Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 145: Lawyer Dog, Coming to CBS Tuesdays This Fall

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8
Inviso 11/03/17 10:13:02 PM #1:	He'll work pro bone-o. --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso <cite>Inviso posted [p:889718102] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>He'll work pro bone-o. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ashethan 11/03/17 10:13:17 PM #2:	People place way too much faith in the prosecutorial side of our justice system. Our justice system works because there is also the defense side. People can waive a right to an attorney--but that right is there for a damn good reason. You can't look at this--at least from a judicial standpoint--from the perspective of "We need to keep him in jail." Because that's the wrong perspective to look at it from. I know it's hard to think that someone innocent could confess to a crime they wouldn't commit--it just seems to be common sense. But it DOES happen. The case of Juan Rivera for example. He confessed twice to raping and murdering an 11 year old girl. A truly heinous crime. Only thing is... he almost certainly didn't do it. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and the semen taken from the girl's body effectively ruled him out. (Prosecutors argued that the semen was from a previous consensual sexual encounter.. which seems a bit odd to argue about an 11 year old girl, seeing as she can't give consent) They did find blood on his shoes--only they also found DNA on his shoes that matched the Semen Sample. Oh yeah, and get this--the shoes with the blood on them? They were bought after the murder happened (The shoes weren't sold in the US before the murder, and they had the receipt from when the shoes were purchased). Detectives also lead him into the details. Like "She had a multicolored shirt on, right?" They also determined he didn't have any information not already had by police. Eventually he was freed. --- Growing up, I wish some teacher told me "You probably won't ever need this, but if you don't learn it, you might miss out on something really cool." <cite>Ashethan posted [p:889718123] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>People place way too much faith in the prosecutorial side of our justice system. Our justice system works because there is also the defense side. People can waive a right to an attorney--but that right is there for a damn good reason. You can't look at this--at least from a judicial standpoint--from the perspective of "We need to keep him in jail." Because that's the wrong perspective to look at it from. I know it's hard to think that someone innocent could confess to a crime they wouldn't commit--it just seems to be common sense. But it DOES happen. The case of Juan Rivera for example. He confessed twice to raping and murdering an 11 year old girl. A truly heinous crime. Only thing is... he almost certainly didn't do it. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and the semen taken from the girl's body effectively ruled him out. (Prosecutors argued that the semen was from a previous consensual sexual encounter.. which seems a bit odd to argue about an 11 year old girl, seeing as she can't give consent) They did find blood on his shoes--only they also found DNA on his shoes that matched the Semen Sample. Oh yeah, and get this--the shoes with the blood on them? They were bought after the murder happened (The shoes weren't sold in the US before the murder, and they had the receipt from when the shoes were purchased). Detectives also lead him into the details. Like "She had a multicolored shirt on, right?" They also determined he didn't have any information not already had by police. Eventually he was freed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FFDragon 11/03/17 10:13:55 PM #3:	https://img.memecdn.com/theft-is-no-joking-matter_o_991827.jpg --- If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? #theresafreakingghostafterus <cite>FFDragon posted [p:889718163] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>https://img.memecdn.com/theft-is-no-joking-matter_o_991827.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 10:16:49 PM #4:	If they had purposely ignored the request, or said something like "We don't have any lawyer dogs," then sure, I'd be on the other side But they didn't. They followed up his non-request with basically repeating that he had the right to request a lawyer. And then he didn't, and he kept answering questions. I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889718306] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>If they had purposely ignored the request, or said something like "We don't have any lawyer dogs," then sure, I'd be on the other side But they didn't. They followed up his non-request with basically repeating that he had the right to request a lawyer. And then he didn't, and he kept answering questions. I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 10:20:48 PM #5:	Ashethan posted... He confessed twice to raping and murdering an 11 year old girl. A truly heinous crime. Only thing is... he almost certainly didn't do it. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and the semen taken from the girl's body effectively ruled him out. (Prosecutors argued that the semen was from a previous consensual sexual encounter.. which seems a bit odd to argue about an 11 year old girl, seeing as she can't give consent) They did find blood on his shoes--only they also found DNA on his shoes that matched the Semen Sample. Oh yeah, and get this--the shoes with the blood on them? They were bought after the murder happened (The shoes weren't sold in the US before the murder, and they had the receipt from when the shoes were purchased). Detectives also lead him into the details. Like "She had a multicolored shirt on, right?" They also determined he didn't have any information not already had by police. Eventually he was freed. Sure But I would argue situations like this one in particular there's a bit more to the matter of "what's the problem" than using rules trickery to get a guy's confession that looked entirely above the table to stick in court. The implication there is there's some underlying matter of implied coercion, or leading the suspect, stuff like that. That would be more along the level of outright cheating in chess or a card game than this one which is more like just not telling them the right moves to make. None of this stuff is being brought up in the case. In fact, it seems like they have the entire interrogation logged. Like I'd be with you if it was a more borderline follow up, but the only sense this one seems to be borderline is they didn't hand hold him through the process. It's not their job to hand hold him into all the correct moves-- otherwise there would straight up never be interrogations because it's always smarter to get a lawyer. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889718487] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ashethan posted...</cite> <quote>He confessed twice to raping and murdering an 11 year old girl. A truly heinous crime. Only thing is... he almost certainly didn't do it. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and the semen taken from the girl's body effectively ruled him out. (Prosecutors argued that the semen was from a previous consensual sexual encounter.. which seems a bit odd to argue about an 11 year old girl, seeing as she can't give consent) They did find blood on his shoes--only they also found DNA on his shoes that matched the Semen Sample. Oh yeah, and get this--the shoes with the blood on them? They were bought after the murder happened (The shoes weren't sold in the US before the murder, and they had the receipt from when the shoes were purchased). Detectives also lead him into the details. Like "She had a multicolored shirt on, right?" They also determined he didn't have any information not already had by police. Eventually he was freed.</quote> Sure But I would argue situations like this one in particular there's a bit more to the matter of "what's the problem" than using rules trickery to get a guy's confession that looked entirely above the table to stick in court. The implication there is there's some underlying matter of implied coercion, or leading the suspect, stuff like that. That would be more along the level of outright cheating in chess or a card game than this one which is more like just not telling them the right moves to make. None of this stuff is being brought up in the case. In fact, it seems like they have the entire interrogation logged. Like I'd be with you if it was a more borderline follow up, but the only sense this one seems to be borderline is they didn't hand hold him through the process. It's not their job to hand hold him into all the correct moves-- otherwise there would straight up never be interrogations because it's always smarter to get a lawyer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FFDragon 11/03/17 10:22:18 PM #6:	Speaking of trials, did we cover the Bergdahl verdict yet? Because it seems he got a lighter sentence in great part due to Trump's twitter comments against him while he was a candidate. So this would be one of the great examples of where he should not vomit all of his thoughts out whenever he has them. --- If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? #theresafreakingghostafterus <cite>FFDragon posted [p:889718547] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Speaking of trials, did we cover the Bergdahl verdict yet? Because it seems he got a lighter sentence in great part due to Trump's twitter comments against him while he was a candidate. So this would be one of the great examples of where he should not vomit all of his thoughts out whenever he has them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 10:23:16 PM #7:	Like I guess what I'm saying is I'm totally for tricking suspects into entering a situation where they eventually admit guilt. Or at least, I don't think it's necessary to prevent the suspect from tricking themselves. I'm not for strongarming suspects into admitting guilt This situation seems like the former-- all signs in the Ashethan story point to the latter. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889718595] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Like I guess what I'm saying is I'm totally for tricking suspects into entering a situation where they eventually admit guilt. Or at least, I don't think it's necessary to prevent the suspect from tricking themselves. I'm not for strongarming suspects into admitting guilt This situation seems like the former-- all signs in the Ashethan story point to the latter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 10:50:01 PM #8:	StealThisSheen posted... If they had purposely ignored the request, or said something like "We don't have any lawyer dogs," then sure, I'd be on the other side But they didn't. They followed up his non-request with basically repeating that he had the right to request a lawyer. And then he didn't, and he kept answering questions. I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to. Even better. You unambiguously say "I want a lawyer" and I say "Whether you get a lawyer or not is your choice" and then I hope you think this means a lawyer is coming, while actually I get to say it was ambiguous cuz you never requested a lawyer a second time. And if you do request a second time, well, I can just do something else to pretend I didn't understand. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889720023] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>If they had purposely ignored the request, or said something like "We don't have any lawyer dogs," then sure, I'd be on the other side But they didn't. They followed up his non-request with basically repeating that he had the right to request a lawyer. And then he didn't, and he kept answering questions. I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to.</quote> Even better. You unambiguously say "I want a lawyer" and I say "Whether you get a lawyer or not is your choice" and then I hope you think this means a lawyer is coming, while actually I get to say it was ambiguous cuz you never requested a lawyer a second time. And if you do request a second time, well, I can just do something else to pretend I didn't understand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 10:51:52 PM #9:	Sorry to double post, but because this is interesting to me, I think the important thing to consider first and foremost is why that right exists. The heart of the reason for the right to a lawyer being present existing is so there's in theory a witness to the on-goings of the interrogation, to make sure the police aren't overstepping their bounds, abusing the witness, trying to extort a false confession, clearly misrepresenting what was said, tricking the guy into saying something that wasn't true, etc etc. So the first thing you should consider when thinking "well, the suspect deserved a right to a lawyer being present" is "was there any suspicion the police did anything outright shady during the interrogation process?" Now me, personally, I don't find it shady to not actively sabotage your own interrogation by explicitly telling the suspect what to say. And if there's no suspicion or reason to believe any of that stuff was taking place, and a confession occurs, then literally the only reason you'd want to argue vehemently for that rule is to protect criminals. Like, you realize that, right? You should have absolutely have some sort of something resembling a reason to suspect a false confession before assuming a confession is false. Given the information we have on this case and how the interrogation went, there's a world of difference between this one and the one in Ashethan's post. I mean, if you start to accumulate even a suspicion that maybe something untoward went on there, then yeah, you do it, but as far as I know that wasn't even brought up. The entire case was centered on whether the guy's confession could be thrown out , not that the officers did anything out of line in the interrogation to cause the guy to falsely confess. So in this particular situation, the law itself is practically a loophole for criminals to use. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889720128] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Sorry to double post, but because this is interesting to me, I think the important thing to consider first and foremost is why that right exists. The heart of the reason for the right to a lawyer being present existing is so there's in theory a witness to the on-goings of the interrogation, to make sure the police aren't overstepping their bounds, abusing the witness, trying to extort a false confession, clearly misrepresenting what was said, tricking the guy into saying something that wasn't true, etc etc. So the first thing you should consider when thinking "well, the suspect deserved a right to a lawyer being present" is "was there any suspicion the police did anything outright shady during the interrogation process?" Now me, personally, I don't find it shady to not actively sabotage your own interrogation by explicitly telling the suspect what to say. And if there's no suspicion or reason to believe any of that stuff was taking place, and a confession occurs, then literally the only reason you'd want to argue vehemently for that rule is to protect criminals. Like, you realize that, right? You should have absolutely have some sort of something resembling a reason to suspect a false confession before assuming a confession is false. Given the information we have on this case and how the interrogation went, there's a world of difference between this one and the one in Ashethan's post. I mean, if you start to accumulate even a suspicion that maybe something untoward went on there, then yeah, you do it, but as far as I know that wasn't even brought up. The entire case was centered on whether the guy's confession could be thrown out , not that the officers did anything out of line in the interrogation to cause the guy to falsely confess. So in this particular situation, the law itself is practically a loophole for criminals to use.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Esuriat 11/03/17 10:52:10 PM #10:	Lopen posted... I'm totally for tricking suspects into entering a situation where they eventually admit guilt. Or at least, I don't think it's necessary to prevent the suspect from tricking themselves. The problem I have with this idea is that if you're supposedly entering into an investigation in good faith and wanting to get a person convicted beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't tricking the suspect seem like a shortcut that calls into question the thoroughness of an investigation? I'm all for, during the course of discussion, tricking a suspect to reveal details that can allude to the truth of the situation, but not for tricking them out rights that are intended to maintain the integrity of due process. Because again, at the time of the investigation/interrogation they are not actually convicted of a crime yet. When you have the investigator deciding that he's going to trick the suspect, it says to me that he's already decided for himself who is guilty. The investigator as the one man jury will take the suspect down. --- Essy <cite>Esuriat posted [p:889720150] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>I'm totally for tricking suspects into entering a situation where they eventually admit guilt. Or at least, I don't think it's necessary to prevent the suspect from tricking themselves. </quote> The problem I have with this idea is that if you're supposedly entering into an investigation in good faith and wanting to get a person convicted beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't tricking the suspect seem like a shortcut that calls into question the thoroughness of an investigation? I'm all for, during the course of discussion, tricking a suspect to reveal details that can allude to the truth of the situation, but not for tricking them out rights that are intended to maintain the integrity of due process. Because again, at the time of the investigation/interrogation they are not actually convicted of a crime yet. When you have the investigator deciding that he's going to trick the suspect, it says to me that he's already decided for himself who is guilty. The investigator as the one man jury will take the suspect down.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 10:55:41 PM #11:	Lopen posted... So the first thing you should consider when thinking "well, the suspect deserved a right to a lawyer being present" is "was there any suspicion the police did anything outright shady during the interrogation process?" Maybe our disagreement here comes from the fact that I believe in suspecting this from the start in 100% of cases just due to the power dynamics at play and the history of the police as an institution. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889720325] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>So the first thing you should consider when thinking "well, the suspect deserved a right to a lawyer being present" is "was there any suspicion the police did anything outright shady during the interrogation process?"</quote> Maybe our disagreement here comes from the fact that I believe in suspecting this from the start in 100% of cases just due to the power dynamics at play and the history of the police as an institution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 10:58:44 PM #12:	Even if you can't trust the police, can you trust a lawyer to take that approach is his defense if it's an approach to take? And if you can't trust the lawyers, then why the hell does it matter if the lawyer is present. Let's just assume all the criminals in jail are innocent and let em run wild. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889720460] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Even if you can't trust the police, can you trust a lawyer to take that approach is his defense if it's an approach to take? And if you can't trust the lawyers, then why the hell does it matter if the lawyer is present. Let's just assume all the criminals in jail are innocent and let em run wild.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 11:06:10 PM #13:	Lopen posted... Even if you can't trust the police, can you trust a lawyer to take that approach is his defense if it's an approach to take? No but at least in theory they're working for you and not against you, whereas the police in this situation are always working against you in both theory and practice (and regardless of whether they're doing anything outright scummy or not). Lopen posted... And if you can't trust the lawyers, then why the hell does it matter if the lawyer is present. Let's just assume all the criminals in jail are innocent and let em run wild. i don't propose this personally but i'm pretty sure it's an actual idea within philosophy. I wanna say Kant but I'm probably wrong about that. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889720817] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>Even if you can't trust the police, can you trust a lawyer to take that approach is his defense if it's an approach to take?</quote> No but at least in theory they're working for you and not against you, whereas the police in this situation are always working against you in both theory and practice (and regardless of whether they're doing anything outright scummy or not). <cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>And if you can't trust the lawyers, then why the hell does it matter if the lawyer is present. Let's just assume all the criminals in jail are innocent and let em run wild.</quote> i don't propose this personally but i'm pretty sure it's an actual idea within philosophy. I wanna say Kant but I'm probably wrong about that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 11/03/17 11:09:09 PM #14:	StealThisSheen posted... I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to. I don't think that statement is clear enough in informing him that they were not considering his statement a request for a lawyer, and I beleive they INTENTIONALLY worded it that way to trick the guy. I'm just not interested in law enforcement that can cheat. As far as I'm concerened these officers should in some way be held accountable. --- H E Y W A S S H I L E T S E N J O Y K A G A W A L I F E <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:889720981] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to.</quote> I don't think that statement is clear enough in informing him that they were not considering his statement a request for a lawyer, and I beleive they INTENTIONALLY worded it that way to trick the guy. I'm just not interested in law enforcement that can cheat. As far as I'm concerened these officers should in some way be held accountable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 11:09:43 PM #15:	I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889721010] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 11/03/17 11:11:21 PM #16:	Lopen, I feel like your completely zoned in specifically on this case and not at the standard it could set. --- H E Y W A S S H I L E T S E N J O Y K A G A W A L I F E <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:889721089] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Lopen, I feel like your completely zoned in specifically on this case and not at the standard it could set.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:12:04 PM #17:	LapisLazuli posted... StealThisSheen posted... I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to. I don't think that statement is clear enough in informing him that they were not considering his statement a request for a lawyer, and I beleive they INTENTIONALLY worded it that way to trick the guy. I'm just not interested in law enforcement that can cheat. As far as I'm concerened these officers should in some way be held accountable. So you basically want cops to hold hands and outright lead them directly into clamming up and asking for a lawyer? You can say they tried to intentionally trick the guy, but he didn't say anything about a lawyer at all after that and kept talking, so... Doesn't really sound like he was tricked. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889721124] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>LapisLazuli posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to.</quote> I don't think that statement is clear enough in informing him that they were not considering his statement a request for a lawyer, and I beleive they INTENTIONALLY worded it that way to trick the guy. I'm just not interested in law enforcement that can cheat. As far as I'm concerened these officers should in some way be held accountable.</quote> So you basically want cops to hold hands and outright lead them directly into clamming up and asking for a lawyer? You can say they tried to intentionally trick the guy, but he didn't say anything about a lawyer at all after that and kept talking, so... Doesn't really sound like he was tricked.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ashethan 11/03/17 11:12:38 PM #18:	Actually if they said "We don't have any lawyer dogs" that would have made it clear they ACTUALLY misunderstood his request, and he could have clarified. --- Growing up, I wish some teacher told me "You probably won't ever need this, but if you don't learn it, you might miss out on something really cool." <cite>Ashethan posted [p:889721152] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Actually if they said "We don't have any lawyer dogs" that would have made it clear they ACTUALLY misunderstood his request, and he could have clarified.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:13:54 PM #19:	Did you see Making a Murderer? What did you think of the interview of Brandon Dassey? There are other scenarios similar to this one where something similar happens. Not that I believe the cops even thought they were doing something wrong in those situations, just that they don't understand basic human psychology and confessions given under duress. (I'm not saying this is the same situation at all, as I know almost nothing about the case except for the excerpts I read today - just that confessions are not iron clad) --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889721220] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Did you see Making a Murderer? What did you think of the interview of Brandon Dassey? There are other scenarios similar to this one where something similar happens. Not that I believe the cops even thought they were doing something wrong in those situations, just that they don't understand basic human psychology and confessions given under duress. (I'm not saying this is the same situation at all, as I know almost nothing about the case except for the excerpts I read today - just that confessions are not iron clad)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 11:14:17 PM #20:	Lopen posted... I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer. I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889721242] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.</quote> I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:15:34 PM #21:	Er, that was in response to Lopen's point about "but they confessed" in general. Again, I don't know if it applies specifically to this case or not. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889721312] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Er, that was in response to Lopen's point about "but they confessed" in general. Again, I don't know if it applies specifically to this case or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:16:31 PM #22:	Kenri posted... Lopen posted... I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer. I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived. You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops? --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889721358] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.</quote> I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived.</quote> You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:17:08 PM #23:	Also FFD's 500 post was amazing and I'm assuming he was sitting there F5ing it just so he could use it at the perfect time. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889721403] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Also FFD's 500 post was amazing and I'm assuming he was sitting there F5ing it just so he could use it at the perfect time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 11:18:57 PM #24:	StealThisSheen posted... Kenri posted... Lopen posted... I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer. I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived. You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops? Yeah you're right that's definitely the thing I said here, I just fucking love rapists actually. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889721506] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.</quote> I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived.</quote> You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops?</quote> Yeah you're right that's definitely the thing I said here, I just fucking love rapists actually.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:19:17 PM #25:	I hope I am not giving the impression that I hate cops, because I certainly don't. But there are bad confessions out there, either purposefully or accidentally done. A confession is not iron clad without knowing the details of the confession, or seeing how the confession came about. There are plenty of examples, with the most recent one that was relevant in popular culture being the scenes from Making A Murderer. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889721524] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I hope I am not giving the impression that I hate cops, because I certainly don't. But there are bad confessions out there, either purposefully or accidentally done. A confession is not iron clad without knowing the details of the confession, or seeing how the confession came about. There are plenty of examples, with the most recent one that was relevant in popular culture being the scenes from Making A Murderer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:20:21 PM #26:	Kenri posted... StealThisSheen posted... Kenri posted... Lopen posted... I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer. I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived. You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops? Yeah you're right that's definitely the thing I said here, I just fucking love rapists actually. You literally just said you'd take the the person who admitted to a crime 100%, while having an obscenely high minimum of what you accept for a confession, so... --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889721587] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote>I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.</quote> I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived.</quote> You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops?</quote> Yeah you're right that's definitely the thing I said here, I just fucking love rapists actually.</quote> You literally just said you'd take the the person who admitted to a crime 100%, while having an obscenely high minimum of what you accept for a confession, so...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 11/03/17 11:20:34 PM #27:	StealThisSheen posted... You can say they tried to intentionally trick the guy, but he didn't say anything about a lawyer at all after that and kept talking, so... Doesn't really sound like he was tricked. He shouldn't of had to, it should of stuck. The court ruled wrong in it's admissibility. We already have people admitting they thought the judge was a dumbass for "lawyer dog". --- H E Y W A S S H I L E T S E N J O Y K A G A W A L I F E <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:889721598] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>You can say they tried to intentionally trick the guy, but he didn't say anything about a lawyer at all after that and kept talking, so... Doesn't really sound like he was tricked.</quote> He shouldn't of had to, it should of stuck. The court ruled wrong in it's admissibility. We already have people admitting they thought the judge was a dumbass for "lawyer dog".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:22:46 PM #28:	Wow. This topic is kinda just blowing my mind right now. The dude didn't actually directly request a lawyer. Nothing even suggests he THOUGHT he requested a lawyer. He kept talking of his own volition. He admitted to the crime of raping a child. The defense has made no motion that it was coerced or under duress. Cops literally did nothing illegal. But nah the cops should be held accountable, that poor guy. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889721712] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Wow. This topic is kinda just blowing my mind right now. The dude didn't actually directly request a lawyer. Nothing even suggests he THOUGHT he requested a lawyer. He kept talking of his own volition. He admitted to the crime of raping a child. The defense has made no motion that it was coerced or under duress. Cops literally did nothing illegal. But nah the cops should be held accountable, that poor guy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kevwaffles 11/03/17 11:24:04 PM #29:	The dog lawyer pics are possibly the best thing to ever happen to these topics. Including Jesus talking like Trump. --- "One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3 <cite>kevwaffles posted [p:889721783] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>The dog lawyer pics are possibly the best thing to ever happen to these topics. Including Jesus talking like Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 11/03/17 11:25:32 PM #30:	StealThisSheen posted... The dude didn't actually directly request a lawyer. If the phrase "get me a lawyer" is said at all in any way other than following "do not", it should count as requesting a lawyer. "You may as well get me a lawyer" is 100% asking for a lawyer, and he didn't reaffirm because any reasonable person would assume that they'd been clear. --- H E Y W A S S H I L E T S E N J O Y K A G A W A L I F E <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:889721851] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>The dude didn't actually directly request a lawyer. </quote> If the phrase "get me a lawyer" is said at all in any way other than following "do not", it should count as requesting a lawyer. "You may as well get me a lawyer" is 100% asking for a lawyer, and he didn't reaffirm because any reasonable person would assume that they'd been clear.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 11:28:39 PM #31:	StealThisSheen posted... You literally just said you'd take the the person who admitted to a crime 100%, while having an obscenely high minimum of what you accept for a confession, so... Yup, that's the thing I said all right, you nailed it this time. (I definitely do think that when rewards and threats enter the mix, confessions are basically garbage though.) --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889722011] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>You literally just said you'd take the the person who admitted to a crime 100%, while having an obscenely high minimum of what you accept for a confession, so...</quote> Yup, that's the thing I said all right, you nailed it this time. (I definitely do think that when rewards and threats enter the mix, confessions are basically garbage though.)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 11/03/17 11:29:14 PM #32:	You know, I just don't think this is an issue that anybody is going to actually budge on, so I think I'm just going to drop it. --- H E Y W A S S H I L E T S E N J O Y K A G A W A L I F E <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:889722037] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>You know, I just don't think this is an issue that anybody is going to actually budge on, so I think I'm just going to drop it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:29:36 PM #33:	LapisLazuli posted... StealThisSheen posted... The dude didn't actually directly request a lawyer. If the phrase "get me a lawyer" is said at all in any way other than following "do not", it should count as requesting a lawyer. "You may as well get me a lawyer" is 100% asking for a lawyer, and he didn't reaffirm because any reasonable person would assume that they'd been clear. So if he thought he was legitimately requesting a lawyer, why did he keep talking as if he hadn't? By the letter of the law, "If you think I did it, why don't you get me a lawyer?" is not a request for a lawyer. And the suspect himself seemed to know it because he kept talking. Like, I can understand not liking a potential precedent, granted nothing illegal actually happened... But actually defending this guy and saying it's the cops that should be held accountable in this specific case is just mind-blowing. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889722060] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>LapisLazuli posted...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>The dude didn't actually directly request a lawyer. </quote> If the phrase "get me a lawyer" is said at all in any way other than following "do not", it should count as requesting a lawyer. "You may as well get me a lawyer" is 100% asking for a lawyer, and he didn't reaffirm because any reasonable person would assume that they'd been clear.</quote> So if he thought he was legitimately requesting a lawyer, why did he keep talking as if he hadn't? By the letter of the law, "If you think I did it, why don't you get me a lawyer?" is not a request for a lawyer. And the suspect himself seemed to know it because he kept talking. Like, I can understand not liking a potential precedent, granted nothing illegal actually happened... But actually defending this guy and saying it's the cops that should be held accountable in this specific case is just mind-blowing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EmDubyaSee 11/03/17 11:30:00 PM #34:	I do wanna agree with Sep, cause fuck this guy.... I'm just really scared where this has potential to head. I think both sides are taking some irrational points though. Siding with the criminal over the cops in all cases is insane, but jeez man, when you are under that Duress I don't think your phrasing should count for shit either. That is a bad bad road to maybe start going down. I don't blame the cops either, they had a guy confess to child rape. It would take everything in my body not to end him right there in the interrogation room... It's just the precedent it sets moving forward across the country. --- Tom Bombadil: "you are probably the king of b8 dragonball fans at least!" <cite>EmDubyaSee posted [p:889722076] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I do wanna agree with Sep, cause fuck this guy.... I'm just really scared where this has potential to head. I think both sides are taking some irrational points though. Siding with the criminal over the cops in all cases is insane, but jeez man, when you are under that Duress I don't think your phrasing should count for shit either. That is a bad bad road to maybe start going down. I don't blame the cops either, they had a guy confess to child rape. It would take everything in my body not to end him right there in the interrogation room... It's just the precedent it sets moving forward across the country.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:30:58 PM #35:	Well, it was more borderline than that though. He wasn't like "GET ME A LAWYER" it was along the lines of "if you're going to treat me like I'm guilty, you should just get me a lawyer". It is important that it was stated as part of a hypothetical. I think that is enough to qualify as a definitive statement, but I could also see how some would perceive it as not enough based on the standards set in Miranda. I dunno, it seems borderline to me. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889722121] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>Well, it was more borderline than that though. He wasn't like "GET ME A LAWYER" it was along the lines of "if you're going to treat me like I'm guilty, you should just get me a lawyer". It is important that it was stated as part of a hypothetical. I think that is enough to qualify as a definitive statement, but I could also see how some would perceive it as not enough based on the standards set in Miranda. I dunno, it seems borderline to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EmDubyaSee 11/03/17 11:33:13 PM #36:	Suprak the Stud posted... Well, it was more borderline than that though. He wasn't like "GET ME A LAWYER" it was along the lines of "if you're going to treat me like I'm guilty, you should just get me a lawyer". It is important that it was stated as part of a hypothetical. I think that is enough to qualify as a definitive statement, but I could also see how some would perceive it as not enough based on the standards set in Miranda. I dunno, it seems borderline to me. I agree here. I just don't think under that type of stress and duress you are under "borderline" should be held against you. --- Tom Bombadil: "you are probably the king of b8 dragonball fans at least!" <cite>EmDubyaSee posted [p:889722212] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Suprak the Stud posted...</cite> <quote>Well, it was more borderline than that though. He wasn't like "GET ME A LAWYER" it was along the lines of "if you're going to treat me like I'm guilty, you should just get me a lawyer". It is important that it was stated as part of a hypothetical. I think that is enough to qualify as a definitive statement, but I could also see how some would perceive it as not enough based on the standards set in Miranda. I dunno, it seems borderline to me.</quote> I agree here. I just don't think under that type of stress and duress you are under "borderline" should be held against you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:33:43 PM #37:	EmDubyaSee posted... I do wanna agree with Sep, cause fuck this guy.... I'm just really scared where this has potential to head. I think both sides are taking some irrational points though. Siding with the criminal over the cops in all cases is insane, but jeez man, when you are under that Duress I don't think your phrasing should count for shit either. That is a bad bad road to maybe start going down. I don't blame the cops either, they had a guy confess to child rape. It would take everything in my body not to end him right there in the interrogation room... It's just the precedent it sets moving forward across the country. Like, I fully understand the cops motive and don't think it was done with ill intent. But we have rules and guidelines in place for a reason. And something like this makes me wonder if all the other procedures were followed. Again, speaking from a place of ignorance here, and since I view this as somewhat borderline my opinion might shift slightly based on the strength of the physical evidence. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889722235] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>EmDubyaSee posted...</cite> <quote>I do wanna agree with Sep, cause fuck this guy.... I'm just really scared where this has potential to head. I think both sides are taking some irrational points though. Siding with the criminal over the cops in all cases is insane, but jeez man, when you are under that Duress I don't think your phrasing should count for shit either. That is a bad bad road to maybe start going down. I don't blame the cops either, they had a guy confess to child rape. It would take everything in my body not to end him right there in the interrogation room... It's just the precedent it sets moving forward across the country.</quote> Like, I fully understand the cops motive and don't think it was done with ill intent. But we have rules and guidelines in place for a reason. And something like this makes me wonder if all the other procedures were followed. Again, speaking from a place of ignorance here, and since I view this as somewhat borderline my opinion might shift slightly based on the strength of the physical evidence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 11/03/17 11:34:04 PM #38:	I do want to clarify that I don't hate cops. Thinking cops have too much power and should be held accountable does not mean I hate cops. Hating Tim does not mean I hate cops, otherwise half the board would hate cops. I hate MY cops, but that's because fuck Cobb. --- H E Y W A S S H I L E T S E N J O Y K A G A W A L I F E <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:889722249] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I do want to clarify that I don't hate cops. Thinking cops have too much power and should be held accountable does not mean I hate cops. Hating Tim does not mean I hate cops, otherwise half the board would hate cops. I hate MY cops, but that's because fuck Cobb.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 11:34:30 PM #39:	I mean, confessions and stuff due to bribes, coercion, all that stuff, is definitely something that occurs But do you know what occurs more often? Actual crimes. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889722275] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I mean, confessions and stuff due to bribes, coercion, all that stuff, is definitely something that occurs But do you know what occurs more often? Actual crimes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:34:31 PM #40:	EmDubyaSee posted... I do wanna agree with Sep, cause fuck this guy.... I'm just really scared where this has potential to head. I think both sides are taking some irrational points though. Siding with the criminal over the cops in all cases is insane, but jeez man, when you are under that Duress I don't think your phrasing should count for shit either. That is a bad bad road to maybe start going down. I don't blame the cops either, they had a guy confess to child rape. It would take everything in my body not to end him right there in the interrogation room... It's just the precedent it sets moving forward across the country. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. A confession under duress is not a confession at all. I'm arguing the facts of this specific case, though. There's no argument that he was under duress, or else you'd think that's the first thing the defense would go for. Instead, it's a defense attorney trying to not lose a case by trying for a loophole, and the prosecution doubling down on "By the letter of the law." Both are trying to take advantage of wording, but nothing actually suggests anything was coerced or under duress. If it were, I'd agree with you more. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889722277] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>EmDubyaSee posted...</cite> <quote>I do wanna agree with Sep, cause fuck this guy.... I'm just really scared where this has potential to head. I think both sides are taking some irrational points though. Siding with the criminal over the cops in all cases is insane, but jeez man, when you are under that Duress I don't think your phrasing should count for shit either. That is a bad bad road to maybe start going down. I don't blame the cops either, they had a guy confess to child rape. It would take everything in my body not to end him right there in the interrogation room... It's just the precedent it sets moving forward across the country.</quote> Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. A confession under duress is not a confession at all. I'm arguing the facts of this specific case, though. There's no argument that he was under duress, or else you'd think that's the first thing the defense would go for. Instead, it's a defense attorney trying to not lose a case by trying for a loophole, and the prosecution doubling down on "By the letter of the law." Both are trying to take advantage of wording, but nothing actually suggests anything was coerced or under duress. If it were, I'd agree with you more.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/03/17 11:36:08 PM #41:	EmDubyaSee posted... Suprak the Stud posted... Well, it was more borderline than that though. He wasn't like "GET ME A LAWYER" it was along the lines of "if you're going to treat me like I'm guilty, you should just get me a lawyer". It is important that it was stated as part of a hypothetical. I think that is enough to qualify as a definitive statement, but I could also see how some would perceive it as not enough based on the standards set in Miranda. I dunno, it seems borderline to me. I agree here. I just don't think under that type of stress and duress you are under "borderline" should be held against you. This is a very good point, though! Jeez I just wanted to talk about a lawyer dog. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:889722344] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>EmDubyaSee posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Suprak the Stud posted...</cite> <quote>Well, it was more borderline than that though. He wasn't like "GET ME A LAWYER" it was along the lines of "if you're going to treat me like I'm guilty, you should just get me a lawyer". It is important that it was stated as part of a hypothetical. I think that is enough to qualify as a definitive statement, but I could also see how some would perceive it as not enough based on the standards set in Miranda. I dunno, it seems borderline to me.</quote> I agree here. I just don't think under that type of stress and duress you are under "borderline" should be held against you.</quote> This is a very good point, though! Jeez I just wanted to talk about a lawyer dog.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 11:36:56 PM #42:	StealThisSheen posted... Both are trying to take advantage of wording, but nothing actually suggests anything was coerced or under duress. If it were, I'd agree with you more. Bingo. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889722383] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>Both are trying to take advantage of wording, but nothing actually suggests anything was coerced or under duress. If it were, I'd agree with you more.</quote> Bingo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MalcolmMasher 11/03/17 11:38:28 PM #43:	I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police. Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are. --- I don't like this duchy. Now, it's an adventurer. <cite>MalcolmMasher posted [p:889722445] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police. Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 11/03/17 11:44:24 PM #44:	MalcolmMasher posted... Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are. I'd agree with this, but it's also the accused's job to stop talking. Like, in this case, if the guy had stopped talking... Then yeah, it'd be clear he requested a lawyer and believed he did. But he kept talking as if nothing changed. Once that happens, I really find it hard to blame the police/prosecution for taking his statements if the opportunity was there. --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:889722683] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>MalcolmMasher posted...</cite> <quote>Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are.</quote> I'd agree with this, but it's also the accused's job to stop talking. Like, in this case, if the guy had stopped talking... Then yeah, it'd be clear he requested a lawyer and believed he did. But he kept talking as if nothing changed. Once that happens, I really find it hard to blame the police/prosecution for taking his statements if the opportunity was there.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kevwaffles 11/03/17 11:44:35 PM #45:	I request my legal right to more lawyer dog before I continuing posting in this topic. --- "One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3 <cite>kevwaffles posted [p:889722688] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I request my legal right to more lawyer dog before I continuing posting in this topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EmDubyaSee 11/03/17 11:45:26 PM #46:	MalcolmMasher posted... I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police. Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are. Yeah. This is me too. It defeats the whole purpose of our protections. I personally know cause my family was reps and senators (who make the law) and military police and lawyers (who try the law) that you never ever EVER say anything to a cop short of your real name and address. Because it's just never gonna be an advantage to you without legal council. But your normal every day accuses drug dealer or escort isn't gonna know that usually. And they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it. --- Tom Bombadil: "you are probably the king of b8 dragonball fans at least!" <cite>EmDubyaSee posted [p:889722724] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>MalcolmMasher posted...</cite> <quote>I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police. Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are.</quote> Yeah. This is me too. It defeats the whole purpose of our protections. I personally know cause my family was reps and senators (who make the law) and military police and lawyers (who try the law) that you never ever EVER say anything to a cop short of your real name and address. Because it's just never gonna be an advantage to you without legal council. But your normal every day accuses drug dealer or escort isn't gonna know that usually. And they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 11:48:40 PM #47:	EmDubyaSee posted... MalcolmMasher posted... I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police. Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are. Yeah. This is me too. It defeats the whole purpose of our protections. I personally know cause my family was reps and senators (who make the law) and military police and lawyers (who try the law) that you never ever EVER say anything to a cop short of your real name and address. Because it's just never gonna be an advantage to you without legal council. But your normal every day accuses drug dealer or escort isn't gonna know that usually. And they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it. MWC this might be the most reasonable and well-stated post I have ever seen from you and I just want to say that I wish you posted like this more often. I agree completely with both you and MalcomMasher btw. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889722875] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>EmDubyaSee posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MalcolmMasher posted...</cite> <quote>I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police. Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are.</quote> Yeah. This is me too. It defeats the whole purpose of our protections. I personally know cause my family was reps and senators (who make the law) and military police and lawyers (who try the law) that you never ever EVER say anything to a cop short of your real name and address. Because it's just never gonna be an advantage to you without legal council. But your normal every day accuses drug dealer or escort isn't gonna know that usually. And they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it.</quote> MWC this might be the most reasonable and well-stated post I have ever seen from you and I just want to say that I wish you posted like this more often. I agree completely with both you and MalcomMasher btw.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lopen 11/03/17 11:50:37 PM #48:	I think it's okay for the letter of the law to favor the ones who know how to exploit the loopholes if the intent favors the wrongly accused. It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt. And if the lawyer is incompetent or corrupt then you're screwed either way. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:889722957] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote>I think it's okay for the letter of the law to favor the ones who know how to exploit the loopholes if the intent favors the wrongly accused. It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt. And if the lawyer is incompetent or corrupt then you're screwed either way.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 11/03/17 11:54:05 PM #49:	Lopen posted... It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt. You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately". --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:889723135] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote> It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt.</quote> You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EmDubyaSee 11/04/17 12:17:22 AM #50:	Kenri posted... Lopen posted... It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt. You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately". Can I get a link? --- Tom Bombadil: "you are probably the king of b8 dragonball fans at least!" <cite>EmDubyaSee posted [p:889724130] in Politics C... [t:75952529]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Lopen posted...</cite> <quote> It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt.</quote> You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately".</quote> Can I get a link?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 145: Lawyer Dog, Coming to CBS Tuesdays This Fall (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 145: Lawyer Dog, Coming to CBS Tuesdays This Fall