Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gruez 1441 days ago
>A man got a court to rule in his favour for 289 million dollars, after the jury saw this evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-tr...

You seem to be presenting this fact as some sort of that bayer is guilty, but it's not really convincing. For one, it's a 8 person jury in san francisco. I'd expect them to rule against bayer on ideological grounds (ie. little guy vs multi bililon dollar multinational corporation) alone. Second, if there's no scientific consensus on the effects of glysophate, I doubt a panel of laypersons would do better.
2 comments
emodendroket 1441 days ago
If the jurors all just ruled against Bayer "on ideological grounds" then their counsel was asleep at the wheel.
link
noirbot 1441 days ago
Perhaps, but there's also a reason most lawyers do their best to make sure their case is heard in a favorable jurisdiction. You can only strike so many jurors for something as banal as "doesn't like large multinational corporations", which it's not obvious that would entirely bias them.

It's not to say that every juror walked in already decided on it, but I'd somewhat expect a panel of urban CA citizens to be at least 60/40 in favor of a person against a big corp, and so if the evidence is already somewhat in that direction, then that's how it goes.

link
smsm42 1441 days ago
Why would that be? Lawyers aren't magicians, if the jury is predisposed to rule in certain way, the lawyer can flap their lips as long as they wanted, and change nothing. Ingrained convictions are remarkably hard to change, even if presented with undeniable contradicting evidence - see example of apocalyptic cults surviving failed prophecy repeatedly. Councils aren't wizards, and they can reject only so many potential jurors. If there are none to be found that would listen, then council can't do much.
link
emodendroket 1441 days ago
Even in San Francisco I don't think your pool of potential jurors will be so single-mindedly anti-corporate that this is likely.
link
more_corn 1441 days ago
This is an absurd assertion. Also you’re literally quoting “Thank you for smoking” with your follow up defense.
link
gruez 1441 days ago
>This is an absurd assertion

Wow thanks for the thorough refutation! I have now realized my error and totally changed my mind!

>Also you’re literally quoting “Thank you for smoking” with your follow up defense.

So your idea of a refutation is to reference a fictional novel? I'm at a loss for words.

link