• Casey Anthony Sued by Caylee Search Team For $100,000
    86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sanius;31128900]lmao morals should have absolutely no baring on the verdict[/QUOTE] How's that? The justice system is primarily a codified, relatively collective moral system, enforced by the state. That's why justice systems vary according to different societies. [QUOTE=TBFundy;31128656]he said that everyone needed to leave her alone it's heavily implying he's on her side in this case[/QUOTE] You didn't quote that, you quoted this bit: "were you taught about the justice system at all in school or did you just not pay attention double jeopardy is horrible no matter how much the media tells you to hate somebody" Which says absolutely nothing about what Sanius believes concerning Casey Anthony's guilt or lack thereof, but only about his/her views on double jeopardy.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;31128980]Don't they pick jury members who have little knowledge of the case?[/QUOTE] I used to play eve online, scammed a shit ton, you'd be amazed how easy it is to plant a seed in someones brain as long as they somewhat trust you, like most people trust the news, people are quick to trust, and even quicker to burn someone as a witch, I mean, just look at the posts in this thread, from people knowing nothing about what evidence what shown in the case. It would be insanely hard not hearing anything about the case on the radio, tv's, the internet, etc. And when all you hear is "the bitch is guilty, she deserves to die" etc, people start believing it, that's how fake myths become "facts" over time, like that "you can overdose from weed", etc.
[QUOTE=Crimor;31129039]I used to play eve online, scammed a shit ton, you'd be amazed how easy it is to plant a seed in someones brain as long as they somewhat trust you, like most people trust the news, people are quick to trust, and even quicker to burn someone as a witch, I mean, just look at the posts in this thread, from people knowing nothing about what evidence what shown in the case. It would be insanely hard not hearing anything about the case on the radio, tv's, the internet, etc. And when all you hear is "the bitch is guilty, she deserves to die" etc, people start believing it, that's how fake myths become "facts" over time, like that "you can overdose from weed", etc.[/QUOTE] From what I'm hearing, people are demonizing her not because a radio show said she was guilty, but that the evidence did.
This is kind of insane how many people are defending her. I also notice that the people who are defending her are ones who know almost nothing about the case. It doesn't come down to whether or not the Prosecution made a good case, or the Defense made a good case, or whether or not she was guilty or whatever. It came down to what the Jury decided. A group of people. They aren't machines, they didn't take in everything and make the correct verdict. It was their opinions based on what they fucking paid attention to, or what they believed or not. It was all up to personal bias, and therein lies the problem with the Jury System. It isn't impartial, and it very very prone to bullshit verdicts. Just because a Jury decides on a verdict does not make their verdict the reality of the situation. I personally don't know if she did it or not, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she, at the very least, had a hand in it. I just personally feel that the whole defense of "The jury ruled that she wasn't guilty therefore she didn't do it." is fucking retarded.
[QUOTE=Rebi;31129122]From what I'm hearing, people are demonizing her not because a radio show said she was guilty, but that the evidence did.[/QUOTE] I didn't know all the evidence what publicized? And the point still stands, she was proven innocent in the eyes of the law, she cannot be retried for it, we will never know if she did it or not, but when a judge and jury declares her not guilty, back the fuck off. [editline]15th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129141]This is kind of insane how many people are defending her. I also notice that the people who are defending her are ones who know almost nothing about the case. It doesn't come down to whether or not the Prosecution made a good case, or the Defense made a good case, or whether or not she was guilty or whatever. It came down to what the Jury decided. A group of people. They aren't machines, they didn't take in everything and make the correct verdict. It was their opinions based on what they fucking paid attention to, or what they believed or not. It was all up to personal bias, and therein lies the problem with the Jury System. It isn't impartial, and it very very prone to bullshit verdicts. Just because a Jury decides on a verdict does not make their verdict the reality of the situation. I personally don't know if she did it or not, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she, at the very least, had a hand in it. I just personally feel that the whole defense of "The jury ruled that she wasn't guilty therefore she didn't do it." is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] I'm not defending just her, I'm talking fucktards doing this in general, constantly going "guilty till proven innocent", hell, even "guilty even if proven innocent"
[QUOTE=Crimor;31129145]I didn't know all the evidence what publicized? And the point still stands, she was proven innocent in the eyes of the law, she cannot be retried for it, we will never know if she did it or not, but when a judge and jury declares her not guilty, back the fuck off.[/QUOTE] She can still get sued for wrongful death in a civil court. Of course that's after she gets tried for lying and failing to report a missing person.
