anatess2 Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 23 hours ago, Jamie123 said: Very true. You can sue them. *If* you have the money. Actually, you don't need money to sue cops. You don't even need to have a lawyer to sue anybody, including cops. You think George Floyd put up a single penny? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 22 hours ago, Jamie123 said: I just thought I'd say something nice about my own country for a change! (I'm usually the biggest moaner in the world when it comes to British justice and law enforcement.) You can say something nice about British cops. But you shouldn't put down American cops using untruths to make British cops look good. It's like making yourself feel better about yourself by telling others how bad they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 7 minutes ago, anatess2 said: It's like making yourself feel better about yourself by telling others how bad they are. Hardly myself - I'm not a cop. But OK - point taken. 12 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Actually, you don't need money to sue cops. You don't even need to have a lawyer to sue anybody, including cops. You think George Floyd put up a single penny? Well I suppose you can be your own brief, if you have the leisure to teach yourself an entire law degree, and are so inherently super-intelligent that with no experience you can go into a courtroom and beat professionals at their own game. As for George Floyd, I don't suppose he did put up "a single penny" considering that he's dead. The cops who allegedly* killed him are being criminally prosecuted rather than sued. *Innocent until proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 22 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: Hardly myself - I'm not a cop. But OK - point taken. Well I suppose you can be your own brief, if you have the leisure to teach yourself an entire law degree, and are so inherently super-intelligent that with no experience you can go into a courtroom and beat professionals at their own game. As for George Floyd, I don't suppose he did put up "a single penny" considering that he's dead. The cops who allegedly* killed him are being criminally prosecuted rather than sued. *Innocent until proven guilty. Just a little thought - I am not 100% certain but I am of the mind that the American society is the most litigious in the entire world. Here in the USA there are TV adds for lawyers that are willing to sue just about anybody in your behalf - These adds state that the first meeting and evaluation is free and that the lawyer does not get paid until and unless you do. In addition there are lawyer adds that say if you used a certain product you might "qualify" for a "big" payout - just contact such and such lawyer firm. I believe @anatess2is more correct - money is not an issue in bringing about a law suit. What is interesting to me is how much of our laws here in the USA are based on Old English law. I personally think that those in one country that criticize the other do not realize how much in reality we are a like and each think that what-ever is different is that much different from the rest of the world. The main difference that I see is that here in the USA when someone is on welfare for generations - we think they are scum (the dregs of society) - in the UK you guys think they are royalty (the most noble of your society). Other than that (who really runs the country) - there is hardly that much difference. We both are ruled by -> 🤡 The Traveler JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Jamie123 said: Hardly myself - I'm not a cop. But OK - point taken. Well I suppose you can be your own brief, if you have the leisure to teach yourself an entire law degree, and are so inherently super-intelligent that with no experience you can go into a courtroom and beat professionals at their own game. As for George Floyd, I don't suppose he did put up "a single penny" considering that he's dead. The cops who allegedly* killed him are being criminally prosecuted rather than sued. *Innocent until proven guilty. See... this is one of the biggest flaws in your judgment of American Law - you think the Law changes depending on how much money you have or how much knowledge you have. The law IS the law. You are either within the law or outside the law. Criminally prosecuted or sued - either of them is pursued when cops operate outside the law. So, basically, what you are doing is comparing British Cops' LEGAL activities to American Cops ILLEGAL activities and then point to how much better the British System is. Go watch the movie The Judge starring Robert Duvall on vidangel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, anatess2 said: See... this is one of the biggest flaws in your judgment of American Law - you think the Law changes depending on how much money you have or how much knowledge you have. The law IS the law. You are either within the law or outside the law. In theory you're right, but you know as well as I do that legal proceedings are complicated (requiring specialist knowledge) and therefore cost money (to pay the specialist). This isn't just the case in America...it's just as true in Britain. There are good lawyers who cost a lot, and there are bad lawyers who don't. And judgement you get depends (at least to some extent) on how much you can afford to pay. If you think otherwise, then ask yourself why all the best lawyers can charge so much. By your model they should all have priced themselves out of the market. The difference I'm proposing is that in America at the moment, cops can take your property without reference to any court or judge. The default position is that the seizure was legal. If you consider it to be illegal, the onus is upon you to fight your case - which means lawyers - and therefore money. Like @Carborendum (I'm getting good at this!) and @mrmarklin say, this is being challenged as unconstitutional. I certainly hope the challenge is successful! Edited July 15, 2020 by Jamie123 JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 21 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: In theory you're right, but you know as well as I do that legal proceedings are complicated (requiring specialist knowledge) and therefore cost money (to pay the specialist). This isn't just the case in America...it's just as true in Britain. There are good lawyers who cost a lot, and there are bad lawyers who don't. And judgement you get depends (at least to some extent) on how much you can afford to pay. If you think otherwise, then ask yourself why all the best lawyers can charge so much. By your model they should all have priced themselves out of the market. See... this is not a British/American difference. I have gone to court without a lawyer in the USA. I will never dream of doing such in the Philippines even for something as simple as a land boundary dispute. In the USA, the complexity of your case and your ability to represent yourself is not something the system imposes on the individual. It's the limitation of the individual which is not the system's doing. In the Philippines, your chances of a favorable judgment by the court is determined by the elitism of your status. 21 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: The difference I'm proposing is that in America at the moment, cops can take your property without reference to any court or judge. The default position is that the seizure was legal. If you consider it to be illegal, the onus is upon you to fight your case - which means lawyers - and therefore money. Like @Carborendum (I'm getting good at this!) and @mrmarklin say, this is being challenged as unconstitutional. I certainly hope the challenge is successful! American CANNOT take your property without reference to any court or judge. Even in Civil Forfeiture, you still have to submit such forfeiture to the court, otherwise, the ownership of the property does not officially change. What I've been telling you is that, the owner of the property doesn't have to be convicted of a crime before the property is forfeit. The state simply has to prove to the court that the asset being in the current owner's possession pose a danger to society. THEY STILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT to the court! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 3 hours ago, Jamie123 said: The cops who allegedly* killed him are being criminally prosecuted rather than sued. *Innocent until proven guilty. No one disputes that the police killed Floyd. The questions are (1) whether the death was wrongful, i.e. criminal homicide (murder or manslaughter) (literally everyone in the media seems to think so), and if so, (2) who is guilty of the criminal homicide (just the cop who kneeled on Floyd's neck, or the other police who were involved, as well). It should also be noted front and center that the reason the police are being criminally prosecuted in such a high-profile manner is not because the killing was so egregious that the prosecutor simply had no choice. It's mostly a response to the PC media mob. In a just society, the death would be investigated, and if it seemed suspicious, the officer involved would be tried. If found guilty, he would be sentenced just like any other person guilty of manslaughter or murder. His fellow officers would also be investigated and, if just cause was determined to do so, they too would be tried as accessories to the criminal homicide. Needless to say, ours is not a particularly just society, especially right now and especially especially when the PC media get involved in trying people in the courts of public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 18 minutes ago, Vort said: His fellow officers would also be investigated and, if just cause was determined to do so, they too would be tried as accessories to the criminal homicide. Needless to say, ours is not a particularly just society, especially right now and especially especially when the PC media get involved in trying people in the courts of public opinion. I feel bad for the other officers. They were rookies, and Chauvin was supposed to be their mentor. You can just imagine them seeing him kneeling on Floyd's neck and thinking "Is that right? He must know what he's doing. At least I hope he knows what he's doing...or does he? Should I say something?" but not quite having the nerve to question their superior. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jamie123 said: I feel bad for the other officers. They were rookies, and Chauvin was supposed to be their mentor. You can just imagine them seeing him kneeling on Floyd's neck and thinking "Is that right? He must know what he's doing. At least I hope he knows what he's doing...or does he? Should I say something?" but not quite having the nerve to question their superior. The crazy thing is that they DID question him. It can even be heard on camera with the rookie asking him (or actually saying they don't think it's right) about the correct procedures! At least Twice! I can understand the one who was on Floyd's neck being investigated and charged. The others...I think it's mob justice in this instance, ESPECIALLY for those who were trainees that day. The other guy is more questionable (as he was also a veteran police officer) as he probably could have spoken up. However, he was also not really actively involved in holding Floyd down and was doing crowd control at the time from what I understand. So, he may have been able to speak up, but most of his attention was keeping the area clear and his back was to the situation much of the time as he was focused on the crowd around the situation. I think that there probably should be a serious investigation and charges to one of the officers, but the other three I think is far more questionable. The two rookies I think being charged is actually more of travesty, especially with them losing their jobs over this. The other veteran officer doing crowd control, I don't know enough of the situation to really say...but from the outside with the little information I hear, it also seems rather wrong with what happened to him. Edited July 15, 2020 by JohnsonJones Jamie123 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 16, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 21 hours ago, anatess2 said: American CANNOT take your property without reference to any court or judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: Like I said... you can get your assets forfeited without criminal charges... it doesn't end in just taking the asset... the taking needs to be justified in a court of law. It is not quite right to say "it doesn't see judicial hearing". That is simply the choice of the individual not to go to a hearing. A hearing is provided if the individual demands it. This is the exact same thing that happens with a traffic violation - it happens so many times over and over that the fine is rubber stamped by the judiciary. You can appear in court to challenge it on the basis of innocence until guilt is proven. Not appearing in court gets the rubber stamp (basically, a guilty plea) and you pay the fine without a hearing. In the case of civil forfeiture, if you don't appear in court then the forfeiture gets the rubber stamp (guilty plea). Libertarians - Ron Paul and his son Rand being the most prominent of the lot - wants this to change to remove rubber stamping cases when it comes to asset forfeiture. I doubt it will pass in Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 16, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, anatess2 said: A hearing is provided if the individual demands it. And pays for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: And pays for it. I'm sure you have seen a quadzillion American movies where the Miranda Rights are recited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 16, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: I'm sure you have seen a quadzillion American movies where the Miranda Rights are recited. I'm not sure how many a "quadzillion" is, but probably, yes. And I've never understood the Miranda warnings. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." That is incorrect on several different levels: There is no guarantee the case will ever reach "a court of law". New evidence may emerge that puts you in the clear. If the case does go to court, you might plead guilty to the charges, in which case no evidence needs to be heard. Even if you don't plead guilty, there's no guarantee that anything you said to the police will be useful as evidence However, I think you're talking about the "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided" bit. This is irrelevant, because it only applies to criminal cases. Edited July 16, 2020 by Jamie123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 16, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) On 7/15/2020 at 3:14 PM, Traveler said: Here in the USA there are TV adds for lawyers that are willing to sue just about anybody in your behalf - These adds state that the first meeting and evaluation is free and that the lawyer does not get paid until and unless you do. In addition there are lawyer adds that say if you used a certain product you might "qualify" for a "big" payout - just contact such and such lawyer firm. Sorry I missed this post before. That's actually a very good point, but I'm not totally convinced. I can imagine that if you are a blind man who gets knocked down on a pedestrian crossing by a drunk driver going through a red light at twice the speed limit, you won't have any problems finding a lawyer who'll delay his fee until after the win. But if your opponent is a well financed police department, the shysters are going to be a little more wary. Edited July 16, 2020 by Jamie123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jamie123 said: However, I think you're talking about the "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided" bit. This is irrelevant, because it only applies to criminal cases. I have another movie for you - Two Weeks Notice starring your very own popular Remainer Brit, Hugh Grant. Quote from the movie: "That was really a nice speech you just made, and I'm really going to miss everyone here at Wade. Um... there are a million memories I wouldn't trade. And if you're ever accused of murder you can find me at Legal Aid." So yeah, Legal Aid in the US is the same as Britain. They don't just take murder cases. Edited July 16, 2020 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 4 hours ago, Jamie123 said: Sorry I missed this post before. That's actually a very good point, but I'm not totally convinced. I can imagine that if you are a blind man who gets knocked down on a pedestrian crossing by a drunk driver going through a red light at twice the speed limit, you won't have any problems finding a lawyer who'll delay his fee until after the win. But if your opponent is a well financed police department, the shysters are going to be a little more wary. I honestly think you have been reading too many British tabloids. Here in the USA it is just the opposite. No one sues poor people (someone that is not well financed), groups, companies or organizations that have no money to pay. What happens with the rich is that the suit gets settled out of court with a NDS (Non Discloser Agreement). I assume this is the same in the UK - there are two kinds of courts. The criminal courts and the civil courts. Citizens cannot sue in a criminal court so it is beyond stupid to expect money from a criminal court- which BTW is under the control of the government. Civil courts are a whole different matter. Anyone can attempt to sue anybody for anything they wish - it does not mean that it will go to court but the paper work can be done for anything and I believe it is simple enough that you do not even need a lawyer. I am not an expert but I think if the amount is under $5,000 the suit will go to small claims court where most of the time there are no lawyers anyway. Since the lawyer gets a lot (often half the settlement) - some of the wealthiest lawyers are those that specialize in claim settlement. My point is two fold. First - that here in the USA it is very easy to file a law suit and claim damages. Second - if there is any remote chance you were treated badly or in any way can be made to seem or appear that they treated you badly; by anybody with financial resources - the lawyers here in the USA will line up and beg you to allow them to represent you. Lawyers have much better chances of making a bundle in a law suit - even if it is sketchy at best - than by anybody purchasing a lottery ticket. When was the last time you purchased a lottery ticket thinking you might will something? The Traveler Jamie123 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 28, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) On 7/17/2020 at 12:34 AM, Traveler said: Second - if there is any remote chance you were treated badly or in any way can be made to seem or appear that they treated you badly; by anybody with financial resources - the lawyers here in the USA will line up and beg you to allow them to represent you. If the defendant has to pay legal fees on top of damages, that would be fine. But Lehto - who is a lawyer - seems adamant that if you win your case, you still pay your own lawyers' fees (check out 3:15). So if you have $10,000 wrongly confiscated by the police, and a lawyer "begs to allow them to represent you", wins, and then charges you $10,000 fees, all you've really achieved is to transfer the money from the police to your lawyer. Either way, someone else gets it and you don't. (P.S. He mentions John Oliver at one point. I just want to be clear I'm not a fan of John Oliver. I did follow him for a while, but it eventually struck me that it's his resemblance to Ben Elton that makes him appear funnier and more talented than he is.) This is Ben Elton: And this is John Oliver: Could you have told the difference? Edited July 28, 2020 by Jamie123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.