My Take: Uninformed juries produce incorrect outcomes

[Coyote]

Wow....nothing in that post is accurate or truthful...but thanks....

Proud Boys.......they are not a racist group......I feel that has to be pointed out at every opportunity since you idiots keep calling them racists....

And the officer who shot and killed Ashley Babbit should have been tried for manslaughter....she was unarmed...and likely given no warning...

Kyle wasn't a "Vigilante," he did not seek out the 4 convicted felons for arrest or punishment...while he was attempting to put out a dumpster that was set on fire....he was violently attacked by the first felon, and then the other felons used that defensive shooting to attack him.....

What part of that, you dumb ass.....equal a vigilante?

We will await your non-response...

Thanks for not reading my post

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If the judge believed there was a mistrial, he should have declared it before the jury started deliberations.

There was no basis for a mistrial 'with prejudice'. That was a wingnut fantasy.

If what you said is true, then waiting until after the jury reached its verdict to decided whether or not to declare a mistrial shows the judge was absolutely partial.

You are quite wrong. Violation of an accused Constitutional rights can be used as a basis for a mistrial with no further opportunity to retry because of the damage done.

 

[2aguy]

You are quite wrong. Violation of an accused Constitutional rights can be used as a basis for a mistrial with no further opportunity to retry because of the damage done.

See...the problem is...that idiot doesn't recognize the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.....the accused has no Rights in his view, so a mistrial based on the violation of the Bill of Rights doesn't compute........

The accused is guilty, all they want to do is decide how much they want to punish the individual.....