"Leon" wrote in
:


"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.




It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial, and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

"Leon" wrote in
:


"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.






Not only is that how I see it, thats how Jefferson saw it, and thats how
every judge who ever took the bench sees it. First off eyewitness
accounts are often faulty. Secondly whether you like it or not the
constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses against
him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th amendment?

Bub209 responds:
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.


Bub, as a woodworker and generally, I'd guess you're a pretty good guy. As a
moral and politcal philosopher, you've got some problems, of which a lack of
clarity is just the most evident.

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

Leon responds:

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.


Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for
future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to
change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore
certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally fashionable,
whim.

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

Secret Squirrel responds:

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.




It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial, and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

Oh, come on, man. Texas and John Wayne and common sense. IIRC, Mark Twain,
somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator, said
that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or maybe I'm
mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.

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

With the exception of minors and accusing females in sexual assault cases.

Or is that just an interpretation?

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
. 97.131...
Secondly whether you like it or not the
constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses against
him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th amendment?

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made by
judges under the guise of interpretation.

For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected "hate
speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for
future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes
to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to
change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore
certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally
fashionable,
whim.

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


It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial, and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
caught.
That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
really saw it or not.

Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Oh, come on, man. Texas and John Wayne and common sense.

Exactly... ;~) They just naturally go together.

IIRC, Mark Twain,
somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator,
said
that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or
maybe I'm
mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.

LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from
Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)

Leon writes:

It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial, and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
caught.
That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
really saw it or not.

Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?

WTF does that have to do with the Consitution? Or chasing and jumping on
thieves by WalMart clerks?

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

Leon responds:

IIRC, Mark Twain,
somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator,
said
that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or
maybe I'm
mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.

LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from
Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)

You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
earache or some such.

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

"George" george@least wrote in :

With the exception of minors and accusing females in sexual assault
cases.

Or is that just an interpretation?

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
. 97.131...
Secondly whether you like it or not the
constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses
against him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th
amendment?




Accusing females are often called to the stand, and the accused has that
right. Rape shield laws protect them having their identity exposed to the
public and the press, the do not supercede the rights of the accused

"George" george@least wrote in :

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
by judges under the guise of interpretation.

For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
"hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis
for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few
changes
to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or
a locally
fashionable,
whim.




Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
earache or some such.

Sure he was, I saw him in a bunch of WWII movies.. ;~), Which is what I
though you were refering to.




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:

IIRC, Mark Twain,
somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator,
said
that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or
maybe I'm
mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.

LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from
Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)

You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
earache or some such

John Wayne deliberately avoided military service in World War II because all
the other leading men were going in and he saw the chance to get their
roles. Even A&E's whitewash Biography mentions this.

Bob

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:05:23 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
earache or some such.

He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his efforts.

-Doug

Bob Schmall wrote:


"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.

(a) The Declaration of Independence has no force in law.
(b) Apparently something akin to that defense was accepted by the court in
the extant case.

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

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"George" george@least wrote in :

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
by judges under the guise of interpretation.

For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
"hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis
for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few
changes
to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or
a locally
fashionable,
whim.




Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes "statute
law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a part
of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.

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

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"Leon" wrote in
:


"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.




It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial,

Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.

and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from a
punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?

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

Leon wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
earache or some such.

Sure he was, I saw him in a bunch of WWII movies.. ;~), Which is what I
though you were refering to.

It's my understanding that he volunteered for the Army, the Navy, and the
Marines and they all 4-Fed him for a bad back. Although another version of
that is that it was all a setup.

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)

Doug Winterburn responds:

He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his effort

Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.

His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury
from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas
Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and
fortune?

Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military
effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?

Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?

Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.

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

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"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.

Define "deadly force".

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?

Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have been
no suspect ot apprehend. Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that kneeling on
someone's chest will kill them? Should a "reasonable and prudent law
enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of someone on whom he is
kneeling? Should a person who not a "law enforcement officer" be judged by
the standards of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement
officer" or by the standard of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent
civilian"?

