So there was a case on a river in Wisconsin. I don't know the exact details. I just saw a video on, was it CNN.
So a middle aged man of what looked to be a Russian surname is said to be the one who caused trouble with some motley looking teenagers?
The video shows them surrounding him and yelling at him. Again, I don't know what happened before or any details other than what the video showed. So this could be way off.
I could make one point here regarding video evidence and cases. The public ought to be able to read case details somewhere? Shouldn't it be public knowledge? After all they do use these happenings to push through legislation? The second point here with regard to video evidence is what can be said to be factual about it and an agreed upon truth. For example take a length of footage and everyone agrees on the words this person said at that moment in the timeline of the video. That becomes a factual element of truth and could be labeled as such in a written transcript?
So they surround him, we see him pushed into the water. And right there if you hadn't seen any other part of the video you would say it looks like they are about to drown him!
Then he pulls the sharpest knife out of his swimming trunks, that is all he is wearing, and kills one of them, and disembowels another. And set quite a few of them to the hospital.
So he got 20 years because they said he started it. And you can't start it and then use deadly force to finish it.
But did the knife come out before they pushed him down?
The point I am getting at has to do with justice? You certainly wouldn't want someone who instigates trouble and then disembowles people living next door to you. But do you want a group of young adults who surround someone yell at him and then push him down into the water living next to you either? Again, I don't know the details. So perhaps this is wrong?
Is it wrong for me to comment on something when all the details are not provided? If I just comment on what I see and know, I could get in trouble? And that isn't right! The Second Amendment should protect me. And off topic, but what happens when you have a President so wierd that every word that comes out of his mouth seems to have the intent on inciting unconstitutional civil unrest.
But the main point here is I believe we are decaying as a society. Whereby the justice system is going to fail us because we are going to have more and more instances whereby it isn't one or the other who is guilty it is both! And only one of the two party's is usually only found guilty?
Did you follow that? Perhaps it has to do with a lesser standard? Perhaps it has to do with those who couldn't be educated.
But just tell me what we are to do when it isn't one or the other, it is both!
© 2024 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment