Would you accept whatever the FINAL verdict might be

[maxparrish]

Bad dodge. You were asked if you'd accept the verdict. As in, can you live with it? Not if you agree with it. Like most Americans accepted the OJ verdict without believing it was correct. It's a question about believing in the judicial system or not. It's a yes or no question. Pick one.

The dictionary provides two or three different definitions of the use of the word accept, but none them use another ambiguity "as in you can live with it". You and the OP author's are the one's using figures of speech as allusions.

Now what in my prior statements are so difficult for you to get? I specifically informed all that one should accept (acknowledge) the reality that a defendant is found guilty and that no court overturns it then as fact, YES that he is convicted.

If you mean, because of a FINAL Verdict one should accept (acknowledge) that as a morally, legally, and/or factually correct matter that the defendant IS actually did the crime then NO, not if one through a process of reasoning finds such to have been factually WRONG determination and/or a miscarriage of justice.

I don't "accept" that those I think are innocent or not guilty should be ignored or written often as final. There are dozens or hundreds of individuals that are prison that are victims of injustice and as long as the power of a governor or President includes the ability to pardon, no case is truely "final".

 

[maxparrish]

It’s not that complicated imo. If the final verdict is that he is guilty of the crimes for which he has been charged then he committed those crimes. He might be found guilty of some and not guilty of others.

So you believe that everyone who has been found guilty of a crime has committed that crime. That 100% of everyone found guilty is guilty. So you don't support the innocence project, or post conviction DNA testing because, those folks are always guilty no matter what?

What a shame, especially for those who have been wrongly convicted.

 

[Donatello]

The dictionary provides two or three different definitions of the use of the word accept, but none them use another ambiguity "as in you can live with it". You and the OP author's are the one's using figures of speech as allusions.

Now what in my prior statements are so difficult for you to get? I specifically informed all that one should accept (acknowledge) the reality that a defendant is found guilty and that no court overturns it then as fact, YES that he is convicted.

If you mean, because of a FINAL Verdict one should accept (acknowledge) that as a morally, legally, and/or factually correct matter that the defendant IS actually did the crime then NO, not if one through a process of reasoning finds such to have been factually WRONG determination and/or a miscarriage of justice.

I don't "accept" that those I think are innocent or not guilty should be ignored or written often as final. There are dozens or hundreds of individuals that are prison that are victims of injustice and as long as the power of a governor or President includes the ability to pardon

OK I get it. It was a simple yes/no. Do you always consult the dictionary for meanings when asked to answer a simple yes no question? Do you answer so cautiously because you think it's a trick question or because you're being thorough?

 

[SkyFox76]

I don't see how it's even possible to get a jury that doesn't have at least one die hard fan on it. Either way, he attempted a self coup and fomented an insurrection. People can lie to themselves and others about it, but they can't change history.

I know a lot of people had concerns that the trial of Derek Chauvin would end up a hung jury because there was potential for a (some) strong Back the Blue juror/s to be present. That didn't happen. And of course there have been other trials where people's best hopes were a rogue juror.

Unfortunately, (for Trump) what seems to be a trait among his die hard supporters is they just aren't the sharpest tools in the junk drawer. I could see them literally showing up to court in the get up below, along with their car covered in FJB stickers and then screaming that the courts are biased when they get rejected.

At the same time, I could see Trump demanding to be present (which is obviously his right) and telling his lawyers to REJECT all potential jurors who are not dressed in full maga gear including his name tattooed on their foreheads.

The chances of all these indictments come back NG (imo) are plenty slim.

 

[Ethel2]

So you believe that everyone who has been found guilty of a crime has committed that crime. That 100% of everyone found guilty is guilty. So you don't support the innocence project, or post conviction DNA testing because, those folks are always guilty no matter what?

What a shame, especially for those who have been wrongly convicted.

Of course the jury sometimes gets it wrong! But overall I think they do a pretty good job. This is an opinion poll. Unless you have a confession or several eyewitnesses to a crime as it’s being committed (and even then there could be doubt) then you are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not the jury got it right.
In general, for my part, unless there is clear evidence that the jury got it wrong I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt-after all, they were privy to ALL the evidence, and as observers we are not.

 

[Donatello]

View attachment 67460301

Is that a guy?

 

[Helix]

It can have Republicans who are not MAGA morons. Everyone called to jury duty is required to answer questions that prove they are willing and able to follow the law.

They can lie and then hang the jury.

 

[Ethel2]

I know a lot of people had concerns that the trial of Derek Chauvin would end up a hung jury because there was potential for a (some) strong Back the Blue juror/s to be present. That didn't happen. And of course there have been other trials where people's best hopes were a rogue juror.

Unfortunately, (for Trump) what seems to be a trait among his die hard supporters is they just aren't the sharpest tools in the junk drawer. I could see them literally showing up to court in the get up below, along with their car covered in FJB stickers and then screaming that the courts are biased when they get rejected.

At the same time, I could see Trump demanding to be present (which is obviously his right) and telling his lawyers to REJECT all potential jurors who are not dressed in full maga gear including his name tattooed on their foreheads.

The chances of all these indictments come back NG (imo) are plenty slim.

View attachment 67460301

Not sure how many people here have actually been on a jury. It’s worth doing ONCE I think. I have been on three and was foreman on one. The lawyers can reject a certain number of prospective jurors but they can’t reject all of them. Not sure what that number is.

 

[Ethel2]

Is that a guy?

It’s a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence.
She obviously just finished story hour.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

We shouldn't know who they are or what their politics. Security will have to be very tight as the whole MAGAverse will be trying to out them regardless.

In that case people called to jury duty for the Aaron Hernandez trial should not have been asked if they are Patriots fans. (That question was asked because he was still on New England's active roster.)

 

[Donatello]

They can lie and then hang the jury.

And if they did and think it's fine to do so, wouldn't everybody do it? And wouldn't that make our justice system useless?

 

[Helix]

I know a lot of people had concerns that the trial of Derek Chauvin would end up a hung jury because there was potential for a (some) strong Back the Blue juror/s to be present. That didn't happen. And of course there have been other trials where people's best hopes were a rogue juror.

Unfortunately, (for Trump) what seems to be a trait among his die hard supporters is they just aren't the sharpest tools in the junk drawer. I could see them literally showing up to court in the get up below, along with their car covered in FJB stickers and then screaming that the courts are biased when they get rejected.

At the same time, I could see Trump demanding to be present (which is obviously his right) and telling his lawyers to REJECT all potential jurors who are not dressed in full maga gear including his name tattooed on their foreheads.

The chances of all these indictments come back NG (imo) are plenty slim.

View attachment 67460301

Legal procedure is not my area of expertise, and you could be right. I suppose that they did manage to indict, so perhaps they'll find a jury, as well. My next dilemma is figuring out which verdict to hope for. There are serious downsides to either outcome.

 

[Donatello]

Legal procedure is not my area of expertise, and you could be right. I suppose that they did manage to indict, so perhaps they'll find a jury, as well. My next dilemma is figuring out which verdict to hope for. There are serious downsides to either outcome.

Suggest you consider the upsides instead.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

They can lie and then hang the jury.

I guess you do not know how people are randomly selected for jury duty. Step 1 is look at the list of registered voters. In many states, voter registration requires choosing a political party. So all of the lawyers asking questions for both sides already know prior to a jury selection meeting who is a Democrat or Republican if Virginia and Maryland are like that.

 

[Ethel2]

No.

It's nothing but politically corrupt Trump hatred that is the reason for these nonsense indictments. If Trump is found guilty, it is ONLY the result of that politically corrupt Trump hatred. Accepting a guilty verdict is nothing more than accepting political corruption.

I will NEVER accept political corruption.

I wouldn’t either.
But your hero the lying jackass is very very guilty of some heinous crimes imo. And that’s the ONLY thing that matters.
Dirty
Dirty
Dirty

 

[LouC]

I'll accept what verdicts are made.

What choice does anyone have?

Guess a few thousand of us ANTI MAGATS could storm, I mean "peacefully tour" the US Capitol to calmly iterate our opinions on his being found not guilty if that is the verdict rendered.

I remember where I was and what I was doing on the day OJ was found not guilty.

I wanted to cuss and break something, but instead, when I finished work for the day,I went home, and then got on with my life.

 

[SkyFox76]

Is that a guy?

LOL no, it's Mickey Larson-Olson a Q nut who served 180 days for J6. The latest I had seen on her was when she showed up at diner where Trump was and he hugged her.

Her beliefs?

“The punishment for treason is death, per the Constitution,” Larson-Olson said. “I believe every single person, every single person that stole a voice from our collective voice of 'We the people, of the people, for the people, by the people,' deserves death, and no less than that.”

Larson-Olson added that she “would like a front seat of Mike Pence being executed" and that he should be the "No. 1" person on her list of those who committed treason.

Larson-Olson was introduced to Trump as a "Jan. 6er," and he signed the backpack that she said she was carrying with her that day and waived her past security so he could embrace her. “Listen, you just hang in there,” Trump said, calling her a “terrific woman" and kissing her on the cheek. Trump said it was “so bad” what has been done to Jan. 6 “patriots.”

"If I were to imagine what it would be like to hug Jesus Christ — not that I'm saying President Trump is Jesus Christ — but, just, you know, if I was to imagine what it would be like to hug Jesus Christ, that's what it felt like for me," Larson-Olson said. "It was so personal and intimate."

Donald Trump embraces Jan. 6 defendant who wants Mike Pence executed

Micki Larson-Olson, who served months in jail for her actions on Jan. 6, told NBC News that politicians who certified the results of the 2020 election deserve to be be killed for treason.

www.nbcnews.com

After her release, she showed up drunk at the J6 vigil behind the DC jail and proceeded to make a fool out of herself, which included falling on her ass. I swear there is always some form of entertainment with that group that generally consists of 10 or less people.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Legal procedure is not my area of expertise, and you could be right. I suppose that they did manage to indict, so perhaps they'll find a jury, as well. My next dilemma is figuring out which verdict to hope for. There are serious downsides to either outcome.

How can you be undecided on which verdict to hope for? I have been a DP member long enough to know you are a liberal and do not support Trump the Terrorist.

 

[Cardinal]

Simple question: will you accept the FINAL verdict (ie, after all appeals are exhausted) in all of the charges levied against the defendant, the jackass as you would accept the final verdict in charges levied against anyone else in this country. In other words, if he is found INNOCENT would you accept that, and if he is found GUILTY would you also accept that as fact.

Which case? The one about the coup attempt or the one about the documents?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Good to know you won't be voting for *Rump in 2024.

He will be voting for Trump the Terrorist twice in 2024.

 

[Helix]

Suggest you consider the upsides instead.

The upside of a conviction is that he probably won't be able to run for president and that the system is sort of working. However, convicting him could lead to a backlash which gives radicalized Republicans an advantage in the best case scenario, and their second choice is an intelligent, highly motivated, and effective fascist. I won't get into the worst case scenario at this point.

 

[SkyFox76]

Not sure how many people here have actually been on a jury. It’s worth doing ONCE I think. I have been on three and was foreman on one. The lawyers can reject a certain number of prospective jurors but they can’t reject all of them. Not sure what that number is.

Exactly, but as I said if Trump is there to oversee the selection he's going to reject anyone he doesn't perceive as MAGA until his attorney's and the judge tell him enough is enough.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Bad dodge. You were asked if you'd accept the verdict. As in, can you live with it? Not if you agree with it. Like most Americans accepted the OJ verdict without believing it was correct. It's a question about believing in the judicial system or not. It's a yes or no question. Pick one.

I am not so sure most Americans accepted the verdict. How long did it take for people to stop insisting he definitely killed his girlfriend? Is anyone still saying it today? I know most Americans were convinced the verdict was wrong and kept saying that for years. If you call that accepting a wrong decision by the jury, what is acceptance?

 

[Donatello]

Yikes! Is Q still alive? I still think it's funnier if she turns out to be a guy.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Simple question: will you accept the FINAL verdict (ie, after all appeals are exhausted) in all of the charges levied against the defendant, the jackass as you would accept the final verdict in charges levied against anyone else in this country. In other words, if he is found INNOCENT would you accept that, and if he is found GUILTY would you also accept that as fact.

You mean trump? I haven’t even read the so called indictments, I literally don’t care whatever the regime is alleging and what they have as proof. All I need to know is this is the regime overthrowing American constitutionalism. Everything else is noise