Avatar feed
Responses: 3
SSG Bill McCoy
4
4
0
Yeah, they screwed up! Obvious lying, you're right!
(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
3
3
0
Ya gotta love it!That's karma, baby!
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Kevin Ford
1
1
0
NBC isn't doing anything illegal, they are able to follow people in public, including jurors. Contacting them may run afoul of the judge's order, which would be bad, but they didn't do that. The order to not follow the juror was likely not a legal order which is why they had to bring up the traffic violations.

In any kind of investigatory stop the best response (other than whatever legal requirements an ID law state requires), is "I don't answer questions".
(1)
Comment
(0)
Cpl Software Engineer
Cpl (Join to see)
3 y
"I'm offering just as likely alternate explanations" Uhmm, no! The lies were too obvious. You are not offering an alternative explanation. You can't even accept that any position opposite your "alternate explanation" could be valid. And instead of arguing WHY the producer was following the jury's van with a valid argument, you criticize my position. Again, the lies were too obvious.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
3 y
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - I don't believe the jurors were being taken to a hotel. Did you read that somewhere because that jury wasn't sequestered? I could be wrong, but from everything I've read they were not sequestered. In fact there were a bunch of contemporary news articles complaining that they were not sequestered. I'm thinking they may have been driving them to where their vehicles were parked and they kept the vehicles away from the courthouse to make it harder to identify the jury.

Now if you are saying that the guy was acting a bit like a paparazzi, then sure I'm with you. Where I'm a little more questioning is when we go on to presume that they will go into illegal acts (other than perhaps some traffic violations). We haven't seen any evidence that they would and everything in that direction seems to be based on assumptions.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
3 y
Cpl (Join to see) - I never said other explanations are not valid. That's the point, we're engaging in speculation. My alternate explanation is intended to highlight that speculation. Their too obvious lies? That's speculation on your part unless you have some concrete evidence to show that they are lying. Saying that we should just know and it's obvious is just code for "I can't prove what I'm saying and I'm going to attempt to intimidate everyone by implying they are stupid if they don't go along."
(1)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Software Engineer
Cpl (Join to see)
3 y
Speculation? Try reading more than a headline or taking an obstinate position because you don't like a person's political affiliation. All training material, easily searchable, details how to determine a lie. Ask any interrogator or investigator, the lies were too obvious. Having kids is an easy way to hone the ability to know when someone is lying.

https://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/resources/10-signs-someone-is-lying

https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-Someone-is-Lying

https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying-2795917

https://www.paulekman.com/deception/deception-detection/

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/how-tell-if-someone-lying-according-behavioral-experts-ncna786326
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close