The jurors listened and weighed the evidence thoroughly, ultimately concluding that Niall Gilligan's actions were reasonable given the circumstances. The situation involved a 12-year-old boy who emerged from a derelict building with injuries, including a fractured finger and bruises. While the jury's verdict was deemed correct, it came too late to address the troubling nature of the incident, highlighting the distinction between legality and morality in such cases.
The law hadn't asked them to decide if Niall Gilligan was perfect. It had asked whether his actions, in that fractured moment, were reasonable.
A 12-year-old boy came out of that derelict building with a fractured finger and a body marked by bruises.
In the end, the verdict was right, but justice arrived too late to prevent a situation no one should have been in to begin with.
Those facts land heavily. And they should. Because some things can be lawful and still feel not quite right.
Collection
[
|
...
]