Waiting for Fitzgerald

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So sue me.

My lawyer keeps telling me I shouldn't bother because you're "judgment-proof." What does that mean?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I wondered about that too. I'm all for punishments to the police for illegal searches, but it sounds like a fine that wouldn't really deter action -- it would just be a cost of doing business that would be absorbed by the market. If you really want to get a presumed perpetrator, why not do an illegal search to get evidence, if all you have to do is pay a fine?

Like many Americans you seem to forget there are other countries in the world. Other western nations seem to run fine without the exclusionary rule. Obviously the financial penalties do some good because there is no massive hue and cry against police abuse in Britain.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, what you're saying is the only person who should benefit from the rule is the criminal. I, as a law abiding citizen, who might at some point be unlawfully searched, will get zero recompense.

With all rights we monetize past violations, because we can enjoin only future ones. In some cases this matters--for example, prior restraints on speech--but even then, you may be delayed in getting your message out (like Martha Burke, who missed the masters). In some cases it's express in the constitution--for example, the government can seize your property if it pays you. This extends to torts. I can't cut off your leg, but if I do, I have to pay you.

What you seem to be saying is that there is no amount of money damages that can adequately deter unlawful searches, such that the only way to deter them (and thus ensure the right is meaningful) is to let criminals go free. I think there is an amount of money damages. And, if a p.d. engages in a pattern of illegal searches, it would be relatively easy to bring a class action or something like it for injunctive relief commanding them to adhere to the law. Plaintiffs lawyers would start smelling the punis, and that police chief isout of town on a rail.

So does that mean that every time the police conduct an illegal search, I can sue them for depriving me of the right to feel safe and secure in my home and person?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Given the context in which he posted the pictures - in a post about Palestian reactions to Israel's withdrawal - I think my misunderstanding was reasonable.

I therefore withdraw the particular inditement of Penske. However, his body of work on this board is ample evidence of the fact that he is still a racist piece of shit.

Byrd is your leader, not mine. You should look at the damage he does. 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.

Adam Gahan or whatever the American dude who threatened LA the other day is seemingly the same race as me. I put him in the same subhuman filth category as the ululating whore and the other palestinians who cheered 911.

Why do you support them?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're forgetting what the right is, though. The right is not to avoid jail. The right is to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

The exclusionary rule is not a way to implement the right. Instead, it's a tool used to deter violations of the right.

That's why the exclusionary rule doesn;t result in the criminal going free. It results in the government being prohibited from using illegally obtained evidence.

Criminals can still be convicted without tainted evidence. It just makes the gov's job harder. By arguing that the rule automatically sets a criminal free, you are misstating the rule and the result.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This from the king of the Clinton photoshops? Partisanship, much?

One is parody, one is serious. One is promulgated by poster on an internetr chat board, of no consequence to anything. The other is promulgated by the fourth estate for the purposes of news reporting.

I know you can see the difference here, I pray that you are a big enough person to acknowledge it publicly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I view constitutional rights differently. We're supposed to be free from illegal searches. That freedom means little if you're sitting in jail, whether or not the police pay a fine.

You are confusing the two issues. There is one issue of whether or not you did the crime. If you did the crime and you are sitting in jail what is the problem.

There other issue is the illegal search. You may have been damaged but the remedy should be declaring you innocent for a crime you actually did commit.

Like most members of our screwed up judicial system, the truth does not seem to matter to you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are confusing the two issues. There is one issue of whether or not you did the crime. If you did the crime and you are sitting in jail what is the problem.

There other issue is the illegal search. You may have been damaged but the remedy should be declaring you innocent for a crime you actually did commit.

Like most members of our screwed up judicial system, the truth does not seem to matter to you.

Its clear he has never actually read the case. I'm not even sure his LS made people read the actual decisions. I think most of the third tier schools work from a commercial outline right from the start.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
My lawyer keeps telling me I shouldn't bother because you're "judgment-proof." What does that mean?

Those narcotics forfeiture laws are a bitch.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think the basis for the rule is the maxim from Blacksotne's Commentaries: better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.

The exclusionary rule has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or guilty men going to jail. It is about excluding probative evidence. The less probative evidence there is the less likely the court is to issue the correct verdict.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Like many Americans you seem to forget there are other countries in the world. Other western nations seem to run fine without the exclusionary rule. Obviously the financial penalties do some good because there is no massive hue and cry against police abuse in Britain.

Look, if you want to so closely associate yourself with the Justice Kennedys of the world, that's certainly your prerogative, but we are entering the Age of the Tabla Rasa, my man. You'd better go stand over there with the sissified liberals and communists.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
One is parody, one is serious. One is promulgated by poster on an internetr chat board, of no consequence to anything. The other is promulgated by the fourth estate for the purposes of news reporting.

I know you can see the difference here, I pray that you are a big enough person to acknowledge it publicly.

The photo is ridiculous to anyone of even moderate intelligence. In that regard it is on exactly the same level as your favorite graphic arts genre.

The only reaction to the Pottygate(tm) photo I have witnessed from my friends on the left is laughter and ridicule. The only outrage over the photo I have witnessed is from those on the right who want to characterize it as a witch hunt.

I hope whatever jackass of an editor decided to run it as a news item is out of a job today, or at least writing obits for the pet-lovers section of the Sunday inserts. But to treat it as a vicious stab by the VLWC is a bit of a reach, n'est'ce-pas?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The victim isn't punished by the exclusionary rule. Our system of criminal justice is aimed at maintaining order and safeguarding the citizenry. I can think of only one system of justice currently practiced that is aimed at providing retribution for the benefit of the victim. That would be Shari'a.

???? If a murderer or rapist or other felon gets to roam free when they are actually guilty because probative evidence is disallowed you don't think that punished the victim? What do the cops really care. The victim has much more of a stake in the perpetrator being punished than the cops do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's why the exclusionary rule doesn;t result in the criminal going free.

That may be the dumbest post I have ever read. I can't think of dumber one. If you don't think guilty people have walked where they would have been convicted if certain probative evidence wasn't disallowed, you are either insane, in denial, dishonest or incredibly dumb.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are confusing the two issues. There is one issue of whether or not you did the crime. If you did the crime and you are sitting in jail what is the problem.

There other issue is the illegal search. You may have been damaged but the remedy should be declaring you innocent for a crime you actually did commit.

Like most members of our screwed up judicial system, the truth does not seem to matter to you.

You are actually the one confusing the issue here. As I noted above, the rule requires that illegally obtained evidence be excluded from a trial. If the police do their job adequately, the criiminal, if indeed he is guilty, should be convicted on the basis of other, legally obtained evidence. The remedy is not an award to the defendant. The remedy is an assurance to the People that their right to be secure in their homes and property is being protected. Any effect on the defendant is purely collateral.

And that's the truth that matters.