|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 5, 2010 19:36:02 GMT
It didn't. But apparently the Americans are so ignorant that they think calling peoiple 'Euroweenies' explains it all. I'm a bit upset by this, as most Americans i have met in rl have been intelligent, non-offensive people. But the Americans on this MB suggest to me that the intelligent, amiable Americans that I have met in rl are in the minority.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 5, 2010 19:36:57 GMT
At the time the torture threat was made Marcus Gaefgen was a suspect, no more. Had he been found "not guilty", would the Strasbourg decision have been right? The answer has to be "yes", IMO. So the actions of the police have to be judged in the light of the fact that this guy might have been found innocent. And if I had been the police chief? Well, I'd probably have tortured the guy, hang the threats. Wrong Skylark! The "suspect" had already accepted the ransom money for his victim and purchased a luxury car with it. The police were monitoring every movement he made hoping he'd lead them to his victim! The Frankfurt police were correct in judging the kidnapper guilty!So the police get to judge now, do they? Viva Eastern Germany before the wall came down! Is that what you think is a good model for Government Anna?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2010 19:56:21 GMT
At the time the torture threat was made Marcus Gaefgen was a suspect, no more. Had he been found "not guilty", would the Strasbourg decision have been right? The answer has to be "yes", IMO. So the actions of the police have to be judged in the light of the fact that this guy might have been found innocent. And if I had been the police chief? Well, I'd probably have tortured the guy, hang the threats. Wrong Skylark! The "suspect" had already accepted the ransom money for his victim and purchased a luxury car with it. The police were monitoring every movement he made hoping he'd lead them to his victim! The Frankfurt police were correct in judging the kidnapper guilty!Well, obviously, as it turned out. But no, I'm not wrong, the guy had not been convicted - he may not even have been charged; therefore he had the status of a suspect at that stage. Police do make mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jun 5, 2010 19:59:14 GMT
It didn't. But apparently the Americans are so ignorant that they think calling peoiple 'Euroweenies' explains it all. I'm a bit upset by this, as most Americans i have met in rl have been intelligent, non-offensive people. But the Americans on this MB suggest to me that the intelligent, amiable Americans that I have met in rl are in the minority. I quite like being a Euroweenie - don't forget most Americans don't even know what Europe is, dumb hicks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 5, 2010 20:06:17 GMT
It didn't. But apparently the Americans are so ignorant that they think calling peoiple 'Euroweenies' explains it all. I'm a bit upset by this, as most Americans i have met in rl have been intelligent, non-offensive people. But the Americans on this MB suggest to me that the intelligent, amiable Americans that I have met in rl are in the minority. I quite like being a Euroweenie - don't forget most Americans don't even know what Europe is, dumb hicks. ;D That's unfair. Most Americans are far more capable of intelligent debate than Jumbo and Anna.
|
|
|
Post by Greylek on Jun 5, 2010 20:32:14 GMT
At the time the torture threat was made Marcus Gaefgen was a suspect, no more. Had he been found "not guilty", would the Strasbourg decision have been right? The answer has to be "yes", IMO. So the actions of the police have to be judged in the light of the fact that this guy might have been found innocent. And if I had been the police chief? Well, I'd probably have tortured the guy, hang the threats. Wrong Skylark! The "suspect" had already accepted the ransom money for his victim and purchased a luxury car with it. The police were monitoring every movement he made hoping he'd lead them to his victim! The Frankfurt police were correct in judging the kidnapper guilty!No, unless the justice system works that he is guilty until proven innocent the police were only correct in judging him as a number one suspect. While it is not fair that scumbags get more rights than their victims, in most civilized countries Canada, the USA per example clearly spell out the rights for offenders with little mention of the rights of victims--however we cannot really complain because we abide by this contract when we choose to live here. Further, using the USA as an example the same thing applies with the DP and if a murderer chooses to murder, than he or she is subjected to the punishment--the DP as stipulated and therefore have no right to complain.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jun 5, 2010 21:16:31 GMT
I quite like being a Euroweenie - don't forget most Americans don't even know what Europe is, dumb hicks. ;D That's unfair. Most Americans are far more capable of intelligent debate than Jumbo and Anna. Oh I don't know - only 39% of Americans say they believe in the evolutionary theory as outlined in On the Origin of Species. Does God approve of the internet? ;D
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 6, 2010 5:03:56 GMT
Wrong Skylark! The "suspect" had already accepted the ransom money for his victim and purchased a luxury car with it. The police were monitoring every movement he made hoping he'd lead them to his victim! The Frankfurt police were correct in judging the kidnapper guilty!Well, obviously, as it turned out. But no, I'm not wrong, the guy had not been convicted - he may not even have been charged; therefore he had the status of a suspect at that stage. Police do make mistakes. Dearest Riorgirl! The legal term used to justify the actions of the police is "probable cause". The ransom money was paid to the kidnapper and murderer, who gave explicit instructions as to when, how, where and under what circumstances the ransom money, a million Euros (about 1,5 million dollars ), was to be delivered to him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_G%C3%A4fgen Do you honestly think an innocent person just happened to beat this predator to his/it's pay off. The kidnapper was quickly identified as a "tutor" that the murdered boy's family hired to help their son with some subjects. Obviously young Jacob would have identified him/it, if he were allowed to survive! The Police Commissioner grabbed the last straw of hope that Jacob had not yet been murdered and "persuaded" the predator to talk!
Police Commissoner Daschner was not about to risk becoming an accomplice to murder by following the dimwit dictates of the ivory tower pundits, who feel it's "politically correct" to pamper predators and spit on innocent victims by letting them die! Police Commissioner Daschner bonded with that kidnapped boy as if this child were his own son!
Had the predator not talked he/it may have claimed Jacob was alive and well somewhere or demanded money and a lesser sentence for information.
I truly feel sorry for you, if you still don't see the light! But i guess the people who brought the predator's book where he/it presents itself as a victim of a "human rights abuse" don't see the light either. Sad world!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 6, 2010 5:09:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 6, 2010 12:58:50 GMT
So that's how a yank gets to be member of the year Offensive or what? So I take it we can just call all Americans rednecks or whatever and that's OK too? Riot girl. You are being too harsh on these people. They grow up in a backward culture, where the minute you lose an argument you are forced to trot out silly, childish names. They are unable to express themselves properly hence the need for labels such as 'socialists', 'liberal' etc. when they find it difficult to articulate their feelings. Notice how their entire political process is little more than turning various ‘hate figures’ into caricatures of Hitler/Stalin. You are dealing with people who have still to abandon the death penalty or initiate a universal health care plan. They are at least sixty years behind us in this respect, good grief, abortion is still a political hot potato and religion is still important in their political system, so cut them a little slack, eh? You wouldn’t be so hard on others who came from a backward culture.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 6, 2010 13:12:12 GMT
'The threat against the suspect was severe enough to be considered as inhumane treatment according to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights,' the court said in a statement. At the time of the case, the threat from the former police chief Wolfgang Daschner led to outrage and heated public debate about the potential use of violence by the state. Daschner was later released from his post. The court statement did not advocate compensation from the German state for Gaefgen, but urged Berlin to instigate its own compensation process. the notion that this totally worthless piece of shyt would be entitled to ANYTHING is imbecillic beyond belief
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 6, 2010 13:13:33 GMT
