Louisiana trying to ban death penalty?

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

ozarkpugs said:
No that is not what I'm saying ,I'm saying if you knowing withhold information that shows someone could be innocent or hide evidence showing they may be innocent then you should have to be tried . As it stands now later , maybe years later you can get an appeal if it comes out the Leo or prosecutor withholds evidence of innocence but there is no consequences paid by the Leo or prosecutor . Besides I am not saying everyone involved should go to jail just the parties that tried to or kept them from having a fair trial . No innocent Leo or prosecutor will be sentenced because they will get a fair trial just like everyone else does . If it is shown the LEO did his job to the best of his ability and without prejudice and had no knowledge of evidence being hid the Grand jury will probably not recommend charges and if they do a good lawyer can take care of it for them .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

I get that may not be what you meant but it is what you said. Statutory Rape considers the circumstances at the time of the action and not what was known (lack of knowledge regarding the victims age is not a defense) so there is precedent for what was actually typed. But you meant there must be intent. That's a high bar. Sure, there are cases where it is clear someone had information they didn't act on. But it's easy for me to claim negligence and skirt the law. After all, not going to get information does not prove intent if it's reasonable to say they didn't know what the information was beforehand. that's negligence and out of the reach of this law.

And at the end of the day, regardless of my actions, I could still end up in front of a grand jury or a judge. Because I was acting under the color of law, are you, the taxpayer, going to cover my legal bills? Of will I have to bear that financial burden?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ozarkpugs · May 3, 2019

thperez1972 said:
I get that may not be what you meant but it is what you said. Statutory Rape considers the circumstances at the time of the action and not what was known (lack of knowledge regarding the victims age is not a defense) so there is precedent for what was actually typed. But you meant there must be intent. That's a high bar. Sure, there are cases where it is clear someone had information they didn't act on. But it's easy for me to claim negligence and skirt the law. After all, not going to get information does not prove intent if it's reasonable to say they didn't know what the information was beforehand. that's negligence and out of the reach of this law.

And at the end of the day, regardless of my actions, I could still end up in front of a grand jury or a judge. Because I was acting under the color of law, are you, the taxpayer, going to cover my legal bills? Of will I have to bear that financial burden?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said KNOWINGLY . That means you had reason to believe they were innocent or during the process of investigation found evidence they were probably innocent but out of pride ,fear of employment reprimand or for personal reasons ignored or hid the evidence . If their is probable cause to believe a Leo or prosecutor did this why should he not be arrested and tried in a court of law ? If there is probable cause to believe I did something illegal and a grand jury hands Down an indictment who is going to feed my family or pay my legal fees? I am talking about when there is evidence the LEO or prosecutor hid evidence ,are you saying that if there is probable cause they did they should not be brought up on charges?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

ozarkpugs said:
No that is not what I'm saying ,I'm saying if you knowing withhold information that shows someone could be innocent or hide evidence showing they may be innocent then you should have to be tried . As it stands now later , maybe years later you can get an appeal if it comes out the Leo or prosecutor withholds evidence of innocence but there is no consequences paid by the Leo or prosecutor . Besides I am not saying everyone involved should go to jail just the parties that tried to or kept them from having a fair trial . No innocent Leo or prosecutor will be sentenced because they will get a fair trial just like everyone else does . If it is shown the LEO did his job to the best of his ability and without prejudice and had no knowledge of evidence being hid the Grand jury will probably not recommend charges and if they do a good lawyer can take care of it for them .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

ozarkpugs said:
I said KNOWINGLY . That means you had reason to believe they were innocent or during the process of investigation found evidence they were probably innocent but out of pride ,fear of employment reprimand or for personal reasons ignored or hid the evidence . If their is probable cause to believe a Leo or prosecutor did this why should he not be arrested and tried in a court of law ? If there is probable cause to believe I did something illegal and a grand jury hands Down an indictment who is going to feed my family or pay my legal fees? I am talking about when there is evidence the LEO or prosecutor hid evidence ,are you saying that if there is probable cause they did they should not be brought up on charges?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

You said innocent LEO's and prosecutors would get a fair trial. Who's going to pay to defend the innocent LEO's and prosecutors? You as a tax payer? Or does the innocent LEO or prosecutor have to foot that financial burden? If they are innocent, the grand jury may or may not recommend charges. Regardless of the grand jury's decision, the DA has the option of moving forward or not moving forward. If they do, and the innocent LEO or prosecutor goes to that fair trial, again, who is footing that bill?

You are saying the problem is the corrupt LEO's and prosecutors are going forward with a trial of people who are innocent. Your solution is to create a law that could put innocent people on trial, as you mentioned before. Your "out" is the innocent people will not be sentenced, even though they may have a tremendous financial burden and possible loss of livelihood after having their integrity questioned. Wasn't the problem that innocent people were being sentenced? If you can ensure the innocent LEO's and prosecutors will not be sentenced, shift that assurance to the initial problem and you'll have it solved. But I don't see how putting innocent people in a position where they could be sentenced would solve the problem of innocent people being sentenced.

Tboy · May 3, 2019

And in related news... part of the reason given for not carrying out the executions was lack of company’s that are willing to sell the drug needed because of public scrutiny. A bill to combat that was introduced to allow for some secrecy in doing so.

https://louisianaradionetwork.com/2019/05/01/lethal-injection-drug-secrecy-bill-clears-committee/

If the first bill passes the second won’t be needed. If the second bill passes it removes part of the reason for the first.

:twitch:

Gator 45/70 · May 3, 2019

Tboy said:
And in related news... part of the reason given for not carrying out the executions was lack of company’s that are willing to sell the drug needed because of public scrutiny. A bill to combat that was introduced to allow for some secrecy in doing so.

https://louisianaradionetwork.com/2019/05/01/lethal-injection-drug-secrecy-bill-clears-committee/

If the first bill passes the second won’t be needed. If the second bill passes it removes part of the reason for the first.

Hang on,Now I posses a certain amount of compassion for the condemned like for instance ''Choice''

1.Death by injection

2.Old Sparky

3.Hanging

4.Firing Squad

5.Allow a close family member of the victims family to ''Flip The Switch''

Fill free to add on as you see fit,Thanks

ozarkpugs · May 3, 2019

There will be no grand jury or warrant from the federal prosecutor unless there is probable cause for one . If there is probable cause and the grand jury or prosecutor finds there is sufficient evidence to move forward with prosecution for a crime why should LEOs and prosecutors be any different than anyone else ? If a grand jury decided I need to go on trial I have to pay for my attorney and probably loose my job and a fortune why should a LEO be any different . Hopefully the investigators do a thorough job and get their facts straight and they don't hide evidence that could show the LEO or prosecutor was innocent of hiding evidence . Yes I said innocent LEOs and prosecutors would get a fair trial just as will the guilty ones no different than innocent citizens and guilty citizens deserve one . That is the whole meaning of my post .

thperez1972 said:
You said innocent LEO's and prosecutors would get a fair trial. Who's going to pay to defend the innocent LEO's and prosecutors? You as a tax payer? Or does the innocent LEO or prosecutor have to foot that financial burden? If they are innocent, the grand jury may or may not recommend charges. Regardless of the grand jury's decision, the DA has the option of moving forward or not moving forward. If they do, and the innocent LEO or prosecutor goes to that fair trial, again, who is footing that bill?

You are saying the problem is the corrupt LEO's and prosecutors are going forward with a trial of people who are innocent. Your solution is to create a law that could put innocent people on trial, as you mentioned before. Your "out" is the innocent people will not be sentenced, even though they may have a tremendous financial burden and possible loss of livelihood after having their integrity questioned. Wasn't the problem that innocent people were being sentenced? If you can ensure the innocent LEO's and prosecutors will not be sentenced, shift that assurance to the initial problem and you'll have it solved. But I don't see how putting innocent people in a position where they could be sentenced would solve the problem of innocent people being sentenced.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

ozarkpugs said:
There will be no grand jury or warrant from the federal prosecutor unless there is probable cause for one . If there is probable cause and the grand jury or prosecutor finds there is sufficient evidence to move forward with prosecution for a crime why should LEOs and prosecutors be any different than anyone else ? If a grand jury decided I need to go on trial I have to pay for my attorney and probably loose my job and a fortune why should a LEO be any different . Hopefully the investigators do a thorough job and get their facts straight and they don't hide evidence that could show the LEO or prosecutor was innocent of hiding evidence . Yes I said innocent LEOs and prosecutors would get a fair trial just as will the guilty ones no different than innocent citizens and guilty citizens deserve one . That is the whole meaning of my post .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

They are not different. If you were performing a duty as required by your employer and someone made an accusation against you as a direct result of your performing that duty and the accusation was criminal in nature, it would be more than reasonable to expect your employer to help with your legal bills.

"No innocent Leo or prosecutor will be sentenced because they will get a fair trial just like everyone else does . If it is shown the LEO did his job to the best of his ability and without prejudice and had no knowledge of evidence being hid the Grand jury will probably not recommend charges and if they do a good lawyer can take care of it for them ."

Let's go back to this. It seems you may have missed that part of my reply. You're saying an innocent LEO or prosecutor doesn't need to worry because a grand jury won't indict an innocent person. Unless it does. But even then, an innocent person won't be convicted because they would get a fair trial. But isn't this part of a fix for the problem of people not getting a fair trial?

Nathan Hale · May 3, 2019

Anyone know the current status of the bill?

Roadhazzard · May 3, 2019

Nathan Hale said:
Anyone know the current status of the bill?

Bangswitch · May 3, 2019

thperez1972 said:
They are not different. If you were performing a duty as required by your employer and someone made an accusation against you as a direct result of your performing that duty and the accusation was criminal in nature, it would be more than reasonable to expect your employer to help with your legal bills.

"No innocent Leo or prosecutor will be sentenced because they will get a fair trial just like everyone else does . If it is shown the LEO did his job to the best of his ability and without prejudice and had no knowledge of evidence being hid the Grand jury will probably not recommend charges and if they do a good lawyer can take care of it for them ."

Let's go back to this. It seems you may have missed that part of my reply. You're saying an innocent LEO or prosecutor doesn't need to worry because a grand jury won't indict an innocent person. Unless it does. But even then, an innocent person won't be convicted because they would get a fair trial. But isn't this part of a fix for the problem of people not getting a fair trial?

I know your heart is in the right place, but I think this particular can of worms is going to make impeller bearing failure on a turbodiesel look like a functioning a good day.

I quote the wrong person

Gator 45/70 · May 3, 2019

I love living in a perfect state like Louisiana with Unicorn meat and Fairy farts on top of rainbow bridges leading to nowhere land....

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

Gator 45/70 said:
I love living in a perfect state like Louisiana with Unicorn meat and Fairy farts on top of rainbow bridges leading to nowhere land....

Funny you mention Unicorn Meat. This was a Christmas gift to the significant other. She didn't find it as funny as I did.

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

Bangswitch said:
I know your heart is in the right place, but I think this particular can of worms is going to make impeller bearing failure on a turbodiesel look like a functioning a good day.

One has to decide if the issue is so widespread that new laws are needed. If so, the problem shouldn't be used as part of the fix. If it's a more isolated issue, what is wrong with the laws already on the books (they are felonies) that would make new laws necessary?

Gator 45/70 · May 3, 2019

thperez1972 said:
Funny you mention Unicorn Meat. This was a Christmas gift to the significant other. She didn't find it as funny as I did.

View attachment 85802

Lol, She had to think about it!

ozarkpugs · May 3, 2019

thperez1972 said:
They are not different. If you were performing a duty as required by your employer and someone made an accusation against you as a direct result of your performing that duty and the accusation was criminal in nature, it would be more than reasonable to expect your employer to help with your legal bills.

"No innocent Leo or prosecutor will be sentenced because they will get a fair trial just like everyone else does . If it is shown the LEO did his job to the best of his ability and without prejudice and had no knowledge of evidence being hid the Grand jury will probably not recommend charges and if they do a good lawyer can take care of it for them ."

Let's go back to this. It seems you may have missed that part of my reply. You're saying an innocent LEO or prosecutor doesn't need to worry because a grand jury won't indict an innocent person. Unless it does. But even then, an innocent person won't be convicted because they would get a fair trial. But isn't this part of a fix for the problem of people not getting a fair trial?

If your employer requires you to hide evidence you can not hide behind the performing my duty defense . We are talking about LEOs and prosecutors who there is evidence that they have falsified or hid evidence to insure a possibly innocent person go to jail . Another words there is enough probable cause to charge them not just some one made accusations. Seriously ,you think their employers should defend them ? I would certainly hope any Sheriff / police chief / or whatever would be the one pushing for them to be prosecuted the most . I would certainly hope most law enforcement personnel would feel those that engage in such activities are a disgrace to the community and should be in prison .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

ozarkpugs said:
If your employer requires you to hide evidence you can not hide behind the performing my duty defense . We are talking about LEOs and prosecutors who there is evidence that they have falsified or hid evidence to insure a possibly innocent person go to jail . Another words there is enough probable cause to charge them not just some one made accusations. Seriously ,you think their employers should defend them ? I would certainly hope any Sheriff / police chief / or whatever would be the one pushing for them to be prosecuted the most . I would certainly hope most law enforcement personnel would feel those that engage in such activities are a disgrace to the community and should be in prison .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Oh...so he's guilty before the trial and must prove his innocence? Do innocent people get indicted? According to you, yes. So, according to you, there can be enough evidence to find probable cause even when the person is innocent. So, as you stated "why should LEOs and prosecutors be any different than anyone else?" Remember, the conviction comes at trial, not at the grand jury.

ozarkpugs · May 3, 2019

No one said he was guilty before trial just probable cause enough for an arrest and should be given his day in court just like everyone else who is charged with a crime because there is probable cause they can pay the bond and hire a lawyer and pay them just like everyone else . That is the way our system works . You say according to me innocent people get indicted , that is a no brainier . Innocent people get arrested ,tried and convicted now as they always have. What percentage ? Who knows . The original post was about the death penalty and I shared my opinion on why I was against it as others did . My opinion was and is too many LEO and prosecutors are willing to twist facts and make up evidence to avoid admitting they themselves or another LEO have made a mistake at the cost of sending an innocent man to jail or his death . What was the response myself and others received ,our word have been twisted and misrepresented for the purpose of defending LEO and prosecutors who are allegedly guilty of attempting to railroad an innocent person . Anyone who has read what I have written from the start and the responses to my posts will probably see exactly what I'm talking about , some LEO could care less about facts and will twist the truth as much as need to defend their own . Thankfully most cops are honorable and stand for truth and justice .

thperez1972 said:
Oh...so he's guilty before the trial and must prove his innocence? Do innocent people get indicted? According to you, yes. So, according to you, there can be enough evidence to find probable cause even when the person is innocent. So, as you stated "why should LEOs and prosecutors be any different than anyone else?" Remember, the conviction comes at trial, not at the grand jury.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

thperez1972 · May 3, 2019

ozarkpugs said:
No one said he was guilty before trial just probable cause enough for an arrest and should be given his day in court just like everyone else who is charged with a crime because there is probable cause they can pay the bond and hire a lawyer and pay them just like everyone else . That is the way our system works . You say according to me innocent people get indicted , that is a no brainier . Innocent people get arrested ,tried and convicted now as they always have. What percentage ? Who knows . The original post was about the death penalty and I shared my opinion on why I was against it as others did . My opinion was and is too many LEO and prosecutors are willing to twist facts and make up evidence to avoid admitting they themselves or another LEO have made a mistake at the cost of sending an innocent man to jail or his death . What was the response myself and others received ,our word have been twisted and misrepresented for the purpose of defending LEO and prosecutors who are allegedly guilty of attempting to railroad an innocent person . Anyone who has read what I have written from the start and the responses to my posts will probably see exactly what I'm talking about , some LEO could care less about facts and will twist the truth as much as need to defend their own . Thankfully most cops are honorable and stand for truth and justice .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

If he was acting within the scope of his duties, he should not be left out to dry. So at the time between indictment and conviction, he's either assumed innocent or assumed guilty. If you assume he is innocent, and therefore assume he acted within the scope of his job until it's proven he didn't, how can you say he's not entitled to the legal assistance afforded those LEO's who acted within the scope of their job?

And, again, what is it about the current laws that are inadequate?

ozarkpugs · May 4, 2019

Everyone is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty not just LEO . Everyone arrested , even though they are presumed innocent ,is burdened with paying their own bond( or set in jail) and paying their own lawyer. If a special prosecutor or grand jury decided there is enough evidence to take him/her to trial they are saying there is evidence he Was Not within the scope of his duties . What you seem to be saying is if a cop decides there is probable cause to arrest and a prosecutor decides there is probable cause to take a civilian to trial then he is probably guilty and it's ok he looses his/her job ,life savings and possibly everything he/she owns trying to prove innocence BUT if internal affairs - special prosecutor - FBI investigation - Grand Jury or whoever finds there is sufficient evidence a LEO went outside the scope of his job and hid evidence or lied to a jury , concocted evidence or such ( HOPEFULLY THESE THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF YOUR DUTIES) he is probably innocent and being falsely accused and his/her department needs to overlook the evidence against him and defend him/ her . Maybe hide the evidence or loose it ? What you seem to be suggesting is police are above the law and if it is suspected they have broken the law and there is sufficient evidence they have they should be treated different than the common punk they were ( according to probable cause evidence) trying to help put in jail for a crime he did not commit . Thank God most LEO don't think that way and I certainly hope you will go back and read every word I have posted and realize the scenario I originally suggested has not changed and agree that such wrong doings by a small minority of LEO and prosecutors shine a bad light on our justice system . Their actions cast doubt enough to cause a lot of us to question the death penalty and for some like me it's the only reason I object to it .

thperez1972 said:
If he was acting within the scope of his duties, he should not be left out to dry. So at the time between indictment and conviction, he's either assumed innocent or assumed guilty. If you assume he is innocent, and therefore assume he acted within the scope of his job until it's proven he didn't, how can you say he's not entitled to the legal assistance afforded those LEO's who acted within the scope of their job?

And, again, what is it about the current laws that are inadequate?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

thperez1972 · May 4, 2019

ozarkpugs said:
Everyone is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty not just LEO . Everyone arrested , even though they are presumed innocent ,is burdened with paying their own bond( or set in jail) and paying their own lawyer. If a special prosecutor or grand jury decided there is enough evidence to take him/her to trial they are saying there is evidence he Was Not within the scope of his duties . What you seem to be saying is if a cop decides there is probable cause to arrest and a prosecutor decides there is probable cause to take a civilian to trial then he is probably guilty and it's ok he looses his/her job ,life savings and possibly everything he/she owns trying to prove innocence BUT if internal affairs - special prosecutor - FBI investigation - Grand Jury or whoever finds there is sufficient evidence a LEO went outside the scope of his job and hid evidence or lied to a jury , concocted evidence or such ( HOPEFULLY THESE THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF YOUR DUTIES) he is probably innocent and being falsely accused and his/her department needs to overlook the evidence against him and defend him/ her . Maybe hide the evidence or loose it ? What you seem to be suggesting is police are above the law and if it is suspected they have broken the law and there is sufficient evidence they have they should be treated different than the common punk they were ( according to probable cause evidence) trying to help put in jail for a crime he did not commit . Thank God most LEO don't think that way and I certainly hope you will go back and read every word I have posted and realize the scenario I originally suggested has not changed and agree that such wrong doings by a small minority of LEO and prosecutors shine a bad light on our justice system . Their actions cast doubt enough to cause a lot of us to question the death penalty and for some like me it's the only reason I object to it .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Here's what you must decide. Does probable cause mean the person is guilty? If it does not, you can say he is accused of acting outside of the scope of his duties but you cannot say he did act outside the scope of his duties until he is convicted.

And once again, you have not address why the current laws on the books are insufficient to the point that new laws are needed.

Louisiana trying to ban death penalty?

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Moving forward

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Log in

Forum statistics