In article <5d9ar6F346061U1@mid.individual.net>,
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote:
Larry wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
As I understand it, on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:15:28 GMT, Larry
<x@y.com> wrote:
[...]
Never could understand that one. Why are we pretending that the
jury doesn't know the guy accused of murder or rape or whatever
isn't in custody? Are there really rational thinking adults out
there who believe that if the jury doesn't see the defendant in
handcuffs that they'll think he could just walk out of the
courtroom at any moment and head on home for a nap if he wants
to?
Larry's entire life is built upon denial and ignorance ...
So says the guy who hasn't ever posted a cite for a claim he's
made!
Not an accurate one, at any rate.
*Technically* speaking, he has offered one. He posted a cite
for his claim that a woman who was charged with murdering her baby
was a Christian. The cite he offered didn't prove what he wanted
(and my exposing this has lead to his recent attempts to embarrass
me), but he did offer it.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
For someone who doesn't believe in God, you quote the bible more than
anyone I know, voxy! What a buffoon you are.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- "Larry
There isn't in many jurisdictions. It's called an arrest warrant.
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry
True statement.
" The jury saw the defendant in restraints? In most jurisdictions, that's
improper and grounds for a mistrial, or at least removal of the juror(s)
who saw it. "
-- Larry
True statement.
Got cite?
"No, you moron, because mistrials are not granted in written, published
decisions. But if you give me an address, I can send you trial-court
transcripts of cases in which it's happened. "
-- Larry
<still waiting for those xscripts>
Once again, if you provide me with a mailing address, I will send them
to you. I can't be any more reasonable than this. Besides, are you
actually taking the position that mistrials don't happen? You're quite
the buffoon, you know.
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1 for a
lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail. "
-- Larry
It's not. Read bail statutes and show me where the jury vote is a
consideration.
"Identity has nothing to do with name."
-- Larry
It doesn't. Your massive spew-posting proves this. Whether your name
is "Vox" or "Ultra" or "Jonez" all the posts come from the same person.
Proving that name has nothing to do with it.
" I could, but the court rules require that each party be identified by some
name."
-- Larry
This is so obvious that I'm not even sure how you oppose it. Do you
think there could be a court case of Smith vs. <blank>? Do you really?
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime, or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - or that he was
in
fact innocent."
-- Larry
Any of these are possible from a not guilty verdict.
Keep 'em coming, voxy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You post
quotes of mine that are true indisputable legal points, and think you're
showing me to be an "imbecile." I hardly know how to respond.
.