In all the too-ing and fro-ing, we in the UK have problems with the court of Human Rights, or at least our own courts actions based on the Human Rights Act. For example, we cannot deport undesirable criminals after they have served their sentence, because to do so might infringe their human rights. We cannot return Al Qaeda members who were actively plotting some outrage in the UK, to Pakistan, because they might suffer torture if returned there; even if it is their land of birth. We are hamstrung by the HRA, and while our new PM (Cameron) promised to repeal the damned thing when he came to office, he seems to be backtracking on that promise. that's because the so called human rights act is so virulently anti human rights on its face
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 6, 2010 13:15:41 GMT
certainly. it's quite simple. the term was originally coined to refer to the europeans who think that murderers are equal to real people. those who refuse to support the only moral punishment for murderers, which obviously is the death penalty, do so totally by their own volition. therefore, the decision to be a euroweenie is strctly voluntary What complete bilge, jumbo; even by your standards. The death penalty is primitive and uncivilised. Its the hall mark of a Yank. yes, i'm fully aware that all those who adore murderers think that the death penalty is uncivilized. that is why we refer to them as euroweenies. thankfully, the reality is that the u.s. remains civilized, 38 states anyway
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 6, 2010 13:20:00 GMT
At the time the torture threat was made Marcus Gaefgen was a suspect, no more. Had he been found "not guilty", would the Strasbourg decision have been right? The answer has to be "yes", IMO. So the actions of the police have to be judged in the light of the fact that this guy might have been found innocent. And if I had been the police chief? Well, I'd probably have tortured the guy, hang the threats. Wrong Skylark! The "suspect" had already accepted the ransom money for his victim and purchased a luxury car with it. The police were monitoring every movement he made hoping he'd lead them to his victim! The Frankfurt police were correct in judging the kidnapper guilty!the error is that some people have the insane idea that a criminal suspect is innocent until proven guilty, when nothing could be further from the truth. it is true that they are entitled to a presumption of innocence, but ONLY by a judge and jury, NO ONE else. the idea of innocent until proven guilty is stupid on its face. if a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, there is obviously no probable cause for an arrest, or prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jun 6, 2010 13:20:46 GMT
In all the too-ing and fro-ing, we in the UK have problems with the court of Human Rights, or at least our own courts actions based on the Human Rights Act. For example, we cannot deport undesirable criminals after they have served their sentence, because to do so might infringe their human rights. We cannot return Al Qaeda members who were actively plotting some outrage in the UK, to Pakistan, because they might suffer torture if returned there; even if it is their land of birth. We are hamstrung by the HRA, and while our new PM (Cameron) promised to repeal the damned thing when he came to office, he seems to be backtracking on that promise. Cameron's suggestion that he repeal the HRA was based on Cameron's failure to understand where it came from and how it works. Of course, he can repeal it. Parliament is sovereign. But if he does so all tha that happens is criminals have no address to domestic courts, so instead go to the European court, all on taxpayers money. So, accepting that the Tory promise to repeal the HRA was stupidity in the first place, the debate is about how our courts interpret it. But if it was repealed, then our courts wouldn't be bound by its strictures, and the debate on interpretation would not be necessary. British law is quite adequate enough to ensure fair trial and humane treatment of offenders.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 6, 2010 13:21:22 GMT
At the time the torture threat was made Marcus Gaefgen was a suspect, no more. Had he been found "not guilty", would the Strasbourg decision have been right? The answer has to be "yes", IMO. So the actions of the police have to be judged in the light of the fact that this guy might have been found innocent. And if I had been the police chief? Well, I'd probably have tortured the guy, hang the threats. Wrong Skylark! The "suspect" had already accepted the ransom money for his victim and purchased a luxury car with it. The police were monitoring every movement he made hoping he'd lead them to his victim! The Frankfurt police were correct in judging the kidnapper guilty!the error is that some people have the insane idea that a criminal suspect is innocent until proven guilty, when nothing could be further from the truth. it is true that they are entitled to a presumption of innocence, but ONLY by a judge and jury, NO ONE else. the idea of innocent until proven guilty is stupid on its face. if a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, there is obviously no probable cause for an arrest, or prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 6, 2010 13:26:46 GMT
Well, obviously, as it turned out. But no, I'm not wrong, the guy had not been convicted - he may not even have been charged; therefore he had the status of a suspect at that stage. Police do make mistakes. Dearest Riorgirl! The legal term used to justify the actions of the police is "probable cause". The ransom money was paid to the kidnapper and murderer, who gave explicit instructions as to when, how, where and under what circumstances the ransom money, a million Euros (about 1,5 million dollars ), was to be delivered to him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_G%C3%A4fgen Do you honestly think an innocent person just happened to beat this predator to his/it's pay off. The kidnapper was quickly identified as a "tutor" that the murdered boy's family hired to help their son with some subjects. Obviously young Jacob would have identified him/it, if he were allowed to survive! The Police Commissioner grabbed the last straw of hope that Jacob had not yet been murdered and "persuaded" the predator to talk!
Police Commissoner Daschner was not about to risk becoming an accomplice to murder by following the dimwit dictates of the ivory tower pundits, who feel it's "politically correct" to pamper predators and spit on innocent victims by letting them die! Police Commissioner Daschner bonded with that kidnapped boy as if this child were his own son!
Had the predator not talked he/it may have claimed Jacob was alive and well somewhere or demanded money and a lesser sentence for information.
I truly feel sorry for you, if you still don't see the light! But i guess the people who brought the predator's book where he/it presents itself as a victim of a "human rights abuse" don't see the light either. Sad world! that's for sure. it's pretty damm sad that there are those who happily proclaim that they care more about a worthless piece of shyt's comfort than they do about the life of a child
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 6, 2010 14:38:21 GMT
Cameron's suggestion that he repeal the HRA was based on Cameron's failure to understand where it came from and how it works. Of course, he can repeal it. Parliament is sovereign. But if he does so all tha that happens is criminals have no address to domestic courts, so instead go to the European court, all on taxpayers money. So, accepting that the Tory promise to repeal the HRA was stupidity in the first place, the debate is about how our courts interpret it. But if it was repealed, then our courts wouldn't be bound by its strictures, and the debate on interpretation would not be necessary. British law is quite adequate enough to ensure fair trial and humane treatment of offenders. You're missing the point. If the HRA was repealed in the UK, we would remain signatories the European Human Rights Convention, and we would simply revert back to the position we were in prior to the HRA, where the same law applied but individual citizens had to take their issues to Europe, rather than to a domestic court. Why so keen to dump HRA anyway? British law is certainly not adequate enough. It includes absolutely no right to privacy of famlily life for instance; that concept only ever entered our legal systems by the European Human Rights route. A formal human rights legal infrastructure is there to protect us from the state. What's objectionable about that? The fact that a couple of the judicial decisions that have arisen from the HRA are not popular does not mean we should be so stupid as to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 6, 2010 14:40:32 GMT
In all the too-ing and fro-ing, we in the UK have problems with the court of Human Rights, or at least our own courts actions based on the Human Rights Act. For example, we cannot deport undesirable criminals after they have served their sentence, because to do so might infringe their human rights. We cannot return Al Qaeda members who were actively plotting some outrage in the UK, to Pakistan, because they might suffer torture if returned there; even if it is their land of birth. We are hamstrung by the HRA, and while our new PM (Cameron) promised to repeal the damned thing when he came to office, he seems to be backtracking on that promise. that's because the so called human rights act is so virulently anti human rights on its face And why is that exactlyl? What is the difference between it and your American bill of rights that makes the European version of it so wrong? Your statement seems outrageous and a bit stupid to me. Convince me it's not by explaining to me the details of the European version which makes it so much worse than the American one.
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Jun 6, 2010 17:00:45 GMT
Euroweenie - A European, or American who wishes he/she were European, with an ultra-liberal view of the world, who believes that the United States should roll over like a bunch of pussies and become testicle-less Socialist wimps like they are.
Oh and our culture and country may be backward to you, but that's just your opinion.
|
|