Pacers refuse to cooperate with police

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

Jon W. wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:20:38 -0800, Johnny <apterix.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Jon W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>>>
>>>>DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>>>>Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>>>>investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>>>>Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>>>
>>>>The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>>>>Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>>>>with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>>>>players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>>>
>>>>"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>>>>Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>>>>asked them for, they can't do."
>>>>
>>>>A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>>>>we have no comment."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>They are thugs and criminals. These type of SCUM usually DON'T
>>>cooperate with police. No surprise here, just shows they know they are
>>>guilty.
>>>
>>>J.W.
>>>
>>
>>Whatever else anyone may or may not be, anyone who is under
>>the slightest suspicion that he may have committed a crime
>>and cooperates with the police except on the advice of his
>>attorney to do so is a fool. Rule No. 1 in that spot is
>>never rat yourself out.
>
>
> The tapes do that.
>
>
> Rule No. 2 is never lie to the
>
>>authorities. Thus, if you can't say anything without
>>ratting yourself out or lying, just stfu.
>
>
> Again, the tapes
>
>>It is well-settled law that guilt cannot be inferred from
>>silence, and there is a jury instruction to that effect
>>available to the defense in every criminal jury trial.
>
>
> Silence? Sorry, tapes again.
>
>>Your statements reveal even more about your prejudices than
>>they do about your ignorance of the law.
>
>
> No, my statements are my opinion, as well as facts.
> See above; "The Tapes"
>
> J.W.
>

Your are assuaging your ego by arguing outside the issue.
The issue in this thread is whether the players should
submit to interviews by the police. Whether there may be
evidence independent of any statements they may or may not
make is irrelevant to this issue. The presence of the tapes
have nothing to do with the question of whether it is
prudent to risk self-incrimination by answering questions or
otherwise commenting on the incident.

Yes, your statements are your opinion, and a mighty
prejudiced one it is. Biased opinions are the weapons of
the ignorant. The only statement you made that gets
anywhere the dignity of a fact is the one about silence
implying guilt, and that is actually a legal conclusion and
I have already advised you of your error on that point.

You remind me of clients who paved their way right to the
slammer by thinking they knew more about the law and how to
defend themselves than their lawyer.

You know, it is so frustrating trying to explain the law,
and the wisdom of one suspected of a crime to assert his
rights, to people who are not only ignorant in that they
don't know the law and its proper purpose and use, but are
also stupid in that they are too full of themselves to learn
from those trained in the law, that I have to just shrug my
shoulders in resignation that further attempts are futile
and say:

Out.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

Johnny <apterix.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in news:_ewrd.191847$hj.82227@fed1read07:

> Swyck.TakeThisOut@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> snip
>>
>>>The direct answer to your question is that it would be
>>>better for the accused and for the principle of justice
>>>protecting the innocent stated above if they said nothing
>>>whether they were let go or not, better for the cops if they
>>>could be forced to spill their guts and rat out all their
>>>friends.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm a firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses. Still,
>>>>I don't recall the specific amendment that gives everyone a
>>>>constitutional right to "get away with it".
>>>>
>>>>Swyck
>>>
>>>Give me a break, you know better than that; but in case you
>>>don't, I'll try to clear up your implication by adding to
>>>what I said above: Constitutional rights are not intended
>>>to allow criminals to "get away with it." Their purpose is
>>>to protect the fundamental rights, freedoms, immunities, and
>>>privileges (what we call Liberty with a capital L) of a free
>>>people from encroachment by government. They do not give
>>>criminals a Constitutional right to get away with anything;
>>>they deny the government the right to get away with
>>>practices a free people consider unfair, unjust, and just
>>>plain tyrannical. It is not Constitutional rights which
>>>allow the factually guilty in a particular case to go free,
>>>it is the abuse of those rights by the government.
>>>
>>>Anyway, the tenor, tone, and implication of your closing
>>>sentence resembles the sarcasm of one who is not only less
>>>than well-read in Constitutional Law, but is also
>>>dissatisfied with the present balance of burdens between the
>>>government and the accused as established by Constitutional
>>>Law. That is a political question, my only interest in this
>>>thread is an accused's right to assert his Constitutional
>>>rights as part of his defense, not to argue the political
>>>wisdom of the prevailing application those rights or and
>>>accused's right to assert them. One who is a knowledgeable
>>>firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses as
>>>presently established would not stoop to such a specious and
>>>somewhat sneering implication.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I do see a difference between defending a clients rights, and what
>> some lawyers actually do, which is to use every trick in the book to
>> make sure their clients does "get away with it". Do you deny that
>> these things happen?
>
> You are coming in the side door with your personal
> prejudices. I am not defending the acts of the
> unscrupulous, be they lawyers or not. You are weaving
> points out of whole cloth to defend an indefensible
> position. All I have done here, and all I intend to do, is
> state the law and the basic principles underlying it and
> advise the prudence of asserting one's rights when suspected
> of a crime. You keep coming back to political and social
> issues in a thread dealing with strictly legal and
> Constitutional questions in order to stroke your own
> personal opinions of criminals and lawyers who are
> professionally obligated to defend them on every legal
> ground available.
>
> Why should I base my point on view on a
>> lawyers point of view?
>>
>
> Uh, because lawyers are trained in the law and experienced
> in its practice? Duh.
>
>> The tenor of your statements makes it obvious that you see yourself as
>> a champion of the opressed and a defender of our fundamental rights
>> and freedoms. Well, maybe you are and if so, then good for you and go
>> get em. I'll be running to a lawyer as soon as I'm in trouble and I
>> need one, but I also don't doubt that you'll call the cops as soon as
>> you need one.
>>
>>
>> Swyck
>
> I see myself as someone who took an oath to follow the
> Constitution and the law. You are free to disregard it at
> your peril.
>
> Your comment about me calling the cops if needed is a
> gratuitous truism, self-serving, rankly irrelevant, and at
> least mildly sneering. It is useless to try to discuss the
> law with someone as ignorant and prejudiced as you. So I
> throw up my hands in resignation that some people are just
> too full of themselves to listen to someone who might just
> have some expertise on an issue.
>
> Out.
>
>

Johnny...my compliments...you do a great service for these people and if
they don't take something away from it,it is their loss. The only problem
is it is also societies loss




--
If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that
matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen
somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between
medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my
grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without
benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It's that fundamental belief-I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters'
keeper-that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our
individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family.
"E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Barack Obama
http://snipurl.com/agv7
-------------
Welfare State is not a dirty word. It simply means that the government has
a concern and responsibility that the standard of living shall not fall
below a certain level. The Democratic Party has been meeting this
responsibility since FDR
Johnny Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Sports Fan" <sports.RemoveThis@fan.home> wrote in message
news:ltfsq01g5ri3sfj3353c0gmqirruehg18b@4ax.com...

SNIP FOR CLARITY

> >Well now, wouldn't it require some investigation to find out if there
were
> >any eye witnesses to make sworn statements? And doesn't getting a
statement
> >from them constitute further investigation?
>
> Isn't this what I have said?

No, this is absolutely not what you said. You said, "You have everything
that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
why would you investigate further?"

> Then you agree that there needs to be some grounds, at least from the
> legal stand point to go after someone.

Which is why one investigates the circumstances. Now, if you were really
making a rhetorical point, speaking as if you were the Pacers, then I
understand your point.
>
> >> >Because ESPN didn't show you tape, it
> >> >didn't happen?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, read and get a clue before you jump on others for what they say.
> >
> >I read what you wrote and reacted to exactly that. Your first reaction
was
> >to suggest that everything was one tape, seen by millions. Do you still
> >think no more investigation is needed? For example, is there any merit
to
> >trying to find out what people said? Or if anything happened outside the
> >view of the camera? Or if any of the particiapnts had priors? Or do
you
> >still think the highlight reel is enough?
>
> You took everything literally, that is the problem in your "reaction"
> post.

Oh, I get it. My problem is that I reacted to what exactly what you wrote
but that what you wrote isn't exactly what you meant. By the way, what DID
you mean?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Jon W." <JWalker.RemoveThis@yahoo34.com> wrote in message
news:aq8tq0lckju9bgn6hhhf6sf1tfvk1nhsuc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:27:18 -0800, Johnny <apterix.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >You know, it is so frustrating trying to explain the law,
> >and the wisdom of one suspected of a crime to assert his
> >rights, to people who are not only ignorant in that they
> >don't know the law and its proper purpose and use, but are
> >also stupid in that they are too full of themselves to learn
> >from those trained in the law, that I have to just shrug my
> >shoulders in resignation that further attempts are futile
> >and say:
> >
> >Out.
>
>
> Then go away!

I love it. THe best way to win an argument is to simply be belligerently
ignorant until the rational people give up and go away. You will go far,
grasshopper.

>
> J.W.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 05:08:54 GMT, Jon W. <JWalker DeleteThis @yahoo34.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:27:18 -0800, Johnny <apterix DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
>
>>You know, it is so frustrating trying to explain the law,
>>and the wisdom of one suspected of a crime to assert his
>>rights, to people who are not only ignorant in that they
>>don't know the law and its proper purpose and use, but are
>>also stupid in that they are too full of themselves to learn
>>from those trained in the law, that I have to just shrug my
>>shoulders in resignation that further attempts are futile
>>and say:
>>
>>Out.
>
>
>Then go away!
>
>J.W.
That is very childish!
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:43:14 -0500, "John LaVoy" <jlavoy DeleteThis @pobox.upenn.edu>
wrote:

>
>"Sports Fan" <sports DeleteThis @fan.home> wrote in message
>news:ltfsq01g5ri3sfj3353c0gmqirruehg18b@4ax.com...
>
>SNIP FOR CLARITY
>
>> >Well now, wouldn't it require some investigation to find out if there
>were
>> >any eye witnesses to make sworn statements? And doesn't getting a
>statement
>> >from them constitute further investigation?
>>
>> Isn't this what I have said?
>
>No, this is absolutely not what you said. You said, "You have everything
>that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
>why would you investigate further?"
>

Good God!
Which part of sworn statements by 2 credible witnesses ( that you
conveniently snipped) that I asked to see before forming a definite
opinion on who did exactly what was unclear for you?

