Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Is anybody on this list opposed to an accused person being represented by competent legal counsel? Or that guilt or innocence should be determined by the facts of the case and those facts do not include guesswork based on Internet trolling, imagined scenarios and biases of people nursing grudges over previous unresolved incidents that do not involve the accused?
Anyone suggested that opposition here? All I suggested is that this has all of the hallmarks of a very expensive criminal defense, and if you want to deny that relatively rich people stand a better chance of walking in the American criminal justice system than poorer people, knock yourself out.
I'm disgusted by the facts of the case as they have been reported and, while I get that this guy is owed a presumption of innocence in a trial, I don't think I'm "imagining" this scenario, guessworking, or succumbing to trolling when I say if he really did do what is being reported, he needs to be punished severely. We're getting awfully jaded about people wielding these deadly weapons cavalierly for this to be considered merely a "prank gone wrong".
This really is in the "I was aiming the bullet right next to his head for laughs" category of recklessness.