If someone killed my kid, I don’t give a shit about what the judicial system should be. I’d burn down the world to get the guy who did it.
At least, I assume. I don’t have kids, but I also have enough sense not to lecture someone who’s suffered the worst tragedy imaginable about the importance of civics.
I would too. And it would be society’s duty to stop me.
And yet there are people who have suffered that tragedy and don’t go off the rails. My point is that the court should not run on bloodlust. Simple enough for you?
By the way, have you ever been falsely accused of a crime, to the point of getting arrested?
He never said it should. He’s saying he might feel that way, and that we shouldn’t criticize the parent for feeling that way. That is not at all the same as saying the justice system should accomodate them.
I’m criticizing a system that has people in court stating their desires for someone to be raped and murdered. The justice system is accommodating that.
Good thing no one is doing that here.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. I’m not arguing for how I think the justice system should work, I’m showing empathy to a person who has suffered immensely by not launching into a finger wagging lecture because he said something politically incorrect.
You’re doing more than that.
Exactly. I would understand that your feeling is genuine… and not to be allowed to be exercised.
“I understand” does not have to mean “I agree”. Explanation is not justification.
OTOH yes, maybe Victim Impact Statements in some venues are being turned into rant sessions just so the anger can be made part of the record, since the Court itself may not spew hatred. AIUI the purpose was in reaction to a notion that trials had become sterile legalese processes where the hurt inflicted on victims and survivors counted for nothing. At least now they get a voice, if not a vote. But it is important to remember, rule of law requires that verdicts and sentences be based on the facts and law and not the feelings.
Following up on my own post, in which I posit that the accusations of improper conduct levied against the defense team are perhaps unfair mischaracterizations by the press, the DA, and even the judge to note that the Florida Supreme Court, oddly enough, would appear to agree that the judge may have appeared unfairly biased in favor of the prosecution:
I must say I’m kindly amazed to see Florida’s Supreme Court taking this action to actually safeguard the rights of criminal defendants.
I hope he is acquitted. Armed school resource officers will never be a viable solution to school shootings. It is a fantasy we cling to because we have been paralyzed into inaction on other fronts.
Maybe they see the writing on the wall.
He’s been acquitted (the deputy sheriff charged with child neglect, that is). I cannot imagine the trauma this must have been for him, put forward as a lone scapegoat to atone for the sins of a nation that has failed utterly to protect its children.
Gift link to NYT article, Jury Acquits Deputy Who Failed to Confront Parkland Gunman (tried to make it a standard previewable link, but I guess it’s too long for discourse to accommodate like that).
This is the only place where I’ve seen support for this acquittal.
As with Uvalde, far too many people dropped assorted balls (and in the Parkland case, it was allowing the shooter to walk free when it was obvious almost from birth that he had no place in free society).
The judge has since announced her resignation. Less than a month later, she was reprimanded by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Wow, that is a pretty stinging rebuke. Well deserved, IMHO, and hopefully a caution to all to be skeptical of claims that people assigned to defend an unpopular client must themselves be villainous scum—even if the judge treats them like they are, and the media just eats it up.
The two are not comparable. There were nearly 400 LEOs wandering aroubd outside Ulvade, and children unambiguously died because of the 45 minutes they hesitated.