"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:31 +0000, Leon wrote:

So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???

I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
happened. No body gets out a live.

...and you can hasten the process if you ignore mother nature's rule:
Screw with the bull and you get the horn.



Exactly seems only common sense to me too.

"Mark L." wrote in message
news
No, you don't ask. You pursue until he/she is apprehended. If there is
resistance, you are permitted to use enough force to secure the subject
with cuffs, then after he/she is cuffed (generally) no more force is
needed. Been there, done that.


Oh,,, so you run them till they drop... Suppose you don"t have the ability
to run as far and simply want to get the deed done.

On 17 Aug 2004 23:37:21 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

bridger writes:


any law that limits a corporation is good (TM)2004

I'm gonna steal that!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary



I'll send my lawyer right over to beat the crap outta you... G

Leon writes:

I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with
no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed
doing
the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.

Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
thankful.

So if someone walked into your shop and started stealing right in front of
you, you would let it happen and if he beat the rap you would be OK with
that???


You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into my
shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
friends, for one thing.

And, no, I wouldn't be "OK with that" if someone did try. That still doesn't
give me the right to kick the crap out of him, though it seems likely the
reaction would be noisy in the extreme and probably a lot more threatening than
actuality would allow.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Mark L writes:


Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.

He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
courses.

John


That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.

Sort of a Draconian punishment for stealing a few bucks worth of diapers, I'd
say, and something of a drastic technique for holding a person until the real
cops arrive. I'd say his family has a suit, but what do I know. I'm not a
compassionate Conservative, nor am I a lawyer.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Leon writes:

What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws
to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to
being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....


Again, if you run and disobey, you stand the chance of being treated with
less "respect". If you simply speed and the cop pulls you out of the car
and beats you, then he is at fault. If you ignored his lights and siren and
made him chase you, well can you blain him? Nothing like taunting a
policeman to test your rights.

You guys crack me up. You're not writing about cops here. You're writing about
rentacops and clerks. These people have no authority--except maybe in Arizona,
yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.

Good bless the modern Conservative. Freedom? Give it away. It's a nuisance and
messy and inconvenient.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Reading these posts and watching the
morning news about Scott Petersen is
making me obsess about society and
morality. The term "sociopath" was
defined in connection with the Petersen
case. I never realized it before, but do
you realize that sociopaths are necessary
for the functioning of our society? Where
would John Gotti have gotten without
grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would
the Chicago Carpenter's union survive
without the ability to intimidate people
like my friend with a roofing business,
by sending goons out to drive his own
trucks through his overhead doors and
kill his pet pig, which was the company
mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing
force in society so that in some cases,
at least, a Gotti will end up powerless.
I would like to read a thesis about how the
percentage of remorseless individuals
in society are used to control and
manipulate us. I think the remorseless-
ness begins with the one who is willing
to take what does not belong to them,
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world. Do we all want to live
in New Jersey?

These people have no authority--except maybe in Arizona,
yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.

The part that whispers into your ear, "I
want the five finger discount?" Those
bumpkins have no right to tell you that.

bub209 responds (I think):
These people have no authority--except maybe in Arizona,
yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.

The part that whispers into your ear, "I
want the five finger discount?" Those
bumpkins have no right to tell you that.

What part whispers in whose ear?

I don't get whispers like that, nor do I cede control over my movements to a
rentacop or retial clerk.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Leon responds:

But if the employee indicates to me
that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about
their
business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort
town
in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that
I
had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had
done
and promptly got back inside the store. Had an employee called me on
this I
would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look
as
wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty.

Of what? Forgetfulness? You weren't stealing the stuff.

No, I was not stealing the stuff but I could sure under stand how an
employee would have viewed it.

Charlie, neither one of us are idiots, ;~), I think that both of us have
valid views perhaps given our back grounds of where we live or have lived.
If I still lived in Corpus Christi where I grew up, I would probably see
things a bit more your way. I do indeed recall seeing things your way.
However now I live in Houston, TX and see things in a completely different
light. I'd say 99% of the people getting chased down are caught red handed
and not for the first time by the same stores.

bub209 writes:

Where
would John Gotti have gotten without
grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would
the Chicago Carpenter's union survive
without the ability to intimidate people
like my friend with a roofing business,
by sending goons out to drive his own
trucks through his overhead doors and
kill his pet pig, which was the company
mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing
force in society so that in some cases,
at least, a Gotti will end up powerless.
I would like to read a thesis about how the
percentage of remorseless individuals
in society are used to control and
manipulate us. I think the remorseless-
ness begins with the one who is willing
to take what does not belong to them,
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world. Do we all want to live
in New Jersey?


John Gotti was a sociopath himself.

The latter prt of your diatribe is ridiculous. I don't know if Peterson is a
sociopath...he sounds to me like a garden variety nasty piece of work as far as
women are concerned. If he did kill his wife, I'll concede sociopathological
status.

That said, I doubt very much that these people (sociopaths) are made more or
less comfortable by whatever political party is in power.

How this discussion got to this point from a WalMart clerk tackling and
injuring a suspected shoplifter I have no idea.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Leon" wrote in message

What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff
you? Where do you live?

LOL! Atta boy, Leon ... but you're just too damn "Texas" for most with that
attitude. ;) (Like it or not, it is pretty much a fact that most of those
who have been in this part of the country longer (30 years or more) than 85%
of the current residents simply aren't programmed to accept scofflaws of any
sort gracefully.)

It's also notable that no matter how small the world becomes, and with all
the moaning about the loss of regional differences in this country, it
appears that you can still easily geograhically delineate the participants
by the logic of their arguments.

As my 82 year old Dad still maintains to those, mostly eastern,
acquaintances with a tendency to be a bit apologetic toward criminals of any
degree "Believe what you will, just be warned that should you ever turn to a
life of crime, don't get caught stealing from me."

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into
my
shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
friends, for one thing.

I mentioned in another post why you and I probably have different openions
here. I live in Houston. That may explain everything as far as my point of
view. ;~) Right now a neighbor hood about 5 miles from where has had a
rash of robberies at peoples homes and this has been going on for several
months. Not a bad neighbor hood, middle class I'd say. the victims drive
up into their drive way, open their garage dooors, look out their car window
and find 2 or 3 guys waiting to tie them up and go through their house
taking what they want. Listening to the news, there seems to be a large
gang of these thieves. Fortunately they nave not harmed anyone yet. The
same thing is a daily occourance at the retail stores but no one gets tied
up and it is not getting any better.

And, no, I wouldn't be "OK with that" if someone did try. That still
doesn't
give me the right to kick the crap out of him, though it seems likely the
reaction would be noisy in the extreme and probably a lot more threatening
than
actuality would allow.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places. I blame lax
liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury
decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self for
fear that he might become the victim again.

Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.

Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in
after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go to
trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if he is
crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.

Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the
remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to
the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and was
afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an
accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY FOUND
HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to **** on our shoes
and tell us that is raining.




"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
Reading these posts and watching the
morning news about Scott Petersen is
making me obsess about society and
morality. The term "sociopath" was
defined in connection with the Petersen
case. I never realized it before, but do
you realize that sociopaths are necessary
for the functioning of our society? Where
would John Gotti have gotten without
grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would
the Chicago Carpenter's union survive
without the ability to intimidate people
like my friend with a roofing business,
by sending goons out to drive his own
trucks through his overhead doors and
kill his pet pig, which was the company
mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing
force in society so that in some cases,
at least, a Gotti will end up powerless.
I would like to read a thesis about how the
percentage of remorseless individuals
in society are used to control and
manipulate us. I think the remorseless-
ness begins with the one who is willing
to take what does not belong to them,
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world. Do we all want to live
in New Jersey?

Ok, when I say liberal laws, please do not take that as laws created by
liberals. Take that as laws that have no bite. Laws with too many loop
holes. Laws that let the guilty get off because of what ever reason. Laws
with absolutely too much protection of the guilty.

Bob Schmall wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Eddie Munster" wrote in message
...
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.

He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
courses.

John

That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.

Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone stealing
deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
civilized countries?

This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system, not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice we are well down the road to barbarism.

This is realism. He stole. He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied
then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened after
that was on his head.

It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the act
into "vigilante justice".

If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".

Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die". You
are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension with
penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and gets
hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
problem. Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
"knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things)
that he was dealing with rent-a-cops. Maybe it didn't occur to him that
lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
inability to overpower him.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

LOL! Atta boy, Leon ... but you're just too damn "Texas" for most with
that
attitude. ;) (Like it or not, it is pretty much a fact that most of those
who have been in this part of the country longer (30 years or more) than
85%
of the current residents simply aren't programmed to accept scofflaws of
any
sort gracefully.)

LOL... Yeah Siwngman, I finally indicated to Charlie that our differences
of opinions on this matter are probably a result of where we live and have
lived.

It's also notable that no matter how small the world becomes, and with all
the moaning about the loss of regional differences in this country, it
appears that you can still easily geograhically delineate the participants
by the logic of their arguments.

LOL Yeah... ;~)


As my 82 year old Dad still maintains to those, mostly eastern,
acquaintances with a tendency to be a bit apologetic toward criminals of
any
degree "Believe what you will, just be warned that should you ever turn to
a
life of crime, don't get caught stealing from me."

Yeah..

Clif wrote:
Believe me, I have no problem embarrasing people in public,

No, you have to suffer the public embarrassment and humiliation. Think
down the road when your found innocent. Get it?

Charlie Self wrote:

Leon states:

You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was
someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
anyone to stop and to stop that person.

The original statement had zip to do with cops. It was clerks in a WalMart
store.

But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers
to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.

Bull****. Criminals fear jail time, but they know that a good lawyer means
their only jail time will be in the arrest pen.

Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you
will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
something that you have not paid for.

I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.

Jesus is right. It's common courtesy to answer reasonable questions posed
by the designated representatives of the owners of the property on which
you are standing. I don't see why you have a problem with it.

And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the
liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right
to protect their property?

When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not done
anything?

Walking onto somebody else's property and then getting ****ed off when they
ask you what you are doing there is not "doing nothing". In fact it is
downright suspicious.

Neither one of us knows whether the parties jumped were guilty or
innocent. But, then, neither did the clerks who did the jumping. They
thought they knew. Different thing.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon wrote:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the
presumption
of innocence comes from that source.

Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this
principle
is established?

The 5th,

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation. "

Nothing there places burden of proof on the government. Only establishes
procedures.

6th,

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence. "

Nothing there places burden of proof on the government either.

and 14th Amendments.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing there but the equal protection clause
does not place burden of proof on the government.

I think you will find that the presumption of innocence comes out of English
common law and was established in the US by case law rather than by
statute.


I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with
no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed
doing the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mark L. wrote:



George wrote:

The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
somewhere beyond your shoulder.

No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
except to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.

They have these things called handcuffs.....

Ever try to put handcuffs on someone who doesn't want to cooperate? While
keeping them from grabbing your service weapon out of the holster and
shooting you with it?

Makes me laugh
when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide,
so your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
designer jeans.

Then there's the car chase controversy....

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Leon writes:


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon wrote:

I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury decide.

...

Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the
remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to
the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and was
afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an
accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY FOUND
HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to **** on our shoes
and tell us that is raining.

Er, anyone else notice the contradiction above?

G

"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world.

"...destroy the world."
The single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this or any other
newsgroup. You really weren't trying to pull anyone's leg when you declared
open season at your local Sears store, were you?
So what was your point? That Sears shouldn't hire older employees? That
Sears should have more security personnel? That cops should be patrolling
the aisles? That "liberal laws" are corrupting our society?

Bob

"Leon" wrote in message
m...
And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places.

And it has been for a long time, through conservative and liberal
administrations, through conservative and liberal judges, through
conservative and liberal shifts in public opinion. We are "liberal" in
respecting personal freedom, and we need to accept the concomitant, that
self-interest can go beyond the bounds of law.


I blame lax
liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury
decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self
for
fear that he might become the victim again.

Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.

Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in
after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go to
trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if he
is
crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.

Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the
remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to
the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and
was
afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an
accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY
FOUND
HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to **** on our shoes
and tell us that is raining.

The "liberal laws" could just as well have been applied by the juries to
find the accused guilty and put them in prison or kill them. It wasn't the
laws' fault--it was the juries'. You know, those peers of ours who are the
actual judges.

Bob

Leon wrote:

So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???

I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
happened. No body gets out a live.

You're kidding, right? If the security guards/cops/manager came out and
beat the crap out of/maimed/killed you, you wouldn't blame them?
Remember, "Jail time obviousely does not work. The only thing most
criminals fear is being beaten up," and by admission, you're a criminal
here.

This has to be the second silliest comment on this whole thread (the
first being something about the Democrats and the end of the world).

G

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


Jesus is right. It's common courtesy to answer reasonable questions posed
by the designated representatives of the owners of the property on which
you are standing. I don't see why you have a problem with it.

Yeah, common courtesy. It seems that some of our laws are makeing it to
where the thief gets the common courtesy over the person trying to protect
his property. What is wrong with this picture. It has always been my
belief that if you are uncooperative in a matter such as this, you probably
have something to hide.


And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way,
the
liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the
right
to protect their property?

When "Liberal Laws" were passed. That does not mean laws passed by
liberals.



When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not
done
anything?

Walking onto somebody else's property and then getting ****ed off when
they
ask you what you are doing there is not "doing nothing". In fact it is
downright suspicious.

Exactly, but some think that this is profiling..

Leon wrote:

And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places. I blame lax
liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury
decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self
for fear that he might become the victim again.

Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.

Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in
after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go to
trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if he
is
crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.

Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the
remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to
the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and
was
afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an
accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY
FOUND
HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to **** on our shoes
and tell us that is raining.

It's not necessarily the statutes that are at fault. The problem is that
the jury did not find him guilty of crime with which he was charged.
Homicide is not a simple charge--there are degrees of it ranging from
murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter, with each having a
set of criteria for applicability. If the prosecutor chose to apply a
charge for which all the criteria were not met then the jury would be right
to find the defendent not guilty of that charge. The prosecutor's job is
to apply the most stringent charge for which he can get a
conviction--unfortunatley prosecutors have to answer to pointy-haired
bosses who sometimes micromanage the case without knowing the law
themselves and so a charge not supported by the evidence is applied and the
defendant walks. I have been told that juries can convict of a lesser
charge even if it was not brought, but most of them are not informed of
this power--whether they should be is a topic of fairly hot debate.


"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
Reading these posts and watching the
morning news about Scott Petersen is
making me obsess about society and
morality. The term "sociopath" was
defined in connection with the Petersen
case. I never realized it before, but do
you realize that sociopaths are necessary
for the functioning of our society? Where
would John Gotti have gotten without
grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would
the Chicago Carpenter's union survive
without the ability to intimidate people
like my friend with a roofing business,
by sending goons out to drive his own
trucks through his overhead doors and
kill his pet pig, which was the company
mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing
force in society so that in some cases,
at least, a Gotti will end up powerless.
I would like to read a thesis about how the
percentage of remorseless individuals
in society are used to control and
manipulate us. I think the remorseless-
ness begins with the one who is willing
to take what does not belong to them,
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world. Do we all want to live
in New Jersey?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Walt Kelly was right.

The problem, as with this entire thread, is not the presumption of
innocence. Everyone is innocent in his or her own mind of any wrongdoing.
The problem is that many on juries, as many in this discussion, presume the
"system," its restrictions and minions, are automatically guilty.

Of course, they are encouraged and abetted by constant reinterpretation of
the law, increasing the obligations of those in authority and the rights of
those in violation. Remember, it was only a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme
Court that recently reaffirmed a citizen's obligation to give their proper
name to authorities.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
The "liberal laws" could just as well have been applied by the juries to
find the accused guilty and put them in prison or kill them. It wasn't the
laws' fault--it was the juries'. You know, those peers of ours who are the
actual judges.

J. Clarke wrote:

He stole.

Or so you think. It'd be nice to ask him his version, but,
unfortunately, he's dead.

Now contrast that with Leon walking out of the store with some tools on
accident. The guard follows. He mistakes that nice try square for a gun
and pops him with his six-shooter. Is this a proper outcome?

Remember, Leon has been caught red-handed, and therefore it's "on his head."

G

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".

no, that would be murder.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Eddie Munster" wrote in message
...
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect
died.

He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in
training
courses.

John

That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.

Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
stealing
deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
civilized countries?

This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice we are well down the road to barbarism.

This is realism. He stole.

As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?


He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied
then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened after
that was on his head.

Nope. What was on his head what the suspected commission of a crime. Since
when do people suspected of a crime lose their right to live?

It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the
act
into "vigilante justice".

It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.

If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".

Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die".
You
are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension
with
penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and
gets
hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
problem.

Nope--it's giving carte blanche to the person apprehending them to use
deadly force. And don't think I'm favoring the perp. If he is judged to be a
thief, then he deserves the punishment--but not until then.

Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
"knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things)
that he was dealing with rent-a-cops.

So he should ask about store security before committing the crime? "Pardon
me, may I see the manager about what could happen if I steal something?"


Maybe it didn't occur to him that
lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
inability to overpower him.

Talk about "liberals" letting people off. So lack of training gets the guard
off the hook? "Excuse me, sir. You, the one under my knee. Are you aware
that I have not been trained in proper restraint techniques? Not that it
matters to me."
If he wasn't properly trained, why did he use the maneuver?

The only thing the perp should have known was that stealing is wrong.

Bob

BUB 209 wrote:

I've seen too many liberals put the
strong, straight and narrow strap on
others while practicing indulgent
behavior themselves.

You give far too much credit to everyone else. Hypocrites come in all
makes and models.

G

Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Eddie Munster" wrote in message
...
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect
died.

He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security
guards held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He
couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered
in
training
courses.

John

That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.

Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
stealing
deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
civilized countries?

This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice we are well down the road to barbarism.

This is realism. He stole.

As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?

He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got to
trial.

He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied
then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened
after
that was on his head.

Nope. What was on his head what the suspected commission of a crime. Since
when do people suspected of a crime lose their right to live?

It is not a matter of "right to live". If the guards had gone after him
with heavy machine guns or something you might have a reasonable point, but
they did not, they caught him, held him down, and he managed to die while
they were doing it. This comes under the heading of "**** happens".

It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the
act
into "vigilante justice".

It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.

I have a high regard for the "rule of law". The "rule of law" does not
require that when one catches a criminal in the act on one's own property
one must let him walk away.

If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".

Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die".
You
are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension
with
penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and
gets
hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
problem.

Nope--it's giving carte blanche to the person apprehending them to use
deadly force.

Nope. If the guards had shot him 40 times I'd be upset about it. They
basically held him down and sat on him. I'm not at all upset about them
doing that.

Suppose the guard had just said "excuse me sir" and the suspect had then
dropped dead of a heart attack, would you be this irate then?

And don't think I'm favoring the perp.

Actually you are. If he knows he can walk away and stay a free man as long
as the police, who are grossly overworked already, don't find him, that
favors him.

If he is judged to be
a thief, then he deserves the punishment--but not until then.

What punishment? Being sat on?

Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
"knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various
things) that he was dealing with rent-a-cops.

So he should ask about store security before committing the crime?

That would come under the general heading of "reasonable prudence" for a
criminal. If he doesn't find out what he's up against first then he is not
only a "criminal", he's a "stupid criminal".

"Pardon me, may I see the manager about what could happen if I steal
something?"

Why would one have to ask that to determine that the guards are rent-a-cops
and not real cops? All one has to do is look at the insignia on their
uniforms.

Maybe it didn't occur to him that
lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
inability to overpower him.

Talk about "liberals" letting people off. So lack of training gets the
guard off the hook?

No. Lack of _intent_ lets the guard off the hook. The guy died because the
guard didn't know that doing what he did was likely to kill someone, not
because the guard wanted him dead.

"Excuse me, sir. You, the one under my knee. Are you
aware that I have not been trained in proper restraint techniques? Not
that it matters to me."

If the guard had the suspect under his knee then the information will do the
suspect no good. The suspect should have surrendered before matters got to
that point.

If he wasn't properly trained, why did he use the maneuver?

He used it because he wasn't properly trained. If he had been properly
trained then he would have done something else less likely to kill the
suspect.

The only thing the perp should have known was that stealing is wrong.

Your opinion. The law deals in the actions of the "reasonable man". The
"reasonable man" who is going to commit a crime will want to know a lot
more than that.

Bob

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon responds:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into
my
shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
friends, for one thing.

I mentioned in another post why you and I probably have different openions
here. I live in Houston. That may explain everything as far as my point of
view. ;~) Right now a neighbor hood about 5 miles from where has had a
rash of robberies at peoples homes and this has been going on for several
months. Not a bad neighbor hood, middle class I'd say. the victims drive
up into their drive way, open their garage dooors, look out their car window
and find 2 or 3 guys waiting to tie them up and go through their house
taking what they want.

Suggestion: move.

I live in rural Virginia. People don't do that. They'd be picking .30 slugs out
of their heads if they did.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"G. Lewin" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:



You're kidding, right?
Nope.

If the security guards/cops/manager came out and beat the crap out
of/maimed/killed you, you wouldn't blame them?

If I had been stealing, in this instance that was the concequense. I think
more people should tak responsibility for their actions instead of blaming
some one else or whining about oues rights being stepped on. If I
electrocut my self because I stepped in water while repairing a live wire I
would not blame the power company either. It was my mistake, not the store
employees mistake.


Remember, "Jail time obviousely does not work. The only thing most
criminals fear is being beaten up," and by admission, you're a criminal
here.

That is what I believe I said.

This has to be the second silliest comment on this whole thread (the
first being something about the Democrats and the end of the world).

Perhaps it does sound silly to you but I was taught that if you cause
problems intentionally or not, you will have a price to pay.

"G. Lewin" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:

He stole.

Or so you think. It'd be nice to ask him his version, but,
unfortunately, he's dead.

Now contrast that with Leon walking out of the store with some tools on
accident. The guard follows. He mistakes that nice try square for a gun
and pops him with his six-shooter. Is this a proper outcome?

Remember, Leon has been caught red-handed, and therefore it's "on his
head."

Yes it is proper out come. But uh I walked out with a T-shirt from a
tourist shop. The T-shirt may not be mistaken for a gun. Then again I
would drop what ever I was holding and not give some one a reason to take
the situation farther. In other words, I would not resist restraint.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Suggestion: move.

I would love to but the Houston economy is so darn good and most of my
neighbors know that I work at home and know that I will protect my property.
A neighbor around the corner about 5 years ago had 2 guys break into his
house during the day and not expecting to find him at home found he had a
loaded gun and one of the intruders got shot. Pretty exciting as I heard
it all go down and saw one of the guys running away in a trench coat in the
middle of summer. Again, Our neighborhood is quite calm compared to many
in the Houston area.

I live in rural Virginia. People don't do that. They'd be picking .30
slugs out
of their heads if they did.

Yeah I would love to some day move to a place in the slow lane.







Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:08:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
|
|I have been told that juries can convict of a lesser
|charge even if it was not brought, but most of them are not informed of
|this power--whether they should be is a topic of fairly hot debate.


No debate about it from the judges and lawyers standpoint. A good
friend's wife was an Assistant DA and is now a judge so I have had
some conversations about this. The last thing in the world they want
to see is an informed jury and "jury nullification" is really
something they don't want to talk about.

In their eyes, juries should be just like mushrooms.

Judges decide that the law is what *they* say it is, not what the
statutes say. They sure don't want some dumb jury deciding what the
law is, even though they have that right.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

The "liberal laws" could just as well have been applied by the juries to
find the accused guilty and put them in prison or kill them. It wasn't the
laws' fault--it was the juries'. You know, those peers of ours who are the
actual judges.


Well more often than not the jury does not get to rule on what they should
be ruling on. Meaning, the jury is not to decide if the guy intentionally
murdered the neighbor, they are to determine if it was an accident or not.
The fact that the guy cut the neighbor up and dumped the parts in the bay
was to play no part as to whether the murder was accidental or not. Draw
your own conclusion given "all" the facts.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places. I blame lax
liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury
decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self
for fear that he might become the victim again.

Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.

Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in
after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go
to
trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if
he
is
crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.

Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the
remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess
to
the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and
was
afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was
an
accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY
FOUND
HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to **** on our
shoes
and tell us that is raining.

It's not necessarily the statutes that are at fault. The problem is that
the jury did not find him guilty of crime with which he was charged.
Homicide is not a simple charge--there are degrees of it ranging from
murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter, with each having a
set of criteria for applicability. If the prosecutor chose to apply a
charge for which all the criteria were not met then the jury would be
right
to find the defendent not guilty of that charge. The prosecutor's job is
to apply the most stringent charge for which he can get a
conviction--unfortunatley prosecutors have to answer to pointy-haired
bosses who sometimes micromanage the case without knowing the law
themselves and so a charge not supported by the evidence is applied and
the
defendant walks. I have been told that juries can convict of a lesser
charge even if it was not brought, but most of them are not informed of
this power--whether they should be is a topic of fairly hot debate.

jury nullification


"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
Reading these posts and watching the
morning news about Scott Petersen is
making me obsess about society and
morality. The term "sociopath" was
defined in connection with the Petersen
case. I never realized it before, but do
you realize that sociopaths are necessary
for the functioning of our society? Where
would John Gotti have gotten without
grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would
the Chicago Carpenter's union survive
without the ability to intimidate people
like my friend with a roofing business,
by sending goons out to drive his own
trucks through his overhead doors and
kill his pet pig, which was the company
mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing
force in society so that in some cases,
at least, a Gotti will end up powerless.
I would like to read a thesis about how the
percentage of remorseless individuals
in society are used to control and
manipulate us. I think the remorseless-
ness begins with the one who is willing
to take what does not belong to them,
I also believe that if the Democrats win
the upcoming election, the world will
become more comfortable for the Scott
Petersens among us, and that they will
destroy the world. Do we all want to live
in New Jersey?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)