Posted on Dec 12, 2017
Men Accused of Plotting Kansas Mosque Bombing Demand Jury of Trump Voters: Report
1.96K
32
14
2
2
0
Every lowlife would prefer a jury of like-minded individuals ---- that would be like Charles Manson being judged only by members of his deluded criminal posse. LTC (Join to see) Capt Gregory Prickett CPT Jack Durish GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Men Accused of Plotting Kansas Mosque Bombing Demand Jury of Trump Voters: Report
Posted from alternet.org
Law
Terrorism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
It’s not unusual to bring in a jury from out of the area. In my home state of Pa., we just finished a trial last year of a person who killed a State Police Officer and gravely wounded another by acting like a sniper outside their barracks. That jury was brought in from out of the area because of publicity.
In fact, the article doesn’t even really say their attorneys made the reference to president Trump said in the headline. It’s probably something the author made up to throw another stone at the President. This is a prime example of why most people don’t believe anything these reporters write anymore.
In fact, the article doesn’t even really say their attorneys made the reference to president Trump said in the headline. It’s probably something the author made up to throw another stone at the President. This is a prime example of why most people don’t believe anything these reporters write anymore.
(4)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cynthia Croft - they should, but the President should also be truthful. Perhaps it would be better if the media worked on their issues, and the President worked on his.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Cynthia Croft - You are correct. In this article President Trump isn't even in the mix... and here we are speaking about him "because someone brings him up"; another stone; very effective.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't think these people would get quite the support they think they would from a jury of Trump supporters.
Regardless, the problem the prosecution has, according to what I've read on this, is that these people so far had only talked about a plot to bomb a mosque. If this is true, then there is an important distinction to be made here, and that is how the prosecution proves that "talking about" an action translates into an actual reasonable fear that the action was going to take place.
If the prosecution has evidence, for example, that shows these people were gathering equipment and supplies which directly support the plot(s) they were "talking about", then they have a pretty strong case. If not, and all they have is a bunch of unsupported "talking" going on, then the prosecution has a hard road to pave towards a conviction.
It's part of MMO: Method, Motive, Opportunity.
If you can provide all three in evidence, you've a strong case in your favor. If not, you've a much weaker case.
Regardless, the problem the prosecution has, according to what I've read on this, is that these people so far had only talked about a plot to bomb a mosque. If this is true, then there is an important distinction to be made here, and that is how the prosecution proves that "talking about" an action translates into an actual reasonable fear that the action was going to take place.
If the prosecution has evidence, for example, that shows these people were gathering equipment and supplies which directly support the plot(s) they were "talking about", then they have a pretty strong case. If not, and all they have is a bunch of unsupported "talking" going on, then the prosecution has a hard road to pave towards a conviction.
It's part of MMO: Method, Motive, Opportunity.
If you can provide all three in evidence, you've a strong case in your favor. If not, you've a much weaker case.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Good analysis. Thanks. This article was even more poorly written than I first believed,
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google