AWA Pilot's trial comes to an end...the tug driver did it!

[FN FAL]

Nice Clintonian attempt at distorting language, FN. So you are trying to say we need a trial of these two men (who were suited up, had preflighted, programmed and ran checklists in the airplane to get ready to push) to define what the word "Operate" means?

Uhhhhh...no. We need a trial, because as a society, we demand it.

State says something happened. State says the moral fabric of society is damaged by the defendants. State says they are going to hang somebody by the balls. State is required to prove it's case.

It's part of the cost of having a criminal justice system. State said these guys were operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Defense says...no we weren't. They go to trial over a definition. It's not Clintonian...every case that goes to court, is over a defining or a definition.

WRONG!! People showing personal responsibility in no way obviates the need for the Judicial Branch. Law enforcement doesn't always get the right man, and that's what trials are for. I'm all about innocent until proven guilty. But that's a far cry from a guilty person demanding a trial just to see if the gov't can muster a case against them. Unless I've misread you and you are actually an anarchist, then I have a hard time believing you really think our society should encourage people to NOT tell the truth even if they know they are guilty.

I can't believe I'm having to say that. We are falling apart as a society. You've got a twisted sense of right and wrong.

I got a twisted sense of rights and wrongs...no I don't.

The US Constitution says we got a right to due process, a speedy trial, protection against unreasonable searches, prohibition against self incrimination....yea, there it is.

Lying is one thing, incriminating yourself is another. Calling me an anarchist, just because I don't believe that people should blindly accept the will of an out of control government, is just plain wrong.

Like I said, lets deputize and federalize all the security guards in the country and give them power to adjudicate right there on the spot. Screw this trial crap!

 

[Big Duke Six]

You're making a HUGE leap from my advocation of taking personal responsibility to having roving bands of "security guards" with unlimited judicial powers, aren't you? I'm just saying that if someone KNOWS they're guilty, it would be in the best interests of everyone if they would just own up to it. Is that asking too much? I don't think these guys EVER thought they were innocent of the charges, do you? If they did, they have serious judgement and character issues. Maybe they did just screw up that one night. Fine, we all screw up. But to carry it on and on and on is just a little much.

Of course we need to have trials. I will go so far as to say there are two kinds of trials. There are trials where innocence is proven and there are abuses of the legal system. I call someone who KNOWS they are guilty as charged and STILL "demands" a trial, spending everyone else's time and money to do it, as an abuser of the legal system.

I don't think the Constitution has a "prohibition" against self incrimination, BTW. That would mean you could never plead "guilty".

 

[FN FAL]

You're making a HUGE leap from my advocation of taking personal responsibility to having roving bands of "security guards" with unlimited judicial powers, aren't you? I'm just saying that if someone KNOWS they're guilty, it would be in the best interests of everyone if they would just own up to it. Is that asking too much? I don't think these guys EVER thought they were innocent of the charges, do you? If they did, they have serious judgement and character issues. Maybe they did just screw up that one night. Fine, we all screw up. But to carry it on and on and on is just a little much.

Of course we need to have trials. I will go so far as to say there are two kinds of trials. There are trials where innocence is proven and there are abuses of the legal system. I call someone who KNOWS they are guilty as charged and STILL "demands" a trial, spending everyone else's time and money to do it, as an abuser of the legal system.

I don't think the Constitution has a "prohibition" against self incrimination, BTW. That would mean you could never plead "guilty".

Ok...the pilots were charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated.

The state's evidence was the testimony of security guards turned Federal Agents, the cops and the breathalyzer. Until you get into court and bring these things under examination, you don't really know if anyone was guilty of anything. Without a trial, you do not know what the FACTS hold.

If it was a fact that the cops operating the breathalyzer were out of certification or the machine was operated out of certification...SCREW THEM, better luck next time suckers!

That doesn't make me an ANARCHIST! If the facts held that prosecution screwed up...too bad. In this case, the facts held that the pilots were guilty...too bad.

 

[KigAir]

They tried to make a plea agreement and it was not accepted.

A plea agreement does not always entail an admission of guilt.

 

[DoinTime]

I call someone who KNOWS they are guilty as charged and STILL "demands" a trial, spending everyone else's time and money to do it, as an abuser of the legal system.

Its called self-preservation. Its an instinct as old as whatever organism humans evolved from.

Does the chain smoking senior citizen thats being treated for lung cancer deserve to be kept alive by taxpayer funded medicare? They knew smoking would kill them so why can't they own up to it and save everyone some time and money.

 

[FN FAL]

A plea agreement does not always entail an admission of guilt.

And a plea agreement does not have to be agreed to by a judge.

