It could have been his own fault, but it's the British legal system that abused him. It's unlikely that he would have been held that long in the US due to our "speedy trial" provisions. He would need only file a writ of habeas corpus and demand a hearing before a judge, which must happen within six months max.mistermack wrote:I just can't believe this forum.
On one thread I'm arguing that it was wrong to hold a guy in England for eight years, without a charge, for running a website, and I get people lining up to say it was his own fault.
Well, that's because it's not always illegal to kill someone, and if it's not illegal to kill them in the particular circumstances involved, then it's a violation of his civil rights to arrest or hold him.On another thread, I'm arguing that the guy, who admitted killing someone should have been held, and charged, and some people can't see it.
Sorry but that sort of abuse is exactly why we kicked King George and his troops out of the United States back in 1776. Arresting and holding people on scanty evidence is trade of tyrants and despots. We require "probable cause" before someone can even be arrested, much less held for an extended period.Surely crimes like murder should not be treated like shoplifting? If there is a 10% chance that you shoplifted, it would be wrong to arrest you, but if there's a 10% chance that you murdered someone, you should be held.
iIn the UK there is a specified period that the police have, to charge you, or have to release you. For crimes like murder, they can go to a judge, and ask for a further 24 hours, or something similar. If the person admits the killing, and his innocence rests on his statement that he thought his life was in danger, I'm sure that any judge would grant more time.
That's another peculiar abusive provision of UK law, your silence in the face of police questioning can be held against you at trial, so you are effectively compelled to give evidence against yourself. That's wrong.
I suggest you wait until you've been falsely arrested for a killing you did not commit before you blather on about how "necessary" it is.It's not nice if you're innocent, but it's necessary.
Imagine that. The people who were there and actually viewed the evidence made a decision different from some Internet pundit. What a concept.In this case, the police said that they couldn't find any evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.
Er, you weren't there, so you don't know anything.I can, just sitting here. There was a broken nose that didn't even need an xray. There were scratches on his head that were so slight, you need to enhance video to see them, and again, no trip to the hospital necessary.
Zimmerman's still got all of his teeth. He could still see when the police arrived. His eyes weren't closing, or even puffed up. His lips were not split. He wasn't covered in his own blood. There was no sign of his blood anywhere on his clothes. He was not concussed, or treated for concussion.
Even his clothes were in good condition. All good evidence, why his claim of being in fear of his life should have been doubted.
AS IT WAS, BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.
No, it was initially decided that the evidence in favor of a justified shooting outweighed the evidence in favor of a cold-blooded killing. Big difference there. That's what the pros do, they view all the evidence and make decisions based on knowledge that you don't have.But it was decided upstairs that there was NO evidence to doubt his claim. So none of the evidence I just listed existed?
Any proof of that other than your outraged sensibilities?It stinks of corruption. Someone called in a favour.
