Posted on 07/12/2011 2:18:55 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Kenneth Gladney reaction: “I couldn’t beat them; I didn’t have the resources they had. They had all the money in the world and the backing. I’m just an average man.”
Video pending.
The Kenneth Gladney beatdown case continued this morning in St. Louis County Court. After a health care town hall meeting in August 2009 St. Louis native Kenneth Gladney was beaten, kicked and called racist names by Rep. Russ Carnahan’s SEIU supporters. Gladney spent the night in the hospital after the beating.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
“Vengeance is the Lord’s, I guess. But sometimes I wonder where He is looking.”
Psalm 37:
12 The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;
13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.
Reasonable doubt at a reasonable price.
No; and if I'm wrong that's pretty terrifying a thought. (Consider a jury sitting on a government corruption case with whom the judge has [hidden] ties.)
Oh so jury trials are thrown to the side “everyday” in criminal trials, regardless of the defense’s RIGHT to one?? Um....that is NOT how it goes or is even supposed to go, according to the CONSTITUTION...or “didn’t you realize that?”... Careful trying to be condescending to others, as you reveal your own ignorance in the matter.
Why is it that you are so confident that this jury got it right? Have you listened to their interviews? They used opening statement as evidence (BIG NO-NO) and speculated that the wrong person was on trial when there WAS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE from either the state or the defense to support that theory.
Something is rotten in Denmark and I for one am NOT comfortable that as America has lost its ability to use critical thinking and logic (ala: Obama sat in Right’s church for 20 years, but he had “no idea” he felt the way he did) imbeciles comprise our juries. I don't think the bar for reasonable doubt needs to be raised or lowered. I think the bar for what allows someone to sit on a jury needs to be raised!!!!!
Do your homework and you will see the Anthony jury, did NOT follow their instructions and did not do their due diligence.
Pretty hard for the the state to overcome reasonable doubt when a jury goes into deliberation and creates theories out of thin air that lead to doubts that the state had no way of knowing they needed to overcome because no such theory was even proposed or evidence submitted to support it.
Also, there is something VERY wrong when a defense can accuse and defame people (in the Anthony case, Roy Kronk, George, and Lee) and NEVER introduce, nor intend to, one shred of evidence (even though they said they would) to support their claims. IMO, this was NOT a good faith claim and is outrageous!!!
Justice is supposed to be a search for the truth. It is falling to the wayside because the defense can outright lie in open court and the jury pool is compromised because of the dumbing down of it's citizens.
Justice in this case and the Anthony case was NOT served and to sit back and say, oh well, the system worked, we cannot questions the jurors, blah , blah, blah just does not hold water with me. I can and will raise questions and demand answers when I see egregious error.
Well played. Damned pity, if they had any problems in life.
I wasn’t trying to be condescending. I don’t think you read or understood properly what I said for some reason....
Also, for someone who talks about being saved by Jesus in their tagline you don’t seem to be very charitable in your postings to me or others on this forum.
Only an unmitigated moron would equate the two. One had direct evidence, that was ignored by a stacked jury. The other expressly lacked evidence, was over-charged, and was taken to trial too quickly because of PR pressure in a high-profile case, and a proper jury recognized it as such.
This is why Liberals get away with idiotic ideas like sentencing equality, as if every drug conviction is entirely equal. They're not. Many will make deals, offer evidence against bigger dealers, has extenuating circumstances, had weapons, etc etc etc. Sadly, too many pathetic minds allow the MSM to equate any similar verdict, and nod their empty heads in agreement.
I apologize if I misread your comment. I did take it as condescending. I went back & re-read it to see if I could have misunderstood, and I see where that is possible. Simply pointing that out would suffice. No need to sling someone’s faith in their face simply because they make a mistake.
Also, would be nice to know how I was uncharitable to “others”....
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.