If the judge finds that a beaten, bleeding, and tazed 50 year old man weighing 130 pounds lying on the sidewalk poses a threat to a half dozen armed men surrounding him, then the judge must have been corrupt, stoned, insane, or stupid.
Oh, and just to cut off one of the characteristic paranoid rants from the resident fruitcakes, Judge Groh was nominated by Jay Rockefeller and appointed in 2012, Guess which party controlled the Senate and White House then.
Cite, as if it would help against the usual delusions.
If he wasn’t a threat, he wouldn’t have been beaten, bleeding, and tazed by the cops in the first place - or if he wasn’t, the judge and grand jury would have found that. If he was still resisting arrest after that, he was most definitely still a threat. Please, just attempt to actually think before you post at least once.
In pondering some of the pit threads recently, and feeling some pull towards comity, I almost crafted a post thanking you for having changed your posting style - providing more content than one-line drive bys and knocking off the “usual suspects” stupidity.
I still do appreciate the broader change, for what that’s worth.
There isn’t any such change. The idea that I post almost nothing but one-line drive-by snark isn’t true. So I appreciate the thought, but it isn’t really necessary.
I post one-liners, jokes, parodies, detailed and researched multi-paragraph discussions, and everything in between.
It simply is not the case that I post more one-line snark than other posters with a comparable number of posts. It is due merely to attibution bias, and the fact that a good many of those who disagree with me don’t read anything I write beyond the first line, and therefore notice the one-liners disproportionately.
Corruption (as it’s legally defined) is fairly rampant in most professions, unfortunately. That someone has taken an oath not to be corrupt is also unfortunately entirely irrelevant (think of them like most do old-fashioned marital vows: cute and nice but not practically feasible for the long haul and violation subject to whim).
One has to operate from a presumption of corruption (which in the legal sense includes simple wilful disregard/nonfeasance, whereas the average layperson and even a good chunk of officers of the court erroneously limit the definition to people trading influence or favors for $$$ or other gain).
I have a general question for anyone who might know; from another thread I was reading, in Texas the judge selects grand jury members from a list of “upstanding” members of the community, the majority of whom are retired cops. Is that true?
I can believe that a lot of the commissioners are former law enforcement employees. I have more trouble with the notion that a majority of grand jury members are retired cops.
I would also expect that one of the common objections may apply - the requirement that the members have no felony convictions means that in places where minorities are unfairly targetted by police, “disparate impact” would come into play.
Is there any way to discover the background of grand jury members, or is that secret?
Although I don’t know for sure, from reading this study, it appears the study author was able to get the names of the grand jurors (but apparently not any other background information), and did the following analysis based on those juror’s surnames:
