Juries are The Finders of Facts and From Your Peers??

Juries are chosen from an ever-increasing corrupt society, what could go wrong?

 From the American Bar Association website, AmericanBar.org.

“A jury is a group of people summoned and sworn to decide on the facts in issue at a trial. The jury is composed of people who represent a cross-section of the community.

The jury listens to the evidence during a trial, decides what facts the evidence has established, and draws inferences from those facts to form the basis for their decision. The jury decides whether a defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" in criminal cases, and "liable" or "not liable" in civil cases.

When cases are tried before a jury, the judge still has a major role in determining which evidence may be considered by the jury. The jury is the factfinder, but it is left to "find" facts only from the evidence which is legally admissible. The judge instructs the jury on the legal principles or rules that must be followed in weighing the facts. If the jury finds the accused guilty or liable, it is up to the judge to sentence the defendant.”

.

I have written about the deterioration of the personal intellectual inability of the Americans to remain objective when judging another person’s actions in public or private. More and more people interject themselves into a situation in order to process it; their experiences, history and inner feelings, becomes the central factor of whatever they observe. They believe they are ‘understanding’ what they judge. They don’t know that to take a stand ‘under’ something or someone, one must place themselves into the mind of the individual singular person at a specific time and place within the action occurring and without themselves there in any way.

They are unable to put themselves aside to accomplish this personal discipline and consider doing so an attack on their person. It’s an offense, an afront, to their collective individuality within their sociological system.

Their base premise is a belief that all truth comes from within themselves, and therefore what they consider is placed onto this baseline premise. Anything which demands ‘consulting with anything that existed before their present state of existence,’ is an attack on their person. Thus, an inner feeling becomes the ‘Finder of Fact’ which produces The Absolute Truth, which cannot be challenged.  

The Average American Person today, believes they are A Truth Unto Themselves and also for everyone else. This person needs nothing other than themselves to come to the truth of anything they experience or witness as a third person---which ironically is defined as an individual who’s able to provide an objective opinion.    

Today the Discipline of Objectivity has been replaced with and is synonymous with Subjectivity. Objectivity is one of the byproducts of Discipline imposed by mature responsible elder experienced individuals. Thus, the admonishment to Respect Your Elders as a default mindset has been a commonsense norm since the beginning of time.

Today’s generation totally dismisses learning what they don’t know about themself and others around them. They despise the assertion that doing so would lead to seeing life from a perspective other than their own natural “Fishbowl Mentality”, which they cherish above all of life itself---because they believe they represent the totality of life itself.  

Modern Progressivism asserts that each individual needs only their inner self to determine what is true and what is not true. Therefore, there is no such thing as “Absolute Truth” on anything in life—those making this claim and living within this ideology, are absolutely certain that this is the only absolute truth in life. “We are fine just the way we are” is beaten into their minds from kindergarten upward from every aspect of society today.

So, when we as people experience something in life which requires us to place our legal fate in a jury trial, whether civil or criminal, we will most likely have a jury which is populated with people who have never learned what Objectivity means in life and definitely doesn’t know what it means in the legal sense. Legal terms such as Material Evidence and Immaterial Evidence are interpreted to mean, “What I feel and what I don’t feel.”

This Post Modernistic mindset becomes even more of a powerful brainwashing influence when Social Justice Activism is placed on top of the base premise, “All truth is relative and never absolute”.

When a jury hears the defense and the prosecution present the evidence, each juror is instructed and therefore required to empty themselves of their opinions and feelings, completely. Then put themselves into the evidence-based situation, which is produced by the prosecutor and the defense. The intended result is to transform the jurors into the defendant; in the same exact situation as the defendant per ‘only’ the evidence---jurors must not impose their opinions, feelings, or agendas or second guesses on the defendant’s actions which was previously defined by the prosecutor’s and defense’s presentation of the evidence.  

To illustrate the point. If you’re a juror and the defendant is a seventy-year-old lady with thick glasses and a weak heart, you must become that defendant even though you’re a tall in shape physically capable person with perfect vision and the opposite skin color and sex.

Jury of one’s peers: Peers means citizens common to the defendant, from the same community of people, and who are unbiased and impartial to the actor-defendant, who produced the material evidence to be presented in the case. This is my understanding.

For a jury to truly be one of the defendant’s peers, real vetted peers must be put on the jury. Seldom is this the case. Juries many times, are made up of members of society who resemble, and have in common, elements with the opposition or plaintiff of the defendant’s case.

The argument should be made, as I’ll present today, that to be the correct juror for the Baldwin case, there should only have been selected individuals with some experience with movie sets and some understanding of what reckless actions are and understand the possibilities of those actions causing extreme danger and or damage to others.  The defendant is supposed to be judged by jurors who are not foreign to the reality of the case in question.

When a juror prematurely assigns guilt or no guilt it means their conclusion is not a byproduct from the arguments produced by evidence in court proceedings. That juror is no longer an unbiased finder of facts and is negating the legal concept and standard of the sixth amendment and historical law which guarantees a defendant the right to be judged by an impartial jury of the defendant’s peers.   

This legal travesty of justice has been apparent in many court cases I’ve experienced and or watched via television or internet production publications. The most recent case on display is the Alec Baldwin criminal trial for the charge of reckless manslaughter in the state of New Mexico.

Without getting into all the details of the case, I want to focus on two of the jurors who have made public statements about their time in the jury box during the two days of the Baldwin trial. I have compiled their statements together to focus on their mindsets when in the jury box for two days. I believe the following proves my point about jurors doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing.  

Instead of allowing themselves to be led by the prosecution and defense, and then determine from those two influences if there was any evidence of guilt based on the charges, without any doubt otherwise, these two jurors began doing the exact opposite from the beginning and came to conclusions, based on gut reactions in progress, in just two days.  

Juror No. 7, Johanna Haag said these statements, "As the week went by, it just didn’t, it didn’t seem like a very strong case, Baldwin just looked shocked and stunned and so sad, It was clearly an accident, and the idea that there’s anything purposeful, or the idea that there was this grave carelessness that caused this, didn’t seem realistic to me. At that point, I really started to feel sorry for Mr. Baldwin, I thought, you know, what’s going on here, what is happening?”

My Interpretation of Johanna: In the two days of testimony which seemed like a week, it was clear the case was not strong and Baldwin looked shocked, stunned and very sad, which meant it was clearly an accident and not intentional and not his fault, so therefore there was nothing purposeful, to the charge of carelessness which caused death, the entire trial was unrealistic.  Note: she never heard any material evidence but instead heard the defenses’ distortions and discrediting of the prosecutor and investigators but she’s unable to know the difference between material and immaterial evidence. Her inexperience and personal prejudices were easily manipulated by the defense.

Juror No. 9, Gabriele Picayo, "Alec Baldwin is an actor, right? I think he would have trusted the people, you know, on the set to do their job. But I wasn’t presented with all of the evidence, so I don’t know what could have swayed me, I’m still here, I’m still open to hearing and obviously trying to stay unbiased, but I was starting to move towards the direction of thinking that this was very silly, and he should not be on trial,"

My Interpretation of Gabriele: Baldwin as an actor trusted his employees, so he’s not culpable, instead the employees are. So, it’s silly for him to be on trial, but I’m trying to be unbiased but I don’t think that there would be any evidence which could have changed my mind. Note: keep in mind she never heard any material evidence to the charges during the two days in the box but she believed she did.

I watched every minute of this trial. And watching the defense’s line of cross examination and questioning. It was clear that the defense was not going to address any of the material evidence of the charges Baldwin was facing. They made sure to totally ignore any and all proof that was material to the case of reckless handling of a firearm.

In fact, the defense only presented immaterial evidence, and combed over every single word used in case files and given in testimony. And every single legal relevant word was taken out of context and distorted, then placed within an underlying ambiguous context counter narrative, filled with subsequent innuendo, which amounted to, ‘Baldwin was a victim of powerful people who just were being mean and nasty to an actor who was a victim too’. Baldwin was a victim of the armorer who loaded the weapon and the assistant who handed him the gun was the constant assertion after every distortion.

There was no evidence that the prosecution was targeting Baldwin unjustly. And plenty of evidence that they were instead following New Mexico law and the judgement of the second Grand Jury, to bring reckless homicide charges against Baldwin.

But the defense successfully put the prosecutors on trial instead of Baldwin. Defense attorney Alex Spiro hammered away his distortions on the character and motivation of the prosecutors and police investigators over and over nonstop. And it affected the judge, who gradually was moved by this tactic, evidenced as to when she began to allow it to continue, which influenced the jury to analyze everything ‘but material evidence’ in the charges of reckless manslaughter.  Immaterial evidence trumped material evidence during the two days of the trial per the judge’s approval.

Then this social justice activism from the bench eventually paid off for the defense with an unexpected gem which consisted of one single technical mismanagement in procedure. Spiro’s unrelenting argumentative questions revealed that police investigators filed a late-two-years-after-the-fact, piece of immaterial evidence---not material evidence to the case of recklessness with a firearm. This irrelevant unimportant evidence failed to be provided to the defense before the trial---an innocent mistake with no malice intended toward the defense nor the defendant. So, the judge ‘felt’ the case must be dismissed with prejudice even though the evidence would have absolutely no effect on the charges nor help the defendant in any legally meaningful way.  

The defensive’s strategy and unrelenting effort resulted in the jury hearing only immaterial evidence which confused them and left them with only one conclusion, which was that the prosecutors were tyrants who hated Baldwin. And the trial was unjust. The jurors became moral supporters of the defenses combative argument, namely that a legal witch hunt was in fact an example of a travesty of justice and must be stopped.

 Baldwin was the poor victim who needed the jury to set him free from the injustice of the prosecutor’s charges.

So, as it turned out, a very minor technicality was viewed as extremely relevant by a judge who used her social justice and fairness ideals, to provide Baldwin with an escape from being responsible for the killing of one of his employees by his own irresponsible reckless conduct---which is to never point an unloaded operational gun at anyone and pull the trigger.   

My opinion of the judge: She believed from the beginning that the defense’s argument, namely that the prosecution was on a witch hunt and that their client was the victim of an unjust overzealous prosecution, which would never be allowed in any other state but New Mexico. This appealed to the Social Justice Cultural Warrior in her.

She personally believed that Baldwin’s actions as an actor were not the reasons for the death of a Baldwin employee, even though he pulled the trigger of a real gun which he pointed at an employee.

And her base main reason was, the armorer and another employee handed a gun with one live round in it by a reckless mistake. And both of those people had already been found guilty for the reckless manslaughter charge and had been punished in accordance with the law.

So, the underlying social justice moral factor the judged based her allowance for the defense to control the trial was, ‘If the armorer and assistant director had done their job as they were being paid to do, Baldwin would not have these charges against him because he would have pulled the trigger on a dummy round instead of a live one.’  This claim was exactly the defenses only argument and she agreed.

The Baldwin employee was dead due to the recklessness of the two people who handed Baldwin the live gun therefore Baldwin was a victim of an overzealous legal system who, as it turned out, mismanaged evidence fillings, which the prosecution was unaware of until the day the judge dismissed the charges with prejudice for that mistake. But it served the judges underlying social justice purposes, by conveniently opening the legal door to achieve the ending she was hoping the defense would achieve; to convince the jury to decide for the defendant and find him not guilty of reckless homicide.

The icing on the legal cake---the judge was no longer going to be out-front on this very controversial case because of a surprise ‘to her’ piece of immaterial evidence in her case. And she preferred the potential legal criticism of her misappropriation of a Brady Violation Rule, instead of being, “The Judge of The Baldwin Witch Hunt”.  The defense provided her a way to “Dodge a Deadly Bullet” of social injustice, and fairness was restored. and now, all is ‘just’ in her world.

Now, the latest news is that the Baldwin and his defense team are going after the prosecutor and law enforcement investigators for personal and financial damages to Baldwin, The Victim. Their claim is that the filing of late irrelevant evidence and it not being made available to the defense, is proof of a rogue unjust prosecutor and legal system which by doing so has caused irreversible damage to Baldwin. Those damages must be made right through financial compensation and the public shaming of the prosecution and the law enforcement investigators.

The Perpetrator has now become The Victim. Upside down, inside out and backwards. A killer walks free.

Back to my main point of this article. Bringing the two Baldwin juror’s statements into this article’s main focus; that juries are not the finders of fact due to a perverse ideology that truth comes from within a person’s being, and not from the material evidence related to the charge.

If these two jurors’ statements above are representative of the other juror’s mindsets, which I believe is most likely certain since they were all similar members from today’s society, the same result would have occurred i.e. Baldwin free from reckless manslaughter charges. The defense approved of them, so I know the majority of the jurors were what the defense needed to succeed with their strategy.  

I have come to believe that “A Fair Trial Before a Jury of Your Peers” is becoming less and less likely today. There is nothing “Fair” about the potential jury pool’s ideological personal mindsets, in most areas of American Society today. All a prosecution or defense attorney has to do is cause the jury to ‘feel’ for their client’s race, gender, identity, pronouns, and politics, or their appearances, and they will succeed in convincing the jury to set the defendant free from the same tyrannical powers which they feel victimizes them in their lives---Material Evidence from the State be Damned.

And now to bring home the point of great concern. This same jury will side with whichever side of the case, presented by the prosecutor or the defense attorney, that they believe they ‘feel some identification with' based on the immaterial evidence and or no evidence at all.

The appearance of the defense lawyer might be enough to cause sympathy for the prosecutor or perhaps the defendant just looks like a “real killer”, or the jury just felt this vibe, a gut reaction, that the defense and the accused were hiding something the prosecutor couldn’t find, “Time to help the prosecutor do the right thing”.  

In the Baldwin case two jurors believed the appearance of Baldwin in court was enough to ‘know he was not guilty of anything reckless. The fact that Baldwin looked the way he did because he was indeed responsible for the killing of another person, because he was in fact reckless, and now, he was going to suffer justice he deserved. This line of thinking never crossed the minds of these two jurors. Remorse was never once thought of as the cause of Baldwin looking the way he did both days. If two days was enough time to convince jurors Balwin was a victim and the trial was silly, imagine what five or six days would have accomplished.  

