Trapshooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well in the Blago case it seems that ONE juror out of 12 was solely responsible for allowing Blago to essentially walk off free, convicting him of only one count of lying to the FBI. I don't know how many of you followed the case but the evidence was ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING against him. I'm sick of this judicial system allowing so many guilty people to walk free. We spend too much time trying to protect the innocent that in the process we end up protecting the guilty. The judicial system should be about finding the truth, on both sides. People should not be allowed to make tons of money getting people out of crimes they committed, the should be paid to find the truth and take care of those who need to be put away rather than let them keep on going. Both sides should focus on nothing other than the absolute truth and finding what it is to determine guilt. I'm really starting to get sick of this.
Thoughts?
-Trappy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
I was once on a jury where a cop faced 10 years for allegedly giving a beligerant prisoner a slap.

11 jurors wanted to convict but I had an uneasy feeling that there was something wrong with the evidence and I gave the cop the benefit of the doubt.

AFTER the trial they told us that this was the fourth police station where the "victim" had alleged police brutality.

This is why we have juries.

Not surprising that Trappy does not understand this. Liberals have no idea what the Constitution is all about.

O.J. may have been as guilty as sin, but if the State mucks up the prosecution's case the jury should acquit the defendant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,398 Posts
The criminal justice system is more criminal than justice.

You know the "blindfolded lady justice" that is holding the scales??. Well the one who puts the most cash on the scales and tilts the scales is going to win.

Trappy12, I wish I was 18 like you and still had a little faith. Hold on to it as long as you can, even if in reality it is just a pipe dream.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Who has made off with our liberal trappy12 and is impersonating him on this board? Now he is concerned with the outcome of a liberal on trial and the upcoming, always solidly democratic, election cycle in the state of IL. His solid support of the current Pres Obama seems to be souring. As a rising college freshman it seems that his rush to reality has occurred a bit prematurely. Better early than never I suppose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Bushmaster, how so? Yes, good for you I am glad you were able to provide the opposing voice that turned out to be correct in this case. However, that is why both sides need to work to find the truth instead of all this crap to protect the innocent.
sixten, though this has nothing to do with Obama I haven't been supporting Obama for some time now. About 8 months ago I was no longer in support of him and just in the middle. Ever since then I have no longer been supporting him. Most things I say these days are neither liberal nor conservative but rather I try my best to speak towards the middle ground and establish what is truth, not where it lies on the spectrum. I hope you guys will some day realize all of this too.
-Trappy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
Instead of following the Constitution which provides for a jury, and which allows jury nullification, you want to scrap the Constitutional right to a jury in favor of "the truth".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,002 Posts
Jury selection is critical in these kinds of cases, one must have slipped past the prosecutor. Rent the movie "12 Angry Men" from 1957 to understand how one juror might just save your a$$ someday.

Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Well they certainly made the constitution amendable for these purposes. If the founding fathers wished to keep everything the exact same, as many of you do, they would not have made it amendable. What many don't realize is that our country was founded on some of the most radical ideals and thinking for its day. I firmly believe they are rolling over in their graves knowing that many in this country don't want to change and adapt to make us greater.
I have seen 12 angry men, and juries go both ways but too often they get it wrong one way or the other. I'm not saying do away with juries necessarily, I just think we need to work harder to find the truth.
-Trappy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,539 Posts
Juries.....yeah.

"let's get this over with, I have a meeting"

"of course he's guilty, they arrested him, didn't they?"

"That lawyer is a jerk, he's guilty"

"If we don't get a verdict, do we have to come back tomorrow?"


Et cetera ad infinitum.

Serve on one, it will make you puke.

