Jack Thompson Walks Out On Hearing

Erik J writes "Apparently Jack had heard enough. The Florida Bar asked for an 'enhanced disbarment' in the disciplinary hearing of Jack Thompson, held earlier this afternoon. The recommendation means Thompson would be disbarred and prohibited from applying to practice law again for ten years, according to 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida spokesperson Eunice Sigler. Thompson's disciplinary hearing apparently ended in the attorney walking out of the courtroom after saying the judge did not have the authority to hear his case."

Comments

Good ridance

[lyml]

It will be nice to never hear anything from him again.

Re:Good ridance

[sentientbrendan]

>The worst thing that Jack could do is
>stop talking, though. He's like PETA. Some
>people could agree with his points, but he
>makes it very hard to espouse those
>positions without being lumped in with the loonies.

I for one, enjoy having a rational discussion more than having crazies scream at me.

There are legitimate questions about what sort of material should be available to minors. I'm on the side of requiring the parents to do most of the footwork to protect their children, but it might also be helpful if extra tools were provided.

In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13."

Re:Good ridance

[osu-neko]

He may not be very likable, in and out of the courtroom, but he's correct as it concerns grand theft auto, howard stern, hip hop music and the like. In fact, if you look at political history you can trace the political health of a regime through the music that is popular at the time.

Um, no. In fact, that's complete bullshit. Just how would you even going about quantifying the political health of a regime? Even if you could, how would then quantify music in a way that relates meaningfully? I suspect you have no studies or evidence to back that absurd proposition, but even if you did, it'd be obvious from the start that the methodology of the study is hopelessly unscientific. In other words, this is just complete and utter bullshit made up to support an argument that's just as bogus.

I will give you this: it's an old and persistent idea, it goes back at least to Plato. Of course, he had no evidence or good reason for saying it, either.

Re:Good ridance

[Mr2001]

In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13." Even better, what if this "18+" flag could somehow appear on the outside of the game box? That way, parents could avoid buying the game in the first place, instead of waiting until they get home to discover that their kids are below its target age range.

Re:Good ridance

[billcopc]

You mean you're going to kill the bastard, once and for all ?

No ?

Then you'll be hearing a lot more of him, now that he's no longer bound by the Bar's regulations. He's going to be on every inbred radio show, spouting his filth in bulk. His "job" will be to get paid to talk, which is insulting easy to do in the U.S.A.

Re:Good ridance

[OlPete]

In fact, if you look at political history you can trace the political health of a regime through the music that is popular at the time. I took that class too, but I think you may have missed the point the professor was making. If you look at cultures throughout history, you will find that the art of any given period tends to reflect the tensions present in the larger society, regardless of its specific manifestation. For instance, if you look at Westerns from the 50's and 60's, you will find a lot of underlying commentary regarding civil rights tensions. If you examine the poetry of ancient civilizations, you will find representations of common concerns of the day. Art (and all the items you mention are art of a variety) reflect what is taking place in the culture in which it exists. They do not *create* the culture, rather, they are a part of it influencing it within their individual spheres and being influenced by other elements of the culture as a whole. Certainly art can be influential in advancing a particular point of view, but it is a stretch even to suggest that the art is what results in a culture's downfall. At most you will find that art provides a form of analyzing the reasons a culture may be advancing or progressing. (Defining those terms, which, in and of themselves, have no concrete meaning with respect to these matters as progression and regression are dependent on perspective, can be tricky.) In the end, restricting artistic expression because you don't like its message is akin to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the cause. Or, to put it another way, despite all the gloom and doom frenzied hysterics of The Establishment, rock and roll didn't kill us.

Re:Good ridance

[urcreepyneighbor]

In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13." Wah? Thirteen? Come on!

When I was thirteen, I was playing violent videogames - actually, IIRC, I was addicted to Solar Winds - and jerkin' off to Playboy, Heavy Metal magazine and whatever I could find via NNTP. Oh, yeah, and trolling chatrooms... starting every conversation with "asl?"

Let kids be kids. Jeesh. That means getting obsessed with ninja gear, jerkin' off until their wrists are sore, and blowing things up with crudely made homemade explosives that only work a quarter of the damn time. :)

Re:Good ridance

[pokerdad]

Has the lack of a license to practice stopped Dr. Phil from being a pain?

Now there's a stupid comparison if there ever was one.

Thousands of people make lots of noise about video games, what has made Jack such a problem is all the damm lawsuits. Now that he would have to spend money on legal fees, just like the game companies he constantly takes to court, he will likely become much less relevent without a license. (I'm sure he'll still give press releases, and that Slashdot will still post them, but his ability to damage the industry has just gone way down)

Dr. Phil was just another shrink before he lost his license, it was because he lost his license that he started working in other areas, first as a consultant to lawyers, and a public speaker and then later (read, after meeting Oprah) moving into the things I'm guessing you hate him for. While losing his license was not directly responsible for his current status, if he had never lost his license, he likely would never have done anything more than be a local shrink.

Re:Good ridance

[JambisJubilee]

Even better, what if this "18+" flag could somehow appear on the outside of the game box? That way, parents could avoid buying the game in the first place, instead of waiting until they get home to discover that their kids are below its target age range.

This gives me an idea. Let's devise a way so that parents could somehow know what video games their kids were playing. That way they could choose what they felt appropriate for their child.

This could work for other influences in the child's life, like friends, TV, movies, etc.

If only there were a way for a parent to get involved.

Re:Good ridance

[Jarjarthejedi]

Not really, it still requires that someone verify the user's age. Given how much more kids know about technology on average than their parents it would be next to worthless unless it was somehow done when the computer was bought, otherwise the kid would get to enter the info themselves and the parent would never know, or care. It's just another form of DRM, one with a noble purpose (unlike the normal sort), but one which is still inheritable flawed because it requires that the user know less about their own system than the DRM designer.

How long do you think it would be before a crack was out that removed the age requirement from the game, or, better still, a simple method of changing the user age variable was found (and if it was implemented by microsoft, it would have a simple hack. Microsoft has made some notable strides forward in their security, but they're still one of the most venerable if you have physical access and a user account (the numerous 'Get Administrator access without a password' hacks show this). If it's that easy to gain Admin access, how hard would it be to gain user-age access. Better still, wouldn't that be changeable to an Admin, thereby requiring exactly 0 new hacks?

Re:Good ridance

[Timothy Brownawell]

There are legitimate questions about what sort of material should be available to minors. I'm on the side of requiring the parents to do most of the footwork to protect their children, but it might also be helpful if extra tools were provided.

In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13."

And who decides what's allowed for what age groups? Probably better to have well-defined ratings from 1-5 on various categories, that at least would let the parent (instead of some quasi-official regulatory body) do the deciding and just use the computer to help enforce that decision. Something like "No, little Johnny doesn't need exposure to this extreme violence. But a little minor nudity never hurt anyone." probably wouldn't work so well with US age-based ratings.

Re:Good ridance

[FraterNLST]

I'm pretty sure that actually happens already, at least on Xbox360 games. The 360 has a parental lock, that sets the rating appropriate to the primary users (so the parents can lock it at 13+ or 15+ for instance), and then it will refuse to play anything higher unless the rating lock is raised (protected with a password).

This is a best of all worlds scenario from my point of view, as it helps parents monitor their kids useage (you can refuse to buy it, but what if a friend lends it?), whilst not preventing the parents themselves, or any other adult in the house, temporarily lifting the restriction for their own use.

The biggest problem with this "Save the children!" mentality affecting America and, lately in particular, my own country, Australia, is that it seeks to remove responsibility from the parents. Every time something is banned to "save the children" the government is effectively saying "You aren't responsible enough to decide if your children are old enough to play this."

We all suffer for the sake of people who are too fricking lazy to raise their own children. They want the government to do it, and in its wisdom, it decides banning it for all people is the best way to "protect the children.".

I guess it's just a coincidence that the people making these decisions hold strong moral views that see perfectly legal things that some adults enjoy, such as sex, pornography and simulated violence, as evil and wrong. We should all respect the views of our new moral overlords.

Re:Good ridance

[Samah]

Even better, what if the Australian Classification Board had some sense and actually created an R18 rating for games rather than banning anything considered too explicit for M15?
Wait, that's too sensible.

Re:Good ridance

[Mr2001]

I know this is a really weird thought, but bear with me. Maybe, just maybe, a parent might want to play a video game with mature content. Fascinating idea! Perhaps this hypothetical parent could consider one of these options:

Don't let your kids use the computer that has this game installed on it.

or

Keep an eye on your kids while they're using your computer. This way you can prevent them from accessing all sorts of "mature content", not just the stuff that's stored on your hard drive.

or

Let your kids play the damn game if they want to. No one ever died from being exposed to "mature content".

Re:Good ridance

[Anzya]

Call me old fashioned but there is also the alternative to simply tell your children that they are not allowed to play certain games.

My mother caught be yelling "kill him" excitedly while watching a game of Last Ninja when I was 10 and subsequently forbid me to play that type of game. I obeyed that one command at least until I was 17 even though she had no real possibility to check that I was doing so.

Of course even in my family us siblings obeyed our parents to different degrees but I still belive that this would be less of a problem if more parents actually raised their children and not only let them grow older.

Re:Good ridance

[xSauronx]

doesnt mean a damn, yet, for consoles. my manager told me her son was playing GTA IV on his PS3 and when she finally realized what it was she broke it and threw it away.

I did, of course, make the point that she should have paid attention to it *before* he played it to start with. It is, however, likely that hell just go play at a friends anyway.

Re:Good ridance

[Toridas]

Microsoft has made some notable strides forward in their security, but they're still one of the most venerable

venerable: made sacred especially by religious or historical association

You sure that's the word you meant to type?

Re:Good ridance

[danaris]

Something like "No, little Johnny doesn't need exposure to this extreme violence. But a little minor nudity never hurt anyone." probably wouldn't work so well with US age-based ratings.

Right, and there are definitely those who don't want you to be able to easily make that distinction. There are a disturbing and depressing number of Americans who really do believe that not only is watching a woman take her shirt and bra off more damaging to a child than watching someone get shot or beheaded, but it is their duty as good Christians to make sure that everyone believes that—or at least has that standard enforced on them.

Dan Aris

Re:Good ridance

[Mr2001]

As i mentioned in an earlier post, my manager's kid had a copy of GTA 4. She didnt buy. He does chores, saves money from his birthday, whatever, either he bought the game some place where the clerk doesnt give a damn who they sell to (the kid is 14) or another adult bought it, but not his parents. His mother broke it and threw it away once she realized he had it. If he's old enough to scrape together the money to buy it, get himself to the store, and buy his own copy of the game, then he's old enough to play it. (In a just world, his mother would be found guilty of vandalism, and she'd have to pay restitution and do community service for destroying another person's property.)

Really, I don't know why people think this stuff is so dangerous. You know what's going to happen to this kid if he plays GTA a few years before his parents think he's "ready" for it? Nothing. He's going to grow up to be a well-adjusted individual, most likely, just like everyone else. To think otherwise is to buy into Jack Thompson's bullshit ideas about games turning kids into murderous zombies.

Hasn't he...

[Enderandrew]

Hasn't he been disbarred yet? I can say without exageration the man is quite delusional. He should have been disbarred after the 2 Live Crew fisco years back.

Seriously, just read his Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

I think he needs mental treatment.

Re:Hasn't he...

[Ethan Allison]

Don't kid around like that, you might give him ideas!

Re:Hasn't he...

[Wavebreak]

What I find most puzzling is that he seems to think 'pro gay, humanist, liberal' is an insult.

Good thinking there

[Kabuthunk]

Right, telling a judge that they don't have the authority to hear your case will SURELY persuade them to go lenient on you.

Unfortunately, him being unable to practice law will unlikely stop politicians or other figures looking to ban violent video games from going to him for advice.

Re:Good thinking there

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, telling a judge that they don't have the authority to hear your case will SURELY persuade them to go lenient on you. I've never been able to figure out why people seem to think that insulting someone they want something from is going to get them better results.

Now I wonder what will Fox News do?

