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 (1055)	12/21/2004 5:37:33 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 5425

Well it's not like lawyers are in any short supply here on SI. It's like asking if Rose Kennedy owns a black dress. Maybe any of us knows a one or two who could weigh in an opinion of this matter, "What's a jury for, anyway?" I'm a proactive "go to the source" kind of guy, so apologies if that's not quite in the framework of this issue.

To: rrufff who wrote (1055)	12/21/2004 10:27:57 PM
From: John Sladek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

rrufff, There is no backpedaling in my statements. The jury ALWAYS has the right to overrule the judge on law, and they RARELY use it. You originally posted that the jury ALWAYS can overrule the judge. ROFLMAO Juries don't set precident, they decide guilt and innocent. There was no precedent set by the OJ jury. The only way a jury can be said to have "set precident" is if multiple juries refuse to convict people for certain crimes committed under certain conditions. Even then, the juries (collectively) aren't really setting precident - they are pointing out to the government the futility of persuing certain types of cases. Besides, why do you keep bringing up OJ Simpson case? The right of a jury to ignore a judge on the rule of law is an ancient right deriving from common law, not something cooked up in Judge Ito's courtroom. I am sure that people are sick and tired of listening to us fighting. And I think that it is really quite pointless to continue to argue with you, since you are irrational, unreasonable, and completely incapable of learing a singled thing!