Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 14:22:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
851 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Mike Stanley wrote:
> >
> > Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > A second problem is civil lawsuits following innocent verdicts in criminal
> > > trials.
> >
> > Well, except for maybe that one case that happens every now and then
> > when the criminal trial verdict was clearly wrong.
<snipped OJ stuff>
> How often are you so involved in a criminal court case that you're sure
> that the jury was wrong? How often could you possibly have a reasonable
opinion?
Well, the first thing that pops into mind as far as 'clearly wrong' goes is
outdated laws. Laws do not cover all eventualities, and occaisonally, a
situation occurs where a law has been broken, but blame does not lie with the
lawbreaker. A prime example is that here in Alberta, if you rear-end someone
in an accident, you are legally at fault, period. However, its not too
difficult to think of situations where the person who got rear-ended actually
caused the accident. The only recourse under the law is civil action.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) What makes a criminal trial verdict clearly wrong? For instance with OJ: everyone I knew had an opinion, most of them thought he was guilty as hell and should fry, but a few were absolutely sure that he was innocent. So, he got off and (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
