what will andersons verdict be?

" Is thes a case of 2 wrongs actually making a charter right?"
pretty much.. yep.

The really sad thing...is if the cops had actually killed the guy, NONE of this discussion or debate would be happening.

He shot at police (whether he knew they were cops or not), and they shot back.

They SHOULD have killed him, as it would remove a KNOWN drug dealer from the streets, saved the taxpayers a fortune from this stupid trial, and hopefully left a bunch of drug addicts hanging long enough to seek help.

Here's a question you should ask yourself the next time you think this guy should be free or have ANY rights whatsoever. Cops or not invading his house...do you think he'd have any remorse for killing someone by shooting through that door? He wasn't shooting as a warning...if he was he would've shot into the floor, or a wall. He intended to kill or injure whoever came near that door. His INTENT was murder...not "warning"...cause if it was "warning", he would've yelled out the door "I've got a gun!!! Stay back!!!" which would've turned the situation into a standoff instead of a shootout.

I understand he "accidentally" shot into the floor TWICE. Maybe that should have stood as warning. Just sayin'.

Freeman wrote:Anyway, they didn't have cameras on their guns, cars or any body parts, so ....

I am having trouble why, if he has been found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, in accordance with the laws of the land, why the convictions (note plural) should be overturned, even if the cops roughed him up after arrest. I have no doubt that they were less than gentle with him, but how does that negate what he has been found guilty of. If the police applied "excessive" force, then deal with it. Charge the cops, discipline them or whatever, but how does that cancel out what the dweeb did? Is thes a case of 2 wrongs actually making a charter right? (little play on words there)

Sad to say his charter right s are paramount here the fact he sold drugs for the organized drug dealers is secoundary . also the fact that he could load a gun in the dark and fire it means he has no experience with guns . Who gives a rats ass if they beat him up if I would have caught him selling to my kid he would have got worse . I better not get started .

"Who gives a rats ass if they beat him up if I would have caught him selling to my kid he would have got worse . I better not get started ."
heh.. I think that is something we all feel. We want our Charter rights protected.. but are often willing to violate someone elses to protect our family.

So the police do to protect their own.

The Taman inquiry proved that IMO.

True it did to bad it was misguided .

Gee doing some work for one of Wpgs finest and lo and behold there are people wanting to talk to him in Stony turns out he is a snitch. Fiqured there must be a reason this boy is so parinoid.

Ummm, huh? Youse is talking in riddles Pavolo.

Pavolo wrote:Gee doing some work for one of Wpgs finest and lo and behold there are people wanting to talk to him in Stony turns out he is a snitch. Fiqured there must be a reason this boy is so parinoid.

aha!....
So what you are saying then Pav... is it really is some cops fault then...... cause if the cop would not have taken the snitch information from him... then he would not be paranoid like this... :>

I'm sorry but when you break the law and are charged and convicted of such, you have lost all rights, charter or otherwise, until you have served your sentence to society. Once your sentence has been served and you have been given the opportunity to return to society, your rights have been returned as well. The loss of certain rights goes into effect when you are taken into custody and charged and must sit in a holding cell at the remand centre. A criminal should not be allowed the "right" to smoke, vote, receive a free education, cable and satellite tv, etc. The only "rights" they should have are the basic right to life which is a roof over their head, clothes on their backs and nutrition in their stomachs.
And as an aside, a high ranking criminal attorney in this city (one who represents the city police on a regular basis) even said that this guys is wishful thinking as the Appeals Court will only laugh at him and tell him to enjoy his stay in prison.

While I agree with you holly golightly let's only take away peeps rights AFTER they are convicted. Until then they are not guilty.

Be careful what you ask for.

My rights were violated when the criminal broke into my home, stole my purse, punched me in the face, stole a car or whatever else he or she may have done, so why should the criminal's rights be maintained while mine (and in essence yours if it was a crime such as stealing cars) were taken from me?

Criminals are punished (kinda') for taking your rights away though. Perhaps we should be looking for harsher punishments yuk yuk....

...like that's going to happen....

Especially with the present goverment or lack of heheheh
Acuatly grumpy no riddle and no Dean they did not solicit it he gave it freely to get rid of the competition . So going in is out of the question for him he is marked .

holly golightly wrote:My rights were violated when the criminal broke into my home, stole my purse, punched me in the face, stole a car or whatever else he or she may have done, so why should the criminal's rights be maintained while mine (and in essence yours if it was a crime such as stealing cars) were taken from me?

allegedly broke into your home, stole your purse, punched you in the face, ....

We MUST allow and follow due process..absolutely must... no matter how much it pisses me (or you) off when we KNOW the guy/gal is guilty. To not follow due process will lead to a huge errosion of our rights.


Or would you like to sit in jail for a couple of years waiting for a trial just cause someone dressed like you with the same colour hair did something wrong?

Leipsic

If someone go'e s to jail by mistake Dean and I believe that to be what you say . How doe's that affect my rights the system, makes mistakes yes most are caught today unlike the past.
I agree once you are caught for a crime and standing trial you have somewhat limited rights , the victims have to come first.

Also if you had spent 1 or 2 years watching and studying a drug dealer getting ready to bust him, would you blow it for a sucker punch. This is one scared little boy who is going to get what he has coming to him and he will have to be a man and take it .

You want to play You gotta pay.

"You want to play You gotta pay."

I agree...

But there is also the problem that cops are not perfect.. they can and will and have used thier power against innocent people both on purpose and by mistake. The mistake is bad enough but when the cops do it on purpose thats even worse.

Which is one of the big reasons why we MUST have innocence until proven guilt.

Hell I am all for tripling sentance time when the guilt is blatantly obvious and the person still insists on a trial instead of just pleading guilty to end it quicker. But proper court process must be followed.

No cops are not perfect nor are they stupid , and you are innocent till proven guilty cept in the case of child abuse .
Sometimes you have to bend the rules to seal a case and if it gets a guilty verdict then Iam for it . The police very rarely have gone after innocent people cept when they are given bad info which is not always there fault.
Dean what you seem to advocate is that you want the police right to operate, ham strung so you can feel that your rights are protected . Well they have to obey the law , they have to bend it to get into the world of no rules which is crime .

Pavolo wrote:Sometimes you have to bend the rules to seal a case and if it gets a guilty verdict then I am for it . The police very rarely have gone after innocent people cept when they are given bad info which is not always there fault.

This scares the bejesus outta me. There is absolutely NO reason to bend the rules. None.

There have been far too many people sent to prison that were wrongly convicted. DNA has made this abundantly clear. Tell me that is not true.

Here is what I believe. The police get tunnel vision. They believe they have the right person. Then two things happen: 1) they STOP looking for another perp. B) They find ways to make the evidence fit; hide exculpatory evidence; "bend the friggen rules" to get the conviction.

Better one guilty go free than one innocent go to jail.

Lastly we have not put the police in place to be the moral police. They have a very cut and dried job. Follow the rules TO THE LETTER. Then let the system work AS IT WAS DESIGNED.

"Dean what you seem to advocate is that you want the police right to operate, ham strung so you can feel that your rights are protected . Well they have to obey the law , they have to bend it to get into the world of no rules which is crime ."

yeah pretty much.. crazy aint it?

And yes there are many reasons to grumpy if you want to buy drugs you do drugs if you don't they know you are a cop .

Not the same thing Pavolo. Not even close.