of black jurors maybe. They'll be sure that doesn't happen next time though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
quote:If you're all so willing to paint us with such a broad brush, as a white male I have no qualms going back to being politically apathetic. They always think we'll beg them to stay...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:They always think we'll beg them to stay... They're/we're used to being in charge and will make a stupid grab for power at the slightest hint of not being in charge. If it weren't so terrible it would be loving hilarious. It's so sad and desperate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I just wanted to say that arguing against the assholes in USPol trying to say racism had nothing to do with why Trump won is aggravating and exhausting. I can't imagine having to deal with it every single day of your lives whether you wanted to or not. Of course racism had a major part in why Trump won. Who is saying otherwise? Racism might be the most powerful political force in the United States??
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Of course racism had a major part in why Trump won. Who is saying otherwise? Racism might be the most powerful political force in the United States?? I wouldn't do this, if I were you. Edit: I warned him. He just wouldn't listen (or read the thread). Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Of course racism had a major part in why Trump won. Who is saying otherwise? Racism might be the most powerful political force in the United States?? Literally everyone on SA who is not a constructive contributor to this thread is saying that Trump won not because of racism but because of liberal smugness and how fat Lena Dunham is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
The first reply I got when mentioning racism in relation to Trump was that minority turnout was down relative to 2012, so there's "plenty of blame to go around". Plenty of oblivious white liberals getting their excuses in early.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I wouldn't do this, if I were you. Don't loving condescend me you loving coward. I'm on your side 100% but you are lashing out in this thread and others. I understand where you are coming from and I'm trying to find solutions to a problem. You are running around pissing everywhere and making idle threats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Don't loving condescend me you loving coward. I'm on your side 100% but you are lashing out in this thread and others. I understand where you are coming from and I'm trying to find solutions to a problem. You are running around pissing everywhere and making idle threats. Ugh for chrissake, another one of these. Get out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:47
|
|