'That’s the challenge because objectivity is kind of a thing of the past.' Also, 7 other things worth knowing today.
Remember, it only takes one juror to hang a jury. But, what if they are fortunate enough to get 12 objective citizens willing to listen to the facts and make their decision based on the law? If they vote to convict would they be in danger of retaliation by Trump supporters? The effects of this case could be far reaching and long lasting. I believe I could be objective and make a fair decision. That being said, I am very happy to be a resident of Ohio.
Objectivity: Unfortunately, your assessment is valid. A couple months ago I was pulled into a jury pool selection. It wasn't political, but it was commercial grower vs big oil & gas. It was a pretty large pool. It was tough for the attorneys to find 14 (12 plus 2 alternates). The process went on for 3 days of selection and almost 2 weeks of testimony. Once the witness process came to a close and we were to hear closing arguments, we were sent back to the jury room "for a break". Two hours later, they brought us back into the courtroom and announced that we were dismissed. The attorneys settled out of court -- because they could not read the bias of the jurors. Believe me bias is alive and well whether the subject is criminal or civil. Sad indeed!
He has a right to a judge trial if he feels he can’t trust the jury.
When it comes to violence against supporters of an opposing political party, I can absolutely be impartial. I value human life, and free speech over politics any day.
But I don’t live in Florida, so please don’t call me for jury duty.
I live in Minnesota where we watched the trial of the police officer who murdered George Floyd unfold. Listening to the jury selection for that trial was like something out of the twilight zone. We likely get to go through it again when they try two other officers that were present. Finding the jurors who could walk the line and listen the facts of the case without involving their own biases one way or another is very hard.
The law is really the only enduring facet of this example. I’d like to think I could focus on the facts, primarily because I’ve spent a great deal of time and energy working to develop my self-awareness. I’m not saying it would be easy but the puzzle of the facts would be interesting.
Live in Florida, not Miami area and do not watch the news.
Anyone shooting at someone for expressing an opossing view, political or other, should be tried and if convicted, jailed.
I do think that the majority of us are not the radical factions that get the attention by being the sqeeky wheel, so finding a Jury is quite possible.
The Acosta incident sounds like a playground disagreement and will need some (12) level headed ADULTS to resolve!
It is scary to think that right from wrong varies by party. If the facts are: People were waving a flag, words were spoken against them, argument broke out, defendant started shooting....are people saying this is OK in any sane situation?! It's OK to shoot Biden supporters? (or any supporter you disagree with, be it Trump, be it prolife, be it women's right to choose, black life, Christian, Jewish, etc?) If so, civilization and the American way of life is dead. Free speech? Only if you say what I want to hear.
That's there's even a question this can be true makes me sad....pls provide a happier story tomorrow that restores any faith possible in my fellow citizens. I would do jury duty - but I'd be thrown off due to my disbelief that he is anything but guilty based on what's presented here, regardless of my party affiliation.
Yes, I could be impartial. I dislike both Trump and Biden equally.
But it sounds like most people believe the hype put out by both, and refuse to listen to anything that would alter their positions.
I don't think polarization or lack of objectivity is new in the dear ol' US of A. "Twelve Angry Men" was made in 1957, and the whole point was about how it was nearly impossible for a Black person to get a fair trial from a white jury. So the line between "sides" is not new, but it has shifted.
The differences between then and now include that: (a) women are part of the mix and (b) white Americans are no longer united in white supremacy. When white male supremacy is no longer the measure of all things, a lot in the system has to change. And change is hard, especially for those with something to lose.
“Man is by nature a political animal” (Aristotle, 1998, 1253a1).
Asking of the jury made of American citizens to be objective in the political case is not realistic. The computer ( machine) would do a better job based on the facts - If the fact that someone pulled a weapon on his dissenters is not enough for the law to be applied. Objectivity is not a thing of the past as the objectivity had never fully been a part of human nature. Asking of the people to use Moral objectivism independent from the individual subjectivity is a logical error.
Only the best minds can hold two opposing thoughts impartially.
That is why attorneys are now stacking juries to get like minded jurors for their client.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. It is not okay to be shooting at anyone that has not physically threatened your well-being. I agree with Carole. With the evidence presented in your article, the shooter is not justified in his use of force and should be found guilty, irregardless of his political position.
Same thing if it was an NFL team you liked or despised. Or pork versus beef barbeque. Shooting someone because you think they are an idiot, struggling to see where that is supported in case law history. Argue, flip someone off if you must (and really classy there, thanks), but at the point you draw your jet ski gun (might be circling in on the issue and the idiot there...), well you have figuratively jumped the shark on societal norms. I still don't know which candidate went with who, but if you meet someone who does not agree with you, maybe listen as to why. Or I guess jet ski gun, still struggling with that (think I might be kicked off the jury just bc that phrase would bias me to listening to any additional facts of the case).
I don't think it will be that difficult to get 12 folks to sit on a jury in a trial involving Trump or any of his minions. Reminds me of the show "Bull" where juries are "designed" so to speak. The trial attorneys need to find people capable of listening to what is presented and to a certain extent have an open mind, regardless of their political affiliation. Like any trial, it will be decided on the quality of the evidence to be presented and the defense mounted. There have been trials already (Manafort comes to mind) where folks on the jury who voted for Trump voted to convict based on the evidence presented. I believe that DOJ has never worked this hard on a case and they will be prepared to present evidence that will be difficult to defend. Let's hope so. Another matter is to obtain a jury of Trump's peers. Do you only select millionaires? There are many of them out there that do not like Trump, but they would never serve on a jury. They are much too important to do their civic duty. So, I guess Trump will have to rely on the great unwashed of society - us common folk, who, as an optimist, I feel are much smarter than Trumplicans think they are.
I believe there is a sufficiently large body of potential jurors who place the law above political beliefs - potential jurors who can and will listen and weigh the evidence fairly. I hope it is not wishful thinking.