You voted:

(3) comments


It's strange that someone would have an opinion, one way or the other, when they haven't heard the arguments, nor seen the evidence presented at this trial. All we saw or heard was sensationalized sound bits from the media. Hardly enough to make an informed decision. Most likely those that voted in this poll had aleady made up their minds, long before the actual trial.


He had no need to be there, he came armed, he killed 2 people, injured 1, and he has a violent past. What compelling reason is there to not convict?


His defense was self defense, and the prosecution didn't convince the jury that it wasn't. You don't need a compelling reason not to convict. That's not how our legal system works. You have to convict based on proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges. Media legal analysts covering the trial said that the prosecution didn't do that.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!