Posted on 07/09/2015 6:19:49 AM PDT by JJ_Folderol
A Waco police detective was selected Wednesday to preside over a new McLennan County grand jury that could be the panel that considers the Twin Peaks shootings.
You and I reached almost precisely same conclusion.
Almost 70 years of hard-knocks observation has taught me that when people call themselves big bad braggart handles, it rarely matches who or what they really are.
I usually treat fools with what they deserve.
I really like to hammer jerks that try to pull some bully BS, especially on some undeserving nice guy. That is one big reason I have no mercy on bike gangers or their sympathizer groupies.
“because only guilty people are arrested”.
The sarcasm is not really funny.
Nor does it make a valid point. (Which I will chose to not take personally).
The presumption that only guilty people are arrested would obviate the need for a jury to begin with.
Sheesh.
Oh. You want my honest opinion, as opposed to what, my dishonest opinion? All righty, then. If an LE would swear in affidavit that he witnessed a capital crime, I would deny bail. Of course, we know that no such affidavit was sworn.
And this is a big problem, which no amount of rationalization can make go away. There is no individualized probable cause. The base is rotten.
Many readers will not remember, but you will, that I have expressed concern about RICO-type statutes. I am still wondering why the focus of forum outrage on these Waco threads does not address the statute.
My comments about the Texas OC law have mostly related to being confused as to how it could have been applied on 5/17, in the heat of the moment. I am aware of prolife rescuers who were prosecuted under federal RICO. Their overt act was trespassing and blocking access to abortion mills.
The Feds did have evidence that two or more had agreed in advance to do this. THAT I can understand. I don't like it, because I believe that the prolife cause is just and righteous, but I can understand the application of RICO
It looks to me like Renya used the Texas OC law as a bill of attainder.
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without a trial.
FReepers are not helping the situation by bloviating on FR and calling other people trolls.
Please define bloviating.
Also, please suggest a "proper" term to call those few who try to overwhelm every Waco thread; who slander others (calling people "gang supporters"); who consistently ignore what a poster actually posts, but rather twists what is actually posted and constructs a strawman to set ablaze?
Sure it does. Some people are biased to find guilt, such as inferring that association with an OMG or associated group, plus riding to or showing up at Twin Peaks, plus an altercation at Twin Peaks, is sufficient evidence to find conspiracy to commit aggravated assault or worse. Ride with dogs, wake up with fleas.
-- The presumption that only guilty people are arrested would obviate the need for a jury to begin with. --
In principle, yes. But principle is out the window, it appears. Some members of OMGs are criminals, people who choose to associate with them are therefore also criminals. An easy leap to make, many people make it. Once adhered to the conclusion, reasoned argument is a waste of time.
Plus, in principle, arrest only happens on probable cause that a crime has been committed. The points of evidence that I noted above are incontrovertible, defendants wouldn't deny them, so there is no need for a jury to weigh the testimony to determine if the facts have been "proved."
If the facts above are sufficient to have probable cause, they are sufficient to attach guilt. "As a matter of law," because no facts are in contest.
Facts above:
Nearly ninety-five percent of all criminal cases are disposed of by a guilty plea. Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial, by Donald J. Newman.
“Nearly ninety-five percent of all criminal cases are disposed of by a guilty plea.”
[Please forgive me that I cannot devote the time to your information that it deserves at the moment, because I am embroiled in reams of accounting data etc.]
So I will ask only about the above, in this situation.
At arraignment, one enters a plea.
Did any of those arrested at Twin Peaks enter a plea of other than not-guilty? Is that because they and their lawyers are waiting to see if they are indeed indicted? Then if they are indicted, is that when some of them might enter into plea negotiations?
If one pleas not-guilty in the sense that he considers himself to be not guilty and believes he will not be convicted of a crime, it would make sense to wait and hope there is no indictment.
Negotiation with the DA can happen at any time, all the time.
-- If one pleas not-guilty in the sense that he considers himself to be not guilty and believes he will not be convicted of a crime, it would make sense to wait and hope there is no indictment. --
That depends. Some people who are innocent in fact, truly innocent and wrongly accused, cop a plea because it's the quickest way to get out of jail. Plead guilty, pay a $5,000 fine vs. stay in jail until a trial, which is a crapshoot because juries are the people to stupid to get out of jury duty.
Do you still adhere to this contention? It's a false contention. The state MUST have some personal acts to sustain an accusation through arrest and charging. It's called "probable cause," and it MUST allege personal acts. Well, "MUST" meaning that's what the law requires. The government has a habit of not following the law, and the guys with the guns can do whatever they want, law be damned.
Any statute can be abused by the state. That's not a "statute" problem, that's a prosecutor problem.
