How long was DSK under arrest?Originally Posted by Loki
And you see her full name wasn't published and her pictures where censored:
http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zue...reundin-130229
How long was DSK under arrest?
And you see her full name wasn't published and her pictures where censored:
http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zue...reundin-130229
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Ugh, this again? Which part of "he was prosecuted because he shot them in the back as they were fleeing his property" gives people so much trouble?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Yeah, Draco, how come this is "self defense" in your eyes when the robbers are fleeing?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You guys are forgetting the "Boom! You're dead!" guy who is AWESOME and an American hero.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Hell yeah! I'm pretty sure I posted the story on that one on this forum (or Atari not sure which). It was pretty awesome.
Wow reading that wiki made me pretty pissed. The parole judge thought he was a danger to others? Only a danger to people trying to break into his home. And the worth of thieves in society is a sum total of zero. Glad I don't live in such a horrible country where judges care more about the lives of career criminals then those who defend themselves.
It is almost as if retards are so in love with the narrative of "nanny big gov'ment prosecutes man for defending himself", and so desperate to find a real example that they'll twist the facts of superficially similar stories and ignore the fact that (for example) Tony Martin's actions had nothing to do with self-defense and everything to do with with trying to kill a pair of criminals for having the temerity to break into his home after he had suffered numerous break ins before.
If you're in flavor of people being allowed to do that (which you obviously are, since you've cheered someone who chased a shoplifter out of the shop and for several blocks before killing them) why don't you just come out and say that instead of ludicrously trying to characterize these actions as "self-defense" when any idiot who reads the story can plainly see that the criminals were killed well after any physical danger to the victim had passed? At least then we might get to hear from our more liberal members why you shouldn't be allowed to do just that.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Unfortunately that's how it is in places like the UK, Australia, and other supposedly 'free' countries. I really hope the US doesn't end up like the UK.
Actually here's another crazy story from my own city:
SourceA MAN charged over the stabbing of a teenager at Fortitude Valley train station walked free from court nine days ago, after pleading guilty to an identical attack on Roma Street station. The 26-year-old from Brighton on Brisbane’s northside was sentenced to six months jail for stabbing a 34-year-old at Roma Street station but was allowed to go free because he had already served 156 days in pre-sentence custody.
Fortunately, the 18 year old survived, and more details of his ordeal can be read here
Seems that the justice system here only works to protect criminals.James spent four hours in surgery as doctors worked to repair the wound to his upper abdomen, pancreas and liver – while his stunned parents waited anxiously outside.
"The thought he could (die) was like a hole I was going to fall into," said Mrs de Vries.
James underwent further blood transfusions and more surgery the next morning, and another operation on Monday. He has received more than 5.5 litres of blood and 4.75 litres of plasma – and though stable, he is not out of the woods yet.
"He is being fed intravenously because his pancreas and stomach are not able to digest food. He is suffering almost constant nausea," Mrs de Vries said. "It will probably be weeks before he can come home."
More from the freest country in the world: warrentless GPS tracking.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=142133182High Court Troubled By Warrantless GPS Tracking
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court invoked visions of an all-seeing Big Brother and satellites watching us from above. Then things got personal Tuesday when the justices were told police could slap GPS devices on their cars and track their movements, without asking a judge for advance approval.
The occasion for all the talk about intrusive police actions was a hearing in a case about whether the police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. The outcome could have implications for other high-tech surveillance methods as well.
The justices expressed deep reservations about warrantless GPS tracking. But there also was no clear view about how or whether to regulate police use of the devices.
The justices were taken aback when the lawyer representing the government said police officers could install GPS devices on the justices' cars and track their movements without a warrant. To get a warrant, investigators need to convince a judge that there is reason to believe a suspect is involved in criminal activity.
"So your answer is yes, you could tomorrow decide that you put a GPS device on every one of our cars, follow us for a month; no problem under the Constitution?" Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Not only that, government lawyer Michael Dreeben replied, but FBI agents wouldn't need a warrant either if they wanted to rummage through the justices' trash, use a low-tech beeper to track them or tail them around-the-clock with a team of agents. Dreeben said the court has previously ruled that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those circumstances.
Justice Samuel Alito captured the essence of the court's concern when he said, "With computers around, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of information. How do we deal with this? Just say nothing has changed?"
Justice Stephen Breyer alluded to George Orwell's novel "1984" when he said surveillance in the past depended on human beings and their sometimes flawed memories. But computers don't have that problem, he said.
"The question that I think people are driving at, at least as I understand it and certainly share the concern, is that if you win this case then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States," Breyer said.
Roberts drew a comparison with artwork to explain his perception of the power of GPS surveillance. "You're talking about the difference between seeing a little tile and a mosaic," Roberts said.
But Dreeben said it would be better for lawmakers rather than judges to set limits. Dreeben said the concerns expressed Tuesday were similar to those in the earlier high court case. Thirty years ago, Dreeben said, "Beeper technology seemed extraordinarily advanced."
The court shouldn't make special rules for GPS devices just because they allow the police to be more efficient in capturing and analyzing data, Dreeben said.
GPS devices are especially useful in early stages of an investigation, when they can eliminate the use of time-consuming stakeouts as officers seek to gather evidence, he said.
The issue arose after the federal appeals court in Washington threw out the drug conspiracy conviction of nightclub owner Antoine Jones. FBI agents and local police did not have a valid search warrant when they installed a GPS device on Jones' car and collected travel information for a month.
The GPS device helped authorities link Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction. The appellate judges said the authorities should have had a warrant and pointed to the length of the surveillance as a factor in their decision.
For all the unease the justices voiced in questions to Dreeben, they seemed equally torn in questions to Stephen Leckar, Jones' lawyer, about how to impose limits on the police.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether the use of video surveillance cameras is so different from getting information from a GPS device on a car. In London, Justice Elena Kagan noted, cameras are everywhere.
"It's pretty scary," Leckar said.
Justice Antonin Scalia responded with evident sarcasm. "Well, it must be unconstitutional if it's scary," Scalia said.
More gently, Breyer pointed out that English authorities have used video footage to prevent terrorist attacks.
The point of the questioning was to get Leckar to offer a principled way to draw a line that would still allow police to do their jobs without compromising people's rights.
Leckar said perhaps police could use the GPS device to follow someone for one day or one trip, without first getting a warrant. But that didn't appear to satisfy much of the court, either.
An unusual array of interest groups backs Jones, including the Gun Owners of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Civil Liberties Union and an association of truck drivers. The groups say GPS technology is much more powerful than the beeper technology police once employed in surveillance.
Other appeals courts have ruled that search warrants aren't necessary for GPS tracking.
The justices are considering two related issues, whether a warrant is needed before installing the device or using the GPS technology to track a vehicle. They could determine that the installation requires a warrant, leaving the knottier issues relating to tracking to another day.
A decision should come by spring.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
That's a pretty funny objection, considering the source.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
The first of the three cases I referred to, here, was from 2002
There has always been the plea of reasonable self-defence in UK law.
Though you are correct that the law has been strengthened much more recently in favour of homeowners in the context of violent break-ins.
As has been pointed out, your information is inaccurate and largely out of date.
After the Tony Martin debacle and subsequent uproar 11 years ago you linked to, the law strengthened in favour of homeowners, as discussed above. While there has always been reasonable self-defence.
And so the three more recent cases that I referred to earlier, the one above and the other two, here, and here, where violent burglars were killed by defending homeowners, there were no judicial consequences whatsoever for the homeowners in any of the cases.
If anything, the UK is becoming more like the US from this point of view.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 11-10-2011 at 09:38 AM.
Is that a Good or Bad thing? I mean, while we're discussing power shifts....can we also discuss the ethical shifts?
A good thing.
Though the Tony Martin case is not a clear-cut one of defending oneself in one's own property, in fact far from it as Steely mentioned, there were loud reverberations of anger around the country in the fallout from the case. Anger that it was Tony Martin whom, it was widely perceived, the law pursued, rather than the two burglars.
Nobody wants to live in a situation whereby you fear prosecution for defending yourself in your own property.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote