Woman drowns puppy in airport bathroom after being told she can?t bring it onto plane
 

Authorities: Woman drowns puppy in airport bathroom after being told she can’t bring it onto plane | FOX31 Denver

... hummm.... FLORIDA woman....:warning ( must be in the water ) .

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...2303657582.jpg

I hope she gets the max amount of time in prison. What a cunt.

Two things comes into my mind:

1. So fucking sad.

2. US legal systems sucks and hard.

What exactly does this story have to do with the US legal system?

For starters publishing mug shot and name, even before preliminary hearing. For pros: term "suspected" was used. US legal system and press culture seems to have hard times understanding that people are not quilty until and if they have been judged so by court.

The practice in US makes it a lot harder to continue your life if you are judged as not quilty. And the assumption can't be that you are quilty, as that is not the starting point in working legal systems, no matter how obvious someone's quiltiness might seem or be.

But it is factually true that the person is "suspected". The police suspect her of committing a crime. There is nothing false about that.

It is a good thing arrested people are public information. I do not want to government arresting and charging people in secret. Too much potential for government abuse.

But that's more of an issue with the media, not the legal system. Unfortunately, we have become an indignation and outrage for entertainment society, and there is no shortage of media to provide us with our daily fix.

dogs are property. if she bought something to just put it to death is that illegal?

That part was in the "pros".

There is a tad difference doing things in secret and making it as public spectacle. Court hearings are usually public at least around here, but it is a whole different story to give mug shots and names for circulation. If the journalists are so interested, they can participate to hearing.

The mug shot (with name) didn't get into circulation by itself, unless it has legs.

Also, I said for starters. Other issues:

- common law (sucks)
- making deals in court (sucks)
- having amateur jury to decide suspect being quilty or not (sucks)

Then you have a problem with the media, not the US Legal system. And furthermore, the media has a 1st Amendment right to report truthful news. People may be interested in court hearing across the nation. No one can personally attend all court hearings. The public then has a right to listen to the reports or tune elsewhere.

Shit, this sucks COCK!

[/quote]

None of those things has happened in this case yet.

-She was arrested for violating a statute, not common law.
-No deal has been reached yet, it any.
-And no jury has been assigned her case, if there ever will be one. And even so, she can request a judge to decide her case instead if she wants

How about the rights of the suspect? And I don't think that US gives everything to reporters anyways (it doesn't).

What rights of the suspect have been violated here?

Common law is your legal system as a whole. :)

Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I said that your legal system sucks (as a whole). Let's not get so fixed into this case.

You should have stopped there

Sorry, I forgot that US is still one of the few countries that hasn't that much civil rights. For starters it is the only country that hasn't ratified childrens rights (by UN). Somalia approved that lately, and now there is just one country left. Take a hint from that.

But in another countries: the privacy, and the right not to be branded as criminal (before sentence).

so sick and sad

The media did not "brand" the arrested women a criminal. If that is what you interpreted from the news story, then you should re-evaluate the way you interpret news stories.

Why do yo have a problem with the common law? Can you name a 1st world rule-of-law country, that does not use any common law? Even mostly civil law countries use some sort of common law as well, which is stated in the wiki linkyou posted.

56?

Damn!

She is obviously a mental case.

.

Having mug shot and a name does the job. It doesn't take that much to brand someone.

we don't want this sickness

Common law is a fucking mess, that does the opposite it is intended to do. It is unpredictable and unjust.

I don't know what you mean about "any common law". For example my country (Finland) hasn't any common law that would bind. We have previous examples, those are somewhat used especially by lower courts, but there is not anything binding (to be exact: loosely binding). You can pretty much read the law and expect to be judged based on that. That is a good thing. It is predictable and regular citizen can read and understand the law and knows what to expect.

It is totally different than the system you have. That why it is called as "civil law". If you use Wikipedia, it is in Scandinavian subgroup.

Civil law (legal system) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is true, I hope that fucking bitch rots in prison.

The jury system itself does not suck and is one of the most fair systems ever thought of.

What sucks is when crafty prosecutors get the judge to pass on fucked up rules for the jury to decide on. They have to follow the rules, it's often not as simple as guilty/not guilty. But that is not the fault of the jury itself.

In the United States, criminal law does not use the common law system...it uses statutory law. So even here anyone "can pretty much read the law and expect to be judged based on that."

What third world country are you a resident of?

wtf is wrong with people :(

Statutory law? You mean written? Based on short glimpse on Wikipedia and on your TV-series, it ain't civil law, it is common law.

Proudly from the Somalia. We have ratified childrends rights, you ain't.

Statutory law means the legislature specifically writes the laws. Thus, the citizens can read the law and decide for themselves how to act in accordance with the law.

I think that the jury system per se is quite fucked up, especially when it consists just amateurs. For example in my country there is kinda jury, that has 1-2 professional judges and 2 amateur judges (attending to several cases per year). It is much better than having bunch of ignorant hillbillys stuffed into same room, and in worst case they are happy to sentence someone as quilty, just to get home.

There are written laws in common law too, it doesn't meant that there ain't written laws. You haven't still got the concept.

If common law is written, then the "citizens can read the law and decide for themselves how to act in accordance with the law."

Whats the problem?

What the fuck is she doing with a TWO week old puppy in the first place?

In common law the law per se is written; the common part is that how you apply it (based on previous sentences). And when you have a shit load of previous sentences, it gets worse every year (as you have even more sentences), and it loses its purpose; that is to make things predictable. And you need a lawyer, as you can't know the previous sentences just reading the law.

In civil law countries, the lawyers importance is much, much less. In US it seems that the outcome relies much on the skills of your lawyer. Is that fair? It's not; it is fucking unjust system.

Why would that necessarily make it unpredictable? The law is written, and the judge's application of the law is also written, so any citizen can "pretty much read the law and expect to be judged based on that."

In the US lawyers pass a minimum test of qualifications.

In your country, people have to depend a lot more on judges (government employees) . I'd rather I get to choose who represents me in court versus being forced to rely on the government to represent me in court.

No, you can't read just the law to determine the outcome; as you need to read the previous sentences too. And there are shitload of previous sentences. And your lawer's job is to find some loophole from some previous case, so that you can have your jail free card. Maybe a tad extrapolated, but that is how it goes.

We have lawyers too, the judge ain't represent you. :)

But the system where the representation affects heavily to the outcome, is biased, and thus fucked up system. You are supposed to be judged based what you did or didn't do, not based on how good your lawyer is; that defeats the purpose of laws. Don't have a government at all if you don't want it.

Are you a caricature??? hahahha

Not true, in the US a person can read the law, and determine the outcome. For example, here is the current law regarding cocaine possession in California:
California Cocaine Laws - FindLaw

As you can see, anyone can read that law and determine what their punishment might be if they violate that law.

I didn't say i do not want a government. I said I would rather intrust my fate on someone I choose versus intrusting my fate on the government.

You watch too much TV. The law in the US is pretty even. You kind of know where you are going to end up based on the accusation.

No, as you have common law; thus you cannot determine the outcome just based on the law. You will have some frame within you are punished; but the actual outcome cannot be seen from the law.