Do you understand that the "rule of law" means you have rights?

[goaded]

In the US, even if you've committed the most heinous crimes, you have the right to have the case against you heard by a grand jury of citizens to establish that a crime was committed, and you're possibly the perpetrator. Then, other than plea deals, there's a trial where a jury of your peers decide if you committed that crime.

There are similar systems in most democratic countries.

Unless, when you're arrested, you pose a significant threat to life, nobody gets to kill you. If they do, and you didn't, they've committed a crime.

For some reason, some people think that "rule of law" means anyone who doesn't immediately comply can be killed. They're wrong. And disgusting.

To hell with this site that just made the AI interference even less noticeable! No, I don't want title "support", and I never will.

Yes, I do understand that the "rule of law" means you have rights

No, I do not think the "rule of law" means you have rights

I don't understand the concept of a yes/no question!

[Zack-Bann]

Sure I do.


But I also understand that the spirit of the law is flawed


It protects the strong and scapegoats the weak.


That’s why a “trial by media” will always influence the verdict of an actual trial.


The jury of your peers is not an all-seeing committee.


It’s a bunch of mortals who will make a biased decision based on which lawyer did a better job


So if or not you killed someone doesn’t matter when it comes to punishment.
You will only go down for murder if it’s proven without a shadow of a doubt.


The model is definitely not perfect or even ideal.

[goaded]

"You will only go down for murder if it’s proven without a shadow of a doubt."
That's exactly how it should be.

[Zack-Bann]

Sure it’s important not to lock up an innocent.
But what about letting a guilty person go due to lack of evidence.
The law is not perfect in that regard

[goaded]

Why do I have the feeling you wouldn't be making the same argument when it comes to accused rapists?

[Zack-Bann]

Why would you say that?
I don’t wanna see a rapist get away with it either
And I wouldn’t want an innocent person to go down for rape either
I make no distinction between rape and murder

[goaded]

Because you said "But what about letting a guilty person go due to lack of evidence." It happens. Especially in rape cases.

"The law is not perfect in that regard " Then how would you change it?

[Zack-Bann]

Yeah it’s common in rape cases because unlike murder there’s no body.
And usually the only people present are the victim and perpetrator

There’s definitely somethings to be done about that

If I could I would absolutely change that law

The question is: change it how…
Because I wouldn’t want to make it easier to convict someone of rape, that would make it too easy to falsely accuse someone, it’s already easy enough as it is.

Unfortunately I don’t have an answer to give. If it was easy someone would have found a way by now

[goaded]

That is the big question. I would say being exonerated (not just found not guilty) should allow criminal charges against the false accuser.

If you were raped, you know exactly where the rapist was at the time.

[IamRight]

Yes I understand that rules of the law means you have rights, but it doesn’t mean we have rights to commit robbery, resisting arrest or use ilegal narcotics.
@Just_Ken have given you a excellent conversation about the subject in the replies to his answer to this question Americans. Have you lost your minds? and its understandable you want more of to agree with the excellent replies he has given you under his answer. Good job Ken!

[goaded]

Who has ever said that rule of law means you have the right to break the law? That's as stupid as your hero's attempt to suggest that somehow the process that convicted Chauvin could somehow be reversed.

[IamRight]

People who defend Floyd seemed to think so.
Ken is not my hero, just a guy who so far have given you excellent arguments, and it seemed like it was worth pointing out it looks like this question was inspired by your conversation with him.

[goaded]

No, they don't. They say that the police are not judge and jury and should only kill if there's imminent danger to life. Someone lying on the floor handcuffed is not an imminent danger to life.

I got bored of his stupidity, claiming that he knows better than the whole criminal justice system, including two juries of citizens.

[goaded]

Do you accept that Chauvin is a murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

[IamRight]

No, I do not think Chauvin was a murderer. I’ll admit he was found guilty in a court.
I can also admit I think Rittenhouse was innocent and rightfully found innocent.

I don’t think Ken is stupid, he has made excellent arguments

[goaded]

Really? All I see from him are lies and dodging simple questions.

[IamRight]

Yes really, he has made excellent arguments.

[goaded]

Such as?

[IamRight]

As good as every argument he gave you in that other argument I linked to.

[goaded]

What, when he blamed the mother for having her baby killed by police over the possibility of a shoplifting charge? As good arguments as that?

[IamRight]

He claimed some people don’t deserve to ge parents. And he made lots of other excellent arguments.

[goaded]

You're saying he wasn't blaming the mother whose baby was killed by police for the baby's death?

[IamRight]

If you CTRL F and search mother you will notice I didn’t use the word mother before this post, so I never made a statement about if he blamed the mother or not, what I wrote was that he makes excellent arguments. And that he said Some people dont deserve to be parents.

Here is a list over everything I have said about Ken in this conversation before this post:
"@Just_Ken have given you a excellent conversation about the subject in the replies to his answer to this question Americans. Have you lost your minds? and its understandable you want more of to agree with the excellent replies he has given you under his answer. Good job Ken!"

