Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So, you want a fair trial. Good. Does that include a jury who hasn't already come to a determination of guilt? If so, a person like you wouldn't make a good juror, as you have come to a conclusion without examination and cross examination of all the facts.
I am not saying he didn't do it. I am saying, I don't know. I look at these situations dispassionately, and believe in the legal process of innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial in which the defendant is allowed to have counsel vigorously defend him and attack the evidence presented by the D.A.
If after all the evidence is in, then make a conclusion.
The problem with your bias, is that you will ignore evidence that would diminish the case against him.
Your mentality may indeed by common in Louisiana. There are many in this forum who subscribe to the lynch mob mentality.
However, in the North, where the constitution was developed and rights were granted, and supplemented with constitutional amendments, a man is still innocent until proven guilty and deserving of a fair trial.
