Jump to content

Armed Militia Group Takes Over Federal Building In Oregon...plans To Stay For Years.


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, atl falcon 89 said:

Not saying the Bundys are evil people (or at least not as bad as the extreme example I'm about to use) but this is same the kind of regional jury bias we used to see in the South when Black men were on trial (or a white for killing a black)

The prosecutor can lay out all the facts and evidence he wants but all the jury is going to hear is 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment! Supposedly even the defense  was shocked by the verdict.

Probably could have done a better job at jury selection. 

 From what i can tell from the article dave posted it sounds alot like the prosecutors completely missed a lay-up. On a 4 foot high goal. After dancing on the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, Dago 3.0 said:

sad miscarriage of justice. the prosecution was so inept that I wonder if they intentionally blew the case

Real talk -- I have felt that way about the George Zimmerman trial since it happened.  From the time the prosecutor said in opening that they would show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and then called the eyewitness who said Martin was on top of him basically beating the **** out of Zimmerman, I was like "they cannot be serious."  You don't promise to prove something and then call witnesses that prove the opposite.

I'd be surprised if that's the case here.  I think they honestly thought this was such a slam dunk it couldn't be lost.  Classic mistake.  But I really do wonder if the prosecutors flat threw the Zimmerman trial.  If they didn't, they make the prosecutors in the OJ case look like Clarence ****ing Darrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Real talk -- I have felt that way about the George Zimmerman trial since it happened.  From the time the prosecutor said in opening that they would show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and then called the eyewitness who said Martin was on top of him basically beating the **** out of Zimmerman, I was like "they cannot be serious."  You don't promise to prove something and then call witnesses that prove the opposite.

I'd be surprised if that's the case here.  I think they honestly thought this was such a slam dunk it couldn't be lost.  Classic mistake.  But I really do wonder if the prosecutors flat threw the Zimmerman trial.  If they didn't, they make the prosecutors in the OJ case look like Clarence ****ing Darrow.

Hear ye hear ye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

Real talk -- I have felt that way about the George Zimmerman trial since it happened.  From the time the prosecutor said in opening that they would show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and then called the eyewitness who said Martin was on top of him basically beating the **** out of Zimmerman, I was like "they cannot be serious."  You don't promise to prove something and then call witnesses that prove the opposite.

I'd be surprised if that's the case here.  I think they honestly thought this was such a slam dunk it couldn't be lost.  Classic mistake.  But I really do wonder if the prosecutors flat threw the Zimmerman trial.  If they didn't, they make the prosecutors in the OJ case look like Clarence ****ing Darrow.

I'm no mind reader, but I think that they believed that the public and the media wouldn't have accepted a manslaughter charge which would have been far easier to get 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2016 at 9:06 PM, JDaveG said:

Real talk -- I have felt that way about the George Zimmerman trial since it happened.  From the time the prosecutor said in opening that they would show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and then called the eyewitness who said Martin was on top of him basically beating the **** out of Zimmerman, I was like "they cannot be serious."  You don't promise to prove something and then call witnesses that prove the opposite.

I'd be surprised if that's the case here.  I think they honestly thought this was such a slam dunk it couldn't be lost.  Classic mistake.  But I really do wonder if the prosecutors flat threw the Zimmerman trial.  If they didn't, they make the prosecutors in the OJ case look like Clarence ****ing Darrow.

Sometimes juries just suck.  It's a sad state that this is the best option we have for justice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kicker said:

 I don't know, but there should be a baseline IQ requirement.   There are some seriously stupid ******* people in this country.  I'd also nix the whole jury strike process.  

I don't know -- the jury strike process isn't perfect, but it's there for very good reasons.  Are you suggesting eliminating all strikes or just peremptory strikes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I don't know -- the jury strike process isn't perfect, but it's there for very good reasons.  Are you suggesting eliminating all strikes or just peremptory strikes?

 No, obviously there is good reason to strike in certain instances. I just feel like they should be the exception rather than the rule   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Also, @holymoses has a FB "friend" who claims to have a 160 IQ and is one of the dumbest people I've ever run across.  

Now, I doubt he really has a 160 IQ, but I'm also sure it isn't below average.  Point being, there are a lot of people with high-ish IQs that are pretty dumb.

How are you sure that it isn't below average? He just said he was a ******* idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kicker said:

How are you sure that it isn't below average? He just said he was a ******* idiot.

I'm not sure, but he has a doctorate level degree, so he has to have some basic intelligence.

That doesn't, unfortunately, equate to actually using that intelligence in any effective way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JDaveG said:

Also, @holymoses has a FB "friend" who claims to have a 160 IQ and is one of the dumbest people I've ever run across.  

Now, I doubt he really has a 160 IQ, but I'm also sure it isn't below average.  Point being, there are a lot of people with high-ish IQs that are pretty dumb.

I knew a chemist that worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan project.  He was brilliant, but he lacked in social skills and common sense.  I don't think they're dumb, I just think it is a combination of the two things I just mentioned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...