The debate began with Rand criticizing the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial. “I don’t think that they properly considered the evidence,” Rand said. “If they had listened to the evidence and they had followed the law, then George Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder.” “You’re a lawyer, right?” Van Susteren interjected. “It’s your duty — it’s not mine, it’s not yours, or anybody else — but it’s the jury’s duty to weigh [the evidence]. All of the sudden, suddenly, afterwards you say they can’t do their job?” “I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that’s to be a social engineer,” Rand responded. “And when the law doesn’t get it right, I believe that we have the right to peacefully, and morally, conscientiously object to the decision of the jury.” If you’re “deeply disturbed” by Rand’s claim that it’s her job to be a “social engineer,” you’re not alone; Van Susteren is right there with you. The host cautioned Rand, reminding her that many of those who have expressed strong feelings about the outcome of the trial may not have paid very close attention to, you know, that actual trial. “This social engineering? I don’t know. That’s more like social manipulation,” Van Susteren said. “Justice is presented in a courtroom with both sides having an opportunity. That’s justice.”
Posted on: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:02:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015