RE: reliable evidence

RE: reliable evidence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slaveboyforyou -> RE: reliable evidence (2/12/2008 4:32:31 PM)
When I was taking criminal justice courses in college, there was a scenario called the "Dirty Harry" dilemma. As you may have guessed, it stems from the movie; "Dirty Harry." Inspector Harry Calahan volunteers to be the bag man to make a ransom payment to the kidnapper. The kidnapper has taken a young adolescent girl and buried her alive. He advises the police that she only has mere hours to live, then she suffocates. The police give in, and agree to pay the ranson. Harry is led throughout the city to the drop off point, where he is assaulted by the kidnapper. The kidnapper informs Harry that he is going to let the girl die, and then Harry fights with the man. Harry manages to stab him in the leg with a switchblade knife. The kidnapper limps off into the night with his money. Harry does police work, and contacts the local hospitals looking for a man with a stab wound to the leg. He finds a possible suspect, and investigates. He finds a rifle linked to the kidnapper, and finds a suspect. The suspect runs, and Harry shoots him in the leg. The suspect falls, and Harry demands to know where the girl is. The suspect demands a lawyer, but Harry tortures the man as the camera pans away from the scene. So if you are Harry (or a police officer in a similar situation) what do you do? You know the girl is buried alive, and facing imminent death by suffocation. You can allow the suspect his rights, and allow the girl to die. You can torture the suspect and save the innocent girl from death (you hope). What do you do? Torture is not a pleasant thing, and I don't condone it. But there are moral dilemmas that present themselves at times. I can tell you my answer to the above. I would beat the son of a bitch within a inch of his life.

Real0ne -> RE: reliable evidence (2/12/2008 11:06:06 PM)
LE; I sent you some research that a friend of mine did on the mousoai case where the feds used , and the federal court accepted faked evidence against him in the trial. I cannot post it here as it has names dates addresses etc in it. So there is no such thing any more as credible evidence or sources for that matter imo. At least nothing that we can depend on with absolute or even relative certainty.

meatcleaver -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 12:01:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou When I was taking criminal justice courses in college, there was a scenario called the "Dirty Harry" dilemma. As you may have guessed, it stems from the movie; "Dirty Harry." Inspector Harry Calahan volunteers to be the bag man to make a ransom payment to the kidnapper. The kidnapper has taken a young adolescent girl and buried her alive. He advises the police that she only has mere hours to live, then she suffocates. The police give in, and agree to pay the ranson. Harry is led throughout the city to the drop off point, where he is assaulted by the kidnapper. The kidnapper informs Harry that he is going to let the girl die, and then Harry fights with the man. Harry manages to stab him in the leg with a switchblade knife. The kidnapper limps off into the night with his money. Harry does police work, and contacts the local hospitals looking for a man with a stab wound to the leg. He finds a possible suspect, and investigates. He finds a rifle linked to the kidnapper, and finds a suspect. The suspect runs, and Harry shoots him in the leg. The suspect falls, and Harry demands to know where the girl is. The suspect demands a lawyer, but Harry tortures the man as the camera pans away from the scene. So if you are Harry (or a police officer in a similar situation) what do you do? You know the girl is buried alive, and facing imminent death by suffocation. You can allow the suspect his rights, and allow the girl to die. You can torture the suspect and save the innocent girl from death (you hope). What do you do? Torture is not a pleasant thing, and I don't condone it. But there are moral dilemmas that present themselves at times. I can tell you my answer to the above. I would beat the son of a bitch within a inch of his life. This is pure fantasy dressed up to justify your belief in torture. Pray tell me when was the last time there was such a dilemma in real life as opposed to Hollywood life?

Rule -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 12:28:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou What do you do? Stop working for the police.

RealityLicks -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 5:01:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou What do you do? While you open that fabled "can of whup-ass", a real detective, let's say Sgt Columbo, finds the girl using constitutional law enforcement techniques. As you frog-march what remains of the "kidnapper" up the stairs of the precinct house, the girl is reunited with her tearful family. She takes one look at your suspect and says: "That's the wrong guy". Your department is sued by him for millions and you lose your job. Dirty Harry is a fantasy. If real police/security personnel are walking around thinking of using his methods, you are in worse trouble than any number of kidnappers can put you in. Now, suppose you are the suspect and Harry tortures you. You know nothing and eventually, after days of interrogation, he is satisfied of that. He releases you and hands you your bloody fingernails and teeth, says its just part of his job - a necessary evil to keep everyone safe. He expects you to leave it at that and return to your life. What do you do?

LadyEllen -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 5:12:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou When I was taking criminal justice courses in college, there was a scenario called the "Dirty Harry" dilemma. As you may have guessed, it stems from the movie; "Dirty Harry." Assuming this is the right guy, then what Harry does, Harry must answer for according to the law. The real issue I think is that Harry is deciding for himself here what he does, which is a whole different situation to the one it would be if Harry's boss, the commissioner of police, the mayor and the justice system ordered or endorsed or allowed Harry to do his thing. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 5:48:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks While you open that fabled "can of whup-ass", a real detective, let's say Sgt Columbo, finds the girl using constitutional law enforcement techniques. Lieutenant Columbo if you please. Shaky on your facts....again Other than that you must be right 'cos I agree with you.

KenDckey -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 6:13:32 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080212/pl_nm/usa_torture_scalia_dc WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on Tuesday some physical interrogation techniques can be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a hidden bomb about to blow up. In such cases, "smacking someone in the face" could be justified, the outspoken Scalia told the BBC. "You can't come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say 'Oh it's torture, and therefore it's no good."' To begin with the Constitution ... is referring to punishment for crime. And, for example, incarcerating someone indefinitely would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime," he said in an interview with the Law in Action program on BBC Radio 4. "I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?" he asked. So if blowing up LA is considered constitutional by a Supreme Court Justice, then where are interrogation techniques covered?

KenDckey -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 6:19:19 AM)
Reliabel evidence is actually determined by the trial judge, then by the jurors, and then by the appealit court system. And even then some other judge determines that it is wrong

DomKen -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 6:40:36 AM)
Thankfully Scalia does not interpret the Constitution alone. The Dirty Harry scenario is laughable. If the kidnapper really is willing to let the girl die he could give in at the first smack and give precise directions to somewhere he did not bury the child. When Dirty Harry comes back he finds himself facing an Internal Affairs investigator and a prosecutor who wants to know why smacking the suspect did'nt lead to the life being saved. The kidnapper walks due to him being able to say that he was tortured in police custody and simply made up a location so as to get the conviction to stop. The defence attorney easily casts doubt on all evidence against the suspect gathered after the torture as simply the police trying to frame an innocent man. Final outcome, one dead girl, one or more police careers ruined, no conviction and a second payday for the kidnapper when his civiul suit against the PD and city is settled. Chicagoans have been dealing with the aftermath of widespread torture of suspects for quite some time and it clearly wasn't useful in obtaining convictions of guilty people and certainl;y resulted in innocents confessing to crimes they did not commit. Google "Jon Burge" for details.

seeksfemslave -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 8:24:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on Tuesday some physical interrogation techniques can be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a hidden bomb about to blow up. I actully heard that broadcast. He made the distinction that "torture type" treatment may be OK during interrogation of a crime but is not OK as a punishment for a crime.

kittinSol -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 8:59:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Reliabel evidence Is she a relative of Tinkerbel's :-) ?

MusicalBoredom -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 10:45:57 AM)
No tink was born from fairy dust i think. (That's what she told me anyway) lol On a serious note... I have never been tortured but I have been coerced. A few months I was driving on a public street that cuts through the local university campus. The campus cops started following me and pulled into the parking lot of my office which is about half a mile off campus. They had it in their mind I was up to no good and stopped me for speeding they said. All I had seen was the flashing lights and cops in uniform. After having me stand in front of their car for 45 minutes while they did a complete background search on me they wrote me a ticket for speeding. I was furious and tired and had been threatened with being arrested and all sorts of things for not allowing them to search my car (which had nothing in it btw). I signed the ticket and while they were driving off I saw it was the campus police and not the city police. I also saw that the ticket stated I was speeding and given a ticket on campus. I have video cameras at my office and produced video in court where it was clear that I was stopped and detained off campus. The ticket was thrown out. Had I not had my own cameras it would have been my word against theirs with my signature on a ticket that stated I got it on campus. I know this is nothing close to the types of coercion being discussed but I think it is an example of what techniques SOME law enforcement personnel will use when they THINK they are right about something. This is why we have courts and try to keep the decision of guilt or innocence out of the hands of the authorities and in the hands of the courts. D

Alumbrado -> RE: reliable evidence (2/13/2008 12:59:46 PM)
And you have nicely identified a big problem in the CJ system...'when they think they are right'... for some people that means 'anything goes'. Some of those sorts of people shouldn't be given a badge and a gun (or a radar gun, or a Tazer...), but they are. Since we have no choice but to hire people (instead of perfect robots) into our law enforcement agencies, the best bet is to educate, educate, train, retrain, review, oversee, and educate some more...and that includes civilians as well as cops... particularly the media when they gloss over big problems and exacerbate minor ones. Unfortunately, out of the whole equation the ones most blameworthy ( the media, the bad cops, the corrupt politicans and bureaucrats, and those who fuel the fire with gossip and disinformation), are the least likely to be held directly accountable.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375