Shofercia wrote:Trotskylvania wrote:If the law does not bind each and every subject, including those tasked with enforcing it, then there's no point in the exercise at all. We have due process rights in the United States. They are not always followed. Sometimes they are, like right now.
If jury instructions are improper, they destroy the whole point of the exercise of due process. You can whine and complain all you want about it. Suck it up, buttercup, this is how the bureaucracy of justice works.
But you patently don't care about justice. So cut the charade. You do not have the moral high ground here, you are openly and flagrantly arguing that the exercise of retribution is more important than the very fundamental laws of the United States, to bedrock principles of justice.
Claiming that one of twelve San Francisco Jurors would be dumb enough to fall for the "uhh, I didn't realize that I was holding a gun when I was holding a gun" excuse is an interpretation that could've gone either way, since Judge Feng ruled one way, and Margulies opined differently, although claiming that it's reasonable to assume that a Juror would have a moment of idiocy in a high profile case is hardly comforting for the Justice System.
The facts were presented in Court, Trotskylvania, and Garcia-Zarate failed to disprove the facts. He had his day in Court. Unlike poor black American citizens, he had decent attorneys rather than overworked public defenders. One of his attorneys, Tony Serra, went to Stanford and Berkeley, and something tells me that's not the attorneys taht US citizens get. And even with a rock star in the legal World, like Mr. Serra, Garcia-Zarate still failed to disprove the facts.
I'm not new to debating Trotskylvania, and I'm well aware of the debate tactic that you're so pathetically misusing. The way it's supposed to work, bubbles, is that you're supposed to ignore the actual case, trot out platitudes, and take a dig at your opponent, while actually making it look like you care about the case. That last part - you failed, since you forgot to link it back to the original case.
In fact, your sad little post says nothing about the case at hand. The first point is that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally - very true. Except Garcia-Zarate got VIP treatment with a rock star attorney, so it's kind of hilarious, in a very sad way, that you're arguing that he would've been mistreated, had the appeal been rejected. Your second paragraph talks about how improper Jury Instructions can taint the entire case - again true, but not really relevant here. How many drug dealers do you know that got off scot free from shooting innocent people because they claimed that they didn't know they were holding a gun? Last time I checked, prior to this case, the number was zero. It wasn't a Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine type of Jury Instruction, it was, at best, an irrelevant technicality.
Since I actually care about Justice, unlike you, I want you to pay attention to what I'm doing. Rather than spouting commonly said things while ignoring the actual case and insulting a fellow debater, I'm talking about what actually happened. And yes, this does affect me, since I own a beach house, and tend to hang out on a pier, so I'd rather not get shot by a drug dealer, be they homegrown or imported.
You, on the other hand, are perfectly fine with a drug dealing killer going free, and are actually attempting to claim that a Jury Instruction that could've only affected the "I'm a drug dealer who doesn't know what a gun feels like" defense is somehow related to the "very fundamental laws of the United States, to bedrock principles of justice" - lolwut? He had his day in Court. He got off on a technicality. If the same thing happened to a banker who killed an illegal immigrant for shits and giggles, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Cut the charade Trotskylvania, you don't have the moral high ground, and you never will.
Given the way Shofercia has gone off at Trots here it's pretty obvious that Trots was doing something like flamebaiting. Given Shofercia's closest to flaming is calling Trots... and I don't understand why... bubbles and Trots called him buttercup, I suspect you won't find flaming here. Given Shofercia repeated Trots' phrasing, if the one is flamebaiting... look at the outcome... then so is the other.
There's also a lot of putting words in peoples' mouths, ascribing terrible motives to them and so on in there.
