The most important aspect of this that I think most people are missing is that they are specifically trying to bias the public into thinking he definitely did it. There is no “allegedly” in how they’ve treated him, they are actually using the positive public sentiment about what he did to continue to build the idea that it was definitely him and we don’t need to go to court to prove it. The public loving Mangione and believing he definitely did it is actually in many ways beneficial to their case. It helps solidify the idea in the general public eye that “he did it” before any court case has looked at the facts.
I definitely don’t. He’s a hero because he’s innocent and stood bravely against abusive treatment by the state. Too much fuckery for me to believe even hard evidence presented before my eyes. We know when we’re being fucked with.
Find one person, and I mean one that isn’t skewed by knowing the context of the case. Jury nullification is the correct course when it’s very, very clear that the prosecution is acting in bad faith. I have no idea the facts, I do know the prosecution is lying about the narrative because we’re not stupid.
That’s why making sure potential jurors are educated on jury nullification, how it works, and how to not be prematurely dismissed as a juror is so important.
Basically it means that you can return whatever verdict you want as long as you don’t say something stupid like “I don’t actually believe this by the way.”
The most important aspect of this that I think most people are missing is that they are specifically trying to bias the public into thinking he definitely did it. There is no “allegedly” in how they’ve treated him, they are actually using the positive public sentiment about what he did to continue to build the idea that it was definitely him and we don’t need to go to court to prove it. The public loving Mangione and believing he definitely did it is actually in many ways beneficial to their case. It helps solidify the idea in the general public eye that “he did it” before any court case has looked at the facts.
I definitely don’t. He’s a hero because he’s innocent and stood bravely against abusive treatment by the state. Too much fuckery for me to believe even hard evidence presented before my eyes. We know when we’re being fucked with.
If you were a juror you would have to consider the facts of the case though for sure 👀
Find one person, and I mean one that isn’t skewed by knowing the context of the case. Jury nullification is the correct course when it’s very, very clear that the prosecution is acting in bad faith. I have no idea the facts, I do know the prosecution is lying about the narrative because we’re not stupid.
I know nothing about this case, they should choose me 👀
That’s why making sure potential jurors are educated on jury nullification, how it works, and how to not be prematurely dismissed as a juror is so important.
Unfortunately I don’t know what that is and I’m not really a big fan of learning new things
Basically it means that you can return whatever verdict you want as long as you don’t say something stupid like “I don’t actually believe this by the way.”
I don’t really believe in that type of stuff 👀
Innocent until proven guilty, but if you say anything about that they’ll probably nix you from the jury pool so if you get selected just act dumb
My wifes an attorney and has “guilty until proveb innocent” real big on her. Its so f’d up
I hope you didn’t pay that tattooist.
Hey, no regerts.
Spot on.