[nfbmi-talk] : charges dismissed against blind protester

Kane Brolin kbrolin65 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 24 13:47:15 UTC 2016


On 8/23/16, William Vandervest via nfbmi-talk <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> if he broke the law, and or was charged with a crime, then he should have
> gone before a judge reguardless of where the trial was held period!!!

William, what I hear you saying here seems to be based on faulty
reasoning.  Unless the President has somehow eliminated all common law
principles from our American legal system by executive order, we still
have a principle in this country called "presumption of innocence": in
other words, a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Whether Joe Harcz broke the law would not be determined until a judge
and/or a jury heard the case in a fair trial and made a determination.
I don't think anyone is saying that charges against a blind man should
be dropped unless the venue were an accessible courthouse.  On the
other hand, I think it is a highly plausible argument to say that if
the charges had been maintained, it would have been a reasonable
request to move the venue to a place where a significant number of Mr.
Harcz's friends and family and a significant number of blind or
otherwise disabled persons could be in attendance from the general
public.

Clearly, in Joe's case the State must have reconsidered and decided
that not enough evidence exists to make it worthwhile to attempt to
prove that Joe broke the law.  So I think the verdict is in.

-Kane




More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list