Wal-Mart fights back

Page 4 of 7  


Actually law abiding FOID holders will be thankful that firearms are no longer illegal and will welcome the change regardless of the fees and having to go to the burbs to make a purchase.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As I remember, when California registered assault weapons. They set up registration stations all over, and only got one or two registrations that day. I expect the same in Chicago.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That should lower the crime rate, right now with firearms being banned the gang bangers know the citizens are defenseless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/21/10 12:15 pm, RickH wrote:

No, the crims know that there will be more firearms around for them to steal and use in worse crimes than theft.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hopefully, you consider your post to be an opinion and not an authoritative prediction.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Chicago is already highest crime in country (maybe world) with having all firearms be illegal, so your logic of (more guns = more crime) does not hold. If anything the current ban is proof that (no guns in the hands of responsible people = rampant crime).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's proof that not having guns in the hands of responsible people doesn't mean that guns aren't going to be used in crime, anyway. Looser gun laws => lower crime. Tighter gun permitting => more crime.
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

In order to steal a firearm, the gun has to exist and the burglar has to break into the house to obtain it.
What are the chances of someone being home who's willing to operate the firearm during the break-in? That's the calculation the goblin has to make.
Fortunately, that tabulation has already been done. In an exhaustive study of all 3,050 counties in the country, it was discovered that crimes against persons went DOWN after firearms, specifically concealed carry, was enabled.
Conversely, crimes against property (stolen cars, etc.) went up slightly as the smarter criminals gravitated to less lethal endeavors.
Further, if the past is prologue, more guns in the hands of squints and mopes is a Good Thing (tm). In Chicago, for example, 95% of the gun homicide victims needed killin' anyway. Heck, even some of the shooters were caught! So, at least one gomer is no longer preying on society, and sometimes two!
Regrettably, some innocents fall victim during these shoot-outs. But, as we say in home repair, you can't build a house without making sawdust - there's always some waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah yes. I have been at a few misdemeanor murders in the past.
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I hadda live where the humidity sometimes reaches 102%, I'd probably start shooting people too! ;)
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/20/2010 4:05 PM, RickH wrote:

ya, and then the asshole cop would get what i call an "overhaul" in the courtroom. That boy needs an "OVERHAUL"
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:31:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"

Good video. One thing not mentioned was "Res gestae", something spoken / blurted out before the officer even asked the first question.
"I didn't mean to shoot him!" "Officer I didn't see the kid, I feel so bad."
All spoken before Miranda warnings.
"Res gestae (Latin "things done") is a term found in substantive and procedural American jurisprudence and English law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_gestae
Me, I STFU.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Evan wrote:

Just making a point, criminal, civil, administrative, juvenile whatever if someone has to make their quota or respond because of the media,... beware. Oh yeah, if you are guilty be very aware.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:5daff7a6-caef-44b9-9696-
<stuff snipped>
<<When you are charged with a crime that will result in a loss of freedom (a.k.a. you are placed in "jeopardy") you are automatically appointed a lawyer free of charge if you can not afford to hire one on your own...
If more people were aware of their 5th amendment rights and actually made use of them by remaining silent when they are placed under arrest and strongly demanding an attorney, most of the people you say are being unfairly dealt with by the system would have more of an opportunity to have a better outcome...
As far as going to trial, only 10% of criminal cases ever make it to a trial because most people are willing to go for the sure thing and they make a deal if they can get one... Many cases are dropped because of reluctant witnesses or evidence that gets contaminated or misplaced... As to your "you get the book thrown at you if you dare to go to trial and lose" rant, that has NOTHING to do with the fact you went to trial... That has everything to do with various nut-job anti-crime zealots out there who demand "mandatory minimum sentences" for every crime under the sun -- taking the power of the trial judge away and forcing them to impose the mandated sentence upon the defendant when they are found guilty...
You are innocent until proven guilty in the American criminal justice system, most people screw themselves over by trying to talk their way out of it with the police, seemingly unaware that everything they say in an interview room with the police is recorded... It might not end up being used against you as direct evidence at a trial but it is usually more than enough to prevent your lawyer from putting you on the stand to tell your side of the story as then the things you said to the police during the interview can be used to impeach what you are testifying about and make you look even worse than you are... In order to be punished you need to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a jury of 12 of your fellow citizens or a judge if you give up your right to a jury and opt for a bench trial...
~~ Evan >>
You must either have a judge or a lawyer in the family. The description is spot on. The only quibble I have is that yes, you will get a free attorney, but like anything free, you get what you pay for. Apparently, the Supreme Court considers even a sleeping legal aid attorney "adequate counsel"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid &+J.+Legal+Prof.+67&srctype=smi&srcid;15&keywc06cde04e2e93b437a0d6e732fb47a
( aka ttp://preview.tinyurl.com/2akqmnb )
<<<<<Defense attorney Joe Frank Cannon was known for hurrying through criminal trials like "greased lightning." 1 For nearly fifty years, Cannon, now deceased, 2 was routinely appointed by Houston, Texas judges to represent indigent defendants, despite his tendency to doze off during trials. 3 Ten of Cannon's clients received the death penalty, which represents one of the largest number of clients sentenced to die among all Texas defense attorneys. 4 The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to "the assistance of counsel" for his defense. 5 The vast majority of criminal defendants cannot afford to hire a private attorney and thus are appointed one. 6 Many scholars have commented on the inadequate representation provided by unskilled, overworked, appointed defense counsel 7 and the severe lack of funding dilemma that indigent defense counsel services face. 8 Thus, the poor are disproportionately harmed 9 because they are routinely appointed unqualified, ineffective counsel by the court or state, while wealthier people can retain private attorneys with greater financial resources and investigative abilities. 10
Indigent defense is in a state of crisis, rife with burgeoning caseloads, insufficient financial resources, low prestige, 11 and inexperienced attorneys, many of whom are appointed by the court against their will. 12 As a result of these problems, indigent defendants with appointed counsel are more likely to receive jail time and less likely to receive probation as a punishment than defendants who can afford to hire counsel. 13>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
So my gut feeling is that people who can afford good lawyers get good outcomes more often than the people who can't afford good counsel. As the saying goes: "Justice may be blind, but she can sure smell money."
Fortunately, every once in a while even the best lawyers money can buy won't be able to help if you're as weird and despicable as Phil Spector. It took a second trial to nail him because he was so rich, but they got around to eventually. Sadly, when someone like that fights the system as hard as he did (like Walmart) we all pay because the government has to match the defendant's experts and "papering" point by point or risk being "outlawyered" and losing the case.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope... No judge, no lawyer... Just four years of criminal justice classes in college...
You are quibbling over those 10% of cases that actually go to trial then, as 90% of cases are either dropped/dismissed or plea bargained out...
You get your free lawyer appointed for you at your arraignment if you do not have your own counsel arranged at that point...

Right... In my area of the country some "mid level" lawyers with good reputations even have "menus" meaning a certain type of case will cost x-amount of money to take on plus billable hours...

How is pushing the government to defend its position on some sort of administrative law which was not written by anyone you elected to office, nor are the people who wrote such administrative law easily influenced by anyone which you could realistically approach like a US Representative or US Senator... Making the government defend its positions on administrative law makes its future application more transparent and understandable by those outside of the agency involved just like case law in the other courts makes civil or criminal laws easier for some people to understand how the laws apply in the legal situations at bar and what your responsibilities are in such a situation if you were to ever find yourself in it...

~~ Evan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

attorney,
<Nope... No judge, no lawyer... Just four years of criminal justice classes in college...>
More than most.
<You are quibbling over those 10% of cases that actually go to trial then, as 90% of cases are either dropped/dismissed or plea bargained out...>
Yes, but, consider who advises those people to plead out. PDs or Legal Aid. Imagine this. You are arrested for a murder *you* know you didn't do (play along all you "they wouldn't arrest them if they weren't guilty" adherents). You know now the system is capable of pretty serious errors. You're in shock.
First they tell you that you could get 20 to life for the crime and let that sink in. Then, your PD says instead of 20 years, they are offering you 1 year that's really going to be only six months due to overcrowding (which they explain in detail to you). You have no money for a good attorney and your Legal Aid lawyer has no resources to mount a trial should you opt to not take the deal. Now, you are told about the maximum risk you face should you go to trial in the same detail they explained the minimum to you. They'll tell you that doing hard time is nothing like the county lockup you've seen so far. Now there will be plenty of rightfully guilty people taking those pleas and it's rare that they get 1st degree murder arrests wrong, but it's happened and will happen again. The Atlanta bomber and the Anthrax mailer initial suspects turned out to be innocent. Pretty high profile errors, indeed.
People that already have a record aren't much punished by re-arrests. It's the first arrest and conviction that does damage and that's something Legal Aid does not explain well to its clients overall. That won't change unless lawyers, in exchange for their licenses to steal, have to do a mandatory 2 year stint as public defenders before they are granted their full license to practice. Imagine, all lawyers having to deal with the salt of the earth before moving on to Saville Row suits, Mercedes and $600 an hour billing rates. Ha, imagine world peace. Just as likely.
Arrest is a binary system - once you have a rap sheet, you're tainted goods. Not enough parents explain to their kids how important it is to avoid getting arrested for any reason. No good comes of it, but much bad can. When I studied crim, I believe the stats were 1/2 of all American males would be arrested at least once by age 35. For minorities it soared to something like 2/3s, but much of that is attributable to other factors, especially poverty.
Anyway, the moments between when a friend or family member is "picked up" and when they are legally placed under arrest are as important to your legal health as is a good *nearby* ER is to your medical health when you're having a stroke (time=brain). The first few hours is when it's time to have a well-known, local heavyweight lawyer weigh in on your side. Getting arrested for something you didn't do is a pretty traumatic experience. A federal jury awarded that "person of interest" $5.8 mil in the anthrax case.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/28/nation/na-anthrax28
Even the FBI gets it wrong, sometimes.
Anyone out there who's been falsely arrested knows that it's a psychic earthquake. All our family members carry cards with names of multiple, locally recognizable attorneys and instructions to call them before any questioning takes place and to physically hand the card to an investigator during an attempt at questioning.
Some diehards will laugh but it's what you do first that determines the outcome. Cops just don't like having defendant lawyers there at every step in the process because they know the lawyers are looking for any tiny infraction to try to impeach them should it go to trial. An expensive attorney appearing early in the process assures that the case will very likely go to trial. That can cause the police and or DA/SA to re-evaluate their case. I am sure they would have arrested the mom in the Jon Benet Ramsey case had the Ramseys had not wedged lawyers in that process as early as humanly possible. Heck, a lot of people learned from that case that you can absolutely refuse to answer or even see the police about almost anything.
<You get your free lawyer appointed for you at your arraignment if you do not have your own counsel arranged at that point...>
Sometimes that appointee is a regular old trial (hopefully) lawyer being asked (well, told) to accept low state reimbursement rates. He then often does a job commensurate with his sudden reduction in fees. It's only human nature.

Right... In my area of the country some "mid level" lawyers with good reputations even have "menus" meaning a certain type of case will cost x-amount of money to take on plus billable hours...
We call them McLawyers. "Will you have fries with that uncontested divorce?" In some ways, that's actually good for the clients. I know of many, many people who didn't realize how fast billable hours stack up until they got the huge bill.

won't
<How is pushing the government to defend its position on some sort of administrative law which was not written by anyone you elected to office . . . >
Most laws these days are written by lobbyists. That's how ex-Senator Hollings got his name "Senator Disney" . . . by pushing for changes to the copyright law written by them (actually a cabal of similar corporations) that benefitted them. These multi-million dollar judgements awarded against song-sharing grannies are showing just how much companies stacked the deck in their favor with the DMCA.
< . . . nor are the people who wrote such administrative law easily influenced by anyone which you could realistically approach like a US Representative or US Senator...>
If you have anywhere near the clout with your reps that Disney or BP does, then you are one powerful SOB, Evan! (-:
<Making the government defend its positions on administrative law makes its future application more transparent and understandable by those outside of the agency involved just like case law in the other courts makes civil or criminal laws easier for some people to understand how the laws apply in the legal situations at bar and what your responsibilities are in such a situation if you were to ever find yourself in it...>
*IF* that's what's happening. But I doubt it. Wal-Mart is more likely be doing a variation of what for years has been known as a "strike suit"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_suit
with the purpose not really being to win or lose, but to drag the opponent "over the hurdles" with so many motions, depositions, hearing, reviews, appeals, etc. that they are literally "papered to death."
It makes sense, that Wal-mart, one of the country's largest employers, is flexing its muscle because it is large enough to basically say "we can absorb the costs of a protracted legal battle better than you can." As someone else noted, IBM stalled for ten years, Exxon stalled for more than twenty. Wal-mart is trying to make itself poisonous to regulators. "Dare to fine us and we will fight you into the poor house." That's the part that I think is bad for us because the Feds *have* to expend whatever it takes - and more - to discourage that kind of challenge.
I would guess from what I read that this method was in play by BP to hold off Federal regulators from enforcing any sanctions against them - they were fighting regulation just like Wal-mart. Let's hope Wal-Mart doesn't explode as a result, but stampedes can kill a lot more than one person.
From what I recall from reading about the original stampede, the issue here's quite like the scalding hot McD's coffee. Wal-mart knew from past experience that Black Friday sales crowds have stampeded before. A death was a reasonable outcome of them offering incredibly low sale prices to a unusually large-sized crowd without providing for an orderly means of entrance to the store. Stadiums, theaters and other venues that frequently deal with a crush of patrons have all developed standard means of crowd and entry control (rope, barriers, numbered tickets, etc). Wal-mart was experienced enough at the corporate level to have foreseen an issue with crowd control but they failed to act responsibly.
It was a foreseeable event. For instance, shouting fire in a crowded theater comes with a reasonable expectation of a stampede. If you yell it out in a real fire, you could be saving lives. If there's no fire, you could easily kill someone.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those who right the administrative law are often putting in time until they can jump to those they administratively wrote laws effecting. I wonder why nobody thinks that those who right the administratively law are less easily influenced. Maybe less directly, but the thought of employment at big bucks often wanders through the process.

And administrative law types can get it wrong too. Courts have often overturned administrative rules because they went past what was written by Congress, it was unconstitutional, etc.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Wal-Mart fights back:

Good for Wal-Mart.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Staff attorneys at wal-mart are paid a salary so their hours are a constant expense anyway no matter what the workload is. Also the staff attorneys work multiple cases simultaneously. But 100 suits deterred is a genuine savings, that is where the staff attorneys become an asset rather than an expense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RickH wrote:

Don't forget, the lawyers at OSHA are on salary too. Still, it's fun to see them outsmarted.
Many years ago, IBM announced a vapor(hard)ware machine the day before Control Data Corporation (CDC) was to unveil their (in the flesh) super-dooper number cruncher. Of course IBM got all the press.
CDC got pissed and sued IBM for restraint of trade, unfair competition, and everything else. The Justice Department, smelling blood, joined the suit and called for a break-up of IBM.
The suit went on for YEARS (there were more lawyers on IBM's side than the entire complement of the Anti-Trust division of the DOJ). Finally, the night before trial was to start, IBM and CDC worked a secret, backroom deal. CDC got an undisclosed amount of cash and a division of IBM, The Service Bureau Corporation. CDC technicians worked all night to fulfill their part of the deal: destroying all records, depositions, data bases, etc. so that not a scrap of analysis or discovery gleaned in almost ten years remained. Not even a tittle.
The next day, CDC withdrew their suit and the DOJ had bupkus.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.