RE: The US Bail System (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Dvr22999874 -> RE: The US Bail System (12/30/2015 3:39:55 PM)

D.S.................maybe you could point out to the pretty ones that Einstein, Stephen Hawkinge and whoever the pope is, aren't/weren't the prettiest people on the planet but people did and do take them seriously. It's not the looks oh pretty ones.......................it's the little grey cells that are behind the looks




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (12/30/2015 4:13:53 PM)

You assume he has friends.

Ask anyone on the boards and they will agree that you and I are the best of friends...don't you allow me to point out your abject ignorance of most everything you post?
Having a friend like you relieves me of the need to make enemies.[8|]




DesideriScuri -> RE: The US Bail System (12/30/2015 8:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Nothing you would accept, my boss when I worked for the Sheriff's office told me about it.
Hear say evidence like that is always acceptable to morons.

"hearsay" is things heard in rumors or gossip, not when one friend tells another of his actual experiences. otherwise, your entire life is reduced, in your words to "moronic acceptance" of what your friends and co-workers tell you, or alternatively, rejection of it since you didn't see it yourself.
your inability to be rational is astounding and only trumped by, not to mention the strong possibility of it being affected by too, your perverted malevolence.


Not only that, but, since we all haven't been in attendance at all the events in the world, we're just blindly accepting someone else's "experiences."

I can honestly say that I wasn't at the painting of the Mona Lisa, so it's just "moronic acceptance" that Da Vinci painted it.

It's moronic acceptance that a teacher is teaching you the truth, isn't it?





DesideriScuri -> RE: The US Bail System (12/30/2015 8:46:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Ummm.. While I never specified who should or shouldnt have bail, anyone WITH HALF A BRAIN should have known I meant no bail required for minor offenses!!!!!!!!! FFS, do I have to put disclaimers on my posts like McDs have to put on their coffee cups for people so stupid that every f'n thing needs to be spelt out for their dumb selves???? Come on, you must be smarter than that...


Or, perhaps, choose your words more wisely?

There was no indication that bail for minor crimes would be the only type of bail that would disappear. But, it still goes back to the question of whether you understand what bail is for. You have yet to demonstrate that you do.




Termyn8or -> RE: The US Bail System (12/30/2015 8:53:21 PM)

"So in your opinion if your best friend told you something it would be acceptable in a court of law? "

This is not a court of law.

Sometimes you have to think "Why would this guy make this shit up ?".

T^T




DesideriScuri -> RE: The US Bail System (12/30/2015 8:53:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
D.S.................maybe you could point out to the pretty ones that Einstein, Stephen Hawkinge and whoever the pope is, aren't/weren't the prettiest people on the planet but people did and do take them seriously. It's not the looks oh pretty ones.......................it's the little grey cells that are behind the looks


If everyone on here thought less of me than they already do, it still won't impact my life at all, so, meh. It's actually funny that she would mention something about someone who actually uses a pic of himself, rather than some sort of avatar that isn't of that person. A penguin? A hooded digital readout? It's been a big joke with my actual friends and acquaintances, but no one here will likely ever get to see that. thishereboi might, as she's only about an hour or so away from me, but anyone else? Not likely.

So, she, or anyone else, can make silly references to the face I was making. It doesn't bother me.




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 6:14:27 AM)


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Not only that, but, since we all haven't been in attendance at all the events in the world, we're just blindly accepting someone else's "experiences."

Do you just open your mouth to change feet?[8|]

I can honestly say that I wasn't at the painting of the Mona Lisa, so it's just "moronic acceptance" that Da Vinci painted it.

It's moronic acceptance that a teacher is teaching you the truth, isn't it?

From which one may conclude that you believe nothing since you know nothing?[8|]


[/quote]




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 6:16:16 AM)

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"So in your opinion if your best friend told you something it would be acceptable in a court of law? "



Sometimes you have to think "Why would this guy make this shit up ?".

Perhaps because he has no facts so he is willing to go with bullshit much the same as you are prone to do.




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 6:19:31 AM)

So, she, or anyone else, can make silly references to the face I was making. It doesn't bother me.

It is your face make it look as you choose to make it look.




Phydeaux -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 10:32:15 AM)

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.[3] When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.[4]

There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following:
Statement against interest
Present sense impressions and Excited utterances
Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition[when defined as?]
Medical diagnosis or treatment
Recorded recollection
Records of regularly conducted activity
Public records and reports, as well as absence of entry in records
Records of vital statistics
Absence of public record or entry
Records of religious organizations
Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates, and Family and Property records
Statements in documents affecting an interest in property
Statements in ancient documents the authenticity of which can be established.
Market reports, commercial publications
"Learned treatises"
Reputation concerning personal or family history, boundaries, or general history, or as to character
Judgment of previous conviction, and as to personal, family or general history, or boundaries.[1]

Also, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.[1]

In England and Wales, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings,[5] but is only admissible in criminal proceedings if it falls within a statutory or a preserved common law exception,[6] all of the parties to the proceedings agree, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence is admissible.[7]

Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that where a witness is unavailable, hearsay is admissible where a) the relevant person is dead; b) the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition; c) the relevant person is outside the UK and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; d) the relevant person cannot be found; e) through fear, the relevant person does not give oral evidence in the proceedings and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

The two main common law exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible are res gestae and confessions.





Termyn8or -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 10:35:39 AM)

"Perhaps because he has no facts so he is willing to go with bullshit much the same as you are prone to do.
"


Burden of proof is on you when someone gives anecdotal evidence. Reason is that everything is anecdotal. You believe the official holocaust story right ? you were not there. You believe a whole bunch of history, much of which is anecdotal in nature. There are few proofs. Like they say they made a liberty bell and put it in PA. Well there it sits and it is cracked just like they said. But the Soviets have been caught lying about WW2. The government ahs been caught lying so many times it ain't funny, but some people still believe them.

Cops, who are supposed to be schooled at least a bit in law lie. Buddy of mine got charged with "felony failure to comply" because he called the cop an asshole. There is no such charge on this state, county or city. The copp got suspended but my buddy still went to jail and had to get his car out of the tow yard.

Now let me ask you this - do you think I made that up ? Do you think HE made that up ? I saw the yellow markings on his car when he came over. But then, did I make up thst I saw those markings ?

Someone made a a comment about teachers. Let me extend that to textbooks. There were practically scandals about grievous, even ridiculous and even hilarious errors on textbooks some time ago. Remember that ?

People tend to believe the sources that agree with them. They agree with what they "knew" a week ago, a year ago, when they were ten years old. In other words it makes sense with what already made sense. Do not even think of claiming to be different. In fact you always think you are right even when wrong.

No different.

T^T




Termyn8or -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 10:41:07 AM)

"So, she, or anyone else, can make silly references to the face I was making. It doesn't bother me. "

I thought you were having a hard time taking a shit. LOL

Joking of course. As far as people around here, I think you are one of the ones who have their head screwed on straight.

T^T




tj444 -> RE: The US Bail System (12/31/2015 1:43:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Ummm.. While I never specified who should or shouldnt have bail, anyone WITH HALF A BRAIN should have known I meant no bail required for minor offenses!!!!!!!!! FFS, do I have to put disclaimers on my posts like McDs have to put on their coffee cups for people so stupid that every f'n thing needs to be spelt out for their dumb selves???? Come on, you must be smarter than that...


Or, perhaps, choose your words more wisely?

There was no indication that bail for minor crimes would be the only type of bail that would disappear. But, it still goes back to the question of whether you understand what bail is for. You have yet to demonstrate that you do.


Actually, I did specify in my second post.. but you have to be pretty stupid to think I meant no bail for those accused of murder, rape, etc.. of course i understand what bail is for..




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 10:03:15 AM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.[3] When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.[4]

There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following:
Statement against interest
Present sense impressions and Excited utterances
Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition[when defined as?]
Medical diagnosis or treatment
Recorded recollection
Records of regularly conducted activity
Public records and reports, as well as absence of entry in records
Records of vital statistics
Absence of public record or entry
Records of religious organizations
Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates, and Family and Property records
Statements in documents affecting an interest in property
Statements in ancient documents the authenticity of which can be established.
Market reports, commercial publications
"Learned treatises"
Reputation concerning personal or family history, boundaries, or general history, or as to character
Judgment of previous conviction, and as to personal, family or general history, or boundaries.[1]

Also, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.[1]

In England and Wales, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings,[5] but is only admissible in criminal proceedings if it falls within a statutory or a preserved common law exception,[6] all of the parties to the proceedings agree, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence is admissible.[7]

We are not in england or wales so what is the point of this?[8|]

Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that where a witness is unavailable, hearsay is admissible where a) the relevant person is dead; b) the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition; c) the relevant person is outside the UK and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; d) the relevant person cannot be found; e) through fear, the relevant person does not give oral evidence in the proceedings and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

Is this the law in the usa?[8|]

The two main common law exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible are res gestae and confessions.


Have you a point for posting a wall of text that that confirms what I said?[8|]




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 10:13:07 AM)


ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Perhaps because he has no facts so he is willing to go with bullshit much the same as you are prone to do.
"


Burden of proof is on you when someone gives anecdotal evidence.



It is not my job to validate yours or anyone elses idiotic musings


Reason is that everything is anecdotal.

No it is not.



People tend to believe the sources that agree with them.

That is called confirmational bias...fools do it all the time.




DesideriScuri -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 10:22:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Ummm.. While I never specified who should or shouldnt have bail, anyone WITH HALF A BRAIN should have known I meant no bail required for minor offenses!!!!!!!!! FFS, do I have to put disclaimers on my posts like McDs have to put on their coffee cups for people so stupid that every f'n thing needs to be spelt out for their dumb selves???? Come on, you must be smarter than that...

Or, perhaps, choose your words more wisely?
There was no indication that bail for minor crimes would be the only type of bail that would disappear. But, it still goes back to the question of whether you understand what bail is for. You have yet to demonstrate that you do.

Actually, I did specify in my second post.. but you have to be pretty stupid to think I meant no bail for those accused of murder, rape, etc.. of course i understand what bail is for..


Really? Where?

You and I don't agree on a lot of things, tj444. You have a much more liberal view of things than I do. IMO, it's possible you meant "no bail" for any offense.

Considering the thread is about the US Bail System, and not just the bail system as it pertains only to minor offenses, you should make sure your words specify what you're saying.




Termyn8or -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 11:11:26 AM)

"That is called confirmational bias...fools do it all the time. "

Yes you do.

T^T




tj444 -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 11:27:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Ummm.. While I never specified who should or shouldnt have bail, anyone WITH HALF A BRAIN should have known I meant no bail required for minor offenses!!!!!!!!! FFS, do I have to put disclaimers on my posts like McDs have to put on their coffee cups for people so stupid that every f'n thing needs to be spelt out for their dumb selves???? Come on, you must be smarter than that...

Or, perhaps, choose your words more wisely?
There was no indication that bail for minor crimes would be the only type of bail that would disappear. But, it still goes back to the question of whether you understand what bail is for. You have yet to demonstrate that you do.

Actually, I did specify in my second post.. but you have to be pretty stupid to think I meant no bail for those accused of murder, rape, etc.. of course i understand what bail is for..


Really? Where?

You and I don't agree on a lot of things, tj444. You have a much more liberal view of things than I do. IMO, it's possible you meant "no bail" for any offense.

Considering the thread is about the US Bail System, and not just the bail system as it pertains only to minor offenses, you should make sure your words specify what you're saying.


it was in post 23.. I may have a more liberal view of certain things than you but i have conservative views on other things..
BUT I AM NOT FUCKING STUPID TO SUGGEST SOMETHING AS STUPID AS NO BAIL FOR ANYONE.. (there, I feel a little better now)..
Do you really think I would want someone charged with crimes such as Dahlmer, or Manson or psychopaths like that out on the street with no bail? really, DS.. ok then, I guess what you are saying is that I gave you too much credit for thinking you have at least half a brain..




DesideriScuri -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 4:20:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
it was in post 23.. I may have a more liberal view of certain things than you but i have conservative views on other things..
BUT I AM NOT FUCKING STUPID TO SUGGEST SOMETHING AS STUPID AS NO BAIL FOR ANYONE.. (there, I feel a little better now)..
Do you really think I would want someone charged with crimes such as Dahlmer, or Manson or psychopaths like that out on the street with no bail? really, DS.. ok then, I guess what you are saying is that I gave you too much credit for thinking you have at least half a brain..


You only questioned if it made sense to me to place bail on minor offenses. You did not make any statement about keeping the bail system intact for more serious crimes.

In fact, you still haven't answered the question as to what you think the bail system is for. When I posted that skipping bail for minor offenses is different from scrapping the whole system, you only responded with aspersions.

You don't want people to twist your words? Choose them more wisely, and be more specific.




thompsonx -> RE: The US Bail System (1/1/2016 4:49:21 PM)

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"That is called confirmational bias...fools do it all the time. "

Yes you do.

Cite please.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625