DebateGate

My problem with the issue in this thread began with the idea of a psycho killer vet (the subject of the original post in this thread) getting a Presidential pardon and then taken onto a police force.  I said that that would be the point, were I unfortunate enough to be a U.S. citizen, where I'd start to think about exercising my Second Amendment rights - - so the issue, or rather sub-issue, as I see it, is plane's response that I've somehow justified his long-held defence of that right.  What I really wanted to know was, recognizing that the first scenario was purely hypothetical, is there any reason in today's world, to arm oneself against potential police abuses?

plane raised Ruby Ridge as an example.  He felt that the victims "should have" shot the FBI agents instead of retreating or surrendering themselves.

Personally, I'd forgotten a lot of the Ruby Ridge story so I just refreshed my memory by reading the Wikipedia account of it.  IMHO, this whole tragedy could have been avoided had the Weaver family NOT availed themselves of their Second Amendment rights.  Or had they submitted to the bench warrant issued by the local judge on Randy's first no-show.   The entire Ruby Ridge story is a textbook example of why citizens should not be armed and even if armed, should not attempt to fight or disobey law enforcement.

This and the Branch Davidian story are both examples of "Fuck with the bull and you get the horn."  In a nation of laws, armed individuals are a threat to the state and when they begin to actualize the threat, that's when tragedy results. 

Wow, really have to thank R.R. for the New Mexican case in which polygraph evidence WAS admitted in court.  I was totally unaware until now of ANY U.S. jurisdiction in which polygraph evidence was admissible.  The Wikipedia article on admissibility of polygraph evidence is clear that this evidence is barred from any Canadian courtroom by virtue of a Supreme Court of Canada decision, also that whereas the Supreme Court of Australia has not yet ruled on the issue, the highest State court to rule on the issue (New South Wales) has barred the use of polygraph evidence and in Europe generally the use of the polygraph is not even common in police forces.  In Germany, no court can use polygraph evidence.

According to Wikipedia, the picture in the U.S.A. is less clear.  New Mexico seems to be the only state to allow polygraph evidence before juries; however it seems that 19 states (roughly 40%) will allow polygraph evidence by stipulation, which I imagine means if both parties are willing to admit it.  If I'm correct in this, it's certainly an indication that even the 19 states that admit polygraph evidence by stipulation don't think very highly of the technique - - can you imagine any court today that is willing to admit, say, fingerprint, or DNA, or ballistics or Breathalyzer evidence by stipulation only?

So instead of polygraph evidence being barred in EVERY court, it's basically barred in MOST courts.  Whether police use it or not is ridiculously irrelevant, unless you believe that it's OK to let the police determine anyone's guilt or innocence and courts aren't really necessary.  Well, actually, since I am dealing with hard-core conservatives here, maybe that is exactly how they DO feel.

I think the overall picture on polygraphs is generally as I originally stated it, only instead of NO courts admitting polygraph evidence, it turns out that one state (New Mexico) will admit it, and 19 others will do so by stipulation, which still indicates an extremely low opinion of the quality of that evidence.  Polygraphs are still regarded as junk science by the majority of jurisdictions in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia.  Also, it seems (from the same article) that the High Court of Israel has ruled that the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device.

The Wikipedia article referred to is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States

And of course the National Research Council's extensive study of the polygraph from 2002 still stands as further evidence that the polygraph is still what the courts of most jurisdictions consider it to be, i.e., junk science.

The voice stress analysis ("VSA") is, IMHO, of even lower reliability than the polygraph, so the so-called "lie detector" test which The Perv purportedly passed and one of his victims purportedly failed, is junk science even lower than polygraph junk science.  Thanks to plane for the VSA evaluations he had dug up, which I haven't had time to review yet, but will get around to very soon. 

<<Even if it requires believing a 95% unbelievable accusation>>


What's TRULY unbelievable is this ongoing "95% reliable" bullshit based on pure junk science which no court in the country accepts.

Otherwise, 4 different women coming forward against this one guy is in and of itself 95% believable evidence that he is a serial abuser of women.

<<If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue. >>

Gloria Allred is making them do it.

<<I'm actually waiting for some documentation by Tee that shows all these lawsuits aimed at those law enforcment agencies using this "junk science"  Shouldn't be hard>>

I'm afraid you'll be waiting an awfully long time, because I actually helped you out in this thread by showing you some of the ways the police put the machine to legitimate use as an investigative tool.

If I might repeat something else that I've already said many times, in the hopes that this time you might actually remember it, is that no court, whose business it is to determine if a witness is lying or not, is willing to accept the use of these things.

<<I'll take a stab....Rule of Law.  The former supports it, the latter will ignore it>>

Good answer, and I suspect, the standard conservative answer.  So I guess Rule of Law doesn't really cover shooting it out with the cops, except in the most extreme cases of corrupt officers shooting at you with intent to kill or maim.

<<If Cain were a suspect in a rape and the police called him downtown and ran his voice through this software he would be cleared by the police and they would move on to other leads. >>

ROTFLMFAO.  That is just total bullshit.  How do you know what the cops would do if the machine cleared his voice?  That's just not how the police use those machines, or shouldn't be.  If they ever cleared a suspect and the guy then went out and did some more rapes, the new victims could sue the ass off any cops dumb enough to give the guy a pass because he beat the machine.  What possible evidence do you have for such a ridiculous claim?

<<This technology is good enough to use in 70 police departments across this country.>>

Yeah, for the limited purposes I outlined in another post in this thread.  USE YOUR COMMON SENSE - - if it's 95% accurate in the way that you say it is, why won't a single court accept it?   One good reason would suffice.

<< I consider this matter closed>>

Yeah, sure, Declare Victory Hit ENTER.

<< . . .  but Tee and XO want to avoid the facts because it doesn't fit their template. >>

HUH??  EXCUSE ME? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?   What "facts" did I want to avoid?  The fact of the National Research Council study of 2002 that found the devices totally worthless?  The fact that not a single court in either the U.S. or Canada will accept them for either criminal or civil trials?  It does seem to me that the only persons avoiding the facts in here are you and sirs.  You have no facts at all to support your junk science and instead misconstrue the purposes for which the police use the machines and the ignore completely the fact that it is not the job of the police to make the final determination as to whether a witness is lying or not, that job being left to the courts.  You ignored every single fact that was offered to you so that you could accept a junk science that no court in Canada or the U.S. would accept.

<<They want so desperately for these allegations to be true.>>

Well here's the difference.  YOU want so desperately for them to be false.  But in your desperation you reach for junk science and looney conspiracy theories because it's all you have.  And of course you ignore every fact that is put in front of you.  Desperate though we may be to want to see Herm the Perv get his comeuppance, we have relied ONLY on fact, on common sense and in agreement with all of the courts of our two respective countries.   And personally, much as I loathe the Hermster for being the despicable human being that he is, I actually wouldn't mind seeing him as President of the U.S.A. fpr several reasons, one being that he's the President you actually deserve.