Subject:
|
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:09:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
311 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> My question is can you REALLY tell from the video (which I haven't seen
> - maybe it is more damning)? What are the true circumstances. All I know
> is that videos can look an awful lot more sinister than first
> appearances show. I believe our standards of evidence have in the past
> required more than just video evidence. And what value is the
> confession?
If I broke into your home and stole your stereo, but you had no other
evidence than your in-home video surveillance system, wouldn't you at least
want me to be questioned?
> I say that there is a serious chance of misinterpretation here, and
> without any other evidence, an arrest is extremely disturbing. If you
> show me damage consistent with a history of abuse (if she was really
> punching the child, and this was anything other than a one-time loss of
> cool which did no permanent damage [remember, the child has been
> examined and shows no permanent damage], then a complete examination of
> the child should turn something up).
Okay, what if I broke into your house, stole your stereo, and was caught
on video, but I later broke into your house again and returned your stereo.
Was a crime still committed? Sure! I broke into your house! The crime of
theft is in excess of the breaking-and-entering, but the b&e is still a
crime unto itself. Just so in this case--the assault is a crime even if
there is no lasting physical damage to the child.
> I just find this incident very disturbing as it seems to be another case
> of jumping to conclusions with limited evidence. No matter what comes
> out of it, this woman's life is permanently trashed, and even if she if
> found completely innocent, has probably lost her children.
Quite a while ago you posed this question:
> There is somewhat of a due process problem here, but do you have a problem
> with the police locking up a suspected murderer until the trial? There does
> have to be a capability to respond immediately to problems.
in http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5025
Would you still hold this opinion, or has your stance (quite understandably,
given the span of time) changed in the interim? Your hypothetical question
of two years ago seems very relevant to the current issue.
> To be honest, I was hoping someone would post more information. Right
> now, what I see is a gross overreaction. Give me more evidence.
What kind of evidence would be sufficient? If, while you're asleep, I
blindfold you and thump you with a sack of oranges, and there's no evidence
other than your in-home video surveillance, would that video be enough
evidence for you?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
