Slo-Mo Looting

Page 6 of 11  
AMEN!!!!
Charlie Self wrote:

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

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
Nothing there places burden of proof on the government. Only establishes procedures.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. "
Nothing there places burden of proof on the government either.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing there but the equal protection clause does not place burden of proof on the government.
I think you will find that the presumption of innocence comes out of English common law and was established in the US by case law rather than by statute.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:31:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"

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

somewhere
except
Being a former security officer, I can tell you there is more than one way someone, unfortunately it generally takes physical force to do it. I can also tell you that depending on the state, firm you work for, local laws, and store, that there are times when you are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to touch a person unless you are willing to personally "citizens arrest" that individual and then take full reprecussion if that person is found innocent of charges. Furthermore if you do hold that person against their will YOU can be charged with False Imprisonment/holding someone against their will. I believe, and this is MY opinion, that the laws are way too lax and that too many people get away with too much junk because of lawyers (not all) that want to make a quick buck. For example
- somoene broke into a house, and cut their leg on the glass that THEY broke and sued the homeowner and won. - someones family filed a wrongful death suit against a homeowner who shot and killed a person who broke into their home. - someone was awarded a large sum of money for spilling HOT COFFEE from a popular restaurant drive through
Damn, someone has been busy, and we are paying for it
stepping off the soapbox, breathing in fresh air while I still can for free
Clif
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Citizens' Arrest" applies only to a felony in most states. Retail fraud (Shoplifting) is a misdemeanor until a specified value is passed. That's why most stores take the hit rather than the risk.

innocent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Citizens arrest applies to any crime, misdemeanor or felony as long as the citizen is willing to see it through, cases in point :
A delivery driver ran me and my wife off the road, misdemeanor because no physical damage was done, arrested by me after getting license plate, investigating, and finally arresting
A drunk driver, arrested by me, because when I called it in the cops said since they didnt see they couldnt pull him unless he was driving funny, nevermind he knocked over a mailbox, but since I was the one who saw it, only I could prove it with my word, arrested by me, convicted
Assisting an officer who was pushed down by a "bystander" because his brother was being arrested, cop didnt see it, but guess what, I did, ok the cop got to arrest that one :-)
Point being, anyone can have someone arrested on *ANY* charge provided they are willing to see it through
Clif
**NOT A COP, TEMPER NOT GOOD ENOUG**

way
can
laws,
a
YOU
will.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Reading these posts and watching the morning news about Scott Petersen is making me obsess about society and morality. The term "sociopath" was defined in connection with the Petersen case. I never realized it before, but do you realize that sociopaths are necessary for the functioning of our society? Where would John Gotti have gotten without grunts like Sammy the Bull? How would the Chicago Carpenter's union survive without the ability to intimidate people like my friend with a roofing business, by sending goons out to drive his own trucks through his overhead doors and kill his pet pig, which was the company mascot? Thank God there is a stabilizing force in society so that in some cases, at least, a Gotti will end up powerless. I would like to read a thesis about how the percentage of remorseless individuals in society are used to control and manipulate us. I think the remorseless- ness begins with the one who is willing to take what does not belong to them, I also believe that if the Democrats win the upcoming election, the world will become more comfortable for the Scott Petersens among us, and that they will destroy the world. Do we all want to live in New Jersey?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bub209 writes:

John Gotti was a sociopath himself.
The latter prt of your diatribe is ridiculous. I don't know if Peterson is a sociopath...he sounds to me like a garden variety nasty piece of work as far as women are concerned. If he did kill his wife, I'll concede sociopathological status.
That said, I doubt very much that these people (sociopaths) are made more or less comfortable by whatever political party is in power.
How this discussion got to this point from a WalMart clerk tackling and injuring a suspected shoplifter I have no idea.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places. I blame lax liberal laws. I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury decide. Right now a person is scared to defend his property or him self for fear that he might become the victim again.
Scott Peterson's on the side girl friend is becoming a victim.
Take the guy that murdered his pregnant girlfriend and turned himself in after seeing Passion of the Christ. Why on earth does this need to go to trial????? Simply whisk him off to a mental hospital and determine if he is crazy or not. If he is not crazy, use a bullet on him.
Take the guy that killed his neighbor, cut his body up, and dumped the remains in Galveston bay. The jury found him innocent after he confess to the crime. His excuse was that he murdered his neighbor by accident and was afraid that no one would believe that it was an accident. YEAH, it was an accident so hack the body up and dump it in to the bay. AND THE JURY FOUND HIM INNOCENT. Lax laws... they allow the criminals to piss on our shoes and tell us that is raining.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ok, when I say liberal laws, please do not take that as laws created by liberals. Take that as laws that have no bite. Laws with too many loop holes. Laws that let the guilty get off because of what ever reason. Laws with absolutely too much protection of the guilty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

>

>

Er, anyone else notice the contradiction above?
G
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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

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

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

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

should
intentionally
not.
bay
Draw
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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

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

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.

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.

Is that what you are doing here?

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

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

eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/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....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@thanks.com wrote:

No. Fighting rentacops is enough to get one killed when they screw up.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.