Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Again, there's nothing to "reasonably doubt." The issue isn't whether the facts into evidence are true or not. They are not in dispute so there can't be any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. The only issue is whether the actions deserve a jail sentence and the jury decided no...
Just out of curiosity, to what were you "not" referring? The chewbacca defense? The "she had it cumming" joke?
|
I was not referring to Chewbacca defense, or any other kind of defense strategy. Only the concept that "reasonable doubt" is all that is required to get a not guilty response from the jury.
I'm missing where in the article the jury was responsible for stating the actions deserved a jail sentence and they decided no. The jury was there to give a guilty or not guilty verdict. They felt he wasn't guilty.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
|