The other night I watched a small portion of Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC. I do this from time to time in order to get a sense of what the folks like Sharpton are saying. It is an important exercise because it makes clear just how dishonest the conversation is on shows like that.
On Thursday, Sharpton was talking about the Zimmerman verdict for a change. Most likely, it will still be the main topic of conversation on that show in November. One of Sharpton's guests explained the comments of one juror who had explained that she would have liked to convict Zimmerman but that the requirements of the law as to when one can find someone guilty had not been met, so the jury voted to acquit. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. American criminal law requires the prosecution to prove all parts of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury still has doubts about these elements, they must acquit.
Sharpton's response was priceless. He asked the panelist if the prosecutor and the judge must accept the responsibility for this confusion of the jury. Get it? The juror properly stated the requirements of the criminal law of Florida (and every other state). The juror made clear that the jury followed the requirements of the law exactly. Sharpton then says that they were confused because they did what the law requires.
If I had overheard the conversation at a diner or at an office water cooler, I could understand that the person speaking had not been listening and was confused. Sharpton, however, is being beamed into the homes of millions to spread this kind of idiocy.
On Thursday, Sharpton was talking about the Zimmerman verdict for a change. Most likely, it will still be the main topic of conversation on that show in November. One of Sharpton's guests explained the comments of one juror who had explained that she would have liked to convict Zimmerman but that the requirements of the law as to when one can find someone guilty had not been met, so the jury voted to acquit. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. American criminal law requires the prosecution to prove all parts of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury still has doubts about these elements, they must acquit.
Sharpton's response was priceless. He asked the panelist if the prosecutor and the judge must accept the responsibility for this confusion of the jury. Get it? The juror properly stated the requirements of the criminal law of Florida (and every other state). The juror made clear that the jury followed the requirements of the law exactly. Sharpton then says that they were confused because they did what the law requires.
If I had overheard the conversation at a diner or at an office water cooler, I could understand that the person speaking had not been listening and was confused. Sharpton, however, is being beamed into the homes of millions to spread this kind of idiocy.
No comments:
Post a Comment