Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
I honestly can't believe the blatant stupidity in here. I'll assume I angered the guild and you're all worked up into a sweaty froth to defend your fellow mage or whatever the fuck it is you play.

I've never said Iknowhe's guilty despite what poptard keeps saying. I even said I think he should've been declared not guilty because of the way the investigation was handled. I'm only saying some of the evidence possibly appears to have not been planted and some of the statements appear to match up despite the claims of being 'made up' after the fact.
But I know you guys only think the discussion of "holy fuck, the police are corrupt" is like, super compelling discussion and stuff.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
popsicledeath_sl said:
Let's go back to a continued theme of this thread. Jive is scary because he doesn't understand the basic functions, definitions and methods of our legal system but is very eager to proclaim he knows someone is a murdered.

For instance:



OJ was declared not guilty at trial. There were some flaws in the trial, but mostly just of the system. By and large the trial was as fair as could be expected and there was very little demand he be re-tried criminally. He was found liable in a civil trial. In our system, for better or worse, that means he is criminally not guilty of the crime. Neither verdicts, however, did or were designed to prove innocence. Neither juries were ever tasked with proving or disproving innocence.

How is it possible someone could be found not guilty of a crime and still have done in? Well, because there's a difference between criminal guilt and inbred retards with pitchforks guilt, or at least there should be.

It's possible for exactly the reason you state here (minus the incorrect and ignorant statement that we saw zero footage of the prosecution questioning anybody on the stand):



Remember, jurors aren't tasked with determining if someone committed the crime. In fact, despite the DA constantly tell them their job is to find the defendant guilty, their job is actually to presume he's innocent and provide a verdict of not guilty if there is "reasonable doubt" as to whether the person committed the crime. The point of the documentary is that even if there was some evidence that seemed concrete, you can't ever know the absolute truth, so when there is also a lot of evidence and proceedings that could give a discerning person reasonable doubt you're supposed to return a verdict of not guilty.

The fact you've seen a guilty verdict, think that means he did it, and are then assuming evidence existed that supports that is absurd. Our entire legal system is built around overcoming exactly that sort of bias and ignorance. It's scary to think there are people like you, and a jury like in this documentary, that basically said to themselves: yeah, there is a lot of evidence that makes me have reasonable doubts, and I know the instructions were that the DA has to prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm pretty sure he did it and boy some of the other evidence sure is interesting and points in Avery's direction...

In fact, your two quotes here alone are everything our entire trial system is set up to overcome, and the fact even with a documentary highlighting the very deficiencies in our system aren't enough for you to smarten up about your own bias and ignorance is absolutely terrifying. You should be permanently barred from ever having jury duty because your ignorance is going to kill someone.
Click to expand...
yawn. What a load of overblown wankery. My ignorance is going to kill someone? How many times have you said that? You're a mongoloid parading around like someone who actually knows things. It's cute, but it's getting tiring.

Here's an idea: stop replying to my posts and I'll stop replying to yours. Something tells me you won't
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
Gunnar_sl said:
You still struggle with the fact that not guilty and innocent aren't the fucking same.
Click to expand...
No. I don't. And nowhere here have I demonstrated otherwise. I'm not going to repost an aggregate my thoughts every time a new neckbeard arrives for battle
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
Cad_sl said:
No, I'm a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Oh ya. How could I forget; you literally bring it up in every thread. So you should know better then. though to be honest, a lawyer phrasing sexual harassment as "attempted rape" is the exact sort of slimy shit I'd expect.

Personal injury lawyer? Do you have billboards?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,884
50,910
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Oh ya. How could I forget; you literally bring it up in every thread. So you should know better then. though to be honest, a lawyer phrasing sexual harassment as "attempted rape" is the exact sort of slimy shit I'd expect
Click to expand...
I'm having trouble finding the criminal statute for "sexual harassment". Can you help me out?
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,147
214,434
I binge watched the whole series because I thought this doc was so crazy good that it made this thread get bumped every minute for days and days. I guess I should have known it was a typical circle jerk because a few posters are stuck on stupid
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
Cad_sl said:
So, threatening legal action when you're the DA unless you have sex with him, is discrimination?

Learn something new every day I guess.
Click to expand...
Sexual Discrimination. Yes. You're welcome?

PmsLmO0.jpg
 
Chanur

Chanur

Shit Posting Professional
<Gold Donor>
29,058
47,063
Jive Turkey_sl said:
I honestly can't believe the blatant stupidity in here. I'll assume I angered the guild and you're all worked up into a sweaty froth to defend your fellow mage or whatever the fuck it is you play.

I've never said Iknowhe's guilty despite what poptard keeps saying. I even said I think he should've been declared not guilty because of the way the investigation was handled. I'm only saying some of the evidence possibly appears to have not been planted and some of the statements appear to match up despite the claims of being 'made up' after the fact.
But I know you guys only think the discussion of "holy fuck, the police are corrupt" is like, super compelling discussion and stuff.
Click to expand...
The Guild? Okay Felicia settle down.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,884
50,910
Sexual harassment is a civil offense, we were talking criminal.. and yes coercing someone into having sex with you in your capacity as a public servant is sexual assault. Now one might wonder why he wasn't prosecuted for that... but then, this is Calumet/Manitowoc ... and he didn't complete the act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.