A terrible injustice.

#1
gsvol

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
10
#1
8916246_BG5.jpg



Ravaugn Harris acquitted on all counts.


murder.jpg


How far can this country be from anarchy when a man can supply a gun for a robbery, participate in the planning, drive the getaway car after an execution style double murder, wash the blood from the murders out of the car afterwards, lie to police about where you picked up the robbers, deny everything except what the police could irrefutably prove and not be convicted of any crime??????
 
#2
#2
This sucks. I knew both of them through some friends. They were very friendly and had family and friends that loved them very much. It's sad stuff.
 
#3
#3
Voodoomonkey said:
This sucks. I knew both of them through some friends. They were very friendly and had family and friends that loved them very much. It's sad stuff.
Click to expand...

For once at least we are on the same page.

You don't think the perps may have been doing a little jihad job??

A lot of men have gotten a lot more time for doing far less than Harris, where's the justice??

If the jury was really convinced he was telling the truth then I hope they nominated him for the "dumbest college student in America" award.
 
#6
#6
try reading some of the stories in Charlotte, NC about multiple-felony offenders being let go with time served or have their cases plead down to misdemeanors only to have them go out and murder somebody.

the DA's office there is severely understaffed and underfunded and Charlotte has become a hotspot for MS-13 activity.
 
#7
#7
Have any of you guys seen 'The Wire'? I honestly think its one of the best things that has ever been on TV. Full of murderers, drug dealers, and other assorted scum...yet most of them are a product of the **** they've been born into. For me the worst character by far is Eugene Levy, the lawyer. An educated man who chooses to take money for keeping murders out of jail. He really makes my skin crawl.
 
#8
#8
forget The Wire - this is one of those cases that needs a Dexter-like individual to step in and dispense justice.
 
#12
#12
boondocksaints.jpg


Now you will receive us. We do not ask for your poor or your hungry. We do not want your tired and sick. It is your corrupt we claim. It is your evil that will be sought by us.
With every breath, we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood til it rains down from the skies. Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain. But if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three and on that day you will reap it. And we will send you to which ever god you wish...

that sums it up
 
#13
#13
In a lot of cases the jurors don't get to see the majority of the evidence because of motions and supression hearings. The "prejudicial" evidence is tossed by some arbitrary weights and balances that varies from judge to judge and then again by appeals judges who never see the carnage that victim's suffer.

Examples:

Murder trial photos of victim, supressed. Reason, too prejudicial because there was too much blood. The defense was allowed to show a picture of the victim's booking photo for some unrelated heinous possession charge.

Rape of a Child: previous bad acts not allowed because they were prejudicial. Note: previous bad acts were with same child and happened days before the rape.

I could go on, but you get the picture.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
tim said:
In a lot of cases the jurors don't get to see the majority of the evidence because of motions and supression hearings. The "prejudicial" evidence is tossed by some arbitrary weights and balances that varies from judge to judge and then again by appeals judges who never see the carnage that victim's suffer.

Examples:

Murder trial photos of victim, supressed. Reason, too prejudicial because there was too much blood. The defense was allowed to show a picture of the victim's booking photo for some unrelated heinous possession charge.

Rape of a Child: previous bad acts not allowed because they were prejudicial. Note: previous bad acts were with same child and happened days before the rape.

I could go on, but you get the picture.
Click to expand...

How can the jury make an accurate judgement when they don't get to see all the evidence?

Is it just me, or does the entire judicial system in the country seem :censored:-ed up??
 
#15
#15
Shursh said:
How can the jury make an accurate judgement when they don't get to see all the evidence?

Is it just me, or does the entire judicial system in the country seem :censored:-ed up??
Click to expand...

its not just you, i agree as well.

how can dante stallworth kill someone while hammered, and only get 30 days, yet plaxico buress gets 2 years for shooting himself in the leg
 
#16
#16
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
its not just you, i agree as well.

how can dante stallworth kill someone while hammered, and only get 30 days, yet plaxico buress gets 2 years for shooting himself in the leg
Click to expand...

If people were more educated about the judicial system they'd be going crazy. When you and I watch these cases on Court TV there is so much that you don't get to see or know about because of reasons posted above. I encourage anyone with free time to go to their local circuit/criminal court and sit through motion/supression hearings and then sit through a trial related to the same motion/supression hearing. Basically the defense argues to keep evidence from being heard and if successful the jury will never know about it. The juries are hamstrung and often not exposed to the whole truth.

I can give you a hint if you are ever a juror. If you see or hear a tape that has been redacted/edited you can bet your bottom the redacted/edited part of the tape included something deemed too prejudicial for your ears. Basically lawyers don't believe that citizens can hear/see everything and make an unbiased decision.

Don't even get me started on appeals judges/courts.
 
#17
#17
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
its not just you, i agree as well.

how can dante stallworth kill someone while hammered, and only get 30 days, yet plaxico buress gets 2 years for shooting himself in the leg
Click to expand...

First of all, those are two separate circumstances in two different states.
Secondly, Donte Stallworth only getting 28 days in jail, or whatever it was, had a lot to do with the family of the victim not pursuing the case further because they got paid. And also, the dude that got hit was breaking the law himself when killed. Now don't get me wrong, Stallworth should not have gotten off so easily. The point is, it's just not as simple as comparing those two very different cases.
 
#18
#18
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.

These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain. But if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three and on that day you will reap it. And we will send you to which ever god you wish...

that sums it up
Click to expand...

Yep, that pretty well sums it up. Good math.

Shursh said:
How can the jury make an accurate judgement when they don't get to see all the evidence?
QUOTE]


Nor how can the average voter make an itelligent choice when he is constantly bombarded with slanted propaganda???
Click to expand...
 
#20
#20
tim said:
If people were more educated about the judicial system they'd be going crazy. When you and I watch these cases on Court TV there is so much that you don't get to see or know about because of reasons posted above. I encourage anyone with free time to go to their local circuit/criminal court and sit through motion/supression hearings and then sit through a trial related to the same motion/supression hearing. Basically the defense argues to keep evidence from being heard and if successful the jury will never know about it. The juries are hamstrung and often not exposed to the whole truth.

I can give you a hint if you are ever a juror. If you see or hear a tape that has been redacted/edited you can bet your bottom the redacted/edited part of the tape included something deemed too prejudicial for your ears. Basically lawyers don't believe that citizens can hear/see everything and make an unbiased decision.

Don't even get me started on appeals judges/courts.
Click to expand...

What's the point in even having a trial? You're gathering a group of people, showing them half the story (that's been edited, no less), and then expect them to make an accurate judgement - one that apparently can be appealed X number of times.

Where do these lawyers get off thinking the jury shouldn't be exposed to all the evidence? God forbid they actually know the details of the case!

I am really disappointed in this country's judicial system.
 
#21
#21
Shursh said:
What's the point in even having a trial? You're gathering a group of people, showing them half the story (that's been edited, no less), and then expect them to make an accurate judgement - one that apparently can be appealed X number of times.

Where do these lawyers get off thinking the jury shouldn't be exposed to all the evidence? God forbid they actually know the details of the case!

I am really disappointed in this country's judicial system.
Click to expand...

I can't explain it. I'm not a lawyer and I have common sense. If you have a hard time understanding it try explaining it to a victim or a surviving relative of a victim who sees and hears what is said in court and for some reason evidence is not shown or spoken of that the victim or surviving relative knows exists. Even worse, get the victim or relative on the stand and tell them that they can't speak about a crucial piece of evidence. And if they do, it is grounds for a mistrial.

Basically criminals have more rights than victims. And it's all in the name of fairness.

Another interesting note that I've learned in 20 years of being around this hogwash is that after the trial all the lawyers and judges (in a jurisdiction) usually belong to the same Bar Association so even though it is supposed to be an adversarial system they all drink from the same pond. Thus, when Bubba (A) needs/wants a favor, Bubba (B) is inclined to grant it. Not always, but it happens. These are all things that happen behind the scenes during pre-trial/ex-parte hearings or plea-bargains.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top