getting to you in USA - Page 11

quote:

ORIGINAL: honda97valdeez

"Yeu got some 'splaining to do!"
What's with the signature that is so infuriating, or is it the scotch talking again?

 
I think he is referring to this
 
"Criminals thrive upon the intolerence of society's understanding.....and political correctness"
 
lol :P

quote:

ORIGINAL: YeuEmMaiMai

quote:

ORIGINAL: honda97valdeez

"Yeu got some 'splaining to do!"
What's with the signature that is so infuriating, or is it the scotch talking again?

I think he is referring to this

"Criminals thrive upon the intolerence of society's understanding.....and political correctness"

lol :P

No. I was infuriated by your scooter. Only joking, you are right in your assumption.
have a nice day !

What is even worse is when lawyers are also politicians - a hybrid scum-bag, two for the price of one.
Mind, US govt doesn't help with Guantanomo Bay - it just provides fuel for the anti-justice lobby.
Here's another one for you. Tony B. Liar's wife is a lawyer [so is he ]. She went before the Court of Human Rights to argue for the human rights of a convicted paedophile. To have human rights you must first be human surely.

The govt is running scared on holding a referendum of capital punishment because they know what the answer would be from the people. All because the pen-pushers in Brussels are against it. I am rapidly becoming more in tune with your gun laws.

A comedian (can't remember who .... maybe Dave Chappel) had a pretty good idea for gun control.  He says that guns should be readilly available, but they should make the bullets cost like $1000 a piece!  That way there are no innocent bystanders and automatic weapons wouldn't be used for anything just because of the cost.  His skit also went as far as the criminals shooting someone and going to pull the bullet out of them once their dead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falkore24

A comedian (can't remember who .... maybe Dave Chappel) had a pretty good idea for gun control.  He says that guns should be readilly available, but they should make the bullets cost like $1000 a piece!  That way there are no innocent bystanders and automatic weapons wouldn't be used for anything just because of the cost.  His skit also went as far as the criminals shooting someone and going to pull the bullet out of them once their dead.

*ROFL* I think I recall seeing that one....  He makes a good point, if bullets cost that much people would probably stop their spray and pray....

Manufacturers would have to be required by law to sell bullets at that price wholesale, otherwise if it was a tax tacked on at the store or something it would be easy to disregard under the table.

quote:

ORIGINAL: academic

quote:

ORIGINAL: YeuEmMaiMai

my commute is 26 miles each way 3 days one week and 4 the next.

In the summer, I park the car and ride my scooter 90MPG ftw :P

The signature on this post really got me on a big-time rant.
In our news is the case of three drunken, drugged-up yobs who murdered an innocent family man by kicking him to death. His crime ? Trying to stop them vandalising his car. In turned out that the "leader" of this excrement [cant bring myself to say human] had been in court the previous day on an assault charge but was RELEASED on bail and basically told not to do it again. In the UK we have laws coming out of our ar...s but no justice. We have lawyers whose work in Human Rights is devoted to perverting the cause of justice. We have other lawyers in govt. passing laws which have loop-holes that other lawyers can then make a good living off.
Another one of these vile scum is due for release soon [he murdered a teacher] and the govt wanted to deport him to his native Italy. Human rights stepped in on the basis that he
might face persecution there.
Britain is rapidly becoming a lawless society and I think we will soon see vigilantees on our streets. How is it with you ? US govt has asked for a Muslim cleric imprisoned here for terrorist activity to be sent to the States on release. Guess who is fighting on the grounds that his Human Rights would be breached by this. Human ? Not even close.

It is appalling and enraging when an apparently guilty person goes free.  On the other hand, no one will accept the unjust punishment of a truly innocent person.
 
There is no doubt that the power and resources of a State are infinitely greater than that of any individual, gang, or even organized crime establishment within it, so, with all that power in its hands, why can't the State convict and punish the guilty and set free the innocent?  The answer is simple. The "design" and perceived shortcomings (the limitations on that Power) of present-day systems of justice in Canada, Britain and the US have as their foundation the results of previous legal proceedings - "precedent", if you will.
 
If everyone involved in legal proceedings simply told the truth, trials and other legal proceedings would be much  simpler, cheaper and, most importantly, more JUST, for all concerned, but this is not a description of the real world in which will live.  The Accused, under the advice of legal counsel, will say and do what is necessary to be released.  The legal representatives of the State, and their police and investigators, will do what is necessary to obtain the Accused's conviction.  
 
Unless their is a good video, or other unequivocal record, of a crime being committed, history has proven that it is very difficult for any system of justice to come to a truly just outcome.  In the real world, we do not have the TV or movie priviledge of seeing what actually happened at the time of the crime.  (We don't really know if Dirty Harry is telling the truth, or not.)
 
In the end, it is the integrity of every single individual involved in the State's prosecutorial process that has shaped, and will shape in the future, our society's systems of justice.  And it is because some individuals on that side of the "scale of justice" have abused their power, that today's system of justice is what it is.  Those abuses have been so frequent that limitations and rules of conduct have been imposed on individuals who act on behalf of the State - these in order to prevent such abuse in the future. These limitations sometimes impede or prevent a just outcome, but that is the consequence society must accept for the past misdeeds on the part of individuals acting on behalf of, and using the full power of, the State. 
 
Here is a good example with which the British people will be intimately familiar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six
 
I believe the reason that a country might now be reluctant to extradite a "Muslim cleric" to the US for possible prosecution is quite obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony1M

Unless their is a good video, or other unequivocal record, of a crime being committed, history has proven that it is very difficult for any system of justice to come to a truly just outcome.  In the real world, we do not have the TV or movie priviledge of seeing what actually happened at the time of the crime.  (We don't really know if Dirty Harry is telling the truth, or not.)

This is also of course based on whether or not the video is even admissable...  That's always been a pet pieve of mine (I understand why it exists in some cases) but how can you ask a jury to decide someones guilt without all the evidence?  It's like us trying to troubleshoot a car that won't start and not being allowed to know that their's no motor in it because knowledge of the motor was obtained without consent or something like that...

So the question then is.  The laws that protect us from people illegally obtaining information to protect our freedoms are the same ones that prevent a known murderer from going to prison.  Are we as a people willing to give up our right to a private conversation in order to increase conviction rates?

The "Birmingham Six" were not released because they were innocent but because their conviction was "unsafe" . It was because of a procedural error, not an evidential one.
 
Human Rights - there is an appalling two-page spread in my morning paper, written by a very senior and well-respected political commentator. He is covering the primary in South Carolina.
The headlines are " The state where prejudice lives on" - " Can Obama get racist deep south on his side " and there is a photo of a bunch of nutters waving Confederacy flags and offensive slogans.
I want someone to tell me that this is not a true state of affairs in the southern states given that the commentator is British, Jewish, and so has no axe to grind - just an observer.
I would hate this to be true.

I think that there are more blacks in the south then there are a stupid racist white retards and most the people who are proud of the confederate flag dont know half meaning behind waving that flag...... 

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbro

I think that there are more blacks in the south then there are a stupid racist white retards and most the people who are proud of the confederate flag dont know half meaning behind waving that flag...... 

Thanks for that reassurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: academic

The "Birmingham Six" were not released because they were innocent but because their conviction was "unsafe" . It was because of a procedural error, not an evidential one.

Human Rights - there is an appalling two-page spread in my morning paper, written by a very senior and well-respected political commentator. He is covering the primary in South Carolina.
The headlines are " The state where prejudice lives on" - " Can Obama get racist deep south on his side " and there is a photo of a bunch of nutters waving Confederacy flags and offensive slogans.
I want someone to tell me that this is not a true state of affairs in the southern states given that the commentator is British, Jewish, and so has no axe to grind - just an observer.
I would hate this to be true.

The squeeky wheel gets the oil.... there are still people like that in the south but as mentioned there seems to be a lot less of them than there are blacks.  However, many of them are fairly outspoken.  If you haven't seen it yet watch the top gear episode (on youtube) where they go into the back of the woods deep south with offensive slogans written on there car  and that's an example of a small community....

One of the classic episodes ! I especially liked Clarkson in his gay pride motor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: academic

One of the classic episodes ! I especially liked Clarkson in his gay pride motor.

That one and killing the toyota are by far two of my favorites... 

quote:

ORIGINAL: sir_nasty

quote:

ORIGINAL: academic

One of the classic episodes ! I especially liked Clarkson in his gay pride motor.

That one and killing the toyota are by far two of my favorites... 

There is a new channel on digital freeview which is running Top Gear from the last three series every night and every one is a classic. Have you had the "sailing across the channel" one yet ?
I hope not, because you are in for a major treat.

Even worse still, South Carolina is a metropolis of forward thinking when compared to Alabama.