To bring this point of the travesty in the legal justice system, home:  There is a reasonable possibility that this type of travesty in justice could occur in my life or yours. This realistic concern motivates me to practice with a gun mounted camera, every day, in as many violent scenarios as I can imagine. Always creating ways to make jeopardy unpredictable and more lethal.

I have seen many hundreds of videos which showcase violent attacks, non-deadly and deadly, in both the public and private domains. Additionally, I have experienced lethal attacks several times. I have combined my education and experiences in order to create ideas for developing practice scenarios which duplicate and mimic realistic everyday lethal threat settings. Settings which begin with the appearance that they are safe but end up becoming a deadly or serious bodily threat setting, when the criminal element of society commits their violent physical crimes against law abiding people.  

My main objective in personal training is, ‘my camera is going to provide irrefutable proof that I acted within the laws of the great state of Florida’. My gun camera is my “Objective Witness” to remove all subjective corruption from having an influence on the justice system which will judge my deadly force actions in self-defense as lawful

The camera will clearly reveal my actions to be in total compliance with the five essential elements of a self-defense claim—Avoidance which becomes the foundation for establishing my Innocence by not creating the violent encounter, which in turn establishes the violence as being Imminent, which then provides a basis for my selection of proportional force, non-deadly or deadly, which all four elements taken together prove my Reasonableness in using deadly force to prevent my death or serious bodily harm, which upon viewing the video footage, both the audio and the visual will serve as proof of lawful deadly force self-defense in complete accordance with Florida Law.  

Another benefit from mounting a video camera on my self-defense firearms is it incentivizes me to develop the mental and physical muscle memory to act lawfully during a chaotic, extremely stressful, encounter when I train. And it provides proof of the evidence that the legal system would view and listen to and provides me with verification that my practice and training is correcting deficient conduct, both legally and physically. A greater confidence in my lawful tactical ability results.   

And one other point that all Florida Coneal Carrying Firearms Owners should remember. You must act at all times as if there are hundreds of cameras capturing their every move, should you have to use deadly force. And one more camera at the end of your self-defense tool isn’t going to hurt. Instead, it will bolster up the material evidence and cancel out immaterial evidence and subjective interpretations which could come from another camera angle which isn’t conclusive and somewhat ambiguous but allows for conjecture. The muzzle camera will provide the best viewpoint and help to ensure that nothing unjustly affects the correct outcome from occurring, which is, Justice Served.  

Juries today are selected from an ever-increasing postmodern progressivist society, which asserts that all truth is subjective, and nothing is absolute, and they’re absolutely sure this is true. The truth of what happened depends almost solely on immaterial factors. Material factors are only considered if the immaterial factors support the subjective reasoning being used. The legal system is being turned upside down and inside out at the same time.

On top of this base ideological foundation, the social justice activist movement acts as an arbitrator, which determines fairness, equality, and diversity, so that all people have a fair and equal position within society and within the legal system. This combined system acts as “The Truth Teller” to influence the entire legal system with what is touted as superior and righteous. The legal lines of the law have been erased, which effectively means that the first laws of any legal self-defense claim are non-existent in the reality of the jury box and the judge’s gavel.

When people who live according to this ideology are selected to serve on a jury, they are only able to produce what they have within themselves, which is a system of feelings and passions which cannot consider anything else because they are hopelessly subjective to their inner core and unable to consider anything other than that personal inner core. Whatever resides inside them combined with whomever in the courtroom makes them feel their sense of truth is correct……...that whoever wins that jury.  The evidence be damned.

To conclude: I believe the five elements of a lawful self-defense claim are righteous and superior to all other systems of judging uses-of-force cases. However, in the legal system reality, (which is different throughout the fifty states and legal system jurisdictions within the fifty states, not to mention the federal circuit court jurisdictions) an aggressive cancer is eating away the very foundation of legal jurisprudence.

Legal Jurisprudence is a term for the philosophy of law, as in the science of formal and analytical actions of examination, of the principles and processes of legal rules, to clarify their proper order and relationship one to the other, and thereby to bring all cases under this appropriate order of legal rules. And only when one or more established legal rules are in opposition one to the other in a particular case, can the judgement be made to favor one rule over another, which might or might not change the original proper order and relationship for that one case. Nevertheless, every effort must be made to defend and protect and maintain the original proper order which has stood the test of historical legal jurisprudence i.e. nothing should overthrow the core tenets of the established science.     

I have decided to offer the full article to all in my free previews because this is important to consider if you’re going to legally carry a firearm or weapon for the purpose of using deadly force if the need to prevent an attack of deadly force is unavoidable.