Bundys acquitted, lawyer jailed

[Guest]

 

17 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Instead you are being the backseat driver of the judicial process and that is just all kinds of wrong.

Baloney. I've already told you directly on another thread that I admire our trial by jury system as much as you. And in this thread you've already admitted that the system isn't perfect. And on this same thread I've already proffered my gratitude to the jury in this case for their diligence and fair examination of the evidence. I know as well as you know that the jury verdict in this case is a done deal, and that's fine. My interest in talking about it is not so dissimilar from others even if you perceive it to be on the wrong side. If my explanations of my opinion and motives aren't sufficient for you it merely demonstrates that you think in the same logically fallacious manner of which you accused me. But You create arguments that I haven't made and then you knock them down--why, I don't know. In your own words (which apply as much to yourself as to me) you're entitled to your own opinion, etc., etc.--but I wish you to take your own advice and get over it.  

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

 

Baloney. I've already told you directly on another thread that I admire our trial by jury system as much as you. And in this thread you've already admitted that the system isn't perfect. And on this same thread I've already proffered my gratitude to the jury in this case for their diligence and fair examination of the evidence. I know as well as you know that the jury verdict in this case is a done deal, and that's fine. My interest in talking about it is not so dissimilar from others even if you perceive it to be on the wrong side. If my explanations of my opinion and motives aren't sufficient for you it merely demonstrates that you think in the same logically fallacious manner of which you accused me. But You create arguments that I haven't made and then you knock them down--why, I don't know. In your own words (which apply as much to yourself as to me) you're entitled to your own opinion, etc., etc.--but I wish you to take your own advice and get over it.  

You really think what you are doing is OK...  Fine then lets put you on the Hotseat then... You get accused of rape...the media has a field day dragging you through the mud all but indicting you in the minds of the public.  Finally you have your day in court... the jury finds you not guilty. 

But Instead of it being over and you being allowed to return to your normal life you find that people are still talking about it... claiming the jury verdict was flawed.. or that the prosecution messed up somehow...  But hey that is what they are entitled to do right... they have a right to an opinion.

Is that what you would want people to do to you?  Really and truly?  Or would you want them to assume that the court did their job and got it right, and let it go?

If you are really and truly OK with it being "Done Unto You" then I will shut up.   But if you are not OK with it being "Done Unto You" then you should really think twice about
"Doing it unto others"

[Guest]

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

...If you are really and truly OK with it being "Done Unto You" then I will shut up.   But if you are not OK with it being "Done Unto You" then you should really think twice about
"Doing it unto others"

Hahaha, you're doing it to me as we speak. It's a dumb analogy because it happens all the time, and you do it yourself in other ways. So give it a rest, and I'll stay off this thread for you. (Feel welcome to have the last word as I imagine you'll do). See ya.

Edited October 31, 2016 by UT.starscoper
Mirkwood's rebuke.

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

go moderate

Really?  That was unnecessary and irrelevant to your debate.

[unixknight]

On 10/30/2016 at 10:34 AM, estradling75 said:

You are still making the same mistake...  you are operating under the assumption that the Jury got it wrong.  This requires you to be operating under the assumption that you know more then they did... They had the prosecution and the defense lay out things before them and had things challenged by the other.  You did not... you got yours from media sound bites.

To be fair, I think the American perception on how reliable a jury verdict is has been damaged by the results of the OJ Simpson murder trial.  When it was over and the jury was shown a lot of the material Simpson's lawyers had successfully gotten thrown out, they universally admitted that he was guilty.  The public's perception, and this is probably accurate, was that Simpson's lawyers won that case because they were more successful at manipulating the rules of evidence, nitpicking details and generally making it impossible for the prosecution to get the story out.  Now, one can argue that this is exactly what a defense attorney SHOULD do, and I don't disagree... but this is a case where it definitely felt like the system was exploited, not used properly.

So anyway, people saw how good lawyers can manipulate the narrative to influence a jury, and so now when a jury returns a verdict that surprises us, we tend to wonder if they were being given the right information, whether we saw it in the media or not.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

To be fair, I think the American perception on how reliable a jury verdict is has been damaged by the results of the OJ Simpson murder trial.  When it was over and the jury was shown a lot of the material Simpson's lawyers had successfully gotten thrown out, they universally admitted that he was guilty.  The public's perception, and this is probably accurate, was that Simpson's lawyers won that case because they were more successful at manipulating the rules of evidence, nitpicking details and generally making it impossible for the prosecution to get the story out.  Now, one can argue that this is exactly what a defense attorney SHOULD do, and I don't disagree... but this is a case where it definitely felt like the system was exploited, not used properly.

So anyway, people saw how good lawyers can manipulate the narrative to influence a jury, and so now when a jury returns a verdict that surprises us, we tend to wonder if they were being given the right information, whether we saw it in the media or not.

That is a fair point... but if you are concerned about the Lawyers (or others) using or otherwise playing the system... then the logical response would be to talk about reforming the system.  Find the details of whatever you think about the system is wrong or subject to abuse and then work and discuss those issue.  If you feel that the rules of evidence are subject to abuse then talk about the rules of evidence and how they might be fixed

 

 

[unixknight]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is a fair point... but if you are concerned about the Lawyers (or others) using or otherwise playing the system... then the logical response would be to talk about reforming the system.  Find the details of whatever you think about the system is wrong or subject to abuse and then work and discuss those issue.  If you feel that the rules of evidence are subject to abuse then talk about the rules of evidence and how they might be fixed

Agreed.  It's like when people whine about guys like Trump avoiding taxes by working the system... If you don't like it, don't blame the CEOs or the tax lawyers... blame a tax code that's horrendously over complex.  (And probably deliberately.  Think about who makes the rules... Congresspeople who are mostly wealthy and own businesses.)