Ensuring they are victimized twice.
1 posted on
09/26/2013 9:09:09 AM PDT by
Altariel
To: Altariel
Whatever happened to a subpoena?
2 posted on
09/26/2013 9:10:21 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: Altariel
While she was detained, officers served Ruiz with two subpoenas, ordering her to come to two separate trials of Robert Robinson on domestic violence and witness tampering. So the witness is arrested to force her to testify in a witness tampering case? Will she be beaten for testifying in a way the state isn't satisfied with?
3 posted on
09/26/2013 9:16:50 AM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(Why is our military going to be used as Al Qaeda's air force in Syria?)
To: Altariel
The problem was that she was intimidated, threatened and frightented to death of being killed is she testified - but the conundrum was that, if she DIDN'T testify, the monster would be set free and she WOULD end up dead.
They took this drastic measure in an attempt to save her life - and not have her end up just another statistic.
Drastic? yes? Strictly legally speaking, overboard? Yes.
But her testimony will put this cretin behind bars where he can't kill HER - or OTHERS.
(How many of you, if she didn't testify, and he then killed her and others, would be castigating and blaming the judge and others for the consequent crimes?)
7 posted on
09/26/2013 9:20:33 AM PDT by
maine-iac7
(Christian is as Christian does - by their fruits)
To: Altariel
The perp:
Whenever anybody runs a "zero tolerance" campaign, they need to be laughed off the stage as having "zero intelligence."
8 posted on
09/26/2013 9:24:52 AM PDT by
Cyber Liberty
(It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear.)
To: Maine Mariner
15 posted on
09/26/2013 9:43:39 AM PDT by
latina4dubya
(when i have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
To: Altariel
They could really use such a law in states with inner-city war zones and a “stop snitchin’” culture.
To: Altariel
She has never said she wouldnt testify, explained Whittier. She was always willing to testify and she would have honored a subpoena, had she been served a subpoena. That part aside, and aside from whether or not the following should be the case, I thought it was already legal in many if not all states to detain a material witness.
21 posted on
09/26/2013 10:13:28 AM PDT by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: Altariel
There is a growing movement to criminalize crime victims....whether its ignoring criminal activity because criminals are minorities...or arresting victims to testify
This prosecutor needs to be removed
22 posted on
09/26/2013 10:17:13 AM PDT by
SeminoleCounty
(Unemployment is so high...its getting harder for Obama to job people anymore)
To: Altariel
If I was a juror and knew a person was testifying because they
were.arrested and caved to insure they testified I’d call that
testimony under duress and assume it was not believable.
To: Altariel
This is what happens when yahoos create hysteria and pass these stupid laws that take away the discretion of judges and juries. We wind up with zero tolerance nonsense, mandatory minimums, stupid laws named after dead kids. And the most imprisoned nation on Earth.
26 posted on
09/26/2013 10:45:49 AM PDT by
Forgotten Amendments
(I remember when a President having an "enemies list" was a scandal. Now, they have a kill list.)
To: Altariel
Maine law allows police to arrest victims to make sure they testify
That’s a sure fire way to get them to cooperate!
What asshats........
29 posted on
09/26/2013 1:12:01 PM PDT by
SECURE AMERICA
(Where can I go to sign for the American Revolution 2013 and the Crusades 2013?)
To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; albertp; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...
32 posted on
09/26/2013 2:29:09 PM PDT by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: Altariel
Whittier called the incident outrageous conduct on the part of the state.I'll say! They should have no power to compel testimony, even against someone else. Your knowledge is your property. You should be able to dispose of it at your sole discretion.
35 posted on
09/26/2013 6:06:38 PM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson