My photo
In An Age Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Is A Revolutionary Act.......George Orwell

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Precedence In Case Law To Allow Strangulation?

I was just informed by a rather persistent troll that because of a recent Kansas court case, one in which yours truly was a witness, there is now a precedent to strangle our relatives, friends, and neighbors. My troll is very, very upset because the defendant demanded his right to a trial, presented his case, and won. The charges were false, as nearly as I could tell, from what I witnessed of the incident. A desire to see an innocent man sent to prison is certainly disturbing, but such tends to be the manner of Christianity in the Midwest. The troll has even proposed hosting a party for such violence, offering that it is now legal. Hopefully, this was not a threat.

Precedence in court cases refers to cases in which existing law is interpreted either in a new way, or cases to which the court determines that existing law applies in situations where it traditionally has not applied in the past. This allows new or expanded interpretations of existing law, and sometimes different resulting actions or court orders. The prevailing decision will set a "precedent". All of this is based upon actual law. The laws, themselves, do not change. Crime does not become legal this way.

A decision by a judge or by a jury that a defendant is not guilty of criminal charges does not set a precedent for that crime to become legal. This is where my troll lacks understanding. In a criminal case, the argument is not about whether or not the crime is legal, but about whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime. A verdict of not guilty only serves to absolve the defendant of any false charges, it does not change the law.

The defendant in this case finds it unusual that certain people who had flown under the banner of "friends", mostly employees at the sorry-assed excuse for a local public school in his town, have not congratulated him because he won his case. Even more nauseating are teachers who continue to tell children, including those in close association with the defendant's children, that he is guilty, in spite of the decision by the court was that he is not guilty. These teachers practically climbed over each other to badmouth the defendant before trial, yet upon acquittal, refuse to apologize or tell all to whom they have unjustly gossiped that they were wrong. The superintendent was unaware of the court's decision until recently. Shouldn't these Christian teachers, who never miss an opportunity to force their religion on others, admit they made a mistake and try to amend all the damage they have done? Or does Jesus only initiate assholes to join his petty and ridicules churches?

No comments: