re: Football and race relations in the south

quote:

---

You seem to have the idea that circumstances, statements, and facts are easily proven as true or false in homicide cases. This isn't the case. Rarely is there a completely black or white case. Maybe he said it to her, maybe he didn't. It's one person's word against another's.

Point is, there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Dunn of murder 2, much less murder 1. Regardless, he was convicted of 3 counts of attempted homicide with a weapon. In Florida, that's a minimum sentence of 20 years per count. He's also looking at a 4th conviction. The guy is gonna die in prison. That's a home run for the prosecutor.

---

I feel that in a case like this with evidence that is far more than circumstantial then the proof has to fall back on the defense. The prosecution has more than enough evidence connecting the defendant to the crime: A car riddled with bullets, a dead body and 3 other people to testify. The fact that he still could get off on 1st degree murder, despite having damning evidence sends a message to black people that white people can kill black teenagers regardless of the evidence. This in turn sends a subliminal message to racist whites that if I am careful enough and leave no evidence, I can kill blacks and get away with it. That is a scary slippery slope

quote:

---

The prosecution has more than enough evidence connecting the defendant to the crime: A car riddled with bullets, a dead body and 3 other people to testify. The fact that he still could get off on 1st degree murder, despite having damning evidence sends a message to black people that white people can kill black teenagers regardless of the evidence. This in turn sends a subliminal message to racist whites that if I am careful enough and leave no evidence, I can kill blacks and get away with it. That is a scary slippery slope

---

I don't think you understand the extent of proof required to convict of 1st degree murder. It is, by far, the toughest charge to convict on because the evidence has to be so overwhelming AND the prosecution has to prove intent. Proving a person's state of mind is incredibly hard t do.

Go look up the kind of proof used to convict other people on first degree murder in the past and then look at this case. The prosecution has no hope of proving premeditation.

I understand completely, what i'm saying is that alot of the laws are fundamentally wrong and create situationx where reasonable doubt has a outcome of a case that is should be cut and dry. I feel that putting stipulations on it gives murders the wiggle room to say "well I didn't mean to". If you take that away then people will be far more careful to pull their gun next time and go John Wayne

Also, under your proposed system, do you realize how absurdly easy it would be to frame someone?

But reasonable doubt, in most cases, is created by people trying to defend their actions. The state is trying to prove that they had other intentions, which is almost impossible if they cover their tracks and make sure the evidence available is damning enough.

The most famous example is OJ Simpson. Every person on that jury knew he did it, but they also knew that the law that one day might keep them out of prison for a bogus charge said he had not been proven guilty.

quote:

---

But reasonable doubt, in most cases, is created by people trying to defend their actions.

---

I dont think you understand what reasonable doubt is.

Reasonable doubt is not "created", it exists until it is removed by the prosecution. The defense can INCCREASE the amount of reasonable doubt with evidence, but reasonable doubt already exists the minute a case starts.

Additionally, reasonable doubt is not absolute. It has its limits. A man might be guilty if his knife with his prints were found at the scene, but what if his best friend and neighbor who is often over for dinner had a motive to kill the victim? That is reasonable doubt. Saying an alien came down and took the knife is not reasonable.

The real problem in the Dunn case is that jurors were allowed to consider lesser charges like 2nd degree murder and manslaughter with much lower thresholds of proof and still couldn't agree. Even if it wasn't 1st degree murder, it sure seems like manslaughter.

LINK

quote:

---

O.J.

---

eagerly awaiting these same posters who will defend our glorious court system

quote:

---

I guess I don't see it that way thinking back to all the innocent black men that were convicted when there was nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

---

A) Some links would help.
B) This is a flaw with jurors, not the court system.