[TRAyres]

Who will they turn to when they need inaccurate video game 'murder simulation' fear mongering news pieces? Who will yell, "Think of the children!" (when the obvious answer should be "Their parents, not your goddamn nanny-state...." Who will attach pornographic images in unrelated cases? ...This is a sad day. Its like losing the local bum who says crazy shit but it is always funny, ya know?

You probably don't want to hear this, but ...

[MacTO]

Being disbarred is not about his personal opinion, nor your personal opinion, about video games. It is about his ability to practice law. I also find it ironic that people who are so keen on the freedom of speech are so eager to find a way to gag or demean someone that they don't agree with. That's not civil behaviour. It is childish behaviour. (My apologies to the children of the world.)

Re:You probably don't want to hear this, but ...

[hedwards]

I'm not sure anybody here cares about the why. Personally, I mainly hate his guts because of the incredibly low standards he's applied to the practice of law. The prosecuting attorney that led that witch hunt against the Duke lacrosse players also got disbarred for his extremely unprofessional actions.

Really in both of those cases the reason why people hate them is that they were abusing the legal system for personal gain, being disbarred is what is supposed to happen in those cases.

Now What?

[mqduck]

I don't understand how these things work. Can someone explain to people like me what this "recommendation" means in the immediate sense? Does it get rubber-stamped? Are there further hearings? When will the guy *actually* be disbarred?

Re:fp

[rob1980]

Wrong. His career as a "video game analyst" at Fox News starts in 5...4...3...2...

I'm not a member of the bar...

[argent]

I'm not a member of the bar. Does this mean my right to free speech has been curtailed? By whom? By myself, for never having attempted to pass a law exam I'm unqualified to pass? You have to be a practicing lawyer to enjoy the right of free speech? I don't get it. Seriously. What are you talking about?

Re:Ten years is unusual

[rahvin112]

Attach a bunch of printed gay pornography to your next court submission and see how much the judge likes it. Extra points will be given if the Judge in question is a strictly observant southern baptist. Make sure and not tell the judge it's in there so he's sure to see it in all it's glory. It also needs to be completely unrelated to the case in anyway, use it to insinuate the opposing council is immoral.

What Jack did was beyond stupid. Way way beyond stupid. It's the kind of stuff only people who are clinically insane do. You don't attach pornography to court filings. Ask anyone you know if they think it would be a good idea to attach gay pornography to a public court filing, I'll pay you $100 if someone honestly, without prompting, sarcasm or malice says yes. In fact I bet you could go ask the people at the state mental hospital the same question and would get the same response. That's just how stupid what he did was.

First Ammendment

[Enderandrew]

He's all about protecting the First Ammendment. From Wikipedia:

In January 2006, Thompson asked the Justice Department to investigate the Florida Bar's actions. "The Florida Bar and its agents have engaged in a documented pattern of this illegal activity, which may sink to the level of criminal racketeering activity, in a knowing and illegal effort to chill my federal First Amendment rights," Thompson wrote in a letter to Alex Acosta, interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.[121]

Re:fp

[Kierthos]

Do they already have a lot of disbarred lawyers on staff? If they don't already, I'm not sure they're eager to start hiring now.

Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no.

[EWAdams]

Freedom of speech includes his right to spout nonsense and our right to tell him he should STFU. As long as we don't actually hold our hands over his mouth (tempting as it may be), he hasn't been gagged by being told to STFU. Freedom of speech includes the right to say, "You are wrong and should not say what you are saying."

As for his flagrant abuse of the legal process in order to advance his political agenda... that can and should be stopped, and it doesn't constitute gagging him either. It should be stopped because it's abuse of the law. It also should be stopped because he's wrong.

Re:Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no.

[MacTO]

> As for his flagrant abuse of the legal process in order to advance his political agenda ... that can and should be stopped

No argument there.

> It also should be stopped because he's wrong.

That is where we are in conflict. If you want to present an argument contrary to his position, then fine. That is a part of civil discourse. That is a part of the freedom of speech. But let's face the fact here: a lot of people on Slashdot are arguing that JT should be stopped simply because they don't agree with him. Yet IF a hypothetical anti-JT was standing up for the freedom of expression in violent video games, and abusing the system of law in the exact same manner, a lot of people around these parts would be crying bloody murder if the anti-JT was facing disbarment.

