With all this MJ sh** I was just wondering about getting away with robbing a bank. Lets say I rob a bank the main piece of evidence that can convict me is my get away vehicle. The only problem with this is that my vehicle has a real expensive paint job {the type that changes color from different points of view}. Now 6 people see me leave in the vehicle but they all see a different shade of color, I quess I'm innocent of robbery. :confused: :p :eek: :@@: :hitout:

No, if the prosecution can demonstrate that all of the colors identified by the witnesses are possible shades produced by the paint, then there's no real conflict.

But the prosecution would have to set up an example same time same weather exactly. They would also have to put the 6 people in the exact same spot, it would be impossible. The reason I used this type of paint job is because there is a corvette close by that is painted like this. It goes any where from brown to gold to green etc..... My point also was that I still would be a bank robber with or without the proof. Our justice system is not 100% sometimes it convicts innocent people, but more times it lets the quilty go free. So the question is if the system is flaud how can, or better yet why should we use it??? How can we pat ourselfs on the back at the end of a trail knowing damn well we{society} very well could have made a wrong choice? Most of us also realize that the more money one has the better chance they have in court, how can this be a fair trial? We should not be taking a persons worth into point when in trail, we should be looking at facts{not dramatised bull} and then give our choice?? Is the court system just another pile of bullsh** in the making? Do/should opinions be used while someone is on trial? Is it possible for us to come up with a computer that could pass judgement? I often think humans {of today} should not be in charge of trials, we often let our emotions rule over what we may see as right or wrong.

Far more guilty people go free than innocent people get put away, which is how it should be, IMHO. Of course it's not perfect - I don't know what system is. I suppose we could do away with some of the search and seizure laws or adopt the French system, which doesn't really presume innocense, but I'd prefer not to.

I agree with what your saying like I said in another thread & post. What I don't agree with is letting a killer go so that they can kill again. Maybe I put a higher value on innocent lives then most. In todays society money talks. The thing that gets to me is how can we call it justice when it can be improved? It's really not justice if it convicts 1 and lets the other go free {same charge}.

We should keep the search and seizure laws. However even if the search and seizure laws have been violated doesn't mean that crminal activity in which there is a victim should go unpunished. The criminal should be punished and the officer who violated such should be severely punished (fired, jailed, etc)