Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Federal Statute of Limitations

Comments

16 comments

  • grumpygy
    Problem is its done by state some have a max number of years to come forward. But states like Alaska have no limit.
    0
  • Alpine
    OMG. You are advocating personal responsibility!

    How dare you.
    0
  • mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Alpine
    OMG. You are advocating personal responsibility!

    How dare you.






    HEY, even us libs can get one right every now and again [^]

    This is where the Dems, Me Too, and women's rights movement need to step in and police their own ranks to save credibility.
    0
  • wifetrained
    This whole nonsense has nothing to do with what may have taken place 36 years ago. It's all about protecting ROE VS WADE from any sort of challenge from any potential quarter.
    0
  • mrmike08075
    There seems to be some confusion and some elasticity and some open interpretation on the issue in the liberal courts by liberal judges and liberal media...

    Does the statute of limitations clock start from the moment the crime takes place or from the moment the crime is reported...

    When the statute of limitations is close to running out can the district attorney modify the charges or bring different / additional charges and essentially reset the clock...

    If the "victim" is a minor some seem to believe the clock does not start until they are 18 or 21 and have reached their majority

    A continuance or modification often seems to confuse the issue

    In many cases hate crime charges are brought at the last minute - amending or adding on to the original complaint or charge list

    There seems to be quite a bit of room for error or slipperiness

    I am not opining pro or con - our system is analogous to a pendulum and at times swings to far right or to far left - when at polar opposites it's often unfair

    However when it's in the middle and both the right and left are simultaneously unhappy it's usually a sign that the courts got it right

    I would be interested in hearing your point of view - or seeing it through your personal lens - as I am not a legal scholar

    Mike
    0
  • chiefr
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    I don't recall seeing this wonderful suggestion applied here to the children molested by priests.

    Perhaps someone can explain that.


    Ask the pope.
    0
  • mag00
    quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
    There seems to be some confusion and some elasticity and some open interpretation on the issue in the liberal courts by liberal judges and liberal media...

    Does the statute of limitations clock start from the moment the crime takes place or from the moment the crime is reported...

    When the statute of limitations is close to running out can the district attorney modify the charges or bring different / additional charges and essentially reset the clock...

    If the "victim" is a minor some seem to believe the clock does not start until they are 18 or 21 and have reached their majority

    The shear does not care if you are a minor or not, your finger is gone if you put it in the blades. That responsibility lies on the child or child's parents.

    A continuance or modification often seems to confuse the issue

    In many cases hate crime charges are brought at the last minute - amending or adding on to the original complaint or charge list

    There seems to be quite a bit of room for error or slipperiness

    I am not opining pro or con - our system is analogous to a pendulum and at times swings to far right or to far left - when at polar opposites it's often unfair

    However when it's in the middle and both the right and left are simultaneously unhappy it's usually a sign that the courts got it right

    au contraire mon fr?re, for instance there should be a clear delineation of right and wrong. Please refer to hands where they don't belong and getting chopped off, clear consequence for stupidity or willful challenging of supreme law.

    I would be interested in hearing your point of view - or seeing it through your personal lens - as I am not a legal scholar

    Mike


    Ah Mike, don't you have enough on you plate without delving into my lunatic mind? [}:)][}:)][}:)]
    0
  • mrmike08075
    It's intellectual grist for the proverbial mill...

    Deep thoughts.

    Mike
    0
  • remingtonoaks
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Alpine
    OMG. You are advocating personal responsibility!

    How dare you.






    HEY, even us libs can get one right every now and again [^]

    This is where the Dems, Me Too, and women's rights movement need to step in and police their own ranks to save credibility.


    What credibility. You Democrats threw that away back in the 60s
    0
  • remingtonoaks
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
    There seems to be some confusion and some elasticity and some open interpretation on the issue in the liberal courts by liberal judges and liberal media...

    Does the statute of limitations clock start from the moment the crime takes place or from the moment the crime is reported...

    When the statute of limitations is close to running out can the district attorney modify the charges or bring different / additional charges and essentially reset the clock...

    If the "victim" is a minor some seem to believe the clock does not start until they are 18 or 21 and have reached their majority

    The shear does not care if you are a minor or not, your finger is gone if you put it in the blades. That responsibility lies on the child or child's parents.

    A continuance or modification often seems to confuse the issue

    In many cases hate crime charges are brought at the last minute - amending or adding on to the original complaint or charge list

    There seems to be quite a bit of room for error or slipperiness

    I am not opining pro or con - our system is analogous to a pendulum and at times swings to far right or to far left - when at polar opposites it's often unfair

    However when it's in the middle and both the right and left are simultaneously unhappy it's usually a sign that the courts got it right

    au contraire mon fr?re, for instance there should be a clear delineation of right and wrong. Please refer to hands where they don't belong and getting chopped off, clear consequence for stupidity or willful challenging of supreme law.

    I would be interested in hearing your point of view - or seeing it through your personal lens - as I am not a legal scholar

    Mike


    Ah Mike, don't you have enough on you plate without delving into my lunatic mind? [}:)][}:)][}:)]




    Hey Mike, don't you know that you'll end up a lunatic if you try to get into mag00 mind? You'll go nuts trying to figure out that loonie's mind
    0
  • mag00
    quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Alpine
    OMG. You are advocating personal responsibility!

    How dare you.






    HEY, even us libs can get one right every now and again [^]

    This is where the Dems, Me Too, and women's rights movement need to step in and police their own ranks to save credibility.


    What credibility. YouUs Democrats threw that away back in the 60s


    Fixed it for ya [;)]
    0
  • pip5255
    they just wanna do what they wanna do
    Just say NO...??????????...
    0
  • mrmike08075
    Guys sometimes we disagree or are at odds with each other...

    But I do value your input and viewpoint and opinion - the discourse and debate or banter is valuable to me.

    I often wax philosophic and attempt to interject some witty parte - not necessarily because I think I am smarter or superior or "right" but because the fallout dialogue sometimes spreads like thought ripples in the pond of my mind

    And I try to learn from it.

    Mike
    0
  • mogley98
    We all know IF she had accused Kavanaugh back than nothing would have come of it. It was a alleged event even then unless Judge collaborated her statements.

    35 years later, saved for days before confirmation vote it is just a political chess move.

    I think the same about the guys coming out about a Priest diddling them, if you wait until two days before the Priest is made the Pope probably motivated by other reasons then all of the sudden the need to come out.
    0
  • mag00
    quote:Originally posted by mogley98
    We all know IF she had accused Kavanaugh back than nothing would have come of it. It was a alleged event even then unless Judge collaborated her statements.

    35 years later, saved for days before confirmation vote it is just a political chess move.

    I think the same about the guys coming out about a Priest diddling them, if you wait until two days before the Priest is made the Pope probably motivated by other reasons then all of the sudden the need to come out.




    If she had accused him back when it happened and nothing happened regardless of fabrication or truth, then brought it up today, that is a whole different ballgame.
    0
  • wpage
    who cares even if this whore got drunk and let someone grab her tit 35 or four score and seven years ago. Its the circus du senate...

    Its lib TV...
    https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/09/bookers_stance_on_kavanaugh_leads_to_blowback.html
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity