|
Police: NY cabbie is asked if he's Muslim, stabbed
See what fearmongering gets us, Faux News? IMO they're just as much a party to this as the guy who decided to shank his cabby.
Kind of sad the dude was a registered Democrat and volunteered for the organization backing up the Mosque.
But then, why worry about reality when you can blame Republicans?
I didn't say anything about political affiliation. At all.
|
|
Let's not get in to the F-ing idiocy that is the mosque, a guy is dead because it seems sectarian violence (yes any violence based on religious grounds is sectarian violence). And lastly if someone out of one side of their mouth stands up for (christian) religious rights then out of the other side of there mouth tries to limit another religions rights than that person is a hypocrite. I in no way think HD is this kind of person but seriously the anti-mosque people are as idiotic as it gets. This is sacred ground? I've been to that ground it is surrounded by vendors hawking cheap 9/11 memorial trash and fake sunglasses, not to mention it has lots of strip joints in the near vicinity god forbid they build a mosque.Police: NY cabbie is asked if he's Muslim, stabbed
See what fearmongering gets us, Faux News? IMO they're just as much a party to this as the guy who decided to shank his cabby.
Kind of sad the dude was a registered Democrat and volunteered for the organization backing up the Mosque.
But then, why worry about reality when you can blame Republicans?
I'm not a fan of any religion. I dismiss them all equally.
|
|
I didn't say anything about political affiliation. At all.Police: NY cabbie is asked if he's Muslim, stabbed
See what fearmongering gets us, Faux News? IMO they're just as much a party to this as the guy who decided to shank his cabby.
Kind of sad the dude was a registered Democrat and volunteered for the organization backing up the Mosque.
But then, why worry about reality when you can blame Republicans?
I'm sorry, but when you name check "Faux News" you are implying the assailant holds a certain political worldview. Seriously.
|
|
I'm sorry, but when you name check "Faux News" you are implying the assailant holds a certain political worldview. Seriously.I didn't say anything about political affiliation. At all.Police: NY cabbie is asked if he's Muslim, stabbed
See what fearmongering gets us, Faux News? IMO they're just as much a party to this as the guy who decided to shank his cabby.
Kind of sad the dude was a registered Democrat and volunteered for the organization backing up the Mosque.
But then, why worry about reality when you can blame Republicans?
All the news outlets are a joke...some more than others, but I don't really trust anything from any of them. Fox news is what it is.
This has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the environment of fear and hatred that has been created. I personally believe that Fox is, in large part, responsible for this environment.
f##%ing disgusting.Truer words have never been spoken (written? typed?). I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as trash like that...combine him with the people who go out and beat up people who look hispanic and I'm about ready to buy one way tickets to Canadia for the whole fam.
Canada is not 100% tolerant. If isolated incidents are what your looking to avoid might I suggest Iceland? With pretty much no ethnic minorities and a nearly homogeneous population they basically never encounter this sort of thing.
|
|
Canada is not 100% tolerant. If isolated incidents are what your looking to avoid might I suggest Iceland? With pretty much no ethnic minorities and a nearly homogeneous population they basically never encounter this sort of thing.f##%ing disgusting.Truer words have never been spoken (written? typed?). I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as trash like that...combine him with the people who go out and beat up people who look hispanic and I'm about ready to buy one way tickets to Canadia for the whole fam.
Well, that wouldn't work either...I wouldn't want the wife and kid to be the only black folks on the island.
I know that no one place is going to be 100% free of incidents like these. It just seems that, for whatever reason, stuff like this is getting more and more commonplace in the US.
Canada is not 100% tolerant. If isolated incidents are what your looking to avoid might I suggest Iceland? With pretty much no ethnic minorities and a nearly homogeneous population they basically never encounter this sort of thing.f##%ing disgusting.Truer words have never been spoken (written? typed?). I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as trash like that...combine him with the people who go out and beat up people who look hispanic and I'm about ready to buy one way tickets to Canadia for the whole fam.Well, that wouldn't work either...I wouldn't want the wife and kid to be the only black folks on the island.
I know that no one place is going to be 100% free of incidents like these. It just seems that, for whatever reason, stuff like this is getting more and more commonplace in the US.
Holy crap.
You're black TOO?!?!?!?
|
|
Canada is not 100% tolerant. If isolated incidents are what your looking to avoid might I suggest Iceland? With pretty much no ethnic minorities and a nearly homogeneous population they basically never encounter this sort of thing.f##%ing disgusting.Truer words have never been spoken (written? typed?). I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as trash like that...combine him with the people who go out and beat up people who look hispanic and I'm about ready to buy one way tickets to Canadia for the whole fam.Well, that wouldn't work either...I wouldn't want the wife and kid to be the only black folks on the island.
I know that no one place is going to be 100% free of incidents like these. It just seems that, for whatever reason, stuff like this is getting more and more commonplace in the US.
Holy crap.
You're black TOO?!?!?!?
Not I, sir. Just the wife.
EDIT: This almost lead to me punching an old lady in the face this weekend...I'm just glad I managed to keep my cool. Actually that's not correct, my wife had nothing to do with it...the old lady was just a racist cunt.
Canada is not 100% tolerant. If isolated incidents are what your looking to avoid might I suggest Iceland? With pretty much no ethnic minorities and a nearly homogeneous population they basically never encounter this sort of thing.f##%ing disgusting.Truer words have never been spoken (written? typed?). I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as trash like that...combine him with the people who go out and beat up people who look hispanic and I'm about ready to buy one way tickets to Canadia for the whole fam.Well, that wouldn't work either...I wouldn't want the wife and kid to be the only black folks on the island.
I know that no one place is going to be 100% free of incidents like these. It just seems that, for whatever reason, stuff like this is getting more and more commonplace in the US.
Holy crap.
You're black TOO?!?!?!?
Not I, sir. Just the wife.
EDIT: This almost lead to me punching an old lady in the face this weekend...I'm just glad I managed to keep my cool. Actually that's not correct, my wife had nothing to do with it...the old lady was just a racist c**@.
Oh well. It's back to me and maybe that ShinHakkider guy.
You should have smacked her.
|
|
Canada is not 100% tolerant. If isolated incidents are what your looking to avoid might I suggest Iceland? With pretty much no ethnic minorities and a nearly homogeneous population they basically never encounter this sort of thing.f##%ing disgusting.Truer words have never been spoken (written? typed?). I am ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as trash like that...combine him with the people who go out and beat up people who look hispanic and I'm about ready to buy one way tickets to Canadia for the whole fam.Well, that wouldn't work either...I wouldn't want the wife and kid to be the only black folks on the island.
I know that no one place is going to be 100% free of incidents like these. It just seems that, for whatever reason, stuff like this is getting more and more commonplace in the US.
Holy crap.
You're black TOO?!?!?!?
Not I, sir. Just the wife.
EDIT: This almost lead to me punching an old lady in the face this weekend...I'm just glad I managed to keep my cool. Actually that's not correct, my wife had nothing to do with it...the old lady was just a racist c**@.
Oh well. It's back to me and maybe that ShinHakkider guy.
You should have smacked her.
I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...
|
|
I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...Don't be such a Jerk.
Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this.
|
|
Okay, then. But whatever you do, stay away from cans!Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this.I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...Don't be such a Jerk.
He hates these cans!
He hates these cans!Okay, then. But whatever you do, stay away from cans!Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this.I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...Don't be such a Jerk.
I'm back.
Freedom lost.
|
|
He hates these cans!Okay, then. But whatever you do, stay away from cans!Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this.I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...Don't be such a Jerk.I'm back.
Freedom lost.
Welcome back BT.
Welcome back BT.He hates these cans!Okay, then. But whatever you do, stay away from cans!Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this.I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...Don't be such a Jerk.I'm back.
Freedom lost.
Thanks!
|
Welcome back BT.He hates these cans!Okay, then. But whatever you do, stay away from cans!Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this.I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...Don't be such a Jerk.I'm back.
Freedom lost.
+1
I'm not looking to offend or upset anyone, however, I cannot control how one interprets a message on the internet. My intent is provide a, perhaps, skewed and out of the box view.
Has anyone considered the fact, that we have a system of law that doesnt so much seek justice, as much as it supports the person or group that has the best attorney? Stop giving criminals rights...eliminate the horsecrap insanity plea and the I was victimized as a child defense (Mendez brothers anyone...Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.
Of course, this begs the question: Am I the only one who supported the Chinese government punishment of caining the teenager who harrassed the senior citizen while in China? Too often people believe respect must given to get respect. I was raised that you give people courtesy, but respect MUST BE EARNED.
Interesting points made, but with respect to respect, I would argue that the concept has changed significantly over the years to have more in common with courtesy than admiration. Also, the problem with courtesy without respect is that it far faster to break down and lead to social problems. I would point to race relations in the deep south in the late 80's to early 90's as an example.
Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.
How about we arrest you first, let you prove your innocence, and make a decision whether to expand your system on the basis of that?
I'm not looking to offend or upset anyone, however, I cannot control how one interprets a message on the internet. My intent is provide a, perhaps, skewed and out of the box view.
Has anyone considered the fact, that we have a system of law that doesnt so much seek justice, as much as it supports the person or group that has the best attorney? Stop giving criminals rights...eliminate the horsecrap insanity plea and the I was victimized as a child defense (Mendez brothers anyone...Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.
Of course, this begs the question: Am I the only one who supported the Chinese government punishment of caining the teenager who harrassed the senior citizen while in China? Too often people believe respect must given to get respect. I was raised that you give people courtesy, but respect MUST BE EARNED.
It's not simply a matter of being tough on crime. The US spends over 200 billion a year on cops, courts and prisons, and I don't think it's working very well.
Interesting points made, but with respect to respect, I would argue that the concept has changed significantly over the years to have more in common with courtesy than admiration. Also, the problem with courtesy without respect is that it far faster to break down and lead to social problems. I would point to race relations in the deep south in the late 80's to early 90's as an example.You make a solid counter. I can't argue against the ethnic relations of the deep south.
Maybe my take on courtesy is different from others. I always saw courtesy as being a lead in to earning respect from someone, whether you knew them or not.
I was raised (late 70s into 80s) and taught that respect must be earned...that those in positions of authority are to be respected BECAUSE they are in a position of authority. Giving respect to get respect is too alien a concept for me. Until I run into an issue with how I was raised, I'm not going to change. I'm raising my own kids the same way, maybe it'll stop them from gaining the herd mentality I'm starting to see in kids today...if my nieces and nephews are any indication.
Well, there's the problem right there. If people who are in positions of authority must be respected simply because they have the job, then how did they earn it? This creates a system of inequality in terms of respect for others. Also, herd mentality in what sense? I have always felt such mentalities existed, but the goal posts/yokes have shifted positions over the years.
|
'Respect must be earned' is a concept I find obnoxious.
I think that we should all treat each other with respect, even if we are complete strangers.
Respect should be given to others because of our common humanity.
Respect should be something everyone receives, but should also be something you can lose.
That, it seems to me, is the way that fair societies should function.
|
|
I'm not saying eliminate probable cause and arrest warrants. I'm saying that once things move to trial, you're guilty until proven innocent. If one is arrested for a crime, or as you alluded to it - I am arrested for a crime, then I SHOULD have to prove my innocence. Everyone wants safety and security...where do you draw the line?Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.How about we arrest you first, let you prove your innocence, and make a decision whether to expand your system on the basis of that?
Because you can be innocent and have no way to prove it, but by your system circumstantial evidence which is enough to have you suspected will put you behind bars. A lot of cases go to trial on circumstantial evidence. CSI has people believing that every case has a trail of evidence pointing to the person responsible but its not true and has actually been causing problems of late in our system. But if you're a single guy who doesn't go out much and doesn't have many friends, an alibi might be hard to come by and the circumstantial evidence could point to you (say looking like the person who committed the crime so an eye witness accidentally points to you). We need a system that's innocent until proven guilty, while I agree it needs to be reformed. Guilty until proven innocent is too easily abused, in the same way that a cops word is greater then yours leads to abuse and makes it easy for dirty cops to plant evidence and is the dream of any totalitarian regime.