"Ken is not my hero, just a guy who so far have given you excellent arguments, and it seemed like it was worth pointing out it looks like this question was inspired by your conversation with him."

"I don’t think Ken is stupid, he has made excellent arguments"

"As good as every argument he gave you in that other argument I linked to."

"He claimed some people don’t deserve to ge parents. And he made lots of other excellent arguments."

[IamRight]

If you want more reading on the subject, yes he did rightfully imply the blame is on the mom for bringing the kid while committing a crime. As did most people who answered his excellent question on the subject In a police chase where parents caused a child’s death, who should go to jail? ↗ where he implied it stronger than in his answer to yuor question

[goaded]

Wow. Squirming much? I read what you said.

You "just" said he made excellent arguments in a conversation where he said, in response to a question about a small child being shot to death by police, that "Some people dont deserve to be parents.". Who do you think he was talking about, if not the mother in the car?

And now you say "yes he did rightfully imply the blame is on the mom for bringing the kid while committing a crime", although the "crime" was apparently taking a box of diapers which the victims say were paid for at the self-checkout.

How many lives do you think a box of diapers is worth?

[IamRight]

Not squirming at all, just pointed out that I hadn’t said anything about a mother, in response to "You're saying he wasn't blaming the mother whose baby was killed by police for the baby's death?" At that point.
In my next reply, I asnwered that yes he was implying the blame is on the mother.

I don’t think box of diapers is worth a life but I’m not a criminal who takes my child with me when comitting a crime.

[goaded]

No, you pointed out you hadn't typed the word "mother".

Do you think it's appropriate to shoot at a car you know has an infant in it?

[IamRight]

Yes, and how do you suppose I claim he blames the mother without stating he blames the mother, I suppose I could have said he blamed the criminal but at that point I had mainly said Ken is right.

The police claims shot in self defense as the car was driving toward the officer. In this case it was self defense so yes. Infant or not doesn’t change the fact it was self defense. And just in case you are wondering I’m aware the criminal contest the claim that the car was heading towards the officer.

[goaded]

"Ken is right" when he blames the mother. Seriously, do you think you're making a case for yourself?

[IamRight]

I’m sharing my opinion on the subject and answering you. Most of the replies before you asked me "You're saying he wasn't blaming the mother whose baby was killed by police for the baby's death?" Was that Ken has given you excellent answers. So I think he is right. I haven’t put thought into making a case for myself, if I am making a case, I suppose the case is that so far I agree I agree with Ken.
So if you want to be a stickler, I said he made excellent arguments, not that he was right, but I do think he is right.

[goaded]

I'm still waiting for him to make a single argument, let alone an excellent one.

[IamRight]

Thanks for MHO GaG bot

[FreyaRed]

Your rights end instantly when they are an obstacle for interest of elites. Ergo: it's fake rights.

[goaded]

Not quite yet.

e. g. "Judge dismisses criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx21r04wg8qo

[loveslongnails]

It's supposed to mean you have rights, but it doesn't in the Trump administration. What happens in the Mango Pedo's world is your rights get violated, you get wrongly arrested or persecuted, you spent time in jail when you shouldn't, then you pray your family can even find you because you were denied legal counsel.

Once you GET legal counsel, you hope they find a sane judge, not one who is going down on Trump regularly, to order your release. Then you pray again that "law enforcement" actually obey the order to release you. In the meantime, you lose your job or you suffer financial losses because this takes weeks.

Then, once you get out, you sue the shit out of everyone involved and go through the court process while they appeal every decision against them, all the while looking for new work and piling up debt.

That's " The Rule of Law" under the pedo.

[jshm2]

LOL, what are you? 12 and blind?

You are aware in Ukraine they are kidnapping men off the street and sending them to the front lines? Likewise in the USA they are kidnapping anyone "brown" and sending them to processing centers. Likewise in Israel they are bombing houses without any sort of recourse. etc etc.

Rule of law means nothing in "democratic" countries. It's actually "rules based order" and your average Joe doesn't get to make the rules.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@jshm2 you could always move to a batter country like Sudan or Somalia

[goaded]

You mean conscription during a war? Unheard of!

[lightbulb27]

yes, we are somewhat falling apart in this regard, not good.

even in my local democrat controlled state, in social media, anyone caught is splattered in the media as if they are guilty. people abuse them in the media without giving due consideration. I wonder why thsoe found innocent don't sue everyone posting crap about them. maybe they should.

[goaded]

If they're not public figures, they probably should. Kind of a reverse class action: $100 from everyone who posted or boosted comments saying they were guilty when they were acquitted. OTOH, they'd probably have to prove that they didn't commit the crime, because it would be a civil matter.

[abc3643]

The older I get, the more I realize that the concept of rights is fiction.

As fascist as this is, there's a lot of truth to this.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9ounMVMNudE

[Just_Ken]

You've a right not to commit crime and a right not to resist arrest. You are also the right to be accountable for bad life choices such as obesity and drug use that will contribute to possibly dying in police custody if you resist arrest.

[goaded]

You have a right to do anything, including committing crimes, but you will be punished for them. In civilised countries, the police do not kill people who pose no imminent threat to life. To do otherwise is murder. Is the US a civilised country?

[Just_Ken]

In civilised countries trying to kill a police officer is answered with deadly force.

[goaded]

No, it's not. That's quite simply not true. Imminent threat, yes. If you fail, you get arrested and put in prison for a very long time.

[Just_Ken]

How do you get arrested? How many cops do you put in the ground b4 you get arrested?

[goaded]

Zero, that's the point.

[Just_Ken]

So cops should just let criminals loose to pray on us all.

[goaded]

What is it with you morons who pretend you can't see anything except in terms of absolute black and white?

Not shooting at someone for stealing a box of diapers when you know there's a child in the car is not letting "criminals loose to pray on us all", it's being human, sane, and not a terrible police officer. You think killing a child is a justified use of force in a shoplifting case.

[Just_Ken]

Hey try to kill a cop you going to get shot. Don't do that.

[goaded]

But they didn't kill someone trying to kill a cop. No cop was even injured. They killed a small child, one year old. You think killing a child is a justified use of force in a shoplifting case.

[Just_Ken]

No cop was injured because they used their gum to deter them using their vechile as a weapon

[Kaneki05]

Only rights people have is what they think they have until the don't. If you don't know this yet you are lucky.

[Kaneki05]

They* Also correction not when you're arrested it can be before, you don't see cops stopping to try arrest someone just shooting randomly in the street he simply gets shot because an active shooter needs to be taken down to other threats.

[goaded]

"... pose a significant threat to life..."

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Rule of law does not give George Floyd the right to resist arrest. I'm glad he's dead. It's one more armed criminal off the streets.

[goaded]

How was he armed? You're wrong, and disgusting.

[msc545]

He was armed with his black skin. That is enough to set these assholes off.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

He pointed a gun at a pregnant woman's belly. He should have been thrown in prison and locked away back when that incident happened. He sure as hell is not anyone's hero.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

@msc545 No, idiot, I'd say the same thing if he was white or native American or any other race. You're the one making it a racial issue. Derek Chauvin deserves a MEDAL for taking this evil thug off the streets.

[goaded]

Nobody's calling him a hero, just somebody who didn't deserve to be murdered by a police officer.

At the time he was killed he was unarmed, as I'm sure you know.

The legal, moral, and decent thing to do would have been to arrest him properly, and convict him at trial, not to kill him.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

THEY TRIED TO ARREST HIM PROPERLY. HE WAS AMPED ON DRUGS AND KEPT RESISTING, AS WAS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE 9 MINUTES VIDEO.

EVEN THE BIBLE TELLS YOU TO "FEAR THE GOVERNOR BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD IN VAIN."

IF YOU RESIST ARREST, IT IS NOT THE POLICE OFFICERS FAULT WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU.

[msc545]

How do you know he did that? Did you see him do it? Was he arrested for it? Or is that just something you wish had happened so you could have yet another reason for justifying his murder?

[goaded]

@msc545 Apparently, lying on the floor saying you can't breathe is resisting arrest.

[msc545]

Yes, but only if you're black.

[goaded]

@msc545 Well, obviously!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTbxVFTDdo0

[msc545]

I guess being supposedly "AMPED ON DRUGS" is the same as being "armed". Jesus. Do the pills shoot back?

[msc545]

The rule of law implies not only rights but also responsibilities. I recognize that I have both.

[RavVid]

We've given up grand juries quite a long time ago. Don't see they do preserve rights.

[goaded]

In the US they've been blocking Trump's people from pursuing vindictive prosecutions quite efficiently. It's why they've been breaking the rules of how grand juries work in order to obtain indictments.

abc7ny.com/.../

[RavVid]

Aren't they to approve or disapprove that there is enough evidence to justify taking X to trial with just the Public Prosecutor presenting evidence and with no rebuttal from X.

I can see some value in that but the grand jury is just hearing the against evidence. If the PP is fabricating evidence and ignoring exculpatory evidence doesn't that make it of dubious value?

There was case here of a sex crime and the PP was very determined to get a conviction on poor evidence. The PP didn't want to seen as not prosecuting a sex crime so he did stuff he should not have done. Eventually it became a Royal Commission into his conduct.

I'm just not seeing the value of a grand jury. I have little understanding and maybe you can help me learn about them. For us they were discontinued from 1828 to 1883. So it is not even within living memory for us.

[goaded]

Yes, that's how I understand it. Guess what happens to a prosecutor who fabricates evidence? They get into serious trouble. Eventually, anyway.

They were put in the constitution so that, unlike what the English had been doing, people could not be prosecuted on trumped up charges. For decades, there wasn't much point to them because the government kept to the law and only brought reasonable cases. Today the US government is anything but decent, and it turns out grand juries can play an essential role in the justice system.

[RavVid]

OK. I can see that. I think the aspect that really stinks is that X might defend and win against the charges but still have to bear the legal costs of defending against the charges. If the state fails to prove it's case they should pay the defendant's legal fees.