Warik said:
Impressive circular logic.
I suppose that's why I got off last year. I was charged with "murder," NOT shooting someone in the head point blank with a shotgun.
Anyway,
http://www.dui.com/duieducation/LegalDefinition.html
Why post a link about DUI laws in Califrnia where I am charged in Florida? I thought it was already covered that each state charged differently... Anyway, what you see as circular logic is the way the law is written. Was I drunk? No. Was I over .08? Yes.
Oooh... impressive REVERSE logic here. My question was if an innocent person has ever been put to death. You claim that you're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, constitution, blah blah blah. Wasn't this guy proven guilty in a court of law? So the death penalty is flawed because someone MIGHT be innocent and he is a LIKELY example? Sorry, that does not answer my question.
Can you cite someone who has been PROVEN to have been put to death unjustly?
The guy I mentioned was found guilty in a court of law. New evidence emerged after the conviction, but the state would not hear it because his attorney missed a deadline to file.
Eventually the evidence got so overhwleming that his execution was pushed up (hastened).
Odd, no?
Anyway, the only "proof" I can give you is this:
Ther are several signed affidavits stating he was at work when the crime occurred.
The state of Virginia won't release the new DNA evidence for testing. Is that conclusive? No. But it deserves consideration.I leave further reasearch to you. "Roger Keith Coleman" is his name.
Hence the reason they are (as I said in another thread) a misappropriation of tax dollars. Mass-armament of the populace is a far more effective way to reduce crime IMO.
I agree.
Uh, wasn't that the whole point of the argument? You: "police prey on the poor and leave the rich alone. boohoo" Me: "police hang around poor neighborhoods because they commit more crimes than the rich." You: "no. it's because <this>" Me: "no. it's because <this>"
What are we arguing about again?
We're getting at the same point from a different angle. I'm saying that cops don't prevent or reduce crime.
They just hang out in poor areas in order to justify their existence. If cops parked themselves in middle class or exclusive areas, people would complain. Those homeowners know people
and have the resources to defend themselves.
Poor people lack the resources to fight back and call anyone and complain.
Do poor people commit more crime? Probably. It's a safe assumption that crime follows economic trends. But that isn't news. So why are we spending inordinate tax dollars on cops/prisons/jails to treat symptoms?
We already know who commits the crime. The way it is addressed is perhaps the issue. If cops are arresting all these people and crime is not decreasing....
what do you suggest Warik (reasonably)?