AndyBoyd

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    612

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by AndyBoyd

  1. I took a "little person"/vertically challenged/midget (insert whatever the current PC term is these days) on a tandem back in 1996. He was maybe 4 feet tall, as I remember, and seemed to be around 100 pounds or so (he had some muscle on him). The old Strong harness fit easily, but there was a lot of excess leg strap to stow. The jump went fine, including the cutaway. (The landing was a bit rough. The whole "legs up for landing" thing doesn't work that great with a little person:)). He had a good time, and came back for another jump.

  5. I hadn't seen Tom since the old days of Skydive Illinois, when, out of the blue, he showed up at the Holiday Boogie in Eloy with some buddies from Byron, and a nice new girlfriend. It was a pleasure to see him again, and to find out that he was still the same old Tommy - humble, friendly, and a genuinely nice guy. The mumbling hadn't changed, either. :)
    It's been a rough couple of days, but I hope that everyone who cared about Tommy can find some measure of closure now. Big thanks to the Byron folks for making the trip. I hope time can help heal some of the wounds that must feel so fresh right now.

    Blue skies, Tommy. You will be remembered fondly.

  6. Yeah, that happens. It is awful when our system convicts innocent people. You won't believe me when I say this, but the system tries to minimize these terrible things. There was another thread on this topic previously. If I was sober, I could help you find it. But, as much as it pains me to point this out, you still have to pay your taxes. So just pay up, and quit bitching. Everyone, including me, pays up. Just pay your share, and it's all good.

  7. Refusing to pay your taxes is a really bad idea, people. You will almost certainly get caught, and at a minimum, you will be forced to pay back taxes, with penalties. At the worst, you will be prosecuted by the federal government, and you will then be looking at potential prison time or, at least, a hefty fine. I'm not familiar with the case linked to in one of the above posts, but it looks like the lawyer may have done some fancy footwork, and convinced the government to drop the charges. That's great for this particular defendant, but not likely to happen very often. I'm no tax expert, but I am a lawyer, and I work for a federal judge. I've seen tax protesters prosecuted, and they uniformly lose. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else. And it's fine to have a theoretical debate about whether or not the law actually, specifically, requires one to pay income tax. But the reality is that if you don't pay your taxes, the government will catch up with you sooner or later. And you won't like it when that happens. Pay your taxes, folks. Just a bit of friendly legal advice. :)

  8. Quote

    While 0 may not be possible, it should certainly be the goal. The alternative is to say that some number besides 0 is acceptable and requires no further improvement.

    Blues,
    Dave



    I agree 100% with this. Very well said. And with that, I'll bow out of this thread. Unless I decide to jump back in. ;)

    No BS, I really do appreciate the reasonable and thoughtful posts on this thread. Blus skies, all.

  • Quote

    are you also saying that no one should go to jail unless we are absolutely, undeniable, completely certain that they are guilty of the crimes for which they are charged?



    Well, I vowed to stay out of this, but what the heck, we're all friends here, right? :)

  • Quote

    Quote

    Everyone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating.



    I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it.

    Quote

    The overall intention of the Constitution is to defend and preserve individual rights. I don't argue that point at all.

    The overall intention of our legal system isn't quite the same.



    The Constitution is the highest law of the land. In other words, it is the most important law that we have. It is the foundation of our legal system. If the overall intention of the Constitution is to defend individual rights, as you admit, then the overall intention of our legal system must be to defend individual rights.

    Quote

    I don't understand how you can claim that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve individual rights when the legal system in question has the right to revoke individual rights pending it's ability to prove guilt.

    If reserving the right to revoke the freedom of an individual until they have been determined innocent isn't placing the needs and rights of society as a whole over the rights of the individual then what is it?



    Tougher question to deal with, I admit. I'll concede that the right to freedom in this case is balanced against society's needs. But all the other rights a criminal defendant gets, right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against him, etc., are not diminished. That's what I mean when I say that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve rights.

    Feel free to have the last word on this. Nice debating with you!

    Andy

  • Quote

    Quote

    Your argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with.



    Quote

    Okay, take it apart a little at a time and help me understand.

    1. Do we not require that convictions require that someone be considered quilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not absolute proof, just reasonable doubt. I find it hard to accept that the framers of the Constitution didn't understand that "reasonable doubt" meant that there was potential to convict an innocent person. If you disgaree then we have a difference of opinion.

    2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society?

    The idea that individual rights are preserved ahead of anything else exists only within the idea that the individual is acting within legal boundries in the pursuit of those rights.

    Once the individual is suspected of crossing those legal boundries, they are held to account for their actions to the rest of society with society at a burden to prove them guilty. In the mean time, they may lose their rights.

    Ask any person who's spent time in jail awaiting a trial in which they were eventually found innocent to tell you whose rights were put ahead of their individual rights?



    I'm relatively new to posting here, so don't get annoyed if I goof up quoting your post. Feel free to get as annoyed as you want with my reply, though. :)
    Of course there is always a possibility of convicting the innocent with our system. But what you are proposing is a wholesale shifting of the basic principles of our criminal law. You are arguing, if I understand you correctly, that the rights of society to be safe from criminals ought to trump the rights of individuals accused of crimes. This is a reasonabble argument, but I repeat, this is not the way our system is currently set up. Maybe it should be set up that way, but that's a different argument.

    Everyone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating.

    The notion of reasonable doubt was intended to preserve the rights of the criminally accused. It is a much higher standard than the one used in civil cases - preponderance of the evidence. As I understand it, this is a very high burden of proof. Not 100% certainty, but definitely much more than, "well, it sort of seems like he might have done it, so let's throw him in prison."

    Hope this helps clarify my position.

  • Quote

    Quote

    Our system is designed to put the rights of the individual first.



    I would argue that our legal system is designed to provide the maximum protection of society while still preserving individual rights where it can. Hence the "reasonable doubt" clause.

    Your argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with.

  • You've got the wrong idea about the criminal justice system in the USA. The bedrock principle is that it is better to let the guilty go free than to lock up the innocent. "The land of the free," and all that good stuff. The system is not set up to make calculations about how many innocents we would want to imprison in order to assure that no guilty people go free. In fact, it's the opposite. The system is set up so that a few guilty people may go free in order to assure that no (or at least, very few) innocent people go to prison. At least, that's the theory, anyway...