Re: => Dirk Bruere says sending innocent people to prison 20% of the time is OK -- O.J. Simpson Jurors: 8 (Eight) had family or friends who spent time in Jail !! <= Amerikkkan Criminal MADNESS !!

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Reality_Check© wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>>> Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Captain Howdy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"
<dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>> Captain Howdy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the leading detective refuses
to deny that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated evidence what do you
think the jury should do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen and learn, dumbass: Fuhrman
couldn't answer ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>> questions except by invoking the Fifth.
That was because he
>>>>>>>>>>>> had perjured himself by denying that he
ever used the word
>>>>>>>>>>>> NIGGER -- a stupid, unlawful answer to
a stupid, unlawful
>>>>>>>>>>>> question that the Judge should never
have permitted in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first place. Since Fuhrman's lawyers
correctly advised him
>>>>>>>>>>>> not to dig
>>>>>>>>>>>> himself any deeper about the NIGGER
perjury, the law states
>>>>>>>>>>>> that he could not answer ANY questions,
or else his 5th
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment rights would be waived. So
(are you paying
>>>>>>>>>>>> attention?):  If Mr. Johnny had asked
Fuhrman,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Isn't it a fact that you
kidnapped and murdered the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lindbergh baby?" . or "Isn't
it a fact that you raped your
>>>>>>>>>>>> own momma?", or "Aren't you
in fact an alien from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> planet Zurtog?",
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuhrman could NOT have said
"No" -- he HAD TO take the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fifth, to every single question, no
matter how stupid or
>>>>>>>>>>>> false or insane the implications of the
question. Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So Mr. Johnny abused that situation all
the way, knowing
>>>>>>>>>>>> that Fuhrman COULD NOT answer any
questions except by
>>>>>>>>>>>> taking the Fifth.  And so the defense
deliberately lied
>>>>>>>>>>>> through its questions, creating
>>>>>>>>>>>> wildly false impressions that fooled
just enough imbeciles
>>>>>>>>>>>> like you and that jury.  Of course,
Fuhrman was a dirtbag,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a racist and a lousy cop, so I am not
defending him. Nor
>>>>>>>>>>>> do I fault Mr. Johnny -- he was a damn
good lawyer, and in
>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion a good man. (Few people
remember
>>>>>>>>>>>> that he was a former prosecutor, who
got into a different
>>>>>>>>>>>> line of work because he was sick to
death of listening to
>>>>>>>>>>>> cops perjure themselves, and judges who
knowingly permitted
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.)  I just take exception to your
disregard of facts,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is no better than Fuhrman's own
lies and bigotry. By
>>>>>>>>>>>> the way: Simpson was guilty, both
times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then the fact remains that the prosecution
severely screwed
>>>>>>>>>>> up and the jury knew it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Reasonable doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, Dirk, I won't argue with that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I mean, to me it's not reasonable doubt, but
the jury was
>>>>>>>>>> within its legal rights....to be stupid, and to
think that
>>>>>>>>>> Fuhrman's idiocy and Marcia Clark's
incompetence were more
>>>>>>>>>> important than the truth. That's our system,
and I would not
>>>>>>>>>> want to change it. A judge once asked me and
another lawyer,
>>>>>>>>>> in chambers, what we
>>>>>>>>>> thought "reasonable doubt" means,
expressed as a percentage
>>>>>>>>>> of likelihood that the accused is guilty. We
all knew,
>>>>>>>>>> including the judge, that legally
"reasonable doubt" is not
>>>>>>>>>> defined as
>>>>>>>>>> a percentage -- he was just curious what people
thought about
>>>>>>>>>> this, and was doing an informal survey. I
forget what I said,
>>>>>>>>>> but the judge said he was getting answers that
ranged from 51
>>>>>>>>>> per cent, to 99.999 per cent. I think the
Simpson jury, if
>>>>>>>>>> they were
>>>>>>>>>> thinking at all, was holding out for 100 per
cent, ironclad
>>>>>>>>>> proof -- not looking for "reasonable"
doubt, but for any
>>>>>>>>>> cockamamie excuse for doubt whatsoever. But
that's just my
>>>>>>>>>> opinion, and their opinion is what matters. On
that much we
>>>>>>>>>> agree.
>>>>>>>>> In the UK the difference between criminal and civil
is that
>>>>>>>>> civil is determined on the "balance of
probability", which
>>>>>>>>> must mean 51%
>>>>>>>> Same in the U$A in most cases, it's called
"preponderance of
>>>>>>>> evidence", and technically it means greater than
50%, even by a
>>>>>>>> fraction.
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd put "beyond reasonable
doubt" at >80%.
>>>>>>>> So you'd send someone to jail for life, without parole,
or in
>>>>>>>> the U$A to be executed, knowing in your mind there was
a 20%
>>>>>>>> chance they were innocent?
>>>>>>> It depends on the severity of the crime.
>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The standard is EXACTLY the same, whether it's a shoplifting
>>>>>> case, a drug possession case, a white-collar crime, or a
capital
>>>>>> murder case.
>>>>> I'm speaking for myself only.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really have a sliding scale in the U.K. ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you just another ignorant clueless citizen, perfect for
>>>>>> jury fodder?
>>>>>>> "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean 100% sure.
>>>>>> No one claimed it did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So back to the question you evaded -- you'd send someone to
>>>>>> prison knowing there was a 20% chance they were innocent?
>>>>>> You really are repugnant. May you or your family find
yourselves
>>>>>> in prison based on the avarice of someone other moron's 20%
>>>>>> standard.
>>>>> You should try to be less emotional.
>>>> This from the lowlife amoral maggot who'd send 20 innocent people
>>>> per 100 to rot in prison.
>>>>
>>> I think you'll find that anything less than 100% puts innocent
>>> people in prison. So, how many innocent people do you think I
>>> should send to prison?
>>
>> You're the scumbag that's content with 20%, you amoral piece of
>> fascist crap.
>>
>>> Or shall we let everyone go free?
>>
>> A man *far* wiser than you once said -- better that 100 guilty men go
>> free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned.
>>
>> No go fuck yourself, you repugnant knuckle-draggin' Neanderthal.
>
> You really do have some serious emotional control problems.

This from the amoral shitbag who'd put innocent people in prison 20% of the
time.

LOL!
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]