[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
And they don’t mind fibbing under oath if they think it will help win a case.
I had a case for disorderly conduct a few months ago for saying “fuck you” to a cop while he was directing traffic.
To hear the officers version, you would think that I was screaming at the top of my lungs and acting in perfect accordance with the legal definition of disorderly conduct. It was like he read the definition and changed the event to fit it.
Funny part is that I can’t raise my voice above a moderate speaking level without excruciating pain. That coupled with citing Commonwealth of PA vs. Hock got it thrown out on appeal, charge withdrawn.
[/quote]
Are you retarded or something? Who tells a cop to fuck off?
[quote]Digity wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
And they don’t mind fibbing under oath if they think it will help win a case.
I had a case for disorderly conduct a few months ago for saying “fuck you” to a cop while he was directing traffic.
To hear the officers version, you would think that I was screaming at the top of my lungs and acting in perfect accordance with the legal definition of disorderly conduct. It was like he read the definition and changed the event to fit it.
Funny part is that I can’t raise my voice above a moderate speaking level without excruciating pain. That coupled with citing Commonwealth of PA vs. Hock got it thrown out on appeal, charge withdrawn.
Are you retarded or something? Who tells a cop to fuck off?[/quote]
Better question…how pale do you have to be to avoid getting arrested for it?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Digity wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
And they don’t mind fibbing under oath if they think it will help win a case.
I had a case for disorderly conduct a few months ago for saying “fuck you” to a cop while he was directing traffic.
To hear the officers version, you would think that I was screaming at the top of my lungs and acting in perfect accordance with the legal definition of disorderly conduct. It was like he read the definition and changed the event to fit it.
Funny part is that I can’t raise my voice above a moderate speaking level without excruciating pain. That coupled with citing Commonwealth of PA vs. Hock got it thrown out on appeal, charge withdrawn.
Are you retarded or something? Who tells a cop to fuck off?
Better question…how pale do you have to be to avoid getting arrested for it?[/quote]
Driskell was found guilty in 1991 of the 1990 murder of Perry Harder in Winnipeg. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The RCMP said three hair samples found in Driskell’s van were Harder’s, and that evidence convicted him. Later test results from Forensic Science Services in the U.K. found none of the hairs belonged to Harder.
Driskell was granted bail in November 2003 while the Justice Department investigated the case.
The inquiry’s final report, released Feb. 15, says the jury in Driskell’s trial was “seriously misled” on issues including the reliability of a key Crown witness. The report also said the failure of the Crown to disclose information to the defence was “careless indifference.”[/quote]
Oh, and what about:
[quote]Romeo Phillion
Phillion was sentenced in 1972 to life imprisonment for the murder of Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy.
In May 2003 �?? 30 years into Phillion’s sentence �?? a group of law students from York University announced they would apply to the minister of justice to secure Phillion’s exoneration. The group spent four years studying the conviction. In July 2003, Phillion was released on bail.[/quote]
Gee, Blue One…why oh why didn’t he just follow your advice and not worry since he wasn’t guilty?
The world would be a much better place if they simply listened to you, huh?
Chances of a comeback from Blue One worth reading?
201 wrongful convictions are tip of the iceberg, says DNA charity
[quote]A man who spent 19 years in jail for the murder of two children will be exonerated formally in July, putting the number of inmates in America cleared by DNA evidence at more than 200.
Byron Halsey, who narrowly avoided the death penalty when he was convicted in 1988 of the sexual assault and murder of a girl, 7, and a boy, 8, had his conviction thrown out by a judge last week after DNA evidence pointed to another man as the killer. [/quote]
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any thing you say,can and will be used against you… but anything you say to an officer CAN NOT be used for your defense, it is heresay and not admissible in a court of law.
[/quote]
I’m confused. Why are you citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when what they’re talking about are criminal cases? Also, whatever you say to a cop is not automatically inadmissible in court. If it’s not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, or if it falls within one of the many hearsay exceptions, the statement is admissible.
[quote]Eielson wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I had a case for disorderly conduct a few months ago for saying “fuck you” to a cop while he was directing traffic.
I don’t feel sorry for you at all when you said “fuck you” to a cop.[/quote]
What do you have to feel sorry about? He got the charges withdrawn.
Police are citizens too. You’re allowed to say “fuck you” to another citizen so why not a cop? The day they start legislating morality … oh wait, they’re already doing that. Well, this one wont work.
[quote]BlueOne wrote:
Hey, here is a thought for you:
WHY DON’T YOU QUIT BREAKING THE LAW??
Then you won’t have to worry about being arrested, prosecuted or convicted.
Or am I applying logic where there is none?[/quote]
To be quite polite about the above, I guess you have no idea that innocent people get accused, prosecuted and convicted all the time.
If DNA evidence is exculpating convicted murderers and rapists far too often to be comfortable - and these are major crimes - what do you think is occurring with the “lesser” crimes.
No, your “logic” does not apply here. It is fatally flawed.
EDIT:
Ooops, I posted before I saw others that had so eloquently (better than I) put their foot in your logic.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any thing you say,can and will be used against you… but anything you say to an officer CAN NOT be used for your defense, it is heresay and not admissible in a court of law.
[/quote]
False. It would the Federal Rules of Evidence, and more often, you will be dealing with state rules of evidence (it is not very often that someone faces criminal charges in federal court).
[quote]BlueOne wrote:
Hey, here is a thought for you:
WHY DON’T YOU QUIT BREAKING THE LAW??
Then you won’t have to worry about being arrested, prosecuted or convicted.
Or am I applying logic where there is none?[/quote]
I don’t consider saying “fuck you” to a policeman breaking the law. Saying “fuck you” to assholes (a group of which most policemen are a subset) is a natural reaction.
There are probably some nice policemen, but most of them I have known are assholes that like the feeling of power they get from having a gun and being able to intimidate people. Same goes for police women.
Oh, here’s the answer:
Of the 201 now exonerated, 120 were black and 15 had spent time on death row. Together, they had served 2,496 years.[/quote]
This doesn’t necessarily tell us anything. It definitely looks bad, but blacks make up a disproportionately large number of convicts. Indeed, when you consider that blacks make up about half of the prison population, the 59% inaccurate-accusal rate you cited is not that far off. I bet with a larger sample size, there is little or no disparity between the two.
The fact that blacks make up half the prison population is another matter. That is because blacks are being wrongly accused of those crimes far more frequently than whites (which you clearly imply), because blacks actually commit more crimes than whites, or a combination of the two. I believe that, on the whole, any institutional bias against blacks only accounts for a small number of false convictions. If true, then the real culprit behind your statistic is the fact that blacks are committing so many crimes. That, of course, is a huge topic itself.