RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree

RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 9:57:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 I just read where the jury had the option for 2nd degree or manslaughter. The DA stated they were going to retry again on 1st. Seems like 2 or particularly man should be slam dunk, why insist on the greater charge. The only place I have heard that 2nd or man was on the table was from domken and he just told me on another thread that something I saw didn't happen so I would like a better source. Can you provide me with one.

DominantWoman65 -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 10:05:23 PM)
My phone is being a little bitch and won't copy and paste. I read it in a NY Times article

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 10:06:49 PM)
They clearly didn't think he should walk since they voted guilty on three counts attempted 2nd. This supports the idea they would support 2nd.

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 10:13:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 My phone is being a little bitch and won't copy and paste. I read it in a NY Times article Ok ABC said the judges instructions said they could consider lesser charges. NYT is most likely a better source but ABC's version could explain a confused jury.

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 10:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 My phone is being a little bitch and won't copy and paste. I read it in a NY Times article Phones are like that, thanks for the info.

DominantWoman65 -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 10:19:14 PM)
I tried, I really did but for some reason it keeps pasting from my Facebook, believe me, no one needs to be witness to that! [:)]

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/15/2014 10:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 I tried, I really did but for some reason it keeps pasting from my Facebook, believe me, no one needs to be witness to that! [:)] lol

DomKen -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 4:25:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 I just read where the jury had the option for 2nd degree or manslaughter. The DA stated they were going to retry again on 1st. Seems like 2 or particularly man should be slam dunk, why insist on the greater charge. The only place I have heard that 2nd or man was on the table was from domken and he just told me on another thread that something I saw didn't happen so I would like a better source. Can you provide me with one. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/15/michael-dunn-jury/5501117/ quote: Three minutes later, Healey said that the jury had passed along a note announcing it had reached a verdict on four of the five counts. However, jurors said they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on Count 1 -- first-degree murder -- or any of its lesser potential offenses. call me a liar again.

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 9:16:57 AM)
2nd degree or manslaughter. The DA stated they were going to re quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 I just read where the jury had the option for try again on 1st. Seems like 2 or particularly man should be slam dunk, why insist on the greater charge. The only place I have heard that 2nd or man was on the table was from domken and he just told me on another thread that something I saw didn't happen so I would like a better source. Can you provide me with one. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/15/michael-dunn-jury/5501117/ quote: Three minutes later, Healey said that the jury had passed along a note announcing it had reached a verdict on four of the five counts. However, jurors said they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on Count 1 -- first-degree murder -- or any of its lesser potential offenses. call me a liar again. I didn't call you a liar, just that the sources you believe tend to be unreliable, defensive much?

TheHeretic -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 10:14:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen call me a liar again. That would be a TOS violation. It needs to be phrased as "many of Domken's post are stupid lies," or, to meet the specific circumstances here, "because so many of Domken's post's are stupid lies, it would be better to confirm his assertion from a more reliable source."

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 10:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen call me a liar again. That would be a TOS violation. It needs to be phrased as "many of Domken's post are stupid lies," or, to meet the specific circumstances here, "because so many of Domken's post's are stupid lies, it would be better to confirm his assertion from a more reliable source." And I think that Domken believes everything he says, but that doesn't make him a reliable source.

DomKen -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:05:20 AM)
Funny how you both felt the need to rush to the defense. I simply just proved that I did make a true statement the first time. As I did in the other thread where you claimed I didn't as well.

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Funny how you both felt the need to rush to the defense. I simply just proved that I did make a true statement the first time. As I did in the other thread where you claimed I didn't as well. Wrong again, you claimed I called you a liar, I was explaining the difference between being a liar and not being able to find your rear end with both hands.

DomKen -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:21:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Funny how you both felt the need to rush to the defense. I simply just proved that I did make a true statement the first time. As I did in the other thread where you claimed I didn't as well. Wrong again, you claimed I called you a liar, I was explaining the difference between being a liar and not being able to find your rear end with both hands. As in you can't admit you were wrong on at least three different threads this week?

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:22:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Funny how you both felt the need to rush to the defense. I simply just proved that I did make a true statement the first time. As I did in the other thread where you claimed I didn't as well. Wrong again, you claimed I called you a liar, I was explaining the difference between being a liar and not being able to find your rear end with both hands. As in you can't admit you were wrong on at least three different threads this week? There you go again trying to make me the subject of the discussion BTW that too is a TOS violation.

DomKen -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:26:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Funny how you both felt the need to rush to the defense. I simply just proved that I did make a true statement the first time. As I did in the other thread where you claimed I didn't as well. Wrong again, you claimed I called you a liar, I was explaining the difference between being a liar and not being able to find your rear end with both hands. As in you can't admit you were wrong on at least three different threads this week? There you go again trying to make me the subject of the discussion BTW that too is a TOS violation. As you did when you brought me in way up thread?

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:28:47 AM)
As you did when you brought me in way up thread? Nope I was asking for a better source.

Owner59 -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:32:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen call me a liar again. That would be a TOS violation. It needs to be phrased as "many of Domken's post are stupid lies," or, to meet the specific circumstances here, "because so many of Domken's post's are stupid lies, it would be better to confirm his assertion from a more reliable source." You`re wasting you time w/ these two..... How shall I put it...... If either said what time it was...I`d check my watch....[;)]

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:47:03 AM)
All right people, please stop with the personal back-and-forth.

BamaD -> RE: Jury couldn't agree on 1st-degree (2/16/2014 11:59:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi All right people, please stop with the personal back-and-forth. Glad to

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625