One Eye Witness | Eastern North Carolina Now

Congress ought to pass a law requiring that, before any crime can be committed, there must be one eyewitness.

Just think of the savings in time, expense and trouble to our judiciary system...

• Trials could be shortened to a matter of hours.
• The judge would call the court to order.
• The witness would tell what he saw.
• Then the attorneys could go right to the closing arguments.
• Trials would be over very quickly and justice would have been rendered.

Remember, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.

A perfect example involved one of our congressional representatives. During the summer of 2006 she tried to walk around a metal detector in the Capital without her Congressional Lapel Pin and with a dramatically changed hairdo. A security guard tried to stop her and she struck him.

Now, if you will go back and read the first paragraph of this foolishness, you will see that I wrote "one eyewitness". I did not say "at least one eyewitness" or "a minimum of one eyewitness". My foolishness is better thought out than that. More than one, "I saw-it-with-my-own-eyes testifier" is asking for trouble.

In this case, we had at least three eyewitnesses quoted in the news article that broke the story…

• One said the officer was slapped.
• One said the officer was punched in the chest.
• One said the officer was hit with a hand that was holding a cell phone.

Now do you see why more than one is too many?

Would I kid u?

Smartfella