[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

The point is that a bunch of child molester-sympathizers/murderer-sympathizers want to give this guy a THIRD chance to get out and rape and molest and bury alive another little girl...the guy's trial is being moved so that he has a better chance of getting off or being acquitted so that he can walk and do it again.

Like Millenium said, does he deserve it, no, should he get it, yes.

[Mark Larr]

I can guarantee, if he is executed, he damn sure won't be a repeat offender.


The judges and juries should be held responsible when a multi-repeat sexual predator is released and it goes and does it yet again.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

The point is that a bunch of child molester-sympathizers/murderer-sympathizers want to give this guy a THIRD chance to get out and rape and molest and bury alive another little girl...the guy's trial is being moved so that he has a better chance of getting off or being acquitted so that he can walk and do it again.

Unfortunately I don't think they would pick you for the jury.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

The judges and juries should be held responsible when a multi-repeat sexual predator is released and it goes and does it yet again.

I seem to remember Sky Captain saying the same thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Unfortunately I don't think they would pick you for the jury.

They probably wouldn't pick me or Cody for the jury, but I'd volunteer to be the executioner. Hell, I'd bring my own gun and even pay for the bullet.

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I seem to remember Sky Captain saying the same thing.

He has VERY good reason for feeling that way. Try first hand experience with incompetant judges and prosecuters that end in the death of a family member and a technicality enables them to walk yet again.

I also think that the DA should be held accountable for railroading an innocent person.

[Dakar²]

Well, I understand the reasoning behind it, but you're basically hamstringing the system if you do that.

[Mark Larr]

How about the system wil make damn sure they do the job right.

[Dakar²]

Not if there's no one left who wants to take on that kind of responsibility.

Getting thrown in jail (or worse) because you made a mistake in judgement about someone you don't know doesn't sound very appetizing.

[Mark Larr]

When you've got someone dead to rights, ie: video of the murder, then a jury stupid enough to let someone out ever is too dangerous to be allowed their own freedom.

Here's a perfect example of previous judicial sympathy for predators, now they get the idea after it's too late.

Dungeon rape suspect in court - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

State Attorney General Henry McMaster told a judge Thursday that his office plans to seek life without parole for Hinson because he was convicted in 1991 of raping a 12-year-old girl.

Earlier sentence
Hinson served slightly more than nine years in prison in the previous case and was released after Circuit Judge Edward Cottingham rejected prosecutors’ pleas that he be committed indefinitely.

Cottingham presided over the preliminary hearing Thursday.

[Dakar²]

Actually, it looks like the judge made call and got burned.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

They probably wouldn't pick me or Cody for the jury, but I'd volunteer to be the executioner. Hell, I'd bring my own gun and even pay for the bullet.

That says a lot about what kind of sick human being you are!

A child molester and a murderer are worse - you come next!
Have fun burning in hell if you are ever lucky enough to execute someone!

[Cody Dawg]

You're admitting you believe in hell?

How droll.



Also, I'm fully capable of giving all of the "right" answers to get picked for a jury...just to make sure that sick bastards like Couey get what they deserve: DEATH.

[abbaZaba]

the bottom line is none of you/us are familiar with the legal system. as stated before, the trial could be moving as to assure there is no doubt of the taintedness of the jury. stop assuming it's moving because there is a conspiracy to get the guy off. open your mind and actually THINK OF OTHER VERY VALID possibilities.

the fact that you accused them of trying to move the trial to miami in hopes that NO ONE in the jury would be able to understand english is absolutely retarded. it just shows how biased and racist you are.

since the case seems to be fairly solid, I'm sure just showing pictures of what happened and getting the video in court will be sufficient for a conviction even if the entire prosecution spoke another language.

would you prefer your quick way of executing a seemingly guilty person, without making any attempt to determine their guilt? is executing or imprisoning an innocent person worth it as long as people like this guy, who look pretty guilty, are so hastily judged, like you wish?

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I'm curious why you post these articles for discussion when you don't seem to be interested in any conclusion other than your own.

why indeed.

no more personal attacks. that applies to the lot of you. if you can't have a discussion with those with opposing views without accusing them of coddling child molesters, or calling them names, you don't deserve to post in here. this kind of nonsense has gone on for far too long in here. mass bannings are next.

[maxelson]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In a court of law. In a trial of one's peers.
Anyone who says differently is a defender of terrorism, a mocker of America and the flag, a lover of Bin Laden, a supporter of fascism and a hater of freedom loving peoples everywhere.

Back to your training in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan, pre-convictors.


Glad to see some things remain static. NIce to now there really are some things one can count on. Like bourgeois hypocrisy.


edited to remove any semblance of personal ad honinems. Because they are silly.
And knee jerking.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by maxelson 

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In a court of law. In a trial of one's peers.
Anyone who says differently is a defender of terrorism, a mocker of America and the flag, a lover of Bin Laden, a supporter of fascism and a hater of freedom loving peoples everywhere.

Back to your training in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan, pre-convictors.


Glad to see some things remain static. NIce to now there really are some things one can count on. Like bourgeois hypocrisy.


edited to remove any semblance of personal ad honinems. Because they are silly.
And knee jerking.

Welcome back, you.

Have sharp knives. Cook to music.

[maxelson]

Reminds me. I'm hungry.
How's it going, V? How's that political career of yours? We could use some thinkers like you about now. I don't care WHAT party.


oooo. watching those Tigers choke.
C'mon. I ain't ready for the end of the season yet!

[Cody Dawg]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In a court of law. In a trial of one's peers.

Yes, that's true.

This is a white English-speaking man who lives up in a very rural area of northern Florida, a "Florida cracker" (a Florida redneck) and they are moving him down to Miami so that a "jury of his peers" will be comprised of primarily Spanish-speaking hispanics who live in a large city.





Makes sense, right?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

Yes, that's true.

This is a white English-speaking man who lives up in a very rural area of northern Florida, a "Florida cracker" (a Florida redneck) and they are moving him down to Miami so that a "jury of his peers" will be comprised of primarily Spanish-speaking hispanics who live in a large city.





Makes sense, right?

I'l make a note to watch out for those 'spanish-speaking hispanics who live in a large city' next time I'm in the states, clearly not a group to be trusted!

Keep digging

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

Yes, that's true.

This is a white English-speaking man who lives up in a very rural area of northern Florida, a "Florida cracker" (a Florida redneck) and they are moving him down to Miami so that a "jury of his peers" will be comprised of primarily Spanish-speaking hispanics who live in a large city.





Makes sense, right?

Cody,

Jury of one's peers does not mean that the white English-speaking man with the rural residence can only be judged by white English-speaking men from rural residences.

How can this be?

In this modern diversity-outreach world of ours, he needs to be judged by adults. That's really it. This is true, because in America, we are all equals.

Now, Patrick Henry said a few centuries ago:

"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well aquainted with his character and situation in life." Patrick Henry, (Elliont,The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 3:579).

In 1910, Black's Law Dictionary defined it as people of "equals in station and rank." (Black's Law Dictionary, 1910) - I haven't got the energy to go to the bookshelf and get my 1969 edition of Black's down and look up the changed definition, and even that might be too old by now.

What's important here is that the US Constitution makes no specific guarantee to a right of trial by jury of peers- See, Patrick Henry is talking about the rights of England, where a Lord would never stand on a jury of a servant. In America, we're meant to be all equal.

In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed.

That's not to say that some state couldn't exercise state's righs and enact a "jury of one's peers" requirement and define it as Patrick Henry tells us it was defined under the bill of rights in England, but I think it would fly in the face of the American ideal that we are all equal.

That the phrase gets bandied about is simple redundancy, and near-meaningless.

[Cody Dawg]

What's important here is that the US Constitution makes no specific guarantee to a right of trial by jury of peers.

That's exactly my point.

THE TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOVED.

[analogika]

Because the Jury in Miami will obviously be a bunch of Hispanics. Ah.

How is this a problem for you? Please explain.

[Cody Dawg]

It's not.

They shouldn't have moved the trial.

I'm just saying that the term "peer" is outdated and ridiculous and that with the scope and breadth of media coverage these days (including Miami Herald's Spanish edition El Herald) there is no way that this guy, Couey, is going to "escape" the fact that everyone, at least in Florida, knows what he did.

[analogika]

Maybe they're assuming that people who aren't actually personally connected with somebody actually involved in the case aren't as likely to be chomping the bit as you are.

[Cody Dawg]

So that people like you can let him off to molest, rape, and murder again?

Why not write to the guy and profess your undying devotion to him?

[analogika]

I'm sorry, but asinine accusations against other forum members are only allowed once per thread.

You've already proven yourself a complete **** bitch on the first page and were appropriately bitchslapped for it; no need to hit that rut again.

Insert coin to continue_ _ _

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

It's not.

They shouldn't have moved the trial.

I'm just saying that the term "peer" is outdated and ridiculous and that with the scope and breadth of media coverage these days (including Miami Herald's Spanish edition El Herald) there is no way that this guy, Couey, is going to "escape" the fact that everyone, at least in Florida, knows what he did.

Correction: knows that with which he has been charged.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

So that people like you can let him off to molest, rape, and murder again?

Why not write to the guy and profess your undying devotion to him?

Seems like you assume the guilt of anyone who disagrees with your ideologies. I use the term "ideologies" because it seems to me that you don't indict with the same fervor if the alleged perp is someone with whom you sympathize. I'll give the example of, oh, say, Scooter Libby. Bob Ney? All of K Street?

All I'm saying, Cody, is that you profess such staunch patriotism and support for our country's established systems- at least in spirit- and our legal system is part of that setup. You seem less than balanced here.
It smacks of hypocrisy.

Well, that's enough for me. The hedgehog has seen his shadow and must now burro back into his mudhole.

Back to your regularly scheduled slinging.

[turtle777]

My gosh, maxelson is back for a rare guest appearance ? How have you been ?

-t

[Cody Dawg]

Scooter Libby?



Scooter Libby was in prison before for molesting and raping little kids, got out because of idiots who think that child molesters are capable of rehabilitation and "deserve" the benefit of the system, and DID IT AGAIN - ONLY MURDERED A LITTLE GIRL?



Get a clue and take a logic class and learn to compare apples to apples and let's talk, er, argue.

[Nicko]

!. Cody doesn't like bad man.

2. Cody complain about bad man on macnn.

3. ???

4. Profit!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by maxelson 

Correction: knows that with which he has been charged.

My dear friend,

You and I both know that for many it matters little the degree of guilt or innocence, but instead the weight is placed on the seriousness of the charge.

I am eating a stuffed pepper at this moment. mmmmmmmmm....

[Cody Dawg]

Everyone here has made some great points (vmarks) and I am listening to them and some of them are tweaking my tiny brain.

I agree that the guy deserves a trial.

A fair trial.

I just thinking moving it to various places around the state is a waste of time and unwarranted and a waste of taxpayers' monies, that's all.

Now, if only I had a stuffed pepper!



(I'm eating hot pepper stuffed green olives right now oddly enough...)

[Mark Larr]

We had a cop blatantly shoot a kid in the face and he died many hours later.

This happened in my neighborhood. We ALL knew he was a freaking cowboy with a chip on his shoulder, but yet the sherrif promoted him to captain over the years.

He didn't like the teen and pulled him over in our neighborhood and stuck his glock to his face through the open window of the truck and it went off, blowing the kid's uper maxilla out, his right eye and upper mandable just under his ear.
The kid didn't try to run, he pulled over and this trash with a badge kills him while terrorfying him.

Well, he panics and goes to the trunk of his cruiser and puts a knife in the dying kid's hand and then calls for backup. Mind you he never calls for medical help and we are starting to hear the commotion and come out. He takes the video tape out of the player of his cruiser and hands it to the backup and she drives off.

We called the medics and they get there in about a minute or two and they discover the boy is still alive.

Anyways he was put on desk duty until a "thorough investigation" could be made.

NONE of us were allowed to speak at the hearings and they moved his "trial" two counties north.

He was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of derelection of duty for not folowing procedure for not calling the paramedics. The knife issue was thrown out and the video tape was thrown out because there was "opportunity for tampering".

So a child murderer cop walks because he wasn't tried by those who know the truth, but those who were convinced by the best lie.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by badidea 

That says a lot about what kind of sick human being you are!

A child molester and a murderer are worse - you come next!
Have fun burning in hell if you are ever lucky enough to execute someone!

Someone has to clean up your mess, the gods know the Left has no idea how to handle the justice system.

I'd be more than happy to cap all the child molesters and serial killers. Line em up and give me an M60.

[christ]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Someone has to clean up your mess, the gods know the Left has no idea how to handle the justice system.

I'd be more than happy to cap all the child molesters and serial killers. Line em up and give me an M60.

Before or after they have been proven guilty?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by christ 

Before or after they have been proven guilty?

After due process, of course.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Someone has to clean up your mess, the gods know the has no idea how to handle the justice system.

I'd be more than happy to cap all the child molesters and serial killers. Line em up and give me an M60.

North-Korea would be happy to welcome you!

btw, if there would be any gods then they would never agree with you - you are not the one who is entitled to do their job!

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by badidea 

North-Korea would be happy to welcome you!

btw, if there would be any gods then they would never agree with you - you are not the one who is entitled to do their job!

Speculation, prove it.


I can guarantee if you execute a sexual child predator, he won't be a repeat offender.


Couey needs to be done immediately.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

Couey needs to be done immediately.

Even Mr Stein agrees that due process is necessary.

You deserve what you would do to others.

[Mark Larr]

snip

[christ]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

Your children deserve an all expense paid vacation with Couey.

Why?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by badidea 

North-Korea would be happy to welcome you!

btw, if there would be any gods then they would never agree with you - you are not the one who is entitled to do their job!

Of course they would, and I already do their job... on many levels.

Just line the rapists and serial killers up, and I'll mow `em down baby! Wrath/hand of God style.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

Your children deserve an all expense paid vacation with Couey.

Wow, that wasn't needed.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Someone has to clean up your mess, the gods know the Right has no idea how the justice system works.

Better.™

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

Your children deserve an all expense paid vacation with Couey.

Who is this asshole, and who let him out? Cody's husband?

Please note that this is not a personal attack: This person has, with his above post, objectively proven himself beyond doubt to be an asshole.

Fact, not insult.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg 

So that people like you can let him off to molest, rape, and murder again?
Why not write to the guy and profess your undying devotion to him?

Cody, WTF ?

Reported.

-t

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Now, Patrick Henry said a few centuries ago:

"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well aquainted with his character and situation in life." Patrick Henry, (Elliont,The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 3:579).

Here, however, we run into a problem. Patrick Henry seems to be talking about people who actually know the defendant, but it's almost impossible to be truly impartial about someone you know. Whether your feelings are positive or negative, they will affect judgment. This isn't a crime, nor should it be -you can't help that sort of thing- but it does mean that people who don't know the defendant make better jurors than people who do, if impartiality is the main goal.

In high-profile cases like this, therefore, the concepts of a local trial and an impartial jury are in direct conflict: you aren't going to be able to find any impartial jurors who are also local to the scene of the crime. When that happens, you have no choice but to set priorities. Which is more important: that the trial be local or that the jury be impartial? That might change according to the geopolitical situation, but at the current time I'd suggest that an impartial jury is more important.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Here, however, we run into a problem. Patrick Henry seems to be talking about people who actually know the defendant, but it's almost impossible to be truly impartial about someone you know. Whether your feelings are positive or negative, they will affect judgment. This isn't a crime, nor should it be -you can't help that sort of thing- but it does mean that people who don't know the defendant make better jurors than people who do, if impartiality is the main goal.

In high-profile cases like this, therefore, the concepts of a local trial and an impartial jury are in direct conflict: you aren't going to be able to find any impartial jurors who are also local to the scene of the crime. When that happens, you have no choice but to set priorities. Which is more important: that the trial be local or that the jury be impartial? That might change according to the geopolitical situation, but at the current time I'd suggest that an impartial jury is more important.

Which is why I pointed out that Patrick Henry was talking about England, not America, and showed how in America we are all equal in the eyes of the law, not as in England where Lords did not stand jury for servants. In America a local jury is just as equal as a distant one to everyone but the lawyers.