Cal Thomas

Of course Cal can disagree with me. He can also disagree with the jury, and the way our legal system played out. In fact I expressly stated that was entitled to disagree.

I am merely pointing out that his argument for disagreement isn't based on facts, merely his own particular idea about what is and isn't justice.

 

OJ got off.

Mousoauii did not get off. He was found guilty and sentenced.

Yes, Cal did express an opinion. His opinion isn't based on anything, is all that I am pointing out.

His opinion is based solely on his own inflated ego, and arrogance to believe that he has some definitive say on what is and isn't justice in a criminal trial in which he wasn't involved, and the person was found guilty, and given sentence contrary to the one Mousoauii himself wanted.

Again I don't care that Cal expressed his opinion. But did you just want everyone to read Cal's opinion, or did you want people to discuss it?

I was only trying to give my opinion about Cal's opinion.

 

Because, unlike Cal Thomas, I don't pretend that I have ultimate knowledge of the judgement of what is and isn't justice in this case. It is part of why I am against the death penalty. I don't believe that mortal man is capable of making that decision. It is part of my Christian belief that only God can judge that kind of thing.

Just like pro-life advocates say that if we don't know when the life of a fetus actually begins we should err on the side of life. Because we aren't qualified to give out the ultimate justice and decide another's life or death, we should err on the side of life.

Yet Cal Thomas, believes that he does know what is justice in this case. Cal Thomas believes that he can determine that one degree and type of punishment is not justice, while another one is. He makes that determination despite having been involved with the case. It is arrogant and the sign of an inflated ego to believe that he knows more than the Judge, and Jury who were in the court room for the whole case, and heard all the evidence.

Unlike Cal Thomas, I will admit that I am no perfect, and make mistakes. Given that I don't feel that it would be correct of me to decide what ultimate justice is and who deserves to live or die. Cal Thomas is an arrogant pig for believing he knows better than everyone else that another human being deserves to die.

If I err I am going to err on the side of life.

 

I think anyone who has posted in the D&D long enough could really do Cal's job. And all this without the benefit of a porno 'stache.

Except MadMax. He's definitely going to need the porno 'stache.

 

Need I point out the obvious? Moussaioui never took anyone's life. He's an evil hate filled sicko but he's not a murderer and wasn't charged with murder.

 

I've been trying to grow a porno 'stache but just comes out to stringy. I can't get that full Ron Jeremy look that Cal's got going.

 

Therefore he is accused of obstruction of justice not the same thing as murder or even complicity, as in the case of driving the get away car. Cal Thomas talks about a life for a life for justice. Moussaioui didn't take any lives.

 

In my life time I have disagreed with some, but I have always allowed for the possibility that I could be wrong.

Taking a person's life is pretty eternal

He was found guilty, and sentenced to what those involved felt was just.

If so that is ashamed. Perhaps it won't always be that way.

It isn't about his own perfection. It is about the fact that his article makes the argument that he knows what justice is, while a courtroom full of people who heard all the arguments and saw all of the evidence do not know what justice is. That makes someone a pig.

In almost every case I am in favor of erring on the side of life. But I admit that the only thing I do know about it is that there is a lot that mankind doesn't know. I will keep listening to science and all the opposing viewpoints, and try to weigh the evidence the best I can.

 

^ Not exactly since he never took part of the crime. Further he isn't obligated under US law to admit to being part of a conspiracy since he has a right to remain silent and a right against self incrimination. This is where as Sam Fisher points out the case against Moussaioui is rather legally tortured. So yes he is guilty of being a member of the organization that undertook the crime and having shown an intention to participate in the crime but he's not complicit in the crime itself.

This still gets back to the point that Cal Thomas' point of a life for a life is wrong since Moussaioui never took a life nor is he responsible for taking a life.

 

I can't think of a court case that goes otherwise, unless other evidence comes to light.

I think the whole iea is that he is supposed to judge based on the time on earth.

Like I said disagreement is fine. But blanket definitive statements by Cal Thomas that he is above others in determining what justice actually is, and knows better than other people who have heard or seen more evidence than he has, makes him an egomaniac.

It is not ashamed at all that people disagree with me. What would be ashamed is if every uninformed blowhard believed that they alone know more about justice in particular case than the folks who were directly involved, and don't even allow for the possibility that they could be wrong.

Yes in trial like this, people can be found not guilty, or they can be found guilty. That is the way a trial works. That is why people present evidence. That evidence should help make the jury come to an informed decision.

I agree the system can be improved. That doesn't mean that people who weren't there or involved know the real truth about justice, and the multitude of folks who actually heard and saw all of the evidence don't know a thing about justice.

I
That's the best you can do when you truly and inarguably have an innocent hanging in the balance? [/QUOTE]What I did was state my opinion, and allowed that as evidence comes to light one way or another that opinion might change. That seems reasonable to me.

 

I agree with erring on the side of life. If evidence comes in that shows it isn't on the side of life, then it wouldn't be error.

 

His whole logic for demanding death makes no sense. In the first scenario, he says restitution is the only proper justice - anything less is not. Then he says the same for murder, but there is no restitution in that scenario. He uses completely different logic in the second scenario, and it has nothing to do with restitution. At that point, you know he's just reaching and included the first paragraph to make his point sound like it was reasoned out.

I'm also curious if, based on the 2nd paragraph, he thinks all murderers should get the death penalty, no matter the circumstances. It certainly should be that way based on the last sentence, but I suspect if you asked him, the answer would be no.