| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/06/2011 10:49:49 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
She's kinda hot. |
Go for it Dan, but don't have a baby with her, just in case. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 11:57:28 AM · #77 |
i for one never heard of this case until I saw this thread, i don't have cable tv.
after i saw the thread i went over to drudge and saw the red headline, i had to read up just to see what it was about. it amazes me what gets so much press these days.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 12:01:32 PM · #78 |
In a list of celebrity tweets after the verdict. Only ABC would have a slideshow to go with these...
'Ok white people, we got OJ y'all got casey anthony... We even? Wait not til she's convicted 4 robbery 4 tryin to retrieve caylee baby clothes' comedian Marlon Wayans Tweeted on Tuesday, July 5, 2011
'Casey Anthony found not guilty. Attention Roger Clemens: hire her lawyer NOW!' comedian Denis Leary Tweeted on Tuesday, July 5, 2011
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 12:24:06 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by Spork99:
She's kinda hot. |
Go for it Dan, but don't have a baby with her, just in case. |
Let me clarify, she's hot in the have a fling, go into witness protection, a psycho girlfriend kinda way, not in the settle down and have kids way. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 01:48:43 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
In a list of celebrity tweets after the verdict. Only ABC would have a slideshow to go with these...
'Ok white people, we got OJ y'all got casey anthony... We even? Wait not til she's convicted 4 robbery 4 tryin to retrieve caylee baby clothes' comedian Marlon Wayans Tweeted on Tuesday, July 5, 2011
'Casey Anthony found not guilty. Attention Roger Clemens: hire her lawyer NOW!' comedian Denis Leary Tweeted on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 |
Did you see after Kim Kardashian tweeted- "Not Guilty- thats not justice- I can't believe it" (paraphrased) someone tweeted back to her- "thats how Goldman's family felt after your father helped get OJ off"- burned.
Message edited by author 2011-07-06 13:52:39. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 02:05:11 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by Spork99:
She's kinda hot. |
Go for it Dan, but don't have a baby with her, just in case. |
Let me clarify, she's hot in the have a fling, go into witness protection, a psycho girlfriend kinda way, not in the settle down and have kids way. |
To put it in even simpler terms, she's a bunny boiler. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 02:40:47 PM · #82 |
hopefully no one buys her book, watches her movie, or anything else that would help her get money. They should make a donation in Caylee's name for other kids who are missing, abused, or neglected.
Even her BF (at the time of death) said "She's going to have money now ... she's going to have that partying lifestyle she so craved"
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 02:42:59 PM · #83 |
Anybody watch Dexter?
I also don't know anything about this case so I'll have to read up about it when I have the chance.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 05:00:52 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
With the OJ example, when he was acquitted in the criminal murder, that should have prevented anyone in civil court to sue him on the assumption that he is guilty. By legal definition, he was found innocent (not guilty), so how could he be convicted in civil court for something he legally didn't do? Because the burden of proof is lower in civil court? That is the essence of the harassment and oppression you speak of. Whether it's the government or a private citizen doing the oppression and harassment really shouldn't matter. Not guilty is not guilty. |
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. We often hear the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" but the law states we are "presumed innocent until proven guilty". In very circumstances are defendants declared innocent. A recent example of this was with the Duke Lacrosse Team case. When he dismissed the charges the North Carolina Attorney General declared them innocent because there was insufficient evidence to have charges filed or to bring them to trial.
Double jeopardy prevents retrial of the same offense in the same court but it doesn't stipulate innocence. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 05:17:52 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
With the OJ example, when he was acquitted in the criminal murder, that should have prevented anyone in civil court to sue him on the assumption that he is guilty. By legal definition, he was found innocent (not guilty), so how could he be convicted in civil court for something he legally didn't do? Because the burden of proof is lower in civil court? That is the essence of the harassment and oppression you speak of. Whether it's the government or a private citizen doing the oppression and harassment really shouldn't matter. Not guilty is not guilty. |
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. We often hear the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" but the law states we are "presumed innocent until proven guilty". In very circumstances are defendants declared innocent. A recent example of this was with the Duke Lacrosse Team case. When he dismissed the charges the North Carolina Attorney General declared them innocent because there was insufficient evidence to have charges filed or to bring them to trial.
Double jeopardy prevents retrial of the same offense in the same court but it doesn't stipulate innocence. |
A person can be innocent of the charges without being innocent in fact. Legal guilt or innocence is predicated on the right charge. (It would be easy to win all cases if the prosecutor just brought the defendant in shackled and in stripes, unshaven and looking guilty as ever.)An action is only a crime because a Human adds context. If you come around a street corner and see a man shooting another man, you scream "murder murder" until you realize its an undercover cop shooting a hostile fleeing mass murdering serial killer.
Lets be clear- a person is innocent of the charges until proven guilty(...convicted), the presumption terminology is not such that you can read into it guilt, implied, or otherwise, unless, of course, there is a confession and a plea- then you would be guilty. Such a strong "presumption" that the constitution does not allow for an appeal by the prosecution, obviously. We need a legal system (sometimes with bad results) built on this fairness,
Message edited by author 2011-07-06 17:18:34. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 06:09:04 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. We often hear the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" but the law states we are "presumed innocent until proven guilty". |
What we seem to have here is 'not guilty with the presumption of guilt,' which is more a reflection of public opinion than legal fact. While some people may "get away" with illegal actions, there will always be lifelong consequences in high profile cases. OJ will generally be an outcast to society for the rest of his life, and how would you like to be Casey Anthony looking for a job? Guilty or not, these people will be forever haunted by the events. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 06:20:32 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. |
Actually, that's exactly what it means. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets in the US and carries the exact same meaning as "Innocent".
People that say "They didn't find her "innocent", they found her "not guilty." are only trying to make themselves feel better about the whole situation.
The fact is, they found her innocent by any legal definition. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 07:02:29 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. |
Actually, that's exactly what it means. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets in the US and carries the exact same meaning as "Innocent".
People that say "They didn't find her "innocent", they found her "not guilty." are only trying to make themselves feel better about the whole situation.
The fact is, they found her innocent by any legal definition. |
Whoa there Nellie, I'm not trying to make myself feel better about anything. In fact I have no horse in this race. I didn't offer any opinion about the specific Casey Anthony case. I accept blindjustice's clarification above but I was just trying to indicate that when someone is found not guilty of the criminal charges brought it doesn't mean that they didn't commit the crime and therefore shouldn't preclude a civil case as you seemed to be advocating. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 07:45:55 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. |
Actually, that's exactly what it means. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets in the US and carries the exact same meaning as "Innocent".
People that say "They didn't find her "innocent", they found her "not guilty." are only trying to make themselves feel better about the whole situation.
The fact is, they found her innocent by any legal definition. |
Not by ANY legal definition, just criminal.
Someone can be found "not guilty" in a criminal matter, yet be found liable, fully or in part, in a civil trial over the same incident. Usually, civil proceedings follow criminal proceedings because the burden of proof is lower. If a defendant is found "guilty", proving their liability in a civil trial is all but guaranteed. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 08:05:28 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. |
Actually, that's exactly what it means. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets in the US and carries the exact same meaning as "Innocent".
People that say "They didn't find her "innocent", they found her "not guilty." are only trying to make themselves feel better about the whole situation.
The fact is, they found her innocent by any legal definition. |
Not by ANY legal definition, just criminal.
Someone can be found "not guilty" in a criminal matter, yet be found liable, fully or in part, in a civil trial over the same incident. Usually, civil proceedings follow criminal proceedings because the burden of proof is lower. If a defendant is found "guilty", proving their liability in a civil trial is all but guaranteed. |
Exactly, and I think that flies in the face of the double jeopardy protection.
The criminal court's verdict should trump any civil proceeding for the same charge, IMO.
I get that they are 2 different courts, but all courts are run by the state. The fact that the plaintiffs are different and the burden of proof is lower in one than it is in the other shouldn't matter. Or, at least, the "not guilty" verdict in the criminal court should be all the defense needs to prevail in the civil court.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 08:28:38 PM · #91 |
If the media hadn't sensationalized this, had Nancy Grace stayed home (I can't stand that woman), had you been a juror with only the evidence at hand (Not what we hear in the media), then I wouldn't be surprised of a Not Guilty verdict. If we prosecuted her under what we saw in the media, this case wouldn't have gone to trial, she would've been hung by a mob.
I saw that people were flying into Florida to get tickets to the court room drama. People WERE PAYING to FLY and paying for TICKETS into watch this. This was an 'event' for so many people, not an actual court case. Sick really. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 08:44:35 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. |
Actually, that's exactly what it means. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets in the US and carries the exact same meaning as "Innocent".
People that say "They didn't find her "innocent", they found her "not guilty." are only trying to make themselves feel better about the whole situation.
The fact is, they found her innocent by any legal definition. |
Not by ANY legal definition, just criminal.
Someone can be found "not guilty" in a criminal matter, yet be found liable, fully or in part, in a civil trial over the same incident. Usually, civil proceedings follow criminal proceedings because the burden of proof is lower. If a defendant is found "guilty", proving their liability in a civil trial is all but guaranteed. |
Exactly, and I think that flies in the face of the double jeopardy protection.
The criminal court's verdict should trump any civil proceeding for the same charge, IMO.
I get that they are 2 different courts, but all courts are run by the state. The fact that the plaintiffs are different and the burden of proof is lower in one than it is in the other shouldn't matter. Or, at least, the "not guilty" verdict in the criminal court should be all the defense needs to prevail in the civil court. |
Then you clearly don't understand the difference between the role of the civil court and that of the criminal court.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 09:02:55 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by Spork99:
She's kinda hot. |
Go for it Dan, but don't have a baby with her, just in case. |
Let me clarify, she's hot in the have a fling, go into witness protection, a psycho girlfriend kinda way, not in the settle down and have kids way. |
I completely agree. I kept seeing her on tv thinking that she would be fun at a hotel for a weekend then never see her again. Maybe if she goes to Vegas...
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 09:16:21 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
She's kinda hot. |
Well, I doubt her family will invite her back home....so you might give her a call. If you let her drive, make it something without a trunk. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 09:17:57 PM · #95 |
I'm not sure I would have said it... especially on TV, but I just heard, "She was guaranteed a jury of her peers. She got it. They're all morons."
LOL!
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 10:22:14 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
You're correct "not guilty" is "not guilty". However, that doesn't equal innocent. |
Actually, that's exactly what it means. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets in the US and carries the exact same meaning as "Innocent".
People that say "They didn't find her "innocent", they found her "not guilty." are only trying to make themselves feel better about the whole situation.
The fact is, they found her innocent by any legal definition. |
Not by ANY legal definition, just criminal.
Someone can be found "not guilty" in a criminal matter, yet be found liable, fully or in part, in a civil trial over the same incident. Usually, civil proceedings follow criminal proceedings because the burden of proof is lower. If a defendant is found "guilty", proving their liability in a civil trial is all but guaranteed. |
Exactly, and I think that flies in the face of the double jeopardy protection.
The criminal court's verdict should trump any civil proceeding for the same charge, IMO.
I get that they are 2 different courts, but all courts are run by the state. The fact that the plaintiffs are different and the burden of proof is lower in one than it is in the other shouldn't matter. Or, at least, the "not guilty" verdict in the criminal court should be all the defense needs to prevail in the civil court. |
Then you clearly don't understand the difference between the role of the civil court and that of the criminal court. |
Sure I do. More than you know. I also understand the essence of double jeopardy. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 10:37:34 PM · #97 |
But, since she has not much (if any) monetary assets, having lived off of her parents her whole life, the civil courts' outcome will not mean much at all, in my opinion.
She's won every battle that she cares about.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2011 11:45:39 PM · #98 |
Here's something that's been bugging the crap out of me since this verdict. This saying: "Better that one guilty person walk, than any innocent person be convicted" (or variations thereof). That sounds noble and ideal and everything, but the reality is that while some guilty people do go free for lack of evidence or technicalities or incompetent prosecution, we STILL DO HAVE INNOCENT PEOPLE GETTING CONVICTED - and MANY on MUCH LESS circumstantial evidence than Casey's case. In fact I would venture a guess that there are more people are wrongly convicted than there are guilty people going free. Not based on any solid data, but just a gut feeling. So it seems absurd to me to use that saying to justify a guilty person going free or to prop up our system as being righteous. If it were ONLY the case that occasionally guilty people walked and NO innocent people were wrongly convicted, then it would be valid. ...but again, it's not reality.
I had two other ideas that I'm sure most will hate or cringe at: Let's replace the jury system with software and use simple math. Enter all the evidence, assign each piece a value and just have it calculate a verdict. Sure, there's lots of nuances to be worked out, but what about the general idea of taking human bias and emotion out of the conviction phase (but leave it in the sentencing phase where I think it belongs)?
Another idea would be to make jurying a profession. Professional jurors trained to put their biases aside and focus on the evidence and rule of law. Again, lots of nuances to work out in this scenario as well.
Bottom line to me is that your chances of being convicted of a crime you did or did not commit come down to a crap shoot. One jury would convict, another would acquit on the same evidence - it's happened in mistrials. And the only REAL factor that can give the accused the edge is how much he can afford to spend on a good lawyer who knows how to manipulate the system (i.e. create doubt).
Message edited by author 2011-07-06 23:47:06. |
|
|
|
07/06/2011 11:50:28 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Bottom line to me is that your chances of being convicted of a crime you did or did not commit come down to a crap shoot. |
Sounds like a DPC validation of an SEP2 border :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 12:22:38 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I had two other ideas that I'm sure most will hate or cringe at: Let's replace the jury system with software and use simple math. Enter all the evidence, assign each piece a value and just have it calculate a verdict. Sure, there's lots of nuances to be worked out, but what about the general idea of taking human bias and emotion out of the conviction phase (but leave it in the sentencing phase where I think it belongs)? |
People will never accept computers as decision makers. MLB's QuesTec? Diebold Election Systems?? Skynet???!!! The world ends you know! Need I say more?
Message edited by author 2011-07-07 00:24:43.
|
|
