Casey Anthony Look-Alike Nearly Killed by Vigilante

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

newser.com/story/123522/woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked.html

Looks like it may indeed be a good idea for Casey Anthony to disguise herself: In Chouteau, Oklahoma, a woman allegedly tried to kill an Anthony look-alike. Sammay Blackwell was working at her convenience store job last week when a suspicious-looking woman visited the store after 10pm. But after Blackwell left, she saw the woman again—"staring directly at me"—"and the woman then followed her and, Blackwell says, rammed her truck, which flipped two and a half times.

Though Blackwell never spoke to her alleged attacker, she tells KWTV that people have told her she looks like Anthony, and at least one police officer confirms the woman did mistake Blackwell for Anthony. The police told her that the woman "said that I was trying to hurt babies, [that] I was killing babies, and she was going to stop me before it happened again," Blackwell says. Shireen Nalley has been charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon, reports KOTV. The real Casey Anthony will be released from jail on Sunday. Click for the story of another bizarre crime related to the Anthony verdict.

I would be all for this kind of thing on the real Casey Anthony. You've got to do your homework though, and make sure you have the real one though. This vigilante was obviously an idiot, as Anthony was in a totally different region of the country, still in jail, not free in Oklahoma.

[College_Republican]

This is what happens when people don't respect a not guilty verdict.

[Locke9-05]

This is what happens when people don't respect a not guilty verdict.This is what happens when your average idiot can put 2 and 2 together better than the jury for such a high profile case and see that the woman is guilty. I knew this was going to happen. I would wager that the majority of America disagrees with every single fool who was on that jury. And in this case, the majority of America is right.

[College_Republican]

Oh right Locke then maybe we should just take a national vote and not have jury trials. There were twelve ordinary citizens who sat through the whole trial, saw all the evidence, and discussed it with one another for many hours. Yet somehow they are dumber and less capable than your "average idiot," according to you. Each and every one of them. Wow.

[Locke9-05]

Oh right Locke then maybe we should just take a national vote and not have jury trials. There were twelve ordinary citizens who sat through the whole trial, saw all the evidence, and discussed it with one another for many hours. Yet somehow they are dumber and less capable than your "average idiot," according to you. Each and every one of them. Wow.Please be well aware of the context and actual words of the person you are referring to when making statements that begin or end with "..., according to you" or "according to you, ..." Please also note that I only said the jurors weren't able to put 2 and 2 together for this specific case. Your misrepresentation that--"according to me"--they were altogether "dumber and less capable than your 'average idiot'" (a misrepresentation in which the original context of the words was completely and utterly ignored and omitted from your so-called "rebuttal") is just intellectually dishonest and not much more than low quality strawman material.

Moving on, if you isolate this case from the rest of their lives, these jurors were indeed dumber and less capable than your average idiot. In this case. There are one of two possibilities here. They did not know enough about the legal system and the amount of evidence generally required for a guilty verdict, or didn't take the time to properly do their jobs. I already made several posts citing evidence and video recordings in the following topic supporting my position: http://politicalforum.net/showthread.php?1422-Casey-Anthony-Execute-the-Bitch/page1 or http://politicalforum.net/showthread.php?1422-Casey-Anthony-Execute-the-Bitch/page2. You never responded to any of my posts with expert opinions being given by legal workers as well as testimony given by one of the inept members of the jury who said despite all the evidence, there wasn't enough to make a guilty verdict. There was plenty of evidence - more than enough. The evidence was all present, and I demonstrated that in my posts. The juror who was interviewed was discussing the concept of "reasonable doubt" to the point of basically expressing that even if there was video evidence recording the murder of Caylee Anthony, there would still be reasonable doubt, because video can be modified. That's how heavily she was invested in the "reasonable doubt" of the Casey Anthony case, which is stupid to say the least. She was obviously not fit to be a juror based on her experience (or rather lack thereof) of the justice system and based on that the verdict was given after the jury reached a unanimous decision, I would have to say the same for all of her fellow jurors.

[College_Republican]

I don't beleive I twisted your words. What else could you have meant when you said "average idiot can put 2 and 2 together better than the jury." I don't like straw man arguments and would never use them purposefully. People do that all the time to me. Anyway, I agree with the jury's verdict. I disagree with the Scott Peterson verdict though. Overall, I'm not fan of juries. I feel, from my experience with my fellow jurors, that jurors are not willing to nullify or otherwise make verdicts that will best advance justice not the letter of the law.

[Locke9-05]

I don't beleive I twisted your words. What else could you have meant when you said "average idiot can put 2 and 2 together better than the jury."See you just did it again. You took the words out of their original context. The original and unedited context of my words was: "when your average idiot can put 2 and 2 together better than the jury for such a high profile case and see that the woman is guilty." Notice how the context I specified (emphasized in bold) was conveniently omitted from your barbed supposition as to "what else I could have meant" regarding the quote you took out of context. No, your post didn't twist my words, I never said it did. Your post did, however, misrepresent my words by making the assertive statement that something was "...according to me" in a much broader context than what really was the case.


I don't like straw man arguments and would never use them purposefully. People do that all the time to me. Anyway, I agree with the jury's verdict.Yet I've seen no justification for this agreement. Why do you agree? Why do you look at the evidence and agree that they made the right choice? Why, despite all the evidence and despite the professional legal opinions I offered in the topics referenced above, do you still agree with the jury in the Casey Anthony case? I would really like to know.

I disagree with the Scott Peterson verdict though. Overall, I'm not fan of juries. I feel, from my experience with my fellow jurors, that jurors are not willing to nullify or otherwise make verdicts that will best advance justice not the letter of the law.Based on the evidence shown in the Casey Anthony trial, both the letter of the law and justice would have been served had she been found guilty. All evidence that was needed for a guilty verdict was there. The "reasonable doubt" excuse is piss poor, especially after hearing how utterly invested in it the one juror who was interviewed was. I can only imagine her colleagues were as well.

[College_Republican]

We can disagree but under the law she is not guilty. Therefore, she should be subject to no punishment for that crime. It's over. There is a certain finality to a not guilty verdict. A jury found her not guilty. That's it. It is done. Am I making myself clear?

[Locke9-05]

We can disagree but under the law she is not guilty. Therefore, she should be subject to no punishment for that crime. It's over. There is a certain finality to a not guilty verdict. A jury found her not guilty. That's it. It is done. Am I making myself clear?Your post deliberately avoids my question. The law is clear, yes, you're right. According to the legal system, she has been found by a "jury of her peers" to be "not guilty." Their decision and verdict was horribly incorrect, based on all the facts, evidence and expert opinions from other legal workers, but yes, according to the letter of the law, she is "not guilty." But since when has that ever really mattered to most people? Most people still know in their hearts and minds that she did it--that she's actually guilty. The formality of the "not guilty verdict" really holds no bearing when it comes to those who wish to actually see justice served within the legal system.

But anyway, you're making yourself very clear, especially the way in which your posts have directly misrepresented my words and ignored the questions I've posed to you. Please, if you don't mind, the question still stands. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite expert legal opinion given in the other topic, despite the juror's interview in which the juror essentially explained that she was far too heavily invested in the concept of "reasonable doubt" to be a competent juror, why exactly do you still agree with the jury?

[Mike]

My casual internet searches (regarding vigilante, Shireen Nalley,) haven’t yielded anything. I don't know her status, but I wonder whether she'll be tried and found guilty of attempted murder, and sentenced accordingly.

[Locke9-05]

My casual internet searches (regarding vigilante, Shireen Nalley,) haven’t yielded anything. I don't know her status, but I wonder whether she'll be tried and found guilty of attempted murder, and sentenced accordingly.One can hope. Especially since she was an idiot and didn't even go after the right person.

[Mike]

I find it annoying what the media chooses and doesn't choose to feed us.

[Locke9-05]

I find it annoying what the media chooses and doesn't choose to feed us.I agree wholeheartedly.