From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 23:48:49 GMT

In article <BzFuB5.6B2@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>My main agenda is to see to it that citizens and decent people are
>>protected by the law of the land.

>Again, we have a common goal.  But, I also want indecent people protected
>by that law, since decency isn't a parameter of the function of legal
>protections.

From who is it that we are trying to protect INDECENT people?
From DECENT citizens?

(I know, we want to protect them from abuses of governmental powers.)

>And, law  requires that jury verdicts be regarded as valid,
>if not accurate.  

Now you are defending Law, not Justice.

>You will accuse me of being a lawyer, for making that
>distinction.  I plead guilty.

Obviously.  Do not be surprised that lawyers are seen in such a poor
light these days in the US.

>Jake, please read this:  In a criminal trial the jury swears to acquit
>if they don't know what the truth of a case is.  That's absolutely
>fundamental to our law.  If the jury can't find guilt, it is not a
>requirement to acquittal that they find facts.  

Fine.  This is "innocent until proven guilty."  This rule protects
innocent people from being hounded by the "law".  It does nothing to
further justice in cases where decent people have suffered at the
hands of criminals and those criminals are later acquitted.  In fact,
the law appears to prevent such people from EVER being accused in
court of the same crime, even if they later confess.  You are still
defending Law, not Justice.  And you still haven't explained how
justice can possibly be served now in the Rosenbaum/Nelson case.

>The Nelson jury did
>not find guilt.  That's all.  They didn't find innocence.  They
>didn't convict (as you have said) the NYPD.  

Those officers who swore in court that Nelson confessed to the crime
won't agree with you.  Nor will a few thousand other cops.

>>Say again?  The law doesn't require one to tell the truth?  What's all
>>this stuff about "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
>>truth"? 
>
>It's an oath in court, where a judge, jury and defense lawyer are
>present to ensure it's an uncoerced subscription.  An alleged confession
>obtained in a police station (have you ever even been in one?) at
>3am with no referee of fairness present is hardly comparable.  Yes,
>it could have been made.  But as you are fond of pointing out, it
>COULD have been something else, and so should be regarded as such 
>(that was your thinking about Nelson's knife, presence, alleged
>confession, red shirt, black skin and flight from police, wasn't
>it?).

I haven't understood this paragraph.  After you twice told us that
Lemrick Nelson had no duty to tell the truth under oath in court,
perhaps I should have left your straightforward statements as they
were.  Further obfuscation isn't necessary.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish