~ archived since 2018 ~

Five mens death are linked to her including one shot in the back. And she still walks free.

NeoNotNeo

May 6, 2022

24 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Five mens death are linked to her including one shot in the back. And she still walks free.
Author	NeoNotNeo
Upvotes	24
Comments	8
Date	May 6, 2022 3:01 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ujdzi6/five_mens_death_are_linked_to_her_including_one/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/five-mens-death-are-linked-to-her-including-one.1115348 https://theredarchive.com/post/1115348

Comments

[–]CaptainInCanada -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

At no point in that article did they give an impression she was never convicted because of her gender. Nor should anyone leave with that impression after reading that article.

"April 1980, Catherine Shelton went on trial for shooting Gary Taylor. The trial resulted in a hung jury, split along gender lines. The seven men said guilty. The five women said she was not guilty." Is that prejudice based on gender back in the 80s? Probably. Can you still load a jury today? Yes. Is loading a jury a gender issue? Sometimes. You can load it against other parts of someone's character. Was she found not guilty by jury nullification? No. She was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years.

She would later convince a judge to set aside her conviction. That's not a gender issue. Thats a I'm friends with a corrupt judge issue.

The other four men's deaths never passed beyond reasonable doubt or even had any evidence to go to trial. Not a gender issue. OJ Simpson walked free. Him being a man is the reason. Am I right?

She is not free because of gender bias in criminal law. Ineffective legal system, and corrupt judges are not gendered issues. Loaded juries can be, however was not in the source and very rarely is as it requires a jury nullification.

If I misunderstood something do explain so I can have an accurate view on this.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CaptainInCanada 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoNotNeo[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CaptainInCanada -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Was she found not guilty by jury nullification? No. She was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years.

Which was overturned on appeal and she pleaded guilty to a lesser crime

She would later convince a judge to set aside her conviction. That's not a gender issue. Thats a I'm friends with a corrupt judge issue.

There's no context to who overturned that conviction or how it was overturned

The other four men's deaths never passed beyond reasonable doubt or even had any evidence to go to trial. Not a gender issue. OJ Simpson walked free. Him being a man is the reason. Am I right?

Did you get that from the article? That's false, there was enough evidence to convict her husband of one of those

False equivalence. If Simpson was found guilty there would have been riots and there were numerous issues with the case including blood spatter evidence that was tainted by the EMT and a glove that was planted by a Police Officer

If there's anything that can be argued. It's the article needed a proofreader and there's some info missing (like the passing mention she was barred from practising law). That was actually two suspensions (interim suspension)

[–]CaptainInCanada -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

"No context for who overturned". Exactly my point, it was not indicated it was overturned cause she is a woman. It's not a gender issue. So why is it here. It very clearly says enough evidence to convict her husband. How would that mean enough evidence to convict her unless they are siamese twins. How is that a gender issue?

The nuances of the OJ case have no bearing on what I'm arguing. The point I made was he did not walk free cause of gender. Neither did she.

This is not a legal rights sub, this is a mens rights sub. Unless that legal right has to do with mens rights or she was treated favorably because of her gender, this post is useless here.

P.S. Not even sure you are trying to argue it's a gender issue and I may have your intentions all wrong. It you are just providing additional clarification on somethings then sorry bud.

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link