Do juries really convict people like this?

"And like the man said, THIS is from whom your jury will be selected. NOT a comforting thought."

Yeah, but it's better than having ONE cloaked thug decide your fate while he masturbates under his robe.

For example, not many people have ever heard of the concept of "jury nullification," which is "acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact." Ordinary people don't have a clue what this means even when given the definition. But they understand decency. And countless juries have pushed for nullification even without knowing what it is or how to do it.

Basically, the judge says "if this guy is guilty of smoking weed, you must send him to jail." The jury says "well, we don't deny he smoked weed, but he's not guilty of anything." The judge says "smoking weed is a crime." The jury says "well it shouldn't be; guilty or innocent, this guy did nothing wrong, and we decalare him not guilty."

I for one would MUCH RATHER stand before 12 people who use what little common sense they have than one man who has sworn off common sense in order to uphold tyrannical law. ;)
 
I Would want to talk to the Guy

I can see kinda losing your mind and going over to beat the guy maybe and then the Guy saying something absolutlly horrible to you about your daughter while or before you beat him and then completelly losing your Mind and stabbing him.

I don't think he took a knife with him at least I don't see where it Says he took a knife with him and I have no idea what happened once he got inside.

Either way looking at it from the outside it was not a Legal decision on his part.
 
Because they're taken from the public-at-large, and every... single... day... I observe the fact that most members of the public do indeed seem to be morons.
Click to expand...

This whole "I couldn't possibly be viewed as a member of the general public that I consider to be largely composed of morons, since I have a superior understanding of how the world works and this allows me to sit in contempt of all whom I consider to be morons" bit gets a little tiresome.

News flash #1: most people are just as moronic as the people that they dismiss as morons, present company included. Different ways, maybe, but its still a pretty well distributed trait.

News flash #2: calling people morons puts a thread on the fast track to being locked (see here if you do not believe me: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220591).

To answer the original question - yes, juries convict people who take a little too proactive approach to what they perceive to be justice ... as well they should.
 
Last edited:
One more thing to think about
We only have the story of the accused about an incident that was never reported.

Looking further into the story things don't add up

The killer had already called the police on the dead guy at least one time
His drunken and bizarre behavior was well know in the neighbor hood

What are the chances that Mr and Mrs Lawyer would allow this guy to have any unsupervised access to their two year old.

What are the chances that the lawyer went over to confront the drunk about some other bizarre or offensive behavior and somehow a conversation with a drunk did not go as peacefully as one would expect
And then when things went south he decided to use the protective parent defense to try to get off or at least get less

But if we take the article at face value he still is a murderer, unless he gets that jury made up of the super intelligent anti social hermits
 
Leif, while azurefly, I, et al were calling the general public a bunch of morons, you just called he -- and I, for that matter -- morons. And then you chided us about doing what you just did.


"This whole "I couldn't possibly be viewed as a member of the general public that I consider to be largely composed of morons, since I have a superior understanding of how the world works and this allows me to sit in contempt of all whom I consider to be morons" bit gets a little tiresome.
News flash #1: most people are just as moronic as the people that they dismiss as morons, present company included."

The fact is that the average American an IQ of under 100. The average American does not know who the Secretary of State is. The average American cannot read for basic comprehension, and even has trouble comparing pros and cons between two choices of items, say, clothes dryers. The average American is not smart enough to read about a political candidate and vote for him on the merits. That's why people like political parties; black and white makes it easier and eases the stress on the brain. The average American changes his mind 180 degrees about the most fundamental of issues, which equates to HUGE public opinion swings. The average American cannot read the newspaper. The average American cannot think rationally; so nearly every commercial on TV appeals to his feelings and not to his logic.

Don't get me wrong, I love ordinary, average Americans. I love them because they are decent, hard working and honest.

But I'm not one of them. Neither is azurefly. His posts are much too reasoned, logical and well thought out. You forget that in order for "average" to average out, you need people that are above average. I would imagine that many (not most or all) of the people on this board have above-average intellects. Average people see message boards and they think "yuck, reading." And they go play video games.

Maybe I've oversimplified the situation or exaggerated the stupidity of the average person, but that doesn't affect my argument.
 