[QUOTE=Crimor;31129145]I didn't know all the evidence what publicized? And the point still stands, she was proven innocent in the eyes of the law, she cannot be retried for it, we will never know if she did it or not, but when a judge and jury declares her not guilty, back the fuck off. [editline]15th July 2011[/editline] I'm not defending just her, I'm talking fucktards doing this in general, constantly going "guilty till proven innocent", hell, even "guilty even if proven innocent"[/QUOTE] People are stating their own opinions. Yes, you are defending her. You're telling people she was ruled innocent and therefore they have no right to be demonizing her. A lot, if not all, of the evidence was made public. It was documented that she lied to investigators on four seperate occasions, made up a lot of bullshit stories about how she was molested and how her daughter was molested by their father (Who was a fucking cop, and broke down in court because of the sheer audacity and insult of what she was saying.) and even accused her own mother and father of murdering/covering up the murder of the daughter. That probably should have been enough to absolutely destroy any credibility her defense had in the first place.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;31129168]She can still get sued for wrongful death in a civil court. Of course that's after she gets tried for lying and failing to report a missing person.[/QUOTE] I never said she couldn't? I said she couldn't be charged with murder.
[QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129141]This is kind of insane how many people are defending her. I also notice that the people who are defending her are ones who know almost nothing about the case. It doesn't come down to whether or not the Prosecution made a good case, or the Defense made a good case, or whether or not she was guilty or whatever. It came down to what the Jury decided. A group of people. They aren't machines, they didn't take in everything and make the correct verdict. It was their opinions based on what they fucking paid attention to, or what they believed or not. It was all up to personal bias, and therein lies the problem with the Jury System. It isn't impartial, and it very very prone to bullshit verdicts. Just because a Jury decides on a verdict does not make their verdict the reality of the situation. I personally don't know if she did it or not, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she, at the very least, had a hand in it. I just personally feel that the whole defense of "The jury ruled that she wasn't guilty therefore she didn't do it." is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] I agree that the notion that just because a jury ruled that she wasn't guilty = innocent is bullshit, but, er, the arguments the prosecution and defence make do matter. In this case, it appears the prosecution didn't do a good job, possibly due to overconfidence that she would be found guilty, and it had a massive impact on the case.
[QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129172]People are stating their own opinions. Yes, you are defending her. You're telling people she was ruled innocent and therefore they have no right to be demonizing her. A lot, if not all, of the evidence was made public. It was documented that she lied to investigators on four seperate occasions, made up a lot of bullshit stories about how she was molested and how her daughter was molested by their father (Who was a fucking cop, and broke down in court because of the sheer audacity and insult of what she was saying.) and even accused her own mother and father of murdering/covering up the murder of the daughter. That probably should have been enough to absolutely destroy any credibility her defense had in the first place.[/QUOTE] Never said she wasn't a bitch/nutcase either, and what does the father being a cop having to do with being a pedophile? there's been pedophiles in pretty much every single profession in the world, yes, even cops. All I said was that in the eyes of the law, she didn't murder her kid, so why don't you respect that.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;31129208]I agree that the notion that just because a jury ruled that she wasn't guilty = innocent is bullshit, but, er, the arguments the prosecution and defence make do matter. In this case, it appears the prosecution didn't do a good job, possibly due to overconfidence that she would be found guilty, and it had a massive impact on the case.[/QUOTE] In my opinion the prosecution did a fine job. The defense was tripping all over itself, and Casey Anthony changed her story so much that she actually did jail time for four separate charges of lying to investigators. What the defense and prosecution say should matter, but a juror doesn't have to rule in favor of whoever did the better job, was my point. It's absolutely up to them, despite what the defense and prosecution say. [editline]15th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Crimor;31129215]Never said she wasn't a bitch/nutcase either, and what does the father being a cop having to do with being a pedophile? there's been pedophiles in pretty much every single profession in the world, yes, even cops. All I said was that in the eyes of the law, she didn't murder her kid, so why don't you respect that.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying he wasn't a pedophile because he was a cop, I'm saying accusing him of raping a minor and covering up a murder is an extremely offensive one to an officer of the law. Respect what? The fact that a room full of people were of the opinion that she was innocent? You're right. Everyone should change their opinions and what they say because of that.
[QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129235] I'm not saying he wasn't a pedophile because he was a cop, I'm saying accusing him of raping a minor and covering up a murder is an extremely offensive one to an officer of the law. Respect what? The fact that a room full of people were of the opinion that she was innocent? You're right. Everyone should change their opinions and what they say because of that.[/QUOTE] You choose who leads your country the same way, just on a larger scale.
[QUOTE=Crimor;31129289]You choose who leads your country the same way, just on a larger scale.[/QUOTE] Except you can say and think and act how you want regardless of who's in charge. My point is that just because the Jury ruled in favor of Casey Anthony doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that people aren't allowed to say she did it.
[QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129235]In my opinion the prosecution did a fine job. The defense was tripping all over itself, and Casey Anthony changed her story so much that she actually did jail time for four separate charges of lying to investigators. What the defense and prosecution say should matter, but a juror doesn't have to rule in favor of whoever did the better job, was my point. It's absolutely up to them, despite what the defense and prosecution say.[/QUOTE] We'll agree to disagree on prosecution. I do agree that the defence was awful, and she is clearly either a murderer, an extremely negligent mother, or mentally ill (or, likely, a combination of some or all). I don't know why, though, given the argument her team put forth, she wasn't found guilty of negligence, at the very least. And not reporting a death, disposing of a body in an unlawful way, etc. I hear you on the jury, but people are people. They are going to be influenced by which party, in their opinion, put forth a better argument. Humans are never completely logical, and emotions play a massive role in these things.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31104382]Considering that she funded the trial by selling her family albums and videos to ABC, she'll probably pay for this with a book deal or a few talk show appearances. Whether she killed the kid or not, she's famous enough to be set for life.[/QUOTE] Not famous, infamous. She may have been declared not guilty but everybody knows she is a murdering scumbag and I bet it will be hard for her to ever find a good paying job with that trial on her record.
[QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129315]Except you can say and think and act how you want regardless of who's in charge. My point is that just because the Jury ruled in favor of Casey Anthony doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that people aren't allowed to say she did it.[/QUOTE] I find it quite funny, in a way though, people call obama the antichrist, a muslim, a nazi, a commie, etc. and people are saying a ton of shit about casey anthony too. [editline]15th July 2011[/editline] Like this. [QUOTE=Mr. Sun;31129331]Not famous, infamous. She may have been declared not guilty but [B]everybody knows she is a murdering scumbag[/B] and I bet it will be hard for her to ever find a good paying job with that trial on her record.[/QUOTE] Except you know, the majority of the jury.
[QUOTE=Crimor;31129404]I find it quite funny, in a way though, people call obama the antichrist, a muslim, a nazi, a commie, etc. and people are saying a ton of shit about casey anthony too.[/QUOTE] The funny thing about that is, people don't have evidence for any of the shit they say about Obama, whereas there is overwhelming evidence against Casey Anthony. Have you actually paid attention to the case whatsoever? I'm assuming not, since you just keep using really ignorant defenses.
[QUOTE=Crimor;31129404]I find it quite funny, in a way though, people call obama the antichrist, a muslim, a nazi, a commie, etc. and people are saying a ton of shit about casey anthony too. [editline]15th July 2011[/editline] Like this. [b]Except you know, the majority of the jury.[/b][/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure what the majority of the world says should have more weight than what the majority of a small group of people who knew little of the case say. Even though that isn't the case.
[QUOTE=Grim Joker;31129425]The funny thing about that is, people don't have evidence for any of the shit they say about Obama, whereas there is overwhelming evidence against Casey Anthony. Have you actually paid attention to the case whatsoever? I'm assuming not, since you just keep using really ignorant defenses.[/QUOTE] Most of the "overwhelming evidence" was circumstantial at best.
[QUOTE=Sanius;31128900]lmao morals should have absolutely no baring on the verdict[/QUOTE] are you seriousing me
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31134017]are you seriousing me[/QUOTE] Its Sanius he be seriousing you all day erryday
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31134017]are you seriousing me[/QUOTE] the jury looks at evidence to come up with a verdict, not what they think is morally ok
I wonder how she'll live once she's out of jail. If she goes to the supermarket to buy food and she gets chased by an angry mob
[QUOTE=Sanius;31134639]the jury looks at evidence to come up with a verdict, not what they think is morally ok[/QUOTE] i'm saying though if you have a juror that's racist or homophobic he probably isn't going to make a sound decision if black or gay person shows up as a witness or something
[QUOTE=Mingebox;31124786]Are you even trying to make a point? She knew her kid was dead, and knew where the body was, and it's the search parties fault for not going, "Eh, the kid's probably dead, why bother?"[/QUOTE] You're missing my point. My point is this, as clear as I can make it: When a kid is reported missing, anyone who goes looking for that kid is doing it of their own free will. Any time, or money, they use during that search is of their own free choice. IF, however, the parent(Casey Anthony in this case) hires or contracts searchers or detectives to look for their kid, then that parent is contractually obligated to pay. Casey Anthony, by law, does NOT have to implicate herself in a crime. Part of our constitutional rights are the rights against self incrimination. So it's completely and totally ridiculous to expect or demand that she declare to the searchers "You shouldn't bother looking, that girl is dead, D E A D dead."
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31135354]i'm saying though if you have a juror that's racist or homophobic he probably isn't going to make a sound decision if black or gay person shows up as a witness or something[/QUOTE] That's what jury selection is for. Especially for high end court cases they make sure you don't get jurors who are prejudiced by other matters and focus more on the fact of the law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.