|
|
#21
04-23-2007, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, so? Isn't it possible that the man is actually innocent and that the prosecution had a weak case based on not much more than the accused's criminal history? [/ QUOTE ] yeah its possible, but come on. The guy is already a convicted pedophile, hes got an underground bunker he keeps drugs in and hes having sex with 17 year old girls, I mean lets just play the odds here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] lul I hope ur kidding 
|
|
#22
04-23-2007, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
Uhh...maybe they might want to charge him for having an underground bunker full of mary jane as a fall back option [/ QUOTE ] Probably a good idea.
|
|
#23
04-23-2007, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Wow, i hope you are all being sarcastic. There is a high chance the dude didnt do it. The reason they dont mention prior convictions is because it prejudices the jury, just like it has prejudiced you. 12 men and woman, good and true, listened to ALL the evidence and came back not guilty. How can you possibly judge when you have listened to litterally none of the evidence? [/ QUOTE ] They didn't necessarily listen to all the evidence. Prior sex crimes convictions are huge. Come on, he's a convicted pedo with a big underground room. WTF do you think he's doing down there? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, a "big underground room." What would you call one of those anyway? Someone should think of a name for them, and then put them in every suburban house in the country. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Authorities had charged that Hinson snatched the 17-year-old girls from their bedroom last year and dragged them one at a time to the underground room hidden beneath a tool shed, [/ QUOTE ] Tool sheds don't have basements. Nor do mobile homes. Hell, neither of those buildings even have foundations.
|
|
#24
04-23-2007, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
Come on, he's a convicted pedo with a big underground room. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The room was just 4 1/2 feet deep and roughly the length and width of a midsize car. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#26
04-23-2007, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, so? Isn't it possible that the man is actually innocent and that the prosecution had a weak case based on not much more than the accused's criminal history? [/ QUOTE ] yeah its possible, but come on. The guy is already a convicted pedophile, hes got an underground bunker he keeps drugs in and hes having sex with 17 year old girls, I mean lets just play the odds here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Three strikes. Besides he should still be locked up for the 91 molestation. [censored] drug laws filling up prisons lets the real trash like him out. 15 years for what he did is just wrong. J
|
|
#27
04-23-2007, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Wow, i hope you are all being sarcastic. There is a high chance the dude didnt do it. The reason they dont mention prior convictions is because it prejudices the jury, just like it has prejudiced you. 12 men and woman, good and true, listened to ALL the evidence and came back not guilty. How can you possibly judge when you have listened to litterally none of the evidence? [/ QUOTE ] They didn't necessarily listen to all the evidence. Prior sex crimes convictions are huge. Come on, he's a convicted pedo with a big underground room. WTF do you think he's doing down there? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, a "big underground room." What would you call one of those anyway? Someone should think of a name for them, and then put them in every suburban house in the country. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Authorities had charged that Hinson snatched the 17-year-old girls from their bedroom last year and dragged them one at a time to the underground room hidden beneath a tool shed, [/ QUOTE ] Tool sheds don't have basements. Nor do mobile homes. Hell, neither of those buildings even have foundations. [/ QUOTE ] What I'm saying is that an underground room is not a de factor rape chamber.
|
|
#28
04-23-2007, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
Why isnt raping a 12 year old life without parole?
|
|
#29
04-23-2007, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[censored] rednecks, holy [censored].
|
|
#30
04-23-2007, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now THAT\'S a defense attorney (aka, \"How was this shmuck not guilt
[ QUOTE ]
12 men and woman, good and true [/ QUOTE ] Where the eff did Phill come from? You have to be some sort of troll, right? Guess who sits on juries? Anyone that's not a criminal. Maybe its my own misanthropic bias, but if you pull a random non-criminal off the street, just about the last words I'd use to describe him or her would be "good and true." Christ, even typing, "These jurors, all good and true," makes me feel like a pompous ass. Dealing with the shortcomings of juries is one of the costs of our justice system. That's something I'm willing to accept, just as I'm willing to accept that sometimes actual perps will go free because they take advantage of the same rules that protect innocent people. But let's not pretend that every jury member is pure-hearted and perfect within the context of the case they hear. Seriously, typing, "The jurors, all good and true" sounds like something an assface Memphis prosecutor would say in a Grisham novel.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
