What your mind is apparently to closed to accept or see it, is, I didn't
think we were
talking about all these "circumstances" as you call them.
You are making the classic mistake in debate and logic.
You are trying to use extreme points of view to validate
your premise.
Yes evidence does get destroyed sometimes before a trial and it
could be for any number of reasons. The POINT is that it
is not the norm and the whole idea or the right of Heapus corpus< wrote in message
news:im2tc.144$mQ4.66@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> It doesn't matter if you want to switch nicks Zaph. I can tell the
> difference so don't sweat it.
>
> In response to the shocked objections to my statement, I simply don't have
> the desire to do the research necessary to "prove" my assertion. Call me a
> lazy stoner. If the matter is of any great importance to you, I'm sure you
> can determine the truth for yourself. You sound like a fairly intelligent
> person so I'm not that worried about it. I know that that the majority of
> the public believes that the preservation of evidence is one of those
> inviolate taboos that could "never happen legally" but, even though it
> sounds hard to believe to some, I know it's condoned under rare
> circumstances. I know, I know... you don't believe me. That's cool with
me.
> I'm not going to beat you over the head with it. I'm secure in my
knowledge
> of the subject and that's enough for me.
> If you want to pursue it, another circumstance where evidence is legally
> destroyed prior to court proceedings is when retention of that evidence is
> determined to pose undue risk to law enforcement personnel or danger to
the
> general public (bomb disposal for instance). I'm sure you can find
reference
> material on the subject if you look hard enough.
>
> As far as the fake Zapho(n) goes, he sounds like a flake so I'm not even
> going to waste keystrokes on him. No purpose in it.
>
> Peace,
> Stimp
>
> "Zaphon "stil prez, til Nov. maybe"" wrote in
> message news:TeRsc.6977$ZM1.3809@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > O.K so someone here is posting as Zaphon B. while I'm using Zaphod
> > which of us should switch nics stimpy
> >
> > Zaphod B. "stil prez"
> >
> >
> > "Zaphon B." wrote in message
> > news:wSPsc.99855$vn.269104@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> > > Sorry Stimpy, your lawyer BROKE the LAW!!! SHOW ME PROOF! What was the
> > case,
> > > where! Why was there no local sherrifs dept, dea, etc who could take
> > > custody!
> > > Your STORY is WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG, admit it and move on like an
adult!
> > > "Stimpy65" wrote in message
> > > news:LmFsc.18255$Hh.9670@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > > > >IT IS NEVER, EVER, LEGAL to DESTROY evidence while the case is
going
> > on!
> > > It
> > > > just ISN'T done!!!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is. Lawyer in the family. I know this to be a fact. Does it
> > always
> > > > happen that way? Of course not. Yes, most of the time, the state and
> fed
> > > > can't fuck with evidence at all. However, there are certain
> > circumstances
> > > > where evidence may legally be destroyed prior to some court cases
> > > depending
> > > > on certain criteria.
> > > > As an example, a large drug bust in an area where law enforcement
does
> > not
> > > > have secure storage facilities within the jurisdiction that can
handle
> > the
> > > > volume seized. Happens along the Mexico border frequently. This is
not
> > the
> > > > only situation where evidence can be destroyed prior to a court case
> > > either.
> > > > Red, you REALLY need to shut your pie-hole because it's real obvious
> > that
> > > > your a dumbass and you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
> You
> > > seem
> > > > to have decided to fuck with me for some reason and I am going to
> > > thoroughly
> > > > enjoy putting you in your place every time you even think of
spouting
> > off
> > > > any of your claptrap bullshit. LOL!
> > > > Now, back to our show...
> > > >
> > > > "Panama Red" wrote in message
> > > > news:NLmsc.99370$vn.268904@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> > > > > Stimpy,
> > > > > yes, thats based on evidence that is NOT SUBJECT to return!
> > > > > Where there is a case to RETURN they are prohibited from
destroying!
> > > But,
> > > > > lets clarify something....
> > > > > IT IS NEVER, EVER, LEGAL to DESTROY evidence while the case is
going
> > on!
> > > > It
> > > > > just ISN'T done!!!
> > > > > There are too many motions etc. dealing with the evidence that
would
> > > > > prohibit even touching it without authorization, let alone DESTROY
> > it!!!
> > > > > For those who DONT believe it true, check out eddy lepps website
and
> > see
> > > > > pictures of the sherrifs office (In charge of storing evidence)
> > politely
> > > > > return the medicine!!
> > > > > It is done everyday in Ca!!
> > > > > Now, for the REST of US!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > "Stimpy65" wrote in message
> > > > > news:ndTrc.14366$9f6.5867@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > > > > Based on previous knowledge of how law enforcement behaves in
> cases
> > > like
> > > > > > this, drugs are one of the few types of evidence (especially in
> > cases
> > > > > where
> > > > > > there are large amounts involved) that can legally be destroyed
> > prior
> > > to
> > > > a
> > > > > > court case as long as that drug evidence is properly witnessed,
> > > > > > photographed, and documented. I would be willing to bet that the
> DEA
> > > has
> > > > > > already destroyed most if not all of the leaf and, if forced to
> > return
> > > > it,
> > > > > > they will simply arrange some type of monitary restitution. How
> they
> > > > would
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
