Me too. But you must admit that it'd be a lot easier to get rid of 3d if that were the way it was.

Good argument

the american way .

That makes no sense!

It sounds like u expected more?

to some one that has never played with the law , Im sure it doesnt make sense to you , in the american court system your always guilty till you prove yourself innocent , why else would a person have to hire a big time attorney to Defend themselves and proof there not guilty ???? Now BOys be careful here , I have much Knowledge on this subject I have 2 nephews that have tested this fact many times ..

It is sad the stronghold the corrupt, ratings-hungry media have on the opinion of today's society. it's a shame that you are so easily maniuplated as to have the typical opinion of those who are influenced by the media hype. Many people are considered guilty before trial... IN THE MEDIA. The courts go through great, and often time-consuming, measures to assure a just trial where the defendant will be considered innocent by the jury. The jury are the sole judges of the facts which are to be applied and weighted according to the terms of law that the judge gives them. If the DA cannot prove their case, then the defendant is acquited. the burden of proof is upon the AD to prove the defendant guilty, not upon the defendant to prove his innocence.

Thank goodness the media are not the ones who decide the outcomes of trials.

Of course, there are ways to manipulate that system, as no system is perfect. But that's not what we're talking about. You stated that the court systems view defendants as guilty before a fair trial... that simply just is not true.

I am curious to know about your nephews. did they do something wrong and had to hire big expensive attornies in hopes of not getting in trouble, or were they wrongly accused of something?

one was accused of involuntary manslaughter , wrongly for sure as he had air tight alibi , however the DA was up for election , he had some pretty shaky testimony from some less then desirable witnesses , he felt it was a open and shut case , the judge felt it was a open and shut case , the sherriff felt it was open and shut ,, as you say it was up to the courts to decide dont ever think that money and politics dont play a part in things , they shouldnt but they do , my family hired my nephew a attorney that cost $ 25,000. just for a retainer , he set up a ppointment with the DA and in a matter of minutes they were offered a plea bargin to a much lesser charge ,, what does that mean you ask ? the case wasnt nearly as open and shut as they felt , but in the papers , in the court house, on the streets , evrywere you went he had already been tried and found gulity , in a nut shell they went to trial he was aquitted of all charges , now it doesnt work that way evrerywere but there are some not guilty people serving time , if we had let him use a court ordered attorney he would have been in jail for probably no less then 10 yrs for a crime he didnt commit ... But as I said before the american way is to believe the law , the DA, have all the fact to find a person guilty before they arrest him ,therfore the person is guilty . they go to the media with tidbits , so in the publics eye there guilty , I have served on jury duty 2 different times and both times the guy's were guilty without question , however it took days to sit a jury cause to many of us had already made up our minds that they were guilty and after 4 days of people sitting waiting to be picked some would just lie so they could get on the jury , now in Chicago thats probably not a problem cause the population is so large and alot of people dont pay attention to the news but in smaller communities I mean my county has 8000 registered voters we all know everybody and we see and read all the news in the county papers ... it matters alot on the people ... SPend some time in the Cook county court house id bet there are some of the same issues I spoke of ..maybe not .. A large case load here is DUI and the fact is there is a attorney that charges 15000 to represent ya , he has never lost , and in evry case the sherrif and DA have taken and impounded there cars with the intent to sell them as seized cars , again they assume the case is open and shut and once this lawyer walks in things change .. Im not trying to aurgue here Bob its just my experience that tells me its the american way to think a person is guilty until he proves his innocents ..

okay heres homework for ya ,,,proof beyound all doubt the last statement that you made above is true in every case .


let me give ya some cliff notes here , th judge in most case's in the 3 county area that they represent around here graduated 2 yrs behind me in school , he made it clear in the hearing part of this trial that the defendent was guilty , were do you think that was decided at the coffee shop were he and the sherriff and the Da ate breakfast 2 days after the arrest .. it happens allot , sorry to burst your bubble that our legal system is close to perfect but its not , and in the bigger cities like Chicago its even worse cause the court cases are backedup and there isnt the time to prepare , its just easier to find them guilty and move on .. yes they get a trial , but its easier to just plea bargin it down some take the deal just cause there told there gonna lose ..it sucks for those that dont have the funds to hire there own attorneys , to me the biggest joke of all is the court appointed attorneys , if they want to climb the ladder they have to work with the DA in anyway he wishes them to do .. have a great day mate .

Two things:

first of all, my comment doesn't apply to traffic court, because I think that is the biggest exploitation of the court system as we know it and totally believe that money, politics, and time play a big role in the bullshit that happens there.

Secondly, you said your nephew pled to a lesser charge, but then also that he was acquited. Did they decide to go to trial after all? usually when you plea bargain, you have to plead guilty. Also, involuntary manslaughter is usually associated with killing someone by accident when you may or may not have been doing something you shouldn't have been... oftentimes it is related to a driving infraction. Was that the case with your nephew? Just curious.

I see your point about the American way being to think a person is guilty before proven innocent as you say in your last comment... but I still don't think that's the case. it think the American PEOPLE are manipulated by the media into believing what they want you to believe... in all things, not just trials. Look at the OJ trial. that was a media frenzy. the whole world believed he was guilty before the trial even began. there were tons of things "leaked" by the press that wasn't even real evidence. When in fact, there was not sufficient evidence to prove a man guilty that most of the world was convinced had committed the crimes. That situation alone perhaps supports both our opinions. I believe the media influences the American public and rely on my faith in our judical system, and you say that the American way is guilty till proven innocent. I think I'm looking at the American way as the judicial system and you are looking at the American way from the pulic's point of view.

I guess I never thought about how it would work in a small town. A lot of small-town judges don't necessarily have the legal background to instill the importance of the impartiality their job demands. and I'm sure it happens in big cities too, but I would say much less often as the judgeship competition is much stronger.

I used to work in the Chicago court system. I was an impartial party present for many, many depostions, hearings, arbitrations, and trials... both civil and criminal. and I can tell you that of the countless judges, ADAs, and defense attorneys i've worked with, each and every one of them has their own way of doing things... but I can tell you without a doubt that when any one of them applied the facts to the law, it all worked out the way it should have. I can also guarantee you that many of the judges has opinions of the defendants' guilt/innocence. But when it came to making rules of law (ie, ruling on objections, motions, etc.) that those decisions were made according to the law and not their opinions.

Anyway. I've likely rambled on to the point where I've forgotten my point. So i should probably shut up now and stare at boobs.

cheers

Ay Curumba!

Is that the kind of stuff getting sent in pm's now? No wonder all the girls don't want to get pm'd.

I think you got my point , and I got yours as well , so lets move on ..

IM sure thats what comes in your Pm's ... summons and appeals to leave the ladies alone ...

yeah, it's been a while since I've posted a bobaloo-length post. I figured I'd just go for it.

Oh yeah you did... and some!

I don't know what got in to me. It must have been the one 15-minute period a year I was sober.

I really don,t think I,d like to live in the USA, If thats a fair representation of your legal system. You should be innocent until proven guilty, rather like me, innocent as a new born lamb, and pure, as the driven snow.

I just wrote paragraph-lentgh posts explaining that in the US you ARE innocent until proven guilty. At least as far as the law is concerned.

Id like to taste your pureness ...

Damn that's rough... how was it?

Not according to the Prat 3d.

he is right by law you are innocent until proven guilty , my point was you may not be if the people issuing the law are not of the right mind set .. which in the little areas of the country that is the case most of the time .

Longest 15 minutes of my life.

and here we thought it was the 2 minutes with Jrock .

No. that was the longest two minutes of YOUR life.

Poor bastard... have a beer






HEY-OH!!!!!!!!

Way ahead of ya. It is Friday evening for me and I've got about 5 minutes till I'm out of work. (which means I'm on beer No. 6 already... this hour)

It's Saturday AM and Im just easing my way into the day

im only on 5