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.

 

Distracting America? Why are court cases publicized before the verdict anyway?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined
 


Only one problem....... We would need at least 1,000,000 channels with the sheer number of cases being tried any given day. Even if we had that, most cases would likely not draw any attention anyways, due to the sheer number.




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


And what recourse do people have if a trial seems to be a railroad job? It gets reported by your media, then what happens?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Because they thought it would rally the anti gun rights groups into taking guns away faster.Then only the criminals will have guns.All political power comes from the end of a gun barrel.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Well in the city near me ( Baltimore ) this ( CLICK ME )

I was being of course sarcastic and online it's not an easy behavior to notice. But we cannot watch all the cases, we cannot see everything we want too we have to believe that the system can work and that these people all involved did good in their school to learn how to do the various jobs they are now in charge of doing.

We did not however do all of the schooling combined to make a honestly intelligent decision of if a court case was done correctly, we are the public. Divided we work, united we run this country. So it really needs to be looked at why we are only seeing what we are seeing be public. Seems a gun debate, a racial debate, a distraction from the truth that the NSA was and still is SPYING on you and that's your government.

It may be time we as a people are able to notice through social media a trend of government corruption that we've not been able to see before we asked questions like these.

You're an American too, if you aren't you can be, We need to stand up for ourselves, and understand those with money are trying to run OUR country.

I want us all to question everything!
edit on 16-7-2013 by Tranceopticalinclined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by crazyewok
 


And what recourse do people have if a trial seems to be a railroad job? It gets reported by your media, then what happens?

I dont know what you mean by railroad job?


Here it 100% down to the Jury to decide the veridct, its not up to the media. And its complety out of bounds for the goverment to get involved.

If there has been a breach of procedure in the court room then you get a miss trial and the trial has to be repeated or if its been majorly screwed up the case scraped.

There no lack of transparency has anyone is allowed in to go watch. And if there is a breach of law in the court then the media can report that. But they cant go on TV and pronounce a verdict before a jury has even been assembled



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


But this is exactly what is happening due to this case being public.
The government is getting involved, you had obama comment about it, and it is being talked about possibly having a federal trial of some sorts? HOW CAN HE BE TAKEN TO COURT THIS MUCH? I understand people are upset, but it seems like if someone isn't the verdict the public or even a large group of people wants, they think they can have it changed based on the premise they didn't like the outcome? Who is trying to turn us into a Middleages society again?

Also since this was made public an hispanic man in Baltimore was beaten. That man should be able to sue CNN, FOX, and the lot for his attack happening since it wouldn't of if it wasn't made public. Why is it ok to make a group of people sensationalized by the public and than PUBLICIZE that issue?

I cannot be the only one maddened, by this all. And I don't even care what verdict it is or ever will be, it's the fact I doubt a fair an just trial can take place since even if someone is proven not guilty if it is public they will always be guilty to some and that's not fair nor justice. since they are being charged and proven guilty outside of a court of law but with help from the media and government.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
reply to post by crazyewok
 


But this is exactly what is happening due to this case being public.
The government is getting involved, you had obama comment about it, and it is being talked about possibly having a federal trial of some sorts? HOW CAN HE BE TAKEN TO COURT THIS MUCH? I understand people are upset, but it seems like if someone isn't the verdict the public or even a large group of people wants, they think they can have it changed based on the premise they didn't like the outcome? Who is trying to turn us into a Middleages society again?

Also since this was made public an hispanic man in Baltimore was beaten. That man should be able to sue CNN, FOX, and the lot for his attack happening since it wouldn't of if it wasn't made public. Why is it ok to make a group of people sensationalized by the public and than PUBLICIZE that issue?

I cannot be the only one maddened, by this all. And I don't even care what verdict it is or ever will be, it's the fact I doubt a fair an just trial can take place since even if someone is proven not guilty if it is public they will always be guilty to some and that's not fair nor justice. since they are being charged and proven guilty outside of a court of law but with help from the media and government.



I know and its amazinly stupid how the courts act in the USA.

I was just highlighting how it works in UK and how the Justice system is sperate from the Gov andhow the Media can infringe on our right to a fair trial.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Makes you wonder about there being an alternate agenda.
If we are being picked apart, ideal by ideal or if Americans really just don't care about who they are anymore?

How can anyone even if they have money in this country just ignore those who make their country what it is? Let alone the incredible and horrifying aspect of how Veterans of any Armed Forces are basically over looked after they get out, when they used to be 1st to be hired.

I guess every country will fail, and a more resourceful, popular of the two evils comes into being?

Any you all thought Hell on earth was a myth.... lol Silly human, Hell isn't spiritual, it's everywhere human beings and power / money exist and a public too busy yelling at each other about a court case or something else to even regulate them.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Humans have an attention span slightly better than goldfish. Court cases are resolved fairly quick as opposed to global problems like Iran, Syria,.... It is human nature to be infatuated with new things as well. No one really expects to see a resolution in world affairs but with things like trials they can and they have an element of chance or gambling to them so people are more inclined to pay attention.


I get what you are saying but if you expect things to change you are severely overestimating human nature.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The first change needed is to be able to give one of three verdicts

Guilty / Not Proven Guilty / Innocent.

The court needs to be able to give the innocent verdict and it can't now.

Naming 'suspects' is simply wrong!

There are so many things wrong with the so called justice system it needs an overhaul.

P



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Not guilty is the same as innocent, or it should be in theory, due to the innocent until proven guilty.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Who decides on a mistrial? How does one go about making a mistrial be declared?

A railroad job is when there is no evidence, but someone is found guilty anyways. It happens way more often than it should.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Not guilty is the same as innocent, or it should be in theory, due to the innocent until proven guilty.


We will have to agree to disagree. Not guilty and Innocent are two entirely different situations. There are many judges that have said they need the innocent judgement in some cases, especially where a person is stictched up by lying cops.

The big problem highlighted by this thread is that the court of public opinion is swaying the courts.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Who decides on a mistrial? How does one go about making a mistrial be declared?

A railroad job is when there is no evidence, but someone is found guilty anyways. It happens way more often than it should.


Well the judge. But it can be taken to the high courts or EU courts.


But its not the media or goverments job too decide.

Its not pefect but can you think of a better way?

Thats my point the media should be restricted in order to allow a fair un biased trial.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join