Posted on 01/08/2003 9:24:19 AM PST by TomB
Are not police officers under oath during a hearing? Aren't they under oath pretty much all the time as a consequence of being an officer of the law?
I am not telling anyone what is the law here, I am asking. Just want it cleared up.
I am talking about the video of Ott and Keyser asking him to tell where Danielle's body is.
No, the questions and answers I am referring to were not in the context of DNA and other samples.
But since I have no problem answering questions posed to me, here you go.
He was aquitted by a jury who thought it easier to aquit than to deliberate over the Christmas holidays.
How do you know that is why they acquitted him? Did the jurors state to the media that was their reason?
Do you think that it is okay that he is getting away with murder?
Legally, due to the double jeopardy rule, he cannot be tried again, as you say. It is unfortunate,but that is the law. The law is there for a reason, and again, the "better for one guilty......" thing applies.
Do you think that it is okay that he is getting away with murder?
No, I do not think it is OK. The people on the jury need to be visited by the family of that girlfriend, doncha think? Of course it is morally wrong that he get away with it. But it is the fault of the CITIZENS, the JURY, and the Judge had the ability to overturn the verdict if he knew that is why they acquitted (note aquittal / has a 'c' in it).
The word Acquitted is probably in that law book you have.
"If you think what goes on in COURT has anything to do with what is RIGHT or FAIR, you have a lot to learn". That is FROM A LAWYER's mouth. Not Mine.
Investigators looking for a missing 7-year-old girl now believe the second-grader was kidnapped from her home, and yesterday they conducted a rare search using police dogs targeting all 184 residences in the child's neighborhood.
Michael Ebert, a lawyer in the appellate division of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and an expert in search-and-seizure issues, said forcing residents to submit to a search of their homes may cross constitutional boundaries.
Police said they hoped residents would let them in voluntarily. Ebert said officers would need to obtain search warrants for those who balk.
Police can search a home without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that someone inside the home is in immediate danger.
David Westerfield, a friend of the van Dam family who lives a few doors down, said his house was one of the first police dogs searched.
If the public won't stand up for their own rights, then the police would obviously believe they could violate the rights of a "potential suspect".
Which they did, to the collective yawn of most of San Diego.
I was NOT saying that the family should drop everything and forget her killer. They still have the ability and right to SUE that person. Since they now have PROOF, I would think they would succeed.
What I was ANSWERING was your question about did I think it was right he 'got away with it'. My answer was in that context and referred to being put in jail, and possibly executed.
You said nothing about his family or even if she had one.
Here you go trying to get around things, and discuss things you didn't bring up as if it were my fault.
I said legally that he got away with it. (as far as criminal court)
I said that morally it was wrong.
So, are you saying that the family, somehow having this information that the jury decided to acquit to get XMAS SHOPPING done, should not be upset with the jury for total perversion of the JURY CONCEPT? You think that is OK? What if it was your daughter and the JURY acquitted just for convenience sake? Who would you blame for letting him go free? ME?
The family could go after both. There I think we might agree!
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.