Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Yet Another Reason I hate Criminal Law

YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.
Tsar of DDO
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:12:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Broken bones, and a doctor's testimony does not amount to "beyond reasonable doubt" that the father is somehow connected to the "injury".
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:51:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:12:30 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Broken bones, and a doctor's testimony does not amount to "beyond reasonable doubt" that the father is somehow connected to the "injury".

A jury previously thought it did.
Tsar of DDO
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:17:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Man thats a sad story. A family broken up over a undiagnosed disease. ai really feel for that dad.

I worry about this happening to me all the time. My son has autism, doesnt talk and runs into every thing. If he got hurt there is no way he would be able to tell them what happened. Thankfully he's never been that hurt.
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:23:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:17:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Man thats a sad story. A family broken up over a undiagnosed disease. ai really feel for that dad.

I worry about this happening to me all the time. My son has autism, doesnt talk and runs into every thing. If he got hurt there is no way he would be able to tell them what happened. Thankfully he's never been that hurt.

I can only imagine....

I feel bad for the dad... I can't imagine being a father, and having your kid grow up and spend his entire life not knowing you, because he was wrongfully convicted by an incompetent prosecutor whose zeal blinded their pursuit of justice.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:27:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Yep prosecutors care more about successful prosecutions than correct ones, and shittty detectives prioritize closing cases over ensuring the truth comes out. On top of that jurors are stupid. they forget it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than a single innocent person be prosecuted. They will use common sense to reach a verdict rather than bayesian math to come to a 99.5% likelihood of guilt, which is the minimum needed to reach the beyond a reasonable doubt thresh hold.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:22:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Just watched Southwest of Salem, which highlights more retarded prosecutors. Anyone that would even consider being a prosecutor is a piece of shitt
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:26:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
In case anyone is interested in that last thing I mentioned. http://www.rollingstone.com...

Besides the prosecutors being evil, the judge also was not lenient enough in what evidence he allowed the defense to share, so he is also a piece of shitt
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:32:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Never ever talk to the police if they ask you to come in for an interview. Get a lawyer. They are not after the truth, they want to catch monsters. Even if you are not a suspect, don't take any chances.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:36:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
This is why people should be for a small limited government. We don't need more people out there doing evil and incompetent things like locking up the west memphis 3 or Steven Avery for his first offense
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 11:39:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Umm... Actually this extremely biased article doesn't provide any evidence that the child was suffering from rickets. Sure he was diagnosed with this illness... after 20 years or so. Seriously?

On top of that, there is the testimony of the grandma. She recanted it but I find her explanations to be fishy, to say the least.

And most criminals claim innocence.

I think we have two little information to claim the dad didn't abuse his child. It is one doctor's diagnosis vs another doctor's diagnosis, only the latter one took place 20 years later after the fact. The article is lame, it doesn't give much information and appeals to the reader's emotions instead.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:34:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 11:39:42 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Umm... Actually this extremely biased article doesn't provide any evidence that the child was suffering from rickets. Sure he was diagnosed with this illness... after 20 years or so. Seriously?

On top of that, there is the testimony of the grandma. She recanted it but I find her explanations to be fishy, to say the least.

And most criminals claim innocence.

I think we have two little information to claim the dad didn't abuse his child. It is one doctor's diagnosis vs another doctor's diagnosis, only the latter one took place 20 years later after the fact. The article is lame, it doesn't give much information and appeals to the reader's emotions instead.

The article is hardly biased and you have no information which would suggest otherwise. If you read and understood the article, it accurately reported on the medical evidence which will be offered in the appeal.

The fact that you do not subjectively understand the implication of that evidence does not mean that there isn't enough of it.
Tsar of DDO
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,766
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:42:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:22:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
Just watched Southwest of Salem, which highlights more retarded prosecutors. Anyone that would even consider being a prosecutor is a piece of shitt

Not true. Lots of great prosecutors out there. Folks who recognize how much power they wield and the responsibility that comes with that. The problem is just that there's bad ones, too.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:42:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:22:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
Just watched Southwest of Salem, which highlights more retarded prosecutors. Anyone that would even consider being a prosecutor is a piece of shitt

Not true. Lots of great prosecutors out there. Folks who recognize how much power they wield and the responsibility that comes with that. The problem is just that there's bad ones, too.

You are correct. I've talked to a few, the problem is the bad outnumber the good. I'm also told they are sometimes forced to take cases that should never see court. I could never do it though. I would want to be a defense attorney, because they do more for the cause of justice n this unbalanced system than prosecutors
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:36:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 12:34:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:39:42 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Umm... Actually this extremely biased article doesn't provide any evidence that the child was suffering from rickets. Sure he was diagnosed with this illness... after 20 years or so. Seriously?

On top of that, there is the testimony of the grandma. She recanted it but I find her explanations to be fishy, to say the least.

And most criminals claim innocence.

I think we have two little information to claim the dad didn't abuse his child. It is one doctor's diagnosis vs another doctor's diagnosis, only the latter one took place 20 years later after the fact. The article is lame, it doesn't give much information and appeals to the reader's emotions instead.

The article is hardly biased and you have no information which would suggest otherwise. If you read and understood the article, it accurately reported on the medical evidence which will be offered in the appeal.

The fact that you do not subjectively understand the implication of that evidence does not mean that there isn't enough of it.

I was of the same opinion as AnnaCzereda. We weren't told the details of the case, nor given anything but vague reference to prove his innocence that I saw. Perhaps I missed something.

Would it be possible for you to copy and past the parts you used to determine "it accurately reported on the medical evidence which will be offered in the appeal. "

I'm wondering if my computer cut something out? It really seemed like poor reporting to me.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:44:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:36:54 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 12:34:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:39:42 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:54:45 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

This species of story is all too common. Child presents to hospital because concerned parents are worried about child's obvious pain. Incompetent doctor misdiagnoses condition as indicative of abuse, and summons police. Police investigate, rely on incompetent doctor's analysis. Loving parents are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced because a doctor was wrong.

Umm... Actually this extremely biased article doesn't provide any evidence that the child was suffering from rickets. Sure he was diagnosed with this illness... after 20 years or so. Seriously?

On top of that, there is the testimony of the grandma. She recanted it but I find her explanations to be fishy, to say the least.

And most criminals claim innocence.

I think we have two little information to claim the dad didn't abuse his child. It is one doctor's diagnosis vs another doctor's diagnosis, only the latter one took place 20 years later after the fact. The article is lame, it doesn't give much information and appeals to the reader's emotions instead.

The article is hardly biased and you have no information which would suggest otherwise. If you read and understood the article, it accurately reported on the medical evidence which will be offered in the appeal.

The fact that you do not subjectively understand the implication of that evidence does not mean that there isn't enough of it.

I was of the same opinion as AnnaCzereda. We weren't told the details of the case, nor given anything but vague reference to prove his innocence that I saw. Perhaps I missed something.

Would it be possible for you to copy and past the parts you used to determine "it accurately reported on the medical evidence which will be offered in the appeal. "

I'm wondering if my computer cut something out? It really seemed like poor reporting to me.

I hate cnn's site. Go to read it and nothing but f.cking pop ups!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 10:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Are you jerks really practically asking YYW for court transcripts, if you give a fvck that much about proving him wrong pay 50 bucks for the transcripts yourself then read through them yourself
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 10:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
There are cases where the media declares a person innocent that is clearly guilty like with Steven Avery or Adnan Syed, but this is clearly not one of them, and they more frequently do the opposite.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 10:06:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
And if it is 2 equally qualified doctors with 2 different opinions, that is still reasonable doubt geniuses.
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:22:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 10:06:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
And if it is 2 equally qualified doctors with 2 different opinions, that is still reasonable doubt geniuses.

Only one of those two doctors was present during the trial and it was he who examined the child when the accident happened. That other doctor gave his opinion 20 years later.

I'm not trying to prove the OP wrong because I don't know all the necessary details. Since the article doesn't provide them, I wonder why he and some other readers jumped to the conclusion that the guy was for sure innocent.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:26:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:22:05 AM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 10/17/2016 10:06:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
And if it is 2 equally qualified doctors with 2 different opinions, that is still reasonable doubt geniuses.

Only one of those two doctors was present during the trial and it was he who examined the child when the accident happened. That other doctor gave his opinion 20 years later.

I'm not trying to prove the OP wrong because I don't know all the necessary details. Since the article doesn't provide them, I wonder why he and some other readers jumped to the conclusion that the guy was for sure innocent.

Do you not think the second doctor's opinion creates reasonable doubt ? It looks like he was convicted merely with the testimony of the first doctor, and given that knowledge of rickets was available 20 years ago and the broken bones came with no bruises and there was no history of abuse, than prosecutors did not do their due diligence to know that there should be reasonable doubt there, and it shouldn't see a trial. I guess you can blame the defense for not putting up a better case, but I guarantee that the prosecutor when conducting the trial used some appeals to emotion to bias the jury, instead of just using mere fact.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:36:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:22:05 AM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 10/17/2016 10:06:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
And if it is 2 equally qualified doctors with 2 different opinions, that is still reasonable doubt geniuses.

Only one of those two doctors was present during the trial and it was he who examined the child when the accident happened. That other doctor gave his opinion 20 years later.

I'm not trying to prove the OP wrong because I don't know all the necessary details. Since the article doesn't provide them, I wonder why he and some other readers jumped to the conclusion that the guy was for sure innocent.

https://www.youtube.com...

The one eyewitness recanted, before the trial even started
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:39:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The prosecutor is a coward for avoiding the media, and the doctor is a piece of shitt for doubling down instead of admitting a mistake
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:08:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:39:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
The prosecutor is a coward for avoiding the media, and the doctor is a piece of shitt for doubling down instead of admitting a mistake

I don't have evidence that he made a mistake. Its poor reporting, probably not good enough to draw a conclusion from. That's all I said.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:09:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:39:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
The prosecutor is a coward for avoiding the media, and the doctor is a piece of shitt for doubling down instead of admitting a mistake

You don't know any of the people in this article either. All you have is whatever the reporter wanted you to...
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.