Cynical Nation

That's not how the law works, though, Barry. If you get arrested and acquitted, you don't get compensated for the authorities making a mistake. Am I gonna see you working for the rights of the accused now? That seems so, so...liberal. :-)

Well, you know how I feel about guns, but this is ridiculous. What is wrong with all these officers who don't know the law? That was the problem when that representative's wife was thrown out and Cindy Sheehan was arrested at the State of the Union. The officers involved thought their t-shirts were actionable. I'm not sure what the deal with that third guy was. That seems to have been a case of misidentification or, frankly, racism.

Typically DBK confuses "protecting those innocent of any crimes," with the "rights of the accused."

Pedophile stings, stop and frisks on inner city streets, and "pattern analysis," as one tool to ferret out suspected terrorists, YES...the "Exclusionary Rule," which Unconstitutionally made any evidence gathered "in plain sight," but without a warrant unusable as evidence, NO.

Thankfully, the Exclusionary Rule was one of the first things to go under the Rhenquist Court of the 1980s.

P.S. You can still seek to protect those innocent of any crimes from falseor even malicious prosecution, while seeking to make it "easier" to convict the guilty.

A good example, aside from the discarding of the Exclusionary Rule, are the current online pedophile stings.

Years ago, you'd have heard cries of "entrapment," not only by defense lawyers, but by Leftist phoney "Civli Liberties" activists.

Today - not a peep.

That's good news!

And yes, that's progress in BOTH protecting the rights of the innocent AND making it easier to convict the guilty.

That's a strange sort of over-reaction to my remarks, JMK. The "typical DBK" remark indicates a personal animosity. Such a sad, angry conservative.

Yes, I was referring to "rights of the accused" just as Barry was doing. You see, the law has within it a time-honored notion that all persons are innocent until proven guilty. That means the accused is actually innocent until proven guilty, so when I say "rights of the accused" it is exactly the same as saying "those innocent of any crimes".

Let me know if you end anything else conceptual explained to you. You have a real bug up your butt about the law and civil liberties, don't you? Were you beaten with a rolled up copy of the Bill of Rights as a child or something? It gets so personal so quickly with you.

An odd response, considering that I can honestly say that I don't know a single Conservative who doesn't believe in and support the basic presumption of innocence, just as I know few Liberals who can avoid lionizing predators, even to the point of seemingly living vicariously through them.

I never understood that mentality.

Your statement, "when I say "rights of the accused" it is exactly the same as saying "those innocent of any crimes"," proves my point that you simply don't know the difference between these two VERY different terms and often mutually exclusive terms.

Person Y who mugged victim X, though he hasn't yet been convicted, is NOT among "those innocent of any crimes," for what should be a number of very obvious reasons.

For lack of a better term, person Y, in this instance is among those who are best termed "the pre-convicted (presumed innocent) but guilty."

Surely you're not one of those who confuse an acquital in court with a finding of "innocent," are you? The terms "acquital" and "innocent" are not at all synonymous.

The urban myth is that cases like the OJ Simpson fiasco (where the defendent is almost certainly guilty, but the prosecution fails to make its case), are aberrations. They are not and the verdict of "Not Guilty," does NOT infer innocence of the crime in question.

A "Not Guilty" verdict merely states that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof in that particular case.

As I clearly stated above, "You can still seek to protect those innocent of any crimes from false or even malicious prosecution, while seeking to make it EASIER to convict the guilty.

A good example, aside from the discarding of the horrific Exclusionary Rule of the 1970s, is found in the current online pedophile stings.

Years ago, you'd have heard cries of "entrapment," not only by defense lawyers, but by a cache of phoney "Civil Liberties" activists and an assortment of other Left-of-center kooks.

Today - not a peep.

That's good news!

And yes, that's progress in BOTH protecting the rights of the innocent AND making it easier to convict the guilty.

And there wasn't a hint of animus in my above comments. Apparently you're an amateur psychologist, as well a champion of all would-be predators. An interesting combination, to say the least.

I have no problem with the laws today, under the current SC.

I certainly DID, when the Berger and Warren courts ruled the roost and WOULD again, should such abominations come to prominence on the SC.

Under former Mayor Guiliani, NYC's streets were cleaned up by his first Police Commissioner and current LAPD Commissioner (Bill Bratton) who brought crime down to record lows via some "sound, aggressive police work."

I worked in the South Bronx and saw first hand the cordoning off of entire blocks, with residents forced to show ID before coming and going, random "stop & frisks" of groups of young males and, of course the vaunted "street crimes unit" that worked great until it was decentralized and clones set up in every precinct.

Those things, along with random subway sweeps, DWI checkpoints and those highly effective pedophile stings that have bagged so many child-predtators are ALL very positive developments.

They balance both the "rights of the accused" with the Constitutionally mandated "preservation of domestic tranquility."

"I know few Liberals who can avoid lionizing predators, even to the point of seemingly living vicariously through them."

Why don't you go back and defend your first set of remarks about me in this thread in light of how I punctured them so easily? Instead, you now turn to a meaningless smear of everyone whom you call a "liberal". You not only have problems with civil liberties, you seem to have a problem with staying on-topic, too. Adult ADD much?

THESE REMARKS?

"Typically DBK confuses "protecting those innocent of any crimes," with the "rights of the accused."

Pedophile stings, stop and frisks on inner city streets, and "pattern analysis," as one tool to ferret out suspected..."

I DID take your attempted "puncturing" apart ("when I say "rights of the accused" it is exactly the same as saying "those innocent of any crimes"." [DBK]), or didn't you notice?

OK, once again, in case you missed it, or skimmed past it; "Your statement, "when I say "rights of the accused" it is exactly the same as saying "those innocent of any crimes"," proves my point that you simply don't know the difference between these two VERY different terms and often mutually exclusive terms.

Person Y who mugged victim X, though he hasn't yet been convicted, is NOT among "those innocent of any crimes," for what should be a number of very obvious reasons.

For lack of a better term, person Y, in this instance is among those who are best termed "the pre-convicted (presumed innocent) but guilty."

Surely you're not one of those who confuse an acquital in court with a finding of "innocent," are you? The terms "acquital" and "innocent" are not at all synonymous."

FYI: An "acquital" is NOT a "finding of innocence," and the current "in plain sight" standard that supplanted the inane "Exclusionary Rule, random on-street "Stop & Frisks," random roadside DWI checkpoints and online pedophile stings have ALL made convicting predators a whole lot easier and they ALL were instituted to help "balance both the "rights of the accused" with the Constitutionally mandated "preservation of domestic tranquility."

Oh, in case you're unsure, your next move should be assailing (hopefully with facts) those inner city "stop & frisks," roadsie DUI checkpoints and those online pedophile stings as "violations of "the rights of the accused."

Good luck making that case.

P.S.

This comment, "That's not how the law works, though, Barry. If you get arrested and acquitted, you don't get compensated for the authorities making a mistake. Am I gonna see you working for the rights of the accused now? That seems so, so...liberal" IS INANE!

The person Barry referenced above wasn't "acquitted," he was wrongly and possibly maliciously prosecuted and YES, you can get Civil compensation for either of those things.

So...you're wrong on BOTH your points there.