Ahhh, but you make an assumption based on only 95% of the cases. The simple truth, IMHO, is that people are treated not as anonymous accuseds but are looked upon and treated based on "who they are". I do agree that the legal rules "apply to them", but I do NOT believe that the legal rules are enforced in the same way nor are they looked upon with the same "eye of scrutiny" based on the accused's social status. However, if you concede that even a SINGLE person escaped true justice because of their status, then my point is made. Regardless of how you slice it, "beyond a reasonable doubt" also applies to my contention - you cannot state your point absolutely because there is a single known exception. And it follows that where there is ONE exception, there are more.
Poor Ol' Skeptical Me...
So Mark Thatcher bought a military helicoptor for an attempted coup in Guinea. After a short while he began to suspect it was going to used in a military exercise. But does he come forward then? Nope. But he got nabbed, and can wash his hands in a nice little plea bargain. Why am I skeptical just a tad? History. He was scrutinized by Britain's Parliament in 1994 over reports that he was involved in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Iraq while his mother was prime minister -- allegations he denied, AP reported. Things that make you go "Hmmmmm"
And from the quality "our security communication system has been upgraded since 9/11". A British Airways flight with 239 passengers flying from London's Heathrow airport to New York was turned around in mid-flight after a passenger flying on a French passport was found to be on the U.S. no-fly list. Why was he allowed on the plane? U.S. government sources said the passenger was placed on the no-fly list in late December, but that British Airways did not have the latest no-fly list. WHAT THE HELL? Why didn't they have the list? "...a U.S. government official told CNN the method of distributing the list changed recently, and may have resulted in the lapse." OMG! Yet another breakdown in security communication. siiiigh...
MLB's new steroid policy...an improvement.
In the "holy smokes that's going to have a ton of ramifications" department...A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal judges no longer have to abide by controversial 18-year-old mandatory sentencing guidelines, saying that the consideration of factors not presented to jurors violates a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Hmmm...this is a BIG ripple in the legal pond. If the judge chooses to use the sentencing guidelines to impose a longer sentence, an appeals court could overturn the sentence if it determines the application was unreasonable. This applies to TWO cases that are in front of the court atm. Oh crap, I don't like this initially.
No sports rants today. Count your blessings. I'm completely discombobulated about college hoops. So many good teams, so many upsets, I'm not sure I'd be willing to put my neck on that guillotine by picking a top 10.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment