Lying pig, scumbag filth

**Goblin** · 20th June 2007, 21:21

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The difference is that what you are talking about is trial by media and public opinion. In court your previous convictions aren't any part of proving the case, (except in a few exceptional circumstances where the law allows it). In court your history only has relevance once the case against you has been proved when the judge considers it in passing sentence.

Also, in the Rickards etc case their previous history that you mentioned were in fact unproven cases, not actuall convictions, which would fly in the face of all legal due process and would have amounted to the NZ justice system becoming a total kangaroo court.

No. Dont try and tell me what I am talking about. This is all part of it too. Your handy dandy way of trying to put words in other's mouths, so to speak. You mentioned rikards, not me. It's not trial by media and public opinion, it's about suppressed evidence, double standards, shollum and shipton already locked up for rape, police drinking and driving habits, crashing into powerpoles then fleeing the scene and getting away with it scott free! Then the revenue collecting from innocent people who have done nothing wrong in the first place! It's the whole fucking system! PCA, pleece investigating pleece. We dont have a shit show.

**scumdog** · 20th June 2007, 21:27

Originally Posted by Goblin

Yeah but why are previous traffic offences and our whole history brought up for minor traffic offences yet when a officer of the pleece is up for a serious, real offence like rape, all his previous rape convictions are not disclosed? I smell a double standard here.

What SC was TRYING to say was that the previous offences are released to the OFFENDER not the judge etc.

The previous offences are only released to the judge AFTER the offender/suspect is found guilty -as in your bad driving record..

Hence why the 'pleece' you mentioned don't get it dragged up - disclosure is made to the suspect and his lawyers only.

Git it?

**peasea** · 20th June 2007, 21:41

Originally Posted by spudchucka

It doesn't relate to the criminal courts. When you're up before the judge he gets to see you in all your glory.

So nothing gets deleted after 5 or 7 years?

**peasea** · 20th June 2007, 21:46

Originally Posted by scumdog

What SC was TRYING to say was that the previous offences are released to the OFFENDER not the judge etc.

The previous offences are only released to the judge AFTER the offender/suspect is found guilty -as in your bad driving record..

Hence why the 'pleece' you mentioned don't get it dragged up - disclosure is made to the suspect and his lawyers only.

Git it?

Yeah, ok, but...........
Why does the copper even have do a 'search' for this info. Surely, in this modern age, it can be brought up on-screen in court if/after the perp is convicted of the 'crime' on the day. Why is it even there after 25+ years? It has no relevance, surely. We were all teenagers once, doesn't a clean slate for a quarter of a century count?

**peasea** · 20th June 2007, 21:49

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Its part of your disclosure, you're entitled to receive a copy of your own history. If you were being represented by a lawyer it would go to them. It also goes on the prosecution file and a copy goes to the judge, upon your guilty plea or having been found guilty. This is completely normal practice.

Entited to, sure, but I DIDN'T ask for it, so why does he go digging. Sounds like; "all witches are made of wood, therefore if they float they're made of wood and therefore they're witches...in that case we should burn them!!!!"

It's all a bit Monty Python to me.

**scumdog** · 20th June 2007, 21:52

Originally Posted by peasea

Yeah, ok, but...........
Why does the copper even have do a 'search' for this info. Surely, in this modern age, it can be brought up on-screen in court if/after the perp is convicted of the 'crime' on the day. Why is it even there after 25+ years? It has no relevance, surely. We were all teenagers once, doesn't a clean slate for a quarter of a century count?

Not all Courts have screen - and lawyers want to know what kind of shit-slide they're up against, a short record? MAY be innocent, loooong list? pfffarwww, not looking good.

Clean slate after 25 years? Most records hardly go back that far - ya got something to worry about????

**Goblin** · 20th June 2007, 21:57

Originally Posted by scumdog

What SC was TRYING to say was that the previous offences are released to the OFFENDER not the judge etc.

The previous offences are only released to the judge AFTER the offender/suspect is found guilty -as in your bad driving record..

Git it?

Yeah I get that Im screwed unless I can prove reasonable doubt that I drove dangerously. It's my word against theirs at the end of the day....and we know how judges believe police over anyone else.

**scumdog** · 20th June 2007, 22:01

Originally Posted by Goblin

Yeah I get that Im screwed unless I can prove reasonable doubt that I drove dangerously. It's my word against theirs at the end of the day....and we know how judges believe police over anyone else.

Soooo,, you have a bit of a bad driving record eh?

Or are you just scared that you'll get nailed for what you did because you DID do it -regardless of record?

**spudchucka** · 20th June 2007, 22:02

Originally Posted by Goblin

No. Dont try and tell me what I am talking about. This is all part of it too. Your handy dandy way of trying to put words in other's mouths, so to speak. You mentioned rikards, not me. It's not trial by media and public opinion, it's about suppressed evidence, double standards, shollum and shipton already locked up for rape, pigs drinking and driving habits, crashing into powerpoles then fleeing the scene and getting away with it scott free! Then the revenue collecting from innocent people who have done nothing wrong in the first place! It's the whole fucking system! PCA, pleece investigating pleece. We dont have a shit show.

No. Its not part of it. They were never convicted and if they were every legal doctrine says that their former convictions can't form part of the current case. It makes no difference whether they are charged with rape or failing to stop at a stop sign.

**spudchucka** · 20th June 2007, 22:03

Originally Posted by peasea

So nothing gets deleted after 5 or 7 years?

Nothing gets deleted ever. Its just a matter of what you do or don't have to disclose to employers etc. When you go to court on criminal charges it is all still there for the judge to see.

**spudchucka** · 20th June 2007, 22:05

Originally Posted by peasea

Yeah, ok, but...........
Why does the copper even have do a 'search' for this info.

Because the prosecutor also needs to know this too, for instance in a third or subsequent EBA. And why not have a paper cop on the file for reference?

**98tls** · 20th June 2007, 22:06

Originally Posted by Goblin

Yeah I get that Im screwed unless I can prove reasonable doubt that I drove dangerously. It's my word against theirs at the end of the day....and we know how judges believe police over anyone else.

What the hell.........on a day to day basis cops have to deal with an endless ocean of complete fuck ups so am picking the judge gives em the benefit of doubt.............in a perfect world things would be different but its not and he has to believe someone.................

**spudchucka** · 20th June 2007, 22:07

Originally Posted by peasea

Entited to, sure, but I DIDN'T ask for it, so why does he go digging.

Because some dip shit lawyer made case law by getting his fuck-wit client acquitted because the pigs didn't disclose it! So now they disclose it in ever case whether you want it or not.

**peasea** · 20th June 2007, 22:11

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Because some dip shit lawyer made case law by getting his fuck-wit client acquitted because the pigs didn't disclose it! So now they disclose it in ever case whether you want it or not.

Stacked deck..............