Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,468 posts)
2. That's fairly routine.
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:00 PM
Jul 2013

I was thinking manslaughter because I figured the jury would at least partly bow to their emotions and find a way to exact some punishment or retribution. That's what a lot of people want, they just call it justice.

The jury didn't go that way. They looked at the evidence, they looked at the law, and they came up with the verdict I suspect I would have.

Then again, I don't have an axe to grind. For a lot of people, it's personal, it's about group justice or historical justice or justice for the dead and not a trial of the living. The people I've spoken to face to face--often they had their desired verdict after hearing a painfully small number of facts. Since then, it's been a search to justify that verdict. You can't assume the conclusion and make the evidence fit the the conclusion, however much you may want it to.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The feds are not going to...»Reply #2