Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence" - Page 29

mookiemookie · 04-16-12, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Rgr that.

I'm sure he was talking about you, jim. Watch yourself and straighten up, man.

mapuc · 04-16-12, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm sure he was talking about you, jim. Watch yourself and straighten up, man.

I could be wrong, but I think he meant everyone of us.

Markus

CaptainHaplo · 04-16-12, 05:24 PM

Most folks on here can disagree without being insulting. A few can't. They know who they are and I would bet they have had a warning or 2 before now.

I am suprised at the charge - 2nd degree means the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was "evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

Given the situation - that is a rather tall road. I really hope they can consider lesser charges or else he gets off.

Takeda Shingen · 04-16-12, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Most folks on here can disagree without being insulting. A few can't. They know who they are and I would bet they have had a warning or 2 before now.

That's one of the things I always liked about you. You argue the point, never the person. And if your argument doesn't gain traction or stand up to scrutiny you never take the low road. We could use more like you on SubSim.

CaptainHaplo · 04-16-12, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That's one of the things I always liked about you. You argue the point, never the person. And if your argument doesn't gain traction or stand up to scrutiny you never take the low road. We could use more like you on SubSim.

Well, at least there is one thing.... ROFL

And whatdya mean, I am not always 100% right?

Seriously thanks! I do try - and there are occasional intellectual disagreements, and then there are times when I learn something. I figure neither of those are bad.

krashkart · 04-16-12, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why do jurors need to have their names publicized? Wouldn't the natural solution to this be to have juror records sealed? Couldn't a judge order that?

I'm only guessing here, but it makes sense that a judge could order that. The jurors certainly have a right to their privacy and peace of mind.

August · 04-16-12, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

The jurors certainly have a right to their privacy and peace of mind.

I agree but i'd think that secret juries would be a bad thing in the long run.

krashkart · 04-16-12, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I agree but i'd think that secret juries would be a bad thing in the long run.

How would that be a bad thing?

Platapus · 04-16-12, 07:24 PM

The problem, in my opinion, is that the media is more concerned with their profit than actually serving the public's interest.

Think of how much easier it would be if the press showed some restraint in how they report these crimes. Not saying that the press should not be allowed to report on crimes, but I with the press would not "try" people before LE/DA can do their job.

soopaman2 · 04-16-12, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...rneys-say?lite

Why do jurors need to have their names publicized? Wouldn't the natural solution to this be to have juror records sealed? Couldn't a judge order that?

Not with all the potential book money to be made on being a juror on such a controversial case. All the interviews on Fox News and CNN, the appearances on good morning America. Maybe even a reality show with Kim Kardashian, and the fat lady from Toddlers and Tiaras.

Get my point? This crap is nothing more than a joke and a potential reality show.

This case is diseased, and niether side will get justice.

Lets keep Reverend Al/ Jesse Jackson out of it, and Zimmermans daddy judge out of it, and hope justice can be served, without outside interference this time.

August · 04-16-12, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

How would that be a bad thing?

Well if they're secret then how would you know that they even exist, or that they're not just a bunch of government stooges voting any way the prosecution wants?

soopaman2 · 04-16-12, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Well if they're secret then how would you know that they even exist, or that they're not just a bunch of government stooges voting any way the prosecution wants?

Or any stooge voting the way the defense wants to right?

Or is it only corrupt if you disagree?

(remember, this state did aquit Casey Anthony, I wouldn't worry about your 2nd amendment hero)

CaptainHaplo · 04-16-12, 07:42 PM

Secret juries are a bad thing - for both sides. Government - and justice - both work best when they are held to the light of day.

Trials need to be public - but if the public can't behave - then the offenders need to be hauled out.

August · 04-16-12, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Or any stooge voting the way the defense wants to right?

Or is it only corrupt if you disagree?

(remember, this state did aquit Casey Anthony, I wouldn't worry about your 2nd amendment hero)

Is there a particular reason for your rudeness or is that just your normal nature?

soopaman2 · 04-16-12, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Is there a particular reason for your rudeness or is that just your normal nature?

I do not see me being so, my apologies if so August.

It just seemed you felt that any decision for the prosecution by a jury would be government stooges. You showed your side on the matter, with an obviously biased remark.

I was simply questioning your wording, and offering a polar opposite. The same remark worded to the other side.

Yes questioning things is in my nature. Rudeness was not intended, though my sarcasm is a bit strong sometimes.

(edit: It was not a personal jab at you August, just an opposing perspective with too much sarcasm injected, )

04-16-12, 05:24 PM	#423
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,405 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	Most folks on here can disagree without being insulting. A few can't. They know who they are and I would bet they have had a warning or 2 before now. I am suprised at the charge - 2nd degree means the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was "evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life." Given the situation - that is a rather tall road. I really hope they can consider lesser charges or else he gets off. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

04-16-12, 07:24 PM	#429
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,445 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	The problem, in my opinion, is that the media is more concerned with their profit than actually serving the public's interest. Think of how much easier it would be if the press showed some restraint in how they report these crimes. Not saying that the press should not be allowed to report on crimes, but I with the press would not "try" people before LE/DA can do their job. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-16-12, 07:42 PM	#433
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,405 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	Secret juries are a bad thing - for both sides. Government - and justice - both work best when they are held to the light of day. Trials need to be public - but if the public can't behave - then the offenders need to be hauled out. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo