Gunks Break-ins (west trailhead)

Don't feel bad Gail, I was at least half kidding.

Rockbanned wrote: the liberal philosophy that led to O.J. being innocent... heh heh heh (baseball bat in hand standing next to a car with a broken window) "I DIDN'T DO IT!!!"

Well, innocent in criminal court... he was still found guilty in civil court.

Matt Wilson wrote: Well, innocent in criminal court... he was still found guilty in civil court.

Well played Matt... Well played indeed... Unfortunately, that didn't keep him off the streets and from kidnapping some other poor person and causing more grief for another family. A firing squad or public hanging probably would have though...

D.Buffum wrote: Yeah. That damn liberal constitution and its due process clause! We should let the government lock up anyone they accuse of being a criminal. The government can always be trusted to get it right.

They do anyways goofball. you think anyone in Guantanamo has been convicted? You get arrested if they suspect you and you sit there until you have money to get out. For dudes that are caught red handed, throw the book, or a big cam at them...

Had to check the URL, thought I was reading something on supertopo.

That blows. Climbed there all through the 90's and early 2000 and never had an issue. Did have this happen at Cathedral Ledge.I think you touched on a great point. Don't leave stuff visible in your car for douche's

D.Buffum wrote: Thirdly, whether a person is caught "red handed" or not, the State still need to prove its case to the community in the form of a jury trial (that is, unless the defendant admits culpability). In this case, the State has accused this man of burglary. But look at the actual news report linked in the thread (the only evidence we have for the purposes of this conversation). He was "caught red handed" fencing stolen property. That is not the same crime as burglary (in my jurisdiction it is a lesser class of felony). There is a reasonable inference that he committed the burglaries, but it is important that he has an opportunity to present evidence that perhaps he obtained this property from a third party, perhaps even innocently, thereby lessening his culpability.

They call that "harboring stolen goods" if your in possession of stolen property... i.e. he's guilty anyhow... Maybe he'll get lucky and you can defend him. I just thank my lucky stars every day for Lawyers, Politicians, and Used Car salesmen... All 3 make a difference in this crazy world...

Luc wrote:Had to check the URL, thought I was reading something on supertopo.

Smack on! Sitting here laughing. Can you move this thread to ST?

Rockbanned wrote: They call that "harboring stolen goods" if your in possession of stolen property... i.e. he's guilty anyhow... Maybe he'll get lucky and you can defend him. I just thank my lucky stars every day for Lawyers, Politicians, and Used Car salesmen... All 3 make a difference in this crazy world...

Yes, you are better than everyone else.

He looks guilty to me, if I was a betting man, I'd bet on guilt.

I know dude... I find other people's credit cards in yard sales all the time... I also get really good deals on stuff that just happens to be stolen as well... Your mentality is why hard working Americans have to pay for lazy people, and politicians spending money faster than we can turn it over. What will happen to this guy, if found guilty, he'll spend a couple months in jail, where we'll pay to feed and clothe him, give him top notch medical care, and teach him a trade maybe. Then when he gets out, he can go back to stealing more stuff, and the cycle can repeat itself... Bet if he was found guilty and they cut a hand off he'd think twice about doing it again... Hell, I'd settle for just a couple fingers, no jail time whatsoever... Point being, whether that dude did it or not, he's guilty of something, harboring or the actual damage. If someone is going to sell you a car for some unreasonably good deal, or other property, it's probably not legit. The whole plausible deniability is mostly crap when it comes to things like stolen goods... Why the police even bother doing their jobs amazes me when they constantly have to contend with people trying to discredit them...

Rockbanned wrote: Bet if he was found guilty and they cut a hand off he'd think twice about doing it again... Hell, I'd settle for just a couple fingers, no jail time whatsoever... Point being, whether that dude did it or not, he's guilty of something, harboring or the actual damage.. . Why the police even bother doing their jobs amazes me when they constantly have to contend with people trying to discredit them...

Do you not see the negative implications of the system you are advocating?

For example, by use of DNA testing, we have learned that a significant number of individuals have been wrongfully convicted and executed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong…

Imagine the injustice and tragic consequences that your system would perpetrate.

So how exactly can they prove he's the burglar? I'm thinking fingerprints.

I'm also thinking the local police probably didn't dust the victims' cars for prints. (I hope I'm wrong on that point)

Gunkiemike wrote:So how exactly can they prove he's the burglar? I'm thinking fingerprints. I'm also thinking the local police probably didn't dust the victims' cars for prints. (I hope I'm wrong on that point)

No Mike. he's innocent... He just found those credit cards and climbers belongings at a garage sale for cheap. should be easy enough for him to show them what garage sale he got them from eh?

Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. Yes, even those who are deemed guilty deserve a fair trial.

Nobody is saying that person DID inadvertantly buy stolen property, but that it IS possible, and that in this society we hope our legal system allows a person to have their case heard. Yes, it costs money. As for prisons, which some are all for sending people to, I heard on a news story recently that it actually costs LESS to have those in prison being taught in classes than it does to simply have a CO watching over them.

Rockbanned does have a right to his opinion, whether or not others agree with it. Let's just hope he is never elected to public office....(just stating my opinion!)