Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2024, 09:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Source for your "incorrect" claim, please. Referencing someone's "entire posting history" won't do. Cite name, thread and post.

No, I don't really care to search for examples, but I will surprise you.   I'm also referencing people who don't believe 01/06 was a bad thing.  Also, I see you dodged the whole committing arson on an occupied police precinct rather than actually address it.  Probably the smart move on your part.

Quote:This source says only 6% of the +1,000 protests involved arrests, including non-violent protestors. 96.7% involved no property damage. So probably less than 6% involved violence. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0708/BLM-and-Floyd-protests-were-largely-peaceful-data-confirms

This source says 93% involved no violence. That would make 7% not peaceful. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html

I found this whole thing very interesting.  Every single major news outlet ran with this data and treated it as gospel.  I didn't find any real investigation into the source's claims or any explanation of their methodology.  Contrast that to counter claims that are more critical.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/19/ron-johnsons-misleading-citation-data-back-his-concern-about-blm-protestors/

Notice the great pains they go to to attempt to debunk these claims?  Unfortunately, for your point, I cannot agree with your source as I can say, solely from personal experience, that their numbers cannot be accurate.  Let's start off with a small point, but an odd one.  How did they get the oddly specific number of 2,938,406 protestors?  Then let us move on to the oddly phrased "police officers injured" statistic.  What's odd about that, you may ask.  Why so specific?  Why injured instead of assaulted?  We all know a person can be assaulted but suffer no injury of consequence.  A thinking person may come to the conclusion that they use injured as their metric as the number would be far smaller than officers assaulted.  As I can personally attest, I witnessed hundreds of officers being assaulted in just a month period.  And that was in a specific area of Los Angeles.  That being the case one can only logically conclude that the numbers for Los Angeles County as a whole would be higher, as it would for the entire state, as it would for the entire country.  Also, what constitutes being "injured"?  A cut to your arm?  A broken bone"  An injury that requires medical attention?  Some specificity would be welcome, and it's odd it's not included.

Another small, but odd, fact about this source, it says police officers injured, not law enforcement officers.  Why is that significant?  Because sheriff's deputies are not "police officers".  If a person was trying to manipulate data to make these protests seem less violent than they actually were they could truthfully omit all injuries to sheriff's deputies, or other LEO's not considered police officers, and still correctly claim to present factual, albeit misleading, data.

Now let's move on to the non police officer's injured.  Again, my personal experience makes me rather skeptical of a total number, for the entire country of 372 total "injuries" caused during BLM protests.  But we don't want to use SSF's anecdotal evidence for this, heavens no.  So, completely off the top of my head, let's count some "injuries".  Retired LEO killed in Philly, that's one.  Two killed and one injured in the Rittenhouse incident, four total if you count Kyle who was assaulted multiple times, but was he "injured"?  Which again makes one question what qualifies as an "injury" for this source?  Four people were murdered, and dozens of assaults, including rapes, were reported in the CHAZ/CHOP protest area in Seattle.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/chop-chaz-cleared-violence-explained

One would think that area alone would account for a large number of "injuries".  So, again, I would be very interested in a deep dive of these numbers and how they were concluded, because from my personal experience alone, coupled with the above, I find the claim to be far fetched at the very least.  

Quote:Deflection, but I'm fine with acknowledging that people who committed violence at those riots were "shitty." That includes ANTIFA and various right wing groups who see every riot as an opportunity. 

My sincere kudos for doing so.

Quote:Shitty also is any attempt to conflate all protestors with them. I was happy to be one of those "morally bankrupt" protestors in my town who called for basic justice and recognition of common humanity, regardless of race. 15-25 million Americans were moved to protest Floyd's murder, not to mention more millions in other countries.

All of them?  No.  More than you'd like to acknowledge?  Absolutely.  As I've said for the past four years, I've never heard more virulent racism than from white liberals, especially the women for some reason, directed at LEO's who were not White.  It's not violent, it's not assault and it's certainly protected by the 1st amendment, but it definitely makes the person uttering them a shitty person.

Quote:You are still measuring broken windows, figuratively speaking, adapting the previous Capitol/BLM false equivalence to the current round of Trump-inspired violence, which your "ideological fellow" would obscure with claims like the right is on a "mission to be peaceful." Maybe a new figure will help.

In terms of the body politic, comparing the Floyd riots to the Capitol riots by # of people killed is rather like claiming a broken arm was more dangerous than a stroke because more tissue was destroyed. Making tissue the measure wholly misses the scale of threat to the total organism.

I'm sure your ideological distinction is a tremendous comfort to the families and friends of those who were murdered.  The point rather being that the level of violence on 01/06 was on par, if not less, than numerous BLM riots.

Quote:"The left's own standards" center on the fact that the Capitol riot originated in, and was led from, the highest office in the land--a direct threat to democracy from and to the executive center of our political system. So many essential differences here: Biden did not call all the protesters together and give them a target, then call the violent protestors "patriots" and consider pardoning those who received prison sentences, thus affirming his continuing connection to them and legitimation of lawless behavior. 

And the threat to democracy is still there, as the disinformation machine which set the capitol riot in motion is still running full throttle. Bels' thread here is an attempt to address one aspect of that machine in the most careful and systematic terms. It will be interesting to see how that works out. The false equivalences will continue to come, to normalize and legitimate an anti-democratic politics.

Yes, we understand your position here as well as your desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the 01/06 riot.  I can only reiterate the fact that what Dill finds to be more important doesn't negate facts.  Facts such as the billions in property damage, the many people "injured" and the people killed during these protests.


An interesting aside, more from the other thread on the Capitol Hill police officers.  One of those "honored" retired as a result of the riot, claiming, and I'm paraphrasing, that he did not want to retire, the rioters made him retire.  While I wouldn't want to minimize the man's experience, and we all have different mental thresholds, I did find it a curious statement to make.  Seeing as I know hundreds of officers who went through days like 01/06 and did it for months at a time.  Some days were better, some were worse, but they lasted for months.  Yet I don't know a single one of them who retired because of those days.  Sadly, I know hundreds who have retired within the past four years because they are sick of Democratic politicians, including our DA, destroying their profession.  Maybe that doesn't strike you as important?  Just thought I'd add it as a bit of a cherry on top.

[Luvnit2]

(06-04-2024, 07:26 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: When did the inquiry start at first ? 

It is my understanding it started in 2018. The FEC looked at it and did not indict. The federal district of NY (DOJ) looked at it and did not indict. Then Bragg's predecessor looked at in and did not indict.

So 3 passed including Bragg's predecessor and the 4th Bragg who ran on getting Trump indicted.

[Dill]

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: .Source for your "incorrect" claim, please. Referencing someone's "entire posting history" won't do. Cite name, thread and post.
No, I don't really care to search for examples, but I will surprise you.  

Your not caring to search for examples doesn't surprise me. And not caring is not having. This is the epistemic equivalent of a bounced check.

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm also referencing people who don't believe 01/06 was a bad thing. 

Sure, more examples for which you don't care to search. I'm no longer accepting checks. Cash from now on. ok?

A third of your lengthy post is unsecured "evidence" of various kinds. E.g. Impressions, unsupported assertions etc. Including a final paragraph free-associating to whatever you don't like about Capitol police and Dems, designated (without embarrassment!) as "the cherry on top." 

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Also, I see you dodged the whole committing arson on an occupied police precinct rather than actually address it.  Probably the smart move on your part.

And two thirds is you continuing to prove what was never in dispute, namely that the Floyd riots led to more property damage than the Capitol riots. 
That's why I ''dodged" what was never the issue. I'm addressing your discussion of stats in a different post. 

So to recap: The topic of this thread is "Clearing up Trump Trial misinformation."  The core of that misinformation --disinformation really--is that Trump is an innocent man convicted by Biden's weaponized DOJ and the "fake news" media.  In response to FBR wondering whether riots would have followed an acquittal, Luvnit asserted that unlike ANTIFA and Floyd rioters, THE RIGHT IS ON A MISSION OF PEACE. 

That's already off center. A logical comparison of Trump and his GOP and Biden and his Democrats, to assess the prime actors' inclination to violence, would have to focus on, at least-- 

1. Biden's character. Did he instigate a plot to overthrow a valid election which lead to a riot, death and destruction, and over 900 felony convictions? Did he float the possibility of pardoning felons convicted in the Floyd riots? Call them "patriots"? His son is in court now. Is Biden doxing the judge's family? Calling the legal system a sham? The prosecutor "deranged" and a "dumb son-of-a-*****, while warning us all that his followers or "the nation" won't tolerate a guilty verdict? Or is he promising to abide by the verdict, and NOT to use his office for personal goals, e.g., pardoning his son. 

2. Dem leaders' behavior: are they calling the system a "scam," the press "liars," and taking time out of Congress to show up at the courthouse to show solidarity? Are they normalizing and legitimating their presidents violent rhetoric? Or are they too saying "let the system work"? Regarding the Floyd riots, did they make a show of supporting those convicted of violence and property destruction, like visiting them in prison? Did they attribute the violence to FBI plants or MAGA protestors operating under false flag? 

3. Regarding past non-MAGA violence in the country, did Biden direct any of that? I.e., call BLM to march to a police precinct and "take your country back"? or tell ANTIFA to "Stand back and Stand by?" Did BLM members then speak of responding to the president's call? If the answer to those questions is no, then equivalence fails.

When I noted that Trump himself did not seem to be on board with that MISSION OF PEACE, given his flouting gag orders and endangering family members of court officers, you could have affirmed your support for the rule of law there, but went instead with the false equivalence between the Floyd and Capitol riots, famously crafted in 2020 by Hannity and Fox friends--who also happen to be the primary engines of the current Trump trial disinformation this thread was intended to address. You refer to my "type" and my "side." Is Fox your side then? The Trump right? Or are just offering "balance" using their whattabout? 

And when I further flagged your imprecise use of the term "leftist," which collects all manner of non-aligned actors into one bag responsible for riots, reminded you that "mostly peaceful" is not some "leftist standard," and explained what the actual term of comparison was, you unleashed a firehose of abusive language, at one point positioning yourself, hivemind-like, as speaking for all forum members except my "cabal." Nevermind that most of the people you respect in the forum do not ascribe to the BLM whattabout. While that far right from which you distance yourself does ascribe to it. That's basically your "we" on this issue--virtually everyone who regularly attacks "leftists." But it's "pathetic" if I associate you with the right.

Still attempting to explain why "leftists" think the Capitol riot more consequential than billions of dollars of property damage in Portland or Minneapolis, I switched from the broken windows figure to the body analogy--a stroke vs a broken arm--and your response was to continue to affirm, figuratively speaking, that the broken arm involved way more tissue damage.  

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "The left's own standards" center on the fact that the Capitol riot originated in, and was led from, the highest office in the land--a direct threat to democracy from and to the executive center of our political system. So many essential differences here: Biden did not call all the protesters together and give them a target, then call the violent protestors "patriots" and consider pardoning those who received prison sentences, thus affirming his continuing connection to them and legitimation of lawless behavior. 
And the threat to democracy is still there, as the disinformation machine which set the capitol riot in motion is still running full throttle. Bels' thread here is an attempt to address one aspect of that machine in the most careful and systematic terms. It will be interesting to see how that works out. The false equivalences will continue to come, to normalize and legitimate an anti-democratic politics.
I'm sure your ideological distinction is a tremendous comfort to the families and friends of those who were murdered.  The point rather being that the level of violence on 01/06 was on par, if not less, than numerous BLM riots.
Yes, we understand your position here as well as your desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the 01/06 riot.  I can only reiterate the fact that what Dill finds to be more important doesn't negate facts.  Facts such as the billions in property damage, the many people "injured" and the people killed during these protests.

I could also assert that some unspecified "we" understands YOUR desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the Floyd protests. That SSF finds property damage (and/ or body counts) to be more important doesn't negate the fact that Trump tried to overturn an election and continues to threaten democracy. etc. But I find such "we understand" assertions completely null as evidence; no support for rational argument. 

Simply claiming to understand someone's "desire" is no form of proof, even asserted from some hivemindish 1st person plural. That's what external evidence is for. When you do get around to offering something like external evidence (billions in property damage; arson of a police station), it's about what isn't in dispute, namely that more property damage followed from the Floyd protests that turned to riots than at the Capitol, where for the first time in history a US election almost fell to a coup. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2024, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Your not caring to search for examples doesn't surprise me. And not caring is not having. This is the epistemic equivalent of a bounced check.


Sure, more examples for which you don't care to search. I'm no longer accepting checks. Cash from now on. ok?

Nah.  Dill doesn't set any rules here, not are you my father.  You know the second statement is true, yet you refuse to concede it.  It's interesting to say the least.

Quote:A third of your lengthy post is unsecured "evidence" of various kinds. E.g. Impressions, unsupported assertions etc. Including a final paragraph free-associating to whatever you don't like about Capitol police and Dems, designated (without embarrassment!) as "the cherry on top." 

And it is framed as nothing other than exactly that.  Of course your "source" provides no details, as I took pains to point out, yet you don't question that.  I think I raised some legitimate concerns about the wording used by that source and provided examples of why they should concern anyone.  I can understand why you'd prefer to duck that, but your doing so is noticeable.

Quote:And two thirds is you continuing to prove what was never in dispute, namely that the Floyd riots led to more property damage than the Capitol riots. 
That's why I ''dodged" what was never the issue. I'm addressing your discussion of stats in a different post. 

Oh, not just property damage, but injuries and deaths as well.  Considerably more.

Quote:So to recap: The topic of this thread is "Clearing up Trump Trial misinformation."  The core of that misinformation --disinformation really--is that Trump is an innocent man convicted by Biden's weaponized DOJ and the "fake news" media.  In response to FBR wondering whether riots would have followed an acquittal, Luvnit asserted that unlike ANTIFA and Floyd rioters, THE RIGHT IS ON A MISSION OF PEACE. 

Did he use a "mission of peace'?  I certainly wouldn't agree with that, certainly not the right as a whole.  It wouldn't change a single point I made either way.

Quote:That's already off center. A logical comparison of Trump and his GOP and Biden and his Democrats, to assess the prime actors' inclination to violence, would have to focus on, at least-- 

1. Biden's character. Did he instigate a plot to overthrow a valid election which lead to a riot, death and destruction, and over 900 felony convictions? Did he float the possibility of pardoning felons convicted in the Floyd riots? Call them "patriots"? His son is in court now. Is Biden doxing the judge's family? Calling the legal system a sham? The prosecutor "deranged" and a "dumb son-of-a-*****, while warning us all that his followers or "the nation" won't tolerate a guilty verdict? Or is he promising to abide by the verdict, and NOT to use his office for personal goals, e.g., pardoning his son. 

No.  Nor has anyone claimed otherwise.

Quote:2. Dem leaders' behavior: are they calling the system a "scam," the press "liars," and taking time out of Congress to show up at the courthouse to show solidarity? Are they normalizing and legitimating their presidents violent rhetoric? Or are they too saying "let the system work"? Regarding the Floyd riots, did they make a show of supporting those convicted of violence and property destruction, like visiting them in prison? Did they attribute the violence to FBI plants or MAGA protestors operating under false flag? 

With the Capitol riots?  No.  With the BLM riots?  Most certainly.

Quote:3. Regarding past non-MAGA violence in the country, did Biden direct any of that? I.e., call BLM to march to a police precinct and "take your country back"? or tell ANTIFA to "Stand back and Stand by?" Did BLM members then speak of responding to the president's call? If the answer to those questions is no, then equivalence fails.

I'd argue that tacitly, at the very least, condoning riots is bad.  Not as bad as actively directing them, no.  But did Trump not say to be peaceful?  You can argue that he didn't mean it, but he did say it.  He certainly didn't condone setting up an autonomous district within US borders and label it a "summer of love".  He didn't help raise bail money for people arrested for attempted murder as our current VP did.  Again, you seem to think riots only matter when they have a certain goal, and not at other times.  I can agree that the 01/06 riots were abhorrent and a stain on our history.  I do not use them to excuse the riots of others.  I also do not think the Capitol riot being "worse" in any way lessens the impact of the dozens of BLM riots.  Your position only works if you're seeking a direct, point by point, equivalence.  I'm not.  I'm being empathetic to the tens, if not hundreds, or thousands of people who had their lives upended by months of rioting.

Quote:When I noted that Trump himself did not seem to be on board with that MISSION OF PEACE, given his flouting gag orders and endangering family members of court officers, you could have affirmed your support for the rule of law there, but went instead with the false equivalence between the Floyd and Capitol riots, famously crafted in 2020 by Hannity and Fox friends--who also happen to be the primary engines of the current Trump trial disinformation this thread was intended to address. You refer to my "type" and my "side." Is Fox your side then? The Trump right? Or are just offering "balance" using their whattabout? 

I don't think Trump said anything illegal.  I certainly don't agree with his statements, for the most part.  But, again, I have a hard time with a left leaning person clamoring for the rule of law considering what I've experienced the past four years.

Quote:And when I further flagged your imprecise use of the term "leftist," which collects all manner of non-aligned actors into one bag responsible for riots, reminded you that "mostly peaceful" is not some "leftist standard," and explained what the actual term of comparison was, you unleashed a firehose of abusive language, at one point positioning yourself, hivemind-like, as speaking for all forum members except my "cabal." Nevermind that most of the people you respect in the forum do not ascribe to the BLM whattabout. While that far right from which you distance yourself does ascribe to it. That's basically your "we" on this issue--virtually everyone who regularly attacks "leftists." But it's "pathetic" if I associate you with the right.

This is an odd screed as no one could reasonably infer any of that from the post you're responding to.  Are you now addressing posts outside the scope of this conversation?  It would seem counter productive to do so, especially when this discussion was proceeding rather amicably.  Perhaps this is the response I should prepare for when you're confronted by arguments you cannot even begin to address?  Such as the methodology and definitions used by a source you used to make an objective claim?  Seeing as this is your 7th or 8th attempt at this post I'd expect a little more organized and coherent response.  Unfortunately, this reads as rather angry and ill intended.

Quote:Still attempting to explain why "leftists" think the Capitol riot more consequential than billions of dollars of property damage in Portland or Minneapolis, I switched from the broken windows figure to the body analogy--a stroke vs a broken arm--and your response was to continue to affirm, figuratively speaking, that the broken arm involved way more tissue damage. 

 
No, I affirmed that either injury is significant to the one upon whom it is inflicted.

Quote:I could also assert that some unspecified "we" understands YOUR desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the Floyd protests. That SSF finds property damage (and/ or body counts) to be more important doesn't negate the fact that Trump tried to overturn an election and continues to threaten democracy. etc. But I find such "we understand" assertions completely null as evidence; no support for rational argument. 

Of course, one could argue that Dill finds an attempt to overturn an election, as half-hearted as it was, more important than dozens dead, scores injured and billions of dollars in property damage.  I also think you'd have a hard time framing this now borderline screed as a "rational argument" as well.

Quote:Simply claiming to understand someone's "desire" is no form of proof, even asserted from some hivemindish 1st person plural. That's what external evidence is for. When you do get around to offering something like external evidence (billions in property damage; arson of a police station), it's about what isn't in dispute, namely that more property damage followed from the Floyd protests that turned to riots than at the Capitol, where for the first time in history a US election almost fell to a coup. 

A US election came nowhere close to falling because of a coup.  As disgusting an event as I believe 01/06 to be at no point did it come to even 1% of succeeding as a coup.  Your hyperbolic reframing of it actually diminishes what it was, as does any extremist retelling of a story.  It was bad enough without you embellishing it to absurd levels.  Your flailing attempts here actually do more to minimize the event than the most die hard Trump supporter's best effort.

I'm not exaggerating when I say I expected a much more coherent response given the time and effort you apparently devoted to it.  It almost makes me a little sad, in a way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2024, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Your not caring to search for examples doesn't surprise me. And not caring is not having. This is the epistemic equivalent of a bounced check.


Sure, more examples for which you don't care to search. I'm no longer accepting checks. Cash from now on. ok?

A third of your lengthy post is unsecured "evidence" of various kinds. E.g. Impressions, unsupported assertions etc. Including a final paragraph free-associating to whatever you don't like about Capitol police and Dems, designated (without embarrassment!) as "the cherry on top." 


And two thirds is you continuing to prove what was never in dispute, namely that the Floyd riots led to more property damage than the Capitol riots. 
That's why I ''dodged" what was never the issue. I'm addressing your discussion of stats in a different post. 

So to recap: The topic of this thread is "Clearing up Trump Trial misinformation."  The core of that misinformation --disinformation really--is that Trump is an innocent man convicted by Biden's weaponized DOJ and the "fake news" media.  In response to FBR wondering whether riots would have followed an acquittal, Luvnit asserted that unlike ANTIFA and Floyd rioters, THE RIGHT IS ON A MISSION OF PEACE. 

That's already off center. A logical comparison of Trump and his GOP and Biden and his Democrats, to assess the prime actors' inclination to violence, would have to focus on, at least-- 

1. Biden's character. Did he instigate a plot to overthrow a valid election which lead to a riot, death and destruction, and over 900 felony convictions? Did he float the possibility of pardoning felons convicted in the Floyd riots? Call them "patriots"? His son is in court now. Is Biden doxing the judge's family? Calling the legal system a sham? The prosecutor "deranged" and a "dumb son-of-a-*****, while warning us all that his followers or "the nation" won't tolerate a guilty verdict? Or is he promising to abide by the verdict, and NOT to use his office for personal goals, e.g., pardoning his son. 

2. Dem leaders' behavior: are they calling the system a "scam," the press "liars," and taking time out of Congress to show up at the courthouse to show solidarity? Are they normalizing and legitimating their presidents violent rhetoric? Or are they too saying "let the system work"? Regarding the Floyd riots, did they make a show of supporting those convicted of violence and property destruction, like visiting them in prison? Did they attribute the violence to FBI plants or MAGA protestors operating under false flag? 

3. Regarding past non-MAGA violence in the country, did Biden direct any of that? I.e., call BLM to march to a police precinct and "take your country back"? or tell ANTIFA to "Stand back and Stand by?" Did BLM members then speak of responding to the president's call? If the answer to those questions is no, then equivalence fails.

When I noted that Trump himself did not seem to be on board with that MISSION OF PEACE, given his flouting gag orders and endangering family members of court officers, you could have affirmed your support for the rule of law there, but went instead with the false equivalence between the Floyd and Capitol riots, famously crafted in 2020 by Hannity and Fox friends--who also happen to be the primary engines of the current Trump trial disinformation this thread was intended to address. You refer to my "type" and my "side." Is Fox your side then? The Trump right? Or are just offering "balance" using their whattabout? 

And when I further flagged your imprecise use of the term "leftist," which collects all manner of non-aligned actors into one bag responsible for riots, reminded you that "mostly peaceful" is not some "leftist standard," and explained what the actual term of comparison was, you unleashed a firehose of abusive language, at one point positioning yourself, hivemind-like, as speaking for all forum members except my "cabal." Nevermind that most of the people you respect in the forum do not ascribe to the BLM whattabout. While that far right from which you distance yourself does ascribe to it. That's basically your "we" on this issue--virtually everyone who regularly attacks "leftists." But it's "pathetic" if I associate you with the right.

Still attempting to explain why "leftists" think the Capitol riot more consequential than billions of dollars of property damage in Portland or Minneapolis, I switched from the broken windows figure to the body analogy--a stroke vs a broken arm--and your response was to continue to affirm, figuratively speaking, that the broken arm involved way more tissue damage.  


I could also assert that some unspecified "we" understands YOUR desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the Floyd protests. That SSF finds property damage (and/ or body counts) to be more important doesn't negate the fact that Trump tried to overturn an election and continues to threaten democracy. etc. But I find such "we understand" assertions completely null as evidence; no support for rational argument. 

Simply claiming to understand someone's "desire" is no form of proof, even asserted from some hivemindish 1st person plural. That's what external evidence is for. When you do get around to offering something like external evidence (billions in property damage; arson of a police station), it's about what isn't in dispute, namely that more property damage followed from the Floyd protests that turned to riots than at the Capitol, where for the first time in history a US election almost fell to a coup. 

While you struggle to respond to my latest post, I would like to again point out that at no time in this entire, very wordy response, did you even attempt to address my concerns with your source, its claims or its wording.  A less charitable person would see this as a deliberate dodge and an attempt to focus attention away from that.  But I know you would never do that.

[CJD]

(06-04-2024, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The cognitive dissonance on this board never fails to impress.  We have constant conversations about the ability of professional jurists to remain politically impartial.  Every thread on a SCOTUS decision has one side or the other lambasting certain justices for being partisan actors.  Yet you think among residents of a county in which 86.8% of residents voted for Biden over Trump that you can find twelve impartial, amateur jury members who will completely discount their partisan leanings and judge a case based solely on its merits?

Just so we're clear, professional judges are not capable of being impartial, but twelve rando's from Manhattan definitely are?

Source for election results.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/new-york/

If 86.8% of people in the area voted for Biden over Trump, wouldn't that mean that, given a random sample of 12 people from that area, between 1 and 2 people would be part of that 13.2% that did not vote for Biden over Trump? And that's before the selection process occurs, which probably eliminated a fair amount of that 86.8%.

I get that it's a highly blue area, but highly blue does not mean 100%. It is statistically likely that at least 1 to 2, and potentially even more, of the people on that jury were Trump supporters and even they agreed that he committed these crimes.

Or, Trump's lawyers totally screwed up the selection process and allowed 12 dyed in blue liberals onto the jury.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 01:02 PM)CJD Wrote: If 86.8% of people in the area voted for Biden over Trump, wouldn't that mean that, given a random sample of 12 people from that area, between 1 and 2 people would be part of that 13.2% that did not vote for Biden over Trump? And that's before the selection process occurs, which probably eliminated a fair amount of that 86.8%.

I get that it's a highly blue area, but highly blue does not mean 100%. It is statistically likely that at least 1 to 2, and potentially even more, of the people on that jury were Trump supporters and even they agreed that he committed these crimes.

Or, Trump's lawyers totally screwed up the selection process and allowed 12 dyed in blue liberals onto the jury.

I took statistics in college, but I am no expert.  That said, I don't think you're correct here.  Every time you pull a person for jury duty there's a 87% chance they're a Biden voter.  That chance doesn't decrease for the next pick, it stays exactly the same.  So, statistically, it would be very easy for the twelve jurors to all be Biden voters.  There's essentially a one in ten chance that the person voted for Trump,  Meaning out of thirty people in the jury pool three would be Trump voters.  The DA gets more than three preemptory challenges.  Those three would be the first to go.

Your statistics would be workable if the jurors were chosen completely at random.  They aren't.

I also must reiterate that I'm not alleging this happened here, just that it is very plausible and that Trump has a legitimate argument that it would be very difficult to impossible for him to get a fair trial in that area.  As I said, the same argument in reverse could be made for a deep red area.  He's so polarizing that I think finding twelve impartial jurors would be exceedingly difficult even in a 50/50 area.

[CJD]

(06-12-2024, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I took statistics in college, but I am no expert.  That said, I don't think you're correct here.  Every time you pull a person for jury duty there's a 87% chance they're a Biden voter.  That chance doesn't decrease for the next pick, it stays exactly the same.  So, statistically, it would be very easy for the twelve jurors to all be Biden voters.  

I'm not a statistics expert either, but my understanding is that each time you select a jury member, you have an 86.8% chance they are a Biden voter. Statistically speaking, the odds of you hitting that 86.8% chance 12 times in a row is equivalent to .868^12, or 18.3%.
So, if chosen randomly, there is a 81.7% chance that at least one jury member is not a Biden voter.

Quote:There's essentially a one in ten chance that the person voted for Trump,  Meaning out of thirty people in the jury pool three would be Trump voters.  The DA gets more than three preemptory challenges.  Those three would be the first to go.

Your statistics would be workable if the jurors were chosen completely at random.  They aren't.

You are phrasing the selection process as making it more likely for the Trump voters to be removed. I see it the other way. During the voir dire process, jurors are interviewed about their biases during selection. Let's say...25% of the 86.8% Biden voters are incapable of hiding their bias against Trump (a low end estimate, I imagine, if I've ever met a liberal in my life). That means the pool of Trump voters has immediately grown amongst the eligible jurors, as a quarter of the Biden voters have been summarily removed due to their obvious bias.

The preemptory challenges do not require a reason, so the prosecution must save those for the people who they believe are biased, despite hiding it appropriately.

According to this article, 500 jurors were evaluated and 96 were taken to the courtroom. So I am not sure how many preemptory challenges were given to each side in a case with such an enlarged jury pool, but I find it highly unlikely that the prosecution would be capable of eliminating every Trump voter or suspected Trump voter via the voir dire process without the defense objecting and preventing that in some way.

Maybe I'm wrong and the prosecutors totally fleeced the defense and successfully eliminated every single unbiased (and/or biased towards Trump) juror in that 500 juror pool.

But then I'd ask what the hell the Defense was doing to allow that to happen.

Quote:I also must reiterate that I'm not alleging this happened here, just that it is very plausible and that Trump has a legitimate argument that it would be very difficult to impossible for him to get a fair trial in that area.  As I said, the same argument in reverse could be made for a deep red area.  He's so polarizing that I think finding twelve impartial jurors would be exceedingly difficult even in a 50/50 area.

For what it's worth, I agree that I don't think they found 12 unbiased jurors. If you told me 10 of the 12 were Trump hating Liberals who knew they would vote to convict before the trial even started, I wouldn't be surprised. I just think that the odds that they found (and allowed in) 12 of those biased jurors against Trump to be unlikely. They needed to unanimously convict him and I just don't see a Trump supporter or "unbiased" juror doing that if it weren't a legitimate conviction.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 01:25 PM)CJD Wrote: For what it's worth, I agree that I don't think they found 12 unbiased jurors. If you told me 10 of the 12 were Trump hating Liberals who knew they would vote to convict before the trial even started, I wouldn't be surprised. I just think that the odds that they found (and allowed in) 12 of those biased jurors against Trump to be unlikely. They needed to unanimously convict him and I just don't see a Trump supporter or "unbiased" juror doing that if it weren't a legitimate conviction.

You'll please allow me to concede the rest of your post.  We largely agree and what we disagree on isn't worth the nitpicking.  As to this point I did want to add something.  It is very common for jury holdouts to be pressured into going along with the majority, especially when you're talking about one or two people out of twelve.  People want this to be over with, they want to go home, they've already been there for weeks, if not months.  Even in a scenario such as you provide I can absolutely see a lone holdout giving in just to move on with their lives and due to peer pressure.

[CJD]

(06-12-2024, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll please allow me to concede the rest of your post.  We largely agree and what we disagree on isn't worth the nitpicking.  As to this point I did want to add something.  It is very common for jury holdouts to be pressured into going along with the majority, especially when you're talking about one or two people out of twelve.  People want this to be over with, they want to go home, they've already been there for weeks, if not months.  Even in a scenario such as you provide I can absolutely see a lone holdout giving in just to move on with their lives and due to peer pressure.

It's possible. If the jury were out for several days, I think that would be more likely but, if I recall correctly, they came back in less than a day. if there were hold outs, they didn't hold out for very long

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 03:08 PM)CJD Wrote: It's possible. If the jury were out for several days, I think that would be more likely but, if I recall correctly, they came back in less than a day. if there were hold outs, they didn't hold out for very long

True.  My main point to all of this is that Trump does have legitimate concerns regarding his ability to receive a fair trial in that jurisdiction.  Whether that happened in this case I obviously cannot say.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 01:02 PM)CJD Wrote: If 86.8% of people in the area voted for Biden over Trump, wouldn't that mean that, given a random sample of 12 people from that area, between 1 and 2 people would be part of that 13.2% that did not vote for Biden over Trump? And that's before the selection process occurs, which probably eliminated a fair amount of that 86.8%.

I get that it's a highly blue area, but highly blue does not mean 100%. It is statistically likely that at least 1 to 2, and potentially even more, of the people on that jury were Trump supporters and even they agreed that he committed these crimes.

Or, Trump's lawyers totally screwed up the selection process and allowed 12 dyed in blue liberals onto the jury.

I am not well versed in the jury selection process, but lets look at the numbers.

Roughly 100 prospective jurors, let's assume the stats are on target and 76 of those people are Democrats and 13 are Republicans'. We know consultants are involved to read and predicts which way the potential jurors lean.

The DJT team was likely trying to root out the most extreme left wing type with excisions, challenges, whatever, while the DA was trying to root out the 13 Republicans.

One is far more easily done than the other. Then the midline pool from which to draw jurors is most likely entirely Democrats.

I am not arguing the verdict here, only show how easy it would be to have DJT tried by a very unfavorable jury, if the DA were even the slightest bit competent.

[Dill]

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I found this whole thing very interesting.  Every single major news outlet ran with this data and treated it as gospel.  I didn't find any real investigation into the source's claims or any explanation of their methodology.  

Responding to three issues regarding your assessment of my sources and their data should be enough here. (As I promised in #43)

1.  I gave you TWO different sources, each drawing on a DIFFERENT data collection project, which separately reached similar conclusions about ratio of non-volent to violent protests. The CNN article was using the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED)  https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

The Christian Science Monitor article was based upon a different data collection group--the Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC) at Harvard's Ash Center.  https://ash.harvard.edu/programs/crowd-counting-consortium/

Newspaper reports are not research articles. While it is their job to report data and cite sources, it is not necessarily their job to explain their sources' methods of collection. People with questions about the source can then go directly to the source and evaluate, as I demonstrate in #3 below. 

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Contrast that to counter claims that are more critical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/19/ron-johnsons-misleading-citation-data-back-his-concern-about-blm-protestors/

Notice the great pains they go to to attempt to debunk these claims? 

2. I do indeed "notice." And they don't simply "attempt."  

Sen. Johnson's hyperbolic anti-BLM claims align with yours and are debunked by the same ACLED data sourced in my CNN link.
E.g., Johnson jumped to the conclusion that the violent riots were the fault of BLM or antifa protesters. But that’s not the case either. ACLED’s data does not say that at all. In fact, the violence may have been more the result of police behavior than the actions of demonstrators. Thus it is misleading to frame all of these events as “BLM riots,” Jones said.  etc. etc. 

So that's basically what I've been doing with your BLM whattabout--correcting disinformation. Why would you mistake an article which further develops my position and affirms my sources as one which refutes them? 

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Unfortunately, for your point, I cannot agree with your source as I can say, solely from personal experience, that their numbers cannot be accurate.  Let's start off with a small point, but an odd one.  How did they get the oddly specific number of 2,938,406 protestors?  Then let us move on to the oddly phrased "police officers injured" statistic.  What's odd about that, you may ask.  Why so specific?  Why injured instead of assaulted?  We all know a person can be assaulted but suffer no injury of consequence.  A thinking person may come to the conclusion that they use injured as their metric as the number would be far smaller than officers assaulted.  As I can personally attest, I witnessed hundreds of officers being assaulted in just a month period.  And that was in a specific area of Los Angeles.  That being the case one can only logically conclude that the numbers for Los Angeles County as a whole would be higher, as it would for the entire state, as it would for the entire country.  Also, what constitutes being "injured"?  A cut to your arm?  A broken bone"  An injury that requires medical attention?  Some specificity would be welcome, and it's odd it's not included.

Another small, but odd, fact about this source, it says police officers injured, not law enforcement officers.  Why is that significant?  Because sheriff's deputies are not "police officers".  If a person was trying to manipulate data to make these protests seem less violent than they actually were they could truthfully omit all injuries to sheriff's deputies, or other LEO's not considered police officers, and still correctly claim to present factual, albeit misleading, data...

One would think that area alone would account for a large number of "injuries".  So, again, I would be very interested in a deep dive of these numbers and how they were concluded, because from my personal experience alone, coupled with the above, I find the claim to be far fetched at the very least.  

3. Your questions can be rather easily answered. Two examples:

The Crowd Counting Consortium collects and complies public data about demonstrations and displays them on spreadsheets so anyone can follow up their data. Here is the spreadsheet for June 2020.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-HM-bFsnTd9omYOrB8JOMeQ0XzPvCaVaADKqXQ_RpXg/edit#gid=0.
Notice the number for Alton, NH, is very precise--"7." While that for Madison, IL, is less so--"over 150." After compiling such numbers from every community reporting a protest, they then add them together. That's how the result becomes "oddly specific." 

Then regarding your question "why injured" and  not "assaulted." A "thinking person" should quickly see that the CCC is relying on public data, whose criteria of selection are set by a number of different sources, such as local newspapers relying on local police and hospitals and reporters. Your own description of the vagaries of what counts as assault already suggest why assessing scale of violence might make "injuries" the more reliable guide. Yet you rush to speculate whether those at CCC collecting data already categorized as "injury" themselves DECIDED to use numbers of injured rather than assaulted--i.e., data which no one has compiled--to "manipulate data."   

Looks as if you read my sources looking for anything you could regard as suspicious, and checked no fuirther. I.e., looks like you were starting from conclusions and stopping with their first confirmation. 

Had you made clear from the beginning that you were going to disregard external evidence and data that conflict with your impressions you'd have saved us both a lot of trouble. 

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While you struggle to respond to my latest post, I would like to again point out that at no time in this entire, very wordy response, did you even attempt to address my concerns with your source, its claims or its wording.  A less charitable person would see this as a deliberate dodge and an attempt to focus attention away from that.  But I know you would never do that.

See post #53 above. 

As I explained in #43, I separated your treatment of sources from the rest of your post to discussion the more impressionistic parts first.
A more charitable person would have noted this point.

And I'd already explained why your misfiring critique of my "source" was already a false equivalence --i.e., a BLM whattabout--and no adequate response to the question of which party leaders are more violence prone and which are more stable. So far you made no case that your whattabout answers that question. 

So much for the "deliberate dodge" angle.  

[CJD]

(06-12-2024, 03:20 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I am not well versed in the jury selection process, but lets look at the numbers.

Roughly 100 prospective jurors, let's assume the stats are on target and 76 of those people are Democrats and 13 are Republicans'. We know consultants are involved to read and predicts which way the potential jurors lean.

The DJT team was likely trying to root out the most extreme left wing type with excisions, challenges, whatever, while the DA was trying to root out the 13 Republicans.

One is far more easily done than the other. Then the midline pool from which to draw jurors is most likely entirely Democrats.

I am not arguing the verdict here, only show how easy it would be to have DJT tried by a very unfavorable jury, if the DA were even the slightest bit competent.

In this case, there were 500 jurors selected and interviewed and 96 were moved to the next stage of selection before 12 were selected and 6 alternates were designated. 

It's true that in a heavily blue area, the prosecution has an advantage in that they need to eliminate fewer jurors, but they need to give a reason for most of their eliminations. they are given a few "no reason" dismissals, but they need to use those very tactfully. The stated goal is to get an unbiased jury to the jury box.

The real goal is to get as many of your biased jurors as possible to the jury box, for the DA and the defense. In the case of a criminal trial, rigging the jury is significantly more difficult for the prosecutor than the defense because, in reality, all the defense needs to do is sneak one biased juror onto the jury to potentially hang the entire trial, whereas the prosecution, if they were planning on creating a rigged jury, would need to ensure all 12 jurors be satisfactorily biased in their favor but not obvious about it such that the defense has grounds to exclude them or to use their preemptory challenges on them.

In this case, both sides did extensive background research on these jurors, even going so far as to look at past social media posts that indicated any kind of bias one way or another. That's why they had such an expanded jury pool, as they were excluding hundreds of people at a time for various reasons.

I don't even use social media that much, but I have liked a few tweets that criticized Trump, and I bet that would have been enough for me to get kicked out of the pool without a preemptory challenge. If you live in Manhattan and hate Trump, your social media is probably much worse than mine haha.

That is to say, I think you're exaggerating how easy it is to create a rigged jury, even in a biased pool. I think getting a single juror who favored Trump onto the jury would be significantly easier.

All the defense needed was a true Trump supporter in that 12 juror pool to spoil the entire trial. It seems to me that they were either incapable of properly poison pilling the jury or it was such a legitimate case that even Trump supporters, when faced with the evidence, would have had to concede that he did indeed commit these crimes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 03:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Responding to three issues regarding your assessment of my sources and their data should be enough here. (As I promised in #43)

1.  I gave you TWO different sources, each drawing on a DIFFERENT data collection project, which separately reached similar conclusions about ratio of non-volent to violent protests. The CNN article was using the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED)  https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

The Christian Science Monitor article was based upon a different data collection group--the Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC) at Harvard's Ash Center.  https://ash.harvard.edu/programs/crowd-counting-consortium/

Newspaper reports are not research articles. While it is their job to report data and cite sources, it is not necessarily their job to explain their sources' methods of collection. People with questions about the source can then go directly to the source and evaluate, as I demonstrate in #3 below.

Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources?  That seems like a poor argument.  As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point.

Quote:2. I do indeed "notice." And they don't simply "attempt."  

Sen. Johnson's hyperbolic anti-BLM claims align with yours and are debunked by the same ACLED data sourced in my CNN link.
E.g., Johnson jumped to the conclusion that the violent riots were the fault of BLM or antifa protesters. But that’s not the case either. ACLED’s data does not say that at all. In fact, the violence may have been more the result of police behavior than the actions of demonstrators. Thus it is misleading to frame all of these events as “BLM riots,” Jones said.  etc. etc. 

So that's basically what I've been doing with your BLM whattabout--correcting disinformation. Why would you mistake an article which further develops my position and affirms my sources as one which refutes them? 

So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

Quote:3. Your questions can be rather easily answered. Two examples:

The Crowd Counting Consortium collects and complies public data about demonstrations and displays them on spreadsheets so anyone can follow up their data. Here is the spreadsheet for June 2020.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-HM-bFsnTd9omYOrB8JOMeQ0XzPvCaVaADKqXQ_RpXg/edit#gid=0.
Notice the number for Alton, NH, is very precise--"7." While that for Madison, IL, is less so--"over 150." After compiling such numbers from every community reporting a protest, they then add them together. That's how the result becomes "oddly specific." 

Adding crowd estimations together and reporting them as 100% empirical fact and then amalgamating all said numbers seems to me to be poor practice.  A more scientifically robust, and infinitely more honest, practice would be to put an estimate on that number and round it off.  So, yes, it is an oddly specific number and immediately raises concerns about the source's honesty.

Quote:Then regarding your question "why injured" and  not "assaulted." A "thinking person" should quickly see that the CCC is relying on public data, whose criteria of selection are set by a number of different sources, such as local newspapers relying on local police and hospitals and reporters. Your own description of the vagaries of what counts as assault already suggest why assessing scale of violence might make "injuries" the more reliable guide. Yet you rush to speculate whether those at CCC collecting data already categorized as "injury" themselves DECIDED to use numbers of injured rather than assaulted--i.e., data which no one has compiled--to "manipulate data."   

A "thinking person?"  Yet you hold yourself up as this paragon of polite debate and intellectual rigor.  Either your standards are slipping quite a bit or you were never what you claimed to be.  But I'll move on from your insult and address your actual response.  There are no vagaries as to what legally constitutes an assault.  It is codified into law and laws have to be specific, especially criminal law.  There are vagaries as to what constitutes an "injury", especially as your source provides no explanation of their criteria.  In addition to what they consider an injury, how were these injuries reported and by who?  Also, why can they compile data on injuries but not assaults?  You're actually raising more concerns about your sources credibility, not lessening them

Quote:Looks as if you read my sources looking for anything you could regard as suspicious, and checked no fuirther. I.e., looks like you were starting from conclusions and stopping with their first confirmation. 

No, I gave it a "thinking persons" perusal and immediately identified ways they could have fudged numbers and flaws in their process.  Working in a deep blue jurisdiction I am intimately familiar with the way wording is used to manipulate and hide unpalatable data.  Your source had several immediate red flags in that regard.  I started with no conclusion, unlike yourself in this sentence, I examined your source and what I spoke on stood out to me.

Quote:Had you made clear from the beginning that you were going to disregard external evidence and data that conflict with your impressions you'd have saved us both a lot of trouble. 

How is directly addressing the claims of your source and raising legitimate questions disregarding anything?  It would be more accurately described as paying it intense attention.  

Your entire post only addressed a single point I raised, and I'm afraid it did so rather poorly.  In fact, as I already stated, your poor attempt actually raised more concerns while alleviating or addressing any.  I understand your desire to dismiss this out of hand, despite it being rather in conflict with your self assertion of being a logical and fact based debater of topics.  But you're going to have to do a little bit better if you're hoping to convince anyone but yourself that you posted anything of substance here, or that I am making a disingenuous argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 03:43 PM)Dill Wrote: See post #53 above. 

As I explained in #43, I separated your treatment of sources from the rest of your post to discussion the more impressionistic parts first.
A more charitable person would have noted this point.

And I'd already explained why your misfiring critique of my "source" was already a false equivalence --i.e., a BLM whattabout--and no adequate response to the question of which party leaders are more violence prone and which are more stable. So far you made no case that your whattabout answers that question. 

So much for the "deliberate dodge" angle.  

See post #56, above. 

Also, you'd think a "thinking person" would be able to absolutely carve up a "misfiring critique."

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 01:25 PM)CJD Wrote: I'm not a statistics expert either, but my understanding is that each time you select a jury member, you have an 86.8% chance they are a Biden voter. Statistically speaking, the odds of you hitting that 86.8% chance 12 times in a row is equivalent to .868^12, or 18.3%.
So, if chosen randomly, there is a 81.7% chance that at least one jury member is not a Biden voter.

Here you are assuming the pool is only drawn from voters in the last presidential election.  In the last mayoral race, only 22% of Manhattan voters actually voters. Likely the total was higher for the presidential election. https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2021/12/01/nyc-election-results-nyc-elections-2021-nyc-very-low-turnout.  Quite possible that 30-60% of the pool did not vote for either Biden or Trump. NY draws jurors from many different lists, not just registered voters.

(06-12-2024, 01:25 PM)CJD Wrote: You are phrasing the selection process as making it more likely for the Trump voters to be removed. I see it the other way. During the voir dire process, jurors are interviewed about their biases during selection. Let's say...25% of the 86.8% Biden voters are incapable of hiding their bias against Trump (a low end estimate, I imagine, if I've ever met a liberal in my life). That means the pool of Trump voters has immediately grown amongst the eligible jurors, as a quarter of the Biden voters have been summarily removed due to their obvious bias.

The preemptory challenges do not require a reason, so the prosecution must save those for the people who they believe are biased, despite hiding it appropriately.

I agree with you here.  Granted the defense might have to use their peremptory challenges earlier and more often, but all they have to do is get that one Newsmax fan who believes Trump was called by God. The prosecution is trying to get 12 people who can be counted on to follow the facts and the law.

And it looks like that's what happened in this case. We should want that and not the fanatic holdout option. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 03:59 PM)CJD Wrote: All the defense needed was a true Trump supporter in that 12 juror pool to spoil the entire trial. It seems to me that they were either incapable of properly poison pilling the jury or it was such a legitimate case that even Trump supporters, when faced with the evidence, would have had to concede that he did indeed commit these crimes.

Or the DA's office were able to successfully stack a jury. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 03:59 PM)CJD Wrote: In this case, there were 500 jurors selected and interviewed and 96 were moved to the next stage of selection before 12 were selected and 6 alternates were designated. 

It's true that in a heavily blue area, the prosecution has an advantage in that they need to eliminate fewer jurors, but they need to give a reason for most of their eliminations. they are given a few "no reason" dismissals, but they need to use those very tactfully. The stated goal is to get an unbiased jury to the jury box.

The real goal is to get as many of your biased jurors as possible to the jury box, for the DA and the defense. In the case of a criminal trial, rigging the jury is significantly more difficult for the prosecutor than the defense because, in reality, all the defense needs to do is sneak one biased juror onto the jury to potentially hang the entire trial, whereas the prosecution, if they were planning on creating a rigged jury, would need to ensure all 12 jurors be satisfactorily biased in their favor but not obvious about it such that the defense has grounds to exclude them or to use their preemptory challenges on them.

In this case, both sides did extensive background research on these jurors, even going so far as to look at past social media posts that indicated any kind of bias one way or another. That's why they had such an expanded jury pool, as they were excluding hundreds of people at a time for various reasons.

I don't even use social media that much, but I have liked a few tweets that criticized Trump, and I bet that would have been enough for me to get kicked out of the pool without a preemptory challenge. If you live in Manhattan and hate Trump, your social media is probably much worse than mine haha.

That is to say, I think you're exaggerating how easy it is to create a rigged jury, even in a biased pool. I think getting a single juror who favored Trump onto the jury would be significantly easier.

All the defense needed was a true Trump supporter in that 12 juror pool to spoil the entire trial. It seems to me that they were either incapable of properly poison pilling the jury or it was such a legitimate case that even Trump supporters, when faced with the evidence, would have had to concede that he did indeed commit these crimes.

I think with the numbers you supplied, it makes it even easier for the DA to knock out the likely Republican's.

500 down to 96 means 404 jurors were eliminated.

Of the pool, if the statistics hold, 435 would be D's and 65 would be R's. Each side would be able to dismiss 202 jurors. I think it is a lot easier, especially if you deep dive their social media, to root out the R's in that group, especially given so many swings, and load the jury with all D's.

202 tries to root out the 65 R's are pretty good odds, let alone if one or two slipped by, there is good chance they do not even make the jury.