This was just pointed out to me.... The New York Court of Appeals — the state's highest court — ruled in a 1987 case that a judge cannot provide a copy of their written instructions to the jury
Plus, when I was on Jury duty 20 years ago that was the exact same analogy the judge gave us as we were going in to deliberate. It's commonly used as an example of what constitutes circumstantial evidence.
No,as a juror, I woke up dry as a bone and looked out the window. The people on the street- the ones with umbrellas and galoshes- would be the people who could possibly have gotten pissed on. If someone claimed it was piss, my job as a juror would be to determine whether it was more likely that everything was covered in piss than the likelihood that it rained. In a civil trial (like I was involved with) I would have to merely decide whether the preponderance of the evidence (including the circumstantial evidence I saw) pointed toward rain or urine. As a criminal juror, the burden is much higher. It's not merely a preponderance of evidence. I would have to decide whether a reasonable person would believe beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it was actually urine. Knowing what I know about weather, and having 59 years of pissing experience would make me comfortable making a decision about which was more likely, even beyond a reasonable doubt..
Nope , the wet sheep would all agree it was rain. You would never be presented with the Truth.
In the age of insanity it is incumbent of those with what remains of
Common sense , which is "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument" , to apply it.
...Today, we now know what it was they wanted repeated. It was a metaphor from Judge Merchan in which he said “ suppose you wake up in the morning and it’s not raining, but the streets are wet and people are wearing raincoats and holding umbrellas. Under those circumstances you may conclude that it rained during the night.” ...
No, we cannot factually conclude that. Those people could be wearing rain coats and carrying umbrellas on a wet street because a fire hydrant busted, and was showering the street. What a shitty analogy.
But, if we want play with those kinds of leaps of faith, then we may also conclude that Michael Cohen is a sleazy lawyer, confirmed liar, and thief; Stormy Daniels is a sleazy whore who will do [literally] anything for money, and closely connected to another sleazy lawyer (Mike Avennatti- arrested for extortion; confirmed con-artist) and, that this is an election year.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that this case is a set-up, concocted by sleazy con-artist lawyers, and a con-artist whore, for the purpose of smearing a political candidate.
Hes using the right analogy for the wrong purpose. Here he is saying if you saw all that it would be reasonable to conclude it rained. Thats not how that analogy is supposed to be used. You are supposed to say staring with the assumption that it did not rain and you need proof that it did and you walk outside and see all that you could still have doubts as to whether it rained but they would not be reasonable ones.
You mentioned some conditions where it would be reasonable but the analogy assumes everything is wet…cars, streets, buidlings people…its cloudy theres raincoats, umbrellas.
Its basically a way of saying circumstantial evidence CAN be used to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. And it has many many times.
A man walks into a bar and see's a beautiful Blonde sitting in the back corner in the dark ,he walks up and offers to buy her a drink and she accepts,they really hit it off all night and she says would you like to come to my place for a night cap and he reply's i would love to,she says meet me in the parking lot i have a black Peugeot,and he reply's I didn't think you were a Blonde.
"One can wake up from sleeping at a memorial day ceremony, and wake up with shit in his pants, and assume that Donald Trump took your pants off, shit in the pants, and put them back on you." - Pedo Colonel Sanders
The public has watched this play out and are now asking when the justice system became "guilty until proven innocent." I've had a lot of people ask me this over the last couple days. I reply with "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Then their eyes light up once they realize what that really means. People are "horrified" over what they've witnessed with Trump.
These el'ites don't know what [they]'ve just unleashed. The next few months will be glorious to watch as this all unfolds more.
This was just pointed out to me.... The New York Court of Appeals — the state's highest court — ruled in a 1987 case that a judge cannot provide a copy of their written instructions to the jury
Plus, when I was on Jury duty 20 years ago that was the exact same analogy the judge gave us as we were going in to deliberate. It's commonly used as an example of what constitutes circumstantial evidence.
So you get the point of them pissing all over you but telling you it's raining ?
No,as a juror, I woke up dry as a bone and looked out the window. The people on the street- the ones with umbrellas and galoshes- would be the people who could possibly have gotten pissed on. If someone claimed it was piss, my job as a juror would be to determine whether it was more likely that everything was covered in piss than the likelihood that it rained. In a civil trial (like I was involved with) I would have to merely decide whether the preponderance of the evidence (including the circumstantial evidence I saw) pointed toward rain or urine. As a criminal juror, the burden is much higher. It's not merely a preponderance of evidence. I would have to decide whether a reasonable person would believe beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it was actually urine. Knowing what I know about weather, and having 59 years of pissing experience would make me comfortable making a decision about which was more likely, even beyond a reasonable doubt..
Nope , the wet sheep would all agree it was rain. You would never be presented with the Truth.
In the age of insanity it is incumbent of those with what remains of Common sense , which is "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument" , to apply it.
As others have : https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/
No, we cannot factually conclude that. Those people could be wearing rain coats and carrying umbrellas on a wet street because a fire hydrant busted, and was showering the street. What a shitty analogy.
But, if we want play with those kinds of leaps of faith, then we may also conclude that Michael Cohen is a sleazy lawyer, confirmed liar, and thief; Stormy Daniels is a sleazy whore who will do [literally] anything for money, and closely connected to another sleazy lawyer (Mike Avennatti- arrested for extortion; confirmed con-artist) and, that this is an election year.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that this case is a set-up, concocted by sleazy con-artist lawyers, and a con-artist whore, for the purpose of smearing a political candidate.
Hes using the right analogy for the wrong purpose. Here he is saying if you saw all that it would be reasonable to conclude it rained. Thats not how that analogy is supposed to be used. You are supposed to say staring with the assumption that it did not rain and you need proof that it did and you walk outside and see all that you could still have doubts as to whether it rained but they would not be reasonable ones.
You mentioned some conditions where it would be reasonable but the analogy assumes everything is wet…cars, streets, buidlings people…its cloudy theres raincoats, umbrellas.
Its basically a way of saying circumstantial evidence CAN be used to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. And it has many many times.
A man walks into a bar and see's a beautiful Blonde sitting in the back corner in the dark ,he walks up and offers to buy her a drink and she accepts,they really hit it off all night and she says would you like to come to my place for a night cap and he reply's i would love to,she says meet me in the parking lot i have a black Peugeot,and he reply's I didn't think you were a Blonde.
"One can wake up from sleeping at a memorial day ceremony, and wake up with shit in his pants, and assume that Donald Trump took your pants off, shit in the pants, and put them back on you." - Pedo Colonel Sanders
That is a standard instruction on what circumstanial is.
Same metaphor is used here.
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/304
"Vote on your feelings, not fact"
The public has watched this play out and are now asking when the justice system became "guilty until proven innocent." I've had a lot of people ask me this over the last couple days. I reply with "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Then their eyes light up once they realize what that really means. People are "horrified" over what they've witnessed with Trump.
These el'ites don't know what [they]'ve just unleashed. The next few months will be glorious to watch as this all unfolds more.
Very well said! I can’t wait. Like you said, they don’t know what they’ve unleashed.
It was a huge trap and they waltzed right in.
Full post for non users plz
Where's Kyle Rittenhouse when you need him?