The Office of the President deserves RESPECT!!! Except, y'know, not NOW that Obama is in....
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 13:24
VIEWED: 13349
PAGE 22 of 22
Sure, OJ's a crook, and guilty.
But OJ never swore to uphold the law, and the folks crapping all over it in their usual, common, everyday MO, they did.
Don't bullshit me, the only difference between the OJ case and any other courtroom case in america is that for once they caught and called out the perjuring, testilying, evidence planting/manufacturing sumbitches of the blue suited mafia.
I am still firmly of the opinion that not only should police officers be held to every single nitpick of every single law we suffer under, specifically including those relating to weapons use and possession, but that any violation thereof should result in an immediate sentence of TRIPLE what a civvie would get, and additional charges for violation of the sworn oath to uphold and obey the law.
It's always sorely pissed me off that when the folks we hire to enforce the law crap all over it, they get off so much easier than those who never took that oath ?
It's bullshit, and factually they're a fuckin mafia, is what it is.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
Quote:
I was simply asking our resident "lawyer"
Oh, Hero's okay. He might need to bone up on his law :)
Quote:
I do find it somewhat funny to compare what "everybody knows" to what happens in court. You'd think it would be easy to convict someone of something everybody knows they did. Seems it's not quite that easy...
Because of the concept of "permissible evidence." What we got to see was a lot more damning than what the jury got to see. Of course, to be selected for this case, you have to have never heard of OJ Simpson, which probably puts you in the oblivious to Earth category, along with people who think the moon is never visible during the day.
Quote:
As for OJ's current plight, if I remember correctly he was sentenced to around 12 years for his latest escapades - hardly a life sentence.
You could be right, I read it was going to be 25-30, but I didn't google it, or catch the follow up story. Avg life expectancy in prison is about 10, but he's not an average guy, even at his age, he can take care of himself.
Quote:
Among the things "everybody knows":
Bill Ayers was a terrorist. The operative word being "was". Oddly, he was never convicted, either - again because the prosecution overshot and fucked its case all to hell in their zeal to nail him.
Or, the key word being terrorist. I don't have too much of an issue with this, I think he has no real connection with Obama, and I don't have that much of an issue with terrorists, as long as their targets follow some sort of logic. If someone has malicious intent, and someone fights them, even if the law is on one side: Take the indians who are attacking loggers in the amazon. They've moved from blowdarts to heavy weaponry, and now lawyers. I'd say, sure, bombing the loggers is terrorist, and completely contrary to brazilian law, but yes, I have no problem with these guys. Ayers, I don't have a serious issue with him.
Now, you take something like the janjaweed, jundallah, RUF, these guys, f&*k 'em. deal out as much justice as you have bullets. That's a fair trial ;)
IOW, When your targets are schools and hospitals, you're just inhuman.
Quote:
Bill Clinton is a psychopath. Never proven, widely accepted.
You should read larry craig's case on this. I think it's pretty damn near proof. That plus his sabotage of the patriot act renewal was enough to make both parties want to destroy him. Strangely, he's still a senator, largely because arlen spector vouched for him.
Quote:
OJ did it.
ya, ok. had me worried there.
Quote:
Nixon was a crook. Never convicted, "pre-pardoned" for any crimes he "may have committed", yet still a crook.
sure. he had redeeming qualities. One thing that bothered me was that what he was really in trouble for was for breaking international law by crossing into cambodia to try to take out pol pot. He was absolutely morally right in doing so, however illegal it was. pol pot, without us to deal with, would later kill 1.5-3.0 million people.
Quote:
George W. Bush, liar, torturer, probable war criminal.
No argument here
Quote:
Curious, eh? All guilty as hell, or so it seems. Everybody knows it, yet no one seems able to get a conviction against any of them.
Legal system doesn't work. What else is new?
Here's one for you: The concept of the jury of 12 men was originally 12 men for every 144 in the town where the crime took place. The peasants wanted a public trial, and the king (england, don't remember which, but I could look it up) wanted the way things had always been: what he said went. So, he advisors proposed this compromise, telling the kind that surely 1 man in 12 could be found to support the king's position, whatever it might be, even the worst of cases.
So, the system was corrupt by design. Shortening that to just a simple 12 men made it absurd. A friend of mine was in a jury a couple years back, in just a minute of rant, she destroyed the american judicial system for me. She said, it was like a high sch
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree with that last sentence for two reasons.
One, considering how many innocent folk are in jail, and how much brutality goes on there, I will NEVER support even the concept no matter what kind of monster someone is.
Two, prison isn't rehabilitative, it can't be without a complete overhaul of the system, and as such, given that it's punitive in nature by removing them from society - they should have no human contact whatsoever outside of the minimum required to conduct business, or keep them from mental deterioration, so that when they do finish their term and get out, they will VALUE the company of others.
Also, as an aside - I take a formally sworn Oath very damned seriously, call me a throwback if you like, but the seriousness with which we take such things give it power and credibility.
But there's more to that then I will explain here.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
DT: I'm no OJ defender; I was simply asking our resident "lawyer" a few germane questions about a court case. Seems he's ever on the side of the law and what can and can't be proved in court, EXCEPT when it doesn't go his way.
I was asking if OJ was convicted of murder, or if a racist cop so tainted the case that everything else was suspect as well as his testimony.
I was always on OJ's side. I wanted them to have to prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I followed the case very closely and I tried it myself in moot court on two seperate occaisons, both as Defense counsel.
My legal opinion is that the testimony of Mark Fuhrman was a minor issue. The timeline and lack of evidence was the biggest hurdle and the Judge's failure to control the trial was the biggest failure.
He still did it...he was guilty.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME