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.
To be fair, he may also have run a couple of reds when he cycled away.
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.
The video, which includes a prayer for Trump
Fucking excuse me?
Good luck to em
I’m more thinking “see, we DO prosecute war crimes, that proves that all that other stuff was fine”.
To you, sure. The world is a big place.
Tbh I kinda get it. The below is my immediate thoughts but perhaps there’s another angle I’m not considering.
If you’re a professional player at that level then the sport is your life. You’ve probably been training since you were a child and you’ve completely dedicated yourself to it. Training almost every day, not doing things that other people get to do so as not to harm your performance, which probably affects your relationships.
In any sport where physicality is concerned, you have an expiry date. You will inevitably age out. It’s just a fact of life.
The Olympics is arguably the most culturally significant and important sporting event in human history so far, or at least one of them.
I can see why someone who has dedicated their life to their sport would make this decision to play in that event, even if they’ve already done it before, because they WILL age out of it sooner or later. And really, is one missing finger going to be that much of an impairment for the rest of his life? I’m guessing it’s not a thumb so… Probably not.
I think the decision is understandable and rational. I wouldn’t choose it myself, but I’m not a professional athlete who has dedicated their life to what they do.
I’m not American but want to be in the loop. Media here is saying Kamala Harris is the likely successor. What do people think of her? Is she liked? I assume her actual politics are more or less the same since she was VP.
Wtf did I just watch haha why the hell haven’t I seen that before
Worst theme park ever
Also, was this his grandmother saying that she knows that SHE’S straight because she wants to suck dick?
So, is he…
Fundamentally misrepresenting homosexually as self delusion and a choice, or
A closet homosexual in denial, like so many other homophobes
I guess they’re not mutually exclusive.
I don’t think the comment was appropriate but I also don’t think it was really necessary to cancel the tour over it. It was a joke made in poor taste. Worth an apology? Sure. But this seems like an overreaction.
Least psychopathic lawyer
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.