• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Happy Jack

Time to play SA Jury

Guilty ?   15 members have voted

  1. 1. If the jury adheres to a strict interpretation of Reasonable Doubt

    • Not Guilty of all charges
      7
    • Guilty of 2nd degree murder
      2
    • Guilty of Manslaughter
      6
    • Hung Jury
      0
    • Mistrial for some other reason
      0
  2. 2. If the jury leans more on an emotional sense of justice

    • Not Guilty of all charges
      1
    • Guilty of 2nd degree murder
      5
    • Guilty of Manslaughter
      6
    • Hung Jury
      3
    • Mistrial for some other reason
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

30 posts in this topic

I'm waiting for the poll to be edited to include a choice of "Just Happy Jack starting another thread to make sure all eyes are on him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

67902_161146470736041_155005585_n.jpg

 

Is the player with the happy fingers guilty of:

 

A) Unsportsmanlike Conduct

B ) Sexual Assault

C) Bad Aim

D) Nothing, the recipient is a democRAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - Happy did step up with a poll - even though he somehow made it biased. Leave it to Happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the option for "I am not actually ON the jury, so I've have not heard all of the testimony and arguments and instructions from the judge so maybe I'm not qualified to say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the option for "I am not actually ON the jury, so I've have not heard all of the testimony and arguments and instructions from the judge so maybe I'm not qualified to say."

. Even the jury hasn't heard the instructions After lunch :)

 

I actually agree with your point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I missed the option for "I am not actually ON the jury, so I've have not heard all of the testimony and arguments and instructions from the judge so maybe I'm not qualified to say."

. Even the jury hasn't heard the instructions After lunch :)

 

I actually agree with your point

 

You're both smart boys.. You can figure it out. Vote afer lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, duh..

 

 

 

I missed the option for "I am not actually ON the jury, so I've have not heard all of the testimony and arguments and instructions from the judge so maybe I'm not qualified to say."

. Even the jury hasn't heard the instructions After lunch :)

I actually agree with your point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the option for "I am not actually ON the jury, so I've have not heard all of the testimony and arguments and instructions from the judge so maybe I'm not qualified to say."

 

since when does one have to qualified around here, in order to offer an opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark me down for "Basically, I don't give a shit..."

 

I'm sure it's largely due to the fact that I was one of a Fortunate Few of Americans who happened to be off on my boat in the Bahamas when the shooting and it's aftermath occurred, but I continue to be absolutely astounded by the attention this case has received...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I submit that we will see a Hung Jury. Lots of folks on either side will hit the talk shows, decrying the injustice. Another prosecutor will handle the second trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think not guilty based on the evidence I have seen and heard. Leaning for manslaughter from the jury. Not sure why maybe the OJ decision is clouding my perception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I missed the option for "I am not actually ON the jury, so I've have not heard all of the testimony and arguments and instructions from the judge so maybe I'm not qualified to say."

. Even the jury hasn't heard the instructions After lunch :)

 

I actually agree with your point

 

You're both smart boys.. You can figure it out. Vote afer lunch.

 

The essence of Happy Jack reasoning. He never let's a lack of information get the way of forming an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Personally I think not guilty based on the evidence I have seen and heard. Leaning for manslaughter from the jury. Not sure why maybe the OJ decision is clouding my perception

Borrowed from Sol's post in the other thread.

. Really? This is a thread on PA you are entitled to your opinion don't try and lecture me on mine.

 

I have seen enough to have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crimes he is charged with. Anything I might not have seen does not matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Personally I think not guilty based on the evidence I have seen and heard. Leaning for manslaughter from the jury. Not sure why maybe the OJ decision is clouding my perception

Borrowed from Sol's post in the other thread.

. Really? This is a thread on PA you are entitled to your opinion don't try and lecture me on mine.

 

I have seen enough to have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crimes he is charged with. Anything I might not have seen does not matter

 

You must never have received a lecture, if you think my post constitutes one.

 

I am saving that last sentence. It's golden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I think not guilty based on the evidence I have seen and heard. Leaning for manslaughter from the jury. Not sure why maybe the OJ decision is clouding my perception

Borrowed from Sol's post in the other thread.

. Really? This is a thread on PA you are entitled to your opinion don't try and lecture me on mine.

 

I have seen enough to have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crimes he is charged with. Anything I might not have seen does not matter

You must never have received a lecture, if you think my post constitutes one.

 

I am saving that last sentence. It's golden.

it's fact our system operates on reasonable doubt once you have that the rest is simply window dressing.

 

If the jury has a straw poll and they all vote guilty or innocent. That's it they do not have to review any of the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I think not guilty based on the evidence I have seen and heard. Leaning for manslaughter from the jury. Not sure why maybe the OJ decision is clouding my perception

Borrowed from Sol's post in the other thread.

. Really? This is a thread on PA you are entitled to your opinion don't try and lecture me on mine.

 

I have seen enough to have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crimes he is charged with. Anything I might not have seen does not matter

You must never have received a lecture, if you think my post constitutes one.

 

I am saving that last sentence. It's golden.

it's fact our system operates on reasonable doubt once you have that the rest is simply window dressing.

 

If the jury has a straw poll and they all vote guilty or innocent. That's it they do not have to review any of the evidence.

 

Agreed. But I would be surprised if, after the jury having sat through this trial, it comes down to a straw poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really! . I would expect one of the first things they did was elect a Forman. Then I would expect the Foreman to take a quick poll to see where everyone stood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reminded how awful deliberations were every time I was on a jury. There's always the leader wanna be who tries to organize and steer everybody his own way, the stupid one who didn't listen to a single thing during the trial, the emotional one who can't stop talking about how they "feel", the frigging genius who is smarter than everyone else - just ask him, the sarcastic one who turns every statement into an insult...............hey..............sounds like PA.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really! . I would expect one of the first things they did was elect a Forman. Then I would expect the Foreman to take a quick poll to see where everyone stood.

I agree they likely took a quick poll as soon as they hit the room for deliberations. I meant I doubt that this will be over with the straw poll.

 

I might also add the following items -

 

If Z is convicted (either charge), those who feel he should have been acquitted will scream that the jury decided based on emotion, without listening to the facts/evidence. They'll add in that the verdict was more of an effort to avoid riots than justice served.

 

If Z is acquitted, those who feel he should have been convicted will cry it is evidence of the inherent racism of Sanford. They'll add in that the trial was held only to put on a show that they cared about seeking what happened that night.

 

Either way, this ain't over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really! . I would expect one of the first things they did was elect a Forman. Then I would expect the Foreman to take a quick poll to see where everyone stood.

I agree they likely took a quick poll as soon as they hit the room for deliberations. I meant I doubt that this will be over with the straw poll.

 

I might also add the following items -

 

If Z is convicted (either charge), those who feel he should have been acquitted will scream that the jury decided based on emotion, without listening to the facts/evidence. They'll add in that the verdict was more of an effort to avoid riots than justice served.

 

If Z is acquitted, those who feel he should have been convicted will cry it is evidence of the inherent racism of Sanford. They'll add in that the trial was held only to put on a show that they cared about seeking what happened that night.

 

Either way, this ain't over.

 

I won't be surprised by any outcome outlined - with just 6 people on the jury, it's possible a bit of bonding amongst them and a persuasive person or 2 could swing it either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they elect a Foreman will he grill the other jurors?

 

And will her name be Georgette?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If they elect a Foreman will he grill the other jurors?

 

And will her name be Georgette?

See you can be funny. well done. although rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites