Slo-Mo Looting

[Leon]

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

[Charlie Self]

Leon asks:

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

Last week? The week before?

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

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

[G. Lewin]

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

[Leon]

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

[Leon]

intentionally

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?

[Wes Stewart]

|> In their eyes, juries should be just like mushrooms. |>

|> Judges decide that the law is what *they* say it is, not what the |> statutes say. They sure don't want some dumb jury deciding what the |> law is, even though they have that right. | |Are you saying for instance that a guy being tried for murder can be |convicted for a lesser charge that has not been brought against him?

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

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

[Leon]

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

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

[G. Lewin]

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

[Tom Veatch]

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

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

or go to:

Veatch Wichita, KS USA

[Dave Mundt]

Greetings and Salutations....

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

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

[Mark L.]

[Mark L.]

[Leon]

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.

[Leon]

Well said.

[Leon]

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

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

[Leon]

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

[Tom Watson]

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)

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Mundt) calmly ranted:

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends --

Comprehensive Website Development --

[Mark & Juanita]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bridger]

eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable

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....