listening in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthie

She shouldn't get fined at all. Video cams? People have them, and some have found out the the people they've hired to watch their children are abusing them. You'll never know what extremes you'll be willing to go, until you have children...not to mention, if they are troubled.

---

Let me guess..you a communist right? Safety over freedom hu?Yes cams have cought bad babysitters but im talking about 10-18 year olds.Some people have video cameras on all day.Its cool for children but for teens it becomes a little bit too much cuban:)

Lemme try to say this in a more understandable way Ziggy...I'm not into video-cams, period. However, if my kid was into some really bad shit, you can bet I'd be all over their shit, trying to get to the truth, and then decide how to best help my kid...

Well said then :-]

Bag-snatching is fun? I'm sure the old lady thinks so.

If this is what kids do for fun nowadays, we're in a hell of a of trouble.

:shuriken:

muahahahaha:devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziggyjuarez

Let me guess..you a communist right? Safety over freedom hu?Yes cams have cought bad babysitters but im talking about 10-18 year olds.Some people have video cameras on all day.Its cool for children but for teens it becomes a little bit too much cuban:)

---

I'm guessing you know very little about cuba.

Tell me Ziggy, who is more likely to have a drug problem....0-10 year olds or your 10-18 year olds? (we all know just how responsible 10-18 year olds are)
once adult one has to accept responsibility for ones own actions, if you are of the age of majority and you decide to do something dumb on your own head be it...untill then your parents/guardians are responsible and THE LAW when it comes to minors is and always should be SAFETY OVER FREEDOM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I'm guessing you know very little about cuba.

Tell me Ziggy, who is more likely to have a drug problem....0-10 year olds or your 10-18 year olds? (we all know just how responsible 10-18 year olds are)
once adult one has to accept responsibility for ones own actions, if you are of the age of majority and you decide to do something dumb on your own head be it...untill then your parents/guardians are responsible and THE LAW when it comes to minors is and always should be SAFETY OVER FREEDOM.

---

Once you get in your mid teens your basicly an adult.You know what your doing and you know whats wrong.If your kids are acting bad around there they are basicly bad people.Yes they can be helped but in the end its the persons chose.I do agree with children,its safty over freedom.I wouldent have a child doing what it wants every day:lol: you know what thatll be like:devil: .Yes its ok for you to protect your kids but just dont go too far with it.Dont be an un cool parent:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

we don't have all the story

I don't believe for one moment that he was convicted by hearsay, there had to actually be a crime comitted and reported for the police to proceed, just telling them someone said they did something wouldn't be enough.
Her testimony would have been admitted as a witness to a confession, the truthfulness of any confession has to be taken on merit. In this case the information wasn't given under duress, it was given freely in a conversation.
The only way it has been found inadmissible is because the state has privacy laws where all parties must be aware they are being listened to or recorded ( how many times have you phoned up a company and got the "this call is being recorded message" ? )

---

As you say, we don't have the whole story.

Yet almost everyone here seems to have assumed that he is guilty. Why? The law certainly hasn't assumed that because he is going to get a new trial.

If the trial had not been completed it would be more normal for the judge to simply rule that evidence inadmissible, and if a jury is involved instruct them to ignore that evidence. If the trial has been completed it would go to appeal and the appeal court would decide whether the inadmissible evidence had unfairly affected the outcome. A new trial is much more unusual and indicates that far too much importance was placed on the inadmissible evidence in the first place.

You quite rightly point out that the conversation didn't take place under duress. But you should not forget that kids make things up to impress (potential) partners, and this could be such a case. All of a sudden she isn't a witness to a confession but a voyeur listening in on a chat-up conversation. Seems to me he hasn't had a very good lawyer either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziggyjuarez

Once you get in your mid teens your basicly an adult.....Dont be an un cool parent:lol:

---

You are correct about them being young adults, but what you seem to forget, age doesn't factor in maturity or experience. How can you expect someone with hardly any real life experience to always make the proper decisions. And don't talk about them having real life experiences if they are still living at home under mommy and daddies wing.

About being an "uncool" parent. The parents are there to be parents, not the kids friend. After the kid is out on his/her own, and the parents are through raising them, then they can be friends, but until then, they have to be parents.

Surely, if the mother was unhappy with her daughter's friends and suspected he was admitting to a crime, she could have reported this to the police without involving herself or her daughter. It would then be up to the police to check if he was the suspect they were looking for and be identified by the person that the bag was snatched from.

The telephone call being no more than a piece of information for the police to check out not the evidence itself.