aquapub said:
Want proof that Republicans are anti-crime and vice versa?
Try this:
When liberals took control of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren (the pro-criminal Supreme Court of the 60s and 70s so revered by liberals), they declared war on precedent (which only matters to them when a LIBERAL precedent has been established-as they proved in Stanford, Penry, Bowers, just to name a few) and turned our criminal justice system on its head.
Hmm... Judges are Judges, they aren't members of political parties (lol).
Example: They made it so that police had to give a speech while arresting someone that would virtually guarantee they would never confess (Miranda). This was all based on the Justices New York County District Attorney’s office: Confessions rapidly dropped from 49% to 14% directly following the ruling.
Its called the 5th Amendment. Although alot of people know about it, there ARE some worthless shitbags on the streets who DON'T know about it, and don't understand that once arrested they can refuse to answer questions in order not to "self-incriminate" themselves. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Its the ****ing law, we are still required to operate by the law, reguardless if Police action is in the best intrests of the safety of the people. If we made laws and then decided not to abide by them, what ****ing good are the laws? And what kind of nation does that really make us? (Oh wait, Bush is doing this now with his Signing statements, but thats another issue entirely)
Example: They made it so that evidence obtained “illegally” couldn’t be used to convict the suspect (Mapp) rather than suspending or firing the police officer who broke the law. The way they wrote this policy (which the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to do in the first place), instead of punishing the officer, they punish random civilians by unleashing what turned out to be hundreds of thousands (and still counting) of rapists and murderers back on society.
Its called the 4th Amendment. Not much more to say on this one but the same thing I said above, we made rules for a reason, not so we can run over top of them and only abide by them "when we want to". Thats what fascists do.
Example: In Brewer vs. Williams (1977), they overturned the conviction of a man (Williams) who had led police to the body of the little girl he killed, because, despite being warned by 3 lawyers and 2 officers that he had a right not to say anything, the guy confessed in full detail without an attorney present…which, by the Warren Court’s own ruling, only matters if the suspect REQUESTS AND IS DENIED a lawyer.
Now, this one really pisses me off. This is a HUGE technicality, and this guy shouldn't have gotten off. But guess what? **** like this happens in EVERY Era of the supreme court. This isn't a huge "landmark" example of Liberals siding with criminals, because not just liberals side with criminals when we have specific laws stating as such.
All of your examples are Liberals actually following the friggin' Bill of Rights instead of allowing Police to trample all over it in the name of "the safety of the people".
There are those who would rather have thier rights and be a little less safe, and there are those who are so scared shitless of life that they want the government to rule supreme over them so they can feel safe. You are the latter, I am the former.
As a cop, I understand its annoying as hell doing our job with all these little bits of law we have to make sure we stick to before we can arrest someone. But I understand the importance of it, and WHY we have to do it, and it doesn't bother me. I'd rather be sticking with the laws that we have now then busting into anyones house I feel like, and doing what I feel like, when I feel like it because I am the almight police. **** that, leave that **** for Russia or Hitler's Germany.