the american legal system in a brief definition:
the system will work for you if:
- you have a lot of money
- there are some circumstances around your case which the braindead media can make into a story for stay at home parents to sit and chew on as if it is really that important.
- you aren't white and something happens to you by a white person.
- you do something so horrible then follow it up with a minor crime, the horrible one will be forgotten.
- you are a trial lawyer who did something bad.
the system will not work for you if:
- you are poor.
- you did not do something horrible.
- you can't get a scumbag attorney to represent you. the public defender is as crippled as the prosecution.
in most trials the following are included:
- a judge
- a jury
- a bailiff
- a court reporter
- a defendant and lawyer(s)
- a prosecution
if there is a jury, it is supposed to be comprised of 12 people who will decide in a rational fashion on the fate of the defendant. in the current system this is a major advantage to the defense, as all they need to do is get one moron off the street to believe their lies and the defendant walks. this is not that hard to do. look at all the vermin leaving the court not in cuffs, but cuff links. ucla rape case, the orange county injustice, i could go on and on.
the prosecution has a very limited and finite budget, whereas the defense has unlimited capital if there is a financier or pro bono dirtbag lawyer involved. we as a people employ the prosecution to look after our best interests and uphold the so called 'laws', yet at the same time, we form the jury that is at odds with our own employees, be it the prosecution, the judge, or a public pretender.
in a trial, before things get set to begin, both the prosecution and defense can screen potential jurors, hoping to find those that would be more able to agree with their case. once again, advantage defense. all it takes is one unemployed loser, welfare cheat, or disability fraudster to throw the damn thing out of court on account of their own stupidity.
so trials will keep happening, and one or more morons will continue to let rapists, murderers and other evildoers out because we as the people on the whole are dumb and unqualified to sit on juries.
[thought change]
there is no justice in america. keep arresting those victimless criminals and putting the predators out on the street. like this 5 time felon who got conked in the head with a flashlight, after driving a stolen car and running from the local law enforcement in los angeles. this is a scandal! we got the urban league and all these 'reformed' ex-cons [muslims] running their mouths about how much of a travesty of justice this is. nevermind the obvious. this man has failed in society multiple times, yet we offer chance after chance. sometimes it's justifiable. there are a lot of ex-cons out there doing things with their life other than plotting and committing more crime, i know this. but that is not the issue here. the issue is this guy stole a car, ran from the police, then bailed the vehicle and ran some more. he had a metal object in his pocket, which turned out to be wire cutters, but for the officers chasing down a suspect in the heat of struggle, a metal object could have been anything. while i agree the force was a bit much, it would have never happened if he didn't run. what about that? the police are not 100% at fault here. are they now not supposed to chase people that drive stolen cars?
[thought change]
that's the same mentality we use to defend our borders. we'll chase you up to a point, then once you have made it far enough in, we'll leave you alone. and then the temecula office of the BORDER PATROL starts sweeps of the 'interior' and all the activists start screaming civil rights and such. well let's see what mexico does when people enter their country illegally. if they don't torture and extort money, they simply deport your ass. no questions asked. you're out of there, plain and simple. but when america starts enforcing the influx of illegal immigrants, we're a bunch racist assholes, right? if that's the case, why do we have a border patrol, much less a border? as a taxpayer, am i supposed to get warm fuzzies knowing that my tax dollars are going to pay for some person's kid born here even though they are here illegally? i'm surprised you don't hear more about 7-8 month pregnant women walking through arizona just to get that almighty green card. 347,000 people detained last year in arizona alone. i would presume that is about 10% of the total, based on the resources we give towards our border protection. israel? now they get it. big ass fence for the win.
if by now you think i hate the mexican people, nothing could be further from the truth. i just don't like their government [ha!], and apparently they don't either, if that rally in mexico city is any indication. mr fox, clean up your act. none of this we can deport people, but you can't you filthy gringo american nonsense. if mexico had a strong economy, this would not be such an issue. and they don't have an alan greenspan. and no, mr fox, i don't want to eat any of your tacos. however, i will eat with the wonderful warm friendly people of your country any day.
the system will work for you if:
- you have a lot of money
- there are some circumstances around your case which the braindead media can make into a story for stay at home parents to sit and chew on as if it is really that important.
- you aren't white and something happens to you by a white person.
- you do something so horrible then follow it up with a minor crime, the horrible one will be forgotten.
- you are a trial lawyer who did something bad.
the system will not work for you if:
- you are poor.
- you did not do something horrible.
- you can't get a scumbag attorney to represent you. the public defender is as crippled as the prosecution.
in most trials the following are included:
- a judge
- a jury
- a bailiff
- a court reporter
- a defendant and lawyer(s)
- a prosecution
if there is a jury, it is supposed to be comprised of 12 people who will decide in a rational fashion on the fate of the defendant. in the current system this is a major advantage to the defense, as all they need to do is get one moron off the street to believe their lies and the defendant walks. this is not that hard to do. look at all the vermin leaving the court not in cuffs, but cuff links. ucla rape case, the orange county injustice, i could go on and on.
the prosecution has a very limited and finite budget, whereas the defense has unlimited capital if there is a financier or pro bono dirtbag lawyer involved. we as a people employ the prosecution to look after our best interests and uphold the so called 'laws', yet at the same time, we form the jury that is at odds with our own employees, be it the prosecution, the judge, or a public pretender.
in a trial, before things get set to begin, both the prosecution and defense can screen potential jurors, hoping to find those that would be more able to agree with their case. once again, advantage defense. all it takes is one unemployed loser, welfare cheat, or disability fraudster to throw the damn thing out of court on account of their own stupidity.
so trials will keep happening, and one or more morons will continue to let rapists, murderers and other evildoers out because we as the people on the whole are dumb and unqualified to sit on juries.
[thought change]
there is no justice in america. keep arresting those victimless criminals and putting the predators out on the street. like this 5 time felon who got conked in the head with a flashlight, after driving a stolen car and running from the local law enforcement in los angeles. this is a scandal! we got the urban league and all these 'reformed' ex-cons [muslims] running their mouths about how much of a travesty of justice this is. nevermind the obvious. this man has failed in society multiple times, yet we offer chance after chance. sometimes it's justifiable. there are a lot of ex-cons out there doing things with their life other than plotting and committing more crime, i know this. but that is not the issue here. the issue is this guy stole a car, ran from the police, then bailed the vehicle and ran some more. he had a metal object in his pocket, which turned out to be wire cutters, but for the officers chasing down a suspect in the heat of struggle, a metal object could have been anything. while i agree the force was a bit much, it would have never happened if he didn't run. what about that? the police are not 100% at fault here. are they now not supposed to chase people that drive stolen cars?
[thought change]
that's the same mentality we use to defend our borders. we'll chase you up to a point, then once you have made it far enough in, we'll leave you alone. and then the temecula office of the BORDER PATROL starts sweeps of the 'interior' and all the activists start screaming civil rights and such. well let's see what mexico does when people enter their country illegally. if they don't torture and extort money, they simply deport your ass. no questions asked. you're out of there, plain and simple. but when america starts enforcing the influx of illegal immigrants, we're a bunch racist assholes, right? if that's the case, why do we have a border patrol, much less a border? as a taxpayer, am i supposed to get warm fuzzies knowing that my tax dollars are going to pay for some person's kid born here even though they are here illegally? i'm surprised you don't hear more about 7-8 month pregnant women walking through arizona just to get that almighty green card. 347,000 people detained last year in arizona alone. i would presume that is about 10% of the total, based on the resources we give towards our border protection. israel? now they get it. big ass fence for the win.
if by now you think i hate the mexican people, nothing could be further from the truth. i just don't like their government [ha!], and apparently they don't either, if that rally in mexico city is any indication. mr fox, clean up your act. none of this we can deport people, but you can't you filthy gringo american nonsense. if mexico had a strong economy, this would not be such an issue. and they don't have an alan greenspan. and no, mr fox, i don't want to eat any of your tacos. however, i will eat with the wonderful warm friendly people of your country any day.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home