Food, Drink & Dining Out The Perth Thread - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thankfully my case was only a few days but the deliberations took longer than they should have due to a few morons not being able to get their heads around the concept of needing proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict, there simply wasn't enough evidence to give anything but a not guilty verdict.

Same sort of thing happened with mine. We could have been out in 5 minutes when we went in to deliberate as all but 3 were saying not guilty and the other 3 were on the fence. It ended up taking nearly an hour to convince all 3 to go not guilty.
 
Same sort of thing happened with mine. We could have been out in 5 minutes when we went in to deliberate as all but 3 were saying not guilty and the other 3 were on the fence. It ended up taking nearly an hour to convince all 3 to go not guilty.

Took us a good few hours to reach a verdict, we went into deliberate around lunch time and we didn't get out of there until after 4pm.

It was frustrating as hell, there was still a couple of jurors not happy with the not guilty verdict but they basically told us to just go out there and give our verdict otherwise we would have had to all go back the next day. It could have all been wrapped up in about half an hour if it wasn't for a few stubborn idiots.
 
Well this has been illuminating.

Just imagine it ~ the case is hanging by a thread and the defendant just needs 1 more juror to turn to prevent a guilty verdict = life sentence, but the jury says, "Nah * this s**t, The Simpsons are on"
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The case I was on wasn't exactly the crime of the century, it was just a sexual harassment case between two underage teenagers at a fast food place.

It was pretty much just her word against his with very little other evidence to go by, even if he was found guilty he wouldn't have done jail time as it was a first offence but he would've had a criminal record. To be honest I thought it was a ridiculous waste of time to have a case like that tried at a district court.
 
Well this has been illuminating.

Just imagine it ~ the case is hanging by a thread and the defendant just needs 1 more juror to turn to prevent a guilty verdict = life sentence, but the jury says, "Nah **** this s**t, The Simpsons are on"
homerglasses2.jpg
 
The case I was on wasn't exactly the crime of the century, it was just a sexual harassment case between two underage teenagers at a fast food place.

It was pretty much just her word against his with very little other evidence to go by, even if he was found guilty he wouldn't have done jail time as it was a first offence but he would've had a criminal record. To be honest I thought it was a ridiculous waste of time to have a case like that tried at a district court.
That sounds like a whole lot of mansplaining to me you monster.
 
The case I was on wasn't exactly the crime of the century, it was just a sexual harassment case between two underage teenagers at a fast food place.

It was pretty much just her word against his with very little other evidence to go by, even if he was found guilty he wouldn't have done jail time as it was a first offence but he would've had a criminal record. To be honest I thought it was a ridiculous waste of time to have a case like that tried at a district court.

Wasn't have a dig at you mate. Just the process. I saw that low hanging fruit and went for it :eek:
 
Mine was a grievous bodily harm case. Bloke hit another guy after he had a swing at this girl that was with the defendant and then he started laying into him on the ground. Despite happening at the Casino, there was only one camera angle that was was very inconclusive. I also thought there were so many holes in the prosecutions case and the victim's testimony was very fishy.
 
Mine was a grievous bodily harm case. Bloke hit another guy after he had a swing at this girl that was with the defendant and then he started laying into him on the ground. Despite happening at the Casino, there was only one camera angle that was was very inconclusive. I also thought there were so many holes in the prosecutions case and the victim's testimony was very fishy.
Casino & one camera that was inconclusive? Seriously?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Quoted to second this message

**** off

Thirded. Is that a thing? Is now.

Get ****ed, winter. Getting well and truly sick and tired of these heavy rainfalls and 40 km/h winds.

If it's going to rain can we just have 10-20mm over the course of the day instead of half an hour? If this s**t keeps up my house will go full ep2006.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top