From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the limited Court reports I've heard, I think the jury reached the
>correct decision ACCORDING TO LAW. The jury is sworn to try the man
>according to law, that is, according to how the law *is*, not how it
>could be or should be or ought to be. Presently, the law does not allow
>the indiscriminate shooting of burglars.
Precisely what, if any, penalty can be imposed on a jury who takes it into
their heads to find someone either innocent or guilty in flagrant
contradiction to the facts in any given case?
Although I've been called for jury service twice, for various reasons I've
never actually got as far as serving but I've always been of the opinion
that the "law" should be viewed with a rather jaundiced eye and a good deal
of weight be given to what best serves justice.
I would have a great deal of difficulty sleeping at nights if I had sent
some poor sod to jail merely because I was only following (the judges)
orders when I could see no fault in his actions.
That is not a direct comment on Tony Martins case as I agree that none of us
has all the facts.
Brian T
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
