Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
avoiding injuries

Jussie Smollett (Empire) claims he was assaulted by MAGA guys.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, wiffleball said:

It's the OJ factor. Seriously, years later they interviewed a lot of OJ jurors. Most of them, the black ones knew full well that OJ was guilty as sin. But they figured this was a 'win' for 'their' side.

Correct.  If I were committing crimes and being held accountable for my actions all the time, but got away with one, I might celebrate that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wiffleball said:

It's the OJ factor. Seriously, years later they interviewed a lot of OJ jurors. Most of them, the black ones knew full well that OJ was guilty as sin. But they figured this was a 'win' for 'their' side.

I gotta say, I was convinced he was guilty as sin, but I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was.  In good conscience, I'd have voted not guilty as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I gotta say, I was convinced he was guilty as sin, but I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was.  In good conscience, I'd have voted not guilty as well.

Sounds like someone fell for the Chewbacca defense

Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DonS said:

Sounds like someone fell for the Chewbacca defense

 

 

 

LOL.  It actually had nothing to do with the defense, it was the prosecutions piss poor case/arguments.  Clarke did her job very poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I gotta say, I was convinced he was guilty as sin, but I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was.  In good conscience, I'd have voted not guilty as well.

I gotta say, from my experience, most people don't know WTF "reasonable doubt" actually means. And Prosecutors do a SHIIT job of explaining it right before adjourning for deliberations. 

I was foreman on an open/shut child molest case and this stupid fat black 22 y.o. nitwit (when she wasn't focking around on ther phone) clearly had no clue. It boiled down to "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN"

So then, after about 4 votes, I had to explain for the next 20 minutes the concept of 'reasonable - and how its FAR different from ABSOLUTE.  "Well, you're right Shonisha, there IS a  possibility that an alien flew down and implanted those very specific memories in that 7 year old girl's head because the defendant is actually the Last Starfighter who can defeat them, but...."  

I know we're getting off track, but it's 25 pages at this point: Just further proof that the Amurican public is too stupid for Modern American Jurisprudence. The 'jury of peers' thing is great when the crime is stealing Lady Jacob's pie cooling on the window ledge, but..

Not that a jury has been empanneled, but it sort of has. These same nitwits are now on Twitter - "Weren't THERE! We don't know! Leave purr Jussie ALONE!"  - And the others who are rooting for Jussie - simply BC they hate the cops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

 "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN" 

Okay, that was funny.

Perhaps that is the reasoning behind Omar's statements about 9/11? (we wa'nt thurr on the plane)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I gotta say, from my experience, most people don't know WTF "reasonable doubt" actually means. And Prosecutors do a SHIIT job of explaining it right before adjourning for deliberations. 

I was foreman on an open/shut child molest case and this stupid fat black 22 y.o. nitwit (when she wasn't focking around on ther phone) clearly had no clue. It boiled down to "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN"

So then, after about 4 votes, I had to explain for the next 20 minutes the concept of 'reasonable - and how its FAR different from ABSOLUTE.  "Well, you're right Shonisha, there IS a  possibility that an alien flew down and implanted those very specific memories in that 7 year old girl's head because the defendant is actually the Last Starfighter who can defeat them, but...."  

I know we're getting off track, but it's 25 pages at this point: Just further proof that the Amurican public is too stupid for Modern American Jurisprudence. The 'jury of peers' thing is great when the crime is stealing Lady Jacob's pie cooling on the window ledge, but..

Not that a jury has been empanneled, but it sort of has. These same nitwits are now on Twitter - "Weren't THERE! We don't know! Leave purr Jussie ALONE!"  - And the others who are rooting for Jussie - simply BC they hate the cops. 

Correct.  Beyond reasonable doubt doesnt equal beyond all doubt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, peenie said:

Okay, that was funny.

Perhaps that is the reasoning behind Omar's statements about 9/11? (we wa'nt thurr on the plane)

LOL. That's really all I ask. For the NEXT 9/11?  Just let us vote who gets a ticket on the planes. I'd put her in the very back - just for that Nano-Second when she sees the rest of the plane in front of her.... .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I gotta say, from my experience, most people don't know WTF "reasonable doubt" actually means. And Prosecutors do a SHIIT job of explaining it right before adjourning for deliberations. 

I was foreman on an open/shut child molest case and this stupid fat black 22 y.o. nitwit (when she wasn't focking around on ther phone) clearly had no clue. It boiled down to "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN"

So then, after about 4 votes, I had to explain for the next 20 minutes the concept of 'reasonable - and how its FAR different from ABSOLUTE.  "Well, you're right Shonisha, there IS a  possibility that an alien flew down and implanted those very specific memories in that 7 year old girl's head because the defendant is actually the Last Starfighter who can defeat them, but...."  

I know we're getting off track, but it's 25 pages at this point: Just further proof that the Amurican public is too stupid for Modern American Jurisprudence. The 'jury of peers' thing is great when the crime is stealing Lady Jacob's pie cooling on the window ledge, but..

Not that a jury has been empanneled, but it sort of has. These same nitwits are now on Twitter - "Weren't THERE! We don't know! Leave purr Jussie ALONE!"  - And the others who are rooting for Jussie - simply BC they hate the cops. 

Oh, I agree with you, but the prosecution's case had so many holes and there was too much of "just take our word for it", for me to side with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh, I agree with you, but the prosecution's case had so many holes and there was too much of "just take our word for it", for me to side with them.

Agreed. And Furman was no prize either. 

In the end, Kato Kaelin may have been the smartest guy in the room. 

 

Also - Without this trial, the Kardashians arguably never would have become a thing. 

GD, another reason to hate OJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

LOL. That's really all I ask. For the NEXT 9/11?  Just let us vote who gets a ticket on the planes. I'd put her in the very back - just for that Nano-Second when she sees the rest of the plane in front of her.... .

Nah, let that tw@t fly first class. Don't take the chance that the back of the plane somehow survives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×