[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]Now, don’t you be whuppin no kungfu on me, fenlander, or whatever that stuff is you know; I’m willing to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood:
[quote=“On March 28, fenlander”]he took another human life not money or property a life and a human one. Whether accidentally or not this is really screwed up.[/quote] Foreigner in a Mercedes involved in hit and run - #43 by fenlander
So it was all right to form an opinion about Mr. Dean’s guilt–no need to wait for more information?
But one shouldn’t rush to judgment about his innocence, or about the conduct of the police? One should be patient and wait for more information?
By the way, I’m waiting for more information, too. But I was also waiting for more information back then. I dunno, maybe you just haven’t been wrong about as many things as I have. 
As for Northcoast Surfer, maybe he was just acting the way a good defense attorney would act back in the U.S. of A.:
[quote=“Concerning counsel for defendant, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White”]Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.[/quote]–U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (concurring and dissenting in part)
You know, as a partial counterweight to all the prosecutorial-type posts.[/quote]
No kung fu lol 
But could you translate that last section into plain English for me ? :roflmao: I’m not kidding it is very confusing legal talk. Put it in jury language please [/quote]
I think he’s saying that in a courtroom a defense attorney is allowed to go a little beyond the Marquess of Queensbury Rules–that since the power of the State is arrayed against the defendant, his lawyer is allowed, and even sometimes obligated, to be somewhat of a mean, unfair bastard, within limits. In other words, if he were a boxer, he’d be the kind that was rumored to be a little bit of a dirty fighter, and he’s supposed to be that way (again, within limits).
And he’s also saying that that’s why a criminal trial is not like a scientific discussion.
Of course, some people in the legal profession may disagree with the late Justice White about that. But I agree with him, at least for our (i. e., the U. S.) system.