Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lawdog who wrote (23459)	7/10/2000 4:57:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769668

First, in some circumstances, it may be actionable to call someone a felon, although the latitude with public figures is pretty great. Thus, to assert without qualification one's belief that justice served would have resulted in conviction is unusual in except in private or semi- private venues. Second, few people would say that a particular person is a felon without an airing of the issues in open court. Usually, they are expressing the opinion that something went wrong at trial, and that it should have resulted in conviction. Third, when referring to a killer, there are only two ways that mens rea could exculpate: if the person were reasonably acting in self- defense, or if the person were insane. Anything else, from simple manslaughter on up, would be a felony. Since neither excuse was alleged at trial, and there was more than ample reason to think that OJ committed the crime as a matter of fact, one is not obliged to honor those defenses. Finally, just as the civil court was permitted to levy compensation from OJ for wrongful death, because the standards with which it approaches the question of responsibility are not as strict as the criminal courts, so in ordinary conversation, one need not be held to a reasonable doubt standard. I agree that if there is reason to trust the integrity of the trial, one should not loudly disagree with the verdict, but when there is reason for dissatisfaction, who cares if one expresses dismay that a criminal probably got off with forcefulness?