Lee Rigbys killer

[Yukon]

I don't think I said muslims I mentioned islam as the religion who muslims are followers that's who the terrorism threat are from, not all muslims are terrorists but most of the one's we are fighting are...

 

Your posts suggest you aren't that well up on things, I'll leave it at that.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

After the 9-11 attacks it was said "the world grew up" but our law system did not, it has not adapted to the world since then, the only justice to suit the crime these terrorists get is when they are shot dead in a fire-fight with the police( where the police are investigated for discharging their weapon)

 

So you want our police to be like them..judge, jury and executioner. And i am not saying there are no circumstances when the police should shoot someone but we do have due process and the rule of law in the country don't we? that's what makes us 'better' isn't it?

 

Maybe we should get Judge Dredd on the case..he is the law after all

 

if caught alive they go to court if found guilty get 10-15yrs and are out in 3-5, or if a lawyer plays the system sooner with compensation...

 

Should get min 10 years hard labour in my book

[JOHNNYAITCH]

a few years ago the police/govt. muted the idea for a national dna register, if we had gone that way a good percentage of crimes would have been solved almost immediately, saving money on long investigations and cutting police budgets, but personal liberties groups objected saying big brother was taking over,so it was dropped, ok so your dna was held but if you didn't do anything wrong you had nothing to worry about. Most of our laws today come from Magna Carta, but have not evolved into the modern world and the problems we now have...

 

Who defines what is "wrong"? In principle I agree with if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to be afraid of but what you see as acceptable 'they' may see as wrong (and I'm not referring to rape, murder etc)

 

Equally DNA evidence is I believe used to place someone at the scene of a crime and nothing more..there has to quite rightly be much more evidence

 

Plus it should never be about saving money or time but about getting to the truth whatever it costs...that's what you'd want if you were the accused and were innocent isn't it?

[Davebrad]

Who defines what is "wrong"? In principle I agree with if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to be afraid of but what you see as acceptable 'they' may see as wrong (and I'm not referring to rape, murder etc)

 

Equally DNA evidence is I believe used to place someone at the scene of a crime and nothing more..there has to quite rightly be much more evidence

 

Plus it should never be about saving money or time but about getting to the truth whatever it costs...that's what you'd want if you were the accused and were innocent isn't it?

 

eg- a child is abducted, at the crime scene there is dna evidence, the police trace it they then have people who are in question, then the process of elimination then the guilty party is tried on that dna and any other evidence gleaned...

without a dna register its inquires and statements and cctv of the area, footwork and time...in fact the whole population plus any foreign visiters would be initial possible suspects, with dna it would be narrowed down...a lot of time saved, where in this example time is the killer.

[Davebrad]

So you want our police to be like them..judge, jury and executioner. And i am not saying there are no circumstances when the police should shoot someone

 

if a suspect starts a gun battle with the police, whilst being arrested he's not a innocent bystander the police are not judge, jury but are trying to arrest somebody who does not want to be arrested and are in that case technically executioners, by defending themselves and the public...

[JOHNNYAITCH]

eg- a child is abducted, at the crime scene there is dna evidence, the police trace it they then have people who are in question, then the process of elimination then the guilty party is tried on that dna and any other evidence gleaned...

 

You mean the accused is tried ;) Conviction I understand relies on that other evidence. I'm in no way against the use of DNA evidence and even having a DNA database..it was the blithe comment that if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about that concerned me.

 

without a dna register its inquires and statements and cctv of the area, footwork and time

 

That may still all be necessary..I'm happy to be corrected but my understanding is that DNA evidence is insufficient to convict or even bring a case to court

 

...in fact the whole population plus any foreign visiters would be initial possible suspects,

w

 

Well, millions would have alibis..they could prove they were not possibly there when it happened

 

th dna it would be narrowed down...a lot of time saved, where in this example time is the killer.

 

Totally agree

[Davebrad]

Your posts suggest you aren't that well up on things, I'll leave it at that.

 

?????

[bookworm]

This has the hallmarks of an EDL supporter! Easy there Enoch

 

Enoch Powell was one of the greatest men who ever lived, a highly intelligent politician who's vision was scorned by those who weren't fit to breath the same air but has been proven correct times without number. All we have in parliament now are self serving lap dogs who just toe the party line, fiddle their expenses and draw their salary all paid for by the plebeian hordes.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

if a suspect starts a gun battle with the police, whilst being arrested he's not a innocent bystander the police are not judge, jury but are trying to arrest somebody who does not want to be arrested and are in that case technically executioners, by defending themselves and the public...

 

As I said " i am not saying there are no circumstances when the police should shoot someone" but if it becomes....more common..then we lessen ourselves as a society and the rule of law and due process is diminished and for me that would be deeply regrettable..we become more like the people we are fighting. But the police have to make difficult decisions in difficult situations. and most of the time they get it right and deserve our support

[Davebrad]

 

 

 

That may still all be necessary..I'm happy to be corrected but my understanding is that DNA evidence is insufficient to convict or even bring a case to court

 

w

 

Well, millions would have alibis..they could prove they were not possibly there when it happened

 

 

 

Totally agree

 

as you say more evidence would be needed, but if dna puts ten people at a crime scene the rest of the populous can be excluded, unless evidence is proved otherwise. These 10 then can be concertrated on.

[bookworm]

No mention of the shyster lawyer who is prepared to take the case on, that man is lower than a snakes belly,pure greed paid for by us, how anyone with a conscience can defend the indefensible for monetary gain defies belief, just shows what low life there is in the legal profession.

[Davebrad]

As I said " i am not saying there are no circumstances when the police should shoot someone" but if it becomes....more common..then we lessen ourselves as a society and the rule of law and due process is diminished and for me that would be deeply regrettable..we become more like the people we are fighting. But the police have to make difficult decisions in difficult situations. and most of the time they get it right and deserve our support

 

in these troubled times it is becoming more common, crime with knives and guns is here, terrorism is here how can society cope with suicide bombers there's no reasoning with them, and I totally agree the police deserve our support...but the judiciary should help the police more.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Enoch Powell was one of the greatest men who ever lived, a highly intelligent politician who's vision was scorned by those who weren't fit to breath the same air but has been proven correct times without number. All we have in parliament now are self serving lap dogs who just toe the party line, fiddle their expenses and draw their salary all paid for by the plebeian hordes.

 

Oi who are you calling a pleb..I am an oik thank you !! :)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

No mention of the shyster lawyer who is prepared to take the case on, that man is lower than a snakes belly,pure greed paid for by us, how anyone with a conscience can defend the indefensible for monetary gain defies belief, just shows what low life there is in the legal profession.

 

You wouldn't say that if you'd been wrongly convicted of a horrible crime and everyone thought you were guilty..you'd be begging for a lawyer to defend you and everyone would be saying what a shyster he is, lower than low etc. You'd need such a person to defend you.

 

Not that this piece of scum is innocent but the principle has to be applied to everyone to protect the wrongly convicted.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

in these troubled times it is becoming more common, crime with knives and guns is here, terrorism is here how can society cope with suicide bombers there's no reasoning with them, and I totally agree the police deserve our support...but the judiciary should help the police more.

 

The judiciary can only use the tools available to them (the law and punishments available)..they and everyone in law enforcement must follow due process and we would become a lesser society if we didn't or changed those processes to be less just and even handed. We would become what we are supposed to be fighting against.

 

I'll not continue to repeat myself ("hurrah" they all said)