It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

12 Angry Men

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Thanks for all the great ideas. Having it "fleshed-out" here is great. I like the idea of a trial with judge, councelors, and a jury. I've never served on a jury so maybe we could get those that had to be a foreman or a councelor. My lawyer skills sum up to watching "A Few Good Men".






posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 

Well, once in court the media does present evidence, and wouldn't the public see most of what the jury gets to see?
So I'm not sure of "implied evidence".
Perhaps one could rather suggest "indirect evidence"?


edit on 24-3-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Most of my opinions about trials are derived from what Iv'e heard in the media, talk radio and c-span. From talk radio, Rollye James in particular, I get the impression that evidence is often suppressed or disallowed.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and we wouldn't have access to the physical evidence.

To answer your question though, I thought some of the evidence was held back or not noticed.

I wrote implied because it would be "evidence" derived from logical interpretaion of the cases presented by the prosecution and defemce.

Like in the OJ Simpson trial, two pieces of evidence that were mentioned once but not used as i recall were
OJ could have been subject to a gang retailiation and rich people might keep their own blood in a blood bank.
That second one would have made universal health care alot more expensive. And the first one could get anybody out of anything.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




12 Angry Men


'An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes'.

Like the other member said, 12 rational men should be a better option.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Beezer - you're up for it - do this on your own if ATS isn't into starting it's own forum for the same. I'm sure you could set it up well and 'invite' your 'jurors' to a section in BTS. Why not?

peace



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
reply to post by beezzer
 




12 Angry Men


'An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes'.

Like the other member said, 12 rational men should be a better option.


I was refering to the 1957 film, "12 Angry Men" about a roomful of jurors, and a case, ironically, with racial tensions.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by beezzer
 

Beezer - you're up for it - do this on your own if ATS isn't into starting it's own forum for the same. I'm sure you could set it up well and 'invite' your 'jurors' to a section in BTS. Why not?

peace

I might just do that.
Are you going to volunteer?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I haven't seen that movie, I'll check it out.

It's an interesting idea what you're proposing, I'm in



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Are you suggesting a jury panel be put in place to weigh the facts of a case where up to this point no one has even been charged with a crime yet? Perhaps you are suggesting forming a fiat Grand Jury to weigh the evidence to determine whether an indictment is warranted. There is a Grand Canyon of a difference between a jury that sits in judgment of a person charged with a crime, and a Grand Jury.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Are you suggesting a jury panel be put in place to weigh the facts of a case where up to this point no one has even been charged with a crime yet? Perhaps you are suggesting forming a fiat Grand Jury to weigh the evidence to determine whether an indictment is warranted. There is a Grand Canyon of a difference between a jury that sits in judgment of a person charged with a crime, and a Grand Jury.


Good question. Since Zimmerman has already been tried in the court of public opinion in the media and here at ATS, I might suggest a Grand Jury to use reason, facts and data. A single place where emotions, feelings, rhetoric can take a back seat.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
If no-one objects, I'll start a thread on BTS

I'll call it The Beezzer's Court.

But I will step aside if anyone else has a better idea, or wants to run with it differently.

Cheers

beez



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Just don't pick me for a juror, my minds already made up.......

J/K. It could be interesting to see what the end result would be. Would the jurors be able to remain in calm discussion, could they keep emotions and personal beliefs out and just look at facts?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Just don't pick me for a juror, my minds already made up.......

J/K. It could be interesting to see what the end result would be. Would the jurors be able to remain in calm discussion, could they keep emotions and personal beliefs out and just look at facts?


I would leave that to the jury foreman. Call him. . . "Mini-mod".



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Here's the thing though. It's the internet and regardless if someone's opinion of this case is brilliant, average, awful, or anything in between, they are entitled to it. This isn't a court of law and our opinions aren't going to sway any decisions towrads or away from an arrest, at least I hope not.

Otherwise, this is an interesting idea. Couldn't really be a forum but threads could work.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Isn't this what the Debate Forum is for?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Isn't this what the Debate Forum is for?


Debate is one on one. This would be a group effort and maybe some entertainment as well.

Or not.

Here's the "pilot" thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Is it possible to have the debate between the “Prosecution” and “Defense”, with the jury of course reading but unable to post comments until after the verdict?

Since Beez would be the Judge (And he is not a moderator), maybe the bench could consist of one or two other Mods. Something along the lines of a slimmed down SCOTUS.

I volunteered for the defense because sometimes I like to make myself take on a task that I am not necessarily in agreement with, just to make myself think a little harder than usual.

As Beez says, it is a serious issue but there could be some educational entertainment in it as well.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Well folks, the first "jury" thread of Beezzer's Court Link is winding down, with the jury deliberating.

I was pleased with he response and the participation.

*Humble bow to all that helped*

Any input from the mods?

Once this winds down and the jury deliberation is done and a verdict reached, I hope to start another court case. Others have asked if they could participate and all I'm doing now is looking for an issue where just the facts and not heated debate would reign.

Judge Roy Beez



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join