## A heated topic in America

Post by Jay Feely » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:22 am

Are you for or against gun control in America?
You will have to subdue me to restrain me. I been a bad boy so make sure you torture me too with anything but pain.

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:14 am

Gun control means being able to hit what you aim at. Of course, if you're a bad guy, looking down the barrel of a large caliber hand gun, like an M-1911 .45 semi-auto, does have a tendency to require a change of pants and shorts. Especially if you know the good guy with the gun is using hollow point ammo, which will leave an entrance wound about as big as your pinky, and an exit wound about the size of a softball. Simply put, if you are shot in the upper body mass with a .45 hollow point round, your chances for survival are not real good.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Chris12 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:24 pm

In America specially? Taking guns away at this point would lead to trouble but a tighter control on who gets to own a weapon which only real use is to kill and makes killing easy just by owning one, yeah i'm definitely in for that.
I don't think you can get rid of guns in America anymore but making them harder to obtain so psycho's have a harder time getting them shouldn't be controversial in the least. some increased control my be necessary for people's safety. I can't see why withholding the rights to buy guns from criminals and people with a mental problem would be a problem for anyone.
I suppose it depends on your reasoning. If people want them for self defence I suppose I can give them the benefit of the doubt, America isn't as safe as Europe but i'd say making sure your society is safe is a much better aim then owning a gun to make you feel safe. If your reasoning for not wanting gun control is because your expecting a need to rebel against that evil government soon then your just in the wrong.
I don't think your society needs gun rights for every person to be safe, quite the opposite, we don't have wide access to guns and get along just fine. The thought of every single person being able to carry a gun would be quite frightening to me, what if you don't trust the people holding the guns?

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Scottstud94 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:13 pm

For gun control here in the USA.
The National Rifle Association is a plague on America, disgusting organization.
Too many guns, 2nd amendment being taken out of context by hillbillies.

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:35 pm

> Chris12 wrote:I can't see why withholding the rights to buy guns from criminals and people with a mental problem would be a problem for anyone.

Actually convicted felons and people with histories of mental problems requiring institutionalization are already barred from owning guns, and have been for quite some time. What is needed are better background checks to ensure such people don't get these weapons legally.
Of course, stopping them from getting them illegally is a whole other problem; a big problem because it's easy to steal guns or get them on the black market because there are already way too GD many of the things. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals now is like keeping pot out of the hands of stoners; the source of the problem being too easy to obtain.
It's an absolute mess, and all the people supporting gun ownership (regardless of whether or not their reasons have merit) ensures that it is a mess that can never be untangled; it'll only get worse until guns become as much a necessity as in the lawless Old West - and for basically the same reasons. Luckily for me I live in one of the safer and saner parts of the country; I know people in other places though where it's already dangerous to be without a gun - especially in the Southwest! I wouldn't live in such places for a million dollars!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:06 pm

Watch out, world! My state has seen fit (after the appropriate background checks) to issue me a concealed carry permit. I'm too young to die, and too old to take an ass-whupping, so if anyone screws with me to the point where I think I am in danger, I will shoot him.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:43 pm

> drawscore wrote:Watch out, world! My state has seen fit (after the appropriate background checks) to issue me a concealed carry permit. I'm too young to die, and too old to take an ass-whupping, so if anyone screws with me to the point where I think I am in danger, I will shoot him.
> Drawscore

People like you with an exaggerated sense of entitlement to bear arms are a major reason this country is in such a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if that Zimmerman creep had the same attitude as you before he shot Trayvon Martin; like he was Wyatt Earp or something. Regardless of comes out, I have no doubt it was a senseless and preventable tragedy; made worse by the fact that so many people make assumptions about what single black males do alone at night.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Scottstud94 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:30 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:

> > drawscore wrote:Watch out, world! My state has seen fit (after the appropriate background checks) to issue me a concealed carry permit. I'm too young to die, and too old to take an ass-whupping, so if anyone screws with me to the point where I think I am in danger, I will shoot him.
> > Drawscore

> People like you with an exaggerated sense of entitlement to bear arms are a major reason this country is in such a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if that Zimmerman creep had the same attitude as you before he shot Trayvon Martin; like he was Wyatt Earp or something. Regardless of comes out, I have no doubt it was a senseless and preventable tragedy; made worse by the fact that so many people make assumptions about what single black males do alone at night.

ZIMMERMAN IS NOT GUILTY OF MURDER. HE WAS CLEARLY ATTACKED. SELF DEFENSE.

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:33 pm

> Scottstud94 wrote: ZIMMERMAN IS NOT GUILTY OF MURDER. HE WAS CLEARLY ATTACKED. SELF DEFENSE.

Maybe he was attacked; maybe he wasn't. That part isn't clear at all.
What IS clear is that he followed this kid a ways, probably making Martin think he was a mugger or a child molester, and probably came on like the asshat he looks like he is. We don't know who made the first move; we just have his version of events. It's quite possible Trayvon thought he was standing HIS ground from some stranger who evidently felt empowered just because he was carrying a gun and was likely unnecessarily confrontational. It's already been made clear that Zimmerman had a history of ranting about people HE judged suspicious - based more on their looks rather than anything they were actually doing.
Considering the fact that he sought a confrontation, I think Zimmerman should be convicted of negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter at the least. But then, I'm (thankfully) not on the jury.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jay Feely » Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:24 am

I personally do not own a gun and my city in Texas is pretty safe from gun crimes but I feel sorry for all the victims of gun crimes.
You will have to subdue me to restrain me. I been a bad boy so make sure you torture me too with anything but pain.

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:12 am

The prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case, is not doing as well as expected. However, to avoid riots, Zimmerman will be convicted, and allowed to remain free on bail while the case is appealed. After a year (or two or three), when public attention is diverted to something else, Zimmerman's conviction will be quietly overturned by an appellate court, and the reversal will get little or no notice in the media.
That's just my guess, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:40 am

> drawscore wrote:The prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case, is not doing as well as expected. However, to avoid riots, Zimmerman will be convicted, and allowed to remain free on bail while the case is appealed. After a year (or two or three), when public attention is diverted to something else, Zimmerman's conviction will be quietly overturned by an appellate court, and the reversal will get little or no notice in the media.
> That's just my guess, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
> Drawscore

Unfortunately, political expediency can and often does affect the outcomes of criminal trials. As for myself, as I have no personal stake in the outcome, I'll accept whatever verdict comes up. Just as I did with the O.J. Simpson trial, even though he was acquitted and I still think he was as guilty as sin.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:06 pm

>>>Just as I did with the O.J. Simpson trial, even though he was acquitted and I still think he was as guilty as sin.<<<
On that point, we agree.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jay Feely » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:25 pm

What is the stand your ground law in Florida?
You will have to subdue me to restrain me. I been a bad boy so make sure you torture me too with anything but pain.

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:51 pm

> Jay Feely wrote:What is the stand your ground law in Florida?

You really ought to Google it if you want a comprehensive answer to that question. But basically it means you can't be convicted of murder if you kill someone in self defense. What makes it questionable in the Zimmerman case is whether it applies when you started the confrontation in the first place, as Zimmerman may have done. He wouldn't have had to stand his ground (of that IS what he did) if he'd stayed away from Trayvon Martin until he had help. Also there's some wonder if maybe Martin wasn't just standing HIS ground; no one knows for sure who hit first after all.
The fact that you don't already know about this law by this time probably means you'd have made an ideal jurist for the Zimmerman case.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:30 pm

Jason, you seem to want to convict Zimmerman before all the facts are in. Of course, if you have been getting your news from NBC, or any of its subsidiaries, you might have missed the fact that NBC "selectively edited" the taped phone conversation between Zimmerman and the Sanford police, to make it appear Zimmerman was racist. That Zimmerman has filed a defamation suit against NBC, might also have gone past you. (If you think I'm wrong, you can always Google it. "Zimmerman Defamation Lawsuit NBC" should be sufficient to bring up information.) Two or three low level staffers were fired over it, but they may have been tossed under the bus to protect the higher ups at NBC News.
The point, is that the jury will hear and see information/evidence that was not released to the public or the media. Let's wait for all the facts to come out, before we rush to convict Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. Besides, having followed this trial closely, I feel, as do several pundits on both sides of the aisle, that the prosecution has, so far, put on a "less than stellar" performance, and is damned lucky the judge didn't toss the case after the prosecution's presentation.
However, because of the volatility of this case, my guess is that Zimmerman will be found guilty; allowed to remain free on bail while the case is appealed, and then, next year, when the public's attention is focused on the mid-term elections, the "guilty" verdict will be overturned on appeal, and will receive little or no notice in the media.
Drawscore
And yes, I am cynical.

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:30 pm

> drawscore wrote:Jason, you seem to want to convict Zimmerman before all the facts are in. Drawscore

Why? Because Jay asked what stand your ground means and so I explained how it matters in the Zimmerman case under discussion? How else was I to explain its relevance in this case?
However, yes... I believe he's guilty of manslaughter at the least, yes. As far as I can see, he came on like Rambo. If he had his ass kicked, it was his own fault.
And before you criticize me about my opinion of Zimmerman, I might point that many people have long since convicted Trayvon Martin of assault and battery. Even if this is the case (and not an example of the time-tested strategy of blaming the victim) and Trayvon Martin started the fight rather than Zimmerman, the last I knew assault and battery was not a capital offense. Zimmerman may have resorted to using the gun for self-defense, but was he really getting beaten badly enough to resort to shooting Martin? He didn't seem all that badly hurt after the fracas if you'll recall.
If some joker came up to me with a gun and an attitude and started to give me the third degree, I might attack thinking *I* was acting in self defense... and I'm usually very difficult to provoke into a fight. Remember, for an unarmed Trayvon to attack a guy with a gun, Zimmerman must have been in your face about it rather than sensibly talking to Trayvon from a safe distance... unless you think Trayvon was dumb enough to approach a stranger with a gun who was keeping *his* distance! So it seems to be that, at best, Zimmerman provoked the situation with unnecessary beligerence and then over-reacted (i.e. panicked) when things got out of hand, and then lied to cover his sorry ass. Judging from previous testimony, tis would seem to fit his character.
But... that's just MY opinion. Don't tell me you haven't formed one of your own, because that would make you almost unique as far as people who've heard of this case at all are concerned!

> drawscore wrote:Of course, if you have been getting your news from NBC, or any of its subsidiaries, you might have missed the fact that NBC "selectively edited" the taped phone conversation between Zimmerman and the Sanford police, to make it appear Zimmerman was racist. That Zimmerman has filed a defamation suit against NBC, might also have gone past you.

How many GD times do I have to tell you that, unlike you, I DO NOT WATCH the news on television AT ALL?!? And no, I didn't miss the fact about the editing; that came out like what... two or three days at most after the event? So what? Do you think this is the ONLY taped conversation we have of Zimmerman and the things he said. If so, maybe you should stop watching FOX news and just read a GD newspaper! And the editing of that 911 call has NO bearing on the case, so really who gives a sweet damn about it? Yes, NBC was wrong to do that, but that's a separate issue and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand!

> drawscore wrote: Besides, having followed this trial closely, I feel, as do several pundits on both sides of the aisle, that the prosecution has, so far, put on a "less than stellar" performance, and is damned lucky the judge didn't toss the case after the prosecution's presentation.

Oh, but the defense's knock-knock on the first day of the trial... that was perfectly fine with you I suppose.

> drawscore wrote:Let's wait for all the facts to come out, before we rush to convict Zimmerman in the court of public opinion.

Fine, but tell us honestly... have YOU done this same thing concerning for Trayvon Martin and his role in all this? Even if he was dumb enough to attack a man with a gun, can you honestly say he was the sole aggressor and that he deserved to die for an error in judgment? For all I or even you know, Martin might have thought Zimmerman that was a mugger or a child molester and was standing HIS ground! Also remember this: the worst Martin did was beat up Zimmerman. Zimmerman on the other hand shot Martin, an unarmed kid, dead. And showed no apparent remorse over it either (If I'd shot someone dead even in self-defense, I'd be an emotional basket case. The fact that Zimmerman has apparently showed no concern at all troubles me... a LOT!)
So who really committed the more heinous act here?

> drawscore wrote: However, because of the volatility of this case, my guess is that Zimmerman will be found guilty; allowed to remain free on bail while the case is appealed, and then, next year, when the public's attention is focused on the mid-term elections, the "guilty" verdict will be overturned on appeal, and will receive little or no notice in the media.

Which implies to me that you have in fact already formed your own opinion in this matter: i.e. that Trayvon Martin was a punk kid who deserved to be shot to death and that Zimmerman was justified in doing it, and that Zimmerman will virtually be a martyr rather than a scumbag who essentially shot first and asked questions later. Seems to me than you're no more unbiased in the matter than I am.
And I freely admit I am biased to some extent; and - one way or the other - so are at least 90% of the people who know about this case and give a damn about it. And that includes you! But I'm ready and willing to weigh all evidence that contradicts my current belief!
Are you?!?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:53 pm

Personally, I think Zimmerman is innocent. The wounds to the back of his head support the contention that Trayvon was "banging his head into the pavement," and that should be enough to convince any reasonable person, that Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, or that "great bodily harm" was imminent. If that wasn't enough, several prosecution witnesses were "train wrecks," and under cross examination, bolstered the defense's case. Trayvon's father was caught in a lie.
But Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the collection of the "Just Us" race pimps will be on hand once closing arguments are presented, for no other purpose, than to try and intimidate the jury into a "guilty" verdict.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:19 pm

> drawscore wrote:Personally, I think Zimmerman is innocent. The wounds to the back of his head support the contention that Trayvon was "banging his head into the pavement," and that should be enough to convince any reasonable person, that Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, or that "great bodily harm" was imminent. If that wasn't enough, several prosecution witnesses were "train wrecks," and under cross examination, bolstered the defense's case. Trayvon's father was caught in a lie.
> But Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the collection of the "Just Us" race pimps will be on hand once closing arguments are presented, for no other purpose, than to try and intimidate the jury into a "guilty" verdict.
> Drawscore

Innocent? Of what? He killed another person. That's not innocent. He killed someone who may have felt threatened. I've seen people hurt worse in fights in school; should one have then drawn a gun and shot the other one down? He may not be guilty of murder, but he damn well isn't innocent. At best, he's guilty of extremely poor judgment and most likely caused the situation in the first place, unless you believe that BS that Trayvon Martin attacked him without provocation. And the prosecution witness and Trayvon's father's lie doesn't change a damned thing concerning whether or not Zimmerman was justified in what he did. If you think he was justified despite probably coming across as so unnecessarily hostile and aggressive that anyone would have reacted badly to it, you must have a very low regard for human life.
I sometimes think most modern conservatives in fact do... at least in regards to people not just like themselves.
As for Sharpton, jackson, and those others, well... I have no more liking for them than YOU do. Imo they're only trouble-makers, so no argument from me there. That's a completely different discussion altogether though and has little or nothing to do with gun control.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:46 am

OK, I'll play the semantics game. I think he is not guilty of 2nd degree murder. The prosecution did not come close to meeting the burden of proof required for conviction. (Depraved indifference for human life) I don't think they met the burden of proof for manslaughter, or even involuntary manslaughter.
The whole damn thing is a show trial for political purposes, and now, it's been revealed that a community outreach section of Eric Holder's "Justice" Department, was instrumental in bussing in protesters to protest against Zimmerman. And here, I thought the Department of Justice was supposed to be neutral, not helping and cheerleading for one side, in a case in which they are not involved.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:07 am

> drawscore wrote:OK, I'll play the semantics game. I think he is not guilty of 2nd degree murder. The prosecution did not come close to meeting the burden of proof required for conviction. (Depraved indifference for human life) I don't think they met the burden of proof for manslaughter, or even involuntary manslaughter.
> The whole damn thing is a show trial for political purposes, and now, it's been revealed that a community outreach section of Eric Holder's "Justice" Department, was instrumental in bussing in protesters to protest against Zimmerman. And here, I thought the Department of Justice was supposed to be neutral, not helping and cheerleading for one side, in a case in which they are not involved.
> Drawscore

I don't know what you're talking about with that Eric holder business; Googling it I can't even find any mention of it anywhere except vaguely in some far-right rag called the capitalism Institute.
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/holder-zimmerman/
Probably your paper of choice, too.
As far as the rest of it goes though, you're probably right. Personally I think Zimmerman is a piece of sh*t, but realistically he'll probably walk. I wonder if the same would be true if Zimmerman were black and Trayvon Martin had been white, but no matter. Even if he walks, he'll probably find himself little better off than O.J. Simpson did. He'll probably never have much peace in his life ever again, and he'll likely be sued by Martin's family (and the burden of proof for a lawsuit is much different and much less stringent than being on trial for murder, as Simpson found out when he lost *that* case). Whether he wins or loss that case, his life is probably screwed. Maybe you have sympathy for him; but I don't. As far as I can see, he brought it all down upon himself.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:29 pm

If he is sued for wrongful death by Martin's family and loses, he can pay it off with the money he'll win in his own suit against NBC for selectively editing the original taped conversation with the police dispatcher. Despite the precedent set in the Sullivan v. New York Times case, I don't think Zimmerman will have any problem proving that NBC edited the tape, then put it on the air, and knew it was false when they did it.
Here's a link from Judicial Watch. It's a bit to the right, too.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... -protests/
Of course, Think Progress says "No, the DoJ didn't, but what else would you expect from the radical left wing moonbats?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc
For something more to the center:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -riots.php
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:42 pm

> drawscore wrote:Of course, Think Progress says "No, the DoJ didn't, but what else would you expect from the radical left wing moonbats?
> Drawscore

Oh, but of course... the Reactionary right-wing dingbats are sooo much more reliable! Yeah. Right.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:30 pm

Well, they acquitted Zimmerman. That's at least half the battle for him. Now for all the lawsuits. Martin's family will likely sue him for wrongful death, while possibly he sues NBC for defamation. he haven't heard the last of this by a long shot.
Meanwhile though, the pro-gun lobby will have won a big victory in this along with Zimmerman.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:46 pm

Under Florida law, he never should have gone to trial in the first place. The evidence at the scene did not warrant an arrest, and it wasn't until race hustler Al Sharpton started raising hell, and NBC doctored a tape, that an arrest was made. A month and a half after the fact.
One thing I am in favor of, is a "loser pays" law, at both the state and federal level. If you sue and lose in civil court, (complainant), you are responsible for paying all costs incurred by the respondent for his defense. It would stop a lot of silly lawsuits. But our state legislatures, and the congress are mostly lawyers, and they are not going to do anything that might adversely affect the livelihoods of their fellow lawyers. But in some states, there is the possibility of a "citizens initiative" to change the state constitution. Of course, the wording for such a ballot initiative would have to be approved by the state supreme court, whose justices are all . . . . . yep, you guessed it . . . . . lawyers.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:45 pm

> drawscore wrote:Under Florida law, he never should have gone to trial in the first place. The evidence at the scene did not warrant an arrest, and it wasn't until race hustler Al Sharpton started raising hell, and NBC doctored a tape, that an arrest was made. A month and a half after the fact.
> One thing I am in favor of, is a "loser pays" law, at both the state and federal level. If you sue and lose in civil court, (complainant), you are responsible for paying all costs incurred by the respondent for his defense. It would stop a lot of silly lawsuits. But our state legislatures, and the congress are mostly lawyers, and they are not going to do anything that might adversely affect the livelihoods of their fellow lawyers. But in some states, there is the possibility of a "citizens initiative" to change the state constitution. Of course, the wording for such a ballot initiative would have to be approved by the state supreme court, whose justices are all . . . . . yep, you guessed it . . . . . lawyers.
> Drawscore

Concerning Sharpton, I'm in full agreement with you. I'm no conservative, but I'm not liberal enough to see that man as anything but a trouble-maker who makes a living off of black peoples' troubles.
Concerning loser pays, this is also fine - at least with civil lawsuits. I'm unsure this would work with criminal cases, especially as this might simply encourage convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence just to prevent getting sued. Courts would have a definite conflict of interest if loser pays applied to criminal cases. However, I'd like to see a law allowing lawyers to be sued for malpractice. of course, we all know why that will never happen, don't we?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by drawscore » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:53 pm

Another idea, is a law barring civil suits arising from a criminal case, when the defendant is found "not guilty." To use the current case as an example, Trayvon Martin's family would be precluded from filing a civil action for wrongful death, due to Zimmerman being found "not guilty" on the criminal side. But the differences are significant. In criminal court, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which I take to mean 95% or better, that the defendant is guilty.
In civil court, the standard is "the preponderance of the evidence," which I see as at least 51% of the evidence favors the complainant/respondent.
Drawscore

### Re: A heated topic in America

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:01 pm

> drawscore wrote:Another idea, is a law barring civil suits arising from a criminal case, when the defendant is found "not guilty."
> Drawscore

Wouldn't work, nor do I think it's a good idea either. And I'm not even a lawyer or for that matter a fan of lawyers (other than types like Perry Mason or Ben Matlock, if such unlikely paragons actually exist in real life).
The OJ case alone proves the doubtfulness of this. Everyone believes OJ did it despite his acquittal, but with your idea he'd had gotten clean away with murder had it not been for the civil case he was convicted of that forced him to assume some responsibility for his actions after all. However, loser pays as a compromise in such cases I would accept.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...