If you’re going to try to write a high-minded moral tome, then at least give some lip service to the foundational principle of law, innocent until proven guilty.
Nobody yet knows what the arrested suspect actually did, or why he did it. Maybe he was confused, maybe he had a medical issue, maybe he was insane. A trial will explore all of these possibilities as well as the prosecution’s theory of the case, and perhaps the guy will “never see the light of day” but until that trial finishes, nobody should pass judgement. The videos are incomplete and in any case prove nothing directly.
Allen West lost me with the following comment....
“James Alex Fields will be punished to the full extent of the law, and I truly believe he should never see the light of day again.”
Can we at least wait until this investigation of what happened and why it happened is complete, and have a trial first?
” the foundational principle of law, innocent until proven guilty”
That principle only applies in court. Because the state has vast resources, the burden of proof is on the state. Our courts intentionally are biased toward letting the guilty go free since the alternative would be to have more innocent people go to jail.
I think OJ is a murderer. He was acquitted in criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt) and convicted in civil court (preponderance of the evidence). But I was free to PERSONALLY decide he was guilty before the trial. After all, if I was wrong, he would suffer no loss.
Thank you for bringing this up. I have heard more than a few people today who have decided this guy needs the death sentence prior to a trial.
IF I were surrounded by a mob of violent protesters and they were beating on my car, I would get out, and that would include my car making contact with some of their bodies.
Maybe not hard enough to kill any of them, but I am NOT going to sit there and become a statistic in a rehab facility.