For those of you who don't know who Nancy Grace is, she's a shrill, incompetent, useless asshole who yaps about sensational trials and ensures that anybody foolish enough to listen soon becomes as incapable of being objective as she is. I can't help but facepalm every time I think about all the hyper-opinionated "pseudo jurors" she's probably mentored.
what in the world is a "pseudo juror" ? seems like an imaginery set of jurors in her head or something. >.>
i had read an article about Nancy Grace yesterday. it was mainly about how she had pulled in a huge amount of ratings for CNN. why do i feel like im reapeating myself?
on a brief side note, my great-aunt said this yesterday:
"Nancy Grace is not God, Incarnate. Nor is she a Psychic. However, she is the Queen of the Gossip Mongers!"
Quote:
still, I don't get why it's such a big deal. It's weird but it seems like mostly only the womenfolk care. maybe it's a mom-kid thing. I dunno, maybe it's just like that in my little circle.
maybe not. i think most mothers will see a trial that deals with a parent killing the kid or something and they feel disgusted with that mother and they will say, "She gives mothers a bad name!" and get all maternally. pretty sure it's a normal thing tho. >.> i once cracked a dead baby joke on facebook and i had a father say, "Ya know, while im cool with most things, this is not one thing i am cool with. Dead baby jokes rub me the wrong way."
maybe it's a parental thing.
edit: LOL @ Tanooki. if i had a dime for how many times my mother told me, "I brought you into this world! I can take you out!" i would have a little over a dollar. XD|||Quote:
I may need to wipe coffee off my keyboard - did you just say something positive about non-socialist enterprise?
Sure I did. I think I said several times that I'm no socialist and Ihave a couple of non-socialist points of view. It's just that you concentrate too much on what we don't agree about - and it's probably the other way around as well
.|||Quote:It's just that you concentrate too much on what we don't agree about - and it's probably the other way around as well
.just your editor here to point out unnecessary words that serve only to confuse meaning|||I prefer to have an emergency exit out of statements which I might regret later
.|||Quote:I don't get why there was a trial anyway. Isn't killing your children a constitutional right? Something about a "right to privacy" or something?
Only before you bring them home from the hospital, or they're a year old or something. At least that's the standard Boxer and Obama used earlier.
Quote:
just your editor here
Is that a paying job?
Meanwhile, on topic - OMG SHE LET HER HAIR DOWN! Let's cram hours more disgustingly trivial coverage into the news cycle! After all, can't let anyone recognize that we're on the brink of collapse...|||Quote:
I don't get why there was a trial anyway. Isn't killing your children a constitutional right? Something about a "right to privacy" or something?
Wow, what a question! I'm stunned.
I don't understand why we have trials at all. What kind of sense do they make if the accused person has a chance for not being convicted at the end? If the state attorney accuses you of something, there's surely 1% truth in the accusation and 1% of what's worth 100x the death penalty is what? I'm sure our hard-working and faultless officials can be trusted. They know what they are doing. Courts and constitutional rights, that's a useless legacy from the old millennium. Away with it!
Which brings me back to my first posting in this thread.|||Quote:
what in the world is a "pseudo juror" ? seems like an imaginery set of jurors in her head or something. >.>
"Armchair juror" or "backseat juror" would have been better descriptors. Apologies.
Anyway, I'm referring to people who consider themselves experts because they watch alot of talking heads (ie. our dear Nancy (dis)Grace) on the boob tube. Hope that clears things up for you.
|||Quote:Anyway, I'm referring to people who consider themselves experts because they watch alot of talking heads (ie. our dear Nancy (dis)Grace) on the boob tube. Hope that clears things up for you.
Can't forget Nancy's fellow harpy Jean Velez-Mitchell.
It's great when they don't get their way.|||Quote:
The verdict actually gave me a slight bit of hope for our society. When the media talking heads and court of public opinion were all screaming for Casey to get the needle before a single word had been uttered in a courtroom, that a group of 12 jurors could ignore all of that and reach a unanimous verdict that the prosecutor had failed to prove its case, well, that says something about the objectivity of our courtroom, whether or not the verdict rendered was actually correct.
But then I saw people posting death threats against the jurors because they didn't follow their "gut" instinct instead of what was presented to them by the prosecution.
Nevermind, we're screwed.
+1. The outrage is ridiculous.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: There was no murder weapon. No evidence (short of circumstantial) of foul play. No cause of death by the coroner due to the decomposition. No forensic evidence indicating Caylee had been beaten or otherwise willfully murdered or abused.
And people think, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Casey Anthony is guilty of first-degree murder and aggravated X, Y, Z, of which if convicted of first-degree murder, Casey could get the death penalty?
Right.
Now to be honest, I expected her to be found guilty, because as plainly obvious after the fact, the vast majority of people are, well, stupid. Or certainly seem to act so. The fact that she was found innocent (against my expectations) is a sliver of hope in our justice system - that the jury selected could still make the right decision despite the per-usual media bull****. No one is saying Casey Anthony is innocent. People like me are just saying you didn't have the evidence to find her guilty. And our justice system, correctly, I believe, presumes her innocent until proven guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment