This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to read
it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
Sears.
I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
register.
This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
aisles,
up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for help,
but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs to the
kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in for
something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing was
what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of the
Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton crew
of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to your
tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
Bub 209 notes:
>I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
>register.
>This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
>aisles,
>up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for help,
>but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs to
>the
>kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in for
>something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing was
>what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of the
>Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton crew
>of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
>themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
>going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to your
>tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season
Not the clerk's job to catch the kid, anyway. That calls for a store security
person who knows the ins and outs of messing with people and finding zilch when
a search is underway...zilch except for the cell phone already set to dial his
lawyer.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
>This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to
>read
>it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
>Sears.
>I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
>register.
>This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
>aisles,
>up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for help,
>but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs to
>the
>kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in for
>something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing was
>what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of the
>Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton crew
>of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
>themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
>going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to your
>tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
Sounds familiar. In the tool department of the local Sears (we had a killer
Sears hardware, but it was closed) all the employees are either under 20 or
over 60. The young guys give you blank stares, the old guys talk about where
stuff was in the '70s, but can't find anything now.
I still shop Sears for many hand tools, so it pains me to see this in this
condition. I wish for the good old days again, where you could buy outboard
motors, metal-turning lathes, car parts, and guns.
GTO(John)
GTO(John)
On 16 Aug 2004 19:31:35 GMT, BUB 209 <[email protected]> wrote:
> One of the older male employees called for help,
> but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs to the
> kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in for
> something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing was
> what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis.
Sounds like the store manager needs to be notified that his store
is being robbed with the benign assistance of his employees.
Also, are there no police in this town?
Totally unfair to profile this poor kid that wears a winter parka in
the middle of summer!
[email protected] (BUB 209) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to read
> it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
> Sears.
> I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
> register.
> This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
> aisles,
> up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for help,
> but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs to the
> kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in for
> something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing was
> what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of the
> Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton crew
> of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
> themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
> going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to your
> tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
BUB 209 wrote:
> This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to
> read it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little
> higher at Sears.
> I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
> register.
> This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
> aisles,
> up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for
> help, but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their
> backs to the
> kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in
> for something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was
> seeing was
> what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of
> the Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton
> crew of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for
> punching themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they
> aren't
> going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to
> your
> tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
The sears hardwares here were pretty nice for a while but still never
carried any lumber. They they changed to Orchard hardware and kind of died
out. The big new mall near my office the sears store is huge and there are
usually a dozen employees always stocking shelves but 1 out of 10 actually
knows where something is and its usually the same old guy at the register
who knows me by name.
This is nothing new, you simply noticed what goes on daily and has been
going on daily for decades. Back in the mid 70's I ran a tire store that
also sold do it your self parts and accessories. About once a month a guy
would come in and try to steal 12 to 15 sets of spark plugs. Other managers
of the same stores in town would alert the other managers to be expecting
the guy to show up and he always did.
The store is foolishly allowing this if they do not employ outside security.
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to
read
> it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
> Sears.
> I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
> register.
> This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
> aisles,
> up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for
help,
> but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs
to the
> kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in
for
> something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing
was
> what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of
the
> Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton
crew
> of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
> themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
> going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to
your
> tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
You're not actually encouraging theft, are you?
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:17:07 -0500, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >You're not actually encouraging theft, are you?
> >>
> >> Brilliant! You guessed it!
> >
> >Do I win a tool?
> >
> >And poor Mark started frothing about our permissive society when all you
> >were doing was encouraging crime. What a pity.
> >
>
> I suspect Bub209 was pulling your leg there (especially since he
prefaced
> his comments with "you might find this depressing"): i.e. engaging in a
> bit of sarcasm. But even if he was advocating the commission of crime,
> that further reinforces my comments -- that is, his engaging in public
> advocacy of the commission of criminal activity with no fear of
> consequences.
He was pulling your leg too.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:17:07 -0500, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >You're not actually encouraging theft, are you?
>>
>> Brilliant! You guessed it!
>
>Do I win a tool?
>
>And poor Mark started frothing about our permissive society when all you
>were doing was encouraging crime. What a pity.
>
I suspect Bub209 was pulling your leg there (especially since he prefaced
his comments with "you might find this depressing"): i.e. engaging in a
bit of sarcasm. But even if he was advocating the commission of crime,
that further reinforces my comments -- that is, his engaging in public
advocacy of the commission of criminal activity with no fear of
consequences.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:17:07 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> You're not actually encouraging theft, are you?
>>>
>>> Brilliant! You guessed it!
>>
>> Do I win a tool?
>>
>> And poor Mark started frothing about our permissive society
>> when all you were doing was encouraging crime. What a pity.
>
> I suspect Bub209 was pulling your leg there (especially since
> he prefaced his comments with "you might find this
> depressing"): i.e. engaging in a bit of sarcasm. But even if
> he was advocating the commission of crime, that further
> reinforces my comments -- that is, his engaging in public
> advocacy of the commission of criminal activity with no fear
> of consequences.
Oh oh, here we go --
Fear not - the black helicopters are on their way to collect him
even as we speak...
(Good thing I was already wearing my tinfoil hat!)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >You're not actually encouraging theft, are you?
>
> Brilliant! You guessed it!
Do I win a tool?
And poor Mark started frothing about our permissive society when all you
were doing was encouraging crime. What a pity.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:22:39 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to
>read
>> it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
>> Sears.
>> I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
>> register.
>> This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
>> aisles,
>> up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for
>help,
>> but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs
>to the
>> kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in
>for
>> something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing
>was
>> what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of
>the
>> Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton
>crew
>> of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
>> themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
>> going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to
>your
>> tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
>
>You're not actually encouraging theft, are you?
>
Seemed pretty clear that he was not advocating theft but rather making
commentary upon an overly-permissive society that affords perpetrators more
rights than victims, prosecutes those who defend themselves more vigorously
than those who commit the assaults, and willingly bends to cries of
"racism!" whenever a member of a favored minority is inconvenienced, even
if with probable cause. Probably also sprinkled with a bit of approbation
for a company that barely staffs a store with enough staff to sell things
and fails to provide adequate security capability, assuming that "we can
raise prices to make up for the high vapor pressure of our products".
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:06:03 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
> Sounds like the store manager needs to be notified that his store is being
> robbed with the benign assistance of his employees. Also, are there no
> police in this town?
Sometimes it's more than just trying to avoid the confrontation - there be
law-yers out there ready to take you for a lot more than the cost of lost
inventory if'n they can get an employee to make a "false" accusation of
theft.
Any business has to use all the tech stuff they can to help in their
defense - cameras/vcr's and whatever...
I worked in the Phoenix Woodcraft where we lost several months profits
through theft because a herd of these sleazes would decend on the store
and outnumber the employees 4 to 1. You just can't keep eyeballs on all
of 'em at once. That store BTW is history.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
"Kevin Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sears has an asset protection department. There sole purpose is to stop
> inventory loss. I'm surprised that this store is allowing this to happen.
> It's a quick way to get the AP manager replaced.
> I work part time in a Sears stock room (gotta love that employee
discount), and
> in my 2 years there I've seen them nab plenty of shoplifters, tools aren't
> usually what they're after. Watches, jewelry, electric razors and clothes
are
> their favorite targets.
>
> Kevin Daly
> http://hometown.aol.com/kdaly10475/page1.html
I retired from a full line Sears store with Asset Protection personnel in
place. They were actually pretty good at catching the shoplifters. Now
work part time at a Sears Hardware store in another state and there are no
Asset Protection personnel. We do occasionally get the "snatch and run" guy
and policy is to not chase them. Get a license plate number if we can but
no personal contact or tackling, etc. It isn't worth someone getting hurt
and I suspect the cost of an Asset Protection staff on hand all the time
would be much more than the little we lose to shoplifting. On the other
hand, twice in the last month, I've been almost knocked down by aggressive
staff at WalMart as they chased a shoplifter out of their store and tackled
them right in front of me. The last shoplifter was screaming in pain that
they had broken some part of his body. And a third time, the emt's were
attaching a body board to a young lady on the tarmac as I approached the
store. I suspect another tackling had taken place. This particular store
seems to be on a revenge streak since a shoplifter shot a couple of
employees (not fatally) before the cops shot her (fatally) as she was being
interviewed in the security office a couple of years ago.
Tom responds:
>n the other
>hand, twice in the last month, I've been almost knocked down by aggressive
>staff at WalMart as they chased a shoplifter out of their store and tackled
>them right in front of me. The last shoplifter was screaming in pain that
>they had broken some part of his body. And a third time, the emt's were
>attaching a body board to a young lady on the tarmac as I approached the
>store. I suspect another tackling had taken place. This particular store
>seems to be on a revenge streak since a shoplifter shot a couple of
>employees (not fatally) before the cops shot her (fatally) as she was being
>interviewed in the security office a couple of years ago.
Revenge streak or not, those employees had better be damned sure those people
they are injuring can be proved to be thieves. If there's the slightest doubt,
they open themselves and WalMart to a case of which lawyer's dream, especially
with personal injury added to false accusations.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Revenge streak or not, those employees had better be damned sure those
people
> they are injuring can be proved to be thieves. If there's the slightest
doubt,
> they open themselves and WalMart to a case of which lawyer's dream,
especially
> with personal injury added to false accusations.
I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
protect the guilty.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> >
> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect
died.
> >> >
> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
> >> > held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
> >> > breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in
training
> >> > courses.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >>
> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
> >
> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
stealing
> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
> > civilized countries?
> >
> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
> > right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
not
> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
> > justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>
> This is realism. He stole.
As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
> 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.
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 people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the
act
> into "vigilante justice".
It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
> If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
> who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
> person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".
>
> Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die".
You
> are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension
with
> penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and
gets
> hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
> problem.
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
> "knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things)
> that he was dealing with rent-a-cops.
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
> lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
> inability to overpower him.
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
Leon writes:
>I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
>is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
>protect the guilty
Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the
person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property.
That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
Pfui.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
J. Clarke wrote:
> He stole.
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
The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side somewhere
beyond your shoulder.
No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away except
to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force. Makes me laugh
when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide, so
your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
designer jeans.
Then there's the car chase controversy....
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon writes:
>
> >I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if
he
> >is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
> >protect the guilty
>
> Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
> store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
> person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming
the
> person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
>
> But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole
property.
> That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
>
> Pfui.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
George writes:
>The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side somewhere
>beyond your shoulder.
>
>No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away except
>to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force. Makes me laugh
>when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
>idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
>walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
>innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide, so
>your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
>designer jeans
Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The Constitution
is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption of innocence comes
from that source.
There must be a lot of idiots around, by the way. They keep getting caught.
Legally enough so that we have something like 1 person in 140 in jail in this
country.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
Ah yes.
Ad hominem and strawmen, as always. I merely corrected YOUR
misapprehension about the presumption of innocence, which means whether
caught in flagrante or not, you are not a thief until convicted.
"There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming
the person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole
property. That's much more important than any injury that might be
suffered."
Unfortunately, as indicated, there are NO legal ways for citizens to stop an
innocent individual, a fact which even the shoplifters know well. That's
why they keep walking. A police officer is somewhat protected by probable
cause, which includes accusation by a citizen. From that point on, there is
a criminal and tort system which asserts the obligation of the authorities,
not the citizenry, to abide by the law.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George writes:
>
> >The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
somewhere
> >beyond your shoulder.
> >
> >No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
except
> >to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force. Makes me laugh
> >when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
> >idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
> >walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
> >innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide,
so
> >your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
> >designer jeans
>
> Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
Constitution
> is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption of innocence
comes
> from that source.
>
> There must be a lot of idiots around, by the way. They keep getting
caught.
> Legally enough so that we have something like 1 person in 140 in jail in
this
> country.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:31:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
Constitution
> is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption of innocence
comes
> from that source.
I understand your thinking here but the constitution is not perfect and
todays thief has had 200+ years to learn how to get around the law.
Presumption of innocense should not be applicable when there is no doubt
that some one is stealing and you tell them to stop.
> There must be a lot of idiots around, by the way. They keep getting
caught.
And they keep getting out and continuing a life of crime.
> Legally enough so that we have something like 1 person in 140 in jail in
this
> country.
Now imagine if getting caught was not a good thing. I wonder how many
people would look for alternatives to stealing if they knew that their odds
of being hurt when running away from a crime were greater. I'm am not
saying that everyone shoud be tackeled and hurt, just those that have not
learned to stop when being chased by the police.
Liberal laws help keep the good people honest but only protect the criminal.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >> Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
> >> Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the
presumption
> >> of innocence comes from that source.
> >
> >Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this
principle
> >is established?
>
> The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing
the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
Leon writes:
>I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no
>witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing
>the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
thankful.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
AMEN!!!!
Charlie Self wrote:
> Leon writes:
>
>
>>I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no
>>witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing
>>the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
>
>
> Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
> thankful.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon writes:
>
> >I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with
no
> >witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed
doing
> >the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
>
> Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
> thankful.
So if someone walked into your shop and started stealing right in front of
you, you would let it happen and if he beat the rap you would be OK with
that???
Leon writes:
>> >I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with
>no
>> >witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed
>doing
>> >the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
>>
>> Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
>> thankful.
>
>So if someone walked into your shop and started stealing right in front of
>you, you would let it happen and if he beat the rap you would be OK with
>that???
>
You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into my
shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
friends, for one thing.
And, no, I wouldn't be "OK with that" if someone did try. That still doesn't
give me the right to kick the crap out of him, though it seems likely the
reaction would be noisy in the extreme and probably a lot more threatening than
actuality would allow.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into
my
> shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
> friends, for one thing.
I mentioned in another post why you and I probably have different openions
here. I live in Houston. That may explain everything as far as my point of
view. ;~) Right now a neighbor hood about 5 miles from where has had a
rash of robberies at peoples homes and this has been going on for several
months. Not a bad neighbor hood, middle class I'd say. the victims drive
up into their drive way, open their garage dooors, look out their car window
and find 2 or 3 guys waiting to tie them up and go through their house
taking what they want. Listening to the news, there seems to be a large
gang of these thieves. Fortunately they nave not harmed anyone yet. The
same thing is a daily occourance at the retail stores but no one gets tied
up and it is not getting any better.
>
> And, no, I wouldn't be "OK with that" if someone did try. That still
doesn't
> give me the right to kick the crap out of him, though it seems likely the
> reaction would be noisy in the extreme and probably a lot more threatening
than
> actuality would allow.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
Leon responds:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into
>my
>> shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
>> friends, for one thing.
>
>I mentioned in another post why you and I probably have different openions
>here. I live in Houston. That may explain everything as far as my point of
>view. ;~) Right now a neighbor hood about 5 miles from where has had a
>rash of robberies at peoples homes and this has been going on for several
>months. Not a bad neighbor hood, middle class I'd say. the victims drive
>up into their drive way, open their garage dooors, look out their car window
>and find 2 or 3 guys waiting to tie them up and go through their house
>taking what they want.
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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Suggestion: move.
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.
> I live in rural Virginia. People don't do that. They'd be picking .30
slugs out
> of their heads if they did.
Yeah I would love to some day move to a place in the slow lane.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
On 18 Aug 2004 18:20:01 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Leon responds:
>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> You consistently compare apples and oranges. No one is going to walk into
>>my
>>> shop and start stealing in front of me. Or behind me. Access is limited to
>>> friends, for one thing.
>>
>>I mentioned in another post why you and I probably have different openions
>>here. I live in Houston. That may explain everything as far as my point of
>>view. ;~) Right now a neighbor hood about 5 miles from where has had a
>>rash of robberies at peoples homes and this has been going on for several
>>months. Not a bad neighbor hood, middle class I'd say. the victims drive
>>up into their drive way, open their garage dooors, look out their car window
>>and find 2 or 3 guys waiting to tie them up and go through their house
>>taking what they want.
>
>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.
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?
>
>Charlie Self
>"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
>Devil's Dictionary
Charlie Self wrote:
> George writes:
>
>>The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
>>somewhere beyond your shoulder.
>>
>>No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
>>except
>>to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force. Makes me laugh
>>when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
>>idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
>>walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
>>innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide,
>>so your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
>>designer jeans
>
> Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
> Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption
> of innocence comes from that source.
Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this principle
is established?
> There must be a lot of idiots around, by the way. They keep getting
> caught. Legally enough so that we have something like 1 person in 140 in
> jail in this country.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
> Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Leon wrote:
>
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> >> Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
>> >> Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the
> presumption
>> >> of innocence comes from that source.
>> >
>> >Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this
> principle
>> >is established?
>>
>> The 5th,
"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.
> 6th,
"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.
> and 14th Amendments.
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.
>
> I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with
> no
> witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed
> doing the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>> Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
>> Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption
>> of innocence comes from that source.
>
>Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this principle
>is established?
The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
cf: Coffin v. United States.
Regards,
Tom.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"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.
"Clif" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
> except
> > to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
>
> 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.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Leon writes:
>
> >I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
> >is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
> >protect the guilty
>
> Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
> store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
> person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the
> person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
>
> But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property.
> That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
>
> Pfui.
>
> Charlie Self
Hi Charlie,
I was with you at the first sentence, but by the time you finished,
the description sounded liberal as opposed to the classical definition
of conservative.
Both conservative and liberal have become meaningless terms, to me at
least, but the most lucid explanation I ever heard of conservative
principles was that they revolve around property rights.
Assuming that definition holds water, then privileging property and
rights to/over it, including aggressive enforcement, would indeed
appear to be a more conservative stance--and thus your stance would
apppear to be more liberal.
Similar arguments about a homeowner's right to defend his property in
a robbery typically divide along similar political perspectives.
For your consideration,
H
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Leon writes:
>
> >I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
> >is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
> >protect the guilty
>
> Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
> store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
> person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the
> person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
>
> But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property.
> That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
>
> Pfui.
>
> Charlie Self
Hi Charlie,
I was with you at the first sentence, but by the time you finished,
the description sounded liberal as opposed to the classical definition
of conservative.
Both conservative and liberal have become meaningless terms, to me at
least, but the most lucid explanation I ever heard of conservative
principles was that they revolve around property rights.
Assuming that definition holds water, then privileging property and
rights to/over it, including aggressive enforcement, would indeed
appear to be a more conservative stance--and thus your stance would
apppear to be more liberal.
Similar arguments about a homeowner's right to defend his property in
a robbery typically divide along similar political perspectives.
For your consideration,
H
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
> And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws
> to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to
> being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....
>
Again, if you run and disobey, you stand the chance of being treated with
less "respect". If you simply speed and the cop pulls you out of the car
and beats you, then he is at fault. If you ignored his lights and siren and
made him chase you, well can you blain him? Nothing like taunting a
policeman to test your rights.
Leon writes:
>> What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
>> And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws
>> to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to
>> being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....
>>
>
>Again, if you run and disobey, you stand the chance of being treated with
>less "respect". If you simply speed and the cop pulls you out of the car
>and beats you, then he is at fault. If you ignored his lights and siren and
>made him chase you, well can you blain him? Nothing like taunting a
>policeman to test your rights.
You guys crack me up. You're not writing about cops here. You're writing about
rentacops and clerks. These people have no authority--except maybe in Arizona,
yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.
Good bless the modern Conservative. Freedom? Give it away. It's a nuisance and
messy and inconvenient.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
bub209 responds (I think):
>>These people have no authority--except maybe in Arizona,
>>yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.
>
>The part that whispers into your ear, "I
>want the five finger discount?" Those
>bumpkins have no right to tell you that.
What part whispers in whose ear?
I don't get whispers like that, nor do I cede control over my movements to a
rentacop or retial clerk.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
>What part whispers in whose ear?
>
>>>yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.
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.
Bub209 responds:
>>What part whispers in whose ear?
>>
>
>>>>yet you're ceding them control over a part of your life.
>
>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.
>
Bub, as a woodworker and generally, I'd guess you're a pretty good guy. As a
moral and politcal philosopher, you've got some problems, of which a lack of
clarity is just the most evident.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
> >
> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
> > held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
> > breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
> > courses.
> >
> > John
>
> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone stealing
deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less civilized
countries?
This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system, not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante justice
we are well down the road to barbarism.
No one can outrun a radio
Leon wrote:
> "Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>No, you don't ask. You pursue until he/she is apprehended. If there is
>>resistance, you are permitted to use enough force to secure the subject
>>with cuffs, then after he/she is cuffed (generally) no more force is
>>needed. Been there, done that.
>
>
>
> Oh,,, so you run them till they drop... Suppose you don"t have the ability
> to run as far and simply want to get the deed done.
>
>
George wrote:
> The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side somewhere
> beyond your shoulder.
>
> No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away except
> to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
They have these things called handcuffs.....
Makes me laugh
> when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
> idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
> walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
> innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide, so
> your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
> designer jeans.
>
> Then there's the car chase controversy....
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Leon writes:
>>
"G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > He stole.
>
> 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."
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.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
somewhere
> beyond your shoulder.
>
> No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
except
> to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
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
"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greetings and Salutations....
Well said.
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?
bub209 writes:
>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?
>
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
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:48:41 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >
>>
>> 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.
>
>I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
>pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
>the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
>protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
>not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
>caught.
>That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
>really saw it or not.
>
>Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?
>
Leon,
You are falling into a trap. There seems to be some confusion here
equating the act of *apprehending* a person suspected of committing a crime
with an act of punishment for committing said crime. A jury conviction is
not required to apprehend a suspected perpetrator of a crime. If the
suspect resists apprehension, then reasonable force to effect that
apprehension does not equate to punishment. If the perp (OK, the suspected
perp) is allowed to resist and simply walk away, the amount of arrests for
crimes will plummet and crime will skyrocket as criminals realize that with
a slight amount of resistance they can escape, if they are careful to cover
their tracks, they risk little chance of future apprehension.
Re-iterating: Apprehension is not punishment. Death because one has
resisted being detained is not punishment, it is a consequence of one's
actions. i.e., no resistance, no death, regardless of the ineptness of the
one doing the detaining.
On 26 Aug 2004 04:25:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel <[email protected]> wrote:
> But heard, half-heard in the stillness, Larry Jaques writes --
>
>> See "More Guns, Less> Crime" by John Lott, "
>
> No, See:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
> http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
Why hide the URLs behind tinyurl links? Are they that obviously
biased sources that you don't want people to know what they're
blindly clicking on?
"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where you
> live?
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.
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.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Greetings and Salutations....
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:08:03 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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.
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
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
Greetings and Salutations...
Going to touch on a couple of things here...bear with
me.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
>>ranted:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>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.
>>
A good point. I don't think it is something that is going
to be quick to fix, because it has been decades in the making.
Having already deleted a lengthy rant about specific
problems I see in today's society, I thought I would try again
with a couple of smaller observations...SIgh.
We need, as a society to start bucking the trend of
the government treating us like the humans in The Matrix. We
have moved a long way towards a "cradle to grave" control, and
we need to walk away from it. That is a tough road, though.
For decades, we (as represented by our Federal government)
have presented two faces to the world. On the one hand, we have
claimed to be seeking democracy, equality and human rights for
all...And yet, we have pumped up a number of terribly repressive
and outright evil governments with money, training and arms.
We have created terrible situations for ourselves by really stupid
decisions. For a couple of examples...the Bay of Pigs, and, the
invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. In the first case, we made promises
to the Cubans that were going to try and overthrow Castro...then
screwed them by leaving them out to hang in the wind when they made
the effort. In the latter case, our ambassador said to Saddam that
the US would have no concerns about Kuwait, leading directly to
the original invasion that was the root of the current situation.
I have thought for years that we need to pick a side and stick with
it. The one thing that we do with this hypocracy is to teach
the world that we are not to be trusted.
American society went through some dramatic changes in
the 50s and 60s, because of the Civil Rights movement, because
of the Vietnam War, and, because of the rise of the Hippies. Some
very good things came from this turmoil, but, one of the bad things
was an attitude of "do your own thing" which has evolved to "do your
own thing and screw everyone else". This has left us with a society
where the goal is to get as many goodies for ourselves, rather than
finding ways to make everyone's life better.
An attitude grew up during the 70s and 80s that children were
simply little adults and (for many folks) their opinions should hold
the same weight as those of their grandparents. This is, alas,
nonsense. Kids simply do not have the depth of knowledge or wisdom to
make "the best" decisions at times. It is our responsibility, as
adults, to teach them not only enough raw data to be able to make
those decisions, but, the analytical tools necessary to allow them to
gather MORE data, correlate and process the information and
add it to their experience database. Because so many of us
"Don't want to inflict our values" on our kids, we have failed
to do this.
As a side effect of this, we also have at least a couple
of generations of kids who have no respect for their parents,
and are not shy at making that known. That is a bad thing for
a lot of reasons, both on a private and societal level.
