I don’t get your mindset. You acknowledge that the law being ignored is a problem. You admit that they might not have power over with it’s time. But you say extreme action is not the way to fix it. I mean, what other way is there?
I hope they find him not guilty and vigilante justice starts reminding people in power, those that horde 99% of the wealth at our expense, that the people can fight back. That courts and politicians can be corrupted and bought, like we’ve seen, but the people won’t just lie down and take it.
But you say extreme action is not the way to fix it. I mean, what other way is there?
I don’t think I’ve said that. What I’ve said is that juries returning “not guilty” verdicts when the facts of the case say otherwise, just because they feel positive about the accused’s actions, would be a problem for the reasons I’ve listed above.
I too hope he is found not guilty, but on the facts of the case. Whether that is because the defense manage to cause doubt as to the identification of the shooter, or they manage to make a case for diminished responsibilty or self defense, it would be ok. Successfully making a self-defense defense would send a very strong message to other CEOs.
I don’t get your mindset. You acknowledge that the law being ignored is a problem. You admit that they might not have power over with it’s time. But you say extreme action is not the way to fix it. I mean, what other way is there?
I hope they find him not guilty and vigilante justice starts reminding people in power, those that horde 99% of the wealth at our expense, that the people can fight back. That courts and politicians can be corrupted and bought, like we’ve seen, but the people won’t just lie down and take it.
I don’t think I’ve said that. What I’ve said is that juries returning “not guilty” verdicts when the facts of the case say otherwise, just because they feel positive about the accused’s actions, would be a problem for the reasons I’ve listed above.
I too hope he is found not guilty, but on the facts of the case. Whether that is because the defense manage to cause doubt as to the identification of the shooter, or they manage to make a case for diminished responsibilty or self defense, it would be ok. Successfully making a self-defense defense would send a very strong message to other CEOs.