From: UltimaterializerX | #099 UltimaterializerX posted... If the defendant was the father instead of the mother, this would have already been over with a guilty verdict. Our society's refusal to admit women are capable of violent crimes is pathetic.
Called it. How many times do I have to be right before people learn their lesson?
"Ulti is always right" is a good motto to live by.
Well you weren't right about lethal injection being painless.
This entire time I was just getting so sick of this "Justice for Caylee" campaign and knowing the entire time it was not for Caylee but just a front for a blood thirsty mob. I know that now because the verdict shows one thing - there's a killer out there and nobody cares. All the mob wants now is an answer of why the jury got it wrong and why this woman isn't on death row. They don't want to let it go and start a hunt for a new suspect.
From: FDFHighPunch | #107 This entire time I was just getting so sick of this "Justice for Caylee" campaign and knowing the entire time it was not for Caylee but just a front for a blood thirsty mob. I know that now because the verdict shows one thing - there's a killer out there and nobody cares. All the mob wants now is an answer of why the jury got it wrong and why this woman isn't on death row. They don't want to let it go and start a hunt for a new suspect.
From: FDFHighPunch | Posted: 7/5/2011 2:58:26 PM | #107 This entire time I was just getting so sick of this "Justice for Caylee" campaign and knowing the entire time it was not for Caylee but just a front for a blood thirsty mob. I know that now because the verdict shows one thing - there's a killer out there and nobody cares. All the mob wants now is an answer of why the jury got it wrong and why this woman isn't on death row. They don't want to let it go and start a hunt for a new suspect.
Where would you start looking? The imaginary nanny Caylee's mom fabricated and blamed must be long gone by now. <_<
--
Abed: It's the first season of Lost on DVD. Pierce: That's the meaning of Christmas? Abed: No it's a metaphor. It represents lack of payoff.
From: Biolizard28 | #118 Regaro_Ukiera posted... hahahaha what
There's a reason that the jury doesn't declare you "innocent," bro.
From: Leebo86 | #120 Are you unfamiliar with jury trials?
There's a difference in a jury saying "not guilty" and Joe off the street saying "not guilty"
If Leebo was referring to a jury calling a person not guilty, then excuse me for not really reading through the topic fully. Didn't really feel like he was from that one post though.
It's just not about what you know, its about what you can prove. I think the justice system would be a lot worse off if it was led by emotions and hunches, just start sending people to the chair based on assumptions. That's some Salem Witch Trials s***.
From: UltimaterializerX | #117 Tim, lethal injection is the least amount of pain possible to kill someone because obviously no death is 100% painless. You should know this as a New York cop, or at least I hope you would. They suffer their bodily systems going into discontinence from the paralytic and are given a massive overdose of barbiturates to mask most of the pain. An actual lethal injection made for true punishment would only be an OD on the paralytic and potassium, with the barbiturate left out of the equation, but America is soft and buys into "no cruel and unusual punishment", which leads to things like a 400 pound guy opting to be hung and then being let off Death Row because he's too fat to be hung without it being considered cruel and unusual.
Well I'm not a cop yet, I start the academy tomorrow.
From what I've read, doctors and nurses aren't allowed to actually perform the procedure so you have to have some untrained (or at least unskilled or unpracticed) person doing it, which means something is probably getting screwed up.
It may be less painful than the electric chair but there are still reports of massive and debilitating levels of burning and muscle cramps, followed by cardiac arrest. It certainly doesn't sound painless. I think I'd rather get my head chopped off personally, seems like that would be quick at least.
From: UltimaterializerX | #119 Leebo86 posted... Remember, not guilty doesn't mean innocent. You can say "not guilty" and still think there's no other suspect.
Leebo86, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the type of guy that works for insurance companies, too. Scary, isn't it?
I think you guys are misinterpreting what Leebo said. It's very possible (and probable) that the jury thinks she did it, but still declared Not Guilty due to a lack of evidence. You don't make convictions based on hunches.
From: Leebo86 | #130 You think there's another suspect?
I only know a few minor details that I've picked up from both this topic and overhearing my parents watching it on CNN while I did other things, but she's probably guilty as all hell.
Casey is in a much better position than OJ. The Goldman's at least won a civil suit and hounded OJ economically to the point that he trolled himself into committing a robbery. Can a civil suit even come out of this? The second advantage is some lame ass sugar daddy will take care of Casey. She won.
Oh she was definitely guilty. I've said that a ton of times in this topic.
I'm just not sure why anyone responding to what I said (which was a response to said we should start finding another suspect) isn't commenting the other suspects thing.
UltimaterializerX posted... The overwhelming majority of the time, convictions based on hunches will not screw over someone that's innocent. If you're even in that situation at all you're probably not innocent, anyway.
You're asking for one of those silly "ten guilty men go free" analogies.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo Now this is entertainment!
Literally every comment about this on my Facebook page is some variation of "Oh cool, we can murder children like that CHILD KILLING PSYCHO **** NO JUSTICE FOR YOUNG GIRLS."
Yeah, there's definitely some emotional venom here, from nobody who actually knows the first thing about the system. I'm pretty sure their idea of justice is "I heard they did this, give them the chair."
Granted, I think she's guilty. As I believe many of the "poor things" that got off on high profile murder trials are, in fact, guilty in some way.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo Now this is entertainment!
UltimaterializerX posted... KamikazePotato posted... I think you guys are misinterpreting what Leebo said. It's very possible (and probable) that the jury thinks she did it, but still declared Not Guilty due to a lack of evidence. You don't make convictions based on hunches.
The overwhelming majority of the time, convictions based on hunches will not screw over someone that's innocent. If you're even in that situation at all you're probably not innocent, anyway.
And you're basing this on what? Do you have statistics? Are you factoring in things like racism and sexism? What about all the people that were cleared years after their trial when DNA evidence was retroactively applied?
Personally I only started following this trail today. This just seemed like another "Here's a case you wouldn't ever hear except she's a semi-attractive white woman, so media explosion", so I just tuned out.
--
It will launch for $350 with some Wii Sports s***. I bet my life on it. Damn, that KoolAid guy is awesome - NGamer64
If people really wanted "Justice for Caylee" they would accept the verdict and hope that a new suspect is found.
Justice was done - somebody was found not guilty of a crime they didn't commit. Why can't people see it that way? It's better than having an innocent person on death row.
Somebody definitely screwed up here, though because people expect an arrest and then a conviction. You get the right guy or else you don't put them on trial (and on TV). That's how it's supposed to be but sometimes it doesn't happen (when people screw up) and you need to accept it and start over.
The OJ Simpson verdict isn't a common happening. Most of the time juries get it right so you can't compare it to that. OJ Simpson just came out and said he killed his wife but before that nobody knew the truth either.
Until Casey Anthony comes out and says she did it then you can't pretend like you know better than the everybody else. That's what leads people to do things they regret. I don't want to see people being overwhelmed over this.
Well yeah obviously doctors aren't allowed to kill people because of their oath (although they are around to pronounce the person dead I think), but it seems like the unskilled person performing the injection would mess up more often than not. Doctors go to school for a long time to perfect that stuff. I don't know who exactly performs it (I know stuff like firing squads were volunteers from the guards so who knows) but even if the same guy does it every time it's not like he gets a lot of practice. Death sentences are carried out pretty rarely.
