November 11, 201411 yr And there you go giving away trade secrets. At least you didn't say which ones lol. Although anyone with google could find out fairly quickly. Saying the ABCs backwards?
November 11, 201411 yr JW you really should try to make one of our next BGP get togethers. Your opinions are intriguing. Thanks. I appreciate it. I'll let everyone know when I'm in, but admittedly, it usually isn't for very long.
November 11, 201411 yr Saying the ABCs backwards? Is the purpose of that to hopefully catch someone saying, "I couldn't do that sober"? I really see that being more effective than saying someone was drunk because they couldn't do it.
November 11, 201411 yr Is the purpose of that to hopefully catch someone saying' date=' "I couldn't do that sober"? I really see that being more effective than saying someone was drunk because they couldn't do it.[/quote'] I don't know I was just kidding.
November 11, 201411 yr Saying the ABCs backwards? I always struggle with that one. Q-Z is like a maze. Lost some where within my mind. I mean Z-Q. See how easily that got me.
November 11, 201411 yr Is the purpose of that to hopefully catch someone saying, "I couldn't do that sober"? I really see that being more effective than saying someone was drunk because they couldn't do it. Haha no. But I have heard of people saying that a lot. That or, I won a see you do it.
November 11, 201411 yr What percent blame do you put on her and what percent do you put on the deputy? When an officer of the law tells you to do something, you do it.
November 11, 201411 yr When an officer of the law tells you to do something, you do it. So if a officer tells you to jump off a bridge you would do it?
November 11, 201411 yr So about that link? In reference to your 99% comment made earlier..... Go to the link I provided and then do a search for '99'. Wiki under 'grand jury' also lists the compliancy rate at 99 percent, but I provided something more scholarly as the link. I'm surprised anyone familiar with the grand jury system would argue with the rubber-stamp assertion.
November 11, 201411 yr Public interest would have been better served in an open courtroom why or how? The determination of charges in a case of this magnitude needs to be presented in public, not behind closed doors. I know, call me old-fashioned for saying this, but "the people" have a right to know. By the way, I'm not disputing the decision by the grand jury -- just the process. Edited November 11, 201411 yr by Twotoplace
November 11, 201411 yr The determination of charges in a case of this magnitude needs to be presented in public, not behind closed doors. I know, call me old-fashioned for saying this, but "the people" have a right to know. By the way, I'm not disputing the verdict -- just the process. :no: you can't try or convict people based on public opinion. The process your advocating would also drag many innocent people in front of the public and tarnish their reputations, just so the "public" can be "in the know"
November 11, 201411 yr :no: you can't try or convict people based on public opinion. The process your advocating would also drag many innocent people in front of the public and tarnish their reputations, just so the "public" can be "in the know" Public's right to know is far different from trying or convicting someone based on public opinion. The process I'm advocating -- an open "preliminary hearing" -- is standard operating procedure in many states. All the state has to show is that there's probable cause that said crime was committed. The more that justice is administered in open, the less we resemble North Korea.
November 11, 201411 yr Author Public's right to know is far different from trying or convicting someone based on public opinion. The process I'm advocating -- an open "preliminary hearing" -- is standard operating procedure in many states. All the state has to show is that there's probable cause that said crime was committed. The more that justice is administered in open, the less we resemble North Korea. This does not need to be tried in public There are too many ignorant people out there already and too many who have already decided in their minds what the verdict should be without even looking at the facts. You act like this is a reality tv show. So now with the cop haters in here we have been compared to Nazi Germany and now North Korea lol. Yea those are the people I want being judge and jury for this case lol.
November 11, 201411 yr This does not need to be tried in public There are too many ignorant people out there already and too many who have already decided in their minds what the verdict should be without even looking at the facts. So now with the cop haters in here we have been compared to Nazi Germany and now North Korea lol. Yea those are the people I want being judge and jury for this case lol. You're starting to get irrational with your sweeping accusations. Had an indictment been issued, the case most certainly would have been tried in public, because that's what the U.S. Constitution mandates under the 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ..." Private trials are what they do in totalitarian countries, not in the United States of America.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.