double standard? (USA thread)

[Busyman]

I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

Exactly...but what convictions?

If I had a handgun illegally in the UK should I be precluded from owning one here where it's legal?

What about assault?

I wonder does the UK do the same?

[GepperRankins]

I know what the purpose of the judicial branch is.

I agree with the Supreme Court. If an American citizen was convicted of a crime in North Korea then our law would be compelled to use that against that person over here. I disagree with that.

"Any" court does not equal an international court.

why disagree?

[GepperRankins]

I am for the judge looking outside our shores and I am against the ruling that outside convictions shouldn't count...... I do however see a need for each conviction to be viewed alone and not just "any" conviction because other lands don't have the same laws as we do.

i completely agree. i was under the impression that you were saying in america you should wipe the slate clean or import the whole criminal record.

being specific i reckon that with an unneccessery tool designed to kill, people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent

[Busyman]

why disagree?

Damn that wasn't very clear.

I agree, I disagree.

I agree with the Supreme Court and disagree with the opposite notion. SOrry.

[GepperRankins]

yeah i understood what you said, but you can't just denounce everything a country says as lies because you don't like them much.

[vidcc]

Exactly...but what convictions?

If I had a handgun illegally in the UK should I be precluded from owning one here where it's legal?

This is a tough one but I am leaning towards saying that yes a conviction in the UK should preclude ownership here for the reason that an illegally held gun in the UK would be for criminal reasons. It isn't as if one could hold an illegal gun by accident. If there was a genuine reason to hold the gun it should have been done legitimately.

What about assault?

Case by case..... as I said in the uk one can be convicted if it is decided self defence went beyond reasonable force......

[Busyman]

This is a tough one but I am leaning towards saying that yes a conviction in the UK should preclude ownership here for the reason that an illegally held gun in the UK would be for criminal reasons. It isn't as if one could hold an illegal gun by accident. If there was a genuine reason to hold the gun it should have been done legitimately.



Case by case..... as I said in the uk one can be convicted if it is decided self defence went beyond reasonable force......

This is what I have a problem with.

In the UK, I wouldn't be able to own a handgun. If owned one across the border and brought it over, that's criminal. I would not want that to preclude someone from owning one here. If that was the case then that is essentially exporting UK law here.

Even in assault, a UK court might view assault in a different way thean we do. Felony assault in the UK would preclude me from owning a handgun in the US.
I actually with a case by case basis but problem is there still needs to be concrete law.
I understand the converse as well.
I remember many Cuban refugees were actually criminals in their country turned loose on America ffs. The movie Scarface made reference to something very true.

[Busyman]

being specific i reckon that with an unneccessery tool designed to kill, people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent

I totally disagree.

[Busyman]

yeah i understood what you said, but you can't just denounce everything a country says as lies because you don't like them much.

Agreed but the reason I don't understand what hoopla is with this "any" shit is that it couldn't possibly apply to ANY COURT IN THE WORLD.

I could get convicted of a crime in a country completely hostile to America.....and then I'll be penalized by uhh America too.

This is why I thank the Supreme Court for having some "common sense".

If we are to recognize other courts when it comes to our laws they should be named specifically.

This shouldn't even have been debatable.

[GepperRankins]

I totally disagree.

are you rodding me or did you sell your common sense for some magic beans?


---------------------


with the assault thing i suppose you have a point, if we are burgled we are allowed to use reasonable force. so if an unarmed burglar breaks in and i beat him to death with a baseball bat, that would be manslaughter. whereas it seems that way of thinking is ok in america, so that charge shouldn't carried over.

with guns though i find it hard to imagine someone in britain with a gun not to be a dickhead