RE: To testify or not to testify!!

RE: To testify or not to testify!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kalira -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:45:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub I bet that was an interesting courtship. "I heard your husband died so I brung ya some posies." "But I haven't even written the obitutary yet." pause "Well you know... word gets around" LMFAO

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:46:59 PM)
It is a very simple question and i answered it very simply. My reply will not change just because you are trying to back me into a corner. As i have said murder has some room for manouvre depending on motive. I am not going to say what you want to hear so you can validate your point.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Wouldnt you agree that perhaps some people (for whatever reason) place a higher ethical priority on being truthful under oath, while some other people (for whatever reason) place more value on being loyal to a loved one? And wouldnt you agree that the same way some people see murder as being reprehensible, others might see protecting a murderer as being equally reprehensible? Of course. I've already said I agree with her in general. I don't think one should protect a murderer. However, if how many of us, even if presented with proof will really believe the person we loved killed someone? If someone does not believe and bows out of providing testimony legally, so much the better for them. If they know their spouse did and they bow out... well that is that is a sad fact but at least there is groundwork for the next case.

Emperor1956 -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:49:42 PM)
A couple more things: Arpig asks about the wife who is in the room with her husband and overhears hubby and accomplices planning a crime. Can she be compelled to testify? Absolutely, but NOT because the communication wasn't to her. The presence of an "unauthorized person" can destroy privilege. So the fact that the accomplices were in the room when the communication was made destroys the spousal privilege. Even if Mr. Crook directly communicated to Mrs. Crook "Honey, here's the plan. Mugsy and I are goin' in and doing the bank" Mrs. Crook can be compelled to testify (or can do so voluntarily) and Mr. Crook cannot stop it because the unprivileged person(s) were present during the communication. The lesson here of course is to plan bank jobs with your wife, your lawyer, your doctor and your priest as accomplices. Hrmmmm....I may have the seed of a "Law and Order" script here.... Fergus: your retraction is so noted, and the ladies who stand up for you speak well of your intent. But the offense was egregious. By Imperial Court (Hey, I'm judge, jury and sometimes executor...you gotta problem?) you are sentenced to 10 lashes with wet toilet paper. Corsetgirl, I don't know about the case of (Mrs.) Vito Genevese, but I will bet you a pinky ring that there was some exception to spousal privilege that allowed her to testify. And finally, if ya'all really want something to think about, consider: There is much talk of allowing "civil unions" for same sex couples as an equivalent to marriage, but not allowing "marriage" because "marriage" is something supposedly only between a man and a woman. Well no jurisdiction in the USA (I'm not sure of foreign -- would love to know) which has enacted "civil union" has enacted the concomitant privilege of spousal immunity. So....first, why do we grant it to M/F marriages but not M/M or F/F? Second, there is one example of about 400 where "civil union" is inherently NOT equal to marriage. Chew on that. E _________________________ This is a JOKE, people. A JOKE. If you want to know why this wouldn't really work, you have to pay Me. But I come cheap, sometimes.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:51:20 PM)
Bows

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:52:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kalira quote: On the face of what you have said yes i would definately not support any of thos people. Murderer there is room for manouvre due to i stated that anyone i thought may reoffend i would not support. That is not what I asked of you. Would you, without room for any argument, hold with your conviction that you would never, and I mean NEVER testify against a murder, molester, or rapist. Its a very simple question It may be a simple question but i think you asked the wrong one.

Kalira -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:52:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation It is a very simple question and i answered it very simply. My reply will not change just because you are trying to back me into a corner. As i have said murder has some room for manouvre depending on motive. I am not going to say what you want to hear so you can validate your point. Hmm, and which point would that be Mist? That you can not answer that question for the simple reason that you know that life may throw that at you at some point in your life, and you would then have to reevalute your own principals to see which were more important? I was not trying to validate a point. I was trying to point out to you nothing in life is a certaintly; certainly not what we see as right and wrong; and that there are instances where you , yes YOU, are going to have to make choices that are not always what might be perceived as right. Its a shame that you choose to become defensive instead of trying to understand that outlook. No one is perfect; I don't condone murder, I don't condone rape, I don't condone molestation. Yet, I have been put in that situation before, and I have had to make that choice. I hope to God that you never do; but the day may come when you will have to. That is what I am trying to point out. That nothing is ever written in stone. edited to add: quote: It may be a simple question but i think you asked the wrong one. No Mist. It was the right one.

fergus -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 A couple more things: Arpig asks about the wife who is in the room with her husband and overhears hubby and accomplices planning a crime. Can she be compelled to testify? Absolutely, but NOT because the communication wasn't to her. The presence of an "unauthorized person" can destroy privilege. So the fact that the accomplices were in the room when the communication was made destroys the spousal privilege. Even if Mr. Crook directly communicated to Mrs. Crook "Honey, here's the plan. Mugsy and I are goin' in and doing the bank" Mrs. Crook can be compelled to testify (or can do so voluntarily) and Mr. Crook cannot stop it because the unprivileged person(s) were present during the communication. The lesson here of course is to plan bank jobs with your wife, your lawyer, your doctor and your priest as accomplices. Hrmmmm....I may have the seed of a "Law and Order" script here.... Fergus: your retraction is so noted, and the ladies who stand up for you speak well of your intent. But the offense was egregious. By Imperial Court (Hey, I'm judge, jury and sometimes executor...you gotta problem?) you are sentenced to 10 lashes with wet toilet paper. Finally, corsetgirl, I don't know about the case of (Mrs.) Vito Genevese, but I will bet you a pinky ring that there was some exception to spousal privilege that allowed her to testify. E _________________________ This is a JOKE, people. A JOKE. If you want to know why this wouldn't really work, you have to pay Me. But I come cheap, sometimes. He's firm, but fair! fergus

slavejali -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:56:26 PM)
Just by the way, I wouldn't be in a relationship in the first place with a murderer, so really, this topic is pushing people into a place in their mind to make a decicion about something that would most likely never happen. People can only go to their core values to respond to it, and loyalty to a partner is a very core issue with most people. It's really futile arguing our positions on this topic, or allowing it to get our knickers in a knot.

Lordandmaster -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:56:30 PM)
It would depend on the situation. Under most circumstances, probably not, but under certain circumstances, yes. quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Just made me wonder would you testify against a partner or a loved one if it came to it?

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:56:47 PM)
Hmm, and which point would that be Mist? That you can not answer that question for the simple reason that you know that life may throw that at you at some point in your life, and you would then have to reevalute your own principals to see which were more important? No i have stated all along that there are certain circumstances that i would not testify against a loved one in so please dont put words in my mouth. Its a shame that you choose to become defensive Dont presume to tell me what im being. I have simply and repetitively answered your questions. What you see as defensiveness is actually boredom at repeating myself over and over.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:59:12 PM)
Would you, without room for any argument, hold with your conviction that you would never, and I mean NEVER testify against a murder, molester, or rapist You meant to ask me if i would never testify? How strange considering i have always said i would in severe circumstances. To NOT testify was never my conviction.

kajiramre -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 8:59:19 PM)
Mist, if I understand your stance, you would testify against your spouse if he committed murder or comparable serious crime under all circumstances. Here's a situation to think about. A man kills a woman. The woman's son (an adult) then kills the man. Should the wife of the son be compelled to testify against him if she was the only way that he would be convicted? Just something to think about. kaji

Kalira -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:00:01 PM)
quote: No i have stated all along that there are certain circumstances that i would not testify against a loved one in so please dont put words in my mouth. and yet, when others stated that loyalty was of more importance, without knowing the reasons behind that loyalty, you condemn. Damnant Quod Non Intellegunt (they condemn that which they do not understand) Really quite fitting a quote for you.

corsetgirl -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:00:12 PM)
Emperor: I believe that exception was she divorced him. When she divorced him, she testified in trial that he was also a wife beater. Kalira and Aquatic: I am laughing at your statement but I think the flowers probably would have been roses...LOL.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kajiramre Mist, if I understand your stance, you would testify against your spouse if he committed murder or comparable serious crime under all circumstances. Here's a situation to think about. A man kills a woman. The woman's son (an adult) then kills the man. Should the wife of the son be compelled to testify against him if she was the only way that he would be convicted? Just something to think about. kaji If you read my posts i never said that - i said with murder there may be circumstances i wouldnt.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:03:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kalira quote: No i have stated all along that there are certain circumstances that i would not testify against a loved one in so please dont put words in my mouth. and yet, when others stated that loyalty was of more importance, without knowing the reasons behind that loyalty, you condemn. Damnant Quod Non Intellegunt (they condemn that which they do not understand) Really quite fitting a quote for you. Laughable. I actually said that i would not respect those that did not testify when there was a chance that the murderer would continue to reoffend. I have said all along there were exceptional circumstances. Again please do not put words in my mouth.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:09:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corsetgirl Emperor: I believe that exception was she divorced him. When she divorced him, she testified in trial that he was also a wife beater. Kalira and Aquatic: I am laughing at your statement but I think the flowers probably would have been roses...LOL. Yeah but I thought of Moe from the Simpson's when he tried it win Marge over during her seperation from Homer.

AquaticSub -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: kajiramre Mist, if I understand your stance, you would testify against your spouse if he committed murder or comparable serious crime under all circumstances. Here's a situation to think about. A man kills a woman. The woman's son (an adult) then kills the man. Should the wife of the son be compelled to testify against him if she was the only way that he would be convicted? Just something to think about. kaji If you read my posts i never said that - i said with murder there may be circumstances i wouldnt. She didn't say you said that... she was asking you to consider the question (I do believe) and state your viewpoint.

missturbation -> RE: To testify or not to testify!! (11/18/2006 9:16:05 PM)
Mist, if I understand your stance, you would testify against your spouse if he committed murder or comparable serious crime under all circumstances Oh look she did say it. I'm losing patience now. If you want to pull me for something make it valid.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125