The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think Balt is angry because your definition of liberal looks ONLY to the negative consequence.

Exactly.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. I meant that if a murderer or child molester is arrested again then someone else has been murderer or molested. I wasn't really taking a position on the rule, just pointing to your off-hand comment that seems to discount another life being ruined by the rule.

So you're thinking the police wait until he kills someone else?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So you're thinking the police wait until he kills someone else?

I dunno. You're the one with all the scary experience. You said "arrested again," but now you're implying no second crime happens. Hmmmmm, do you mean like they catch him just before the second crime happens like in that one Tom Cruise movie? or are you saying when the evidence get thrown out for a first crime the cops keep working the file and eventually break it open and it's all good?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I know that exclusionary rule cases make for great story lines on tv, but do you think cops are regularly busting down doors just hoping to find evidence of a crime?

Usually they're too busy beating up stray motorists to bust down the doors, but, yeh, when they're bored.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So you're thinking the police wait until he kills someone else?

They just beat them on the way out of the courthouse.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I dunno. You're the one with all the scary experience. You said "arrested again," but now you're implying no second crime happens. Hmmmmm, do you mean like they catch him just before the second crime happens like in that one Tom Cruise movie? or are you saying when the evidence get thrown out for a first crime the cops keep working the file and eventually break it open and it's all good?

I'm saying that with competent police work, it is very rare that cases get thrown out because all of the evidence was obtained in violation of the exclusionary rule. It happens, but it doesn't happen often. Even where it does happen, you often have to wait until trial to get a decision, and so it's more likely that the motion you would be able to bring will provide some leverage in the plea bargain process, but that's about it.

It's also not that unusual that state courts simply disregard the exclusionary rule, and that the appellate courts then find that the wrongly admitted evidence was "harmless." Which leaves the defendant with little recourse, because federal courts will not hear fourth amendment issues on habeas. This is another reason why you are more likely to try to plea bargain when there is clear guilt, then you are to assume that you can get the wrongly acquired evidence tossed and so you'll take your chances on going forward.

I am also saying, and have said, that I am willing to accept the consequence of this rule. I have yet to hear an alternative that would protect constitutional rights, and despite decades of people griping about this rule no one seems to have come up with one.

In Spanky-land, that means I want all murderers to run free or something.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In Spanky-land, that means I want all murderers to run free or something.

Now I am seeing murderers running like in "Born Free." thanks.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In Spanky-land, that means I want all murderers to run free or something.

In Greedy-land, you are letting the wayward cops who infringe our constitutional rights run free.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In Greedy-land, you are letting the wayward cops who infringe our constitutional rights run free.

"Jail the police" is hardly a viable solution, for any number of reasons.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"Jail the police" is hardly a viable solution

"The Politics Board - Bringing You Reasoned Debate And Viable Solutions Since 2000"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
"The Politics Board - Bringing You Reasoned Debate And Viable Solutions Since 2000"

I just saw an Irish movie called "Breakfast on Pluto." In that movie 1 out of 3 guys you meet in any depth dresses like a woman and has sex with other guys. Does that percentage hold true across the entire population?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just saw an Irish movie called "Breakfast on Pluto." In that movie 1 out of 3 guys you meet in any depth dresses like a woman and has sex with other guys. Does that percentage hold true across the entire population?

Dunno - what's the percentage in all of the other obscure gay porno movies you've seen?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Dunno - what's the percentage in all of the other obscure gay porno movies you've seen?

Hmmmm. Does the movie your mom showed me, of you as Peter PAn in your senior class play count as one? That school you went to- I never knew that's what "open school" meant.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
[your mom / you're gay]

You may want to update your schtick- for this and other apparent reasons.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
You may want to update your schtick- for this and other apparent reasons.

honestly. you're up 2-nil with a few minutes left and Zurawski takes a run? is his contract almost up?