Go back in this thread and read it again.


>> Then you agree that there needs to be some grounds, at least from the
>> legal stand point to go after someone.
>
>Which is why one investigates the circumstances. Now, if you were really
>making a rhetorical point, speaking as if you were the Pacers, then I
>understand your point.

I don't think that you understand at all.
You either take words literally, or simply snip what someone says.


>> >> >Because ESPN didn't show you tape, it
>> >> >didn't happen?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No, read and get a clue before you jump on others for what they say.
>> >
>> >I read what you wrote and reacted to exactly that. Your first reaction
>was
>> >to suggest that everything was one tape, seen by millions. Do you still
>> >think no more investigation is needed? For example, is there any merit
>to
>> >trying to find out what people said? Or if anything happened outside the
>> >view of the camera? Or if any of the particiapnts had priors? Or do
>you
>> >still think the highlight reel is enough?
>>
>> You took everything literally, that is the problem in your "reaction"
>> post.
>
>Oh, I get it. My problem is that I reacted to what exactly what you wrote
>but that what you wrote isn't exactly what you meant. By the way, what DID
>you mean?

You are still confused, my friend.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:49:01 -0500, "John LaVoy" <jlavoy.RemoveThis@pobox.upenn.edu>
wrote:

>
>"Jon W." <JWalker.RemoveThis@yahoo34.com> wrote in message
>news:aq8tq0lckju9bgn6hhhf6sf1tfvk1nhsuc@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:27:18 -0800, Johnny <apterix.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >You know, it is so frustrating trying to explain the law,
>> >and the wisdom of one suspected of a crime to assert his
>> >rights, to people who are not only ignorant in that they
>> >don't know the law and its proper purpose and use, but are
>> >also stupid in that they are too full of themselves to learn
>> >from those trained in the law, that I have to just shrug my
>> >shoulders in resignation that further attempts are futile
>> >and say:
>> >
>> >Out.
>>
>>
>> Then go away!
>
>I love it. THe best way to win an argument is to simply be belligerently
>ignorant until the rational people give up and go away. You will go far,
>grasshopper.
>

It was obvious.
He either takes your words and twists them, or takes some of the words
literally when they fit his narrow view of things.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:52:15 GMT, Jon W. <JWalker RemoveThis @yahoo34.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:09:16 -0800, Sports Fan <sports RemoveThis @fan.home>
>wrote:
>
>>arguably in the wrong way
>
>
>"Arguably in the wrong way"
>
>If it were 99% of the population, we would be in jail.
>I think Artest may be Bi-Polar?
>
>J.W.

Bull pucky. I would bet you that easily the vast majority of fist
fights that don't end in injury do not result in criminal charges.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

In article <qYvrd.191799$hj.99634@fed1read07>, Johnny <apterix.DeleteThis@cox.net>
wrote:

> The issue in this thread is whether the players should
> submit to interviews by the police. Whether there may be
> evidence independent of any statements they may or may not
> make is irrelevant to this issue. The presence of the tapes
> have nothing to do with the question of whether it is
> prudent to risk self-incrimination by answering questions or
> otherwise commenting on the incident.

Well, there are multiple issues here.

Is it legal for them to refuse to co-operate? Absolutely.

Is it wise for them to refuse to co-operate? Probably -- unless they
think they'll get caught and punished anyway, and co-operating will
reduce their punishment, or that the PR hit for not co-operating will
have a major negative impact.

Lastly, however, is another question:

Is it ethical for them to refuse to co-operate?

I would argue that no, it isn't. If they are innocent and don't know
anything useful to the police, they are simply making the cops jobs
harder for no reason. If they are innocent but protecting others, their
behavior is clearly unethical. It is not ethical to, through inaction,
make it harder for the police to bring the guilty to justice. (In some
circumstances this could, in fact, be illegal. The fifth amendment only
protects you against SELF incrimination.)

But what if they're, in fact, guilty? Here, too, I would argue that
while they're clearly within their rights to not co-operate, and might
be wise to do so, I think it is unethical. The ethical thing to do when
you've done something wrong is to stand up, admit it, apologize and take
your just punishment.

So yes, you're right, they're absolutely within their legal rights.

But that doesn't mean they're not scumbags.

-Ron
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police