re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)

quote:

---

So, are you a cop?

---

frick no, I don't even like cops.


Well, I don't like most cops

quote:

---

Even if Avery killed her, he shouldn't be locked up...

---

This is Stockholm Syndrome or something. Of course he should be locked up - of all crimes, murder should be punished - all the way, in my book.

quote:

---

the conviction.

---

This is what you have the problem with - not the punishment, but the cops broke the rules. I agree with you on that point.

On a somewhat related note - I'm with Avery's attorneys - I really hope he's guilty, because to imagine that he's innocent - again - and going to end up doing another 20 or 30 (on top of 18) is difficult to deal with, emotionally.

And, that they've let another guilty person go scott free just adds insult to injury.

The rules on the authorities are not there to protect the Steven Averys of the world - they're to protect the innocent, you and me. That's why we're upset about this and why we're upset with the criminal (at worst), corrupt and biased cops in this case.

The End Game. Watch this.

These DA's and detectives are getting out of control.

That one random dude at game night that got questioned by a detective at the end, frick that cop.

This bitch who said the money was for her kids before the trial then defunded their trust should burn. The DA and cops supported this bitch.


Good thing the judge wasn't a complete idiot or this would be the next Netflix documentary.

quote:

---

The End Game. Watch this. 

---

Where?

quote:

---

The ends don't justify the means. Even if Avery killed her, he shouldn't be locked up...

---

I don't why you reply to me, I have no respect for anything you post. You have evaded my responses and direct challenges for many pages now. This simple response of yours says everything that needs to be said about how you feel. You want to let a convicted murder go. Why? Cause you have some distorted, retarded view of how the justice system is supposed to work.

You can keep coming in here, quoting some 16th century British judge. Everybody can keep talking about the sanctity of the system. Actually go work in it and see how it really works. Plain and simple, you are a cop hater. You want to drag all of them through the mud and think this a great platform to make a point about great injustices done to criminals and how they are mistreated. But let me break it down for you..

Steven Avery is a criminal. He broke the law and should be in jail, right where he is. I have challenged you over and over to prove the gun charges are false. Let me take it a step further. You think Dassey is innocent and screwed over. How about when he tells his mom, on the phone, with no encouragement from anybody else that Avery has been molesting him. Tell me that he shouldn't be in prison for life for that. Why hasn't that been investigated? Cause Dassey is still covering for him. So congrats, you are begging for the release of on top of everything else, a pedophile. I hope that is sitting well with you right now.

quote:

---

You think Dassey is innocent and screwed over

---

OK if we begin with this (likely true) premise.

quote:

---

How about when he tells his mom, on the phone, with no encouragement from anybody else that Avery has been molesting him. T

---

So for this hypothetical, Dassey being innocent, has just told the police a lie. So why wouldn't this be part of the lie too?

quote:

---

Tell me that he shouldn't be in prison for life for that.

---

Maybe because it's not true, and even the police didn't find it credible?

quote:

---

Why hasn't that been investigated?

---

Well either the police really don't care about justice at all, don't believe Dassey, or both.

quote:

---

So congrats, you are begging for the release of on top of everything else, a pedophile.

---

What a despicable strawman. We have no evidence of this, besides a comment that is mixed in with a bunch of lies.

quote:

---

I hope that is sitting well with you right now.

---

This is just patently absurd that you're trying to make this argument, as if it has any factual validity.

quote:

---

Illegally obtained? NO

---

Nowadays, it probably was

quote:

---

The same rules apply when the situation involves the questioning of minors. The Supreme Court recently expanded on those rules, however, when it decided that the police must take a person's age into account when determining whether the circumstances of a case merit a Miranda notification.

The case the Court ruled upon involved a 13 year-old boy whom the police suspected of involvement with two burglaries. A police officer went to his school, removed him from class and placed him in a conference room with the door closed and two school administrators present. The officer did not give the boy a Miranda warning or inform him that he could leave the room at any time prior to beginning the questioning. After the boy admitted to participation in the burglaries, however, the officer told the boy that he could refuse to answer questions and leave whenever he wanted. The boy stayed and provided further detail about the crimes.

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge improperly denied the boy's request to throw out the statements he made to police because he did not receive the proper Miranda notification. The Court recognized the fact that, because of their relative immaturity and lack of experience, children "cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults".

Since minors' comprehension of their situation differs from that of adults, the Court reasoned, their understanding of when a questioning constitutes custody will also differ. Minors may experience more acquiescence to authority, and so may require Miranda notifications in situations that would not trigger the Miranda requirement for adults.

---

Article
Case considered
The kid in the doc didn't have the luxury of school administrators in the room with him as the kid in this case linked

The views and arguments you make are part of the problem. Fortunely you are in the vast majority. Hopefully you will never be in the position of being accused of a crime.

Because I can guaranty everyone can be painted as a criminal. In fact, I could compile a list of crimes you have committed, ever broke the speed limit, ever drank under 21, ever smoked weed, maybe you just haven't gotten caught. Maybe these laws are small laws and it is ok to break them? Or maybe you have never broken any laws.

On top of that your personal interactions between you and friends and family I can bring into question. Have you ever been in a fight with a friend or family member?
Have you ever been angry at them?
Have you ever got in a fight with your wife?
Have you ever done something you regretted?
Or maybe you have never had those emotions.
There is no person in this world free from sin and crime.

So yeah, the state needs assembly a logical case against Steve Avery because the one they proposed was terrible. It's illogical. They paint Steve as a clever murderer. He's not that bright.

quote:

---

The views and arguments you make are part of the problem. Fortunely you are in the vast majority. Hopefully you will never be in the position of being accused of a crime.

---

I have been arrested before and spent the night in jail (2 felonies, reckless driving and assault). I acquired a lawyer, did some community service, had to be psychologically examined, did a year unsupervised, the charges were dropped and my record was expunged. The process scared the hell out of me (I was 25) and it cost me almost 10k. Not counting the shame of my family. Since that time, I have made sure that I have stayed relatively clean. I also manage a large workforce that is comprised of many former criminals and guys on probation. So I think I have a pretty good, real world view on crime and the system. As I'm sure most people do.

quote:

---

Because I can guaranty everyone can be painted as a criminal.

---

Especially when the person is a criminal. I hate to tell you, but people's past matter when it comes to crimes or suspicion. Even more so when they are actively breaking the law. Here was a guy that is a multi-time felon, breaking the law and was under investigation for sexual assault. Yet, you are surprised or believe that the police should have not targeted him or focused on him right away? It is a logical leap to make for anybody.

quote:

---

So yeah, the state needs assembly a logical case against Steve Avery because the one they proposed was terrible. It's illogical. They paint Steve as a clever murderer. He's not that bright

---

The case makes sense to me and most people that really examine the circumstances. It's only if you buy into a mass conspiracy, do you begin to doubt the evidence where you might have some reasonable doubt. Even given that, I would still believe that Avery was involved. I would require unbreakable proof that the police did anything beyond moving evidence around, that would begin to sway me. I just don't believe it. I have no reason to.

I have yet to hear one alternate theory of the crime that is plausible, that would not include Avery. Perhaps you would like to give it a shot.. ?