tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post1363126550726356137..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Police, defendants, social media and internet privacyGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-18482788863076365732012-03-03T15:22:02.665-06:002012-03-03T15:22:02.665-06:00There is no better example of outcomes-based juris...There is no better example of outcomes-based jurisprudence, formally called 'ends justify means" thinking, than the long controversy of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is the practice required by the Supreme Court during the Hugo Black, William O. Douglas years that said if the evidence is illegally obtained, it must not be admitted. Starting with Nixon down to present, many DA's and members of the Supreme Court see the Bill of Rights as a protection for criminals, not for "upstanding" citizens. They are strict constructionists when it serves them, but have watered down the Bill of Rights with so many exceptions that there is nothing left. They have opposed the Exclusionary Rule as not being in the Constitution, while creating exceptions that cause more damage to the Rule of Law than the Exclusionary Rule could ever do. The Exclusionary Rule is the only real way to ensure the police adhere to the Bill of Rights. If the lawyers and judges in our legal system had their priorities straight, this rule would not even be a matter of contention. The current system is corrupt and Grits is to be honored for trying to right the wrongs he sees, but he is only shooting at the fleas on the beast, not the beast itself who has trampled the Bill of Rights under foot.<br /><br />The new Justice Party has as its primary goal is to restore the Bill of Rights. Check it out at:<br />wwww.justicepartyusa.orgbenbshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02723799073407947773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-55284917175002413992012-03-03T08:25:28.246-06:002012-03-03T08:25:28.246-06:00I assume that EVERYTHING I say on the internet is ...I assume that EVERYTHING I say on the internet is intercepted and read.DEWEYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21008159194061931072012-03-03T07:35:54.077-06:002012-03-03T07:35:54.077-06:006:35, if I weren't here to provide "knee ...6:35, if I weren't here to provide "knee jerk" criticism of the court, what would you do for your Saturday morning entertainment? :)Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-807579629497456222012-03-03T07:11:37.430-06:002012-03-03T07:11:37.430-06:00I don't know what relevance it would have to t...I don't know what relevance it would have to this case, but many years ago, I operated a bulletin board service, and was a party to a case against Southwestern Bell. During the discovery phase, Bell requested the we (the plaintiffs) turn over the identity of all the users of our service. We argued that to do so would violate federal wiretap laws. In the end, the judge overruled their demand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-28771957418663907032012-03-03T06:35:57.201-06:002012-03-03T06:35:57.201-06:00"So the court invokes a standard, then fails ..."So the court invokes a standard, then fails to follow it, but allows the evidence in anyway, declaring those methods are not exclusive. That, my friends, is outcome-based jurisprudence: Pick the outcome you want then pull a reason out of thin air to justify it."<br /><br />Maybe you should read the case and be familiar with the Rules of Evidence before you go on a knee-jerk criticism of the court. The CCA didn't invoke a standard. The lower court (court of appeals) used the Maryland case (which was then overturned in Maryland), so the CCA was simply addressing the approach used in the lower court. The opinion was 9-0 for Pete's sake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-90179585268462212512012-03-02T18:04:16.590-06:002012-03-02T18:04:16.590-06:00If you think I'm kidding, go here:
https://do...If you think I'm kidding, go here:<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViKfjYoNvP1mXv1PnbrIzbh2lm_zI-J5lHhnVrqBW1c/edit#<br /><br />Read everything!<br /><br />Police perjury, prosecutorial misconduct... <br /><br />Rockwall CountyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63296865377742020952012-03-02T17:04:51.368-06:002012-03-02T17:04:51.368-06:00Nice grits---
I sail hard. Convicted on B**lshit...Nice grits---<br /><br />I sail hard. Convicted on B**lshit. We train for the olympics offshore, hard.<br /><br />Texas is such a witch hunt. If you live there, move...<br /><br />You deserve better...<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNMf_R3Jo4kAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com