My last professor is a lawyer up in the Fond Du Lac area, one of her clients made a plea agreement with a prosecutor regarding shoplifting charges. Sounds like a done deal, right. No...on the day of the trial, the prosecutor majically shows up with a video tape from one of the store's security cameras and wants a trial and wants the tape included as evidence. Judge decides to not accept the plea bargain after the tape is reviewed, plea agreement is off, the trial is on and be dammed with the rule of 'discovery'.

How the heck are you supposed to defend your client against evidence that is presented THAT day in court...you can't. The client got 90 days more than what the plea entailed and will appeal. Chances are she's going to probably run this one up the state appelate court and get it thrown out. Then the ding dong prosecutor with the tape will appeal that and it will wind up in the federal courts of last resort. Just what I want to do as a taxpayer is spend 150,000 bucks on trials for shoplifting, when they could have worked it out at the plea agreement level.

You guys have a story book perception of prosecutors and cops like they are paul freaking bunyan or something. I'm telling you, cops lie and prosecutors lie...In fact, one cop's quote to me, "Whoever tells the best lie in court, wins!"

 

[Vector4fun]

You guys have a story book perception of prosecutors and cops like they are paul freaking bunyan or something. I'm telling you, cops lie and prosecutors lie...In fact, one cop's quote to me, "Whoever tells the best lie in court, wins!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575291.shtml


Those of you who haven't heard of Tulia, TX. really need to read this story. I've followed it in a half-dozen publications, and if anything, the whole story is actually worse than CBS makes it sound.


I have nothing but respect for Peace Officers. It's a dangerous, difficult job. On the other hand though, I don't know that I could ever vote to convict a man of a serious crime without some corroborating evidence beyond a Cop or Prosecutor's word. There can be some pretty good incentive for them to lie. That's "reasonable doubt".

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575291.shtml


Those of you who haven't heard of Tulia, TX. really need to read this story. I've followed it in a half-dozen publications, and if anything, the whole story is actually worse than CBS makes it sound.


I have nothing but respect for Peace Officers. It's a dangerous, difficult job. On the other hand though, I don't know that I could ever vote to convict a man of a serious crime without some corroborating evidence beyond a Cop or Prosecutor's word. There can be some pretty good incentive for them to lie. That's "reasonable doubt".

Not to mention all the death row inmates and other convicts that have released because of DNA tests.

Here's anothe recent gem...from texas no less...

Former Texas Sheriff Charged in Conspiracy

By LYNN BREZOSKY
Associated Press Writer

BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- A scandal-plagued former sheriff has been charged with leading a criminal enterprise while in office that included extortion, drug trafficking and witness tampering, federal prosecutors announced Thursday.

The indictment alleges that the enterprise led by former Cameron County Sheriff Conrado Cantu netted tens of thousands of dollars, offering information about investigations and protection to drug traffickers and operators of an illegal gambling operation.

In addition, the indictment says one of the defendants once told a convicted drug dealer that Cantu would charge $50,000 to allow him to escape if he ended up in his jurisdiction.

"It is a blow to honest law enforcement when one of its own is accused of corrupting his office and abusing the public's trust," FBI Agent Patrick A. Patterson said.Cantu was arrested Wednesday, and will remain in jail until his arraignment Monday.

"He thinks that this is a witch hunt," Cantu's attorney, Alberto Pullen, said Thursday. "There is just not enough evidence to convict him of all the charges."

Four others were named in the indictment, including two who worked with Cantu at the sheriff's department in Cameron County, located on the border with Mexico.

Cantu is charged with eight counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, extortion, money laundering, obstruction and being a member of a criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. The other men face similar charges.

At one point, the sheriff's department allegedly seized $25,000 in purported drug proceeds from a truck driven by a government informant. One of the defendants told the informant that police in Brownsville "helped" traffickers and that Cantu wanted money in exchange for protection.

Cantu served four years as sheriff starting in 2001, and his term was marked by allegations of corruption along with a series of jail escapes and missing inmate funds.

He was indicted last year on charges he misused authority by rallying support for his re-election bid during a mandatory jailhouse meeting. A judge dismissed the charge in March.

Cantu, a Democrat, lost the 2004 primary election. He had been hoping to rejoin law enforcement as a deputy constable, but county commissioners postponed a vote on the appointment last week.

The extortion, money laundering and racketeering charges carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in federal prison. The obstruction charge carries a maximum sentence of five years, and the drug charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

 

[joe_pilot]

Why not put portable breath analysers at the screening locations. After all, if real men have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind taking the test.

Come on FN, please tell me that was a tounge-in-cheek remark. Please tell me you aren't willing to take it that far.