Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
You defend against the accusations against you, no need to help the other side by broadening them. If the accusation is that Russian state willfully supplied the Ukrainian rebels a BUK missile system to shoot down a civilian plane, you defend against that. That's pretty much how it goes. But idiotic journalists are so keen on an agenda that soon we will have headlines about huge scandals that ambassadors to Russia were constantly in contact with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. In other huge twists, cops will be eating donuts and rich people will be playing golf.
Fair point that.

Far too often, when the case is a "cause celebre," prosecutors will bow to public opinion and attempt to prosecute at a level that is not supported by evidence. Zimmerman was tried for 2nd degree murder for the death of Trayvon Martin when the cops suggested Manslaughter as the provable charge. But the community was in arms and only "murder" would do. Casey Anthony was tried for murdering her child....when the evidence had been severely compromised -- but public opinion "knew" that she had murdered her toddler. The Boston mobbed screamed for the hanging of the British soldiers who killed rioters in the "Boston Massacre."

Public opinion and "calls for action" do NOT mesh well with the judicial process. It is about what can be proven through evidence, not what you think of them -- or the court process is meaningless.

In this instance, a prosecutor is going to find great difficulty in PROVING that the Russians were negligent/encouraging of the use of one of their missile systems by rebel forces to shoot down a civilian airliner. The provided the weapon, but how do you prove they were encouraging the rebels to use it indiscriminately? And without that level of negligence, they are no more "guilty" than any other provider of weapons.