Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Drewski]

Just not true. I was not wrong to wait for the case to play out before making a conclusion.
Twist it however you want.

I’ll stand by the belief that the American concept of innocent until proven guilty is not wrong.

It's a great concept, maybe one of the best concepts....in a court of law. Similar to the protection of speech, it applies to to some contexts and not others. For instance, neither apply to a public forum discussion board.

The court of public opinion requires no such concept. I mean we all mostly believe OJ did it, don't we?

 

[Ring 6]

It's a great concept, maybe one of the best concepts....in a court of law. Similar to the protection of speech, it applies to to some contexts and not others. For instance, neither apply to a public forum discussion board.

The court of public opinion requires no such concept. I mean we all mostly believe OJ did it, don't we?

I am analogizing waiting for the facts to come out rather than arguing based upon reports and opinion articles with the innocent until proven guilty concept.

Someone is no more wrong for waiting for all the facts to pass judgment on something such as an accusation of police impropriety than they are to assume the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Good. A win for our rights.

 

[Drewski]

I am analogizing waiting for the facts to come out rather than arguing based upon reports and opinion articles with the innocent until proven guilty concept.

Someone is no more wrong for waiting for all the facts to pass judgment on something such as an accusation of police impropriety than they are to assume the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

If so, shouldn't that have been your reply in the first thread on this? It would have been a simple reply at that. "Hey, I'm waiting for everything to come out and then, I will state my position".

I don't recall that happening at all, and I would go a step further, that by countering others who were "not waiting for anything more than what was publicly known" you weren't at all waiting for the facts either, you were countering based on personal assumptions (for lack of a better word).

Be that as it may, the last word is yours sir.

 

[jah]

Yeah it's ****ty a poor person probably gets screwed here, but I think we all outta be rooting for Bob here with the police over reach..that's bad for everyone.

I do think it's pretty funny how it took Kraft being arrested for solicitation for a lot of people here to be critical of the police.

 

[Sicilian]

I do think it's pretty funny how it took Kraft being arrested for solicitation for a lot of people here to be critical of the police.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but have there been a lot of other clear-cut examples of police overreach that would have been relevant to a Patriots fan forum? I'm not sure it necessarily took this to make people critical of the police. I'm sure a lot of people (myself included) had these thoughts before but it would have been out of place to voice it in a thread that (for example) breaks down a free agent signing or what happened in the Super Bowl.

 

[Drewski]

I do think it's pretty funny how it took Kraft being arrested for solicitation for a lot of people here to be critical of the police.

To be fair, there was quite a bit of discussion police actions on the old cesspool. Certainly maybe less so with the "Main Board Regulars" where the discussion is Pats centric....


As for me, I grew up in a Military Dictatorship where the cops would shake a white boy down for money simply for having their window down smoking a cigarette while being white....so my distrust of cops goes back to my formative years.

 

[Kontradiction]

Just not true. I was not wrong to wait for the case to play out before making a conclusion.
Twist it however you want.

I’ll stand by the belief that the American concept of innocent until proven guilty is not wrong.

There’s nothing to twist. You ended up being wrong. Using your own words, which you carefully crafted on page two of the thread, you assumed the evidence was obtained legally. The evidence was not obtained legally. You assumed so even though there were reports coming out questioning the legality of the manner in which the evidence was obtained. The judge has now sealed it. You were, therefore, wrong in your assumption and your trust. When you’re wrong in your assumption, you are, in effect, wrong. The only one doing the twisting here is you. I refuse to believe that you’re this slow and am giving you credit here when I assume that the inability to admit so, and the willingness to die on this hill, is borne more out of some deeply seeded character flaw that you possess as opposed to just outright stupidity.

That attitude right there explains what is wrong with you.
At least you admit that you have no interest in an honest reasonable discussion but simply attempt to bully.
This is why you and I have never, and will never get along. I am trying to have a reasonable, forthright, honest discussion and you are “targeting people to bully”.
Very sad

When someone who is clearly wrong refuses to admit that they were wrong, how is it possible to have an honest, reasonable discussion? It isn’t. That person, you in this case, is being wholly unreasonable. That person also opens himself up to being bullied. That’s why you’re an easy mark.

 

[Ring 6]

If so, shouldn't that have been your reply in the first thread on this? It would have been a simple reply at that. "Hey, I'm waiting for everything to come out and then, I will state my position".

I don't recall that happening at all, and I would go a step further, that by countering others who were "not waiting for anything more than what was publicly known" you weren't at all waiting for the facts either, you were countering based on personal assumptions (for lack of a better word).

Be that as it may, the last word is yours sir.

No because the thread was about more than that. First it was about people arguing that speculation was correct, without facts, second it was arguing IF THIS THEN THAT, making up facts. One example is that video taping is illegal so therefore the case will be thrown out. I argued that if a judge signed a warrant I’m believing for now he wouldn’t sign one of video taping were illegal. In fact the judge ruled the video taping was appropriate but the method they use was not. There were many such examples.
Ultimately people attempted to turn me arguing against “police bad everything they did was wrong” into me saying everything was done right.
What you will find is that people who are desperate to say I was wrong dont have examples of why I was wrong, but feel vindicated by their generic conclusion jumping.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You're missing the bigger picture here. This isn't about Kraft, but about our 4th Amendment rights. Thank God Kraft was involved and had the resources to fight this overreach by the SA or this would have been swept under the rug. I'm sure you are not alright with the cops watching videos of your female relatives undressing to get a massage.

I wonder what the fools who took the SA deal are thinking now, lol.

Honestly, the judge’s ruling bothers me. I had thought initially that he cited the warrant being unjustified, but instead the ruling was essentially “this would have been legal had they written down a organized rules of when to turn off cameras and been consistent.”

The judge gave great deference to the original warrant granting judge, which I think was a misstep because it was virtually proven in court documents that misdemeanor “rub n tugs” from a website were the basis of suspicion and not some grand felony. Misdemeanors justifying this level of surveillance? This sets a precedent that another PD can do the same thing as long as long as they go about it in a more organized way.

@XLIX corrected my earlier post (thanks) and I realize I got the facts wrong about the basis for the ruling. You know what? Being incorrect and realizing that is a good thing, not a bad one. Hope another member here can follow my lead.

 

[PatsDeb]

Hey sometimes I DO know what I’m talking about!

Don't be sad @PatriotsReign !

 

[PatsWSB47]

Andy against the world.

Just not true. I was not wrong to wait for the case to play out before making a conclusion.
Twist it however you want.

I’ll stand by the belief that the American concept of innocent until proven guilty is not wrong.

Just stop. You're hiding behind that you made no conclusion but while at the same time believing it until there was evidence showing you that you shouldn't believe it....and Jwsus Andy if you'd have just said that you're not concluding anything that would be one thing but you felt the need to add the"until otherwise" line. To everyone but you that means you accepted it to be done okay and would believe it to be done okay until proven otherwise.

 

[Ring 6]

There’s nothing to twist. You ended up being wrong. Using your own words, which you carefully crafted on page two of the thread, you assumed the evidence was obtained legally. The evidence was not obtained legally. You assumed so even though there were reports coming out questioning the legality of the manner in which the evidence was obtained. The judge has now sealed it. You were, therefore, wrong in your assumption and your trust. When you’re wrong in your assumption, you are, in effect, wrong. The only one doing the twisting here is you. I refuse to believe that you’re this slow and am giving you credit here when I assume that the inability to admit so, and the willingness to die on this hill, is borne more out of some deeply seeded character flaw that you possess as opposed to just outright stupidity.

Nope. You are either stupid or playing a game. Or both.
Waiting for facts and assuming while that goes on that things were done correctly UNTIL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE is simply not wrong.

When someone who is clearly wrong refuses to admit that they were wrong, how is it possible to have an honest, reasonable discussion? It isn’t. That person, you in this case, is being wholly unreasonable. That person also opens himself up to being bullied. That’s why you’re an easy mark.

Because if you had an honest reasonable discussion you would listen and understand instead of trying to bully.
Your own words show you are dishonest.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy against the world.

Just stop. You're hiding behind that you made no conclusion but while at the same time believing it until there was evidence showing you that you shouldn't believe it....and Jwsus Andy if you'd have just said that you're not concluding anything that would be one thing but you felt the need to add the"until otherwise" line. To everyone but you that means you accepted it to be done okay and would believe it to be done okay until proven otherwise.

Please by all means go ahead and show me what I said that was wrong.
I’m sorry but “I assume if a judge issued a warrant it’s legal until facts show it isn’t despite defense attorneys saying the facts will show otherwise” is not wrong.
If the search proved to be legal and Kraft was convicted I wouldn’t have been “right”.
That’s the point.

 

[JJC]

Considering he is a lawyer by trade, one would assume that he would understand that one has the right to defend themselves when accused.

Maybe that is why he is no longer a practicing attorney?!

 

[Ring 6]

Honestly, the judge’s ruling bothers me. I had thought initially that he cited the warrant being unjustified, but instead the ruling was essentially “this would have been legal had they written down a organized rules of when to turn off cameras and been consistent.”

The judge gave great deference to the original warrant granting judge, which I think was a misstep because it was virtually proven in court documents that misdemeanor “rub n tugs” from a website were the basis of suspicion and not some grand felony. Misdemeanors justifying this level of surveillance? This sets a precedent that another PD can do the same thing as long as long as they go about it in a more organized way.

@XLIX corrected my earlier post (thanks) and I realize I got the facts wrong about the basis for the ruling. You know what? Being incorrect and realizing that is a good thing, not a bad one. Hope another member here can follow my lead.

You seem intent on making veiled references to me.

If you wish to give a specific e ample if something I said (not something you want to pretend I said) that was wrong go right ahead.
I don’t doubt some of my understanding of the issues was wrong, but this idea that I had an overarching opinion consistent with the one you are pretending I had are wrong.

I’ll stand behind every word I said and readily admit where they were wrong, but don’t try to pull this crap of saying I won’t admit I was wrong about words you put in my mouth that are not consistent with what I said.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Please by all means go ahead and show me what I said that was wrong.
I’m sorry but “I assume if a judge issued a warrant it’s legal until facts show it isn’t despite defense attorneys saying the facts will show otherwise” is not wrong.
If the search proved to be legal and Kraft was convicted I wouldn’t have been “right”.
That’s the point.

Your principle isn't wrong. I don't think anyone's saying it's wrong to assume things were done by the book, just that you're wrong when it turned out things were in fact not done by the book. It'd be epically stupid not to just accept that your assumptions were wrong. It's not that big of a deal really.

 

[patfanken]

I am not missing the bigger point and I get that the police were absolutely wrong. But, Kraft broke the law and used his money to get out of it. That also happened. I can hold those two conflicting thoughts in my head.

I don't understand your point, Nun. The TRUTH was uncovered. In the end it was CLEAR that the police lied about the stopping of Kraft's car. They lied about the purpose of putting in the camera. There was never any "human trafficking". The whole thing was a sham. How did Kraft's money have anything to do with this?????????????!

Did he pay off anyone? Did his lawyers do anything wrong as they brought what really happened to light? Did the fact he has a lot of money affect this case at all, aside from the fact he could afford the best lawyers available.

When some throw around the "money card" it sounds like a hater using the "cheating card".

 

[Nunchucks]

I don't understand your point, Nun. The TRUTH was uncovered. In the end it was CLEAR that the police lied about the stopping of Kraft's car. They lied about the purpose of putting in the camera. There was never any "human trafficking". The whole thing was a sham. How did Kraft's money have anything to do with this?????????????!

Did he pay off anyone? Did his lawyers do anything wrong as they brought what really happened to light? Did the fact he has a lot of money affect this case at all, aside from the fact he could afford the best lawyers available.

When some throw around the "money card" it sounds like a hater using the "cheating card".

He was able to afford representation that could prove all those things. Joe public defender would have seen the perp sent to jail. Oh and of course Kraft is guilty.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Please by all means go ahead and show me what I said that was wrong.
I’m sorry but “I assume if a judge issued a warrant it’s legal until facts show it isn’t despite defense attorneys saying the facts will show otherwise” is not wrong.
If the search proved to be legal and Kraft was convicted I wouldn’t have been “right”.
That’s the point.

I dont care if its speeding radar evidence, breathalyzer, video surveillance, eye witness accounts or warrants the burden of proof and the assumption of innocence must be the standard to go by until prove otherwise. You've made it out to be the opposite, that everything is legally done until proven otherwise. Come on Andy. You've never heard of cops bending or breaking rules to obtain search warrants? You've never heard of cops taling the law into their own hands.