Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ASA pilot arrested

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll settle for jurists who don't automatically assume guilt just because a persecutor decided to bring charges...
 
shamrock said:
I'll settle for jurists who don't automatically assume guilt just because a persecutor decided to bring charges...
Click to expand...

Even been on a jury in GA? Unfortunately, many people actually think like him. "If they investigated and brought charges, he MUST be guilty, because innocent people don't get arrested"! FRY THE BASTARD!!!
 
BOX OFFICE said:
Even been on a jury in GA? Unfortunately, many people actually think like him. "If they investigated and brought charges, he MUST be guilty, because innocent people don't get arrested"! FRY THE BASTARD!!!
Click to expand...
You are missing the larger point. Somehow, this does not surprise me...
 
sunlitpath said:
You would'nt need to "burn any challenges", whatever that means. During jury selection, objections to a particular juror by either side routinely result in the exclusion of that juror.. Especially in murder cases.
Click to expand...

No way! Seriously? :rolleyes:

I assumed that someone with such an intimate knowledge of the criminal judicial system would likely be familiar with the concept of "peremptory challenges" but then again you know what happens when you assume...

Here's your sign... And a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
 
shamrock said:
No way! Seriously? :rolleyes:

I assumed that someone with such an intimate knowledge of the criminal judicial system would likely be familiar with the concept of "peremptory challenges" but then again you know what happens when you assume...

Here's your sign... And a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
Click to expand...
Never heard of it. Thanks for the reference. I guess you would need to burn one; just like your friend who allegedly burned that man to death while he slept...
 
Last edited:
DA's don't really pursue cases the office can't win. They have to demonstrate a high conviction rate. Most are SO overloaded they don't have time to screw with any cases where there won't be a plea bargain, or the outcome is questionable.

Innocent until proven guilty.

But then again, my expertise IS in thoracic surgery.
 
Last edited:
COOPERVANE said:
DA's don't really pursue cases the office can't win. They have to demonstrate a high conviction rate. Most are SO overloaded they don't have time to screw with any cases where there won't be a plea bargain, or the outcome is questionable.

Innocent until proven guilty.

But then again, my expertise IS in thoracic surgery.
Click to expand...
That's really the point. All kidding aside, if I were on the jury, I would listen to the evidence to determine a verdict. My point is that probability is not on the defendant's side. Stating this fact does not mean he is declared guilty.
 
sunlitpath said:
That's really the point. All kidding aside, if I were on the jury, I would listen to the evidence to determine a verdict. My point is that probability is not on the defendant's side. Stating this fact does not mean he is declared guilty.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. The first task a GOOD lawyer performs is to advise the jury that just because you are here does not mean the accused is probably guilty. Listen to the facts and make your own determination.
 
shamrock said:
No way! Seriously? :rolleyes:

I assumed that someone with such an intimate knowledge of the criminal judicial system would likely be familiar with the concept of "peremptory challenges" but then again you know what happens when you assume...

Here's your sign... And a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
Click to expand...
Actually, upon further review, I am familiar with the concept of peremptory challenges, because that's precisely what I described. I was just unfamiliar with the legal term. I guess I do have an intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system. Therefore, your assumptions are well founded. Don't beat yourself up. We all make mistakes.
 
Last edited:
sunlitpath said:
Actually, upon further review, I am familiar with the concept of peremptory challenges, because that's precisely what I described. I was just unfamiliar with the legal term. I guess I do have an intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system. Therefore, your assumptions are well founded. Don't beat yourself up. We all make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Hey, go and clean out your garage or something! ;-)
 
In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn describes the process of arrest, investigation, interrogation and trial under Stalin. Those very few who did not confess to make the interrogation stop and for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict them of the crime for which they were arrested were found guilty of the crime of being guilty. The sentence for being guilty was 8 years.
 
Amazing how irony, wit and sarcasm are so little appreciated, let alone recognized, by some of you idiots. Your life is decidedly duller without it, but you wouldn't know, so enjoy. Ignorance is bliss?

You have proved that you are indeed a clueless dolt.
 
COOPERVANE said:
DA's don't really pursue cases the office can't win. They have to demonstrate a high conviction rate. Most are SO overloaded they don't have time to screw with any cases where there won't be a plea bargain, or the outcome is questionable.
Click to expand...

Certainly true for all lesser crimes. But for high-profile murder, they have to pursue a case even if they don't like the odds. To do otherwise would cause public uproar (and loss of next election). They will only drop such a case if they really don't have anywhere enough evidence.
 
rickair7777 said:
Certainly true for all lesser crimes. But for high-profile murder, they have to pursue a case even if they don't like the odds. To do otherwise would cause public uproar (and loss of next election). They will only drop such a case if they really don't have anywhere enough evidence.
Click to expand...

When did you take the bar exam?
 
Hamburger said:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:




You have officially lost the right to call anyone else a 'clueless dolt'.
Click to expand...
A clueless dolt who doesn't recognize sarcasm cannot revoke my right to use the term. Therefore, you may now join the ranks of your fellow clueless dolts. To help cure your humorless condition, I prescribe two hours of watching the Three Stooges and one full year of no contact with Delta pilots...
 
This has been 10 pages of classic F/I, I would like to thank each and every poster for making each and every grumpy I squeezed out while reading this thread entirely enjoyable.
The big question remaining is the pilot gonna get to conjugal sweetness from his trailer park princess, née convicted murderer g/f. I bet convict chicks get busy!
 
PBRstreetgang said:
This has been 10 pages of classic F/I, I would like to thank each and every poster for making each and every grumpy I squeezed out while reading this thread entirely enjoyable.
The big question remaining is the pilot gonna get to conjugal sweetness from his trailer park princess, née convicted murderer g/f. I bet convict chicks get busy!
Click to expand...

You are an ***********************************!

(ps...suspend me, mods. That comment is scum. You don't know what this guy went through, and the lady lived in a very nice home and neighborhood, not a trailer park)
 
And the word was azzhole, or a$$hole....the back of a coneys butt!
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he tapping' another mans wife and the other man ends up burned to death, just because the jury cannot find "beyond a reasonable doubt" means he was not guilty, not factually innocent, small difference. He still rates high on the slime ball scale.
Thanks for playing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom