- - - Updated - - - Use some common sense and recognize an all female jury was by design and no accident.
If you had said Iranian money instead of Zionist money, you may have had more credibility than the minus zero credibility you have now.
Except when it comes to their wombs ... then conservative men have to intervene like (false) prophets
If any jury was not by design, the first 12 people called would be immediately sworn in. Does that tell you anything?
Shouldn't a thread about a rigged jury contain some sort of argument or evidence that a jury was rigged? "I didn't get the verdict I had wanted before the trial even took place, therefore the jury was rigged" is not an argument. If this is an argument, why bother having trials?
- - - Updated - - - You must be posting that non-sense from another planet. Iranian money is not behind the federal reserve banking scam that has looted every part American Government, robbed the people of their savings, homes, jobs, and persions it's the Zionist.
Liberals do love choice. Except when it comes to trans fats, Except when it comes to 64 oz sodas, Except when it comes to setting your thermostat at 74 in the winter. Except when it comes to cigarettes Except when it comes to alcoholic energy drinks. Except when it comes to right to work Except when it comes to SUV's. Except when it comes to light bulbs. Except when it comes to wages And especially except when it comes to race baiting. When it comes to race baiting any event that can be pigeonholed into a conflict between races must be taken advantage of for political gain.
dude, again you show your ignorance of the event of jury selection. Both sides select a jury. you just don't walk in to a court room to be a member of the jury. Are you stating, for the record, the prosecutor tossed the case? There were 6 women, all parents.............that would be the best kind of jury to get a conviction. Could it be that the jurors didn't believe the emotional ranting and beating of chest to be factual evidence? Go buy the book and come back after you've read it.
Sure, if the law calls for 12 people twelve people should be appointed. It's absurd think 12 adequate people cannot be found, and that the jury selection process is not misused. An open transcript as to why certain people are chosen and denied will go a long way in telling the real story in judicial matters. Uniform standard in the select process would tend to take away the secrecy and ambiguity corruption relies on.
Actually the law calls for 12 people in capital cases and 6 in all other cases. This was not a capital case, so it was only 6.
Both the prosecution and defense pick the jury. I bet the prosecution could not have picked better witnesses for the defense though.
So 17 year olds never die unless someone kills them intentionally? You are silly. He was killed because he viciously attacked somebody. The jury got it exactly right!
Do you think the prosecution forgot to mention this "fact"? What does this have to do with the jury being "rigged'?
Was the intial article posted that far over your head, Maybe you will get it if stated another way. Why were men excluded from being part of a jury where a serious conflict between two men (one under eighteen) took place?
Read about how juries are chosen and the legal meaning of jury of your peers. You have it completely wrong so far.
Ahh, the problem is that we don't "get it." You're obviously operating way over our heads. Can't you answer your own question? Of course you can. Why ask people so beneath you? This is a classic example of this phenomenon outlined in the conspiracy theorist's are "sane" thread. Or in this case, "Why no men?" = a rigged jury.
