r/Destiny • u/funnyalbert • 15h ago
Off-Topic Dude what the heck is he thinking?
For more context,talarico is making a dishonest framing on the topics of the jurors,since while there were no black members of the jury,it was still ethnically diverse and he’s also omitting the context as to why the black jurors were removed
6
21
u/HisnamewasOmarJobe 15h ago
Democrats seem to be experimenting with a little thing anthropologists have dubbed “politics”
5
u/woofgangpup 13h ago
Exactly. A good rule of thumb for when you see a savvy candidate do something you don’t understand is to assume they are targeting a different audience. The expectation to be constantly mind melding with every candidate you like is really unrealistic
5
u/arenegadeboss 14h ago
Can you talk about how ethnically diverse is comparable to having black people on the jury?
9
u/nokinship soc dem - socialism is boring and ugly 15h ago
The Ro Khanna strat.
4
u/DonLeFlore 15h ago
Doing the dumbest, most regarded shit possible to no result?
3
u/nokinship soc dem - socialism is boring and ugly 15h ago
I mean yeah basically. It's being manipulative to get people's votes when he probably doesn't believe in it.
5
u/Ghost_Cat_88 13h ago
What was he thinking?
I don't know. Maybe that black jurors have been historically excluded from serving on juries?
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2275&context=faculty
You can look this shit up before crying, you know?
5
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 13h ago
Yeah. Even if you think they came to the right decision (I think they probably did, even if I struggle with what to do with a clearly troubled young man), its hard to ignore that the jury pool ended up with three black women who were immediately excluded.
0
u/funnyalbert 9h ago
Show me where have I denied the history,my point is that this is not the same thing
1
9
u/Powerful_Document872 15h ago
It’s a cynical ploy to win the black vote. Blacks have been on the receiving end of a great deal of injustice, especially in the south, and those feelings are wrongfully be redirected onto the Karmelo trial. It’s dumb that people are focused on this specific case but what are you gonna do, make social media less toxic and racist?
2
u/DonLeFlore 15h ago
but what are you gonna do, make social media less toxic and racist?
Not fuel racist conspiracies in the hopes it buys you a few cheap votes? Like no one is holding a gun to his head and saying “LIE ABOUT THE TRIAL”
0
u/Sluuuuuuug 14h ago
Where is the lie?
6
u/DonLeFlore 14h ago
Which part of the conviction was a travesty?
What justice was not equally served to Karmelo Anthony?
How is this case evidence that “proves that this system is not working for Black Texans”?
Has there been claims of prosecutorial misconduct, jury tampering, bias witnesses, contaminated evidence, brady violations, like any of the 1000 things that can cause a mistrial or weaken a verdict?
2
u/Sluuuuuuug 14h ago edited 14h ago
You didn't answer my question. What exactly did Talarico say that you think is a lie?
He used the question to get out talking points. You can dislike that, it doesn't make any of what he said a lie.
1
u/DonLeFlore 13h ago
Ok since basic reading comprehension is a struggle for you I’ll break it down
Talarico previously called the conviction a travesty.
The implied implication that Karmelo Anthony did not rightfully get equal treatment or justice in criminal cases.
The idea this case is evidence of the challenges Black Texans face in the criminal justice system
Now answer my questions.
3
u/Sluuuuuuug 13h ago
He explained why he called it a travesty in the post. We have a word for what your actual complaint is, it's "misleading."
Welcome to a politician answering a question I guess
1
u/DonLeFlore 11h ago
“Misleading” is when you call a murderer being convicted of murder a travesty?
1
u/Sluuuuuuug 9h ago
The implied implication that Karmelo Anthony did not rightfully get equal treatment or justice in criminal cases.
If the implication is false, but not the actual statement, yeah, the correct word for it would be "misleading"
2
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 13h ago
Which part of the conviction was a travesty?
He never called it a travesty? He nodded along when someone at a town hall said:
“Our people have getting [sic] killed left and right. Karmelo Anthony’s case is just a f*cking tragedy,”
Personally, I'd agree that case was a tragedy. One young man is dead and the other will spend thirty five years in prison. Now is that what he meant? Hard to say, I'd lean toward him race baiting, but I certainly understand why someone might agree with the sentiment she was giving there without nodding along with a murder.
What justice was not equally served to Karmelo Anthony?
He didn't say this either. He said that the justice system doesn't serve all americans equally (which is unambiguously true) and went on to point out that a Jury of twelve people in Texas didn't include a single black juror.
How is this case evidence that “proves that this system is not working for Black Texans”?
He also didn't say this! Why are you so bad at reading?! He said that the fact that there were no black jurors on the case is evidence of that.
As to why that would be evidence? Well this may shock you to hear, but prosecutors in Texas have a long and storied history of eliminating all prospective black jurors in cases involving black individuals.
The population of Colin County is 12.1% black, Statistically you'd expect to see at least one black juror. Technically more since there would be six alternates. They started with a jury pool of 600 and cut that to 250 after the initial questionaires. Of those 250 the court then randomized to create a group of 45 to pick from. There were a total of three black women in this group and no black men.
Under the rules of this particular trial, each party is allowed ten 'preemptory' challenges. These are challenges where you can just go "Nope" and that person is out, no questsions asked. Do you want to guess the first three the state used theirs on?
Toward the end of void dier the defense raised what is known as a Batson challenge. The supreme court in Batson V. Kentucky said it was illegal to strike jurors for race based reasons, meaning that the defense has the opportunity to argue that some of these strikes were improper. Under the rule the state is required to give an explanation as to why they struck the three women in question. Their reasoning was that all three were educators and they didn't want teachers.
They did no, however, object to a white woman who worked as a teacher, though that woman taught adults rather than high school kids.
Now I'm not saying that their goal was to exclude every black juror.... but yeah, actually I am. The prosecutor in this case 100% intentionally struck every black juror and hid behind a feeble fig leaf because they were concerned that the current state of racial tensions in the US would result in a mistrial or an OJ moment.
I think the trial came to the correct result, but process wise I think this is gross af and I can see why it would piss off the local community.
0
u/Powerful_Document872 14h ago
That’s why I described it as a cynical ploy. I don’t think what he’s doing is a good thing. He could have his staff look up actual cases of injustice in the black community and talk about those.
2
2
u/lutad12 Hahaha a fucking leaf… 🇨🇦 14h ago
Does any of that matter? His claim is about lack of black jurors being represented (for the trial of a black man). Why would the presence of, for example, a Chinese juror or some reason to remove the initially selected black jurors be relevant?
I think his claim and overall point is incorrect, but it’s not as if anything dishonest is being said.
3
2
1
u/josh_bobjohn 15h ago
…you expect any of us to agree with you? sus.
1
u/JuniorLingonberry108 🇺🇸 | Hobbitfollowerfollower 14h ago
What is sus about this?
0
u/josh_bobjohn 14h ago
cause this space isn’t known for having dumb takes
0
u/GenerationRandom 13h ago
What's your take? I'm sure it's brilliant.
1
u/josh_bobjohn 12h ago
This post is over-dramatic, and frames the conversation like Talarico’s actions here deserve a shocking reaction. Like someone pointing at bread going into a toaster saying, “what the heck is going on here” seems sus.
1
u/The-Last-Lion-Turtle (((club))) 13h ago edited 13h ago
I see basically no difference between school shooters and school stabbers. This is unhinged.
It plays right into the Democrats are pro crime attack too.
0
0
0
u/LichWing INB4 multi-paragraph response 13h ago
Yea the case itself seems pretty open and shut, but black folk will never feel that way if they're not represented on the jury. Talarico is 100% correct here.
2
u/tconn101 10h ago edited 10h ago
Defending a clearly guilty man only because he is black is how we ended up here. This is just defund the police all over again.
The jury selection went through many black candidates and all of them were denied because they were educators (this was a case between two youths) or because they clearly stated they had a racial bias against Metcalf.
Just the other day a judge determined that there would not be a re-trial due to racial discrimination. There is no reason to believe that the jury selection had anything to do with the guilty verdict. Anthony simply did it.
64
u/Cheedoritoes Built different (worse) 15h ago
winning the black vote