Posted on 06/05/2008 11:24:16 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
What is going on in America? Why is it that a jury refuses to convict terrorists and won't convict a Muslim who planned and carried out a bloody, murderous attack on people, merely because he thought they were Jews?
My G-d! The O.J. jury lives on throughout this half-asleep (or maybe Rip Van Winkle fully asleep) country. I would love the names of these idiot jurors. Is it something about the cloudy weather . . . or the cloudy, bleeding-heart liberal heads in Seattle? Did they not get their fix of Seattle-based drinkable caffeine? This guy is an Islamic terrorist, plain and simple:
A mistrial has been declared in the trial of Jewish Federation gunman Naveed Haq.
Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas declared the mistrial moments ago after jurors told her they were hopelessly deadlocked on 14 of 15 counts against Haq, 32.
On the only count the jury agreed on, it found Haq not guilty of one of five attempted murder charges he faced and deadlocked on a second-degree finding for the same charge. That count had to do with the shooting of federation employee Carol Goldman, one of five women wounded by the gunman.
Haq showed no emotion when the mistrial was declared.
Prosecutors immediately announced they would seek to retry Haq. A status hearing on a new trial has been scheduled for a week from tomorrow.
"We're frustrated and disappointed that we have to put the victims through this again," said Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Don Raz.
The jury was then excused by Kallas. Most jurors refused to comment to reporters.
But one juror, who didn't give her name, called the decision "heart-rending."
"I am very upset," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
I bet there was some jury nullification going on. It only takes one juror to do this. Somebody probably went into that jury box determined not to find him guilty.
Send 'em to Virginia. We'll fry them.
What was the vote?
11-1 guilty?
I’ve seen that in race-biased cases in several cities: One (or more) jurors basically say “I would never convict a _____ man.”
Liberals don’t like Jews, and Muslims scare them. It’s all about their feelings.
That POS needs to have an “accident”..
Making a moral judgement frightens people.
They've seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.
Why can’t this creep be brought up on civil rights charges. It worked getting qanother murderer, Limerick Nelson, into federal prison..
Unlikely, for they found him NOT guilty on the one count they were not hung on.
>>the shooting of federation employee Carol Goldman, one of five women wounded by the gunman.
Not guilty? He shot her.
Travesty.
And the Sharians, advance, inch by inch, step by step.
Kirby Wilbur was talking about this on KVI this morning. They had tape of one of the jurors saying something like “if there’s any outrage at this, the only real outrage in this case is that a mentally ill man was allowed to buy a handgun”.
Something like that. It was the gun’s fault. Typical liberal bed-wetter.
This same liberal would of course be first to cry out if the government actually ~tried~ to access private medical records during the instant-check process, which of course they currently cannot do.
Outrageous. From the start I felt this case was not getting the attention it deserved. The message - it is okay for a Muslim to kill a Jew.
Exactly. How demented and offensive. This was a slam dunk case. But now it is okay for a Muslim to kill a Jew. This is so over the top that the members of this jury should be scrutinized.
More commentary...here...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021280.php#comments
Thanks to Robert Spencer and the terrific posters at jihadwatch.
SCROLL DOWN...pay particular attention to Hugh Fitzgerald’s OUTSTANDING MUST READ COMMENTARY!
Thank you Hugh Fitzgerald!
More commentary...here...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021280.php#comments
Thanks to Robert Spencer and the terrific posters at jihadwatch.
SCROLL DOWN...pay particular attention to Hugh Fitzgerald’s OUTSTANDING MUST READ COMMENTARY!
Thank you Hugh Fitzgerald!
As usual, Ms. Schlussel fails to provide any context by which to judge the situation, and thus there's no way we can rationally decide whether or not the situation she describes is truly "outrageous."
Was it because they thought he didn't do it? Or is it because they couldn't prove intent? Or that there was insufficient evidence to put him in place for one of the shootings? Or maybe they thought he was insane?
Information matters....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.