U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2011, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,662,669 times
Reputation: 3967

Advertisements

I could name a list a MILE wrong with this issue, however, I'll just throw out a few:

1. TELEVISION. Yes, good ole TV. MOST people's information come from television and what is on (the CSI effect) is what is true.

2. THE INTERNET. Yep, once again. Good ole modern technology. Just look at the threads on CD. No link? You didn't prove your case. But, hell, if its on the errornet, and you have a link, its ALL TRUE.

3. RUMOR/URBAN LEGEND. "Well I heard..." Great example of this: If a police officer arrests you, he/she HAS to read you your "so called rights." NOTHING could be further from the truth.

4. The pure/simple DUMBING DOWN of America. Our liberal, left leaning society always blames someone else for their own errors. Personal responsiblity isn't anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2011, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,802,513 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post

3. RUMOR/URBAN LEGEND. "Well I heard..." Great example of this: If a police officer arrests you, he/she HAS to read you your "so called rights." NOTHING could be further from the truth.

.
Cant find much fault with anything else you have said but im sure your wrong about this one. { and again, a lack of knowledge of the most basic of things. } When you are being arrested, the officer is required to read you your rights. I think there have even been instances where cases have been thrown out or overturned because an officer either didnt read read them, didnt read them at the right time, or didnt read them correctly or in whole. Basicly, if an officer dosnt read you your rights, anything incriminating you say when in custody cannot be used against you in court.

Now to just detane you they dont have to read them to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieA View Post
Well said.

In response to what the OP said, I think an enormous amount of people are uneducated and uninformed about the justice system and how it works. But it is sort of like the IRS tax code, it is HUGE and often contradictory and hard to understand. But some people have a total lack of reading comprehension and that is why I don't participate in most of the threads on specific cases on other boards.
Im not saying that they should know every little detail, if that were the case we wouldnt need law schools. It seems though, a great degree of ignorance to even the most basic laws is present. People asking { with all seriousness } if casey anthony can be " re-tried ". Not seeming to know anything about double jeopardy laws and so forth. Not knowing that a " not guilty " verdict does not mean the jury thinks a deffendant is innocent.{ ive seen spectators say, "oh, they found her innocent" Not the case. " not guilty " should be changed to " not proven "

People just need to educate themselves. It sorta reminds me of that old show called street smarts, where you had to ask yourself " how can people really not know some of these things? "

Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 07-09-2011 at 12:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:46 AM
 
Location: Chambersburg PA
1,739 posts, read 1,762,576 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Like many of you, I have been following the Casey Anthony Trial. Every now and then the talking heads will devote some time for the average person to call in or speak to the camera. It seems to me that ALOT of people have no idea how our justice system works in this country. For example, I seen one protester say that " we need a re-trial" and that " the judge should have done sonething about this". I have seen others say that " the jury has found her innocent so leave her alone ". This couldnt be further from the truth. Just because a jury rules " not guilty" does not mean they think that she is innocent or that she is innocent. Infact, the few jurors who have come forward has said that they dont feel that shes innocent, but they didnt think there was enough evidence to convict.

I dont know how many times Ive heard people call in and ask if this can be appealed, or could she be tried again. Do you think this is because people cant accept that this is final or do you think its just a rising ignorance of our justice system and it inner-workings?

It seems that people really have no idea how the system works. Do you agree? If so, why?
I agree.
I think people are so used to the neatly wrapped TV drama trials and when they don't see that or get the 'obvious outcome" they were expecting the want a re-do.
I have a loved one who went thru some legal problems and went to trial. I was surprised at just how much information can be kept out (the jury never gets to hear) Things an avg. Joe would think are pertinent...can be kept from the jury for a multitude of reasons.
Do I agree with it, not necessarily. I think alot of times, such evidence should be heard, but either the prosecution or defense have an interest in keeping it out, and will go thru legal gymnastics to make it so.
Regardless, it is what it is. And personally, (after viewing things from the other side...cos my loved one WAS innocent) I'd be hard pressed to find anyone guilty
I like this site Fully Informed Jury Association
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:48 AM
 
Location: Chambersburg PA
1,739 posts, read 1,762,576 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. Buzzcut View Post

What gets me about the lynch mob mentality some that are unhappy with the verdict are displaying.....where are or where were they for the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people sitting in prison wrongly convicted and railroaded by the system. There are many people in prison across the U.S. that had cases where evidence that would acquit them was not allowed in court, excessively long sentences for those convicted of lesser crimes, etc.
THANK YOU!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:51 AM
 
Location: Chambersburg PA
1,739 posts, read 1,762,576 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgain View Post
I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been amazed at how little people really understand how the criminal justice system works. I've seen people who seem to be well educated make statements which showed a stunning lack of knowledge about the court system!!!

They just seem to not be able to wrap their heads around a presumption of innocence and what that really means, and they don't seem to understand at all how IMPORTANT is it that the State is REQUIRED to prove their accusations against people beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't understand how that all relates to our freedoms as a society! I think you're totally right about the ignorance.
Yes! a defendant is not required to prove their innocence. The burden of prove is on the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Chambersburg PA
1,739 posts, read 1,762,576 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Cant find much fault with anything else you have said but im sure your wrong about this one. { and again, a lack of knowledge of the most basic of things. } When you are being arrested, the officer is required to read you your rights. I think there have even been instances where cases have been thrown out or overturned because an officer either didnt read read them, didnt read them at the right time, or didnt read them correctly or in whole. Basicly, if an officer dosnt read you your rights, anything incriminating you say when in custody cannot be used against you in court.

Now to just detane you they dont have to read them to you.



Im not saying that they should know every little detail, if that were the case we wouldnt need law schools. It seems though, a great degree of ignorance to even the most basic laws is present. People asking { with all seriousness } if casey anthony can be " re-tried ". Not seeming to know anything about double jeopardy laws and so forth. Not knowing that a " not guilty " verdict does not mean the jury thinks a deffendant is innocent.{ ive seen spectators say, "oh, they found her innocent" Not the case. " not guilty " should be changed to " not proven "

People just need to educate themselves. It sorta reminds me of that old show called street smarts, where you had to ask yourself " how can people really not know some of these things? "
With the re-trial thing, could it be they're confused between a criminal trial and a civil one? Or, maybe they think she could be brought up lesser charges that she wasn't charged with in the beginning
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 44,645,735 times
Reputation: 58626
I don't know if it's so much a matter of rising ignorance as it is society is so educated until it no longer has any common sense.

I think this problem has spilled over into just about every area of our lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,662,669 times
Reputation: 3967
"Cant find much fault with anything else you have said but im sure your wrong about this one. { and again, a lack of knowledge of the most basic of things. } When you are being arrested, the officer is required to read you your rights. I think there have even been instances where cases have been thrown out or overturned because an officer either didnt read read them, didnt read them at the right time, or didnt read them correctly or in whole. Basicly, if an officer dosnt read you your rights, anything incriminating you say when in custody cannot be used against you in court.

Now to just detane you they dont have to read them to you."

No, you are completely wrong and that is what is driving this ignorance. Somewhere, sometime, you read something, saw something on TV, or your "uncle" told you this.

A police officer (I am one) DOES NOT have to read you your Miranda "rights," because he/she arrests you. Miranda vs Arizona sets out TWO THINGS:

Custody and interrogation. Therefore, in order for Miranda to apply, you have to be INTERRORGATED, while in police custody. I've arrested HUNDREDS of persons and never "Mirandize" them, because I really don't care what it is they have to say.

Again, Miranda ONLY applies if the police are interrorgating you and you are IN CUSTODY. And routine booking questions, such as name, address, etc DO NOT APPLY. There are also other exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,662,669 times
Reputation: 3967
By the way, here is a thread I started on this subject several months ago:

Miranda Rights
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Chambersburg PA
1,739 posts, read 1,762,576 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
"Cant find much fault with anything else you have said but im sure your wrong about this one. { and again, a lack of knowledge of the most basic of things. } When you are being arrested, the officer is required to read you your rights. I think there have even been instances where cases have been thrown out or overturned because an officer either didnt read read them, didnt read them at the right time, or didnt read them correctly or in whole. Basicly, if an officer dosnt read you your rights, anything incriminating you say when in custody cannot be used against you in court.

Now to just detane you they dont have to read them to you."

No, you are completely wrong and that is what is driving this ignorance. Somewhere, sometime, you read something, saw something on TV, or your "uncle" told you this.

A police officer (I am one) DOES NOT have to read you your Miranda "rights," because he/she arrests you. Miranda vs Arizona sets out TWO THINGS:

Custody and interrogation. Therefore, in order for Miranda to apply, you have to be INTERRORGATED, while in police custody. I've arrested HUNDREDS of persons and never "Mirandize" them, because I really don't care what it is they have to say.

Again, Miranda ONLY applies if the police are interrorgating you and you are IN CUSTODY. And routine booking questions, such as name, address, etc DO NOT APPLY. There are also other exceptions.
This all may be true but I stand by this:
YouTube - ‪Don't Talk To The Police Even If You Are Innocent Part 1 of 3‬‏
and wish more people did
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top