Croatian man killed in Ireland "for speaking Croatian"

[oszkar07]

Go ask ChatGP what an appeal is because that's what is going to be done. This is why it took you forever to find a case where there was an anonymous witness. It's abnormal. It's unconstitutional.

some jurisdictions have a phone number that people can report to the Cops a crime or a concern anonymously.
Cops probably decide if the caller sounds like Loon or not and then decide if the call is worth following up with some investigation.


(police also use information from informants to get clues about investigations, informants often criminals that retain some reasonable
relationship with cops for essentially being spies on other Crims)

That said, if there was a charge that went to court based predominantly on evidence of the witness's complaint.


I think the witness would not be able to remain anonymous and would need to be accountable to give evidence in court.

Meaning they would be cross examined by the accused persons defence lawyer.

People sometimes do make shit up and hence the idea of anonymous witness in a criminal court trial is unreasonable.

The accused has the right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The Burden of Proof is with the Prosecution/Prosecutor.

In conclusion , Im saying I think Frank is correct to his point about the anonymous witness in context of court trial.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

here in Australia there is a phone number that people can report to the Cops a crime or a concern anonymously.
Which I think can be unfair as people could abuse this Privledge simply to make potential false accusations of others for whatever motivations.

I don't know anything about Australia, or if it even exists, and so I don't know how things work there.

If someone says, "So-and-So is selling drugs from his home." Well, the cops won't bust down the door because of an anonymous tip. What they'll do is investigate. They won't need that anonymous caller to come forward if the person is indeed selling drugs. They'll be able to get the evidence needed.

(police use information from informants to get clues about investigations, informants often criminals that retain some reasonable
relationship with cops for essentially being spies on other Crims)

There is a long history of problems with informants. Obviously, they have an incentive to lie and the authorities have an incentive to believe their lie.

That said, if there was a charge that went to court based predominantly on evidence of the witness's complaint.
I think the witness would not be able to remain anonymous and would need to be accountable to give evidence in court.

Meaning they would be cross examined by the accused persons defence lawyer.

People sometimes do make shit up and hence the idea of anonymous witness in a criminal court trial is unreasonable.
The accused has the right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The Burden of Proof is with the Prosection/Prosecutor.

Exactly. That's why in the US an anonymous witness is unconstitutional.

However, the law is often bent - such as in this case - when authorities really want someone. I bothered to read the blog the idiot posted and it did go to Fourth District Court for appeal and was shot down (along with some other issues). I don't know if they appealed to a higher court but they most likely did because the option is there. They clearly wanted this guy and so they shat on the Constitution. Their 'reasoning' was that the Salvadorian cops' testimony - who were anonymous witnesses - 'did not concern the defendant directly' which is just bullshit. They wanted this guy and so the Constitution was shat on.

The law is the law unless they want you badly. Look at the Jan 6 folks who are sitting in prison.

Although this guy who got convicted is indeed a piece of shit but we all have rights and those rights shouldn't be stepped on to get someone. It's a slippery slope.

[oszkar07]

I don't know anything about Australia, or if it even exists, and so I don't know how things work there.

If someone says, "So-and-So is selling drugs from his home." Well, the cops won't bust down the door because of an anonymous tip. What they'll do is investigate. They won't need that anonymous caller to come forward if the person is indeed selling drugs. They'll be able to get the evidence needed.



There is a long history of problems with informants. Obviously, they have an incentive to lie and the authorities have an incentive to believe their lie.



Exactly. That's why in the US an anonymous witness is unconstitutional.

However, the law is often bent - such as in this case - when authorities really want someone. I bothered to read the blog the idiot posted and it did go to Fourth District Court for appeal and was shot down (along with some other issues). I don't know if they appealed to a higher court but they most likely did because the option is there. They clearly wanted this guy and so they shat on the Constitution. Their 'reasoning' was that the Salvadorian cops' testimony - who were anonymous witnesses - 'did not concern the defendant directly' which is just bullshit. They wanted this guy and so the Constitution was shat on.

The law is the law unless they want you badly. Look at the Jan 6 folks who are sitting in prison.

Although this guy who got convicted is indeed a piece of shit but we all have rights and those rights shouldn't be stepped on to get someone. It's a slippery slope.

That is why the Law is always a Slippery Slope and despite if you are innocent or guilty the Potential of the final outcome is always SLIPPERY !
Hence the need for Lawyers, obviously.

Beyond reasonable doubt, can come down to the judge having a bad hair day, joking, but i mean there are lots of variables.

There are many people in Prison that should be there, BUT there are people who get convicted for shit they did not do.

I don't know anything about Australia, or if it even exists,

such statements why people stereotype Americans as insular and sucking at Geography.

the anonymous witness situation is the same here.

[Blondie]

I don't know about the lowest morals but I have noticed people who grew up in very wealthy families are either detached from normal people (they're clueless) or feel so guilty for growing up privileged that they become hardcore leftists.

Yes this is true, but i think this is just rhetoric and they dont really take it seriously. Basically a very rich person does not care about the real world and poorers, they live in a isolated "perfect world" and in a isolated place. A rich person is interested in capitalism and free market and its based on third world labour force in general. If we are talking about hollywood celebs then their reputation is the most important, so they are talking about the problems of third world + usual leftist agenda, world peace etc to appear in newspapers.
In my opinion riches cannot be true leftists. The real Left is based on socialism and working class, this idea is far away from Beverly Hills. The new Left called "woke" is just created by the elite to divert attention away from the real problems of working class and poors. While we are talking about BLM, LMBT and genger neutral toilets, the elite just want a beer, because nobody is talking about the poverty and huge wealth differences.

[Petalpusher]

Being a millionaire isn't that special anymore. When people talk about being born into wealth, they're thinking of people with hundreds of millions or billions.

In investable assets or liquidity, 1 to 3 Millions is still rare, especially after taxes each years. You shouldn't even be multi millionaire actually if you are smart, you should have bought things and invest already to escape taxation in most western countries (or move elsewhere...) Again Billionaires are very few and far between so they are talking about people they haven't seen and most who think they see millionaires are not looking at people who have reach even that level. There are only 2500 billionaires on the entire planet, barely 50 in UK for example. Being Billionaire is 1000 times that so there is a giant gulf between them, and yet the latter are also mostly self made.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Yes this is true, but i think this is just rhetoric and they dont really take it seriously. Basically a very rich person does not care about the real world and poorers, they live in a isolated "perfect world" and in a isolated place. A rich person is interested in capitalism and free market and its based on third world labour force in general. If we are talking about hollywood celebs then their reputation is the most important, so they are talking about the problems of third world + usual leftist agenda, world peace etc to appear in newspapers.

In my opinion riches cannot be true leftists. The real Left is based on socialism and working class, this idea is far away from Beverly Hills. The new Left called "woke" is just created by the elite to divert attention away from the real problems of working class and poors. While we are talking about BLM, LMBT and genger neutral toilets, the elite just want a beer, because nobody is talking about the poverty and huge wealth differences.

I made a longer post but the forum got whacky and so when I hit the reply bottom it didn't go through (normally that doesn't happen to me). However, I'll say this: your second paragraph sounds a lot like Jimmy Dore. He also believes what he views as fake Leftists are wasting people's time with identity politics and takes attention away from the working class and poor.

I have my issues with Jimmy Dore (I'm, of course, a Capitalist who promotes the free market) but I like that he points out the hypocrisy of what you refer to as the new Left and he's anti-War.

I think you would like him and the people he has on his show:

[Universe]

You mentioned the saber duel with me, so....

Yes, lightsaber duels are real.

I am aware of your hatred on me, but this is one way only,

I'm hating on you, how? Who started ad hominems at the start of the discussion?

i dont have any problem with you.

I look at a person's actions, not their virtue signaling speeches.
But anyway. I don't want to be liked or approved by someone like you.
So I don't want to see your "I dont have any problem with you" texts.

Its just your fantasy. I did not say that wtf.

In case I find the post and link it, what will you say?

Yes this is true, but i think this is just rhetoric and they dont really take it seriously. Basically a very rich person does not care about the real world and poorers, they live in a isolated "perfect world" and in a isolated place. A rich person is interested in capitalism and free market and its based on third world labour force in general. If we are talking about hollywood celebs then their reputation is the most important, so they are talking about the problems of third world + usual leftist agenda, world peace etc to appear in newspapers.
In my opinion riches cannot be true leftists. The real Left is based on socialism and working class, this idea is far away from Beverly Hills. The new Left called "woke" is just created by the elite to divert attention away from the real problems of working class and poors. While we are talking about BLM, LMBT and genger neutral toilets, the elite just want a beer, because nobody is talking about the poverty and huge wealth differences.

You've been a member for 6 years here and still haven't learned that LMBT in English language is LGBT? This is an English language forum.

[Incal]

I don't know about the lowest morals but I have noticed people who grew up in very wealthy families are either detached from normal people (they're clueless) or feel so guilty for growing up privileged that they become hardcore leftists.

That's so veridical: they've never known effort.

But at the end of the day the high amount of women that voluntarily sign up to do Onlyfans is evidence by itself that many women
are happy to use their sex appeal for financial gain.

Dunno whether happy but they know that's the best and most effective thing they can offer: even in first world countries when you go to the ghettos where there's only junkies (just to name an example: fentanyl addicts in Philly) men will get into petty crime or menial jobs to get access to drugs... women will always offer sex.

[Blondie]

I made a longer post but the forum got whacky and so when I hit the reply bottom it didn't go through (normally that doesn't happen to me).

Same here, but i use a little trick: 1. right click 2. i save the whole text 3. sending And if the site shows error, i just copy and paste the saved text again

[Mingle]

Yes this is true, but i think this is just rhetoric and they dont really take it seriously. Basically a very rich person does not care about the real world and poorers, they live in a isolated "perfect world" and in a isolated place. A rich person is interested in capitalism and free market and its based on third world labour force in general. If we are talking about hollywood celebs then their reputation is the most important, so they are talking about the problems of third world + usual leftist agenda, world peace etc to appear in newspapers.
In my opinion riches cannot be true leftists. The real Left is based on socialism and working class, this idea is far away from Beverly Hills. The new Left called "woke" is just created by the elite to divert attention away from the real problems of working class and poors. While we are talking about BLM, LMBT and genger neutral toilets, the elite just want a beer, because nobody is talking about the poverty and huge wealth differences.

It's funny how all those issues they obsess over only have any relevancy because mega corporations support them, the same ones that they despise. Without mega corporations, none of those stuff you mentioned would have any relevancy in the West. And in every single country, the regions where capitalism is more pronounced (big cities), you have more tolerance towards those kind of stuff. Hollywood/Disney even took risks and lost some money on a couple of movies because it was important for them to spread their ideology. And in parts of the country that are more working class heavy, you have much more intolerance towards that nonsense.

Their obsession with these culture war topics you mentioned is the reason why they're called Cultural Marxists, because they try to take Marxist logic and apply it to a cultural context. Just replace "bourgeois" and "proletariat" with "white/straight/cisgender/abled/etc." and its opposite. They're not really Marxists though, they're evolved to become their own distinct thing. Marx and Engels would have had them executed if they were around.

And then you have Conservatives watching all these mega corporations censoring them, promoting SJW cancel culture, funding Liberal politicians, blackwashing, gender neutral bathrooms, DEI, etc. And who do they choose to blame it all on? Communism. And then they proceed to simp for those same hyper woke corporations and call for lowering their taxes and empowering them.