woodguru wrote:
You didn't have a problem with the rule of law where charges of an underage teen owning a gun it was illegal to have, or the law he violated crossing state lines with that gun?
Hey, I'll honor a jury's decision on the murder, that is a hard thing to prove in my mind, but charges that he was guilty of with zero doubt, what about that? I think our court system is broken if hard guilt can be arbitrarily changed to innocent.
I would never favor a defendant if they broke a law beyond any shadow of doubt...responsible jurists don't do that.
Was Kyle guilty of being illegally in possession of a gun he was not old enough to own? Yes, he did in fact do that. There are no well but arguments here, yes or no, was he guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?
Did he cross jurisdictional lines with that illegally obtained gun that he was not legally able to have in his possession? Of course he did, this is not debatable, so what is the argument for a jury not doing the job they are there to do, which is to determine guilt? They are not gods, and they are not kings, they are not qualified to grant innocence where there is clearly guilt.
As a jurist you might not like having to find guilt, but that is what is demanded.
You didn't have a problem with the rule of law whe... (
show quote)
you need to go back and watch the trial because Kyle did not "legally" own the gun he had possession of, his friend did, he did not cross state lines with it, his friend lives in Kanoshia, it is not illegal for a teen to carry a long rigle in Wi-he just can't be registered owner. Kyle's dad lives there and Kyles job was there. But rather he lived there or not is besides the point, I have the right to travel anywhere I want in America, how do you think A****a and B*M get from one state to another "it's legal to do so"! The exception is if you are on parole and not allowed to leave the state your on parole in or if you've been court ordered to not be in that state.