lol... oh no, a cop huh?

John

"Fred W4JLE" wrote in message
...
QFU K

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bob:

But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at
play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for
muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded...

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:05:03 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Bob:

But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at
play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for
muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded...

The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted a
seat...

John

Well, I wouldn't characterize all cops as brain dead, besides, I
believe it is the attorneys in the DA's office who actually bring
charges. And, yes, it is their job to promote the perceived guilt of
the defendant, but otherwise, you would not have a court case. Nor is
that the same as saying someone is perceived guilty until proven not
so. It is the DA's job to overcome a perceived, legal innocence, in
the courtroom, of the defendant.

I'm getting bored... back to SWR.

bob
k5qwg



"Bob Miller" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

_______________________________________________ __

If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in
jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up
people who are "presumed innocent"?

The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it
does not seem to exist.

The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and
took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court
and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received
all of the judicial protections that that implies.

bob
k5qwg

Bob:

Yeah, that remark of mine did NOT make allowances for those just stuck
there because of circumstances ...

.... and, the convo is pretty much over when you have been asked to go
away... frown

Warmest regards,
John

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:05:03 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Bob:

But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at
play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for
muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded...

The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted
a
seat...

John

Well, I wouldn't characterize all cops as brain dead, besides, I
believe it is the attorneys in the DA's office who actually bring
charges. And, yes, it is their job to promote the perceived guilt of
the defendant, but otherwise, you would not have a court case. Nor is
that the same as saying someone is perceived guilty until proven not
so. It is the DA's job to overcome a perceived, legal innocence, in
the courtroom, of the defendant.

I'm getting bored... back to SWR.

bob
k5qwg



"Bob Miller" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

______________________________________________ ___

If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept
in
jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up
people who are "presumed innocent"?

The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality,
it
does not seem to exist.

The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and
took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the
court
and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received
all of the judicial protections that that implies.

bob
k5qwg

Bob Miller wrote:

SNIPPED

I'm getting bored... back to SWR.

bob
k5qwg



Ah !!! Good ol' SWR [S]hort [W]ave [R]adio

Or, am I missing sumptin ?

Bill:

That sounds like an excellent idea, in fact, I will fire off a few
emails to my reps and george right now... you suppose they'll read 'em?
Or, care for that matter... frown

Regards,
John

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:02:00 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We just need a method to make them back responsible to us...

_________________________________________________

Agreed.

I would suggest we need a Constitutional amendment which allows an
initiative process at the Federal level, much like many states have.

--
BT

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Which proves that $500,000 lawyers are better than $50,000 lawyers."

Yes. I was in Scotland a week ago and someone told me that there,
besides guilty or not guilty, the Scots have a third verdict available.
It is "Guilt not proven". In this verdict the person charged is not
exonorated but is released. This "guil not prioven" verdict is said to
be the origin of the term "Scot free".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a
Scottish invention. :-)

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:
Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a
Scottish invention. :-)

It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR.

Ken
--
Just my 2¢... 73 es gd dx de Ken KGØWX
Grid EM17ip, Flying Pigs #-1055
Proud builder & owner of Elecraft K2 #4913

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:13:06 -0500, "Ken Bessler"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:
Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a
Scottish invention. :-)

It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR.

Which means ....


Ken

SEE BELOW
en Bessler"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:
Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a
Scottish invention. :-)

It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR.


Which means ....


GIVE UP RADIO! TAKE UP GOLF.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:54:49 -0400, Ham op wrote:

SEE BELOW
en Bessler"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:
Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a
Scottish invention. :-)

It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR.


Which means ....


GIVE UP RADIO! TAKE UP GOLF.

When did you hear I was deaf? And from whom? Not to mention I
woudn't be caught dead playing golf?