3 ms·
I'm glad we've had a trial, in which reliable facts were presented under oath and a complete and accurate description of Zimbabwe's hunting laws was made availa
by fredkbloggs 11y ago
I'm glad we've had a trial, in which reliable facts were presented under oath and a complete and accurate description of Zimbabwe's hunting laws was made available to a dedicated jury, who then found that the facts indicated certain people were guilty of violating the law. Thanks to that important process, you're able to come here and make this statement for our benefit.
- jonknee 11y agoThat's exactly what Zimbabwe is trying to accomplish with the arrest of the guides and requested extradition of the American hunter... If a Zimbabwean national had lured a wolf out of Yellowstone and taken its head and skin as a trophy you can bet the US would try and do the same (even though wolves are scary and the US has bigger problems than poaching).
- fredkbloggs 11y agoMy point was that we assert that someone's actions were criminal after the facts are presented at trial, not before. That is, unless we personally witnessed the act and are in possession of the facts. I didn't happen to be in Zimbabwe at the time, I haven't inspected the licenses and other relevant paperwork, and I'm not familiar with Zimbabwe's laws (but, realistically, I'm skeptical that they're properly enforced and that the judiciary is independent and professional). I'm certainly not going to substitute whatever partial/exaggerated/fabricated tales the media choose to present for those facts. Saying that someone committed a crime is a Big Deal. In many jurisdictions, it is considered slander or libel unless you are making a formal charge. You need something a lot stronger than something you read in a newspaper to back it up.