Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a person being convicted of
manslaughter when the original charge had been something like murder two?
Last week? The week before?
Happens all the time, usually at the whim of judge and lawyers.
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
I was thinking more in lines with commiting him to life in a mental hospital
because of facts and events leading up to what he was accused of. He
accused chooses to go to trial for murder because he thinks the case against
him is weak. So the juriors choose life in a mental institution because
they too cannot beyond a reasonable doubt find him guilt of murder but in
their hearts they know this guy shoud be put away.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:20:25 GMT, "Leon"
|> No debate about it from the judges and lawyers standpoint. A good|> friend's wife was an Assistant DA and is now a judge so I have had|> some conversations about this. The last thing in the world they want|> to see is an informed jury and "jury nullification" is really|> something they don't want to talk about.
|> In their eyes, juries should be just like mushrooms.
|> Judges decide that the law is what *they* say it is, not what the|> statutes say. They sure don't want some dumb jury deciding what the|> law is, even though they have that right.
|Are you saying for instance that a guy being tried for murder can be
|convicted for a lesser charge that has not been brought against him?
Not at all. Perhaps I should have snipped that part of the post that
I quoted and you chose to eliminate completely.
The point I'm tryihg to make is that when the judge "instructs" the
jury and tells them what the law is and how they *must* consider it,
the jury can do otherwise.
I see, I did not intentionally choose to leave that part out to challenge
you. I really wanted to understand the situation. I think I understand
now. With the $6 we get paid per day in Texas for out assistance in a trial
I would like to believe that the juniors thoughts can go where they believe
that they should go.
Can a juror call the judge on this when he instructs the jury?
Just replying to my own message here,
talking to myself and answering back.
I should have said "alleged" concerning
all that carpenter's union stuff, his
business isn't in the greatest neighbor-
hood, but this and a lot more did
happen very suspiciously.
"...destroy the world."
The single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this or any other
newsgroup. You really weren't trying to pull anyone's leg when you declared
open season at your local Sears store, were you?
So what was your point? That Sears shouldn't hire older employees? That
Sears should have more security personnel? That cops should be patrolling
the aisles? That "liberal laws" are corrupting our society?
Irresponsible posting in newsgroups
begins not with lax thinking, but with
admitting that one made a mistake.
I didn't quite make it to the other side of
the canyon with this leap, admittedly.
One: Petersen is not yet guilty.
Two: What I meant to say is that, if the
Democrats win, society will become
more corrupt. I'll stand by that.
The point is, more corrupt at a
time when national security is
at stake like never before. Not
Huh? Do you mean that irresponsible posting begins with lax thinking, or
that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
Piling one gem on another:
"...if the Democrats win society will become more corrupt."
Dude, corruption is independent of politics. I teach history, and have
learned that there are very few absolutes, very few "lessons of history."
One cliche that is close to being absolute is that times change but people
Help me to learn: at what time was "society" less corrupt?
No, you don't ask. You pursue until he/she is apprehended. If there is
resistance, you are permitted to use enough force to secure the subject
with cuffs, then after he/she is cuffed (generally) no more force is
needed. Been there, done that.
Well actually they can unless your plan was to throw the radio at the guy
And yes I understand not out running the radio, but on the other end of the
radio the chase continues or the guy simply gets away.
LOL! Atta boy, Leon ... but you're just too damn "Texas" for most with that
attitude. ;>) (Like it or not, it is pretty much a fact that most of those
who have been in this part of the country longer (30 years or more) than 85%
of the current residents simply aren't programmed to accept scofflaws of any
It's also notable that no matter how small the world becomes, and with all
the moaning about the loss of regional differences in this country, it
appears that you can still easily geograhically delineate the participants
by the logic of their arguments.
As my 82 year old Dad still maintains to those, mostly eastern,
acquaintances with a tendency to be a bit apologetic toward criminals of any
degree "Believe what you will, just be warned that should you ever turn to a
life of crime, don't get caught stealing from me."
Yes I have, and never lost a battle. That's what training was for. Even
if the bad guy is bigger/stronger/faster good training will make you
smarter. It's not a guarantee, but it helps to tip the odds in your favor.
J. Clarke wrote:
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.