Equality before the law?

[Volourn]

I am quoting properly.   I'm not dumbing down for the internet.

 

These are " ".

 

Deal with it, and stop trolling, and stick to the topic.

[Valsuelm]

Well, lets not forget that OJ got away with killing his ex-wife and another guy, so it's not like only women get away with this stuff.

 

I suppose you think Casey Anthony should have been convicted as well?

 

The fact is that the jury decided correctly in both cases. If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty that is.

 

A jury is not supposed to convict unless they have no doubts a person committed crime X. Often juries convict when they do have doubts, the reasons for this are varied, but a good defense attorney, which both O.J. and Casey had will make sure that jury knows that if they have doubts they shouldn't be convicting.

 

Was O.J. guilty? At the time it certainly looked like he was, even moreso than Casey, but given the evidence presented at both trials I'd have voted to acquit myself. You don't convict someone if you think they did it, you convict someone if you know they did it and their rights were not violated in the process. The former is often evil, the latter often what needs to be done. [Note that the judge, many of the police, and some of prosecutorial team on the O.J. case were unprofessional and incompetent and the defense team ran circles around them all. This was not so much the case with the Casey Anthony case though.]

 

On this front I highly recommend everyone watching the following two documentaries:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html

 

They both dispel commonly accepted myths about forensics that are put forth as fact again and again in movies, TV, on the news, etc. They also discuss O.J. and Anthony's cases, among many others.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

I am quoting properly.   I'm not dumbing down for the internet.

 

These are " ".

 

Deal with it, and stop trolling, and stick to the topic.

 

You are not quoting properly. You do not attribute to where/whom the words you quote are from. Use '"" all you want, but cite correctly if you're going to do it that way. That said, format and ease of read for those you're writing for matters. The quote boxes provided by the forum are much superior to "" in the ease of read department. Using them is not 'dumbing down' for the internet, not using them thinking that they are somehow 'dumbing down' is being what you're trying to avoid: dumb.

 

Learn what a troll is. I'm certainly not trolling.

[Meshugger]

The Canadian 'justice' system can make the U.S. family court system look like a fair, reasonable, and good system.

 

I urge everyone here to go find and watch "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father". I also highly recommend not reading up on it until after you've seen the film. It speaks volumes about the subject of this thread, and is a very good film to watch.

 

Thanks for reminding me about that documentary I had all but forgotten (supressed everything) about it. Jesus christ, few things in my life has made me more enraged about the level of injustice portrayed in that one. The grandparents though had such strength of character that was nothing but admirable.

[Valsuelm]

 

The Canadian 'justice' system can make the U.S. family court system look like a fair, reasonable, and good system.

 

I urge everyone here to go find and watch "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father". I also highly recommend not reading up on it until after you've seen the film. It speaks volumes about the subject of this thread, and is a very good film to watch.

 

Thanks for reminding me about that documentary I had all but forgotten (supressed everything) about it. Jesus christ, few things in my life has made me more enraged about the level of injustice portrayed in that one. The grandparents though had such strength of character that was nothing but admirable.

 

 

Yea...

 

I'd say that unless there's something wrong with someone it's a story that will enrage them as well as jerk some tears out. The very sad thing is that, tragedies are commonplace in court systems worldwide in how the system greatly damages or destroys people's lives and sometimes quite literally gets people killed. It's probably best in the U.S., but there are still many very serious issues here, especially in 'family courts' in most or all states.

 

So many people are brainwashed by oh so much propaganda into thinking the system works. That the police always get the bad guy, that the DA competently prosecutes the bad guy, that the police and the DAs are the good guys, that fair trials are the norm, that even indigents get good representation, that innocent people don't get arrested or convicted. That lawyers on all sides are even competent (they so often aren't). That 'experts' on the stand actually know what they are talking about. These myths and others, and the belief in them by so many people that perpetuates so much insanity on a daily basis grounds up people by the millions, and spits them into prison, into shattered lives, into graves, into pure hell, and other seriously unfun things.

 

Zachary's grandparents awed me, and in a good way. Aside from being enraging, and a tearjerker 'Dear Zachary' is an eye opener and positively inspirational in a way. A very well made film.

 

Some good news (spoiler for anyone who has not seen "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father" (I really don't recommend opening this spoiler up unless you've seen it)):

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm already familiar with the Turner case, is the doc still worth watching anyways?

Edited November 3, 2014 by KaineParker

[Valsuelm]

I'm already familiar with the Turner case, is the doc still worth watching anyways?

 

I'd say so yes. And I'd edit your spoiler out as I have done.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ok then, off to see if I can find this doc.

[Volourn]

"You are not quoting properly. You do not attribute to where/whom the words you quote are from. Use '"" all you want, but cite correctly if you're going to do it that way. That said, format and ease of read for those you're writing for matters. The quote boxes provided by the forum are much superior to "" in the ease of read department. Using them is not 'dumbing down' for the internet, not using them thinking that they are somehow 'dumbing down' is being what you're trying to avoid: dumb.

 

Learn what a troll is. I'm certainly not trolling."

 

Trolling again. Stick on topic and stop the eprsonal attacks on my posting style. Deal with the topic.

 

ON TOPIC: Shame on the scumbag judge and the incompetent prosecuter.

[Longknife]

 

Did you actually read the article? L0L

 

Yes I did and I don't think the judge is a complete idiot

 

There is obviously evidence we don't know about that helped make the judges decision

 

So nothing to see here Volo... "move along now " 

 

 

 

Holy BALLS dude you are impossible.

 

Even if you wanted to disagree....I think a reasonable person would question the integrity of the article altogether if they wanted to disagree. You? You take an article that suggests NOTHING but complete guilt from that woman and you cling to the ONE measely defense she provided and - without evidence - proclaim it must be true.

 

As someone who studied law, let me just say this: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she should walk away without any charges against her. Even if we were to assume - for argument's sake - that everything she said is true and that he was guilty of domestic violence, this does not excuse the fact that she was willing to hire a hitman. They could and would both probably walk away with charges against them.

 

What makes this worse is the 19 year old girlfriend of the guy and how she said it was no problem if she gets in the way and "gets taken care of" too. No first world country's legal system, no university and no practicing lawyer is going to tell you that this is not a clear crime. You cannot excuse potentially commiting 3rd degree manslaughter (at least in Germany) with "oh I was under stress from my abusive husband." That right there? Her defense would fall through and she'd still be charged with 3rd degree manslaughter even IF she managed to get away with killing him based on defenses of abuse causing fear and desperation.

 

 

And while you may sit there and say "well the judge must know something we don't!!" ....Then why was the father given full custody of their child after the trial? That right there highlights how absolutely bats*** insane that trial is and how justice wasn't served. The legal system is typically bias towards mothers, so if a father gets full custody, there's a problem. If a father accused of domestic abuse gets full custody...? This is absolutely unheard of, and while the implication would be that he never actually commited any domestic violence, this does not explain why those very same claims played a meaningful role in her defense.

 

 

Finally, her father was an accomplice in all of this and he wasn't charged either. Again, her father lacks the defenses she proposed and cannot claim duress. He was never put in a situation that would allow for that.

 

 

And on the subject of duress, let's talk about duress. I looked up what duress might be under American or Canadian law. Let me clarify in advance that I'm by no means an expert of Canadian law and this is a lazy wikipedia quote. All I can say is I have needed to search for legal comparisons between German and American/Canadian laws in the past, and our systems often seem very similar in how we define things and in the past lazy wikipedia quotes have led me in the right direction:

 

 

For duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:^[1]

1. The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2. The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3. The threat must be immediate and inescapable
4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

A person may also raise a duress defense when force or violence is used to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge.

 

 

Kindly tell me how the **** she qualifies for any of those circumstances. Only one she addressed is step one.

 

 

 

 

This court ruling has more holes than swiss cheese. It's shocking is what it is, I mean this is stuff that you'd learn in Semester 1 or 2 about; it SHOULD be basics. And yet it happened. What the HELL. I will definitely be consulting some lawyer friends of mine to ask if they've got any input into how this could've happened, cause I got nothin'. It seems 0% justified. My best guess...? They really should've just had him testify, even though they felt (and were right) that the defendent failed to make a case for duress. Ideally it shouldn't need to happen, but apparently the judge is an idiot who'll listen to any claim made unless a counterclaim is presented. PERHAPS the prosecution got really lazy, who the hell knows.

 

 

 

 

 

Aside from this I just wanna say two things:

 

1) Let's not turn this into another gender issue. This does not mean women are overprivileged and get off scot-free in society and get special treatment. This? This means a judge needs to be disbarred. IMMEDIATELY.

 

2) Bruce, there was a time I did not understand the wisdom or true meaning of the phrase "if you're too open-minded your brain will fall out." Then I met you.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2014 by Longknife

[Volourn]

The above post is one of the best posts I have ever seen on the net. Close this thread,  and sticky it on every forum everywhere.

 

GAME OVER, man, GAME OVER.

[TrashMan]

I'm surprised you have such contempt for the Canadian legal system. Two courts held the same judgement that she was a victim of sustained abuse and then the Canadian Supreme Court decided she had suffered enough and ordered  a stay of proceedings, effectively exonerating her from these charges

 

Yet you and others think all this other evidence was somehow overlooked and she " wasn't really a victim of abuse ". Wow she must be really clever to con the entire Canadian legal system so thoroughly....at least you guys can see it

 

And people think I'm arrogant

 

No, they think you're completely unreasonable about this.

 

Again, if it was a man, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you know it.

 

Abuse or not (no evidence for abuse presented, she never reported or mentioned anything to anyone), there WAS clear evidence of her attempting to murder someone FOUR times and as a FACT there were ways out.

So no excuses.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Did you actually read the article? L0L

 

Yes I did and I don't think the judge is a complete idiot

 

There is obviously evidence we don't know about that helped make the judges decision

 

So nothing to see here Volo... "move along now " 

 

 

 

Holy BALLS dude you are impossible.

 

Even if you wanted to disagree....I think a reasonable person would question the integrity of the article altogether if they wanted to disagree. You? You take an article that suggests NOTHING but complete guilt from that woman and you cling to the ONE measely defense she provided and - without evidence - proclaim it must be true.

 

As someone who studied law, let me just say this: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she should walk away without any charges against her. Even if we were to assume - for argument's sake - that everything she said is true and that he was guilty of domestic violence, this does not excuse the fact that she was willing to hire a hitman. They could and would both probably walk away with charges against them.

 

What makes this worse is the 19 year old girlfriend of the guy and how she said it was no problem if she gets in the way and "gets taken care of" too. No first world country's legal system, no university and no practicing lawyer is going to tell you that this is not a clear crime. You cannot excuse potentially commiting 3rd degree manslaughter (at least in Germany) with "oh I was under stress from my abusive husband." That right there? Her defense would fall through and she'd still be charged with 3rd degree manslaughter even IF she managed to get away with killing him based on defenses of abuse causing fear and desperation.

 

 

And while you may sit there and say "well the judge must know something we don't!!" ....Then why was the father given full custody of their child after the trial? That right there highlights how absolutely bats*** insane that trial is and how justice wasn't served. The legal system is typically bias towards mothers, so if a father gets full custody, there's a problem. If a father accused of domestic abuse gets full custody...? This is absolutely unheard of, and while the implication would be that he never actually commited any domestic violence, this does not explain why those very same claims played a meaningful role in her defense.

 

 

Finally, her father was an accomplice in all of this and he wasn't charged either. Again, her father lacks the defenses she proposed and cannot claim duress. He was never put in a situation that would allow for that.

 

 

And on the subject of duress, let's talk about duress. I looked up what duress might be under American or Canadian law. Let me clarify in advance that I'm by no means an expert of Canadian law and this is a lazy wikipedia quote. All I can say is I have needed to search for legal comparisons between German and American/Canadian laws in the past, and our systems often seem very similar in how we define things and in the past lazy wikipedia quotes have led me in the right direction:

 

 

For duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:^[1]

1. The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2. The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3. The threat must be immediate and inescapable
4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

A person may also raise a duress defense when force or violence is used to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge.

 

 

Kindly tell me how the **** she qualifies for any of those circumstances. Only one she addressed is step one.

 

 

 

 

This court ruling has more holes than swiss cheese. It's shocking is what it is, I mean this is stuff that you'd learn in Semester 1 or 2 about; it SHOULD be basics. And yet it happened. What the HELL. I will definitely be consulting some lawyer friends of mine to ask if they've got any input into how this could've happened, cause I got nothin'. It seems 0% justified. My best guess...? They really should've just had him testify, even though they felt (and were right) that the defendent failed to make a case for duress. Ideally it shouldn't need to happen, but apparently the judge is an idiot who'll listen to any claim made unless a counterclaim is presented. PERHAPS the prosecution got really lazy, who the hell knows.

 

 

 

 

 

Aside from this I just wanna say two things:

 

1) Let's not turn this into another gender issue. This does not mean women are overprivileged and get off scot-free in society and get special treatment. This? This means a judge needs to be disbarred. IMMEDIATELY.

 

2) Bruce, there was a time I did not understand the wisdom or true meaning of the phrase "if you're too open-minded your brain will fall out." Then I met you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am going to repeat what I said earlier because it doesn't seem to resonate with anyone

 

I am not a lawyer and I wasn't involved in the case. All we have from you guys as "irrefutable "  evidence that this lady lied about the abuse she suffered is what this article says. This article is not the same as the court transcripts of the actual case so we don't know what  the various judges found was compelling evidence that made them decide that she was the victim of abuse

 

I'll repeat what I said earlier, the initial court ruling dismissed the charges. The appeal court upheld the verdict and then the Supreme court decided she had suffered enough and decided to stay the proceedings and that basically exonerated her

 

If you  think that all these various Canadian institutions somehow overlooked vital evidence then you should post those links outside this article and you should be suggesting that the judges of all 3 courts that came to the same conclusions need to be disbarred

 

But this is not a GG article that is based on emotion  where I'm just going to agree that this women "definitely planned to kill her husband for money and there was no abuse " because I have  more faith in the Canadian legal system and there interpretation of the evidence than I do with people on the Obsidian forums. Sorry but that's the reality of dealing with these types of events in RL

[Malcador]

The justice system screws up often in every place, you know. So your typical approach of the "Western systems are great" may be misplaced in this case and others.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Malcador

[Shallow]

I am going to repeat what I said earlier because it doesn't seem to resonate with anyone

 

I am not a lawyer and I wasn't involved in the case. All we have from you guys as "irrefutable "  evidence that this lady lied about the abuse she suffered is what this article says. This article is not the same as the court transcripts of the actual case so we don't know what  the various judges found was compelling evidence that made them decide that she was the victim of abuse

 

I'll repeat what I said earlier, the initial court ruling dismissed the charges. The appeal court upheld the verdict and then the Supreme court decided she had suffered enough and decided to stay the proceedings and that basically exonerated her

 

If you  think that all these various Canadian institutions somehow overlooked vital evidence then you should post those links outside this article and you should be suggesting that the judges of all 3 courts that came to the same conclusions need to be disbarred

 

But this is not a GG article that is based on emotion  where I'm just going to agree that this women "definitely planned to kill her husband for money and there was no abuse " because I have  more faith in the Canadian legal system and there interpretation of the evidence than I do with people on the Obsidian forums. Sorry but that's the reality of dealing with these types of events in RL

 

A. I'm pretty sure she's the one who has to provide irrefutable evidence she was abused.

B. Regardless of what abuse she may or may not have suffered the law does not allow someone in her potential circumstances to behave the way she did, nor should it.

[Volourn]

Echoing others I have a question: If this piece of crap subhuman of a husband was so obviously guilty of abuse to the point that a 'lawful' court sanctioned his assassination why wasn't he arrested, charged, and convicted of these heinous abuses? Why was he given custody of the child? Does the court not care a child is in the custody of a horrible horrible horrible monster they saw fit to approve his assination? COME ON.

 

\How can Bruce give the seal of approval to this evil scummy justice system that allows such  a horrible piece of crap get away with such satanic abuse and get the reward ofm raising the child?

 

You see, no matter which way it cuts, the court  was completely and utterly disgusting.

 

DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.