OWS activist faces 7 years in prison for being sexually assaulted by a cop

[Simfan34]

Because their ideas are ludicrous?

[Cory]

Because their ideas are ludicrous?

Beside the point.

I'm talking from a left-wing point of view.

[Simfan34]

Because their ideas are ludicrous?

Beside the point.

I'm talking from a left-wing point of view.

Well I'm not. Hence the difference.

[Cory]

Because their ideas are ludicrous?

Beside the point.

I'm talking from a left-wing point of view.

Well I'm not. Hence the difference.

My point exactly. Ergo handwavium.

[IceSpear]

The problem with the far-left in America is that they aren't willing to do the things that are necessary to institute serious reforms. They are too absolutist. They should have become a major faction in the Democratic Party like the Tea Party did.

You can whine all you want on the internet but it doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks there will be a serious Marxist revolution in modern America is a moron. It's about organization and presenting a serious alternative to mainstream America.

Tea Partiers are somewhat smarter than True Leftists. Despite aggressively pushing the GOP to the right, at the end of the day, they're smart enough to know voting straight ticket GOP better serves their interests than writing in Ronald Reagan or voting third party. True Leftists just whinge about how both parties are the same and refuse to work within the system. Then they wonder why they're completely irrelevant.

[Cory]

Tea Partiers are somewhat smarter than True Leftists. Despite aggressively pushing the GOP to the right, at the end of the day, they're smart enough to know voting straight ticket GOP better serves their interests than writing in Ronald Reagan or voting third party. True Leftists just whinge about how both parties are the same and refuse to work within the system. Then they wonder why they're completely irrelevant.

Exactly.

[Beet]

This sentence is ludicrous. 7 years is maximum theoretical sentence or the actual sentence?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This sentence is ludicrous. 7 years is maximum theoretical sentence or the actual sentence?

Theoretical, but she is being held in jail pending sentencing on 19 May.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The problem with the far-left in America is that they aren't willing to do the things that are necessary to institute serious reforms. They are too absolutist. They should have become a major faction in the Democratic Party like the Tea Party did.

You can whine all you want on the internet but it doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks there will be a serious Marxist revolution in modern America is a moron. It's about organization and presenting a serious alternative to mainstream America.

Tea Partiers are somewhat smarter than True Leftists. Despite aggressively pushing the GOP to the right, at the end of the day, they're smart enough to know voting straight ticket GOP better serves their interests than writing in Ronald Reagan or voting third party. True Leftists just whinge about how both parties are the same and refuse to work within the system. Then they wonder why they're completely irrelevant.

The Tea Party, like other Republicans as well as Democrats, more or less supports the existing system of "free market" capitalism and bourgeois "democracy". There's no reason to participate in a system that is inherently rotten and is so entrenched that real change for the better is impossible without simply dislodging the entire thing. You are far closer in your political views to Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann than you are to me.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

[dead0man]

She had no lawyers on her side to point this out during the trial?  and again, is there a video?

[DemPGH]

That this woman was convicted of "assaulting" a cop is a sad mockery. If someone made it up it would be read as satire. I only hope the appeals process will be far fairer to her.

This is why I complain about the SCOTUS giving more and more and more power to the police; it shows what a privileged, disconnected world the justices live in. I'd say the cops already have more than enough power. They just went in and bullied and brushed aside the protesters. Now this?

[Badger]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties. Their job is to determine whether under the facts/evidence and the law the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is the perview of the court. Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties.

That's basically impossible.

Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

STRONGLY disagree. For example I would NEVER convict someone of a marijuana-related crime.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties. Their job is to determine whether under the facts/evidence and the law the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is the perview of the court. Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

Our system is supposed to be based on fully informed juries. There are times when a jury has a right to nullify.

In fact, juries in Kentucky decide the sentence - not just the question of innocence or guilt.

[Badger]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties.

That's basically impossible.

Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

STRONGLY disagree. For example I would NEVER convict someone of a marijuana-related crime.

Then you should NEVER serve on a jury involving a marijuana-related offense. You have a right to your views, but when one's views keep them from being a fair and impartial juror, then it's a violation of your oath of office to serve.

If you lie about it in jury selection (including remaining silent when asked about such views), it's arguably perjury.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Then you should NEVER serve on a jury involving a marijuana-related offense. You have a right to your views, but when one's views keep them from being a fair and impartial juror, then it's a violation of your oath of office to serve.

If you lie about it in jury selection (including remaining silent when asked about such views), it's arguably perjury.

Defendants have a right to be tried by a jury that's been informed of the facts.

We need to find smart judges who'll toss out convictions that have resulted from uninformed juries.

[Badger]

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties. Their job is to determine whether under the facts/evidence and the law the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is the perview of the court. Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

Our system is supposed to be based on fully informed juries. There are times when a jury has a right to nullify.

In fact, juries in Kentucky decide the sentence - not just the question of innocence or guilt.

"Fully informed" means on the evidence, and what the law requires for a conviction. NOT penalties, for again, that is the court's perview. If there are mitigating circumstances, that is for the court to determine in minimizing penalties, NOT for the jury to give a mulligan to a defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just because they don't like what could happen in sentencing.

Remember, jury nullification goes both ways. Do you want a jury to be improperly swayed to convict someone of a misdemeanor marijuana possession case because they know the most that could happen is (e.g.) 30 days which the judge might suspend for probation? Do you want some jury in Redneck County to decide "yeah, he sure stomped the tar out of that f#ggo@ ni#$er, but he seems like a nice guy who just drank too much and lost his cool. He doesn't deserve up to 5 years in prison for beating up someone like that!"

I'm not licensed in KY and can't definitively contradict your claim about jurors deciding sentences in non-capital cases, but like the vast majority of things you post, I take that with a huge boulder of salt.

[Badger]

Then you should NEVER serve on a jury involving a marijuana-related offense. You have a right to your views, but when one's views keep them from being a fair and impartial juror, then it's a violation of your oath of office to serve.

If you lie about it in jury selection (including remaining silent when asked about such views), it's arguably perjury.

Defendants have a right to be tried by a jury that's been informed of the facts.

We need to find smart judges who'll toss out convictions that have resulted from uninformed juries.

Potential sentence =/= facts of the case. What the hell does this even mean?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

"Fully informed" means on the evidence, and what the law requires for a conviction. NOT penalties, for again, that is the court's perview. If there are mitigating circumstances, that is for the court to determine in minimizing penalties, NOT for the jury to give a mulligan to a defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just because they don't like what could happen in sentencing.

Smart jurors consider this stuff all the time. I've heard of cases where jurors decided not to convict on one charge because they knew the defendant was going to get a stiff enough sentence for a different charge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've had to do jury duty in Kentucky several times.

[Badger]

"Fully informed" means on the evidence, and what the law requires for a conviction. NOT penalties, for again, that is the court's perview. If there are mitigating circumstances, that is for the court to determine in minimizing penalties, NOT for the jury to give a mulligan to a defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just because they don't like what could happen in sentencing.

Smart jurors consider this stuff all the time. I've heard of cases where jurors decided not to convict on one charge because they knew the defendant was going to get a stiff enough sentence for a different charge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've had to do jury duty in Kentucky several times.

Jurors like that are disobeying their oath and violating the law. They shouldn't but they do.

Are you sure you weren't before a jury several times?

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.

[Badger]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.

What, acquit someone to "fight the power" as opposed to actually weigh the evidence?

I'm sure that rape victim will raise her fist with you in a defiant salute against The System as her attacker walks out of court unpunished.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.

What, acquit someone to "fight the power" as opposed to actually weigh the evidence?

I'm sure that rape victim will raise her fist with you in a defiant salute against The System as her attacker walks out of court unpunished.

In fairness, I don't see why Bandit would be inclined to acquit a rapist, which is obviously not what he (I assume) is opposed to indicting people for.

[Badger]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.

What, acquit someone to "fight the power" as opposed to actually weigh the evidence?

I'm sure that rape victim will raise her fist with you in a defiant salute against The System as her attacker walks out of court unpunished.

In fairness, I don't see why Bandit would be inclined to acquit a rapist, which is obviously not what he (I assume) is opposed to indicting people for.

True, but the poison of jury nullification knows no bounds.