Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John123; La Enchiladita; Alouette
Amongst the issues the defense raised, the fact the Haq thought G-d, Allah in Haq's case, approved of his actions, and that he thought his actions would have an impact on the world. Every jihadist believes that, imo they shouldn't be beyond the reach of the criminal justice system.

And he'd be institutionalized till cured. Maybe he could convert to Christianity.

When you consider that, insanity aside, the jury found him not-guilty of attempted 1st degree murder, and couldn't even agree if it was 2nd degree, I say the jury was a bit muddle headed. The only question they've left open is if it's open season on Jews, or all infidels. Hopefully his next jury will have better sense.

31 posted on 06/05/2008 12:31:44 PM PDT by SJackson (It is impossible to build a peace process based on blood, Natan Sharansky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson

“Maybe he could convert to Christianity.”

Heard rumors about this with Ramzi Yousef. Taqiyyah shenanigans?


32 posted on 06/05/2008 3:03:05 PM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (You are receiving this broadcast as a dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
When you consider that, insanity aside, the jury found him not-guilty of attempted 1st degree murder, and couldn't even agree if it was 2nd degree, I say the jury was a bit muddle headed. The only question they've left open is if it's open season on Jews, or all infidels. Hopefully his next jury will have better sense.

Things are pretty bad if someone commits what is clearly pre-meditated murder and terrorism and the jury cannot even agree on 2nd degree. I would not be surprised if all the "peace" and "human rights" groups make this creature into a hero.

33 posted on 06/05/2008 4:58:21 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

“I say the jury was a bit muddle headed”

I seem to recall that the hung jury asked for more info. on what it means to be “insane”. They were instructed to use all of the guidance given to them in the trial, with emphasis on something like to declare him insane meant that he didn’t know the severity of his actions or if they were wrong. (It wasn’t exactly that - but something like that).

The defense lawyer said they couldn’t be instructed anymore (like what is considered “wrong”) and the judge upheld it citing some long-standing precident.

As I said, these weren’t the exact terms. But my thought upon reading it was “Well of course in Seattle you aren’t going to come up with an agreement on what is right or wrong - even when it comes to killing someone.”

(By the way, if he was so insane as not to think he had done anything wrong - why did he grab a hostage to try to avoid capture?)


34 posted on 06/05/2008 5:15:14 PM PDT by 21twelve (Don't wish for peace. Pray for Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson