[VIDEO] ~ "Disturbing video of Jury Selection in Pastor Anderson Case..."

[Reason]

YouTube - Jury Selection in Pastor Anderson Case (voir dire)

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

and that is why they get away with it...

 

[ibaghdadi]

The woman who works in security: I "usually" say the truth...

 

[CCTelander]

Nothing new here. This is why it's often been said that voir dire is French for jury tampering. This kind of shit is SOP in the INjustice system.

 

[Yieu]

Nothing new here. This is why it's often been said that voir dire is French for jury tampering. This kind of shit is SOP in the INjustice system.

Looks like they weren't selected.

Thank God, these jurors were eliminated, and I was found NOT GUILTY by the jury the next day (Aug 13)!

 

[Clairvoyant]

Looks like they weren't selected.

Still, you have to think about how easy and possible it is for them to slant any case that is people vs. government. On a large scale it's pretty normal to get away with injustice, it is the rule not the exception IMO.

 

[Jeremy]

WTF.....

They are average Americans. Is our country hopeless?

 

[KCIndy]

Juror: "They're public servants. They're (the police) are here to serve and protect. Why would they lie?"



A "facepalm" just doesn't begin to cover it....

 

[Slutter McGee]

Nothing new here. This is why it's often been said that voir dire is French for jury tampering. This kind of shit is SOP in the INjustice system.

Then why don't you come up a better justice system. Voir Dire is absolutely necessary to eliminate obvious bias in jury selection.

Why don't you attack the stupidity of jury pool aka the average american citizen, before you attack the most fair justice system in the world.

And by most fair, I don't mean perfect. That is impossible. And by most fair, I am not saying that I believe all laws are just, or that people should be prosecuted for victimless crimes. I am talking about the system itself, not the crimes the system prosecutes.

What the hell would you suggest?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Humanae Libertas]

Good sheep I can tell you that. Just go back to watching Football, nothing to see here folks. Government is good, police are not corrupt. Go and watch TV!

 

[hope7134]

everything is ok

YouTube - Everything is OK on the Happy Carriage

 

[Mini-Me]

Then why don't you come up a better justice system. Voir Dire is absolutely necessary to eliminate obvious bias in jury selection.

Why don't you attack the stupidity of jury pool aka the average american citizen, before you attack the most fair justice system in the world.

And by most fair, I don't mean perfect. That is impossible. And by most fair, I am not saying that I believe all laws are just, or that people should be prosecuted for victimless crimes. I am talking about the system itself, not the crimes the system prosecutes.

What the hell would you suggest?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

The problem is that voir dire is also used to introduce obvious political bias into the jury pool. Every time a juror is ruled out for opposing marijuana prohibition, or opposing capital punishment, or disagreeing with the law for other completely rational reasons, this is a case of the court weeding out fundamentally dissenting views before the trial even begins. It's a case of the court stacking the jury. The system cannot just let a judge render a verdict* - yet, although I hear many are now pushing the idea that juries are antiquated relics - but it can manipulate the proceedings in favor of the state. This process necessarily precludes the jury from being a representative sample of the accused's peers, unless a potential juror lies to or misleads the court to evade dismissal. The system has gone from embracing jury nullification (a crucial power of a true jury) to doing everything in its power to hide it and crush it.

*Then again, it can: Charges "too small" for a jury are summary offenses, and other charges, like being a "terrorist," are too great for the accused to deserve a jury trial. In such a way, jury trials are being squeezed out of the system on both ends. Over time, I get the feeling that only a small range of charges will continue to result in jury trials. The American justice system may be the best in the world so far, but that does not make it the best possible, and it is still less about justice and more about protecting the stability and continuity of the government (by appeasing the people's sense of justice enough to prevent mobs, violence, and social instability). It's also getting worse over time. There are many areas where it can and should be improved, and severely limiting the voir dire process is one of them. Reinstating jury trials for ALL criminal offenses (and civil disputes over > $20, or ~$500 in today's money), proudly upholding jury nullification, and preventing the state from seizing financial assets without a conviction, etc., would also be a good start.

 

[Danke]

then why don't you come up a better justice system. Voir dire is absolutely necessary to eliminate obvious bias in jury selection.

Why don't you attack the stupidity of jury pool aka the average american citizen, before you attack the most fair justice system in the world.

And by most fair, i don't mean perfect. That is impossible. And by most fair, i am not saying that i believe all laws are just, or that people should be prosecuted for victimless crimes. I am talking about the system itself, not the crimes the system prosecutes.

What the hell would you suggest?

Sincerely,

slutter mcgee

lol

 

[CCTelander]

Then why don't you come up a better justice system. Voir Dire is absolutely necessary to eliminate obvious bias in jury selection.

Why don't you attack the stupidity of jury pool aka the average american citizen, before you attack the most fair justice system in the world.

And by most fair, I don't mean perfect. That is impossible. And by most fair, I am not saying that I believe all laws are just, or that people should be prosecuted for victimless crimes. I am talking about the system itself, not the crimes the system prosecutes.

What the hell would you suggest?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I'd suggest you do some serious reading on the subject. I believe that Judge Nap and Paul Craig Roberts have both written extensively on the subject.

Most juries empaneled in the US exhibit a strong pro-state bias. The process of voir dire is how that is accomplished. It's just sold to the rubes as a means of ensuring that the innocent are protected.

Then there's the fact that perjury on the part of police and other government agents is rampant within the system, and everybody knows it.

The problems with the American INjustice system are legion. Any REAL justice dispensed within that system is purely coincidental.

A suggestion for something better?

Sure, I'm game.

How about we totally eliminate the state's monopoly on the dispensing of "justice" and impliment a private system whose focus is on compensating victims instead of the barbaric, stone age punitive system we currently have?

 

[Slutter McGee]

I'd suggest you do some serious reading on the subject. I believe that Judge Nap and Paul Craig Roberts have both written extensively on the subject.

Most juries empaneled in the US exhibit a strong pro-state bias. The process of voir dire is how that is accomplished. It's just sold to the rubes as a means of ensuring that the innocent are protected.

Then there's the fact that perjury on the part of police and other government agents is rampant within the system, and everybody knows it.

The problems with the American INjustice system are legion. Any REAL justice dispensed within that system is purely coincidental.

A suggestion for something better?

Sure, I'm game.

How about we totally eliminate the state's monopoly on the dispensing of "justice" and impliment a private system whose focus is on compensating victims instead of the barbaric, stone age punitive system we currently have?

Serious reading. Ive been around the system my whole life. "Real" justice is dispensed everyday in our system. And lets face it...the vast vast majority of those convicted of crimes....are guilty.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Acala]

Not

Voir Dire is absolutely necessary to eliminate obvious bias in jury selection.

No, it absolutely is NOT. The judge can easily eliminate people who have a direct interest in the case, direct knowledge of the case, or have an existing relationship with one of the parties. Other than that, any attempt to alter the jury is all about INJECTING bias.

Lawyers hire professional jury consultants to help them ask questions that will not only identify which jurors to remove to favor their side, but also to subtly skew the existing panel by putting certain concepts and ideas in their minds. They routinely ask questions like "do you own a gun?" "What do the bumper stickers on your car say?" "Are you amember of the NRA?" etc. Voir Dire is all about introducing bias.

Voir Dire is total bullshit and needs to be eliminated.

 

[CCTelander]

Serious reading. Ive been around the system my whole life.

Ah. A true believer then. No point in further "discussion," I imagine.

"Real" justice is dispensed everyday in our system.

Right. So, the victims of REAL crimes are routinely awarded some form of restitution, WITHOUT creating new victims by, say, stealing the money from others? If the victims are not made whole, there is no justice.

But perhaps you believe that "criminals" are punished every day, and that this somehow constitutes "justice." That would depend entirely upon what one defines as a crime. See below.

And lets face it...the vast vast majority of those convicted of crimes....are guilty.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Last I looked into it, something over 60% of those in federal prisons are there for non-violent drug "crimes." The percentage in state facilities was then something over half.

Then there are the thousands languishing in prisons for non-violent gun "crimes" (often mistakes on government forms, missing government forms, etc.).

Then there are the many thousands more who are there for various other non-crimes.

Right, sounds like "justice" to me.

And that's without even mentioning the barbaric nature of the whole prison system, even if the people sent there actually did something wrong.

Wake up.

 

[JoshLowry]

That's Pastor Anderson in the suit with a beard.

I think they were weeding out biased jurors that were saying they would believe a police officer over a citizen. Isn't that what you would want if you were going to trial?

 

[Acala]

system

That's Pastor Anderson in the suit with a beard.

I think they were weeding out biased jurors that were saying they would believe a police officer over a citizen. Isn't that what you would want if you were going to trial?

There are a ton of problems with the system from the cops through the courts to the prisons. So it is hard to look at just one issue in isolation. But let's assume you were on trial for murder because you shot someone while defending your home. Now the prosecutor is eliminating every gun owner from the jury. How do you feel about it?

Or suppose the defendant robbed you. And now the defense attorney is eliminating every juror who has ever been robbed. Are you okay with that?

Looking at just the jury selection question in isolation, the best answer is to eliminate any juror with a direct involvement with the case or the parties and then take the random jury as is.

 

[JoshLowry]

There are a ton of problems with the system from the cops through the courts to the prisons. So it is hard to look at just one issue in isolation.

The video is labeled disturbing. It shows an isolated event and I was commenting on this specific instance.

Sure there are endless problems in the system, but I don't think this video highlights any disturbing faults of the justice system.