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 ...
Actually it really sounds like they knew it was the beginning of Easter and wanted to get the heck out of there and go to either Good Friday services OR wanted to shop for a big dinner for Sunday.
I guess that hellhole is the United States of America since she was born here. It is funny how people assume if they are not pearly white they can’t be American. That is a problem that Liberals alway ping on us because that is the feeling among most conservatives.
Importing the poison of Islam was never a good idea.
That train has passed. I know now after 14 months of President Trump getting fought every step of the way trying to protect our country from invaders that it will never happen. We couldn’t send the Muslims back if we wanted to. Some dumb judge would stop it immediately like they have done with Mexicans, Liberians, Nigerians, Hondurans, Colombians and many other groups. With Trump, we are thankfully slowing the death, but we still are heading towards death of the United States of America. It was a good ride and the longest continuing Government in the history of the World.
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.
Wouldn’t be surprised. From what I read the FBI tripped her up in endless interviews, threatened to take away her kids, and got her to make conflicting statements. They basically used all the same tricks they used against Flynn (e.g. threatening his son). Then they hit her with process charges for lying to the FBI. AFAIK there was no other significant testimony or physical evidence introduced against her (eyewitness testimony, fingerprints on guns, buying materials, etc), just her own conflicting statements.
It wouldn’t surprise me if a combination of FBI skeptics on the right and muslim sympathizers on the left got together to get her off the hook.
The judge was wrong. Jury nullification is the last refuge of the innocent accused of breaking unjust laws. It's the whole point of having juries.
https://reason.com/archives/2017/12/12/rebellious-jurors-make-the-world-a-bette
You make an excellent point, but a law against theft or assault should still be left to a more reasoned argument then a jury deliberating. If a single juror disagrees with the law, the time and place to argue that is in the pool, prior to selection.
He wasn’t a queer. He was an Islamist. The Dem queer story has been debunked.
Yes, indeed...but it seems the Mateens had an “in” with the Fibbies and Obama.
What was the composition of this jury?
“occasional” seems more like “frequent” these days.
And that’s the reason why I will never serve on a “jury” or put myself in a position to be judged by one.
No offense, but 95% of people on juries are just not “essential personnel”.
Most of them are effing RETARDED.
and...she helped him case the joint not once but twice!
indeed, and yet she walks free after playing I am a muslim victim woman card.
>>The judge gave us strict instructions that the defendant (Broward County) had admitted their guilt and that we had to find for the plaintiff.
First of all, the term is liability (rather than guilt) and second, the judge can’t do that except in a damages only trial. Jury instruction procedures vary by jurisdiction but in all cases, they will be disclosed to both sides prior to closing argument — likely before. Jury instructions more or less restate the law as it related to factual findings. There’s no way an attorney is going to let a judge give instructions to a jury to find for one side or the other. He has an easy appeal and likely a complaint to the judicial authority of that jurisdiction.
There is a possibility that, in your case, the Plaintiff had established liability of the defendant by something like a summary judgment motion — arguing there is no issue of material fact. Thus, the jury would hear evidence and award damages. But if that were the case, the judge would not have instructed you to find for the Plaintiff - he would have already done that. You would have heard evidence regarding medical bills, pain and suffering, etc. I can’t see any legit reason how a judge could ever instruct a jury on any actual finding of fact. Either you misinterpreted the instruction or the defense attorneys were all totally incompetent.
And that’s the reason why I will never serve on a “jury” or put myself in a position to be judged by one. No offense, but 95% of people on juries are just not “essential personnel”. Most of them are effing RETARDED.
Specialty legal firms hire themselves out to make it easy for the criminal defense attorney to pick the slackers from the larger number of people selected for jury duty.
It seems to be working. :-(
And that’s the reason why I will never serve on a “jury” or put myself in a position to be judged by one. No offense, but 95% of people on juries are just not “essential personnel”. Most of them are effing RETARDED.
Specialty legal firms hire themselves out to make it easy for the criminal defense attorney to pick the slackers from the larger number of people selected for jury duty.
It seems to be working. :-(
(A sketch of me on the witness stand appeared in the local newspaper—not a bad likeness).
She forgot about, “See something, say something”, perhaps on purpose.
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.