Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
7,352
Reaction score
8,750
Points
113
I believe you're in law school, correct? Do you mind sharing a little more about this/your take. I'm genuinely curious/interested.
So, in federal court, every person charged with a 'serious' offense has the right to a trial by jury. A serious offense is any offense that is punishable by more than six months in prison and a $500 fine. (That's the threshold to be a 'serious' crime in both federal and state court). Federal juries must have 12 jurors on them, and their verdicts must be unanimous.

In state courts, defendants who are charged with serious crimes also have the right to a trial by jury, but the requirements for state juries are different. They can have as few as 6 jurors, but if a jury has 6 jurors, the verdict must be unanimous. However, the case Apodaca v. Oregon held that nonunanimous jury verdicts are constitutional, at least as to 11-1 or 10-2 votes. Oregon and Louisiana were the only two states to still allow nonunanimous verdicts, and Louisiana changed their law at the start of 2019. The laws allowing nonunanimous verdicts were Jim Crow era laws, and many argue that they were designed to diminish the votes of minority jurors.

The man from today's case, Evangelisto Ramos, was convicted of murder in 2014 by a 10-2 vote. Today's decision overrules Apodaca v. Oregon and holds that unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses are required in state criminal trials.

I think that it was a good ruling. 48 of the 50 states already required unanimous verdicts. Federal courts were already required to have unanimous verdicts, and I see little reason not to fully incorporate that into the states. I don't really see how you can convict someone 'beyond a reasonable doubt' if the jury doesn't even unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty. The history behind the laws makes a very strong argument that they were created for racist reasons, and I personally agree with that argument. Those states didn't want black jurors to be able to stop convictions. Some believe that the 'conservative' members of the court who voted with the majority did it so that they can ignore stare decisis in the future and overturn previous Supreme Court cases. Justice Kagan is getting a lot of flack online for dissenting in this case, but it seems like she do it for stare decisis* reasons.

* Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case
 

camakazee

RealCavsFans.com
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
15,669
Points
123
So, in federal court, every person charged with a 'serious' offense has the right to a trial by jury. A serious offense is any offense that is punishable by more than six months in prison and a $500 fine. (That's the threshold to be a 'serious' crime in both federal and state court). Federal juries must have 12 jurors on them, and their verdicts must be unanimous.

In state courts, defendants who are charged with serious crimes also have the right to a trial by jury, but the requirements for state juries are different. They can have as few as 6 jurors, but if a jury has 6 jurors, the verdict must be unanimous. However, the case Apodaca v. Oregon held that nonunanimous jury verdicts are constitutional, at least as to 11-1 or 10-2 votes. Oregon and Louisiana were the only two states to still allow nonunanimous verdicts, and Louisiana changed their law at the start of 2019. The laws allowing nonunanimous verdicts were Jim Crow era laws, and many argue that they were designed to diminish the votes of minority jurors.

The man from today's case, Evangelisto Ramos, was convicted of murder in 2014 by a 10-2 vote. Today's decision overrules Apodaca v. Oregon and holds that unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses are required in state criminal trials.

I think that it was a good ruling. 48 of the 50 states already required unanimous verdicts. Federal courts were already required to have unanimous verdicts, and I see little reason not to fully incorporate that into the states. I don't really see how you can convict someone 'beyond a reasonable doubt' if the jury doesn't even unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty. The history behind the laws makes a very strong argument that they were created for racist reasons, and I personally agree with that argument. Those states didn't want black jurors to be able to stop convictions. Some believe that the 'conservative' members of the court who voted with the majority did it so that they can ignore stare decisis in the future and overturn previous Supreme Court cases. Justice Kagan is getting a lot of flack online for dissenting in this case, but it seems like she do it for stare decisis* reasons.

* Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case
Good to know, thanks for the breakdown!
 

Rich

Saucin'
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
31,560
Reaction score
37,327
Points
148
Us crude oil went negative. As in they cant even pay you to take a barrel off of their hands.

That seems really, really, really bad.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
3,551
Points
113
Us crude oil went negative. As in they cant even pay you to take a barrel off of their hands.

That seems really, really, really bad.
From what I have read it is more about the timing of how things have happened in the market today. June delivery is still in the 20s. Now is it good no, but more caused by speculators who don’t want the oil having to sell paper because they have no way to accept oil.
 

Wrathe

Lurking in the shadows....
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
2,529
Points
113
Us crude oil went negative. As in they cant even pay you to take a barrel off of their hands.

That seems really, really, really bad.
I got some space in my garage and basement. I'll be loaded when it rebounds! :p
 

Sebastian

Maréchal d'Empire (AKA King Stannis)
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
16,084
Reaction score
23,811
Points
135
As I feared, from the beginning, extremists are hijacking the Trump Rallies, er, protests.

It makes it very difficult to separate those who honestly believe in principles and those who are simply out there making an anti-Democrat/Liberal/Anti-Semitic/White Nationalist statement and don't have an informed opinion on the virus or its economic ramifications.

The vast majority of the country are against these protests now. Fringe elements, and Trump's ham-fisted handling of them, have obscured the real message.


Some Ohio Coronavirus Protesters Using Anti-Semitic Symbolism



COLUMBUS, Ohio - A photo from Saturday’s stay-at-home protest at the Statehouse is gaining traction on Twitter for its anti-Semitic message.

The photograph captured two men in a minivan. One held a sign with an illustration of rodent with the Star of David on its side and the words “The Real Plague.”

The protest movement against coronavirus restrictions has been a mishmash of people. Some adhere to public health officials’ guidance of distancing themselves at least 6 feet apart and wearing masks. They want to return to work. On the more extreme are others who call coronavirus a hoax.

But the anti-Semitism might drown out all their messages.

On Monday, at least one protestor at the Ohio Statehouse wore a Proud Boys T-shirt. The group is described as misogynistic and Islamophobic. On Saturday and Sunday, social media reacted in disgust -- and mockery -- to the sign from the minivan.

“There are symbols of hatred mixed in," he said. “I think it’s important to call that out. I’m not going to let that pass. I’m not. There are people out there exercising their rights. By no means am I saying they’re all anti-Semitic, they’re all racists, but there is an element there.”

Weinstein said that the protestors have a constitutional right to protest -- Ohio’s stay-at-home order specifically carves out “First Amendment-protected speech.”

“I’m glad to support everyone’s First Amendment right to express their view, and I will gladly exercise mine to push back on anti-Semitism whenever and wherever I see it,” Weinstein said.

In Ohio, one of the groups that organized Saturday’s rally was Ohio Gun Owners, a relatively new organization to the state’s political scene that uses incendiary rhetoric mostly at gun-friendly lawmakers, hoping for them to further their policy agenda. Ohio Gun Owners is a copycat of similar groups the founder’s family started in other states.

Earlier protests were organized by other groups, including Ohio Stands Strong, that are opposed to Gov. Mike DeWine’s public health orders, deny the effectiveness of vaccines and whose members have been driving by DeWine’s Greene County house, filming it and counting cars. A spokesman for DeWine had said last week the governor’s security detail was aware of the surveillance and he couldn’t say anything beyond that.

Ohio Stands Strong also uses imagery with a red pill, which the Anti-Defamation League says symbolizes political awakening and commitment -- including sometimes commitment as extreme as believing Jews control the world.

Wednesday’s Lansing, Michigan protest was promoted by the Michigan Freedom Fund, which is linked to the family of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, although it appears another group may have organized the event.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020...pMGb353XC6YKLxpkGub0kmqEKN0YK5OLinyvl-Bvv60Ps
 

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
7,352
Reaction score
8,750
Points
113
Very true and very good points.

"The line of attack is the familiar one of using a few isolated idiots or kooks to tar the entire enterprise. To this end, if there’s one thing Democrats (and the media) want you to know about the anti-lockdown protest at the Michigan state capitol in Lansing last week, it’s that people were flying Confederate flags."

