Questions About Shooting
- Back in 2005, police fired forty-two shots at one man, killing him after a traffic stop. Up to now, there were no charges. But Fox News Chicago has learned that could be changing.
Of course there were no charges - you can't charge a dead guy with a crime, even in Illinois. Now comes word of a Civil Court deposition being used to impeach official documentation of the shooting. Civil Court rules are much more lenient in terms of admissible evidence and interpretation of that evidence has always been more liberal, too. We certainly hope that everything was done properly at the scene.
For the record, we are allowed to shoot people forty two times - even one hundred forty two times - if circumstances permit so a big "fuck you very much" to WFLD for trying to play up the amount of shots fired and where they hit the dead guy. As for the rest, we'll hope all is good.
For the record, we are allowed to shoot people forty two times - even one hundred forty two times - if circumstances permit so a big "fuck you very much" to WFLD for trying to play up the amount of shots fired and where they hit the dead guy. As for the rest, we'll hope all is good.
Labels: shooting
posted by SCC at 12:04 AM
64 Comments:
Keep shooting until there is no longer a threat.
J-Fed wants to go to 6 shots magazine clips, like the revolvers.
J-Fed was heard saying nobody ever shot at somebody 42 times with a revolver, even with speed loaders.
Thanks to the media as always trying to stir shit! Bad news sells papers and makes people watch tv news! Thanks again fox for starting bullshit! If I have a right to shoot someone I will shoot to kill as many shots as I deem needed!
42 times?Ditch the DAO and 9mm.
...if you can't get him with 6 shots you should not be there .....................................................................
What's up with the po from TRU snitching on his fellow officers? Why the fuck would he even be talking to Ekl? Ekl is trying to get the po's fired. This damn po is too stupid for words!!!!!
The W/C in 22 Capt. M. A that if we don't have any activity he will be denying time due . He cant do that !
How about keep shooting until there is no longer anyone.
There are more indictments coming,count on it.
This will be ugly--Everybody that had anything to do with that one should be shaking in their boots right now. Charging is coming--and anyone who signed off on anything is going to be called in on the carpet.
I like how big Law Firms use the media as a platform to bolster their claim in hopes of a big payday. Like always one side reporting(if you can call it that) then the people accept the lawyers and families version as gospel and we're made to look like the villains.
my question to all of you is.....
Why continue doing police work?
No one cares. No one gives a crap how many DC'S you have or what you have done in the past. If your actions are perceive as wrong...you will suffer the consequences..
WISH IN ONE HAND , SHIT IN DA OTHER SEE WHICH ONE FILLS FIRST
This is all crap. These officers are good officers who are being treated like criminals by the media. When someone is pinned beneath the tire of a car that is still revving its engine...that is considered a deadly threat. The deadly threat was eliminated. The media and jackass Ekl have a wonderful way of distorting/misconstruing evidence and officers' statements to twist it in order to look/sound incriminating. Good luck guys. May the truth set you free!
Keep up the good work!
SCREW THE M-4'S
Keep Shooting Until The Threat Is Contained/Nuetralized Permanent Is Rule # 1 !!!!
Use A Fully Automatic Uzi At 1,000 Rnds Per & Let's See How Long It Takes For The Honor Students/Thugs/Cougars/Cayotes & Storefront Revs to Show A Little Respect!
The Words "Yes Sir" Will Be coming Out Of Every ORIFICE of their Bodies Real Fast For Sure
To Me, You Fight Fire With Fire.
Screw The Tree Hugging Liberal Namby Pambys That want To Save The Cougars & Coddle The world With Love
You Play, Ya Gonna Pay!!!!
Off Topic
Poking around The WWW.
State Of Ct
Resident Trooper On The Job In Rural Ct Catches The Call Of A Structure Fire.
Guess what?
His House Going Down To The Ground Total.
Everyone Ok Otherwise, But What Makes Me Think That Their Are Sum Decent Folks Left In This world ???
The Locals & His Brother Troopers Took Up Many Collections To Help The Trooper & His Family Out.
Nice To see.
What would The Honor Students/Storefront Revs/ JFED & The Stuttering Midget Do In a Situation Like This ??
Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know
Being an ex-Airborne Ranger, Sniper, Presidents 100, 42 seem like a bit much. Sounds to me like some firearms marksmanship is needed. Learn to shoot, and, spot blaming your lack of marksmanship on the department!
Civil Court rules are much more lenient in terms of admissible evidence and interpretation of that evidence has always been more liberal, too.
__________________________________
Wrong-O, SCC! First of all, there are no "rules" of evidence in Illinois courts. Most States have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence , but not Illinois. Second, please note that there are no "civil rules" versus "criminal rules" of evidence (even in the Federal system) as you seem to indicate. Finally, your claim that "interpretation of evidence" in civil courts "has always been more liberal" than in criminal courts is pure gibberish. Leave the law to the lawyers.
Officers, please do not take stock in any of SCC's legal opinions. They tend to be wrong.
JFed wants 6 shot....??? God you're dumb! How about this, in the future, try to, just try to limit your want to stir up shit. Please try, you will come off less like an idiot.
If J-Fed said that, he said it without any research. At 13th and State in the 80's cops shot hundreds of rounds from revolvers baby!
The "offender's" attorney is on nothing but a huge fishing expedition. He throwing a bunch of sh#t out there and hoping something sticks. Hang in there to all those involved.
It's not like they shot a guy armed only with a condom and a can opener!!!! BAM-BAM
Give em a break!!
For fuck sake...I tell ya, this department is going to hell in a handbasket.
Can't wait until Ginger makes ME a SGT - all you dogs will pay then!
Its a damn shame that we are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT in this joke of a department. Makes a person not want to do shit anymore!
Just you wait until we get our M-4's from Uncle J-Fed....we will be able to shoot 40 times each in the same amount of time!!
That shooting was 100% justified. The fact that the victim-officer was smoking a cigarette two minutes after shooting his way from under the car has nothing to do with anything.
Professional Police Hater Terry Elk is watching his windfall case dissolve before his eyes and wants Fox Chicago to step up the pressure for a settlement for the illegal criminal and his illegal family.
If you watch carefully, you can see that Elk (also Abatte's bartender's lawyer) obviously has a setup with Fox to feed them first looks at the evidence his lawsuits uncover, as long as Fox publically pushes the city for big money settlements.
Locke Bowman and Andy-Dick-Lovey have the same setup with the ScumTimes and ABC News.
Ten years from now when the ScumTimes and local network news have long been out of business, the current Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Scam will finally be exposed as one of the biggest frauds in history.
Civil Court rules are much more lenient in terms of admissible evidence and interpretation of that evidence has always been more liberal, too.
Well gee, when the lawyers were questioning us about our CR history, that seemed to be a more liberal interpretation of what was admissible along with all the interrogatories we had to answer. The judge wouldn't let the defense near that during the criminal trial.
And your assertion that there "are no "civil rules" versus "criminal rules" of evidence" is BS or maybe you didn't follow the OJ trial back in the 90's when he beat the criminal case only to be buried under a mountain of evidence only admitted during the civil trial - two different standards, two different results.
We don't purport to be lawyers and don't claim to know the finer points of law, but we've been sued enough, testified enough and observed enough to know what has a chance of being admitted under what circumstances.
This will be ugly--Everybody that had anything to do with that one should be shaking in their boots right now. Charging is coming--and anyone who signed off on anything is going to be called in on the carpet.
FUCK YOU BITCH!!!! I was there,this was above board, this is nothing but a Bull Shit law suit... No CPD copper ever shakes in his/her boots you fucking pussy...we kill those who intend to do us harm. YOU BITCH!!!!!
Being an ex-Airborne Ranger, Sniper, Presidents 100, 42 seem like a bit much. Sounds to me like some firearms marksmanship is needed. Learn to shoot, and, spot blaming your lack of marksmanship on the department!
Blow mw bitch.....we shoot once a year JAGOFF !!!
This is all crap. These officers are good officers who are being treated like criminals by the media. When someone is pinned beneath the tire of a car that is still revving its engine...that is considered a deadly threat. The deadly threat was eliminated.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this TRU copper was pinned under the FRONT of the car, how did HIS bullet end up in the offender's back? Not judging, just asking? I'm sure someone can come up with a reasonable explaination, right? If not Finnagan & Co will have lots of company in the near future.
"...if you can't get him with 6 shots you should not be there .....................................................................
5/09/2008 10:08:00 AM"
Smells like you need to have your diaper changed.
Anonymous said...
...if you can't get him with 6 shots you should not be there .....................................................................
U and the airborne ranger don't know what you are talking about. If you see a fellow officer getting run over you will shoot until the car stops or you run out of bullets. Several officers doing this at the same time easily equals 42 shots. There should have been more. I was on the scene, all you had to do was look at the grouping of the shots fired by the P/O getting run down and it was obvious where he was. The rounds bounced off the hood before going into the windshield.
Never second guess if you are firing too much, it may cost you your life. Markmanship has nothing to do with it. A soldier should know that. Maybe you are a fake.
5/09/2008 10:08:00 AM
Ten years from now when the ScumTimes and local network news have long been out of business, the current Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Scam will finally be exposed as one of the biggest frauds in history.
5/09/2008 08:21:00 PM
-----------------------------
Why don't the feds look into this?
Or attoney general? oh wait, the police can't have a blue line, but the lawyers and media cover up and scam, lie and fuck over the community and taxpayers with no punishment.
i know the off duty guy who was there. he couldn't be a more legit and stand up guy. the media and the lawyers are just out for any thing they can try and get out of the city while the good guys get it up the ass. this whole situation was by the book! any of us would have done the same thing. and correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the offender not a citizen? but hey isn't that half of the country anyway? regardless, i talked to the off duty right after it happened and believe me thats the fucking way it happened! stay strong guys!
Wrong-O, SCC! First of all, there are no "rules" of evidence in Illinois courts. Most States have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence , but not Illinois. Second, please note that there are no "civil rules" versus "criminal rules" of evidence (even in the Federal system) as you seem to indicate. Finally, your claim that "interpretation of evidence" in civil courts "has always been more liberal" than in criminal courts is pure gibberish. Leave the law to the lawyers.
Officers, please do not take stock in any of SCC's legal opinions. They tend to be wrong.
5/09/2008 04:13:00 PM
A couple of points:
#1) Sometimes SCC gets the legal concepts wrong.
#2) This is not one of those times.
When you say there are no rules of evidence in Illinois you are flatly wrong. It is true that the Federal Rules of Evidence have been adopted by some states - that DOES NOT mean Illinois has no rules of evidence. The majority of Illinois Evidence is grounded in the common law. For specific evidence rules you can also look to Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When you want to talk about "Criminal Evidence" then you are also going to have to incorporate constitutional principles such as the confrontation clause - but you can also look to Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Illinois has, for example, a hearsay rule and many exemptions. Most of which track the Federal Rules - except that Illinois does not have a "Residual Exception".
Finally, evidence is admitted more freely in a civil court because the same due process concerns are not raised - nobody's life or liberty is on the line.
...Wrong-O, SCC! First of all, there are no "rules" of evidence in Illinois courts...
See 735 ILCS 5/Art. VIII - It's the section of Illinois Civil Procedure Law called EVIDENCE. It's a stretch, I guess, but a bunch of laws governing evidence could be construed as "rules."
If this TRU copper was pinned under the FRONT of the car, how did HIS bullet end up in the offender's back? Not judging, just asking? I'm sure someone can come up with a reasonable explaination, right? If not Finnagan & Co will have lots of company in the near future.
5/09/2008 09:34:00 PM
Not once did they ever say where the officers round landed. You were dumb your whole life (and knew it), then they gave you a tin star and now you think you're a fucking genius. Pay attention asshole or it may be you playing celly with Jerome. The fucking know it all idiots you meet on this job is amazing. Stick to writing your Lt Scotchbreath posts.
Being an ex-Airborne Ranger, Sniper, Presidents 100, 42 seem like a bit much. Sounds to me like some firearms marksmanship is needed. Learn to shoot, and, spot blaming your lack of marksmanship on the department!
5/09/2008 03:10:00 PM
You may be all of the above, but you forgot Monday morning quarterback. I too have a little experience in these matters, but I wouldn't ever assume that my shooting at paper targets for EIC or a shoulder tab is the same as engaging a person 7 feet away. Even engaging a target 1500 feet away is completely different. If you're the police you should know better than to make a statement like this and anytime you wish to retract, we'll accept it like the gentlemen we are. If you have been all the things you say you were, maybe you should try spending a little time as a working copper.
This is all crap. These officers are good officers who are being treated like criminals by the media. When someone is pinned beneath the tire of a car that is still revving its engine...that is considered a deadly threat. The deadly threat was eliminated.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this TRU copper was pinned under the FRONT of the car, how did HIS bullet end up in the offender's back? Not judging, just asking? I'm sure someone can come up with a reasonable explaination, right? If not Finnagan & Co will have lots of company in the near future.
5/09/2008 09:34:00 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
since when did we send our evidence to CSI Miami's crime lab? maybe we should get dexter to do the blood spatter analysis.
lemme guess, a sig 9mm struck off in the back?
I THINK THE SAME PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG SAYING" WHY BE THE POLICE ANYMORE", PROBABLY NEVER WERE THE POLICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HAVE 5 YEARS ON, ALL IN THE GETTO. I HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT GOOD EXPERIENCES. BUT THAN AGAIN MY INTENTIONS WERE ALWAYS GOOD.......SIGNED FILMORE TAC
Not once did they ever say where the officers round landed.
___________________________________
UM, yes they did. Go back and watch it again. According to Fox news, one of the bullets recovered from the offenders back was from BR's gun who was pinned under the car. If this true, this is not good at all.
Being an ex-Airborne Ranger, Sniper, Presidents 100, 42 seem like a bit much. Sounds to me like some firearms marksmanship is needed. Learn to shoot, and, spot blaming your lack of marksmanship on the department!
--------------------
WHEN to shoot is much more important that HOW to shoot.
Can't go to jail for being a bad shot. ANd if you never shot in defending your life ... shut up.... I don't care how many paper targets you've destroyed. Your a typical reactionary ... just like the media .... It's not the # of shots ... why don't people understand this.
Being an ex-Airborne Ranger, Sniper, Presidents 100, 42 seem like a bit much. Sounds to me like some firearms marksmanship is needed. Learn to shoot, and, spot blaming your lack of marksmanship on the department!
Blow mw bitch.....we shoot once a year JAGOFF !!!
5/09/2008 09:23:00 PM
If you shoot once a year, and want to blame the department, your wrong. There is continuing firearms training at Area 5 and Area 1 starting in June or July. Also, the academy range is oopen on saturdays from 8am until 4pm. Stop whining "JAGOFF". Make bette use of your time.
Anonymous said...
Not once did they ever say where the officers round landed.
___________________________________
UM, yes they did. Go back and watch it again. According to Fox news, one of the bullets recovered from the offenders back was from BR's gun who was pinned under the car. If this true, this is not good at all.
5/10/2008 05:38:00 AM
Mr. Ekl this must be you! I would hope that no police officer would judge a fellow officer based on information "According to Fox news."
We know that the one bullet is nothing but your own crappy theory, however lets talk about facts. The offender had a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit when he ran over a police officer.
So tell me, how does it feel to put these innocent officers and their families through hell because you see dollar signs?
My heart goes out to all officers involved and their familes. Being a wife to a P.O., I realize that this could happen just as easily to my own family.
Shit .... I learned the hard way. I have been in two shootings on the job during my 15 years on.
The first, I fired once, missed and assiting units ended up cathcing dude, but I did a lot of papaer.
The second, I fired twice, missed both times again, and my partner and I caught dude and I still did a lot of paper.
Both times I tired to aim, center mass, and squeeze the round(s) off insted of just putting the front sight on the guy and pulling the trigger as fast as I could.
Next time I will do it the other way. I will put the front sight on and just start pulling until I am out.
Bottom line, one round or two, or many - it is the same amount of paper and as long as YOU go home okay, does it really matter??
And your assertion that there "are no "civil rules" versus "criminal rules" of evidence" is BS or maybe you didn't follow the OJ trial back in the 90's when he beat the criminal case only to be buried under a mountain of evidence only admitted during the civil trial - two different standards, two different results.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrong-O AGAIN SCC! You're two for two. I followed BOTH trials. What you are trying to say is that there were two different "burdens of proof" (beyond a reasonable doubt v. perponderence of evidence), not different evidentiary rules. This has happened any number of times to Chicago Police Officers acquitted of crimes but nevertheless fired by the Police Board.
When you say there are no rules of evidence in Illinois you are flatly wrong. It is true that the Federal Rules of Evidence have been adopted by some states - that DOES NOT mean Illinois has no rules of evidence. The majority of Illinois Evidence is grounded in the common law. For specific evidence rules you can also look to Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When you want to talk about "Criminal Evidence" then you are also going to have to incorporate constitutional principles such as the confrontation clause - but you can also look to Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Illinois has, for example, a hearsay rule and many exemptions. Most of which track the Federal Rules - except that Illinois does not have a "Residual Exception".
Finally, evidence is admitted more freely in a civil court because the same due process concerns are not raised - nobody's life or liberty is on the line.
5/09/2008 11:40:00 PM
*************************************************
Hey Smarty Jailhouse Lawyer,
You have no clue what you are talking about. The motherfuckin' "Confrontation Clause?!?!?!" In a discussion about evidentiary rules?!?!? You're a retard.
Fact: Illinois does not have rules of evidence. Get over it. Have you ever heard an objection in court where a lawyer cites Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Of course not. It NEVER happens. That sort of infantile misreading of the law is reserved for pro se plaintiffs that think they're smarter than all the lawyers but, in reality, don't have a clue. (Kind of like you)
I will only shoot someone 40 times...this gives a 2 round cushion.
Not once did they ever say where the officers round landed.
___________________________________
UM, yes they did. Go back and watch it again. According to Fox news,....
__________________________________________
You said it best yourself, you dumb ass... "According to Fox news," You should know better than to believe everything that the media spews out of their dirty mouths.
Go Monday night quarterback somewhere else you liberal prick.
This is all crap. These officers are good officers who are being treated like criminals by the media. When someone is pinned beneath the tire of a car that is still revving its engine...that is considered a deadly threat. The deadly threat was eliminated.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this TRU copper was pinned under the FRONT of the car, how did HIS bullet end up in the offender's back? Not judging, just asking? I'm sure someone can come up with a reasonable explaination, right? If not Finnagan & Co will have lots of company in the near future.
5/09/2008 09:34:00 PM
Buthcher job by M.E. at autopsy, for the record they really do not know where the bullet landed,all this will play out in court if it even goes that far
Not once did they ever say where the officers round landed.
___________________________________
UM, yes they did. Go back and watch it again. According to Fox news........
ACCORDING TO FOX NEWS? God you better not be a police officer you piece of shit. But you must be since you throw around the officer's initials.
Go fuck yourself. I guarantee you were no where near Kedzie when this happened.
Wrong-O AGAIN SCC! You're two for two. I followed BOTH trials. What you are trying to say is that there were two different "burdens of proof" (beyond a reasonable doubt v. perponderence of evidence), not different evidentiary rules. This has happened any number of times to Chicago Police Officers acquitted of crimes but nevertheless fired by the Police Board.
OK Asshat. We give a fuck about preponderance of the evidence - that's a verdict, not evidentiary rules. WE know that difference. And to bring in the Police Board findings? That's an Administrative Finding and they can use anything they want - we lost a few friends to their stupidity.
And you obviously didn't follow any OJ coverage if you think the same evidence was presented at both trials. You obviously haven't been in civil trials much, depositions at all and criminal court rarely. The are no Fifth Amendment protections in civil court and judges instruct civil juries that remaining silent can be held against either side. Testimony is evidence you realize?
Go away troll.
Anonymous said...
I THINK THE SAME PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG SAYING" WHY BE THE POLICE ANYMORE", PROBABLY NEVER WERE THE POLICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HAVE 5 YEARS ON, ALL IN THE GETTO. I HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT GOOD EXPERIENCES. BUT THAN AGAIN MY INTENTIONS WERE ALWAYS GOOD.......SIGNED FILMORE TAC
AH YEAH OKAY, 11 WILL LOOK LIKE 14 AND 13 IN OHH ABOUT 4 YEARS, DON'T GET ME WRONG THERE WILL BE LITTLE TO DO,,, FILMORE RANGER????? YOU WERE PROBABLY IN DIAPERS WHEN IT WAS ON FILMORE
To Asshat
Preponderance of the evidence is the consideration for Civil trial, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for Criminal trials.
Evidently, your short bus education was a bit short in the reading comprehension portion. We'll spare you the embarrassment of publishing your stupidity for the world to see.
See you later, as no one will be seeing your bullshit anytime soon.
To Asshat
Preponderance of the evidence is the consideration for Civil trial, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for Criminal trials.
Evidently, your short bus education was a bit short in the reading comprehension portion. We'll spare you the embarrassment of publishing your stupidity for the world to see.
See you later, as no one will be seeing your bullshit anytime soon.
5/11/2008 12:07:00 AM
Way to go, Smarty. Wrong again. Can't you just admit that perponderence of evidence is a "burden of proof?" It's not a "consideration." By the way, it's not the only burden of proof in civil proceedings. Some civil cases/forums use a "clear and convincing" burden of proof.
Whatever. Ban the correct guy and call him an asshat. It's easier than admitting you are wrong. I must admit to being a bit surprised at this discussion as you are said to be one of those lawyers that never spent a day lawyering. The Department is full of them.
Adios, dummy.
I THINK THE SAME PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG SAYING" WHY BE THE POLICE ANYMORE", PROBABLY NEVER WERE THE POLICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HAVE 5 YEARS ON, ALL IN THE GETTO. I HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT GOOD EXPERIENCES. BUT THAN AGAIN MY INTENTIONS WERE ALWAYS GOOD.......SIGNED FILMORE TAC
AH YEAH OKAY, 11 WILL LOOK LIKE 14 AND 13 IN OHH ABOUT 4 YEARS, DON'T GET ME WRONG THERE WILL BE LITTLE TO DO,,, FILMORE RANGER????? YOU WERE PROBABLY IN DIAPERS WHEN IT WAS ON FILMORE
5/11/2008 12:01:00 AM
Yeah you keep doing those dopw, subs and lose cigarettes pinches the real hard stuff. Ranger just like the truck sucks.
Shame on all of you for putting any kind of information/rumors of this shooting incident on this site where it can, and probably will, be subpeonaed for the prosecution. We truly are our own worst enemies.
Way to go, Smarty. Wrong again. Can't you just admit that perponderence of evidence is a "burden of proof?" It's not a "consideration."
We never said it was "a" consideration. We said it was "the" consideration - to wit, a burden of proof.
Nice to see you can read as well as the other softball - you repeat what we said, misquote us to boot, and think you won the argument by making our point.
Why is it so hard to read what we write?
The only dummy here is the one looking back at you in the mirror.
"...information here can be subpoened by the prosecution..."
Slow down self-appointed lawyer boy.
This information is public, and anonymous. Why would anyone have to issue a subpoena?
Now, please go check your closet for the bogeyman.
Blogger SCC said...
To Asshat
Preponderance of the evidence is the consideration for Civil trial, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for Criminal trials.
Evidently, your short bus education was a bit short in the reading comprehension portion. We'll spare you the embarrassment of publishing your stupidity for the world to see.
See you later, as no one will be seeing your bullshit anytime soon.
5/11/2008 12:07:00 AM
You Gone Asshat!
When you say there are no rules of evidence in Illinois you are flatly wrong. It is true that the Federal Rules of Evidence have been adopted by some states - that DOES NOT mean Illinois has no rules of evidence. The majority of Illinois Evidence is grounded in the common law. For specific evidence rules you can also look to Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When you want to talk about "Criminal Evidence" then you are also going to have to incorporate constitutional principles such as the confrontation clause - but you can also look to Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Illinois has, for example, a hearsay rule and many exemptions. Most of which track the Federal Rules - except that Illinois does not have a "Residual Exception".
Finally, evidence is admitted more freely in a civil court because the same due process concerns are not raised - nobody's life or liberty is on the line.
5/09/2008 11:40:00 PM
*************************************************
Hey Smarty Jailhouse Lawyer,
You have no clue what you are talking about. The motherfuckin' "Confrontation Clause?!?!?!" In a discussion about evidentiary rules?!?!? You're a retard.
Fact: Illinois does not have rules of evidence. Get over it. Have you ever heard an objection in court where a lawyer cites Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Of course not. It NEVER happens. That sort of infantile misreading of the law is reserved for pro se plaintiffs that think they're smarter than all the lawyers but, in reality, don't have a clue. (Kind of like you)
5/10/2008 10:30:00 AM
-------------------
Have to side w/ smarty jailhouse lawyer ...
Confrontation clause
Amendment 6
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ..."
If Illinois has no rules of evidence then who decides the admissibility of hearsay? Is it simply allowed, disallowed? If allowed ... it violates the 6th amendment right to confront witnesses against you in a criminal proceeding.
That you don't know the 6th amend confrontation clause relates DIRECTLY to rules of evidence ... is amazing.
Any courtroom would be crippled w/o rules of evidence. They may be horseshit, they may be confusing, they may be overly complicated .... but NOT having them is an impossibility. The fact that they were not codified by the Illinois legislature is a far cry from saying we don't have any.
End of story.
I THINK THE SAME PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG SAYING" WHY BE THE POLICE ANYMORE", PROBABLY NEVER WERE THE POLICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HAVE 5 YEARS ON, ALL IN THE GETTO. I HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT GOOD EXPERIENCES. BUT THAN AGAIN MY INTENTIONS WERE ALWAYS GOOD.......SIGNED FILMORE TAC
5/10/2008 04:54:00 AM
Ooooh, Tact in 011... you're tough. I spent 10 yrs in 011 and they can't give tact spots away, except to clowns like you just off of probation. Have you ever gotten a gun with a head? I thought not. Go out and get your 4 drinkers for the night and stfu.
Have to side w/ smarty jailhouse lawyer ...
Thanks - I tried to defend myself but someone wouldn't approve my post. Even though I was respectful and correct.
to the copper that claimed that the tru officer was snithching. you obviously have no clue and probably are not the police at all. all questions were known prior to the deposition and were prepped according to advice of counsel you worthless cockroach. go make yur wc happy and give him his school absentees and curfews you P.O.S.!
<< Home