RE: White House Forencis Report

RE: White House Forencis Report (Full Version)

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

Message

tj444 -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/4/2016 3:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If a person was convicted because the final "evidence" that brought everything together came from the methods that are being called into question, How many would be free due to a technicality? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd describe the reliability of evidence used to convict someone as a "technicality." Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned? That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that? Taxpayers will pay for it, y'all are cheering for a beautiful, beautiful 30 foot high wall to be built all across the southern border, shite, if y'all can afford that, you should be able to afford to free innocent fellow Americans.. [8\|] come on dude, do you realize how much it costs y'all for each prisoner for a year??? If someone is innocent, it would be cheaper to free them than keep them locked up.. Would you want your innocent kid to rot in jail that way? Don't you think re-examining the evidence for those cases is simply the right thing to do?

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/4/2016 8:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If a person was convicted because the final "evidence" that brought everything together came from the methods that are being called into question, How many would be free due to a technicality? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd describe the reliability of evidence used to convict someone as a "technicality." Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned? That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that? Taxpayers will pay for it, y'all are cheering for a beautiful, beautiful 30 foot high wall to be built all across the southern border, shite, if y'all can afford that, you should be able to afford to free innocent fellow Americans.. [8\|] come on dude, do you realize how much it costs y'all for each prisoner for a year??? If someone is innocent, it would be cheaper to free them than keep them locked up.. Would you want your innocent kid to rot in jail that way? Don't you think re-examining the evidence for those cases is simply the right thing to do? Who is cheering for a 30' high wall to be built? I'm not a Trump supporter. How much does it cost us all for each prisoner for a year? We wouldn't have to re-examine just "those cases," though. That's not equal protection. We'd have to try every case that used that evidence. Now, let's say a future President's Administration decides that stuff is, was, and always has been admissible evidence. Do we re-retry all those cases?

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/4/2016 9:44:51 PM)
Did Trump say something about a thirty foot high wall ? It can be just six feet high chain link fence if it is electrified. T^T

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/5/2016 9:06:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Did Trump say something about a thirty foot high wall ? It can be just six feet high chain link fence if it is electrified. T^T I believe he did.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/5/2016 9:14:14 AM)
He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.)

tj444 -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/5/2016 4:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If a person was convicted because the final "evidence" that brought everything together came from the methods that are being called into question, How many would be free due to a technicality? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd describe the reliability of evidence used to convict someone as a "technicality." Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned? That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that? Taxpayers will pay for it, y'all are cheering for a beautiful, beautiful 30 foot high wall to be built all across the southern border, shite, if y'all can afford that, you should be able to afford to free innocent fellow Americans.. [8\|] come on dude, do you realize how much it costs y'all for each prisoner for a year??? If someone is innocent, it would be cheaper to free them than keep them locked up.. Would you want your innocent kid to rot in jail that way? Don't you think re-examining the evidence for those cases is simply the right thing to do? Who is cheering for a 30' high wall to be built? I'm not a Trump supporter. How much does it cost us all for each prisoner for a year? We wouldn't have to re-examine just "those cases," though. That's not equal protection. We'd have to try every case that used that evidence. Now, let's say a future President's Administration decides that stuff is, was, and always has been admissible evidence. Do we re-retry all those cases? Does it matter if you are cheering for the beautiful 30 foot high wall or not if he becomes yer next Prez??? I dont think so.. Again I ask, if it is false evidence and an innocent person(s) are convicted cuz of it, then isnt it the right thing to do to re-examine those cases?? or doesnt that matter to you?? and if you think that a future Prez could decide that shoddy and false evidence is real and honest evidence then this country is no different than Russia.. (especially if ya aint white)..

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 5:26:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.) Well then he is a qualified politician. Out of touch with reality. You don't need a 30 foot high fence if you DIE when you touch it. What's more, there are tunnels but let him ignore them so we can still get decent weed. The price of that shit is already high enough. In fact if they just legalise it they can send it in on trucks. And tax it of course. You realize when you buy a bag the cost contains bail and lawyer fees and the time the dealer is out of commission right ? All money comes from the customer. If the taxes are less than that then we are ahead. But with this fence I am talking about having guard towers and the Men in those guard towers shoot anything in a certain zone. Building codes or whatever now require you to have three fences if you have a lethal electric fence. There would be cameras and whatever, and anyone in that zone gets killed. The problem is the upkeep, you have to pay all these guards. But it could go that way for now as the big wall gets built. Another thing about Trump is that I doubt he realizes just how long it would take to build his wall. I bet it would not be able to be completed in four years. Really though, he is not really stupider than the rest of the politicians. There was a senator called a travel agency to see if SHE could save some money by taking a bus TO HAWAII. Another asked for his visa meaning visa to get into another country said "Well everywhere else they took mastercard". And you remember "Dictatorships are OK, as long as I am the dictator". Remember who said that ? Remember who created the office of "drug czar" ? All of them are fucked in the head. And they are fucking us up the ass, and they all want our guns no matter what they say on TV. The ones who say it are the liberals. The others just let things happen by not having armed security at our schools, but they have it at banks. In fact Canada got embarrassed the other year with their PM cowering in a closet because there were no armed guards, AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT BUILDING. How can they be so fucking stupid ? But I really can't say much about that because we guard our banks with guns but not our children. And army bases are gun free zones, WHAT THE FUCK ? It is like the world has turned upside down, like with the bathroom thing. they are going to question five fucking year old boys to see if they have gender issues and should be allowed to use the girl's room at KINDERGARTEN ? beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here. T^T T^T

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 5:48:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or But it could go that way for now as the big wall gets built. Another thing about Trump is that I doubt he realizes just how long it would take to build his wall. I bet it would not be able to be completed in four years. Assuming that it ever even gets started, it won't. Hadrian's wall was planned as a mere eighty miles (rather than a thousand odd), and large gaps in the uncompleted sections of it were still plugged with earthworks when the Roman Empire got the hell out of Britain the best part of three centuries after construction began in 122. (The Romans left Britain because the legions were needed elsewhere in the Empire Honorius was busily destroying around 410.) The most centralised and structured authoritarian society the world has ever seen, using its armed forces as labour, couldn't complete the construction of an eighty mile wall, but the circus peanut seriously thinks that Americans (he's quietly abandoned his notions that the Mexicans can be bullied into funding or having any part in constructing it, have you noticed? You're not supposed to, I suspect...) are competent to do something a hundred times bigger in four years. Not going to happen, is it? Besides, which isn't there already a system of fences along large chunks of the Mexican border? I thought that was why the tiny-handed shitweasel was insisting that a forty foot wall would be a lot more secure, back when he imagined that doing so would make him look serious, rather than seriously cracked.

Lucylastic -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 5:55:23 AM)
how much do you think its going to cost to electrify a fence the length of the border Plus on immigration he talks hard, but is basically going to do exactly the same thing as what is being done by Obama. No big deportation force. More of the same.the tangerine turd is so soft, he is practically tangerine diarrhea.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:03:28 AM)
Logic. Practicalities. The many complexities of the real world. Do you seriously think these are things that bother the Trumptooners, Lucy?

BamaD -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:04:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.) A couple thousand less per person than Obamacare has cost us so far.

Lucylastic -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:08:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Logic. Practicalities. The many complexities of the real world. Do you seriously think these are things that bother the Trumptooners, Lucy? LOL considering bamas response, no, it cant even get a look in LMAO

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.) A couple thousand less per person than Obamacare has cost us so far. That's just constructing it. How much do you think maintenance on a thousand mile wall that's forty foot high is going to cost per annum afterwards?

mnottertail -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:18:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.) A couple thousand less per person than Obamacare has cost us so far. Obamacare hasnt cost you a fucking dime, welfare patient.

Lucylastic -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:18:46 AM)
quote: In fact Canada got embarrassed the other year with their PM cowering in a closet because there were no armed guards, AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT BUILDING. How can they be so fucking stupid ? A series of shootings occurred on October 22, 2014, at Parliament Hill in Ottawa. At the Canadian National War Memorial, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau fatally shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a Canadian soldier on ceremonial sentry duty. He then entered the nearby Centre Block parliament building, where members of the Parliament of Canada were attending caucuses. After wrestling with a constable at the entrance, Zehaf-Bibeau ran inside and had a shootout with parliament security personnel. He was shot 31 times by six officers and died at the scene

CreativeDominant -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 8:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If a person was convicted because the final "evidence" that brought everything together came from the methods that are being called into question, How many would be free due to a technicality? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd describe the reliability of evidence used to convict someone as a "technicality." Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned? That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that? Taxpayers will pay for it, y'all are cheering for a beautiful, beautiful 30 foot high wall to be built all across the southern border, shite, if y'all can afford that, you should be able to afford to free innocent fellow Americans.. [8\|] come on dude, do you realize how much it costs y'all for each prisoner for a year??? If someone is innocent, it would be cheaper to free them than keep them locked up.. Would you want your innocent kid to rot in jail that way? Don't you think re-examining the evidence for those cases is simply the right thing to do? You sound as if you think every person behind bars claiming innocence truly is innocent. The one thing known, monster how impractical a wall maybe, is that every single person crossing the border without papers is guilty.

mnottertail -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 8:46:11 AM)
They are guilty of a civil matter, those who hire them are guilty of criminal and civil offenses. You sound like you think corporations claiming innocence are truly innocent.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 9:02:16 AM)
That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* isn't half as effective as punitive efforts against the cheap fucks who are employing them would be. The drugs cartels are unlikely to be too worried about that, but if a few Californian CEOs got locked up, some of the others might start to revise their business plans to function in a more legal fashion. I wonder if a legal case could be made that a business operation that works only because it employs illegal immigrants cheaper than domestic labour can be considered the instrumentality of a crime, and so can be seized and sold on by la placa? I'd have thought there was a pretty solid case for that, but then I'm a European lefty, rather than a Denialican. (Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that*)

blnymph -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 9:55:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.) If some real expertise is needed there are building as well as maintenance records preserved of that one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 10:27:27 AM)
The urge to post some Roger Waters footage now is irresistible.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875