Waiting for Fitzgerald

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
New Board Mizzle, fo' shizzle!

You sound so haughty when you speak Gaelic

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I understand your attraction to the concept of monetizing a penalty, but don't you think that the exclusionary rule ALSO penalizes cops?

It forces them to find separate incriminating evidence. If they are unable to do that, they've failed their job. Though not extracted from a detective's left pocket, this sounds like a penalty to me.

They are civil servants with secure positions. If they fail in their jobs we pay more than they do. We throw out a very important element to our system (determining the truth to get the right verditct) to inadequately protect another element to our legal system (protecting peoples rights).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Doesn't seem to be a problem in England. If England can live without the exclusionary rule, why can't we?

As I recall, we fought a war not to live under English rules.

Benedict Arnoldist fuck.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Doesn't seem to be a problem in England. If England can live without the exclusionary rule, why can't we?

Why did Nagin exclude the use of the buses from his evacuation plan? That exclusionary rule resulted in many thousands of deaths.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
As I recall, we fought a war not to live under English rules.

Benedict Arnoldist fuck.

Why not punish the same way we punish individuals.

If you break into my house and find probative evidence I have recourse against you.

If the cops break into my house and find probtive evidence why shouldn't I have the same recourse against you.

Why should the only time I have recourse is when I am holding probative evidence that could be used to convict me of a crime.

[Nut Penske]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why did Nagin exclude the use of the buses from his evacuation plan? That exclusionary rule resulted in many thousands of deaths.

He knew the federal plan said there would be planes. Where were the planes?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why not punish the same way we punish individuals.

If you break into my house and find probative evidence I have recourse against you.

If the cops break into my house and find probtive evidence why shouldn't I have the same recourse against you.

Why should the only time I have recourse is when I am holding probative evidence that could be used to convict me of a crime.

Individuals hold far less power than the state. Why hold prosecutors to a brd standard? Surely, that allows a guilty person to go free every once in a while. Why not get rid of it.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You sound so haughty when you speak Gaelic

You can kiss my frosted lucky charms, boyo.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not racist, I am against people who are against Freedom and infringe upon or incite or support others to infringe upon the freedoms of the peoples of the USA. That is across the board, regardless of race.

I am against ideologies that seek to destroy our way of life and our country, regardless of the race of the proponent.

Congratulations, Penske, but this is a very long-winded way to announce that you're switching your registration.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Nut Penske
Where were the buses?

I don't know, ask Nagin, although I think they were right there in NO within his control per the state of Lousiana first responder plan:

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Congratulations, Penske, but this is a very long-winded way to announce that you're switching your registration.

S_A_M

Yes. I was independent and I am officially becoming a Republican.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
The rule doesn't protect people from searches and seizures, it just benefits guilty people when they are subject to an illegal search and seizure.

You don't think that the exclusionary rule has encouraged the devlopment of various procedural safeguards, practices and training methods in police departments to avoid the exclusion of relevant evidence? It has.

By so doing, it seems to me that the rule has surely reduced, and continues to reduce, the number of "illegal" searches and seizures which might otherwise occur if there was no such rule.

Every police department in the country (I think) provides some training in the current state of 4th and 5th Amendment law as it applies to the way cops have to do their jobs. Some procedures may be designed to try to circumvent the rules -- but the police are conscious of it and try to comply.

As a former prosecutor, I have to say, Spanky, that your purely theoretical argument seems to be pretty far divorced from reality. I've kept quiet so far, but you're making no darn sense.

S_A_M

[ETA: Sorry to break it to you that the issue that drove you to the Federalist Society is total bull. Don't worry, though, there is still time to change your ways.]

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
As I recall, we fought a war not to live under English rules.

Benedict Arnoldist fuck.

Leave Arnold alone. He was a true war hero. Had he and Gates not succeeded at Saratoga, the Fight for Independence would have met an early demise.

That he conspired with the enemy later on shouldn't tarnish his image.

Just ask John Kerry.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What race? Bush can't run for president again and I can see no reason why he would want to run for governor of Louisiana. That would be a huge step down.

Your post, as usual, is moronic.

Touched a nerve, apparently.

Thanks for calling my post moronic. Coming from you, that must have given everyone on this board a laugh.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Thanks for calling my post moronic. Coming from you, that must have given everyone on this board a laugh.

I'm not sure how i feel about that, to be honest. Calling a fat guy fat is wrong, except coming from another fat guy.