"More broadly, any political protest will draw its share of nuts and fringe types. But that a couple of zealots displayed Confederate flags at this event involving as many as 4,000 people isn’t the first, second, or third thing to know about the protest, which can be more accurately described as lavishly star-spangled."


"Near the beginning, the Detroit Free Pressvideo does show one Confederate flag, a man with the Stars-and-Bars emblazoned with a rifle and the words “come and get it.” That’s it. One idiot. Despite the video capturing hundreds of people in their cars and on the street and capitol grounds at the height of the protest.

All of this suggests that you could have spent hours at this protest and have seen no Confederate flags whatsoever."

"It’s entirely legitimate, obviously, to disagree with the anti-lockdown protests and to think they are wrong to want to open up now. But, please, don’t depict them all as a bunch of neo-Confederates. It’s tiresome, and not true."


 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,911
Reaction score
12,533
Points
123
Very true and very good points.

"The line of attack is the familiar one of using a few isolated idiots or kooks to tar the entire enterprise. To this end, if there’s one thing Democrats (and the media) want you to know about the anti-lockdown protest at the Michigan state capitol in Lansing last week, it’s that people were flying Confederate flags."

"More broadly, any political protest will draw its share of nuts and fringe types. But that a couple of zealots displayed Confederate flags at this event involving as many as 4,000 people isn’t the first, second, or third thing to know about the protest, which can be more accurately described as lavishly star-spangled."


"Near the beginning, the Detroit Free Pressvideo does show one Confederate flag, a man with the Stars-and-Bars emblazoned with a rifle and the words “come and get it.” That’s it. One idiot. Despite the video capturing hundreds of people in their cars and on the street and capitol grounds at the height of the protest.

All of this suggests that you could have spent hours at this protest and have seen no Confederate flags whatsoever."

"It’s entirely legitimate, obviously, to disagree with the anti-lockdown protests and to think they are wrong to want to open up now. But, please, don’t depict them all as a bunch of neo-Confederates. It’s tiresome, and not true."


I agree with this sentiment. Using a few examples and assigning those attributes to the many is always a bad thing.

I also feel the snippet you provided tries to paint people disagreeing with the protests as incorrect, and singling out things like the Confederate flag before walking it back with the last line.
 

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
7,352
Reaction score
8,750
Points
113
I agree with this sentiment. Using a few examples and assigning those attributes to the many is always a bad thing.

I also feel the snippet you provided tries to paint people disagreeing with the protests as incorrect, and singling out things like the Confederate flag before walking it back with the last line.
It's the National Review so I'm not surprised if that's what they tried doing. I'm not a big protest guy in general, but if people do it peacefully I don't have a problem with them. Unfortunately, even well-meaning protests can attract jackasses with bad intentions. I get why people disagree with the protests, but I get why people are going to them too.
 

Jack Brickman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
31,242
Reaction score
39,224
Points
148
It's the National Review so I'm not surprised if that's what they tried doing. I'm not a big protest guy in general, but if people do it peacefully I don't have a problem with them. Unfortunately, even well-meaning protests can attract jackasses with bad intentions. I get why people disagree with the protests, but I get why people are going to them too.
I have no issue with people protesting the stay at home directives if they want to, but if they're going to not wear masks or gloves and stand in close proximity, all they're doing is ensuring these stay at home orders stay in place longer because they're going to be some of the people that continue spreading the infection through their stupidity.

You can protest and still take proper safety precautions. The same way when I go to the store I don't stand right next to anyone or touch my face.
 

Kiddo

NBA Starter
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
5,049
Reaction score
2,998
Points
113

About damn time. General Flynn did nothing wrong and plead guilty only so they’d leave his family alone. His own attorneys at the time were trying to get him to give dirt on Trump. The FBI totally set him up. I don’t care which side you’re on, this should never be allowed to happen!
 

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,275.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Radio

Top