- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:53 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Nothing about being trained would preclude it being a jury of peers.
People who sit on every jury do something for a living. Why would it matter what their occupation was?
Because a trained, professional jury is not a cross-section of the community. The whole point of a jury of ordinary citizens is that it pulls people from different backgrounds, life experiences, and social positions. These are generally people who are not part of the cj system. You’re advocating for government employees to determine guilt and innocence for everyone.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:53 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
He was. Offered 33 months and turned it down
His charges were dropped.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:54 pm to 4cubbies
So in your simple, broken mind, he deserves to be exonerated? Are you another of the ‘resistance’ that has been programmed to believe what he did was just and needed? Or are you one of the queers that think he’s good looking so he should be free?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:55 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
His charges were dropped.
Why? There’s any number of reasons why the case was dropped and are in many other cases. And no, not because the State thinks they are innocent.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The whole point of a jury of ordinary citizens is that it pulls people from different backgrounds, life experiences, and social positions.
People are stupid. Again, look at this thread as evidence.
I would rather a professional than risk having a cubbies on my jury
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:58 pm to stout
quote:
would rather a professional than risk having a cubbies on my jury
Are you the State or the defendant?
I would pick her as defense.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
You’re advocating for government employees to determine guilt and innocence for everyone.
The connection with the government is a legitimate argument.
I'm highly tempted to conclude that it would be worth it, however. There are too many advantages to having people that knew what was going on and developed records that could be tracked and examined for bias.
The most convincing argument you have is that the government wouldn't oversee it the way it should (just like they don't oversee judges responsibly now).
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:05 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
Your problem is you’re trying to advocate without any training whatsoever.
Advocating for fair treatment isn’t something you need a law degree to “train” for. Constitutional rights belong to the public, not just attorneys. If only lawyers were allowed to critique the system, nothing would ever change. We let lawyers dominate every conversation about justice, and look how well that’s going.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
My friend called me this morning as soon as my eyes opened to debrief this
Somehow, I don't believe this happened, because that's a retarded thing to worry about at the crack of dawn
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Well on the OT its slo, retards and opinionated women
We let lawyers dominate every conversation about justice, and look how well that’s going.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:08 pm to 4cubbies
Can I ask you this: Do you subscribe to the Pro-choice platform?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:08 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm highly tempted to conclude that it would be worth it, however. T
The government brings the charges against a defendant. The government provides the prosecution of the defendant. And you want the government to deliver the verdict.
What could go wrong?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:09 pm to UptownJoeBrown
No.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:12 pm to Stealth Matrix
quote:
because that's a retarded thing to worry about at the crack of dawn
I was up for hours in the middle of the night with the baby so I ended up sleeping in once my husband woke up. It was 10 or 10:30.
We’re basically in constant communication. She calls me all the time about stupid stuff.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:12 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
nd you want the government to deliver the verdict.
They don't have to be Gov employees. There are other ways to do it but at the end of the day you would have people educated in the law deciding legal matters
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:13 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
No
Oh good. Glad to hear that.
I usually don’t try to have conversations with people that think abortion isn’t murder. That’s not religion talking either. We can continue.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
You support killing business executives. You are a violent person.
People can support a person‘s legal rights and also be against killing business executives. They are not mutually exclusive.
Sounds like the OP was just making a point that this case is going to get dicey
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:15 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
I would pick her as defense.
I know people love painting me as anti-victim. I’m not. I’m anti-government. I could never in good conscience do the government’s bidding.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:17 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
that this case is going to get dicey
Have you even read the digital forensics they have against him?
It's a slam dunk case, and his defense is throwing shite at the wall while wasting his family's money
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News