Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freak Walk! (Un-freaking believable!)
6/13/2005 | Leo Carpathian

Posted on 06/13/2005 2:30:21 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian

Freak walks and joins likes of OJ. Another chapter in American unJustice! Screw the kids, give them alcohol and you are free American "hero".


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: jacko; jackson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: The Louiswu; Leo Carpathian
"I guess the moral of the story is to not go to trial with a family of grifters and con-artists as your main witnesses."

True enough. This was the best case they could put together? I don't expect victims and their families to be lily-white but this was a suspicious lot at best.

41 posted on 06/13/2005 2:49:23 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi

I think this was a very weak case. I am not at all surprised by the verdict.

Not too weak if you settle out of court with one family for $50,000,000. I don't believe anyone would have settled for that if not guilty.


42 posted on 06/13/2005 2:50:49 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
I'm one who believes the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution to remove all REASONABLE doubt. The facts of the case showed the jurists no more than hypothesis and that does not meet the burden of proof!
43 posted on 06/13/2005 2:52:40 PM PDT by 7thOF7th (Righteousness is our cause and justice will prevail!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Don't let it get personal. The law is not supposed to be personal. It's calm, objective and blind.

The prosecution didn't make its case to the jury. That might have had something to do with the victims' family, who were suspect.

Yes, if there is any question about the facts, then an acquital is exactly the way the system is supposed to work. Blackstone was right - "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."


44 posted on 06/13/2005 2:53:45 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
The problem with your scenario is that you reference the accused as the "perp" or perpetrator of the crime. You obviously have no concept of the presumption of innocence. You must be of the opinion that if he is accused he must be guilty. If that is the case please go joust with your peers.
45 posted on 06/13/2005 2:59:22 PM PDT by 7thOF7th (Righteousness is our cause and justice will prevail!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jazzy
Californication take over the title of worst stae in the Union from Florida!

I'm from a different era and find this hard to believe.
However, I am a student of history and at this point most societies are in a major decline. In all societies when justice becomes denied the society collapses.
46 posted on 06/13/2005 3:03:38 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
He is rich

He is black

Any questions?

47 posted on 06/13/2005 3:11:33 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7thOF7th
You must be of the opinion that if he is accused he must be guilty.

Of course not.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

If you knew (not merely stongly suspected) the accused was guilty of the crime would you still maintain that "the system worked" if a "not guilty" verdict were reached? My point is that occasionally the system doesn't work. .....the O.J. case is a prime example.

As far as the MJ case is concerned my original post on this thread dealt exclusively with the count of giving alcohol to minors.

48 posted on 06/13/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jec41
I don't believe anyone would have settled [out of court] ...if not guilty.

Why not? Bubba did.

Seriously, the prosecution's case was an unconvincing, theatrical mess and never proved Jackson's guilt. Jackson is pretty obviously odd , but that isn't a crime yet.

49 posted on 06/13/2005 3:17:13 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
How does that compare with the MJ case? There is no prior knowledge only unsubstantiated accusations!
50 posted on 06/13/2005 3:26:23 PM PDT by 7thOF7th (Righteousness is our cause and justice will prevail!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
If you knew (not merely stongly suspected) the accused was guilty of the crime would you still maintain that "the system worked" if a "not guilty" verdict were reached?

The jury system is designed to make the state prove its case; if it fails to do so and the jury finds for the defendant, then it worked. The object is not to find the guilty 'guilty' but to find the not guilty 'not guilty'.

Ideally, of course, it's to find both; but in a fallible world, we choose to err on the side of caution.

51 posted on 06/13/2005 3:27:42 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
>Freak walks and joins likes of OJ. Another chapter in American unJustice! Screw the kids, give them alcohol and you are free American "hero"

It's possible that --
outside of FR! -- Muslims
just might be correct

in thinking the West
is hopelessly decadent
and doomed to hell fire . . .

52 posted on 06/13/2005 3:32:15 PM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

AMEN!

But hey, he's a celebrity and celebrities aren't held to the same standards that we schlumps out here in fly-over country are!


53 posted on 06/13/2005 3:33:54 PM PDT by Humidston (Yo, Hitlary... BRING IT ON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
I guess the moral of the story is to not go to trial with a family of grifters and con-artists as your main witnesses.

And what is the moral for all those Freepers comparing MJ to OJ?

MJ was harassed by a prosecutor who made a career out of this child abuse charge. The prosecutor is the one who belongs in prison.

MJ is obviously a weird person who acts is if he were a child. But this ought not to be a crime in America.

ML/NJ

54 posted on 06/13/2005 3:38:25 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian

The freak was Sneddon. He had a long standing personal vendetta against a weird popstar & was naive enough to think he could use a family of experienced scam artists to convince a sane jury. Doesn't work. The only crime commited here was Sneddon's diversion of the sheriffs dept for his own personal vendetta. Jackson = Not Guilty.


55 posted on 06/13/2005 3:46:25 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

I don't care either. What a waste of space here on FreeRepublic.


56 posted on 06/13/2005 3:52:21 PM PDT by airborne (Dear Lord, please be with my family in Iraq. Keep them close to You and safely in Your arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Well, that mom sure had a habit of directing her "goofy" behavior at celebrities and their money.


57 posted on 06/13/2005 4:02:40 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grut; Mr. Mojo

Grut's absolutly correct.

Guilty people going free doesn't mean that the system isn't working, it only means that the prosecution didn't prove its case.

The only way a verdict tells us that the system isn't working is when an innocent man is convicted. Our legal system is invariably slanted far in the direction of the accused's rights, since the prosecution has the weight of the State behind it.

This verdict may not be correct. But it in no way tells us anything about the state of our justice system.


58 posted on 06/13/2005 5:12:01 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: highball
The law is not supposed to be personal. It's calm, objective and blind.

Agreed, but did you hear this jury's (barely coherent) post-verdict comments? All emotion. They despised the accuser's mother, and made no attempt to hide it: "I thought, don't you snap your fingers at me, lady."

A less competent bunch would be difficult to come by.

59 posted on 06/13/2005 5:12:25 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

First of all, you think that the Founders never had idiots on their juries?

Second of all, I didn't believe the accuser's mother either. I haven't seen interviews with the jurors, but the prosecution is the one who put these witnesses on the stand. Their case, they died by it.

The verdict still fails to tell us that the system doesn't work. Quite the opposite.


60 posted on 06/13/2005 5:19:03 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson