tlou3please

Again, not disagreeing with the sentiment, but legally he WASN'T actively killing people. Nobody was in any immediate danger. That means physically and temporally immediate. That means the defences and laws that are relevant are entirely different. That's just how it works and how the law is set up.

It just doesn't equate with traffic offences, because it's not seen as a political matter. In fact, they're generally strict liability meaning motive isn't in question anyway.

Broad claims about DV in officers, again, don't cast into doubt an individual witness (without even going into the veracity of that number), which is a separate point from jury vetting anyway.

Again, with Google, having used a product doesn't necessarily mean bias is present as you rightly point out. Is using Google going to influence someone the same as systematic healthcare issues that are central to the motive in this case? Clearly not.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment. I'm just telling you for a fact that there are very good reasons why the composition of the jury is especially crucial in this particular case, for both sides. Of course that's always an issue to some extent, but the profile and nature of this case are unique. The proof of this is in the very article we're commenting on, so I'm not sure what you disagree with.

I'd argue that's not really equivalent, because being a driver or not doesn't really have any implications towards motive in that case, or sympathy towards it from a jury. It's also not political - or at least, most people don't see it that way.

My point is, this is a race that almost every American has a horse in. So how do you draw a satisfactorily unbiased jury? I don't have the answer, but I can see why it's evidently become a sticking point.

Again, I appreciate the sentiment but that's not really what 'immediate' means in this context.

If history has taught us anything, a few Finns with some rusty old rifles could clear up this conflict in a couple hours.

To be fair, he may also have run a couple of reds when he cycled away.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment but legally speaking that's a completely different situation. The main difference is the immediacy and nature of anticipated harm.

Again, not challenging your take on it, just highlighting that the law doesn't see it that way.

This is actually quite an interesting case study for jury selection / vetting. The motive clearly relates to political views about the healthcare industry that affect every single American other than extreme outliers. It's therefore pretty impossible to select a jury that can be entirely neutral. Because no matter how politically unengaged they are, it still affects them.

Arguably, the most neutral person would be someone who hasn't interacted much with healthcare as a citizen. But healthcare issues in America start straight away from birth, because the process of birth itself is a healthcare matter for both mother and child, and there's no opting out from being born. That's only not the case if you're foreign born or from a very wealthy background, but you can't have a jury comprised of just them because that's not representative of the American public.

I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on for a long time before any trial even starts. In fact, I'd be suspicious if it doesn't.

Oh definitely! I agree. I vape on a more or less daily basis, which is based on medical advice and a prescription, and even then I think it's important to take some time out every now and then.

Do it the California way. Way better for your health.

In fairness, I would much rather that than governments directly controlling access, creating an additional form of direct censorship.

Not saying what we have now is great or anything though. I'm not exactly defending it.

Ironically, as history seems to constantly prove, a large proportion of people advocating for this are repressed homosexuals themselves, and have deep rooted internalised shame from their culture that they are compensating for. What a shame they refuse to embrace the inevitable social shift that accepts them for who they really are.