Oddly enough (considering this growing attitude about
kids being simply little adults) , we have also had the attitude of
"zero tolerance" grow up in schools and other public arenas. Some
folks feel that this is a GOOD thing because it "keeps the kids safe".
It may or may not...but one thing that I KNOW that it does is erode
the concept of personal responsibility. "Zero Tolerance" teaches
the kids that a whole list of things exist not as tools...but as
weapons, and that any one of them is likely to run amok and hurt
or kill their classmates if they bring these weapons to school
with them. The fact of the matter is that a pocket knife is a tool.
Part of growing up is to learn to use tools properly. When I was
growing up, it was a proud day indeed when my parents decided that
I was mature enough to carry a pocket knife, and, because I understood
the respect I had earned from them, to be allowed to carry the knife,
I was pretty careful with it.
But then...I respected my parents a great deal.
As another facet of this...there is the business of gun
control. That could easily generate another hundred posts arguing
both side of the issue. I, personally, think that the problem with
9/11 was not that there were too many weapons on the planes...but
that there were too few. I also think that this mindless fear of
guns that has taken root in too many folks minds is weakening the
heart of America. They are a tool, nothing more...nothing less.
When used properly, they can be great things. If it were not
for guns...We would still be a colony. Accurate control of a gun
is a difficult skill, and, requires a great deal of mental focus
and practice, so, it is a good discipline. Finally...slaves can't
own guns...and that is one reason why the founding fathers noted
down that the right of private ownership of guns was second only
to the right of free and unfettered speech.
One last thing...on a totally different subject...I want to
touch on the evolution of many services and industries in the USA
to becoming nothing more than profit centers for their investors.
Whether we are talking about Insurance, health care providers,
or industry, there is a terrible trend away from their primary reason
for existence to being nothing more than money pumps designed to get
as much cash from consumers as possible, with as little investment in
time, energy or resources as possible, and to pump that cash to their
investors. When a company gets more concerned with their stock value
than why they exist, it is always bad for the consumer. As a quick
example...I was chatting with a fellow who used to work in a care
facility for troubled kids that went from a non-profit to a profit
making organization. There was a notable drop of quality of care
in the facility, because the new owners were more concerned with
increasing profitablity than with caring for the kids. The nurse
to patient ratio dropped from 1/5 to 1/15. The time allocated for
a psychiatrist to work with the kids dropped to fifteen minutes
per kid per week. Another effect of this was who decided what
medications to give to the kids. It used to be something that
was determined by a doctor. After the take over...most of the time
it was the nurses that suggested what levels of medications would
be applied, and the doctors simply signed off on it. There is no
question that this facility went from a place where kids might get
help getting their heads back together, and becoming a productive
member of society to a high-priced warehouse. Is that a good thing?
I don't have the answers. I have a lot of questions. I
think that if Americans start working back to some of the "old
fashioned" concepts of personal responsibility, resourcefulness,
respect for themselves and for others and a willingness to see
a job and take it on, though, and, if we start setting standards
for how we want our government to behave as our representative
and start voting folks out of office if they don't live UP to
those standards, we might have a chance to get back on the
positive path.
Regards
Dave Mundt
>
> 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.
>
Hum...I don't know if *I* am the "prior comment" here or not.
I suspect I am. In any case, let me touch on this a bit, too. When
I said "extreme" I was actually thinking more of some of the trend
towards black and white thinking as discussed above. However, I have
also spoken out with concern about the increasing disparity between
the lowest paid job in a given company and the highest paid job. It
makes no real sense for there to be a 50x or more difference between
the lowest and highest paid jobs. The main result of this is that it
fuels the trend of society in general to have more and more folks
drifting into poverty from what used to be the "Middle Class". I
would suggest that it would be BRIGHTER for the companies to do more
to pump up the pay of the lower ranks and lower the pay of the higher
ranks a bit.
Do I advocate the government using taxes to do this.
Emphatically, NO! Money to a politician is like crack to an addict.
It becomes the center of their lives, and, it does not matter how much
they have, they always need more. What good does it for anyone for
the goverment to take (as an example) a million bucks from one guy,
keep $900,000 of it for their own programs, and, "give back" $100,000
to folks in poverty? As we have seen time and time again over the
years, way too much of that cash ends up in the pockets of the "fat
cats" again through lucrative governmental contracts, double dealing
and padded billing.
John Stossel (sic), in a recent book titled "Give me a break"
has an interesting chart, showing the percentage of the GNP that is
eaten up by the government. It is a power curve that goes from a low
of a few percent back in the 40s to over 40% today. Think about
that. Actually, I found an interesting page that touches on this
very subject here:
http://www.patriotist.com/taxfacts.htm
The facts that I recognize there seem to be fairly good...although
they seem to quote the GNP percent as 20%. On the other hand, they
also point out that we have to work until July to pay for our
share of the taxes collected by the government.
No...letting government do it is not a good way to go
about it. However, at some point, if the gap between the haves,
the "have mores" and the "have nots" gets too great...there may
well be a forceful realignment of wealth that will not be fun for
anyone, but, will be really uncomfortable for the folks at the
top of the pyramid. Now...in the late 1300s, the Black Death
acted as the agent to redistribute wealth in Europe, and, did
a pretty good job of it. I doubt that it will work as well
here, though.
Dave Mundt writes:
> Hum...I don't know if *I* am the "prior comment" here or not.
>I suspect I am. In any case, let me touch on this a bit, too. When
>I said "extreme" I was actually thinking more of some of the trend
>towards black and white thinking as discussed above. However, I have
>also spoken out with concern about the increasing disparity between
>the lowest paid job in a given company and the highest paid job. It
>makes no real sense for there to be a 50x or more difference between
>the lowest and highest paid jobs. The main result of this is that it
>fuels the trend of society in general to have more and more folks
>drifting into poverty from what used to be the "Middle Class". I
>would suggest that it would be BRIGHTER for the companies to do more
>to pump up the pay of the lower ranks and lower the pay of the higher
>ranks a bit.
Yes. Does it make sense--and we're not talking 50 times here--for a company to
pay its chairman 50 million bucks in a money losing year, while the guy
emptying trash baskets gets 18 grand even though he does his job magnificently?
Not to me it doesn't.
>Do I advocate the government using taxes to do this.
>Emphatically, NO! Money to a politician is like crack to an addict.
>It becomes the center of their lives, and, it does not matter how much
>they have, they always need more. What good does it for anyone for
>the goverment to take (as an example) a million bucks from one guy,
>keep $900,000 of it for their own programs, and, "give back" $100,000
>to folks in poverty? As we have seen time and time again over the
>years, way too much of that cash ends up in the pockets of the "fat
>cats" again through lucrative governmental contracts, double dealing
>and padded billing.
What doesn't stop in government pockets tends to shift over to the pockets of
their pals.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
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....
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where you
> > live?
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
With the exception of minors and accusing females in sexual assault cases.
Or is that just an interpretation?
"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Secondly whether you like it or not the
> constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses against
> him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th amendment?
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
>>ranted:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>
> 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.
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
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --
"G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
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. ;~)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:13:12 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345
>> @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
>.
>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>
>
>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.
>
'course, leon, one of it's functions is to keep you, and other idiots
like you, in check. thank god it's there.
"G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
> was part of their deliberations
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?
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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....
I know, common sense had been superceded by the ridiculous.
Leon wrote:
> "G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
>>was part of their deliberations
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
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
"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345
> @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
.
> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
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.
Leon responds:
>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>
>
>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.
>
Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for
future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to
change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore
certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally fashionable,
whim.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
Horsehocky!
Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made by
judges under the guise of interpretation.
For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected "hate
speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for
> future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes
to
> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to
> change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore
> certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally
fashionable,
> whim.
Yep, they failed to teach you how to read.
"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Leon responds:
>
> >> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for
> future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes to
> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to
> change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore
> certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally fashionable,
> whim.
>
> Charlie Self
....and yet the Supreme Court does just that on a regular basis. An
Oligarchy of 9 folks appointed for life that can make laws by
decree...and we pretend to be a nation of law, not men. BTW if you are
on the more liberal side you can decry the Oligarchy decreeing the
"appointment" of our current President. On the more conservative side,
the Oligarchy "found" by decree a right to murde..ahhhh abort your
bab...ahhh fetus. So this isn't just a left-right diatribe (although
from the emphasis added to the preceding you can easily guess which
way I lean).
Dave Hall
Secret Squirrel <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
That's a good one!! If I hire someone to "interpret" spanish for me
and he tells me that "uno" means "take out the trash", he was NOT
interpreting, he was just making it up. That is what judges do as far
as I am concerned. When Supreme Court Justice Blackmum spoke
approvingly about a "living Constitution" he was simply saying that he
was happy that he did not have to abide by some document written and
approved by some old white guys and that he (with the concurrance of 4
other Justices) could just make it up as they go and "pass laws" by
decree. This is the very definition of a dictatorship - or more
specifically an Oligarchy - 9 people in power for life that can make
law by decree.
Dave Hall
"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
> "George" < wrote in
>
> > Horsehocky!
> >
> > Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
> > by judges under the guise of interpretation.
> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
George's point is that's the way it is _supposed_ to work, but not always.
Judicial activism has always been around.
READ in it's ENTIRETY the following ... written by a judge, BTW:
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v3n1-oscannlain.php
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Horsehocky!
>
> Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
> by judges under the guise of interpretation.
>
> For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
> "hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis
>> for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few
>> changes
> to
>> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
>> difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
>> prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or
>> a locally
> fashionable,
>> whim.
>
>
>
Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
@news4.newsguy.com:
> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>
>> "George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Horsehocky!
>>>
>>> Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
>>> by judges under the guise of interpretation.
>>>
>>> For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
>>> "hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.
>>>
>>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a
basis
>>>> for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very
few
>>>> changes
>>> to
>>>> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
>>>> difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
>>>> prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their,
or
>>>> a locally
>>> fashionable,
>>>> whim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
>> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its
that
>> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
>
> Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes
"statute
> law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a
part
> of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.
>
Case law is not law, it is an interpretation of the law. Those
interpretations my be relied on in the future or new interpretations may
occur, but the basic law (no quotes needed), does not change.
My point which seems to have been missed is that the majority of people
responding to this otherwise ridiculous thread seem to think that their
interpretation of right and wrong should be the law of the land. Sadly
few of them display any knowledge whatsoever of even elementary civics.
"George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Yep, they failed to teach you how to read.
>
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
>> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
>> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
>
>
>
Ok.. I'm going to bite on this despite knowing better. In what way is my
interpretation flawed?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
>> @news4.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Horsehocky!
>>>>>
>>>>> Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are
>>>>> made by judges under the guise of interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>> For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
>>>>> "hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a
>> basis
>>>>>> for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very
>> few
>>>>>> changes
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
>>>>>> difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who
>>>>>> would prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit
>>>>>> their,
>> or
>>>>>> a locally
>>>>> fashionable,
>>>>>> whim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make
>>>> laws. They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes
>>>> laws. Its
>> that
>>>> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
>>>
>>> Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes
>> "statute
>>> law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a
>> part
>>> of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.
>>>
>>
>> Case law is not law, it is an interpretation of the law.
>
> In your opinion.
Not my opinion, simply a statement of fact. You're attempting to argue
semantics and you've gotten it wrong.
>
> So when kids get bussed all over creation to promote racial balance,
> what law are the local governments obeying?
Not an issue of law, but rather one of public policy. Again you're
comparing apples and oranges.
>
>> Those
>> interpretations my be relied on in the future or new interpretations
>> may occur, but the basic law (no quotes needed), does not change.
>
> Of course it does. The court can abolish the "basic law" entirely, or
> in part, or extend it far beyond anything that the legislature
> intended.
Once again, factually incorrect. With the exceptions of laws that are
found to be unconstitutional laws are not abolished by judges. The judge
can make many findings which may make the law ineffectual in THAT CASE,
and that ruling if it is precedent setting may very well be relied on bu
future judges, but they are under no obligation to do so.
The basic statute as created by the legislature remains until it has been
amended or repealed, and any future judge can certain form his own
opinion and make his own interpretations.
>
>> My point which seems to have been missed is that the majority of
>> people responding to this otherwise ridiculous thread seem to think
>> that their interpretation of right and wrong should be the law of the
>> land. Sadly few of them display any knowledge whatsoever of even
>> elementary civics.
>
> I'm sorry, but arguing that "legislation from the Bench" doesn't
> happen has nothing to do with that point and everything to do with
> assuming that what one learned in high school civics has some relation
> to reality.
I'm not making these assumptions based on my high school civics lessons.
My personal education extends well beyond that, but once again you've
missed the point. The point was that the poster I was responding to, and
in fact many of the posters in this thread don't have even the admittedly
basic knowledge that one gets in a high school civics class and yet they
pontificate on these matters as if they are an authority.
>
[email protected] (David Hall) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Secret Squirrel <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make
>> laws. They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws.
>> Its that whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
>
> That's a good one!! If I hire someone to "interpret" spanish for me
> and he tells me that "uno" means "take out the trash", he was NOT
> interpreting, he was just making it up.
Thats hardly the same thing. One is a case where there is a simple fact
and a single word at that. The other is one where there is legislation
that can run into hundreds of pages of not always crystal clear text.
That is what judges do as far
> as I am concerned. When Supreme Court Justice Blackmum spoke
> approvingly about a "living Constitution" he was simply saying that he
> was happy that he did not have to abide by some document written and
> approved by some old white guys and that he (with the concurrance of 4
> other Justices) could just make it up as they go and "pass laws" by
> decree. This is the very definition of a dictatorship - or more
> specifically an Oligarchy - 9 people in power for life that can make
> law by decree.
And yet the very concept of these 9 people appointed for life was created
by those same "old white guys" Those same 9 people are appointed by the
president. The president who, the last election not withstanding, was
appointed by the majority of voters and only after approval by the
Senate, again placed there by the voters.
>
> Dave Hall
>
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> "George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Horsehocky!
>>
>> Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
>> by judges under the guise of interpretation.
>>
>> For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
>> "hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.
>>
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis
>>> for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few
>>> changes
>> to
>>> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
>>> difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
>>> prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or
>>> a locally
>> fashionable,
>>> whim.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes "statute
law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a part
of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
> @news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>
>>> "George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Horsehocky!
>>>>
>>>> Judicial activism has negated the legislative branch. Laws are made
>>>> by judges under the guise of interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> For fashion, consider how "faggot" is interpreted as non-protected
>>>> "hate speech," while "homophobe" is not, as the NJ business heats up.
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a
> basis
>>>>> for future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very
> few
>>>>> changes
>>>> to
>>>>> the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally
>>>>> difficult to change specifically to protect if from people who would
>>>>> prefer to ignore certain aspects, or to change them to suit their,
> or
>>>>> a locally
>>>> fashionable,
>>>>> whim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
>>> They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its
> that
>>> whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.
>>
>> Yes, the public schools _have_ failed us. The legislature makes
> "statute
>> law". Judges make what is called "case law", which is just as much a
> part
>> of the law as statute law. Further, you're missing the point.
>>
>
> Case law is not law, it is an interpretation of the law.
In your opinion.
So when kids get bussed all over creation to promote racial balance, what
law are the local governments obeying?
> Those
> interpretations my be relied on in the future or new interpretations may
> occur, but the basic law (no quotes needed), does not change.
Of course it does. The court can abolish the "basic law" entirely, or in
part, or extend it far beyond anything that the legislature intended.
> My point which seems to have been missed is that the majority of people
> responding to this otherwise ridiculous thread seem to think that their
> interpretation of right and wrong should be the law of the land. Sadly
> few of them display any knowledge whatsoever of even elementary civics.
I'm sorry, but arguing that "legislation from the Bench" doesn't happen has
nothing to do with that point and everything to do with assuming that what
one learned in high school civics has some relation to reality.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:50:11 -0500, Secret Squirrel <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
>>> @news4.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
... snip
>> In your opinion.
>
>Not my opinion, simply a statement of fact. You're attempting to argue
>semantics and you've gotten it wrong.
>>
>> So when kids get bussed all over creation to promote racial balance,
>> what law are the local governments obeying?
>
>Not an issue of law, but rather one of public policy. Again you're
>comparing apples and oranges.
Public policy instituted by judicial fiat, not by legislative action.
The courts ruled that various municipalities *had* to enforce the
judicially commanded desegregation by busing students from one area to
another. In many cases, the judges also determined how many students were
to be bused and from where. The judges certainly viewed what they were
doing as a matter of law, they further overturned legislative actions and
ordered that legislative bodies enact laws to implement their decrees.
Doesn't sound much like public policy nor local government to me.
Leon wrote:
> I say let the laws be come more simple and let the jury decide.
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Er, anyone else notice the contradiction above?
G
"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> 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.
I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
caught.
That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
really saw it or not.
Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?
Leon writes:
>> 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.
>
>I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
>pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
>the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
>protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
>not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
>caught.
>That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
>really saw it or not.
>
>Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?
WTF does that have to do with the Consitution? Or chasing and jumping on
thieves by WalMart clerks?
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
Leon wrote:
> 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.
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
In article <[email protected]>, Secret Squirrel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thats correct, and since the administration has labeled these people
>enemy combatants, they are by definition prisoners of war.
That is not correct.
>>
>> The Geneva Convention allows spies and saboteurs to be shot on sight.
>
>Also correct, however once taken into custody they become prisoners of
>war and enntitled to certain treatments which are still being withheld by
>this administration.
That is also not correct. Certain specific conditions must be met in order for
a prisoner to be subject to the Geneva Conventions; these include serving in a
regular army or organized militia, and wearing the uniform or insignia
thereof. The terrorists whom we captured do not meet these conditions, and
they are not protected by the G.C.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Is that what you are doing here?
>
> 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.
Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
the stage of suspect has been passed.
>
> 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.
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" <[email protected]> wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not true. The jurors explicitly stated that the cutting up of the body
>> was part of their deliberations
>
>
> 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?
>
>
Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Is that what you are doing here?
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red
> handed, the stage of suspect has been passed.
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.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:8COUc.1953$e_.345 @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
> .
>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
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.
Secret Squirrel responds:
>>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>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.
Oh, come on, man. Texas and John Wayne and common sense. IIRC, Mark Twain,
somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator, said
that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or maybe I'm
mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh, come on, man. Texas and John Wayne and common sense.
Exactly... ;~) They just naturally go together.
>IIRC, Mark Twain,
> somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator,
said
> that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or
maybe I'm
> mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.
LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from
Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)
Leon responds:
>>IIRC, Mark Twain,
>> somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator,
>said
>> that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or
>maybe I'm
>> mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.
>
>LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from
>Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)
You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
earache or some such.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon responds:
>
> >>IIRC, Mark Twain,
> >> somewhat more accurate and enjoyable than Leon as a social commentator,
> >said
> >> that common sense was quite uncommon. Or maybe it was Will Rogers. Or
> >maybe I'm
> >> mixing it all up with John Wayne's wonderful WWII military record.
> >
> >LOL.. I suspect that maybe the common sense will eventualy radiate from
> >Texas to the rest of the world. ;~)
>
> You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
> earache or some such
John Wayne deliberately avoided military service in World War II because all
the other leading men were going in and he saw the chance to get their
roles. Even A&E's whitewash Biography mentions this.
Bob
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
> earache or some such.
Sure he was, I saw him in a bunch of WWII movies.. ;~), Which is what I
though you were refering to.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
Leon wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
>> earache or some such.
>
> Sure he was, I saw him in a bunch of WWII movies.. ;~), Which is what I
> though you were refering to.
It's my understanding that he volunteered for the Army, the Navy, and the
Marines and they all 4-Fed him for a bad back. Although another version of
that is that it was all a setup.
>> Charlie Self
>> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
> Bierce, The
>> Devil's Dictionary
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:05:23 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
> You really don't get it. Wayne was never in the military. He had a 4 year
> earache or some such.
He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his efforts.
-Doug
Doug Winterburn responds:
>He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
>certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
>for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
>all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
>He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his effort
Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.
His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury
from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas
Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and
fortune?
Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military
effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?
Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?
Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
Jeez, don't you guys read the papers. It's not if you served, but rather
what party you belong to.
Didn't matter for Bush Sr. or Dole, but does for Kerry.
And that's General Stewart, sir! Loved him in Strategic Air Command.
"Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Hm6Vc.7103$%[email protected]...
> Jimmy Stewart!!!
>
General Jimmy Stewart!!!!!
Eddie Munster wrote:
> Jimmy Stewart!!!
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > Doug Winterburn responds:
> >
> >
> >>He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
> >>certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
> >>for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
> >>all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
> >>He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his effort
> >
> >
> > Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.
> >
> > His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury
> > from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas
> > Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and
> > fortune?
> >
> > Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military
> > effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?
> >
> > Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?
> >
> > Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
> > Devil's Dictionary
Jimmy Stewart!!!
Charlie Self wrote:
> Doug Winterburn responds:
>
>
>>He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
>>certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
>>for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
>>all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
>>He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his effort
>
>
> Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.
>
> His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury
> from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas
> Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and
> fortune?
>
> Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military
> effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?
>
> Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?
>
> Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
I thought he retired a colonel?
Grant P. Beagles wrote:
> General Jimmy Stewart!!!!!
>
> Eddie Munster wrote:
>
>
>>Jimmy Stewart!!!
>>
>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>>Doug Winterburn responds:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
>>>>certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
>>>>for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
>>>>all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
>>>>He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his effort
>>>
>>>
>>>Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.
>>>
>>>His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury
>>>from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas
>>>Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and
>>>fortune?
>>>
>>>Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military
>>>effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?
>>>
>>>Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?
>>>
>>>Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.
>>>
>>>Charlie Self
>>>"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
>>>Devil's Dictionary
>
>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:01:56 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
> Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.
If you mean because of the roles he played, then he was also making people
believe he was a real cowboy? He got much closer to action in Viet Nam
than Al Gore.
> > His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee
> injury from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven,
> Douglas Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their
> fame and fortune?
Age of 34 in 1941. Niven was 31 at the same time. He found time to make
two movies while serving during the war. Fairbanks Jr was 31 on Pearl
Harbor day. He served in the Navy. If either earned any medals, they
apparently didn't feel the need to advertise the fact.
> > Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the
> military effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar
> awards?
The military has it's own set of awards/medals. The congressional Gold
Medal is isn't one of them.
>
> Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and
> early '70s?
I think you have it backwards - it wasn't popular to be pro-war in the
'60s and '70s.
>
> Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.
Again, I think you have it backwards - Viet Nam wasn't real popular and
being a supporter wasn't either.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
Doug WInterburn writes:
>Age of 34 in 1941. Niven was 31 at the same time. He found time to make
>two movies while serving during the war. Fairbanks Jr was 31 on Pearl
>Harbor day. He served in the Navy. If either earned any medals, they
>apparently didn't feel the need to advertise the fact.
>
And what relevance do medals have to serving? I know a bunch of good combat
Marines who never got any medals who got nothing but PUCs and Good Conduct
ribbons.
Speaking of age, Clark Gable, who served on bombers, was born in 1901. Gives
him a leg up on super patriot doesn't it?
>The military has it's own set of awards/medals. The congressional Gold
>Medal is isn't one of them.
No shit. My point, exactly.
>
>Again, I think you have it backwards - Viet Nam wasn't real popular and
>being a supporter wasn't eith
No, but I'd bet few of the antiwar protestors were apt to take a shot at Mr.
Morrison.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:16:27 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
> And what relevance do medals have to serving? I know a bunch of good
> combat Marines who never got any medals who got nothing but PUCs and Good
> Conduct ribbons.
The relavence is a recognition or their contributions, whether they were
in the military or not. Guys like Bing Crosby and Bob Hope, like John
Wayne, contributed immensely to troop morale through their USO
involvement.
>
> Speaking of age, Clark Gable, who served on bombers, was born in 1901.
> Gives him a leg up on super patriot doesn't it?
Yup, along with non military types like Crosby, Hope and Wayne:
Clark Gable - Captain, US Army Air Corps. Although beyond draft age, Clark
Gable enlisted as a private in the Air Corps on Aug. 12, 1942 at Los
Angeles. He attended Officers' Candidate School at Miami Beach and
graduated as a second lieutenant. He then attended aerial gunnery school
and in Feb. 1943, on personal orders from Gen. Arnold, went to England to
make a motion picture of aerial gunners in action. He was assigned to the
351st Bomb Group at Polebrook and although neither ordered nor expected to
do so, flew operational missions over Europe in B-17s to obtain the combat
film footage he believed was required for producing the movie entitled
"Combat America." Gable returned to the U.S. in Oct. 1943 and was relieved
from active duty as a major on Jun. 12, 1944 at his own request, since he
was over age for combat. [Source: US Air Force museum - wpafb.af.mil]
>
>>The military has it's own set of awards/medals. The congressional Gold
>>Medal is isn't one of them.
>
> No shit. My point, exactly.
So what's the problem? I thought the left was of the opinion that _any_
medal can't be questioned.
>
>>Again, I think you have it backwards - Viet Nam wasn't real popular and
>>being a supporter wasn't eith
>
> No, but I'd bet few of the antiwar protestors were apt to take a shot at
> Mr. Morrison.
No, but the Japanese and Viet Cong were likely to when he visited the
front lines in the Pacific in WWII and Viet Nam.
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> NO, it hasn't. Do they even teach civics in the public schools where
>> you live?
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
Not only is that how I see it, thats how Jefferson saw it, and thats how
every judge who ever took the bench sees it. First off eyewitness
accounts are often faulty. Secondly whether you like it or not the
constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses against
him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th amendment?
"George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> With the exception of minors and accusing females in sexual assault
> cases.
>
> Or is that just an interpretation?
>
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Secondly whether you like it or not the
>> constition explicity allows for the accused to face the witnesses
>> against him. Or perhaps you would prefer that we repeal the 6th
>> amendment?
>
>
>
Accusing females are often called to the stand, and the accused has that
right. Rape shield laws protect them having their identity exposed to the
public and the press, the do not supercede the rights of the accused
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:8COUc.1953$e_.345 @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
>>> .
>>>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well you know, if that pesky constitution were perfect, there would
>>> not have been any laws written since. It is not a know all solve
>>> all solution and can be interpreted numerous ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that
>> are not really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial,
>
> Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.
Unless I missed something, the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed these
folks right to a trial. Keep in mind also that this only applies to US
citizens. Foreign nationals are subject to the Geneva Convention.
The failure to observe the Geneva Convention in this case is a disgrace
on this administration, but a seperate issue altogether.
>
>> and the
>> guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.
>
> So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from
> a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?
Well, winding up dead for petty theft would certainly qualify, which is
what started this thread.
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:8COUc.1953$e_.345 @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>> .
>>>>>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>>
>>> Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.
>>
>>
>> Unless I missed something, the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed
>> these folks right to a trial. Keep in mind also that this only
>> applies to US citizens. Foreign nationals are subject to the Geneva
>> Convention.
>
> Prisoners of war are subject to the Geneva Convention.
Thats correct, and since the administration has labeled these people
enemy combatants, they are by definition prisoners of war.
>
>> The failure to observe the Geneva Convention in this case is a
>> disgrace on this administration, but a seperate issue altogether.
>
> The Geneva Convention allows spies and saboteurs to be shot on sight.
Also correct, however once taken into custody they become prisoners of
war and enntitled to certain treatments which are still being withheld by
this administration.
>
>>>> and the
>>>> guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.
>>>
>>> So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment
>>> from a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?
>>
>> Well, winding up dead for petty theft would certainly qualify, which
>> is what started this thread.
>
> You're saying that death is a cruel and unusual punishment? In any
> case, since the suspect died while being detained by civilians not in
> the employ of the US or any other government, that particular
> restriction does not apply--the constitution for the most part limits
> the powers of government, not of civilians. If I walk up to you and
> blow your brains out I have violated the law but the law I have
> violated is not part of the Constitution, it is part of the statutes
> of the locality in which I did this.
>
But heard, half-heard in the stillness, Dave Hinz writes --
> On 26 Aug 2004 04:25:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But heard, half-heard in the stillness, Larry Jaques
>> writes --
>>
>>> See "More Guns, Less> Crime" by John Lott, "
>>
>> No, See:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
>> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
>> http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
>> http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
>> http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
>
> Why hide the URLs behind tinyurl links?
Long links.
The first is The Final Bullet in the Body of the More
Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis by John Donohue. It is an
excellent summary of the work by Donohue and Ayers.
The second is Chris Mooney's "Double Barreled Double
Standards" article that demonstrates Lott's blatent
dishonesty in changing and back-dating models.
The third is a summary by Michael Maltz of the severe
reliability problems with the UCR data used by Lott.
The fourth is Michelle Malkin's article on Lott's behavior
last year.
The fifth is Tim Lambert's comprehensive summary of John
Lott's unethical conduct over the past few years.
> Are they that
> obviously biased sources that you don't want people to know
> what they're blindly clicking on?
Nope.
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
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?
Leon asks:
>> 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?
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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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?
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.
>Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
>the stage of suspect has been passed.
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....
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
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?
Leon wrote:
> 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.
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.
> "BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
jury nullification
>
> > "BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> 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?
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
>
>>Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
>>the stage of suspect has been passed.
>
>
> 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....
No. Fighting rentacops is enough to get one killed when they screw up.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:8COUc.1953$e_.345 @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
>> .
>>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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,
Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.
> and the
> guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.
So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from a
punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>
>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:8COUc.1953$e_.345 @newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
>>>> .
>>>>> Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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,
>>
>> Tell it the folks incarcerated at Gitmo.
>
>
> Unless I missed something, the Supreme Court recently re-affirmed these
> folks right to a trial. Keep in mind also that this only applies to US
> citizens. Foreign nationals are subject to the Geneva Convention.
Prisoners of war are subject to the Geneva Convention.
> The failure to observe the Geneva Convention in this case is a disgrace
> on this administration, but a seperate issue altogether.
The Geneva Convention allows spies and saboteurs to be shot on sight.
>>> and the
>>> guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.
>>
>> So what, exactly, distinguishes a "cruel and unusual" punishment from
>> a punishment that is not cruel or is usual or both?
>
> Well, winding up dead for petty theft would certainly qualify, which is
> what started this thread.
You're saying that death is a cruel and unusual punishment? In any case,
since the suspect died while being detained by civilians not in the employ
of the US or any other government, that particular restriction does not
apply--the constitution for the most part limits the powers of government,
not of civilians. If I walk up to you and blow your brains out I have
violated the law but the law I have violated is not part of the
Constitution, it is part of the statutes of the locality in which I did
this.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:08:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And crime in the US tends to be higher than most places.
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
> 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.
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
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:
> 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.
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
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
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.
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:00:36 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:
(snippage throughout)
I said:
>>>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.
>>>
> A good point. I don't think it is something that is going
>to be quick to fix, because it has been decades in the making.
If we as a people could just make the first small step (as 25%
of us voters did in '92) it would be the beginning of very
good things. Consider the snowball effect, and we have a mighty
big mountain of sh*t to start it rolling down...
> Having already deleted a lengthy rant about specific
>problems I see in today's society, I thought I would try again
>with a couple of smaller observations...SIgh.
> We need, as a society to start bucking the trend of
>the government treating us like the humans in The Matrix. We
>have moved a long way towards a "cradle to grave" control, and
>we need to walk away from it. That is a tough road, though.
Ayup. (See reference to Murray below.)
> For decades, we (as represented by our Federal government)
>have presented two faces to the world. On the one hand, we have
>claimed to be seeking democracy, equality and human rights for
>all...And yet, we have pumped up a number of terribly repressive
>and outright evil governments with money, training and arms.
>We have created terrible situations for ourselves by really stupid
>decisions. For a couple of examples...the Bay of Pigs, and, the
>invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. In the first case, we made promises
>to the Cubans that were going to try and overthrow Castro...then
>screwed them by leaving them out to hang in the wind when they made
>the effort. In the latter case, our ambassador said to Saddam that
>the US would have no concerns about Kuwait, leading directly to
>the original invasion that was the root of the current situation.
>I have thought for years that we need to pick a side and stick with
>it. The one thing that we do with this hypocracy is to teach
>the world that we are not to be trusted.
Yeah, and that makes me sick. Read Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy"
for even scarier information about our current misdirection. He
shows what has happened (and will continue to happen) to countries
which are subjected to democracy without having fought for it.
Nasty! And if we keep propping up nastyarse gov'ts, we'll keep
on getting Afghanistans and Iraqs, etc. (Stupid politicians.)
> American society went through some dramatic changes in
>the 50s and 60s, because of the Civil Rights movement, because
>of the Vietnam War, and, because of the rise of the Hippies. Some
>very good things came from this turmoil, but, one of the bad things
>was an attitude of "do your own thing" which has evolved to "do your
>own thing and screw everyone else". This has left us with a society
>where the goal is to get as many goodies for ourselves, rather than
>finding ways to make everyone's life better.
You mean "devolved", right? I'm reading Murray's "What It Means
To Be a Libertarian" right now and am enthralled with his ideas.
It's strongly suggested reading for everyone.
> An attitude grew up during the 70s and 80s that children were
>simply little adults and (for many folks) their opinions should hold
>the same weight as those of their grandparents. This is, alas,
>nonsense. Kids simply do not have the depth of knowledge or wisdom to
>make "the best" decisions at times. It is our responsibility, as
>adults, to teach them not only enough raw data to be able to make
>those decisions, but, the analytical tools necessary to allow them to
>gather MORE data, correlate and process the information and
>add it to their experience database. Because so many of us
>"Don't want to inflict our values" on our kids, we have failed
>to do this.
Yeah, go figure. And it'll bite us in the butts even
more as we blend into our gray years. Hang on!
> But then...I respected my parents a great deal.
Ditto.
> As another facet of this...there is the business of gun
>control. That could easily generate another hundred posts arguing
>both side of the issue. I, personally, think that the problem with
>9/11 was not that there were too many weapons on the planes...but
>that there were too few. I also think that this mindless fear of
>guns that has taken root in too many folks minds is weakening the
>heart of America. They are a tool, nothing more...nothing less.
>When used properly, they can be great things. If it were not
>for guns...We would still be a colony. Accurate control of a gun
>is a difficult skill, and, requires a great deal of mental focus
>and practice, so, it is a good discipline. Finally...slaves can't
>own guns...and that is one reason why the founding fathers noted
>down that the right of private ownership of guns was second only
>to the right of free and unfettered speech.
I used to be anti-gun but after doing a -lot- of reading, I
found the truth: Guns are used in -saving- many more lives
annually than they are in taking them. See "More Guns, Less
Crime" by John Lott, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control"
by Gary Kleck (anti-gun crusader who learned the truth and
switched sides by presenting it in books), etc.
> I don't have the answers. I have a lot of questions. I
>think that if Americans start working back to some of the "old
>fashioned" concepts of personal responsibility, resourcefulness,
>respect for themselves and for others and a willingness to see
>a job and take it on, though, and, if we start setting standards
>for how we want our government to behave as our representative
>and start voting folks out of office if they don't live UP to
>those standards, we might have a chance to get back on the
>positive path.
A freakin' Men!
> John Stossel (sic), in a recent book titled "Give me a break"
>has an interesting chart, showing the percentage of the GNP that is
>eaten up by the government. It is a power curve that goes from a low
>of a few percent back in the 40s to over 40% today. Think about
Yeah, we really must START doing something about that THIS YEAR.
>that. Actually, I found an interesting page that touches on this
>very subject here:
> http://www.patriotist.com/taxfacts.htm
>The facts that I recognize there seem to be fairly good...although
>they seem to quote the GNP percent as 20%. On the other hand, they
>also point out that we have to work until July to pay for our
>share of the taxes collected by the government.
It would appear that 50% = 20% to them, eh?
> No...letting government do it is not a good way to go
>about it. However, at some point, if the gap between the haves,
>the "have mores" and the "have nots" gets too great...there may
>well be a forceful realignment of wealth that will not be fun for
>anyone, but, will be really uncomfortable for the folks at the
>top of the pyramid. Now...in the late 1300s, the Black Death
>acted as the agent to redistribute wealth in Europe, and, did
>a pretty good job of it. I doubt that it will work as well
>here, though.
Murray points out how there were vast changes already happening
when the Civil Rights bills came out to enforce them. Then he
shows how integration, etc. might have increased even more
quickly without the governmental restrictions on all of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the term "Homo Sapiens" is a goal, not a description.
----
http://www.diversify.com Web Design for YOUR Business!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 +0000, Dave Mundt wrote:
[snip]
> 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.
As Yogi says, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it". Makes you
wonder if we haven't already choosen the path when every other TV
advertisement is for boner pills...
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:20:25 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
|
|"Wes Stewart" <n7ws_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
|news:[email protected]...
|
|> 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.
|
|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.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
>ranted:
>
>> 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.
>
>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.
>
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.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends
> -- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
"...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
>"...destroy the world."
>The single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this or any other
>newsgroup.
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.
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >"...destroy the world."
> >The single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this or any other
> >newsgroup.
> Irresponsible posting in newsgroups
> begins not with lax thinking, but with
> admitting that one made a mistake.
Huh? Do you mean that irresponsible posting begins with lax thinking, or
that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
Or...?
> 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.
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?
>that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
>Or...?
The latter of course.
I can see there's a problem with this.
Shouldn't go off half-cocked on
political topics in a woodworking
newsgroup, especially when the gun
is pointed your way, or Charlie's way.
I'll work on it, or shut up....
Now that that's out of the way...
>Help me to learn: at what time was "society" less corrupt?
>
But where do you go from here? Do you
accept the "absolute cliche" the way
a pathologist would examine a bullet
wound, or do you take steps to reduce
the occurrence of such?
And you really don't think it matters who
runs the show, the way the Italians in
WW2 were happy to shout Heil Hitler or
sing Yankee Doodle Dandy?
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
> >Or...?
> The latter of course.
> I can see there's a problem with this.
> Shouldn't go off half-cocked on
> political topics in a woodworking
> newsgroup, especially when the gun
> is pointed your way, or Charlie's way.
> I'll work on it, or shut up....
> Now that that's out of the way...
What "gun" are you talking about?
> >Help me to learn: at what time was "society" less corrupt?
> >
>
> But where do you go from here? Do you
> accept the "absolute cliche" the way
> a pathologist would examine a bullet
> wound, or do you take steps to reduce
> the occurrence of such?
What is an "absolute cliche?"
Reduce the occurence of what? I'm strongly in favor of reducing the number
of bullet wounds.
> And you really don't think it matters who
> runs the show, the way the Italians in
> WW2 were happy to shout Heil Hitler or
> sing Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Where did this one come from?
Charlie was right. Your communication skills need honing. (Obww)
I'll snip out the parts that don't apply
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:02:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
>>>ranted:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>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-
Where I found that implication was the following:
> 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.
So how do we decrease that distance between the have's and the have-nots?
This is where I was getting the feeling that Dave was implying that somehow
we have to narrow that gap. One of the ways to do that is through
government intervention and the perennial, "tax those who have benefited
most from our society" in order to "help those who need it most".
> 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.
BTW, I certainly agree with portions of the above paragraph -- people
have allowed materialism to become their god. Thus more things translates
to more happiness in such a mindset. At the same time, I don't believe
that the lack of funds necessarily means that this drives people to steal.
Lack of morality training is more of a contributor than lack of money.
... snip
> 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,
Again, that comment about increasing extremities -- does this mean he
wants the government to somehow, through regulation or taxation to decrease
the extremes?
> 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
> -- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --
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
Leon wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Is that what you are doing here?
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Absolutely but when there are witnesses and you catch the guy red handed,
> the stage of suspect has been passed.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:00:36 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:
> Greetings and Salutations...
> Going to touch on a couple of things here...bear with
>me.
>
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
>><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
>>>ranted:
>>>
... snip
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Hum...I don't know if *I* am the "prior comment" here or not.
>I suspect I am. In any case, let me touch on this a bit, too. When
>I said "extreme" I was actually thinking more of some of the trend
>towards black and white thinking as discussed above. However, I have
>also spoken out with concern about the increasing disparity between
>the lowest paid job in a given company and the highest paid job. It
>makes no real sense for there to be a 50x or more difference between
>the lowest and highest paid jobs. The main result of this is that it
>fuels the trend of society in general to have more and more folks
>drifting into poverty from what used to be the "Middle Class". I
>would suggest that it would be BRIGHTER for the companies to do more
>to pump up the pay of the lower ranks and lower the pay of the higher
>ranks a bit.
> Do I advocate the government using taxes to do this.
>Emphatically, NO! Money to a politician is like crack to an addict.
>It becomes the center of their lives, and, it does not matter how much
>they have, they always need more. What good does it for anyone for
>the goverment to take (as an example) a million bucks from one guy,
>keep $900,000 of it for their own programs, and, "give back" $100,000
>to folks in poverty? As we have seen time and time again over the
>years, way too much of that cash ends up in the pockets of the "fat
>cats" again through lucrative governmental contracts, double dealing
>and padded billing.
David,
I apologize, I misinterpreted your remarks. I am somewhat
sensitive to the attitude that the government should make sure that
everybody are "equals" as opposed to "equal under the law" and took your
comment on extremes in society in that light. Again, my apologies, I think
you and I share very similar opinions.
Mark
> John Stossel (sic), in a recent book titled "Give me a break"
>has an interesting chart, showing the percentage of the GNP that is
>eaten up by the government. It is a power curve that goes from a low
>of a few percent back in the 40s to over 40% today. Think about
>that. Actually, I found an interesting page that touches on this
>very subject here:
> http://www.patriotist.com/taxfacts.htm
>The facts that I recognize there seem to be fairly good...although
>they seem to quote the GNP percent as 20%. On the other hand, they
>also point out that we have to work until July to pay for our
>share of the taxes collected by the government.
> No...letting government do it is not a good way to go
>about it. However, at some point, if the gap between the haves,
>the "have mores" and the "have nots" gets too great...there may
>well be a forceful realignment of wealth that will not be fun for
>anyone, but, will be really uncomfortable for the folks at the
>top of the pyramid. Now...in the late 1300s, the Black Death
>acted as the agent to redistribute wealth in Europe, and, did
>a pretty good job of it. I doubt that it will work as well
>here, though.
I think what we are going to see here is simply nature taking its course.
The builder generation is aging and the boomer generation is going to
inherit the wealth they built -- some will be used for good, some not.
But, the boomer generation is also aging -- as their heirs inherit, or as
they spend their wealth, I think we will see that being redistributed as a
function of the capitalist process. One thing that can be noticed is that
second generation millionaires, with a few notable exeptions, have a
notoriously bad reputation for being able to hold on to the wealth they
have been given, rather than earned.
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.
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
"Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
>
> He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
> held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
> breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
> courses.
>
> John
That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
Bob Schmall wrote:
> Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That
> someone stealing deserves to die? Why not just cut off his
> hand as they do in less civilized countries?
Hmm. "Different cultures" might be considerably closer to the
truth than "less civilized". I lived in one such country long
enough to wonder what had happened to civilization when I
returned to the USA.
How long has it been since you last felt it safe to leave the
keys in your car (for a year at a time) or to not lock your home
when you went out?
FWIW loss of a hand resulted /only/ from a trial process in which
fairness and justice were of equal importance with law; and which
was tempered with mercy, compassion, and wisdom (required
qualities for judging such matters) - which meant that a lesser
punishment was chosen whenever possible.
I've been fascinated that those people considered incarceration
uncivilized. Interesting thought, no?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> LOL! Atta boy, Leon ... but you're just too damn "Texas" for most with
that
> attitude. ;>) (Like it or not, it is pretty much a fact that most of those
> who have been in this part of the country longer (30 years or more) than
85%
> of the current residents simply aren't programmed to accept scofflaws of
any
> sort gracefully.)
LOL... Yeah Siwngman, I finally indicated to Charlie that our differences
of opinions on this matter are probably a result of where we live and have
lived.
> It's also notable that no matter how small the world becomes, and with all
> the moaning about the loss of regional differences in this country, it
> appears that you can still easily geograhically delineate the participants
> by the logic of their arguments.
LOL Yeah... ;~)
>
> As my 82 year old Dad still maintains to those, mostly eastern,
> acquaintances with a tendency to be a bit apologetic toward criminals of
any
> degree "Believe what you will, just be warned that should you ever turn to
a
> life of crime, don't get caught stealing from me."
Yeah..
"Leon" wrote in message
> What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff
> you? Where do you live?
LOL! Atta boy, Leon ... but you're just too damn "Texas" for most with that
attitude. ;>) (Like it or not, it is pretty much a fact that most of those
who have been in this part of the country longer (30 years or more) than 85%
of the current residents simply aren't programmed to accept scofflaws of any
sort gracefully.)
It's also notable that no matter how small the world becomes, and with all
the moaning about the loss of regional differences in this country, it
appears that you can still easily geograhically delineate the participants
by the logic of their arguments.
As my 82 year old Dad still maintains to those, mostly eastern,
acquaintances with a tendency to be a bit apologetic toward criminals of any
degree "Believe what you will, just be warned that should you ever turn to a
life of crime, don't get caught stealing from me."
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
courses.
John
Leon wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
>>store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
>>person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming
>
> the
>
>>person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
>>
>>But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole
>
> property.
>
>>That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
>
>
>
> IMHO, if you steal, you deserve what happens to you. The simple solution is
> to simply not steal.
> If you are injured and are found innocent, then you have a legitimate reason
> to file against the store or security. Its the lax laws that do not
> discourage crime.
>
>
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No one can outrun a radio
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.
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, you don't ask. You pursue until he/she is apprehended. If there is
> resistance, you are permitted to use enough force to secure the subject
> with cuffs, then after he/she is cuffed (generally) no more force is
> needed. Been there, done that.
Oh,,, so you run them till they drop... Suppose you don"t have the ability
to run as far and simply want to get the deed done.
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**
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.
>
> "Clif" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
> > except
> > > to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall wrote:
(snip)
> >> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's
not
> >> > right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
> > not
> >> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
> >> > justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
> >>
> >> This is realism. He stole.
> >
> > As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>
> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got
to
> trial.
>
> > He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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 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".
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.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That
> > someone stealing deserves to die? Why not just cut off his
> > hand as they do in less civilized countries?
>
> Hmm. "Different cultures" might be considerably closer to the
> truth than "less civilized". I lived in one such country long
> enough to wonder what had happened to civilization when I
> returned to the USA.
>
> How long has it been since you last felt it safe to leave the
> keys in your car (for a year at a time) or to not lock your home
> when you went out?
>
> FWIW loss of a hand resulted /only/ from a trial process in which
> fairness and justice were of equal importance with law; and which
> was tempered with mercy, compassion, and wisdom (required
> qualities for judging such matters) - which meant that a lesser
> punishment was chosen whenever possible.
>
> I've been fascinated that those people considered incarceration
> uncivilized. Interesting thought, no?
Very interesting, and I stand corrected. "Different cultures" is better
phraseology. We are the only WEstern country with the death penalty, so
referring to other culturess as less civilized is ridiculous.
Bob
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> George wrote:
>
> > The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
somewhere
> > beyond your shoulder.
> >
> > No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
except
> > to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
>
> They have these things called handcuffs.....
What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff
you? Where do you live?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>> >>
>>> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> >> message news:[email protected]...
>>> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male
>>> >> > suspect
>> died.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security
>>> >> > guards held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He
>>> >> > couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be
>>> >> > covered in
>> training
>>> >> > courses.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > John
>>> >>
>>> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>>> >
>>> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
>> stealing
>>> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
>>> > civilized countries?
>>> >
>>> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and
>>> > that's not right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a
>>> > legal system,
>> not
>>> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing
>>> > vigilante justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>>>
>>> This is realism. He stole.
>>
>> As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>
> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it
> got to trial.
>
>> He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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 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".
>
>>> It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in
>>> the
>> act
>>> into "vigilante justice".
>>
>> It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
>
> 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.
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?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> >> message news:[email protected]...
>>>>> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male
>>>>> >> > suspect
>>>> died.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The
>>>>> >> > security guards held him on the ground with their knees on
>>>>> >> > his chest. He couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest
>>>>> >> > compression, should be covered in
>>>> training
>>>>> >> > courses.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > John
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That
>>>>> > someone
>>>> stealing
>>>>> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in
>>>>> > less civilized countries?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and
>>>>> > that's not right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within
>>>>> > a legal system,
>>>> not
>>>>> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing
>>>>> > vigilante justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is realism. He stole.
>>>>
>>>> As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>>>
>>> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it
>>> got to trial.
>>>
>>>> He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 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".
>>>
>>>>> It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught
>>>>> in the
>>>> act
>>>>> into "vigilante justice".
>>>>
>>>> It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Define "deadly force".
deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of the
person the force is applied against.
>
>> 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?
>
> Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have
> been no suspect ot apprehend.
If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and yet
there is still a suspect.
Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
> "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
> kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?
Clearly
Should a "reasonable and
> prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
> someone on whom he is kneeling?
If he appears to be in distress, again clearly
Should a person who not a "law
> enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
> "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of
> behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?
I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is unable
to breath. Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee certainly
seems prudent.
