Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the violence and intimidation the left has shown are WAAAAAY too much to overcome...they will come back with some sort of guilty verdict, and then the trial may be thrown out on appeal due to tampering.
No way these jurors are going to expose themselves to the nutcases on the left by coming back with an acquittal.
Based on the trial and evidence, I believe the correct verdict should be acquittal.
I chose just to put Not Guilty - which means that a defendant is not legally answerable for the criminal charge filed against him/her, and not that he/she is necessarily innocent.
An Acquittal is a finding by a Judge or Jury that a Defendant is Not Guilty of the crime charged because the Prosecutor failed to prove that the Defendant was Guilty “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”
A verdict of “Not Guilty” is an Acquittal = to find a Defendant Not Guilty is to Acquit. It's semantics.
I've been thinking about the OJ trial and how the Rodney King LA riots were still fresh in everyone's mind. Most of the jurors now admit OJ was guilty. It was a very racially charged thing, as well as a weak prosecution and a tainted judge. But there were thoughts that if OJ was convicted things could have gotten really ugly and no one wanted a repeat of LA.
Three armed officers and an unarmed handcuffed man.
Why didn't the cop say let's roll him on his back and see what happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.