Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Rodney King
Well, therein lies how two reasonable people can disagree.

I wholly concur there is evidence strongly suggesting he did it. But I even more emphatically charge that everything necessary was NOT proven, (which your response effectively confirms) especially not beyond a reasonable doubt. Coincidence is supposed to be insufficient.

I mean come on. Freshwater tackle? As opposed to saltwater? Damned good thing they don't check me out. I never use anything but drop lines. I grew up around small streams. If caught in the vicinity of a large river with my gear, does that make me subject to charges of genocide?

I understand the jury sat through a lot of details. But their job is to make the prosecutor prove his case. I do not believe he did and they didn't spank him for it. I've seen it on a grand jury I was on. I would ask for the elements of the crime, the prosecutor would dance around the subject and everyone wanted to know why I bothered asking.

Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas. Juries are supposed to have the intelligence to catch them at it and stop them. This one failed to do its job, IMO.

113 posted on 11/30/2004 11:41:19 AM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: DK Zimmerman
Coincidence is supposed to be insufficient.

Not sure if that's the case. There are plenty of people who have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I mean come on. Freshwater tackle? As opposed to saltwater? Meaningless by itself, but together with the other info suggests that he was lying about fishing that day.

I've seen it on a grand jury I was on. I would ask for the elements of the crime, the prosecutor would dance around the subject and everyone wanted to know why I bothered asking.

Same thing happened to me.

Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas. Juries are supposed to have the intelligence to catch them at it and stop them. This one failed to do its job, IMO.

What can I say.. If I was on the jury I would have convicted.

115 posted on 11/30/2004 11:44:48 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

To: DK Zimmerman

"Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas"

Prosecutors are human?!? What kind of gratuitous remark is that? Of course they are. Who in their sane, right mind would want to execute an innocent man? I happen to believe their whole professional and personal lives depend on 'DOING THE RIGHT THING'

As citizens, what purpose would it serve to deliberately prosecute an individual if there was substantial evidence of his/her innocence and the murderer was left to roam &kill again in their neighborhood?


123 posted on 11/30/2004 11:52:51 AM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

To: DK Zimmerman

The jury looked at all the exibits, listened to all the evidence presented, heard from all those who testified and saw them face to face, judged it all as a whole and found Scott guilty..

I only read the transcripts and listened to the tapes, viewed his interviews..I agree with the jury.GUILTY


124 posted on 11/30/2004 12:02:48 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson