"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...

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.

Are you saying for instance that a guy being tried for murder can be
convicted for a lesser charge that has not been brought against him?

Leon asks:

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.

Are you saying for instance that a guy being tried for murder can be
convicted for a lesser charge that has not been brought against him?

Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a person being convicted of
manslaughter when the original charge had been something like murder two?

Last week? The week before?

Happens all the time, usually at the whim of judge and lawyers.

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

Leon wrote:

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.

Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
was part of their deliberations
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/11/12/News/Jurors.Durst.Trial.Verdict.Was.Difficult-555217.shtml.
The jurors were told, however, that Durst was not on trial for the
actual cutting up of the body.

Interestingly, Durst claimed that Black, the victim, was in his house
illegally. If he was, then surely you agree that it's "on his head."

To edit Clarke's comments:

"This is realism. He [broke in]. He thus risked apprehension. When
apprehended [by the owner], 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."

And to think all this time you were blaming the victim.

G

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a person being
convicted of
manslaughter when the original charge had been something like murder two?

Last week? The week before?

I was thinking more in lines with commiting him to life in a mental hospital
because of facts and events leading up to what he was accused of. He
accused chooses to go to trial for murder because he thinks the case against
him is weak. So the juriors choose life in a mental institution because
they too cannot beyond a reasonable doubt find him guilt of murder but in
their hearts they know this guy shoud be put away.

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

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.

Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
was part of their deliberations


I was using that case more of an example in this instance but given your
input here, the law has failed. He should have been put away permanently
when he confessed. Why go farther with a trial?

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:20:25 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

|
|"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
|
| 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.
|
|Are you saying for instance that a guy being tried for murder can be
|convicted for a lesser charge that has not been brought against him?

Not at all. Perhaps I should have snipped that part of the post that
I quoted and you chose to eliminate completely.

The point I'm tryihg to make is that when the judge "instructs" the
jury and tells them what the law is and how they *must* consider it,
the jury can do otherwise.

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
news
Not at all. Perhaps I should have snipped that part of the post that
I quoted and you chose to eliminate completely.

The point I'm tryihg to make is that when the judge "instructs" the
jury and tells them what the law is and how they *must* consider it,
the jury can do otherwise.


I see, I did not intentionally choose to leave that part out to challenge
you. I really wanted to understand the situation. I think I understand
now. With the $6 we get paid per day in Texas for out assistance in a trial
I would like to believe that the juniors thoughts can go where they believe
that they should go.

Can a juror call the judge on this when he instructs the jury?

Leon wrote:

"G. Lewin" wrote in message
...

Leon wrote:


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.

Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
was part of their deliberations



I was using that case more of an example in this instance but given your
input here, the law has failed. He should have been put away permanently
when he confessed. Why go farther with a trial?



Because he didn't confess to murder (did he?), only to _killing_ Black.

If you take his "confession" at face value, and the man was in his house
illegally, then, by the logic that has been employed in this thread --
by you and Clarke -- it's Black's fault he got himself killed. i.e.,
Durst is innocent of murder by reason of protecting his property.

I use this example as a means to demonstrate the absurdity of a man
dying while being apprehended for shoplifting diapers, and you (and
Clarke) saying he should have anticipated it. If Black really broke into
Durst's house, then he should have anticipated this possible outcome and
it's his own damn fault.

But by your vehement spite for the jury, laws, whatever, you seem to be
applying your standard inconsistently. Instead of consistent application
of principles, I see someone who merely wants to impose _his_ ad hoc
view of whatever situation arises.

Extrapolate this now to cops/security guards/soldiers/people with guns
and you get a very dangerous situation. People who are damn sure they
know what they're seeing and not realizing the consequences of being
wrong. That's why I'd like to have some protection from over-zealous
authorities. That's why laws to protect _suspects_ are important.

Have the laws gone too far? Maybe. It's always easy to find the
outrageous cases to prove a point (I've twisted the Durst case pretty
good for my own devious purposes I do know I'd be pretty ticked to
have my years on Earth cut in half by some nit-wit rent-a-cop.

Greg

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:06:16 GMT, "Clif" wrote:

What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the amount
of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.

Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I didnt,
so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
contractor

GOD BLESS THE USA

Clif

There's nothing new in the disrespectful attitude of civilians for military
personnel. Nor is it limited to the US of A. Read the poem, "Tommy" by Rudyard
Kipling.

If you don't have a book of Kipling's works, DAGS for "Tommy" "Rudyard Kipling"

or go to:

http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Po...ling/Tommy.htm

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Greetings and Salutations....

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:08:03 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"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.



Hum...I sort of recall this case, and I remember shaking my
head over it. I thought, though, that the problem was twofold.
Firstly, the perp was an old white guy with a chunk of cash.
Secondly, I thought it was a "not guilty by reason of insanity"
sort of verdict. It's not that he did not do it, but, that he
was crazy as a loon when he did it.
Now...I think that, in a case like this, he probably SHOULD be
put away in a home for the criminally insane for the rest of his
life, but, again, I don't know all the details of the case.
I think, though that the problem is less that of the laws
that are passed, as there are WAY too many of them, and, if actually
applied as written would be rather draconian. I belive that the
problem is based more in the way the court system has evolved over the
past thirty or forty years. The big roots of the problem seem
to be the willingness of the courts to plea bargain in order to get
"bigger fish" or to expedite the process; There is also the problem
that the whole concept of a "search for truth" seems to have gone
away. Both defense and prosecution lawyers appear to feel that it is
perfectly ok to lie, cheat and steal in order to win their side of
the argument. Juries are not given all the facts in a case, but,
only a very carefully selected set of facts that support each side's
contention as to how the case should be determined; There is the
increasing tendency for courts to "send a message" with a given case,
by either allowing fairly lax standards of evidence, or increasingly
draconian penalties for the laundry list of crimes that the person
has been convicted of; There is the (perhaps honest) attitude that
prison is not there the rehabilitate, but, simply to punish and
warehouse folks that bump up against the limits of society; Finally,
there is the continuing problem of economic justice. Like it or
not, the rich get one level of justice, and the poor get another.
I suppose I should take heart in the evidence of the OJ verdict that
says that this is not a racial thing...just a money thing. That
will even out the playing field as more and more people of color
achieve some level of economic success.
Back to the looting problem...that may well come from the
social stresses caused by the ever increasing distance between the
"haves" and "have nots" in America. We are still bombarded by
thousands of ads a day pushing consumerism and having "stuff" that
validates our existence. On the other side of the coin, there are
fewer and fewer sources that might point out that having "stuff"
does not make a person's life better, or make one a better person.
That sort of spiritual teaching is falling into disrepute in
America, alas. The bottom line is that there are more and more
pressures to fill that spiritual void with "stuff" and the economy
is making it harder and harder for folks to do so...which pushes
a person to the point of theft.
Now...just before the French Revolution, the penalty for
stealing a loaf of bread was death. Do we want to be that sort
of society? It is the "easy" thing to set up simplistic and
harsh rules to deal with lawbreakers. it is much harder to set
up a society that finds the best in its citizens, and brings that
out.
It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities, decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.
Ok...I am stepping away from the soap box now.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 +0000, Dave Mundt wrote:

[snip]

It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree, that
America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide to run down the
path of increasing extremities, decadance and decay, or we can turn to the
path of becoming that shining beacon that folks THOUGHT we were at the
time that France gifted us with the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a
harder path, but, in the long run, it will do more than all the guns in
the world to make us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and
external.

As Yogi says, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it". Makes you
wonder if we haven't already choosen the path when every other TV
advertisement is for boner pills...

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

No one can outrun a radio

Leon wrote:

"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.

