Calgary sex assault: 2 brothers charged after teen taken from bus stop

[parapara_vince]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/calgary-sex-assault-2-brothers-charged-after-teen-taken-from-bus-stop/ar-BBeiDAn



Two brothers accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl on the weekend in Calgary have been charged with multiple offences.

Police said the teen was approached by two men while waiting at a bus stop at Taradale Drive and Tara Cove Road N.E. around 11:30 p.m. MT on Friday night.

The girl was dragged into an alley and sexually assaulted, police said.

The men then walked the teen to a neighbouring community where she was held overnight in a home and repeatedly sexually assaulted, police said.

The girl, who may have suffered a concussion, managed to escape the house around 8 a.m. on Saturday while the men were distracted.

The girl fled to her family, who brought her to police. On Sunday morning, three men — two brothers and their father — were taken into custody.

CBC News spoke with a relative of the teen on Monday who says she is doing OK, but she doesn't want to talk about it and is trying not to think about it.

Corey George Manyshots, 25, and Cody George Manyshots, 21, are both charged with kidnapping, uttering threats, sex assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm.

Cody George Manyshots, left, and Corey George Manyshots are both charged with kidnapping, uttering threats, sex assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm

http://img.s-msn.com/tenant/amp/entityid/BBemBkr.img


Corey faces a number of other charges stemming from unrelated incidents including:

- Two counts of assaulting a peace officer.

- Mischief under $5,000.

- Disturbing a religious assembly.

- Four breaches of release conditions.

The brothers each made brief appearances in a Calgary courtroom Monday morning. The cases against both were put over until Nov. 24.


Very sick that they not only assault the girl in the alley but have the guts to kidnap her as well to a house overnight. Hope they get Manyshots at prison.

[A790]

And, as you would expect, the comments on that site are a mishmash of racism and petty bullshit. Yes, they're native. Stupid, malicious, dangerous people exist of all shapes, sizes, and races. :(

[Feruk]

Crime of opportunity from the sound of it considering proximity to C-Train station. C-Train stations bring drunk native bums. Certainly doesn't mean this is a likely outcome, but sooner or later, you'll get a particularly violent native and an opportunity, and something like this is bound to happen. I feel really bad for this girl...

[sabad66]

Disgusting. These guys should be hung from a tree

[max_boost]

How does something like this just happen. It's crazy. WTF are these guys thinking?!

[dubhead]

Originally posted by sabad66
Disgusting. These guys should be hung from a tree

This, or at the very least "fixed"

[CompletelyNumb]

Some people should just die. These are no exception.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by parapara_vince




Very sick that they not only assault the girl in the alley but have the guts to kidnap her as well to a house overnight. Hope they get Manyshots at prision.

I doubt she'd be alive if she didn't manage to escape.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by max_boost
How does something like this just happen. It's crazy. WTF are these guys thinking?!

Not the smartest guys, considering after their rape/assault/kidnap victim escapes, they just decided to hang out at home and chill.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by sabad66
Disgusting. These guys should be hung from a tree
My thoughts exactly...

[shakalaka]

I am surprised they didn't get charged with aggravated sexual assault reading those facts and only got charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm. I have had clients charged with agg. sex assault for much less than what these clowns did.

[JRSC00LUDE]

People like this have always existed and always will, there just used to be a time when justice would allow you to kill them.

Maybe those days will come back one day.....

[JudasJimmy]

wow. Two Dogs Fucking is going to really mad at Manyshots. Total loosers, they really make the native community look bad.

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by shakalaka
I am surprised they didn't get charged with aggravated sexual assault reading those facts and only got charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm. I have had clients charged with agg. sex assault for much less than what these clowns did.

I know everybody has rights and all but I always wondered how lawyers sleep at night defending scum like this who deserve to get beat daily and rot in jail :dunno:

[GQBalla]

Hope they get what's coming for them

[Seth1968]

Victim: "I'm going to carry pepper spray to help prevent myself from being beaten and raped".

The law: "If you carry anything to protect yourself, we'll criminally charge you".

Yes, that's true.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Victim: "I'm going to carry pepper spray to help prevent myself from being beaten and raped".

The law: "If you carry anything to protect yourself, we'll criminally charge you".

Yes, that's true. And what I told my wife is this. I'd MUCH rather spend every single resource I've ever had defending you from a criminal charge than have to heal you from being raped and beaten. The same thing will apply to my girls. They will carry something for self defense from animals. They will also be trained in defensive combat. I'm not going to have them be an easy target if I can help it.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


The best you can hope for is when they slap them on the hand

Now we, our kids, and the victim, will work to pay for the scum's food, lodging, and health care. That won't even end once they get out of prison.

It's an absolute insult to real justice.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Now we, our kids, and the victim, will work to pay for the scum's food, lodging, and health care.
They're Native. We already do... :nut:

[Seth1968]

This should be included in the deduction details of everyone's paychecks:

Deduction to take care of pedophiles, rapists, murders, etc: $26.54

Things would change real quick then.

[heavyfuel]

Don't worry. I have seen first hand and then some, what happens to rapists in jail. Don't kid yourselves justice for these 2 is not coming from a courtroom.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by codetrap
And what I told my wife is this. I'd MUCH rather spend every single resource I've ever had defending you from a criminal charge than have to heal you from being raped and beaten. The same thing will apply to my girls. They will carry something for self defense from animals. They will also be trained in defensive combat. I'm not going to have them be an easy target if I can help it.

I wouldn't worry too much, I have never heard of a single woman ever being charged in the history of Canada for carrying pepper spray for defense. The absolute worst thing that will happen is you have to replace it.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
Don't worry. I have seen first hand and then some, what happens to rapists in jail. Don't kid yourselves justice for these 2 is not coming from a courtroom.

It's my understanding that the worst offenders are kept in isolation for their own protection.

Imagine that. Paul Bernado gets legal protection, but it's illegal for a women to carry pepper spray for protection.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


I wouldn't worry too much, I have never heard of a single woman ever being charged in the history of Canada for carrying pepper spray for defense. The absolute worst thing that will happen is you have to replace it.

I don't know about that, but my point is, it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by Seth1968


It's my understanding that the worst offenders are kept in isolation for their own protection.



Yes they are. BUT, they aren't isolated 100% of the time, and when the people out to get you have nothing better to do 24hrs a day than figure out how to get something done, well believe me it gets done.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by heavyfuel


Yes they are. BUT, they aren't isolated 100% of the time, and when the people out to get you have nothing better to do 24hrs a day than figure out how to get something done, well believe me it gets done.

Believe me, I believe you, and in this regard, I'm glad it gets done.

[woodywoodford]

Originally posted by heavyfuel


I know everybody has rights and all but I always wondered how lawyers sleep at night defending scum like this who deserve to get beat daily and rot in jail :dunno:

I share the sentiment, but I think the argument is that the defense attorney's are defending the peoples rights, not their innocence. Who'd have thought, lawyers are idealists!

[googe]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
Don't worry. I have seen first hand and then some, what happens to rapists in jail. Don't kid yourselves justice for these 2 is not coming from a courtroom.

You've been to prison?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
Don't worry. I have seen first hand and then some, what happens to rapists in jail.

When were you in prison and witnessed this?

[Unknown303]

I just always assumed he'd been to prison. And really I'm not sure why..

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by Seth1968


It's my understanding that the worst offenders are kept in isolation for their own protection.

Imagine that. Paul Bernado gets legal protection, but it's illegal for a women to carry pepper spray for protection.

When I was in jail, they separated the offenders that were child molesters, rapists, murderers. It was odd, in my cell block there was a huge glass divider between where the minor offenders were and the major offenders. Occasionally everyone on our side would finger the other person and call them worthless pieces of shit/etc.. They would only let one out of the cell at a time, to roam the area/eat. There was no way any one could get to them, they are well protected.

This is from first hand experience at the Larimer County Detention center (COLORADO)

[sabad66]

Damn, already two beyonders that have been to jail just from this thread.

Who wants to start a 'badass beyonders - when/where were you in jail and why?' thread?

[zipdoa]

Classy dude:

Corey
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004117695822&fref=ts&ref=br_tf

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Unknown303
I just always assumed he'd been to prison. And really I'm not sure why..

probably cause he has posted about it before :dunno:

[spike98]

Originally posted by heavyfuel


I know everybody has rights and all but I always wondered how lawyers sleep at night defending scum like this who deserve to get beat daily and rot in jail :dunno:

Its not about trying to get accused off, its about ensuring that the crown proves it. Without defense attorney's, there would be a lot of people in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Its the shortfall of the system as a whole that lets "scum" back on the streets.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by GTS4tw
I wouldn't worry too much, I have never heard of a single woman ever being charged in the history of Canada for carrying pepper spray for defense. The absolute worst thing that will happen is you have to replace it. My worst case scenario is that she'll use it on me!!

I remember the discussion we had when she asked me about pocket tasers... I told her there was no way in hell I'd ever get her one. She was like "Why?".. I told her I had absolutely no desire to wake up in the middle of the floor in a puddle of my own urine and two burn marks on the back of my neck after I said something stupid...

[FraserB]

Originally posted by heavyfuel


I know everybody has rights and all but I always wondered how lawyers sleep at night defending scum like this who deserve to get beat daily and rot in jail :dunno:

Didn't you have a lawyer when you went to prison? Or are you fine with defense lawyers so long as they only represent people who have committed crimes you don't find morally objectionable?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by spike98


Its not about trying to get accused off, its about ensuring that the crown proves it. Without defense attorney's, there would be a lot of people in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Its the shortfall of the system as a whole that lets "scum" back on the streets.

Exactly. Despite what folks may think about their motives, defence attorneys are vital parts of the process. Without them, courts are just kangaroo courts.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by spike98


Its not about trying to get accused off, its about ensuring that the crown proves it. Without defense attorney's, there would be a lot of people in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Its the shortfall of the system as a whole that lets "scum" back on the streets.

So what of cases in which the defence knows the accused is guilty. For example, video evidence like Paul Bernardo?

I know if I was his lawyer and came across such evidence, I would quit the case and tell the jury to throw the book at him.

[spike98]

Originally posted by Seth1968


So what of cases in which the defence knows the accused is guilty. For example, video evidence like Paul Bernardo?

I know if I was his lawyer and came across such evidence, I would quit the case and tell the jury to throw the book at him.

Because, as i said, it's not about guilty or not guilty. Its about ensuring that those accusing, can prove it according the the law. Unfortunately this does work to the advantage of the accused sometimes BUT at the expense of those involved in the accusations (lawyers, cops, CSI's, ect).

Think of how the system would be without defense attorneys. I could run up to you, on the street, and allege that you murdered someone. Without a person ensuring that proof is provided, you'd go to jail.

EDIT: Please don't get me wrong, i am not condoning the actions of these and it sucks that the justice system is flawed (or some may even say broken) but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I am also sure than MANY defense attorney's lose sleep at night because of cases they have taken. Its the job though.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by codetrap
My worst case scenario is that she'll use it on me!!

I remember the discussion we had when she asked me about pocket tasers... I told her there was no way in hell I'd ever get her one. She was like "Why?".. I told her I had absolutely no desire to wake up in the middle of the floor in a puddle of my own urine and two burn marks on the back of my neck after I said something stupid...

From everyone I've talked to who have been on the receiving end of both (law enforcement), tasing is much preferred to pepper spray haha. Pepper spray is absolutely awful, and the pain extends far beyond the eyes!

[Inzane]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
From everyone I've talked to who have been on the receiving end of both (law enforcement), tasing is much preferred to pepper spray haha. Pepper spray is absolutely awful, and the pain extends far beyond the eyes!

I've never heard of anyone dying from pepper spray.

I'm not keeping track but it sure as hell sounded like a lot of unintended deaths have happened over the last few years from police's use of so-called non-lethal force.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by spike98


Because, as i said, it's not about guilty or not guilty. Its about ensuring that those accusing, can prove it according the the law. Unfortunately this does work to the advantage of the accused sometimes BUT at the expense of those involved in the accusations (lawyers, cops, CSI's, ect).

Think of how the system would be without defense attorneys. I could run up to you, on the street, and allege that you murdered someone. Without a person ensuring that proof is provided, you'd go to jail.

EDIT: Please don't get me wrong, i am not condoning the actions of these and it sucks that the justice system is flawed (or some may even say broken) but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I am also sure than MANY defense attorney's lose sleep at night because of cases they have taken. Its the job though.

I understand the need for defence attorneys, but what I'm referring to, and what I think heavy Fuel is as well, is the morality aspect of an attorney defending an accused in which the attorney knows the accused is guilty.

[spike98]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I understand the need for defence attorneys, but what I'm referring to, and what I think heavy Fuel is as well, is the morality aspect of an attorney defending an accused in which the attorney knows the accused is guilty.

I don't think that morality should even have a place in the conversation though. Most often than not, the accused is in fact guilty. This is part of the job and people are fully aware of this when they enter the job.

They are to be prepared for the fact they they will be defending some of the most ruthless scum that can walk the face of the earth. But thats the core of the legal system. EVERYONES guilt shall be proven. Regardless of a persons character.

It really comes down to not defending an individual, but defending the idea of a just and fair trial.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by spike98
It really comes down to not defending an individual, but defending the idea of a just and fair trial.

If the prosecutor and the defence know the accused is guilty, then at that point, what is the purpose of the defence continuing to defend? Possible sentencing injustice?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I always thought it would be a good idea to make defense attorneys be accountable for thier position and ultimately liable for their clients. The intent is to give them a fair trial, not to get them off on lies and technicalities.

If you are willing to stand up in court and tell them your client is not a threat to society, and the judge/jury drink it in and you undermine the prosecution... if your client then re-offends, you should be facing jail time for your part in that.

How would a defence attorney go about forcing their client to tell the truth on the stand? How would a defence attorney even know for certain if they were being lied to until after the fact?

You talk about "technicalities"... if someone "gets off on a technicality", it's not because the defence attorney somehow created a loophole out of thin air, it's because the prosecution did not successfully follow the rule of law. You can't start saying "Oh, you didn't collect evidence in a proper legal manner, but we'll let you use it this time because we think he's guilty". That's what's giving them the fair trial - everybody has to play by the same rules, like it or not.

Furthermore, if your idea was put in place and people were jailed for their client's eventual reoffense, you would have either 1) nobody doing that job, ever, or 2) every crime ever would be an immediate life sentence because nobody would want to take the chance of going to jail if the person ever reoffends. That's such a stupid idea it beggars belief.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I always thought it would be a good idea to make defense attorneys be accountable for thier position and ultimately liable for their clients. The intent is to give them a fair trial, not to get them off on lies and technicalities.

Holding the police and Crown to a set of standards and making sure that someone's rights were adhered to aren't loopholes and technicalities. If someone has charges tossed because the police broke the rules, the police should be held accountable, not the person who uncovered the errors.

[JustinL]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat

That's what's giving them the fair trial - everybody has to play by the same rules, like it or not.


Absolutely. People are in favour of bending rules when it suits them, but often fail to consider what bending rules against them might do.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

Can a public sector defense attorney refuse to take on a case?

For example, the police find the Bernado tapes and charge him. Bernado can't afford a lawyer, so the court assigns him one. Can that lawyer refuse to defend Bernardo?

If not, why the hell would anyone want such a job, as opposed to being a private sector attorney?

[FraserB]

The end result would be no defense lawyers, a prison system where everyone is serving life and you'd spend obscene amounts of money supporting the system.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I should just be a formality at the end of the trial

Judge: I am inclined to rule in favor of the defendant, do you believe that your client poses no threat to society
DA: My client poses no threat to society
Judge: You understand and accept responsibility for your claim should your client re-offend for a similar crime? And that you may be implicated as an accessory to that crime?
DA: Uhhhhh... hang on, let me think about that
Judge: Uh-huh
DA: My client poses.... a small threat to society
Judge: Oh?
DA: We will be entering a plea bargain instead with some rehabilitation recommendations


Ditto for the parole board.

If they can't prove that the offender is no longer a threat to society (they can't), then offender shouldn't be released.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Ditto for the parole board.

If they can't prove that the offender is no longer a threat to society (they can't), then offender shouldn't be released.

So life terms for everything from aggravated sexual assault and murder to paper crimes like improper transportation of a firearm.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

[spike98]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
snip... how guilty their client really is, and they proceed to get them off on some kind of technicality anyway...snip

I have an issue with this too. People through around the term "loop-hole" and "technicality" like its some sort of bending or breaking of the law.

Its not. The rules are in place and for the most part, clear. Where they aren't 100% clear, you have precedent.

You break the law, it has to be proven before you can be punished. Period.

If there isn't enough proof or the proof was provided unlawfully (and this also means incorrectly) then you cannot be punished.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I should just be a formality at the end of the trial

Judge: I am inclined to rule in favor of the defendant, do you believe that your client poses no threat to society
DA: My client poses no threat to society
Judge: You understand and accept responsibility for your claim should your client re-offend for a similar crime? And that you may be implicated as an accessory to that crime?
DA: Uhhhhh... hang on, let me think about that
Judge: Uh-huh
DA: My client poses.... a small threat to society
Judge: Oh?
DA: We will be entering a plea bargain instead with some rehabilitation recommendations


Result: Little girl doesn't get raped 2 weeks later


You're taking the entire legal proceedings that are based on provable evidence, and then tossing them out at the last moment and requiring the defence to make a opinion call that determines the entire outcome. Not only that, an opinion call that the attorney is heavily incentivised to err on imprisonment by the very faulty reasoning that is leading to the opinion call in the first place.

If you're doing that, what's the point of having trial in the first place, then?



Originally posted by Seth1968


Ditto for the parole board.

If they can't prove that the offender is no longer a threat to society (they can't), then offender shouldn't be released.

Right, so no paroles should be granted for any crimes. I assume that you then accept that your taxes will increase hugely to pay for the burgeoning prison population you've created, yes?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by FraserB


So life terms for everything from aggravated sexual assault and murder to paper crimes like improper transportation of a firearm.

Sounds pretty reasonable.



Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat

Right, so no paroles should be granted for any crimes. I assume that you then accept that your taxes will increase hugely to pay for the burgeoning prison population you've created, yes?

Except, I never suggested any of that.

I think people like Bernardo, the guys who raped and beat this girl, etc, should be immediately shot following the trial. BOOM! No cost to innocent taxpayers, no need for a parole board in this instance, and it's a GUARANTEE that such scum won't re-offend.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I don't think so. Engineers and other professionals are accountable for their work and construction still goes ahead, bridges get built, etc...


Engineers and doctors are punished if they fail in their duty of care. You are recommending that defence attorneys be potentially punished for doing their job well.



If the person is innocent, then there is no real risk of re-offending


The risk is non-zero if any innocent person has ever then committed a subsequent crime. Why are you forcing the defence to accept a non-zero risk? Why should the defence accept the risk of jail time if the prosecution fucks up and the jury isn't convinced?



If the person did it, but does not disclose this to the DA... If evidence could be retained that would show this.


What kind of evidence? How would you collect this? How would you prove it? What standards of evidence would you use?



If the DA knows they are guilty, but is able to get them off on a technicality... they can absolve their liability by recommending rehabilitation or safeguards at the end of the trail.


Again, you are forcing the defence to accept a massive risk in the case that the prosecution bungles the trial. Why?



If the DA knows they are guilty and gets them free as a bird the next day, then they turn around and rape or murder somebody else; they deserve to be thrown in jail for endangering the public.

Again, the defence never "gets them free", they show that the prosecution has failed to adequately prove guilt. That's how the system works. Why should the defence be punished or forced to make unilateral guilt statements due to the prosecution's failure?



Originally posted by Sugarphreak


So when some rapist gets to walk because the key peice of evidence is tossed (say they his collected dna off the victims cloths he had stashed in his apartment) because there was some problem with the warrant, this isn't a technicality?... because it sure sounds like one.


So, the police or prosecutor failed to obtain evidence in a legal manner that ensured it was not tampered with or otherwise inadmissible. Why should this failure force the defence attorney to accept the risk of jail time? The rules about how evidence can be obtained are in place for a reason, and it's not because the judges want to aquit everybody.

[codetrap]

Sugarphreak, all this will do is ensure that the criminals lie to their defense attorneys.

[rx7boi]

:rofl: @ Seth1968's responses in this thread.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


A defence attorneys job is not to help people get away with murder, or rape, or whatever other hanus crime they committed. They isn't doing their job "well"... it is doing their job poorly. Their duty is to ensure their cleints get a fair trial, and that the punishment suits the crime.


Hang on a second. You think that a "fair trial" is important, but that people should still be jailed even if the prosecution fails to prove they were guilty by the rules of law? Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?

[Seth1968]

Why would something as fallible as a parole board even exist? You do the crime, you do the time. Period.

It doesn't matter how good of an inmate you are, or how you can tell the parole board exactly what they want to hear. The parole board isn't some god like psychic entity. Quite simply, they don't know, and for that reason as well, shouldn't exist.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ercchry]

so... guy with money and power is now responsible for a lowlife's life choices in sugarphreak's dream world... if i was a lowlife, thats basically like winning the lottery. "hey lawyer guy who got me off of my charges... yeah im going to re-offend unless you pay me $xxxxx/week"

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
This doesn't change the fact that often very guilty persons walk and re-offend, and that the DA is often aware of this risk.

Not just the ones that walked either.

Constantly, sex offenders are let out by the justice system, and the police themselves warn the public that the person is of high risk to re-offend.

[BananaFob]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak



This doesn't change the fact that often very guilty persons walk and re-offend, and that the DA is often aware of this risk.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

Very glad that it's innocent until proven guilty.

[msommers]

Thank god BCS is willing to type all that out :thumbsup:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

^The quote is also too vague and generic to have any significant meaning.

[shakalaka]

This is a good read, I shall read it later when I am not in the office prepping trials and defending criminals. I hope I can sleep tonight.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


A defence attorneys job is not to help people get away with murder, or rape, or whatever other hanus crime they committed. This isn't doing their job "well"... it is doing their job poorly. Their duty is to ensure their cleints get a fair trial, and that the punishment suits the crime.


Sometimes getting a fair trial means that key evidence is tossed out because the police messed up and someone who is guilty goes free. The defense attorney did his job and protected the rights of his client, which were infringed upon by the police. If anyone should be held accountable for the error, it should be the people who made them, not the one who found the error.

Lets say for instance that I'm pulled over and the cop decides that he is going to perform an illegal search of my truck for whatever reason. During the course of his search, he finds the restricted firearm that I'm transporting improperly and charges me. At trial, the search is tossed and so is all the evidence from it and I'm acquitted. What you're trying to say is that since they found something to charge me with, my right against unreasonable search should be infringed upon, even though the police had no way of knowing I was committing a crime at the time.

Further more, if I'm convicted and I can't somehow prove beyond a doubt that it will never happen again (which is impossible), I should be locked up until such a time that I can do so.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by shakalaka
This is a good read, I shall read it later when I am not in the office prepping trials and defending criminals. I hope I can sleep tonight.

you monster

[g-m]

Originally posted by msommers
Thank god BCS is willing to type all that out :thumbsup: this is honestly one of the dumbest conversations by often intelligent people I've read in a long time. I would have lost patience if I were BCS a long time ago.

edit:

Originally posted by FraserB


Lets say for instance that I'm pulled over and the cop decides that he is going to perform an illegal search of my truck for whatever reason. During the course of his search, he finds the restricted firearm that I'm transporting improperly and charges me. At trial, the search is tossed and so is all the evidence from it and I'm acquitted. What you're trying to say is that since they found something to charge me with, my right against unreasonable search should be infringed upon, even though the police had no way of knowing I was committing a crime at the time.
How machiavellian

[Sugarphreak]

....

[Jeff TYPE R]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
DA DA DA Jesus Christ, DA isn't short for defence attorney, maybe you're thinking of Harvey Dent?

Come on, Sugarphreak, admit it - the entirety of your knowledge of law comes from watching Batman... this is why you're getting rolled by Berserker here.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[Jeff TYPE R]

...well played.

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by Unknown303
I just always assumed he'd been to prison. And really I'm not sure why..

Lol do you think I took a business course or something? Lots of transferable skills from my previous undertakings that now work much better when applied legally!

And for the record I just officially received my pardon last week.

Still have no idea why a swat unit was lurking outside 2 nights ago tho, took my garbage out and they were directly behind my place lol :dunno:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
Still have no idea why a swat unit was lurking outside 2 nights ago tho, took my garbage out and they were directly behind my place lol :dunno:

Did you walk by and say "Pardon me!"?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Did you walk by and say "Pardon me!"?

Having already been taken down at gunpoint once in a case of mistaken identity in that exact location, I just went on my merry way lol

[Feruk]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
Still have no idea why a swat unit was lurking outside 2 nights ago tho, took my garbage out and they were directly behind my place lol :dunno:
Are you neighbors with the Manyshots brothers from this article? :nut:

[heavyfuel]

^^LOL nope last shooting that happened next door, was only 1 shot not many haha

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
^^LOL nope last shooting that happened next door, was only 1 shot not many haha

Lolololololol

[googe]

Originally posted by heavyfuel


Lol do you think I took a business course or something? Lots of transferable skills from my previous undertakings that now work much better when applied legally!

And for the record I just officially received my pardon last week.

Still have no idea why a swat unit was lurking outside 2 nights ago tho, took my garbage out and they were directly behind my place lol :dunno:

So what'd you do?

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by googe


So what'd you do?

I have my pardon, so I'm no longer legally required to disclose anything when asked haha