View Single Post
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2004, 01:09 PM
Rebellion's Avatar
Rebellion Rebellion is online now
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 13,925
usa
Rebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 122,562
Default only new facts?

Quote:
Reporters are supposed to present new facts. What happened in the trial is a matter of public record. You can find that out on your own. What was not on public record was the case's investigator and his boss and their opinion of his innocence. That is startling.
That's a tenet of reporting I have never heard. If they truly wanted to present a case then they should have presented the entire case. Using your scenario would be like the NY Times saying tomorrow that Charles Manson is innocent because Squeaky Fromme said she killed everyone and not present all of the previous evidence against Manson because "it's already in the public record."

Quote:
A common misconception is that the DA is always on the up and up. The DA's job is not to seek justice. It is to get convictions and get re-elected. Face that.
Not all DA's are publicly elected. And it doesn't change the fact that they can't operate on their own. Somebody has to present a case to them. They can not just go around charging people with crimes on their own. Someone in the police department must present them with a case and facts.

Quote:
You are forgetting something. There is no evidence to suggest that Tefero used the weapon or coerced someone to use the weapon, except for the testimony of the very man that you claim is not a reliable witness. This is the same man who testified against Terfero having gotten a deal, then confessed to the crime without such a bribery years later when he didn't need to. Why admit to something you didn't do without being coerced?
Doesn't matter. In the link I provided no one even claimed he intentionally killed anyone. That is part of the reality that is commiting murder in the commission of a felony. You don't necessarily have to pull the trigger yourself of have any plans to have done so to be convicted of murder.

Quote:
Simply being present at the crime without using the weapon or coercing someone to use it is not enough to establish guilt in a country where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Actually you're wrong...it is.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/cole.htm#_ftn2

Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law 682 (3d ed. 2000); Model Penal Code § 210.2 cmt. 6 (1980) (noting that “[t]he classic formulation of the felony-murder doctrine declares that one is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of any felony”). The history of the felony-murder rule in the United States is briefly described in the commentary to the Model Penal Code. Model Penal Code § 210.2 cmt. 6 (1980).
__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.
Reply With Quote