HM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,533 Posts
My understanding is that was a hung jury and he will be re-tried...

take a look at the website to see how blind our justice system has been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Trappy12,


IMHO, I worked for one of the best criminal defense lawyers in our state for about a year. I sat at the defense table next to the defendant with the lawyer and his assistants. I saw lots of it all, murder, rape, drugs, theft and more I am not an expert but what I learned from being there was that if your rights and mine are to be protected then the very rules of law that protect Blago etc must be in place. This is so very important. Each defendant is entitled to the best defense he can receive. You don't receive the best defense from a court appointed lawyer. Our case fee's started at $10,000 and went very up. Only the best criminals applied. What it comes down to in the real world is how hard will someone work to defend you against a competent prosecuting atty. The "truth" can be expensive to show to a court. I highly recommend you get a temp job with a criminal law firm and see first hand how it rolls. It is very interesting and you will see it's not as you say just get to the truth. Nothing is that simple and law is not simple.

As a last thought, don't confuse justice with fairness. It isn't fair a person with a lot of money can get an OJ defense while plumber Joe gets much less. But the justice is in the application of the rules and how they are played. We make up the jury and determine if justice is warranted and how it is applied. The jury people are the determiner's of what is to happen to the defendant and if it's justice and/or it's due or not.

One of the best minds I ever read said and I will paraphrase:

Ethics are the individuals choice of right from wrong conduct. (actions)

Morals are the society's agreement of what's right from wrong conduct.

Justice is what society demands for someone who can't get their ethics in and violates the more's of the society. (correction or punishment)

Didn't mean to get so long winded on this.

Best,

Mike Sudz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I have attempted to post a long diatribe concerning our present legal system, and the corruption of our government from top to bottom but each time I find it too long. When the Fox watches to Henhouse, we get exactly what we have. The recourse: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men ae created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers for the consent of the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new government.... It is past time to institute a new government. HERBERT G. ROACH. I've said it, and I couldn't be more sincere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,712 Posts
"Most things I say these days are neither liberal nor conservative but rather I try my best to speak towards the middle ground and establish what is truth, not where it lies on the spectrum."

You contradict yourself. First you say you speak to the middle ground, then you say "not where it lies on the spectrum." The truth is where it is. Look for the truth, forget the spectrum. If you think just because you are in the middle of the spectrum you will find the truth there you are going to be wrong much of the time. Lies and distortions are by their very nature extreme, only occassionaly subtle. Those are the most difficult to spot. You will find, if you care to, that logic is a tremendous tool for discerning the truth. Most un-truths are also illogical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
We have the best judicial system on earth.

It is not performing well in some instances because the jury it depends on is a reflection of our society. At least for the big publicized cases we cannot seem to be able to bring together 12 intelligent and unbiased citizens. A lot of Americans condemn the judicial system and yet find any excuse to avoid serving on a jury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
Serving on a jury is probably one of the most honorable and important things you will ever do in life. Common sense and logical thinking are critical factors that you can provide to a jury. Never forget that everybody charged is not always guilty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
wireguy, I suppose I did. Let me rephrase. The truth is almost always closer to the middle than the far right or the far left so that's where I brought in the middle ground comment, not necessarily that the truth is always found directly in the middle. I was trying to say, as you did, find the truth and forget about the spectrum. If people focus on where things lie in the spectrum rather than the issue itself and are influenced greatly by where the issue lies then there will be problems because they are putting a label above the truth.
-Trappy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
Come to North Carolina. We've had a two week report on our State Board of Investigation. The crime lab is an arm of the Attorney General, which means it's part of the law enforcement side.

We just free a man held for 17 years on hearsay evidence, mainly that some stain on his truck was blood. Subsequent tests for blood were negative, but those tests were withheld from defense, and from the jury at trial.

230 cases have been identified, involving about 270 people, where SBI lab technicians either trumped up evidence, failed to conduct conclusive tests, or withheld negative test evidence.

One retired technician stated that subsequent tests, based on sophisticated procedures, that prove whether a substance is actually blood are not needed and do not need to be disclosed. The initial tests are good enough. The initial tests can show positive results from certain plant and animal matter.

Drive up on a murdered body, with dirty fenders and tires, and you might be sent to prison in our state.

Danny
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top