ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Man hillary would be absolutely ****ed if she committed fraud in Bama huh
You would be wrong. Just because you favor someone politically doesn't mean you couldn't be impartial.
Pretty much this.
"Impartiality" isn't the standard, especially if you are using the term to mean "politically neutral." You don't have to be ambivalent about who the next president will be in order to serve on a jury. You have be able to follow the judge's instructions. I am quite positive that I would be able to fairly apply the judge's instructions if I were a juror in Trump's trial.
you know who else is a manhattan lawyer
idk about you, but I've never seen rudy and rococo posting at the same time before...
And confirm !….
both have names which start with letter r
both times the second letter is a vowel...
the third letter roc can't use a d because then it'd be too obvious so he dialed it back but wanted to keep it familiar so just one letter off with c instead
the evidence is overwhelming
Much better picture:
Wardrobe malfunction, Roc?
also, both are leftists
You would be wrong. Just because you favor someone politically doesn't mean you couldn't be impartial.
Hopefully you're just seeing "impartial" differently than others. Because of course agreeing or disagreeing with someone politically will probably bias many/most people at least a little bit. Just like people will have biases for or against people based on the way they appear, or the way they conduct themselves, their gender or age, or how they dress. There's simply no avoiding that. But that doesn't mean that most people can't put aside those biases and decide on someone's guilt or innocence in an impartial way. Bias doesn't exclude impartiality.
If you're suggesting that impartiality is impossible if there's any sort of bias, that sounds like projection.
Hopefully you're just seeing "impartial" differently than others. Because of course agreeing or disagreeing with someone politically will probably bias many/most people at least a little bit. Just like people will have biases for or against people based on the way they appear, or the way they conduct themselves, their gender or age, or how they dress. There's simply no avoiding that. But that doesn't mean that most people can't put aside those biases and decide on someone's guilt or innocence in
I think that when a judgement is about "he said she said" , impartiality is impossible if you have a previous strong opinion of a person.
If the case was about something more material, physical practical evidence of heinous alleged acts, impartiality might come into play for a lot of people even if they have previous opinions about the subject of the story.
But when at the end of it all, you cast a vote that fully depends on which side you trust in the sense of "believing what they say is actually true, given one of the two sides is lying and the other isn't, and we have nothing certain about the facts to judge", impartiality yes is *impossible*.
There isn't a single redeeming quality about Trump and has demonstrated over and over that he is willing to break the whatever laws are necessary to achieve his goals.
However, if I was a juror on one of his trials and guilt wasn't proven without a doubt, I'd vote to acquit. It's not complicated.
There isn't a single redeeming quality about Trump and has demonstrated over and over that he is willing to break the whatever laws are necessary to achieve his goals.
However, if I was a juror on one of his trials and guilt wasn't proven without a doubt, I'd vote to acquit. It's not complicated.
It is never proven beyond reasonable doubt when it's about trusting witnesses
There isn't a single redeeming quality about Trump and has demonstrated over and over that he is willing to break the whatever laws are necessary to achieve his goals.
However, if I was a juror on one of his trials and guilt wasn't proven without a doubt, I'd vote to acquit. It's not complicated.
Fascist aren’t scared to discarded small
things like ethics , justice and morality if they can benefit from it .
It’s pure projection .
It’s a false motto they hold to all human .
That is why they perceived as being extremist .
Every conviction based solely on witness testimony is unsound? You should let someone in charge know, sounds like a pretty big deal.
No? because USUALLY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE PARTIES PERSONALLY WTF
A convinction of an exceptionally famous and controversial political person based solely on witness testimony is tainted by partiality (pro or con) unless it's in an area which you would politically call "purple"
No? because USUALLY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE PARTIES PERSONALLY WTF
A convinction of an exceptionally famous and controversial political person based solely on witness testimony is tainted by partiality (pro or con) unless it's in an area which you would politically call "purple"
OK, but that's not what "never" means.
And I don't see a case where it's about "trusting witness testimony" where the witness is not an eyewitness, an expert, or a law enforcement officer, or knows the defendant personally. What other types of witnesses are there? You don't have or need eyewitnesses in this case. So what other witnesses could you possibly bring? Is any of what happened actually in question?
OK, but that's not what "never" means.
And I don't see a case where it's about "trusting witness testimony" where the witness is not an eyewitness, an expert, or a law enforcement officer, or knows the defendant personally. What other types of witnesses are there? You don't have or need eyewitnesses in this case. So what other witnesses could you possibly bring? Is any of what happened actually in question?
The jury man. The jury. The topic is partiality of the jury.
The jury can't judge the trustability of witnesses properly if it is partial. It's not like with physical evidence. You can't cast aside the notion that a party and everyone linked to it is tainted, corrupted, disgusting, willing to lie about anything even under oath.
In cases that are based on witnesses the claim "I will be able to judge impartially even if I ****ing hate the accused and I consider him an horrible person beyond repair" is simply false.
