Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Hey man, if you can provide even ONE SINGLE WITNESS ACCOUNT suggesting there was a different shooter, bring it.

Until then, it's looking like this guy is guilty as sin, and you are being kind of unsupportedly agnostic about the whole deal.

It is not up to the defense to provide evidence of a conspiracy.

It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt in a criminal offense by providing evidence.

En Garde!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
He may be "innocent" in a legal sense.

But he is guilty as hell in my mind until I hear a conflicting report.

And that's why he'll get convicted, no matter what evidence is presented at his trial, assuming he lives until a trial.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Thank god this is not a democracy, cause if it was, he would already be hanging.

This is a republic, with a court system for these kinds of things, you just cant get a bunch of people together and democratically say hes guilty without trial, thats not how our system works.

Yea, hes probably guilty as all hell, but until he has his day in court, hes innocent.

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Sentinel412

 

You are missing the OPS point ENTIRELY.
This thread isnt about his innocence, it is about his right to a fair trial.
Just because people saw it happen doesnt mean he isnt deserving of the same trial as the next person.

Really? Is this thread is not about it? Let's check the title. Jared Lee Leoughner is innocent. I believe it tells everything.

Also, what fair trial a murder deserves? Tell me. If it would be your daughter, would you want the very same fair trial? If one of your relative would be the victim, would you demand the very same fair trial? No, I don't think so.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Americans truly start to lost their mind sometimes. When there is a conspiracy, they're blind as hell, when there is no conspiracy, they're searching for one. Upside down world we're living, that's a guarantee.

I can recall at least half a dozen instances of shootings in public places I've seen reports on in the last few months, each and every single one of them was recorded, each and every single one was posted on YouTube by five hundred people. Where are the videos of this event?

reply to post by muzzleflash

In the end, you'll probably get your wish - he'll be "INNOCENT BY REASON OF INSANITY". His defense attorney is going to have an EASY time proving this guy is mentally ill and legally insane. So even though he "did it", he won't be convicted of the "crime".

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Also, what fair trial a murder deserves? Tell me. If it would be your daughter, would you want the very same fair trial? If one of your relative would be the victim, would you demand the very same fair trial? No, I don't think so.

The trial is supposed to determine his innocence or guilt in the eyes of a jury. If we just assume he's guilty we can avoid the trial and go straight to punishment. What would you prefer, gun him down in the street? Hang him? Make him drink drain cleaner?

reply to post by DrumsRfun


I'm amazed you got stars for your post.

You demonstrate no intelligence in knee jerk reactions to a title without reading a post.
Nice work.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

In the end, you'll probably get your wish - he'll be "INNOCENT BY REASON OF INSANITY". His defense attorney is going to have an EASY time proving this guy is mentally ill and legally insane. So even though he "did it", he won't be convicted of the "crime".

You seem to be privy to this guy's mental status and also able to prognosticate. Where did you acquire these gifts, did the truth fairy grant you some wishes?

Yep and if we were to just hang him without a trial that means we are no better than the killers we hate.

And yes thank God we are a Republic. We are losing it though, just take a look at the mindset of the people. They are begging to get rid of our rights...

Don't forget, this this the same media that said Iraq was involved in 911 and had weapons of mass destruction. Their track record speaks for itself.

Yeah... what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald?

I don't mean this to be a one-liner, but that pretty much sums up my concern. Loughner getting shot would pretty much be the end of investigation, right?

Originally posted by PlautusSatire
I can recall at least half a dozen instances of shootings in public places I've seen reports on in the last few months, each and every single one of them was recorded, each and every single one was posted on YouTube by five hundred people. Where are the videos of this event?

Show me few videos about the last ones (With the exception of that interior shooting, where the webcamera recorded everything AND where the media is cut everything together to present the shooting much more violently with the voice over shooting sounds)... so, with the exception of that case, the shootings never was recorded at all and never was on YouTube. Don't distort the truth please.

reply to post by Sentinel412


YES, I would.

What if they found out in court that he was NOT responsible, and someone else was?
Boy would I feel reaaaaallllly stupid that I just killed some innocent dude and let the killer of my daughter go walking away scotch free because I was so emotionally attatched to retribution over this one individual.

And yes, the title says hes guilty, but havent you ever heard of that saying "Never judge a book by its cover" ?

If you actually read and understood the original post, you would understand quite easily that this is about a persons rights, not their innocence or guilt.

reply to post by Sentinel412



Perhaps not. But that is why our legal system is centered around logic rather than the knee jerk reactions of a over-emotional family member..

People surprise me with their brilliant idea. I fully we should deprive a man of a fair trial because someone was upset that he was accused of something.

Yeah, that sounds great.

Actually it's funny you bring this up. Actually just what I'm remembering right now may be worthy of another thread.

I was watching an interview with Joe Zamudio. He is the man who tackled Laughner after the shooting and held him down until police came.

Zamudio said something interesting during the interview.

While he was describing how he saw JLL and tackled him, he mentioned that after he grabbed Laughner, People were yelling out, "No it's not him, it's another guy!"

In other words, people who were there yelled out that Zamudio had tackled the wrong guy, and the shooter was getting away.

This was straight out of Zamudio's mouth. I'm off to find the Youtube video of it. I forget what show I was watching at the time. It was on FNC. though...

Originally posted by Common Good
Yea, hes probably guilty as all hell, but until he has his day in court, hes innocent.

You think it's likely that a kid with no documented or even anecdotal experience with guns mowed down 10 people pumping over 30 bullets into them with a single pistol in a few seconds? I find it much more likely that since the targets were political that this was a political assassination and was almost certainly well-funded, well-planned and well-executed by a TEAM of people, not one guy who was thrown out of community college for freaking people out.

reply to post by PlautusSatire


I make you a bet they put Jared in a mental institution for the rest of his life. He obviously DID NOT KNOW what He was doing.... This poor guy is a victim of circumstances.. Jared needed help..

reply to post by eMachine


It wouldn't necessarily mean that.. but.
It removes the valuable part of discovering perhaps that he didn't do it. Without him, who else would have an interest in proving his innocence?

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Sentinel412

 

YES, I would.

No, you wouldn't. No one is capable to do that. That's human emotion, or you never loved anyone at all in the reality.

If you actually read and understood the original post, you would understand quite easily that this is about a persons rights, not their innocence or guilt.

Whoever is taking the life of someone else, that one doesn't have any rights any more.

The subtext of the OP (if you read between the lines) is about Conspiracy Theory, not about JLL being "innocent".

What the OP is basically dancing around is his subscription to a conspiracy theory going around that this guy may have been set up as a patsy. That the popular narrative he was the shooter is the result of a carefully constructed assassination designed to make it appear as though this guy was the shooter, when in fact he was not.

For this to be true, the people who executed the conspiracy and the subsequent cover story would have to of been magicians, experts in the art of deception by fooling an entire crowd and near by witnesses that JLL was the shooter when in fact it was someone else in the crowd.

I'm not saying that it's impossible (magicians fool entire stadiums full of people all the time) - I'm just saying that the OP is dancing around this subject by proclaiming this guy's "innocence".