Anybody seen the lovely new LA police video?

[Charon]

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

That dammed coffee was too hot for me to drink at the time without asking them to add ice every time I ordered it. A few small spill-overs convinced me to either get the ice or wait 15 minutes to drink it, especially when driving. And a product that can fairly easily generate 3rd degree burns on your genitalia over something as common as a spill is a dangerous product. This could easily have happend to you or I by having to slam on the brakes at the wrong time. She wasn't one of these people who have to be told: "don't use the hair dryer in the shower."

There are a lot of BS lawsuits out today (and more than a few ambulance chasers -- you see them on TV commercials and hear them on the radio trying to drum up business), but there are a lot of companies that actively equate the cost of a safety improvement or quality control with the liability costs of not correcting the problem. Some reform is clearly needed, but for a great many companies a potential injury to you or I is part of the cost of doing business. I prefer them to have a rather careful consideration of that cost when they are making those decisions. Hey, it may be your son or daughter getting those skin grafts next time because they were too stoopid to know that a product sold over the counter at a drive through could seriously injure them when being used within acceptable parameters.

As noted above, the concerns of the flavor consultant, who wanted to move more product, were the primary driver behaind overly scalding coffee, but then that is not how you spin it if you're in corporate communications. What you do is spin a carefully developed position of outrage at the injustice, push the right buttons in the target audience and count on few people actually researching the full story beyond a headline or soundbite. Pull another one over on the rubes. That's why I got out of public relations and moved into the high paying field of trade journalism

Charon

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target


So, I guess we should have just let the guilty go free because they were friends of the State prosecutors? (not the King case, but the historical reason for the statute)
C'mon Steve, like you are always saying, It ain't as simple as you think it is.

I really expected more from you.

Midnight Target, take a long good look in the mirror. You should feel ashamed over what you just wrote.

How on earth can you say "let the guilty go free" when they had just been declared innocent by a jury of their peers?

It is completely irrelevant how that jury reached its decision. But if you want a jury system you will have to accept the consequences of it too.

[Charon]

stupid people make the world go round, so do greedy ones & their lawyers

Eagler

Of course,  you're talking about corportations I assume

Charon

[Hortlund]

And double jeopardy will ALWAYS be wrong. In sweden what happened to OJ or those cops is unthinkable. (note that OJ would have been found guilty in a 2-3 day trial though, instead of the year and a half soap opera you guys got)

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund

I really expected more from you.

Midnight Target, take a long good look in the mirror. You should feel ashamed over what you just wrote.

How on earth can you say "let the guilty go free" when they had just been declared innocent by a jury of their peers?

It is completely irrelevant how that jury reached its decision. But if you want a jury system you will have to accept the consequences of it too.

Steve, I really am sorry to see the degeneration of your responses. Even your condescension level is slipping. What I wrote was in full knowledge of the history of the civil rights movement and the reasoning behind the federal civil rights prosecution. I suggest you read up.

Many were set free during this time by a jury of their white peers because black men and women were denied jury duty because they were also being denied voter registration. This was wrong and murderers were walking the streets because of this state of affairs.

Bush Sr. obviously felt that a similar injustice was done in California in 1992.

[-Concho-]

Udie thank you for the knida words.  (BTW I have run one of those cameros up to 155mph, the old caprice is a close second )

Capt. A I'm sorry that you have to deal with that kind of police force.  Around here we fight over who gets to sound the charge  

Sounds like ya'll need some reform.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target


Steve, I really am sorry to see the degeneration of your responses. Even your condescension level is slipping. What I wrote was in full knowledge of the history of the civil rights movement and the reasoning behind the federal civil rights prosecution. I suggest you read up.

Many were set free during this time by a jury of their white peers because black men and women were denied jury duty because they were also being denied voter registration. This was wrong and murderers were walking the streets because of this state of affairs.

Bush Sr. obviously felt that a similar injustice was done in California in 1992.

The degeneration of my responses? Actually I have no idea what you are talking about.

Let me just say this. It is always bad to have politicians stick their fingers into the legal machinery.

It seems to me that the only reason you are defending this instance of someone being tried for the same crime twice is because you are of the opinion that they were guilty to a crime. When they were found not guilty by a jury, you feel that the verdict was wrong, and you want them to somehow still get their (in your opinion) just punishment.

What you have described above only points to the weakness of a jury system. Bottom line is, if you want to have the average Joe sit and decide whether some guy is guilty or not, average Joe will bring his emotions and values with him into the courtroom. That might lead to some people being found innocent when they really are guilty and it might lead to some people being convicted even though they are innocent. What exactly is the meaning of the phrase "a jury of their peers" to you? It sounds to me that that is exactly what they got, and guess what, those jurors did not think the suspects should be punished for what they did. Case closed. As I said, it comes with the territory when you want to have a jury system.

Double jeopardy is always always wrong, regardless of what motives you have behind it. It doesnt matter that some guilty ones are left unpunished, that comes with the territory when you have the legal standard we do in the western world. And we really dont want it any other way. It doesnt matter that the civil rights movement "needed it". It is still plain wrong, and I cannot understand that you of all people are defending it.

[AKSWulfe]

Nevermind, not worth arguing about.

I'll just say this much- you put something you know is going to be hot between your legs instead of on the dashboard or in a cup holder so you can remove the lid... and you know what could possibly happen.
-SW

[midnight Target]

Double jeopardy is always always wrong

I feel like I'm beating my head against a Swedish wall. But then I'm part Swedish too so I guess stubbornness is a genetic trait.

The jury system is fine, but the jury selection system was flawed. Not everyone was given equal access to the protection of the law. You can rant all you want about double jeopardy. The people I'm talking about used the power of racism and jim crow laws to get away with murder. That is always wrong too.

One other point. These guys were never tried for the same crime. They were tried for civil rights violations. The policemen in the King trial were not charged with the same crime twice.

[Charon]

I'll just say this much- you put something you know is going to be hot between your legs instead of on the dashboard or in a cup holder so you can remove the lid... and you know what could possibly happen.

Assuming you have a cupholder or dash that will support a cup. I don't in my car, maybe she didn't in the one she was driving in. And if she had knocked her arm accidently and spilled the coffee the result would have been the same. Third degree burns and skin grafts are serious. The last time I saw them i was pulling a drunk from a bonfire made out of burining pallets. That was his fault -- a real darwin candidate. If it was your noodle getting the skin graft because you accidently dropped the cup in your lap when pulling out, then you would probably think the coffee was a bit too hot as well. Frankly, Mc Donalds (or Firestone, or Ford/Pinto) could give a toejam unless you make them pay attention. You are a number, and not a very important one at that except wher sales are concerned.

[edit: in fact, the rejection of  her reasonable $20,000 in medical compensation shows just how insignificant you are to a mc donalds]
Charon

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target

I feel like I'm beating my head against a Swedish wall. But then I'm part Swedish too so I guess stubbornness is a genetic trait.

The jury system is fine, but the jury selection system was flawed. Not everyone was given equal access to the protection of the law. You can rant all you want about double jeopardy. The people I'm talking about used the power of racism and jim crow laws to get away with murder. That is always wrong too.

One other point. These guys were never tried for the same crime. They were tried for civil rights violations. The policemen in the King trial were not charged with the same crime twice.

Double jeopardy is not about the same crime, it is about the same "situation". I dont know how to translate this. But it is the action itself that cannot be tried twice. Otherwise, the prosecutor could just switch to another crime and have a go at it again. "Oh, well, the jury found him not guilty of murder, lets see if I can at least get a conviction for assault". That means in the King case, that after the jury found the police officers not guilty, no other trial can be held against those officers where the assault of King is used as evidence.

As I said, its kinda hard to translate this stuff, and it would be much easier if you learned Swedish or something

The Jury system sucks. OJ proved that. The jury system brings aspects into the legal system that has no place there. Stuff like opinions, emotions, predjudices, old scores, hate, love etc etc. As I said, if you want to have a jury system, you will have to deal with its rotten consequences too. King and OJ is a very good example of that. You cant blame what happened on the OJ or King trial on jury selection.

Take a look at the OJ trial. Im not gonna go into great detail here, but among countless of other evidence, OJs blood was found on the scene, and the victims blood was found on his socks. Thats it right there, case closed he was at the scene at the time of the crime. As I said in Sweden the OJ trial would have taken 2-3 days MAX, probably just 1.

Enter slick US type lawyer. "Maybe the cops planted OJ:s blood on the scene. Mark Fuhrman is a cop, he was also at the scene, maybe he planted OJs blood there"

Stupid juror #1 "yeah, we cant trust cops, and look at that Mark Fuhrman, he is a racist, he MUST have planted OJ:s blood on the scene"

Slick US type lawyer "And besides, how do you know it was OJs blood"

Expert witness "Uh..well, we have OJs DNA in the blood"

Slick US type lawyer "but isnt it POSSIBLE that two people might have the same DNA"

Expert witness "Uh..no, not really the odds are astronomical, like 240 million to 1, we have never encountered it, but I suppose it is theortetically possible"

Slick US type lawyer "AHA, so it is possible that it wasnt even OJs blood at the scene, and remember Mark Fuhrman"

Stupid juror #2 "wow, it is so obvious this is a white conspiracy against OJ, they dont even have his blood on the scene"

Is this the type of people you really want deciding over life and death?

[midnight Target]

Nice arguement Steve, except you continue to ignore the reason behind our implementation of Federal civil rights protection.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Nice arguement Steve, except you continue to ignore the reason behind our implementation of Federal civil rights protection.

Yes I am ignoring that reason. Because whatever it is, it doesnt motivate double jeopardy.

A legal system is built on rules. Objective rules. Cold, emotionless, objective rules. Do A and B will happen. There is a very good reason for this. Because as soon as you open the door up to subjectivity, the idea of a fair and impartial trial goes out the window. As soon as you allow emotions, or politics in the courtroom, the idea of a fair trial is out.

[midnight Target]

OK, then I'll try to use someone else's words, even someone who agrees with you on this one:

[How is it that, after generally being acquitted at trial on state criminal charges, the police officers responsible for beating Rodney King were able to be prosecuted again under federal law? In the United States, the courts have applied a "dual sovereignty doctrine" that generally allows a state to prosecute a person under state law after the person has been prosecuted under federal law, or allows the federal government to prosecute a person under federal law after the person has been prosecuted under state law, even though the state or federal violation arises out of the same act and even though the state and federal offences are substantially the same.<187> However, the dual sovereignty doctrine has been limited somewhat by federal policy and by various state statutes.<188>

In the context of federal civil rights prosecutions, this means that there is no constitutional double jeopardy bar to launching a federal criminal prosecution in the event that, at an earlier state trial, an accused was acquitted of the crime charged. There has been criticism of this approach. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union recently voted to oppose as unconstitutional the federal civil rights trial of the officers who beat Rodney King, saying it violates the officers' right not to be tried twice for the same offence.<189>

With the ACLU on your side, you can never go wrong.

[SirLoin]

These two cops should and will lose their jobs...Hopefully their pensions too.