The fact is that the average American an IQ of under 100. The average American does not know who the Secretary of State is. The average American cannot read for basic comprehension, and even has trouble comparing pros and cons between two choices of items, say, clothes dryers. The average American is not smart enough to read about a political candidate and vote for him on the merits. That's why people like political parties; black and white makes it easier and eases the stress on the brain. The average American changes his mind 180 degrees about the most fundamental of issues, which equates to HUGE public opinion swings. The average American cannot read the newspaper. The average American cannot think rationally; so nearly every commercial on TV appeals to his feelings and not to his logic.
Click to expand...
Did a survey, did ya?
Or is it just your opinion that you are better than the average American?

I wonder does the average American make up facts to support his position that he is above average
 
leif said:
This whole "I couldn't possibly be viewed as a member of the general public that I consider to be largely composed of morons, since I have a superior understanding of how the world works and this allows me to sit in contempt of all whom I consider to be morons" bit gets a little tiresome.
Click to expand...


Doesn't mean it isn't applicable.


You mean to tell me you can't see who's a moron around you when you encounter them in public?

You can't easily pick out people you would REALLY NOT want trying to interpret the law when your freedom hangs in the balance? :rolleyes:

I stand by what I said. Yes, I DO consider myself to be well more intelligent than the average person out there in "the public." My personal interaction with them establishes that to my satisfaction.


-azurefly
 
v8fbird,
Thanks for post #25. That was a very good read.

I love the part about, "Message boards? Yuck! -- Reading!" LOL! :D


-azurefly
 
Yes, they do, for better or worse, because they are indoctrinated from the get-go and throughout, in the trial process, to follow the law, and follow it precisely, and are in awe of the system, magnified by all of the formality and grandeur of the courtroom, judge, etc. Jury nullification does occur occasionally, but it's fairly rare. If it occurs, it is usually because someone with a strong personality is on the jury, and perhaps elected foreman of the jury. Comes down to the mix of personalities and beliefs of the actual sitting jurors, and if one or two are headstrong and vocal enough to convince the others to ignore the law and acquit. Could be someone who is on the jury with legal training themselves, who are savvy enough to know that the judge's warnings about "follow the law or else you're in big trouble jurors" is so much unenforceable hogwash in a criminal trial.

Fact: The average human intelligence quotient is 100, because the test is intentionally bell-curved to produce that specific result. By definition, 100 is average. The average jury is gonna have a couple o' Gumps, and a couple o' sharper cookies.
 
"Fact: The average human intelligence quotient is 100, because the test is intentionally bell-curved to produce that specific result. By definition, 100 is average. The average jury is gonna have a couple o' Gumps, and a couple o' sharper cookies."

Yes, and IIRC, the average for Americans is somewhere in the mid 90's. EVERY european country has a higher average than we do, some as high as 115-120. Look at where Americans came from -- we are primarily the drunks, homeless, poor, and criminals that Europe didn't want.
 
You mean to tell me you can't see who's a moron around you when you encounter them in public?
Click to expand...

I look for two things - the open mouth and the drool. If you see either of these on a jury that is judging you - you're toast.
 
Yes They Do

We had a women hunt down a guy for just that reason. She did not wait for the DNA results. It was good enough that he was a suspect. Hunted him down like a dog. Even re-loaded once. Started shooting in the diner, chased him into the kitchen, and then into the alley where she finished him off at point blank range.

The DNA results were released later that day. He was not the guilty person, and she was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
 
First off, going through law school, and passing the bar in two states, plus working in patent law is enough to drive any sane, intelligent person crazy.

Chances are this guy wanted a way out of his life.

Anyway, one thing law school taught me, is always WAIT for the trial, to do any judgement. In the entire time I was in Torts class, 9 months, the facts as represented in the news NEVER represented, or omitted key facts, that came out at trial.
Wait: Don't rush to judgement. I know, that takes all the fun out of it...:D

S
 
The father committed an act of vigilantism and committed murder. He had no direct knowledge of his daughter's alledged molestation and she was in no immediate risk from the neighbor at the time. So basically the father went over to deal justice, circumscribing the law, and killed the man.
 
Socrates makes a superior judgement (sic) than some of you non-lawyers. Being able to see the real issues is what distinguishes wannabes from real lawyers. The advice some gave that the father should have spent a lot of time contemplating the consequences of his actions was sophomoric.

Saying that spoken evidence from the hero's daughter, the victim, was hearsay, is truly ignorant. I'm for jury nullification on this one, but doubt that it'll happen, given the jurisdiction.
 
"Saying that spoken evidence from the hero's daughter, the victim, was hearsay, is truly ignorant."

First, it wasn't spoken evidence from his daughter, and nobody said that. The dad heard about it FROM A RELATIVE who heard about it FROM THE GIRL.

Second, EVEN IF it had come directly from the little girl, it is STILL hearsay, as the dad's claim is now the layer of separation.

Are you claiming to be a lawyer? (like that's an accomplishment or entitles you to hold opinions or make arguments others can't) This guy had no evidence other than what he heard through a layer of insulation, and you're for jury nullification? It's pretty obvious to me you never stepped foot in a law school; perhaps not even a four-year college.
 
It wasn't from just any family member, it was from his wife, the girl's mother. Whatever it was the little girl said (even between the ages of 2-3), it was obviously enough to convince this guy.

My son is almost 2 & 1/2 and of (god forbid) someone did something inappropriate to him I'm pretty sure I could tell based on behavior and only a 2 year old vocabulary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out something's not right. He knows names, body parts, things of that nature. They may be only 2 but their ability to communicate is better than we give them credit for.

I would however like to know how the neighbor had the time & opportunity to do it. Maybe he was babysitting? Like I said, this should be very interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Are you claiming to be a lawyer? (like that's an accomplishment or entitles you to hold opinions or make arguments others can't) This guy had no evidence other than what he heard through a layer of insulation, and you're for jury nullification? It's pretty obvious to me you never stepped foot in a law school; perhaps not even a four-year college.
Click to expand...

Given that you are arguing that a statement not being offered in a proceeding is hearsay, you might want to pull back on the insults. You see, hearsay consists of statements or conduct made outside of a proceeding but which are offered as testimony in a proceeding as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted. No proceeding, no hearsay.

For what it's worth, the wife's statement will make it into the record. The lawyer will argue that the statement was the trigger for his rage (if going for a voluntary manslaughter charge) or insanity (if pursuing that defense). As such, the statement will be offered into evidence for the fact that it was made, and not for the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, it won't be hearsay at that time, nor was it at the time the wife made it, since it wasn't being offered in a proceeding.

By the way, it's not called "layer of separation" but double (or multiple) hearsay (again, if offered in court).

As for the point about most being morons, everyone is an idiot or moronic at some point. And the surest way a party to a trial or a lawyer representing said party can lose is to treat the jury as a group of morons.

Oh, as to the original thread, this guy is toast. Unless he can convince a jury that he went insane, his best hope is voluntary manslaughter (or NY's equivalent thereof). As stated before, it's one thing to act in defense of another; it's quite a different thing to decide to take someone's life based on minimal information and without legal authority.
 
Last edited:
And the surest way a party to a trial or a lawyer representing said party can lose is to treat the jury as a group of morons.
Click to expand...

While wouldn't the surest way of success be to appeal the the emotional side of the jury, really yanking at the whole 'wouldn't you do it too' factor?

On another note, could the jury find him guilty but release him on time served?
Not that it holds ANY weight but I think I saw that happen on the practice once...Doesn't the jury also get to decide the punishment if guilty?

And what if it comes out that the neighbor WAS a predator? Who DID mess with that guy's little girl. Could that be presented as evidence in his defense? Do D.A.s 'plead out' people like this sometimes?
 
My son is almost 2 & 1/2 and of (god forbid) someone did something inappropriate to him I'm pretty sure I could tell based on behavior and only a 2 year old vocabulary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out something's not right. He knows names, body parts, things of that nature. They may be only 2 but their ability to communicate is better than we give them credit for.
Click to expand...

So is their ability to mix and match facts and events. It doesn't mean they are lying, it just means they may not understand the distinction between fact and fiction, or may have misinterpreted something, which you may then further misinterpret. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. The problem is that even those of us who know that still fall prey to the "they are just a kid, they couldn't make this up or misinterpret it." Again, it doesn't mean they are lying (although I've learned that kids that young certainly can lie when it's in their perceived best interest) but just using a mind that doesn't grasp reality and/or social conventions yet.

The point of my statement isn't to ignore what kids say, but not to put inordinate faith and trust in the statement, the child, or our ability to intrepret/understand either one. Like anything else, such statements need follow up and investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top