Denan Kemp Dropped

[Kimlo]

Feel like headbutting a brickwall!!

We all get the fact its peoples rights to refuse to do what the Police say (to a certain extant)

broncospwn and Kaz - if it would clear your name why the fcuk would you not do it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4885833865 Again, there's a perfect reason not to, even if it will clear your name which isn't even a suspect.

 

[Browny]

But Hazem's name was cleared before they asked for DNA.

He wasn't a suspect.

Read my post on Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:59 pm

Yeah Kaz I read your post obviously you and broncospwn didnt read mine.

If its too hard to think about an answer other than its his legal right blah blah blah, then I couldnot be arsed wasting time trying to get you 2 to remove your blinkers.

Peace im outta here

 

[dukey]

Feel like headbutting a brickwall!!

We all get the fact its peoples rights to refuse to do what the Police say (to a certain extant)

broncospwn and Kaz - if it would clear your name why the fcuk would you not do it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4885833865 Again, there's a perfect reason not to, even if it will clear your name which isn't even a suspect.

American law professer speaking of Bill of Rights and Fifth Amendment. Relevant... how?

 

[Fozz]

Feel like headbutting a brickwall!!

We all get the fact its peoples rights to refuse to do what the Police say (to a certain extant)

broncospwn and Kaz - if it would clear your name why the fcuk would you not do it?

Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjMLZuuXDRQ

 

[Browny]

Thanks Fozz I needed that lol

 

[Browny]

Feel like headbutting a brickwall!!

We all get the fact its peoples rights to refuse to do what the Police say (to a certain extant)

broncospwn and Kaz - if it would clear your name why the fcuk would you not do it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4885833865 Again, there's a perfect reason not to, even if it will clear your name which isn't even a suspect.

American law professer speaking of Bill of Rights and Fifth Amendment. Relevant... how?

American laws dont apply here yet [eusa_doh

 

[dukey]

Feel like headbutting a brickwall!!

We all get the fact its peoples rights to refuse to do what the Police say (to a certain extant)

broncospwn and Kaz - if it would clear your name why the fcuk would you not do it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4885833865 Again, there's a perfect reason not to, even if it will clear your name which isn't even a suspect.

American law professer speaking of Bill of Rights and Fifth Amendment. Relevant... how?

American laws dont apply here yet [eusa_doh

Not until the NWO takes over!

 

[Kimlo]

See that's the problem.
Too many people think that when a person is exercising his legal right he must be doing it as a "shelter" for wrongdoing or that they must be hiding something. These laws were not made to protect guilty people, they were put into place for the opposite reason.

 

[Browny]

LOLZ. Ok so now the argument is that Hazem should have done it (and anyone else that refused) to clear their name and just assist with their investigations. That's fine, argue away.

I'm still interested to know from Nashy as to why it's ok to refuse because you feel like it but not ok if it's for religion. And if you think it's not OK either way, then why are you slamming Hazem for his religious beliefs on it?

No we are asking why you wouldnt do it to clear your name and it seems its too hard of a question to answer.

 

[Kimlo]

Feel like headbutting a brickwall!!

We all get the fact its peoples rights to refuse to do what the Police say (to a certain extant)

broncospwn and Kaz - if it would clear your name why the fcuk would you not do it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4885833865 Again, there's a perfect reason not to, even if it will clear your name which isn't even a suspect.

American law professer speaking of Bill of Rights and Fifth Amendment. Relevant... how?

American laws dont apply here yet [eusa_doh

:roll:
http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/dialogue/Vo ... ilence.pdf

The right to silence is a fundamental principle of Australian criminal law and lies at the
centre of legal rules excluding involuntary and improper confessions.

 

[dukey]

LOLZ. Ok so now the argument is that Hazem should have done it (and anyone else that refused) to clear their name and just assist with their investigations.

Not that he should've done it, but that, contrary to broncospwn's argument, he wasn't obliged to refuse the DNA test simply because he's allowed.
I think Hazem is a top bloke. This decision is the only blot on his record as far as I'm concerned. But to refuse to assist the police in a situation where you have nothing to hide, simply because you are too proud, is the hallmark of an absolute wanker. I would've been more comfortable with him doing it because, say, his religion does not allow him to give specimens. But to say
'I'm a better class of human than the 24 other guys in the squad, there is no reason why I should lower myself to their level and assist the police,' is extremely turdish of him.
No doubt he had the right intentions; trying to keep his name out of the mud, etc. But if I were in his position, and there was the possibility that a girl was degradingly sexually assaulted by a group of men, I'd be jumping to assist the investigation in any way that I could.

 

[schmix]

See that's the problem.
Too many people think that when a person is exercising his legal right he must be doing it as a "shelter" for wrongdoing or that they must be hiding something. These laws were not made to protect guilty people, they were put into place for the opposite reason.

I'm pretty sure the problem here is that your only response to the question "why?" is a 27 minute video of an American man talking about American law. Not only does it seem irrelevant on the surface, there is very little chance anyone is going to bother watching it. I personally spend too time listening to lectures at uni to want to hear another one in my free time.

Other than that, you're just saying a lot of stuff that no-one disagrees with, or isn't relevant anyway.

 

[Kimlo]

LOLZ. Ok so now the argument is that Hazem should have done it (and anyone else that refused) to clear their name and just assist with their investigations.

Not that he should've done it, but that, contrary to broncospwn's argument, he wasn't obliged to refuse the DNA test simply because he's allowed.
I think Hazem is a top bloke. This decision is the only blot on his record as far as I'm concerned. But to refuse to assist the police in a situation where you have nothing to hide, simply because you are too proud, is the hallmark of an absolute wanker. I would've been more comfortable with him doing it because, say, his religion does not allow him to give specimens. But to say
'I'm a better class of human than the 24 other guys in the squad, there is no reason why I should lower myself to their level and assist the police,' is extremely turdish of him.
No doubt he had the right intentions; trying to keep his name out of the mud, etc. But if I were in his position, and there was the possibility that a girl was degradingly sexually assaulted by a group of men, I'd be jumping to assist the investigation in any way that I could.

Yeah fair enough. Nashy called him a dick, reason being he refused to take a DNA test because of his religion. My actual argument was it's his legal right not to and you are not a dick for exercising your legal right and that it really doesn't matter why he refused too, if he simply refused, NO comment, no reason, would there be any issue here?

 

[Ari Gold]

Just a question. If you voluntarily give a DNA sample, do they keep a record of it in some sort of database? Could they possibly use that DNA in the future in a possible case against you etc.

 

[Browny]

From what I remember from a lecture regarding this, they keep it for a year if you are not convicted it gets destroyed. If you are convicted it stays on the system and can be used for future crimes or past crimes that have a DNA record.

 

[Sabu_2008]

I just reckon hes a dick...no reason.

 

[Coxy]

I believe you also legally have the right to refuse a random breath test. Meaning you then have to go to the station and provide a blood sample or something.

Legally that's your right broncospwn. Will you do that next time you go through an RBT? Or just do the breath test, blow 0.00 and be done with it?

That's what I don't get. And to me a DNA sample is the same thing. They take a swab or two of saliva and it's done. It's not like you're submitting yourself to hours of questioning at a police station etc.

I'm not saying El Masri's a dick or anything like that. I just don't get why anyone would bother refusing a request for a DNA sample, regardless of whether or not there was even the slightest chance you were involved.

 

[Browny]

Actually if you refuse to supply a blood sample after going through the RBT process you get an additional charge of fail to supply a sample of blood as well as getting the highest possible blood alochol (level 4 the highest).

So yeah you'd get smashed by the court for refusing to blow into a machine.