A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.
The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.
OJ was acquitted of the charges by a jury of his peers and is considered innocent.
The Zimmerman case had a lot more relevant eyewitness evidence as well as an audio recording of the shooting. None of this existed for the OJ trial.
So OJ didn’t kill his ex-wife and her husband. You believe that, correct?
I was not on the jury in that courtroom. I have to trust that our peers made the right decision.
I see. So you believe court decisions always determines truth.
In that case, evolution is false. Scopes lost his case and was fined $100 for teaching evolution.
Scopes wasn’t a murder trial, it’s an extreme stretch of the imagination to try and compare the two when they aren’t remotely related in any way.
Scopes didn’t even know if he taught evolution but intentionally incriminated himself to challenge the Butler act which made teaching evolution in schools a crime. The whole case was a farce to bring attention to the town and to highlight the debate surrounding teaching evolution in schools.
He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine but was let off on a technicality.
Teaching evolution in schools eventually won the day. But is in danger because people believe that lying or making false comparisons is justified to push their narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
I see, so only murder trials determine what is or is not true.
The case you cited was a complete farce. I’m surprised you are still trying to make an issue of it. Murder trials are there to establish guilt or innocence based on the evidence.
Sitting on a thread reading about someone’s opinion is far different than sitting on a jury hearing evidence for hours a day. I’m going to put my trust in the jury rather than some internet strangers opinion who is trying to collect imaginary points for clout.
I see, so murder cases determine fact unless they are a complete farce.
How do we know whether it was fact or a farce? What are the rules here?
Once again you are conflating a staged case about evolution with murder trial.
At this point I have to ask, do you understand the difference?