David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Katman]

I have spawned a monster

Are you scumdog's father?

[98tls]

I'm not talking about hot cups of tea & cuddles. I'm talking about legal support from above, of which they get a metric shit-load more than any defendant.

From aboveBetween judges/probation officers and parole boards decisions any support from anywhere else is surely negated.Fuck me just tonight i overheard on the news yet another fuck up going back to jail for yet another killing after only just unpacking his toothbrush.

[scumdog]

How is this any different to failing to appear simply because they've absconded to Gore? I think it's you lot that are struggling and maybe need a law change, I couldn't care less.

Oh yeah, hiding forever in Gore and not appearing in Court will work just as well as going to Aussie for the same reason, why waste the air-fare..Tuis moment here.

You've bored me off this thread foor the meantime...maybe if somebody else posted??

Sayonara

[Madness]

From aboveBetween judges/probation officers and parole boards decisions any support from anywhere else is surely negated.Fuck me just tonight i overheard on the news yet another fuck up going back to jail for yet another killing after only just unpacking his toothbrush.

Has no-one ever told you before - Judges are supposed to be impartial, they are not there to provide support to the popo or the defence. Once again, I was referring to the resources available to the popo by way of legal support, not the other facets of our justice system "taking sides" with the popo.

[Madness]

Oh yeah, hiding forever in Gore and not appearing in Court will work just as well as going to Aussie for the same reason, why waste the air-fare..Tuis moment here.

You've bored me off this thread foor the meantime...maybe if somebody else posted??

Sayonara

Weak Scummy, very weak. Must try harder. We know you can put the effort in when you want to...

[Erelyes]

My work colleagues are irrelevant to this discussion although if one of them screws up there's a chance someone ends up either dead or extremely sore. We're yet to kill anyone as far as I'm aware so we must be doing okay.

The point is the 10 minute period is a legal requirement. 10 minutes is equal to 600 seconds. It would have taken all of about three or four seconds of the popo's time to note the exact start & finish time so is it a case of laziness or more of a systematic problem originating from HQ? Who has been held accountable for this fuck-up?

I could understand the frustration (and maybe even Ed's baseless attack on the presiding Judge) if the issue was one of nano-seconds. As road-users we're all asked to remember the "three-second rule" so it's hardly rocket science is it?

A cop makes the COMMON SENSE assumption that 10 seconds is fucking immaterial, some scumbag lawyer uses it as a technicality to let a guilty drink-driver walk and you hate the COPS rather than lawyers.

[Madness]

assumption

Thank you for pointing that out. When dealing with the freedom of a citizen, assumptions should never come into it. How dare you call the lawyer a scumbag! All they did was identify a short-coming in the prosecution case under NZ law. I see you're also making the same "Guilty" statement as Ed based on absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. The person in question was quite obviously not guilty, otherwise a conviction would have been recorded.



Plenty of assumptions were made in the Bain investigation too and look where that got 'em. You'd think they would have learned a thing or two, but no.

[Katman]

We know you can put the effort in when you want to...

Hey, hot-rods don't grow on trees, you know?

[Erelyes]

All they did was identify a short-coming in the prosecution case under NZ law

Without reading the case, I think that sentance should continue '... and then claim that justifies a not guilty verdict'. At best it's a factor to take into account in sentencing.

Going back to:

I could understand the frustration (and maybe even Ed's baseless attack on the presiding Judge) if the issue was one of nano-seconds.

How's it different?

Do either actually make any material difference to the driver's BAC?

Do you think the lawyer would have fucked around arguing about a few seconds if the driver's BAC was 400mcg/L and the lawyer could argue "could have been 399.5 your honor"?

I stand by my statement of scumbag. All the lawyer did was ignore the intent of the law and decide to get his client off, by arguing that his client getting 1.7% less time than he should have to work out whether he likes needles or not, somehow makes a difference to the fact that he was endangering other people.

It strikes me that we're both arguing the same case (that the legislative system is flawed) in different ways.

PS actually, assumptions will always be made, to varying degrees. We assume that when the BAC meter is calibrated that it stays accurate for X amount of time, no?

[unstuck]

No criminals hiding out in Gorrrre.

[Katman]

Was that Ed's twin on 3rd Degree tonight?

He came across as equally clueless.

[Madness]

Without reading the case, I think that sentance should continue '... and then claim that justifies a not guilty verdict'. At best it's a factor to take into account in sentencing.

So without reading the case you're convinced the defendant is guilty and their lawyer is a scumbag (I know deep down they all are really). You're a piece of work aren't you?. If it was merely a factor to be taken into account at sentencing then why wasn't a conviction recorded? Because of this thing called "due process" which clearly wasn't met, resulting in all probability that the case was dismissed. The fact that this may have been the first case where a charge was thrown out on this basis means just one thing to me; how many others have been wrongfully convicted under similar circumstances? Scummy himself stated earlier that the law is there for both sides to follow, or break at their peril.

How's it different?

Technically it's not. I said I could understand the frustration if it were nano-seconds, it wouldn't however alter my opinion on the topic. Ten minutes is ten minutes is ten minutes. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Do either actually make any material difference to the driver's BAC?

Do you think the lawyer would have fucked around arguing about a few seconds if the driver's BAC was 400mcg/L and the lawyer could argue "could have been 399.5 your honor"?

Irrelevant. The ten minute period is what lost the popo the case, not the breath alcohol content. The popo fucked up, simple.

I stand by my statement of scumbag. All the lawyer did was ignore the intent of the law and decide to get his client off, by arguing that his client getting 1.7% less time than he should have to work out whether he likes needles or not, somehow makes a difference to the fact that he was endangering other people.

The lawyer paid full attention to the intent of the laws that require due process and accuracy of facts. The popo fucked up, simple. Are you a Jehovas Witness by chance?

It strikes me that we're both arguing the same case (that the legislative system is flawed) in different ways.

Nothing wrong with the law in this case, just the numpties enforcing them.

PS actually, assumptions will always be made, to varying degrees. We assume that when the BAC meter is calibrated that it stays accurate for X amount of time, no?

Breathalysers are calibrated to a standard, no doubt drawn up as a result of scientific research. No assumptions there. Convictions aren't dished out on assumptions, even in Dunedin.

[Mushu]

Without reading the case, I think that sentance should continue '... and then claim that justifies a not guilty verdict'. At best it's a factor to take into account in sentencing.

Going back to:



How's it different?

Do either actually make any material difference to the driver's BAC?

Do you think the lawyer would have fucked around arguing about a few seconds if the driver's BAC was 400mcg/L and the lawyer could argue "could have been 399.5 your honor"?

I stand by my statement of scumbag. All the lawyer did was ignore the intent of the law and decide to get his client off, by arguing that his client getting 1.7% less time than he should have to work out whether he likes needles or not, somehow makes a difference to the fact that he was endangering other people.

It strikes me that we're both arguing the same case (that the legislative system is flawed) in different ways.

PS actually, assumptions will always be made, to varying degrees. We assume that when the BAC meter is calibrated that it stays accurate for X amount of time, no?

You're concentrating on the supposed 10 seconds which was never confirmed. If the cop noted 11:20 - 11:30 it could have possibly been 11:20.59 to 11:30.00 (loosing 10% of time available to make his decision) or even less depending on the accuracy of the clock used, does it display in seconds or even individual minutes (the origin of the computer timing debate of the bain case) police work should require every officer to be able to record time to the second and keep his watch within a certain degree of accuracy to a central clock, alot can happen in 1 minute in the real world. (not a huge request really, what does a cheap digital watch cost these days? $10?)

Police should face heavier punishments for any given offense, if you as the cop who enforces the law can't be expected to stay within it why should I live within the law. They should also be held accountable for things like mishandled evidence.

[Hinny]

You're concentrating on the supposed 10 seconds which was never confirmed. If the cop noted 11:20 - 11:30 it could have possibly been 11:20.59 to 11:30.00 (loosing 10% of time available to make his decision) or even less depending on the accuracy of the clock used, does it display in seconds or even individual minutes (the origin of the computer timing debate of the bain case) police work should require every officer to be able to record time to the second and keep his watch within a certain degree of accuracy to a central clock, alot can happen in 1 minute in the real world. (not a huge request really, what does a cheap digital watch cost these days? $10?).

Equally the 10 minutes recorded could have been 10 m 59 sec. Timing accuracies can get a little pedantic as you point out in the Bain case.In that case the defense tried to argue David could not have turned on the computor as he was seen outside the gate at around the time the computor was turned on. (2 mins before ?)To me that puts him on the scene and capable of turning it on. It is not as though he was seen 25 minutes away from home when it was turned on. That would have been a defence.As an experiment to justify this theory I have on several occasions asked a group of people to compare the time on their watches. Twice, with different groups, the time difference has been 20 minutes.I have noticed that a lot of people I have had working for me over the years appear to have timepieces which lose time in the morning and gain time in the afternoon.

[Hinny]

... the pathologist was known to be pedantic ...

His evidence was countered by the defense pathologist they shipped in from Britain.
He gave his evidence and then had to rush back home before he could be cross examined.
He was apparently going to given his evidence by video link (Skype?) but they couldn't establish a connection.
How wrong was that?

Anybody else had a problem connecting to anyone else around the world by Skype?
Suppose it is Britain, which appears to have gone backwards at an alarming degree for the last twenty/thirty years.