Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

:mad::mad: What the he$$ is wrong with people these days.:mad::mad:

I'm just glad I did not see this abuse because it would be very hard not to retaliate on them. :mad: How do lawyers defend evil people like this?

http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=8841711

:mad::mad: What the he$$ is wrong with people these days.:mad::mad:

I'm just glad I did not see this abuse because it would be very hard not to retaliate on them. :mad: How do lawyers defend evil people like this?

http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=8841711

If THAT makes you lose control you should not see what I have.

As to your second question; to insure a fair process. Over 20 people in Dallas county have been exonerated by DNA evidence after serving PRISON time for crimes we now know they did not commit. You would like to have no defense attorneys?

If THAT makes you lose control you should not see what I have.

As to your second question; to insure a fair process. Over 20 people in Dallas county have been exonerated by DNA evidence after serving PRISON time for crimes we now know they did not commit. You would like to have no defense attorneys?

I would like to see people have a fair trial yes, but when it come to things that invole children it should be more clear cut. I think the judge should be the only one who decide's someone's faith. How can you pick 12 people with no practice or knowledge of the law and say hear you decide this person's faith. It should be left up to the judge. What I meant by the attorney remark was I just can't understand who would want to defend a child molester or someone who abuse's children? Alot of times the reason innocent people are found guilty is because you have an attorney who will say and do anything to win over the jury and to win the case even if it's bogas or irrelevant. Thank GOD for DNA!!:) I know they do intense screening for the jury selection but I still think it's wrong, someone who has studied the law i.e. a judge should be the only one who can say a person is guilty or innocent. Just my .2 cents:)

I would like to see people have a fair trial yes, but when it come to things that invole children it should be more clear cut. I think the judge should be the only one who decide's someone's faith. How can you pick 12 people with no practice or knowledge of the law and say hear you decide this person's faith. It should be left up to the judge. What I meant by the attorney remark was I just can't understand who would want to defend a child molester or someone who abuse's children? Alot of times the reason innocent people are found guilty is because you have an attorney who will say and do anything to win over the jury and to win the case even if it's bogas or irrelevant. Thank GOD for DNA!!:) I know they do intense screening for the jury selection but I still think it's wrong, someone who has studied the law i.e. a judge should be the only one who can say a person is guilty or innocent. Just my .2 cents:)

So you want a government employee deciding your FATE? (faith is a different word) And until trial, the person is only alleged to have committed a crime. We had a war over the rights you want to throw away. I'll keep our system, thank you.

I guess I'd would rather a jugde decide my fate intead of 12 people who have no idea how the system works. Don't get me wrong our system is good, but I just don't like the whole jury thing. just my .2 cents:)

So you want a government employee deciding your FATE? (faith is a different word) And until trial, the person is only alleged to have committed a crime. We had a war over the rights you want to throw away. I'll keep our system, thank you.

Thanks about the faith/fate thing.:o:)