Tyreek Hill Investigation

[SHOWTIME15]

Shapiro is a mastermind debater. Not sure I'm at that level.

Maybe debating with crackheads I am

I’ve seen guys like Shapiro and D'Souza debate college students all the time and win...I’ve rarely see them debate their intellectual equals though. Them debating a historian would be great to watch.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why is the 5th amendment a good law?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually need an explanation as to why the above is a good 'law'.

 

[BUSTAMOVE]

I’ve seen guys like Shapiro and D'Souza debate college students all the time and win...I’ve rarely see them debate their intellectual equals though. Them debating a historian would be great to watch.

I don’t know about that. With the College students I feel like I could be in that debate. With those two going at it with a Historian I would be sitting there thinking “Thank God Family Guy starts in an hour”

 

[Soliel]

He should be tossed out of the league. Imagine this being Jules?? They’d put brunell on tv crying right next to that “leave her alone” video about Brittany Spears with the mascara boy crying!

 

[BUSTAMOVE]

He should be tossed out of the league. Imagine this being Jules??

Bad comparison. Jules tells everyone “I Love you man”. I don’t believe those words have ever came out of Hill’s mouth. But I do get what you are saying

 

[Soliel]

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You realize that people speak to the police without lawyers present all the time because they don’t know any better... yes? And, in any event, it’s still a good example for why the 5th amendment exists. Unfortunately for Dassey, he didn’t exercise that right and he’s been rotting in prison ever since.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually need an explanation as to why the above is a good 'law'.

Specifically I philosophically disagree with this part:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Or simply, I philosophically don’t agree that a defendant can avoid testifiying by choice, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don’t know where this concept traces back to. I do agree with Miranda rights and sure as he11 would lawyer up and never talk to the police without an attorney. But at an actual criminal trial...different story.

 

[Triumph]

Any of the buyers make it out alive?

Only the ones whose check didn't bounce.

Nobody you would associate with.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I don't think you understand the 5th Amendment either.

The DA has the ability to press charges. He chose not to.

The trick is, you give one of them immunity.

 

[Triumph]

Shapiro is a mastermind debater. Not sure I'm at that level.

Maybe debating with crackheads I am

How long did Tunescribe last?

 

[Seacoast Fan]

State prosecutors in general are the lowest level of attorneys outside personal injury lawyers. They are generally unsophisticated and get their position by running for election.

Wrong.

 

[Patsno1fan]

Question! Can the police give this piece of **** a lie detector test?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Wrong.

Let me guess - you're a state prosecutor.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I'm going to assume that you don't actually need an explanation as to why the above is a good 'law'.

If you trace it back far enough, it’s got its roots in the rack as an instrument of confession...LOL.
But the way to deal with the problem of two perps in the room with no one else present is to grant one immunity.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Let me guess - you're a state prosecutor.

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.

 

[Tunescribe]

I was on Chiefs Planet and said Tyreek should be suspended.

You can imagine the wrath I received in kind.

Very disappointing.

You'd be better off banging your head on the nearest wall. Do you enjoy being abused or something? I lasted maybe two posts on that board during the playoffs before feeling dumber just being there.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Specifically I philosophically disagree with this part:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Or simply, I philosophically don’t agree that a defendant can avoid testifiying by choice, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don’t know where this concept traces back to. I do agree with Miranda rights and sure as he11 would lawyer up and never talk to the police without an attorney. But at an actual criminal trial...different story.

The concept traces back to mideaval times when the crown could put you on the rack until you talked.
The 5th is a great idea.

 

[Deus Irae]

Specifically I philosophically disagree with this part:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Then I'm sorry for you.

 

[maust]

Specifically I philosophically disagree with this part:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Or simply, I philosophically don’t agree that a defendant can avoid testifiying by choice, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don’t know where this concept traces back to. I do agree with Miranda rights and sure as he11 would lawyer up and never talk to the police without an attorney. But at an actual criminal trial...different story.

That is some scary chit right there

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The concept traces back to mideaval times when the crown could put you on the rack until you talked.
The 5th is a great idea.

I’m not talking about an out of court interrogation. I’m talking about an actual trial. A normal sixth grader would often ask why OJ Simpson didn’t have to testify. I’d have trouble giving an explanation on this one. Once again I’m not talking about being forced to talk at the scene or a crime of during pre-trial questioning. I jus don’t get why murderers don’t need to account for their own alibis and/or contradictory statements.

Someone please provide the actual basis for this legal tradition instead of making fun of me. It not obvious and counterintuitive to me. In all other “accusations” whether it’s a congresssional testimony or the dean or your college needs your account, under almost all judgments/investigations/informal trials require the accused to give their account of the story.