Don't f**k with the LAPD

well, only two that know what really happened at Walgreens. One is dead. The other probably reacted and thought about his training. Its unfortunated, but these things happen.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/ahwatukee/articles/0713cr-lovelace13Z14.html

Three people have died so far at the hands of this 'lawman'.

The officer was fired by the Chandler Police Department for violating department policy in the shooting.

Keep trying to tell us that it was legal.Had he not been a cop,he would be in jail by now.

It was legal. A jury of his peers said it was okay. In America, thats how it works. I didnt know about the 2 others that were killed, but apparently his boss didnt care. Fact is, he is a cop, and Im sure he could dig up facts to justify all 3 dying.

Of course, OJ is definatly a murderer,and his peers said that was okay.......... Jury system is flawed. A majority vote should be instituted.

i thought he should of been convicted, fpr one evidence showed he shot her from behind and he says he was standing next to her window, so he was lying there. also the lady hitting his bike that he parked infront of her and got off of doesnt count as threating his life. Also he was standing next to the car of course he was close to the vehicle when it drove off to make him feel like he was threatened? you were standing next to the car for fuck sake, and the car drove off. i could see shoting the lady if she drove at him while he was on the bike that is about it. sorry if that was just a bunch of rambling nonsense but this really pisses me off

Yeah, blame it on the jury system.

Of course, OJ is definatly a murderer,and his peers said that was okay.......... Jury system is flawed. A majority vote should be instituted.

How is he definately a murderer?

A majority vote would cause more problems than solutions.

how so? you wouldnt have creeps getting off on a technicality because 1 idiot voted not to convict.

Deliberations would not as be as thorough. People who have a good viewpoint to provide could be outvoted simply because there arent' as many of them. Juries have swung on the votes of a few who have been able to provide sufficient arguments to sway the others' points of view.

I do hear you on the technicality thing though.

here's the only real flaw in the justice system - hired attornies. State-issued attornies, randomly selected out of a hat for both parties, would really put the combatants on fair ground

here's the only real flaw in the justice system - hired attornies. State-issued attornies, randomly selected out of a hat for both parties, would really put the combatants on fair ground

How so? That premise considers all lawyers to be equal and just like any other walk in life, they are not. Does it make it fair? Nope. But the great equalizer is that the entire jury must concur on the persons guilt. Which keeps the pressure on the state to prove its case.

I hate it when someone gets away from justice because of a technicality or because someone on the jury is obstinate, but its a million times better then the alternative.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Yesss but as you may or may not realize, every juror has to be approved by the lawyers and the judge before they are admitted. A better lawyer will be able to get more jurors inclined to favor his client into the case, than the other lawyer will be able to.

Its true that the lawyer has a handful of exclusions they she can make and the judge (whos supposed to be impartial) has as many as he needs. Its virtually impossible to stack a jury with everyone who will agree with one side or another unless the judge is actively looking for it.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

That's really tangential to the point though. If you can afford a more expensive lawyer than your opponent, you WILL win a case, unlesss there is a fluke of luck or extensive evidence proving otherwise.

Thats the whole point. There better be evidence. Helmsly went to prison and she was one of the richest in the country. Clinton pardoned Rich, and he was a billionaire who was convicted.

Its true that money can sometimes buy freedom, its certainly not close to a guarantee. OJ and his high profile case certainly drove the point home that its possible to hire a lawyer who can pull a rabbit out of his hat (the Chewbacca defense) but it is hardly the norm.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

haha that was south park with johnny cochran, right?
"Chewbacca is a 8 foot tall wookie who lives on the planet endor with 2 foot tall ewoks. does that make any sense?"

Anyway, yea i agree, its not a guarantee, but the point is that you should not have ANY greater chance to escape justice if you are wealthy. A big step to help that would be to eliminate the part of the justice system dependent on clients' wealth: Paid attorneys. Is there any other part of the court that varies depending on a defendant's wealth?

It would be nice to be able to get around that wealth as you suggest, but the fact that 99% of all politicians are lawyers, I don't think its going to happen. :grinno:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)