JOGGING WHILE BLACK

[rothschild]

Ambiguity by definition implies that the law wasn’t clear (your words). So given that, who cares who interpreted the law as they did (be it the judge or jury)? Moot point. You said it was ambiguous so no one should be surprised by the outcome.

It's ambiguous in a couple of ways:

1) For common folk who aren't well-versed in grammar.

2) For the judge who presided over the trial because there is little or no case law on record re citizen arrests.

Why would you think that people who have no legal education are as qualified as a judge to interpret law? Do you think judges should be appointed the same way juries are? Why? What do you think judges are there for?

What I think is moot is that because Walmsley didn't clarify this point of law, it will have to be done by a higher court.