Don't make me move this to D&D, you idiots. Oh, Kagy, check your email dood we gotta get a beer sometime lol edit: you're not idiots I was only kidding I love you all. And, I created a thread for the debate and discussion this topic has kicked off! You may find that in the MFP forum located just south of here.
Nothing pulls the clutch crew in like the Jayson Williams trial. I guess it's because you guys do all sorts of fancy gun play when you have those secret meetings, right? Well, it's all fine and "lol" until someone gets shot in the gut! From what I understand, "manslaughter" is killing someone. It can be "involuntary," but I suppose we need to know exactly what the prosecution was charging. I assume they were going for involuntary. I don't see what the "reasonable doubt" would be here. Someone else accidentally shot the driver? The driver spontaneously developed a massive wound in his abdomen? It's kind of weird. Ultimately: poor driver. Not a good way to go.
EDIT: Yeah, I do have an opinion about the case. I don't feel they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. was the killer. I sort of felt that way during (my Mom and I watched ungodly amounts of that trial) and after reading a book whose name escapes me now afterwards, I felt reassured in that opinion. mrpaige, you disagree that 12 jurors are ideally supposed to exclude any pre-trial beliefs about a case?
No. I think the rest of us that aren't one of those 12 can do what we want in terms of forming an opinion. But I was noting that there are times when we don't trust those who rendered the verdict as having found the "truth". This is often true in regards to some death penalty cases (and other cases in which we find some sense of injustice. Your own sense of injustice may vary).
That's kinda my point. These 12 people have, hopefully, come to their decision with no biases or subjectiveness. Meanwhile, those who claim that this outcome is a shame or based on money aren't free from those biases. Maybe I'm being naive. Well, I think there are rare instances when a jury may disregard evidence and convict on prior notions. However, most of the time, I believe incorrect convictions are due mainly to prosecutorial misconduct. The jury simply convicts on what they hear. Again, I'm probably being naive, but I find that's more comforting that being cynical.
I just can't get through the day without being overly cynical. Perhaps we should team up and make a wacky sitcom.
I just read an article about the lack of good sit-coms...we could infuse a much-needed injection into the world of televsion!
If this were the only incident where Jayson Williams was playing around and someone got hurt, maybe. But the evidence indicates he did many foolish things with guns in the past and was irresponsible when he had authority. His admits as much in his *book*. Being drunk when you grab a gun is no defense at all. He was drunk. I would not point a loaded weapon at someone with my finger on the trigger as a joke. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/williamscall1.html http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20040317/17mar2004114116.html
Thanks for the update ken glad. It's good to know they got some justice so to speak. Court analysis from SI. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/lester_munson/04/30/williams.q_a/ Surprising victory for Williams Evidence misconduct hurt prosecution's case against former All-Star Posted: Friday April 30, 2004 5:57PM; Updated: Friday April 30, 2004 6:04PM Jayson Williams was acquitted Friday of four of eight charges against him, including aggravated manslaughter. SI.com spoke with Sports Illustrated's Lester Munson about the verdict. SI.com: Are you surprised that the jury didn't convict on either of the most serious charges -- aggravated manslaughter or reckless manslaughter? Munson: I am. I am especially surprised that they didn't convict on the reckless manslaughter. The way the law of New Jersey reads it appeared to me that he was clearly guilty on the reckless manslaughter count. The gun was loaded. It was one of four guns that were loaded in that bedroom. There is no question that Williams was waving the gun around, that there was a certain level of intoxication, that he pointed what he had to know was a loaded gun at Gus Christofi and the man ends up dead. To me, it is the perfect reckless manslaughter case. The jury, I am sure, considered all of that, but then they were, I think, probably angered by the prosecutor's misconduct in not disclosing all of his evidence on the weapon to the defense. The prosecutor [Steven Lember] was caught on a violation of the rules, and it has now come back to haunt him. . . .
Priceless. Leaving aside that admission, it looks like what you're saying is that it's OK to have an opinion on a given trial if you agree with the jury, and/or if you watch a lot of the trial on Court TV and read a book after the fact. I would like to know if it's "and", or "or". If it's "and", that's problematic, because I can't vouch for any of the posters on this thread as to whether or not they watched any of the trial coverage on Court TV. But, if it's "or", that's better, because it's pretty much a certainty a large number of books will be written on the subject. At least, I hope I am interpreting that right. I would hate to think you were saying that it's OK for you to have and express an opinion on the O.J. trial, but it's not OK for posters on the BBS to have an opinion on the Jayson Williams trial.
I never said someone couldn't have an opinion about either or any case. Do you know how I feel about this case? I'm gonna take the opinion of 12 jurors who saw evidence everyday for several months over the opinion of some people who weren't, including my own. There is no hypocrisy in that. It's, gulp, admitting that I may not know everything. Wouldn't you rather be tending to some bedpans?
