|
Real0ne -> RE: Child murderer gets compensation for threats made by police (8/5/2011 9:56:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: nephandi
Greetings
quote:
If there is a law against it as an interrogation technique that was violated then obviously the law needs to be followed. SHOULD police be able to threaten violence? Why the fuck not? The bastard might piss his pants? BFD.
I will tell you why the fuck not, because not everyone arrested is guilty, the reason why there is limitations to what interrogation methods the police can use is that we do not want a society where the police will do whatever it takes to get a confession out of whoever they think is guilty is that it is not their job to decide who is guilty or not, if the police was allowed free reign then anyone could be threatened into a confession, and is that really what you want?
quote:
All I a see is they had to pay him a few bucks because the officer hurt his feelings. The judge evened it out by making him use the money to pay for the trial.
The accused pay for the trial if found guilty in Germany if I am not mistaken, that is common practice it have nothing to do with suing the policeman. Also it is not about hurting anyones feelings, it is about threatening to do violence.
quote:
I don't see where the Officer did anything to cause the piece of shit to not be convicted or have the charges tossed.
No but he easily could have as whatever evidence he got through irrigation would be null and void as the policeman used coercion, he would have given one hell of a gift package to the defense and had this been in USA who have even stronger laws when it comes to what makes evidence and in fact an entire investigation null and void in court the convicted man most likely would have walked, when a policeman do not follow the rules and is catch doing it then chances are he will have given the defense enough ammo to get a murderer off the hook, and that is a huge chance to take.
quote:
I can't get all worked up because the Officer might have threatened to smack a child killer.
You really do not get it, try to think a little, at the time the suspect was not convicted, he was a suspect, no one knew if he had done it or not, what if he was innocent. You get so wrapped up with how horrific the crime is that you forget the underlaying problem, if the police is allowed to threaten prisoners with violence they can do that to anyone, they can decide oh I think this person or people, perhaps let us say flcouple have killed this kid, so we will drag them in and interrogate them and terrorize them until they confess, whatever it takes to get a confession and then lock them up for the rest of their lives. The job of a justice system is not just to catch the bad guys but also to protect the innocent, including protecting them from wrongful prosecution. It is not the police's job to decide who they think is guilty and then break whatever rules needed to get a confession, it is their job to investigate the matter and then turn their investigation over to a court of law who will decide if a suspect is guilty or not, such hillbilly justice that you seam to favor benefit no one.
Also the least thing one need is for a real murderer to walk because a policeman have forced a confession out of the wrong person, there are a reason why there is laws when it comes to what a policeman can and can not do, and those laws do not change when a crime is horrific.
I wish you both well
and the really scary part is that the loonars around here vote!
Oh wait this is america, land of the free, so that doesnt count anymore anyway since we got wilbur sanctioned hackable voting machines.
fucked up is old news therefore not noteworthy.
|
|
|
|
