Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12679RE: [infoguys-list] Re: A "Senior Moment"

Expand Messages
  • Tom Eskridge
    Jun 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dearest Rick



      Perhaps I am playing with semantics..or perhaps your confused between the
      "strict enforcement of the law" and punishment. You seem to be melding them
      together. The cops are charged with the "enforcement of the law". Whether
      that enforcement is "strict", "liberal", "petty", or whatever else is in the
      eye of the beholder.



      The prosecutor is charged with prosecuting those cases in a manner that is
      acceptable to the community and the court is charged with applying laws and
      then punishment where appropriate. ( I took this directly from the opening
      of Law and Order)



      For some reason (and I'm not saying it's a bad reason) you seem to think
      that the "strict enforcement of the law" only applies post a proper
      conviction.



      I do not need an ethics lesson from you. In fact I agree with most if not
      all of your statements. As you sometimes do, you have spun off from your
      initial post, where I pointed out the weaknesses in your belief that only
      the truly guilty should face "strict enforcement of the law". As the cops
      enforce the law, again I ask, how is this accomplished?





      Tom Eskridge

      Chief Operations Officer

      High Tech Crime Institute

      13400 Wright Cir

      Tampa FL 33626

      866-279-6295/813-854-2223

      Retired Redondo Beach CA PD Lieutenant

      Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business



      _____

      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
      Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 7:39 AM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: A "Senior Moment"



      --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, "Tom Eskridge" <TOM@...> wrote:

      > And again in this post, you demand that the person has to be found
      "guilty"
      > in order to justify "strict enforcement of the law".How the heck do
      you do
      > this. And as no one can guarantee a conviction at the point of
      arrest, then
      > I guess no one should ever be arrested.

      You're "playing games"... The fact is, that arrest and and detainment
      until a person can go to trial and defend their self against charges
      is not a punishment... At least that is the Judicial System's view...
      The fact is that in most cases (barring capitol cases), a person has
      an opportunity to make bail and get out of jail, if they are
      incarcerated before they go to trial. So, yes I agree with a strict
      code of enforcement after a trial has been had and the person is found
      to be guilty in a court of law. What is so hard to understand about
      that, Tom?

      Do you not understand the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? Is
      this a new concept for you? Law Enforcement has to do it's job. They
      have to patrol for and investigate crime. In doing so, if they find
      there is evidence that a crime has been committed they are obligated
      to take action. I see nothing wrong with giving Law Enforcement some
      discretion on minor crimes, like criminal infractions. However, there
      is CERTAINLY a need to give arrest power to Law Enforcement, and
      certainly a need to insure the appearance of the defendant once he has
      been arrested and charged. Again, this is not punishment. Is it
      inconvenient for the person that is not guilty (after he goes to court
      and proves it, Tom)? YES! Is being arrested and jailed pleasant? NO!
      But these are part of a necessary process in order to hold criminals
      accountable for the crimes they commit. Still, after all of that, it
      is NOT punishment, at that point in time before trial no Judgment has
      been passed, and the defendant, in most cases is given an opportunity
      to free himself and return to his everyday life until he can go to trial.

      Ideally, the THIEF would be arrested for theft, booked, and then
      incarcerated until he could make bail. This is not a punishment
      (AGAIN, Tom). And then he would go to trial, and if he is found not
      guilty, then he would go home, and if he is found guilty, then he
      would be taken to the courthouse steps with a crowd in tow, tied to a
      post, have his pants pulled down, have his ass bared to the crowd, and
      have someone take some skin off of his ass, given the proper medical
      treatment if it is needed, and allowed to recuperate in the county
      jail, and then sent home (Ohh, and by the way Tom, NOW that's
      punishment). In the case of heinous crimes (murder, rape, child
      molestation), keep the pants up and use bullets LIBERALLY! That is
      what I personally believe would be an effective deterrent to some of
      the STUPID crimes we are seeing these days.

      And Sue, my sincerest apologies.. I had heard that the word "Liberal"
      was a bad word and many people have great disdain towards being
      referred to as that, but I never knew it was that bad.. I promise to
      never call you the "L" word again. ;o)

      I think you are either trying to play semantic games, or you have lost
      your perspective on the sequence of events that occur from arrest to
      conviction or exoneration (whichever is the case) in a criminal case.

      Rick.

      RMRI, Inc.
      http://rmriinc. <http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com>
      bestcyberinvestigator.com





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic