They contend there was no constitutional violation because the players never went to trial.
In addition, "White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government" under federal civil-rights law, lawyers for Baker and the police commanders said.
1 posted on
01/16/2008 12:06:37 PM PST by
abb
To: abner; Alia; beyondashadow; Bitter Bierce; bjc; Bogeygolfer; BossLady; Brytani; bwteim; Carling; ..
2 posted on
01/16/2008 12:07:28 PM PST by
abb
(The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
To: abb
Glad to hear this bastards life is a living hell.
3 posted on
01/16/2008 12:10:25 PM PST by
ontap
(Just another backstabbing conservative)
To: abb
I see. So we must belong to a “protected class recognized as needing protection by the government” before we are allowed civil rights as guaranteed under the Constitution? Thank you for that civics lesson, Mayor Baker.
4 posted on
01/16/2008 12:11:28 PM PST by
TommyDale
(Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
To: abb
They were also likely to stress that prosecutors don't have to present exculpatory evidence to grand juries. WTF. The case should not even be brought to the GJ if such evidence exists.
5 posted on
01/16/2008 12:11:47 PM PST by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
To: abb
“White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government”
Talk about brazen racism on display!
6 posted on
01/16/2008 12:12:32 PM PST by
maggief
To: abb
couldnt happen to a nicer dickweed
Heres hoping he never has two nickles to rub together........ever
To: abb
This kind of news makes me very happy . . . that a liberal coward and dirtbag got HIS! I’m excited. I hope he gets a job maybe at Wal-Mart passing out carts. Or maybe that would be too good for the creep!
8 posted on
01/16/2008 12:17:42 PM PST by
laweeks
To: abb
"White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government" under federal civil-rights law, lawyers for Baker and the police commanders said." I can only hope here that at some point, a judge will openly question the qualifications to practice law of the lawyer that actually asserted this!
11 posted on
01/16/2008 12:26:38 PM PST by
Enterprise
(Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
To: abb
“They contend there was no constitutional violation because the players never went to trial.”
That’s the same SH!T we got. Bologna!!! It’s a racket and a rip off.
To: abb
180 million???
How is that even possable???
who in Gods name does He owe that to???
His Lawyers????
180 Million??? why hasen’t anyone noticed this???
15 posted on
01/16/2008 12:38:41 PM PST by
LtKerst
(Lt Kerst)
To: abb
I’ll be happy when I read about his suicide.
16 posted on
01/16/2008 12:40:23 PM PST by
Centurion2000
(It's only arrogance if you can't back it up.)
To: abb
I looked up the defintion of “white trash” and saw Nifong’s picture. The Great Oz Has Spoken
To: abb
Pretty balls response on the part of the missing in action Chief of Police.
20 posted on
01/16/2008 1:15:15 PM PST by
JLS
To: abb
What about those disgusting academics at Duke U—the Duke 88?
22 posted on
01/16/2008 1:23:17 PM PST by
Mamzelle
To: abb
They were expected to contend that prospective defendants had no right under the Constitution to expect a police department to conduct an investigation in a certain way.
So the defense wants to argue Durham has no duty of care not to seek indictments against clearly innocent people. I think they will lose that point. The legislature could shield them, but a common law duty of care to investigate to seek the guilty not to indict obviously innocent is logical common law duty. It becomes an issue for the jury whether or not Durham failed in that duty and injured these plaintiffs but I think Durham had and has that duty.
23 posted on
01/16/2008 1:23:43 PM PST by
JLS
To: abb
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
25 posted on
01/16/2008 1:26:40 PM PST by
Cymbaline
(I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stres)
To: abb
Moreover, some of the supposed faults with the prosecution of the players weren't violations of federal law because they didn't include elements of racial or class bias, he said. That's right. When the people being railroaded are rich white kids, the case "didn't include elements of racial or class bias." Is this guy living on Bizzaro World?
27 posted on
01/16/2008 1:30:13 PM PST by
50sDad
(Liberals: Never Happy, Never Grateful, Never Right.)
To: abb
They guy grabbed for the brass-ring of fame and political success, and it blew up in his face. If you play with fire, you will get burned.
28 posted on
01/16/2008 1:30:55 PM PST by
PGR88
To: abb
To: abb
In addition, "White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government" under federal civil-rights law, lawyers for Baker and the police commanders said. There it is. The case in a nutshell.
36 posted on
01/16/2008 7:13:36 PM PST by
Ken H
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson