Destroying American Jurisprudence.

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2008
126,772
62,578
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Leftist lawyers behave toward their mission very much the way Brutus behaved toward Julius Caesar....
....stabbing it in the back,

Let's prove it.

1. Lutz and Hyneman studied the intellectual influences on the Founders by reviewing some 15,000 items written by delegates to the Constitutional Convention. In these writings, they identified 3,154 references to other sources, as follows: 34% from the Bible, particularly the book of Deuteronomy; 22% from Enlightenment thinkers, especially Montesquieu, Locke, Hume, and Pufendorf; 18% from Whig opposition literature, particularly ‘Cato’s Letters;’ 11% from British common law, particularly Blackstone; and 8% from the classics, most often Plutarch, Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle. [p. 31]
See "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," The American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197




"....11% from British common law, particularly Blackstone..."

2. "Sir William Blackstone
(10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) was an English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century. He is most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England....

....his Commentaries. Designed to provide a complete overview of English law, the four-volume treatise was repeatedly republished in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and in a posthumous edition in 1783. ... Blackstone's work gave the law "at least a veneer of scholarly respectability".[1]

"If the Commentaries had not been written when they were written, I think it very doubtful that [the United States], and other English speaking countries would have so universally adopted the common law."[2] In the United States, the Commentaries influenced Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and remain frequently cited in Supreme Court decisions."
William Blackstone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: these men saw Blackstone as their mentor-Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln,


Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts.
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review




3. And here, the words that we live by, from Blackstone"


"....as judgment of outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding or fleeing from justice, which tacitly confesses the guilt."
William Blackstone, Commentaries 4:373--79



How does a criminal announce his own guilt?
"....absconding or fleeing from justice, which tacitly confesses the guilt."


What would you say about a judge who denied that dictum?
 
Partisanshit is a disease.



I can see where your expertise in the matter comes from.

I, on the other hand, deal only in truth, and supporting facts.



Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, irked in some way, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at feeling the need to respond...but having no ability to.... leaks out as vulgarity.

That is why I never have to do the same.
 
4. Again...

"....as judgment of outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding or fleeing from justice, which tacitly confesses the guilt."
William Blackstone, Commentaries 4:373--79



Running away.....the law is to imply guilt.
Is this clear?
Even to Liberals.....is it clear as the tradition of American jurisprudence?



Our system of law is based English Common Law, and same is explained by William Blackstone.


One is not excused from running away from the law....and, if one does so...it is an admission of guilt.
This is both official, and obvious to one and all.



Next....the abomination inflicted on American society by Liberals known as jurists.
 
5. How does a criminal announce his own guilt?
"....absconding or fleeing from justice, which tacitly confesses the guilt."


What would you say about a judge who denied that dictum?



"Massachusetts Supreme Court Says It’s Perfectly Legitimate for Black Men to Flee Police
... the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has unanimously concluded that a black man fleeing from a police officer investigating criminal activity is indicative of—nothing at all.

.... in a unanimous opinion issued on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts gave implicit approval for black men to run when the police ask to speak to them.

The court stated:
The finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity." Massachusetts Court Says It’s OK for Black Men to Flee Police


WHAT??????


This is the sort of society you endorse when you vote Democrat.
 
6."[Ms.]Clinton laid the blame on “systemic racism” and “implicit bias” and called for more community policing.

[Let's see if this has the same relationship with truth that her career as a congenital liar has revealed:]



The facts in Commonwealth v. Jimmy Warren are pretty straightforward. ... in the Roxbury section of Boston (a high-crime area), a teenager entered his bedroom and saw a black male wearing a “red hoodie” jumping out the window. ...he saw two more black men, one in a “black hoodie” and the other in dark clothes, running away.

The victim relayed the information to Officer Luis Anjos, who drove around the neighborhood for approximately 15 minutes looking for anyone who matched the victim’s admittedly vague description.



Because it was a cold night, Anjos did not encounter any pedestrians until he came upon Jimmy Warren and another black male. Both were wearing dark clothing, and one of them was wearing a hoodie.

Anjos decided to conduct a “field interrogation observation” (FIO), police jargon for a consensual encounter in which the officer asks someone what they are up to, and the person remains free to leave at any time.



... one of the two men—Warren—ran back into the park. The officer observed Warren clutching the right side of his pants (consistent with carrying a gun in his pocket) as he ignored repeated requests to stop.

... after a struggle, arrested Warren. The officers found a gun near where Warren was apprehended, and he was subsequently charged and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.



[Police believed they had ] “reasonable suspicion”—the applicable legal standard under the Fourth Amendment to justify an investigatory stop...

....the court acknowledged, “a combination of factors that are each innocent of themselves may, when taken together, amount to the requisite reasonable belief that a person has, is, or will commit a particular crime.”
Ibid.




Any problem with the apprehension so far?
 
7. Now....that 'reasonable suspicion' ...any of it sound like William Blackstone's description of guilty behavior?


"Based on those facts alone, the officers would not have reasonable suspicion to tie Warren to the crime. Warren would have been well within his rights to tell the officer that he didn’t want to speak to him and to walk away.
Yet that is not what Warren did.

Instead, Warren made eye contact with the officer and then hightailed it out of there, grabbing for his right pants pocket in the process. Would that be enough to justify an investigatory stop?

Not according to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which stated, “Where a suspect is under no obligation to respond to a police officer’s inquiry, we are of the view that flight to avoid that contact should be given little, if any, weight as a factor probative of reasonable suspicion.”


[No one but a Liberal could convince himself of such absurdity!!!]




So what is a police officer to do when he wants to ask someone a question, and the person simply runs away?
Well, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, if the person doing the running is African-American and the officer does not have solid evidence tying that person to a crime, the answer is:
nothing."
Ibid.



Such is the epitaph for America at the hands of Brutus.....the Liberals.
 
8. "....as judgment of outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding or fleeing from justice, which tacitly confesses the guilt."
William Blackstone, Commentaries 4:373--79





9. "As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court in Allen v. United States stated that “the law is entirely well settled that the flight of the accused is competent evidence against him as having a tendency to establish his guilt.”


The natural and eminently reasonable reaction of police officers, indeed of most people, is that unprovoked flight by an individual who encounters a police officer strongly suggests that the fleeing individual is connected to criminal activity that has been or is about to be committed.


At the very least, the inferences that can be drawn from such flight should be enough to establish reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop." Massachusetts Court Says It’s OK for Black Men to Flee Police

Yet....not clear enough as to be 'reasonable suspicion' to a bunch of Liberals in black robes.




How many cities, communities, and innocent individuals are Liberals/Democrats willing to sacrifice in order to win elections???

Answer: every single one of 'em.
 
And so, according to these Liberal judges, black Americans have the special right of fleeing, disobeying, ignoring the lawful orders of the police.


10. There are several things to be learned from this story.


a. Liberals hate America and it's laws that judge individuals, not groups

b. The desire to make judgments that run counter to the promises these 'jurists' made upon entered their field, reveals either dishonesty, or a mental disability.

c. Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent.
Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention.

d. Without the votes of black Americans, Democrats would never win another national election.
In the words of a sage of our times...
"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
 
Amazing how the Massachusetts Supreme Court could get it so wrong....
...but....that's Liberals for ya'!



And, this observation which reinforces the view that Liberal control of the legal system ends any view that it is about justice....

How is it that a bridge closing in 2013 is still a hot subject for the media...

...but Hillary's damage to national security, the obliterated emails....
....is largely forgotten???


"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter
 
."[Ms.]Clinton laid the blame on “systemic racism”


One hates to ask for any evidence from a Liberal, as they are so unaccustomed to this request...
“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant*; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”[ Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's reason enough to investigate. Not Nature of Evidence, Seriousness of the Charge - The Rush Limbaugh Show]



...but....show me any law that is designed to be racist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top