In the interest of "thought out and orderly" procedure, you shouldn't really have any problem providing the DETAILS of Jack's 20 year old assault beef, than,...should you ?
If not , I'd be interested in hearing all about his monstrous transgression.
We're DAMNED sure going to be learning a lot more about Wood's "respect for the law".
GTC
Only that when his assault was mentioned, people pointed out that it had no bearing on his person, character, etc, because it happened long ago or wasn't directly affecting the situation and that it was just a tactic to portray Mr. Yantis in a bad light, true or not.
However, its OK then to use the officer's prior history to portray his character?
I understand that he is the public employee here, and held to a greater level of scrutiny by some, but as far as I'm concerned, let it all factor in, or none, but one shouldn't complain about sugar, while they are spooning honey.
If people want to show that the officer had character problems than one should be no less aggrieved that attempts to show that other person may have had issues as well. I understand he is dead now, but he was certainly "himself" before the event.
I think the average juror can draw their own conclusion between a 20 year old assault and a 4 year old game violation, along with other consideration, in order to come to a conclusion on someone's character.
In that light, I don't understand why people want to be one sided in their consideration unless they are agenda driven as opposed to justice driven.
I'm amazed that my faith in due process and the justice system labels me as nauseating by some.
