Tyreek Hill Investigation

Kontradiction · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
How is this in any way relevant to requiring an accused murderer or pedophile to take the witness stand and answer questions about alibis, contradictions in their story, etc? And why couldn't all other witnesses face the same exact torture or pressure to give specific testimony?

Example in Making of a Murderer, I wanted to know why the accused defendant made a *67 (caller id blocked) call to the woman who murdered later that exact same day and found (in remains) at his farm house. And a whole lot of other stuff he said that didn't add up about his timeline. As I've said, I think people are confusing illegal confession tactics in dimly lit rooms to testifying in a court of law, whereby you have legal counsel. I'm not even saying confessions should be admissable (as many of them are later proven to be very weak evidence.) I'm just talking about the most important witness, the actual accused, having to answer questions that are completely pertinent to the jury's decision.

You realize that Zellner has been successfully able to rebut every single piece of evidence against Avery (and subsequently Dassey) that was cooked up by the state? If she’s able to get this back in court, Avery will walk. I’m not sure you’ve watched that entire documentary but she’s been able to shoot holes in every theory of their’s through scientific analysis. Hell, even their theory about Halbach’s body doesn’t add up. Dassey is a wonderful example of why the fifth is in place. The police use tactics all the time to elicit confessions from even the innocent. In his case, it was highly debatable if those tactics were even legal. They took advantage of a kid who didn’t understand what the consequences of his actions were and he’s in prison now because of it even though there is absolutely nothing else linking him to this crime. Hell, his brother and stepfather have bigger links to it than he does. Yet they’re free and on the streets while he’s in prison because he didn’t know that he could take advantage of the fifth amendment and his idiot mother didn’t, either.

I hope you don’t take this personally, but I pray that you never get pulled over and hauled in on a charge for which you are innocent. Your faith in the state and the police department to do the right thing will have you talking to them. That’s the biggest mistake you can possibly make.

Triumph · Apr 25, 2019

Seacoast Fan said:
No. My wife is a prosecutor and she’s far from what you described.
She’s won plenty of jury trials and put plenty of dirtbags in jail, and is a fine lawyer.
And by the way, there have been times when she’s prosecuted this type of situation, i.e., a spouse or significant other being the only witness as well as perhaps a perpetrator. Even if you grant one of them immunity, they’re extremely difficult cases to win. But sometimes you have to bring the case anyway just because the behavior has been so abhorent.

I said from the get go that this case would be hard to prove.

Triumph · Apr 25, 2019

TommyBrady12 said:
Let me guess - you're a state prosecutor.

There are good and bad - lawyers, plumbers, mechanics, prosecutors, clergy, contractors and on and on.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Apr 25, 2019

Seacoast Fan said:
I’m not making fun of you, I hope you understand that. The problem with your position is, you are looking at the issue through the lens modern day court systems. You have to go back to when the genesis of the fifth amendment arose, which is actually way back in the Magna Carta days and even before that. Back then, The concept of testifying against yourself did not mean taking the stand and answering questions in an orderly courtroom with your lawyer present. Back then, it could mean, literally, being tortured into a confession that the king wanted. If you died, oh well. If you have not read up on the magna Carter lately (!)... take a moment or two. It’s really where the beginning of our court system started, including the right to a jury of your peers, etc. And even today, keep in mind, the state controls criminal prosecutions and, theoretically in this country, and actually in other countries, could rig the system to force you to testify against yourself. If not for the fifth amendment.

Thanks for the historical context...no I wasn’t referring to you as making fun of me. It was more of an eye roll from a few people. I did a year of law school, so I’m not an expert but was logical enough to pass the LSAT, and the idea of protecting the accused from taking the stand against self-incrimination has always bothered me. I man, what if the person is guilty after all? They’re needing to account for questions, not being rack tortured.

This makes sense as to why the law came into being. So do you think the US a defendant should be compelled to testify in courtroom if they are accused of a crime, now that we are no longer living in the same historical era.

SHOWTIME15 · Apr 25, 2019

XLIX said:
I think Florio has the right idea. If Goodell has an ounce of brains and integrity (which, unfortunately, he does not) then you put Tyreek under oath and ask him who assaulted the child. If he stays silent, you assume he’s guilty and throw the book at him (i.e. huge suspension). If he admits he’s guilty, you throw the book at him and notify law enforcement. If he says the woman did it, you notify law enforcement and have her prosecuted.

Of course, then if she is facing jail time, she just *might* start singing.

How can Goodell put anyone under oath?

Ice_Ice_Brady · Apr 25, 2019

KontradictioN said:
You realize that Zellner has been successfully able to rebut every single piece of evidence against Avery (and subsequently Dassey) that was cooked up by the state? If she’s able to get this back in court, Avery will walk. I’m not sure you’ve watched that entire documentary but she’s been able to shoot holes in every theory of their’s through scientific analysis. Hell, even their theory about Halbach’s body doesn’t add up. Dassey is a wonderful example of why the fifth is in place. The police use tactics all the time to elicit confessions from even the innocent. In his case, it was highly debatable if those tactics were even legal. They took advantage of a kid who didn’t understand what the consequences of his actions were and he’s in prison now because of it even though there is absolutely nothing else linking him to this crime. Hell, his brother and stepfather have bigger links to it than he does. Yet they’re free and on the streets while he’s in prison because he didn’t know that he could take advantage of the fifth amendment and his idiot mother didn’t, either.

I hope you don’t take this personally, but I pray that you never get pulled over and hauled in on a charge for which you are innocent. Your faith in the state and the police department to do the right thing will have you talking to them. That’s the biggest mistake you can possibly make.

Yeah, I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying about the case. Dassey was borderline ******ed and a juvenile and went to an interrogation room without an attorney. That should be thrown out and the police should be disciplined..his case should be thrown out due to such bad misconduct.

But again you are talking about a confession, which isn’t the same as taking the stand in court. Confessions like this are not what I’m arguing about. And certainly exemptions could be made about testifying for someone like that due to his very low intelligence and age.

Agree to disagree about Avery based on part 1. I did not see part 2 yet.

I would never talk to the police without an attorney and would exercise my right to remain silent. It’s not that part of the 5th I take issue with. It’s that at some point in the trial I don’t see why a defendant (including myself) should be exempt from testifying. Confessions and witness stands are very different. You have legal representation, can’t be lied to/tricked about fake evidence, and get rebuttal questions from your attorney. The court/judge moderates prosecutors from being dirty cops that elicit fake confessions with **** tactics.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Apr 25, 2019

maust1013 said:
A skilled prosecutor could twist the average person into knots on the stand, guilty or not. They wouldn't need the police to coerce a confession, they could do it themselves in the courtroom. Very few of us is the great debater we think we are, as is evidenced here at patsfans on a regular basis.

That’s a pretty good argument for it. I’ll have to ruminate on that.

QuantumMechanic · Apr 25, 2019

TommyBrady12 said:
How can Goodell put anyone under oath?

If the CBA says that people testifying before the arbitrator are to be under oath then they will will have be put under oath or else be ignored by the arbitrator.

QuantumMechanic · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
You have legal representation, can’t be lied to/tricked about fake evidence, and get rebuttal questions from your attorney. The court/judge moderates prosecutors from being dirty cops that elicit fake confessions with **** tactics.

Hahahahahahahahaha! I wish I were once again young and naive enough to have your faith in the government.

SamusAranX · Apr 25, 2019

I already disliked the scumbag Hill, and this cements it for me.

I will continue to root against the Chiefs until that moron is off their squad

XLIX · Apr 25, 2019

TommyBrady12 said:
How can Goodell put anyone under oath?

By saying “you’ll talk to us under oath or we will consider that as you refusing to answer our questions.”

Brady was under oath in his appeal before Goodell. IIRC, Brady was the only one who spoke under oath during that whole debacle.

maust · Apr 25, 2019

XLIX said:
Brady was under oath in his appeal before Goodell. IIRC, Brady was the only one who spoke under oath during that whole debacle.

And yet his testimony was lied about in the arbitration decision...go figure

Kontradiction · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Yeah, I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying about the case. Dassey was borderline ******ed and a juvenile and went to an interrogation room without an attorney. That should be thrown out and the police should be disciplined..his case should be thrown out due to such bad misconduct.

But again you are talking about a confession, which isn’t the same as taking the stand in court. Confessions like this are not what I’m arguing about. And certainly exemptions could be made about testifying for someone like that due to his very low intelligence and age.

Agree to disagree about Avery based on part 1. I did not see part 2 yet.

I would never talk to the police without an attorney and would exercise my right to remain silent. It’s not that part of the 5th I take issue with. It’s that at some point in the trial I don’t see why a defendant (including myself) should be exempt from testifying. Confessions and witness stands are very different. You have legal representation, can’t be lied to/tricked about fake evidence, and get rebuttal questions from your attorney. The court/judge moderates prosecutors from being dirty cops that elicit fake confessions with **** tactics.

You need to watch part two. Zellner takes that case apart. There’s a reason they don’t want a new trial.

As far as the stand goes, prosecutors are every bit as adept at getting a false confession out of someone without them even realizing it. It needs to apply to both. And, like every amendment, there is a damn good reason for it.

Kontradiction · Apr 25, 2019

QuantumMechanic said:
Hahahahahahahahaha! I wish I were once again young and naive enough to have your faith in the government.

Especially when you consider that Dassey DID have legal representation at the time of the trial. That legal representation set him up to completely fail.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Apr 25, 2019

QuantumMechanic said:
Hahahahahahahahaha! I wish I were once again young and naive enough to have your faith in the government.

Pretty much everything I’ve ever posted is the opposite of that. As a libertarian whose biggest political concern is police surveillance and an overreach of authority, your statement is just wrong. I was the first forum member to be up the as$ of the Jupiter PD day one.

Many defendants (innocent ones) do elect to take the stand because their stories won’t contain obvious lies and inconsistencies. There are civilized democracies where the accused must testify in court. I don’t understand why I’m getting so much hate here. All I’m doing is asking what due process has to do with a witness exemption from the accused in a court of law.

QuantumMechanic · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Pretty much everything I’ve ever posted is the opposite of that. As a libertarian whose biggest political concern is police surveillance and an overreach of authority, your statement is just wrong. I was the first forum member to be up the as$ of the Jupiter PD day one.

Many defendants (innocent ones) do elect to take the stand because their stories won’t contain obvious lies and inconsistencies. There are civilized democracies where the accused must testify in court. I don’t understand why I’m getting so much hate here. All I’m doing is asking what due process has to do with a witness exemption from the accused in a court of law.

Because you are making the incorrect assumption that a lawyer (and by the way, people have the right to not have a lawyer if they don't want one, so you can't even assume there will always be one) will magically always be able to prevent the prosecution tricking someone into confessing.

Actually, now that I think about it, your proposal makes even less sense. You are basically saying that the prosecution can ask "Did you do the crime?" and the defendant is required to say "yes" if they did it. In other words, you are fine with compelling people to confess. Don't know how you can support that and somehow claim to be a libertarian!

And if you're going to say that people aren't required to confess, then you are somehow dealing with some hairsplitting where you'll have to draw some very grey line where on one side they'd have to talk and on the other side they wouldn't.

maust · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
I don’t understand why I’m getting so much hate here. All I’m doing is asking what due process has to do with a witness exemption from the accused in a court of law.

I would hope you haven't taken my posts as "hate' but rather as an attempt to help you understand. You can't realistically believe you can put someone on the stand and not have a jury expect to hear then say they didn't do it. The 5th Amendment was pretty much designed to speak directly to codifying what we define as due process. Our legal system directly descends from English Common law, where many of the abuses inherent in forcing someone to testify are probably best exemplified in the mess The Court of The Star Chamber eventually became. It should not be lost in any discussion of this that many of the Founding Fathers educations were in law which of course at that time meant English law.

(FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, I've never played one on TV and I did not stay ay a Holiday Inn last night. I am however a Constitutionalist, history was my minor and still an avid passion)

chris_in_sunnyvale · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
How is this in any way relevant to requiring an accused murderer or pedophile to take the witness stand and answer questions about alibis, contradictions in their story, etc? And why couldn't all other witnesses face the same exact torture or pressure to give specific testimony?

Example in Making of a Murderer, I wanted to know why the accused defendant made a *67 (caller id blocked) call to the woman who murdered later that exact same day and found (in remains) at his farm house. And a whole lot of other stuff he said that didn't add up about his timeline. As I've said, I think people are confusing illegal confession tactics in dimly lit rooms to testifying in a court of law, whereby you have legal counsel. I'm not even saying confessions should be admissable (as many of them are later proven to be very weak evidence.) I'm just talking about the most important witness, the actual accused, having to answer questions that are completely pertinent to the jury's decision.

The 5th amendment protects the innocent, not just the guilty. Imagine you are innocent of a crime, but circumstances paint a picture that doesn't look good for you. This is why defense attorneys routinely decide not to have their clients testify. Now imagine being compelled to testify and getting convicted of a crime you didn't commit due to the circumstantial evidence you provided.

Regards,
Chris

skinnydog · Apr 25, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
That’s a pretty good argument for it. I’ll have to ruminate on that.

Prosecutors are normally fairly methodical and better on direct examination of witnesses in putting together a case. Defense attorneys are generally much more skilled at cross-examination.

maust · Apr 25, 2019

skinnydog said:
Prosecutors are normally fairly methodical and better on direct examination of witnesses in putting together a case. Defense attorneys are generally much more skilled at cross-examination.

Imagine how that would be impacted if every single defendant had no choice but to take the stand

Tyreek Hill Investigation

On my retirement tour.

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

No asterisks

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Burn it all down!

Burn it all down!

On the Game Day Roster

Pro Bowl Player

Just Another Guy

On my retirement tour.

On my retirement tour.

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Burn it all down!

Just Another Guy

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Just Another Guy

Similar threads