American law needs revision.

[What What What]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-molest01.html

"Fitzroy Barnaby said he had to swerve to avoid hitting the 14-year-old Des Plaines girl who walked in front of his car.

She said he yelled, "Come here, little girl," before getting out of his car and grabbing her by the arm.

He said he simply lectured her.

She said she broke free and ran, fearful of what he'd do next."

And now this guy is a ''Sex Offender''.

I know! Lets arrest everyone who owns a firearm! After all, owning a gun is a precursor to shooting someone! So they all must be murderers!!

Stupid American law system.

 

[urbanfox]

Your link doesn't even work, and I'm sure your telling the whole story...

 

[LeoCrasher]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, all too often anyone that touches anyone gets charged with all sorts of obviously untrue crimes.

Sue happy society

/Leo

 

[Miles]

It sounds alot like something that would happen in America, and Urban i don't see whats wrong with the story it seems plausable to me.

/Miles

 

[What What What]

Thank you miles

fixed the link by the way

 

[urbanfox]

No offense, but none of you know American Law so to say that seems like it could happen is a bit out of your league... wow, one case someone found that was extreme from one city, suddenly the whole law needs revising... uhh no. I wonder what crazy things I could find from UK court rulings?

 

[LordLucas]

Yes this is a stupid case just like some women sued McD for like 6 million or so because she spilt hot cofee on her and got burned. But this doesn't mean intire law system of America is broken typical sterotype of a Brit to American view.

 

[Atomicide]

theres loads of stupid laws, infact, my worry now is that fact that these are becoming more common. Such as a guy who cut 2 people to peices with a huge knife, and also nearly cut a womans dog in half during the attack got 4 years in prison.

This was becuase the judge and jury accepted the attack was probvoked when the people who were attacked asked the guys little borther to turn the music down a bit at his party.

 

[LeoCrasher]

No offense, but none of you know American Law so to say that seems like it could happen is a bit out of your league... wow, one case someone found that was extreme from one city, suddenly the whole law needs revising... uhh no. I wonder what crazy things I could find from UK court rulings?

Don't be so presumptious, I spent an entire half-term learning an optional American Law module for A-level Law. You've taken it a bit personally though I must admit.

Although yea, as a nation we have some pretty damned stupid precedent too... although I would say not quite as much.

/Leo

 

[urbanfox]

although I would say not quite as much.

as...

 

[LeoCrasher]

Well since the only other Law system I mentioned was America's... it stands to reason thats what I was referring to.

/Leo

 

[urbanfox]

Well since the only other Law system I mentioned was America's... it stands to reason thats what I was referring to.

/Leo

Well please, elaborate?

 

[LeoCrasher]

I can't believe I need to make this simpler for you;

Bigger population; more laws
Smaller population; less laws

If theres more laws, there are bound to be ones that are a ickle bit out of touch. Not mentioning the fact that they come under more scrutiny because the blunders within them are exposed far and wide, due to the nature of the media.

Even still, if we were to talk proportionatly I believe America still holds the larger amount of idiotic case results, purely on the basis that its overly used as a weapon of a revenge (and in America, protection of the Government), rather than the protection of the public. Isn't this the way many western countries are heading now however ¬¬.

/Leo

 

[urbanfox]

I can't believe I need to make this simpler for you;

Bigger population; more laws
Smaller population; less laws

If theres more laws, there are bound to be ones that are a ickle bit out of touch. Not mentioning the fact that they come under more scrutiny because the blunders within them are exposed far and wide, due to the nature of the media.

Even still, if we were to talk proportionatly I believe America still holds the larger amount of idiotic case results, purely on the basis that its overly used as a weapon of a revenge (and in America, protection of the Government), rather than the protection of the public. Isn't this the way many western countries are heading now however ¬¬.

/Leo

I was referring to please list somemore of these blundering precedents.

I'm also going to have to disagree with you, in that, the public doesn't need the protection, the businesses and government do from the public.

 

[LeoCrasher]

...ur pulling me leg reet?
The government that needs protection from the people?

Why exactly do you think [American] law came into being, and do you still think its there for the same reason? - As you seem to have a very nihilistic viewpoint :/

/Leo

 

[urbanfox]

...ur pulling me leg reet?
The government that needs protection from the people?

Why exactly do you think [American] law came into being, and do you still think its there for the same reason? - As you seem to have a very nihilistic viewpoint :/

/Leo

I'm not talking in extreme forms, but the pathetic petty suings an such. I also don't see how we are turning a stride into court rulings that protect the government instead of giving justice to the people.

I ask, once again, to please list these mass incidents were these blundering precedents were set, instead of continuing to go down sidestreets.

 

[LeoCrasher]

I'm not talking in extreme forms, but the pathetic petty suings an such. I also don't see how we are turning a stride into court rulings that protect the government instead of giving justice to the people.

Fine, examples of protectin Govt instead of people;
Congress, in times of 'national emergency' can be replaced with a dedicated, non-elected body.
The American's Gov't is thinking about RFID ID Cards for the population (altho I'm unaware how far this has progressed).
Although not done through legislation (yet), refusal to hand over control of the root DNS servers to independant international control. (I mention it because I believe its something that will soon enter legal proceedings, hopefully at the very least - I lost belief in America's current administration's ability to 'control' anything fairly around 5 years ago).

I ask, once again, to please list these mass incidents were these blundering precedents were set, instead of continuing to go down sidestreets.

As searching through US law is time consuming I'll get them off the top of my head and a textbook;
Media coverage leading to interferance in the Jury;
OJ Simpson
Michael Jackson

Speciying where the case is tried in order to Jury Shop;
OJ Simpson
Microsoft v RealNetworks

Bribing the Judge:
Cartalino v Odie Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections

Now I'm still interested in this protect the Govt/Business from the people point you mentioned; why do you think the legal system on your side of the pond exists and do you still think its there for the same reason today?
Mind you... America's got nothing on China, lmfao ><

/Leo

 

[urbanfox]

Fine, examples of protectin Govt instead of people;
Congress, in times of 'national emergency' can be replaced with a dedicated, non-elected body.
The American's Gov't is thinking about RFID ID Cards for the population (altho I'm unaware how far this has progressed).
Although not done through legislation (yet), refusal to hand over control of the root DNS servers to independant international control. (I mention it because I believe its something that will soon enter legal proceedings, hopefully at the very least - I lost belief in America's current administration's ability to 'control' anything fairly around 5 years ago).



As searching through US law is time consuming I'll get them off the top of my head and a textbook;
Media coverage leading to interferance in the Jury;
OJ Simpson
Michael Jackson

Speciying where the case is tried in order to Jury Shop;
OJ Simpson
Microsoft v RealNetworks

Bribing the Judge:
Cartalino v Odie Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections

Now I'm still interested in this protect the Govt/Business from the people point you mentioned; why do you think the legal system on your side of the pond exists and do you still think its there for the same reason today?
Mind you... America's got nothing on China, lmfao ><

/Leo

Well, now, don't you think we should put this in perspective? First what is a national emergency? Well, since it has never been used, one can only believe this is an emergeny of domestic danger and or invasion where a gathering of the congress for wartime decisions cannot be made.

No, let's reword that. Some few extremists without any swaying power consider this, just as, in all countries, extremists think of insane idea's. This is not going to happen.





You continue to not bring anything feasible nor any 'precedents', but an image of the red scare...

This is not a 'precedent'. I asked for examples of precedents, and you bring up something that not only has not been signed by the president (the final step), it hasn't gone to the Senate, and it hasn't even been CONSIDERED in the house... so, this goes, along with however many other 9999999 proposals, into a pool of irrellavence.



Well first, where's the proof? Second, 2 cases were the jury was influenced, how, and, aren't All people impressionable?

.

And pretty much everything below this isn't even a court ruling, so how could it be a precedent for American law...

Could you please rephrase that?

Hmm, I'm rather curious as to why you brought this up, as this has nothing to do with law revision? Is this a widespread problem? No. Does this happen eeverywhere? Yes. Does this have to do with the law? No. Does this have to do with the integrity of a man? Yes.


I think you are misunderstanding me. New legislation needs to be brought up to protect the government and businesses from people that continue to bring up frivilous hurtful lawsuits (with liberal judges contributing to this).

As per why the legal system exists, easy, without order is chaos.

Main Entry: 2prec·e·dent
Pronunciation: 'pre-s&-d&nt
Function: noun
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2 a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind <a verdict that had no precedent> b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model

 

[LeoCrasher]

I came off my PocketPC just for you to research american law, but because Judges like to dribble about dribbling and an alarmingly dribbibly rate... reading through the cases I did find was somewhat tiresome for 6:30am.

What I did find;
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) (btw do you get taught this case in school?),

I got half way through and decided I couldn't be bothered... and to lay my hands down and say 'you win, I've been pwn3dz'. So well done there, although I do stick to my belief that American law has considerably more precedentutal blunders than our own (thanks for the reminder on precedent btw, i much appreciate being retold what one is by someone with no legal qualification after 8months of AS Law). I am somewhat sorry for wasting your time by not being able to justify the time you spent on your well structered reply (its not something I hope to make a habit of). Nevertheless perhaps I should be somewhat careful on what I say of american law, afterall it is derived from an older version of our own, existing for the same reasons as ours does. (Well, not anymore imo).

However on the point of 'without order is chaos' as the reasoning behind your legal systems creation... I think thats a little blunt, perhaps expand on that a little, think about your constitution and the founding fathers and all that rubbish other patriots have seen fit to throw at me on IRC. I'll give you some keywords; liberty, morality and religion. Their order is important and entirely relevant to your notion of order and chaos (in favour too).

/Leo

 

[urbanfox]

I came off my PocketPC just for you to research american law, but because Judges like to dribble about dribbling and an alarmingly dribbibly rate... reading through the cases I did find was somewhat tiresome for 6:30am.

What I did find;
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) (btw do you get taught this case in school?),

I got half way through and decided I couldn't be bothered... and to lay my hands down and say 'you win, I've been pwn3dz'. So well done there, although I do stick to my belief that American law has considerably more precedentutal blunders than our own (thanks for the reminder on precedent btw, i much appreciate being retold what one is by someone with no legal qualification after 8months of AS Law). I am somewhat sorry for wasting your time by not being able to justify the time you spent on your well structered reply (its not something I hope to make a habit of). Nevertheless perhaps I should be somewhat careful on what I say of american law, afterall it is derived from an older version of our own, existing for the same reasons as ours does. (Well, not anymore imo).

However on the point of 'without order is chaos' as the reasoning behind your legal systems creation... I think thats a little blunt, perhaps expand on that a little, think about your constitution and the founding fathers and all that rubbish other patriots have seen fit to throw at me on IRC. I'll give you some keywords; liberty, morality and religion. Their order is important and entirely relevant to your notion of order and chaos (in favour too).

/Leo

Wow, you found a ruling over 150 years old that was long ago over turned...


Once again, I refer back the dictionary...

Main Entry: 2prec·e·dent
Pronunciation: 'pre-s&-d&nt
Function: noun
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2 a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind <a verdict that had no precedent> b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model

Well apparently you need to be retold when you somehow confuse a judges integrity with the same definition as a court ruling's precedent.


Ahh and what is the reason it exists now, as your so apt to attack it.


No offense, but I don't need some brit over 6000 miles away trying to pretend their the authority on our founding fathers and constituion, especially when they fail to tie in morality was a dirivitive of religion back then