Former UFC HW Champ arrested for attempted murder

[AdamFiveFive]

Court cases often come down to which side can present their version of the 'truth' better...propaganda works in court.

Most people have this misconception that each side presents their facts and makes their case and the case is decided on merit. That couldn't be further from the truth, both sides will present their heavily slanted version and the jury will act on their perception on what should happen.

The law comes down to 12 people, without any legal training, to decide.

We know the basic facts. A guy shot another guy. No disputes on that.

12 people could determine anything. A jury verdict can hinge on emotions alone.

Why don't I have empathy for the guy who got shot?

 

[bpw]

I'm curious, for the people who are sympathetic to Cain...what happens if the child abuse charges are false? Certainly wouldn't be the first time such charges turned out to be unfounded.

 

[SM610]

I'm curious, for the people who are sympathetic to Cain...what happens if the child abuse charges are false? Certainly wouldn't be the first time such charges turned out to be unfounded.

What happens... Well, Cain will serve some time or not. The accused will have a hard time for a while, and he will have gone thru a horrible injustice.

Now, i dont know if Cain is the accuser or if someone else is. My GUESS is that he found out about this 3rd party, as in, someone else told him. We will see.

Is anyone NOT sympathetic for Cain? In any case he has had to deal with the idea that his kid was likely molested dozens of times. What a horrible thing to endure even if it turns out to not be true.

 

[AdamFiveFive]

I hope that none of us finds out, what it's like to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

 

[Eldritch]

The law comes down to 12 people, without any legal training, to decide.

We know the basic facts. A guy shot another guy. No disputes on that.

12 people could determine anything. A jury verdict can hinge on emotions alone.

Why don't I have empathy for the guy who got shot?

Jurors are typically given legal training as part of participation in a trial such as this.

 

[tzrider]

It falls a little short of them passing the bar.

 

[bojangle]

Jurors are typically given legal training as part of participation in a trial such as this.

You mean jury instructions?

 

[Blankpage]

Don’t suppose this jury legal training is the source of enlightenment sovereign citizens and free travellers are born out of.

 

[Brokenlink]

Jurors are typically given legal training as part of participation in a trial such as this.

Bahahahaha, you've said some stupid shit before. But this takes the cake.

I was a juror on a murder trial. There was no "legal training". Sure there were instructions. But they mostly consisted of "No talking and no outside research". In my case, the guy was guilty as fuck. I knew it because I did outside research and was familiar with many of the terms used in the trial when it came to slang for weed and other drugs. I found that the perp was lying about his nickname when I found him on facebook under his nickname flashing gang signs and bragging about the weed that was central to the case. The other 11 jurors were clueless. We ended up finding him not guilty because despite me doing this research, I knew and respected the fact that I couldn't use that info in my judgment of him, and if the DA really wanted to prove hius case, he could have done the very simple research on his own. But as far as "legal training" goes. Naaaaah bro, there was none.

 

[tzrider]

Bahahahaha, you've said some stupid shit before. But this takes the cake.

Nah, since you were on that jury, things have changed. The reason the Curtis Reeves case took 8 years to be tried is we had to wait for the jury to get out of law school.

 

[Climber]

Nah, since you were on that jury, things have changed. The reason the Curtis Reeves case took 8 years to be tries is we had to wait for the jury to get out of law school.

Low blow, but still funny. Sorry Eldritch, but he got you there.

 

[bojangle]

Bahahahaha, you've said some stupid shit before. But this takes the cake.

I was a juror on a murder trial. There was no "legal training". Sure there were instructions. But they mostly consisted of "No talking and no outside research". In my case, the guy was guilty as fuck. I knew it because I did outside research and was familiar with many of the terms used in the trial when it came to slang for weed and other drugs. I found that the perp was lying about his nickname when I found him on facebook under his nickname flashing gang signs and bragging about the weed that was central to the case. The other 11 jurors were clueless. We ended up finding him not guilty because despite me doing this research, I knew and respected the fact that I couldn't use that info in my judgment of him, and if the DA really wanted to prove hius case, he could have done the very simple research on his own. But as far as "legal training" goes. Naaaaah bro, there was none.

Yeah, maybe. Though this stuff would probably come from LE or DA investigators. It's possible that they just didn't look up that stuff and didn't know about it. But I'd say it's much much more likely that they knew all about it, and were prohibited from bringing any of it into the trial so it would not prejudice the jury. This stuff would all be done pre trial, during deliberations in the judge's chambers. This is also one of the reasons you were instructed not to do your own research.

 

[Eldritch]

You mean jury instructions?

Yup, that's the one.

Bahahahaha, you've said some stupid shit before. But this takes the cake.

I was a juror on a murder trial. There was no "legal training". Sure there were instructions. But they mostly consisted of "No talking and no outside research". In my case, the guy was guilty as fuck. I knew it because I did outside research and was familiar with many of the terms used in the trial when it came to slang for weed and other drugs. I found that the perp was lying about his nickname when I found him on facebook under his nickname flashing gang signs and bragging about the weed that was central to the case. The other 11 jurors were clueless. We ended up finding him not guilty because despite me doing this research, I knew and respected the fact that I couldn't use that info in my judgment of him, and if the DA really wanted to prove hius case, he could have done the very simple research on his own. But as far as "legal training" goes. Naaaaah bro, there was none.

So you were given instruction then?

Low blow, but still funny. Sorry Eldritch, but he got you there.

Not at all, the basic Jury instruction is what I was referring to.

The implied concept express expressed by A55 is that the application of the law would better be decided by trained professionals with expertise in the law. This is intentionally, by design, not how our system works.

The people who judge you, a concept going back to the Magna Carta's, "jury of your peers," is supposed to be the same kind of meatloaf brained knuckleheads as everyone else. The idiot masses are supposed to decide how the law is enforced. They get a basic jury instruction as things begin, which is all they require. Highly screened and trained legal professionals on both sides get to do a song a dance to convince them, but at the end of the day, the pack of regular chowderheads gets to decide accompanied by their minimal legal training given at the beginning of the trial and that is how you get a murder charge overturned by the, "he needed killin" Defense or why the Chewbacca Defense can work.

It SHOULD work this way and that basic legal instruction is all the jury of our peers needs. This is what keeps the legal system from being completely owned by a restricted elite class of professionals (already a huge problem).

 

[Climber]

YNot at all, the basic Jury instruction is what I was referring to.

The implied concept express expressed by A55 is that the application of the law would better be decided by trained professionals with expertise in the law. This is intentionally, by design, not how our system works.

The people who judge you, a concept going back to the Magna Carta's, "jury of your peers," is supposed to be the same kind of meatloaf brained knuckleheads as everyone else. The idiot masses are supposed to decide how the law is enforced. They get a basic jury instruction as things begin, which is all they require. Highly screened and trained legal professionals on both sides get to do a song a dance to convince them, but at the end of the day, the pack of regular chowderheads gets to decide accompanied by their minimal legal training given at the beginning of the trial and that is how you get a murder charge overturned by the, "he needed killin" Defense or why the Chewbacca Defense can work.

It SHOULD work this way and that basic legal instruction is all the jury of our peers needs. This is what keeps the legal system from being completely owned by a restricted elite class of professionals (already a huge problem).

Instructions are a far shot from legal training.

That's like expecting armchair quarterbacks to be on par with NFL coaches.

Personally, I think that many sets of jurors get led around by the nose by talented lawyers who convince them that their version of the truth and interpretation of the law is the one the jurors should believe and apply. The don't even begin to have even a foundation of knowledge to know how to interpret the laws that apply to many cases. If it was that simple, why do lawyers have to go to law school for 3 years?

 

[HappyHighwayman]

How much should the guy who was shot ask for in his civil trial?

 

[bojangle]

The implied concept express expressed by A55 is that the application of the law would better be decided by trained professionals with expertise in the law. This is intentionally, by design, not how our system works.

The people who judge you, a concept going back to the Magna Carta's, "jury of your peers," is supposed to be the same kind of meatloaf brained knuckleheads as everyone else. The idiot masses are supposed to decide how the law is enforced. They get a basic jury instruction as things begin, which is all they require. Highly screened and trained legal professionals on both sides get to do a song a dance to convince them, but at the end of the day, the pack of regular chowderheads gets to decide accompanied by their minimal legal training given at the beginning of the trial and that is how you get a murder charge overturned by the, "he needed killin" Defense or why the Chewbacca Defense can work.

It SHOULD work this way and that basic legal instruction is all the jury of our peers needs. This is what keeps the legal system from being completely owned by a restricted elite class of professionals (already a huge problem).

Calling it legal training is a stretch, but jury instructions are a very important foundation of the trial by peer system. I can only hope juries will comprehend and follow them. It's obvious that doesn't always happen.

As much as I sometimes dislike the jury of peers system, I am still glad we have one.

How much should the guy who was shot ask for in his civil trial?

The lawyers will make sure it's enough to get themselves paid handsomely.

 

[tzrider]

Calling it legal training is a stretch, but jury instructions are a very important foundation of the trial by peer system.

Yes, all my chops busting was over the use of the words "training." I knew what he meant but it's silly to call it training. If I tell you to stop when the light turns red, I didn't give you driver training.

 

[AdamFiveFive]

Nobody gets a jury of their peers. Otherwise, the jury pool would be incarcerated people. Let child molesters be the jury for someone accused of molesting. Let drug dealers be the jury for those accused of dealing drugs.

 

[bojangle]

Yes, all my chops busting was over the use of the words "training." I knew what he meant but it's silly to call it training. If I tell you to stop when the light turns red, I didn't give you driver training.

Well, I mean, it was a very quick lesson.

Nobody gets a jury of their peers. Otherwise, the jury pool would be incarcerated people. Let child molesters be the jury for someone accused of molesting. Let drug dealers be the jury for those accused of dealing drugs.

"Peers" is not that literal. "Peers" simply means other schmucks who happen to live in the same community as your dumb ass.

(A55, the general "your", not you personally.)

 

[ctwo]

Aren't they your peers until proven otherwise?

Does nobody think the innocent are brought to trial?