Endivius
Posts: 1238
Joined: 8/22/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EternalHoH I'm not saying that. I don't know what a better system would have to look like. I just believe the present system of 9 people (who behave along political lines) to determine what is an inconvenient burden for the state when lives are on the line is a flawed system. You give the present judicial system way too much credit. It's not an inconvienient burden on the state. It's an unreasonable and idiotic request by nuts who think everything is a conspiricay with some hidden shadowy force out to do horrid evils. The justice system is far far far more adequate and fair than you give them credit for. I am fully aware that it is not perfect, it is however, fair. quote:
Anytime a cop is the victim, you introduce doubt into the equation. Whether the ballistics analysis is outsourced has no bearing, as the cops collect and process the evidence. Anytime you marry that conflict of interest with a capital case, you have a train wreck. We have blatant judicial activism in the courts, and suddenly when it comes to capital cases, 'judicial activism' among the law enforcement ranks is suddenly impossible to you? Not impossible, improbable. The problem here, is there was none. But your so buissy listening to Alex Jones you lost your objectivity. Killing a public servant doesn't introduce doubt, if anything it encourages law enforcement to be extremely tactile and procedural to ensure they get the right person and a conviction. Real life isn't an 80's made for t.v. movie where the cops run around beating folks with phone books and swapping evidence.
_____________________________
Basically if you can't inspire someone to trust you deeply, you aren't going to be able to buy that or a reasonable facsimile thereof. -DesFIP
|