|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 21:11:31 GMT -5
fact is lead poisoning attacks the brain, the closer to the source the more likely the damage, fact is the boy was involved in a crime one way or another and say he was the victim but that bullet was used in murders that the cops can't prove unless they look at it and have it as evidence, are you telling me its his right to refuse to turn over such evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 21:17:54 GMT -5
I am telling you that it is the right of ANY citizen to refuse medical intervention for whatever reason, ever. I hate rapists, with a fiery passion, but I do not even agree with rape victims being *forced* to give DNA evidence in rape trials. I absolutely do not believe you should be allowed to get INVASIVE in garnering evidence. Ever. No matter HOW frustrating that might be to law officers.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 21:26:15 GMT -5
are you telling me its his right to refuse to turn over such evidence? Yuppers. Its called the right not to self incriminate.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 21:33:03 GMT -5
I am telling you that it is the right of ANY citizen to refuse medical intervention for whatever reason, ever. I hate rapists, with a fiery passion, but I do not even agree with rape victims being *forced* to give DNA evidence in rape trials. I absolutely do not believe you should be allowed to get INVASIVE in garnering evidence. Ever. No matter HOW frustrating that might be to law officers. so other wise you are in favor of criminal rights, you are saying that because the man doesn't want a simple proceedure done that he has the right to because the bullet might implicate him in a crime, allow this to happen and then you'll have people refusing to allow search warrants to be carried out becasue they will be found guilty. its the same concept. plent of serial rapists get away for years because the victim doesn't want to take things into their own hands. take that terri hatcher woman, her uncle molested her for years and instead of giving the police the evidence they needed she felt pity for herself and he went on to rape other women, the lack of cooperation with police these days is sickening yet when a crime happens its people like you that go and say well the cops should have done more to prevent it. what happens if this boy kills a person tomorrow because he didn't turn evidence over or comply with a warrant. what will you say then besides well it was his right to refuse to hand over the bullet.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 21:34:06 GMT -5
are you telling me its his right to refuse to turn over such evidence? Yuppers. Its called the right not to self incriminate. thats the 5th admendment and it only applys to testimony in a court of law, it does not apply to turning over evidence that has a valid warrant issued by the courts for its collection
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 21:35:24 GMT -5
what will you say then besides well it was his right to refuse to hand over the bullet. I'm not Chevy but I would say it would be a tragedy and I hope the prosecutors could prove it without getting evidence in a manner I think is illegal. I would rather one murderer get off than all of us loos another piece of our rights.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 21:36:25 GMT -5
Yuppers. Its called the right not to self incriminate. thats the 5th admendment and it only applys to testimony in a court of law, it does not apply to turning over evidence that has a valid warrant issued by the courts for its collection You're right. I meant unreasonable search and seizure. Forcing surgery, minor or otherwise is IMO unreasonable search and seizure. Sooner or later a court will deside whether this is unreasonable. Until I hear otherwise I will think its wrong to force someone to undergo surgery on suspicion of wrong doing.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 21:36:43 GMT -5
what will you say then besides well it was his right to refuse to hand over the bullet. I'm not Chevy but I would say it would be a tragedy and I hope the prosecutors could prove it without getting evidence in a manner I think is illegal. I would rather one murderer get off than all of us loos another piece of our rights. and what do you tell the family of the victim
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 21:39:06 GMT -5
I'm not Chevy but I would say it would be a tragedy and I hope the prosecutors could prove it without getting evidence in a manner I think is illegal. I would rather one murderer get off than all of us loos another piece of our rights. and what do you tell the family of the victim Sorry but I won't buy into the emotional arguement on this. The protection from unreasonable search and seizure applies to everyone and needs to be protected from overzealous prosecutors in order to keep that protection there for us all.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 21:41:39 GMT -5
and what do you tell the family of the victim Sorry but I won't buy into the emotional arguement on this. The protection from unreasonable search and seizure applies to everyone and needs to be protected from overzealous prosecutors in order to keep that protection there for us all. supreme court cases have ruled that unreasonable means without warrant and without cause, not because a person says no or wants to hide evidence. fact is they have probable cause linking him to the sight and the evidence is therfore legally obtainable.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 21:43:22 GMT -5
That they are victims of a tragedy. IMO, giving victims 'closure' is not justification for removing rights from ALL of us csu. Or do you just not 'get' that these are not CONVICTED criminals, and even if they were they are still HUMAN BEINGS with the *absolute right* to dictate what happens to their bodies, for Pete's sake??!
There are all kinds of unfortunate things that go wrong, and criminals 'get away' with it. What do you tell the victims of a criminal who is freed on a legal technicality of any sort? You give them this cold comfort: yes, it was awful what happened to you. But, I for one would not trade this for living in a police state where even my own body is not safe from intrusion by law officials. And that follows even if myself or a family member were victims of some crime. There are a *lot* of people who think the 5th Amendment is BS too, but I disagree.
The family of the victim is already suffering. Is it tragic tht they don't get to extract their pound of flesh from the perp? Yes, maybe so but two wrongs do not make a right.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 21:44:13 GMT -5
supreme court cases have ruled that unreasonable means without warrant and without cause, not because a person says no or wants to hide evidence. fact is they have probable cause linking him to the sight and the evidence is therfore legally obtainable. I don't know if the Supremes have ever ruled on whether a person can be forced to have surgery to get that evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 21:48:23 GMT -5
The evidence SHOULD NOT be 'legally obtainable,' and what we are arguing about is whether or not it should be. It is clear you disagree, so let it go. You will not get me, and I suspect you will not get Mrs. P, to agree that law officials should have the RIGHT to force ANY citizen into surgery, for any reason. I understand your zeal to get the bad guy. But I also understand that one of the unfortunate realities of living in a free society is that sometimes people will use those freedoms to defend themselves from the proper consequences of their actions. Is that right, or fair? No, but the consequences of what you are suggesting here are, IMO and I suspect that of Mrs. P, FAR WORSE than the occasional criminal 'getting away with it.' And I strongly suspect you are simply not *allowing* yourself to consider those possibilities because it would invalidate your argument if you did. But that is JMO.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Dec 21, 2006 22:02:49 GMT -5
That pretty much says it all, for me. If you don't agree, fine. Patients *do* have rights.
As far as that is concerned, good grief there is enough circumstantial evidence to put him away anyway. I don't believe for a moment that he was not involved, and I doubt they could find a jury who would either. The bullet is really not necessary, it is just the police wanting a slam dunk. Well, sorry, the cost is just to dayum high.
Not to mention, this whole thing is really moot. He can already be put in jail for his complicity in the first crime, his confession is enough to put him in custody. And at THAT point, he can no longer refuse the surgery; the state can insist for health reasons and as a prisoner he cannot refuse. It is not that they *cannot* get the bullet; it is just that they will have to go through these steps to retrieve it. I for one am not *about* to make it easier on them because I am not AT ALL concerned about whether Bush is inconvenienced. I am far more concerned about how such powers could be misused in the FUTURE.
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 21, 2006 23:40:37 GMT -5
The evidence SHOULD NOT be 'legally obtainable,' and what we are arguing about is whether or not it should be. It is clear you disagree, so let it go. You will not get me, and I suspect you will not get Mrs. P, to agree that law officials should have the RIGHT to force ANY citizen into surgery, for any reason. I understand your zeal to get the bad guy. But I also understand that one of the unfortunate realities of living in a free society is that sometimes people will use those freedoms to defend themselves from the proper consequences of their actions. Is that right, or fair? No, but the consequences of what you are suggesting here are, IMO and I suspect that of Mrs. P, FAR WORSE than the occasional criminal 'getting away with it.' And I strongly suspect you are simply not *allowing* yourself to consider those possibilities because it would invalidate your argument if you did. But that is JMO. aww, does that mean we have to agree to disagree?
|
|