I knew there was a problem with the criminal justice system long before all this happened

[Blackrook]

defenders won't help you. They are overworked and not very motivated.

A private attorney will help you, but only the wealthy can afford to pay.

Bzzzt! Wrong! If you have money, the cops are after your money, no matter what. Public defenders and private defense attorneys are all cops, just as much as the district attorneys, because as lawyers they always consider themselves "officers of the law" and "criminal justice participants" entitled to the same protection from defendants as prosecutors, victims, and hostile witnesses.

No. None of that is true.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Many people who are not guilty take a plea.

A plea is an admission of guilt. Why would you admit guilt if you're not guilty?

If it meant the difference between doing 3-5 and doing 25 to life?
Yeah, damn near everyone would take that deal.

It's a rigged game and all but the most naïve know it.

You can't be convicted without evidence. Prosecutors will make a case, you defend your case, the judge will decide.

The only time it makes sense to take a plea if is there is evidence to convict you.

The system isn't perfect ... sometimes it convicts an innocent. Much more often it lets a guilty man walk free.

But, there isn't an imperfect system that involved humans.

And a cop lying is considered evidence.

The judge will hear the police evidence, and he will hear your evidence. Which one is more believable to the judge is totally up to you.

A statement by a police officer is automatically presumed to be true even if the officer is lying though his teeth. Versus a statement by a person whom the system already views as a likely criminal.

 

[Blackrook]

Many people who are not guilty take a plea.

A plea is an admission of guilt. Why would you admit guilt if you're not guilty?

If it meant the difference between doing 3-5 and doing 25 to life?
Yeah, damn near everyone would take that deal.

It's a rigged game and all but the most naïve know it.

You can't be convicted without evidence. Prosecutors will make a case, you defend your case, the judge will decide.

The only time it makes sense to take a plea if is there is evidence to convict you.

The system isn't perfect ... sometimes it convicts an innocent. Much more often it lets a guilty man walk free.

But, there isn't an imperfect system that involved humans.

And a cop lying is considered evidence.

The judge will hear the police evidence, and he will hear your evidence. Which one is more believable to the judge is totally up to you.

A statement by a police officer is automatically presumed to be true even if the officer is lying though his teeth. Versus a statement by a person whom the system already views as a likely criminal.

No, that's not true either.

 

[freyasman]

I'm no danger to society

But, you have said that you are willing to hurt people whom you perceive have threatened you in some way.

Now, no one assumes that you really mean this. We recognize it as Internet bluster. For truly intimidating people don't feel obligate to pronounce how intimidating they are to others.

But, for the sake of argument, if you were the kind of person who did such things, that would make you a danger to society. Being willing as you would be a law unto yourself.

Societies create elected bodies of lawmakers who make the laws. They empower police with enforcing those laws and create judges to determine guilt and set a punishment appropriate to those offenses. Those are the rules by which society exists.

I guess we can all rest assured that you aren't as threatening as you claim to be.

No it doesn't make me a danger, and you know it.
And I am not "threatening" at all, I am just unwilling to tolerate being threatened. Why do you believe I, or anyone else should tolerate that?
I am very good at assessing threats realistically, and me being here still is proof of that.



You're either a cop, or an ex-cop. And like most cops I've met, you simply don't believe any use of force is legitimate if it isn't state-sanctioned; you want to have a monopoly on violence.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I asked why I was pulled over, and when he admitted I had broke no law and committed no violation, asked why I was being rousted?

Actually, in most states, police don't require any probable cause to pull you over. It's called 'implied consent' which simply states, by virtue of driving on a public road, you consent to being stopped and your vehicle inspected for safety. In some states, you can even be breathalyzed without probable cause.

Implied Consent Laws exist in over 30 different states.

Right......
Because the Constitutions says NOTHING about "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES"

Typical I'm God cop attitude.

Here's the thing. Cops don't write laws. If your state has implied consent laws, and most do, you need to take that up with your elected legislator, not the police.

The legislator has granted that power to police in the name of public good.

Police reform is long overdue.
They are Public SERVANTS, not judge, jury and executioner.

We need police, but we need Police to dial it back a bit.
And we need Judges to stop being soft on criminals

 

[freyasman]

I asked why I was pulled over, and when he admitted I had broke no law and committed no violation, asked why I was being rousted?

Actually, in most states, police don't require any probable cause to pull you over. It's called 'implied consent' which simply states, by virtue of driving on a public road, you consent to being stopped and your vehicle inspected for safety. In some states, you can even be breathalyzed without probable cause.

Implied Consent Laws exist in over 30 different states.

Right......
Because the Constitutions says NOTHING about "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES"

Typical I'm God cop attitude.

Here's the thing. Cops don't write laws. If your state has implied consent laws, and most do, you need to take that up with your elected legislator, not the police.

The legislator has granted that power to police in the name of public good.

I'm aware of that.
But just because you have the power to do something, doesn't always mean you should be doing it.

 

[fncceo]

Many people who are not guilty take a plea.

A plea is an admission of guilt. Why would you admit guilt if you're not guilty?

If it meant the difference between doing 3-5 and doing 25 to life?
Yeah, damn near everyone would take that deal.

It's a rigged game and all but the most naïve know it.

You can't be convicted without evidence. Prosecutors will make a case, you defend your case, the judge will decide.

The only time it makes sense to take a plea if is there is evidence to convict you.

The system isn't perfect ... sometimes it convicts an innocent. Much more often it lets a guilty man walk free.

But, there isn't an imperfect system that involved humans.

And a cop lying is considered evidence.

The judge will hear the police evidence, and he will hear your evidence. Which one is more believable to the judge is totally up to you.

A statement by a police officer is automatically presumed to be true even if the officer is lying though his teeth. Versus a statement by a person whom the system already views as a likely criminal.

Actually both statement have equal validity in the eyes of the court, with the following exception..

... The officer is presumed to have nothing to gain by making a false statement, while the defendant's liberty depends on his statement. The defendant literally has skin in the game, while the officer profits in no way from the defendant's conviction.

That won't prevent a defense attorney for attacking details about a police officer's statement on the stand. Time, date, weather, clothing, right hand, left hand, if any detail of the officer's statement is factually incorrect, the entire statement can (and will) be attacked.

It's the job of the defense attorney to attack the veracity of any prosecution witness, including police testimony.

Calling police evidence into disrepute is the most common way of achieving a not guilty verdict.

 

[fncceo]

you simply don't believe any use of force is legitimate if it isn't state-sanctioned

Actually, that's the law in every corner of the civilized world.

Even self-defense laws are written into legislation. If you exercise self-defense outside of legislation, you could very well find your way into the docket along with the person against whom you're defending yourself.

 

[freyasman]

you simply don't believe any use of force is legitimate if it isn't state-sanctioned

Actually, that's the law in every corner of the civilized world.

Even self-defense laws are written into legislation. If you exercise self-defense outside of legislation, you could very well find your way into the docket along with the person against whom you're defending yourself.

I'm aware of that too.
It's why I study the laws, and the politics, biases, and attitudes of the local prosecutors. It's why when I do a class or a consultation I recommend people do the same and learn about how self-defense claims are treated by the local law, from the patrol cop up to the prosecutors and judges, and tailor their behavior to account for those factors.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I leave people alone and I don't hurt anyone that I don't have good cause to.

Oh boy, if I had a nickel...

... I am curious about something. What do you consider 'good cause' to hurt someone?

If they make a credible threat to me or mine, or if they actually try to hurt me or mine.

Or if I'm being paid to.

What occupation pays people or more specifically you, to "hurt" others?

 

[freyasman]

you simply don't believe any use of force is legitimate if it isn't state-sanctioned

Actually, that's the law in every corner of the civilized world.

Even self-defense laws are written into legislation. If you exercise self-defense outside of legislation, you could very well find your way into the docket along with the person against whom you're defending yourself.

BTW, if it's outside the parameters of the law, it's not "self-defense"; self-defense is a legal term.
If you're outside the bounds, it ain't self-defense, it's something else.

 

[freyasman]

I leave people alone and I don't hurt anyone that I don't have good cause to.

Oh boy, if I had a nickel...

... I am curious about something. What do you consider 'good cause' to hurt someone?

If they make a credible threat to me or mine, or if they actually try to hurt me or mine.

Or if I'm being paid to.

What occupation pays people or more specifically you, to "hurt" others?

Relax, I don't do that anymore.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Cops don't know the law, and sometimes they create law out of their head and try to convince you that this made-up law is real.

And then the Supreme Court goes and rules that even when the cops are relying on a law that doesn't exist, their traffic stops are still legal. Tell me how this makes sense.

"On Monday [2014], the Supreme Court ruled that police stops are legal when the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that a law is being broken—even if that law doesn't exist."​

When Cops Don't Know the Law​

 

[justinacolmena]

Police reform is long overdue.
They are Public SERVANTS, not judge, jury and executioner.

King Chedorlaomer, the Mayor of Sodom, was a SERVANT of the laying down of the law. I don't like the direction this police "reform" is going: obedience to city hall, codes of omertà and door-opening hat-tipping "respect" for women.

We need police, but we need Police to dial it back a bit.
And we need Judges to stop being soft on criminals

Well, well, well, if it isn't city hall with all the usual technicians making connections in the boiler room, and you want the cops themselves to shut up and be quiet about La Cosa Nostra — the "thing" of a certain criminal in-group as commonly expressed in Italian street slang.

The cops and prosecutors need to stop pimping and procuring, and promoting and compelling prostitution, drug dependency, and other vices.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nobody has ever done it more than once, I'll say that.

I can't imagine why you would ever have problems with police.
View attachment 369786

He got away from the orderlies?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Prosecutors and police have too much power in the criminal justice system. If they charge you with a crime, it doesn't matter if you're guilty, you have to take the plea bargain to avoid the expense of trial and the possibility of a long prison sentence.

Public defenders won't help you. They are overworked and not very motivated.

A private attorney will help you, but only the wealthy can afford to pay.

of course it matters if youre guilty,,,

and if you arent guilty your stupid for taking a plea,,,

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[fncceo]

King Chedorlaomer, the Mayor of Sodom

I want THAT job!

 

[Jarlaxle]

You can't be convicted without evidence. Prosecutors will make a case, you defend your case, the judge will decide.

The only time it makes sense to take a plea if is there is evidence to convict you.

The system isn't perfect ... sometimes it convicts an innocent. Much more often it lets a guilty man walk free.

But, there isn't an imperfect system that involved humans.

This is the biggest pile of shit ever posted on this forum. If they have no evidence, police and prosecutors will often simply make it up. Or just rely on the fact that most people will, when told they're facing the possibility of 50 years in prison if they go to trial, but only 8 months if they plead guilty, take the deal.

 

[justinacolmena]

the fact that most people will, when told they're facing the possibility of 50 years in prison if they go to trial, but only 8 months if they plead guilty, take the deal.

Technically, that's an illegal "inducement" for the defendant to plead guilty, and judges allow it because actual jury trials just clog up the collective bargaining system.

But the threats of additional punishment for pleading not guilty and demanding a jury trial are far too serious, and far too real for a defendant to ignore.

Juries are carefully stacked and biased in favor of the prosecution in any particular case, and judges become furious at defendants for throwing a monkey wrench into the collective bargaining machine to demand a jury trial, and eager to mete out any additional extra punishments they can to defendants who are not willing to be pled guilty pursuant to the public defender's pre-arranged collective bargaining plea agreement in exchange for reduced charges or a reduced sentence.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I leave people alone and I don't hurt anyone that I don't have good cause to.

Oh boy, if I had a nickel...

... I am curious about something. What do you consider 'good cause' to hurt someone?

If they make a credible threat to me or mine, or if they actually try to hurt me or mine.

Or if I'm being paid to.

What occupation pays people or more specifically you, to "hurt" others?

Relax, I don't do that anymore.

This has nothing to do with relaxation, I'm just trying to ascertain what occupation allows you to "hurt" people because my experiences indicate that intentionally hurting people - physically, emotionally, financially, psychologically, etc. as well as in some cases merely threatening to hurt them is illegal.

So the only conclusion I can draw if you aren't willing to state a legitimate occupation is that you were taking money to engage in criminal acts of violence against persons which is unlawful according to everything I know. I realize I don't know everything and am curious as to whether this occured somewhere where it wouldn't be considered a crime.