Skip to comments.
Risking a life term to protect a child (BURGLAR TURNS OVER SEX-CRIME EVIDENCE FROM STOLEN PROPERTY)
San Francisco Mercury News ^
| Sun, May. 07, 2006
| Sean Webby
Posted on 05/08/2006 11:35:07 AM PDT by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-158 next last
To: martin_fierro
To: nickcarraway
And then, he too will go on trial.
Given the circumstances...he should receive lenient treatment.
3
posted on
05/08/2006 11:38:35 AM PDT
by
P-40
(http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
To: nickcarraway
This guy may be a crook, but he has morals. God bless him.
4
posted on
05/08/2006 11:39:32 AM PDT
by
Bigg Red
(Never trust Democrats with national security.)
To: nickcarraway
Good for Mr. Hahn....even though he broke the law 3 times already.....He was right to display his conviction of turning ina predator--even at his own expense.
5
posted on
05/08/2006 11:39:57 AM PDT
by
ExcursionGuy84
("Jesus, Your Love takes my breath away.")
To: nickcarraway
Hopefully, someone who is much more knowledgable about Law can answer this for me. If the police have evidence against him that was stolen, couldn't the defense claim something to the effect that the police were using illegally siezed evidence?
To: nickcarraway
Some things reach to the heart of every man's conscience.
7
posted on
05/08/2006 11:41:39 AM PDT
by
domenad
(In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
To: nickcarraway
If justice is truly blind, he will be found innocent by reason of jury nullification.......
8
posted on
05/08/2006 11:41:43 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(In warfare there are no constant conditions. --- The Art of War by SunTzu)
To: nickcarraway
Hahn is a theif. Thieves can be rehabilitated. I think he should be given special consideration, and help, given the service to society he performed.
Aitken is an animal, and beyond our ability to help. He should be sent to his maker for repair.
9
posted on
05/08/2006 11:42:09 AM PDT
by
brownsfan
(It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
To: samson1097
...couldn't the defense claim something to the effect that the police were using illegally siezed evidence?
The simple answer is: if the evidence was not stolen by the police or by someone working for/with the police, the evidence is (generally) admissible.
10
posted on
05/08/2006 11:42:15 AM PDT
by
Thrusher
("...there is no peace without victory.")
To: nickcarraway
This case will show up on Law and Order next season.
11
posted on
05/08/2006 11:43:22 AM PDT
by
Bookie1066
(What part of illegal don't you understand?)
To: samson1097
If the police have evidence against him that was stolen, couldn't the defense claim something to the effect that the police were using illegally siezed evidence? No, phat you are thinking of only applies if the police themselves broke in and stole it or they sent someone it to steal it.
To: samson1097
Not in this case. Stolen or otherwise purloined items can be used as evidence against a third party providing that no police or prosecuting agent played any part in the theft. In other words, if a cop said to someone, "Boy, I sure wish we could get a warrant for his house so we could prove he killed your son," the evidence would likely be thrown out. However, since the police made no effort to solicit this gentleman, the evidence is likely admissible, plus they have a confession on top of it. Then again, all it takes is one liberal judge.
13
posted on
05/08/2006 11:44:26 AM PDT
by
domenad
(In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
To: brownsfan
". . . beyond our ability to help. He should be sent to his maker for repair."
I am going to proudly plagerize that line one day. Awesome.
14
posted on
05/08/2006 11:45:07 AM PDT
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: Thrusher
It would be hard to argue Hahn was acting as an agent for the police, even if the DA declines to press charges against him.
To: MeanWestTexan
"I am going to proudly plagerize that line one day. Awesome."
I happily give you permission.
16
posted on
05/08/2006 11:45:58 AM PDT
by
brownsfan
(It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
To: P-40
17
posted on
05/08/2006 11:46:57 AM PDT
by
TXBSAFH
(Proud Dad of Twins, What Does Not Kill You Makes You Stronger!!!!!!)
To: samson1097
illegally siezed evidence?
I think the original evidence was only usable to get a warrant.
18
posted on
05/08/2006 11:47:35 AM PDT
by
P-40
(http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: nickcarraway
San Francisco Mercury News Nah, unfortunately that fishwrap still belongs to the South Bay.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-158 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson