• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terrorist found not guilty

I have always found the whole "inadmissible evidence" to be a crock.
True, that's the major problem. Our civilian courts have abandoned the search for truth and justice in favor of procedural correctness.

Attacks on our country should be tried in military courts where finding the truth is still a paramount consideration, particularly when the attacks are committed outside outside our national borders. I simply do not see any justification for granting these maniacs privileges or rights which we guarantee to our own citizens.
 
Tired, just finished a journey that started at 4:30 in the morning.

Well ****.

I knew they weren't just gonna release them if they were found not guilty.

Whatever. Do as you please America.

I don't please. I find it a mockery of justice. There's a perfectly viable, Congressionally-approved system of fair military trials where this should have been handled, and none of this would have been issue. But because Obama wanted to score political points, he insisted on this dog-and-pony show. It's a disgrace, and embarrasing as a free nation. If you're found not guilty in a criminal court, you walk. That's the way it works. This guy wasn't going to no matter what.
 
my point is...that if there is no evidence against you...there will never be any "inadmissable evidence". make lawenforcement responsible for "mistakes" and there goes the incentive to pull shady crap.

how many innocent guys confessed because no one told them they had the right to remain silent?

how many innocent guys are in prison for selling drugs because an illegal (ie no warrant) seach DIDN'T find drugs in their possession?

do you actually think the cops have time to waste harassing innocent civilians?
 
are you obtuse?

the fact that the evidence was deemed inadmissible in no way proves, and I quote, "for certain" that is was Bush's fault.

you made the claim back it up
 
my point is...that if there is no evidence against you...there will never be any "inadmissable evidence". make lawenforcement responsible for "mistakes" and there goes the incentive to pull shady crap.

how many innocent guys confessed because no one told them they had the right to remain silent?

how many innocent guys are in prison for selling drugs because an illegal (ie no warrant) seach DIDN'T find drugs in their possession?

It's an argument which has raged for decades. It would put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove these violations took place, rather than put the burden on the government to show that the evidence was obtained cleanly. The burden should always be on the government.

Inadmissibility is the most libertarian way to do it.

do you actually think the cops have time to waste harassing innocent civilians?

They sure do in airports, anyway.
 
It's an argument which has raged for decades. It would put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove these violations took place, rather than put the burden on the government to show that the evidence was obtained cleanly. The burden should always be on the government.

Inadmissibility is the most libertarian way to do it.



They sure do in airports, anyway.

if you are not guilty, whether the search is legal or not...they shouldn't find any evidence. If they search your house by mistake and don't find anything they should have to compensate you for the inconvenience.

just seems to me that "inadmissible" lets more guilty people walk than it protects innocent people. the system is skewed in favor of the bad guys
 
Yet another embarrassing defeat for this clown in the WH.


j-mac
If a cop arrested you and sent you to court on numerous charges but you were only convicted of one and got sentenced twenty years in jail for it would you be laughing all the way to jail about how you were found not guilty.

It's like a delusion. A terrorist is convicted and found guilty on something that could him twenty to life in prison and then we actually have a thread titled "terrorist found not guilty" and blaming Obama that only one charge stuck. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
 
if you are not guilty, whether the search is legal or not...they shouldn't find any evidence. If they search your house by mistake and don't find anything they should have to compensate you for the inconvenience.

just seems to me that "inadmissible" lets more guilty people walk than it protects innocent people. the system is skewed in favor of the bad guys

There are trade-offs to living in a free society. There will be a certain level of lawlessness and some people will get away with things. Better that than violating civil liberties.

But the idea that if you're not guilty, there won't be evidence, is just wrong. Evidence is what it is. There are plenty of things you have, etc., which could very will be evidence of something, whether or not you did it. It's whether or not the evidence adds up to proof.
 
why not? please explain.

Civilian courts and military courts have different set of rules and regulations, for instance.. In civilian courts a man/woman is innocent until proven guilty and in military courts a man/woman is guilty until proven innocent, why because again... rules and regulations are completely different.
 
It's whether or not the evidence adds up to proof.

and how that evidence is obtained has no bearing on whether or not it adds up to proof. as I said, admissibility, in and of itself, is a BS technicality.



I have a dozen or so firearms in my home. let the cops come and take everyone of them as "evidence" they will find no "proof" that any of them were used in the commission of a crime. would they go to the expense and time to do so if they didn't have reason to suspect me? i doubt it.
 
So, America has failed by requiring that honest justice be served? How exactly is acting like civilized people and requiring a fair trial for our enemies a bad thing? It's not like the guy is going free. He's going to be in prison, likely for the rest of his life, and we proved it honestly and fairly. Not having to resort to barbarism in order to win this conflict seems like a victory, not a loss.

Requiring fair and regulated information gathering keeps our law enforcement honest. In a civilized country, we would rather release a guilty person than punish an innocent one. No matter how bloodthirsty a crowd may be, cold and impartial justice wins the day.

And it did win the day here. The bad guy was caught, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned. The bull factor in this article is insane. This was a victory, not a defeat. Spinning it to attack Obama is absurd. WE WON.
 
and how that evidence is obtained has no bearing on whether or not it adds up to proof. as I said, admissibility, in and of itself, is a BS technicality.

I have a dozen or so firearms in my home. let the cops come and take everyone of them as "evidence" they will find no "proof" that any of them were used in the commission of a crime. would they go to the expense and time to do so if they didn't have reason to suspect me? i doubt it.

You would be singing a very different tune if you were black.
 
So, America has failed by requiring that honest justice be served? How exactly is acting like civilized people and requiring a fair trial for our enemies a bad thing? It's not like the guy is going free. He's going to be in prison, likely for the rest of his life, and we proved it honestly and fairly. Not having to resort to barbarism in order to win this conflict seems like a victory, not a loss.

Requiring fair and regulated information gathering keeps our law enforcement honest. In a civilized country, we would rather release a guilty person than punish an innocent one. No matter how bloodthirsty a crowd may be, cold and impartial justice wins the day.

And it did win the day here. The bad guy was caught, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned. The bull factor in this article is insane. This was a victory, not a defeat. Spinning it to attack Obama is absurd. WE WON.

agreed, whatever your political lean, whoever you wish to blame. the truth is this guy will spend 20 to life in prison. he did not "get off"
 
You would be singing a very different tune if you were black.

doubtful. contrary to popular liberal belief, the cops have better things to do than harass innocent law abiding black people.
 
agreed, whatever your political lean, whoever you wish to blame. the truth is this guy will spend 20 to life in prison. he did not "get off"
It's also worthwhile to keep in mind that he's most likely going to be doing his time in ADX Florence, which is basically solitary confinement. That **** ain't no picnic; it's the hardest of hard time.

Just one more reason why the premise of this thread is stupid.
 
and how that evidence is obtained has no bearing on whether or not it adds up to proof. as I said, admissibility, in and of itself, is a BS technicality.



I have a dozen or so firearms in my home. let the cops come and take everyone of them as "evidence" they will find no "proof" that any of them were used in the commission of a crime. would they go to the expense and time to do so if they didn't have reason to suspect me? i doubt it.

But it's not up to you; it's up to a jury. If they decide it's enough, then it is - no matter if the cop gets punished or not. You're still in prison. Challenging a guilty verdict for insufficient evidence is a near-impossible task, and you're still in prison and paying through the nose while you do. with the exclusionary rule, you have a hearing and you're done.

If a cop is following a hunch on scant evidence, then this all could well happen. Making it a lot harder makes it even more expensive to chase someone who's innocent.
 
But it's not up to you; it's up to a jury. If they decide it's enough, then it is - no matter if the cop gets punished or not. You're still in prison. Challenging a guilty verdict for insufficient evidence is a near-impossible task, and you're still in prison and paying through the nose while you do. with the exclusionary rule, you have a hearing and you're done.

If a cop is following a hunch on scant evidence, then this all could well happen. Making it a lot harder makes it even more expensive to chase someone who's innocent.


juries convict innocent people all the time even with "legally obtained" evidence. If I ever get accused of a crime i didn't commit. I am waiving the jury trial and going with the trial by judge. at least then my fate won't be in the hands of 12 idiots too stupid to get out of jury duty. :shrug:
 
But it's not up to you; it's up to a jury.
Not exactly. If evidence is ruled inadmissible - like the chief prosecution witness in this case - the jury never gets to hear about it.
 
Not exactly. If evidence is ruled inadmissible - like the chief prosecution witness in this case - the jury never gets to hear about it.

Look at what I'm arguing. He's arguing AGAINST inadmissibility. Under his construct, there would be no ruling and it would be admitted.
 
juries convict innocent people all the time even with "legally obtained" evidence.

What support do you have for that? Give some specifics. How often, exactly, does it happen?


If I ever get accused of a crime i didn't commit. I am waiving the jury trial and going with the trial by judge. at least then my fate won't be in the hands of 12 idiots too stupid to get out of jury duty. :shrug:

There's no reason to think you'd fare better that way, and lots of reason to think you'd be worse off. If there were generally the better approach, no defense attorney would opt for a jury trial.
 
What support do you have for that? Give some specifics. How often, exactly, does it happen?




There's no reason to think you'd fare better that way, and lots of reason to think you'd be worse off. If there were generally the better approach, no defense attorney would opt for a jury trial.


dude, have you ever sat in a jury room waiting to be seated? it's like freakin Mos Eisley spaceport in there. the only time I ever actually had to serve, there was one old guy on the jury who wanted to convict the guy because "he just looks like he is guilty" and a lady that wanted to convict him because he owned a dog and she was afraid of dogs. no freaking thank you. Most defense attorneys are banking on the fact that the jury is so stupid that they can outsmart them.

that and most defense attorneys probably think their client is actually guilty. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
dude, have you ever sat in a jury room waiting to be seated? it's like freakin Mos Eisley spaceport in there. the only time I ever actually had to serve, there was one old guy on the jury who wanted to convict the guy because "he just looks like he is guilty" and a lady that wanted to convict him because he owned a dog and she was afraid of dogs. no freaking thank you. Most defense attorneys are banking on the fact that the jury is so stupid that they can outsmart them.

That's why there are (usually) 12; that's why it has to be unaminous. And both sides have a shot at that jury, so both sides can play to whatever stupidity they see. Just as many people complain that juries are too lenient.

If you're placing your fate entirely in the hands of the judge, you're resting on one guy -- who may not like you. Who may be a hardass and think everyone's guilty. Who may be late for a golf outing. Whatever. With one guy, there's no check.

that and most defense attorneys probably think their client is actually guilty. :shrug:


A defense attorney will think his client is guilty . . . if he's guilty. It's a very, very poor attorney who doesn't know.

Besides, you want it both ways here -- how are all these supposed innocent people being found guilty ("all the time," you say) if the police and prosecutors don't bother with innocent people, and all the defense attorneys think they're guilty?

If all this is true, wouldn't some extra safeguards not only be a good idea, but actually demanded by any sense of fair play and justice?
 
we need some egghead to invent a freakin brain scan. then it would be one simple question: are you guilty of the crime with which you are charged? yes or no.
 
we need some egghead to invent a freakin brain scan. then it would be one simple question: are you guilty of the crime with which you are charged? yes or no.

Well, we don't have that. So the next best thing is to make the government work as hard as possible, dotting every i and crossing every t, before it takes someone's liberty away.
 
Well, we don't have that. So the next best thing is to make the government work as hard as possible, dotting every i and crossing every t, before it takes someone's liberty away.

tell that to the parent's of the kid killed by the drunk driver who was released because the calibration on the breathalyzer was 2 days overdue, or to the lady who was raped by the guy who was released because the cop forgot to put an "x" in block 17a on the arrest warrant.

I just think the level of what is or is not admissible is ridiculously biased in favor of the criminal. I am not argueing against checks and balances.
 
Back
Top Bottom