Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Could you please refrain from using this statement when posting to Trey? Seriously people... Love you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shock Phantom 263 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 I'm actually NOT surprised. We as a society have long since forgotten what is right and what is wrong. I am ashamed that I am associated with a bunch of people who need their hands held through something and can't just think for themselves. Some of you keep saying there was no evidence. Ya'll must've been watching some different trial I guess. I saw plenty of evidence that she killed her child. I actually weep for the lack of education being presented by some of you on here. You shouldn't be questioning our intelligence, you should be questioning the people who write the law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Berto 338 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Ed, just like millions of other Americans, graduated from the Nancy Grace School of Law. It's all about revenge, disguised as justice for the victim. I don't care what emotional reaction you, or anyone else has to this case - a juror's job isn't to take certain evidence and take unproven steps in finding guilt. It's completely the job of the prosecution to make their case, and prove without a reasonable doubt that what they charged the defendant with is fact. They didn't directly tie her to a murder. The law says she's not guilty. Game over. It's unbelievably sad that a child is gone, but finding her mother guilty out of emotion isn't justice, it's this country's sick lust for revenge. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Love you. :shard: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jareth Cutestory 678 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 There is a difference between agreeing with the ultimate verdict of the trial, based on the evidence involved, and celebrating the fact that Casey got off. We're not dancing in the streets wearing Casey t-shirts. We're simply saying that based off what presented to the jury, they did not find enough evidence to come to the conclusion that Casey ACTUALLY murdered her daughter. And we're OK with that. It's the right call. It's also OK to be skeptical and think deep down inside that Casey STILL had something to do with the act, yet agree with the outcome. It's the reason there is reasonable doubt. While we may think in our hearts she is guilty, we simply can't prove that she is 100%. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Ed, just like millions of other Americans, graduated from the Nancy Grace School of Law. It's all about revenge, disguised as justice for the victim. I don't care what emotional reaction you, or anyone else has to this case - a juror's job isn't to take certain evidence and take unproven steps in finding guilt. It's completely the job of the prosecution to make their case, and prove without a reasonable doubt that what they charged the defendant with is fact. They didn't directly tie her to a murder. The law says she's not guilty. Game over. It's unbelievably sad that a child is gone, but finding her mother guilty out of emotion isn't justice, it's this country's sick lust for revenge. Well stated. The media train has once again proven it is the neck of the "head of public opinion." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ML6 520 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 There is a difference between agreeing with the ultimate verdict of the trial, based on the evidence involved, and celebrating the fact that Casey got off. We're not dancing in the streets wearing Casey t-shirts. We're simply saying that based off what presented to the jury, they did not find enough evidence to come to the conclusion that Casey ACTUALLY murdered her daughter. And we're OK with that. It's the right call. It's also OK to be skeptical and think deep down inside that Casey STILL had something to do with the act, yet agree with the outcome. It's the reason there is reasonable doubt. While we may think in our hearts she is guilty, we simply can't prove that she is 100%. Couldn't have said it better. And that scares me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Optimist Prime 197 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 To be fair, Casey still has to deal with the aftermath of all of this for the rest of her life. Do you think she will just return to the way things were before this? Get a nice job, start a new family, make new friends... No way. She will forever be scarred by this. There is no "getting away" for her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 There is a difference between agreeing with the ultimate verdict of the trial, based on the evidence involved, and celebrating the fact that Casey got off. We're not dancing in the streets wearing Casey t-shirts. We're simply saying that based off what presented to the jury, they did not find enough evidence to come to the conclusion that Casey ACTUALLY murdered her daughter. And we're OK with that. It's the right call. It's also OK to be skeptical and think deep down inside that Casey STILL had something to do with the act, yet agree with the outcome. It's the reason there is reasonable doubt. While we may think in our hearts she is guilty, we simply can't prove that she is 100%. AcuWill very well could be. Other than that I agree with everything you said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 To be fair, Casey still has to deal with the aftermath of all of this for the rest of her life. Do you think she will just return to the way things were before this? Get a nice job, start a new family, make new friends... No way. She will forever be scarred by this. There is no "getting away" for her. She's going to get a VH1 show and be rich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 She still might spend plenty of time in prison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Trey and Ed - and this isn't a smartass question, I swear, but do you guys see the implications of what you're advocating on cases where the defendant may actually be innocent? Not just not guilty but completely innocent? Do you not see how easily we could sentence an innocent person to die if we don't have strict standards for proving guilt in cases where the death penalty is on the table? If so, are you ok with that? However infuriating it might be on the most basic level, it's imperative that we be absolutely sure about these things before we execute someone. If that means we aren't able to kill everyone we want to, that's still a whole lot better than possibly killing people who are innocent. I abhor the death penalty being used for any reason, but it seems that we're stuck with it and if that's the case we better be damn sure that the person we're killing actually did what we say they did. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
