[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think the ones with agendas stood out a mile and it wasn’t the doubters. The usual hysterics on such subjects.

Spot on my lovely

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because the debate isn't about whether he was guilty of his crime, nor whether he should be punished.

But whether the punishment should be chosen based on his sexuality, not his crime.

But, yes, twist to fit your own agenda.

"The jurors I reached all said that they sentenced Rhines to death primarily because of the nature of the murder."


can we now have your reaction?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"The jurors I reached all said that they sentenced Rhines to death primarily because of the nature of the murder."


can we now have your reaction?

My reaction to what?

The point of the discussion was whether a man deserved a harsher punishment due to his sexuality.

This got twisted into people suggesting a murderer didn't deserve a harsh sentence for murder.

That's misrepresenting what was being talked about and what my post was directed at.

I don't recall stating I knew how and why the jury came to the decision they did.

[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 .

[Niamh.]

Can you all please stick to the thread topic which isn't "eachother", thanks.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Can you all please stick to the thread topic which isn't "eachother", thanks.

ALL.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

ALL.

Yes that's what I said?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes that's what I said?

[Niamh.]

Parmnion if you have an issue or question please PM a mod or admin, stop derailing the thread and trying to cause trouble. This is a warning to drop it or take it to PM, just to be clear