| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:40:59 -0500, "Gary Warner"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On 23 Nov 2004 22:48:08 -0800, (steve) wrote: Well, if I were facing multiple counts of murder, I'd try to kick up some dust in an attempt to save my butt. It's just human nature. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the "racial persecution" angle was used as a potential defense. It also wouldn't be the first time a group of one race tried to intimidate a lone-person of another. But even if true, shooting people is not the appropriate response, unless his life was directly threatened. If he could somehow prove that he was shot at first, I'd tend to look a little more sympathetic toward him. But how can the guy proove he was shot at first? Maybe they'll find a bullet from the other's gun? Or maybe they'll be able to show one of those guns was fired recently? But they were, after all, out hunting. Wouldn't be totally out of the question for them to claim (or actually) to have shot their riffels recently in that area. And such is the nature of the conundrum. The defense will claim that he was shot first, but will not be able to prove it. It then boils down to a case of he said, vs. he said. There are more witnesses on the side of the hunters, but when playing race card, they expect that to trump other conflicting testimony, even if it's true. Sorry about the cynicism..... Dave |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ( OT ) Bush's 9/11 coverup? | General | |||
| OT White House information leak | General | |||
| New White Water Lake District Guidebook | UK Paddle | |||
Hybrid Mode
