I am under the impression that you consider yourself the absolute authority on the verdict. What about people who watched the entire trial, saw all the evidence presented and came to a different conclusion than yours? To say those people who were angry because the felt the jury didn't do there job is an insult. You and others who call people who disagree with the verdict a mob act like pompous asses.
It’s easy to jump on a wagon when the wagon finally stopped and play devil’s advocate for fun and sanctimonious glee - when you haven’t followed the case or studied the evidence, the mountains of evidence. Methinks, part of the problem is they watch the 30 minute crime shows where everything is tidy and wrapped up quickly.
To threaten and wish harm upon the jury is Frankenstein like mob behavior and has no place in a civilized country.
How many people throwing insults and condemnation have ever served on a jury? Most likely the people like you did everything they could to get out of serving.
Totally agree with you...and surprised at Ex-Hippie’s post...in the past, they have been pretty rational...(too many acid tabs, Ex-Hippie?)
Your point is exactly what I make when in this arguement...we saw everything and then some that the jury saw and were stunned that they came to the opposite conclusion.
And when ANYONE says that court proceedings shouldn’t be televised, I think USSR and forbidden copiers...
What about people who watched the entire trial, saw all the evidence presented and came to a different conclusion than yours?
<><><><
The people you describe above were the jurors, and only the jurors, and they agree with the ex hippie, while they disagree with you.
Viewing the trial on tv does not make one as qualified to render a verdict as the jury.
Dollars to donuts you would have voted to convict prior to voire dire.