Page 1 of 5
Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Fri May 29, 2015 6:19 am
by Roger_the_Shrubber
Having been in the 'business' for a short time with a badge, but years of running data and stats in criminal law, and all the reading, watching, studying and especially REALLY thinking about criminal law, from both sides, I have some questions for all, but especially lawyers about a few things. Moving Sale, etc. I really want your opinions. OK, in no particular order:
1. Defense attorney supplied for you.
Why are new arrestees told that if they can't afford a defense attorney one will be provided for you, but they forget to say that they will be charged per hour for even a public defender at the charges' disposition? Tacked onto court costs. Why hasn't Miranda been changed to tell people this?
2. Cops can lie.
Why is it legal for a cop, in questioning, to lie to an arrestee about what other people said, evidence found, etc., yet their word is literally 'law'? Anything you he/she says about your arrest, things you might have said, is BANG!...evidence. Your word - hearsay. The 12 year old kid in San Diego accused of killing his sister( they interrogated him for 14 hours i believe, without a lawyer and he signed a confession which was bullshit!), and in Jacksonville, Fla., the 15 year old kid charged with killing two German tourists, beaten into signing a confession after cops said someone identified him(a lie). I hate real bad guys too, but damn! Just cause you arrest someone doesn't make them guilty.
3. Drug fines etc. go to treatment cause one must pay for it himself.
The biggest reason I quit state law enforcement was because of the drug charges, and the fees that people on probation have to pay. They had to pay full amount for a 1 month treatment program. They can't afford THAT! I wrote the head of the DOC in Fla. telling him that all cost of supervision(now @ $50 a month, or more now) should go directly to Drug rehab programs, since they are paying in. Strange...never heard anything back. Why shouldn't these funds go to treating the people that need it?
4. Jury of peers is a joke. 85% morons
There should be a moderately difficult law /civics/non-moron test for potential jurors. Having served on 4 now, and with a lot of law involved jobs and education,.....85% of the people were absolute idiots. I mean, how did these people learn to tie their shoes? A jury of ones peers? You mean the 9 white people and 3 black? for a white defendant? Or 9 black and 3 white for a eskimo?(tried to throw ya there) Never mind about their IQ level or anything???? I had one 66 year old white woman that wanted to add on three....THREE!!! felony charges onto a black dude up for domestic violence. I was Foreman, and showed her the door. Judge replaced her with the alternate. Anyway...
5. Any child crimes is life without parole or death. Period.
I think that one of the worst things that can happen to any person(male or female) in the U.S. is being wrongfully accused of child molestation. I feel liars about such accusations should be penalized exactly the same as would happen to the people that actually committed those crimes. That said:
After attending a week training with the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement in crimes against children training. 500 P&P officers, and they had a big screen setup for slide shows. Oh, and airline barf bags on all the tables. Now, I consider myself a Christian man, and in NO WAY perfect or with out sins(ya think?), but the things masquerading as humans that abuse children......in any form but especially sexual abuse......when you saw the ...things I saw, I want to kill every one of those non-human bastard pieces of filth!
No torture. Head meet bullet. Gonzo.
Just a rant, but intelligent responses accepted. I have no choice about the morons that respond with their usual razor wit.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Fri May 29, 2015 3:41 pm
by BSmack
Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:The biggest reason I quit state law enforcement was because of the drug charges.
Yes, abuse of prescription drugs is a crime. Were you surprised?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Fri May 29, 2015 3:43 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Go back to sleep, stupid.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Fri May 29, 2015 8:06 pm
by Roger_the_Shrubber
I have no choice about the morons that respond with their usual razor wit.
The usual suspects.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 4:25 am
by poptart
quandry
Prayers going out.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 4:45 am
by R-Jack
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 5:40 am
by H4ever
If deception leads to a confession... so be it. example: "Now your buddies have already told us what happened... do you want to give us your side of it now?" "Or do we let them describe your role in this without hearing your version?" hmmm? "And to be honest, they didn't give two shits about you and were only looking to save their own asses.... so here is your chance to tell us what really went down... unless you like being thrown under the bus" Now harping on a person for hours to wear them down to give a false confession is another story. There is a difference. Nobody is getting water-boarded here.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 6:19 am
by LTS TRN 2
Yes, Shrub, the cops lie--on every level..
Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:
2. Cops can lie.
Why is it legal for a cop, in questioning, to lie to an arrestee about what other people said, evidence found, etc., yet their word is literally 'law'? Anything you he/she says about your arrest, things you might have said, is BANG!...evidence. Your word - hearsay. The 12 year old kid in San Diego accused of killing his sister( they interrogated him for 14 hours i believe, without a lawyer and he signed a confession which was bullshit!), and in Jacksonville, Fla., the 15 year old kid charged with killing two German tourists, beaten into signing a confession after cops said someone identified him(a lie). I hate real bad guys too, but damn! Just cause you arrest (MURDER) someone doesn't make them guilty.
Notice how the official death photo (on the right) is an obvious fake, cheap slick mash-up
Experts agree...what's
your excuse?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/22663/226637408bc77a8ea1e8b648980ff3519c625062" alt="Image"
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Sun May 31, 2015 12:26 am
by mvscal
There never was any "official death photo," you cum-speckled fuck puppet.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Sun May 31, 2015 9:19 pm
by LTS TRN 2
"official" as far as what was released to the public. Just as with the video of the collapse of WTC7 (completely ignored in the 9/11 Commission report).
We notice you don't address the fact that the photo on the right was released--and is obviously a fake. We notice you don't actually attempt to explain any of the blatant holes in the "official" story, or for that matter to defend it. Your mewling comment in your "debate' was simply that you "hadn't heard anything" that would contradict, etc. Such squirming and evasive tripe is utterly shameless and hollow. Typical of you, in other words.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:27 pm
by mvscal
LTS TRN 2 wrote:"official" as far as what was released to the public.
By whom? Certainly not the administration.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:58 pm
by Mikey
mvscal wrote:LTS TRN 2 wrote:"official" as far as what was released to the public.
By whom? Certainly not the administration.
The Official Death Photo Committee.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a636/1a63642b228b5f224293c7a14a623c933f9ae81b" alt="Rolling Eyes :meds:"
Geez... where have you been?
Wakey Wakey Motherfucker.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:50 pm
by LTS TRN 2
mvscal wrote:LTS TRN 2 wrote:"official" as far as what was released to the public.
By whom? Certainly not the administration.
The "official" photo as distributed by the muzzled and thoroughly controlled mainstream media. You know, the same mainstream institutions who have dutifully and unquestioningly accepted and forwarded the "official" story of 9/11 in the first place. The same ones who promoted the Popular Mechanics piece--but did not offer any of the massive and immediate refutation of that palsied fake propaganda vehicle.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:54 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
It was all a massive hologram, Nikolai.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:02 pm
by Jay in Phoenix
LTS TRN 2 wrote:mvscal wrote:LTS TRN 2 wrote:"official" as far as what was released to the public.
By whom? Certainly not the administration.
The "official" photo as distributed by the muzzled and thoroughly controlled mainstream media. You know, the same mainstream institutions who have dutifully and unquestioningly accepted and forwarded the "official" story of 9/11 in the first place. The same ones who promoted the Popular Mechanics piece--but did not offer any of the massive and immediate refutation of that palsied fake propaganda vehicle.
Riiight.
While the "mainstream media" is by no means above reproach, you Nick are still babbling the same old tin-foil tinted rhetoric and "psycho"babble you always do without a single reputable source of information to back up your inanity.
The Popular Mechanics piece still stands. You've shown nothing to discredit it.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:45 pm
by R-Jack
Oh, the mainstream media released the death photo....
Pretty sure it would be a piece of cake for Frisco to link that up for us.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:49 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
You guys were mean to hijack Roger's thread. Did we ever determine the legal quandriness of these various issues?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:00 am
by LTS TRN 2
R-Jack wrote:Oh, the mainstream media released the death photo....
Pretty sure it would be a piece of cake for Frisco to link that up for us.
No problem
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/world ... type=Image
As for the Popular Mechanics piece, there was immediately a broad curb stomping of this shameless propaganda bullshit from a variety of researchers..
here's a few..the researchers are a variety of engineers and similarly trained experts. Attempt to refute their observations if you think you can. Simply attempting to dismiss them out of hand of course is simply surrendering.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16171
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OumO4_e6KM8
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:24 am
by R-Jack
Hmmmm. No corpse photo there. Wanna try another one?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:52 am
by Dinsdale
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:You guys were mean to hijack Roger's thread. Did we ever determine the legal quandriness of these various issues?
The biggest quandry I'm seeing right now, is the legal complexities involved in doing bodily harm to many of the players in this thread.
BTW -- I just noticed that we have an RTS and a LTS. Coincidence? I say y'all's should form your own opinions... not that you've exhibited any adeptness at it to date.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:14 am
by Roger_the_Shrubber
I just noticed that we have Dinsdale and people with an IQ below 80 in here. Coincidence?
And BTW, "y'all" is already plural shit head. A contraction of 'you' and 'all'. No 's' needed. But of course, you knew that. And the extra apostrophe at the end makes you just...precious.
Now, feel free to follow me around (like usual) when I have no interest in you at all. Kinda like the way your friends and family feel about ya. Or so I can guess, seeing how that they can't be more unintelligent as you. I could be wrong. You can't have any friends.
PS - Love ya buddy!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2796/e2796bd6e5720c3d1ae9ef278e21817eeaac57b8" alt="hfal :hfal:"
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:42 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
You're really working this "intellectual superiority" angle hard, aren't you?
Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:And BTW, "y'all" is already plural shit head. A contraction of 'you' and 'all'. No 's' needed. But of course, you knew that. And the extra apostrophe at the end makes you just...precious.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a636/1a63642b228b5f224293c7a14a623c933f9ae81b" alt="Rolling Eyes :meds:"
Since you want to go down that path, professor, the correct spelling is "quandary," dumbass. But I'm sure you knew that.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:14 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:But I'm sure you knew that.
Percocet_The_Shrubber was just testing you, bro.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:26 pm
by Goober McTuber
Ever notice how all of the websites Nicky links to look like they were put together by some ADHD meth freak?
FLAKEY FLAKEY
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:43 pm
by Screw_Michigan
Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:But I'm sure you knew that.
Percocet_The_Shrubber was just testing you, bro.
I figured shrubber was more of a klonopin-addled fucktard.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:53 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Goober McTuber wrote:
Ever notice how all of the websites Nicky links to look like they were put together by some ADHD meth freak?
FLAKEY FLAKEY
Absolute bullshit.
Check this out..
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-deb ... anics.html
It's as professionally designed as any other site. And more to the point its sources are actual experts. And you can't refute any of it. What, are you ten years-old?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:59 pm
by Goober McTuber
Style over substance.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:03 pm
by LTS TRN 2
No, it's the substance that's right there--and which you can't begin to refute.
Same as here
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html
Where do you get off dismissing an engineer who has carefully made his case? Who the fuck are you?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:08 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Goober McTuber wrote:
FLAKEY FLAKEY
nice
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/306ff/306ff4a8dd5fc54e4a719508769e787f3e8058e6" alt="Cool 8)"
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:11 pm
by Jay in Phoenix
Hey Slappy, your boy Jim Hoffman is a "website engineer".
You do understand the difference, don't you?
Of course you don't.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:12 pm
by LTS TRN 2
You tedious ankle biters are pathetic. The Architects and Engineers For truth site is comprised of experts in the respective fields. And you can't refute any of their findings. The PM debunking site (provided by Jim Hoffman) cites many similar experts. Hoffman is simply compiling them. Who do you suppose the "experts" were that PM relied on? A few paid shills--very similar to the whored-out "expert" Climate Change deniers.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:14 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:
FLAKEY FLAKEY
nice
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/306ff/306ff4a8dd5fc54e4a719508769e787f3e8058e6" alt="Cool 8)"
And you, you door-stop, what's "flakey" about architects and engineers calling bullshit on an obvious false "official" government narrative? Is this what you call "ribbed" humor? Are you really so dull?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:29 pm
by Jay in Phoenix
So the answer to the question was indeed, no. You don't understand.
Sleepy sleep.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:31 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Goober McTuber wrote:Ever notice how all of the websites Nicky links to look like they were put together by some ADHD meth freak?
Most of Nicky's links are loaded with spyware and viruses. You're one or two clicks away from being redirected to some donkey porn website. I wouldn't touch them unless your machine is operating under a full fortress of protection.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:35 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Absolute bullshit. There's nothing whatever like malware on any of the sites. Why are you so scared to acknowledge that your beloved government lied to you? Why are you scared to face the truth?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:40 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
So..."donkey porn" then?
ewwww
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:46 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:You're one or two clicks away from being redirected to some donkey porn website.
Also, the copy of
Donk Blaster that came installed on my laptop ran out because it was only the "trial version".
Would you say that the $19.95 yearly subscription to
Donk Blaster Pro is worth it? It doesn't come bundled with other crap-ware that I don't want, does it?
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:47 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
...and does Donk Blaster Pro have a Mac version? Wolfman wants to know. TIA.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:03 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Donk Blaster Pro 5.0 is definitely worth it. But make sure you get the "9/11 Truther"extension for an extra $4.95.
Re: Legal quandry, or maybe not
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:09 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Could you hook up a bruthah with a cracked version? A torrent link maybe?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e380/6e380a1decebc8d4bdcc8892a909e32e1ce991aa" alt="Image"