The Kooks are Back
- Thread starter SGaynor
- Start date
That's fair.
In defense of my reading comprehension, that statement could just as easily be understood to say that you personally found the nuances of this case to be very similar to those of the OJ case.
No wounds here. I just like getting you spun up over some kooks. You assume way too much and it makes you appear alarmist, hard headed and angry. Lighten up. I think this is all amusing and your battling like you represent these dummies in court. You should get a hobby!
It amazes me how many juries rule not guilty (innocence) of people the media have painted guilty as hell.
Casey Anthony
OJ
Drew Peterson and many more.
I mean, we have juries for a reason. Innocent until proven guilty, a lot of Americans forget that, including myself.
Casey Anthony
OJ
Drew Peterson and many more.
I mean, we have juries for a reason. Innocent until proven guilty, a lot of Americans forget that, including myself.
That's the great thing about our legal system; beyond a reasonable doubt is a hell of a threshold to achieve.
I think we all forget it in the court of public opinion, regardless of our stance. I know I do.
Ruled not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do what you were accused of.
In some cases (I.e. the ones you listed), it just means you lucked out in regards to the available evidence proving your guilt.
There is no way for you to remotely prove anyone has 'lucked out'. I mean, did you sit in the courtroom throughout the entire trial? We are all sideline spectators. The Juniors are the only ones that can truly rule and pass judgement. Wouldn't you agree?
Putting the cases you listed in that category is, admittedly, a personal opinion.
Still, if you think not guilty by jury is a guarantee of innocence 100% of the time, you are a dumbface
Well, considering Nicole and Ron's blood was splattered all over the inside of OJ's truck, on his socks, in his house....Oh, and he pretty much confessed to it in the book he wrote, If I Did It.
Like I said, it was a big Fuck You from the largely black jury to the white cops/prosecutors. Remember, Rodney King and the riots were only two/three years prior. Jury nullification is a real thing.
And, let's face it - those on juries aren't always the brightest bulbs. I had a coworker (PhD Chemist) who got called for jury duty in Houston once. When interviewed by the defense and asked to confirm he had a PhD? Thank you sir, you are released.
Both sides want people that are malleable. Not those with high level critical thinking skills.
While the jury system is probably the fairest (some would argue that trial by judges is), it's what we have and works the majority of the time.
On of the first tenants in law - the presumption of innocence - is a requirement of the prosecution and a right of the accused in a court proceeding ONLY. Period. In fact - it is often ONLY a right in criminal cases. It has NO bearing in the "court" of public opinion - thank god. Walk into a court room as a defendant and you will wear the comfortable cloak which is " incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negot" - or some shit like that. (I had to memorize that for a test MANY years ago!) It amuses me like HELL when people jump for this protection at the drop of a hat when they hear something in the news they disagree with or favor a person regardless of fact. The often over-looked natural tendency of EVRY human being is quite simple: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Juries are everyday citizens and not legal scholars, they have little to NO idea of the laws of criminal proceedings - and you want it that way - their only requirement is to hear the case and decide upon it.
Still, if you think not guilty by jury is a guarantee of innocence 100% of the time, you are a dumbface
Not at all. Being a numbers guy I'd rather a jury try me than the fly by night media if I was indeed, innocent.
The OJ case was a joke and made a spectacle of our system out of the gate. Out of the ordinary for sure.
I am confused.
I interpreted your original post on the subject as:
Look at how stupid the media was for crucifying these people who were clearly innocent* of the accusations!
*Because a jury said so.
Was I mistaken?
You must have missed the last part, out of the ordinary for sure. The media arriving at a conclusion before a jury equals high ratings. Kind of like the media speculating why a passenger jet crashed 12 hours after it happened when it takes the NTSB 2 years. The OJ case was the one and only acception (in my mind) of a jury clearly getting it wrong as Scott stated.
You really are getting it now! Congrats!
You see, when you spend a great majority of your adult life seeing what you can get away with you tend garner little sympathy from those who try to live by our laws and abide by this country's rules. You'll find some solace in the company of other's who have become frustrated with their lot in life and therefor seek attention, notoriety, and relevancy. I don't understand a man who tilts at windmills, fucks with a bee's nest or sticks their head in a gator's mouth and then whines or "protests" their fate or injury. They blame the windmill for being too big, the bees for stinging and the gator for biting all the while dodging their own responsibilities, obligations, and duties. Please don;t assume - as you surely like to do - that I am divorcing our government from all historical and contemporary blame or "perfection" in it's laws. I have plenty of "beefs" with our federal government but certainly have none here as it applies to these "innocent pilgrims".
Your heroes or friends that you spend so much time thinking about and defending have spent a great deal of time, money and blood trying to get something for nothing and dressing their crimes and irresponsible behavior in some kind of made-up and twisted logic for which they sell to dopes and those wishing to live vicariously through their actions.You seem to think that it makes those that see people like this for what they are as "mad" and "wounded" or blind to some kind of "prairie justice". Your wrong. I'm not mad or wounded - I actually feel sorry for people like this - they are fortunate enough to live in the greatest country on the face of the earth, and instead of contributing to it in some way; they rather see what they can get out of it. Have they won some appeals and court argument. Yes. Have they been given remedy. No.
Anyway, I suppose I can see why these people are "news", but I can't understand your infatuation with them. And its an infatuation that seems predicated on no real consequence. I have to admit - I've received most, if not all of my "news" about these dummies from your post here. Well, carry on gentlemen!
You should know. You've been following these guys and think they are in the right.
What was this whole thing over in the first place.
The Bundy's wanting something for nothing.