[CaptainCrunch]

Can anyone say that strictly from a legal point of view, based on the laws currently booked that this was the wrong verdict? I'm not entirely sure. By the letter of the law, and the evidence handed to the jury and if anything some serious prosecutorial bungling. I don't think that this would have gone the other way.



Now, from a moral point of view, absolutely, from a gun law point of view for sure, From a this should disturb anyone yes. But that's not up to that level of courts to interpret.



I'm seeing a lot of posts (not here) but on twitter, labeling this a example of a racist court, or a decision based on a white racist jury. I'm not sure that those people are being entirely fair.



From a prosecutors stand point, I don't know, they should have taken a serious look at the chances of convinction and gone for the lesser charges earlier. They also seemed poorly prepared.


One thing that and just to throw this in here, I would like to see the States get rid of is the election of judges. That to me seems to be a massive political miscalculation. You can't have a judge that's beholden to voters and fundraising and potential conflict of that interest.



I do think that even though the discussion is never going to get serious no matter if its a Dem or Republic in the white house is the issue of gun control and gun violence. And I think the only way to get at that is with a serious reform of campaign financing and lobby laws. There is too much private interest money floating around out there to ever see any serious gun reform.



But getting back to this case, and the reaction to it online, there seems to be a real disconnect or maybe a lack of understanding on how this trial unfolded and the rules of trials.