And MAYBE a mild version of that has already happened. Remember the days of the SCO lawsuit. Remember how almost everyone was standing behind IBM's and Novell's legal teams almost without question. Remember how almost everyone was vilifying SCO, again without question. Now I'm not going to stand up for SCO because I believe that developers should have reasonable freedom to create and distribute their own work. But the point was that people were standing up for IBM and Novell without questioning their tactics or their motives.

The reason for that, and the reason why a lot of people seem so eager to see JT disbarred, is because we have an intense emotional attachment to the issue. We are letting it cloud our judgement, and because of that we have the online equivalent of a public lynching.

That emotial response is what I'm opposed to. Ever the more so because we are saying that our sense of morality takes priority over his.

Re:Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no.

[brkello]

You can't have civil discourse with someone who bases their views on belief instead of fact. he believes that video games cause people to murder each other. This is (obviously) false. I am not sure why you are so afraid of emotion. Yeah, it can influence us to make rash decisions but you can still be emotional about something and be correct and logical about it. You are abstracting away too much in your argument. I can agree with the point that you are trying to make when applied to something that has no context. But this is JT. If you (logically, mind you) go back and look at the things he has said and done you have to realize this is far from overdue.

Let me state this again, your point is fine but you can't remove all context from the situation. After one of the shooting sprees, he came on fox news and said that the kid was sure to have been playing "murder simulators" like counter strike. This turned out to be completely false...the kid didn't even play video games. You are trying to tell me to have civil discourse with this man? Civil discourse is a two way street. JT is incapable of being civil, honest, or reasonable. Your fact is false: /.ers do not want JT stopped because we disagree with him. This isn't a debatable issue like abortion where there are two reasonable sides. People want him stopped because the things he says are factually incorrect and he blatantly lies to promote his agenda. And the worst part is that some stupid people actually listen to him. To sum up...disagreeing with someone, having a civil discourse, that's great. But doing that with someone who lies and bases his concepts on beliefs rather than facts is pointless.

Obligatory

[Godji]

Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more... Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more!

Re:We can ignore him now

[Enderandrew]

He wrote a letter to Take Two CEO's mother saying she raised him to be a member of the Hitler Youth.

I wonder how many times he Godwinned himself.

Bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson may be a loon, but his specious arguments sit very well with the ill-informed "think of the children" crowd. He is a generator of headlines. The percentage people who both read the articles beneath the headlines and apply critical thought is infinitesimal. So these headlines are swallowed whole-hog as fact.

On the flip side, Jack Thompson is used as a punching bag by video gamers and rational thinkers everywhere. Those with a capacity for critical thought are not swayed by Thompson's arguments or behavior regardless of their position. Those without a capacity for critical thought have already chosen a side. Those who agree with Thompson either see him as a martyr or don't associate his lunacy with their beliefs.

Re:fp

[hardburn]

Fox already hires nutjubs, crack cases, and quacks. Why stop at disbarred lawyers?

Re:Ten years is unusual

[db32]

Are you kidding? What Jack Thomson did was genious! Seriously, what better way to get the entire world looking right at you. Now keep in mind a disturbing number of the populace is increasingly kook. Anti-evolution, anti-science, etc, etc. I mean really, look at half the crap coming from the right wing media. Very little of it is more than "We are so pious and those liberal god hating socialist democrats will destroy us all!". Not that I think it will succeed, but he certainly has the potential for being a flashpoint for the growing number of conservative loonies to lurch forward. 8 years of above the law executive privlidges just gave them a taste of blood.

I don't like the dems much myself, but I have yet to see anything from the right leaning media that is much more substantial than "ooooh they are evil boogeymen socialists!". And people follow that crap right along, so... Stands to reason there are enough people that this fool could gain some traction. King George was elected twice afterall. Never underestimate the power of fundie loonies when they get motivated to a cause.

Though, I don't think much of this is terribly likely (I hope), and otherwise ol JT is a genius comedic actor on the stage of life! Hardly a moron, he gave the gift of laughter to people everywhere with that stunt.

Phelps is pure evil

[Enderandrew]

Phelps is evil. Thompson is just an idiot and a bully.

Ratings systems are limited.

[jd]

I agree with the principle of having some means of evaluating whether a product is suitable, but a ratings system is flawed and inherently biased by the loudest groups and not by the genuine needs or concerns of the individuals. This is why graphic bloodbaths in movies and television are acceptable, whereas a 1/2 topless shot of a rather ugly wannabe for a couple of seconds can cause a major uprising and massive fines. In America. In Britain, they wouldn't show a sporting event so boring that people only tune in for the adverts, but they probably wouldn't have even noticed the so-called wardrobe malfunction.

Clearly, however, if you accept the need of a parent to evaluate a product legitimately, you cannot exclude all of the significant and potentially disturbing material from that evaluation.

Ergo, you need multiple scales. Perhaps a pair of values for violence (degree and realism), same for sexual content, and so on for whatever other factors child psychologists in general (not just the ones on the payroll of a pressure group) consider areas of genuine concern that can also be reliably quantified in a game setting.

These would replace the ratings system entirely. Parents who go by biological age ignore the individuality of needs, thereby not really evaluating but chickening out of their responsibility by blaming time. Evaluation has no place for blame and no time for those who betray their responsibilities. But what responsibility is there if elapsed cell divisions is not considered worthy of notice? The responsibility of understanding the person they are supposedly evaluating for. If a parent does not understand their child, their child's own specific needs and vulnerabilities, then the parent is far less mature and adult than the child themselves, and the child should be provided with a rational means of determining their limits and their comfort.

No, not really

[Moraelin]

But let's face the fact here: a lot of people on Slashdot are arguing that JT should be stopped simply because they don't agree with him.

No, not really. I for one want him stopped because he's a fucking lunatic, and I don't see why such lunatics belong in a court of law. He's still free to rant on his own time, to whoever listens to him, but I genuinely don't see how he's fit to help determine if someone's guilty or not.

It's not just about games, but about all his surrealistic antics. Seriously, read even the sample on Wikipedia, and you tell me if it doesn't sound like someone clinically insane.

Yet IF a hypothetical anti-JT was standing up for the freedom of expression in violent video games, and abusing the system of law in the exact same manner, a lot of people around these parts would be crying bloody murder if the anti-JT was facing disbarment.

Nope, sorry. In fact: good grief, no. When I have something to say, I want it said in a professional way. The last thing I want is my position to become associated with raving lunatics, idiots trolling for attention and abuses of the judicial system.

He's acting like a troll fanboy, or what we'd call one on any forum. And that's something some people don't seem to understand: annoying fanboys and zealots don't actually help get your point across. Regardless of whether it's "Linux is ready for the desktop" or "games are good for you", you want it to come across as a helpful and even-handed opinion. You don't want it to become a case of, basically, "oh, heh, it's those trolling fanboys again, blowing stuff out of proportion." Annoying people for attention is bad too, because if you've annoyed them, they're automatically inclined to _not_ listen to anything you have to say.

In Slashdot terms, you want advocacy to come across as +5 Informative or +5 Interesting, not as -1 Flamebait.

It's not even as much a personal opinion. Read any advocacy faq, and it will tell you the same. People like JT are _not_ the kind you'd want as advocates, for any domain or idea. JT is the kind of obnoxious troll that the real advocates wish would STFU already and stop polluting the channel. _Especially_ if they profess to be on your side.

Re:fp

[sm62704]

The Constitution is a "technicality" to most people. "Got off on a technicality" often means "they didn't have a search warrant when they obtained the evidence".

Re:fp

[sm62704]

but also ensure that people who are guilty, but had crucial evidence against them obtained illegally, still go to jail.

You can't enforce the law by breaking the law any more than you can fix a broken arm by smashing it with a brick. The Constitution is the supreme law in the US. Break that law and all other laws are worthless.

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

In the US, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. If you "got off on a technicality" you are innocent. PERIOD.

You are NEVER going to have all the criminals in jail. No innocent man should EVER be put in prison. And nobody should have their rights abused by government.