Vick Poll

[fortdick]

Here's the deal... Good law enforcement officers (which I'm sure you are, you sound like you are) feel that it's a high burden. When you're trying to get a search warrant, you probably double, triple check, etc. to make sure that your search isn't invalidated. That probably leads you to gather up more evidence than you really need.

If a search is invalidated for not having PC, then the whole case can be thrown out. That's not something an officer wants to see, so they make doubly sure they can meet the burden (the good ones).

But the reality is that it's not that high in most instances. Here's the wikipedia site (I know, I know, wikipedia... blah... but it sounds like this time it is actually right). It's not easy to find one case that lays everything out. You have to look at secondary materials. The paragraph on PC states that some courts say it's 30%, some 40%, and yes some 51%. But preponderance is always 51%.

Go check out the Sokolow case they cite, and check out Illinois v. Gates, where the court defines PC as a "fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found."

Is Illinois v. Gates a SCt or state decision? In 25 years I never heard PC defined as 30-51%. BTW, did you grad from Pepperdine? Just thought the Peplaw was what that meant. I don't have PC to believe it, only just cause.

 

[peplaw06]

Say you are driving down the road, listening to the Allman Bros., or some other driving type music, and you see a red light blinking in the mirror. Local John Law writes you a ticket for speeding, but you know that your cruise control was set at 65 mph. You decide that you want to contest it. You go to traffic court. It is your word against Smokey's. The judege rules on a preponderance that the cops word is better than yours and slaps you with a huge fine and suspends your license.

Are you saying that is a higher burden of proof than PC? I can get a search warrant based upon my word?

Do yourself a favor and don't ever run for a muni judgeship.

If it is JUST your word against his, then won't get you convicted. The reality is that's never the case. The PO will oftentimes either have a) a partner in the car who also witnessed, b) a radar gun reading, c) video evidence, or something else. Those things, plus a police officer is usually more credible than someone who is trying to get out of a ticket. If you have a witness in your car that says he was watching the speedometer and you never got above 65 then you have evidence in your favor that may tip the scales.

 

[peplaw06]

Is Illinois v. Gates a SCt or state decision? In 25 years I never heard PC defined as 30-51%. BTW, did you grad from Pepperdine? Just thought the Peplaw was what that meant. I don't have PC to believe it, only just cause.

Supreme Court.... here's the cite , 462 U.S. 213.

And yes I graduated from Pepperdine.

 

[jay cee]

First of all, I never said they were going to convict him. I said if he were anybody else, he would already have been charged. It's true. He would have been, IMO. Secondly, I would point out that nobody here knows what the investigators do, or do not have in the way of evidence. They may have enough to convict or maybe not. You must keep in mind that there are multiple possabilities in the way of what he may eventually end up being charged with. It may be the case that they are trying to get him on multiple charges and thus, are still investigating. Or, maybe they don't have enough. Nobody really knows for sure. To say that they have nothing because he has not been charged is a bit premature IMO. We will soon see but not as soon as we would have if he were just Joe Lunch Pale, I think.

And that's where you differ from the average prosecutor IMO.

Why would they charge him unless they think they can get a conviction? It's not in the best interest of their career prospects to lose too many cases.

I don't know for certain that they don't have anything, but it does not take a genius to see that they don't have a "smoking gun", like video evidence.

So what's their next step? Try and develop a case.

If they can, they will charge him, if they can't, they will let the matter drop.

First you say, If he was anyone else he would already be charged. Then you say that they could be looking at adding multiple charges, that's why they could be delaying in charging him.

I'm sorry, but that sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Lot's of people have been guilty of crimes and have never been charged, because the prosecutor did not think they could get a guilty verdict.

Is it always because they were famous?

 

[fortdick]

Supreme Court.... here's the cite , 462 U.S. 213.

And yes I graduated from Pepperdine.

I knew it! That is a top flight school so I must presume you know your stuff.

The whole discussion revolces around Theogt's statement that PC is a very low threshold. Then he stated that POE was the highest. I have read decisions where a predonderance only has to be based upon a modicum of evidence. A modicum won't get you a warrant.

All I am saying here is that you can't get a search warrant without some compelling evidence. Not simply it is more likely than not, which is what a predonderance means..

 

[theogt]

I knew it! That is a top flight school so I must presume you know your stuff.

The whole discussion revolces around Theogt's statement that PC is a very low threshold. Then he stated that POE was the highest.

You're either misspeaking here, or you're mistaken.

I have read decisions where a predonderance only has to be based upon a modicum of evidence. A modicum won't get you a warrant.

All I am saying here is that you can't get a search warrant without some compelling evidence. Not simply it is more likely than not, which is what a predonderance means..

PC is theoretically less stringent than POE. I really can't state that any clearer. What a court does and what is the law can be two totally different things.

 

[jackrussell]

I'd personally like to thank ABQ for posting this thread.

Made for easy one stop shopping for my ignore list.

I've heard 20% of the world has no conscience....this unscientific poll holds true to that theory.

 

[DallasEast]

I'd personally like to thank ABQ for posting this thread.

Made for easy one stop shopping for my ignore list.

I've heard 20% of the world has no conscience....this unscientific poll holds true to that theory.

I've never used an 'ignore' feature at any forum. No disrespect, but it just seems plain silly. I disliked dantheman with a passion over at the old DMN, but I still read his posts. It didn't cause me the least bit of anxiety in not responding to any of his comments for years. Still, I always want to read as many diverse opinions as I can. Not because I want to read thoughts from those who I agreed or disagreed with, but because I feel it's necessary to keep tabs on every viewpoint which I might have been confronted with in the future. Kinda dorky sounding, huh? :

 

[fortdick]

You're either misspeaking here, or you're mistaken.

PC is theoretically less stringent than POE. I really can't state that any clearer. What a court does and what is the law can be two totally different things.

So I have noticed.

 

[superpunk]

I'd personally like to thank ABQ for posting this thread.

Made for easy one stop shopping for my ignore list.

I've heard 20% of the world has no conscience....this unscientific poll holds true to that theory.

It was an idiotic poll. Just a question begging knee-jerk reactionary answers, and demanding you make a decision. Hence, I did not vote.

Basing an ignore list on such a thing, is......well....you know.

 

[jackrussell]

It was an idiotic poll. Just a question begging knee-jerk reactionary answers, and demanding you make a decision. Hence, I did not vote.

Basing an ignore list on such a thing, is......well....you know.

I didn't BASE it on the poll....I already had a number of them there, BASING it on their previous remarks. I'm just kind of topping off the gas tank.

So your assumption that I'm basing an ignore list on such a thing is.....well....you know.

 

[superpunk]

I didn't BASE it on the poll....I already had a number of them there, BASING it on their previous remarks. I'm just kind of topping off the gas tank.

Well, that's certainly not what you actually wrote.

I'd personally like to thank ABQ for posting this thread.

Made for easy one stop shopping for my ignore list.

I hate Wal-Mart.

So your assumption that I'm basing an ignore list on such a thing is.....well....you know.

If my inability to read your mind, or know that you had been contemplating such a move is idiotic, ok then - I'm being idiotic.

But it's not, and you know that.

Vick looks guilty as sin. But there's still a possibility the guy is a victim of circumstance here. Deciding to ignore people because they voted no (doubtless because they can't be sure, and no seems closer to that REASONABLE option (which this poll was not) than yes) is crazy. You're no deity, you can't determine Vick's guilt. So why decied to disregard an entire group of people's opinions based on a ridiculous poll, that could have NO good result, and should never have been started in the first place? (whether it was the final nail in the coffin or otherwise, for you)

That's not Sparta....that's madness.

 

[03EBZ06]

Vick looks guilty as sin. But there's still a possibility the guy is a victim of circumstance here. Deciding to ignore people because they voted no (doubtless because they can't be sure, and no seems closer to that REASONABLE option (which this poll was not) than yes) is crazy. You're no deity, you can't determine Vick's guilt. So why decied to disregard an entire group of people's opinions based on a ridiculous poll, that could have NO good result, and should never have been started in the first place? (whether it was the final nail in the coffin or otherwise, for you)

This poll isn't about whether Vick is innocent or guilty, it is about whether anyone care if he is involved with dogfighting or not. It's not the same.

Do you care if Vick is involved with Dog Fighting?

 

[superpunk]

This poll isn't about whether Vick is innocent or guilty, it is about whether anyone care if he is involved with dogfighting or not. It's not the same.

You're right. I got my polarizing Michael Vick poll questions mixed up.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That's not Sparta....that's madness.

 

[jay cee]

This poll isn't about whether Vick is innocent or guilty, it is about whether anyone care if he is involved with dogfighting or not. It's not the same.

Care as compared to what? I don't care nearly as much about Vick's involvement with dogfighting as I do about high energy costs, possible global warming or even the Cowboys chances of winning another superbowl.

I guess, I do care. I wish that he nor anyone else would do something so stupid and cruel. But I also wish for world peace, I don't think I'll ever see that either.

So technically, I do care, just not enough to stop watching him play ball if he's not kicked out of the league.

I wonder if that's enough to keep me off of Jack Russell's ignore list.

 

[jackrussell]

I've never used an 'ignore' feature at any forum. No disrespect, but it just seems plain silly. I disliked dantheman with a passion over at the old DMN, but I still read his posts. It didn't cause me the least bit of anxiety in not responding to any of his comments for years. Still, I always want to read as many diverse opinions as I can. Not because I want to read thoughts from those who I agreed or disagreed with, but because I feel it's necessary to keep tabs on every viewpoint which I might have been confronted with in the future. Kinda dorky sounding, huh? :

If that's what you like to do on a message board...well good for you. I can say you're the better man for it....and I can live with that. I can also live with you finding it plain silly that I exercise my right to ignore someone...I'll still sleep knowing full well I may be missing out on some great informational diversification, and will get by just fine not knowing what anyone has to say about me and my views.

You say anxiety....I say apathy.

I posted a full summation, as silly as it may be, on my attitude towards ignore, and feel no need to defend it nor compelled to explain it further.

Well, that's certainly not what you actually wrote.

It could be possible there is a difference in 'what I actually wrote' and what you 'actually define as to what I wrote'. While on the surface it may appear that I did do my 'one stop shopping', it is just a continuance on what I have been doing all along...a well documented one at that.

HERE HERE & HERE

Please accept my apology for not being more clear in my original posting.

I hate Wal-Mart

Cheer up bucko...I'm sure a better job will come up soon.

Vick looks guilty as sin. But there's still a possibility the guy is a victim of circumstance here. Deciding to ignore people because they voted no (doubtless because they can't be sure, and no seems closer to that REASONABLE option (which this poll was not) than yes) is crazy. You're no deity, you can't determine Vick's guilt.

I've determined no one's guilt. In fact, I still have an open challenge for anyone (no takers so far) to find ANY post in which I have even accused M Vick of dog fighting, let alone determine his guilt or innocence. I'll save you the time...I've made no such posts.

So why decied to disregard an entire group of people's opinions based on a ridiculous poll, that could have NO good result, and should never have been started in the first place? (whether it was the final nail in the coffin or otherwise, for you)

That's not Sparta....that's madness.

I've already said I haven't disregarded anyone based entirely on a ridiculous poll. Whether you choose to believe it is not my problem. And if I may....anyone that doesn't care as to whether anyone does this heinous activity...is condoning it. It all ends right there...I couldn't care less as to whatever feeble minded opinion on anything these people may have.

I answered the poll question for what it was...Do you care if M Vick is involved in dog fighting.

It was really quite simple...not nearly as complex as you've made it. My answer would be the same regardless of the name that was inserted.

 

[DallasEast]

If that's what you like to do on a message board...well good for you. I can say you're the better man for it....and I can live with that. I can also live with you finding it plain silly that I exercise my right to ignore someone...I'll still sleep knowing full well I may be missing out on some great informational diversification, and will get by just fine not knowing what anyone has to say about me and my views.

You say anxiety....I say apathy.

I posted a full summation, as silly as it may be, on my attitude towards ignore, and feel no need to defend it nor compelled to explain it further.

That's more than fair enough, my friend. Fair enough, indeed.

 

[03EBZ06]

Care as compared to what? I don't care nearly as much about Vick's involvement with dogfighting as I do about high energy costs, possible global warming or even the Cowboys chances of winning another superbowl.

I guess, I do care. I wish that he nor anyone else would do something so stupid and cruel. But I also wish for world peace, I don't think I'll ever see that either.

So technically, I do care, just not enough to stop watching him play ball if he's not kicked out of the league.

I wonder if that's enough to keep me off of Jack Russell's ignore list.

You must lead a very complicated and yet, undecisive life.

 

[superpunk]

It could be possible there is a difference in 'what I actually wrote' and what you 'actually define as to what I wrote'.

No. I read what you wrote, and posted on that. I have not been keeping tabs on your eventual progression to ignore, so that's all I really could do.

While on the surface it may appear that I did do my 'one stop shopping', it is just a continuance on what I have been doing all along...a well documented one at that.

HERE HERE & HERE

Please accept my apology for not being more clear in my original posting.

that's fair, and there's really no need for apologies. As to the rest, I was simply confused as to what ignorant, polarizing Michael Vick poll question started by ABQCowboy this was, and so that is my bad. I don't know that I agree that not caring = condoning (in fact, I know I don't) but that's ok.

I've determined no one's guilt. In fact, I still have an open challenge for anyone (no takers so far) to find ANY post in which I have even accused M Vick of dog fighting, let alone determine his guilt or innocence. I'll save you the time...I've made no such posts.

No need for some petty challenge. I never said you had determined Vick's guilt, just that you are incapable. But for that, I was responding to a line of thinking that I was mistaken on.