[Northern Monkey]

Well done DI Kirk.

It did seem quite unbelievable that a whole jury would come to the decision of the death penalty ‘because he’s gay’.
You’re maybe likely to get one maybe two homophobics on a jury but not the whole jury.
Atleast somebody would speak out.

The NY Times should be ashamed of themselves.They’ve made their agenda pretty transparent.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Well done DI Kirk.

It did seem quite unbelievable that a whole jury would come to the decision of the death penalty ‘because he’s gay’.
You’re maybe likely to get one maybe two homophobics on a jury but not the whole jury.
Atleast somebody would speak out.

The NY Times should be ashamed of themselves.They’ve made their agenda pretty transparent.

Not to mention some of those on here. Commonsense flies out the window when there is an agenda on the table.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Not to mention some of those on here. Commonsense flies out the window when there is an agenda on the table.

So true ,its par for the course and pretty boring now too

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Well done DI Kirk.

It did seem quite unbelievable that a whole jury would come to the decision of the death penalty ‘because he’s gay’.
You’re maybe likely to get one maybe two homophobics on a jury but not the whole jury.
Atleast somebody would speak out.

The NY Times should be ashamed of themselves.They’ve made their agenda pretty transparent.

So true !
My thoughts as well

And even if the jury were predjudiced AF ! it would of been investigated for a fair outcome.

And usually juries are supposed to be a mixture of different people both men & women & diverse .