What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

One thing I've been wondering for a while:  how many criminal cases can actually survive OJ-style lawyering by the defense?  It seems like few prosecution cases can do everything by the book, and do enough of it, to survive a determined challenge.  The reason convictions still happen is because most defendants can't muster the resources to find holes that are almost always going to be there.

What cases do you have in mind?  IMO the OJ trial was an abberation.

[grumbler]

Somebody's gonna have to do it. And I don't wanna spell out what IT is. And I'm not saying "go out and do it!". And I don't encourage it. But someone's gonna have to just take one for the team and do it. I just think it needs to be done, the quicker the better, for everyone on the planet really.

Somebody's gonna have to do it.

But that someone isn't going to be you, because you'd have to leave your couch to do it.

My Canadian couch, yes.

Even a Canadian can do it "for everyone on the planet really," as someone argued. It's not the Canadian part that counts, it's the couch.

[Zoupa]

Somebody's gonna have to do it. And I don't wanna spell out what IT is. And I'm not saying "go out and do it!". And I don't encourage it. But someone's gonna have to just take one for the team and do it. I just think it needs to be done, the quicker the better, for everyone on the planet really.

Somebody's gonna have to do it.

But that someone isn't going to be you, because you'd have to leave your couch to do it.

My Canadian couch, yes.

Even a Canadian can do it "for everyone on the planet really," as someone argued. It's not the Canadian part that counts, it's the couch.

I'm afraid the Abwehr and Gestapo at the border will not give me a green light though, couch notwithstanding.

[Valmy]

It seems hard to argue that it is not in the public interest to prosecute murderers.  The motion to suppress evidence is grasping at straws.  Police don't have to give you a Miranda warning before arresting you.

Normally the determination of whether someone is a murder occurs at the conclusion of a trial.

I'm struggling to grasp your point on this topic.  Is it not in the public interest to attempt to obtain a conviction of a man who is on video shooting another man in the back?

Is it proven it was him on the video?

In any case it is in the public interest to achieve justice through legal means.

[Valmy]

On the Luigi case...
It does indeed seem the police managed to mishandle all evidence so it's invalid?

Suppression hearing is still ongoing; not aware of any rulings yet.

One thing I've been wondering for a while:  how many criminal cases can actually survive OJ-style lawyering by the defense?  It seems like few prosecution cases can do everything by the book, and do enough of it, to survive a determined challenge.  The reason convictions still happen is because most defendants can't muster the resources to find holes that are almost always going to be there.

Yes. The OJ case is a crazy outlier. What is the basis of this claim? The cops of the prosecutor fucking up a few things isn't going to save a defendent. They have to really fuck up.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes. The OJ case is a crazy outlier. What is the basis of this claim? The cops of the prosecutor fucking up a few things isn't going to save a defendent. They have to really fuck up.

Are you  implying the cops fucked up the OJ case? I think that's a myth. Unless you're talking about Mark Fuhrman admitting he beat up black gang members.

[HVC]

I was a kid so my memory is obviously faulty but wasn't a big part of it the whole glove  over a glove thing that sealed the deal. That and the rhyme that went with it. Some people also blamed a "diverse" jury, but those people were the usual very white suspects.

[Admiral Yi]

I was a kid so my memory is obviously faulty but wasn't a big part of it the whole glove  over a glove thing that sealed the deal. That and the rhyme that went with it. Some people also blamed a "diverse" jury, but those people were the usual very white suspects.

What part each aspect played relies on speculation about the jury's thought processes, but regardless the glove was a fuckup by the prosecutors (and I agree it was a fuckup), not the cops.

[HVC]

Yeah, sorry I wasn't trying to say the glove thing was the cops fault, but the reason OJ got away with murder*. Well, until he lost everything in the civil case.


*as my little kid mind understood it.

[Razgovory]

Yes. The OJ case is a crazy outlier. What is the basis of this claim? The cops of the prosecutor fucking up a few things isn't going to save a defendent. They have to really fuck up.

Are you  implying the cops fucked up the OJ case? I think that's a myth. Unless you're talking about Mark Fuhrman admitting he beat up black gang members.

Well he did commit perjury.  That is a problem.

[Valmy]

Yes. The OJ case is a crazy outlier. What is the basis of this claim? The cops of the prosecutor fucking up a few things isn't going to save a defendent. They have to really fuck up.

Are you  implying the cops fucked up the OJ case? I think that's a myth. Unless you're talking about Mark Fuhrman admitting he beat up black gang members.

I have to admit I wasn't paying attention all that much even at the time. I have a vague memory of some evidence being mishandled. But I wasn't actually intending to imply that. I got a bunch of different thoughts mixed up together.

The OJ case was a weird outlier.

Unless the prosecutor and cops really fuck up, their mistakes usually won't get a defendant off.

Those were two separate points.

[Syt]

Who's sleepy now?

[The Brain]

At the OJ trial, wasn't there a cop who had been at the crime scene and pled the fifth when asked if he had tampered with evidence there?