RE: 14 y/o Muslim student arrested for bringing "bomb" to school[It was a Cl...
September 23, 2015 at 5:20 am
(September 22, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It does not do the subject of the arrest any immediate good but it does preclude law enforcement from acting upon anything they do learn as a result of their malfeasance.
It is, in fact, such a serious blow to a criminal investigation that any cop who does it deserves to be reprimanded by his own side. He just crapped all over the case if there were a case and that is what seems to be the situation in Dallas. They knew there was no threat. They were just busting this kid's balls. Now, we can speculate on WHY they were busting his balls all we like but it is Texas and we have this:
^^That all assumes that the judge is willing to follow the rule about excluding such evidence. Since 1920, they have come up with dozens of ways to skirt that principle. Sometimes they are overturned on appeal, but just as often the appeals courts will use the deferential standard given to trial judges' decisions, when upholding a conviction on appeal, that the appellant essentially has to prove the jury was prejudiced in their decision by the tainted evidence (appeals courts love to hide behind the jury, when dodging issues like this). It's ridiculous and heartbreaking to read some of the cases. Spending about two hours on LexisNexus reading case law on the subject will make your skin crawl.
The Drug War, the "War on Crime", and the "War on Terror" have all combined to effectively eradicate the rights that our TV shows like to fantasize as still-extant, for the consumption of the Average Joe 'Murkan.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.