Complaint Filed?

Am I missing something?

SUPERSTAR said:
So funny when someone actually has the balls to say something like this.
So do you know which way the black people voted? Was that information ever made public?
You don't think that any of the black people were capable of making sound judgements?

Seems to me that some of the white guys must have voted to aquit as well if he got off, right?

Tell us what you REALLY think.
Click to expand...

I really want to stay out of this flame thread but I cannot help but notice how stupid a comment you made in this thread and am surprised Jay or no one else caught it. Otherwise you seem so intelligent though you misinterpreted Jay's thread.
What do you friggin mean how do we know how the blacks voted? It did not need to be publicized. It takes `12 jurors to aquit and vote not guilty. That being said can you figure out how the blacks voted. Duh. LMAO
 
Fleece3 said:
Actually the defense DID know it!! Sharpiro has publicly stated several times, that the defense had OJ try the glove on weeks before. He stated that OJ tried and tried, and even with the help of others could NOT get the glove to fit. He has also stated that the very MOMENT Chris Darden requested the OJ put the glove on in open court, he knew the case was won.

Interesting sidebar.

The idea was entirely Chris Darden's. Marcia Clarke had no idea he was going to do it. That may explain that stunned look on her face.

I actually recorded EVERY MINUTE of the trial, and recently transfered it to DVD. Until Nip/Tuck it was the best TV I had ever seen.
Click to expand...

I didn't know all that. Well, OJ was a better actor than I gave him credit for.

Did they ever return his cap and glove?
 
nfty9er said:
I really want to stay out of this flame thread but I cannot help but notice how stupid a comment you made in this thread and am surprised Jay or no one else caught it. Otherwise you seem so intelligent though you misinterpreted Jay's thread.
What do you friggin mean how do we know how the blacks voted? It did not need to be publicized. It takes `12 jurors to aquit and vote not guilty. That being said can you figure out how the blacks voted. Duh. LMAO
Click to expand...

Um, ok..how do i say this?!?!?!

YOUR WRONG

It used to be that you needed all 12 to agree either way to get guilty or not guilty, and anything different would result in a hung jury, but there IS also something called MAJORITY VERDICT where not everyone needs to agree, but only a certain majority % of jurors need to agree, and that number is usually determined by the judge during the case.

So forgive me if i'm not exactly sure if OJ's case was or was not a case where majority verdict was implemented or not cause i didn't follow the trial.

but asking how someone might have voted or if how they voted was public knowledge is a perfectly legitimate considering that majority verdict does exist.
Nice try.
If your going to open your mouth trying to be the man, at least have some clue as to what your talking about so you don't come off as a world class retard.

Who's the stupid one now? Wait wait wait....what was that word you used?

DUH!
 
I dont know everything but i sure as hell never heard of majority decision used in a criminal trial. Civil Trial yes I believe.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Um, ok..how do i say this?!?!?!

YOUR WRONG

It used to be that you needed all 12 to agree either way to get guilty or not guilty, and anything different would result in a hung jury, but there IS also something called MAJORITY VERDICT where not everyone needs to agree, but only a certain majority % of jurors need to agree, and that number is usually determined by the judge during the case.

So forgive me if i'm not exactly sure if OJ's case was or was not a case where majority verdict was implemented or not cause i didn't follow the trial.

but asking how someone might have voted or if how they voted was public knowledge is a perfectly legitimate considering that majority verdict does exist.
Nice try.
If your going to open your mouth trying to be the man, at least have some clue as to what your talking about so you don't come off as a world class retard.

Who's the stupid one now? Wait wait wait....what was that word you used?

DUH!
Click to expand...

Super, you just got caught with your pants down. And this is the best you can respond? Dumb, dumber and dumbest could best describe your question about how the jury voted.
 
Jay Helfert is not a racist. Stop with the political correct bullcrap. Jay said something that is common knowledge to people who live in SoCal, whether you are black, white, blue, pink, or green.
 
cuetechasaurus said:
Jay Helfert is not a racist. Stop with the political correct bullcrap. Jay said something that is common knowledge to people who live in SoCal, whether you are black, white, blue, pink, or green.
Click to expand...
Heh! Just for that little outburst, I'm gonna have to slap you with some bad rep! ;)
 
I also have known Jay for MANY years, but that is not what I am going to respond to. I think what bothers me is that so many posters feel they can post with immunity, quite possibly because they posting under an asssumed name. That really bothers me - particularly when theings get heated up.

I do not know what the solution is, but I do have a higher degree of respect for those that post under their real name. I think there is a time and a place for posting under a "fake" name - but there is also a sense of honor and taking responsibility when you sign your name to what you post.

That's all folks -

Mark Griffin
BCA Pool League
702-719-7665
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Um, ok..how do i say this?!?!?!

YOUR WRONG

It used to be that you needed all 12 to agree either way to get guilty or not guilty, and anything different would result in a hung jury, but there IS also something called MAJORITY VERDICT where not everyone needs to agree, but only a certain majority % of jurors need to agree, and that number is usually determined by the judge during the case.

So forgive me if i'm not exactly sure if OJ's case was or was not a case where majority verdict was implemented or not cause i didn't follow the trial.

but asking how someone might have voted or if how they voted was public knowledge is a perfectly legitimate considering that majority verdict does exist.
Nice try.
If your going to open your mouth trying to be the man, at least have some clue as to what your talking about so you don't come off as a world class retard.

Who's the stupid one now? Wait wait wait....what was that word you used?

DUH!
Click to expand...

Okay,

Quick...stop typing...go to the library (maybe, even do a google search)...grab ANY criminal law book. In criminal court ANY verdict MUST BE UNANIMOUS (greek for "as one"). Anything less is declared a "hung jury". One juror can cause a hung jury. 11-1 for guilty..hung jury. 11-1 innocent...hung jury. There is NO majority decisions in criminal court. The decision to take away a persons freedom or in some cases their very life, is far too important to leave to a MAJORITY (thank you, fore fathers). But I digress. I BELIEVE your question was "Who's the stupid one now...Look at the person on your left...are they ok? How about the person on your right?...OK there? Guess who's left.......
 
This info is from 1998.

http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/FAQs/JurDecFAQ.htm#Which jurisdictions require

They have info on CRIMINAL cases that don't need to be unanimous by state.

GRANTED, California isn't one of the states listed as allowing majority verdicts, (Louisiana and Oregon being the only 2 for criminal) but that does not make my question moot as i personally didn't know which states did or didn't allow it until i actually had to go look this stuff up.
I only knew that it existed because of hearing about specific cases in school.

So to Jay and Fleece, and all you people that are so convinced that you are right.

You can save it for the next time.

Cause on this one, you guys are wrong.

It might only be 2 states, but you are wrong none the less.

Should i gloat this time? :D
 
Jay was right, you are not too bright.

SUPERSTAR said:
Um, ok..how do i say this?!?!?!

YOUR WRONG

It used to be that you needed all 12 to agree either way to get guilty or not guilty, and anything different would result in a hung jury, but there IS also something called MAJORITY VERDICT where not everyone needs to agree, but only a certain majority % of jurors need to agree, and that number is usually determined by the judge during the case.

So forgive me if i'm not exactly sure if OJ's case was or was not a case where majority verdict was implemented or not cause i didn't follow the trial.

but asking how someone might have voted or if how they voted was public knowledge is a perfectly legitimate considering that majority verdict does exist.
Nice try.
If your going to open your mouth trying to be the man, at least have some clue as to what your talking about so you don't come off as a world class retard.

Who's the stupid one now? Wait wait wait....what was that word you used?

DUH!
Click to expand...

Well now I will use another word. IDIOT. If you followed the trial at all or even knew California law you would realize that in a criminal trial you need 12 votes one way or the other. So your statement was stupid. I stand by my question. Different states may have different rules my friend but for murder it better take 12 to convict. It is why it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Common sense (which you don't have) tells you if it was 11 to 1, there must be some reasonable doubt. Civil trials are a different matter. You even admit you don't know about the o.j. trial, yet you make that ridiculous statement that we dont know how the black voted. You are a joke my man. Just admit you did not realize it was a 12 person verdict. Now you are really caught with your foot in your mouth. I wish it was mine.
 
Well Mark that is just the way the forum is, but if you need to know,just ask and I am sure most people will tell you. I have posted mine many times and Jay sure does use his as a signature so I really do not know what your point is but respect your opinion.
 
Cant stand it huh

SUPERSTAR said:
This info is from 1998.

http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/FAQs/JurDecFAQ.htm#Which jurisdictions require

They have info on CRIMINAL cases that don't need to be unanimous by state.

GRANTED, California isn't one of the states listed as allowing majority verdicts, (Louisiana and Oregon being the only 2 for criminal) but that does not make my question moot as i personally didn't know which states did or didn't allow it until i actually had to go look this stuff up.
I only knew that it existed because of hearing about specific cases in school.

So to Jay and Fleece, and all you people that are so convinced that you are right.

You can save it for the next time.

Cause on this one, you guys are wrong.

It might only be 2 states, but you are wrong none the less.

Should i gloat this time? :D
Click to expand...

You and everyone else were talking about California and the O J case. What you thought you knew has no bearing on the question. We knew what state and the law. Obviously you were commenting on a trial you saw none of. They only talked about it a zillion times. I refer to my other post, admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top