Trial of the Century: cherokee v. Volker: JURY DELIBERATIONS THREAD

[Billo_Really]

What I am doing right now is chopping this case up, point by point.

Then I am going to go back and take a more cognitive look with CC's final comments in mind.

Then I'm going to vote.

In between all that, we can discuss and argue.

That's the American (and German) way...

 

[Billo_Really]

Now, before I get into the Defense Barrister's arguments, I need a drink.

 

[Lightdemon]

Well, look. Jeff is trying to say that his evidence is more relevant because his evidence is closer to the actual events. He points out that Eagle uses evidence that is way out of date.

But I don't really buy it all that much, because Jeff even admitted that Cherokee and Volker had a history. I've noticed a bit of history behind those two as well. There's no denying that, so Jeff can't possibly make his argument of having his evidence being more relevant.

On the hand, Eagle is trying to say that Volker had been provoked first, a hell of a long time ago, which sparked this rivalry in the first place.

You know what? Come to think of it, I don't really care much for the "You started it!" arguments anyway...:shrug:

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, look. Jeff is trying to say that his evidence is more relevant because his evidence is closer to the actual events. He points out that Eagle uses evidence that is way out of date.

But I don't really buy it all that much, because Jeff even admitted that Cherokee and Volker had a history. I've noticed a bit of history behind those two as well. There's no denying that, so Jeff can't possibly make his argument of having his evidence being more relevant.

On the hand, Eagle is trying to say that Volker had been provoked first, a hell of a long time ago, which sparked this rivalry in the first place.

You know what? Come to think of it, I don't really care much for the "You started it!" arguments anyway...:shrug:

I think I'm rolling that way myself!

I'm interested in hearing what the rest of our motley crew thinks.

 

[Lightdemon]

I want to point out something that I really liked in one of Eagle's post:

By appealing to your nationalist sentiments they seek your favour, no matter to them that in Debate Politics attacking the armed forces of a country or a country itself is entirely within the bounds of debate. The prosecution wants you to feel aggrieved that someone has criticised your country, and, ignoring the issue of justice involved, they want that in your hearts you wish to find my client guilty...

I don't necessarily agree with what Eagle saying about what the prosecution is trying to do, but I definately agree that, here, in Debate Politics we do go pretty far within the bounds of debate. And I agree, that Volkers stance on historical issues are of his choice, and he can certainly argue his stance here in DP.

Political Bias Optional, Civility a Must!

I think we all know this, and we all should respect this.

 

[Lightdemon]

Prosecution Barrister JeffMerriman:
How does the defendant respond to his chastisement? I'll show, by presenting States Exhibit 3... Awwwww, the jarheads won't let me sit on their table. This defendant, after getting punished for trolling a thread dedicated to fallen Marines, goes out and makes a separate thread in an attempt to draw my client into yet another argument by continuing his insult. The defendant is being clever. He only claimed it was an effort to make a humorous contradiction...making a thread that makes fun of the dead Marines in Beirut right after Cherokee made a thread honoring them. Yeah...right. It was a bloody provocation! Just read the responses, nobody felt this was a funny idea. His motivations were questioned other members.

Jurors, help me out here.

Is this relevent.

This is relevant in showing Volker's stance about the US military. This is also relevant in showing that Volker tried to provoke Cherokee. Though I see no harm in provoking someone into a debate about the issue. And it seems from the evidence that Volker and Cherokee did get into some sort of discussion about the issue. So I guess the provocation did do it's job then.......If that was Volker's initial intention. Which he does claim. I'm not so sure about this claim, however.

 

[Billo_Really]

Where are the other fuckin' jurors?

God-damn I'm drunk!

 

[Lightdemon]

Well, I wouldn't be sitting in front of my desk right now if it wasn't for these pesky research papers I'm writing. But I guess, apart from me and you, other people have better things to do on a saturday night.

Now isn't that sad....

 

[Lightdemon]

Oh what the heck, I'll toast you 2 beers. 2 Dos Equis, Billo!

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, I wouldn't be sitting in front of my desk right now if it wasn't for these pesky research papers I'm writing. But I guess, apart from me and you, other people have better things to do on a saturday night.

Now isn't that sad....

Yes it is!

In fact, I'm deducting two points from both sides
for not even trying to bribe me!

 

[Billo_Really]

Defence Barrister EAGLE1 rebuttal:
The Defence has freely admitted, in response to my colleague Mr Merriman's charge of attacking the US military, that that is so.

If the defence is not going to defend counts 1 and 2, then I vote guilty! If he is going to agree with the prosecution, my hands are tied!

 

[Thorgasm]

Well, look. Jeff is trying to say that his evidence is more relevant because his evidence is closer to the actual events. He points out that Eagle uses evidence that is way out of date.

But I don't really buy it all that much, because Jeff even admitted that Cherokee and Volker had a history. I've noticed a bit of history behind those two as well. There's no denying that, so Jeff can't possibly make his argument of having his evidence being more relevant.

On the hand, Eagle is trying to say that Volker had been provoked first, a hell of a long time ago, which sparked this rivalry in the first place.

You know what? Come to think of it, I don't really care much for the "You started it!" arguments anyway...:shrug:

9 months is a good length of time. We are only supposed to consider the evidence presented. Our other experience isn't applicable. Was the prior offense really worth holding a 9 month grudge? I don't think so. I am believing that the "Koi" thread is what really lit the fuse. What lit the fuse isn't the charges though.

At this point, I think that Volker is guilty, on all charges. Can someone please direct me to how these charges are proven against Cherokee: Charge 1 - Wishing the death of Volker’s grandparents, and, generally, insulting the memories of the Germans who died during the WWII
Charge 2 – Inaccurately calling Volker a Nazi

I thought Eagle was arguing a different case with different charges. He seemed to be arguing who started this. I fail to see this in the charges.

 

[Billo_Really]

I felt the need to re-post these in this thread for reference so we don't lose our focus on who to screw!

CC's jury instructions:
THE CHARGES AND THE FINDING OF GUILT:
The case against Volker
1) Joking about the death of US soldiers
Volker can be found guilty of this charge if the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Volker's comments were sarcastic/humorous statements regarding the death of US soldiers.

2) Wishing the death of US soldiers
Volker can be found guilty of this charge if the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Volker's comments either wished directly or implied the wish the US soldiers would die.

The case against cherokee
1a) Wishing the death of Volker’s grandparents
cherokee can be found guilty of this charge if the defense has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt that any of cherokee's comments wished the death of Volker's grandparents. He can also be found guilty of this charge if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an of cherokee's wife's statements in regards to this charge can be directly attributed to cherokee's influence.
1b) Insulting the memories of the Germans who died during the WWII
cherokee can be found guilt of this charge if the defense has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that cherokee has insulted the memory of Germans who died in WWII.

2) Inaccurately calling Volker a Nazi
cherokee can be found guilty of this charge if the defense has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt that cherokee called Volker a Nazi AND either the defense proved that Volker is not a Nazi OR the prosecution failed to prove that Volker is a Nazi.

EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED
All evidence presented in this trial can be considered during jury deliberations. During arguments, the defense offered the consideration of events prior to the incident that we are dealing with, to go towards motive. I am going to allow this. Though less so, the prosecution has also debated this issue. This may also be considered. Evidence outside what has been presented may not be considered. This trial is as much about culpability as it is about the abilities of the lawyers. A real jury could not consider evidence not presented. Neither can you. I will rely on your honor to render a judgment free from your personal feelings, and to base it only on the evidence provided.

All posted links may be examined.

 

[Thorgasm]

Somebody call and tell the foreman to bring some more beer. What if they called a jury and nobody showed up?:shock:

 

[Billo_Really]

Somebody call and tell the foreman to bring some more beer. What if they called a jury and nobody showed up?:shock:

What if they called the jury and you wouldn't shut up?

WE COULD'NT VOTE, that's what!

I'm drunk...

 

[Lightdemon]

9 months is a good length of time. We are only supposed to consider the evidence presented. Our other experience isn't applicable. Was the prior offense really worth holding a 9 month grudge? I don't think so. I am believing that the "Koi" thread is what really lit the fuse.

That's certainly is what Jeff is trying to argue. Though I don't think it was a 9-month grudge exactly, as it was kind of continual. Remember, both attorneys admit that thier clients have had a history with each other, and I think that implies that they like to provoke each other on a regular basis. There are lots of us who participate in that. Billo and TOT. Me and Aquapub. Stinger and everybody. 1069 and Felicity. We all go at it on a regular basis, give or take.

What lit the fuse isn't the charges though.

And right you are.

Can someone please direct me to how these charges are proven against Cherokee: Charge 1 - Wishing the death of Volker’s grandparents, and, generally, insulting the memories of the Germans who died during the WWII

I had a hard time finding it too, but the closest I came to it was this:

If someone wants to say that they were glad the Allies won WWII, that's one thing. If they want to say they're glad that some US, British, French, or Soviet troop killed your grandfather/uncle/other relative, that would be quite another.

I imagine that something was said about Volker's Grandparents in the thread that was deleted, which is why RightinNYC was refering to it in this post, but we do not have access to view. That's just my guess. Now, If Jeff had access to this 'hard-deleted' thread, and was able to draw some quotes out of it, I wonder if Eagle had that access as well? Because Eagle didn't present any evidence in that deleted thread. But it's certainly not, in any way, proven that Cherokee is guilty of this charge because the evidence was not presented.

I think I have to sit on the fence on this one, at least until I think all the evidence has surfaced. However, if the evidence here is all we have to consider, then Cherokee is not guilty of this Charge. But I do not sit well with this decision.

Charge 2 – Inaccurately calling Volker a Nazi

In a thread where ToT is actually apologizing to Volker, Cherokee calls Volker "little adolph."

As well as the "jarhead" thread:

Originally Posted by Volker A 10 is great, this is the high score

Originally Posted by CherokeeTen Ten is the worst, it means your head injury isn’t healing.

PS. **** off and die nazi.

As well as:

That would be a dream come true, deal with this retarded ****ing nazi with an old fashion barroom brawl. I have a feeling the nazi dickhead wouldn’t show up.

At least there's no doubt on this charge.

I thought Eagle was arguing a different case with different charges. He seemed to be arguing who started this. I fail to see this in the charges.

And you are right again. I don't think he did as good a job at convincing us of the charges as Jeff did. But I think I agree with Eagle's fundamentals more than Jeff's however. Especially this part:

The US military is not under protection at Debate Politics and if we are to indeed ‘Debate Politics’ then this state of affairs must remain.

Not only is the US military not under protection of any DP's rule, but I don't think any topic of discussion is actually protected from being debated about. And it certainly is true that if we are to indeed "debate politics" this state of affairs must remain.

So even though, I think Volker's guilty of the charges presented, I don't think those charges are constitutionally valid here in DP.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's certainly is what Jeff is trying to argue. Though I don't think it was a 9-month grudge exactly, as it was kind of continual. Remember, both attorneys admit that thier clients have had a history with each other, and I think that implies that they like to provoke each other on a regular basis. There are lots of us who participate in that. Billo and TOT. Me and Aquapub. Stinger and everybody. 1069 and Felicity. We all go at it on a regular basis, give or take.

And right you are.

I had a hard time finding it too, but the closest I came to it was this:

I imagine that something was said about Volker's Grandparents in the thread that was deleted, which is why RightinNYC was refering to it in this post, but we do not have access to view. That's just my guess. Now, If Jeff had access to this 'hard-deleted' thread, and was able to draw some quotes out of it, I wonder if Eagle had that access as well? Because Eagle didn't present any evidence in that deleted thread. But it's certainly not, in any way, proven that Cherokee is guilty of this charge because the evidence was not presented.

I think I have to sit on the fence on this one, at least until I think all the evidence has surfaced. However, if the evidence here is all we have to consider, then Cherokee is not guilty of this Charge. But I do not sit well with this decision.

In a thread where ToT is actually apologizing to Volker, Cherokee calls Volker "little adolph."

As well as the "jarhead" thread:
As well as:
At least there's no doubt on this charge.

And you are right again. I don't think he did as good a job at convincing us of the charges as Jeff did. But I think I agree with Eagle's fundamentals more than Jeff's however. Especially this part:

Not only is the US military not under protection of any DP's rule, but I don't think any topic of discussion is actually protected from being debated about. And it certainly is true that if we are to indeed "debate politics" this state of affairs must remain.

So even though, I think Volker's guilty of the charges presented, I don't think those charges are constitutionally valid here in DP.

RightinNYU is a fine upstanding member of the community (unless you are a bartender) and his comment is good enough evidence for me to vote guilty on Cherokee's count 1a charge.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I thought I was on the jury too???

 

[Thorgasm]

I thought I was on the jury too???

I already told your girlfriend to leave. We are done having our way with her. Don't be surprised if she makes you feel inadequate now. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

 

[Billo_Really]

I thought I was on the jury too???

Who the fuck let him in?

 

[Billo_Really]

Where's are fuckin' foreman?

 

[Thorgasm]

Where's are fuckin' foreman?

Where is the rest of the jury? Fuckin slackers, do your civic duty!:mrgreen:

 

[bub]

I would like to nominate Bub as foreman, as this was his idea to begin with.

That is a good idea. I second the nomination.

I give bub the bob...

Thank you, it is an honor.
And excuse me for the delay, I was at a demonstration!

I thought I was on the jury too???

As a probable foreman, I have to politely but firmly ask you to get the hell out of here.

 

[bub]

Where's are fuckin' foreman?

I'm here!

I brought a banknote counter for the briberies

:mrgreen:

 

[bub]

Charge 2 – Inaccurately calling Volker a Nazi

After reading the trial thread, I'd tend to say Cherokee is defenitively guilty on this one. Maybe it was just "name calling", but it is particularly offensive and repeated over time. Furthermore, it has never been proved that V. was even remotely linked to any nazi group.

However, as this is similar to the behavior of many posters, who call their opponents "islamo-fascist" or "pro-terrorist", and since they are rarely condemned, I'll ask for the clemency of the jury.