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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Originally posted by Deebo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I did not commit a crime, It is my word against 2 officers + a supervisor. Do you think a serf like me would win that, without being able to afford a lawyer at the time? Honestly man, I know my rights, but in my situation.. "get outa jail free vs 6 years in a state prison" come on.
Deebo
With all due respect, you come on! You have plead guilty to a crime. You are convicted of a crime. You can spend all your energy and efforts defending your decision to plead guilty and become a convicted criminal or you can fight for your freedom. That choice is yours. I am not telling you what to do. Read the title of your thread. I am not a lawyer, but you have made it appear that you want help, now you make it appear that you want sympathy.
Sympathy is not help, it is betrayal. Help as betrayal is not help. In the end, only you can help your self, or not and you can just feel sorry for your self. That choice is yours.
It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by defcon5
It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.
A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence. They did not witness any crime, nor was any victim pressing any charges of a crime.
That said, this is not an issue of whether the police acted correctly or not, they acted, according to the O.P. as their watch commander order them to act. The issue here is that the O.P. plead guilty to a crime. Either the O.P. accepts the responsibility of that crime and the consequences of pleading guilty, or he doesn't. If the only issue with him is how does he pay the bill, then this is a simple matter of logistics, but it requires accepting responsibility for the consequences of his plea.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.[40] Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.[41]
Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence.
Jean, the problem is that they have made special state laws in most places to deal with domestic violence. Whether they are technically Constitutional really does not matter as they do exist, and have the support of the Supreme Court. there are many laws that violate the Constitution, but exist out of necessity as the world has changed since the 1700’s.
In this case, it really doesn’t matter, in the eyes of the officers they had Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause as valid reasons to effect an arrest:
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.[40] Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.[41]
These things alone are enough to grant an officer a reason to arrest someone.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Jean, the problem is that they have made special state laws in most places to deal with domestic violence. Whether they are technically Constitutional really does not matter as they do exist, and have the support of the Supreme Court. there are many laws that violate the Constitution, but exist out of necessity as the world has changed since the 1700’s.
However, to suggest that subsequent legislation takes supremacy over the state Constitution that gave the legislature authority to legislate to begin with is legally and factually incorrect. The Constitution certainly does matter, and law does not change with time.
It is erroneous to assume that domestic violence was a kinder gentler kind of domestic violence in the 1700's than it is today, and so whatever prohibitions a state Constitution places on law enforcement and the courts regarding due process is obsolete today.
Sure it does. For example, is it Constitutional for the city to be able to tell me that I cannot remove a 50 thousand foot tall oak tree, on my property, that is half dead, and causing severe damage, without paying them for permits to remove it? Would I have had to pay out that tax 200 years ago? 100? 50?
There are many such intrusions by the government that go well beyond the scope of what is allowed under the Constitution. What can you do about it though? Spend a few hundred to get the permit, or spend a thousand times that fighting courts up to the Supreme Court and all the environmental lobbyists along the way?
However, both the view and the understanding of things such domestic violence has certainly changed since then.
Originally posted by Deebo
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by defcon5
It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.
A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence. They did not witness any crime, nor was any victim pressing any charges of a crime.
That said, this is not an issue of whether the police acted correctly or not, they acted, according to the O.P. as their watch commander order them to act. The issue here is that the O.P. plead guilty to a crime. Either the O.P. accepts the responsibility of that crime and the consequences of pleading guilty, or he doesn't. If the only issue with him is how does he pay the bill, then this is a simple matter of logistics, but it requires accepting responsibility for the consequences of his plea.
Your a jerk dude.. Sure if I was a repeat criminal I would know the system, but this was out of the blue. If you care to do some research and watch a few documentaries, you will see that 95%+ cases do not go to trial, for this very reason. You can talk # all you want. I just had a simple question and already got my asnwer way before you had to open your trash mouth.
Deeboedit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)