Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 14:25:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.#NoMoreSpam#missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1083 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > A second problem is civil lawsuits following innocent verdicts in criminal
> > trials.
>
> Well, except for maybe that one case that happens every now and then
> when the criminal trial verdict was clearly wrong.
What makes a criminal trial verdict clearly wrong? For instance with
OJ: everyone I knew had an opinion, most of them thought he was guilty
as hell and should fry, but a few were absolutely sure that he was
innocent. So, he got off and everyone thought it was 'clearly wrong'.
But, I would always ask people what their opinion was based on, since I
was pretty sure that they weren't jurors sitting on the case, and they
all came up with silly BS answers based on irrational interpretations of
the crap that the news was flinging. I personally, have no idea what
his involvement was.
How often are you so involved in a criminal court case that you're sure
that the jury was wrong? How often could you possibly have a reasonable opinion?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 10 Replies:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) <snipped OJ stuff> (...) opinion? Well, the first thing that pops into mind as far as 'clearly wrong' goes is outdated laws. Laws do not cover all eventualities, and occaisonally, a situation occurs where a law has been broken, but blame does (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Once. (...) Once. (same case both times) I was the foreman on a jury that got the "wrong" verdict. Wrong in that we let someone go who clearly was guilty. But "clearly" was not clear to us until after the fact, when we talked to the prosecutor (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| On Mon, 17 May 1999 14:25:19 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) An argument I had often used here in relation to Louise Woodward. (The general populace in the UK were convinced of her innocence, but had not the (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| On Mon, 17 May 1999 23:40:30 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) Why the death penalty was abolished in the UK. Shall we go down that road? Would the incorrect execution of one individual sway the overwhelmingly (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| On Mon, 31 May 1999 22:11:06 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) We agree on something. Even though most that have been executed have no doubt received a correct conviction, the irreversibility of it.... Productivity (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:35:52 GMT, Frank Filz uttered the following profundities... (...) Probably not known about because it is too common an occurrence, in countries where capital punishment exists, or has existed. (If it happens twice, anywhere, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