-- WHAT are FReepers accomplishing here, other than remarking to each other, and calling other people trolls? --
We aren't accomplishing anything here except entertaining each other, and calling names, etc. is part of the color. I sort of enjoy some flame wars myself, and have been known to participate.
Also, please suggest a “proper” term to call those few who try to overwhelm every Waco thread; who slander others (calling people “anti-constitution”); who consistently ignore what a poster actually posts, but rather twists what is actually posted and constructs a strawman to set ablaze?
Stop advocating and excusing depriving citizens of their Constitutional rights and that problem goes away.
“Stop advocating and excusing depriving citizens of their Constitutional rights and that problem goes away.”
Who has advocated that?
“cop a plea”
My limited experience with the “Criminal Justice System” is traffic court, and if that experience is informative, it is clearly “stacked” against the ordinary citizen. The judge will take the cop’s word. Case closed . . . except . . .
Traffic Court is aligned with “revenue enhancement.”
You can “cop a plea” down to a mechanical violation, and not get points, but you will pay the same in court costs as if you signed the ticket. But it is still worth it. I encourage everyone to fight “revenue enhancement” tickets.
Don’t sign the ticket, if you are not guilty, and the cop has to show up in court to testify or the case is dropped. OK this only works if you can get to the court . . . maybe why cops tend to pull over out-of-state cars.
One egregious traffic ticket I could not honestly sign. He charged me with a speed I could not have been going. I told him that cops used to look out for a Mom with a kid in a car, not take advantage of them because they would sign a ticket for a higher speed limit just to avoid the hassle. He was a fat “doughnut-muncher.” He was clearly into revenue enhancement. He admitted that “you don’t live in xtown and pay taxes to xtown! I said my husband used to work in xtown (which I call The People’s Republic of xtown) and paid income taxes to xtown.
Bottom line, there was no way I was going to sign that ticket, because it would have been a lie to admit guilt. I had to go to the People’s Republic of xtown Mayor’s Court (represented by myself, dressed appropriately in a suit, with my ~8 year old daughter taking notes). To my astonishment it was just the arraignment, I plead Not Guilty, but had to come back AGAIN for the — Trial?? That is when the cop doughnut-muncher did not show up to testify so the charges were dropped. So that is one time I won, without spending a penny on a lawyer — I did spend a lot of hours in anxiety and preparation for court.
Maybe the cop had actually LEGITIMATE law enforcement business, more important than testifying against a Mom driving her kid home from school who was NOT going as fast as he wrote on the ticket! I hope so! Because there are of course more important law enforcement duties! I also hope he didn’t show up because he was humiliated by his behavior against an honest Mom merely driving her kid home from school, doing exactly nothing to hurt anyone.
OK this is just a bit of nothing, compared to having a house raided or being arrested and put in jail. But if people roll over to unjustified traffic tickets, just sign and pay the fine because it is a hassle otherwise . . . even if the cop exaggerated the speed, etc. . . . what is that teaching small xtown People’s Republics and their Mayor’s Courts, much less anything more serious?
Those who believe themselves innocent, have some sort of a duty to themselves and to the integrity of the judicial system, to NOT cop to something they are also not guilty of, just to make it go away. On the other hand, people have to live and pay their bills.
Being unjustly accused IS a burden on a citizen.
From this distance, as I have said, I do not know how many, or who by name, is innocent. I pray that they do stand up for their judicial rights.
I pray the guilty are appropriately punished.
-- Those who believe themselves innocent, have some sort of a duty to themselves and to the integrity of the judicial system, to NOT cop to something they are also not guilty of, just to make it go away. On the other hand, people have to live and pay their bills. --
Not many people can afford to stand on principle, against the state. It's time consuming, emotionally wrenching, unfair, and one way or the other, you'll pay. Copping a plea is nearly always the smart, albeit "principle compromised" path.
A bit ironic, I think, to assign a duty to people who suffer false accusations, toward the "integrity" of the entity that made or supported the false accusation. Sorta like having a duty to the integrity of the person who cheated you.
Felony court is traffic court on steroids and meth.
“It’s time consuming, emotionally wrenching, unfair, and one way or the other, you’ll pay.”
That is true. As my meager experience attests! It was much more than an arraignment, and then showing up for the trial. It was anxiety, hours of preparation, gut wrenching . . . all of which I could have avoided by signing the ticket, but in conscience I could not sign it. I admit, my experience cannot compare to those arrested and jailed. Yet in the one case, the cop did not show up and I do believe I “sent a message.” The next Mayor of xtown took down that “revenue enhancement” speed trap.
“Felony court is traffic court on steroids and meth.”
I have no doubt that that is true.
If the Weavers can’t fight it and Clendennan can, OK the ones who can fight, do so not only for themselves, but the others whose circumstances do not allow it.
My only son died due to medical negligence and that loss affects me to this day, because I would otherwise have my adult son to help me with some of the legitimate battles of life. I do not.
It took three YEARS OUT OF MY LIFE. All we wanted was the truth.
I know that one reason, it fell to us, was that we could and would combat what our lawyer said was the “plantation mentality” of the hospital. In 1989! WE had to fight it, and I had to give up three years of my life, for Truth. YET, although it still affects me to this day, WE COULD act, and file papers, and hire expert witnesses out of our own limited pockets, because it was a dire priority for us to do so.
Other similar victims could not have done so. Our attorney said the same thing. It was beholden on us, and three years of my life, to get the truth, for not only our son, but other victims who did not have the education nor the even limited means we did have that we applied to the “case.” OH what a travesty of understatement, to call it a “case.” BUT we, mostly me, did what we had to for three years, to get the hospital to finally acknowledge, OK at least their own attorney apologized to us, something the doctors themselves would never do! Defending themselves and each others.
SO OF COURSE it is the duty of those who have the ability and stamina and some money, to fight for Justice. Not everyone can, and those who cannot, should not be blamed. Our attorney did not blame the other victims of the “plantation mentality” of the hospital; as a moral Person, he was GLAD to have clients who could send a message, for not only our son, but for parents who could not have sent that message.
We “won” exactly what? An apology by the attorney of the hospital, but it was a genuine personal one. A message to the upper reaches of the hospital: HEY you messed up! I expect that message held for some months at least and hopefully longer. Then, human nature, laziness even in situations of Life and Death, come back into play, and in the mean time, the standards were probably relaxed again.
But our son did not die for nothing. At least, with three years out of my life, the hospital got the message, for a while.
Human nature, human laziness, probably has crept back into the hospital
But the battle was worth fighting. Even though I am a wounded person because of the unnecessary death of my son, and the more-so, by the fight of three full years of my life.
OK those who can fight, have to fight, not only for themselves, but for those who can not fight.
Other than having given up my first born son, what can anyone else ask of me?
OK I can still engage in the Pursuit of Truth.
Thank you most sincerely.
We could not imagine either, that it happened against all their assurances, and that when it happened, that the doctors would lie to us. For us, it was about finding out the Truth. We did find out the Truth. The surgeon and anesthesiologist we interviewed and hired, were not in the operating room when the untoward event occurred. Did they admit that? NEVER! It was only legal discovery, after finding an attorney to help us, that the truth came out.
By the time we finally found an attorney willing to work with us, if not before, we knew, it was not only about us and our son. [There is no money in dead children.] Our attorney helped us because he was aware of other offenses at that hospital, and he realized that my husband I had enough “creds” to break through where other victims could not have.
We knew, I knew, that we were sacrificing years out of our lives, not because of us and our case, but because we represented others, who could not represent their own cases. We could not have found our attorney otherwise.
So it was a burden for Justice.
There is no money for a dead child. But we were able to find an honest attorney who deplored the way people were treated at that hospital, and took our case because we could at least get the attention of the hospital, at least for a while.
Was it worth those thee years?
Yes, because the Truth came out, and it put the hospital on notice for as long as human nature in human institutions can allow, that such mess ups are not to be tolerated.
My message is to fight for Justice. The costs to fight are very high, more in emotional commitment and suffering than dollars. The suffering is real. You will never be the same again! But OK you would never be the same again anyway, so why not fight for Justice?
The ones who can fight, I submit, are obligated to fight, on behalf of those who cannot fight, as well as for themselves.
Suffering seems to come with the territory.
Servus, of course.
Very well done.......
Try something constructive....survey Hillary and Bill's...friends.
Then when you are done with that...survey Obama's friends.
Then try...Harry Reid's friends.
Then when you are done there...survey the Police Force of Waco, TX.
Then just for grins...survey the Jacoby's representing the City, the Police..and so on.....
LOL! {^)
May they bear in mind that virtue often contains the seeds of tyranny
May they bear in mind that it is neither gold nor even a multitude of arms that sustains a state but its morals
May each of them keep in his house, in a corner of this field, next to his workbench, next to his plow, his gun, his sword, and his bayonet
May they all be soldiers
May they bear in mind that in circumstances where deliberation is possible, the advice of old men is good but that in moments of crisis youth is generally better informed that its elders
Denis Diderot
Apostrophe to the Insurgents, 1782
Bump
Carl Rove has it wrong when he says "Demography is destiny."
Demography is pretense. Morality is destiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.