Civic Duty Part 2

[paiken]

After what seems like forever but in reality was 3 weeks, the trial in which I was a juror is finally over. Nothing earth shattering. The defendant was accused of running a chop shop for motorcycles. 22 total counts, we found him guilty of 1. The state did a massively crappy job of putting together this case, and we all let the prosecutor know about it after the trial. She agreed, stating that DPS learned a valuable lesson in how poorly they managed this particular case, and that their methodology will change in future investigations. For example, "dozens" of surveillance notes were "thrown away" after being incorporated into one detectives report, so it became impossible for us to corroborate the statements of at least 4 detectives who participated in the surveillance operations. And at one of the locations there were around 100 photos taken of various stolen or altered motorcycles and engines, but no evidence log or identifiers in the shots so that we could match witness statements with the "evidence". We in the jury all felt that the defendant was probably guilty of more than the one charge, but the burden of proof was on the prosecution (state), and we had to return not guilty charges, since "reasonable doubt" left us no other choice.

[Ken Stallings]

It really is upsetting to see prosecutors and detectives botch such normal procedures this way. I am glad you jury members let them know of your dissatisfaction because ultimately it is society that suffers from this poor performance.

I normally favor free enterprise, but in the case of the legal profession I have always thought it needs to be among the most highly regulated industries in the nation precisely because it is one of the very few that can deprive citizens of property and freedom.

To think that someone can profit freely off the seizure of property from another citizen is something that is alien.

My view is lawyers should be like cops, firemen, and other members of government branches. They should all work on fixed salaries and be appointed by the courts for both defense and prosecution. They should have their budgets set equally so that fairness exists for plaintiffs and defendants each.

There should be no decision point for a lawyer to accept or reject a case based upon presumed profit potential. Cases should be accepted or rejected based strictly upon the level of law it presumes is violated and the strength of the case.

Imagine the chaos if we paid cops a percentage of the confiscated property brought about by investigation! Imagine the same if we paid firemen a percentage of the property they successfully fought the fire to protect?

"Sorry, ma'me, your house was destroyed by fire as we passed by, but there was this larger and wealtheir home that had a trash fire outside and so we made more money fighting that blaze! Yes, we had other trucks but they were all piled around that warehouse so they could reap part of the dividend!"

I mean, it sounds silly, but that's pretty much the lay of the land in the legal profession now, especially torts!

Anyway, I sincerely appreciate you performing your civic duty. Juror duty is one of the last areas where citizens are required to step up and perform purely civic duties sans personal profit considerations. It is also the last bastion of the jurisprudence system in America where that can be accurately said! I just think it would benefit all if all officers of the court operated under the same concept.

Cheers,

Ken

[djscoo]

...



Note that monetary rewards are not involved in criminal cases where the plaintiff is "the people". In a criminal case, the burden of proof does not lie on the defendant. Theoretically, if the defendant is innocent, they need not present a case, and I would therefore argue that a lawyer's skill/price is of little consequence. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", the scales are tipped wholly to one side. I would argue that in terms of justice served, our current system isn't without flaws. Many guilty men have walked free due to a "good lawyer". That said, in terms of protecting the rights of the truly innocent, the number of men who have been wrongfully imprisoned due to a "bad lawyer" is vastly lower. Most wrongful convictions are the result of the prejudices of a judge, jury, or improper form by the prosecutor.

It could also be said argued that having a fully state/federally funded defense team would have the defendant's lawyer essentially working for the plaintiff. Leading to bias of the defenders perhaps in favor of convictions (judgments in favor of the state).

[tigisfat]

Note that monetary rewards are not involved in criminal cases where the plaintiff is "the people". In a criminal case, the burden of proof does not lie on the defendant. Theoretically, if the defendant is innocent, they need not present a case, and I would therefore argue that a lawyer's skill/price is of little consequence. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", the scales are tipped wholly to one side. I would argue that in terms of justice served, our current system isn't without flaws. Many guilty men have walked free due to a "good lawyer". That said, in terms of protecting the rights of the truly innocent, the number of men who have been wrongfully imprisoned due to a "bad lawyer" is vastly lower. Most wrongful convictions are the result of the prejudices of a judge, jury, or improper form by the prosecutor.

It could also be said argued that having a fully state/federally funded defense team would have the defendant's lawyer essentially working for the plaintiff. Leading to bias of the defenders perhaps in favor of convictions (judgments in favor of the state).


you're dead on about the situation, but you've got the results backwards. There are waaaay too many innocent men in prison for my likes. That's no BS.

The problem with the justice system is that it no longer works the way it's supposed too. Juries appeal to emotion now. Do you really think you're innocent until proven guilty if charged with child molestation? Gimme a break.

I don't care if the guy was guilty, I'm glad the OP did the right thing. Our justice is supposed to be a fringe (but neccessary) function of our government. Our US government is not supposed to be a predatory entity, it's supposed to preserve freedom. It doesn't do that at all anymore in the slightest way.

Not only are trials bankrupt of morality now, our laws are thick and rediculous. I think I mentioned before that it is a FELONY in California to carry spark plugs on your person. Let's see who here can tell me why. I know why, but I'll bet most don't and most don't know it's a law. You can become a convicted felon for bringing your rifle home from the range in most places.

[djscoo]

you're dead on about the situation, but you've got the results backwards. There are waaaay too many innocent men in prison for my likes. That's no BS.



Not sure if I understand.

Suppose a man is convicted of felony possession of sparkplugs. If he was carrying these sparkplugs, and it is a felony to do so, then he is not wrongfully convicted. The defendant committed a crime and the prosecutor showed sufficient evidence to prove this.One could argue that the law is unjust, but until it is overturned the man with the sparkplugs is out of luck. What I was getting at was the fairness of the trial itself rather than that of the law.

[Snuffy]

... There are waaaay too many innocent men in prison for my likes. That's no BS. ...

Well "IF" they're innocent, then what are they doing there? You mean to tell me, that innocence now has degrees of severity? Kinda like ... "Well I thought about stealing thus and such but didn't and got caught thinking about it., And now I'm in prison." ???

Innocence is black and white it is not gray/grey. You were either apprehended in the act of doing something wrong, or you were no where near the scene of the crime.

If the second part of that statement is true, then there would have been no reason for the law to come get you and put you in prison.

Sorry, but if they're in prison, they're usually there for a good reason.

And some of them that are there, shouldn't be sucking oxygen still ... JMHO.

[cheezyflier]

i agree with making lawyers salaried. as it stands now, most of them are more concerned with billable hours than they are with winning, in certain cases. i have seen it many times when it comes to child custody and child support issues. we have in fact, recently experienced it that way ourselves. outside of corporate law, there really isn't much competition between them, and most of them suck. on top of that they are quick to tell you they offer no garantees, but to show up without one is even worse. yet somehow, even when they fail, they still expect to be paid.

if you say to me "hey cheezy, can you fix the duct in my house?" and i drag the job out, charging you time and material, then do it wrong, would you pay me for it?

[n4gix]

Well "IF" they're innocent, then what are they doing there? You mean to tell me, that innocence now has degrees of severity? Kinda like ... "Well I thought about stealing thus and such but didn't and got caught thinking about it., And now I'm in prison." ???

Innocence is black and white it is not gray/grey. You were either apprehended in the act of doing something wrong, or you were no where near the scene of the crime.

Say what? Most cases are in fact "shades of gray," since the "evidence" is largely circumstantial and uncorroborated.

Some defendants are convicted solely because of inaccurate and/or misleading "evidence" and the inability of the defendant's lawyer to provide "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury. Other cases of conviction were solely the result of the "emotions" brought about in the juror's minds that outweighed "common sense."

There are also folks in prison serving lengthy sentences based entirely on "manufactured evidence!" Currently in Chicago a former police Commander is on trial for torturing confessions out of charged prisoners!

How many cases have come to light over the past decade where a review of DNA evidence has proven that the defendant could not possibly have committed the crime?

As for "tig's" comment regarding just being accused of child abuse, he is dead accurate. Whether a person is ever charged at all, just the accusation or suggestion is more than enough to totally ruin a person's life forever...

To "paiken" I will say this: "Good on ya!" You the jurors made the right call here.

[tigisfat]

Not sure if I understand.

Suppose a man is convicted of felony possession of sparkplugs. If he was carrying these sparkplugs, and it is a felony to do so, then he is not wrongfully convicted. The defendant committed a crime and the prosecutor showed sufficient evidence to prove this.One could argue that the law is unjust, but until it is overturned the man with the sparkplugs is out of luck. What I was getting at was the fairness of the trial itself rather than that of the law.

Our laws and codes are part of the justice system, and the whole thing is royally messed up. If a man is convicted of a felony for coughing because the local law says it's a felony to cough, I still say he's wrongfully convicted even if he's guilty of violating the code. A felony destroys your life, and rediculous laws are passed constantly.

The very fact that a law was passed making it a life-destroying felony to carry spark plugs smacks of totalitarian control and predatory oppression. Anyone that thinks they could never end up on the bad side of the law is sadly mistaken.

[tigisfat]

Try this on for size:

My lawyer told me of a case in the seventies where childcare providers were convicted of child molestation and the production of child pornography. The jury immediately and without much debate found them guilty of all charges. Four people were sentenced to life in prison. No pornography was ever found, and this was based on the claims of children, who were coached on what to say every bit of the way.

The claims were that they would take the children into a van and drive through a carwash, where they would do the unthinkable with them, and that rabbits were killed in front of the children and buried in the backyard of the provider's homes.

1. The carwash is 45 seconds long. It's not enough time to undress, do horrible things while shooting film, and be completely dressed again.

2. Noone is allowed in the vehicles as they go through that specific wash. There are no exceptions.

3. There was no record of the defendants ever having been to that carwash.

4. The accusers couldn't name the carwash, it was provided by the prosecution.

5. All the defendan't rabbits were accounted for ALIVE, and nothing was buried in the spot they claimed.


It took FOUR YEARS AND THREE APPEALS for them to be exonerated. The whole case from the beginning was a sham. It doesn't matter many times if the defense can't provide reasonable doubt. The prosecutors and jury don't care. They heard the accusations and turned up their noses in disgust when the defendants walked in to begin the trial.

MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions. There is a reasonable doubt for just about everything, and once they think you're wrong it's hard to win.

[n4gix]

I think I mentioned before that it is a FELONY in California to carry spark plugs on your person. Let's see who here can tell me why. I know why, but I'll bet most don't and most don't know it's a law.

Well, I would have "guessed" it might be because a spark plug in one's fist is almost as good as a roll of quarters, a piece of lead, or brass knuckles, but...

I see that it is actually classed as a "misdemeanor" and is a violation of Section 466, insofar as it is considered a "burglary tool." Apparently it is a popular "tool" thieves use to soundlessly break car windows...


In pertinent part, section 466 provides that “[e]very person having upon him or her in his or her possession a picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vice grip pliers, water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun, tubular lock pick, floor-safe door puller, master key, or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Interestly though, "spark plugs" are not explicitly enumerated in the actual code! Rather they are "inferred" to be included based on the ambiguous "other instrument or tool..." clause!

However:
In People v. Gordon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Gordon), Division One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that possession of ceramic spark plug pieces does not violate section 466. Review was denied in that case on October 31, 2001. In their respondent’s brief, the People argued that the reasoning Gordon “is flawed” and should not be followed. In so arguing, the People relied upon the analysis set forth in an opinion filed after Gordon by a different division of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Since the People filed their brief, the California Supreme Court has granted review in the Fourth District’s case that criticized the reasoning in Gordon. (In re Robert B., rev. granted February 13, 2002 (S103022).) Although the appellate decision in Robert B. is superseded and no longer citable authority (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 976(d), 977 (a)), we have considered the legal analysis set forth in the People’s brief before reaching our determination that porcelain pieces of a spark plug do not qualify as burglar’s tools under section 466.

[n4gix]

Try this on for size:

My lawyer told me of a case in the seventies where childcare providers were convicted of child molestation and the production of child pornography. The jury immediately and without much debate found them guilty of all charges. Four people were sentenced to life in prison. No pornography was ever found, and this was based on the claims of children, who were coached on what to say every bit of the way.

Tig, I remember that case. Even now, years later and having been finally and formally exhonerated, those four individuals continue to suffer because of it. They have problems finding and holding onto jobs, have encountered problems with housing, etc.

[djscoo]

Innocence is black and white it is not gray/grey. You were either apprehended in the act of doing something wrong, or you were no where near the scene of the crime.



An interesting point, but in the US Judicial system, there is a considerable grey area. The verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty" rather than "innocent". When the verdict is read, it is decided whether the prosecutor has proven the guilt of the accused, or whether he has failed to provide sufficient evidence. The defendant doesn't have to prove their own innocence, it is implied.

