Letters to the Editor
-
Briana Walter's Conviction
My point a few pages back was completely aside from Ms. Walters' ordeal, because it was tangental to the issue I wanted to raise.
However, to comment directly on her, I can't say whether she's guilty or not. I don't have all the facts. And from the looks of it, the prosecution didn't either. By and by, I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty. If it was up to me, from what I know, I would vote 'not guilty', regardless of her culpability or not.
That's what I find unfortunate, because from what it seems here, the trial ended up operating competely opposite to the idea of 'innocent before proven guilty', and that's largely in part thanks to the additional spectre of 'terrorism'.
-
If she's not a terrorist, who is?
If the justice system failed Briana Waters and she really WAS nowhere near the campus on the night of the arson, then there's a problem with the trial judge, the jury, or Waters' attorneys. But if she WAS standing lookout that night, then she participated in the destruction of property with the intention of intimidation to achieve an ideological objective. That's literally textbook terrorism. So she's a violin teacher. So what? So she's a white mother and homemaker. So what? She helped burn down a building in order to terrorize a company into changing its practices. She belongs in jail. The tone of your headline suggests the Feds misused anti-terrorism laws to jail someone innocent of terroristic activity. But the man-bites-dog facet of this story is that an accused terrorist wants to be exempted from anti-terrorism laws because her cause is noble. Every terrorist thinks his cause is noble. The Feds didn't "exploit" the law (actually, they did — exploit doesn't mean what many people think it means); they "applied" the law.
-
The meteorologists can't even accurately predict next weeks weather.
"...the planet you are ungratefully occupying..."
-- Hellacopter
----------
I'm grateful to be here on this beautiful earth the Almighty Omnipotent God created and is in ultimate control of, no matter what you think.
The ingrates are the ones burning down buildings.
-
Sorry, bud
You see, people are quick to judge, quick to convict, and quick to condemn. The letter-writers above see themselves as "concerned citizens," and ape that the sentence was perhaps harsh. They miss the one simple fact: there is no credible evidence which places Waters at the scene of the crime. There is considerable reasonable doubt as to her complicity and involvement.
You just don't understand do you?
I tried to explain in earlier letters from my own experiences as a juror. The main thing that a juror has to do is determine who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Two witnesses placed Waters at the scene. She testified in her own defence.
The jury believed the two witnesses and decided that Waters was lying. They had no doubt she was there, but were not all convinced on the more serious charges.
That is what juries do.
I was not in court to hear all the evidence and listen to the witnesses, the cross examnation, the recross, the final arguments, the rebuttals etc. Nor were you. The jurors were there, and they heard all the evidence and they decided she was lying.
You apparently can determine by remote operation that she was telling the truth. Good for you.
-
barleymash on who is a terrorist
But if she WAS standing lookout that night, then she participated in the destruction of property with the intention of intimidation to achieve an ideological objective.
How do you arrive at that interpretation? The stated, and indicated, goal of most criminal activism of this sort is to stop the activities that the activists wish to see an end to.
That's not textbook terrorism. That's textbook vandalism.
-
And violence is OK when?
How is violence EVER justified?
If enviros want to make change, they can write, lobby, collect donations, act to change legislation, negotiate with companies, any of hundreds of things they can do.
Instead they choose to be snotty, lawless anarchists.
If the elites are acting out of the law, then be on top of this. surely, you people can guilt trip enough left leaning billionaires to hand you some money to try to improve the world. I would be for this.
But violence? When a man hits a woman it is supposedly considered bad. When a man or woman commits some other act of violence it is suddenly good? Get past your own hypocrisies first.
-
Anyone participating actively in setting off a bomb in a university office....
Anyone who assists someone to set off an incendiary device (essentially a bomb) in a university office is indeed a terrorist, and participates in a terrorist plot. Briana, it appears, didn't do this.... despite the lousy jury decision.
But make no mistake: if someone had bought airline tickets for the 9/11 terrorists, knowing what they did.... they'd be a terrorist, just as surely as the people on the planes.
-
Gong
If it was up to me, from what I know, I would vote 'not guilty', regardless of her culpability or not.
That makes no sense.
Suppose you are a juror.
1) If you believe her testimony, obviously you believe the other two witnesses are lying, and you vote 'not guilty'.
2) If you believe she is lying, then presumably the two witnesses are telling the truth, and you vote 'guilty'.
3) If you have heard everything and you still honestly don't know who is telling the truth, you vote 'not guilty'.
Simple as that. But in case 3) the whole point is that you are unable to determine culpability.
If she had not taken the stand herself, the case would be slightly different, of course, because the prosecution case would have to stand or fall alone. I think that is what you are fogetting.
-
What's the fuss
Sure spent a lot of words trying to convince people that this woman shouldn't be treated as a criminal.
The real moral of this story: Watch the company you keep.
-
@Amerigo
I've been on a jury. I was pressured to convict even though the evidence was minimal. I am not proud to say that I caved to peer pressure, but there was another person on the jury who held out and we ended up with a hung jury. In retrospect, I should have joined her.
The prosecution has a lot of power, especially in conservative (authoritarian) areas where jurors tend to assume that the authorities are always right - they wouldn't be bringing the charges if they weren't sure of the defendent's guilt, now would they? (On the jury in which I sat, I had a debate with a woman over whether a police officer could lie or even get facts wrong - she would not believe the officer could be wrong). The fact that the jury did not convice on the more serious charges is telling. If this woman was guilty of participatin in this serious crime, why did they not convict her of everything? I suspect that the jury was compromising. They weren't sure of her guilt, but they didn't want to let a possible terrorist out onto the street, so they compromised and found her partially guilty. She will be punished, but not as seriously. This isn't right, but it's the way human's think.