Slo-Mo Looting

[J. Clarke]

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?

[G. Lewin]

Er, anyone else notice the contradiction above?

G

[Bob Schmall]

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

Bob

[Bob Schmall]

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

I blame lax

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

Bob

[G. Lewin]

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

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

G

[Leon]

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

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

Exactly, but some think that this is profiling..

[J. Clarke]

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

[George]

Walt Kelly was right.

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

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

[G. Lewin]

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

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

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

G

[bridger]

no, that would be murder.

[Bob Schmall]

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

He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,

that was on his head.

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

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

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

Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy

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

Maybe it didn't occur to him that

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

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

Bob

[G. Lewin]

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

G

[J. Clarke]

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

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 "shit happens".

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.

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

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

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

What punishment? Being sat on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charlie Self]

Leon responds:

Suggestion: move.

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

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

[Leon]

Nope.

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

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

That is what I believe I said.

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

[Leon]

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

[Leon]

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

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

[Wes Stewart]

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

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

In their eyes, juries should be just like mushrooms.

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

[Leon]

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.

[Charles Spitzer]