I am DISGUSTED.

[Harpy Eagle]

Why would the savage thug go free? He would still be held in custody, get a trial, and then go to prison.

Because you violated his Constitutional rights and he will be let free because of it.

 

[Disir]

Why would the savage thug go free? He would still be held in custody, get a trial, and then go to prison.

And if the information is wrong, so what was lost? There’s a chance that the information could be correct, and a life would be saved.

The savage thug would not be picked up because a false confession will have been obtained via torture. If I torture you, eventually you will tell me whatever it is that you think I want to know so that I stop. The way our system works is that once I have that confession then I don't need to look any further. That's why.

Edited for this: In any system or anywhere--that confession means that nothing further needs to be examined. In our system, where the Reid technique is used there have been significant problems and that technique has been banned in other countries and while not torture it doesn't allow to look beyond what is in front of them.

 

[Lisa558]

The savage thug would not be picked up because a false confession will have been obtained via torture. If I torture you, eventually you will tell me whatever it is that you think I want to know so that I stop. The way our system works is that once I have that confession then I don't need to look any further. That's why.

Edited for this: In any system or anywhere--that confession means that nothing further needs to be examined. In our system, where the Reid technique is used there have been significant problems and that technique has been banned in other countries and while not torture it doesn't allow to look beyond what is in front of them.

No, you misunderstood. They already picked up the savage based on DNA evidence and had him in custody. They wanted to know where he left his victim, in the hopes she was still alive and could be saved. If he gave them the wrong information to stop the torture, they’re no worse off - still don’t know. I say we err on the side of the innocent victim rather than her savage attacker if there’s a chance her life could be saved.

 

[pknopp]

No, you misunderstood. They already picked up the savage based on DNA evidence and had him in custody. They wanted to know where he left his victim, in the hopes she was still alive and could be saved. If he gave them the wrong information to stop the torture, they’re no worse off - still don’t know. I say we err on the side of the innocent victim rather than her savage attacker if there’s a chance her life could be saved.

What other parts of the Constitution do you want to dispense with?

 

[bodecea]

First, he’s not innocent. And second, why err on the side of an ex-felon lowlife, who would have to suffer a few minutes of gasping for air, over the life of an innocent woman?

You care more about the discomfort of a lowlife criminal thug than the life of an innocent person - and this is why the crime rate has soared in Democrat sh cities: they care more about criminals than their victims.

Those who advocate torture should be prepared for them and theirs to someday be tortured.

 

[flan327]

A hell of a lot of posters on this board support the idea of allowing the Government to torture crime suspects. That disgusts me. You people are stupid and crazy as well as soulless. The usual argument presented was that somehow magically the cops would ONLY torture the criminals that the poster thought needed to be tortured.

The historical fact is that cops torture everyone when allowed and do it even when they know they have the wrong person. And you animals would allow that because of feelings, to hell with right and wrong, to hell with the law and the Constitution. Again DISGUSTING.

What are you blathering about?

Do you have PROOF?

 

[Disir]

No, you misunderstood. They already picked up the savage based on DNA evidence and had him in custody. They wanted to know where he left his victim, in the hopes she was still alive and could be saved. If he gave them the wrong information to stop the torture, they’re no worse off - still don’t know. I say we err on the side of the innocent victim rather than her savage attacker if there’s a chance her life could be saved.

There is nothing to misunderstand. That is a tv show. I've explained it. I'm done.

 

[bodecea]

I‘m not saying the ex-felon criminal lowlife scumbag who already has done prison time for another kidnapping and whose DNA was on the victim’s shoes has been tried and needs to go to prison. But I err on the side of saving an innocent life while you err on the side of an ex-felon lowlife criminal scumbag.

And don’t get me started on doing away with what this county is based on. That is a blatant lie, due to your falling for your demigod’s claim that Trump voters are treasonous, evil people. It truly shows how evil Biden is.

From your posts, it's evident that you REALLY believe in torture as a form of revenge.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can’t believe that a liberal would sink so low as to think it’s a fair comparison between innocent, law-abiding Jews tortured to DEATH for no purpose other than to eliminate Jews from the world to a savage thug to be tortured for a few minutes for the purpose of saving an innocent life.

there is no difference either everyone has the same rights and protections or no one does, once you start selectively granting protections and rights you are a despot and ripe for abuse and yes it will occur.

 

[flan327]

The savage thug would not be picked up because a false confession will have been obtained via torture. If I torture you, eventually you will tell me whatever it is that you think I want to know so that I stop. The way our system works is that once I have that confession then I don't need to look any further. That's why.

Edited for this: In any system or anywhere--that confession means that nothing further needs to be examined. In our system, where the Reid technique is used there have been significant problems and that technique has been banned in other countries and while not torture it doesn't allow to look beyond what is in front of them.

Is water boarding your preferred method?

 

[Disir]

Is water boarding your preferred method?

Explain.

 

[bodecea]

No, you misunderstood. They already picked up the savage based on DNA evidence and had him in custody. They wanted to know where he left his victim, in the hopes she was still alive and could be saved. If he gave them the wrong information to stop the torture, they’re no worse off - still don’t know. I say we err on the side of the innocent victim rather than her savage attacker if there’s a chance her life could be saved.

And if you tortured him, he would have to be released.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why would the savage thug go free? He would still be held in custody, get a trial, and then go to prison.

And if the information is wrong, so what was lost? There’s a chance that the information could be correct, and a life would be saved.

Not in this country he wouldn't abuse and torture mean no conviction because GASP everyone has the same rights and protections because we are a free Country.

 

[bodecea]

Is water boarding your preferred method?

What ever happened to Hannity volunteering to be waterboarded for charity because "it's not torture"?

 

[pknopp]

What ever happened to Hannity volunteering to be waterboarded for charity because "it's not torture"?

It only works if the person is capable of telling the truth.

 

[night_son]

A hell of a lot of posters on this board support the idea of allowing the Government to torture crime suspects. That disgusts me. You people are stupid and crazy as well as soulless. The usual argument presented was that somehow magically the cops would ONLY torture the criminals that the poster thought needed to be tortured.

The historical fact is that cops torture everyone when allowed and do it even when they know they have the wrong person. And you animals would allow that because of feelings, to hell with right and wrong, to hell with the law and the Constitution. Again DISGUSTING.

Despite decades of indoctrination into the blind patriotism that drives our men and women in uniform to "serve" the people, I often find myself wondering just how rights that are supposedly inalienable for each and every citizen of this country can so quickly and easily be canceled, suspended, permanently removed—by government, when that very same government did not GIVE us those rights to begin with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Despite decades of indoctrination into the blind patriotism that drives our men and women in uniform to "serve" the people, I often find myself wondering just how rights that are supposedly inalienable for each and every citizen of this country can so quickly and easily be canceled, suspended, permanently removed—by government, when that very same government did not GIVE us those rights to begin with.

LOL quick question....can the Government take away those rights by force? a Yes or no will do.

 

[night_son]

LOL quick question....can the Government take away those rights by force? a Yes or no will do.

Yes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes.

then they protect those rights even if you claim they did not give them to us .

 

[BackAgain]

And if he was innocent?

I hate to ever agree with Leftwhiner, but in this instance I do. That question is a fair one and it’s on point, too.