Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Unbelievable!


quote:

The jury in Gilbert's case didn't care about or respect his female victim




did they care less about her than the jury in the Winkler case cared about the male victim?

Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back with a 12G shot gun after he confronted her about $17 000 she had lost in a scam - she was sentenced to 210 days in prison and retained custody of her children.

she claimed abuse but never made any attempt to leave her allegedly abusive husband


quote:

Your notion that courts are forced by laws to reach any conclusion is absurd


No to think otherwise is absurd.

In the JW Gracy trial the judge spoke eloquently about his reluctance to rearm Gracy but accepted that he had no choice but to do so.

If trials were left to the whim of a judge why even bother making laws?


quote:

The jury in Gilbert's case could have easily found him guilty of murder if they had wanted to do so.



they could certainly have found him guilty of murder if they thought that the evidence - which they heard and you didnt - supported that verdict.


quote:

As I've pointed out before if the law required them to reach the conclusion they reached the prosecution would never have brought the case to trial.



why, because the prosecution always bring flawless evidence to trial?


quote:

Just depends on what crime they are executed for committing


No if its wrong its always wrong I (and most of the developed world) find the taking of life abhorent so much so that we dont want to do it.

"Either murder is a crime, or it is not. If it is not, why punish it? If it is, then by what perverse logic do you punish it by the same crime?"

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
3/20/2017, 8:52 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Unbelievable!


quote:

did they care less about her than the jury in the Winkler case cared about the male victim?-mais



Yes. They found her guilty of manslaughter. They acquitted him even though the juries knew in both cases that the defendants were killers.

quote:

No to think otherwise is absurd.

In the JW Gracy trial the judge spoke eloquently about his reluctance to rearm Gracy but accepted that he had no choice but to do so.



What judges say and the truth are not always the same thing.

quote:

If trials were left to the whim of a judge why even bother making laws?



Why bother with judges if judges don't have any power to make rulings based on their own personal judgment?

quote:

they could certainly have found him guilty of murder if they thought that the evidence - which they heard and you didnt - supported that verdict.



I'm familiar with the evidence that they had to go on. I'm also familiar with their alleged justification for acquitting Gilbert. Neither explains why they acquitted him.

Not caring about the murder victim does.

quote:

why, because the prosecution always bring flawless evidence to trial?



No, but if the law itself precluded a guilty verdict it wouldn't make much sense to bring a person to trial. Why would a prosecutor do that knowing that the law means that he isn't guilty of any crime? It would make the prosecutor look like he didn't even know the law in his state.

quote:

No if its wrong its always wrong I (and most of the developed world) find the taking of life abhorent so much so that we dont want to do it.



Even in self-defense? I support capital punishment because it is a defensive action that can save lives.

quote:

"Either murder is a crime, or it is not. If it is not, why punish it? If it is, then by what perverse logic do you punish it by the same crime?"



Quoting the Marquis de Sade is not helpful. Executing someone to keep them from killing again is a defensive act. That's why you punish them with something that isn't a crime when it is legal to do.
3/20/2017, 9:49 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Unbelievable!


quote:

Yes. They found her guilty of manslaughter



but if as you state ad nauseum juries/judges and courts are institutionally biased against women why did the court value the life of Pastor Winkler so low?


quote:

What judges say and the truth are not always the same thing



you have evidence that the judge in this case was lying? (or in any case?)



quote:

Why bother with judges if judges don't have any power to make rulings based on their own personal judgment



Judges dont rule on guilt or innocence that is not their role in a trial, they are there to rule on matters of law it is the jury who rule on matters of fact.

Jurors often dont know the finer points of law and lawyers anxious to make their case often try to ride rough shod over the law.


quote:

but if the law itself precluded a guilty verdict it wouldn't make much sense to bring a person to trial. Why would a prosecutor do that knowing that the law means that he isn't guilty of any crime? It would make the prosecutor look like he didn't even know the law in his state.




and is that what you think happened in this case?
there were no facts introduced during the trial which the prosecution wasnt aware of pre trial?


quote:

I'm familiar with the evidence that they had to go on



I wasnt aware that you were at the trial, I assumed that your opinion was based on snippets printed in the usually sensationalist press or dramatised in "true crime" dramas


quote:

Quoting the Marquis de Sade is not helpful.



why not, I thought it was exactly on point


E
quote:

xecuting someone to keep them from killing again is a defensive act.



and is that what you think judicial execution does, defend society?

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
3/20/2017, 10:20 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Unbelievable!


quote:

but if as you state ad nauseum juries/judges and courts are institutionally biased against women why did the court value the life of Pastor Winkler so low?-mais



They considered him to be a pervert. The defense was extremely clever in this case and managed to get a jury to care less about him than they normally would have cared about a man who was murdered.

quote:

you have evidence that the judge in this case was lying? (or in any case?)



I said nothing about the judge lying. Just not necessarily telling the truth. Even judges can believe things which aren't true.

quote:

and is that what you think happened in this case?
there were no facts introduced during the trial which the prosecution wasnt aware of pre trial?



I certainly believe the prosecutor was aware of the law that the defense used as a phony excuse for their client's shooting of the victim Lenora Frago. So, assuming that the law wasn't a suprise to him, either he was right that the law didn't apply to the case or he was wrong, which seems extremely unlikely.

I highly doubt that he nor any other prosecutor working with him couldn't find an application of the law to the case that the jury magically did find. It's very unlikely that they had a better understanding of that law than the prosecutor. That seems especially unlikely when you take into consideration the fact that the jury were a bunch of dopes.

quote:

I wasnt aware that you were at the trial, I assumed that your opinion was based on snippets printed in the usually sensationalist press or dramatised in "true crime" dramas



The "sensationalist" press didn't distort what happened. Gilbert shot and killed Lenora Frago. There is no doubt about that. The only question was whether it didn't qualify as murder under the law. And that was a legal question which you have already claimed jurors often are not well equipped to answer. As you do in this statement:

quote:

Jurors often dont know the finer points of law and lawyers anxious to make their case often try to ride rough shod over the law.



In the Gilbert case you have precisely identified part of the problem. The incompetent jury didn't know "the finer points of law" and ruled in a way that was not consistent with that law. They did that not because they had to rule that way but simply because they wanted to. They were looking for an excuse to acquit a murderer who had shot and killed a young woman whom they didn't respect or care about.

quote:

and is that what you think judicial execution does, defend society?



It certainly can. It would have saved innocent lives in the case of Kenneth McDuff as well as other murderers.
3/21/2017, 8:41 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)