🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 05 May 1997 18:43:49 GMT, jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu (John M
Atkinson) wrote:

>Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):
>
>%}OK, no.  I don't believe one (or even several) incidents of troops getting out
>%}of hand justifies armed revolt.  And if you look at the writings of the time
>%}(Thomas Paine, especially) the Boston Massacre is almost never mentioned-the
>%}causes for rebellion can be more accurately traced to a long-term British
>policy
>%}of denying the colonists the inherent human right to self-determination.  
>%
>%It certainly wasn't the ONLY justification.  It was, however, one of
>%them.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of "protecting them, by
>%a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit
>%on the Inhabitants of these States". 
>
>Who, pray tell, defended the soldiers?  Look it up-it's a little surprising.
>Everyone is entitled to a trial.  Even soldiers.  And if a jury can't convict
>them, too bad.

Is it "too bad" if the jury can't convict because they've been
threatened in order to ensure that they don't?

--
Ask suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green) why he says things like:

>  "Did you hear the one about the dirty jew, the welfare queen, and
>the single mother?" - suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green)