|
thehandtruck posted:Ok I'll play. I'm a little confused. I'm not trying to further a derail, but are you trying to say that only rich people have their cases/convictions dismissed because of mechanisms such as Brady Violations (/others you listed)? I hope you're being hyperbolic, because that is absolutely not true.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm a little confused. I'm not trying to further a derail, but are you trying to say that only rich people have their cases/convictions dismissed because of mechanisms such as Brady Violations (/others you listed)? I hope you're being hyperbolic, because that is absolutely not true. I'm a little bit confused by this, too. A lot of folks are asserting that Cosby got off because "he's rich" but it seems like the circumstances of his release aren't dependent on that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm a little confused. I'm not trying to further a derail, but are you trying to say that only rich people have their cases/convictions dismissed because of mechanisms such as Brady Violations (/others you listed)? I hope you're being hyperbolic, because that is absolutely not true. It might as well be true because your right to counsel is theoretical at best if you can't afford your own representation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm a little bit confused by this, too. A lot of folks are asserting that Cosby got off because "he's rich" but it seems like the circumstances of his release aren't dependent on that? Do you have sources?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:It might as well be true because your right to counsel is theoretical at best if you can't afford your own representation. I mean, it definitely makes it an uneven playing field, which is obviously something that needs to be changed. But pretending like only rich people have their charges/convictions dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct is baffling. For an easy example of someone who, as far as I can tell, is not rich: https://www.oklahoman.com/article/5559050/a-former-oklahoma-death-row-inmate-accepts-settlement-in-32-million-lawsuit quote:The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned their convictions in 2009 after concluding the prosecutor, Brad Miller, had committed misconduct. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jul 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I mean, it definitely makes it an uneven playing field, which is obviously something that needs to be changed. But pretending like only rich people have their charges/convictions dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct is baffling. For an easy example of someone who, as far as I can tell, is not rich: https://www.oklahoman.com/article/5559050/a-former-oklahoma-death-row-inmate-accepts-settlement-in-32-million-lawsuit Your example is a man who spent 16 years of his life in prison. Cosby spent 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Your example is a man who spent 16 years of his life in prison. Cosby spent 3. I'm not comparing it to Cosby. I'm addressing the claim of thehandtruck posted:We should ignore prosecutorial misconduct in this case because Prosecutorial Misconduct, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Brady Violations, Cumulative Error, Your Legal Rights, and the ten thousand other legal mechanisms are not real. They don't exist until the rich need a loophole to get out of jail and continue raping or killing people. There is no reason they should be respected or protected like you've alluded to. Every one of these mechanisms and "rights" (lol) only seem make themselves known when the rich people are in the room. Which is a baffling claim to me. Which is why I was asking about clarification regarding it if they were being hyperbolic or actually thought this is 100% true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No one is saying this either You have lost me vs thehandtruck posted:Ok I'll play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm not comparing it to Cosby. I'm addressing the claim of Why did you crop out the part of my post that answers your question
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:Why did you crop out the part of my post that answers your question E: I had left it in my original reply to you. But nevermind, you had answered it and I responded poorly(/rhetorically) to it. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Aside from asking who the system is for it's worth asking who the decision is for. The atrocious Cosby decision doesn't make a lot of legal sense, and as a bonus: (A) The system has been engineered so you can't do anything about it to anyone involved in the decision as a consequence, even though there are ostensibly elections (B) The decision is designed to have no impact on anyone else, even those who can wield celebrity and enormous amounts of money in their defense. I end up going back to the amount of people who had their pockets lined with Cosby money for decades and held him up as a pillar of the community. As seen with Phylicia Rashad, these people still exist and they haven't been convinced otherwise, and if you rode Cosby's coattails for any part of the way you did very well. It also helped Cosby that his racial politics could be summed up as "less complaining, be more like whitey."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Why did I get probated for saying that people were defending the court's decision to release Cosby itt? I was going to just ignore it, but now there's (at least) one mod joining in and saying or possibly slyly implying that releasing Cosby was the right thing to do because it protects other defendants' rights somehow. So what gives? Can I get an apology at least? E: Herstory Begins Now posted:You have lost me vs Yeah what that guy said (which was after my comment anyway) is not the same as what you're accusing people of saying He's saying the system is a sham and the rights don't exist now, they're just alluded to whenever cops or wealthy men face no consequences for crimes. Do you really think that guy is saying the perfect justice system would have no rights for anyone and would just idk railroad everyone. Is that really what you think people believe? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why did I get probated for saying that people were defending the court's decision to release Cosby itt? I was going to just ignore it, but now there's (at least) one mod joining in and saying or possibly slyly implying that releasing Cosby was the right thing to do because it protects other defendants' rights somehow. So what gives? Maybe you need to make a thread in QCS about it rather than having a slapfight with the mods here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
This is the same conversation that happens every time a cop murders someone on camera and the prosecutor uses "prosecutorial discretion" to not charge them, or the state fucks something up "somehow" and the judge goes "gosh welp he's free to go then". When people object at how hosed this is, how the system is obviously biased and untrustworthy, how the system uses any uncrossed t as an excuse to let cops off, etc, they're accused of wanting to get rid of prosecutorial discretion, wanting to get rid of the rights of defendants, wanting to convict cops with mob justice etc. It's just assumed that the system worked perfectly to protect defendant rights with no bias, and anyone who disagrees is labeled as being against the rights of defendants. Equality before the law is a central component of a fair and just system. If "defendant rights" only appear when the defendant is a cop or is wealthy (the only class harder to convict than cops), then what you have isn't a system that protects defendants' rights, you have a system that protects classes of people, only instead of making this explicit like in Ancient Babylon, we use facially neutral language, but then don't actually apply the rights to poor people. They only get applied to rich people, or (like imo what is happening here) the courts use motivated reasoning to claim a rich person's rights were violated and then (like imo what is happening here) apply a grossly disproportional 'remedy' for that alleged violation: not just excluding the supposedly tainted testimony, but barring prosecution altogether (with the very interesting argument that Cosby is too rich and famous and gross to be put on trial). Speaking of, I wonder what would happen if a woman accused Cosby of raping her today? It seems the same notoriety argument would apply: every single American will be prejudiced against him because he admitted drugging tons of women, so I guess he can't be prosecuted for anything, like the real life version of that movie Double Jeopardy which misunderstood the concept of double jeopardy? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Maybe you need to make a thread in QCS about it rather than having a slapfight with the mods here? yeah I guess you're right, it was annoying to get a probe message like "explaining the decision isn't defending it" only for a mod to jump in and start explicitly defending the decision as a victory for defendants' rights. Since I don't feel like taking a days old probe to QCS, I withdraw the question, keep on moddin mods VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah what that guy said (which was after my comment anyway) is not the same as what you're accusing people of saying People are responding to this comment, Ytlaya posted:IMO reasoning like "better to let 10 guilty men free than one innocent to jail" shouldn't apply to people with significant wealth and/or power. It's a reasoning (correctly) meant to protect those without power from powerful people/institutions, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to the wealthy/powerful. which is absolutely referring to due process rights afforded to defendants, which are, as ytlaya correctly notes, specifically intended to protect the powerless (probably even earnestly, since we both know how unlikely it is that the rich or powerful even end up in court rooms at all). Even with a deeply cynical view of the american legal system many, many cases are thrown out on grounds of police or prosecutorial misconduct and there's no constitutional way as far as any one posting here is aware to limit a right to specifically the poor or powerless or marginalized. Which sucks, as does nearly everything involving the american legal system. defending the rights of defendants has nothing to do whatsoever with justifying the release of cosby E: also while I do not claim to know the solution, I suspect that going after the ways prosecutors are allowed to make deals and the manner in which those deals are approved and are specifically binding is the way you prevent poo poo like the cosby or epstein deals. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:yeah I guess you're right, it was annoying to get a probe message like "explaining the decision isn't defending it" only for a mod to jump in and start explicitly defending the decision as a victory for defendants' rights. It was a pretty good example of how power systems are biased to protect certain people, provide a chilling effect to dissuade others from speaking up; even in the microcosm of Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:People are responding to this comment, I guess Ytlaya can comment on that but I don't read it the way you are. They seem to be talking about the reasoning defending the decision, not about whether rich people should have the same right of due process as poor people in an ideal justice system. "Yes we let Cosby go even though he is guilty, but that means less innocent people going to prison" is reasoning we're using to feel better about what happened but it obviously isn't true. Nobody really believes innocent people will be saved because Cosby's expensive lawyers were able to convince the arbiters of a system inherently biased for the wealthy that the conviction shouldn't stand. There's no possible way an innocent person or a poor person will ever be in this situation. I mean by definition, an innocent person could never use Cosby's argument, because an innocent person would never need to admit to doing a bunch of crimes in a civil case in order to avoid hurting their case even more by taking the fifth and getting that construed against them. But of course I don't buy that Cosby was a victim of misconduct in the first place either. Herstory Begins Now posted:defending the rights of defendants has nothing to do whatsoever with justifying the release of Cosby I don't understand. Do you think the court's decision to release Cosby was unjustified (because I agree!), because it doesn't sound like that's your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:yeah I guess you're right, it was annoying to get a probe message like "explaining the decision isn't defending it" only for a mod to jump in and start explicitly defending the decision as a victory for defendants' rights. This is an entirely made up reading of my post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is an entirely made up reading of my post. I wasn't referring to your post. Herstory Begins Now posted:E: also while I do not claim to know the solution, I suspect that going after the ways prosecutors are allowed to make deals and the manner in which those deals are approved and are specifically binding is the way you prevent poo poo like the cosby or epstein deals. Seems unlikely, what consequences did the DA who made the "deal" face? If they put that DA in jail for making an illegal guarantee then I'd agree we're "going after the way prosecutors are allowed to make deals and the manner in which those deals are approved", but since we aren't where's the consequences? Is the DA who lead the impeachment defense for credibly accused rapist Donald Trump really going to be sad that another rich dude got away with rape? Because I can look for the quote but I'm pretty sure he came out and said how happy he is with the supreme court's ruling. What stops the next DA from making an illegal friendly deal with the next Epstein? What, the next Epstein goes free too which is probably what the DA wanted all along anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
So this is interesting. The DA (Castor) claims that he offered not to prosecute Cosby in order to help his accuser on her civil trial. The victim and her lawyers released a statement saying they were not informed or consulted about any deal. https://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/2021/06/STATEMENT-BY-ANDREA-CONSTAND.pdf Also according to the Guardian Castor has a history of disregarding and thwarting victims' interests And it's not even new reporting even back in 2016 people were like "uhhhh what the hell, is this guy protecting predators" quote:In April he recommended against appealing the dismissal of charges against former Penn State leaders accused of covering up Sandusky’s sex abuse scandal. The case promised not only to hold the state’s largest university, based in State College, to account over the scandal but also to reveal, perhaps definitively, what Sandusky’s legendary late boss, Joe Paterno, . But the case, which has , is now on the verge of collapse. also holy poo poo wow quote:Meanwhile, Castor is now being sued by Constand for allegedly attacking her credibility in statements to the media about her case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
More on the former DA defaming the woman Cosby raped https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/arts/television/victim-of-cosby-sexual-assault-settles-suit-with-former-prosecutor.html quote:Ms. Constand sued Mr. Castor three years ago, arguing that comments he made to explain his decision not to prosecute Mr. Cosby had hurt her reputation by depicting her as a liar. ... quote:Ms. Constand’s defamation lawsuit referred to comments that Mr. Castor made later, in 2015, after a number of other women had come forward to accuse Mr. Cosby of drugging and sexual assaulting them. Mr. Castor was asked then about his decision not to prosecute and he offered answers that Ms. Constand said suggested she had been inconsistent in describing the assault and had provided a more detailed account in the Cosby civil suit. "She says he raped her but come on she's no angel, she could be lying...oh wait poo poo dozens more women corroborated her story? Um uh well it's her own fault I didn't believe her. Obviously"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:And then what? What's your remedy beyond "the rules should be bent the other way now"? If you explicitly impose less favorable standards to the people most able to dismantle the system, you will not get to keep that system for very long. So what's your solution to that problem? I was making the point that the ethical justification for "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't make sense when applied to the wealthy/powerful. Obviously it's true that people with wealth/power will not be okay with anything that is disadvantageous for them, but that's just the natural result of their existence as a class that is hostile towards normal people. As long as they exist, there's no solution to things like this happening (because they will always be able to leverage their wealth into political power). I disagree with the "it's important to protect defendant rights even when it's a rich person like Cosby" rationale because I think that people who fall into that class are not part of the population warranting protection. Because they are the ones who created in the first place the circumstances where a poor person will be convicted while a rich person can get free, I don't think it makes sense to give them the same consideration when making ethical arguments about how the legal system should function (which is basically what people are arguing about in this thread - whether the ruling and reasoning behind it in the Cosby case are reasonable/good). VitalSigns posted:I guess Ytlaya can comment on that but I don't read it the way you are. They seem to be talking about the reasoning defending the decision, not about whether rich people should have the same right of due process as poor people in an ideal justice system. I am sort of saying that rich people shouldn't have the same right, though in the sense of "rich people shouldn't exist in the first place" (rather than "the law should be written in a way that eliminates due process for them," which is basically an impossible situation to arise, since there would never be a society where rich people exist without holding the political power that lets them influence the legal system). So basically an ethical judgement, since it's impossible to mold our current society into something that uses these standards. I think that it's best to endorse repercussions for people like Cosby regardless of how they come about. The poor will always be treated poorly by our legal system - it's inherent to our society. So there's no real risk of "endorsing bending/breaking the rules to punish a rich person" somehow having consequences for non-rich people, since the system is already strongly biased against them. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 08:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I was making the point that the ethical justification for "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't make sense when applied to the wealthy/powerful. I can just see it now, defense lawyers trying to prove their client was worth less than some arbitrary wealth limit that lets the state just toss "those people" in jail. Plus if you're tossing out presumption of innocence, just dispense with right to counsel too, and habeas corpus and self-incrimination, while you're at it. Much speedier Very ethical indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Very ethical indeed. not everybody can be as ethical as beau biden was when he let that dupont heir walk after he raped his own four year old daughter
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 10:42
|
|
|
-Deleted message I didn't need to make-
Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I can just see it now, defense lawyers trying to prove their client was worth less than some arbitrary wealth limit that lets the state just toss "those people" in jail. Seriously though this scenario already exists. It's just the opposite where the defense argues their client is worth more often literally than their accusers. Edit: Tbh its not only defense attorneys doing this. Prosecution also makes spirited arguments for why poor people simply deserve to be treated harshly and the entirety of the justice system from parking tickets to capital offenses is based around poor people being worthless. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 10:53
|
|
|
Mm now I'm remembering those states (like mine!) with laws that the only damages allowed in wrongful death suits are lost wages. So killing a poor kid is practically free because according to the law they're worth almost zero but killing a highly paid executive now that's gonna cost you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I wasn't referring to your post. Idk what you're responding to but it doesn't appear to be anything I wrote?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Idk what you're responding to but it doesn't appear to be anything I wrote? I was basically agreeing that we need to be going after these illegal deals, just making the point that this verdict isn't actually doing that in any way. Because that's how this is being portrayed in the press at least, as a rebuke to the prosecutor who did something bad and now he doesn't get his man. Even though like, the prosecutor who made the illegal deal seems like he's mostly cool with prominent abusers getting a slap on the wrist. And mb I guess Ytlaya was kinda saying the courts should ignore due process for rich people as long as they exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 12:19
|
|
|
They are saying as long as rich people exist the system will be stacked for them because they have the power to influence things at many levels to make the system that way. Often they can bypass the system entirely. If we have a system based on good ideals but for some reason only rich people are capable of getting justice from it (often the results they specifically want) then how much do the ideals the system claims to uphold matter? Its good to have ideals but at some point you have to acknowledge the process is so broken that its laughable to expect justice for certain classes (this goes both ways), races or sexes on average... they can correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:They are saying as long as rich people exist the system will be stacked for them because they have the power to influence things at many levels to make the system that way. Often they can bypass the system entirely. If we have a system based on good ideals but for some reason only rich people are capable of getting justice from it (often the results they specifically want) then how much do the ideals the system claims to uphold matter? You're wrong, because you're making the same mistake most humans make where as soon as a probabilistic event crosses a certain threshold in their head they just round it up to 1. The system favors the rich because they have the resources to press their rights to the maximal extent possible while the poor often are deprived of the ability to press their rights to more than a minimal level. This doesn't mean "only the rich have rights"; it's not a binary state. Far more poor people are protected by these rights than rich people ever are, if only because poor people are about 1000x more likely to be hosed with by the system. Go spend like 5 minutes working with a public defender and then come back and tell us that none of these things matter. The absurd reduction to a binary state is just a lazy rationalization to excuse the harm done by "burning it all down", because screaming "burn it all down" is a lot more cathartic than acknowledging it's a loving mess without any easy answers. Reading the decision this seems like a pretty blatant violation of the fifth amendment and the ruling is extremely beneficial to poor defendants because of the specific ways it frames the issue. Basically the PA supreme court just made it unconstitutional in their jurisdiction for prosecutors to play gently caress-gently caress games with plea agreements to trick defendants into giving up their rights. Without this being about noted rapist shithead Bill Cosby the facts of the case can be characterized as such: DA colludes with defense attorney to convince defendant that they have no 5th amendment rights because they are immune from prosecution, DA then secures conviction based on the coerced testimony (DA here referring to the office). It's of note that the court was 5-1 on this part of the decision with the sole dissent being a cop-friendly GOP judge. The remedy of enforcing the "agreement" is a bit more questionable, and I don't think I agree with it at all. If anything it seems really loving lazy as the arguement basically amounts to "you can't unring that bell". But you can unring that bell, and evidentiary hearings on what evidence was fruit of that coerced deposition is the court's loving job. That said, with the deposition excluded and god knows how much evidence that was gathered only because of the deposition likely to be thrown out, I really don't think the end result would have changed. In the end I'm not entirely sure which is the greater net good: making Cosby spend a good chunk of his remaining years and money dragging this through the courts, or the stronger precedent which particularly protects poor defendants ("gently caress off you cannot re-try this after these shenanigans" is far more beneficial to the poor because they don't have the resources to easily go back and individually fight every piece of potentially tainted evidence the way a rich person could). To summarize: part one of this ruling is really good for the cause of criminal justice reform, and it's unfortunate that it benefits noted fuckhead rapist Bill Cosby. Part two of the ruling is really loving questionable and lazy, but arguably doesn't really change where we end up when you look at the facts of the case, just how long it takes to get there. edit: VitalSigns posted:I was basically agreeing that we need to be going after these illegal deals, just making the point that this verdict isn't actually doing that in any way. Because that's how this is being portrayed in the press at least, as a rebuke to the prosecutor who did something bad and now he doesn't get his man. Even though like, the prosecutor who made the illegal deal seems like he's mostly cool with prominent abusers getting a slap on the wrist. It's really abundantly clear from reading your posts that you haven't even made an attempt to read or understand the ruling, and you're simply arguing with what you imagine it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
This seems like a good time to remember what Bill Cosby thinks the justice system should be like for poor peopleBill Cosby posted:Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged: “The cops shouldn’t have shot him.” What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else. And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if you get caught with it you’re going to embarrass your mother.” Not, “You’re going to get your butt kicked.” No. “You’re going to embarrass your mother.” “You’re going to embarrass your family.” Cops shooting kids in the back of the head if they might have stolen a pound cake
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And mb I guess Ytlaya was kinda saying the courts should ignore due process for rich people as long as they exist. Frankly, if they ignore due process for "rich people", why on earth would anyone think they'll give any such consideration to poor people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Frankly, if they ignore due process for "rich people", why on earth would anyone think they'll give any such consideration to poor people? lol *edit* sorry some effort, this is a post for the ages, truly
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Frankly, if they ignore due process for "rich people", why on earth would anyone think they'll give any such consideration to poor people? I think the point being argued is "the justice system is bad for the poor and not for the rich. Ergo let's aknowledge this and treat it as it is rather than how it should be." You could also say that the later sentence translates to "let's make it bad for both" but that's up to other folks to argue over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Frankly, if they ignore due process for "rich people", why on earth would anyone think they'll give any such consideration to poor people? Are you talking about the courts because I have bad news
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
we've had poor people executed after it turned out prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. can we stop pretending that a prosecutor lying about immunity would be grounds for freeing a poor person like it supposedly was for cosby?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we've had poor people executed after it turned out prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. Exactly. Landmark case this, precedent case that. It's nonsense. Cases like this get to the supreme court all the time, the people "win", and cops/lawyers/judges break the rule anyway. Cops routinely illegally search a car during a stop and enter homes illegally. It only matters that the search was illegal in court if the defendant has enough money. Stop saying this case would help poor people, it won't. Cops don't know/care about the rules and lawyers don't either. The reprimands are toothless for both of those groups; for judges too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
there are two legal systems is apparently a reality that is not shared by a lot of posters in d&d, which well, lol vOv
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:55
|
|