| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> Or something like that
<1> unless of course you're accomplices
<2> a spouse may refuse to testify against spouse, iirc
<1> right
<3> I think it 'may' even protect accomplices... similar to 5th ammendment like precedent
<1> I thought it went further
<1> the one accused can say the spouse can't testify.
<2> ok, that one also, but keep the fundies quiet and call it something else for legal purposes, the gov't has an interest in "families", IMO, but not "couples"
<2> family implies children in this case
<3> Not sure about the cannot testify part
<3> so maybe its unless the spouse is a victom
<2> me neither, one always has the choice to testify
<0> Well
<1> I'm not sure that's true
<0> It's not much of a choice
<0> Testify or go to jail
<2> a spouse clearly CAN testify on own choice
<1> I don't think your attorney can turn and testify against you
<1> or your doctor
<0> I don't think that's true either, because of spousal privilege
<3> your doctor can with a court order
<2> you doctor CAN on his own, though there are likely consequences
<0> "Spousal privilege. A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent or a wife for or against her husband without his consent; nor can either, during the marriage or afterward, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage; but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other or to a criminal action or proceed
<3> interestin
<0> http://www.lawandfiction.com/law/column.5.html
<3> your priest can too, but he will go to hell muhaha
<2> Twister7 no,
<3> heh, no regarding which part? :)
<2> the go to hell (its independent of testifying)
<3> heh
<0> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege
<2> though I could get that clarified tonight....I'm upgrading the pastor's computer
<4> so it only really applies if you're sued in civil ourt
<4> s/ourt/court
<0> What, spousal privilege?
<0> It applies in both courts unless the action is by one spouse against the other
<0> Don't you people ever watch law and order
<1> or to a criminal action or proceed
<3> cl0ud, no it applies only outside of civil court according to above excerpt no?
<0> for a crime committed by one against the other."
<4> says the exception does not apply to a criminal action or proceeding
<0> for a crime committed by one against the other."
<4> OR
<4> to a criminal action or proceeding
<0> You're parsing it incorrectly.
<3> you cannot read well
<5> oh good! politics!
<1> no
<4> " but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other or to a criminal action or proceed"
<1> law
<4> how am I parsing it incorrectly?
<0> Are you stupid or something
<1> there are 2 ways to read that.
<3> REad the whole sentence
<0> but this exception does not apply to (a civil action or proceeding) by one against the other...
<4> yes, and then there's another comma
<1> heh, see why law is fun.
<2> lawyers cannot write specifications
<0> No, there's no comma there whatsoever, nor is this a definitive source
<0> This isn't the law.
<3> hmm
<0> This might not be written by a lawyer.
<3> well if not civil, and not criminal, whats left?
<0> What the hell are you talking about
<4> JBlitzen well it's just what you pasted...I guarantee you that there is no protection in a criminal trial for spousal privilidge
<0> Why can you people not fathom this simple act of literacy
<0> I don't understand it
<1> ugh, you know what the misunderstanding is JB
<4> priviledge
<0> Did you not eat your wheaties today
<1> why don't you just explain it.
<2> JBlitzen knock off the insults
<0> The misunderstanding is presuming that they're not stupid
<0> No, vic.
<1> fine, everyone shut up and I'll explain it.
<1> The 2nd way of reading it is
<1> this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other, or to a criminal action or proceeding by one against the other.
<4> there's no such thing as a criminal action proceeding by one against the other
<4> criminal trials are the state vs. the defendant
<2> the slippery english or
<1> someone presses charges in criminal cases
<4> nope
<4> err
<4> es
<4> yes
<4> but it's the state
<1> no, it's a person
<1> depending on the severity of the crime
<0> Vic
<4> ok
<4> whatever you say
<0> This is the relevant Wyoming statute
<0> No husband or wife shall be a witness against the other except in criminal proceedings for a crime committed by one against the other, or in a civil action or proceeding by one against the other. They may in all civil and criminal cases be witnesses for each other the same as though the marital relation did not exist.
<4> in america, the state brings all criminal charges
<0> 1-12-104 (1988)
<1> look domestic violence
<1> that is a criminal offense
<5> I thought criminal trials are always "State of X vs Y"
<4> that's civil
<4> unless it's a criminal charge, in which case it's the state vs. the defendant
<1> but, if the abused chooses to not press charges
<1> no criminal action is taken.
<5> some crimes can be tried both civilly and criminally
<4> then the state won't press on behalf of the victim
<1> in some cases
<4> dude
<1> where the crime is severe enough
<4> the state always presses charges on behalf of victims
<1> the state will press charges, regardless of what the victim wants.
<1> fine, that is true
<2> rdragon-wrk yes, like the OJ instance
<4> rdragon-wrk yes, exactly
<5> right
<0> vawjr
<0> http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title01/chapter12.htm
<1> But, in a lot of lesser crimes
<1> a person has to pursue criminal charges
<4> so...back to the quote...since there's no such thing as a criminal trial or proceeding where spouses square off, it's impossible for it to have two meanings
<1> which will go to a prosecutor.
<4> and thus it doesn't apply during criminal proceedings
<0> What?
<0> cloud, this is not complicated.
<0> If the husband beats the wife
<3> I have it straight in my head...
<0> And the police press charges
<0> So to speak
<0> Spousal privilege would not apply
<4> "but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other or to a criminal action or proceed"
<0> No no
<0> Don't quote ****.
<0> Just read what I just typed.
<4> I was quoting you
<0> I don't care.
<0> You obviously can't read quotes, so pasting them doesn't help you.
<4> obviously
<1> 1-12-101. Privileged communications and acts.
<1> (iii) Husband or wife, except as provided in W.S. 1-12-104;
<1> 1-12-104. Husband and wife as witnesses in civil and criminal cases.
<1>
<1> No husband or wife shall be a witness against the other except in criminal proceedings for a crime committed by one against the other, or in a civil action or proceeding by one against the other. They may in all civil and criminal cases be witnesses for each other the same as though the marital relation did not exist.
<4> JBlitzen you obviously can't discuss anything without insults so **** off
<1> there
<0> That's for Wyoming, ni, since that was for vawjr.
<1> JB posted the actual statute.
<0> cloud, you don't deserve better than insults.
<0> We've explained this repeatedly and you're merely being obtuse.
<1> sure JB
<0> Deliberately defending a position you know you don't understand.
<0> I find that insulting.
<1> but, whatever, it gives one very clear case.
<0> So if I act insulting toward you, live with it.
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
Arnold Moltis
optimize C++
hanytone
PURGED THE GREAT PLAGUE
#asm
#london
Bestjali
#linuxhelp
#c
#mirc
|
|