Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don’t want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that’s the case, there’s not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn’t do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn’t obvious, and their existence doesn’t support your opinion from what little of it you’ve shared.
I’ve had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.
Go read a book. Or Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact#Judges
Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don’t want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that’s the case, there’s not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn’t do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn’t obvious, and their existence doesn’t support your opinion from what little of it you’ve shared.
I’ve had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.
That turned into an opinion pretty quick
Was that you trying? I don’t know which answer is worse. Bye.
Honestly I did try when you mentioned Wikipedia, but now it seems like you’re upset that you were wrong about needing juries to determine facts.