Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dcwusmc
Are we in disagreement here? On either part? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

Okay, I reread your post and the one you were responding to; even on re-reading your intention wasn't exactly clear, and is somewhat orthogonal to the issue in the responded-to post.

The responded-to post claimed that society shouldn't lose its right to exact vengeance on a crook just because a cop made a mistake. Your comment that the crook didn't victimize 'society' as a whole, but rather a number of individuals, in no way argues against the notion that victimized individuals shouldn't have their attacker go free just because of a cop's mistake. I mistook you as supporting such a notion.

80 posted on 07/18/2008 10:21:46 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: supercat; trublu

He (or she) was talking about crimes against “society,” which is an impossibility. There can only be crimes committed against individuals. I was challenging his/her basic premise. There are no collective “rights;” there can be no collective “victims.” As to the notion of allowing police officers to present tainted evidence at trials, without some SERIOUS personal penalties to keep them straight, my answer is NO WAY. And I mean some seriously Draconian penalties, like dismemberment, as a means of dissuading them from bypassing the Fourth Amendment requirements or lying in their warrant applications.


81 posted on 07/19/2008 2:43:07 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson