Conversation

Notices

1. hyolobrika@berserker.town's status on Sunday, 16-Apr-2023 19:38:53 JST Hyolobrika

   > [Peairs's defense] emphasized that Peairs was an "average Joe", a man just like the jury members' neighbors, a man who "liked sugar in his grits".[11]
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
   You should not be allowed to make that argument in a court of law.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 16-Apr-2023 19:38:52 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Hyolobrika why not?
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 16-Apr-2023 21:20:49 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Hyolobrika It's not a particularly compelling argument, but __shouldn't__ be allowed to seems harsh. You should be able to make any arguments that aren't outright lies to defend yourself. If it sways the jury then that's a good argument. If the prosecution thought that it was somehow misleading they could always have objected to the claim. They could also have used it against him and said everyone thought Ed Gein was a regular guy :shrug:
   • hyolobrika@berserker.town's status on Sunday, 16-Apr-2023 21:20:50 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere
     I can't think of a circumstance where it's relevant to the case.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 16-Apr-2023 21:30:05 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     @Hyolobrika it sounds like he was clearly remorseful and lost everything anyway. From the way the story reads on wikipedia it seems like an unfortunate but justified homicide. He used multiple verbal commands to try to avoid violence, but he was on his property and someone he didn't know seemed to be charging him. He waited until he was around 5ft away and only fired one shot. Generally speaking you are trained to start firing 21 ft away and don't stop until the attacker stops.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 16-Apr-2023 21:31:18 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     @Hyolobrika 21 ft takes an aggressor about 3 seconds. You don't have much time to react if you are going to use a firearm in close range. If you choose not to fire you run a risk of having your firearm taken from you.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 03:35:08 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Hyolobrika you don't need to be larger than a person to overpower them. If a person is not trained in hand to hand combat or martial arts they can be at a severe disadvantage to someone much smaller. Also if he had something that could be mistaken as a gun then he was still pretty forgiving by allowing him several verbal commands.
   • hyolobrika@berserker.town's status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 03:35:09 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere
     I don't think he was at risk of having his firearm taken off him. The victim was apparently very slight compared to him. The strongest argument I can think of in the homeowner's favour is that he thought the victim's camera was a gun.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 03:38:48 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Hyolobrika That's why I said truthful. I don't think you should be able to misdirect people, but if it was suspected that a statement like I'm a normal guy would misdirect the jury then I would expect the prosecution to object or the judge to step in. I don't see how that would be the case in at least this situation.
     
     Avoiding a prejudicial jury is why we have jury selection isn't it? By the time you are on the jury and listening to the case it's your job to judge, so it's not really prejudice if an argument sways you in favor of the defendent.
   • hyolobrika@berserker.town's status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 03:38:49 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere
     >You should be able to make any arguments that aren't outright lies to defend yourself.
     I don't think I agree.
     Moderating courtrooms for arguments that might "prejudice the jury" is routine in courtrooms, I thought?
     Really sleep-deprived though (for the benefit of people who might want to jump in the thread who haven't seen my other post with the privacy settings on)

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 05:18:47 JST mist

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     @Hyolobrika @thatguyoverthere Yeah, it's common. Here's the most surprising courtroom "moderation" story I've heard (unrelated to this case):
     
     Apparently some judge did not allow an expert forensic witness to "use Bayesian statistics" because there mere utterance of sophisticated stats terminology would make the argument appear more certain than it was, defeating the purpose of stats in the first place.
     
     One reason I fear the court system is that I don't really trust that the "jury of my peers" will really be my peers. Race may cause bias (as you're suggesting), sure, but math illiteracy / general retardation scares me even more. Every time I see some jury member interviewed on TV, it scares me (although there is surely also a selection effect there).
     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • hyolobrika@berserker.town's status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 05:18:56 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • mist
     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @ai
     Pros of jury system:
     - defence against arbitrary power by judges
     Cons:
     -people are dumb
     @thatguyoverthere

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 17-Apr-2023 05:18:57 JST mist

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     @Hyolobrika @thatguyoverthere Agreed on both counts!
     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.