Trials that Enrage People

Trials that Enrage People (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 8:57:07 PM)
I just watched HBO's movie Phil Spector. As the movie portrayed it, every time Mr. Spector went to the courthouse during his trial there were scores of protestors taunting him and calling him a murderer and a killer. In their minds, he was guilty of a crime, even though they were not privy to all the facts. These bystanders were just following the trial in the media, and they concluded he was guilty, and these folks wanted blood. They were enraged. The same thing has happened with the Jodi Arias trial. Why do third parties get so emotionally involved in these cases?

cloudboy -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 9:02:53 PM)
Photo of crowd following the trial. [image]local://upfiles/210115/B1C58719D9294B558575A7E5BBA8C4DB.jpg[/image]

FrostedFlake -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 9:19:12 PM)
Well, of course, you are right. The whole point of justice as a public utility is to stop this particular thing in particular. These guys don't know anything but what someone else said. But they'd hang Phil if they though we'd let 'em. Some folks might think this unfair. But, the flip of that coin is, they don't HAVE to do justice themselves or go without it, like in the old days. Don't get to, don't got to, it's all the same thing.

Darkfeather -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 9:30:35 PM)
It's called "mob mentality". The phenomena where human IQ drops exponentially with the number of people present in a given group. This is also how shop owners, school teachers, lawyers, etc, can turn into looting pillaging burning riot gangs when other verdicts don't go well

LafayetteLady -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 9:37:57 PM)
I didn't follow the Jodi Arias trial, so I don't even know what it is about. Didn't she kill her husband or something? Well, we are going to go with that for the sake of what I'm going to say, lol. I believe that often those trials that people get so heated about are things that we feel passionate about and that the defendant has done something to really offend our sense of right or wrong. Take the Casey Anthony trial. We were passionately offended that any mother could kill her child just so she could go party. Susan Smith, we were outraged that a mother would kill her children over a man (if I remember correctly, she was dating someone who didn't like children). OJ Simpson, our outrage was that he was some type of American hero, and he committed such an atrocity. Charles Manson reminded us that the world is a frightening place with scary people, and if we weren't careful, our children would be corrupted by him.

DomKen -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 9:52:40 PM)
The one I found most disturbing was the Casey Anthony case. If anyone with any legal knowledge looked past the hype they could tell this was almost certainly going to end in an acquittal. the prosecutions case wasn't just weak it was virtually nonexistent. But Nancy Grace was on HLN 5 nights a week faking outrage and scoring higher and higher ratings. The fact that Nancy Grace was chastised 3 seperate times by appelate courts for prosecutorial misconduct in only 10 years as a prosecutor does not seem to register with her fans.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 9:58:57 PM)
The prosecution did not put their case on well at all, even the jurors had admitted that. It's sad really since even those jurors had no doubt she was guilty. But the jury instructions and the charges didn't allow them to return the right verdict.

Lucylastic -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 10:01:15 PM)
I blame it on nancy grace....bloody woman

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 10:15:06 PM)
They now call prison guards "Corrections Officers." People don't generally want the "prisoners" to be corrected. They want vengeance. OK, so that is more of an aside. People are outraged because these crimes are committed in their neighborhoods and they want to feel safe. The way to make them feel safe is for them to know that guilty parties are punished, not corrected. Global media outlets and 24 hour news coverage makes the entire world your neighborhood. Then there are some crimes that are so heinous that it cuts right to the core of their moral and ethical being. Child murderers, child molesters, rapists, family killers and mothers who kill their own children fit into that category. The two cases mentioned by the OP I've never heard of but after a quick Google, it just seems like spurned lovers. The day you legislate THAT out of existence is the day I eat my hat.

DomKen -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 11:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady The prosecution did not put their case on well at all, even the jurors had admitted that. It's sad really since even those jurors had no doubt she was guilty. But the jury instructions and the charges didn't allow them to return the right verdict. The prosecution did not have a case. They could not even establish how the baby died. Technically there was no homicide to prosecute. Even if the jurors ignored the law the judge almost had to direct a not guilty verdict and if he didn't the case would have certainly been over turned on appeal.

DomKen -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/10/2013 11:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I blame it on nancy grace....bloody woman She's going to get someone lynched.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 2:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady The prosecution did not put their case on well at all, even the jurors had admitted that. It's sad really since even those jurors had no doubt she was guilty. But the jury instructions and the charges didn't allow them to return the right verdict. The prosecution did not have a case. They could not even establish how the baby died. Technically there was no homicide to prosecute. Even if the jurors ignored the law the judge almost had to direct a not guilty verdict and if he didn't the case would have certainly been over turned on appeal. I disagree. I think if the prosecution had taken a different approach, they could have gotten a guilty verdict that wouldn't have been turned over. Yes, a lot was circumstantial, but damn, those circumstances! Not reporting your child missing for a month? The duct tape, the shallow grave in the woods? She was complicit in that child's death and very few people have any doubts about that.

Darkfeather -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 5:08:32 AM)
They are all human, and subject to that one human fallacy, perception. Take OJ. Do I think he personally committed the crimes he was charged with, hell no. That is why he was acquitted. Do I think he "hired" some people to do the murders, hell yes. But they didn't go with that, they went after the proverbial "big fish", and it crashed and burned. This is what happens with most, uhm, over-zealous prosecutors. Some call it rush to judgement, others call it tunnel vision. But once they get that theory in their heads, damn the torpedoes. And thanks to double jeopardy, you only get one drink at the trough.

DomKen -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 7:01:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady The prosecution did not put their case on well at all, even the jurors had admitted that. It's sad really since even those jurors had no doubt she was guilty. But the jury instructions and the charges didn't allow them to return the right verdict. The prosecution did not have a case. They could not even establish how the baby died. Technically there was no homicide to prosecute. Even if the jurors ignored the law the judge almost had to direct a not guilty verdict and if he didn't the case would have certainly been over turned on appeal. I disagree. I think if the prosecution had taken a different approach, they could have gotten a guilty verdict that wouldn't have been turned over. Yes, a lot was circumstantial, but damn, those circumstances! Not reporting your child missing for a month? The duct tape, the shallow grave in the woods? She was complicit in that child's death and very few people have any doubts about that. Sure she was complicit in the child's death but that is not equal to first degree murder. As I said since the prosecutor could not honestly stand before the jury and say that the baby had even ben murdered bringing a murder case to trial was beyond stupid.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 7:48:53 AM)
The only trial I've paid attention to in quite some time was the OJ trial. This is going to be a long post so, smoke 'em, if you got 'em or go get a cup of coffee or something. I idolized OJ, growing up. I was born in '64 and, when he was breaking the seasonal rushing record (against my JAY! EEE! TEE! ESS! JETS!!! JETS!!! JETS!!!), I was in the stands in Shea stadium. He was what a lot of young boys that played football aspired to be. I never thought he was a great actor but, I loved the part he played in the Naked Gun movies. I liked (and to some point, still idolized) the O.J. that I "knew". By the time the trial began, I was already fairly convinced - much like DarkFeather, above me - that he had some involvement in the murders. On some level, I sort of understood why he might have been angry ("I hafta buy this bitch an $80,000 car so I can see her new boyfriend driving it?"). However, what really bothered me about the trial was the abuses of our system. Ron Shipp, testifying about a dream that he claims that O.J. related to him? The Catholiuc church doesn't even hold people responsible for their dreams and they're the biggest tight-asses on the planet. How did Judge Ito allow this in, elevating it to the level of "evidence"? Mark Furman. Do I really need to expound upon that? Almost definitely a racist that possibly planted evidence (two bloody gloves fall out of O.J.'s pocket in two seperate, very convenient places?) The one thing that I focused on (and I like to believe the jury did, as well) was Det. Van Atter, wandering around the crime scene with viles of O.J.'s blood in his pocket. He just happened to "stop by" the crime scene (for, I think, a couple of hours) on his way to the lab? I don't believe that Van Atter planted evidence but his behavior was certainly contrary to established police procedure and definitely fit the criteria for reasonable doubt in my mind. What bothered me, on top of all of that, was the dangerously antogonistic differences that the trial caused in this country. Peace and comfort, Michael

LizDeluxe -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 8:12:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr What bothered me, on top of all of that, was the dangerously antogonistic differences that the trial caused in this country. What disturbs me most are the cheering crowds after the verdict. OJ, Jodi Arias, Jerry Sandusky. It's sad that people hijack these unfortunate proceedings into some sort of sports contest, cheering on victory. It's repulsive. But then again, if you consider how popular that evil wench Nancy Grace is then I guess it should come as know surprise. I wonder if anyone has taken it upon themselves to calculate the average IQ in the US? It might be an interesting yet frightening statistic. Edited to add: I looked it up. 98. Double digits. Average IQ per country

Zonie63 -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 8:35:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I just watched HBO's movie Phil Spector. As the movie portrayed it, every time Mr. Spector went to the courthouse during his trial there were scores of protestors taunting him and calling him a murderer and a killer. In their minds, he was guilty of a crime, even though they were not privy to all the facts. These bystanders were just following the trial in the media, and they concluded he was guilty, and these folks wanted blood. They were enraged. The same thing has happened with the Jodi Arias trial. Why do third parties get so emotionally involved in these cases? I would say it's media hype more than anything else. How many thousands of murders occur in the U.S. every year? How many do the national media actually cover? Large crowds show up at the few trials covered by the media, while they don't show up at most trials not covered by the media. They cover murder trials like they're covering some sleazy soap opera, but unlike fiction, this is something where they can actually take part in and show up at the courthouse in mobs (as if there's nothing else in this country worth protesting against). It just goes to show how easily manipulated a lot of people are. But since they end up on camera, such as the picture of the crowd you posted above, at least we can tell what stupid people look like. If nothing else, at least we'll have photographic evidence of the people who are destroying America.

Lucylastic -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 12:09:08 PM)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-may-9-2013-david-sedaris starts at about 44 seconds,, jon stewart on the Arias case but specifically ...nancy grace....the commentary about the placing of the live feed, is funny

Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 12:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr What bothered me, on top of all of that, was the dangerously antogonistic differences that the trial caused in this country. What disturbs me most are the cheering crowds after the verdict. OJ, Jodi Arias, Jerry Sandusky. It's sad that people hijack these unfortunate proceedings into some sort of sports contest, cheering on victory. It's repulsive. But then again, if you consider how popular that evil wench Nancy Grace is then I guess it should come as know surprise. I wonder if anyone has taken it upon themselves to calculate the average IQ in the US? It might be an interesting yet frightening statistic. Edited to add: I looked it up. 98. Double digits. Average IQ per country The Scott Peterson trial around here drew the same attention, passionate mobs, and Nancy Grace fervor. I agree with the essence of your post: all of this interest, plus the popularity of reality TV and Nancy Grace types, is just a symptom of IQ and the refusal to butt out of others' business. But 98 average? That is fairly depressing, though believable.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Trials that Enrage People (5/11/2013 12:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-may-9-2013-david-sedaris starts at about 44 seconds,, jon stewart on the Arias case but specifically ...nancy grace....the commentary about the placing of the live feed, is funny I've got to get a TV. I'm missing out on some classic masterpieces... oh, wait, wrong thread.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125