It's not working very well, absolutely true. My belief, is that it's how this country's legal system is set up to 'support the person or group that has the best attorney.' If anyone other than a famous person commits murder, deals drugs, is found with drugs in there possession, or any other felony, they get off with a comparative slap on the wrist compared to someone who isn't famous. Example: Michael Irvin is given a slap on the wrist for drug possession. Baseball players and other athletes use performance enhancing substances, get caught, and other than boo on you, NOTHING. Law is supposed to be blind...it is, to everyone who can't afford an attorney to confuse it.It's not simply a matter of being tough on crime. The US spends over 200 billion a year on cops, courts and prisons, and I don't think it's working very well.I'm not looking to offend or upset anyone, however, I cannot control how one interprets a message on the internet. My intent is provide a, perhaps, skewed and out of the box view.
Has anyone considered the fact, that we have a system of law that doesnt so much seek justice, as much as it supports the person or group that has the best attorney? Stop giving criminals rights...eliminate the horsecrap insanity plea and the I was victimized as a child defense (Mendez brothers anyone...Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.
Of course, this begs the question: Am I the only one who supported the Chinese government punishment of caining the teenager who harrassed the senior citizen while in China? Too often people believe respect must given to get respect. I was raised that you give people courtesy, but respect MUST BE EARNED.
I would say that the enforcement of laws and regulations in the US has become absurdly variable. It's not limited to criminal justice either. It happens in divorces, estates, misdemeanors, felonies, and especially regulation. Often it has a lot to do with being able to afford good lawyers, but sometimes it seems to be driven by capriciousness, laziness and incompetence. I've seen folks with skilled and highly paid lawyers get crushed in court when common sense says that they were plainly innocent, and I've seen shockingly stupid people who can't afford a lawyer get hand waved through the system for dozens maybe hundreds of drug "trafficking", stalking, and restraining order violations.
I think the outcomes that our entire criminal justice system yields tend to be very bad and absurdly inconsistent. I believe we are seeing the system collapse under its own enormous mass, but I believe that about quite few government functions.
Because you can be innocent and have no way to prove it, but by your system circumstantial evidence which is enough to have you suspected will put you behind bars. A lot of cases go to trial on circumstantial evidence. CSI has people believing that every case has a trail of evidence pointing to the person responsible but its not true and has actually been causing problems of late in our system. But if you're a single guy who doesn't go out much and doesn't have many friends, an alibi might be hard to come by and the circumstantial evidence could point to you (say looking like the person who committed the crime so an eye witness accidentally points to you). We need a system that's innocent until proven guilty, while I agree it needs to be reformed. Guilty until proven innocent is too easily abused, in the same way that a cops word is greater then yours leads to abuse and makes it easy for dirty cops to plant evidence and is the dream of any totalitarian regime.I'm not saying eliminate probable cause and arrest warrants. I'm saying that once things move to trial, you're guilty until proven innocent. If one is arrested for a crime, or as you alluded to it - I am arrested for a crime, then I SHOULD have to prove my innocence. Everyone wants safety and security...where do you draw the line?Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.How about we arrest you first, let you prove your innocence, and make a decision whether to expand your system on the basis of that?
+1
I'm not saying eliminate probable cause and arrest warrants. I'm saying that once things move to trial, you're guilty until proven innocent. If one is arrested for a crime, or as you alluded to it - I am arrested for a crime, then I SHOULD have to prove my innocence. Everyone wants safety and security...where do you draw the line?
Most of the world uses some variation on The Napoleonic Code which is a balance of evidence system. In that your neither presumed guilty or innocent determining your status is what a trial is all about. That said when comparing the Napoleonic system with the British model they don't really tend to come out with results that are all that much different. Indicative that both systems pretty much work at least as far as determining guilt or innocence.
I think your - ball players get off light and similar issues is not exactly a legal one. I think its cultural. I don't think its the high priced lawyers that are making the difference here. I think its the fact that Americans (and that the judges who deliver the sentences) expect sports players to get into a certain amount of trouble but generally not a lot. A slap on the wrist lets them get back to the game and that's what everyone in America really wants.
Even beyond this I think simple possession almost always nets you with pretty much a slap on the wrist if its more or less your only criminal offense and you are not otherwise involved in a life of crime.
|
|
Does the better lawyer give you an edge in a trial? Yes. Does that mean they always win? No.
Granted, in some cases it's true. Some people look at O.J. and believe he did it, others don't. But there is no evidence he did. Johnnie Cochran's infamous line "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" is a call on the fact that the case presented to the jury was built on motive, past history and circumstantial evidence.
And I agree with lastknightleft that the CSI shows (even going back to good ol' Quincy) have tainted the American public that evidence is infallible. There are only two ways to ensure a guilty verdict: Confession and/or Eyewitnesses. And even eyewitnesses are not 100% reliable.
There was a great episode of Law & Order that aired right when CSI* was taking off. While investigating the crime scene, a cocky CSI tech was detailing stuff for Briscoe on the crime. The tech later found a thread of a sweater owned by the defendant on the body. When on the stand, he said he was 100% sure that the defendant was guilty. The defense attorney then broke down the evidence, detailing how, even though, the sweater was pretty unique due to it being a high-priced designer item, there were still over 10,000 of the same sweater sold in the New York are and there was no way to differentiate between them. Just because the sweater was a possible connection to the murder doesn't mean he did it.
*Just to note, I like watching CSI, but their science is science fiction. Most of the tests they show as "rush jobs" would actually take weeks if not months to complete. Even fingerprints are not as accurate as TV like to make them out to be. When they are showing the computer match prints on the shows, you'll notice they have a pattern overlaid on the print. This is because they are looking at specific "identifiers" on the print, like whorls and peaks, and matching on those. Depending on how many identifiers you use is how accurate you can get. If you have a partial print and can only make out 5 markers, you're going to come up with a LOT of matches in the database and have to rule it inconclusive.
Does the better lawyer give you an edge in a trial? Yes. Does that mean they always win? No.
Granted, in some cases it's true. Some people look at O.J. and believe he did it, others don't. But there is no evidence he did. Johnnie Cochran's infamous line "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" is a call on the fact that the case presented to the jury was built on motive, past history and circumstantial evidence.
In this case money may have bought freedom. There has been alleged that there was DNA evidence in O.J.s car and that the defense, through some questionable moves managed to exploit a Crown botch up and get the evidence thrown out.
Its been years since I read a book on this trial but my recollection is along the lines of. The prosecution is unbelievably tardy with a key part of full disclosure involving Nicole's (or maybe the innocent bystanders) fresh blood in O.J.'s vehicle. The defense gets a box from the Crown with what they believe is this part of the evidence and realize that its just been straight up delivered. They signed for nothing and there is no indication that they got this evidence yet. If they wait for the rest of the day then the Crown will be in violation of full disclosure and the evidence will be excluded. So the senior lawyer tells the junior lawyer not to open the box (by phone) and head out of the office. The rest of the defense team makes a point of not going into their office for the rest of the day.
There is an exciting part of the book where the lead Crown is begging the judge not to exclude the evidence. "Please your honor, we know we are late and I'm personally in total contempt of this court for not seeing the evidence delivered on time. Give me a couple of days behind bars to think about deadlines but don't exclude the evidence". However the judge does follow procedure. You can't use evidence if its not fully disclosed to the defense and hence the DNA evidence is excluded. After that there is a trial that becomes essentially circumstantial and O.J. is acquitted but the prosecution never bothers looking for anyone else. They know that the DNA evidence was essentially a slam dunk and there is no other person to be found.
Does the better lawyer give you an edge in a trial? Yes. Does that mean they always win? No.
Granted, in some cases it's true. Some people look at O.J. and believe he did it, others don't. But there is no evidence he did. Johnnie Cochran's infamous line "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" is a call on the fact that the case presented to the jury was built on motive, past history and circumstantial evidence.
In this case money may have bought freedom. There has been alleged that there was DNA evidence in O.J.s car and that the defense, through some questionable moves managed to exploit a Crown botch up and get the evidence thrown out.
Its been years since I read a book on this trial but my recollection is along the lines of. The prosecution is unbelievably tardy with a key part of full disclosure involving Nicole's (or maybe the innocent bystanders) fresh blood in O.J.'s vehicle. The defense gets a box from the Crown with what they believe is this part of the evidence and realize that its just been straight up delivered. They signed for nothing and there is no indication that they got this evidence yet. If they wait for the rest of the day then the Crown will be in violation of full disclosure and the evidence will be excluded. So the senior lawyer tells the junior lawyer not to open the box (by phone) and head out of the office. The rest of the defense team makes a point of not going into their office for the rest of the day.
