Typically, LEOs get the benefit of the doubt, I gess just not in the border zone.
Obviously some feel so strongly that what they did was so injurious that they had to be punished and made examples of.
We can argue nuances all day. I missed the earlier threads you referred to, I'm glad I did.
After Hamdiniya and Haditha, my stomach ain't what it used to be.
I don't know that I feel "strongly". If the jury had found them not guilty, I wouldn't be writing letters about it.
I'm more of a "stop fighting the system all the time" person. I'm tired of conservatives trying to use government to try to solve their problems, and trying to use extra-legal methods to acheive their goals. It gets me in a lot of fights lately -- for example, I'm happy the administration was able to work out an arrangement to do the NSA wiretapping under existing law, even though I supported the President's findings. Because while I want to win the war on terror, I think it's better to work within the laws passed, rather than have to depend on strict constitutional powers arguments.
In this case, our judicial system tried and convicted these men, and while I can see why looking at the evidence, I wouldn't be quick to presume I had a better understanding than the people who listened to the testimony and had to make a REAL opinion that had real consequences.