yes, but in this scenario you have a say in the process. What's your final word?if the process finally finds him guilty then thats the final word
yes, but in this scenario you have a say in the process. What's your final word?if the process finally finds him guilty then thats the final word
Actually, because I never commented upon the poll at all, you should understand nothing about how I might have or might not have voted.FirstFreedom said:And yet I am to understand you voted "Yes", Antipitas?
In '85 a friend was coming out of a department store.I find it unlikely that he would have be caught with the gun. What was he doing when he was caught with the gun? He did something to catch the attention of law enforcement to be caught with the gun.
Frankly, WA, I am shocked that you have as many co-horts as you do (almost 17%), so though you are definitely in a small minority, you are not in a negligible or insignificant minority as I suspected. I thought it would be closer to 3-5%. So I'll give you that concession - you are not a *total* troll on this issue, having 17% of folks in your camp - near on 1 in 5 folks would go along with "zhust vollowing orders".
To them I say...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flock_of_sheep.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...7DVXA&sa=N
It seems that there are 2 schools of thought here.
A> Just or unjust, the law is the law.
B> The law is but a guideline, there are bad laws, justice is really what matters.
I'm in camp B. Historically, there have been many, and I do mean MANY, instances where the law is just flat-out WRONG. Even law that was enacted in accordance with the will of the people by whatever means. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is a good law or a just law. In our system, we have 3 ways to resist such bad laws:
A> We can strive to have said bad laws repealed by the same mechanism that got them enacted in the first place.
B> We can work to have sad bad laws overturned by way of appellate court appeals.
C> We, the common citizenry who occupy jury boxes, can exercise the right of jury nullification.
Barring action on A> or B> above (as is likely the case here), that leaves only C>, which is exactly what I'd do. I happen to believe that any law which removes the right of any otherwise law abiding citizen to be armed is inherently wrong and unjust and I will refuse to vote to convict. Period.