DANGER POON

[EBSB52]

Here's a hottie that allegedly killed her BF: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... =112614781


I find her hotness impuning.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa ... er-CP.html

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/124525

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4849641n

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/common/imag ... play_m.png


This is a case in my city, but I fear I may not be here to watch the trial in 2010. She is so hot and her demeanor comes off as so pleasant and inncoent that this is a prosecutor's nightmare of a case. I''ve watched Juan MArtinez, prosecutor and he's good, but if he grills her he will look like an asshole and lose the case. She will be looking for a reason to be a martyr and cry over bad things said by the prosecutor, so he will have to coddle her. Even tho the evidence is stark, I see a possibility of a hung jury if one of the male jurors gets the hero complex over her, she could really induce it. Voir Dire will be critical, but the defense will be trying to stack teh jury with males that she can flirt with throughout the trial.

[Shaun41178(2)]

She was a registered democrat. All democrats are probably like her. hmmm

[Aaron]

And thus we find the biggest failure in the US Justice System. Trial by a jury of your peers.

A jury of my peers? A jury is not "my peers." A jury is the 12 dumbest people out of those selected. Everyone else is smarter, more educated, and more logical than the jurors. A jury is the 12 people not smart enough to get out of it.

[EBSB52]

And thus we find the biggest failure in the US Justice System. Trial by a jury of your peers.

A jury of my peers? A jury is not "my peers." A jury is the 12 dumbest people out of those selected. Everyone else is smarter, more educated, and more logical than the jurors. A jury is the 12 people not smart enough to get out of it.

How else would you do it? In the OJ trial they were not of his peers, all white and not impartial, 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk. So that was unconstitutional on 2 huge fronts.

[Shaun41178(2)]

they weren't all white you fucking retard. Jesus you really are dumb.

[Aaron]

Ugg. I apologize for causing Eb to make another post.

[EBSB52]

they weren't all white you fucking retard. Jesus you really are dumb.

Hey 6'2", 140 lbs Emo trash, they all were white, all the primaries. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/1 ... 25920.html All the jurors who ended up convicting him were non-black.

Prosecutors removed two prospective African-American jurors with their challenges.

_______________________________________________________________

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -bars.html

An all-white jury in Las Vegas found the former American Football star guilty 13 years to the day after he was cleared of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
_______________________________________________

What you are referring to is the fact that one woman CONSIDERS herself Hispanic and one CONSIDERS herself Asian.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oc ... son-trial/

________________________________________________

And really the race issue is subordinate to the prejudice issue in regard to his 95 acquittal, that's a constitutional infringement.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/sim ... index.html

_________________________________________________

Not to mention Hispanic doesn't neccessarily mean non-white.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/rho.txt

___________________________________________________

The juror considered herself Hispanic, that doesn't mean non-white, as well, the big point here is that the blacks were thrown out of the jury. The should have had 2 to 3 blacks on the jury to have the composition commensurate with society, they had that and tossed them at the last minute. So you can argue that 11 whites and 1 Hispanic (white Hispanic or non-white Hispanic - who knows) is a fair jury for a black defendant. But of course you would have to understand the US Constitutional protection and other than looking it up, you have no clue. Face it Emo, it was, literally or for all intent an all-white jury. If you want to argue that maybe 1 Hispanic and 11 whites was the composition, you still are looking at a jury that is not constitutionally balanced. There is no evidence other than her assertion that she considers herself Hispanic,a nd even then, was she Hispanic White or Hispanic non-white?

[EBSB52]

How else would you do it?

If I was the dictator?

Spoken like a true cop. Where does that come from? I'm talking about in a fair society, how would you establish a justice system to be fair?

The Judge holds the power to convict or acquit, with the option of an appeal.

So you would limit the whole thing to bench trials? No offense, but the term, "Pig" derives from this totalitarian system. This is why people look at you in uniform as a pig; they understand that most cops think this way.

Whether or not you are given the appeal would be decided by 6 jurors, absolutely regardless of their excuses or anything else jurors are excused for. These 6 say you get an appeal, and another Judge from a different jurisdiction reviews the case and makes his decision, which stands.

