Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (1008)	12/20/2004 10:03:15 PM
From: John Sladek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

ruffff, I thought that this was a place to recycle PugsRants(tm), I had no idea that the posts had to be about the Elgindy case. you continue to try to ENGINEER an argument by repeating it, no matter now immaterial it is to the discussion of the Elgindy trial Youre repeatedly saying that it is a theory doesn't make it a theory. Your discussion is theory. Why did you think it was a case of nullification? I think it was more of a case of the cops screwing up and the judge losing control over his courtroom. Other than the OJ case, which many have claimed was a type of nullification, the actual nullification of law by a jury, is rare. Nice backpedaling. I do agree that, given usual secrecy of the jury room, one can ascribe reasons that may or may not be accurate to jury deliberations. However, discussions on these theories are voluminous, but practical results are negligible. I have never said that these types of things are common - in fact the references provided stress that they are rare. There is th epossibility that new precident will be set and as always, and as is their right, the jury (and not the judge) will have the ultimate say on the law.