RE: To testify or not to testify!!

RE: To testify or not to testify!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I'm only going to say this once more. I dont respect her choices but i respect her choice to make a choice. I cannot respect something which to me is wrong and won't. Then you are terrible person to debate with and again I ask you (please answer this time) why did you post? If you can not be respectful of opposing viewpoints you have no business asking for them. Edited to add: Terrible person to debate with does not you are a terrible person. Just means you shouldn't be debating things.

corsetgirl -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fergus In the US they still can not FORCE a person to testify against their spouse - 5th amendment rights. I would not testify against a spouse except under the most EXTREME circumstances - like divorce, child abuse, anything internal to the family where you needed the courts to sort it out. Elsewise? you don't rat on family. fergus That is so true; however, there was one Mafia case in which one wife did testify against her husband who was Vito Genovese. This man was a vicious person and she did this because he murdered her first husband and did not know at the time but she definitely "sang like a canary" about him. Funny thing though, he never put a contract out on her and he ultimately died in prison.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:19:05 PM)
Wonder why she married him in the first place. Pressure probably.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:19:11 PM)
It means you either care so passionately about this topic that you can't see other points of views or you just like to sidestep by saying "I respect your ability to decide, but I just hate what you've decided so I'm going to badmouth you" instead of the more reasoned and respectful, "Well I see where you are coming from but I really disagree because I feel a life is worth more then a marriage vow First i have bad mouthed noone. Do not put words in my mouth. Secondly I dont see where she is coming from, my opinion is that to risk letting someone who may kill again go free by not testifying is wrong. It is my opinion and i am entitled to it. I do feel life is more valuable than a marriage vow but again that is my personal opinion. I see other peoples points of view and have only said i cant respect the decision to not testify against a loved one in certain circumstances. \Seeing and accepting a point of view are two different things. I could say why cant you accept my point of view that i will not respect the choice to not testify instead of judging me, pouncing on me every opportunity and also putting words in my mouth and not reading things properly then jumping on me for that too?

corsetgirl -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:20:55 PM)
I honestly don't know because I think he lived in her neighborhood...some people do a lot of things very quickly when there is such tragedy....like marrying someone who is so wrong for you because you don't want to be lonely....just my take on things.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:23:03 PM)
Then you are terrible person to debate with and again I ask you (please answer this time) why did you post? I posted to get peoples opinions. This does not mean i have to agree, validate or respect other peoples choices just the right to make them. If you can not be respectful of opposing viewpoints you have no business asking for them. Laughable - you dont respect my viewpoint. Edited to add: Terrible person to debate with does not you are a terrible person. Just means you shouldn't be debating things. At this point i couldnt care less.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation It means you either care so passionately about this topic that you can't see other points of views or you just like to sidestep by saying "I respect your ability to decide, but I just hate what you've decided so I'm going to badmouth you" instead of the more reasoned and respectful, "Well I see where you are coming from but I really disagree because I feel a life is worth more then a marriage vow First i have bad mouthed noone. Do not put words in my mouth. Secondly I dont see where she is coming from, my opinion is that to risk letting someone who may kill again go free by not testifying is wrong. It is my opinion and i am entitled to it. I do feel life is more valuable than a marriage vow but again that is my personal opinion. I see other peoples points of view and have only said i cant respect the decision to not testify against a loved one in certain circumstances. \Seeing and accepting a point of view are two different things. I could say why cant you accept my point of view that i will not respect the choice to not testify instead of judging me, pouncing on me every opportunity and also putting words in my mouth and not reading things properly then jumping on me for that too? I really don't this as pouncing. I see it as debating. I expect you to point out my mistakes but I plan on rebutting them. I'm not asking you to accept. I'm asking to respect, much the way a gay man asks a southern baptist to respect his lifestyle.

Emperor1956 -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:25:19 PM)
I have only read the first 20 or so posts on this thread, but I decided to interject because of the AMAZING amount of complete misinformation that has been posted. A few basic facts: 1. The Fifth Amendment has NOTHING to do with "spousal privilege". Fergus, you are totally wrong. You might reconsider when you choose to lecture the readers here about law. 2. Spousal Privilege is one of the four privileges recognized at English Common Law. The four privileges were priest/penitent, lawyer/client, doctor/patient and spouse/spouse. These privileges have very little to do with missturbation's original musings about "would you testify against your Master/sub". They are mandatory privileges that the law created to allow free and open communication between persons who it was deemed had a higher legal right, and therefore could not be forced to testify against the party seeking to keep the privilege. What does this mean? It means that in the case of "spousal privilege", NO SPOUSE can testify -- voluntarily or under compulsion -- against the other party to the marriage. Period. All of you who are mentally masturbating about "being compelled or voluntary testimony" are missing the point. The party with the secret is protected regardless of the other spouse's desires. So yes, spousal abuse was at one time absolutely privileged -- the abused could not testify in court against the abuser. This has changed, only in the past several years, with the adoption of judicially created "battered wife" exceptions to spousal privilege. If you are interested, an analysis of a recent Pennsylvania case is found here. As an aside, the privileges often go only one way -- the penitent can freely testify against the priest, but the priest is bound to keep the secrets of the confessional against all compulsion (this privilege is of course much older than English Common Law). The lawyer may not divulge the client's secrets; the client is not under the same restriction (tho if the client divulges, even selectively, the privilege may be deemed waived for all involved). The doctor/patient privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor (an interesting issue when the doctor is being charged with financial fraud or malpractice). 3. (Legal disclaimer time): Nothing I posted above is legal advice specific to you. I'm not your lawyer, and we don't have a lawyer-client relationship, and I don't know you and you don't know me. If you do know me, then I didn't say this. If you need a lawyer, hire one. Getting legal advice off an anonymous listserve on the Internet is as effective as bondage with wet toilet paper. E.

Kalira -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:27:24 PM)
quote: Laughable - you dont respect my viewpoint. On the contrary, you are missing what is being said here. At this point no, your viewpoint is not respected because of the simple fact that you refuse to accept the possibility that one day, you may be forced to make a decision that would change that viewpoint. Spur of the moment; instant decision. Let me ask you Mist. You state, very clearly and very precisely that you would not support a murderer, molester, rapist...correct? I would like to give you a chance right here and now to either say yes, with no room for argument; or ammend your arguement.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Then you are terrible person to debate with and again I ask you (please answer this time) why did you post? I posted to get peoples opinions. This does not mean i have to agree, validate or respect other peoples choices just the right to make them. If you can not be respectful of opposing viewpoints you have no business asking for them. Laughable - you dont respect my viewpoint. Edited to add: Terrible person to debate with does not you are a terrible person. Just means you shouldn't be debating things. At this point i couldnt care less. I do respect your viewpoint. In fact I actually agree with you, remember? smiles

feylin -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:29:59 PM)
If it pleases the Court, Fergus actually corrected himself in an earlier post. Edited to add that I appreciate the law for spouses, lawyers, priests, any type of doctor/patient privilege. We should not be forced to speak against our loved ones (or clients) simply because someone else is pointing a finger at them otherwise we would have to censure ourselves in even the deepest of relationships. Should the person own their actions, sure enough, but I plan on supporting someone I love not hang them out to dry (with some personal exceptions). There could be a myriad of examples given for or against. Murder is given as an example. Is it a mercy killing? A little street justice for a pedophile? I think a tight, all-encompassing rule of thumb is easy to say until you are in the moment. Some moments can surprise us.

corsetgirl -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:32:09 PM)
That was my fault, I posted a quote from Fergus regarding the Fifth Amendment, mea culpa....but kudos to Emperor for the explanation of testimony between wife and husband.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:35:01 PM)
Do you automatically give respect to someones actions you see as wrong? In my opinion respect is earnt and someone who in my opinion behaves wrongly will not gain my respect. I will respect they have a choice to make but that is all.

marieToo -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:35:03 PM)
Wouldnt you agree that perhaps some people (for whatever reason) place a higher ethical priority on being truthful under oath, while some other people (for whatever reason) place more value on being loyal to a loved one? And wouldnt you agree that the same way some people see murder as being reprehensible, others might see protecting a murderer as being equally reprehensible?

fergus -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corsetgirl quote: ORIGINAL: fergus In the US they still can not FORCE a person to testify against their spouse - 5th amendment rights. I would not testify against a spouse except under the most EXTREME circumstances - like divorce, child abuse, anything internal to the family where you needed the courts to sort it out. Elsewise? you don't rat on family. fergus That is so true; however, there was one Mafia case in which one wife did testify against her husband who was Vito Genovese. This man was a vicious person and she did this because he murdered her first husband and did not know at the time but she definitely "sang like a canary" about him. Funny thing though, he never put a contract out on her and he ultimately died in prison. That's the thing - these situations are SO ... well .... situational. fergus

fergus -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 I have only read the first 20 or so posts on this thread, but I decided to interject because of the AMAZING amount of complete misinformation that has been posted. A few basic facts: 1. The Fifth Amendment has NOTHING to do with "spousal privilege". Fergus, you are totally wrong. You might reconsider when you choose to lecture the readers here about law. 2. Spousal Privilege is one of the four privileges recognized at English Common Law. The four privileges were priest/penitent, lawyer/client, doctor/patient and spouse/spouse. These privileges have very little to do with missturbation's original musings about "would you testify against your Master/sub". They are mandatory privileges that the law created to allow free and open communication between persons who it was deemed had a higher legal right, and therefore could not be forced to testify against the party seeking to keep the privilege. What does this mean? It means that in the case of "spousal privilege", NO SPOUSE can testify -- voluntarily or under compulsion -- against the other party to the marriage. Period. All of you who are mentally masturbating about "being compelled or voluntary testimony" are missing the point. The party with the secret is protected regardless of the other spouse's desires. So yes, spousal abuse was at one time absolutely privileged -- the abused could not testify in court against the abuser. This has changed, only in the past several years, with the adoption of judicially created "battered wife" exceptions to spousal privilege. If you are interested, an analysis of a recent Pennsylvania case is found here. As an aside, the privileges often go only one way -- the penitent can freely testify against the priest, but the priest is bound to keep the secrets of the confessional against all compulsion (this privilege is of course much older than English Common Law). The lawyer may not divulge the client's secrets; the client is not under the same restriction (tho if the client divulges, even selectively, the privilege may be deemed waived for all involved). The doctor/patient privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor (an interesting issue when the doctor is being charged with financial fraud or malpractice). 3. (Legal disclaimer time): Nothing I posted above is legal advice specific to you. I'm not your lawyer, and we don't have a lawyer-client relationship, and I don't know you and you don't know me. If you do know me, then I didn't say this. If you need a lawyer, hire one. Getting legal advice off an anonymous listserve on the Internet is as effective as bondage with wet toilet paper. E. Just a heads up, I did discover the mistake, apologized for it, and posted the appropriate links ;) fergus

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:39:00 PM)
Let me ask you Mist. You state, very clearly and very precisely that you would not support a murderer, molester, rapist...correct? I would like to give you a chance right here and now to either say yes, with no room for argument; or ammend your arguement. On the face of what you have said yes i would definately not support any of thos people. Murderer there is room for manouvre due to i stated that anyone i thought may reoffend i would not support.

Kalira -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:42:13 PM)
quote: On the face of what you have said yes i would definately not support any of thos people. Murderer there is room for manouvre due to i stated that anyone i thought may reoffend i would not support. That is not what I asked of you. Would you, without room for any argument, hold with your conviction that you would never, and I mean NEVER testify against a murder, molester, or rapist. Its a very simple question

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:43:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Do you automatically give respect to someones actions you see as wrong? In my opinion respect is earnt and someone who in my opinion behaves wrongly will not gain my respect. I will respect they have a choice to make but that is all. We aren't talking about actions, we are talking about opinions and from the debate/discussion point of view they are very different. If you choose to testify and your husbands goes to jail, good for you. You can sleep easily. If someone else chooses to not testify (but not lie about their husband's whereabouts) good for them. They didn't violate their moral code and they didn't break the law. I respect that. They found a way to worth within the system to do what they thought was right. Now, going back to your situation. Someone else thinks what you did was wrong because you didn't show loyalty to the man you professed to love. Well they can sidestep the issue of respect saying that they don't argee with it (just a few steps shy of saying it was wrong), or they can say, as I always try to do "They didn't violate the law and they operated within their moral code. I can respect that, if not agree with it.". I don't respect breaking a moral code. I give my respect to those who do a hard thing, choosing between betraying their love and betraying a justice system. If they lie, then no I don't respect that. But if they can bow out gracefully, giving neither harm or benefit to either side, then yes I do respect that. I may not always agree with it, but I do respect it.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:44:52 PM)
I bet that was an interesting courtship. "I heard your husband died so I brung ya some posies." "But I haven't even written the obitutary yet." pause "Well you know... word gets around"

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125