In the trial, he argued with the judge thus. He provided anecdotal evidence of many drunk drivers around the country (and every where else) hitting other people and getting away with it. He described many examples of law violations happening in the country that were uncaught and unpunished. Some of the examples involved crimes against members of his family. He also described past old violations of law by members of the victim's (the person who died because of the defendant's rash driving) family and the victim's ancestor's many years ago. He concluded by saying "All those crimes were not dealt with by the police and all those people were not punished. They got away. Therefore, I submit that you have no right to punish me and I have all the right to violate the law and kill people. I must get away because they got away. If not this whole system inconsistent and unjust".
Almost the entire population of his country, the elite, the press and the well-read agreed with the Defense logic. The accident was considered as an example of the rise of the oppressed person.
Judge: But what about the 72 violations that you did, including possible homicide.
Defendant: First take a stand against all the alleged accidents I provided through arbitrary anecdotes and then take up my case.
Judge: But. What has all those got to do with this case?
Defendant: Why are you only taking a stand against me. I have not seen you take a stand against those people yet. What have you got to say on the issue of anecdote1, anecdote2?
Judge: Let us talk about your case.
Defendant: Are you homophobic?
Many people, almost everytime they argue, indulge in arguments similar to that of the defendant. I wonder: Do People catch themselves when they do something similar?