r/BlackPeopleTwitter • u/MGLLN • 21h ago

Could probably hear the “FOH!!” from space

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

12.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

244

u/G0G0Gadget00 20h ago

He didn't admit it, that is what they said he admitted.

52

u/ThisIsKev 17h ago

Goddam! I LIKE YOU! Too many people living off of hearsay and don't even think twice about it.

7

u/Time-Maintenance2165 17h ago

And even if he said it, it doesn't mean that he didn't change his mind as they continued to deliberate.

-1

u/Brilliant-Field2179 12h ago

They probably got him in some kind of linguistic trap "Haha he said it he said it!!!l" bs

-48

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

Well since he hasn't come out to the media to defend his position or tell his side of the story then the other people's representation is all we have to go off. Even the judge (allegedly) had to explain what reasonable doubt was to him multiple times.

32

u/Renfel 19h ago

He doesn't owe you or anyone else anything. 

-27

u/ghouly-cooly 19h ago

He doesn't owe anyone anything true, but then don't be surprised when people believe a viewpoint to a story when there are no other contrasting ones.

24

u/Sea-Consequence7156 18h ago

And then don't be surprised when people, rightly, point out you only know one side of the story

-11

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

And then dong be suprised when people believe that side of the story when he won't correct people.

11

u/TwoXModsSavedMyLife 17h ago

So people just pick the facts they want. Don't need anyone involved to speak up to get us to that point. That's just the default.

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

I'm listening to the people who were involved

4

u/TwoXModsSavedMyLife 13h ago

And you liked what they had to say so you're going with it. I get you.

1

u/ghouly-cooly 7h ago

It's not a matter of liking what they have to say or not, its just what they said, why are you moving goalposts?:

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Sea-Consequence7156 17h ago

Yeah but I don't think highly of people like you anyway so not great loss

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

"people like you" what's that supposed to mean?

2

u/Sea-Consequence7156 13h ago

What do you mean what's that supposed to mean

1

u/ghouly-cooly 7h ago

Exactly what I said, what does "people like me" mean?

0

u/Typing_real_slow 13h ago

They mean conservatives, why did you ask like it was a mystery?

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

I'm not a conservative, what impression did I give off that made people think I was conservative?

→ More replies (0)

10

u/ls20008179 20h ago

Jury nullification is legal

21

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

That's for not guilty verdicts when they disagree with the law, not for imposing guilty verdicts

-13

u/ls20008179 20h ago

It works both ways

24

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

It actually does not. And it requires a full jury agreement not for a single juror. A judge can even set aside a whole guilty verdict if they believe the verdict was reached against the law and the defendant can appeal.

-11

u/Nathan45453 ☑️ 20h ago

Going this hard to defend a baby murderer is crazy.

14

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

Not defending her. Want justice done and I think there's enough doubt to warrant a nit guilty by reason of insanity and to be remanded into a psychiatric facility for the next few decades at least rather than prison.

-4

u/Vhu 19h ago

Any source on “the next few decades?”

Everything I can find says MA has no set standard for the length of mandatory medical evaluation.

2

u/ghouly-cooly 19h ago

From other similar cases we can determine what path is most likely to be followed by the medical evaluation staff when it comes time to evaluate, other cases of similar nature show that they keep evaluating them to be not suitable for release.

5

u/Confident_Ad_5345 19h ago

nah this is about the integrity of the justice system as a whole. it is for exactly the people you are most certain are guilty that you need to be morally comfortable letting free of the prosecution doesn’t appropriately prove the case. the benefit of the doubt has to rest with one of the two sides of the case and its important that it rests with the defense here and always

11

u/lift_1337 19h ago

It absolutely does not work both ways. While you can't be punished legally for how you vote on a jury, that's a different concept than jury nullification. Jury nullification is *specifically* voting not guilty even when you think they did it, typically because you think the punishment or law is unjust in the first place (i.e. "nullifying" the law). Notably, if everyone on the jury votes that way, then that's the end of the trial, the defendant is found not guilty and they can never be tried again thanks to double jeopardy protections.

The reverse, voting guilty even when you think they didn't do it, is decidedly not the end of the line and will likely be followed up by appeal. And in extreme cases, the defendant's lawyer can enter a motion to have the conviction overturned and the judge can grant that. They cannot do the same for a not guilty verdict.

9

u/G0G0Gadget00 18h ago

That isn't how that works, especially in the court of law. The judge did not have to explain to him (again, you are just making stuff up), he had to explain it to the jury. He didn't single any juror out. So all you have is conjecture.

Frankly, these three women should not even be talking about this, but they want their claim to fame. They are not (technically) allowed to speak about what jurors said, arguments inside, and how other jurors voted. Here we are, though.

-1

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

Yep here we are, where 1 juror made a hung jury and a mistrial for what seems to be no good reason.

4

u/G0G0Gadget00 17h ago

Yes, there was a hung jury, but the defense tried to get it the hold out removed and the judge denied it because it was completely legal what he decided.

I love the Internet, people can just talk without knowing a single thing even though the knowledge is there to learn.

0

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

It's completely legal what he decided true. But what he decuded made no sense

8

u/rop_top 18h ago

It is not the job of jurors in this country to justify their decisions made in a court room. It their job to do the best they can in the delivery of justice. This is what he believed to be the justified decision.

0

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

You're right, but we can still call him out on it being a wack thing to do because he's not accomplished anything other than a retrial where she could still be sent to a psychiatric institution rather than jail. It's a very odd thing when only 1 juror of 12 has a completely different verdict and usually it's not based in reason or logic.

3

u/pompousrompus 15h ago

Who cares if it’s an odd thing? That’s the whole point of a jury. Being a holdout isn’t bad unless you only root for one outcome

1

u/rop_top 17h ago

When you've got 11 other people arguing against you, what is the point of arguing at all? Any arguments he could put up would likely be immediately dog piled by the 11 other people that already made up their mind. Not to mention, reasonable people can absolutely disagree about the exact same data. It happens every day, all the time.