3 minutes ago, ChickenWyngz said:

 

I appreciate you being willing to have the dialogue. 

I expected the bolded to be part of a reply, and I agree to an extent. My only thought on that is if it is someone that has been correctly convicted of a felony, then I KNOW they have made questionable decisions based on the legal system. Yeah, there are plenty of whack-jobs that don't have felonies, but I'd hope both sides being able to weed out jurors will help out there. 

As far as your first point, I actually agree... mostly. If someone is convicted of a felony then let them serve there time BUT use that time to educated, etc. Then once they are released for a certain amount of time and have stayed on the right side of the law give some of these privileges back. 

With all that said above, I do believe there are certain felonies that you should live a life without certain privileges and even in shame. Sex related crimes against children come to mind. 

I agree.  I certainly would not want a convicted child sex offender substitute teaching. 

1 hour ago, ChickenWyngz said:

I'm not making an argument here. I'm always willing to listen and learn. Do you all believe individuals with felonies should be allow on a jury? @bugatti @TheDeuce @PurplePride92

If so, why? Again, not looking to make it an argument. It's always been my belief that those who legitimately commit a felony clearly show a lack of good judgement as to the laws and aren't someone I'd trust making decisions with such an impact on someone's life. 

I have always believed that if they have served their time/paid their debt then they should be allowed to be a 100% full participant in American society.   

4 minutes ago, ChickenWyngz said:

I'm not making an argument here. I'm always willing to listen and learn. Do you all believe individuals with felonies should be allow on a jury? @bugatti @TheDeuce @PurplePride92

If so, why? Again, not looking to make it an argument. It's always been my belief that those who legitimately commit a felony clearly show a lack of good judgement as to the laws and aren't someone I'd trust making decisions with such an impact on someone's life. 

In general, I don't think one felony (depending on the nature) should automatically disqualify you from being on a jury. 

1 hour ago, theguru said:

I agree.  I certainly would not want a convicted child sex offender substitute teaching. 

If I were a parent, I get that.

It is almost bizarre the lengths we go to in identifying registered sex offenders as if these (child) predators drive the streets attacking their victims. While that does happen, chances are much more likely a predator is living at home with a victim, as that is how most of these crimes are committed.

40 minutes ago, bugatti said:

If I were a parent, I get that.

It is almost bizarre the lengths we go to in identifying registered sex offenders as if these (child) predators drive the streets attacking their victims. While that does happen, chances are much more likely a predator is living at home with a victim, as that is how most of these crimes are committed.

I am not really sure what you are getting at with that commentary.  We either allow child sex offenders to have close contact with children or we do not allow it.  Same thing with violent felons and guns. 

46 minutes ago, theguru said:

I am not really sure what you are getting at with that commentary.  We either allow child sex offenders to have close contact with children or we do not allow it.  Same thing with violent felons and guns. 

I was straying off topic a bit. It was more so a commentary about how most sexual abuses are committed by a relative or close acquaintance to a victim. Not a random guy in a van, which is what the perception is. Don't read much into it.

13 minutes ago, bugatti said:

I was straying off topic a bit. It was more so a commentary about how most sexual abuses are committed by a relative or close acquaintance to a victim. Not a random guy in a van, which is what the perception is. Don't read much into it.

Just like elder abuse, it is normally someone very close to the victim.

That is another one, what about someone that takes advantage of/commits crimes against the elderly.  Are we going to allow them to work in a nursing home?

On 11/5/2021 at 1:15 PM, PurplePride92 said:

I have always believed that if they have served their time/paid their debt then they should be allowed to be a 100% full participant in American society.   

Agree somewhat. Is 100% full participant meaning they can hold any job, no matter what their charge was? 

If someone shot a man in cold blood and served 20 years before he was released for good behavior, should they be allowed to go out and buy/own a gun? 

27 minutes ago, ChickenWyngz said:

Agree somewhat. Is 100% full participant meaning they can hold any job, no matter what their charge was? 

If someone shot a man in cold blood and served 20 years before he was released for good behavior, should they be allowed to go out and buy/own a gun? 

IMO, yes. Especially if people who commit vehicular homicide or have DUIs are allowed to continue to drive after time served.   

40 minutes ago, PurplePride92 said:

IMO, yes. Especially if people who commit vehicular homicide or have DUIs are allowed to continue to drive after time served.   

Dang.... I don't agree of the cuff, but that argument is about as compelling as I've heard. 

I appreciate you being willing to discuss this without an argument. I always want to hear all sides and be knowledgeable to be able to form/change my own views and opinions. 

On 11/4/2021 at 8:45 AM, PurplePride92 said:

The jury has been picked.  11 white members.  One black member.  
 

We’ll see how the system works with this one.  

That is a beyond a joke. That's an outright failure by the prosecutors.

12 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

That is a beyond a joke. That's an outright failure by the prosecutors.

Is it a joke because of skin color? 

If both sides worked through potential jurors and we ended up with the 12 most unbiased then I don't care if it was 12 white, 12 black or a mixture of whatever ethnicities you want. 

I don't want someone on the jury simply for skin color. I want them there to hear everything and make a legitimate unbiased (should be easy in this case) decision. 

37 minutes ago, ChickenWyngz said:

Is it a joke because of skin color? 

If both sides worked through potential jurors and we ended up with the 12 most unbiased then I don't care if it was 12 white, 12 black or a mixture of whatever ethnicities you want. 

I don't want someone on the jury simply for skin color. I want them there to hear everything and make a legitimate unbiased (should be easy in this case) decision. 

I think at the very least the jury pool should reflect the demographics of the area.  
 

Also, the defense used a large amount of their strikes against black people who viewed the confederate flag as racist.  

19 minutes ago, PurplePride92 said:

I think at the very least the jury pool should reflect the demographics of the area.  
 

Also, the defense used a large amount of their strikes against black people who viewed the confederate flag as racist.  

Correct. When they state that "your case should be heard before a jury of your peers," that means it should be heard by a cross-section of the adults in the area where you live. That's why some cases get a change of venue, because they don't feel like they can justifiably get an unbiased cross-section of locals.

The prosecutors have failed here because they failed to do what was necessary to get a proper cross-section of locals for the jury.

If you don't think the defense team came with a gameplan to fight for as many white men as they could on the jury, you're simply kidding yourself.

55 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Correct. When they state that "your case should be heard before a jury of your peers," that means it should be heard by a cross-section of the adults in the area where you live. That's why some cases get a change of venue, because they don't feel like they can justifiably get an unbiased cross-section of locals.

The prosecutors have failed here because they failed to do what was necessary to get a proper cross-section of locals for the jury.

If you don't think the defense team came with a gameplan to fight for as many white men as they could on the jury, you're simply kidding yourself.

This white man is as outraged as anyone but I agree that is their game plan.