| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 65506 | 2006-01-20 08:11:00 | What if the police lost evidence | maryunger3 (9654) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 422844 | 2006-01-20 08:11:00 | My neihbor was arrested in a police sting. They had a bike in the back of a car and he took it. They say the bike was then stolen from them in a simular sting. My neihbor says the bike he took was a different bike than they say it was. The only evidence they have about what kind of bike it was is a copy of the bike ad from four years ago and the shop owners word that he sold them the bike four years ago. My question is, without the bike as evidence how are they going to prove it was that same bike. This matters becouse the bike he took was not worth the amount to charge him with a felony. So is it, no evidence, no theft charge, then his only charges would be B and E and unlawful entry those arent felonys. | maryunger3 (9654) | ||
| 422845 | 2006-01-20 08:21:00 | Regrettably Mary we cannot help. This is a New Zealand based forum, and our laws are very different. Here you get the Electric Chair for a littering offence, so even Breaking and Entering would be a minimum of 3 death sentences (served consecutively, not concurrently). |
godfather (25) | ||
| 422846 | 2006-01-20 08:55:00 | Regrettably Mary we cannot help. This is a New Zealand based forum, and our laws are very different. Here you get the Electric Chair for a littering offence, so even Breaking and Entering would be a minimum of 3 death sentences (served consecutively, not concurrently). Our laws are very definitely different. As yours are in different States. Try moving but not over the Mason-Dixon line Other than that. Get the neighbor a good lawyer. That reminds me. Must pop out and check if the neighbors dog has left a deposit on our garden. If so then there will be a SWAT team and CSI here in about three minutes. :-) |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 422847 | 2006-01-20 21:11:00 | I have no time for thieves. They get what they deserve. It doesn't matter if it was a $50 bike or a $500 it was probably still someones pride and joy. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 422848 | 2006-01-21 00:09:00 | If the police lose the evidence they can do what they do if haven't got any to start with: invent it. Welcome to the land of freedom and constititional protections. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 422849 | 2006-01-21 10:59:00 | Oh dear Graham, such cynicism in one so young. Tut tut. ;) Anyway, it is seldom that the stolen item is ever produced in any court in any country. Usually evidence is given of the theft and the accused needs to show it either never happened or it wasn't them or they are being fitted up by the porcine running dogs of the State machine. Or something of that ilk. :D |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 422850 | 2006-01-21 19:51:00 | Usually evidence is given of the theft and the accused needs to show it either never happened or it wasn't them or they are being fitted up by the porcine running dogs of the State machine. Which would be proving your innocence rather than them proving your guilt. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 422851 | 2006-01-22 07:58:00 | Which would be proving your innocence rather than them proving your guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty. If the police present a case against you, and you can't or don't say anything (either personally or through a lawyer) to answer that case, the judge has little choice but to decide that you are guilty. Incidentally "not guilty" merely means the police didn't prove their case, not that you are innocent. Its the media who loudly proclaim innocence when a defendant is acquitted because the complexity of "not guilty" is too hard for them. :yuck: |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 422852 | 2006-01-22 08:43:00 | There are some interesting sites thrown up by Googling "the right to silence". The "right" if it ever really existed appears to have been erroded in recent years in some countries. www.google.co.nz |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 422853 | 2006-01-23 01:13:00 | The "right to silence" is more correctly described as the right not to be compelled to give evidence . Historically people were quizzed by the King/Parliament/the Courts without knowing why and without representation . Gradually the law developed a protection where people could'nt be compelled to speak . In fact by the late 18th century defendants didn't have a right to speak in their own defence . Subsequently the right to legal representation was accepted to balance this . Today, personally I no longer believe in the right to silence . I think the English police have it correct when they warn defendants that their failure to give an answer to an accusation can be held against them later in Court . This is to counter the ingenious stories dreamed up before trial and suddenly announced in an atempt to create reasonable doubt . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||