Because ultimately the decision rests with them. Nobody else.
Also not sure how that's passing judgement by saying I don't find the sequence of events believable but they do? I've never said my beliefs are correct.
illegal immigrant, deported 5 times, shoots a woman dead... found not guilty
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Because ultimately the decision rests with them. Nobody else.
Also not sure how that's passing judgement by saying I don't find the sequence of events believable but they do? I've never said my beliefs are correct.
Whatever, it's literally quoted above you where you did.
The jury is instructed to make a decision on the information they are given. The prosecution tries to make the case using the evidence available. The defence tries to prevent the claims from sticking. The jury then decides after all that if it meets the requirements for the charge.
It's unrealistic to say the jury is at fault without going through a court transcript and understanding how exactly everything played out.
The jury is instructed to make a decision on the information they are given. The prosecution tries to make the case using the evidence available. The defence tries to prevent the claims from sticking. The jury then decides after all that if it meets the requirements for the charge.
It's unrealistic to say the jury is at fault without going through a court transcript and understanding how exactly everything played out.
No I was saying they didn't convince the jury he killed her/that it was murder (as opposed to manslaughter or an accident).
I must admit I didn't register the links in the original post to begin with, but that still doesn't change the fact that the prosecution failed to prove to a jury any intent on the various charges related to the actual death, as opposed to the lowest possible one.
That strongly suggests that the Prosecution either messed up their arguments (or that some of the evidence they presented was considered flawed/unreliable), or the defences arguments were stronger.
True.
In Florida they are now being banned. And by the end of the year it should stop. Thank a pixie god
I think you have rather too much faith in the abilities of juries - especially when the known facts about this case make for some rather serious questions to be asked
nothing to do with that - the gun was stolen from a federal law enforcement vehicle, you could change that and mention lax weapons security by armed law enforcement personnel if you like but the gun control aspect is irrelevant in this case
what exactly have been twisted in this case - is there any substance to your remarks if so please do highlight it?
the prosecution takes most of the blame and was likely rather weak/inept though I'd suspect the jury was a bit credulous and innumerate in this case re their general perception of the likelihood of this guy just happening to find some drugs and then just happening to find a weapon that was stolen a few days ago and then just happen to accidentally shoot the weapon (or was it tread on the weapon.. or was it deliberately shoot the weapon but he was aiming at seals...)
strange that we don't have this separation of local and federal law over in the UK and we have a police force that doesn't have anywhere near the sort of tensions US police forces (including in Californian cities) have with some of these communities... I'd suspect that if they stopped gunning down unarmed black people so frequently and perhaps were a bit less authoritarian in general + more accountable then that would go much further in maintaining relations with these communities than the idea that if they were to go and do something totally crazy and outrageous like actually comply with federal detainment orders for dangerous criminals wanted for deportation who are in their custody
hang on a minute don't call me biased when you've clearly not bothered to read much about the case - that he killed the woman/fired the gun isn't in question... whether it was fired accidentally or not is in question but given the changes in his story with one account being implausible and another involving him not firing it accidentally then this is where surely a prosecutor ought to have torn him apart
I think you should take your own advice and go and read an article (I even provided links for you in the OP) you seem to have portrayed this as there being the possibility of him having found the gun after it had been fired - if you have read an article briefly then that is a bit of a misunderstanding to say the least!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,299
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Do I have more faith in a jury that has been presented facts by BOTH sides, made a decision base on laws instructed by a judge over a random online who likely have no legal training, not read all the same facts presented who only read a few things online?
No of course not, I trust the random online........not.
I mean seriously, really? I am not saying the legal system is infallible but the alternative here is just absurd. No matter how much I read, it’s not going to be the same as in the court room, and I said before, there is very likely there are people JUST like you on that panel and there are people who may very well prejudice against immigrants, yet they found him not guilty. Chew on that for a minute.
No of course not, I trust the random online........not.
I mean seriously, really? I am not saying the legal system is infallible but the alternative here is just absurd. No matter how much I read, it’s not going to be the same as in the court room, and I said before, there is very likely there are people JUST like you on that panel and there are people who may very well prejudice against immigrants, yet they found him not guilty. Chew on that for a minute.
given the facts we do know I don't have that much faith in the jury, though I think the whole concept of trial by jury is a bit outdated and flawed anyway (though that is probably a discussion for another thread)
though I think the bigger failure here is on the part of the prosecutor
though I think the bigger failure here is on the part of the prosecutor
The facts you know are those from a few news reports, don't bet on them ever being correct even in basic details*, and even when they do get the basics right they have what is often dozens of hours of testimony condensed into a a few inches of print.
But yes, it sounds like the prosecution failed rather massively if the details are correct, but as I say hours of evidence condensed into a few paragraphs, maybe a page of text if that means you miss an awful lot.
*I've seen magistrates and judges comment that the only way they reading/watching the news the only way they've recognised some cases was because the reporter got a name and date correct.
What facts in this case were wrong? Do you have any corrections to make re: basic details being correct if so then please post them?
Raymond supposedly wants me to chew on some point he's made but he's only repeating what he's already posted earlier in the thread re: the jury and frankly I alluded to the same argument in my OP re: the murder charge - I've literally referenced it in the first line of my post:
it is the lack of even an involuntarily manslaughter charge I'm taking issue with given the facts we know (if you've got corrections to them then go ahead) - I'm perfectly willing to accept that we can't really be too sure re: the murder charge
Isn't that just the way the American system works though? Based on my extensive knowledge of watching police/law shows (so not much
) you either take the plea at a lesser sentence or they go to jury for the full charge and you take your chance and if you are found not guilty of murder they can't just drop it down one to manslaughter, like we would over here.It always seemed their system is more about due process than justice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,583
- Location
- La France
California is lost.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42231806
Trump travel ban: Supreme Court lets restrictions take full effect
"The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go into full effect, pending legal challenges.
The decision is a boost for Mr Trump's policy against travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.
The ruling covers the third version of the directive that the president has issued since taking office.
Seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions on Monday imposed by lower courts against the policy.
Only liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have allowed the president's order to remain blocked."
He's getting there....
He's getting there....
and how exactly is this relevant to this thread?
According to Mike Moore, it is actually rare for cases to go to full trial in the US. He states that something like 96% are settled via pre-trial plea bargains.
It is almost certain that a fair proportion of "Guilty" people are likely to be not guilty but with poor defenses or no money. who agree to a guilty plea for a lesser offense with a reduced sentence in order to avoid the risk of the savage sentence that will inevitably be handed down if they go to full trial and lose.
I do not know how accurate a representation of the US Justice system these dramas are, But programs like "Bull" are quite disturbing really.
They imply that basically unless you are wealthy or have a case that is a sufficient cause celebre to attract a big law firm to represent you pro-bono, you have little chance of securing a not guilty verdict.
Of course, this is what is most interesting about this case. The defendant wouldn't have had much money with which to defend himself, so the fact that he beat the charges against him is rather interesting.
I guess He must have either got some pretty impressive pro-bono representation (Why??), or an extremely sympathetic jury, or both...
It would be interesting to know who represented him/paid for his defense (And Why) it would also be interesting to know a bit more about who was in the Jury...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
It quotes and is an amusingly timely reply to Werewolf's post citing how trump needs to go through the correct procedures to ban undesirables. He is doing just that, seemingly with the near full backing of the Supreme Court. It's relevant in that his goal should reduce the risk to life and limb to the American people from miscreants.