Stupid woman

[Schoeler 0]

It may be a "social" decision to enforce the laW in your country, it isn't one here. Break the law in the United States and get caught, you go to trial.

[bn880 5]

Communicate like what, like someone who is not afraid?

It's not being unafraid, it's being irresponsible, arrogant, and even disrespectful to the security people. If you think it's strictly an American phenomenon, why don't you try it yourself?

Why would I try that, I know how many morons walk among us Tovarish. You see some about 2-3 times a week. (let's keep this between us)

[Tovarish 0]

Why would I try that, I know how many morons walk among us Tovarish.     You see some about 2-3 times a week.  (let's keep this between us)  

I agree . But I don't see eye to eye with you on airport security. It's just no place to joke around, and that's not just here in NA. I just remembered an occasion where my father was swarmed by armed guards at an airport in the USSR because an ashtma inhaler he had in his luggage apparently looked suspicious through the X-ray machine.

*edit* also happened to a friend in Germany who had bought an old East German gas mask and was bringing it back to canada, but that's a bit more understandable

[Gadger 0]

The "speedy" trial in which your referring to Schoeler is just a trial within a reasonable time, not like in some countries where waiting upto a decade is common practice.

Your reffrences of american law being used as a model for the rest of the world since 1783 couldnt be more wrong. British law, common law, was developed by the Normans in late 11th Century. French law, like that of Italy and Spain, is based on Roman Law, which has been around since pre christ. As for Germany and the low countries, I think they use a mixture of code and common, but not sure, will have to check up on that.

[bn880 5]

Why would I try that, I know how many morons walk among us Tovarish. You see some about 2-3 times a week. (let's keep this between us)

I agree . But I don't see eye to eye with you on airport security. It's just no place to joke around, and that's not just here in NA. I just remembered an occasion where my father was swarmed by armed guards at an airport in the USSR because an ashtma inhaler he had in his luggage apparently looked suspicious through the X-ray machine.

*edit* also happened to a friend in Germany who had bought an old East German gas mask and was bringing it back to canada, but that's a bit more understandable

No no, I agree it's not good to do this, and yes you need to be punished for this action. However, what I am trying to say is: don't blow these situations into some huge panic attacks, and once you know it was a joke by checking the bagadge and intel, why not just fine the person and get it over with. It should not be a matter of imprisonment...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]The "speedy" trial in which your referring to Schoeler is just a trial within a reasonable time, not like in some countries where waiting upto a decade is common practice.

And this reflects poorly on our system... how? It seems to me that now you're just arguing for the sake of it. Face it, you made some assumptions based on a faulty understanding of how the American Justice system works, and you were wrong. Grasping at straws won't change that.

It doesn't matter how this would happen in another country, the only thing that matters is how it's going to work here. She's going to post bail, stand trial in about a month, and, depending on what happens, she will either be on her merry way or she will serve a possible sentence of no more than six months. At which point she'll be free to go. That makes the MAXIMUM possible elapsed turnaround time 8 months. Educate yourself on our system before you condemn it.

[Gadger 0]

How and when did I say that reflected poorly on the US law system?   Tex that hypocriscy, your creating arguements here for the sake of being involved, I was merely stating that the example he gave was not of what he was trying to say, he was referring to the option of a quick trial, but gave the example that all persons should not have to wait for an extended period to face trial. I know its available in the Uk under the right circumstances, therefore I presume its the same in the US. Bah your just grumpy   Nm its all gravy  

Secondly when and where did I condemn the US law system?

[bn880 5]

I just remembered an occasion where my father was swarmed by armed guards at an airport in the USSR because an ashtma inhaler he had in his luggage apparently looked suspicious through the X-ray machine.

*edit* also happened to a friend in Germany who had bought an old East German gas mask and was bringing it back to canada, but that's a bit more understandable

Oh yeah on that note, you should have been on some of the border crossings between Poland, Chechoslovakia, Ukraine in the 80's. My father also got swarmed by guards at a border who spotted a steel box with a padlock mounted in the engine compartment of his Fiat 126. It was only a toolbox... but, getting across such borders with all your stuff was a very good day. (especially good day when they didn't hold a passport long)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]One rule for the rich, another for the poor.

If she was wealthy she wouldn't be sitting in a cell for the next 6 months. Nobody can doubt what she did was technically wrong.

Quote[/b] ]I feel yall missing the point here, the uproar has not been over the fact she was arrested, but the fact that she has been given a $4,500 bail, which she has no hope of paying and 6 months till trial date. Also, you may want to note that shes a student, you really think that her university will be willing to accept her back after missing 3/4 of year and not to mention all her exams? Sorry but somebody should not have to be punished for the rest of her life before they have even been sentenced.

Quote[/b] ]I am not disagreeing what she did was wrong or that she should not be punished, merely that she should not be given a sum for bail which is twice her annual salary. This imo is unjust, especially when you take into account the actions a 6 month custodial sentence will have on her and put into contrast with the probable sentence she will receive.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not reading this from a yahoo article, i'm reading it from The Independant. first of all I thought a speedy trial was only available if she paid the bail amount? I'm not familiar with american law so hold my hands up if i'm wrong.

^^^^^^

How 'bout them apples? Maybe I just enjoy seeing ignorance in full flower; that might be why I chose to "involve myself". As for your most recent statement, you're right, I have no idea what the hell your point was- so far as I can tell, you were arguing a trivial point to distract from the fact that your previous four posts proved you to be utterly clueless as to what you're talking about. So- you were saying?

[Gadger 0]

How does any of that condemn the American law system? You are without a doubt clutching at straws. All of what is quoted there can be reflected upon almost any western law system.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

How does any of that condemn the American law system? You are without a doubt clutching at straws. All of what is quoted there can be reflected upon almost any western law system.

Just read the bold portions. And stop hedging- it makes this entire exercise extremely boring.

[Schoeler 0]

How and when did I say that reflected poorly on the US law system?   Tex that hypocriscy, your creating arguements here for the sake of being involved, I was merely stating that the example he gave was not of what he was trying to say, he was referring to the option of a quick trial, but gave the example that all persons should not have to wait for an extended period to face trial. I know its available in the Uk under the right circumstances, therefore I presume its the same in the US. Bah your just grumpy   Nm its all gravy  

Secondly when and where did I condemn the US law system?

There is no "option" of a quick trial, it is mandated buy the Constitution.

Also, Bn880, there is one law on communicating a threat in a public setting. It doesn't distinguish between humorous threats or serious ones, it applies to all threats in an equal manner. How could anyone be expected to enforce such a law if there are loopholes in it based upon subjective interpretations of what or what doesn't constitute humor.

The reality is, there is nothing humorous about that sort of language in that sort of setting. Use it and you have committed a felony, punishable by the laws governing felony crime and subject to those penalties prescribed. The law is not subjective, which is how you seem to want it to be. Society cannot and does not work along those lines.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Use it and you have committed a felony, punishable by the laws governing felony crime and subject to those penalties prescribed.

Im sorry if im nagging about this, but am I the only one in this thread that doesnt know; from what criminal act she will be charched yet, or been held with?

[Gadger 0]

Your still dodging the question, how does that "condemn" American Law?

By stating that she shouldn't have had to face trial over a trivial matter, I'm condeming the American system. Or have I just hurt your great American patrioism by stating the fact that this is one area where your country does not excel in? Get over it, this wasn't my intention, and its a flaw in most countries law system. The best lawyers and the most options are available to those with the most cash.

If I really wanted to condemn American Law I would just remind you of the OJ Simpson trial, but you know what? I ain't that freaking narrow minded and can realise that the same result would happen in any western system, those with money are more likely to be i) not face bail, ii) not even appear at trial and lastly much more likely to get away with it.

[Gadger 0]

@ Schoeler

Quick trial by paying a cash sum in order to jump the que and have your case heard at an earlier date than what was actually designated. This happens often in the UK, although very rarely if you plead not guilty, especially in small criminal matters such as driving offences. You can also pay a sum in order to not appear at your trial, unless the prosecution deems it necessary. I presume the same happens in America otherwise you would have thousands of people a day attending court when there is no need.

[denoir 0]

There is no "option" of a quick trial, it is mandated buy the Constitution.

Sure there is. I think Bush called it a "Military Comission". Who can stand before such a comission? Enemies of the state (now called 'terrorists'). Who decides who qualifies as a terrorist? Why Bush of course!

Some highlights:

[*]  The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

[*] There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

[*] There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

[*]The hearing is in secret and the transcripts are not available for third party (including the judicial branch) review.

[*] There is no provision for the burden of proof to be placed on the prosecution, or for it to meet a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Guilt is simply to be established by evidence of 'probative value to a reasonable person'. The officers who form the 'jury' need ont be unanimous - as a vote of two thirds secures a conviction. And to top it all off, they don't have to give a reasoned written judgement.

If you didn't know, apart from being gross violations of articles 84 and 85 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III which the US and 187 other countries have ratified (for non-US citizens), there are currently two US citizens awaiting tribunal and they have been denied legal council. The supreme court has dismissed their complains.

So, Schoeler, you were telling a fairy tale about Constitutional protection in the US justice system? Please go on.

[Gadger 0]

^^^ now thats how I would condemn the American law system. you was talking about apples?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Your still dodging the question, how does that "condemn" American Law?  

I'd say that calling a justice system "unjust" is close to the mark.

Quote[/b] ]By stating that she shouldn't have had to face trial over a trivial matter, I'm condeming the American system.

You're arguing a legislative issue, not a judicial issue. You think it's a trivial matter; the US Congress disagrees.

Quote[/b] ]Or have I just hurt your great American patrioism by stating the fact that this is one area where your country does not excel in?

My patriotism doesn't get hurt by people who have no clue what they're arguing about. Once again: you have a problem with the way the law is upheld? That's a judicial issue. You have an issue with the law itself? That's for the legislature to handle.

Quote[/b] ]If I really wanted to condemn American Law I would just remind you of the OJ Simpson trial, but you know what? I ain't that freaking narrow minded and can realise that the same result would happen in any western system, those with money are more likely to be i) not face bail, ii) not even appear at trial and lastly much more likely to get away with it.

zZz... what exactly does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

[FSPilot 0]

turms

Quote[/b] ]Ah!! finally! a person who knows what is she charched for, and what law did she brake?

They could charge her with disturbing the peace or maybe lying to an officer. Those might put her in prison. The airline could sue her and the FAA could fine her, but neither of those would end up in a prison sentence.  I don't know what they've charged her with though.

[Gadger 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd say that calling a justice system "unjust" is close to the mark.

Didnt say the system was unjust, only the fee for bail

Quote[/b] ]You're arguing a legislative issue, not a judicial issue. You think it's a trivial matter; the US Congress disagrees

In a matter where the defendent was joking with a security guard about having a bomb, yup thats trivial to me.

Quote[/b] ]My patriotism doesn't get hurt by people who have no clue what they're arguing about.

I'm arguing the fact that she should not even have been arrested, never mind detained when it was quite obvious she was joking.

Once again: you have a problem with the way the law is upheld?

Yes, yes i do. Especially when taken into context with the situation. Phoning an airport and saying you have planted a bomb is one thing, sarcastically saying you are in possesion of a bomb, when it is quite obvious you are not is another.

Quote[/b] ]zZz... what exactly does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

It has alot to do with China, for instance you've probably got more chance of being judged fairly if your poor and innocent in most other nations than what you have if your poor and innocent in the US.

Put the tactful comments away Tex, its you here that's loosing the plot, in your attempt to sound witty and intelligent your losing focus on the incident that happened.

[Schoeler 0]

Your still dodging the question, how does that "condemn" American Law?  

By stating that she shouldn't have had to face trial over a trivial matter, I'm condeming the American system. Or have I just hurt your great American patrioism by stating the fact that this is one area where your country does not excel in? Get over it, this wasn't my intention, and its a flaw in most countries law system. The best lawyers and the most options are available to those with the most cash.

If I really wanted to condemn American Law I would just remind you of the OJ Simpson trial, but you know what? I ain't that freaking narrow minded and can realise that the same result would happen in any western system, those with money are more likely to be i) not face bail, ii) not even appear at trial and lastly much more likely to get away with it.

You're fucking kidding me right?  O.J. Simpson?  If anything, that goes to show you just how good the American system is.  A black man who was obviously guilty got off because the prosecution could not provide enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  Let me emphasize the pertinent parts for you.  A Black man and Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.  I think O>j> showed us the justice system doesn't railroad people into the prisons in America.  Our system isn't perfect, but I goddamn challenge anyone here from anywhere in the world to show me a better system.  If you can't provide me with a credible argument, don't even try and come back here blowing smoke out of your ass.  Don't forget, I'm preparing to go to law school, have studied the law and the Constitution, foreign law and international law and have a sister who is an outstanding attorney.  

Don't pick this fight if you aren't sure you can win it.

Also, Gadger, I'd like to see an example of a law that distinguishes between humor and actual threats. Who gets to decide if it was a joke or not? When people making actual threats who are arrested claim it was all just a joke in their own defense, do we forward the case to a panel of comedians for an expert opinion on whether or not it was funny? Maybe we should place a comic on the Supreme Court just to hedge our bets.

[Schoeler 0]

There is no "option" of a quick trial, it is mandated buy the Constitution.

Sure there is. I think Bush called it a "Military Comission". Who can stand before such a comission? Enemies of the state (now called 'terrorists'). Who decides who qualifies as a terrorist? Why Bush of course!

Some highlights:

[*]  The comission is neither indenpendet nor impartial. The army officers who will act as 'judges' are paid and promoted by the defence department, an arm of the government which has alledged the prisoners' guilt and which acts as their detaining power. These officers are comissioned to sit as 'judges' by the president - the commander in chief - who decides that the defendants should be prosecuted and who thus has a vested interest in their conviction.

[*] There is no appeal, except to the president, who cannot be impartial because the decision appealed against is that of his own tribunal.

[*] There are no normal evidentiary rules or safeguard. Evidence is admissible if the presiding officer thinks it should be admitted.

[*]The hearing is in secret and the transcripts are not available for third party (including the judicial branch) review.

[*] There is no provision for the burden of proof to be placed on the prosecution, or for it to meet a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Guilt is simply to be established by evidence of 'probative value to a reasonable person'. The officers who form the 'jury' need ont be unanimous - as a vote of two thirds secures a conviction. And to top it all off, they don't have to give a reasoned written judgement.

If you didn't know, apart from being gross violations of articles 84 and 85 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III which the US and 187 other countries have ratified (for non-US citizens), there are currently two US citizens awaiting tribunal and they have been denied legal council. The supreme court has dismissed their complains.

So, Schoeler, you were telling a fairy tale about Constitutional protection in the US justice system? Please go on.

Those types of tribunal are permissible under the Constitution for foreign combatants.

Read Ex Parte Quirin

Nazi Saboteur Case

As you can see, it wasn't Bush who decided who gets to be tried under this form of tribunal, it was initially used by Abraham Lincoln and then F.D.R. and upheld by the Supreme Court.

[denoir 0]

Except for two things:

1) Right now two US citizens are going to face such a tribunal.

2) The Geneva conventions that it violates were written in 1949 - after WW2.

[Schoeler 0]

@ Schoeler

Quick trial by paying a cash sum in order to jump the que and have your case heard at an earlier date than what was actually designated. This happens often in the UK, although very rarely if you plead not guilty, especially in small criminal matters such as driving offences. You can also pay a sum in order to not appear at your trial, unless the prosecution deems it necessary. I presume the same happens in America otherwise you would have thousands of people a day attending court when there is no  need.

There is no cash involved in America. Trial dates are set as soon as is feasibly possible. Usually capital crimes are tried within a year, depending upon prep time for the defense.

[Schoeler 0]

Except for two things:

1) Right now two US citizens are going to face such a tribunal.

2) The Geneva conventions that it violates were written in 1949 - after WW2.

Haupt was a U.S. citizen, he was condemned anyway.  Later he was pardoned.  Citizenship is not always the determinative factor on who gets tried by military tribunal.  Treasonous action against America in support of a foreign combatant is the determinative factor.

Oh, also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Geneva Convention I don't believe covers saboteurs operating within foreign borders. Under the Convention, saboteurs and spies are subject to summary execution. At least in America, they get a trial.