Reply #16: it does work in this and every instance [View All]

[sgxnk]

that is the nature of criminal evidence. see my last two paragraphs

it is JUST as important to exculpate as it is to inculpate


this has nothing to do with ticking time bomb theory. you are completely misunderstanding that theory, which is completely irrelevant to this case
.
the issue in this case is this:

a journalist/blogger is present at a crime scene and videotapes an alleged crime occurring

he does not, as a matter of law or common sense, have a right not to testify and not to turn over evidence

it is the job for the courts to determine the probative value of that evidence

and UNTIL THE TAPE IS TURNED OVER, neither you nor i know if the evidence is INCULPATORY or EXCULPATORY. you do not know. it very well may exonerate somebody.

here's another example. assume that the guy who filmed the rodney king beating was a blogger. would he have had a right to refuse to turn over that tape?

contrary to popular belief, it is not the job of the cops btw to convict people or to gather evidence against people. it is the job of the cops to GATHER EVIDENCE. i can tell you from personal experience that i have collected evidence in scores of incidents that FREED a person from suspicion in a criminal case. evidence must be collected regardless of whether it is inculpatory or exculpatory. alibis are checked out, not to disprove them, but to find out if they are or aren;'t true

it is a greater miscarriage of justice to convict an innocent man, than for a guilty man to go free (at least that is the theory behind our justice system)