PATRIOTS NEWS Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Ring 6]

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.

But I wasn’t arguing that things WERE done by the book. I was arguing that there wasn’t proof that they weren’t.
If I had said yes I believe they did everything right (which is the position people want to pretend I took) them I would have proved to be wrong.
That’s not what I was saying. I was saying you start from the assumption it was done properly until you see facts.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

A few thoughts after a long silence on this mater:

1) Bob Kraft had the resources to invest six or seven figures in legal bills when law enforcement, now in the opinion of the Court, overstepped its bounds, not only in obtaining a bogus surveillance warrant and pulling over a vehicle without cause to identify a passenger who was not behind the wheel, but, far more importantly, in exploiting the situation of hundreds of thousands of women who are truly victims of sex trafficking. All of this was done in the name of building a case that actually had nothing to do with sex trafficking and everything to do with a small time sting on a local establishment. The unfortunate thing is that the authorities would have gotten away with what they did 99 out of a 100 times unless they happened to involve an individual with Kraft's economic resources.

2) We should all remember every day the importance and fragility of our rights under the law and be grateful when a guy like Bob Kraft reminds society of that fact, whatever he might have been doing in that establishment on that morning.

3) IMHO, this will be no more than a very short footnote to the ultimate history of the contributions of Robert Kraft to New England in particular and society as a whole. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

4) The prosecutors and local law enforcement have displayed neither intelligence nor common sense in this matter to date, but intelligence and common sense suggest that the charges will be dropped.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

No I absolutely did not.
Of course those things happen, but you can’t argue they happened without any proof at all.
I never says I knew they did things right. But when a search is done on a warrant issued by a judge, assuming it was done properly unless something is shown refuting that is not wrong.
Again, tell me what specific things I said that were wrong. Waiting for facts isnt wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Joe public defender would have challenged the admissibility of the tapes and got the exact same result.
It wasn’t brilliant legal work, it was finding a case that set precedent, and that case was also found by reporters.

 

[Ring 6]

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".

The judge didn’t rule any of those things.
In fact he ruled the surveillance was legal, and justified but threw out the evidence because they didnt follow proper procedure in making sure they only taped criminal acts.
Stopping the car was thrown out because the stop was based upon the surveillance which was inadmissable, not because of lying.

 

[Joker]

Hey, I forget but...didn't somebody around here go on for a 100 pages obstinately screaming "human trafficking!!!!" in that old warehouse of bombast thread? Could have sworn there was an avalanche of cyber foot stamping over DEFINITE "human trafficking!!". Odd.

 

[Drewski]

Joe public defender would have challenged the admissibility of the tapes and got the exact same result.
It wasn’t brilliant legal work, it was finding a case that set precedent, and that case was also found by reporters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that there are a great number of the ~2.3M people incarcerated in this country (We're number 1! We're number 1! USA! USA!) who would vehemently disagree with this take.

Legal representation in this country is the same as any other consumer good (sadly).....you get what you pay for more often than not.

EDIT TO ADD - And I'm not pointing to lawyer quality in my position. The dedicated nature of private counsel versus publicly provided counsel certainly means a more focused support system.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that there are a great number of the ~2.3M people incarcerated in this country (We're number 1! We're number 1! USA! USA!) who would vehemently disagree with this take.

Legal representation in this country is the same as any other consumer good (sadly).....you get what you pay for more often than not.

I dont disagree, but this is not a good example.
Given the requirements set up in the precedent case it was a layup that any remotely competent lawyer would have won.

I disagree that 2.3 million incarcerated are all innocent people with bad lawyers.

 

[Ring 6]

Hey, I forget but...didn't somebody around here go on for a 100 pages obstinately screaming "human trafficking!!!!" in that old warehouse of bombast thread? Could have sworn there was an avalanche of cyber foot stamping over DEFINITE "human trafficking!!". Odd.

You?

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

Good. You’re getting noticeably angry. This tells me that you’re beginning to become aware that you can’t squirm and straw man your way out of this one. Next, you’ll proclaim that you’re done and maybe even retreat back into the safe space of the ignore function.

And once again, that qualifier (which is just backtracking) doesn’t change the fact that you were ultimately wrong. You know this. That qualifier doesn’t hide the fact that, in your own words, you trusted and assumed that the evidence was gathered legally. You did. You said it yourself. The judge disagreed and sealed it. You were wrong. You know you were wrong. That’s why you’re getting angry. I know you were wrong. That’s why I’m teeing off. The whole board knows you were wrong. That’s why this thread has turned into a proverbial gangbang. Keep going. You’re not digging your way out. You’re only further digging your own grave on this ridiculous hill and making my job that much easier as your opponent. Not sure we can call it that, though. You’re my opponent here in the same way an ant is an opponent to a boot.

So much effort wasted when three meaningless words can just be posted and we can all move on to the honest and reasonable discussion on the topic that you claim to want.

 

[maust]

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

 

[Drewski]

I dont disagree, but this is not a good example.
Given the requirements set up in the precedent case it was a layup that any remotely competent lawyer would have won.

I disagree that 2.3 million incarcerated are all innocent people with bad lawyers.

Heh? I don't think so either....nor did I state "all".

Further, when a quarter of the 2.3M are there for drugs and we can readily see the disparities in the demographics of those incarcerated overlay-ed with consumption statistics, its really not all that hard to see the tangible outcome of a "Criminal Justice system for me and a Criminal Justice system for thee"

 

[patfanken]

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.

But why blame Kraft just because he have a 2 tier system of justice. Is that HIS fault? Would you rather have had the truth NOT come out? See, I don't understand your anger here, Nun.

Well actually I do to some degree. In the 1890's the gap between rich and poor had grown so large that the government FINALLY started doing something about it. Over the next 80 years that gap continually shrunk until 1978 when it was the smallest it's every been. It only took 40 years to see that gap grow to unprecedented the proportions we see now. The "middle class" is almost gone now. All will be left in the near future will be the rich and those struggling to get by. Its the 1880's all over again.

But getting back to the point, don't blame Kraft for being able to hire the best lawyers he can afford. If something similar had happened to you, wouldn't you hire the best lawyers YOU could afford?

 

[PatsWSB47]

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.

And Joe public defender is the thing you should be upset about, not that Kraft could afford proper representation. If we want to level the playing field it shouldn't be by stripping rights away from people who can afford to have rights upheld. Then everyone gets screwed, so now it's fair?

 

[PatsWSB47]

But I wasn’t arguing that things WERE done by the book. I was arguing that there wasn’t proof that they weren’t.
If I had said yes I believe they did everything right (which is the position people want to pretend I took) them I would have proved to be wrong.
That’s not what I was saying. I was saying you start from the assumption it was done properly until you see facts.

You were and everyone heard the same thing.

 

[Drewski]

But why blame Kraft just because he have a 2 tier system of justice. Is that HIS fault? Would you rather have had the truth NOT come out? See, I don't understand your anger here, Nun.

Well actually I do to some degree. In the 1890's the gap between rich and poor had grown so large that the government FINALLY started doing something about it. Over the next 80 years that gap continually shrunk until 1978 when it was the smallest it's every been. It only took 40 years to see that gap grow to unprecedented the proportions we see now. The "middle class" is almost gone now. All will be left in the near future will be the rich and those struggling to get by. Its the 1880's all over again.

But getting back to the point, don't blame Kraft for being able to hire the best lawyers he can afford. If something similar had happened to you, wouldn't you hire the best lawyers YOU could afford?

OT: I grew up (ages 11-18) in a country that had two classes - uber rich Oligarchs who stole from the country via corruption and graft and then a dirt poor general populace. The "middle class" was really just marginally less dirt poor.

I can assure all here there is nothing desirable from that form of societal structure.

 

[Ring 6]

Good. You’re getting noticeably angry. This tells me that you’re beginning to become aware that you can’t squirm and straw man your way out of this one. Next, you’ll proclaim that you’re done and maybe even retreat back into the safe space of the ignore function.

Not angry at all. Laughing at someone who would try to bully someone by being dishonest.

And once again, that qualifier (which is just backtracking) doesn’t change the fact that you were ultimately wrong. You know this. That qualifier doesn’t hide the fact that, in your own words, you trusted and assumed that the evidence was gathered legally.

It’s not a qualifier at all. It is as important to the point as any other piece of it.
For example:
You get arrested for molesting little boys.
Before any reliable facts are available I say “he is innocent until proven guilty”.
People start making claims about other unrelated things you did, about hearing there are witnesses. I maintain innocent until proven guilty.
Facts come out to prove you did in fact habitually molest young boys and you are convicted.
I was not wrong to presume innocence until you were proven guilty.

You did. You said it yourself. The judge disagreed and sealed it. You were wrong. You know you were wrong. That’s why you’re getting angry. I know you were wrong. That’s why I’m teeing off. The whole board knows you were wrong. That’s why this thread has turned into a proverbial gangbang. Keep going. You’re not digging your way out. You’re only further digging your own grave on this ridiculous hill and making my job that much easier as your opponent. Not sure we can call it that, though. You’re my opponent here in the same way an ant is an opponent to a boot.

So much effort wasted when three meaningless words can just be posted and we can all move on to the honest and reasonable discussion on the topic that you claim to want.

Go ahead and post them then. Admit you are wrong.

You ha e yet to give an example of anything i said that was wrong, only your twisting of what o says into something it wasn’t. Par for the course with you and your fake internet bullying muscles. Coward.

 

[Ring 6]

You were and everyone heard the same thing.

Nope.
And I get that people think that because that thread was about people arguing against me for things I didn’t say.
That doesn’t make it true.

 

[PatsWSB47]

No I absolutely did not.
Of course those things happen, but you can’t argue they happened without any proof at all.
I never says I knew they did things right. But when a search is done on a warrant issued by a judge, assuming it was done properly unless something is shown refuting that is not wrong.
Again, tell me what specific things I said that were wrong. Waiting for facts isnt wrong.

Until otherwise isn't a wrong thing to say. What's wrong is that you claim saying that doesn't mean you had the position that it was a legal surveillance. By invoking that phrase you absolutely did have a position. You were incorrect.

 

[PatsWSB47]

The judge didn’t rule any of those things.
In fact he ruled the surveillance was legal, and justified but threw out the evidence because they didnt follow proper procedure in making sure they only taped criminal acts.
Stopping the car was thrown out because the stop was based upon the surveillance which was inadmissable, not because of lying.

No the surveillance as executed was not legal. It would have been if they stuck to it but they went beyond it. That's why it was thrown out.