View Single Post
Old 04-10-2010, 06:56 AM
Lee's Avatar
Lee Lee is online now
WZCW's Titus
World Heavyweight Champion
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: British by birth, Geordie by the grace of God.
Age: 32
Posts: 4,336
Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...Lee is an ECW Champion...

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Yeah, I know what a false accusation is.
Thank goodness

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Im sure you mean rape right? You said "rare" so I assume rape.. Anyway, that is an interesting statistic, but what the hell does that have to do with the topic? Did anyone here pay for the investigation of the falsely accused crime?Im not sure..
Ouch attacking typos, getting desperate

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Well I don't see the definition as wrong, I mean technically when you think about it, it still is a correct definition. It says, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." In my opinion, that seems like a way you could define false accusation.
It is one way you could define it but not the only way but then it could be easily debated that those who are legitimate in accusations could be put out because someone states that because he's accusing someone would be forced to pay the charges you can't define false accusations easily.

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Ok, but I would believe the police officer would see the passer-by have the bag shoved into his arms?
It was a comedy extreme example

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
I'm sure this innocent citizen would have a chance to explain himself, tell the officer what happened. Maybe allow the officer to search him to see if he really did see anything. In this case, the officer would find nothing.
You mean investigate?

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Well I don't think you would bring this person to court if the officer was able to search him and allow him to explain himself. Besides, we're talking about the investigation here, not the time in court itself.
Court is part of the investigation

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Let me define the word, "Investigation" for you...

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
So as you see, I really don't think it would count the court cost. For a crime of which you are exampling, There would be no real investigation.
Like I said it was a very extreme example. However lets look at a couple of real examples shall we?

1) Who is the accused?
Case in point - Madeline McCann

Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007, while on holiday with her parents and twin siblings in the Algarve region of Portugal. However there were quite a few people accused of the kidnapping:
  • Jennifer Murat
  • Robert Murat
  • Sergey Malinka
  • Gerry McCann (her father)
  • Kate McCann (her mother)
  • Urs Hans Von Aesch
  • Raymond Hewlett

Well that's all good and proper when you look at WHO made the accusations...
  • Witnesses
  • Portuguese Investigators
  • Private Investigates hired by the McCanns
  • Portuguese media
  • British media

How unrealistic is to get those five groups to split the bill? It's an obvious VERY answer.

2) What if the accuser lost a loved one? What if the investigation was wrong? Case in Point OJ Simpson

I don't need to tell you the ins and outs of the OJ Simpson trial, but essentially this: After a nine month trial and a lot of media attention, OJ Simpson was found INNOCENT of the crime. Now 90% of people can look at the evidence and say hey hang on, it's obvious he did it. So you have someone legally found innocent, falsley accused as it were. Then you have a grieving family who has just seen a bullshit decision made and their daughter/son dead and on top of that they'd have to pay for one of the most expensive trials in all of history. Sucks to be them!

3) How do you determine costs? Case in point Any done by Nick Freeman

This is a simple one, Mr Loophole as he is known by the UK press has found loopholes in laws from the 1920's for people to be acquitted of crimes. Essentially the person is guilty but these loopholes means they're innocent. To hire this guy is a heck of a lot more expensive than a run of the mill lawyer. Simply put, how do you determine costs?

lets look at it:

I accuse Thunder Dave of stealing my car, Thunder Dave can only hire a shitty lawyer, he's found guilty and no charges to me! wooo.

I accuse Phoenix of the same crime, luckily Phoenix's Dad has a few people who 'owe him favours' and he gets found innocent. Phoenix though DID do the crime but because he hired a MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE lawyer he got off with it. This in turn is leading me to cough up a lot of expenses here that were ultimately not needed.

Simply put if falsley accused were to have their court costs paid for them by the accuser, then surely there should be a fixed level that this can get to? Then if that's the case some lawyers would refuse to defend under this law (as they'd get a huge pay cut) and in turn make it quite messy as a whole.
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
For the record, Lee is a diabolical genius.
Dave also did my sig.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote