The Fort Hood Shooter Will Be Able to Cross-Examine the Soldiers Whom He Shot

[Barrister]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

It's a constitutional thing, we have the right confront and refute witnesses.

Does the constitution say you have the right to do that personally?  We have a similar constitutional guarantee...

[dps]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

It's a constitutional thing, we have the right confront and refute witnesses.

Does the constitution say you have the right to do that personally?  We have a similar constitutional guarantee...

From the 8th Amendment:  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... ...to be confronted with the witnesses against him"

Frankly, I don't see how it could apply other than personally.  It's a right of the accused, not a right of his legal team.

[Kleves]

Frankly, I don't see how it could apply other than personally.  It's a right of the accused, not a right of his legal team.

IIRC, it's not always applied so strictly. For one thing, to represent yourself you need to demonstrate a higher level of competence than is required to stand trial. So it's not automatic that someone on trial has the right to personally conduct cross-examination (and it is probably an extraordinarily bad idea to do so). It's also possible for a disruptive defendant to lose his right to even be in the courtroom for his trial (though he has to be able to watch the trial via video and comminicate in real time with his attorney). Also, I think in some cases public policy doesn't allow the accussed to personally cross-examine witness (specifically a defendant accussed of sexually abusing a child may be barred from personally cross-examining that child).

[grumbler]

I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life...

Maybe you are too close to see it?

and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting.  On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...

Slavery ended in the Empire only several decades before it ended in the US, and even then it was because it wasn't worth as much as it once was, and so the economic forces behind it weren't fighting as fiercely to  defend it.

I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance), but probably several decade after it did historically, as the economic forces behind American slavery became as weakened as those behind Caribbean slavery in the 1830s.

Of more interest would be the impact of British mercantilism on the growth of the US.  I think the US population would have grown much more slowly in a "US-as-colony" world, since the British discouragement of industry in its colonies would have meant fewer American jobs for immigrants.

[chipwich]

I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance),

How does that work? It's not like the planters would have fought a guerrilla war without the backing of their state governments.

[Tonitrus]

I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance),

How does that work? It's not like the planters would have fought a guerrilla war without the backing of their state governments.

The colonies would still be locally administered, and still probably in a regional fashion (i.e Colony of South Carolina).  I could see a number of the southern colonies trying to foment a second American Revolution against the Empire.

And if Britain didn't get it's hand on the Louisiana territory, there could be much more French/Spanish intrigue via the frontier as well.

[Razgovory]

There was a strange case in New York about 20 years ago where a guy named Colin Ferguson shot up a bunch of people on the subway.  He cross examined the witnesses (many of whom were his victims).  It was clear the man was insane, and the whole situation was bizarre.

[grumbler]

I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance),

How does that work? It's not like the planters would have fought a guerrilla war without the backing of their state governments.

Sorry, you cannot have my point.  The counter to my argument that there would be no war isn't your argument that there couldn't be a war.

There is violence that doesn't constitute war, though.  Read a newspaper.

[PDH]

Read a newspaper.

I can't read.  I can't write.  I like to watch TV.

[Ideologue]

The only thing about me is the way that I walk.

[Siege]

You fucked it up, Ide.