Then with all due respect you have a screwed up legal system
Really? It all stems from the same principle as underpins the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the right NOT to incriminate oneself...
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
I.E. noone should ideally have any image of themselves laid against them in court UNLESS by due process I.E. EITHER court-approved warrant to take said images OR warning that such images might be used in court.
Or are you NOW going to say the Constitution is a screwed up document?
To be honest, I think the usual human instinct for self-preservation would have kicked in had there been any further threat towards other people than the intended victim, and the people there would not have stuck about to find out the deal. Instinct can be very powerful when assessing a situation, and it must have been clear to several people that these attackers weren't randomly attacking.
Like the Joker says, people carry on as normal when things are "all part of the plan". It's when things that aren't "part of the plan" happen that "everyone loses their minds". And that's very true of humanity.
Really? It all stems from the same principle as underpins the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the right NOT to incriminate oneself...
I.E. noone should ideally have any image of themselves laid against them in court UNLESS by due process I.E. EITHER court-approved warrant to take said images OR warning that such images might be used in court.
Or are you NOW going to say the Constitution is a screwed up document?
How is a video taken by someone else self incrimination?
How is a video taken by someone else self incrimination?
If YOU stand up in front of a fone cam after murdering someone, covered in blood, and saying "yes, *I* did it!!!"....you really want to say that ISN'T self-incrimination??? :rolleyes:
If YOU stand up in front of a fone cam after murdering someone, covered in blood, and saying "yes, *I* did it!!!"....you really want to say that ISN'T self-incrimination??? :rolleyes:
I would personally say it's stupidity, and quite clear that when they choose to plead "not guilty" it won't be on the grounds of them not having committed the act. Therefore the court will be deciding whether they had legitimate reason or not, and will probably decide not, seeing as there is no legitimate reason for such a crime.
If YOU stand up in front of a fone cam after murdering someone, covered in blood, and saying "yes, *I* did it!!!"....you really want to say that ISN'T self-incrimination??? :rolleyes:
To put it simply - in the UK, CCTV etc. has to be accompanied by a posted declaration that CCTV IS in place in a particular location...just as stretches of road where they MAY be a speed camera have to have a little ""police camera in operation" sign at either end of the stretch of road.
It's about legal notification that a person's image may be being recorded I.E. NOT "without his knowledge"....
If a person ISN'T "informed"...doesn't matter that they ignore the notice/poster, it's there...he/she has the valid legal defence that the image was taken without his knowledge or approval. And people have walked before now on that defence.
To put it simply - in the UK, CCTV etc. has to be accompanied by a posted declaration that CCTV IS in place in a particular location...just as stretches of road where they MAY be a speed camera have to have a little ""police camera in operation" sign at either end of the stretch of road.
It's about legal notification that a person's image may be being recorded I.E. NOT "without his knowledge"....
If a person ISN'T "informed"...doesn't matter that they ignore the notice/poster, it's there...he/she has the valid legal defence that the image was taken without his knowledge or approval. And people have walked before now on that defence.
I go back to what I previously said, the laws are screwed up. Wasted money and time on obviously unnecessary trials.
I go back to what I previously said, the laws are screwed up.
So you do equally accept the principle underpinning the Fifth Amendment is screwed up.
Wasted money and time on obviously unnecessary trials.
Why unnecessary???
If a crime was committed, and a suspect arraigned/charged....why is any subsequent trial "unnecessary"? Last time I looked, people had a right to be judged by a jury of their peers - and THEY reach their decision on the basis of court-admissible evidence.
If they're presented with NON-admissible evidence - that makes no difference to the fact that the original crime was committed and somebody is guilty of it, does it??? It ONLY means that someone f**ked up regarding the quality/admissibility of their submission
I go back to what I previously said, the laws are screwed up. Wasted money and time on obviously unnecessary trials.
I disagree - one of the basic rights in a civilised world is the right to a fair trial. We may not like what these people want to say at a trial, although they probably didn't expect to be alive long enough to face one. But we must preserve that right at all costs, otherwise the people who fight against our system will have won. This is also why we should not allow stupid reactionary laws like the proposed snooper's charter to come to fruition.
So you do equally accept the principle underpinning the Fifth Amendment is screwed up.
Any law that says video that shows someone committing a crime is inadmissible in court is beyond screwed up. I don't see how America's Fifth Amendment would block a video of someone in the act of committing a crime from being admissible in court.
My comments are also not about point scoring against your country so you bringing up my country's Fifth Amendment in the hope that I would contradict and trap myself by defending my countries laws will not succeed.
That's why Gitmo is held in such high regard, I guess.
Obviously a much more unique case compared to when your country kept German soldiers as prisoners for many years after the war and after America had already released them.
Any law that says video that shows someone committing a crime is inadmissible in court is beyond screwed up. I don't see how America's Fifth Amendment would block a video of someone in the act of committing a crime from being admissible in court.
My comments are also not about point scoring against your country so you bringing up my country's Fifth Amendment in the hope that I would contradict and trap myself by defending my countries laws will not succeed.
Obviously a much more unique case compared to when your country kept German soldiers as prisoners for many years after the war and after America had already released them.
My comments are also not about point scoring against your country
Oh???
I go back to what I previously said, the laws are screwed up.
Then with all due respect you have a screwed up legal system.
Anyway - you see, we don't have a Fifth Amendment....so our right to NOT incriminate ourselves gets protected in law from the OTHER end of the process I.E. "at source", so to speak - by maintaining very rigorous standards of admissible evidence, and doing it whether "we" are aware of incriminating ourselves or not.
In other words - if there's a camera, and its video is to be admissible in court - we get told it's there. THEN it's our choice to commit a crime in full view of it or not.
Personally I prefer being protected by the law...as opposed to needing a right to defend myself against the law!
I wonder which of THOSE is the most "screwed up"...
Obviously a much more unique case compared to when your country kept German soldiers as prisoners for many years after the war and after America had already released them.
....and yet - it was an AMERICAN general, Eisenhower, who ordered the reclassification of "POWs" as "Disarmed Enemy Personnel" to specifically deprive them of their Geneva Convention III rights, especially of "rapid repatriation"...
And I presume you're ALSO unaware that the U.S. didn't ship them home to Germany - but actually transferred them as manual labour TO the UK and France???
Anyway - you see, we don't have a Fifth Amendment....so our right to NOT incriminate ourselves gets protected in law from the OTHER end of the process I.E. "at source", so to speak - by maintaining very rigorous standards of admissible evidence, and doing it whether "we" are aware of incrinminating ourselves or not.
In other words - if there's a camera, and its video is to be admissible in court - we get told it's there. THEN it's our choice to commit a crime in full view of it or not.
So if you had a child and someone filmed a stranger kidnapping your child you would be OK with that film being inadmissible in a court? You actually think that's how it should be?
....and yet - it was an AMERICAN general, Eisenhower, who ordered the reclassification of "POWs" as "Disarmed Enemy Personnel" to specifically deprive them of their Geneva Convention III rights, especially of "rapid repatriation"...
And I presume you're ALSO unaware that the U.S. didn't ship them home to Germany - but actually transferred them as manual labour TO the UK and France???
As I said, America released nearly all German POWs by 1946. Your country and France kept most of those released prisoners imprisoned for up to three more years. I guess Eisenhower forced your government, and France's, to do that?
Comments
Really? It all stems from the same principle as underpins the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the right NOT to incriminate oneself...
I.E. noone should ideally have any image of themselves laid against them in court UNLESS by due process I.E. EITHER court-approved warrant to take said images OR warning that such images might be used in court.
Or are you NOW going to say the Constitution is a screwed up document?
To be honest, I think the usual human instinct for self-preservation would have kicked in had there been any further threat towards other people than the intended victim, and the people there would not have stuck about to find out the deal. Instinct can be very powerful when assessing a situation, and it must have been clear to several people that these attackers weren't randomly attacking.
Like the Joker says, people carry on as normal when things are "all part of the plan". It's when things that aren't "part of the plan" happen that "everyone loses their minds". And that's very true of humanity.
How is a video taken by someone else self incrimination?
If YOU stand up in front of a fone cam after murdering someone, covered in blood, and saying "yes, *I* did it!!!"....you really want to say that ISN'T self-incrimination??? :rolleyes:
I would personally say it's stupidity, and quite clear that when they choose to plead "not guilty" it won't be on the grounds of them not having committed the act. Therefore the court will be deciding whether they had legitimate reason or not, and will probably decide not, seeing as there is no legitimate reason for such a crime.
I was actually referring to other video taken.
To put it simply - in the UK, CCTV etc. has to be accompanied by a posted declaration that CCTV IS in place in a particular location...just as stretches of road where they MAY be a speed camera have to have a little ""police camera in operation" sign at either end of the stretch of road.
It's about legal notification that a person's image may be being recorded I.E. NOT "without his knowledge"....
If a person ISN'T "informed"...doesn't matter that they ignore the notice/poster, it's there...he/she has the valid legal defence that the image was taken without his knowledge or approval. And people have walked before now on that defence.
I go back to what I previously said, the laws are screwed up. Wasted money and time on obviously unnecessary trials.
So you do equally accept the principle underpinning the Fifth Amendment is screwed up.
Why unnecessary???
If a crime was committed, and a suspect arraigned/charged....why is any subsequent trial "unnecessary"? Last time I looked, people had a right to be judged by a jury of their peers - and THEY reach their decision on the basis of court-admissible evidence.
If they're presented with NON-admissible evidence - that makes no difference to the fact that the original crime was committed and somebody is guilty of it, does it??? It ONLY means that someone f**ked up regarding the quality/admissibility of their submission
I disagree - one of the basic rights in a civilised world is the right to a fair trial. We may not like what these people want to say at a trial, although they probably didn't expect to be alive long enough to face one. But we must preserve that right at all costs, otherwise the people who fight against our system will have won. This is also why we should not allow stupid reactionary laws like the proposed snooper's charter to come to fruition.
Unnecessary trials sounds a little ominous.
That's why Gitmo is held in such high regard, I guess.
Any law that says video that shows someone committing a crime is inadmissible in court is beyond screwed up. I don't see how America's Fifth Amendment would block a video of someone in the act of committing a crime from being admissible in court.
My comments are also not about point scoring against your country so you bringing up my country's Fifth Amendment in the hope that I would contradict and trap myself by defending my countries laws will not succeed.
Obviously a much more unique case compared to when your country kept German soldiers as prisoners for many years after the war and after America had already released them.
Go ahead and google the term "sub judice".
What makes you think I might approve of that?
Oh???
Anyway - you see, we don't have a Fifth Amendment....so our right to NOT incriminate ourselves gets protected in law from the OTHER end of the process I.E. "at source", so to speak - by maintaining very rigorous standards of admissible evidence, and doing it whether "we" are aware of incriminating ourselves or not.
In other words - if there's a camera, and its video is to be admissible in court - we get told it's there. THEN it's our choice to commit a crime in full view of it or not.
Personally I prefer being protected by the law...as opposed to needing a right to defend myself against the law!
I wonder which of THOSE is the most "screwed up"...
For some situations, not at all.
....and yet - it was an AMERICAN general, Eisenhower, who ordered the reclassification of "POWs" as "Disarmed Enemy Personnel" to specifically deprive them of their Geneva Convention III rights, especially of "rapid repatriation"...
And I presume you're ALSO unaware that the U.S. didn't ship them home to Germany - but actually transferred them as manual labour TO the UK and France???
Going by that reaction I see my assessment of your comments was correct.
So if you had a child and someone filmed a stranger kidnapping your child you would be OK with that film being inadmissible in a court? You actually think that's how it should be?
Which obviously begs the question, who decides on exactly what situations? You don't in any way see some troubling issues there?
As I said, America released nearly all German POWs by 1946. Your country and France kept most of those released prisoners imprisoned for up to three more years. I guess Eisenhower forced your government, and France's, to do that?
No.
Blimey. Okie doke, good luck with your New World Disorder
If there was more commonsense being practiced then there would be less "World Disorder."