pretty sure you are misreading what I wrote. I am not suggesting one should only be outraged when they are personally wronged. Rather one should only be outraged when they have personal knowledge a wrong actually occurred.

Otherwise, could you give me a single example when it is ok to be outraged about some wrong when you don't know if that wrong even happened? Without an example, to me that is the equivalent of saying guilty until proved innocent, or shot first and ask questions later.

Fair point and maybe I read a little fast. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "personal knowledge". Is seeing it on TV personal knowledge or do you have to have witnessed it in person?

As far as shoot first ask questions later... yep. This is exactly what seems to happen much of the time. The US is bad enough in this regard but from my limited understanding there are worse places. I see videos of outraged mobs in the street in the Mideast for instance based on rumors someone may have said something against Islam or in Africa burning suspected witches.

To your point (as I understand it) I guess I have to agree.. it is far too easy to get people riled up on rumor and this causes problems.

Personal knowledge of a wrong would depend on the wrong. Seeing the wrong on TV/video could give one personal knowledge but could equally mislead. Example, if you saw video of a cop shot someone without any provocation, you might think that is a wrong, but what if seconds before the video began recording the cop was stabbed with a knife. Again the concept I'm getting at is generally having all the facts.

And it would appear Judge Gordon:

1. Is shooting first asking questions later (not appointing counsel before indictments),

2. Seemly made disgusting comments about the nature of the criminal system.

Not supporting the judge and what he did/said, but:

1. The law of the jurisdiction may not require the appointment of a lawyer prior to indictment (in other words, the judge was sworn to uphold the constitution and did not violate it, even though some/maybe a majority want greater safeguards).

2. Looking at the Judges comments they appear disgusting, but more of a description or a matter of fact telling of the way the system works, but not necessarily the Judge supporting the way it works (many of us may do our job as required even though we think it's not the best way)

3. The individual was not appointed counsel and this individual sat in jail for a year without bond (n=1). This is a judge who has been on the bench ~30 years, so in this instance personal knowledge would be the facts of this case (either the defendant was shown to be a danger to the community or a flight risk) and to a greater degree more insightful statistics (how many people with lawyers vs those without lawyers did not recieve bond). May be statistics would show defendants with lawyers are denied bond at a hire rate in front of Judge Gordon than those would could not afford one and were not appointed one.