| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
I Heard tell On The BBC..
That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. |
wrote in message oups.com... That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already attempted to defraud in at least three other instances. |
|
Thank you for wishing death on me. I live there...
wrote in message ... wrote: That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Law and order have nothing to do with justice! And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there. I hope the whole state slides into the ocean. |
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already attempted to defraud in at least three other instances. Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging him other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply. Does anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought he was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his fame related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or whatever. But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me please. B.H. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already attempted to defraud in at least three other instances. Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging him other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply. Does anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought he was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his fame related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or whatever. But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me please. B.H. The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes. |
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes. I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction. B.H. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes. I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction. B.H. Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn, I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on that one, since simple posession is a felony) |
Brian Hill wrote:
Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law? mike |
|
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already attempted to defraud in at least three other instances. Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging him other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply. Does anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought he was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his fame related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or whatever. But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me please. B.H. The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes. Yeah, but the legislators in Sacramento CHANGED THE LAW so that in child molest cases previous allegations of behavior, even if unsubstantiated, CAN be used against the defendant. I'm not sure why; I always figured that if true the current charges could stand on their own, and the public hates child molestors anyway so they usually are convicted. There's a good reason that juries are required to believe that somebody did a crime without a reasonable doubt before convicting, and that's to avoid convictions over hearsay. Many people, most of them ordinary citizens, have gotten off because the defense was able to show the slightest hint of reasonable doubt. "He's weird, therefore he's guilty" is NOT admissible evidence. Add to that the fact that the family has had cases thrown out of court before on suspicion of fraud, and the defense argument that the mother wants to frame Michael for whatever reason holds a lot of water. We can armchair psychoanalyze Michael until the cows come home, but he seems to me to have always identified more with kids rather than with adults because of his childhood traumas and the fact that he never had a carefree childhood-he started performing at the age of 5, and was whipped with a belt by his father if his performance on a particular night fell short of dad's standards. All the Peter Pan murals and the odd behavior around kids can be traced back to the fact that he never really WAS a kid. If he did it, I doubt that he views it as hurting a child, he views it as legit affection, and he can't tell the difference because he's emotionally stunted. He's one sad sack in any case. Back to the BBC: I just finished listening to The World Today, and most of the broadcast was about Michael Jackson. Just goes to show you that he remains MUCH more popular in Europe than in America. One commentator noted that Michael could probably make good money touring Eastern Europe, where his popularity never really waned. Also, European media doesn't have many of the constraints that American media does surrounding such cases; the BBC has openly mentioned the accuser's name on shortwave many times, while American media is forbidden from doing so. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
.... those are NOT American citizens, they are enemies of Americans...
they ain't got NO rights... John "m II" wrote in message news:Hkrre.62936$tt5.56979@edtnps90... Brian Hill wrote: Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law? mike |
m II wrote: Brian Hill wrote: Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law? mike Well Mike....let's put you out in the field with the soldiers; and some radical extremist are leveling AK-47, RPG, and other heavy Chinese made mortars at your men and yourself....welcome to war! Would the USA declaring war on Afghanistan induced you to voluntairly enlist to defend your country...probably not, as a former "patriotic, politically correct" group did after Pearl Harbor....we went to war on a bare majority vote. Second, would you prefer that we killed them all in the field, or in a sealed semi-trailer as the locals did when they captured them??? Or better yet, try sorting out the local population from the foreign fighters there....we at least stopped them from bashing in the heads of the people in the stadiums, and other "civilized" behavior. Bottom-line...war declared or otherwise is all about kill or be killed. It is easy to sit back and preach "legality" but if you lived and worked overseas like I and other Americans do for the government or industry under the US State Department guise, you would know that we have little to no rights. Third, to gather intelligence from these disparate anarchists groups takes time....and after some have given up the truth or have been verified as standbyers, we have released them to their parent countries. The ones left in "Gitmo" are there for good reasons...in our jail system we have parole boards...most time the hardened criminals stay put unlike the European prison model that "rehabs" them and forgives their crime completely (most of the police in Italy have been minor criminals...try that in the USA,,,once convicted, always a criminal). Since these "foreign fighters" were not under their parent countries command, they are caught between the international criminal code...or if under the Afghan government's control (Taliban at the time), then they are prisoners of war, or war criminals. The fact is that the Taliban government kept their status secret as their means of external support...therefore they are in limbo. Now maybe we could release them under and work-release program in your town, and you could babysit them until they start killing Americans again!!! If you and others feel guilty about Gitmo, then feel guilty for re-electing a President who blew-off intel reports, and who's only reaction to terrorists' actions was a few miserably targeted cruise missiles (we got a pharamaceutical factory, but missed Bin Laden's bank in he Sudan). Joe (I've been and am there!!!) |
"Brenda Ann" wrote:
Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn, I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on that one, since simple posession is a felony) To clarify, they found adult porn with the accuser's fingerprints on it. I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see, and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert |
"John Smith" wrote:
... those are NOT American citizens, they are enemies of Americans... they ain't got NO rights... The 14th amendment says otherwise... "Equal protection under the law." and there is case law and Supreme Court rulings to back that up. ....know your constitution... some day, it may save *your* sorry ass. John "m II" wrote in message news:Hkrre.62936$tt5.56979@edtnps90... Brian Hill wrote: Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law? mike |
" wrote:
m II wrote: Brian Hill wrote: Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law? mike Well Mike....let's put you out in the field with the soldiers; and some radical extremist are leveling AK-47, RPG, and other heavy Chinese made mortars at your men and yourself....welcome to war! Would the USA declaring war on Afghanistan induced you to voluntairly enlist to defend your country...probably not, as a former "patriotic, politically correct" group did after Pearl Harbor....we went to war on a bare majority vote. Second, would you prefer that we killed them all in the field, or in a sealed semi-trailer as the locals did when they captured them??? Or better yet, try sorting out the local population from the foreign fighters there....we at least stopped them from bashing in the heads of the people in the stadiums, and other "civilized" behavior. Bottom-line...war declared or otherwise is all about kill or be killed. It is easy to sit back and preach "legality" but if you lived and worked overseas like I and other Americans do for the government or industry under the US State Department guise, you would know that we have little to no rights. Third, to gather intelligence from these disparate anarchists groups takes time....and after some have given up the truth or have been verified as standbyers, we have released them to their parent countries. The ones left in "Gitmo" are there for good reasons...in our jail system we have parole boards...most time the hardened criminals stay put unlike the European prison model that "rehabs" them and forgives their crime completely (most of the police in Italy have been minor criminals...try that in the USA,,,once convicted, always a criminal). Since these "foreign fighters" were not under their parent countries command, they are caught between the international criminal code...or if under the Afghan government's control (Taliban at the time), then they are prisoners of war, or war criminals. The fact is that the Taliban government kept their status secret as their means of external support...therefore they are in limbo. Now maybe we could release them under and work-release program in your town, and you could babysit them until they start killing Americans again!!! If you and others feel guilty about Gitmo, then feel guilty for re-electing a President who blew-off intel reports, and who's only reaction to terrorists' actions was a few miserably targeted cruise missiles (we got a pharamaceutical factory, but missed Bin Laden's bank in he Sudan). Joe (I've been and am there!!!) Joe, First off, thanks for being there. Second off, mII is a canadian bomb thrower. He really needs to get a life since what he has now is only just an obsessive hatred of the U.S. He didn't vote for anyone here. Third... I, for one, am NOT disputing the needs to defend yourself on a battlefield, and am frankly appalled that lawyers are consulted whenever missions are planned back here in the Five Sided Funny Farm. But Gitmo is a disaster. We should treat them as POWs, even if they don't wear a uniform or fight under a western-style nation-state. Alternatively, the Geneva Convention says that spies -- that is, soldiers in civilian clothes -- may be summarily executed. Personally, I thought the last election was one of the worst set of choices since, well, Gore and Bush. Even Mondale/Reagan wasn't this bad. Now, whatever you may think of my rambling opinions, stay safe and keep your head down. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert |
|
"Brian Hill" wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote: I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see, and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert Wouldn't he have had child porn too? B.H. Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert |
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brian Hill" wrote: "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote: I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see, and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert Wouldn't he have had child porn too? B.H. Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate. That's my point. If he really is a pedophile , I would think he would have had at least one article of child porn? B.H. |
Brian Hill wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brian Hill" wrote: "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote: I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see, and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert Wouldn't he have had child porn too? B.H. Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate. That's my point. If he really is a pedophile , I would think he would have had at least one article of child porn? B.H. I don't think you can use the absence of child porn as a strong indication he's not a pedophile. Garden variety porn might have been a tool used in the grooming process. I imagine if a pedophile showed a kid child porn, it wouldn't take very long for the kid to figure things out and get very uncomfortable. I'm not sure he's a pedophile - but if I was a parent, I wouldn't want him alone with my kids. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message I'm not sure he's a pedophile - but if I was a parent, I wouldn't want him alone with my kids. I would just like to know what the truth is. It just seems like these things never get to the heart of the matter. I felt strongly OJ was guilty but he got off. Our system of law never leaves you satisfied with knowing the absolute truth. B.H. |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:42:36 GMT, "
wrote: wrote: That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Law and order have nothing to do with justice! And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there. I hope the whole state slides into the ocean. After the big one, California will remain and the rest of the country will slide into the Atlantic. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message I'm not sure he's a pedophile - but if I was a parent, I wouldn't want him alone with my kids. I would just like to know what the truth is. It just seems like these things never get to the heart of the matter. I felt strongly OJ was guilty but he got off. Our system of law never leaves you satisfied with knowing the absolute truth. B.H. That's because for the most part, the absolute truth is unknowable. Better that an occasional guilty person get off than for a single innocent person to lose liberty or life. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brian Hill" wrote: "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote: I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see, and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert Wouldn't he have had child porn too? B.H. Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate. That's my point. If he really is a pedophile , I would think he would have had at least one article of child porn? For a bunch of people who've been following the trial, you guys haven't really been following the trial. (Maybe that's a good thing.) He's had books of naked boys in his bedroom. They might not qualify as porn for any of us, but perhaps they served that purpose for him. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in691878.shtml |
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message I'm not sure he's a pedophile - but if I was a parent, I wouldn't want him alone with my kids. I would just like to know what the truth is. It just seems like these things never get to the heart of the matter. I felt strongly OJ was guilty but he got off. Our system of law never leaves you satisfied with knowing the absolute truth. B.H. That's because for the most part, the absolute truth is unknowable. Better that an occasional guilty person get off than for a single innocent person to lose liberty or life. Smiling I know Brenda. I just meant it's frustrating. :) B.H. |
"Honus" wrote in message news:084se.18829$gL4.919@trnddc07... "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brian Hill" wrote: "Eric F. Richards" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote: I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see, and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently. -- Eric F. Richards "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed." - Dilbert Wouldn't he have had child porn too? B.H. Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate. That's my point. If he really is a pedophile , I would think he would have had at least one article of child porn? For a bunch of people who've been following the trial, you guys haven't really been following the trial. (Maybe that's a good thing.) He's had books of naked boys in his bedroom. They might not qualify as porn for any of us, but perhaps they served that purpose for him. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in691878.shtml I said I haven't been following it but I thought I heard he did have what you stated. B.H. |
Brenda Ann wrote:
That's because for the most part, the absolute truth is unknowable. Better that an occasional guilty person get off than for a single innocent person to lose liberty or life. Think US gulags.... mike |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Honus" wrote in message snip For a bunch of people who've been following the trial, you guys haven't really been following the trial. (Maybe that's a good thing.) He's had books of naked boys in his bedroom. They might not qualify as porn for any of us, but perhaps they served that purpose for him. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in691878.shtml I said I haven't been following it but I thought I heard he did have what you stated. I think the -really- telling thing is that he had those books in his bedroom, in a -locked- cabinet. |
MII - Some call it Cana-Duh :o) ~ RHF
. . . . . |
Appreciate the concern...I am more worried about the unpatriotic
attitudes and behavior of the Americans back home...the Iraqis voted while most Americans stayed home....the economy is in shabbles, and true the state and local tax rates are highes than the US tax rates, Americans have not recalled one representative for poor execution in their jobs...with 76% of terrorists web sites based in the USA.....we elect professional politicans ex-lawyers (some never practiced law, and what does law have to do with leadership????)...they kill the 2 term tenure bill and we do not have a say....I think Americans do not deserve America...bring the foreigners in, sweep out the unconcerned, and put some new direction and vitality into those who earn their freedom by deed and actions, not solely by birthrite. Wake up America.....Arabs over here hate us just because...no logic...no reason...not religious or otherwise motivated....these cowards could not lift a finger and fight for their own freedom because of their upbringing, their lazy male-eccentric culture, and bible-thumping equivalents in the form of mutawahs or inmans getting kicj back from the dictators and kings they serve. They have never been are friends, betrayed us in WW II and during the Cold War despite are anti-Israel stance until 1967.....and as part owners of CNNI, they beam what they want their people and you back there to see...getting their story from Dubai because there is no freedom for a free press to travel at will in the Middle East excepting Iraq at the moment, do not believe a lying negative word of CNN...damn Ted Turner and the whole liberal democratic lot...like to put a gun in his hand and the group and see what "real men" are made of..... The truth is: America is at war against an idealogy that simply will not die without a major defeat of the present regimes in the area; America has no friends unless we put something in their hand, excepting a few; Americans are ungrateful and undeserving of the Constitution of the United States of America....when I see other countries, especially poor little Italy salute their dead at the airport, cathedral, and at the grave site with their president, chiefs of staff of the various military departments, and it is covered live on television so all of their citizens can share in the responsibility and remorse of the moment, I feel that Americans just don't get the big picture.......yes, this war is going to be just like Vietnam, not because of the battlefield, or lack of conditions, or the nature of the enemies at hand...it is exactly like Vietnam because of the American citizens back home more concerned about those idiotic WWF or ESPN events than the future of their country or children. If you have to live your life through hero worship, then you have not lived at all. When you have the means and power to control your government and you sluff it off because you don't have the time...well, perhaps we should let a few leak back home with that same attitude and sense of non-patriotism. The fact is that we cannot, and would not...26% of Americans carry the burden for the lot....I have a rather simple solution..serve to earn the right to vote, or get no vote at all...then when you pick these self-serving clowns and political thiefs youd think back how lucky it is to be still alive, and god's blessing to be an American. |
It doesn't..where did you guys and gals go to school. Reading it
logically, or especially in the vein f the times that this was written, you are or are not a citizen...they are not, so our laws do not apply...second, they are not soldiers of a foreginer recognized power....no Geneva Convention application here...they are pure and simple terrorist which means soldiers without a country...so technically we should have hung or shot them as the other countries in the region do...get a life people......I feel that we should despense the same justice that they would get in their home countries...long torture followed by a round-up of families and friends....executing them all after seizing their possessions, raping their women and children, and beheading the men while shooting what is left of the women and children at some mass grave site in the desert. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...or considering our national deficient, offer them foregiveness at a randsomed price tag...just like back home and according to their Koran. |
|
"K"
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:02:04 -0700, running dogg wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote: "Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already attempted to defraud in at least three other instances. Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging him other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply. Does anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought he was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his fame related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or whatever. But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me please. B.H. The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes. Yeah, but the legislators in Sacramento CHANGED THE LAW so that in child molest cases previous allegations of behavior, even if unsubstantiated, CAN be used against the defendant. I'm not sure why; I always figured that if true the current charges could stand on their own, and the public hates child molestors anyway so they usually are convicted. Unfortunately, in our current hysterical, politically correct society, all you have to do is invoke national security or child safety and previously assumed civil liberties go out the window. It used to be that your records were secure. Now all someone as to do is assert that they want access "in connection with an investigation into terrorism" (and you're not allowed to investigate that claim) and they grt access with no meaningful judicial oversight. And the WH wants this sneak-searching power expanded. Similarly, there used to be statutes of limitations for crimes involving children or other offenses, but they have been retroactively revoked. It used to be that a person could be convicted and serve the jail time assigned, then be released on the understanding that the debt to society had been paid. No more -- they can be housed on jail grounds on the basis that, time served notwithstanding, they were still deemed to be "unrehabilitated". They can be tracked and hounded out of any chance of starting a new life. Mind you, I have no problem if society wants to establish new rules for search and seizure or for penalties for lawbreaking, but these should never, ever be imposed retroactively. There is a contract which we make with society and it can only cause contempt for the contract if it can be changed in ways which call previously understood rules into question based on the law enforcement fad or public hysteria of the day. |
On 14 Jun 2005 04:57:28 -0700, "
wrote: (most of the police in Italy have been minor criminals...try that in the USA,,,once convicted, always a criminal). What a hoot -- there are plenty of cops in the US who are continually committing crimes (dropping evedince where it didn't exist, extortion, roughing up suspects out of sight of cameras) -- they're just unindicted due to the code of silence. |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:33:17 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote: "John Smith" wrote: ... those are NOT American citizens, they are enemies of Americans... they ain't got NO rights... The 14th amendment says otherwise... "Equal protection under the law." and there is case law and Supreme Court rulings to back that up. ...know your constitution... some day, it may save *your* sorry ass. Not any more -- see the recent story on a grandmother accommpanying a class trip. She accidentally left a sandwich knife (one of three she had used for making lunches, serrated and with a blunt, rounded tip) in her check on. She was fined $500 and put on a no-fly list. When she demanded a receipt for her seized possessions, she was told it was a matter of national security and they didn't have to give her anything. When she asked what about her constitutional rights, the answer was, "As of right now ... you don't have any." At least the Nazis we hired for the space program contributed something to the US. The Nazis we hire for TSA strike at the roots of the Constitution. They're nothing but a treasonous pack of fascists. |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:34:48 GMT, m II wrote:
wrote: Law and order have nothing to do with justice! And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there. I hope the whole state slides into the ocean. Why wish death on all of them? Only about eighty percent of them are deviates. Ninety percent tops... So it's OK to wish death on them because they don't agree with your norms? I'd be very inclined to lie my way onto any jury trying you, you moral-less POS. |
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:48:45 -0400, dxAce
wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:42:36 GMT, " wrote: wrote: That He Got Acquitted on all counts.. Hard to Believe California Justice.. Law and order have nothing to do with justice! And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there. I hope the whole state slides into the ocean. After the big one, California will remain and the rest of the country will slide into the Atlantic. One of your 5 year old statements...? No, it has a couple of words over two syllables, unlike your drivel. Otherwise, do you have a point, other than the one at the end of your pinhead? dxAce Michigan USA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com