Yes I have, and never lost a battle. That's what training was for. Even
if the bad guy is bigger/stronger/faster good training will make you
smarter. It's not a guarantee, but it helps to tip the odds in your favor.

J. Clarke wrote:

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:

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

If you take his "confession" at face value, and the man was in his house
illegally, then, by the logic that has been employed in this thread --
by you and Clarke -- it's Black's fault he got himself killed. i.e.,
Durst is innocent of murder by reason of protecting his property.

You gotta use a little horse sense here. Is that rain on you shoes there?
I think the fact that he admitted to hacking the body and tossing it in the
bay screams murder and guilty. The security guard that aprehended the guy
stealing diapers did not finish by hacking the body into pieces and tossing
them in tho the bay or river. Come on a little thinking works wonders.


I use this example as a means to demonstrate the absurdity of a man
dying while being apprehended for shoplifting diapers, and you (and
Clarke) saying he should have anticipated it. If Black really broke into
Durst's house, then he should have anticipated this possible outcome and
it's his own damn fault.

Yeah if he really broke into the house he should have considered the
possible consequenses. But Durst did go a bit farther to try and get rid of
the body.


But by your vehement spite for the jury, laws, whatever, you seem to be
applying your standard inconsistently. Instead of consistent application
of principles, I see someone who merely wants to impose _his_ ad hoc
view of whatever situation arises.

Is that what you are doing here?



Extrapolate this now to cops/security guards/soldiers/people with guns
and you get a very dangerous situation. People who are damn sure they
know what they're seeing and not realizing the consequences of being
wrong. That's why I'd like to have some protection from over-zealous
authorities. That's why laws to protect _suspects_ are important.

Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
the stage of suspect has been passed.


Have the laws gone too far? Maybe. It's always easy to find the
outrageous cases to prove a point (I've twisted the Durst case pretty
good for my own devious purposes I do know I'd be pretty ticked to
have my years on Earth cut in half by some nit-wit rent-a-cop.

Well, you have no controll over when you go and if you go early, it was
intended. The killer was merely an instrument to make what is suppose to
happen, happen. I seriousely doubt you would be ticked if you were dead.

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
.. .
Greetings and Salutations....


Well said.

"Mark L." wrote in message
m...
No one can outrun a radio


Well actually they can unless your plan was to throw the radio at the guy
running away.

And yes I understand not out running the radio, but on the other end of the
radio the chase continues or the guy simply gets away.

"Mark L." wrote in message
m...
Yes I have, and never lost a battle. That's what training was for. Even
if the bad guy is bigger/stronger/faster good training will make you
smarter. It's not a guarantee, but it helps to tip the odds in your favor.

So you must have been fearful of brutality charges, since there was never a
"Battle" that you lost, and have failed to mention in you earlier
description of simply cuffing the guy.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:31:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


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.


Are you making the argument that the Constitution is ad definitio
statutory?

Or, are you making the argument that the Constitution does not have
its roots in Common Law (I find no need to distinguish between
English Common Law and whatever you might have in mind for its
counterpoint)?

You might also want to look into the concepts of Natural Law, Common
Law and their inclusion in the arguments of those who have petitioned
the court in matters regarding the definitions expressed and implied
in the document.

I would again direct your attention to the case of Coffin v. United
States, so that your reading may inform you as to the niceties of
analysis and argumentation in matters pertaining to rights that may
be found in the Constitution.

I would particularly direct your attention to the reception of implied
definitions, as accepted by the court.




Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:

It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities, decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.

Ooh, ooh! I vote for the latter, to be sure. The question
remains: What will it take to accomplish this? It certainly
won't happen with the current crop of either Republicans
OR Democrats in power + the herds of voters grazing on their
daily ration of pork.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --

On 18 Aug 2004 18:20:01 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

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.

Seems that comment is somewhat hypocritical there Charlie. That smacks
of the vigilante justice you [and others] were taking people to task for.

I finally figured out what bothered me about the general tone of this
thread. When did it become vigilante justice for property owners to
protect their property? The instances cited of deaths occured because
someone suspected of shoplifting (i.e. stealing property) resisted being
questioned regarding that act. Several facts apply he

1. Just like in your shop, the person in question was on someone
else's property. Just because that property was owned by a company or
corporation makes it no less their own property. The fact that the public
has access to that property for the purpose of transacting business does
not nullify the fact that the location is still private property, not
public property.
2. The alleged perpetrators were not killed in an act of resistance
to the property owner's legitimate concerns regarding the unauthorized
removal of merchandise from that property.
3. The people who caused those injuries or deaths were acting on
behalf of the property owner while protecting said property.
4. The general comment that speaks against the employees detaining
the perpetrators always revolves around "what the employees *think* they
saw". In reality, I suspect that for the employees to have taken action,
what they saw was pretty crystal clear -- i.e. a person putting on a watch
from stock and walking off with it, or stuffing a piece of merchandise into
their clothing. i.e, the objections are based upon "gray area" arguments
that most likely are not reality when these events occur.

There is a significant error of terminology being perpetrated here, to
whit:

1. Vigilante justice is not restraining someone who has been
observed committing a crime on one's property or property for which one is
acting as a caretaker for the owner. If the alleged perpetrator physically
resists said restraint (again, while on the property of the business
owner), then the resulting consequences are the fault of the one resisting
that restraint.
2. Vigilante justice would be having the agents of the property
owner find stolen merchandise on the perpetrator's person, taking them out
back in the alley and severely beating them (or some other action) to
"teach them a lesson".



If I were one unfairly accused, yes, I'd be p**ssed off and would
no longer do business with said merchant and also assure that everyone I
knew no longer did business there. I would not attempt to physically
resist, I would make my innocence known and further vocally inform those
property agents of the property owner that their false accusation was going
to be rather expensive in terms of future business.


However, the idea that someone protecting the property with which
they have been entrusted by merely detaining an accused shoplifter has
engaged in vigilante justice is ludicrous. How many shoplifters do you
think would ever be prosecuted is they were simply allowed to walk away
freely? Do you really think that the police would actively pursue finding
the guy in the store camera stuffing stuff in his pants when they have no
idea who he is, where he lives, or where he went?



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

Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
the stage of suspect has been passed.


eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...e/text_06.html
and many, many people have been framed for crimes they did not commit.
but you really don't want to deal with any complicated scenarios, do
you? being suspected of a crime is enough for a death sentence to be
carried out by minimum wage rentacops....

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:

It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities, decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.

Ooh, ooh! I vote for the latter, to be sure. The question
remains: What will it take to accomplish this? It certainly
won't happen with the current crop of either Republicans
OR Democrats in power + the herds of voters grazing on their
daily ration of pork.


I fear Larry, that the prior comment was actually advocating expanding
the pork. i.e. by taking from the upper "extreme" and giving that taken to
the "lower" extreme.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --

wrote:


Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
the stage of suspect has been passed.


eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...e/text_06.html
and many, many people have been framed for crimes they did not commit.
but you really don't want to deal with any complicated scenarios, do
you? being suspected of a crime is enough for a death sentence to be
carried out by minimum wage rentacops....

No. Fighting rentacops is enough to get one killed when they screw up.

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

no, that would be murder.


of course, the "defendant," especially a
gang member, might find the security
personell and off him. That seems more
likely.

I have read it, I know theres nothing new, but its still disgusting. The
only time that they are appreciated is on certain holidays, and even then,
its used as another day to shop

I for one amd thankful to every soldier

There's nothing new in the disrespectful attitude of civilians for
military
personnel. Nor is it limited to the US of A. Read the poem, "Tommy" by
Rudyard
Kipling.

If you don't have a book of Kipling's works, DAGS for "Tommy" "Rudyard
Kipling"

or go to:

http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Po...ling/Tommy.htm

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Just replying to my own message here,
talking to myself and answering back.
I should have said "alleged" concerning
all that carpenter's union stuff, his
business isn't in the greatest neighbor-
hood, but this and a lot more did
happen very suspiciously.

"...destroy the world."
The single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this or any other
newsgroup.
Irresponsible posting in newsgroups
begins not with lax thinking, but with
admitting that one made a mistake.
I didn't quite make it to the other side of
the canyon with this leap, admittedly.
One: Petersen is not yet guilty.
Two: What I meant to say is that, if the
Democrats win, society will become
more corrupt. I'll stand by that.
The point is, more corrupt at a
time when national security is
at stake like never before. Not
looking good.

What part whispers in whose ear?


yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.

the part of your life. - What the heck,
it's a noun. Haven't you ever seen one
of those? Fuzzy littil thing, like a dust
kitten, those partoyerlives.
Yes, you're ceding them control over the
part of you that wants to steal, not you
personally of course, and that seems
fair to me.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

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.

No, but it does specify the application of appropriate force. The
definition of appropriate force is quite specific and certainly doesn't
allow for deadly force, accidental or otherwise as a means of preventing
petty theft.

EXCESSIVE FORCE - A law enforcement officer has the right to use such
force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful
arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer
uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the
force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under
the circumstances.

Do you think a reasonable and prudent officer would allow a SUSPECT to
die to prevent petty theft?

"Leon" wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:


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

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.

Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
was part of their deliberations


I was using that case more of an example in this instance but given
your
input here, the law has failed. He should have been put away
permanently
when he confessed. Why go farther with a trial?


Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.

"Leon" wrote in
m:


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

If you take his "confession" at face value, and the man was in his
house illegally, then, by the logic that has been employed in this
thread -- by you and Clarke -- it's Black's fault he got himself
killed. i.e., Durst is innocent of murder by reason of protecting his
property.

You gotta use a little horse sense here. Is that rain on you shoes
there? I think the fact that he admitted to hacking the body and
tossing it in the bay screams murder and guilty. The security guard
that aprehended the guy stealing diapers did not finish by hacking the
body into pieces and tossing them in tho the bay or river. Come on a
little thinking works wonders.


I use this example as a means to demonstrate the absurdity of a man
dying while being apprehended for shoplifting diapers, and you (and
Clarke) saying he should have anticipated it. If Black really broke
into Durst's house, then he should have anticipated this possible
outcome and it's his own damn fault.

Yeah if he really broke into the house he should have considered the
possible consequenses. But Durst did go a bit farther to try and get
rid of the body.


But by your vehement spite for the jury, laws, whatever, you seem to
be applying your standard inconsistently. Instead of consistent
application of principles, I see someone who merely wants to impose
_his_ ad hoc view of whatever situation arises.

Is that what you are doing here?



Extrapolate this now to cops/security guards/soldiers/people with
guns and you get a very dangerous situation. People who are damn sure
they know what they're seeing and not realizing the consequences of
being wrong. That's why I'd like to have some protection from
over-zealous authorities. That's why laws to protect _suspects_ are
important.

Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red
handed, the stage of suspect has been passed.



NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where you
live?


I know you'd kind of like to ignore the Constitution and all but please
read the following and see if maybe it doesn't contradict the above
ridiculous statement

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 defense.


Oh yeah, that'd be the 6th amendment in case you missed it.

Leon,

I'm beginning to wonder about the state of your footwear. You seem to be
overly concerned with shoes.

I had written a long reply to your comments, but in retrospect, it just
rehashed the same points, so let's just quit repeating ourselves.

It's been fun, but you've managed to draw me out of my self-imposed ban
on OT posts. I have to go back on the wagon, or I'll never get anything
else done.

Enjoy,

G

Leon wrote:

You gotta use a little horse sense here. Is that rain on you shoes there?
I think the fact that he admitted to hacking the body and tossing it in the
bay screams murder and guilty. The security guard that aprehended the guy
stealing diapers did not finish by hacking the body into pieces and tossing
them in tho the bay or river. Come on a little thinking works wonders.


I use this example as a means to demonstrate the absurdity of a man
dying while being apprehended for shoplifting diapers, and you (and
Clarke) saying he should have anticipated it. If Black really broke into
Durst's house, then he should have anticipated this possible outcome and
it's his own damn fault.


Yeah if he really broke into the house he should have considered the
possible consequenses. But Durst did go a bit farther to try and get rid of
the body.



But by your vehement spite for the jury, laws, whatever, you seem to be
applying your standard inconsistently. Instead of consistent application
of principles, I see someone who merely wants to impose _his_ ad hoc
view of whatever situation arises.


Is that what you are doing here?



Extrapolate this now to cops/security guards/soldiers/people with guns
and you get a very dangerous situation. People who are damn sure they
know what they're seeing and not realizing the consequences of being
wrong. That's why I'd like to have some protection from over-zealous
authorities. That's why laws to protect _suspects_ are important.


Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
the stage of suspect has been passed.


Have the laws gone too far? Maybe. It's always easy to find the
outrageous cases to prove a point (I've twisted the Durst case pretty
good for my own devious purposes I do know I'd be pretty ticked to
have my years on Earth cut in half by some nit-wit rent-a-cop.


Well, you have no controll over when you go and if you go early, it was
intended. The killer was merely an instrument to make what is suppose to
happen, happen. I seriousely doubt you would be ticked if you were dead.

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
. 97.131...


NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where you
live?

So uh, you witness a crime and perhaps others witness it along with you but
it really did not become a crime or happen until the jurors say so. I that
how you see it?

I do not need rules or laws to tell me if something is right or wrong, I am
capable of using common sense.

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
. 97.131...
"Leon" wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
..
Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.


Well you know, if that pesky constitution were perfect, there would not have
been any laws written since. It is not a know all solve all solution and
can be interpreted numerous ways.

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

I'm beginning to wonder about the state of your footwear. You seem to be
overly concerned with shoes.

I had written a long reply to your comments, but in retrospect, it just
rehashed the same points, so let's just quit repeating ourselves.

It's been fun, but you've managed to draw me out of my self-imposed ban
on OT posts. I have to go back on the wagon, or I'll never get anything
else done.

Enjoy,

G

It was great chatting with you too G. I am certainly glad that we were able
to keep this as a point of view conversation and not let it become personal.
I missed the shoes part though. :~) I gotta get back into the garage and
finish a customers fire place screen also. ;~)

After years in EMS, I feel qualified to determine if someone's dead, but
even when decomposition is advanced the law says I have to take 'em to the
ME. They're not dead until s/he says so.

Now substitute legal system for ME in your mind....

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
. 97.131...


NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where you
live?

So uh, you witness a crime and perhaps others witness it along with you
but
it really did not become a crime or happen until the jurors say so. I
that
how you see it?

I do not need rules or laws to tell me if something is right or wrong, I
am
capable of using common sense.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
After years in EMS, I feel qualified to determine if someone's dead, but
even when decomposition is advanced the law says I have to take 'em to the
ME. They're not dead until s/he says so.

Now substitute legal system for ME in your mind....

I know, common sense had been superceded by the ridiculous.

"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
"...destroy the world."
The single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this or any other
newsgroup.
Irresponsible posting in newsgroups
begins not with lax thinking, but with
admitting that one made a mistake.

Huh? Do you mean that irresponsible posting begins with lax thinking, or
that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
Or...?

I didn't quite make it to the other side of
the canyon with this leap, admittedly.
One: Petersen is not yet guilty.
Two: What I meant to say is that, if the
Democrats win, society will become
more corrupt. I'll stand by that.
The point is, more corrupt at a
time when national security is
at stake like never before. Not
looking good.

Piling one gem on another:
"...if the Democrats win society will become more corrupt."

Dude, corruption is independent of politics. I teach history, and have
learned that there are very few absolutes, very few "lessons of history."
One cliche that is close to being absolute is that times change but people
don't.

Help me to learn: at what time was "society" less corrupt?

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

(snip)
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".

Wonderful. "He managed to die" and "**** happens." Try this defense in a
court of law anywhere, with any judge and any jury.
The accused does not lose his rights upon apprehension. The UNALIENABLE
rights cited in the Declaration of Independence include the right to life.
"Unalienable" means that they cannot be revoked or disowned.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
calmly ranted:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:

It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities, decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.

Ooh, ooh! I vote for the latter, to be sure. The question
remains: What will it take to accomplish this? It certainly
won't happen with the current crop of either Republicans
OR Democrats in power + the herds of voters grazing on their
daily ration of pork.


I fear Larry, that the prior comment was actually advocating expanding
the pork. i.e. by taking from the upper "extreme" and giving that taken to
the "lower" extreme.

I just reread it and don't find that angle at all.
(Say it ain't so, Dave!) I see the proper amount of
contempt for the legal system and a wish for better
leadership by and for the people.

Please quote the part which gives you that idea, Mark.

-snip-
Hum...I sort of recall this case, and I remember shaking my
head over it. I thought, though, that the problem was twofold.
Firstly, the perp was an old white guy with a chunk of cash.
Secondly, I thought it was a "not guilty by reason of insanity"
sort of verdict. It's not that he did not do it, but, that he
was crazy as a loon when he did it.
Now...I think that, in a case like this, he probably SHOULD be
put away in a home for the criminally insane for the rest of his
life, but, again, I don't know all the details of the case.
I think, though that the problem is less that of the laws
that are passed, as there are WAY too many of them, and, if actually
applied as written would be rather draconian. I belive that the
problem is based more in the way the court system has evolved over the
past thirty or forty years. The big roots of the problem seem
to be the willingness of the courts to plea bargain in order to get
"bigger fish" or to expedite the process; There is also the problem
that the whole concept of a "search for truth" seems to have gone
away. Both defense and prosecution lawyers appear to feel that it is
perfectly ok to lie, cheat and steal in order to win their side of
the argument. Juries are not given all the facts in a case, but,
only a very carefully selected set of facts that support each side's
contention as to how the case should be determined; There is the
increasing tendency for courts to "send a message" with a given case,
by either allowing fairly lax standards of evidence, or increasingly
draconian penalties for the laundry list of crimes that the person
has been convicted of; There is the (perhaps honest) attitude that
prison is not there the rehabilitate, but, simply to punish and
warehouse folks that bump up against the limits of society; Finally,
there is the continuing problem of economic justice. Like it or
not, the rich get one level of justice, and the poor get another.
I suppose I should take heart in the evidence of the OJ verdict that
says that this is not a racial thing...just a money thing. That
will even out the playing field as more and more people of color
achieve some level of economic success.
Back to the looting problem...that may well come from the
social stresses caused by the ever increasing distance between the
"haves" and "have nots" in America. We are still bombarded by
thousands of ads a day pushing consumerism and having "stuff" that
validates our existence. On the other side of the coin, there are
fewer and fewer sources that might point out that having "stuff"
does not make a person's life better, or make one a better person.
That sort of spiritual teaching is falling into disrepute in
America, alas. The bottom line is that there are more and more
pressures to fill that spiritual void with "stuff" and the economy
is making it harder and harder for folks to do so...which pushes
a person to the point of theft.
Now...just before the French Revolution, the penalty for
stealing a loaf of bread was death. Do we want to be that sort
of society? It is the "easy" thing to set up simplistic and
harsh rules to deal with lawbreakers. it is much harder to set
up a society that finds the best in its citizens, and brings that
out.
It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities, decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.
Ok...I am stepping away from the soap box now.
Regards
Dave Mundt
-snip-


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --