Author:
Higgins
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02:30:00 10/10/11 Mon
This was not a matter of weighing two equally balanced rights (being abusive), nor any concern for the prevention of public harm (shouting "FIRE!") or the preservation of public order (inciting violence). Any of these things might have been subject to sanction and outside the protection of the 1st Amendment. This was, instead, clearly an attempt to bring to the court of public opinion grievance against a public servant, and as such immune (or should have been) to criminal charge. If you are such a learned scholar in the ways of the Law, this should be plain even to you.
If you are so well educated in the law (an assertion I am somewhat skeptical of) you should know that it is beyond REASONABLE doubt, not "shadow". Every indication is there was very little reason exhibited by either the prosecution or the jury. In reality, nothing was proven. I have yet to see a single cite from Dan's writings that, in proper context, can be taken as a threat by any objective person (my challenge to you, Sing, remains unanswered). The only thing proved is that when one side does all the talking they are able to herd ignorant sheep into doing whatever they wish for them to do. You might just as easily have "proven" him to be a witch and had the jury clamoring for him to be burned at the stake, it's happened before. (Remember Salem?) The Inquisitors found it to be highly convenient and lucrative to do so whenever they found a rich jew, or a woman with property, or indeed anybody that dared oppose them.
I find it rather comical that you now suggest that he should have bolted from the so called "protection" of his learned council to defend himself. Especially as it is usually the case that those taking your position cannot wait to call him a fool for representing himself. Do you really think he had any say in the matter, given that he had no prior consultation with his attorney? In truth, not speaking may have been his only option, given that the prosecution (or should I say their representatives? - its rather hard to tell - Sheriff runs the jail, Prosecutor runs a big chunk of the Sheriff's personnel in the form of the SCU, SCU sits as Commisioner... it's all so... incestuous) has been tampering with his medication for the last six months. I know I would not be inclined to try to provide any testimony having been drugged by my inquisitors.
No, you can pretend, if you wish, that this is an example of the Courts functioning as a well oiled machine of justice, but there was no justice meted out here. You can pretend, if you wish that he got a fair shake, but this wasn't about fairness. Fairness would have seen him bailed out at a reasonable level to permit him to participate in his own defense, not railroaded with lies that should have been easily disproved. Fairness would have seen him recieving the medication required to allow him to be effective in that defense, not drugged by a quack with no background in the matter reading from the PDR. No, this wasn't a fair fight, not even close. In this little piece of theater, this was a prisoner living in a hole in the ground, locked away from the sun, starved and abused, sick with malaria, being dragged to the prison square to be beaten bloody by the fit, well fed, sadistic monster in charge of the prison because he made too much noise in his hole. There was no reason here, no justice, and certainly no fairness, And Truth, well, any consideration for the truth checked out and left town a long time ago.
We do have one point of agreement, however. "Just because you can do something does not mean you should." A pity you weren't there to whisper this in Caesar's ear before he decided to crucify the First Amendment.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 