Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!lmaher
From: lmaher@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Is Dirty Harry Law Abiding? - (nf)
Message-ID: <3900066@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 19:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.3900066
Posted: Thu Sep 27 19:35:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 00:58:42 EDT
References: <584@trwspp.UUCP>
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:trwspp:-58400:uokvax:3900066:000:1242
Nf-From: uokvax!lmaher    Sep 27 18:35:00 1984

#R:trwspp:-58400:uokvax:3900066:000:1242
uokvax!lmaher    Sep 27 18:35:00 1984

>/***** uokvax:net.movies / trwspp!hasiuk /  6:51 pm  Sep 25, 1984 */
>>Harry follows the letter of the law, and what he sees as the
>
>How can you claim that Harry follows the letter of the law.  Do you 
>remember the end of Dirty Harry?  Why was it that the city couldn't
>prosecute Scorpio?  They found the murder weapon where he lived, but
>they couldn't use it as evidence because Harry obtained it
>_illegally_!  Harry also used torture to find out what happened to the
>kidnapped girl.
>
>Lee Hasiuk

The exclusionary rule (which caused the rifle to be tossed out as
evidence) is not a law passed by the legislature, but just a ruling
by a court.  Harry doesn't see why a little girl has to die for our
judicial system to survive.  But this discussion *DEFINITELY* does
not belong in net.movies, so let's move it to net.politics or 
net.flame, whereever you're comfortable.

Some might argue that there is no difference between the Law and
the rulings of courts.  Some might care to point out why Dred
Scott was reversed without a new law being passed.  
Feel free to do so, but in net.politics, please.

I'm just pointing out how Dirty Harry feels about the matter,
I don't necessarily agree with him.


	Carl
	..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher