Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/9/2018 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 3/12/2005 8:31:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/12/2005 8:36:09 PM EST by gator39]

Stop and think about this.

An article on Drudge says that the Alanta shooter`s 1st trial ended when the JURY voted 8 to 4 to AQUIT him.

The judge THEN declared a mistrial and ordered a new trial.
I thought an aquital meant you walked. And that you only needed an unaminiouse decision in murder trials?
How can the judge then say he doesn`t like that decision so he is going to throw that jury out and find one that will rule the way he likes?
Is that justice?

I`m not saying the guy was justified in killing innocent people.

But, if you think about it, what would YOU have done?

Just accept your fate,,,,or take some kind of action?

What about the woman in Florida who the judge and her husband insist on murdering?

What should her father do to save her life?

The state legislture made a law against what the courts are doing to her,,,,but the courts over ruled the law.

What next?

What if it was YOUR daughter?

I am in NO WAY advocating ANYTHING.

I am just asking what if this happens to you,,,what will YOU do?



Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:34:35 PM EST
He could have escaped without killing anyone, he went out of his way to kill people.

I may have wanted to escape, but I would not kill innocent people.

Nor would I suggest it was somehow justified.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:35:01 PM EST
A unanimous vote to aquit sets you free. 11 to 1 to aquit is a hung jury. There is no room for debate on the verdict. Either eveyone thinks he is innocent, or everyone thinks he is guilty. Anything less IS a mistrial.

I have never heard of a judge overruling a juries verdict.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:41:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
A unanimous vote to aquit sets you free. 11 to 1 to aquit is a hung jury. There is no room for debate on the verdict. Either eveyone thinks he is innocent, or everyone thinks he is guilty. Anything less IS a mistrial.

I have never heard of a judge overruling a juries verdict.




OK,,,maybe I misunderstood the rules on jury decisions.
I had thought you didn`t need an unanimous for less that murder trials.




Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:48:37 PM EST
It is my understanding that all jury verdicts must be unanimous. I think that not having unanimous decisions would open the door for a huge number of appeals, using the logic that even the jury wasn't convinced of someone's guilt.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:50:31 PM EST
not murdering innocent people.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:51:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
not murdering innocent people.



perhaps murdering innocent people
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:52:45 PM EST
If it was my daughter in Florida, i would agree to let her be.

i wouldnt want to be a vegetable nor would I want my daughter to have to suffer through that.

pro-choice all the way.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:53:14 PM EST
A judge can throw out a jury verdict if he believes there was improper conduct on the part of one or more jurors. In this case I heard a reference to a racial equital. Black jury members simply refusing to convict.
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 8:54:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By tyman:
If it was my daughter in Florida, i would agree to let her be.

i wouldnt want to be a vegetable nor would I want my daughter to have to suffer through that.

pro-choice all the way.




?
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 9:05:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:

Originally Posted By tyman:
If it was my daughter in Florida, i would agree to let her be.

i wouldnt want to be a vegetable nor would I want my daughter to have to suffer through that.

pro-choice all the way.




?



:unsure:

the case in Florida of the woman who has brain damage......and the husband wants to take her off, but the judge wont let it happen....?

havent heard of this?

:unsure: :unsure:
Link Posted: 3/12/2005 9:18:01 PM EST
He should be tortured.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 3:23:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:

Originally Posted By tyman:
If it was my daughter in Florida, i would agree to let her be.

i wouldnt want to be a vegetable nor would I want my daughter to have to suffer through that.

pro-choice all the way.




?



:unsure:

the case in Florida of the woman who has brain damage......and the husband wants to take her off, but the judge wont let it happen....?

havent heard of this?

:unsure: :unsure:



I think but you have it wrong The woman ends up brain damaged...docs still not sure why. Husband sues for money lands about 1.5 mil..gets experts to say that she is unsavable and should be put down.
Judge agrees with paid experts family has been fighting judge and husband for 10+years.


sounds fishy to me
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 3:43:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:
He could have escaped without killing anyone, he went out of his way to kill people.

I may have wanted to escape, but I would not kill innocent people.

Nor would I suggest it was somehow justified.



+1
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 3:51:53 AM EST
In some jurisdictions the jury votes on sentencing and only the death penalty would require a unanimous vote so perhaps that was what caused your confusion...
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:09:47 AM EST
When I was much younger and more naive, I used to think that if the police arrested someone that they must have done something wrong and were at some level guilty.

Why was it so difficult for the jury to come to a consensus about Nichols' guilt? Either he tied up his girlfriend and raped her or he didn't. What are we missing from this story? Yeah, OJ was found not guilty, but there is still something missing here.

If I wasn't guilty of a crime but was looking at the ass-end of a life sentence in a Georgia State prison (or any state prison for that matter) then I don't know what I would do. But I think it would be naive for anyone to say that they would not potentially reach their 'breaking point'. We all have one and I have seen otherwise psychiatrically robust individuals behave in very irrational and unpredictable ways when confronted with stress at the extremes of normal human experience.

Behind every desperate act you will find a desperate man.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:21:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By C-4:

Why was it so difficult for the jury to come to a consensus about Nichols' guilt? Either he tied up his girlfriend and raped her or he didn't. What are we missing from this story? Yeah, OJ was found not guilty, but there is still something missing here.



Never underestimate the potential stupidity of 12 people picked at random.

Half of Americans expect CSI type evidence and a Law and Order type trial complete with tons of drama and a on-stand confession. The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been perverted by defense attys and the popular media.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:38:31 AM EST

I have never heard of a judge overruling a juries verdict.


It's called a "judgement notwithstanding the verdict," and it is a possible but rare occurance in some states.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:39:05 AM EST
I didn't realize that jury verdicts must be unanimous. I always figured if one person voted "not-guilty" then the defendant was acquitted. Guess I was wrong.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:44:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
I didn't realize that jury verdicts must be unanimous. I always figured if one person voted "not-guilty" then the defendant was acquitted. Guess I was wrong.



So you are saying you thought one person could cause a "not guilty" but a "guilty" required a unanimous vote?

Seriously?

Perry Mason? High School civics? A&E?

Good Lord, no one would go to jail like that!
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 4:55:10 AM EST
if i was innocent and justice was thwarted, i would make a run for it.
innocent people being killed? no - no need to add murder to the rape charges.

as far as Schiavo in florida - she's not on anything to take her off of - other than starving her/dehydrating her to death. i have seen many individuals who were as responsive as her and on feeding tubes. there are doctors who insist she can be rehabbed to a "better" condition.

if i was her Dad, i wouild not stop until all means were exhausted to keep her alive. the husband can divorce her, i would assume. howver if they are divorced, he has no access to any further $$$ she might be eligible to for "care". much of what was awarded to begin with didn't go for her care anyway. it was used for "other" purposes by the husband.
if i had to, as her father, i would spirit her out of the hospital to somewhere safer.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 5:03:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:
A judge can throw out a jury verdict if he believes there was improper conduct on the part of one or more jurors. In this case I heard a reference to a racial equital. Black jury members simply refusing to convict.



there should be some way to sensure the jury members if this is really happening. you would think that people who would do that would be de-selected during the jury selection process.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 5:14:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2005 5:15:16 AM EST by Wobblin-Goblin]

Originally Posted By FiveO:
So you are saying you thought one person could cause a "not guilty" but a "guilty" required a unanimous vote?

Seriously?

Perry Mason? High School civics? A&E?

Good Lord, no one would go to jail like that!


I don't have cable and don't watch the few channels I DO get. I'm either working, busy with football, or hanging out with my family.

Sorry.

ETA: Or hanging out here.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 5:24:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
A unanimous vote to aquit sets you free. 11 to 1 to aquit is a hung jury. There is no room for debate on the verdict. Either eveyone thinks he is innocent, or everyone thinks he is guilty. Anything less IS a mistrial.

I have never heard of a judge overruling a juries verdict.



Correct in this jurisdiction. It was a hung jury and therefore a mistrial as the judge declared. Depending on the laws in a jurisdiction, a judge actually can set aside a verdict if it flies in the face of the facts as the judge sees them. But, again, it depends. And, the judge's ruling would then be subject to appeal and review. In this case, it would seem that the judge's ruling was relatively routine.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 5:29:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By gator39:

Stop and think about this.

An article on Drudge says that the Alanta shooter`s 1st trial ended when the JURY voted 8 to 4 to AQUIT him.

The judge THEN declared a mistrial and ordered a new trial.
I thought an aquital meant you walked. And that you only needed an unaminiouse decision in murder trials?
How can the judge then say he doesn`t like that decision so he is going to throw that jury out and find one that will rule the way he likes?
Is that justice?

I`m not saying the guy was justified in killing innocent people.

But, if you think about it, what would YOU have done?

Just accept your fate,,,,or take some kind of action?

What about the woman in Florida who the judge and her husband insist on murdering?

What should her father do to save her life?

The state legislture made a law against what the courts are doing to her,,,,but the courts over ruled the law.

What next?

What if it was YOUR daughter?

I am in NO WAY advocating ANYTHING.

I am just asking what if this happens to you,,,what will YOU do?







The judge didn't just decide that he didn't like the verdict. He was just following the law. Your assumption that only murder trials require a unanimous verdict was incorrect. The judical system was working just as it was supposed to work. An uncivilized savage killed four people. He should now get some REAL justice.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 5:29:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:

Originally Posted By C-4:

Why was it so difficult for the jury to come to a consensus about Nichols' guilt? Either he tied up his girlfriend and raped her or he didn't. What are we missing from this story? Yeah, OJ was found not guilty, but there is still something missing here.



Never underestimate the potential stupidity of 12 people picked at random.

Half of Americans expect CSI type evidence and a Law and Order type trial complete with tons of drama and a on-stand confession. The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been perverted by defense attys and the popular media.



I know you've experienced this infinitely more times than I have. The one experience I've had with a jury was when someone did his best (unsuccessfully) to try and get into my car to beat me up. He was charged with criminal threatening and convicted by a judge during the first trial--$500 fine and 60 days suspended. The man appealed and the jury found him not guilty. The irony was that he was a C.O. and taught anger management to inmates.

I guess from what you're saying it is not so surprising that even if the girlfriend was on the stand saying that Nichols tied her up and repeatedly raped her that the jury could still find him not guilty.

Well, there should be ample evidence now to convict him of murder. Maybe.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 5:44:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By machaira:
if i was innocent and justice was thwarted, i would make a run for it.
innocent people being killed? no - no need to add murder to the rape charges.



What difference does it make. I ain't going easy. At least not if there is ANY choice in the matter.


as far as Schiavo in florida - she's not on anything to take her off of - other than starving her/dehydrating her to death. i have seen many individuals who were as responsive as her and on feeding tubes. there are doctors who insist she can be rehabbed to a "better" condition.

if i was her Dad, i wouild not stop until all means were exhausted to keep her alive. the husband can divorce her, i would assume. howver if they are divorced, he has no access to any further $$$ she might be eligible to for "care". much of what was awarded to begin with didn't go for her care anyway. it was used for "other" purposes by the husband.
if i had to, as her father, i would spirit her out of the hospital to somewhere safer.



If it were my wife I would not stop until she was allowed to die with some kind of dignity. But I know the score.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 6:20:59 AM EST
Top Top