"Leon" wrote in news:3F1Vc.2248$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
Not only is that how I see it, thats how Jefferson saw it, and thats how every judge who ever took the bench sees it. First off eyewitness accounts are often faulty. Secondly whether you like it or not the constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses against him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th amendment?
Bub209 responds:
Bub, as a woodworker and generally, I'd guess you're a pretty good guy. As a moral and politcal philosopher, you've got some problems, of which a lack of clarity is just the most evident.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Leon responds:
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes to the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally fashionable, whim.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Secret Squirrel responds:
Oh, come on, man. Texas and John Wayne and common sense. IIRC, Mark Twain, somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator, said that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or maybe I'm mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
With the exception of minors and accusing females in sexual assault cases.
Or is that just an interpretation?
I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when caught. That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I really saw it or not.
Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?
Exactly... ;~) They just naturally go together.
LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)
WTF does that have to do with the Consitution? Or chasing and jumping on thieves by WalMart clerks?
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Leon responds:
You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year earache or some such.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
"George" wrote in news:4124d531 snipped-for-privacy@newspeer2.tds.net:
Accusing females are often called to the stand, and the accused has that right. Rape shield laws protect them having their identity exposed to the public and the press, the do not supercede the rights of the accused
Sure he was, I saw him in a bunch of WWII movies.. ;~), Which is what I though you were refering to.
John Wayne deliberately avoided military service in World War II because all the other leading men were going in and he saw the chance to get their roles. Even A&E's whitewash Biography mentions this.
Bob
He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts. He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his efforts.
-Doug
(a) The Declaration of Independence has no force in law. (b) Apparently something akin to that defense was accepted by the court in the extant case.
Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.
So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?
Greetings and Salutations... Going to touch on a couple of things here...bear with me.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
A good point. I don't think it is something that is going to be quick to fix, because it has been decades in the making. Having already deleted a lengthy rant about specific problems I see in today's society, I thought I would try again with a couple of smaller observations...SIgh. We need, as a society to start bucking the trend of the government treating us like the humans in The Matrix. We have moved a long way towards a "cradle to grave" control, and we need to walk away from it. That is a tough road, though. For decades, we (as represented by our Federal government) have presented two faces to the world. On the one hand, we have claimed to be seeking democracy, equality and human rights for all...And yet, we have pumped up a number of terribly repressive and outright evil governments with money, training and arms. We have created terrible situations for ourselves by really stupid decisions. For a couple of examples...the Bay of Pigs, and, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. In the first case, we made promises to the Cubans that were going to try and overthrow Castro...then screwed them by leaving them out to hang in the wind when they made the effort. In the latter case, our ambassador said to Saddam that the US would have no concerns about Kuwait, leading directly to the original invasion that was the root of the current situation. I have thought for years that we need to pick a side and stick with it. The one thing that we do with this hypocracy is to teach the world that we are not to be trusted. American society went through some dramatic changes in the 50s and 60s, because of the Civil Rights movement, because of the Vietnam War, and, because of the rise of the Hippies. Some very good things came from this turmoil, but, one of the bad things was an attitude of "do your own thing" which has evolved to "do your own thing and screw everyone else". This has left us with a society where the goal is to get as many goodies for ourselves, rather than finding ways to make everyone's life better. An attitude grew up during the 70s and 80s that children were simply little adults and (for many folks) their opinions should hold the same weight as those of their grandparents. This is, alas, nonsense. Kids simply do not have the depth of knowledge or wisdom to make "the best" decisions at times. It is our responsibility, as adults, to teach them not only enough raw data to be able to make those decisions, but, the analytical tools necessary to allow them to gather MORE data, correlate and process the information and add it to their experience database. Because so many of us "Don't want to inflict our values" on our kids, we have failed to do this. As a side effect of this, we also have at least a couple of generations of kids who have no respect for their parents, and are not shy at making that known. That is a bad thing for a lot of reasons, both on a private and societal level. Oddly enough (considering this growing attitude about kids being simply little adults) , we have also had the attitude of "zero tolerance" grow up in schools and other public arenas. Some folks feel that this is a GOOD thing because it "keeps the kids safe". It may or may not...but one thing that I KNOW that it does is erode the concept of personal responsibility. "Zero Tolerance" teaches the kids that a whole list of things exist not as tools...but as weapons, and that any one of them is likely to run amok and hurt or kill their classmates if they bring these weapons to school with them. The fact of the matter is that a pocket knife is a tool. Part of growing up is to learn to use tools properly. When I was growing up, it was a proud day indeed when my parents decided that I was mature enough to carry a pocket knife, and, because I understood the respect I had earned from them, to be allowed to carry the knife, I was pretty careful with it. But then...I respected my parents a great deal. As another facet of this...there is the business of gun control. That could easily generate another hundred posts arguing both side of the issue. I, personally, think that the problem with
9/11 was not that there were too many weapons on the planes...but that there were too few. I also think that this mindless fear of guns that has taken root in too many folks minds is weakening the heart of America. They are a tool, nothing more...nothing less. When used properly, they can be great things. If it were not for guns...We would still be a colony. Accurate control of a gun is a difficult skill, and, requires a great deal of mental focus and practice, so, it is a good discipline. Finally...slaves can't own guns...and that is one reason why the founding fathers noted down that the right of private ownership of guns was second only to the right of free and unfettered speech. One last thing...on a totally different subject...I want to touch on the evolution of many services and industries in the USA to becoming nothing more than profit centers for their investors. Whether we are talking about Insurance, health care providers, or industry, there is a terrible trend away from their primary reason for existence to being nothing more than money pumps designed to get as much cash from consumers as possible, with as little investment in time, energy or resources as possible, and to pump that cash to their investors. When a company gets more concerned with their stock value than why they exist, it is always bad for the consumer. As a quick example...I was chatting with a fellow who used to work in a care facility for troubled kids that went from a non-profit to a profit making organization. There was a notable drop of quality of care in the facility, because the new owners were more concerned with increasing profitablity than with caring for the kids. The nurse to patient ratio dropped from 1/5 to 1/15. The time allocated for a psychiatrist to work with the kids dropped to fifteen minutes per kid per week. Another effect of this was who decided what medications to give to the kids. It used to be something that was determined by a doctor. After the take over...most of the time it was the nurses that suggested what levels of medications would be applied, and the doctors simply signed off on it. There is no question that this facility went from a place where kids might get help getting their heads back together, and becoming a productive member of society to a high-priced warehouse. Is that a good thing? I don't have the answers. I have a lot of questions. I think that if Americans start working back to some of the "old fashioned" concepts of personal responsibility, resourcefulness, respect for themselves and for others and a willingness to see a job and take it on, though, and, if we start setting standards for how we want our government to behave as our representative and start voting folks out of office if they don't live UP to those standards, we might have a chance to get back on the positive path. Regards Dave MundtHum...I don't know if *I* am the "prior comment" here or not. I suspect I am. In any case, let me touch on this a bit, too. When I said "extreme" I was actually thinking more of some of the trend towards black and white thinking as discussed above. However, I have also spoken out with concern about the increasing disparity between the lowest paid job in a given company and the highest paid job. It makes no real sense for there to be a 50x or more difference between the lowest and highest paid jobs. The main result of this is that it fuels the trend of society in general to have more and more folks drifting into poverty from what used to be the "Middle Class". I would suggest that it would be BRIGHTER for the companies to do more to pump up the pay of the lower ranks and lower the pay of the higher ranks a bit. Do I advocate the government using taxes to do this. Emphatically, NO! Money to a politician is like crack to an addict. It becomes the center of their lives, and, it does not matter how much they have, they always need more. What good does it for anyone for the goverment to take (as an example) a million bucks from one guy, keep $900,000 of it for their own programs, and, "give back" $100,000 to folks in poverty? As we have seen time and time again over the years, way too much of that cash ends up in the pockets of the "fat cats" again through lucrative governmental contracts, double dealing and padded billing. John Stossel (sic), in a recent book titled "Give me a break" has an interesting chart, showing the percentage of the GNP that is eaten up by the government. It is a power curve that goes from a low of a few percent back in the 40s to over 40% today. Think about that. Actually, I found an interesting page that touches on this very subject here:
It's my understanding that he volunteered for the Army, the Navy, and the Marines and they all 4-Fed him for a bad back. Although another version of that is that it was all a setup.
Doug Winterburn responds:
Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.
His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and fortune?
Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?
Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?
Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Define "deadly force".
Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have been no suspect ot apprehend. Leaving that aside, depends. Should a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that kneeling on someone's chest will kill them? Should a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of someone on whom he is kneeling? Should a person who not a "law enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?
In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.
George's point is that's the way it is _supposed_ to work, but not always. Judicial activism has always been around.
READ in it's ENTIRETY the following ... written by a judge, BTW:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.