[coldtea]

>And until this thing goes to court, everybody should abstain from passing judgment on either party.

Why? I won't abstain from passing judgement to the party I think is in the wrong even AFTER this goes to court.

I don't think court decisions are necessarily the truth, and that I should agree with them. I only care about facts to make my personal judgment. If what he says is true, then even if the guy is convinced, I will still believe he is in the right.

(Heck, I don't even find all laws to be ethical. Segregation was law too at some point, for example).

[dlitz]

> I don't think court decisions are necessarily the truth, and that I should agree with them. I only care about facts to make my personal judgment.

Well, sure, but are you actually going to spend enough hours poring over the details in order to come to a reasonably well-informed personal opinion, compared with what a court will do? Courts are not perfect, but they're generally much better are sorting out the details than the media or random bloggers.

[coldtea]

>Well, sure, but are you actually going to spend enough hours poring over the details in order to come to a reasonably well-informed personal opinion, compared with what a court will do? Courts are not perfect, but they're generally much better are sorting out the details than the media or random bloggers.

Not so sure. To continue the segregation example, for centuries (including today) courts have been shown time and again to be absolutely unfair in handing sentences to black people compared to white (even for the same exact crime). Or to rich people compared to poor (think O.J Simpson vs a homeless person accused of murder).

In this case of course we don't have that. But we do have another imbalance: the small guy versus a large company that can pay the best lawyers.

Plus, if one finds the very law someone is charged by unethical (e.g patent law), he doesn't even have to delve into the details of the matter to deem any sentencing unjust.