Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AMDG&BVMH
Those “accused” have the right to know the charges brought against them and to see the testimony against them by their accusers. OR??

These gangland nutriders operate the same way they imagine law enforcement does. They are describing their own behaviour and tendencies. But what is there to expect from people who roam internet forums defending criminal gangs?

162 posted on 07/10/2015 4:01:05 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
These gangland nutriders operate the same way they imagine law enforcement does. They are describing their own behaviour and tendencies. But what is there to expect from people who roam internet forums defending criminal gangs?

We have something called a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Either those Rights apply to everyone, or they don't. If they don't, yours may be revoked at the whim of TPTB at any time. Failure to stand up for the Rights of those you may not approve of may leave you in a similar position.

Even in the case where acts of individuals are clearly undefensible, they retain those Rights, and I would defend that. Maybe you don't get that aspect of this, or maybe you would pick and choose who would have those Rights--which incidentally, flies in the face of the Rule of Law and reverts to the Rule of Persons (AKA dictatorship).

Even the much spewed assumption that no one there was innocent (in matters where the facts have yet to be made evident, much less adjudicated) does not deny those accused their rights.

Many of us here, through personal experiences and the raw presumption of innocence find it highly unlikely that all 177 arrested were guilty of identical charges.

That presumption of innocence is also codified in the Bill of Rights.

When the Grand Jury is stacked in such a way as to produce indictments for the Law Enforcement organization(s) which may have violated the rights of many, if not all of those arrested, thus protecting those Law Enforcement organization(s) from legal redress on the behalf of those defendants, the conflict of interest is clear.

That anyone might ignore that apparent conflict of interest, especially the courts, is a matter for concern because our legal system operates heavily on precedent, and allowing such actions to go unchallenged only guarantees they will happen again, no matter who the group is next time.

Conspiracy to deprive someone of a fundamental Civil Right is actionable in criminal and civil court, and one would think the official entities there would want to avoid giving the impression they were conspiring thus.

168 posted on 07/10/2015 6:19:14 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson