Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
(Post 15161762)
Early morning posting, misinterpreted.
|
I can relate. My mind doesn't start firing on all cylinders until about midway into my 2nd coffee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
(Post 15161762)
Well I used to be an officer and when we got our warrants it was to pick up a SUSPECT. A suspect is just that until a court proves otherwise. The so called "rest" is not a formality and every one deserves their day in court and I am sure if you found yourself there you would hope it was more than just a formality.
|
You would be one of the few exceptions to what I said then. Yes, I was once a direct witness to an officer wagging his finger in the face of an accused, and when challenged as to his attitude his reply was that it was good enough for him that the JP signed the warrant, that was all he needed to know that the person was guilty. (yes, a JP, not even a real judge signed that warrant).
So being a former officer yourself surely you're not going to sit there and tell me you never had occasion to know some fellow officers who had a different outlook on "justice" than yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
(Post 15161762)
Umm... How can a contradict myself when I believe in the system working properly and it fails to do so?
|
That in itself is a contradiction, no? But your earlier post pretty much states that you A) think those who "armchair quarterback the system" shouldn't be doing so, and B) that you basically blindly have faith in the system and take the judgements of courts at their word. Yet in the same post you say the system can at times be wrong. You sersiously don't see a conflict there? I do.
I think maybe a little armchair quarterbacking is exactly what any justice system needs. Of course it carries much more weight when it's done by people who at least make an attempt to gather all the facts of whatever case/judgement they are critiqueing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
(Post 15161762)
Any monkey with one brain cell can see how fucked up it is when a higher court of law makes one decision and a lower court disregards that and makes it own. The system contradicted itself not I.
|
Indeed. But that's just one scenario. What about all those cases where someone who definitely without a doubt commited a serious crime yet got off on a technicality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
(Post 15161762)
Ask any truly innocent person who has been drug through the legal system for a crime they did not commit and were finally found innocent. I think they very much want people taking the word of the court without question.
|
In that sense, yes. But in the grand sceme of things how often does that happen? There are other percentages of the greater pie that comprise the guilty who somehow weasel their way out of it or their lawyer finds a loophole or their lawyer gets them off because one of the investigators forgot to glove up or WHATEVER.
All I'm saying is that having 100% blind faith in the system probably isn't the wisest way to think, and there is evidence pointed out in this very thread that backs me up on that. People DID question the outcome of the first OJ trial, and for damn good reason. Now he's going to jail for something else he did since then. In 5 or 8 years or whatever, once he's back out I wonder what other kind of crap he's going to pull on society. Any guess?