this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
81 points (97.6% liked)

Videos

18219 readers
63 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed
  9. AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 55 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Weird "legal experts" are shocked about this...

Judges hate juries, because judges think they should have that power.

They see juries as ignorant yokels that need steered down a path to justice, and "justice" is the judges opinion. So if they don't get the result they want in a jury trial...

They bae the jury for being dumb idiots, and want to know what the need to do to get the next batch of dumb idiots to vote for "justice" next time.

This shit ain't new, and any expert surprised this is how judges view jury cases is woefully naive.

Even a judge just openly saying it, that's not new.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 weeks ago

See the Prairieland case for a recent example...

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The judge can give idiot-level instructions to the jury, warnings to the jury, reprimands to the jury, whatever, as long as the trial is in progress. Once the verdict has been delivered, respect the process and the citizens and STFU. The shocking part is the open disrespect, not the opinion.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

....

So...

In your head, if someone is t surprised by something, it means they support it?

I just don't understand how you got confused enough to type that in reply to my comment

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah the reason that seems so hard to understand is because it’s a million miles away from anything I thought or said. All I said was that no one is shocked a judge feels that way about juries, they are shocked at the lack of decorum.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh ok...

It was that thing where someone just rephrases what they reply to without adding something.

Thanks for verifying! I just like being sure.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Nope, wow, wrong again, and confidently so.

You seemed to think “legal experts” shouldn’t be surprised judges hate juries. And I was saying they aren’t, they’re shocked at the lack of decorum.

Jesus Christ if I have to spell it out for you one more time I’m going to puke. Get it or dont - you’re on your own.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Aren't juries usually ignorant yokels, though? I'm not saying the judges should have the power. Juries are necessary. That doesn't make them good at what they do. Just better than the alternative.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“Jury of your peers” aka the common clay as picked through by the legal teams. If memory serves, Marisa Tomei is the hot one in the room.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Marisa Tomei was an expert witness, if I understand your reference.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

And would be the hot one in any room.

[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

A jury consists of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

The one time I wanted to sit on the jury, they dismissed me because I was a subject matter expert on the specific subject they were trying (and testified regularly before the court on the subject) and they didn't want me dominating the jury. It was a federal fraud case and I am a better witness than the feds had gotten, just I'm very, very expensive.

But I usually do state superior court. Federal district court? That was exciting. I'm still a little grumpy I didn't get seated in that one. I was even willing to promise to behave myself (and even willing to keep that promise too, federal court is different than state court)

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

not all, like voting, some of us take it seriously.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

considering that in about...2/3rds of all US states, judges are elected and have literally 0 actual legal experience requirements...i would probably trust the jury more than judge in alot of cases

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

Nobody believes in the legal system as strongly as the people who run it.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 32 points 3 weeks ago

The whole story is a clownshow with only one grown up guy, and it's Afroman working to pay for the damages others caused.

[–] teft@piefed.social 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Afroman should make a new song about the judge.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

I'm no lyricist, but something tells me calling him Judge Judy might set him off.

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I hate vertical filmed shorts.

I don't care for shorts, but I assume the format would come down to viewing device.

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 17 points 3 weeks ago

https://www.youtube.com/live/qlxvSiBJwn8?t=8540

Direct link to the actual interview. Juror interview starts around 1:30. Judge questions are discussed at 2:22.