Casey Anthony Case a Good Example

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Christcorp, Jul 7, 2011.

  1. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I know this will probably cause an argument and debate, but I personally think the outcome of this case is a good example. Example of what? Example of "Dormitory Lawyers" on the forums listening to the media and believing that they know "All the Facts"; and giving their opinions accordingly. Whether it's the West Point cadet being separated from the academy or any other case.

    There's ALWAYS more to the story. Just because you watched/listened to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Internet, Youtube videos, etc... doesn't mean you know the facts. Here's a perfect example where the media told everyone what to think, and the people bought it. The only problem is: The media didn't know any of the facts, and obviously the jury knew something different.

    So, the next time people start talking about all the injustices that's happening to someone, especially military related (Being this is a military forum), you might want to take the example lead by many others when they say there's "More to the story". We'd like to believe that we are privy to all the information, but we aren't. Again; not trying to start an argument, but I think this case is a perfect example where the majority; lead by the media; were almost 100% convinced that they knew the case and what the outcome should be.
     
  2. rkrosnar

    rkrosnar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    16
    Casey Anthony Case ....

    Mike,

    Very well said.

    RGK
     
  3. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,754
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    I think she did it. I also think there's reasonable doubt. Could she be convicted in a civil court? Maybe.
     
  4. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    A finding of Not Guilty does not mean she didn't do it.

    Sometimes the jury makes a bad decision.

    Just ask OJ.
     
  5. jjohnson55

    jjohnson55 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    A finding of not guilty means a jury could not agree that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors take that oath seriously. Knowing something and proving it are two different things; sometimes when you know the evidence isn't going to get any better you just have to take your shot. I wonder why she wasn't charged with endangering a child; I suppose they could not make the elements. However, in the end things tend to even up- as Luigi points out just ask OJ- but you have to get on his visitor list to do that.

    This case does point out the folly of making the criminal justice system an entertainment medium.
     
  6. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    When people like OJ and Ms Anthony get away with something, they always screw up a second time. Let's just hope the next time for Ms Anthony, nobody loses their life over it.
     
  7. bjkuds

    bjkuds Parent

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    15
    I think one of the greatest aspects of our court system is the "reasonable doubt". Better to have a few guilty go free than one to be put in jail and be innocent. I know that both bad scenarios happen occasionally and justice is not always served in our court system...but I'll take the odds here in America over any other nation. Even before the verdict was announced I was wondering how they could find her guilty of murder without proving a cause of death...DH and I had that very conversation. Just because you think they did it ( and I do) doesn't mean that you can convict on opinion. I would not want to be in the shoes of the jury. It's an awful situation.
     
  8. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Case for no US Trial for some TALIBAN Scumbag captured on the field of battle and then not given his "Miranda Rights" and tryed by a jury of his "PEERS' in a US court. Let's see one of these a****** get acquitted because jurorors thought there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Like we didn't have a video tape of him planting the IED that killed three american soldiers. There is "reasonable doubt" and then there is "preponderance of the evidence"
     
  9. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    I know! I know! Criminal vs Civil. But it could be a nightmare with the burden of proof so high.
     
  10. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Sorry; but some of you STILL don't understand my post. Do You??? Line In The Sand, is the ONLY person who responded properly. He still "THINKS" she did it. The rest assume that THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. You assume that she IS GUILTY. That she "Got AWAY" with it. Bla Bla Bla. Guess what? You don't know shiite.

    This thread had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether she was guilty or innocent. It had to do with people who THINK they know all the facts. Well..... YOU DON'T. You read newspapers, listen to the "Media", and read the internet. Therefor, you THINK you know it all. I doubt seriously that the prosecutor and the state would press charges and hold such a trial, on a gamble. They honestly thought they had a case. Apparently, the defense was able to create enough "Doubt".

    The purpose of this thread was in response to the NUMEROUS OTHER THREADS where posters believe they KNOW THE TRUTH; and how the question the results. Obviously, you don't know the "WHOLE STORY". Whether it's a court of law, or an internet forum, when I took my military oath, I swore to protect and defend the constitution. And part of that means; "Innocent until proven guilty". So, whether a court found Anthony not guilty; or the academy found a west point C1C guilty enough to make him leave the academy; or ANY OTHER SUCH TOPIC; I have to give the benefit of the doubt, that I don't know as much about the case as those directly involved do. But if some of you want to believe that because MSNBC, CNN, Fox, or some other media outlet opined about a topic, it MUST BE TRUE.... Then have a nut. You have a lot more faith in the media than I do.
     
  11. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

    :cool:
     
  12. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Are you saying then, that she's "Obviously Guilty"? I don't see it that way. If she was obviously guilty, then the prosecutor should have had no problem proving it. After all; it's "Obvious". Isn't it?

    Just like it's Obvious that the west point cadet didn't do anything wrong at all. And the academy had no reason to dismiss him. After all, it's obvious that he was 100% the victim, and he didn't do anything wrong. It must be that the academy didn't want to know the facts, and simply had it out for this cadet. Obviously!

    That word is basically the premise of my entire thread. Things AREN'T always as "Obvious" as they may appear. Again; I don't know if Casey Anthony is guilty or not. Just like I don't know if the west point cadet had any influence by his actions on the incident at the airport. But I guess when certain situations like these have a 50/50 chance of an opinion being correct; s/he's innocent/guilty; then I guess people are willing to bet on those odds. And of course, had she been found guilty, there would have been a lot of people saying: "I told you so". As if THEY KNEW SOMETHING. My point is; people taking on an opinion in these types of 50/50 situations don't know anything more than what the media wants you to know. And I personally prefer no to rely on them as my source. Now; if a person wants to say that they read the entire transcript of the casey anthony case, and they don't know how the jury could come up with such a finding, then fine. I can respect that. But I'd bet my entire yearly salary that not one person with an opinion here read the entire transcript. I also doubt that anyone here has access to the west point cadet's records or the entire testimony/accounts of the airport incident. But; you do have great odds at 50/50 of getting your opinion right. I guess people like betting those odds.
     
  13. linkgmr

    linkgmr Old Grad

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    People have a right to think whatever the hell they want. That bit is in the constitution. :biggrin:
     
  14. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
    Yep they do- however uninformed those opinions may be- they have the right to have and express them. However, that doesn't mean that others can't point out that their opinions may be based on air rather than fact, and certainly the right to express opinions doesn't obviate the need for the system to act deliberately and ensure that decisions of guilt or innocence are made in court following the rules of evidence rather than popularity.
     

Share This Page