Main > Everything Else
Land of the free?
RetroJames:
--- Quote ---The point relates because of the provision to the law. He's commenting on the ridiculousness of the guy being let out even though he's ADMITTED to the crime. It's the EXACT same situation. He's shedding light on how the law - as it's written - doesn't protect the public, it protects the criminal
--- End quote ---
Quick note, according to the WS Supreme Court case he never admitted to the crime. He admitted to knowledge of the wherabouts of the purse but specifically stated he was not involved in the act. He was convicted based on the testimony of a state witness who, all else aside, seems shaky at best for various reasons.
From the Court's opinion:
Mrs. Dixon took notes from the conversation she
overheard, in which Christensen acknowledged to Lacey that he was aware
that police suspected him of the robbery and that he knew the whereabouts
of the purse, but not that he had taken part in the robbery. Neither
Christensen nor Lacey knew of, or consented to, Mrs. Dixon listening to
their conversation.
In addition to Mrs. Dixon,
the State offered the testimony of four other witnesses, only one of whom
could identify Christensen as a participant in the robbery. That witness,
an acquaintance of Christensen's, had agreed to testify for the State on
the same day he agreed to plead guilty to the same robbery. He testified
that on the night of the robbery, he had been high on methamphetamine
during a meth binge but remembered Christensen being involved in the
robbery.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 10:52:06 pm ---here is more about what Bill O'Reilly thinks about those pesky wiretap laws:
--- Quote ---If you suspect your child is dealing with a criminal, a dope dealer, a mugger, a molester, you can't eavesdrop on that child's conversations. That's now the law in Washington state, which has become a model for progressive activism.
Of course, the most dangerous organization in the country the ACLU, applauds the ruling"
--- End quote ---
[emphasis mine]
--- End quote ---
Excellent emphasis. It couldn't have been expressed better, unless you wanted to put it in CAPS.
When the ACLU discards its selectiveness in choosing who they will defend with their might and resources, I might disagree with O'Reilly's opinion of them myself, instead of nodding in agreement with him.
Interesting, 1hooked, that "out" clause in the law.
My kids have been apprised of MY right to listen to any conversation going on over the telephones based out of my house. Their "right" to privacy in that area is granted in small doses the minute they pay the phone bill, or pay to have their own private line installed in my house.
Of course, they have to talk the phone company into setting up service for someone who isn't of legal age for them to go after should they decide not to pay their bill.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: 1hookedspacecadet on March 05, 2005, 11:29:55 pm ---
Quick note, according to the WS Supreme Court case he never admitted to the crime. He admitted to knowledge of the wherabouts of the purse but specifically stated he was not involved in the act. He was convicted based on the testimony of a state witness who, all else aside, seems shaky at best for various reasons.
--- End quote ---
Duly noted. I'm guessing there's more to his conviction (wrongful, it seems) than just the testimony of a state witness.
Crazy Cooter:
Parents should be able to listen in on their kids.
RetroJames:
DK,
Yeah, I thought that was kind of interesting.