Actually I'm a pretty straight arrow. Haven't put anything illegal in my body since I was a teenager. I think it was more likely just staying an hour later than I ought to have. I can remember the crash landing really well. I wish I could remember the babe who kept me there after midnight.
Thank you for the insight. Constructive possession was something I was unaware of. Going beyond this thread, it's a good thing to know for our own life decisions. So it's good enough for the initial arrest & to press charges. However, it's not such a guarantee to make somebody guilty in court?
ss you charge them with that when everyone involved denies it is theres, right? it makes sense or else everyone would jsut say oh thats not mine and nobody would get charged. one of those let the court figure it out.
Who called "hollow-point" bullets "cop killers"? That's just ignorant--if a cop is wearing his vest the bullet he'd prefer to be hit with is a hollow point. Bullets are generally either made of solid lead (or with a steel core) or are jacketed--with brass or another type of metal. It was the bullets jacketed with teflon (which substantially reduces friction) that were dubbed "'cop killers' because they had the ability to penetrate kevlar vests or light body armor used by cops. Kevlar vests are made up of very thin sheets of kevlar that produces a twisting action upon impact that flattens and stops bullets before they penetrate all the layers--the more the bullet flattens, the less chance it has of penetrating the vest. If a bullet is already prone to flattening--like hollow-points--a kevlar vest is very effective. Will bust a bunch of ribs, but won't kill you. If a bullet is jacketed with teflon, if could pierce a vest or helmet or light armor and...kill a cop. _
Constructive possession totally makes sense--otherwise everyone could disclaim ownership and everyone walks. That's the wrong result. Either (i) someone owns up to it, (ii) it's proven through evidence that one or the other was the owner or (iii) they both are guilty. You can't have a result that each points the finger at the other guy--or worse--says "it wasn't mine" and both walk. There was a gun and SOMEONE owned it--figure it out you idiots or you BOTH fry. :lol: _
Actually it does not make sense. The burden of proof should always be on the state. They have to prove that the gun is mine, not the other way around. What you're saying is that it's just fine with you that you have to prove negative. Here's an example for you. Say, you are a tenant in a house with 2 other people. In the morning one of your neighbors is found dead. Cops come over and arrest both you and the other remaining guy. And a very nice police officer tells you: "You kids are fucked. You were the only two in the house so one is the killed. Since you both denying it, I will charge both with murder. And (paraphrasing you) there is a dead body and someone better own to it. If not - you both get 20 to life for the 1st degree." How'd you like that, huh? Not needing to prove your innosence is the cornerstone of US freedom. I'm amazed how many citizens are willing to so easily give up this basic right -- to be presumed not guilty. No fucking wonder suckers like you are continuously voting to give up more and more of their rights.
Uh, I think we're talking about two entirely different scenarios--possession of a firearm--had to be one of the two--or murder--could have been anyone. Your scenario/hypo is not analogous--anyone could have entered the house during the evening and killed the neighbor. And I'm a card carrying memeber of the NRA and a gun owner, so you have NO idea how I vote, sucker. _
The principle is the same and "anyone could get into the house" is just a bs excuse. You are willing to give into the convenience of the system in one case, but murder is off limits? For now maybe, but give it time and the same concept will apply. And if you really are a member of NRA than I'm deeply ashamed for the fellow brother. You should freshen up your understanding of founding documents and throw in some reading about non-US judicial systems, this owe to give you some perspective.
Convicting two people of possession of one gun spits in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". Sure, you know you got the guy who owned it, but you also know with 100% certainty that you wrongfully convicted someone, which goes against the entire foundation of our justice system. My understanding of constructive possession is that it doesn't work like that. Constructive possession allows the officer to arrest both people and charge both of them with the crime, but then it is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove that one of them had control of it, or at least that both of them knew of its existence. If there is no further evidence beyond "both of them were in the car with the illegal contraband present", then a conviction isn't and shouldn't be likely (unless my understanding is wrong).
Dude, calm down and YOU get some perspective. 2 dirtbags were DRIVING a car totally hammered carrying an unregistered hangun with hollow points. And weed. Yeah, our founding fathers were fighting for those guys freedoms. :lol: _
That was the novelty of US system -- protecting the innocent even at the cost of letting the guilty go. By contrast, most dictatorial systems go the other way -- putting innocent behind is ok so long as the guilty is also there (China or Soviets are recent examples). Side note... I wish you were not a Pats fan, or at least we're using a less offensive picture.
No troll, been lurking for years, just switched boards. Been a Jet fan since Namath, been a STH since 2001 and a PSLer now. Named my dog Penny after Chad and unfortunately made all 4 of my kids Jet fans :lol: Was very excited about Goodson--and am really ticked that this happened. Loved our RB rotation with him in it--now I'm pretty concerned (to be honest--I also wanted to draft Gio Bernard). Hoping that somehow he's cleared and can play with little or no suspension. Don't like the other options out there. _
That I agree. I also don't think you're a troll. Trolls are not normally capable of expressing their views coherently. You can, and although I disagree with the view, there's no troll smell here at all.
youre missing the whole point. The contructive possession thing is for the arrest, not an ultimate conviction. Your entire murder scenario is completly moronic.
