Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 97122	2009-02-05 00:41:00	Dixon is dead, Long live dixon	plod (107)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
745098	2009-02-07 11:02:00	Dixon shot a guy ten times in the back, There was never any argument over his guilt, His trial shouldn't have lasted for any longer then the time it takes to make introductions and ensure the hangman is ready. Metla, There was arguement or debate about guilty or not guilty. Only cost the taxpayers legal fees. Sorry about Auckland Island or (Sweeps' Island) and I may have insulted Mutton Birds by putting a prisoner there.	Sweep (90)
745099	2009-02-07 11:18:00	There were arguments - and a trial. This is a civilised country. People can argue over the colour of the sky, and it doesn't make it any less blue. Too much drama is used to cloud the issue, The question "Did he do it?" could have been asked and answered in less then a minute, yes or No would suffice.	Metla (12)
745100	2009-02-07 11:34:00	There were arguments - and a trial. This is a civilised country. Much like China's system then? (I wouldn't go near the place myself. An evil empire if ever there was one. The people may be nice - but the government is corrupt.) Oh dear. This is a civilised country? If all people were civilised all people could walk the streets without fear of attack. There were arguements and two trials in the case of Dixon and there was also an appeal. Fortunately I do not live in China so therefore I do not care about the legal system there. Much like I do not follow Sharian law and quite frankly I am starting to a little annoyed about some Maori when it comes to dual law for New Zealanders or those that immigrate to NZ for example Then of course if we take the law literally I assume you would defend a person who was on the incorrect side of the road and actually killed one of your Family in a head on collision. Well of course you would. Any person is entitled as to right the best defence they can get are they not? If I knew that my father commited a criminal offence should I inform an enforcement person? He never did to my knowledge but I was smacked when I was younger. Retrospective law is a good one. Just change the goalposts midstream. Legal today but not legal as of last month or year.	Sweep (90)
745101	2009-02-07 11:52:00	Might make for more intelligent company than rednecks I suppose. If you prefer negotiating for your life, sure. Keep in mind they only negotiate if you have P, women and cigarettes.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
745102	2009-02-07 12:13:00	People can argue over the colour of the sky, and it doesn't make it any less blue. Too much drama is used to cloud the issue, The question "Did he do it?" could have been asked and answered in less then a minute, yes or No would suffice. The sky looks blue to me unless overcast or I may be colour blind. It is legal talk Metla and lawyers on both sides get to use laws and amendments thereof. The question, "Did he do it?" could be answered "Yes and I saw it" or "I do not know." Or "No because he was at my place at the time of the offence along with other people whom can be named which gives the alledged offender an alibi" for example. The question "Did he do it?" is surely over to a Jury. The prosecution may call forensic evidence which evidence puts before the court fingerprint or dna pointing toward the alledged offender or even clocks in the case of David Bain. Naturally if I posted on this forum at 1:09 I can't be 20 Km away at the same time as a person got a little bit dead Take the likes of Arthur Allen Thomas who was alledged and found guilty of murder of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. He is out of prison now and I had some doubt over the evidence. Then of course we have Scott Watson who is serving time with no Corpus Delecti. I do have to admit that I have no idea as to whether any of these people were actually guilty or possibly were guilty before or after the fact. Or were complicit with others.	Sweep (90)
745103	2009-02-07 18:57:00	Oh dear. This is a civilised country? If all people were civilised all people could walk the streets without fear of attack. This is also a free country - and a hallmark of free democracies are that there are abuses of freedom. We are civilised because we have a legal system that is no respecter of persons. That is to say, everybody is entitled to the same treatment from the legal system - no matter what they have done. Innocent until proven guilty - and the burden of proof rests on the accuser. There were arguements and two trials in the case of Dixon and there was also an appeal. Much like I do not follow Sharian law and quite frankly I am starting to a little annoyed about some Maori when it comes to dual law for New Zealanders Maori have a special relationship with the crown. This relationship pre-dates you by a considerable margin and is firmly entrenched in our legal system. Then of course if we take the law literally I assume you would defend a person who was on the incorrect side of the road and actually killed one of your Family in a head on collision. Were I a lawyer I would be in a conflict of interest - it would be unethical to be legal counsel for that person.	Deane F (8204)
745104	2009-02-07 19:06:00	sex with his dr, (www.stuff.co.nz) while in prison. Sounds like he was a very resourceful man.	plod (107)
745105	2009-02-07 19:10:00	But do you think that violent criminals who face trial should be allowed to have lawyers? It was a no brainer what he did. The arguement was more for his mental health. Who cares? Only a lawyer who wants to make a buck. So in his case NO.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
745106	2009-02-07 19:13:00	Innocent until proven guilty - and the burden of proof rests on the accuser. The thing is if you look at that idoit Dixons previous records, you know he is no innocent. I hope we hear more idiots like him acting like lemmings.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
745107	2009-02-07 19:34:00	People can argue over the colour of the sky, and it doesn't make it any less blue . Too much drama is used to cloud the issue, The question "Did he do it?" could have been asked and answered in less then a minute, yes or No would suffice . You forget,the afore mentioned questions keep the lawyers in the Aston's they have become accustomed to . Do we smell a would be of this ilk?	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9