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