Replies

You are a bit reactionary -- are you not? All I am saying is that I have no idea what the facts are in this case. (Frankly, neither do many posters here.)

Yes -- it sounds bad based on the limited description provided. I agree, how could I not. But, sounding that bad makes an inquisitive mind want to know all the facts and circumstances.

As for theories -- I don't think I espoused one. Having said that, there is simply no question that a person surfing the web and reading postings about a case can almost never have the same knowledge of the facts and evidence, and law, as the jurors or fact-finders in a given case. That's not a theory -- that's reality.

As for being in the Docket. One is actually "on" the Docket. Having tried exceptionally large civil cases on civil litigation, having witnessed and clerked on virtually every type of domestic and criminal matter -- including death penalty cases, I too have some intelligence, common sense, and insight. That is why I like to know the facts, the evidence, the law, the charge, the standards, etc, before I comment too much on a post provides only a base description of a crime.

What were that actual charges? Who testified against him? What did he admit? What does the law say about protection of the unborn? What does the law say about aggravating factors? I have no idea -- but I can't tell you how crazy this case is without that information. To do so, I would merely be spouting an opinion based my own ignorance, and a gut reaction. There is nothing illegal about that -- but it does not make for very illuminating discussion.

That's my point.

"As for being in the Docket. One is actually "on" the Docket. Having tried exceptionally large civil cases on civil litigation, having witnessed and clerked on virtually every type of domestic and criminal matter -- including death penalty cases

Ah-ha! A lawyer! I should have known!

An APOLOGIST for the corrupt judiciary!

Lawyers can not see the forest for the trees. Despite cynical noises, they actually LOVE the law. They think it makes sense - and they think that they can win cases merely by studying the law - by having a better mastery of the law than the other fellow. When they win, it is because they are brilliant lawyers - but when they lose they grumble about the judge or the jury, blame fate - or the fact they forgot to put on their lucky socks.

They never see the bigger patterns that are painfully obvious to those of us watching from outside the system.

Gross gender bias - the promotion of homosexual marriage - while at the same time tearing down traditional marriage - jackpot justice for people who can't take personal responsibility - rights for criminals but not for victims.

That is the trend of the legal system today. It is abhorrent to fair-minded moral people.

But lawyers don't see that - they ponder the law, try to read into the decisions, and accept the final rulings of the appeal courts as great pronouncements of wisdom.

First.... we'll kill all the lawyers....