Because I, like you, watched the trial on cable TV! LOL. Jesus son. Were you in the court room for 31 days hearing the ENTIRE case? I know I wasn't. Were you? No, you probably saw bits and pieces on the evening news. And you are ready to convict someone, to put them to death because while eating dinner, you caught 10 minutes of Nancy Grace? Come on now. Now that is scary.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Casey Anthony not guilty, wtf?
- Thread starter Artful D0dger
- Start date
Because I, like you, watched the trial on cable TV! LOL. Jesus son. Were you in the court room for 31 days hearing the ENTIRE case? I know I wasn't. Were you? No, you probably saw bits and pieces on the evening news. And you are ready to convict someone, to put them to death because while eating dinner, you caught 10 minutes of Nancy Grace? Come on now. Now that is scary.
Quote from Maverick74:
You want a random jury? You want the possibility of 12 tea party republicans on a jury of a black man killing a white woman in the first degree in a capital murder state? Really? I don't and I love the tea party! Jury selection is probably one the most important protections we have as citizens. It's to make sure we don't accidentally stack the jury so a fair trial is not even possible.
Hey, now you're talking! Mav, I'm going to help you along here, since I can see that the criminal processes in the U.S. aren't exactly your forte. Oh, I'm not saying you don't know everything. I'm just saying your aren't using the full power of your analytical mind to think this thing thru.
Mav, what I want is a fair jury system.
Accidentally stack the jury?? Surely you jest, right?? That's exactly what I'm talking about. What do think goes on in every trial in America?????
And, after today's decision, I would guess you can easily see who's doing the stacking. (Come on, Mav. Tell the truth.) (Uhnnnnn...Tell the truth.)
Here's the way it should work:
Joe Blow, you will report for jury duty on July 5, 2011.
John Doe, you will report for jury duty on July 5, 2011.
Connie Conservative, you will report for jury duty on July 5, 2011.
Lee Liberal, you will report for jury duty on July 5, 2011.
Mav, you will report for jury duty on July 5, 2011.
BSAM, you will report for jury duty on July 5, 2011.
etc., etc., etc.
No lawyer prequalification bullshit. If I want to get prequalified, I'll talk to a loan officer.
A jury of your peers. Let's go by the constitution.
Quote from BSAM:
You weren't there, so why do you think she is guilty? Maybe OJ isn't guilty. You buying that??
Because there are no consequences to my decision. Based on the "limited" amount, and by limited I mean that I did not see all 300 hours of testimony, she looked guilty to me. OJ's trial went on for years. I saw maybe 5% of the total testimony. Again, no consequences there either for my opinion. That is the difference. Usually arm chair quarterbacks have very little risk in giving their opinions. That's why so many offer them.
Quote from Maverick74:
Because there are no consequences to my decision. Based on the "limited" amount, and by limited I mean that I did not see all 300 hours of testimony, she looked guilty to me. OJ's trial went on for years. I saw maybe 5% of the total testimony. Again, no consequences there either for my opinion. That is the difference. Usually arm chair quarterbacks have very little risk in giving their opinions. That's why so many offer them.
Gee Mav. Surely you are waaaay smart enough to know that you wouldn't have to see 300 hours of this fiasco to know whether the gal was guilty or not.
Quote from BSAM:
Gee Mav. Surely you are waaaay smart enough to know that you wouldn't have to see 300 hours of this fiasco to know whether the gal was guilty or not.
Man, you really are a scary guy. See, this is what scares me about people. Everyone thinks they are so clever and they bring that into the trial. I bet there were a lot of people who could have sat on that jury, maybe even you, who would have already made your mind up before the trial even began. It's not your job to pick and choose which parts of the trial to listen to. You need to watch the entire trial BSAM. We can't have cafeteria trials where jurors get to pick and choose which parts of the trial they want to watch. Jeez.
Quote from Maverick74:
Man, you really are a scary guy. See, this is what scares me about people. Everyone thinks they are so clever and they bring that into the trial. I bet there were a lot of people who could have sat on that jury, maybe even you, who would have already made your mind up before the trial even began. It's not your job to pick and choose which parts of the trial to listen to....
Innnng...Wrong again, Mav.
Scary? You want to talk about "scary"? What's really scary is that people in America don't really understand what is going on during a trial.
Here's a hint for you, Mav: The truth usually has nothing to do with the trial. Think of Bill and Hillary. They will say and do anything to get elected. Are you getting the connection yet? (Mav, for anybody else, I'd be charging for this priceless information.)
If I had been on the jury, (which I wouldn't have, but anyway...) I would have listened during the whole trial. I'm 99.9% certain I would come to the same conclusion. Anyways, if this trial lasted 300 hours, there is a reason for that. (I'll help you again; afterall you are my hero.) It's called "diversion".
Courts, jury selection process, trials in America are a joke.
Quote from BSAM:
Innnng...Wrong again, Mav.
Scary? You want to talk about "scary"? What's really scary is that people in America don't really understand what is going on during a trial.
Here's a hint for you, Mav: The truth usually has nothing to do with the trial. Think of Bill and Hillary. They will say and do anything to get elected. Are you getting the connection yet? (Mav, for anybody else, I'd be charging for this priceless information.)
If I had been on the jury, (which I wouldn't have, but anyway...) I would have listened during the whole trial. I'm 99.9% certain I would come to the same conclusion. Anyways, if this trial lasted 300 hours, there is a reason for that. (I'll help you again; afterall you are my hero.) It's called "diversion".
Courts, jury selection process, trials in America are a joke.
You are seriously comparing the Clintons to a first degree capital murder trial? WTF man. Get serious. This girl was going to get the chair and you are talking about corrupt politicians? Alright dude, I just hit my time stop with you. Gotta pull out of the trade. Take your crack at someone else.
Quote from Maverick74:
You are seriously comparing the Clintons to a first degree capital murder trial? WTF man. Get serious. This girl was going to get the chair and you are talking about corrupt politicians? Alright dude, I just hit my time stop with you. Gotta pull out of the trade. Take your crack at someone else.
Oh now you're pretending to not see the correlation of a politician and a lawyer both using diversion tactics. LOL.
You're spinning now, Mav. But, I got to respect you for cutting loose your losing trade. It's a smart thing to do. I commend you.