There is an exciting part of the book where the lead Crown is begging the judge not to exclude the evidence. "Please your honor, we know we are late and I'm personally in total contempt of this court for not seeing the evidence delivered on time. Give me a couple of days behind bars to think about deadlines but don't exclude the evidence". However the judge does follow procedure. You can't use evidence if its not fully disclosed to the defense and hence the DNA evidence is excluded. After that there is a trial that...
Government efficiency and competence at work.
...Does the better lawyer give you an edge in a trial? Yes. Does that mean they always win? No.
Granted, in some cases it's true. Some people look at O.J. and believe he did it, others don't. But there is no evidence he did. Johnnie Cochran's infamous line "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" is a call on the fact that the case presented to the jury was built on motive, past history and circumstantial evidence.
In this case money may have bought freedom. There has been alleged that there was DNA evidence in O.J.s car and that the defense, through some questionable moves managed to exploit a Crown botch up and get the evidence thrown out.
Its been years since I read a book on this trial but my recollection is along the lines of. The prosecution is unbelievably tardy with a key part of full disclosure involving Nicole's (or maybe the innocent bystanders) fresh blood in O.J.'s vehicle. The defense gets a box from the Crown with what they believe is this part of the evidence and realize that its just been straight up delivered. They signed for nothing and there is no indication that they got this evidence yet. If they wait for the rest of the day then the Crown will be in violation of full disclosure and the evidence will be excluded. So the senior lawyer tells the junior lawyer not to open the box (by phone) and head out of the office. The rest of the defense team makes a point of not going into their office for the rest of the day.
There is an exciting part of the book where the lead Crown is begging the judge not to exclude the evidence. "Please your honor, we know we are late and I'm personally in total contempt of this court for not seeing the evidence delivered on time. Give me a couple of days behind bars to think about deadlines but don't exclude the evidence". However the judge does follow procedure. You can't use evidence if its not fully disclosed to the defense and hence the DNA evidence is excluded. After
Oh come ON, BT. This was clearly a personal screw up, NOT the fault of the government at large. Still, this is information I didn't know.
Oh come ON, BT. This was clearly a personal screw up, NOT the fault of the government at large. Still, this is information I didn't know.
Conceding your point for the sake of argument, this is still a case where gross individual incompetence resulted in a very expensive government failure. Gross individual incompetence certainly occurs in the private sector with life and death consequences like in health care, but I fail to see compelling evidence that the government is any more likely to be competent than the private sector at much of anything. My personal experience is certainly that the government will always find a way to make things worse rather than better.
I'm not saying eliminate probable cause and arrest warrants. I'm saying that once things move to trial, you're guilty until proven innocent.Maybe I'm backward, cold, callous, or what not, but maybe we should have a system of law, that once you are arrested and charged, you are considered guilty until proven innocent...ludicrous, I realize, but it would maybe get people to really reconsider making the choice to be criminals.How about we arrest you first, let you prove your innocence, and make a decision whether to expand your system on the basis of that?
Right, but we know that there are plenty of crooked cops and crooked arrests. So, to test the efficiency of your system, let's start by arresting you on falsified charges, and see how well you do in proving your innocence. If you're able to do so, then there are perhaps enough controls in place to implement your system.
If not, then perhaps not.
Wasn't anyone taught to respect your elders. I was. The reason I was given: because they were older than I was. I'm not talking year or two older, but those that are 10, 15, 20 or more years older. As to answer to your question about how did they earn the respect for being in a position of authority, the assumption being that it wasn't just handed to them, that they had to 'pay their dues', so to speak, to get there. I've never seen a kid off the street or fresh out of college given any position of authority over others, and rightly so. They haven't done anything to show that they can handle the basic responsibilities of the work they've been given. Who would make a manager? Someone with a degree fresh out of college? Or the guy that doesn't have a degree, but has a proven track record? My money is on the latter. He's paid his dues so to speak. The kid fresh out of college hasn't.
As for herd mentality, I'm not sure I can illustrate my thinking of it properly, but here goes...needing to be connected and plugged in to your social circle all the time. Being considered rude if you don't return a text right away; talking to your friends in a movie theater OBLIVIOUS or IGNORING the fact that people go to movies to watch them NOT LISTEN TO SOMEBODY'S COVNERSATION; teaching kids that they didn't lose, when they come in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place, they're the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th winner; not keeping score in youth sports games, like my 4 year old sons soccer league; that you're responsible for someone else making a choice to be stupid or make a stupid choice, such as people that make stupid choices with what they eat at McDonald's and then pursue frivolous and stupid lawsuits because they got fat. That sort of herd mentality that where people are being raised to be (warning this next statement is going to be offensive) loser lemmings incapable of taking responsibility for their own choices and actions, that it's everyone else' responsibility.
Okay...had a post written here, but the site ate it(actually I think my computer messed up, but whatever).
With respect to the first part of your statement, it truly is as old as the tides. What was the name of the Greek philosopher that first started this whole sentiment with how humanity was better when it was in the Golden Age with "real heroes" as opposed to the callow youths of today? I forget, and I hope my old professor can forgive me. I'm not saying that we should run around kicking our elders in the crotch because they're old and useless, but the ageocracy you refer to above really screws over anyone who had the ill grace to fall out of their mother's uterus a few years after someone else. You haven't really mentioned how youths should be treated by elders, so I'm assuming that they are going to be at the beck and call of their elders until their elders finally die off and they get to force a new generation of young people to endure the humilation they once endured. An argument could be made that the popularity of college diplomas at a certain time in this country(assuming you're american here) was backed up by the desire of a generation or two of relatively young people to circumvent their elders on the way to the halls of power, but that's a story for another time. Without both courtesy and respect working in concert, it's either that the old are just that and no longer know what they are doing because they're OLD, or the young are just that and are somehow incapable of learning anything because they're..well, NOT old.
In terms of the "paying their dues" statement, well..based on what? Especially since you disdain the guy who took the time out to go to school to get a degree, I can only assume you're referring to some type of old boy's network or something where only personal referrals of some type get one into a position. I'd prefer a meritocracy to something that, while it can have only the best of intentions, can be easily corrupted. I realize I'm as clear as mud on this last one(not that the one before it was any clearer), it was where I had a very well reasoned and thought out comment in the last post that was eaten. I'll come back to it later if I can.
In terms of the herd mentality, you bring up a lot of things that have been considered rude or gauche from when we were both in diapers. Before we had the internet and cell phones, we had land lines, and the young used to want to be on these phones forever, just as they wish to be on their cell phones today. People talking in the theatre during movies? Annoying, now as it ever was(although I'm glad we have texting now, which is quieter, although the burst of ill-timed laughter is just as annoying as ever). In terms of places for sporting events...that's old hat too, even the olympics keeps track of who came in 13th and 31st and so on. Not keeping scores in games? Maybe a little silly, but come on, your son is 4- does he care about the score, or do you? Frivolous lawsuits? They've been on the books for years; I would more argue their seeming overwhelming presence is due to the internet and slow news days than anything else.
'Respect must be earned' is a concept I find obnoxious.
I think that we should all treat each other with respect, even if we are complete strangers.
Respect should be given to others because of our common humanity.
Respect should be something everyone receives, but should also be something you can lose.
That, it seems to me, is the way that fair societies should function.
How is it obnoxious? Is it because it doesn't fall in line with current thinking: give respect to get respect? I'm curious. Giving respect without having done something to earn it, is something I can't wrap my head around. It feels wrong to me. Absolutley nothing in life is free or given without someone having done something to pay for it. Respect is no different for me.
I think part of the problem may be that we are conflating the ideas of courtesy and admiration within the word respect.
I taught my daughter to be respectful of say, teachers for example, in the sense of being polite. I never taught her that they were any smarter or better than her, but when she disagreed with them it was better to be polite/respectful.
I think this is a very important distinction.
Has anyone found any news on the disposition of the federal investigation of the Aiyana Jones shooting?
Has anyone found any news on the disposition of the federal investigation of the Aiyana Jones shooting?
I find it sad that a google news search for "aiyana stanley-jones" yields this, just 3 lines.