 
     |
| Hey what we gonna do? We're gonna go out there and ki.. ki.. kill U.S. Senators . . . (Page 1/3) |
|
rinselberg
|
APR 21, 10:37 AM
|
|
Bonus points for anyone who recognizes the reference.
"Trump fans scarce among potential jurors at trial of Queens man accused of threatening Democratic politicians"
| quote | Trump supporters in trouble for threatening violence to politicians might consider what Queens resident Brendan Hunt saw Tuesday in Brooklyn Federal Court during jury selection at his trial on charges of threatening to slaughter prominent Democrats.
“I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. I can’t stand him,” one potential juror said. . . .
[Brendan] Hunt, 37 — a fan of the bogus idea [so says Noah Goldberg, reporter for the New York Daily News] that Democrats stole last November’s election from then-president Donald Trump — is charged with making threatening remarks toward Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. . . .
Opening statements in Hunt’s trial could start as soon as Tuesday in what is believed to be the first Capitol-riot related federal trial in the country.
Hunt did not participate in the riot and invasion of the Capitol. But two days later, he called for Trump supporters to go back to Washington and “show up with our guns,” prosecutors said.
“We need to go back to the U.S. Capitol when all of the senators and a lot of the representatives are back there, and this time we have to show up with our guns. And we need to slaughter these motherf-----s,” he said in an 88-second social media video titled “Kill your senators,” according to court papers. . . .
Since his arrest, Hunt has been suspended from his job as an analyst for the state court system. His father is a retired Queens Family Court judge, John Hunt. |
|
Noah Goldberg for the New York Daily News; April 21, 2021.
https://www.nydailynews.com...vdnxxvvwq-story.html
First Amendment-protected speech? Will that "dog" Hunt?
"Watch this space."[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-21-2021).]
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
APR 21, 10:43 AM
|
|
Seems to me a "Jury of his peers" would be 100% Trump supporters, otherwise he will have a biased jury and trial.
Appeal documents are already being written and it aint even started yet. 
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
APR 21, 12:11 PM
|
|
And a 'jury of his peers' in the Chauvin trial would have been 12 law enforcement officers. 
We've been down that road in decades past when all police matters were handled in-house by the police.
It was a failure by all accounts.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee a perfect trial. It only guarantees a fair trial, or as close to one as possible.[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-21-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
APR 21, 12:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
And a 'jury of his peers' in the Chauvin trial would have been 12 law enforcement officers.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee a perfect trial. It only guarantees a fair trial, or as close to one as possible. |
|
No but if your haltered of someone means you will falsely accuse someone else of a crime then you should be disqualified.
Find 12 impartial jurors or just 12 people that haven't been on social media or watched what is called news today.
If you do they would probably be the first to be dismissed.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
APR 22, 12:44 AM
|
|
WT ever livin' F is the point of that moronic article?
I'm sure it thrills equally moronic, low information, Leftists, but in the most basic practical terms it's complete manure.
People hold and express all kinds of opinions.
VOIR DIRE is the court process by which potential jurors with extreme opinions both FOR and AGAINST topics germane to the defendant are "weeded out" by attorneys and judges.
That "article" offers nothing of any importance as it just allegedly quotes a few expressed opinions. It never tells how large the jury pool in voir dire was or exactly how many of the jury pool shared the opinions alleged in that "article".
That "article" says absolutely nothing about who was chosen to serve on that jury and who was excused on the basis of their expressed opinions in voir dire.
That "article" is nothing more than a puddle of moron's drool pretending to be "journalism" meant to catch the attention of exactly the kind of audience that parroted it here on this forum.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-22-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
APR 22, 01:15 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
Seems to me a "Jury of his peers" would be 100% Trump supporters
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
And a 'jury of his peers' in the Chauvin trial would have been 12 law enforcement officers.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee a perfect trial. It only guarantees a fair trial, or as close to one as possible.
|
|
It appears obvious that neither one of you understand what a "jury of peers" means.
American citizens are guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of our Constitution to have a "jury of peers", a right that has historic roots all the way back in the Magna Carta.
THAT is only a part of what "guarantees a fair trial" in our system of jurisprudence.
"A jury of one's peers" does not now, nor has it ever, meant (post Magna Carta), a jury composed of people just like the defendant except to mean peers being other citizens.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-22-2021).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 22, 10:31 AM
|
|
Plan "A" was to post the New York Times report, of considerably higher quality, but I went with a report from the New York Daily News because, unlike the New York Times report, it's not protected by a subscriber paywal" and it provides at least the bare facts of the story--that this man is now on trial because of his remarks on social media.
Within the Daily News report, I did not attach any particular significance to the remarks about the juror selection process, or about the number of (potential) jurors that expressed their strong dislike for and disapproval of President Trump.
I didn't give any thought to removing that part of the Daily News report from view, because I didn't anticipate some other forum member (who would that be?  ) seizing upon it like an autistic child fixates upon a small toy and starts twirling it incessantly in his hands, or banging it against a wall or sticking it in his mouth and chewing on it. Or sticking it into some other bodily orifice, like one of his nostrils, or even some other bodily orifice. Or removing his trousers and trying to set his ass on fire.
"Ass fire in Florida"
Here's the New York Times report. "For the record."
"He Said to ‘Kill Your Senators’ in an Online Video. Now He’s on Trial."
Nicole Hong for the New York Times; April 21, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...nt-capitol-riot.html[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-22-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
APR 22, 11:50 AM
|
|
|
He shoulda just told them to "be more confrontational", since apparently that means nothing.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
APR 22, 04:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
It appears obvious that neither one of you understand what a "jury of peers" means.
American citizens are guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of our Constitution to have a "jury of peers", a right that has historic roots all the way back in the Magna Carta.
THAT is only a part of what "guarantees a fair trial" in our system of jurisprudence.
"A jury of one's peers" does not now, nor has it ever, meant (post Magna Carta), a jury composed of people just like the defendant except to mean peers being other citizens.
|
|
No one has ever seriously stated nor implied that it did, and it's why I enclosed the phrase in single quotation marks, but thanks for pointing out the obvious.[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-22-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
APR 23, 12:24 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Plan "A" was to post the New York Times report,
|
|
BUT YOU DIDN'T...........which completely validates my earlier point.
You got the very same THRILL out of posting that pointless, puerile, pile of crap here as an adolescent does setting fire to a paper bag full of dog poop on a doorstep, ringing the doorbell and running away.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-23-2021).]
|
|
|
|