|
The part I find interesting:
Quoting the defense attorney: “The 49-year-old taxi driver was charged with two felony counts of tampering with consumer products. However, defense attorney Clark Birdsall told jurors that there was no way to prove that Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh's actions would have harmed anyone.
"It's OK to be angry at the defendant. I am. But you've got to follow the law," Birdsall said.”
Has this man not heard about all the awful things that likely happen to people who consume trace amounts of human waste? “E-coli” ring any bells? This is like saying “He fired live ammunition through the building, but you have to prove that it may have actually hurt someone.”
Or, maybe he has heard, but hopes the judge hasn’t? What is he thinking? Wouldn’t he be better off just keeping his mouth shut?
|