Too many assumptions in this thread.

You have no idea what was going on in the semi's cab. We only know he was drunk after the fact. Guy could have had a seizure or stroke, been fighting a hijacker, or simply had multiple, innocent people as passengers. The only reason you can condemn him for bad judgement is because you, the viewer, knew the verdict before you even clicked the link.

I was surprised that they elevated the situation to trying to shoot the tires out.

I laughed at the fact that the passenger of the cop car looks like he's playing a video-game for the first 1/3rd of the clip (probably prepping his gun).

I was tickled that Russian highway patrol has mauve-colored seats.

Anyway, I agree with force-when-necessary, and corporal punishment as a last resort, but if you don't exhaust all other options first: Fuck you, your government, and whatever laws you think support that.

So, the judge can't declare a mistrial if s/he suspects jury nullification? Like in the extreme case presented where jurors ignore DNA and video evidence and just decide to vote not guilty anyway? That's a little scary, especially considering the double-jeopardy rule.

I imagine if you were on a jury, convincing all the other members to nullify would be extremely difficult. It seems much more likely to result in a hung jury except in the most extreme cases (like the slavery and lynching examples provided in the video).

Also, in California at least, jury nullification has itself been "nullified"--judges can remove from the jury any member that indicates they will not give a verdict that corresponds to the facts of law involved in the case.

See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

seems like an open-and-shut case, as far as I'm concerned. If the regulations stipulate same-gender strip searches with no one else observing, and the video clearly indicates a violation of this regulation, what else is there to show?

Of course, having said this, and recognizing the cesspool the American judicial system has become, I have little faith that such logic will actually return the appropriate verdict.

Your video, Jeremy Scahill speaks out on Manning verdict, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.

The place I got the video claimed it was after the verdict. Sorry if the title is misleading.

Your video, Scathing Critique of Reaction to Trayvon Martin Verdict, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Video is too old to be for the verdict. And I remember watching it back when the uproar over Zimmerman being charged was at it's height...it's from last year...about 1-2 months after the shooting.

I've been watching the conversation (yelling) about this trial and it's verdict. I think there's a simple disconnect that nobody seems to understand.

Black People live in a different America than White People.

I know people might get mad about that, but you haven't actually seen it so you don't really understand. So this might've been a miscarriage of justice or it might not have been. But if you've constantly been getting crap for being in this country then it's just one more thing.

People don't seem to understand that it wasn't long ago that it was illegal to be black and on the streets. They would arrest you just for hanging around while being black. Or you didn't even go to college, because that just didn't happen. The time signatures are all screwed up. Some people think we've put down the cudgel so you have to stop whining about it. That history of repression doesn't matter to people who haven't experienced it, it matters to those who DID experience it.

So most people's opinions of this don't matter, and they need to come at this from a different perspective and try to understand rather than scold.

Judge: "Jury, have you reached a verdict?"
Juror: Yes your honor, we have...."Knock, knock!?"

So what's the verdict? Just an unsolved mystery?

You believe in God, I do not believe in God. You can not accurately describe "non-belief" as being the same as "belief".

It's like the difference between the verdict guilty and not guilty. The verdict "not guilty" does not mean the jury believes the person is innocent. It just means there is not enough evidence to believe the person is guilty.


The rest of what you pasted is irrelevant to your statement "there is a God" because even if you could disprove evolution (which you can't), but lets say you did disprove it...that does nothing to prove that God exists.

*dupe of this one from over 4 years ago:
http://videosift.com/video/Nice-catch

I guess the music adds a twist though.
I bet the siftcrowds wisdom will reach a fair verdict.

"This verdict may change the way scientists warn the public about natural disasters"?? No shit sherlock, next time the people ask if a big quake is likely the answer will be "Fuck you, I'll let you know after it happens!"

does it matter in terms of the verdict or sentencing?>> ^bareboards2:

So.... aren't you proving in your question here that the Google searches are irrelevant? If nothing can excuse the abuse she suffered? If she had looked at bondage sites? So what? Clearly the safe word wasn't honored.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not that I disbelieve the victim/woman in this case, but as a hypothetical (devil's advocate), what if the content of conversation throughout the date leading up to the attack pertained almost entirely to sadomasochistic sexplay? What if her google searches in the days/hours leading up to the date had to do with bondage and domination?
Not that such a finding would ever excuse the kind of abuse that it appears this woman had to endure, but could that have influenced the jury's verdict and/or the sentence of the defendant in this case?