fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2585 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2585 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Monster High]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Bryan Fuller, John Green]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Pretty Little Liars]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Reign]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Leviathan: the last day of the decade]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Sherlock Holmes]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Steam]

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 017 secrets from Secret Submission Post #369.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Amanda Knox was found guilty of murder in Italy after having gone through a previous trial and found innocent. WTF? How can they do this? Is Double Jeopardy an American only thing or do other countries have it. And I would be scared to go to a country that can do that much of a witch hunt for my skin. "Oh, you were found not guilty? Too bad. We will do trial after trial until we find you guilty. You are going to swing."

Some countries do, some don't (England used to, but changed it a couple years back).

Mostly it works out fine, and only gets used in cases where real obvious game changing evidence comes to life, like the development of DNA analysis allowing for a few people to get retried and convicted from cold cases.

But Italy has a boderline third world justice system. It's just completely awful, and the way people are trying to compare it to Americas is hilarious (but Zimmerman cases, murica is just as bad maek u think?1?11)

Misunderstanding the law that applied in the Zimmerman case (hint: it has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground) was tired and lame months ago.

Thank you.

Seeing people (lets be honest, the worst sort of lefties) misinterpret that case was embarrasing.

Like I'm anti civilian arming, but that doesn't mean I need to take ridiculous stances in a complex case.

Yeah, a case in which an armed man shoots an unarmed teenager to death after first calling the cops on and then following the teen despite being told not to by the cops because the kid wore a hoodie and thus seemed "suspicious" or something really makes for a complex case and only the worst sort of lefties misinterpret what happened there... /shudders.

And also: I'm pretty sure that if the murder Knox was accused of had happened in the US, public opinion on her possible guilt or innocence would be vastly different.

The problem isn't with misinterpreting what happened. It's with misinterpreting what the criminal justice system can and/or should do with what happened given the constitutional principles and legal standards that are supposed to govern in a courtroom in this country.

Zimmerman's acquittal means only that the prosecution didn't succeed in proving its case to the requisite degree of certainty. And people saying that the result was correct in light of the prosecution's failure in that respect are not actually saying anything about what did or did not happen to result in Trayvon Martin's death, whose fault any of it was, or the moral culpability of Zimmerman for acting as he did.

Yeah, I think it's pretty fucked up too.

it depends on a number of things but retrials and appeals alike tend to arise when the accused isn't satisfied with the verdict and manages to convince the court that they deserve another trial, or when more evidence, resources, information, etc. comes into light that changes the nature of the first trial.

really it comes down to the lawyers a lot of the times. the judge matters too obviously but lawyers change the game completely when it comes to this kind of thing. prosecutors and defense attorneys alike can appeal verdicts and that tends to happen a lot when either side deems it worth the extra effort.

oh btw she was convicted the first time, it just got reversed. depending on your position they are currently either correcting or repeating their mistake.

also, since i'm stupid and hit enter too fast: the only reason her first convicted was reversed was because dna evidence had been contaminated. that could mean anything from it wasn't handled properly to it was mixed or whatever, so it ranges from being an excuse to disregard vital and damning evidence that otherwise tells the truth, or being a valid reason to dismiss genuinely faulty evidence.

you seem to think she is innocent and that opinion is perfectly fine but just because a court finds somebody innocent doesn't mean justice was served in doing so.

conviction*

DA, and +1 to both of your comments above.

[ SECRET POST #2585 ]

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day

Re: Your rant thread of the day