View Single Post
06-09-2010, 09:10 AM
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
"May it please the court (I never say that) The defense would like to THANK and EXCUSE prospective juror #12, Kingsholygrail, for cause."

You're right. Before a full and fair hearing by a jury of his peers to determine his guilt or innocence, nothing prevents you (and other like minded individuals) from jumping to conclusions based on far, far less than the full and complete stories of both victim and accused. Additionally, nothing stops people from using inference and insinuation, whether reasonable or not, derived from mere snippets of information, from forming public media lynch mobs to perform hatchet jobs to destroy a person's reputation whilst hiding behind the anonymity of an avatar, screen name or even a by-line in a newspaper tabloid on display at the checkout counter of your local grocery market. Nothing prevents any person nor every person from rushing to judgment and forming their own opinion. But as they say, opinions are like ******** (rectums, if you didn't get it). Everybody's got one, but it doesn't mean I care much about yours! Unless it impacts my cient's right to an impartial jury!

But thank GAWD, and our Founding Fathers, for establishing a judicial system, that while far from perfect in practice, affords people the right and ability to set forth a real defence and to be presumed innocent while the government is burdened with proving BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that a person accused is factually guilty before being punished. That is a right so cherished,and so important and of such high ideal, that it is enshrined forever in those documents upon which, worldwide, the concepts of liberty and freedom have emmanated from. It is a right so rare, it exists in very few other countries over this globe. A right so valuable and hallowed, that hundreds of thousands of Americans over two centuires have died to preserve it.

Now if you want to talk about OJ Simpson, maybe (and I'll assume so for your sake) you can grasp the distinction, that he has had a (more than) full airing, based on all the admissable facts and evidence, in open court (and often broadcasted) in both the civil and criminal courts, leaving all persons free to form their own opinions and air them (another right of liberty granted to us by our Founding Fathers logic and reason) about his guilt or innocence.

Now if you want to get technical (and we will end up splitting rhetorical hairs here) he is not a murderer, but was found liable for the deaths of Goldman and Brown. As you are not a lawyer those distinctions likely mean little to you, and you obviously don't care. But to most any lawyer who litigates civil or criminal matters, they mean alot.

But go ahead and grasp firmly to your rash judgments based on much less than all the facts. I'll rest comfortably knowing that I, and/or my capable colleagues, will find you or any similarly predisposed person, and will discover your prejudice and prejudicial pre-dispositions through the legal process known as voir dire which allows lawyers for each party to question and probe prospective jurors and to REMOVE, from the jury panel, those who rush to judgment based on less than all the facts, or those facts adduced somewhere other than in open court.

And as this thread so readily demonstrates, there are many here among us . . . who believe that their rush to judgment deosn't somehow impede their claimed impartiality.
I hope you are never wrongly accused and need the services of an attorney.

Last edited by DIEHARD the King fan: 06-09-2010 at 10:44 AM.
DIEHARD the King fan is offline