To: writmeister
Not completely. This prosecution has broken him financially Great.
So now it's considered "justice" to be financially ruined by a prosecution that results in a not guilty verdict?
To: cicero's_son
So now it's considered "justice" to be financially ruined by a prosecution that results in a not guilty verdict? Apparently.
1,302 posted on
06/13/2005 2:19:04 PM PDT by
Skooz
(Really. No, I'm serious. I really mean it this time.)
To: cicero's_son
>>>>>So now it's considered "justice" to be financially ruined by a prosecution that results in a not guilty verdict?
Yes. Rule Number One is that the government is never accountable.
1,453 posted on
06/13/2005 2:26:41 PM PDT by
Thorin
("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
To: cicero's_son
It's actually funny that anyone would take that stance. There have been plenty of cases over the years that excused the murderous acts of white supremacists/racists based on the fact that they were found "not guilty" by a jury of their peers. Are you actually making the claim that jury verdicts are infallible? Is it your position that second guessing a verdict is somehow subverting justice?
1,812 posted on
06/13/2005 2:59:49 PM PDT by
IoCaster
("That to live by one man's will became the cause of all men's misery." - Richard Hooker)
To: cicero's_son
No, I do not consider that to be justice.
My response was specifically directed to the poster who said that Jackson got off scot free. There was nothing free about this trial for Jackson.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson