Posted on 03/30/2018 7:34:48 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Noor Salman, the wife of Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, was declared not guilty on all counts Friday morning.
She faced charges of obstruction and providing material support to a terrorist organization.
A guilty verdict could have lead to life in prison.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys painted radically different pictures of Salman over the course of the trial -- on the one hand helping her husband prepare for the attack and on the other, an abused woman who "married a monster."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I was on a jury once.
The judge gave us strict instructions that the defendant (Broward County) had admitted their guilt and that we had to find for the plaintiff.
Most of the jury had thought the county had done nothing wrong. The county saw a city sidewalk pushed up six inches by a tree root. They put some asphalt on it, like a temporary ramp, and called the city to come out and fix it. Before the city could fix it, some 82 year old guy tripped over the patch. He had Alzheimer’s and his gold digging 62 year old wife dropped him off for his hair cut while she went out shopping. When he was done with his haircut he waited for her for two hours. When she didn’t show he decided to walk down the street to a restaurant because he was hungry. That was when he tripped over the patch and broke his knee cap.
So this inconsiderate witch was suing the County for what was basically caused by her own negligence.
Because of the judges instructions we found for the plaintiff and awarded her $14K to cover the medical expenses and $1 in other damages.
Boy, was she pissed.
To all those complaining about this verdict and condemning the jury system, please understand that trial by jury is our principle bulwark against tyranny. Without it the State would roll over us like a steamroller, something which happens all too often in the criminal justice system as it is. What is your proposed solution? Is it to replace juries with panels of government appointed experts as in much of Europe? Sure there will be the occasional verdict that seems hard to understand but I’d rather have this than have the State be both prosecutor and jury.
"Isn't this the way it's supposed to be?"
No. The threshold is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', NOT beyond any doubt. This muslim female was an accessory to the murder of almost 50 U.S. Citizens.
Didn’t Quinn do a segment on this the other day? I could have sworn that he said that she was forced/threatened into signing a false confession by law enforcement. I thought the case fell apart due to things in the confession being proven false.
Coerced false confessions are shockingly common.
I must admit. I don’t follow your first sentence.
I take it you mean that the panel of jurors wanted to find the defendant guilty of a crime, but with no evidence or proof to support a conviction. You were the holdout to maintain his innocence and were shocked at the behavior of the others to simply issue a guilty verdict to get the deliberations over and done.
It didn’t help that the Prosecution didn’t provide the Defense (until 3 days after they rested their case) with the info that the shooter’s Father was an FBI informant, sent money to the MiddleEast, and knew of his Son’s radical leanings!
—
Funny, isn’t it, how the FBI seems to always be at the nexus of these mass shootings. I’m sure its all just a big coincidence. Repeated over and over.
Not always. But it is wrong the think that when radicalization occurs the influence of a wife or girlfriend was not a if not the major factor.
[ I guess the “abused woman” defense is bullet proof. ]
The “P**sy Pass”
Of course it’s a possibility.
But then, TONS of terrorists have zero wives.
I believe that the definition of "reasonable doubt" used in military courts is the clearest description of that phrase:
A "reasonable doubt" is not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothosis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offense, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution which does not amount to an element need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty.
As an aside, the last time that I was called for jury duty, the judge asked all of the prospective jurors if anyone could define "reasonable doubt". Having been a military and civil service court reporter for 40 years and having memorized the definition used in military courts (as a result of having heard and typed it thousands of times), I alone raised my hand. She gave me a quizzical half-smile and asked me to explain. Well, I repeated .. verbatim .. the description of reasonable doubt with which I was familiar. When I was finished, she shook her head and informed me that this wasn't a military court and there was NO definition for reasonable doubt, that everyone's definition was .. and should .. be different. I just shrugged and said, "Whatever you say, Your Honor ...".
Needless to say, I was not seated as a juror ...
Only because so many don’t believe in sharing. And remember I was addressing the specifics of how a male Muslim could well be exposed to and embrace radical Islam. What motivates a home grown (U.S. or European resident) terrorist will in part be different from what motivates a Muslim living in the Mideast.
> Funny, isn’t it, how the FBI seems to always be at the nexus of these mass shootings.
It’s not just mass shootings it’s terrorist acts of all kinds. WTC 1993 and Boston Marathon are two good examples.
And we should not forget that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset getting puff pieces in the NY Times, before he became public enemy #1.
In this particular case, conviction relied on the credibility of the FBI.
That the FBI no longer has credibility with the public appears to be the primary reason for this acquittal.
Vaginas are get out of jail cards.
The ole babe-in-the-woods routine works again. “I’m a chick, I couldn’t possibly commit crimes.”
My take exactly.
As soon as I heard about the FBI involvement, I would have voted "not guilty".
This is an FBI failure. And a big one.
That occurred to me, too. But after thinking about it a little more, I don’t think so. These people are ruthless and have no problem throwing one of their own under the bus when they are no longer useful to them. So I think it’s some other explanation.
Yes. Admittedly the defendant was a scumbag and had been involved with the accuser for years. It was domestic stuff. He said she said. Absolutely no evidence. Looked like druggies. Everyone wanted to find guilty because he was a scumbag and they wanted to go home.
He probably was guilty but they had no evidence other than her testimony. I just felt like they deserved each other and couldn’t figure out why the DA even took it to trial other than they wanted him put away.
Also, they tricked her into the confession and withheld evidence.
Lots of DOJ/FBI are guilty of criminal misconduct. But they will stick together and tell us the jury was flawed.
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.