In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that the
guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their action
was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.

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

"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
"George" wrote in

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
by judges under the guise of interpretation.

Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

George's point is that's the way it is _supposed_ to work, but not always.
Judicial activism has always been around.

READ in it's ENTIRETY the following ... written by a judge, BTW:

http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v3n1-oscannlain.php

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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:01:56 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.

If you mean because of the roles he played, then he was also making people
believe he was a real cowboy? He got much closer to action in Viet Nam
than Al Gore.

His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee
injury from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven,
Douglas Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their
fame and fortune?

Age of 34 in 1941. Niven was 31 at the same time. He found time to make
two movies while serving during the war. Fairbanks Jr was 31 on Pearl
Harbor day. He served in the Navy. If either earned any medals, they
apparently didn't feel the need to advertise the fact.

Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the
military effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar
awards?

The military has it's own set of awards/medals. The congressional Gold
Medal is isn't one of them.


Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and
early '70s?

I think you have it backwards - it wasn't popular to be pro-war in the
'60s and '70s.


Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.

Again, I think you have it backwards - Viet Nam wasn't real popular and
being a supporter wasn't either.

-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

Yep, they failed to teach you how to read.

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

Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"Leon" wrote in
:


"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.




It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that
are not really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial,

Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.


Unless I missed something, the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed these
folks right to a trial. Keep in mind also that this only applies to US
citizens. Foreign nationals are subject to the Geneva Convention.
The failure to observe the Geneva Convention in this case is a disgrace
on this administration, but a seperate issue altogether.

and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from
a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?

Well, winding up dead for petty theft would certainly qualify, which is
what started this thread.

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
@news4.newsguy.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"George" george@least wrote in :

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
by judges under the guise of interpretation.

For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
"hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a
basis
for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very
few
changes
to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their,
or
a locally
fashionable,
whim.




Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its
that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes
"statute
law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a
part
of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.


Case law is not law, it is an interpretation of the law. Those
interpretations my be relied on in the future or new interpretations may
occur, but the basic law (no quotes needed), does not change.
My point which seems to have been missed is that the majority of people
responding to this otherwise ridiculous thread seem to think that their
interpretation of right and wrong should be the law of the land. Sadly
few of them display any knowledge whatsoever of even elementary civics.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"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.

Define "deadly force".

deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of the
person the force is applied against.



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?

Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have
been no suspect ot apprehend.

If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and yet
there is still a suspect.


Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?

Clearly

Should a "reasonable and
prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
someone on whom he is kneeling?

If he appears to be in distress, again clearly

Should a person who not a "law
enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of
behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?

I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is unable
to breath. Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee certainly
seems prudent.

In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their
action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.

"George" george@least wrote in :

Yep, they failed to teach you how to read.

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

Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.




Ok.. I'm going to bite on this despite knowing better. In what way is my
interpretation flawed?

Doug WInterburn writes:

Age of 34 in 1941. Niven was 31 at the same time. He found time to make
two movies while serving during the war. Fairbanks Jr was 31 on Pearl
Harbor day. He served in the Navy. If either earned any medals, they
apparently didn't feel the need to advertise the fact.


And what relevance do medals have to serving? I know a bunch of good combat
Marines who never got any medals who got nothing but PUCs and Good Conduct
ribbons.

Speaking of age, Clark Gable, who served on bombers, was born in 1901. Gives
him a leg up on super patriot doesn't it?

The military has it's own set of awards/medals. The congressional Gold
Medal is isn't one of them.

No ****. My point, exactly.


Again, I think you have it backwards - Viet Nam wasn't real popular and
being a supporter wasn't eith

No, but I'd bet few of the antiwar protestors were apt to take a shot at Mr.
Morrison.

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

Dave Mundt writes:

Hum...I don't know if *I* am the "prior comment" here or not.
I suspect I am. In any case, let me touch on this a bit, too. When
I said "extreme" I was actually thinking more of some of the trend
towards black and white thinking as discussed above. However, I have
also spoken out with concern about the increasing disparity between
the lowest paid job in a given company and the highest paid job. It
makes no real sense for there to be a 50x or more difference between
the lowest and highest paid jobs. The main result of this is that it
fuels the trend of society in general to have more and more folks
drifting into poverty from what used to be the "Middle Class". I
would suggest that it would be BRIGHTER for the companies to do more
to pump up the pay of the lower ranks and lower the pay of the higher
ranks a bit.

Yes. Does it make sense--and we're not talking 50 times here--for a company to
pay its chairman 50 million bucks in a money losing year, while the guy
emptying trash baskets gets 18 grand even though he does his job magnificently?

Not to me it doesn't.

Do I advocate the government using taxes to do this.
Emphatically, NO! Money to a politician is like crack to an addict.
It becomes the center of their lives, and, it does not matter how much
they have, they always need more. What good does it for anyone for
the goverment to take (as an example) a million bucks from one guy,
keep $900,000 of it for their own programs, and, "give back" $100,000
to folks in poverty? As we have seen time and time again over the
years, way too much of that cash ends up in the pockets of the "fat
cats" again through lucrative governmental contracts, double dealing
and padded billing.

What doesn't stop in government pockets tends to shift over to the pockets of
their pals.

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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:16:27 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

And what relevance do medals have to serving? I know a bunch of good
combat Marines who never got any medals who got nothing but PUCs and Good
Conduct ribbons.

The relavence is a recognition or their contributions, whether they were
in the military or not. Guys like Bing Crosby and Bob Hope, like John
Wayne, contributed immensely to troop morale through their USO
involvement.


Speaking of age, Clark Gable, who served on bombers, was born in 1901.
Gives him a leg up on super patriot doesn't it?

Yup, along with non military types like Crosby, Hope and Wayne:

Clark Gable - Captain, US Army Air Corps. Although beyond draft age, Clark
Gable enlisted as a private in the Air Corps on Aug. 12, 1942 at Los
Angeles. He attended Officers' Candidate School at Miami Beach and
graduated as a second lieutenant. He then attended aerial gunnery school
and in Feb. 1943, on personal orders from Gen. Arnold, went to England to
make a motion picture of aerial gunners in action. He was assigned to the
351st Bomb Group at Polebrook and although neither ordered nor expected to
do so, flew operational missions over Europe in B-17s to obtain the combat
film footage he believed was required for producing the movie entitled
"Combat America." Gable returned to the U.S. in Oct. 1943 and was relieved
from active duty as a major on Jun. 12, 1944 at his own request, since he
was over age for combat. [Source: US Air Force museum - wpafb.af.mil]


The military has it's own set of awards/medals. The congressional Gold
Medal is isn't one of them.

No ****. My point, exactly.

So what's the problem? I thought the left was of the opinion that _any_
medal can't be questioned.


Again, I think you have it backwards - Viet Nam wasn't real popular and
being a supporter wasn't eith

No, but I'd bet few of the antiwar protestors were apt to take a shot at
Mr. Morrison.

No, but the Japanese and Viet Cong were likely to when he visited the
front lines in the Pacific in WWII and Viet Nam.

--
"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

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"Leon" wrote in
:


"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.




It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that
are not really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial,

Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.


Unless I missed something, the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed these
folks right to a trial. Keep in mind also that this only applies to US
citizens. Foreign nationals are subject to the Geneva Convention.

Prisoners of war are subject to the Geneva Convention.

The failure to observe the Geneva Convention in this case is a disgrace
on this administration, but a seperate issue altogether.

The Geneva Convention allows spies and saboteurs to be shot on sight.

and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from
a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?

Well, winding up dead for petty theft would certainly qualify, which is
what started this thread.

You're saying that death is a cruel and unusual punishment? In any case,
since the suspect died while being detained by civilians not in the employ
of the US or any other government, that particular restriction does not
apply--the constitution for the most part limits the powers of government,
not of civilians. If I walk up to you and blow your brains out I have
violated the law but the law I have violated is not part of the
Constitution, it is part of the statutes of the locality in which I did
this.

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

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
@news4.newsguy.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"George" george@least wrote in :

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
by judges under the guise of interpretation.

For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
"hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a
basis
for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very
few
changes
to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their,
or
a locally
fashionable,
whim.




Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its
that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes
"statute
law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a
part
of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.


Case law is not law, it is an interpretation of the law.

In your opinion.

So when kids get bussed all over creation to promote racial balance, what
law are the local governments obeying?

Those
interpretations my be relied on in the future or new interpretations may
occur, but the basic law (no quotes needed), does not change.

Of course it does. The court can abolish the "basic law" entirely, or in
part, or extend it far beyond anything that the legislature intended.

My point which seems to have been missed is that the majority of people
responding to this otherwise ridiculous thread seem to think that their
interpretation of right and wrong should be the law of the land. Sadly
few of them display any knowledge whatsoever of even elementary civics.

I'm sorry, but arguing that "legislation from the Bench" doesn't happen has
nothing to do with that point and everything to do with assuming that what
one learned in high school civics has some relation to reality.

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

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"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.

Define "deadly force".

deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of the
person the force is applied against.

Now define it so that the "reasonable man" can tell if he's using it.

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?

Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have
been no suspect ot apprehend.

If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and yet
there is still a suspect.

Weasel words.

Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?

Clearly

I see. And on what basis should be be aware of this?

Should a "reasonable and
prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
someone on whom he is kneeling?

If he appears to be in distress, again clearly

And if he has been struggling right along how does the officer determine
whether the suspect is "in distress" or simply still trying to get away?

Should a person who not a "law
enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of
behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?

I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is unable
to breath.

So what are the signs of being "unable to breathe while being knelt on by
security guards"?

Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee certainly
seems prudent.

It's always easy for some guy sitting in an easy chair a thousand miles away
to tell a guy who was there in the fight what he should have done. What
you're doing is insisting that someone be jailed on the basis of your own
Monday-morning quarterbacking.

In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their
action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.


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

Hey BUB where are you located? I was living in Blue Island till I moved to
Cinci. Larry
"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to
read
it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
Sears.
I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
register.
This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
aisles,
up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for
help,
but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs
to the
kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in
for
something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing
was
what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of
the
Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton
crew
of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to
your
tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"Leon" wrote in
:


"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.




It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that
are not really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial,

Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.


Unless I missed something, the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed
these folks right to a trial. Keep in mind also that this only
applies to US citizens. Foreign nationals are subject to the Geneva
Convention.

Prisoners of war are subject to the Geneva Convention.

Thats correct, and since the administration has labeled these people
enemy combatants, they are by definition prisoners of war.

The failure to observe the Geneva Convention in this case is a
disgrace on this administration, but a seperate issue altogether.

The Geneva Convention allows spies and saboteurs to be shot on sight.

Also correct, however once taken into custody they become prisoners of
war and enntitled to certain treatments which are still being withheld by
this administration.

and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment
from a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?

Well, winding up dead for petty theft would certainly qualify, which
is what started this thread.

You're saying that death is a cruel and unusual punishment? In any
case, since the suspect died while being detained by civilians not in
the employ of the US or any other government, that particular
restriction does not apply--the constitution for the most part limits
the powers of government, not of civilians. If I walk up to you and
blow your brains out I have violated the law but the law I have
violated is not part of the Constitution, it is part of the statutes
of the locality in which I did this.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
@news4.newsguy.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"George" george@least wrote in :

Horsehocky!

Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are
made by judges under the guise of interpretation.

For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
"hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats
up.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a
basis
for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very
few
changes
to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who
would prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit
their,
or
a locally
fashionable,
whim.




Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make
laws. They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes
laws. Its
that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes
"statute
law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a
part
of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.


Case law is not law, it is an interpretation of the law.

In your opinion.

Not my opinion, simply a statement of fact. You're attempting to argue
semantics and you've gotten it wrong.

So when kids get bussed all over creation to promote racial balance,
what law are the local governments obeying?

Not an issue of law, but rather one of public policy. Again you're
comparing apples and oranges.



Those
interpretations my be relied on in the future or new interpretations
may occur, but the basic law (no quotes needed), does not change.

Of course it does. The court can abolish the "basic law" entirely, or
in part, or extend it far beyond anything that the legislature
intended.


Once again, factually incorrect. With the exceptions of laws that are
found to be unconstitutional laws are not abolished by judges. The judge
can make many findings which may make the law ineffectual in THAT CASE,
and that ruling if it is precedent setting may very well be relied on bu
future judges, but they are under no obligation to do so.
The basic statute as created by the legislature remains until it has been
amended or repealed, and any future judge can certain form his own
opinion and make his own interpretations.

My point which seems to have been missed is that the majority of
people responding to this otherwise ridiculous thread seem to think
that their interpretation of right and wrong should be the law of the
land. Sadly few of them display any knowledge whatsoever of even
elementary civics.

I'm sorry, but arguing that "legislation from the Bench" doesn't
happen has nothing to do with that point and everything to do with
assuming that what one learned in high school civics has some relation
to reality.

I'm not making these assumptions based on my high school civics lessons.
My personal education extends well beyond that, but once again you've
missed the point. The point was that the poster I was responding to, and
in fact many of the posters in this thread don't have even the admittedly
basic knowledge that one gets in a high school civics class and yet they
pontificate on these matters as if they are an authority.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"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.

Define "deadly force".

deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of
the person the force is applied against.

Now define it so that the "reasonable man" can tell if he's using it.

I can't imagine this being any more clear.



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?

Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would
have been no suspect ot apprehend.

If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and
yet there is still a suspect.

Weasel words.

You made this an argument of semantics. I simply clarified your faulty
logic.



Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?

Clearly

I see. And on what basis should be be aware of this?


Well, since it seems to be a common theme here, how about a little common
sense? Failing that, law enforcement officers are subject to a
signifigant amount of training. Proper restraint techniques are certainly
part of this.



Should a "reasonable and
prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
someone on whom he is kneeling?

If he appears to be in distress, again clearly

And if he has been struggling right along how does the officer
determine whether the suspect is "in distress" or simply still trying
to get away?

Gasping for air, convulsing and attempting to flee are hardly the same
thing.


Should a person who not a "law
enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard
of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?

I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is
unable to breath.

So what are the signs of being "unable to breathe while being knelt on
by security guards"?

You're joking right?



Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee
certainly seems prudent.

It's always easy for some guy sitting in an easy chair a thousand
miles away to tell a guy who was there in the fight what he should
have done. What you're doing is insisting that someone be jailed on
the basis of your own Monday-morning quarterbacking.

I never insisted that anyone be jailed, perhaps you should have read the
entire thread. I was simply pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and
fallacies in the OP's statement.



In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that
their action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.

that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
Or...?
The latter of course.
I can see there's a problem with this.
Shouldn't go off half-cocked on
political topics in a woodworking
newsgroup, especially when the gun
is pointed your way, or Charlie's way.
I'll work on it, or shut up....
Now that that's out of the way...

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


But where do you go from here? Do you
accept the "absolute cliche" the way
a pathologist would examine a bullet
wound, or do you take steps to reduce
the occurrence of such?
And you really don't think it matters who
runs the show, the way the Italians in
WW2 were happy to shout Heil Hitler or
sing Yankee Doodle Dandy?