It's over. I put a man in prison for the rest of his natural life.

[JenyEliza]

I wonder if you would feel that way about Police Officers or Firefighters on 9/11 or any of the day who act in great service. Or should they not feel proud because they are "just doing their duty"? Stop being a spiteful bitch for once in your time here.

Yea, because jury duty is so incredibly dangerous. Paperview might get a papercut ....

My bad. You idiot.

I guess the extra security provided to jurors when we were there and the fact many of us (we discussed this only after) did not take our usual routes home, and watched our rear view mirrors carefully should one of those angry faces in the courtroom follow us,
was because we were concerned ...about 'papercuts.'

Of course the service can not be compared to the dangers Firemen and Police go through, no one ever said that, and no one said it was 'so incredibly dangerous,' but I think you fail to understand when there is a murder trial such as this, yes, jurors do expose themselves to some forms of risk.

I did my service happily and was grateful for the opportunity to take part in our judicial system.

Don't tell me it's 'nothing to be proud of.' Though it crippled my business, depleted my income, caused me to have to rent a car for several days because my brakes went on me during the trial and brought a great amount of upheaval to my life, it was a tiny price to pay to know I helped to serve our country and put a murderer behind bars for the rest of his life.

I feel happy, and yes proud about that. Nothing in your petty, spiteful rants will ever take that away.

Someone *truly* "humbled" by such an experience wouldn't rush to the internet to post a thread bragging that THEY (and apparently THEY ALONE) put a man away for the rest of his natural life. No hard evidence, no confession, nothing directly connecting the accused to the crime---just some vague cirucumstantial evidence.

And you come here to BRAG. That just makes me sick.

I am pro-death penalty. When there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (not the circumstantial bullshit you convicted on, but HARD inconvrovertable evidence pointing to guilt).

Had your accused been clearly guilty with hard evidence and the jury you sat on sentenced him to the death penalty (as in the man in the link in my sig line), I might think you a bit more brave and worthy of praise.

But you didn't do anything special. Nothing. You served on a jury. You didn't debate the man's life or death. You convicted him on circumstantial evidence, which doesn't cut the mustard in most cases. You didn't hold the man's life in your hands. You just decided jail or no jail. Somewhere down the road he may win an appeal and prove the circumstantial evidence you used to convict him was all BULLSHIT. Then all your "hard, difficult, gut wrenching work" will be down the tubes. Will you still be bragging?

Wow! I'm SO impressed. (NOT).

 

[Diuretic]

Yea, because jury duty is so incredibly dangerous. Paperview might get a papercut ....

My bad. You idiot.

I guess the extra security provided to jurors when we were there and the fact many of us (we discussed this only after) did not take our usual routes home, and watched our rear view mirrors carefully should one of those angry faces in the courtroom follow us,
was because we were concerned ...about 'papercuts.'

Of course the service can not be compared to the dangers Firemen and Police go through, no one ever said that, and no one said it was 'so incredibly dangerous,' but I think you fail to understand when there is a murder trial such as this, yes, jurors do expose themselves to some forms of risk.

I did my service happily and was grateful for the opportunity to take part in our judicial system.

Don't tell me it's 'nothing to be proud of.' Though it crippled my business, depleted my income, caused me to have to rent a car for several days because my brakes went on me during the trial and brought a great amount of upheaval to my life, it was a tiny price to pay to know I helped to serve our country and put a murderer behind bars for the rest of his life.

I feel happy, and yes proud about that. Nothing in your petty, spiteful rants will ever take that away.

Someone *truly* "humbled" by such an experience wouldn't rush to the internet to post a thread bragging that THEY (and apparently THEY ALONE) put a man away for the rest of his natural life. No hard evidence, no confession, nothing directly connecting the accused to the crime---just some vague cirucumstantial evidence.

And you come here to BRAG. That just makes me sick.

I am pro-death penalty. When there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (not the circumstantial bullshit you convicted on, but HARD inconvrovertable evidence pointing to guilt).

Had your accused been clearly guilty with hard evidence and the jury you sat on sentenced him to the death penalty (as in the man in the link in my sig line), I might think you a bit more brave and worthy of praise.

But you didn't do anything special. Nothing. You served on a jury. You didn't debate the man's life or death. You convicted him on circumstantial evidence, which doesn't cut the mustard in most cases. You didn't hold the man's life in your hands. You just decided jail or no jail. Somewhere down the road he may win an appeal and prove the circumstantial evidence you used to convict him was all BULLSHIT. Then all your "hard, difficult, gut wrenching work" will be down the tubes. Will you still be bragging?

Wow! I'm SO impressed. (NOT).

The “they alone” assertion is rubbish. A single juror expressed their views.

No hard evidence, no confession, nothing directly connecting the accused to the crime---just some vague cirucumstantial evidence.

A “confession” means nothing in a criminal investigation and trial unless the defendant pleads “guilty”. Even in a full trial a confession is only hearsay evidence unless the defendant admits it, it's no biggie. It's better to go to trial with a heap of lies from the defendant.


I am pro-death penalty. When there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (not the circumstantial bullshit you convicted on, but HARD inconvrovertable evidence pointing to guilt).

You don't understand about evidence and inferential logic. Nothing wrong with that but you'd be well advised not to post that sort of rubbish.

But you didn't do anything special. Nothing. You served on a jury. You didn't debate the man's life or death. You convicted him on circumstantial evidence, which doesn't cut the mustard in most cases

You need to study the difference between “direct” and “indirect” evidence.

You didn't hold the man's life in your hands. You just decided jail or no jail

No, it was about guilt, the same process is undertaken whether the defendant is facing prison time or execution following conviction.

 

[paperview]

...

But you didn't do anything special. Nothing. You served on a jury. You didn't debate the man's life or death. You convicted him on circumstantial evidence, which doesn't cut the mustard in most cases. You didn't hold the man's life in your hands. You just decided jail or no jail. Somewhere down the road he may win an appeal and prove the circumstantial evidence you used to convict him was all BULLSHIT. Then all your "hard, difficult, gut wrenching work" will be down the tubes. Will you still be bragging?

Wow! I'm SO impressed. (NOT).

Oh Goodie. Jenny the Angry Drunk is back. How terrific of you could come back to enrich us with your depth of wisdom and of a case you know diddly squat about and one more chance to punch holes in the virtual dudgeon that is your life.

Thanks!

 

[PixieStix]

Your thread title is misleading, YOU alone did not put this man in prison, if he murdered someone he did it pretty much all by himself, you AND the other jurors simply listened and hopefully weighed all the evidence fairly and without prejudice therefore, found him guilty.

 

[paperview]

I guess the extra security provided to jurors when we were there and the fact many of us (we discussed this only after) did not take our usual routes home, and watched our rear view mirrors carefully should one of those angry faces in the courtroom follow us,
was because we were concerned ...about 'papercuts.'

Of course the service can not be compared to the dangers Firemen and Police go through, no one ever said that, and no one said it was 'so incredibly dangerous,' but I think you fail to understand when there is a murder trial such as this, yes, jurors do expose themselves to some forms of risk.

I did my service happily and was grateful for the opportunity to take part in our judicial system.

Don't tell me it's 'nothing to be proud of.' Though it crippled my business, depleted my income, caused me to have to rent a car for several days because my brakes went on me during the trial and brought a great amount of upheaval to my life, it was a tiny price to pay to know I helped to serve our country and put a murderer behind bars for the rest of his life.

I feel happy, and yes proud about that. Nothing in your petty, spiteful rants will ever take that away.

Someone *truly* "humbled" by such an experience wouldn't rush to the internet to post a thread bragging that THEY (and apparently THEY ALONE) put a man away for the rest of his natural life. No hard evidence, no confession, nothing directly connecting the accused to the crime---just some vague cirucumstantial evidence.

And you come here to BRAG. That just makes me sick.

I am pro-death penalty. When there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (not the circumstantial bullshit you convicted on, but HARD inconvrovertable evidence pointing to guilt).

Had your accused been clearly guilty with hard evidence and the jury you sat on sentenced him to the death penalty (as in the man in the link in my sig line), I might think you a bit more brave and worthy of praise.

But you didn't do anything special. Nothing. You served on a jury. You didn't debate the man's life or death. You convicted him on circumstantial evidence, which doesn't cut the mustard in most cases. You didn't hold the man's life in your hands. You just decided jail or no jail. Somewhere down the road he may win an appeal and prove the circumstantial evidence you used to convict him was all BULLSHIT. Then all your "hard, difficult, gut wrenching work" will be down the tubes. Will you still be bragging?

Wow! I'm SO impressed. (NOT).

The “they alone” assertion is rubbish. A single juror expressed their views.

No hard evidence, no confession, nothing directly connecting the accused to the crime---just some vague cirucumstantial evidence.

A “confession” means nothing in a criminal investigation and trial unless the defendant pleads “guilty”. Even in a full trial a confession is only hearsay evidence unless the defendant admits it, it's no biggie. It's better to go to trial with a heap of lies from the defendant.


I am pro-death penalty. When there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (not the circumstantial bullshit you convicted on, but HARD inconvrovertable evidence pointing to guilt).

You don't understand about evidence and inferential logic. Nothing wrong with that but you'd be well advised not to post that sort of rubbish.

But you didn't do anything special. Nothing. You served on a jury. You didn't debate the man's life or death. You convicted him on circumstantial evidence, which doesn't cut the mustard in most cases

You need to study the difference between “direct” and “indirect” evidence.

You didn't hold the man's life in your hands. You just decided jail or no jail

No, it was about guilt, the same process is undertaken whether the defendant is facing prison time or execution following conviction.

Another great post. Thanks.

 

[paperview]

The man is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

All jurors agreed on that. The evidence and witnesses just piled up. The hard part was deciding to which degree. We wrestled with that for some time, but blessed with an extraordinary foreman, an opportunity for each of us to talk and work out the details and examine the evidence, we collectively agreed, after quite some time, it was First Degree.

The thing that made it crystal clear we absolutely made the right decision, was when we found out only after (it was not admissible in court, and none of us were aware when we rendered the verdict) - this man had previously brutally beaten people *this same grotesque way* - Just never killed them.. He even spent time in prison for it. This time he killed them. That revelation afterwards certainly confirmed
we rendered the correct verdict.

 

[Diuretic]

Your thread title is misleading, YOU alone did not put this man in prison, if he murdered someone he did it pretty much all by himself, you AND the other jurors simply listened and hopefully weighed all the evidence fairly and without prejudice therefore, found him guilty.

Thread title? That has you bent out of shape? A thread title????

 

[paperview]

Your thread title is misleading, YOU alone did not put this man in prison, if he murdered someone he did it pretty much all by himself, you AND the other jurors simply listened and hopefully weighed all the evidence fairly and without prejudice therefore, found him guilty.

Where do you see the word alone in my thread title?

 

[paperview]

Your thread title is misleading, YOU alone did not put this man in prison, if he murdered someone he did it pretty much all by himself, you AND the other jurors simply listened and hopefully weighed all the evidence fairly and without prejudice therefore, found him guilty.

Thread title? That has you bent out of shape? A thread title????

It seems to have ruffled more than a few feathers.

 

[PixieStix]

Your thread title is misleading, YOU alone did not put this man in prison, if he murdered someone he did it pretty much all by himself, you AND the other jurors simply listened and hopefully weighed all the evidence fairly and without prejudice therefore, found him guilty.

Where do you see the word alone in my threat title?

When you said, that "I", and did not say "WE" as a group, when you use the word "I", it is assumed to mean "ONE" or "ONLY

pron.
Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.

n., pl., I's.
The self; the ego.

 

[alan1]

I find the direction that this thread has taken to be quite interesting.
Politically, I tend to agree with California Girl quite often and tend to disagree with Paperview quite often. You can see previous discussions to know that is true.

I recall a few weeks ago when Paperview first announced the upcoming jury duty. I don't recall that conversation turning into a partisan hackfest.
Serving on a criminal trial is never enjoyable, serving on a murder trial is awful (at least the one I served on was).
You people need to lighten up

 

[L.K.Eder]

paperview, you are not a Real American.

shame on you.

 

[random3434]

paperview, you are not a Real American.

shame on you.

I surprised they somehow haven't blamed Obama yet for this, or asked if he was a Muslim.

But they have thrown around that dirty word, "Liberal" quite a bit, eh?

 

[California Girl]

paperview, you are not a Real American.

shame on you.

I surprised they somehow haven't blamed Obama yet for this, or asked if he was a Muslim.

But they have thrown around that dirty word, "Liberal" quite a bit, eh?

Nah, if it was connected to Obama, the murderin' SOB would have walked.

 

[California Girl]

I find the direction that this thread has taken to be quite interesting.
Politically, I tend to agree with California Girl quite often and tend to disagree with Paperview quite often. You can see previous discussions to know that is true.

I recall a few weeks ago when Paperview first announced the upcoming jury duty. I don't recall that conversation turning into a partisan hackfest.
Serving on a criminal trial is never enjoyable, serving on a murder trial is awful (at least the one I served on was).
You people need to lighten up

It's kinda fun to annoy Papercut though.

And... it's still a valid point that he didn't put the guy away - the whole jury had to do that.

 

[alan1]

paperview, you are not a Real American.

shame on you.

I surprised they somehow haven't blamed Obama yet for this, or asked if he was a Muslim.

But they have thrown around that dirty word, "Liberal" quite a bit, eh?

Paperview has also thrown around that dirty word, conservative.
It may have been in frustration, but it was still used.

 

[random3434]

paperview, you are not a Real American.

shame on you.

I surprised they somehow haven't blamed Obama yet for this, or asked if he was a Muslim.

But they have thrown around that dirty word, "Liberal" quite a bit, eh?

Paperview has also thrown around that dirty word, conservative.
It may have been in frustration, but it was still used.

Is she attacking others for doing their civic duty? No, she just is pointing out that the Conservatives on this thread are the ONLY ones attacking her.

 

[random3434]

Rule of law

The rule of law and equality before the law are fundamental to liberalism. Government authority may only be legitimately exercised in accordance with laws that are adopted through an established procedure. Another aspect of the rule of law is an insistence upon the guarantee of an independent judiciary, whose political independence is intended to act as a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. The rule of law includes concepts such as the presumption of innocence, no double jeopardy, and habeas corpus. Rule of law is seen by liberals as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of government.

 

[alan1]

I surprised they somehow haven't blamed Obama yet for this, or asked if he was a Muslim.

But they have thrown around that dirty word, "Liberal" quite a bit, eh?

Paperview has also thrown around that dirty word, conservative.
It may have been in frustration, but it was still used.

Is she attacking others for doing their civic duty? No, she just is pointing out that the Conservatives on this thread are the ONLY ones attacking her.

Some yes, but not most.
That street goes both ways, sis.
I've seen threads where only liberals attacked a conservative, but not all liberals did, when the subject matter was not political.

 

[random3434]

Paperview has also thrown around that dirty word, conservative.
It may have been in frustration, but it was still used.

Is she attacking others for doing their civic duty? No, she just is pointing out that the Conservatives on this thread are the ONLY ones attacking her.

Some yes, but not most.
That street goes both ways, sis.
I've seen threads where only liberals attacked a conservative, but not all liberals did, when the subject matter was not political.

But I'm talking about this thread. It's just disappointing to say the least that some people stoop to this.