Everything related to Juve is guilty according to some.
Fuckers try to do everything to give Juve and atm Conte a bad name.
Fuckers try to do everything to give Juve and atm Conte a bad name.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Antonio Conte (106 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dostoevsky
- Start date
- Tags goat coach
Buy on AliExpress.com
Investigation, yes, and based on the contents of the statements, a warrant to search the house could (of course) also be given, but they're not handed out automatically. They are issued when there is enough grounds to do so based on the laws.
Obviously, they've found that there are such grounds, and the raid has been carried out, but Carobbio's statements don't even contain specific, concrete information. He says that he heard from someone that the Siena coaching staff knew about something. And the broader context also suggests that he's full of sh*t, because there are 8-9 other people who says he's lying.
Obviously, they've found that there are such grounds, and the raid has been carried out, but Carobbio's statements don't even contain specific, concrete information. He says that he heard from someone that the Siena coaching staff knew about something. And the broader context also suggests that he's full of sh*t, because there are 8-9 other people who says he's lying.
If you are named as a witness by a key suspect then you are interrogated on the presumption you might be guilty. That way actual guilty people don't slip through the net.
If the police believe that you may have evidence in your possession (documents, phone calls, emails, texts etc), things that police would expect to find in this investigation, then it is common practice to issue search warrants to obtain that information. If you are innocent then obviously there is nothing to worry about. I have a general problem with obtrusive police work, it can be handled better. This is the down side, things being forced into your private life.
In terms of when it happened, they are hardly going to book a time and date with potential suspects. That gives people time to destroy evidence. That's why it is called a 'raid', they turn up when people are not expecting. In the UK it is often in the early hours of the day.
If the police believe that you may have evidence in your possession (documents, phone calls, emails, texts etc), things that police would expect to find in this investigation, then it is common practice to issue search warrants to obtain that information. If you are innocent then obviously there is nothing to worry about. I have a general problem with obtrusive police work, it can be handled better. This is the down side, things being forced into your private life.
In terms of when it happened, they are hardly going to book a time and date with potential suspects. That gives people time to destroy evidence. That's why it is called a 'raid', they turn up when people are not expecting. In the UK it is often in the early hours of the day.
This is not sufficient. If you believe so, then it is you who lack an understanding of the law, not me.
Would a "hunch" be enough for questioning, though? Yes, it would.
But a warrant issuing a raid on someone's private home? You'd need more. Depending on the laws of that country, of course. I don't know about the italian national laws, but I know that they have ratified the EU Human Rights, and among them, article 8.
In Norway, what happened in this case, would not stand. If you lived here, and I called the police and said "JuveJay has tons of weed, yo!", they couldn't raid your home when you weren't there. But they could start an investigation, and they could question you.
Would a "hunch" be enough for questioning, though? Yes, it would.
But a warrant issuing a raid on someone's private home? You'd need more. Depending on the laws of that country, of course. I don't know about the italian national laws, but I know that they have ratified the EU Human Rights, and among them, article 8.
In Norway, what happened in this case, would not stand. If you lived here, and I called the police and said "JuveJay has tons of weed, yo!", they couldn't raid your home when you weren't there. But they could start an investigation, and they could question you.
No, it is sufficient by law. Maybe not in Norway, but in the UK and Italy I know as fact. If they knew he was guilty he'd be arrested already. If the police believe you may have incriminating evidence on your property - and that can come down to testimony - they need a reason and that is enough. I don't think you appreciate the enormity of this scandal, it is a very big issue. It's nothing to do with 'a hunch', Carobbio is a key suspect who is supposed to be 'outing' match-fixing allegations, so the police will treat it seriously.
Call the police? No, that's just stupid. If someone who knew you was caught with a lot of weed on them and then under interrogation they said that they bought it from you and that you were growing it, then that is grounds for them to issue a search warrant. I've seen this happen for myself.
And yes, they do it whenever they want, unannounced. To not do that would be pointless, as I explained before.
Which is what happens when the court allows search warrants. This is what has happened, the prosecutors in Cremona have had their request for search warrants granted.
Call the police? No, that's just stupid. If someone who knew you was caught with a lot of weed on them and then under interrogation they said that they bought it from you and that you were growing it, then that is grounds for them to issue a search warrant. I've seen this happen for myself.
And yes, they do it whenever they want, unannounced. To not do that would be pointless, as I explained before.
Which is what happens when the court allows search warrants. This is what has happened, the prosecutors in Cremona have had their request for search warrants granted.
Not once have I said that knowing is the criteria.
Could be enough. Could be. This right here is my entire point. There is no such thing as an automatic issuing of warrants based on any testimony. The law requires them to evaluate all facts up against the material rules. The concrete statement at hand must be evaluated. Could it be that Carobbio's statement was sufficient grounds to act? Absolutely. The raid did happen, and one must presuppose that the authorities got it right.
But with statements as vague and dodgy as his, and with all of those people saying Carobbio is full of sh*t; wouldn't you say that perhaps the principle of proportionality (that the EU Human Rights article 8 has as an intrinsic part of that article) in fact only entitled them to question Conte, and not do a full raid on his home while he wasn't even there?
And btw, I do appreciate the enormity of this scandal. But no matter how big a scandal, the law is the law. They may have got it right, but I just think what happened deserves more scrutiny than to just openly accept that the authorities can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
---------- Post added 31.05.2012 at 11:35 ----------
Like I said, we must presuppose that they got it right, but courts can get it wrong too. That's why it exists a hierarchy of courts, and the right to appeal to higher courts..
Could be enough. Could be. This right here is my entire point. There is no such thing as an automatic issuing of warrants based on any testimony. The law requires them to evaluate all facts up against the material rules. The concrete statement at hand must be evaluated. Could it be that Carobbio's statement was sufficient grounds to act? Absolutely. The raid did happen, and one must presuppose that the authorities got it right.
But with statements as vague and dodgy as his, and with all of those people saying Carobbio is full of sh*t; wouldn't you say that perhaps the principle of proportionality (that the EU Human Rights article 8 has as an intrinsic part of that article) in fact only entitled them to question Conte, and not do a full raid on his home while he wasn't even there?
And btw, I do appreciate the enormity of this scandal. But no matter how big a scandal, the law is the law. They may have got it right, but I just think what happened deserves more scrutiny than to just openly accept that the authorities can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
---------- Post added 31.05.2012 at 11:35 ----------
Like I said, we must presuppose that they got it right, but courts can get it wrong too. That's why it exists a hierarchy of courts, and the right to appeal to higher courts..
Well yes, you have to act on the presumption because if you don't and the unlikely is real, then the police and prosecution have serious questions to answer, people would lose their jobs.
The background to this investigation needs highlighting. It's not as if Carobbio has walked into a police station and started accusing people in the middle of an ordinary season. If he did that police would say to him 'either provide some evidence or GTFO'. As it is Scommessopoli is a very serious event involving potentially hundred of people, and in reality people are in prison or facing prison because of it. Professional clubs and their players and ex-players are definitely involved, some have already been punished for their involvement. So in this environment if a player is making accusations they have to be followed up.
As it seems it is just the word of one suspicious individual against that of several others so far there is no reason to worry. It's a bad situation but necessary, and there is no reason for it to drag on. Conte, Bonucci and Criscito are very minor parts of this entire thing. The media is stirring the rest up.
The background to this investigation needs highlighting. It's not as if Carobbio has walked into a police station and started accusing people in the middle of an ordinary season. If he did that police would say to him 'either provide some evidence or GTFO'. As it is Scommessopoli is a very serious event involving potentially hundred of people, and in reality people are in prison or facing prison because of it. Professional clubs and their players and ex-players are definitely involved, some have already been punished for their involvement. So in this environment if a player is making accusations they have to be followed up.
As it seems it is just the word of one suspicious individual against that of several others so far there is no reason to worry. It's a bad situation but necessary, and there is no reason for it to drag on. Conte, Bonucci and Criscito are very minor parts of this entire thing. The media is stirring the rest up.
@JuveJay;
The accusations definitely have to be followed up, but within that, in the nuances, and especially in relation to the already mentioned article 8 (which embodies a principle of proportionality that protects the citizen), the question of how they are followed up arises. The authorities are not allowed to use any means necessary to get what they want. In this case, a full ransacking of Conte's home may have been against that article, because the situation probably only warranted (no pun intended) a questioning instead. I've studied lots of verdicts from the Human Rights court in Strasbourg that may suggest that Conte could win a case against Italy in this matter. If you really want me to dig up a few, I will.
And might I add: It wouldn't be the first time Italy lost a human rights case. In fact, Greece and Italy are the most notorious of the EU-member states when it comes to human rights violations.
The accusations definitely have to be followed up, but within that, in the nuances, and especially in relation to the already mentioned article 8 (which embodies a principle of proportionality that protects the citizen), the question of how they are followed up arises. The authorities are not allowed to use any means necessary to get what they want. In this case, a full ransacking of Conte's home may have been against that article, because the situation probably only warranted (no pun intended) a questioning instead. I've studied lots of verdicts from the Human Rights court in Strasbourg that may suggest that Conte could win a case against Italy in this matter. If you really want me to dig up a few, I will.
And might I add: It wouldn't be the first time Italy lost a human rights case. In fact, Greece and Italy are the most notorious of the EU-member states when it comes to human rights violations.
The article states exemptions within 'the law', and this clearly falls into that category as the warrants were issued by the court in Cremona. I'm sure Italian law enforcement is more liberal in its use of this statute than many western countries, like many things.
I don't really want to get into a human rights discussion as it's a side issue, and Conte knows how it works, he will surely have his say once this is over.
I don't really want to get into a human rights discussion as it's a side issue, and Conte knows how it works, he will surely have his say once this is over.
The European Court of Human Rights tries the national laws of it's member states all the time. In fact, it's what they do the most. Is the law too general and vague? Does the formulations of the norm regulate what actually happened? Is it clear enough, and does it give the citizens the foreseeability that is required by EU law? Just because a law is given, doesn't mean that the authorities are in the clear. There may be something wrong with the law itself, and this is something that can be tried in Strasbourg.
With that said, my points of view are not that the authorities did something that wasn't prescribed by law. The prescribed by law-criterium is only 1 of 4 criteria. The criterium which I've spoken about all along is the principle of proportionality.
If you read some verdicts that was passed in relation to article 8, you will see what I'm talking about.
With that said, my points of view are not that the authorities did something that wasn't prescribed by law. The prescribed by law-criterium is only 1 of 4 criteria. The criterium which I've spoken about all along is the principle of proportionality.
If you read some verdicts that was passed in relation to article 8, you will see what I'm talking about.
