Re: Sean Hannity
- From: Joe Long <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:17:53 -0600
Travel A wrote:
Well, I think this discussion has run it's course.
Joe Long wrote:
"With proper controls, and approval by a judge, in violent cases."
What controls? Joe Long's controls on a per case basis with a Joe Long
appointed cooperative judge making the arbitrary decision? Judges are
limited by the law, too.
Why are you trying to personalize this? I am neither a prosecutor nor a
judge, and have no desire to be either. It's a kind of admission that
you don't have a rational argument when you turn to ad hominem attacks.
If you don't realize the concept that the proper controls are already in
the established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard
the legal rights of the individual, it's doubtful that you will by going
over it again.
Controls are in place, which is good. Sometimes they go too far and
result in serious harm to or death of innocent people. We can make
rational adjustments to the system without throwing out respecting the
rights of defendants.
Take a look a the senator Stevens case. What do you think the outrage
that resulted in dropping the case was all about? Think concept.
That was prosecutorial misconduct, not an honest mistake. Huge difference.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sean Hannity
- From: Travel A
- Re: Sean Hannity
- References:
- Re: Sean Hannity
- From: Joe Long
- Re: Sean Hannity
- From: Travel A
- Re: Sean Hannity
- Prev by Date: Re: Great tea party in North Texas today
- Next by Date: Re: Perry says: Texas can leave the Union
- Previous by thread: Re: Sean Hannity
- Next by thread: Re: Sean Hannity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|