Slo-Mo Looting

I fear Larry, that the prior comment was actually advocating expanding the pork. i.e. by taking from the upper "extreme" and giving that taken to the "lower" extreme.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita
Loading thread data ...

No. Fighting rentacops is enough to get one killed when they screw up.

Reply to
J. Clarke

of course, the "defendant," especially a gang member, might find the security personell and off him. That seems more likely.

Reply to
BUB 209

I have read it, I know theres nothing new, but its still disgusting. The only time that they are appreciated is on certain holidays, and even then, its used as another day to shop

I for one amd thankful to every soldier

Reply to
Clif

Just replying to my own message here, talking to myself and answering back. I should have said "alleged" concerning all that carpenter's union stuff, his business isn't in the greatest neighbor- hood, but this and a lot more did happen very suspiciously.

Reply to
BUB 209

Irresponsible posting in newsgroups begins not with lax thinking, but with admitting that one made a mistake. I didn't quite make it to the other side of the canyon with this leap, admittedly. One: Petersen is not yet guilty. Two: What I meant to say is that, if the Democrats win, society will become more corrupt. I'll stand by that. The point is, more corrupt at a time when national security is at stake like never before. Not looking good.

Reply to
BUB 209

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.

Reply to
BUB 209

"J. Clarke" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com:

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. 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?

Reply to
Secret Squirrel

"Leon" wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345 @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:

permanently

Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.

Reply to
Secret Squirrel

"Leon" wrote in news:S0TUc.2314$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:

NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where you live?

I know you'd kind of like to ignore the Constitution and all but please read the following and see if maybe it doesn't contradict the above ridiculous statement

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 defense.

Oh yeah, that'd be the 6th amendment in case you missed it.

Reply to
Secret Squirrel

Leon,

I'm beginning to wonder about the state of your footwear. You seem to be overly concerned with shoes.

I had written a long reply to your comments, but in retrospect, it just rehashed the same points, so let's just quit repeating ourselves.

It's been fun, but you've managed to draw me out of my self-imposed ban on OT posts. I have to go back on the wagon, or I'll never get anything else done.

Enjoy,

G

Le> You gotta use a little horse sense here. Is that rain on you shoes there?

Reply to
G. Lewin

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.

Reply to
Leon

.

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.

Reply to
Leon

It was great chatting with you too G. I am certainly glad that we were able to keep this as a point of view conversation and not let it become personal. I missed the shoes part though. :~) I gotta get back into the garage and finish a customers fire place screen also. ;~)

Reply to
Leon

After years in EMS, I feel qualified to determine if someone's dead, but even when decomposition is advanced the law says I have to take 'em to the ME. They're not dead until s/he says so.

Now substitute legal system for ME in your mind....

Reply to
George

I know, common sense had been superceded by the ridiculous.

Reply to
Leon

Huh? Do you mean that irresponsible posting begins with lax thinking, or that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake? Or...?

Piling one gem on another: "...if the Democrats win society will become more corrupt."

Dude, corruption is independent of politics. I teach history, and have learned that there are very few absolutes, very few "lessons of history." One cliche that is close to being absolute is that times change but people don't.

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

Reply to
Bob Schmall

(snip)

Wonderful. "He managed to die" and "Shit 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.

Reply to
Bob Schmall

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita calmly ranted:

I just reread it and don't find that angle at all. (Say it ain't so, Dave!) I see the proper amount of contempt for the legal system and a wish for better leadership by and for the people.

Please quote the part which gives you that idea, Mark.

-snip- 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

-snip-

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

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Development --

Reply to
Larry Jaques

"Leon" wrote in news:IH1Vc.2249$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:

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.

Reply to
Secret Squirrel

HomeOwnersHub website 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.