Re: Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Great post, Duane! It shows balance and reason.

To my best knowledge, I have never met or even seen Scott. I've only been to the hot springs a few times this summer. My writings are only in response to the descriptions by others. Scott sounds like a very colorful character.

I was not aware of his outhouse; that is humorous! I don't mean to appear to be defending his actions; as I posted earlier, he may be guilty as sin. However, no matter how guilty he might be, his due process entitles him to having proper legal representation. From what has been posted on this forum, Scott was not properly represented.

Most people don't understand that there is a vast difference between what is morally wrong, and that which is legally wrong. What may make us cringe as to something that is morally wrong may not be legally wrong when fine tuned. The lawyer's job in Scott's case was to fine tune the actual law to the point of showing that it was not relevant to Scott's specific action.

Duane, you have already stated your dislike of such, but that's the law and life. Scott was entitled to such a defense just as you are.

Photos should never be stipulated into evidence. There are numerous legal ways to have photographs ruled invalid. It doesn't appear that Scott's attorney even tried to explained that to Scott, or the obstactles that the prosecutor needed to overcome to legally substantiate the allegations.

I'm not familiar with the "backpacking code" you reference. More relevant may be the federal "Native" status given to the creek.

Scott may have been morally wrong; but I question if his legal rights were legally hustled and trampled.
Duane wrote:

> Scott was clearly guilty of all six counts and yeah a lawyer
> could have gotten him off ..... look at Simpson successfully or
> Peterson unsuccessfully. Scott always knew he was in violation
> and he justified his actions in numerous ways ..... all of his
> transgressions could have been validated by many witnesses.
> Your TP theory is not what the violation was about ---- HE
> BUILT an OUTHOUSE and was encouraging people to use it -----
> not following the backpacking code of burying 6 inches and 100
> yds from water. Your lawyer theory although is correct and due
> process is a great privilege BUT when someone knows they are
> guilty they should just take the punishment rather than pad
> lawyers pockets. This is one of the many things wrong with the
> judicial system and why lawyers tend to be hated.
>
> I personally liked having Scott there and agreed with many of
> his justifications --- but justification or not he was guilty
> and it sounds like he is owning up to his guilt and swallowing
> his pill. Fighting is not always the right answer.
>
> Duane