Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
That's exactly it. Where is Ty to defend the relevancy of this photo?

I already took responsibility for all that stuff. Why do you keep harping about it? Move on.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand why people don't like it, but what are you prepared to do to ensure that law enforcement respects defendants' constitutional rights?

Set up a system used by every other civilized country whereby if the cops infringe on your rights there is some way to receive compensation from the police or the government.

If the cops screw up, the victim of the crime should not be penalized. The idea that probative evidence would be thrown out really only punishes the victim and not the police.

England doesn't have the exclusionary rule yet I have never heard that defendants rights are abused all the time or that their system is completely unfair.

Our system does not put enough focus on the truth.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the cops screw up, the victim of the crime should not be penalized. The idea that probative evidence would be thrown out really only punishes the victim and not the police.

I agree with this as a general rule, but what about crimes where there are no "victims"? And believe me, I am all for law enforcement, but I've seen the police pull some pretty egregious shit simply because they are either too lazy to conduct a proper investigation, or they can't be bothered to get a warrant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I agree with this as a general rule, but what about crimes where there are no "victims"? And believe me, I am all for law enforcement, but I've seen the police pull some pretty egregious shit simply because they are either too lazy to conduct a proper investigation, or they can't be bothered to get a warrant.

So if the cops search your house for pot unlawfully you get off, but if they search it for a murder weapon, you have only an action at damages?

IF the crime is victimless, why even make it a crime?

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So if the cops search your house for pot unlawfully you get off, but if they search it for a murder weapon, you have only an action at damages?

IF the crime is victimless, why even make it a crime?

I didn't say it was workable, but I understand his point, at least in the abstract.

Excellent. Under this reasoning, can we abolish speed limits too?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My guess is that the next motion that John Bolton makes at the UN is to ban cameras from summit meetings from now on.

Too funny! I saw the picture on the front page of the Washington Times this morning of Bush, Bolton and Rice at the U.N. where Bush is siting in front with his hand raised (presumably voting).

My thought on seeing the picture was that it looked like a high school student seeking permission to go to the John. Everything about his posture and expression said -- "Boy, this class sucks."

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I already took responsibility for all that stuff. Why do you keep harping about it? Move on.

Plus, Bush's fine leadership has also inspired Blanco to accept responsibility for screw-ups at the State level. She is far more likely to actually be held accountable.

S_A_M

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Bush Peed, People Died!!!!

Bush Went For A Wank While New Orleans Sank.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Under this reasoning, can we abolish speed limits too?

Under that definition of "victimless" we could eliminate all attempted crimes.

Are there victimless crimes other than illicit drug use?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky


England doesn't have the exclusionary rule yet I have never heard that defendants rights are abused all the time or that their system is completely unfair.
.

Of course, the Brits have been bending over and taking it from authority for nearly 1000 years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Under that definition of "victimless" we could eliminate all attempted crimes.

Are there victimless crimes other than illicit drug use?

How about attempted rape by Ironweed, given his erectile problems?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Under that definition of "victimless" we could eliminate all attempted crimes.

Are there victimless crimes other than illicit drug use?

Public Intoxication? Unless having to be around annoying drunk people constitutes harm. In which case, I should sue Barney's Beanery.

I know, similar to illicit drug use.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Public Intoxication? Unless having to be around annoying drunk people constitutes harm.

Presumably more harm than private intoxication, which is not a crime.

If I have to be more clear, I might say that illicit drug use not in public is a victimless crime.

I guess another one is sodomy and other immoral sexual acts, at least when involving consenting adults (adult humans, penske). Again, though, not so much if it's in public (whether immoral or not).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Presumably more harm than private intoxication, which is not a crime.

If I have to be more clear, I might say that illicit drug use not in public is a victimless crime.

I guess another one is sodomy and other immoral sexual acts, at least when involving consenting adults (adult humans, penske). Again, though, not so much if it's in public (whether immoral or not).

Sometimes those "immoral sexual acts" disturb ABBA's neighbors.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sometimes those "immoral sexual acts" disturb ABBA's neighbors.

There are noise laws. Nothing against them.