[djscoo]

In pertinent part, section 466 provides that “[e]very person having upon him or her in his or her possession a picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vice grip pliers, water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun, tubular lock pick, floor-safe door puller, master key, or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

I have a homemade slimjim, bump key and a screwdriver in my trunk...I suppose I should stay away from California!

[tigisfat]

I see that it is actually classed as a "misdemeanor" and is a violation of Section 466, insofar as it is considered a "burglary tool." Apparently it is a popular "tool" thieves use to soundlessly break car windows...


It's actually changed very recently. It now specifically states spark plugs and makes it a felony.

[PRB]

It really is upsetting to see prosecutors and detectives botch such normal procedures this way. I am glad you jury members let them know of your dissatisfaction because ultimately it is society that suffers from this poor performance.

I normally favor free enterprise, but in the case of the legal profession I have always thought it needs to be among the most highly regulated industries in the nation precisely because it is one of the very few that can deprive citizens of property and freedom.

To think that someone can profit freely off the seizure of property from another citizen is something that is alien.

My view is lawyers should be like cops, firemen, and other members of government branches. They should all work on fixed salaries and be appointed by the courts for both defense and prosecution. They should have their budgets set equally so that fairness exists for plaintiffs and defendants each.

There should be no decision point for a lawyer to accept or reject a case based upon presumed profit potential. Cases should be accepted or rejected based strictly upon the level of law it presumes is violated and the strength of the case.

Imagine the chaos if we paid cops a percentage of the confiscated property brought about by investigation! Imagine the same if we paid firemen a percentage of the property they successfully fought the fire to protect?

"Sorry, ma'me, your house was destroyed by fire as we passed by, but there was this larger and wealtheir home that had a trash fire outside and so we made more money fighting that blaze! Yes, we had other trucks but they were all piled around that warehouse so they could reap part of the dividend!"

I mean, it sounds silly, but that's pretty much the lay of the land in the legal profession now, especially torts!

Anyway, I sincerely appreciate you performing your civic duty. Juror duty is one of the last areas where citizens are required to step up and perform purely civic duties sans personal profit considerations. It is also the last bastion of the jurisprudence system in America where that can be accurately said! I just think it would benefit all if all officers of the court operated under the same concept.

Cheers,

Ken

First of all, the OP said the government botched the case, and so a conviction was lost, not the private lawyers. I'm not at all surprised to learn the government did something inefficiently and ineffectively. That's how they do most things. For that reason, but it isn't the most important reason, I don't think I want to be defended by the DMV if I get accused of a crime. Secondly, and most importantly, you seem to be saying that it would be great if, when I am accused of a crime by the government, that the lawyer appointed to "defend" me should be working for that very same government. No, thanks...

[Ken Stallings]

Try this on for size:

My lawyer told me of a case in the seventies where childcare providers were convicted of child molestation and the production of child pornography. The jury immediately and without much debate found them guilty of all charges. Four people were sentenced to life in prison. No pornography was ever found, and this was based on the claims of children, who were coached on what to say every bit of the way.

The claims were that they would take the children into a van and drive through a carwash, where they would do the unthinkable with them, and that rabbits were killed in front of the children and buried in the backyard of the provider's homes.

1. The carwash is 45 seconds long. It's not enough time to undress, do horrible things while shooting film, and be completely dressed again.

2. Noone is allowed in the vehicles as they go through that specific wash. There are no exceptions.

3. There was no record of the defendants ever having been to that carwash.

4. The accusers couldn't name the carwash, it was provided by the prosecution.

5. All the defendan't rabbits were accounted for ALIVE, and nothing was buried in the spot they claimed.


It took FOUR YEARS AND THREE APPEALS for them to be exonerated. The whole case from the beginning was a sham. It doesn't matter many times if the defense can't provide reasonable doubt. The prosecutors and jury don't care. They heard the accusations and turned up their noses in disgust when the defendants walked in to begin the trial.

MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions. There is a reasonable doubt for just about everything, and once they think you're wrong it's hard to win.

You documented a particularly heinous wrongful conviction it would certainly appear. But I don't agree that by such examples you should conclude that "most cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions." I would argue most cases are not. However, it must also be noted that circumstantial evidence comprises a very wide scope of facts and information, much of which can be powerful and compellingly persuasive! So, not all cases convicted upon circumstantial evidence indicates wrongful conviction.

The entire situation rests in the hands of the judge, who can wield considerable influence and power to keep all emotional appeals out of the earshot of the jury. If an attorney gets up and does something to strike an emotional appeal during the direct and cross, the judge can immediately intervene, order the jury to ignore the statement, clear the jury, and then reach into the lawyer's personal pockets for several thousands of dollars and back it up with a few months of jail time!

You smack that judgment down for contempt of court, and the show fast returns to logical and fair questions and answers!

Most criminal trial judges are not Lance Ito wannabes!

Ken

[tigisfat]

You documented a particularly heinous wrongful conviction it would certainly appear. But I don't agree that by such examples you should conclude that "most cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions." I would argue most cases are not.

The entire situation rests in the hands of the judge, who can wield considerable influence and power to keep all emotional appeals out of the earshot of the jury. If an attorney gets up and does something to strike an emotional appeal during the direct and cross, the judge can immediately intervene, order the jury to ignore the statement, clear the jury, and then reach into the lawyer's personal pockets for several thousands of dollars and back it up with a few months of jail time!

You smack that judgment down for contempt of court, and the show fast returns to logical and fair questions and answers!

Most criminal trial judges are not Lance Ito wannabes!

Ken


Wasn't it you that said that judges shouldn't be lawyers? I agreed with you then, and not so much now. I agreed with you because the outlook above is the way things are supposed to be and not things truly are. Any good trial lawyer will tell you that you use every tool to your advantage, including emotional appeals and dramatic scenes.

Ken, I retain several attorneys and have a few attorney friends and coworkers. They will all tell you that murder cases are almost never won or lost for any real reason, and that you cannot predict the outcome of any case. If the law was appealled to and followed every time, you would be able to get many cases thrown out.

Any case without tons of evidence, a witness and/or video should have reasonable doubt cast on it. How would you explain the prosecution of murder cases where only a murder weapon and DNA evidence is found? That's most of them. Is there a reasonable doubt? HECK YES THERE IS.

[Henry]

having spent the last 26 years in the US
all of my family and a few friends
are Lawyers and judges
im the oddball
there are a lot of different lawyers
my wife works for an insurance defense lawyer
and from time to time he does pro bono work
they all have to and he could be a defense lawyer for
a criminal suit he is out of his realm of experience
another good friend is actually a criminal defense lawyer
he is a sleeze his job is to defend criminals
no matter if they are guilty or not
many times i have told him you did good
nah he is as guilty as sin
the legal system is a buddy system
if the Judge likes you you have a good chance of winning
i also have a few friends who work for the police , parish etc
who do there darnest to get the evidence correct
sadly the system is not perfect
i have seen lawyers just make deals
that could win but just litigate it
and end it
this country really is based on lawyers guns and money
there are good judges and bad
i know a few of both
but as im British
i cannot be called to serve
and maybe thats best for me
H

[redriver6]

i also have a few friends who work for the police , parish etc
who do there darnest to get the evidence correct

i resemble that remark:salute:;)

[Ken Stallings]

First of all, the OP said the government botched the case, and so a conviction was lost, not the private lawyers. I'm not at all surprised to learn the government did something inefficiently and ineffectively. That's how they do most things. For that reason, but it isn't the most important reason, I don't think I want to be defended by the DMV if I get accused of a crime. Secondly, and most importantly, you seem to be saying that it would be great if, when I am accused of a crime by the government, that the lawyer appointed to "defend" me should be working for that very same government. No, thanks...

The judge works for the government also.

Just because defense lawyers would work for the government doesn't mean they would have conflict of interest. For wealthy people, the rich lawyers might well be a benefit. But, do we really want the fate of justice come down to wealth of the defendant? Why should someone poor have less a quality of defense? Yet, by making that half of the equation private, the system ends up too often putting poor people at increases jeapardy.

I think my first sentence made it clear I understood who botched the case.

Cheers,

Ken

[Henry]

i resemble that remark:salute:;)
yup
and thanks
h

[Henry]

i resemble that remark:salute:;)
but you also understand
you may have a video of someone shooting someone
and if its not allowed and its the only positive evidence you have
there may not be much you can do
you know he is guilty but without proof,
its not perfect but it is what we have to work with
and thats the same world wide
H

[djscoo]

but you also understand
you may have a video of someone shooting someone
and if its not allowed and its the only positive evidence you have
there may not be much you can do
you know he is guilty but without proof,
its not perfect but it is what we have to work with
and thats the same world wide
H

I can only imagine why a definitive piece of evidence like a video would not be allowed in unless there is some doubt to its authenticity or content. If this evidence is so irrefutable, then why didn't the defendant just plead guilty/nolo?

[redriver6]

I can only imagine why a definitive piece of evidence like a video would not be allowed in unless there is some doubt to its authenticity or content. If this evidence is so irrefutable, then why didn't the defendant just plead guilty/nolo?

well i think Henry was using a video as an extreme example but improperly handled, bad chain of custody, improperly seized, etc. could cause even the most valuable piece of evidence to be thrown out. not to mention alot depends on what kind of judge is sitting on the bench. there are those inclinded to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt and there are some that are just the opposite.

[Snuffy]

True.

The justice system has fallen prey to too many "free" thinkers. Its a crying shame when a criminal has more rights than a victim or their family. Way tooooooo many libutards in the justice business.

[Henry]

well i think Henry was using a video as an extreme example but improperly handled, bad chain of custody, improperly seized, etc. could cause even the most valuable piece of evidence to be thrown out. not to mention alot depends on what kind of judge is sitting on the bench. there are those inclinded to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt and there are some that are just the opposite.
thanks for the clarification thats exactly what i meant
H

[djscoo]

True.

The justice system has fallen prey to too many "free" thinkers. Its a crying shame when a criminal has more rights than a victim or their family. Way tooooooo many libutards in the justice business.

This where the phrase"innocent until proven guilty" comes into play.

[MaddogK]

It's actually changed very recently. It now specifically states spark plugs and makes it a felony.

Spark plugs a burglary tool ? ONLY in California does such nonsense fly, least my centerpunch is legal to carry.

[tigisfat]

Spark plugs a burglary tool ? ONLY in California does such nonsense fly, least my centerpunch is legal to carry.

The ceramic is spark plugs is used all over the world to smash windows efficiently and with relative stealth. In London they call them 'ninja rocks'.

[tigisfat]

True.

The justice system has fallen prey to too many "free" thinkers. Its a crying shame when a criminal has more rights than a victim or their family. Way tooooooo many libutards in the justice business.

That's not true at all. It's a crying shame when one can be brought up on charges they have nothing to do with and have their life ruined whilst exercising ZERO rights.

Victims or family members should never have more rights than the accused. People don't think clearly after a tragedy, certainly not clear enough to impartially decide what's right and wrong.

[Ken Stallings]

That's not true at all. It's a crying shame when one can be brought up on charges they have nothing to do with and have their life ruined whilst exercising ZERO rights.

Victims or family members should never have more rights than the accused. People don't think clearly after a tragedy, certainly not clear enough to impartially decide what's right and wrong.

Don't agree with a single word you just wrote -- not a single one.

Tragedies include all sorts of situations where people have to exercise cold, sober decision making to stay alive. Happens all the time and people exhibit those properties.

I also believe the US Constitution, federal laws, state laws, county and municipal statutes all contain various expressed rights of people. The entire court system is predicated upon the notion that burden of proof is upon the accuser or prosecutor.

Without question many people are acquited who likely did the crime. Few are convicted who are actually innocent. A few more are convicted and then have their convictions later overturned due to changes in evidence or upon appeal process. Many times, these people acquited join the first category I described.

Ken

[tigisfat]

Don't agree with a single word you just wrote -- not a single one.

Tragedies include all sorts of situations where people have to exercise cold, sober decision making to stay alive. Happens all the time and people exhibit those properties.

I also believe the US Constitution, federal laws, state laws, county and municipal statutes all contain various expressed rights of people. The entire court system is predicated upon the notion that burden of proof is upon the accuser or prosecutor.

Without question many people are acquited who likely did the crime. Few are convicted who are actually innocent. A few more are convicted and then have their convictions later overturned due to changes in evidence or upon appeal process. Many times, these people acquited join the first category I described.

Ken

Ken, have you ever been arrested or given an extremely large ticketed fine for something you haven't done?

A scenario for you: You are home alone in the middle of a week. You're happy that you've been given a day off, and you're positive you're going to screw around on the computer for a little while. You hear a muffled gunshot. You sit thinking about whether it could've actually been a gunshot for a few seconds when you hear another. You're almost positive, but it sounded funny to you, so you head out to your backyard. When you look over the fence into your neighbor's yard, you see him there dying so you immediately dial 911. After a brief search, the police turn up the murder weapon in a nearby field. There is virtually no evidence and the gun has been wiped. You give your statement as the police treat you professionally, but you're able to pick up a slight air of contempt from them. A few weeks later, you're brought in for questioning much to your surprise. They ask you about 'your' 9MM pistol. You tell them that you haven't had one for a long time and they roll their eyes. You're frustrated and confused, so you start being rude to the cops about how you didn't do anything wrong and you were the one who showed up to help. They think the murder weapon is yours because you live in a state where pistols aren't registered and they don't know what happened to the one you used to have. His survivng family members have pointed out that you and the victim had neighborly arguments from time to time, and that he complained about you. They know you had an old 9MM.

Now you're arrested and subsequently shocked, embarassed and angry. There is no evidence that you've done anything wrong, but their circumstantial reasoning and evidence points to you as their only lead.

This can and does happen to people all the time. I know quite a few attorneys, and it's never as simple as having not enough evidence, especially in smaller jurisdictions. They can and will try you, and you can only hope the jury realizes that there is a HUGE reasonable doubt, but the family members of the victim are SURE you did it now. They trust that the police are doing the right thing because they've arrested you, and they're promised justice.

It's easy to talk about how the criminal justice system is supposed to work if you've never been through it. Grand Jurys assume that police have done their research and will put indicte just about anything. Rarely do warrants get denied, because they want to remain on a good working basis with officers.

Prosecutors don't worry about what's right and wrong, they worry about the task set before them.

Ciminal defense attorneys are not the scum of the earth, they are the last line of defense from having our rights stolen from us by politicians.

People assume that they could never be on the wrong side of the fence, because a lack of a criminal history and clearly it's 'a different kind of people' that get into trouble with the law. Having elitist beliefs are all fine and dandy until you get steamrolled.

Why should people not be allowed to carry sparkplugs?

[Henry]

Prosecutors don't worry about what's right and wrong, they worry about the task set before them.

Ciminal defense attorneys are not the scum of the earth, they are the last line of defense from having our rights stolen from us by politicians.

People assume that they could never be on the wrong side of the fence, because a lack of a criminal history and clearly it's 'a different kind of people' that get into trouble with the law. Having elitist beliefs are all fine and dandy until you get steamrolled.

Why should people not be allowed to carry sparkplugs?
one must assume you do live on this planet
most of my friends and they are my friends
are criminal defense attorneys
they will admit what they do and what they are
they laugh at me for believing them
and you could say why should people not be allowed to carry a gun
if you do not mean any harm to anyone
wheres the problem
there is a large difference in life and what it should be
i understand you wish to protect the innocent
i believe we all do
but there are far more guilty than inocent
H

[redriver6]

Don't agree with a single word you just wrote -- not a single one.

Tragedies include all sorts of situations where people have to exercise cold, sober decision making to stay alive. Happens all the time and people exhibit those properties.

I also believe the US Constitution, federal laws, state laws, county and municipal statutes all contain various expressed rights of people. The entire court system is predicated upon the notion that burden of proof is upon the accuser or prosecutor.

Without question many people are acquited who likely did the crime. Few are convicted who are actually innocent. A few more are convicted and then have their convictions later overturned due to changes in evidence or upon appeal process. Many times, these people acquited join the first category I described.

Ken

i agree with every single word you just wrote:salute:

[djscoo]

Why should people not be allowed to carry sparkplugs?

Because the ceramic shards will shatter tempered glass with no effort at all. (I looked it up on youtube)

Keep in mind that even if it is illegal to carry a sparkplug, you are protected from unlawful searches under the 4th amendment. A police officer can't just stop you and tell you to turn out your pockets. They must first have probable cause to search you, and even then, you can refuse to consent to the search. The officer is going to search you anyway, but making it known that you do not consent will help you in court later.Anyways, the law is there as a deterrent to criminals, not to imprison upstanding citizens who accidentally have sparkplugs in their pockets.

[Ken Stallings]

I do believe that's the first time in my life I've read someone term the effects of the Constitution and American jurisprudence as being "elitist thought." You say you've served in the USAF. Did you really volunteer to defend something with your life (Consitution) that you consider to be "elitist thought?" I'm not buying what you said. Is this really what you are thinking?

And no, tigisfat, I've never been arrested and I've never gotten a traffic ticket of any significance where I was totally innocent. Many times I have avoided being pulled over when I could have, or had the officer on scene listen to my honest confession and issue me a warning.

I also don't go twenty miles an hour over the posted speed limit either!

I also largely expect I can continue to live my life in America without fear of being arrested. I have even more faith that if I should be, that it would be due to my decision making being rather poor.

Ken

[Henry]

laws are strange and different from country to country
in the UK the police do not need a reason to search you
if you look suspicious then they can search you
its still against the law to take a cigarette lighter on a plane here
i wish i could say the same as Ken but i have had some tickets
and spent a few nights in hotel california:salute:
mind you with the exception of the tickets
i was innocent

H

[djscoo]

laws are strange and different from country to country
in the UK the police do not need a reason to search you
if you look suspicious then they can search you
its still against the law to take a cigarette lighter on a plane here
i wish i could say the same as Ken but i have had some tickets
and spent a few nights in hotel california:salute:
mind you with the exception of the tickets
i was innocent

H
For sure! I was reading a magazine article (http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n8/htdocs/anti.php?country=uk) about the "Antisocial Behavior Orders" in the UK. The police can just walk up to you if you look suspicious, search you and put you on a watch list. If you get called out for antisocial behavior too many times you can be banned from certain areas of town and they put up warning posters with your face on it. It seems so odd, but then again, we have some crazy laws in the US too.

[tigisfat]

I do believe that's the first time in my life I've read someone term the effects of the Constitution and American jurisprudence as being "elitist thought." Either you misread or I didn't write clearly enough. The 'elitist thought' is about assuming that your own responsible decision making could never land you in jail because you're too good for it. The same thought pattern ignores legal travesties until they personally get nailed.



You say you've served in the USAF. Did you really volunteer to defend something with your life (Consitution) that you consider to be "elitist thought?" I'm not buying what you said. Is this really what you are thinking?Guys, I love my country and it's ideals. I swore to defend it with my life and fight it's battles. While I was in, I was more quiet about my views and followed orders. No matter what president or politician held any office, it was still my duty to perform as directed. What I speak of now (more freely that I'm out) is an erosion of rights that's ongoing at a more rapid rate than ever, and a transition to modern 'soft' socialism.


And no, tigisfat, I've never been arrested and I've never gotten a traffic ticket of any significance where I was totally innocent. Many times I have avoided being pulled over when I could have, or had the officer on scene listen to my honest confession and issue me a warning.I assume you hadn't been. I've never been in trouble, but I've had more than a few VERY bad experiences with the law, mostly in small towns where there is no oversight. I've known a few people who've gotten away from things scot free they were guilty of, and I've known more than a few who did absolutely nothing wrong and got the book thrown at them.

Keep in mind I have the utmost respect for MOST sworn officers, as I have many family members who've served in various capacities as law enforcement. There is still a problem with lawmakers everywhere, and the occassional bitter cop.





I also largely expect I can continue to live my life in America without fear of being arrested. I have even more faith that if I should be, that it would be due to my decision making being rather poor.I only hope everyone in this thread is that lucky, but you can't guarantee it, you can only help your chances by not being a clown, as you've said. Noone abides 100% of the laws 100% of the time, and lawmakers continue to encroach on what should be harmless behavior, such as carrying sparkplugs.

[redriver6]

well i have to say this has been a very interesting thread.

[tigisfat]

well i have to say this has been a very interesting thread.

Yes, and I'm glad the OP did the right thing. I've always wanted to do jury duty but never have been chosen.

Cheers to him for being a good citizen! :ernae:

[Henry]

i wouldt actually call myself an expert
but i have seen a few different legal systems
and a few barred windows:173go1:
but i will say the US legal system is as good as it gets
there is no such thing as perfect
but in my humble opinion its fairer than most
H

[Henry]

Yes, and I'm glad the OP did the right thing. I've always wanted to do jury duty but never have been chosen.

Cheers to him for being a good citizen! :ernae:
with that i do agree
H

[tigisfat]

i wouldt actually call myself an expert
but i have seen a few different legal systems
and a few barred windows:173go1:
but i will say the US legal system is as good as it gets
there is no such thing as perfect
but in my humble opinion its fairer than most
H


A few people including yourself have mentioned British law. It's better than Mexican law in a border town!

[Henry]

A few people including yourself have mentioned British law. It's better than Mexican law in a border town!
how well i know
H

[Henry]

try diving in spain and speeding you could get a couple of motorcycle
police aim machine guns at you
one tends to stop
H:salute: