Posted on 08/19/2013 4:54:26 PM PDT by magellan
Lawyers representing the family members of those killed and injured in the Ft. Hood shooting rampage were outraged today when an Army judge limited prosecutors from introducing evidence, including emails to a known Al Qaeda operative, that would establish accused shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan's "jihadi" motives.
The judge's rulings could inhibit the ability of the victims' families to claim in a civil suit that the shootings were an act of terror. Federal lawyers involved in the civil suit claim that the people shot during Hasan's murderous rage were victims of workplace violence, a designation that could sharply limit the damages in a civil suit.
"This is first degree mass murder case and motive is absolutely relevant to prove premeditation," said Neal Sher, a lawyer representing many of the victims and their family members in a separate civil suit against the government.
The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, ruled today that prosecutors could not mention Hasan's correspondence with Alwaki, an American born al Qaeda recruiter and organizer. Osborn also barred prosecutors from mentioning Hassan's interest in seeking conscientious objector status and drawing parallels to a 2003 incident in which another Muslim American soldier attacked U.S. troops in Kuwait, according to the Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
In today’s military, only Christians can have evil motives. End of story. I wouldn’t be surprised if they let this guy off.
WHAT????? for what reason?????
A judge’s rulings must remain within the law despite what they may think. Ruling motive inadmissible is judicial malpractice.
The Judge has his orders from Obama.
Justice, it seems, is no longer a quest for Truth.
I grew up thinking that courts were used to put the bad guys who had committed crimes in jail. Man, was I an idiot. Courts are a way for the bad guys to get in your face after committing their crimes.
Well I guess our darling Tara will no doubt get a promotion and nice pay raise and probably a bonus to boot. Isn’t it great that the ‘elite’ follow orders so well?
Yes, but she'll rate a paragraph or two in history, as well, and her mention won't be at all laudatory.
Old behavior can be introduced at a trial if it shows a continuous pattern of behavior.
Some serial killers don’t kill for a long time, then resume their actions.
Hassan was like a serial killer, doing certain things at one time, then waiting and then doing something related later.
This judge is a symptom of what is wrong with our judicial system, esp. with liberal judges. They are the “clear and present danger” to America.
Old behavior can be introduced at a trial if it shows a continuous pattern of behavior.
Some serial killers don’t kill for a long time, then resume their actions.
Hassan was like a serial killer, doing certain things at one time, then waiting and then doing something related later.
This judge is a symptom of what is wrong with our judicial system, esp. with liberal judges. They are the “clear and present danger” to America.
This guy is going to be found guilty and either have life in a military prison or death by execution. I don’t believe it is a good idea to give the impression that he did it for any reason. As soon as you bring feelings into it, the jury starts to feel too and then think, “Oh how awful, lets give him an acquittal”.....a little exaggerated but not by much.
They already have Hasan’s own statements in opening argument that he is the shooter, he is a soldier of Allah, and he switched sides (i.e., took sides against the US). Now, those statements were not made under oath but they are representations to the court, which carry some weight.
Didn’t you hear? The rules change depending on the race, creed, gender, etc of the defendant. After all, if people are all equal, big brother can’t get power by pitting them against each other.
“I quit when the court of appeals reversed my ruling. The purpose for which I had chosen my work, was my resolve to be a guardian of justice. But the laws they asked me to enforce made me the executor of the vilest injustice conceivable. I was asked to use force to violate the rights of disarmed men, who came before me to seek my protection for their rights.
“Litigants obey the verdict of a tribunal solely on the premise that there is an objective rule of conduct, which they both accept. Now I saw that one man was to be bound by it, but the other was not, one was to obey a rule, the other was to assert an arbitrary wish-his need-and the law was to stand on the side of the wish. Justice was to consist of upholding the unjustifiable. I quit, because I could not have borne to hear the words ‘Your Honor’ addressed to me by an honest man.”
Judge Narragansett, Atlas Shrugged.
Is there any doubt any more that we’ve reached this stage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.