RO, you have stated that you are not a wt sympathizer -although legislation that is posted is what it is; either it favors wt or it does not. In all fairness though, unfavorable legislation can also be posted by anyone. Neither do my posts defend the wt. What legislation that you posted says is evidence, what one concludes that it says is interpretation. That is what the Courts are for if one contends with what legislation means.
I have deep respect and compassion for the feeling of all and especially when someone says that they have been hurt. Trust me, I know how it feels.
With that said, what is moral is a matter of opinion, but what is legal is the business of the Courts and not affected by views.
Case in point "Police Brutality" or excessive force is an outrage such as when the police shoots a little boy with a bb gun in the stomach and the Court finds the cop not guilty or the DA does not even wants to file charges and it is also an outrage when police beats and kills someone unarmed, But I have watched video after video after video after video and in almost 100 percent of the time the person hurt or killed is fighting with the police. And the law is the law. Let alone resisting arrest but when you fight with someone who has a gun, like the police, it not wise to fight because he fears that you will take his weapon and shoot him. Touching the police is the same as touching his weapon.
So, in a Court decision it is more important to know what the legislation says more than public opinion about. it.
RO seems to know what he is talking about. I would like to ask him some questions that you will find very interesting about Elders and their liability and wt liability. Any objections and I will not ask and case closed and open to feelings and views.
With all my respect to everyone,