re: hookes trial - don't be too hasty in judgement
I can't see why the bouncer should be charged with anything. The establishment has to protect itself so it hired a certain number of bouncers. They should have screen them first. However, even at the face of the incident itself, there are no witnesses to say that the bouncer has done anything other than perhaps punch Hooks on the face and that this made him fall to the ground. Someone who's drunk falls even without the assistance of such punches, so Hooks' drunkedness contributed to his fall, which contributed to his death. If one could prove that the punches themselves were lethal, then there might be a slender and tenuous cause for assault and battery charges. However, it would be a brave judge who could arrive to this conclusion - or a hanging judge, like gobbo, who thinks that a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt (of murder? 30 years!) because he has previous convictions! In the old west, one was judged guilty simply because of the colour of his skin or the blend of his religion. Facts were never brought into the court. These days of an explosion of slogans like "freedom" and "democracy!" we should at least expect that a hearing held in a court of law would have some facts pertinent to the case in point be examined thoroughly.
...But then again when Chief Justices corrupt the process of ther own court and treat it with drunken disdain, what hope Justice?
