It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court Systems failing

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Yes, and relying on the PD is basically a guaranteed conviction, innocent or guilty.

Notice it doesn't say "If you need a translator, one will be appointed for you".

Taxpayer money should never be used to fund translators for people who have had ample opportunity to learn the language of the law.




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


I dont feel any need to persecute anyone who is different. That persecution begins the moment they negatively impact my life.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


By the way they had two translators. They alternated so one didn't lose their voice. ALso at certain times the other would translate english directly to the defendent- say his lawyer wanted to tell/ask him something.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


what the hell are you blathering about? what makes English the language of the land? oh I don't know maybe that is because THAT IS WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS

you a-holes who argue just to argue really need to try harder than you are, because you are acting like you have no friggen clue what's going on and how things are. you are just arguing to be contrary, and you making yourself look like a explitive

[edit on 6/27/08 by SRTkid86]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 





Yes, and relying on the PD is basically a guaranteed conviction, innocent or guilty.


Do you have a source for this statement. I believe it is unfounded.



Notice it doesn't say "If you need a translator, one will be appointed for you".

Taxpayer money should never be used to fund translators for people who have had ample opportunity to learn the language of the law.


Do you understand the implications of what you are stating? I can't imagine you do. To require the defendant to support the burden of proof is guilty until proven innocent. My friend, in the quest to take away the rights of others you are partaking in a quest to give up your own without even knowing it.

You were the OP of a thread regarding 2nd amendment rights. The reason those rights continue to be diluted is because of the convoluted logic being used in this debate. Again worry about protecting your own rights or the rights of others as it is all the same.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by harvib
 


THAT IS WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS


Fair enough. However to understand your position please define "OUR". I would argue that what you mean to say is that it is your language.



[edit on 27-6-2008 by harvib]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by harvib
 


Yes, and relying on the PD is basically a guaranteed conviction, innocent or guilty.


This is true, from my understanding, PDs are only allowed to defend you for the specific accusation, they usually wont go above and beyond what they are required to do by the state especially if they think you are guilty.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cRiTiC

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by harvib
 


Yes, and relying on the PD is basically a guaranteed conviction, innocent or guilty.


This is true, from my understanding, PDs are only allowed to defend you for the specific accusation, they usually wont go above and beyond what they are required to do by the state especially if they think you are guilty.


Well we should all give ourselves and our lawyers a pat on the back. As the truth of such a statement indicates we have a judicial system that is desieigned to incriminate the poor regardless of guilt.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Well, you could always blame the white male for everything and make fun of him too, thats not against PC rules. Native Americans? You mean indians? No one is native to North or South america, they came from mongolia and Sieberia.

So please call them Indians or Monglians or Native Sieberians.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by harvib
 


THAT IS WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS


Fair enough. However to understand your position please define "OUR". I would argue that what you mean to say is that it is your language.


All you are doing is arguing to argue. Granted I understand your reasoning... to a point. As of right now, as well as in the past, American society has been using English as its main language, because a majority of its people speak it. It wouldn't make sense to use Chinese or Spanish (or any other language), because it would inconvenience the majority of the people here (who speak English) to have to learn those languages.
If they were planning on visiting certain countries, it would be wise to learn some of the language or at least be knowledgeable of aspects of the country.

Same thing goes for moving to a country. You have the right to not learn the native language, but you have to understand that you will be excluded from certain aspects of society because you can't communicate with the ones who don't speak your native tongue.
You're burdening the society in which you don't speak the language of (by that I mean of the majority). That burden (i.e. use of and expense of translators and other things) is often cause of a negative preconception.

A person who just moved here, or is visiting from say Mexico, but knows some English would probably get better treatment than a person who has lived here for a long time and still doesn't know hardly any English.

I believe its just a conditioning to the society you live in. Learn the language(s) or expect to be left out/mistreated.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Edited because when I hit "post" half my post was deleted. Not re-typing it.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Area_X]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I see. So if somes fears are realized and Spanish becomes spoken by the majority will you hold yourself accountable for learning the new language of the land? Will you demand that when you are on trial that you are to pay for a translator?

if we closed our borders from the illegal aliens that are inundating our failing country it would then be less of a problem and less of a strain on our court systems and economy .
and for blackproject please verify how someone becomes a citizen when they have children here in the U.S. ... you didn't make it clear how that came about .
and also did we as Americans have to pay for another mexican nationals baby to be delivered in our overrun hospitals?
please make clear the cloudy details .

[edit on 27-6-2008 by ironman433]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ironman433
 


I don't know the details, I am going by what another jurer said. I guess if you have a baby here they will not deport . As for actual citizen status nothing about that was mentioned by anyone in the trail. The defendent was working as was one of the accusers. So if working can we assume citizenship? Theoretically?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackProjects
reply to post by ironman433
 

[...] So if working can we assume citizenship? Theoretically?


Wouldn't that be so nice. Unfortunately not. But that shouldn't change the issue though as that doesn't impact that the person is accused of a crime, and should get equal right to a trial.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
have you been to california lately ???? we are so over run with illegals that they are a major part of our failing court system , unemployment for legal residents and our hospitals are going under and closing their doors so the hard working legal citizens cant get a proper and fair shake .
the first thing that should happen in any case when the defendant or witness for that matter doesn't speak english should be to check their citizenship . and if found not a citizen then guilty or not they should be found guilty of the crime of breaching our borders , imprisoned for that then deported after their sentence is finished .
one other thing that i dont understand is that why would another jurror have more info than what you had to make the determination that the defendant was a citizen of the U.S. ?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ironman433
 


lol, I agree with ya on a lot of that. I live in Arizona, And that's kinda what Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing. He's doing "sweeps" of certain areas, pulling people over for traffic violations and such, checks citizenship and deports 'em if they aren't legal.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
l.a. shreiff's department is starting to implement something that when someone is released from jail they check them thru i.c.e. and also ask them (yes thats right ask them) if they are a citizen or not . if the person does not come up in the i.c.e. list and simply says that are a citizen (even if they are lying) they are released back into our country .
i am in full agreement that ALL illegal aliens should be deported and convicted of a crime if they return .



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
ok, so when it gets to the point where, lets say you have run out of food and head to the store
you fill your cart with groceries, head to the check out
the cashier says something in spanish you cant understand, after a couple of minutes you shrugging and saying i cant speak spanish, your thrown out of the store without any food
you head to the 7/11
ask for some food at the counter
the guy behind the coutner says something in japanese, you cant understand that either
and on and on and on
what you going to do?
and yes, thats an extreme case, but by the way you are argueing, you wont be happy until that comes about
or, maybe everyone on earth should learn every language, or we should build a universal translator?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 




They are being judged by their criminal activity. It is a crime to come across the US border illegally. We welcome legal immigrants who have taken the time to get immunized, learn our language so they will fit into our society, be checked to make sure they are not just trying to escape justice in their native country. We have an extensive guest worker program. I say "Get back in line and wait your turn"



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
"I was just a juror in a two day trial. It involved hispanics(no english of course/illegals at least till child was born 4 years ago). The trial forced the use of translators- doubling the time(non knew english well enough to testify directly."

Poor baby..


Guess what? I am a Persian Gulf/Somalia/Iraqi war Veteran.
I have spilled blood and seen my fellow soldiers die, I have sacrificed more than you will ever know to guarantee that even hispanics that don't speak english have the right to be treated fairly in our judicial system to include having translators if needed.

So put on your big boy underwear and run along and play outside bro.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join