Robert, I think you're the who's doing some obfuscating. No one is arguing that he didn't have a fair trial. But just because he is not convicted doesn't mean the outcome isn't 'wrong'. Not because the jury made a bad decision. I agree with you that since I didn't sit on the jury, I can't argue for or against the decision.
But in fact just the opposite: if he can't be convicted of a crime for his actions under our system, then something needs to be fixed. As a citizen I am fully qualified to come to my own conclusions about what should happen when a careless mistake leads to a fatality. Furthermore, inflamatory language like 'lynch-mob mentality' is completely uncalled for. No one is advocating unlawful violence. > > From: "Robert F. Nagel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/07/06 Thu PM 12:25:39 CDT > To: Bikies <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Hung jury and Cap Times editorial > > I urge this list-serve to refrain from a lynch-mob mentality when it comes > to these tragedies. You collectively are obfuscating the issue of rights > and responsibilities. Did I ever say he had a constitutional right to drive > like a jackass, or that anyone has a constitutional right to drive like a > jackass? No, I didn't. What Sorum is entitled to is to not be convicted of > a crime without unanimous agreement of a jury. There was not such a > unanimous agreement. Only the jury heard all the evidence and was > questioned as to their biases, so they were uniquely qualified to determine > Sorum's guilt. He was not found to be guilty. Maybe you all would have > come to a different conclusion. That's fine, but that does not qualify you > all to conclude that the jury's failure to reach a verdict reflects any > defect in our system. > ===== darin
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
