Beastt <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%
[email protected]>...
> david.poole wrote:
> > (snip)... I think a lot of the problems with juvenile crime today is that there are too many
> > lawyers involved. Kids aren't any better or worse than they were 30 years ago but what has
> > happened is that they have been given a fantastic amount of power and no responsibility for
> > wielding it.
>
>
>
>
> Agreed that lawyers, and irresponsible judges are a big part of many problems today. And that's
> something people need to consider when they decide that a jury of their peers will think the
> same way they do. Speaking in terms of "American Justice", which is admittedly badly broken,
> there are two sides in a court room. More specifically, two attorneys. One is paid to prove
> innocence and has no interest in truth. The other is paid to prove guilt and has no interest in
> the truth. Criminal defense attorneys are often represented as being ruthless people with no
> sense of ethics. This is probably quite accurate of the vast majority. Prosecuting attorneys are
> no better. In fact, they're often worse. Their career relies upon the successful career of their
> boss - usually a county or district attorney who gave up law long ago in favor of being a
> politician. The politician's only interest is staying in politics and the only way they can do
> that is to show a high conviction rate.
>
> These are the two sides that will be responsible for selecting the "jury of peers", which, of
> course in the end, is nothing of the sort. They are 6 to 12 puppets to be played by the two
> story tellers paid to render completely different forms of fiction, loosely based on the same
> incident. The defendent is only a pawn and I don't think anyone can fully appreciate how little
> anyone cares what that accused did or didn't do until they've had the unfortunate experience of
> being there. You're but the ball in a game from which one attorney will emerge the winner and
> the other will be the loser. Other than the fact that the accused will pay the final price
> regardless of the outcome, they're not seen as pertinent to the proceedings.
>
> If you, (speaking specifically of Mr. Dolan), believe that a person maliciously aiming a 3,000
> pound bullet in your direction will be presented as homicidal, I'm afraid you're in for a rude
> awakening. If you feel that this hand-picked jury will see your actions as purely defensive when
> you aim and fire a gun at your attacker, you are likely to be left bewildered, confused and
> headed to prison. The case involving use of a firearm against anyone not using a firearm was
> tried in the media and the eyes of political correctness many years ago. It's sad but this is
> the outcome in most every case.
>
> [END RANT ON LAYWERS AND JUSTICELESS JUSTICE SYSTEM]
This is too depressing to even think about. In as much as I survived 4 years in the U.S. Navy I
think I could probably survive a few years in prison for trying to defend myself regardless of what
a jury of my peers might think of my humble efforts. It is what I think in my own mind that counts
in the end.
But the fact is that there is a stratum of basic masculine understanding which we all depend upon
when confronted with matters of life and death. Yes, damn all the lawyers to hell and back, but the
jury is our ultimate recourse and safeguard.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota