SmarterthanYou
rebel
to decide whats right, wrong, reasonable, or unreasonable.
so much so, that as jurors deciding a trial, you (as a juror) must only be told to decide whether you believe facts are true or not, nothing else, because you're unqualified, incapable, and inadequate to figure out anything else.
As an example, in an upcoming felony assault trial of a police officer accused of using excessive force by kicking the head of a handcuffed woman, the officer has waived his right to a jury trial, wishing instead to place his fate in the hands of a judge.
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_...tz-waives-right-to-jury-trial-in-assault-case
now, while some might not think this a major thing, it's a carefully thought out decision because there's actual video of the incident.
Now, if you watched the video, you most likely would be inclined to vote guilty (if you were on the jury) and in the matter of public opinion, you'd most likely be doing the same thing.
Now, in most trials, expert witnesses to testify get vetted by the judge. Usually, defense lawyers try to get testimony from False confession experts, Eyewitness identification expert, and Police procedure experts. A defense may depend on it, but the judge won't care. Denied. This is because YOU (as a juror) are unqualified, incapable, and inadequate to determine these things even with the help of expert witnesses. Their testimony would 'most likely lead you astray of fact' and wander in to areas where you would actually have to judge something based on common sense 'reasonableness'. Something the government doesn't think you can do.
In trials where a cop might be the one charged and where there's video of the incident, your 'opinion' would be no doubt swayed to convict said cop for excessive force, like in the video above. Because you are unqualified, incapable, and inadequate to make these decisions, you must have an expert witness to tell you how to think, or how to decide what's reasonable.....as long as the expert is testifying on behalf of the cop being tried.
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_...fficer-edward-krawetz-set-to-testify-at-trial
So, how many of you sheeple, after being told that an officer of THE LAW, someone sworn to serve and protect, to defend you and society by putting their lives on the line every single day, would now feel compelled to vote not guilty, simply because the trial was all orchestrated to acquit an agent of the government?
so much so, that as jurors deciding a trial, you (as a juror) must only be told to decide whether you believe facts are true or not, nothing else, because you're unqualified, incapable, and inadequate to figure out anything else.
As an example, in an upcoming felony assault trial of a police officer accused of using excessive force by kicking the head of a handcuffed woman, the officer has waived his right to a jury trial, wishing instead to place his fate in the hands of a judge.
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_...tz-waives-right-to-jury-trial-in-assault-case
now, while some might not think this a major thing, it's a carefully thought out decision because there's actual video of the incident.
Now, if you watched the video, you most likely would be inclined to vote guilty (if you were on the jury) and in the matter of public opinion, you'd most likely be doing the same thing.
Now, in most trials, expert witnesses to testify get vetted by the judge. Usually, defense lawyers try to get testimony from False confession experts, Eyewitness identification expert, and Police procedure experts. A defense may depend on it, but the judge won't care. Denied. This is because YOU (as a juror) are unqualified, incapable, and inadequate to determine these things even with the help of expert witnesses. Their testimony would 'most likely lead you astray of fact' and wander in to areas where you would actually have to judge something based on common sense 'reasonableness'. Something the government doesn't think you can do.
In trials where a cop might be the one charged and where there's video of the incident, your 'opinion' would be no doubt swayed to convict said cop for excessive force, like in the video above. Because you are unqualified, incapable, and inadequate to make these decisions, you must have an expert witness to tell you how to think, or how to decide what's reasonable.....as long as the expert is testifying on behalf of the cop being tried.
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_...fficer-edward-krawetz-set-to-testify-at-trial
So, how many of you sheeple, after being told that an officer of THE LAW, someone sworn to serve and protect, to defend you and society by putting their lives on the line every single day, would now feel compelled to vote not guilty, simply because the trial was all orchestrated to acquit an agent of the government?