Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
PART AND PARCEL of living in a country with ultra lax gun laws
illegal immigrant, deported 5 times, shoots a woman dead... found not guilty
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,535
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
It is irrelevant what I think or what you think, it matters what the jury thinks.
Can you honestly say you have more facts than the ones in the court room throughout the trial?
No.
So what are you basing your answer on except nothing but bias?
What answer? You're clearly the one that's biased as you're not willing to accept juries make mistakes. I've given you two examples where they have. Ergo, you're wrong.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,535
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Jury make mistakes, but you are implying that they make one it means they are 100% wrong and I am wrong.
There is likely people very much like you on the jury, and yet he is aquitted.
Take that and think about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,316
- Location
- Woking
That wouldn't suit his agenda, though, would it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Part and parcel of living in a country where the liberal judiciary overturn the President's well founded attempts to stop illegal immigration and immigration from dodgy countries by dodgy people. Get that damned wall built, get the stop in place for divisive elements. That Mexican should be in the electric chair.
What agenda would that be? Hmm? Could you please point out where I've passed any judgement on the decision of the jury? Or would you be projecting your (incorrect) bias just like Raymond?
No, you clearly stated it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks and only what the jury thinks as they have access to more facts. Except the trial is over, the facts are out and everyone has access to the information provided to the jury. So just like the two cases I've highlighted and 1000s of others - it's entirely plausible the jury made a mistake. Something you're clearly not willing to consider. As they have the facts.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,535
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
It doesn’t matter, the trial is over. Period.
You can read and dissect and have your opinion but that’s nothing more than opinion.
As for facts, are you saying, really, that you know more than the jury? Passed all the criteria of chain of evidence and law?
Really?
Or are you already tainted by a set biased from reading the thread titled, formed an opinion before even reading any article for nothing more than 20mins vs a whole panel of people, listen and seen all the evidence in full presented by BOTH sides minus commentaries of any papers, websites or media.
Who do you think know more and better informed?
You? Really?
The law provides the requirements for the charge.
The jury makes a decision on what the prosecution and the defence show them.
The prosecution and defence set their table with the evidence and witnesses available.
Pick and choose which bit you want to put the blame on eh?
The jury makes a decision on what the prosecution and the defence show them.
The prosecution and defence set their table with the evidence and witnesses available.
Pick and choose which bit you want to put the blame on eh?
Again, where have I made a decision? Nowhere. You're the one that has declared the jury MUST be right. You're the one declaring that I must have made a decision because I'm questioning the fact that a jury made up of entirely fallible humans may have made a mistake.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,316
- Location
- Woking
Not you, dowie.
It's very easy to twist stories to fit your own bias. I'm inclined to agree with Raymond's assessment anyway.
You replied to his quote regarding me.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,535
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I am not saying the jury is infallible but the majority of the time, they are, or at least, base on the facts given at the time, this is what you get. You can form any opinions that you like or have but ultimately, it doesn't matter.
And what bias is that? The one where I question whether juries have made the correct decision? It's just as well people like me exist otherwise - as per the link that I've pointed to, many innocents would still be rotting in jail.
Here's another example closer to home. Michael Stone. Put away because a jury believed the words of 3 criminals and no over evidence whatsoever. Clever jury!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/50547...to-talk-about-free-levi-bellfield-confession/
No part and parcel of a country with a president who has to live by the rule of law, and change the actual law if he's not happy with it, as opposed to a country where the "President" is actually a dictator and able to impose his will with no checks and balances.
If Trump and his team of idiots had been even slightly more competent and actually understood their legal powers he could have tried to change the law properly rather than scribbling notes in crayon and declaring that they should be followed, and then having a temper tantrum like a toddler when those who are charged with ensuring the law (as written) is followed state "nope, that is no legal, and these are the reasons why...come back with a properly worded order or a change in the law".
Slightly weird thread title tbh... as if merely being an illegal immigrant makes him culpable of murder?
It is a bit. The point I'm taking though is that if he wasn't in the country (which he shouldn't have been) then that woman wouldn't have been killed. I also find his excuses to be somewhat - thin.
Don't know what you're on about.
What I can see is that you're paranoid about jury verdicts to the point where you were happy to see a claim that "the jury must be right" when there wasn't.