Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 18:06:46 GMT -5
If the guy has a bullet in his head, a crime has been committed and the police have every right to investigate it...that bullet is evidence, period. Why would this punk or his attorney object to it unless he was guilty of the robbery? There is a distinct, however remote chance that it got there some other way, Grumps. A pissed off friend could have shot him or he may have botched a suicide. Isn't that what it's all about? Giving the accused the benefit of the doubt? Peace, OHD Remote is right. And do you know how large a 9mm slug is? Do you really think it should stay stuck on his forehead? That idea is ridiculous in itself. It will be removed eventually, would you prefer it be done after the statute of limitations runs out and an attempted murderer go free? Not me, I say get the slug and test it, to do less is a travesty.
|
|
|
Post by OldHippieDude on Dec 21, 2006 18:17:25 GMT -5
There is a distinct, however remote chance that it got there some other way, Grumps. A pissed off friend could have shot him or he may have botched a suicide. Isn't that what it's all about? Giving the accused the benefit of the doubt? Peace, OHD Remote is right. And do you know how large a 9mm slug is? Do you really think it should stay stuck on his forehead? That idea is ridiculous in itself. It will be removed eventually, would you prefer it be done after the statute of limitations runs out and an attempted murderer go free? Not me, I say get the slug and test it, to do less is a travesty. Well, I don't agree with you but you are 'chillin' like a villain' about it. You must be drinking a lot more. You used to be much more difficult to get along with. ;D Peace, OHD
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 18:30:08 GMT -5
Remote is right. And do you know how large a 9mm slug is? Do you really think it should stay stuck on his forehead? That idea is ridiculous in itself. It will be removed eventually, would you prefer it be done after the statute of limitations runs out and an attempted murderer go free? Not me, I say get the slug and test it, to do less is a travesty. Well, I don't agree with you but you are 'chillin' like a villain' about it. You must be drinking a lot more. You used to be much more difficult to get along with. ;D Peace, OHD Hey, it's the holidays. I'll work on the "difficult" though.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 19:09:29 GMT -5
i say tough luck cut i out of him, either he was the victim of a crime or the criminal commiting the crime, either way take it out.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 19:13:27 GMT -5
Grumpy, I *cannot* agree that we should be allowed to force someone into a surgical procedure in order to gain evidence. OK, if that is the ONLY way they can prove the case, then it is pretty weak to begin with. If that means that a criminal goes free, that is regrettable, but IMO the dangers of too much forced intrusion into a citizen's life becoming acceptable outweighs that danger. It is no different, to be honest, than a criminal taking the Fifth; it may not be satisfactory for the police when this happens but it is one of those things that makes the difference between us and a police state. Personally, although it means that the occasional bad guy goes free, I would prefer that to making sure we got the bad guys... at the risk of good guys being subjected to bad policy, or to such an overwhelmingly intrusive procedure. You take this position as if it were incontrovertible, the guy is guilty and he is withholding evidence. What if YOUR son were the person involved? What if the bullet got there during a botched game of Russian roulette, or an ill-advised suicide attempt he did not want to share with you? How would you feel, if the police were allowed to *force* him to a surgical procedure he did not want, and he died from the procedure... only to discover that the bullet was not involved in any crime? Would you feel that a "Woops, sorry about that" would be enough on the part of the police? You see, if we make it OK to do this to THIS guy, it opens the door for other abuses. THAT is why we do not want to see it done; not because this *particular* guy is not guilty, but because allowing it FOR HIM makes it OK for other cases not so clear cut... and where do we draw the line at what constitutes a 'reasonable' search and seizure, if our cops are allowed to force us to SURGERY for God's sake?
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 19:15:12 GMT -5
fact is the boy lied about his injury when asked about it only later to say he got shot. obviously he didn't want the cops to find out something
|
|
|
Post by britcaptain on Dec 21, 2006 19:18:43 GMT -5
Next time he walks into the Police station, have a really powerful MRI set up in there. Bullet is coming out if it's not too deep.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 19:21:46 GMT -5
That STILL does not excuse forcing someone into surgery to garner 'evidence.' Sorry csu but that is just WAY too much police power, and too intrusive. No matter if he lied or not. The question is *NOT* whether or not this particular person is innocent or guilty. The question is whether or not our police have a RIGHT to force us into surgery to collect evidence. Period. And I say no way absolutely no no no.
I realize that the police are frustrated, and I realize that they probably *could* make their case if they could get at that bullet, which adds to the frustration. But, police frustration is not grounds to start allowing them to carve up citizens on suspicion of being involved in a crime, sorry. Police get stymied all the time on crucial evidence, yes it is frustrating but that still does not excuse this. No. Absolutely not!
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 19:25:12 GMT -5
its not major surjury, if it was life threatening then yeah thats one thing, its just under his skin. whats the big deal, the police already have probably cause to get a warrant for it to be removed. i doubt the boy is innocent based on his actions alone so whats the big deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 19:40:22 GMT -5
Grumpy, I *cannot* agree that we should be allowed to force someone into a surgical procedure in order to gain evidence. OK, if that is the ONLY way they can prove the case, then it is pretty weak to begin with. If that means that a criminal goes free, that is regrettable, but IMO the dangers of too much forced intrusion into a citizen's life becoming acceptable outweighs that danger. It is no different, to be honest, than a criminal taking the Fifth; it may not be satisfactory for the police when this happens but it is one of those things that makes the difference between us and a police state. Personally, although it means that the occasional bad guy goes free, I would prefer that to making sure we got the bad guys... at the risk of good guys being subjected to bad policy, or to such an overwhelmingly intrusive procedure. You take this position as if it were incontrovertible, the guy is guilty and he is withholding evidence. What if YOUR son were the person involved? What if the bullet got there during a botched game of Russian roulette, or an ill-advised suicide attempt he did not want to share with you? How would you feel, if the police were allowed to *force* him to a surgical procedure he did not want, and he died from the procedure... only to discover that the bullet was not involved in any crime? Would you feel that a "Woops, sorry about that" would be enough on the part of the police? You see, if we make it OK to do this to THIS guy, it opens the door for other abuses. THAT is why we do not want to see it done; not because this *particular* guy is not guilty, but because allowing it FOR HIM makes it OK for other cases not so clear cut... and where do we draw the line at what constitutes a 'reasonable' search and seizure, if our cops are allowed to force us to SURGERY for God's sake? There is no way in hell I would allow my son to walk around/go through life with a slug protruding from his forehead...that idea is totally asinine. It is NOT an unnecessary surgery, it is asinine not to remove the slug. If he were innocent I'm sure he would gladly have it removed....get real.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 19:50:13 GMT -5
its not major surjury, if it was life threatening then yeah thats one thing, its just under his skin. whats the big deal, the police already have probably cause to get a warrant for it to be removed. i doubt the boy is innocent based on his actions alone so whats the big deal. HERE is 'the big deal': AGAIN, you are *assuming* he is guilty, so apparently you seem to feel this makes it OK for them to force him to a surgery he does not want. Scummy criminal does not have the right to get away with this, just because he doesn't want to submit to surgery... BUT IF THEY CAN GET A WARRANT TO PERFORM SURGERY ON *HIM*, who is INNOCENT "UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY," remember, whether you or the cops *think* he is guilty or not is not the issue.. the ISSUE is, if they can do it to him: THEY CAN DO IT TO YOU. OR TO ME. It does not MATTER if it is 'just a *little* surgery. You are STILL talking about CUTTING SOMEONE OPEN on a surgical table! And where do we draw the line, csu??! If it is 'just a *little* surgery' in the gut? 'Just a *little* surgery on the face? What about people who do not want to be disfigured with a surgical scar, csu? THEY ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty, remember. Or does that not matter??!! Jeeminy Christmas Cripes, it make me wonder just what the heck you think 'freedom' is about...!!! Do you really *want* to live in a police state? Would that be better than the *risk* that the occasional bad guy might get away? Then move to some nice police state country. The rest of us prefer that the cop's not be allowed carte blanche to start FORCING us onto a surgical table when they get frustrated for the lack of tangible evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 19:54:21 GMT -5
There is no way in hell I would allow my son to walk around/go through life with a slug protruding from his forehead...that idea is totally asinine. It is NOT an unnecessary surgery, it is asinine not to remove the slug. If he were innocent I'm sure he would gladly have it removed....get real. I am *very* real here, Grumps. Again, you seem to feel that his presumed guilt makes this OK. Again, you seem to 'overlook,' IMO the concept that we are ALL innocent until PROVEN guilty; and that this is a VERY dangerous concept, to allow police to get warrants to FORCE people to be subjected to medical procedures to retrieve evidence. That is VERY real, Grumps. I am a lot less afraid of the criminals than I am of the cops, in a situation like that. You are free to disagree, but I am really sick and tired of this idea that human rights only belong to special people who are convinced of their own goodness, and that they should be suspended when there is a suspicion that a person is 'bad.' I still believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So sue me.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 20:30:19 GMT -5
have you ever seen the effects of long term lead poisoning? thats what this boy will have if it isn't removed. thats all it is is a lead slug, face it, either way it needs to come out.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 20:44:49 GMT -5
have you ever seen the effects of long term lead poisoning? thats what this boy will have if it isn't removed. thats all it is is a lead slug, face it, either way it needs to come out. Ah,, but its his choice to leave it in there and deal with whatever health consequences that may bring along with it. As I said earlier and Chevy has been saying, presumption of innocence must rule and unreasonable search and seizure rule must apply to protect everyone's rights. I do not want to hand the gubbermint the first step to being abole to search my body in any way they want to. Nor should anyone who values the rights we have under our Constitution. The police/prosecutor may think the man is guilty but they need to prove that using legal means.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 21:01:48 GMT -5
People have lived for years with bullets in them, with no ill effects.
|
|