|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
I'm not suggesting it, Heck, I'm saying it out loud. So answer me. Should be easy enough yes or no? Here's an idea; pretend it's one of your loved ones hurt or killed. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Steve, making the scenario more emotional for me doesn't change the founding principles of our legal system. These cases are emotional for people every day. People suffer horribly. It doesn't make any difference that now, theoretically, I'm the one suffering.
No, of course not. The government can't - and should not - be able to use evidence obtained illegally in a court of law. Yeah, that's an easy yes or no. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Well though I suspect you're just posturing I'll just say that to me justice is far more important than legal gamesmanship. And I'm not particularly in awe of the founding fathers and this document which has been rendered unrecognizeable ove the years. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution is not legal gamesmanship! It happens to protect us from the tyranny of the state.
I know you'd like to give it away for convenience's sake, but it's pretty important. Maybe you should rethink this one. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Sorry. The US constitution is not my moral guide. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
It doesn't claim to be your moral guide, and shouldn't be your moral guide.
That's not really the point. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Actually Heck it is the point. Right or wrong. Legal or non legal isn't quite the same thing. I'm not insulting you but I think the "rule of law" is just wrong in this and probably a lot more areas. What amendments were meant to do in another world years ago don't mean much. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Maybe not to you. The whole genius of the Constitution is that it creating enduring legal principles. The 4th amendment is as useful and pertinent today as it was back then.
|
|||
|
Hall of Famer |
Good point. The law exists to take emotion out of the equation. If you've lost a loved one and you "know" who did it, the state still needs to make the case--if they can, great. If they can't, well, maybe the person who you "know" did it didn't do it. To put it another way: let's say you had a loved one killed. In that moment, would you be likely to make an objective analysis of the facts and come up with a likely suspect? Would you be more or less likely to jump to conclusions when a likely suspect emerged? And at that point, would you be more or less likely to be infuriated when the cops had to follow rules? That's why we have laws, so that we don't have individuals going out there exacting revenge based on what they "know." Dennis |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
You're mischaracterizing what I said for effect, Den. We know he did it but the proof was obtained illegally. Not falsified. So in that case I'm glad to use that evidence. Nobody's suggesting planting evidence. That's a different matter. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
You "know" someone did it when you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. And you do that by providing evidence of someone's guilt or innocence.
There are plenty of ways to get evidence legally, and there are important reasons for allowing or disallowing evidence. If someone wiretaps another person without a court order just because they think they should be able to and it shouldn't matter, like you do, and thinks they've got something incriminating on the tape, no, you don't get to use that. Because of the 4th Amendment, which establishes one of the most basic principles of our legal system, which you want to ignore. I know you like to live in your Steven Seagal "I don't do things by the book, man - I get things done!" world, but it's sort of silly. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your argument. You brought up the victims--if it were your loved one, you might look at things differently. That's unquestionably true. However, the fact that one's view of the law would change, the fact that they would want whoever they "knew" did it brought to justice, even if it meant skirting the law, is evidence for a dispassionate system which weighs the evidence on its merits, without taking into account how people feel--that sounds bad, but there it is. The problem with illegally obtaining evidence isn't necessarily that the evidence itself is bad, or wrong, or misleading, but that it undercuts the integrity of the evidence. The system is in place to protect both victims (and potential victims) of crimes and the peeople accused of committing them. It's easy to say, "You don't need that safeguard" to someone accused of a crime--if they have the murder weapon, who cares how the cops found it?--but the system is set up specifically to keep that from happening; the system has to be bigger than any individual case. Dennis |
|||
|
Hall of Famer |
You liberals make me wanna puke. You would let a serial killer out of jail because the cops punched him in the gut.
|
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Honest people don't have anything to fear. As for society and the law-abiding getting screwed, I just don't think so. Oh wait I experenced a place like that and I was, ahhhh well no problems. |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Sorry but the system is far from what it was inteneded to be. I don't think lawers in 1776 or even the 1800s were getting paid large some of money to bastardize the leagal system. Give me a break. The laws arer suppose to be in place to protect the innocent not the guilty. We are not talking about cops busting in door to door looking for a crime. We are talking about the fact that lawyers exploit red tape and liberal judges make policy that makes it easy for criminals to get off. Come on, does anyone really beleive that OJ did not do it. That is the extream but it shows that money has corrupted the system. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Job # 1 for the police is to catch the bad guy. Job # 1 for the defense is get the bad guy off. WSS |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Oh and yes. I am all for limiting the rights of known criminals and putting some common sense back in the law. Here is a concept, 10 people witness a man kill someone, he is caught with the gun at the scene, he is guilty. I don't care, I don't want to hear it.
|
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Job #1 for the defense is to make money. Getting the bad guy off is just the end result. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
I would sy the Simpson case is the exception that proves the rule; for every OJ there are plenty more defendants who get stuck with public defenders who are either inexperienced, incompetent, or overworked to the point that they can't provide adequate defense. Also, I disagree with you regarding the argument at hand; it's not about protecting the guilty, it's about protecting the accused. That's why we have the adversarial system. Do defense lawyers exploit the system? Sure. Do proscutors do the same? Absolutely. That's their job. I get very uncomfortable when we watch things on television and "know" what happened. I think OJ did it, but since I wasn't on the jury, it doesn't matter. Nancy Grace "knew"--and probably still "knows"--that the Duke guys were guilty of something, and she's a lawyer. Detests defense lawyers. However, the case has been dispoven; it was complete prosecutorial misconduct. And I would argue that the main reason those kids weren't at least tried was because of a vigorous defense. Poor suspect, ineffective counsel, and who knows what happens? Dennis |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Ok how many innocent people are locked up becuase they got a public DA. If you are suggesting that they were guilty but since they did not have the cash they could not get off, well then I guess I see your point.
Putting OJ and the Duke guys in the same point does not work. The Duke guy were proven innocent by DNA and a plantiff that recanted. Yes the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct. OJ was guilty as hell and has done nothing to prove other wise. See there are things I miss and respect about other place in the world. One is the fact that they treat criminals like well criminals. Now we are not talking about getting caught with simple possession of shoplifting. We are talking about crimes like taking anothers life. I was in Japan when that cult gassed the Subway. Little scary cause I got friends and family that use that line. They investigated, rounded the cult up, gathered evidence and fried them. There was no long drawn out court proceeding, no 50 appeals, the head dude was guilty and they did not give a damn about his "rights". He killed people, he forfitted those rights. I like that. Wish we were a little more like that. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens