Originally Posted by
Ziggy
The problem is the media needs to sell their product. So they sensationalize it to capture the audience, especially true with headlines. How many headlines have you read, then read the article to find out the reverse was true? And how many people actually take the time to read the article, vs just relying on the headlines. This and the reporters have started commentating and adding in their own opinions doesn't help the matter.
And how many times have you read [of] a defendant's testimony and then found out that it wasn't exactly truthful too?
I'm certainly not saying that the media gets all (or most of the facts) right. I'm also just as wary of putting 100% faith into some guy's internet defense statement.
People need to take away from this discussion, and others like it, that the truth oftens falls somehwere in the middle.
If you believe in the legal system - then the gov't isn't just prosecuting this guy with no proof of a crime. The gov't actually has to work harder to get a conviction than the defense has to go about priving innocence.
If the gov't is working this hard then they must feel like there was some law - whatever it was - mislabeling, misrepresentation, misinfomration, truth in advertising, lord I don't know - broken.
On the other side of the issue is this guy who has his team of lawyers showing how each of those isn't illegal.
A judge (and possible jury - though it sounds unlikely) will make the final determination based on LAW. If he doesn't like the outcome, he will appeal. If he loses the appeal then he might appeal again and again.
At some point he may (according to his story) decide to cut and run and take a slap on the wrist.
USMCFLYR