"We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet ... I guess that has to be me.”

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:18 am

A website surfaced Saturday featuring a racist and rambling manifesto and dozens of photos of accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof posing with white supremacy symbols and the Confederate flag.

Roof, 21, remains jailed on nine counts of murder for allegedly opening fire in the historically African-American Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Wednesday.

Who authored the manifesto or posted the images has yet been confirmed. But through online registration records, Yahoo News confirmed the website’s domain, lastrhodesian.com, was created by a Dylann Roof of Eastover, S.C. on Feb. 9. The street address used is the same Roof has given authorities since he was captured in Shelby, N.C. on Thursday. On Feb. 10, the registration information was purposely obscured.

In a written statement issued Saturday evening, Charleston police said they and the FBI had become aware of the site and are “taking steps to verify the authenticity of these postings,” but declined to release further details.

The webpage traces its author’s path toward strong beliefs in white supremacy and the race debate ignited after the shooting of black teen Trayvon Martin as a moment of racial "awakening." The text ends with the author's statement that it's time to take the beliefs expressed, “to the real world."

http://news.yahoo.com/suspected-killer-dylann-roof-s-racist-manifesto-surfaces-154324556.html

by @lex Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:19 am

From the Roof Family's Statement:

"We have all been touched by the moving words from the victims' families offering God's forgiveness and love in the face of such horrible suffering."

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:09 pm

The webpage traces its author’s path toward strong beliefs in white supremacy and the race debate ignited after the shooting of black teen Trayvon Martin as a moment of racial "awakening." The text ends with the author's statement that it's time to take the beliefs expressed, “to the real world."

So, even a self-proclaimed white supremacist acknowledges that George Zimmerman's act was conscious, intentional and racial.

Puts that question behinds us, don't it?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
The webpage traces its author’s path toward strong beliefs in white supremacy and the race debate ignited after the shooting of black teen Trayvon Martin as a moment of racial "awakening." The text ends with the author's statement that it's time to take the beliefs expressed, “to the real world."

So, even a self-proclaimed white supremacist acknowledges that George Zimmerman's act was conscious, intentional and racial.

Puts that question behinds us, don't it?

Dream on ...

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:24 pm

hate will always exist, you cannot make it go away by law ....

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:24 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:hate will always exist, you cannot make it go away by law ....

You are right. But this has to do with a hole in the system...which can be fixed. Southern juries will deliver much more leniency to a white who murdered a black victim, than any other kind of murder. That is unjust.

To say "hate will always exist" and therefore we shouldn't try to do better, is defeatist and unhopeful. Many times the law takes the position of the martyr...it suffers a defeat in order that people become appalled and outraged.

Such is the case with the murders of Trayvon Martin, and Jordan Davis. It may become the case before Dylann Roof's prosecution is over.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:hate will always exist, you cannot make it go away by law ....

You are right. But this has to do with a hole in the system...which can be fixed. Southern juries will deliver much more leniency to a white who murdered a black victim, than any other kind of murder. That is unjust.

To say "hate will always exist" and therefore we shouldn't try to do better, is defeatist and unhopeful. Many times the law takes the position of the martyr...it suffers a defeat in order that people become appalled and outraged.

Such is the case with the murders of Trayvon Martin, and Jordan Davis. It may become the case before Dylann Roof's prosecution is over.

Jordan David was murdered, but Trayvon Martin was not.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are right. But this has to do with a hole in the system...which can be fixed. Southern juries will deliver much more leniency to a white who murdered a black victim, than any other kind of murder. That is unjust.

To say "hate will always exist" and therefore we shouldn't try to do better, is defeatist and unhopeful. Many times the law takes the position of the martyr...it suffers a defeat in order that people become appalled and outraged.

Such is the case with the murders of Trayvon Martin, and Jordan Davis. It may become the case before Dylann Roof's prosecution is over.

Jordan David was murdered, but Trayvon Martin was not.

Yet Michael Dunn was allowed to walk on the murder of Davis, just as was Zimmerman on the murder of Martin. The point is about southern juries, and bias when the victim is a black young man.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Jordan David was murdered, but Trayvon Martin was not.

Yet Michael Dunn was allowed to walk on the murder of Davis, just as was Zimmerman on the murder of Martin. The point is about southern juries, and bias when the victim is a black young man.

No. Dunn was convicted of first degree murder. Zimmerman was acquitted because it was clearly self defence.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yet Michael Dunn was allowed to walk on the murder of Davis, just as was Zimmerman on the murder of Martin. The point is about southern juries, and bias when the victim is a black young man.

No. Dunn was convicted of first degree murder. Zimmerman was acquitted because it was clearly self defence.

You haven't listened. Law is viewed in components. In the first trial, a southern jury failed to convict Dunn. In that component, a southern jury allowed him to walk.

Remember...don't argue the example. Especially an example that you put forth. Argue the comparison. You put forward Michael Dunn as an example of a southern jury who was willing to convict a white man...only you forgot to mention that a previous jury failed to convict him. You proved the point you were opposing.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No. Dunn was convicted of first degree murder. Zimmerman was acquitted because it was clearly self defence.

You haven't listened. Law is viewed in components. In the first trial, a southern jury failed to convict Dunn. In that component, a southern jury allowed him to walk.

Remember...don't argue the example. Especially an example that you put forth. Argue the comparison. You put forward Michael Dunn as an example of a southern jury who was willing to convict a white man...only you forgot to mention that a previous jury failed to convict him. You proved the point you were opposing.

Quill, do your research before you pretend to be an expert on the law.

The jury in the first trial of Dunn did not allow him to walk, they simply couldn't all agree that it was first degree murder. They had other options, including second degree murder and manslaughter, but clearly they couldn't all agree on those either. That does not mean that none of the jury thought it was first degree murder.

You have also failed to address the fact that the second jury did indeed convict Dunn of first degree murder.

I didn't fail to do anything, I merely advised you to remember Michael Dunn. You got it all wrong, and now you're flapping around trying to justify your ignorance.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You haven't listened. Law is viewed in components. In the first trial, a southern jury failed to convict Dunn. In that component, a southern jury allowed him to walk.

Remember...don't argue the example. Especially an example that you put forth. Argue the comparison. You put forward Michael Dunn as an example of a southern jury who was willing to convict a white man...only you forgot to mention that a previous jury failed to convict him. You proved the point you were opposing.

Quill, do your research before you pretend to be an expert on the law.

The jury in the first trial of Dunn did not allow him to walk, they simply couldn't all agree that it was first degree murder. They had other options, including second degree murder and manslaughter, but clearly they couldn't all agree on those either. That does not mean that none of the jury thought it was first degree murder.

You have also failed to address the fact that the second jury did indeed convict Dunn of first degree murder.

I didn't fail to do anything, I merely advised you to remember Michael Dunn. You got it all wrong, and now you're flapping around trying to justify your ignorance.

You can evade all you want, but you pulled a real boner when you raised Dunn. The topic of the conversation was southern juries and their propensity to favor whites over blacks. And here you throw into the circle a white man who was given just such leniency.

Even the point of his ultimate conviction shows the leniency given to white defendants. Would that black defendants could get hung juries and be let off:

jacksonville.com wrote:Jurors deadlocked on whether Michael David Dunn, 47, murdered 17-year-old Jordan Davis or shot him in self-defense. Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial on the murder charge.

The difference between a hung jury and an acquittal can be as close as a single vote. The state is really lucky that he was not acquitted, which obviously some on the jury wanted to do. So the point is made in the Dunn case: southern juries want to grant leniency to white defendants, where they do not to black defendants.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You haven't listened. Law is viewed in components. In the first trial, a southern jury failed to convict Dunn. In that component, a southern jury allowed him to walk.

Remember...don't argue the example. Especially an example that you put forth. Argue the comparison. You put forward Michael Dunn as an example of a southern jury who was willing to convict a white man...only you forgot to mention that a previous jury failed to convict him. You proved the point you were opposing.

Quill, do your research before you pretend to be an expert on the law.

The jury in the first trial of Dunn did not allow him to walk, they simply couldn't all agree that it was first degree murder. They had other options, including second degree murder and manslaughter, but clearly they couldn't all agree on those either. That does not mean that none of the jury thought it was first degree murder.

You have also failed to address the fact that the second jury did indeed convict Dunn of first degree murder.

I didn't fail to do anything, I merely advised you to remember Michael Dunn. You got it all wrong, and now you're flapping around trying to justify your ignorance.

He is a lawyer raggs so yes he is an expert more than you will ever be i am afraid

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, do your research before you pretend to be an expert on the law.

The jury in the first trial of Dunn did not allow him to walk, they simply couldn't all agree that it was first degree murder. They had other options, including second degree murder and manslaughter, but clearly they couldn't all agree on those either. That does not mean that none of the jury thought it was first degree murder.

You have also failed to address the fact that the second jury did indeed convict Dunn of first degree murder.

I didn't fail to do anything, I merely advised you to remember Michael Dunn. You got it all wrong, and now you're flapping around trying to justify your ignorance.

You can evade all you want, but you pulled a real boner when you raised Dunn. The topic of the conversation was southern juries and their propensity to favor whites over blacks. And here you throw into the circle a white man who was given just such leniency.

Even the point of his ultimate conviction shows the leniency given to white defendants. Would that black defendants could get hung juries and be let off:

jacksonville.com wrote:Jurors deadlocked on whether Michael David Dunn, 47, murdered 17-year-old Jordan Davis or shot him in self-defense. Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial on the murder charge.

The difference between a hung jury and an acquittal can be as close as a single vote. The state is really lucky that he was not acquitted, which obviously some on the jury wanted to do. So the point is made in the Dunn case: southern juries want to grant leniency to white defendants, where they do not to black defendants.

Quill, you are embarrassing yourself. You knew nothing about the Dunn retrial for a start. You don't understand the difference between a mistrial and an acquittal either.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:58 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, do your research before you pretend to be an expert on the law.

The jury in the first trial of Dunn did not allow him to walk, they simply couldn't all agree that it was first degree murder. They had other options, including second degree murder and manslaughter, but clearly they couldn't all agree on those either. That does not mean that none of the jury thought it was first degree murder.

You have also failed to address the fact that the second jury did indeed convict Dunn of first degree murder.

I didn't fail to do anything, I merely advised you to remember Michael Dunn. You got it all wrong, and now you're flapping around trying to justify your ignorance.
He is a lawyer raggs so yes he is an expert more than you will ever be i am afraid

Please explain how he can be an expert when he can't even get basic facts right.

You carry on pandering to him and soothing his fevered brow - someone needs to. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, do your research before you pretend to be an expert on the law.

The jury in the first trial of Dunn did not allow him to walk, they simply couldn't all agree that it was first degree murder. They had other options, including second degree murder and manslaughter, but clearly they couldn't all agree on those either. That does not mean that none of the jury thought it was first degree murder.

You have also failed to address the fact that the second jury did indeed convict Dunn of first degree murder.

I didn't fail to do anything, I merely advised you to remember Michael Dunn. You got it all wrong, and now you're flapping around trying to justify your ignorance.

You can evade all you want, but you pulled a real boner when you raised Dunn. The topic of the conversation was southern juries and their propensity to favor whites over blacks. And here you throw into the circle a white man who was given just such leniency.

Even the point of his ultimate conviction shows the leniency given to white defendants. Would that black defendants could get hung juries and be let off:

jacksonville.com wrote:Jurors deadlocked on whether Michael David Dunn, 47, murdered 17-year-old Jordan Davis or shot him in self-defense. Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial on the murder charge.

The difference between a hung jury and an acquittal can be as close as a single vote. The state is really lucky that he was not acquitted, which obviously some on the jury wanted to do. So the point is made in the Dunn case: southern juries want to grant leniency to white defendants, where they do not to black defendants.

Do you have any information on how each jury member voted in the first Dunn trial? You do know that they were given several options don't you?

Are you suggesting that one person only held out for a conviction, and all the others voted for acquittal?

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you are embarrassing yourself. You knew nothing about the Dunn retrial for a start. You don't understand the difference between a mistrial and an acquittal either.

And you lost the plot on the discussion. Again, you get lost in examples...and here, it is your own example at issue. I believe your point was that southern juries are not overly-lenient when it comes to white on black crime...and so you give us a case in which the jury was overly-lenient. Terriffic! Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you are embarrassing yourself. You knew nothing about the Dunn retrial for a start. You don't understand the difference between a mistrial and an acquittal either.

And you lost the plot on the discussion. Again, you get lost in examples...and here, it is your own example at issue. I believe your point was that southern juries are not overly-lenient when it comes to white on black crime...and so you give us a case in which the jury was overly-lenient. Terriffic!

You got basic facts wrong and then tried to cover that up. You're an absolute buffoon when it comes to the law.

The jury was not lenient - they simply couldn't agree it was first degree murder. They may well have been split between first degree and second degree.

Why are you ignoring the second verdict by the way?

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you have any information on how each jury member voted in the first Dunn trial? You do know that they were given several options don't you?

Are you suggesting that one person only held out for a conviction, and all the others voted for acquittal?

The more noise you make about the Dunn case, the more you advertise that it was a case of leniency by a southern jury to a white man who murdered a black child.

Oh well, I don't mind advertising your failures: the point is that in the Dunn case, a southern jury was hard-pressed to find a white man guilty when it comes to murdering a black man. When I say it could have been only one vote, I am emphasizing that by a mere breath, the white man got convicted. That first jury was that close to an acquittal.

The fact that a second verdict was necessary is proof of the leniency of a southern jury when it comes to convicting a white of murdering a black man.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Do you have any information on how each jury member voted in the first Dunn trial? You do know that they were given several options don't you?

Are you suggesting that one person only held out for a conviction, and all the others voted for acquittal?

The more noise you make about the Dunn case, the more you advertise that it was a case of leniency by a southern jury to a white man who murdered a black child.

Oh well, I don't mind advertising your failures: the point is that in the Dunn case, a southern jury was hard-pressed to find a white man guilty when it comes to murdering a black man. When I say it could have been only one vote, I am emphasizing that by a mere breath, the white man got convicted. That first jury was that close to an acquittal.

The fact that a second verdict was necessary is proof of the leniency of a southern jury when it comes to convicting a white of murdering a black man.

The more you fail to address your complete ignorance about the Dunn case, the more noise I'll make about it. Your deflection and excuses are very interesting ...

There is nothing to suggest that the jury did not find him guilty of murder, the issue is whether it was first degree murder or not. You do know about degrees of murder?

How do you know the first jury was close to an acquittal? Please post the individual verdicts of each juror.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you are embarrassing yourself. You knew nothing about the Dunn retrial for a start. You don't understand the difference between a mistrial and an acquittal either.

And you lost the plot on the discussion. Again, you get lost in examples...and here, it is your own example at issue. I believe your point was that southern juries are not overly-lenient when it comes to white on black crime...and so you give us a case in which the jury was overly-lenient. Terriffic!

Well you're the one bleating on about southern juries and claiming all kinds of wild theories without backing them up.

The jury was not lenient - they could not agree on the first degree murder verdict.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And you lost the plot on the discussion. Again, you get lost in examples...and here, it is your own example at issue. I believe your point was that southern juries are not overly-lenient when it comes to white on black crime...and so you give us a case in which the jury was overly-lenient. Terriffic!

Well you're the one bleating on about southern juries and claiming all kinds of wild theories without backing them up.

The jury was not lenient - they could not agree on the first degree murder verdict.

They gave him two trials. How many chances do they give blacks in the South?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you're the one bleating on about southern juries and claiming all kinds of wild theories without backing them up.

The jury was not lenient - they could not agree on the first degree murder verdict.

They gave him two trials. How many chances do they give blacks in the South?

Chances at what?

by eddie Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you are embarrassing yourself. You knew nothing about the Dunn retrial for a start. You don't understand the difference between a mistrial and an acquittal either.

And you lost the plot on the discussion. Again, you get lost in examples...and here, it is your own example at issue. I believe your point was that southern juries are not overly-lenient when it comes to white on black crime...and so you give us a case in which the jury was overly-lenient. Terriffic!

You got basic facts wrong and then tried to cover that up. You're an absolute buffoon when it comes to the law.

The jury was not lenient - they simply couldn't agree it was first degree murder. They may well have been split between first degree and second degree.

Why are you ignoring the second verdict by the way?

Have to be honest, I've read this thread and I'm wondering too, how your claims to be a lawyer can be true?
Add to that, the behaviours you have been showing the last week or so......I'm not sure I buy your story anymore Quill.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you're the one bleating on about southern juries and claiming all kinds of wild theories without backing them up.

The jury was not lenient - they could not agree on the first degree murder verdict.

They gave him two trials. How many chances do they give blacks in the South?

Surely Quill, if giving him a pass" was their intent, then they would have used the device of "jury nullification" (I assume that jury right exists in American law?)

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:31 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You got basic facts wrong and then tried to cover that up. You're an absolute buffoon when it comes to the law.

The jury was not lenient - they simply couldn't agree it was first degree murder. They may well have been split between first degree and second degree.

Why are you ignoring the second verdict by the way?

Have to be honest, I've read this thread and I'm wondering too, how your claims to be a lawyer can be true?
Add to that, the behaviours you have been showing the last week or so......I'm not sure I buy your story anymore Quill.

Well, eds...I would harely expect any objectivity out of you. You were born biased...which, I would consider it wise for you to consider once again, resigning. You have already demonstrated your ability to abuse any authority.

And of course, here you are again espousing your RW sympathies.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:32 pm

Still waiting for the verdict of each individual juror.

Quill will be saying next that Jodi Arias escaped the death penalty because she's white ...

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:

Have to be honest, I've read this thread and I'm wondering too, how your claims to be a lawyer can be true?
Add to that, the behaviours you have been showing the last week or so......I'm not sure I buy your story anymore Quill.

Well, eds...I would harely expect any objectivity out of you. You were born biased...which, I would consider it wise for you to consider once again, resigning. You have already demonstrated your ability to abuse any authority.

And of course, here you are again espousing your RW sympathies.

Questioning your claim that you're a lawyer does not indicate RW sympathies. I think eddie has a good point.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
He is a lawyer raggs so yes he is an expert more than you will ever be i am afraid

Please explain how he can be an expert when he can't even get basic facts right.

You carry on pandering to him and soothing his fevered brow - someone needs to.

Because he is a lawyer what part of that does your feeble mind fail to grasp

your the one who gets the facts wrong and make assumptions based of fuck all but your biased opinion

he is a lawyer in America ,California to be exact now retired i believe ,that`s a simple fact that makes him more qualified than you to speak on the American legal system and jurisprudence than you will ever be ,he sees more American news and social events that don`t even make it in to the papers or national news he lives in the country for fuck sake where do you live ?
and this accusing people of bias or pandering because they agree with somebody other than you is just pathetic
honestly your doing my head in

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:36 pm

darknessss wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

They gave him two trials. How many chances do they give blacks in the South?

Surely Quill, if giving him a pass" was their intent, then they would have used the device of "jury nullification" (I assume that jury right exists in American law?)

You don't even understand the concept. Jury nullification is not countenanced in the US. It is extra-legal...that is, it happens as a matter of fact, but there is no legal procedure for recognition of it.

But that aside, I would agree with you that racial bias can be expressed in nullification. The nullification is the consequence; the reasons are a separate matter.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, eds...I would harely expect any objectivity out of you. You were born biased...which, I would consider it wise for you to consider once again, resigning. You have already demonstrated your ability to abuse any authority.

And of course, here you are again espousing your RW sympathies.

Questioning your claim that you're a lawyer does not indicate RW sympathies. I think eddie has a good point.

every body is biased except poor old raggs

change the fucking record

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:38 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Please explain how he can be an expert when he can't even get basic facts right.

You carry on pandering to him and soothing his fevered brow - someone needs to.
Because he is a lawyer what part of that does your feeble mind fail to grasp

your the one who gets the facts wrong and make assumptions based of fuck all but your biased opinion

he is a lawyer in America ,California to be exact now retired i believe ,that`s a simple fact that makes him more qualified than you to speak on the American legal system and jurisprudence than you will ever be ,he sees more American news and social events that don`t even make it in to the papers or national news he lives in the country for fuck sake where do you live ?
and this accusing people of bias or pandering because they agree with somebody other than you is just pathetic
honestly your doing my head in

If he's a lawyer, he's a very bad one ...

He doesn't even know the facts about the Dunn trial, and he doesn't appear to understand the difference between a mistrial and an acquittal.

by eddie Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You got basic facts wrong and then tried to cover that up. You're an absolute buffoon when it comes to the law.

The jury was not lenient - they simply couldn't agree it was first degree murder. They may well have been split between first degree and second degree.

Why are you ignoring the second verdict by the way?

Have to be honest, I've read this thread and I'm wondering too, how your claims to be a lawyer can be true?
Add to that, the behaviours you have been showing the last week or so......I'm not sure I buy your story anymore Quill.

Well, eds...I would harely expect any objectivity out of you. You were born biased...which, I would consider it wise for you to consider once again, resigning. You have already demonstrated your ability to abuse any authority.

And of course, here you are again espousing your RW sympathies.

Because I dont believe you're a lawyer, I'm exposing my RW sympathies?
How does that even make sense?

Because I don't believe you're a lawyer that makes me biased?
How does that even make sense?

I used to believe you were until I watched your replies and your behaviour - so objectivity doesn't come into it really does it?

I think you've been rumbled.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:39 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Questioning your claim that you're a lawyer does not indicate RW sympathies. I think eddie has a good point.
every body is biased except poor old raggs

change the fucking record

Keep your beak out if you don't like what I say. The more Quill spouts his garbage, the more I'll counter it.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:41 pm

Nullification occurs when a jury doesn't judge on the individual case, but dislikes the law. It, therefore, nullifies it.

In racial bias cases, the facts come into play: at least the fact that one is white and another is black. But, it is arguable that a jury doesn't want to convict if the defendant is white. That could be considered a form of nullification of the law, when the accused is white and the victim is black.

But generally, that is simply considered bias in the jury's verdict.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:42 pm

umm....I do indeed understand it...as it applies here in the uk

It is a poorly kept "secret" over here

I was merely interested if it also is allowed.applied in the US....and if so to what extent

becasue if it is "allowed", whether by inclusion in law OR default.... Surely a comprehensive "not guilty" even in the face of all the facts would have prevented that guy from being found guilty at a second trial (do you have "double jeopardy?)

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:45 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, eds...I would harely expect any objectivity out of you. You were born biased...which, I would consider it wise for you to consider once again, resigning. You have already demonstrated your ability to abuse any authority.

And of course, here you are again espousing your RW sympathies.

Because I dont believe you're a lawyer, I'm exposing my RW sympathies?
How does that even make sense?

Because I don't believe you're a lawyer that makes me biased?
How does that even make sense?

I used to believe you were until I watched your replies and your behaviour - so objectivity doesn't come into it really does it?

I think you've been rumbled.

It has nothing to do with me, eds. I do not presume, nor do I have the privilege of a mod board. I would not use it for dishonesty in any event.

You are ill-equipped for the position. You don't belong in it. That's going to be true no matter who or what I am.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:Nullification occurs when a jury doesn't judge on the individual case, but dislikes the law. It, therefore, nullifies it.

In racial bias cases, the facts come into play: at least the fact that one is white and another is black. But, it is arguable that a jury doesn't want to convict if the defendant is white. That could be considered a form of nullification of the law, when the accused is white and the victim is black.

But generally, that is simply considered bias in the jury's verdict.

well over here its more a case of the jury accepts the facts of the case but considers the law to be "wrong in application " in this one particular case

thus a guy beats the crap out of a persistant burglar who returns yet again

technically hes in the wrong but the jury feel that rightly he's "had enough"
and whildst "taking the law into your own hands" is wrong, the jury feel that the guy actually has good reason...

so they find him NOT guilty against all the facts ....
ie he used excessive violence beyond mere self defense
he prevented the burglar from fleeing

etc.....

the judge wont like it, and you will probably NEVER be asked on a jury again.........but theres nowt they can do about it.....except whinge and mutter

by eddie Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, eds...I would harely expect any objectivity out of you. You were born biased...which, I would consider it wise for you to consider once again, resigning. You have already demonstrated your ability to abuse any authority.

And of course, here you are again espousing your RW sympathies.

Because I dont believe you're a lawyer, I'm exposing my RW sympathies?
How does that even make sense?

Because I don't believe you're a lawyer that makes me biased?
How does that even make sense?

I used to believe you were until I watched your replies and your behaviour - so objectivity doesn't come into it really does it?

I think you've been rumbled.

It has nothing to do with me, eds. I do not presume, nor do I have the privilege of a mod board. I would not use it for dishonesty in any event.

You are ill-equipped for the position. You don't belong in it. That's going to be true no matter who or what I am.

You answered my post with a silly little dig at my being a mod but never actually addressed anything I said?

You do know, don't you, that you sound like a petulant child?
I changed a thread title - because you broke a rule (then made up a stupid excuse for it) - and you threw a tantrum.

Dishonest???
I wasn't the one who posted up a thread and lied about why they did it. lol!

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:53 pm

The question is - where is Quill's evidence that the jury was close to an acquittal in the first Dunn trial, as he claimed?

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:54 pm

darknessss wrote:umm....I do indeed understand it...as it applies here in the uk

It is a poorly kept "secret" over here

I was merely interested if it also is allowed.applied in the US....and if so to what extent

becasue if it is "allowed", whether by inclusion in law OR default.... Surely a comprehensive "not guilty" even in the face of all the facts would have prevented that guy from being found guilty at a second trial (do you have "double jeopardy?)

There's no way around it. A jury is free to make its decision, without reservation. The 'reasons' for its decision need not be disclosed. So jury nullification goes on regardless. But it is spoken of only in the context of a jury that does not like the law, not with regard to the facts.

With a jury you have the classic-decision making by a committee. So you speak of the 'will' of a jury only fictitiously. So there is no such thing as a "comprehensive" decision by a jury. Twelve different people make twelve different, individual decisions. All you can do is take it one vote at a time.

All you can say about the jury's non-verdict in the first Dunn trial is that some of the (southern) jurors voted not to convict. In other words, they voted for leniency toward the white accused, when the victim was a black.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
darknessss wrote:umm....I do indeed understand it...as it applies here in the uk

It is a poorly kept "secret" over here

I was merely interested if it also is allowed.applied in the US....and if so to what extent

becasue if it is "allowed", whether by inclusion in law OR default.... Surely a comprehensive "not guilty" even in the face of all the facts would have prevented that guy from being found guilty at a second trial (do you have "double jeopardy?)

There's no way around it. A jury is free to make its decision, without reservation. The 'reasons' for its decision need not be disclosed. So jury nullification goes on regardless. But it is spoken of only in the context of a jury that does not like the law, not with regard to the facts.

With a jury you have the classic-decision making by a committee. So you speak of the 'will' of a jury only fictitiously. So there is no such thing as a "comprehensive" decision by a jury. Twelve different people make twelve different, individual decisions. All you can do is take it one vote at a time.

All you can say about the jury's non-verdict in the first Dunn trial is that some of the (southern) jurors voted not to convict. In other words, they voted for leniency toward the white accused, when the victim was a black.

Incorrect. You might be correct if there were only two choices - first degree murder or acquittal. That was not the case in the Dunn trial. The jury might have been deadlocked as to whether it was first or second degree murder.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:04 pm

darknessss wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Nullification occurs when a jury doesn't judge on the individual case, but dislikes the law. It, therefore, nullifies it.

In racial bias cases, the facts come into play: at least the fact that one is white and another is black. But, it is arguable that a jury doesn't want to convict if the defendant is white. That could be considered a form of nullification of the law, when the accused is white and the victim is black.

But generally, that is simply considered bias in the jury's verdict.

well over here its more a case of the jury accepts the facts of the case but considers the law to be "wrong in application " in this one particular case

thus a guy beats the crap out of a persistant burglar who returns yet again

technically hes in the wrong but the jury feel that rightly he's "had enough"
and whildst "taking the law into your own hands" is wrong, the jury feel that the guy actually has good reason...

so they find him NOT guilty against all the facts ....
ie he used excessive violence beyond mere self defense
he prevented the burglar from fleeing

etc.....

the judge wont like it, and you will probably NEVER be asked on a jury again.........but theres nowt they can do about it.....except whinge and mutter

Yes, technically what the jury is saying is, we don't like the application of this law in this kind of case. That's a kind of nullification, if we disregard the technicality of the term.

Jury nullification is really more a term used by the pundits in describing why a jury made a decision...past tense It is not recognized in the rules of procedure, in advance of a case being decided. It's a way of saying the jury didn't like the law, and thus nullified it. But any decision can be considered on a sliding scale of facts and law. After all, every law contemplates a certain factual pattern. So, under given facts, in certain circumstances, we could say a jury was nullifying the law.

Your example--putting aside the right and wrong of it--would be a case in point.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There's no way around it. A jury is free to make its decision, without reservation. The 'reasons' for its decision need not be disclosed. So jury nullification goes on regardless. But it is spoken of only in the context of a jury that does not like the law, not with regard to the facts.

With a jury you have the classic-decision making by a committee. So you speak of the 'will' of a jury only fictitiously. So there is no such thing as a "comprehensive" decision by a jury. Twelve different people make twelve different, individual decisions. All you can do is take it one vote at a time.

All you can say about the jury's non-verdict in the first Dunn trial is that some of the (southern) jurors voted not to convict. In other words, they voted for leniency toward the white accused, when the victim was a black.

Incorrect. You might be correct if there were only two choices - first degree murder or acquittal. That was not the case in the Dunn trial. The jury might have been deadlocked as to whether it was first or second degree murder.

Then they would have decided one of those two. Instead, they decided against deciding.

(I have left off talking to you and eds, and I am now speaking on different matters to Victor. You and eds have taken to pissing on your own shoes--or, that is to say, argument for the sake of argument--and that is a waste of my time. So, don't misinterpret anything I say, as applying to you or your nonsense.)

by eddie Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There's no way around it. A jury is free to make its decision, without reservation. The 'reasons' for its decision need not be disclosed. So jury nullification goes on regardless. But it is spoken of only in the context of a jury that does not like the law, not with regard to the facts.

With a jury you have the classic-decision making by a committee. So you speak of the 'will' of a jury only fictitiously. So there is no such thing as a "comprehensive" decision by a jury. Twelve different people make twelve different, individual decisions. All you can do is take it one vote at a time.

All you can say about the jury's non-verdict in the first Dunn trial is that some of the (southern) jurors voted not to convict. In other words, they voted for leniency toward the white accused, when the victim was a black.

Incorrect. You might be correct if there were only two choices - first degree murder or acquittal. That was not the case in the Dunn trial. The jury might have been deadlocked as to whether it was first or second degree murder.

(I have left off talking to you and eds, and I am now speaking on different matters to Victor. You and eds have taken to pissing on your own shoes--or, that is to say, argument for the sake of argument--and that is a waste of my time. So, don't misinterpret anything I say, as applying to you or your nonsense.)

(Okay then! But ignoring us would've worked just as well! Are you sure you're not a teenager? And by the way, ignoring me, I understand...but rags was actually debating with you....perhaps you just got slaughtered though? )

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Incorrect. You might be correct if there were only two choices - first degree murder or acquittal. That was not the case in the Dunn trial. The jury might have been deadlocked as to whether it was first or second degree murder.

(I have left off talking to you and eds, and I am now speaking on different matters to Victor. You and eds have taken to pissing on your own shoes--or, that is to say, argument for the sake of argument--and that is a waste of my time. So, don't misinterpret anything I say, as applying to you or your nonsense.)

Well I'll still tell you when you're wrong. You made yet another incorrect claim about the Dunn trial.

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:17 pm

hmmm...now here's an interesting idea

what if a jury didnt like a "directed verdict"

could they, in defiance of the judges direction find elsewise??

now THAT would set the cat amongst the pigeons.....

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:25 am

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

(I have left off talking to you and eds, and I am now speaking on different matters to Victor. You and eds have taken to pissing on your own shoes--or, that is to say, argument for the sake of argument--and that is a waste of my time. So, don't misinterpret anything I say, as applying to you or your nonsense.)

(Okay then! But ignoring us would've worked just as well! Are you sure you're not a teenager? And by the way, ignoring me, I understand...but rags was actually debating with you....perhaps you just got slaughtered though? )

Perhaps you are nothing but a bully Eddie who gets off on ganging up on posters?
For a start you have no real comprehension of racism.
When you begin to understand racism, then you will be able to answer points on the subject

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:29 am

A couple of what is called white girls thinking they understand racism.
The irony, when you can even contemplate what is like to be stereotyped as having darker skin, the the pair of you will then realise you both talk so much shit lacking any knowledge of racism.
Neither of you have experienced what it is like to be perceived daily as black people are for having darker skin, because both of you have grown up with a white middle class mentality of how people should live. It shows the pair of you have no ability to think for yourself as just about on everything you are both sheep, you follow.

by veya_victaous Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:39 am

by Sponsored content