In previous formal investigations we have always noted when we have found a prior felony conviction of someone whom were were investigating. A felony conviction is admissible in state and federal courts to impeach a witness because such convictions are viewed as affecting the credibility of a witness.
Suit yourselves guys, but I think this is unnecessary. You've got a case where some very talented people see real problems with the technical instruction in numerous videos, as well as a fairly impressive resume that seems, perhaps, at odds with the level of technical expertise shown. IMO there's plenty of real substance to talk about right there. I'm trying to understand why going on a giant derail about the guy's financial responsibilities to his children is important when we already have numerous talented senior grapplers ready to make the case base solely on his ability to teach Sambo. I think that's where the compelling case would be made if it turns out there is a problem. It would be nice if we could leave dirty laundry and family suffering out of the discussion unless it was really necessary to resolve the issue.
IMO it would damage some of our investigations if we had a rule that before a felony conviction could be mentioned in a MABS thread it would have to first pass some sort of review as far as relevancy or whether it indicated conduct so bad, that it should be mentioned. This would be "A moral turpitude" argument and leads to questions of where one would draw the line. Drugs? assault? manslaughter? Larceny? Lawyers have been arguing over the definitions of moral turpitude for years with no end in sight. (see immigration law) The felony rule has been used in the judicial system because it covers all crimes with a possible sentence of incarceration for more then one year, and therefore can be covered using a brightline rule.
Suggesting that others not follow a line of inquiry is hardly the same as following it yourself.Quote:
Because you guys keep talking about it.
True we are not a court, but courts exclude far more evidence then appears on Bullshido. As a matter of fact in criminal trials all kinds of information is excluded because of heresay rules and to prevent prejudicing the finder of fact. (usually a jury) that a universal rule allowing such information, is a strong indication that it is useful under rules far more stringent then here.
I always thought the lack of regulation in martial arts was one of the reasons this site exists.
I don't care why he got a felony.
It's just that if martial arts schools/teachers were held up to a similar scrutiny as Ohio public or charter schools, Wil would not be allowed to teach because of the conviction.
That the victim may be the minor could put him in a group that would not even be eligible for "rehabilitation", ie he could not ever regain his full rights.
I absolutely do not advocate a rule of this sort; I'm giving my personal opinion on what an investigators ethical responsibilities to himself and the person he's looking at are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Browning