And then these people here:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Br ... ofiles.php

These innocent people would all be dead or forever incarcerated and you're OK with that? But of course pigs can commit all misdemeanors and most felonies and not even be prosecuted, right? Sure is neat to have immunity and then advocate an overzealous system that hangs people that may or may not be guilty. I would think it more fair that you be lenient since you have a, commit 1 felony free" badge.

If found guilty, you serve the maximum sentence (The only sentence).

Nice, regardless of guilt. Hey, your system is too liberal, I say we let the pig decide innocence or guilt. I mean, you have an Associates in Justice and like 23 years life experience, you know it all. That forensic stuff is just fancy-talking people trying to fool us.

Also, prosecutors are gone, and your defense is gone. The prosecution is handled by the Officer(s) who were responsible for the original call, and you are left on your own.

On one hand I respect your honesty, on the other I think you're one of the biggest pigs I've ever had the displeasure to converse with. You have a throwback system that would bring us to before the Salem Witch Trials. The piggies say they try to screen-out your mentality, truth is they try to find guys like you.

If you're smart enough to have committed the crime and gotten caught, you're smart enough to defend yourself.

Patently idiotic; being smart and committing crimes have no correlation.

If you're dumb and guilty, you'll quickly be found guilty.

Translation: if you're innocent, you'll sink, if guilty, you'll float.

If you're dumb and innocent, well, sucks for you, survival of the fittest.

Unless you're a pig: Pigs = dumb, pigs = generally immune from the law.

If you told the media the pig mentality you have, you would be off the force, this is why pigs are liars and hide the way they feel. Even with all the disparaging I've given your way, I really do respect your candid honesty. I don’t believe you are worse than other pigs, I'd say right in with them.

You realize you've just described the Middle Eastern system of justice or perhaps South America, right? I bet you declare this country the best over ME countries, then pray for this dictatorial system. You're sick.

[Shaun41178(2)]

First eb quotes the jury from 95 as being all white, then when he realizes he was wrong, he later changes to say he meant the las vegas trial in 08. HAHAHAHA

[EBSB52]

First eb quotes the jury from 95 as being all white, then when he realizes he was wrong, he later changes to say he meant the las vegas trial in 08. HAHAHAHA

Turd, I never wrote that. I originally wrote and still maintain this:

How else would you do it? In the OJ trial they were not of his peers, all white and not impartial, 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk. So that was unconstitutional on 2 huge fronts.

Weed got your brain twisted? 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk, that means 5 of the 08 jury, to an intelligent person. If I had written or meant 5 of the 95 jury thought the 95 acquittal was bunk, that wouldn't be consistent, and I didn't write or mean that, what I wrote and meant, still do, is that: 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk. That means 5 members of a jury later than 95, so an intelligent person would reason that that would mean the only other major criminal act he was involved in, the 08.

Embarassed that you were wrong about the 12 all-white jurors? Hispanic often means white. It certainly means non-black, so now you have to try to move to another point and shoot for a pseudo misdirection.

Go back to your video games.

[The Dark Side of Will]

How else would you do it?

If I was the dictator?

The Judge holds the power to convict or acquit, with the option of an appeal. Whether or not you are given the appeal would be decided by 6 jurors, absolutely regardless of their excuses or anything else jurors are excused for. These 6 say you get an appeal, and another Judge from a different jurisdiction reviews the case and makes his decision, which stands.

If found guilty, you serve the maximum sentence (The only sentence).

Also, prosecutors are gone, and your defense is gone. The prosecution is handled by the Officer(s) who were responsible for the original call, and you are left on your own. If you're smart enough to have committed the crime and gotten caught, you're smart enough to defend yourself. If you're dumb and guilty, you'll quickly be found guilty. If you're dumb and innocent, well, sucks for you, survival of the fittest.

This is why lawyers run courts instead of police.

[EBSB52]

How else would you do it?

If I was the dictator?

The Judge holds the power to convict or acquit, with the option of an appeal. Whether or not you are given the appeal would be decided by 6 jurors, absolutely regardless of their excuses or anything else jurors are excused for. These 6 say you get an appeal, and another Judge from a different jurisdiction reviews the case and makes his decision, which stands.

If found guilty, you serve the maximum sentence (The only sentence).

Also, prosecutors are gone, and your defense is gone. The prosecution is handled by the Officer(s) who were responsible for the original call, and you are left on your own. If you're smart enough to have committed the crime and gotten caught, you're smart enough to defend yourself. If you're dumb and guilty, you'll quickly be found guilty. If you're dumb and innocent, well, sucks for you, survival of the fittest.

This is why lawyers run courts instead of police.

Thankfully. Yes, the cops are just there when a surrogate liar is needed. But to toss the constitution and let cops run it and/or a bench trial is a throwback to before the Salem era; agreed? His schematic is just saddistic; agreed. We still execute and jail innocent people even with the safeguards we have and his idea is..... oh fucking well, it's not me, I'm a cop, I'm immune from that. <SICK>

[Shaun41178(2)]

eb you said the 95 jury was all white. you are wrong. Just STFU. I think you might be banned for realz. No forum can tolerate as much idiocy as you bring to it.

[EBSB52]

eb you said the 95 jury was all white. you are wrong. Just STFU. I think you might be banned for realz. No forum can tolerate as much idiocy as you bring to it.

I wrote this:

How else would you do it? In the OJ trial they were not of his peers, all white and not impartial, 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk. So that was unconstitutional on 2 huge fronts.

I pasted this:

An all-white jury in Las Vegas found the former American Football star guilty 13 years to the day after he was cleared of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

I wrote this:

And really the race issue is subordinate to the prejudice issue in regard to his 95 acquittal, that's a constitutional infringement.

I wrote this:

The juror considered herself Hispanic, that doesn't mean non-white, as well, the big point here is that the blacks were thrown out of the jury. The should have had 2 to 3 blacks on the jury to have the composition commensurate with society, they had that and tossed them at the last minute. So you can argue that 11 whites and 1 Hispanic (white Hispanic or non-white Hispanic - who knows) is a fair jury for a black defendant. But of course you would have to understand the US Constitutional protection and other than looking it up, you have no clue. Face it Emo, it was, literally or for all intent an all-white jury. If you want to argue that maybe 1 Hispanic and 11 whites was the composition, you still are looking at a jury that is not constitutionally balanced. There is no evidence other than her assertion that she considers herself Hispanic, and even then, was she Hispanic White or Hispanic non-white?

Then I wrote this:

Turd, I never wrote that. I originally wrote and still maintain this:

How else would you do it? In the OJ trial they were not of his peers, all white and not impartial, 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk. So that was unconstitutional on 2 huge fronts.

Weed got your brain twisted? 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk, that means 5 of the 08 jury, to an intelligent person. If I had written or meant 5 of the 95 jury thought the 95 acquittal was bunk, that wouldn't be consistent, and I didn't write or mean that, what I wrote and meant, still do, is that: 5 thought the 95 acquittal was bunk. That means 5 members of a jury later than 95, so an intelligent person would reason that that would mean the only other major criminal act he was involved in, the 08.

Embarassed that you were wrong about the 12 all-white jurors? Hispanic often means white. It certainly means non-black, so now you have to try to move to another point and shoot for a pseudo misdirection.

Go back to your video games.

________________________


Now show me where I wrote that the 95 jury was all white. Aside from me not writing that, it wouldn't support my assertion of a damaging constitutional infringement if the 95 jury was hypothetically all white, it would support the counter that an all-white jury can acquit a black man. It still would be a hypothetical infringement if the 95 jury was white, but there would be no damage. IOW's, constitutionalists would have no legal standing to lay a claim that there was a reversible error IF, hypothetically the 95 jury was white AND OJ was acquitted as he was, there would be nothing to reverse and establish precedent from. You fucked up and skim-read my posts and misread, now you're trying to bury it. You gotta either be 15 or have a 15 YO mentality.

Now Emo, you fucked up already by not being able to comprehend what I wrote, now you're scrambling to bury your quick-reading error, just mitigate your shame and roll on out. Again, cut-n-paste my words to show where I wrote the 95 jury was all white.

[Indy]

I'm going to go a little bit off topic here, but was this the chick on 48 Hours Mystery?