>
> In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
> the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their
> action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> >> message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male
>>>>>>> >> > suspect
>>>>>> died.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The
>>>>>>> >> > security guards held him on the ground with their knees on
>>>>>>> >> > his chest. He couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest
>>>>>>> >> > compression, should be covered in
>>>>>> training
>>>>>>> >> > courses.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > John
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That
>>>>>>> > someone
>>>>>> stealing
>>>>>>> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in
>>>>>>> > less civilized countries?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and
>>>>>>> > that's not right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction
>>>>>>> > within a legal system,
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing
>>>>>>> > vigilante justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is realism. He stole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>>>>>
>>>>> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before
>>>>> it got to trial.
>>>>>
>>>>>> He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 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".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> act
>>>>>>> into "vigilante justice".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Define "deadly force".
>>
>> deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of
>> the person the force is applied against.
>
> Now define it so that the "reasonable man" can tell if he's using it.
I can't imagine this being any more clear.
>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would
>>> have been no suspect ot apprehend.
>>
>> If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and
>> yet there is still a suspect.
>
> Weasel words.
You made this an argument of semantics. I simply clarified your faulty
logic.
>
>> Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
>>> "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
>>> kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?
>>
>> Clearly
>
> I see. And on what basis should be be aware of this?
Well, since it seems to be a common theme here, how about a little common
sense? Failing that, law enforcement officers are subject to a
signifigant amount of training. Proper restraint techniques are certainly
part of this.
>
>> Should a "reasonable and
>>> prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
>>> someone on whom he is kneeling?
>>
>> If he appears to be in distress, again clearly
>
> And if he has been struggling right along how does the officer
> determine whether the suspect is "in distress" or simply still trying
> to get away?
Gasping for air, convulsing and attempting to flee are hardly the same
thing.
>
>> Should a person who not a "law
>>> enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
>>> "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard
>>> of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?
>>
>> I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is
>> unable to breath.
>
> So what are the signs of being "unable to breathe while being knelt on
> by security guards"?
You're joking right?
>
>> Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
>> his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee
>> certainly seems prudent.
>
> It's always easy for some guy sitting in an easy chair a thousand
> miles away to tell a guy who was there in the fight what he should
> have done. What you're doing is insisting that someone be jailed on
> the basis of your own Monday-morning quarterbacking.
I never insisted that anyone be jailed, perhaps you should have read the
entire thread. I was simply pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and
fallacies in the OP's statement.
>
>>> In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
>>> the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that
>>> their action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.
>>>
>
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
>> >
>> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
>> > held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
>> > breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
>> > courses.
>> >
>> > John
>>
>> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>
> Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone stealing
> deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
> civilized countries?
>
> This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
> right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system, not
> execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
> justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
This is realism. He stole. He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
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.
It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the act
into "vigilante justice".
If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".
Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die". You
are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension with
penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and gets
hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
problem. Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
"knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things)
that he was dealing with rent-a-cops. Maybe it didn't occur to him that
lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
inability to overpower him.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mark L. wrote:
>
>
> George wrote:
>
>> The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
>> somewhere beyond your shoulder.
>>
>> No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
>> except to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
>
> They have these things called handcuffs.....
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?
> Makes me laugh
>> when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
>> idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
>> walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
>> innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide,
>> so your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
>> designer jeans.
>>
>> Then there's the car chase controversy....
>>
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Leon writes:
>>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect
> died.
>> >> >
>> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security
>> >> > guards held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He
>> >> > couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered
>> >> > in
> training
>> >> > courses.
>> >> >
>> >> > John
>> >>
>> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>> >
>> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
> stealing
>> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
>> > civilized countries?
>> >
>> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
>> > right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
> not
>> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
>> > justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>>
>> This is realism. He stole.
>
> As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got to
trial.
> He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>> 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.
>
> 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 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".
>> It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the
> act
>> into "vigilante justice".
>
> It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
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.
>> If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
>> who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
>> person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".
>>
>> Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die".
> You
>> are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension
> with
>> penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and
> gets
>> hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
>> problem.
>
> Nope--it's giving carte blanche to the person apprehending them to use
> deadly force.
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?
> And don't think I'm favoring the perp.
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.
> If he is judged to be
> a thief, then he deserves the punishment--but not until then.
What punishment? Being sat on?
> Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
>> "knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various
>> things) that he was dealing with rent-a-cops.
>
> So he should ask about store security before committing the crime?
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".
>"Pardon me, may I see the manager about what could happen if I steal
> something?"
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.
>> Maybe it didn't occur to him that
>> lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
>> inability to overpower him.
>
> Talk about "liberals" letting people off. So lack of training gets the
> guard off the hook?
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.
>"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 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.
> If he wasn't properly trained, why did he use the maneuver?
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.
> The only thing the perp should have known was that stealing is wrong.
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.
> Bob
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> >> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's
> not
>> >> > right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal
>> >> > system,
>> > not
>> >> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
>> >> > justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>> >>
>> >> This is realism. He stole.
>> >
>> > As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>>
>> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got
> to
>> trial.
>>
>> > He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > 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 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".
>
> 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.
(a) The Declaration of Independence has no force in law.
(b) Apparently something akin to that defense was accepted by the court in
the extant case.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> >> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male
>>>> >> > suspect
>>> died.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security
>>>> >> > guards held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He
>>>> >> > couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be
>>>> >> > covered in
>>> training
>>>> >> > courses.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > John
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
>>> stealing
>>>> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
>>>> > civilized countries?
>>>> >
>>>> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and
>>>> > that's not right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a
>>>> > legal system,
>>> not
>>>> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing
>>>> > vigilante justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>>>>
>>>> This is realism. He stole.
>>>
>>> As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>>
>> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it
>> got to trial.
>>
>>> He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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 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".
>>
>>>> It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in
>>>> the
>>> act
>>>> into "vigilante justice".
>>>
>>> It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
Define "deadly force".
> 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?
Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have been
no suspect ot apprehend. Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that kneeling on
someone's chest will kill them? Should a "reasonable and prudent law
enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of someone on whom he is
kneeling? Should a person who not a "law enforcement officer" be judged by
the standards of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement
officer" or by the standard of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent
civilian"?
In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that the
guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their action
was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Secret Squirrel wrote:
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> >> message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> >> > Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male
>>>>>> >> > suspect
>>>>> died.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The
>>>>>> >> > security guards held him on the ground with their knees on
>>>>>> >> > his chest. He couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest
>>>>>> >> > compression, should be covered in
>>>>> training
>>>>>> >> > courses.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > John
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That
>>>>>> > someone
>>>>> stealing
>>>>>> > deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in
>>>>>> > less civilized countries?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and
>>>>>> > that's not right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within
>>>>>> > a legal system,
>>>>> not
>>>>>> > execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing
>>>>>> > vigilante justice we are well down the road to barbarism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is realism. He stole.
>>>>>
>>>>> As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
>>>>
>>>> He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it
>>>> got to trial.
>>>>
>>>>> He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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".
>>>>
>>>>>> It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught
>>>>>> in the
>>>>> act
>>>>>> into "vigilante justice".
>>>>>
>>>>> It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Define "deadly force".
>
> deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of the
> person the force is applied against.
Now define it so that the "reasonable man" can tell if he's using it.
>>> 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?
>>
>> Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have
>> been no suspect ot apprehend.
>
> If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and yet
> there is still a suspect.
Weasel words.
> Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
>> "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
>> kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?
>
> Clearly
I see. And on what basis should be be aware of this?
> Should a "reasonable and
>> prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
>> someone on whom he is kneeling?
>
> If he appears to be in distress, again clearly
And if he has been struggling right along how does the officer determine
whether the suspect is "in distress" or simply still trying to get away?
> Should a person who not a "law
>> enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
>> "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of
>> behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?
>
> I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is unable
> to breath.
So what are the signs of being "unable to breathe while being knelt on by
security guards"?
> Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
> his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee certainly
> seems prudent.
It's always easy for some guy sitting in an easy chair a thousand miles away
to tell a guy who was there in the fight what he should have done. What
you're doing is insisting that someone be jailed on the basis of your own
Monday-morning quarterbacking.
>> In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
>> the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their
>> action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
What if the guards were mistaken????
Leon wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone stealing
>>deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
>
> civilized
>
>>countries?
>>
>>This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
>>right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system, not
>>execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
>
> justice
>
>>we are well down the road to barbarism.
>
>
>
> Well I think that the penalty in this case was harsh also. I also do not
> believe that the security guards intended to kill the thief. But. he was
> totally in the wrong and should not have been in this situation to start
> with. He was totally responsible for what happened. He had no one else to
> blame but him self. This guy could have easily have pulled a gun and shot
> at the security guards. IMHO if you are chasing a thief you have to assume
> that he may try to do you harm to keep from getting caught.
>
>
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes I have, and never lost a battle. That's what training was for. Even
> if the bad guy is bigger/stronger/faster good training will make you
> smarter. It's not a guarantee, but it helps to tip the odds in your favor.
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.
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What if the guards were mistaken????
Well, then if they broke the law they would have to be handled accordingly.
What if the guy simply cooperated? He would probably still be alive. One
must always take responsibility for his own life and sometimes common sense
shoud over rule pride to keep you out of trouble.
What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws
to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to
being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....
Leon wrote:
> "Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
>>
>>He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
>>held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
>>breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
>>courses.
>>
>>John
>
>
> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
>
>
No, you don't ask. You pursue until he/she is apprehended. If there is
resistance, you are permitted to use enough force to secure the subject
with cuffs, then after he/she is cuffed (generally) no more force is
needed. Been there, done that.
Leon wrote:
> "Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
>
> somewhere
>
>>>beyond your shoulder.
>>>
>>>No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
>
> except
>
>>>to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
>>
>>They have these things called handcuffs.....
>
>
> What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff
> you? Where do you live?
>
>
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
>who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
>person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".
no, that would be murder.
Yes I have, and never lost a battle. That's what training was for. Even
if the bad guy is bigger/stronger/faster good training will make you
smarter. It's not a guarantee, but it helps to tip the odds in your favor.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Mark L. wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
>>>somewhere beyond your shoulder.
>>>
>>>No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
>>>except to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.
>>
>>They have these things called handcuffs.....
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>> Makes me laugh
>>
>>>when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
>>>idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
>>>walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
>>>innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide,
>>>so your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
>>>designer jeans.
>>>
>>>Then there's the car chase controversy....
>>>
>>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leon writes:
>>>>
>
>
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone stealing
> deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
civilized
> countries?
>
> This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
> right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system, not
> execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice
> we are well down the road to barbarism.
Well I think that the penalty in this case was harsh also. I also do not
believe that the security guards intended to kill the thief. But. he was
totally in the wrong and should not have been in this situation to start
with. He was totally responsible for what happened. He had no one else to
blame but him self. This guy could have easily have pulled a gun and shot
at the security guards. IMHO if you are chasing a thief you have to assume
that he may try to do you harm to keep from getting caught.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
> store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
> person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming
the
> person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
>
> But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole
property.
> That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
IMHO, if you steal, you deserve what happens to you. The simple solution is
to simply not steal.
If you are injured and are found innocent, then you have a legitimate reason
to file against the store or security. Its the lax laws that do not
discourage crime.
Leon writes:
>MHO, if you steal, you deserve what happens to you. The simple solution is
>to simply not steal.
>If you are injured and are found innocent, then you have a legitimate reason
>to file against the store or security. Its the lax laws that do not
>discourage crime.
And who appointed a minimum wage clerk judge, jury and executioner?
If I were attacked by someone like that, I'd feel thoroughly justified in
trying to recall what I learned at Parris Island and later, and applying it.
Even the cops are not allowed to assault suspected criminals, as some find out
to their surprise from time to time.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And who appointed a minimum wage clerk judge, jury and executioner?
It could be a policeman doing the chasing and tackeling and with the liberal
laws he could be in trouble even if he told the suspect to stop.
> If I were attacked by someone like that, I'd feel thoroughly justified in
> trying to recall what I learned at Parris Island and later, and applying
it.
If you were inocent, you would have every right to take action against the
person chasing you. If you were seen taking something and not paying,
"stealing", don't piss on my shoe and tell me it is raining.
> Even the cops are not allowed to assault suspected criminals, as some find
out
> to their surprise from time to time.
Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
Again, don't let the criminal piss on your shoe and tell you is raining.
Leon writes:
>Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
>punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
>is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
>stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
>Again, don't let the criminal piss on your shoe and tell you is raining.
Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with
the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away
with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right
to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had
perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or
about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights
around arrest and incarceration.
Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't
want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they
didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following
me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm
too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell
remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.
And then call the lawyers.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:42:20 GMT, "Clif" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back
>of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop covered
>in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
>call him a pig"
>
>There are some people out there who will only respect a
>policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
>are not helping them, they dont care
>
>Clif
they have a tough job. but it's one they signed up for. give them
cretit for what they do, and hold them to the highest standards.
Frankly, I think they're underpaid and the hiring standards are way
too lax.
me, I've seen way too much abuse of authority to have any respect for
the uniform. cops are people. they want my respect, they need to earn
it.
>they have a tough job. but it's one they signed up for. give them
>cretit for what they do, and hold them to the highest standards.
Is this you? That's what would give the truth to this statement. Are you happy
that you're fulfilling what you signed up for?
How would we know?
I've seen too many liberals put the
strong, straight and narrow strap on
others while practicing indulgent
behavior themselves.
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:06:16 GMT, "Clif" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
>with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the amount
>of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
>military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
>minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.
>
>Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I didnt,
>so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
>contractor
>
>GOD BLESS THE USA
>
>Clif
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:
http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Tommy.htm
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
>
> they have a tough job. but it's one they signed up for. give them
> cretit for what they do, and hold them to the highest standards.
> Frankly, I think they're underpaid and the hiring standards are way
> too lax.
Yes they do sign up, and yes there should be tougher standards
>
> me, I've seen way too much abuse of authority to have any respect for
> the uniform. cops are people. they want my respect, they need to earn
> it.
>
>
ALL cops have my respect until they do something to lose it. And yes they
are highly underpaid, but this is a topic for another forum, I know i have
already gone way off woodworking already
Clif
"Clif" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
> with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the
amount
> of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
> military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
> minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.
>
> Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I
didnt,
> so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
> contractor
>
> GOD BLESS THE USA
>
> Clif
Good for you Clif. All I was able to contribute was and is my undying
admiration and gratitude for all of them.
Leon responds:
>> What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
>> with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the
>amount
>> of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
>> military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
>> minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.
>>
>> Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I
>didnt,
>> so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
>> contractor
>>
>> GOD BLESS THE USA
>>
>> Clif
>
>Good for you Clif. All I was able to contribute was and is my undying
>admiration and gratitude for all of them.
Fine. Next time you run into a vet, buy him or her a drink. Has nothing at all
to do with what you were arguing about.
You're going off the deep end about cops and military and ignoring the fact
that the OP was writing about clerks in a frigging WalMart store!
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Fine. Next time you run into a vet, buy him or her a drink. Has nothing at
all
> to do with what you were arguing about.
>
I to that pretty often anyway as many of my relatives have served.
> You're going off the deep end about cops and military and ignoring the
fact
> that the OP was writing about clerks in a frigging WalMart store!
No, I am not getting excited or deep, I believe that a person has the right
to defend his property and do what ever is necessary within the law to stop
a thief. If that means a rent a cop going after a thief, that is what I am
paying him for. I was originally pointing out that is too bad that liberal
laws give a thief way too much protection and not enough protection to those
that he is robbing.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice,
with
> the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
No, simply that the suspect stop running when a police officer is chasing
him. If the officer breaks a law then he will have to deal with that
problem. But If you run from a policeman and he tells you to stop and you
don't, you are just asking for problems as well you should be.
> Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get
away
> with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the
right
> to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was
someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
anyone to stop and to stop that person.
> If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though,
had
> perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle
prisoners, or
> about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has
perfect
> judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular
rights
> around arrest and incarceration.
It is not a perfect world and never will be as long as we allow criminals to
rule our lives and get away with breaking the law. Still I believe that a
policeman should work within the law but a policeman is only human and if
you piss him off you should expect the consequenses. When people stop
respecting the policemans athority they should not expect to be treated like
royalty.
> Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them.
But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers
to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.
> want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because
they
> didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them
following
> me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things.
Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you
will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
something that you have not paid for.
>I'm too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as
hell
> remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.
>
> And then call the lawyers.
And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the
liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right
to protect their property?
Leon states:
>You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was
>someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
>anyone to stop and to stop that person.
The original statement had zip to do with cops. It was clerks in a WalMart
store.
>
>But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers
>to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
>The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.
Bullshit. Criminals fear jail time, but they know that a good lawyer means
their only jail time will be in the arrest pen.
>
>Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you
>will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
>something that you have not paid for.
I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.
>And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the
>liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right
>to protect their property?
When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not done
anything?
Neither one of us knows whether the parties jumped were guilty or innocent.
But, then, neither did the clerks who did the jumping. They thought they knew.
Different thing.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon states:
>
> >You are blowing this out of proportion. I believe the original idea was
> >someone being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
> >anyone to stop and to stop that person.
>
> The original statement had zip to do with cops. It was clerks in a
Wal-Mart
> store.
Clerks, cops, or rent a cops. If the thief gets hurt during a crime, too
bad for him. We should not have to fear hurting him when he is caught red
handed.
> >But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police
officers
> >to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
> >The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.
>
> Bullshit. Criminals fear jail time, but they know that a good lawyer means
> their only jail time will be in the arrest pen.
Therefore, they do not fear going to jail.
> >
> >Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriously doubt that you
> >will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
> >something that you have not paid for.
>
> I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.
If you are stealing you certainly do and I would gladly prove my innocence
if asked to display the inside of my coat if approached in a store that I am
visiting. I may never go back but I would respect the store for trying to
protect it's assets. It certainly beats making a scene and for sure looking
guilty, guilty or not.
> >And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way,
the
> >liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the
right
> >to protect their property?
>
> When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not done
> anything?
> Neither one of us knows whether the parties jumped were guilty or
innocent.
> But, then, neither did the clerks who did the jumping. They thought they
knew.
> Different thing.
True.
So how is the Bird House Book coming?
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
"G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> You're kidding, right?
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.
> 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.
That is what I believe I said.
>
> 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).
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 states:
>> I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.
>
>If you are stealing you certainly do and I would gladly prove my innocence
>if asked to display the inside of my coat if approached in a store that I am
>visiting. I may never go back but I would respect the store for trying to
>protect it's assets. It certainly beats making a scene and for sure looking
>guilty, guilty or not.
>
You are shitting me? Making a scene worries you? I don't respect stores for
protecting their assets. I respect them for giving the customer a good deal,
taking care of business and making a sensible profit.
If I am stealing...some clerk is going to decide that, from something he or she
saw or thinks he saw.
Like hell.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You are shitting me? Making a scene worries you?
No, at the top of my lungs I have more than once called for a manager to
open more check outs at a large store. But if the employee indicates to me
that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about their
business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort town
in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that I
had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had done
and promptly got back inside the store. Had an employee called me on this I
would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look as
wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty. Thieves use the
same tactics. Draw attention elsewhere and let someone else walk off with
the goods. Yes, I gladly let the employees check me out if the suspect me.
I and you could easily do something that looks quite suspitious.
I don't respect stores for protecting their assets.
You would rather pay higher prices to make up for stolen goods?
I respect them for giving the customer a good deal, taking care of business
and making a sensible profit.
Unfortunately protecting ones assets is part of that formula of making a
sensable profit.
> If I am stealing...some clerk is going to decide that, from something he
or she
> saw or thinks he saw.
>
> Like hell.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
Leon responds:
>But if the employee indicates to me
>that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about their
>business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort town
>in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
>alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
>door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that I
>had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had done
>and promptly got back inside the store. Had an employee called me on this I
>would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look as
>wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty.
Of what? Forgetfulness? You weren't stealing the stuff.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon responds:
>
> >But if the employee indicates to me
> >that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about
their
> >business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort
town
> >in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
> >alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
> >door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that
I
> >had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had
done
> >and promptly got back inside the store. Had an employee called me on
this I
> >would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look
as
> >wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty.
>
> Of what? Forgetfulness? You weren't stealing the stuff.
No, I was not stealing the stuff but I could sure under stand how an
employee would have viewed it.
Charlie, neither one of us are idiots, ;~), I think that both of us have
valid views perhaps given our back grounds of where we live or have lived.
If I still lived in Corpus Christi where I grew up, I would probably see
things a bit more your way. I do indeed recall seeing things your way.
However now I live in Houston, TX and see things in a completely different
light. I'd say 99% of the people getting chased down are caught red handed
and not for the first time by the same stores.
Leon wrote:
> So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???
>
> I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
> Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
> happened. No body gets out a live.
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
"Mark L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
> >>
> >> He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
> >> held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
> >> breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in
training
> >> courses.
> >>
> >> John
>
>
> That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???
I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
happened. No body gets out a live.
Leon wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>You are shitting me? Making a scene worries you?
>
>
> No, at the top of my lungs I have more than once called for a manager to
> open more check outs at a large store. But if the employee indicates to me
> that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about their
> business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort town
> in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
> alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
> door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that I
> had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had done
> and promptly got back inside the store.
Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
>>
>> He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
>> held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
>> breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
>> courses.
>>
>> John
That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???
Had an employee called me on this I
> would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look as
> wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty. Thieves use the
> same tactics. Draw attention elsewhere and let someone else walk off with
> the goods. Yes, I gladly let the employees check me out if the suspect me.
> I and you could easily do something that looks quite suspitious.
>
>
Mark L writes:
>
> >> Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
> >>
> >> He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
> >> held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
> >> breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training
> >> courses.
> >>
> >> John
>
>
>That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.
Sort of a Draconian punishment for stealing a few bucks worth of diapers, I'd
say, and something of a drastic technique for holding a person until the real
cops arrive. I'd say his family has a suit, but what do I know. I'm not a
compassionate Conservative, nor am I a lawyer.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:31 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
> > So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???
> >
> > I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
> > Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
> > happened. No body gets out a live.
>
> ...and you can hasten the process if you ignore mother nature's rule:
> Screw with the bull and you get the horn.
>
Exactly seems only common sense to me too.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:31 +0000, Leon wrote:
> So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???
>
> I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
> Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
> happened. No body gets out a live.
...and you can hasten the process if you ignore mother nature's rule:
Screw with the bull and you get the horn.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
Charlie Self wrote:
> Leon states:
>
>>You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was
>>someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
>>anyone to stop and to stop that person.
>
> The original statement had zip to do with cops. It was clerks in a WalMart
> store.
>>
>>But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers
>>to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
>>The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.
>
> Bullshit. Criminals fear jail time, but they know that a good lawyer means
> their only jail time will be in the arrest pen.
>>
>>Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you
>>will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
>>something that you have not paid for.
>
> I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.
Jesus is right. It's common courtesy to answer reasonable questions posed
by the designated representatives of the owners of the property on which
you are standing. I don't see why you have a problem with it.
>>And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the
>>liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right
>>to protect their property?
>
> When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not done
> anything?
Walking onto somebody else's property and then getting pissed off when they
ask you what you are doing there is not "doing nothing". In fact it is
downright suspicious.
> Neither one of us knows whether the parties jumped were guilty or
> innocent. But, then, neither did the clerks who did the jumping. They
> thought they knew. Different thing.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
> Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jesus is right. It's common courtesy to answer reasonable questions posed
> by the designated representatives of the owners of the property on which
> you are standing. I don't see why you have a problem with it.
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.
> >>And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way,
the
> >>liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the
right
> >>to protect their property?
When "Liberal Laws" were passed. That does not mean laws passed by
liberals.
> >
> > When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not
done
> > anything?
>
> Walking onto somebody else's property and then getting pissed off when
they
> ask you what you are doing there is not "doing nothing". In fact it is
> downright suspicious.
Exactly, but some think that this is profiling..
What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the amount
of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.
Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I didnt,
so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
contractor
GOD BLESS THE USA
Clif
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Clif" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the
back
> > of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop
> covered
> > in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you
still
> > call him a pig"
> >
> > There are some people out there who will only respect a
> > policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if
they
> > are not helping them, they dont care
> >
> > Clif
>
>
> EXACTLY... Next thing you know our soldiers will loose our respect...
> Ah.. seems like this happened to our admiral soldiers during the Viet Nam
> war.
>
>
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
>
> 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:
>
> http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Tommy.htm
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA
On 17 Aug 2004 19:09:26 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
|Leon writes:
|
|>Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
|>punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
|>is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
|>stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
|>Again, don't let the criminal piss on your shoe and tell you is raining.
|
|Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with
|the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
|
|Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away
|with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right
|to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
|
|If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had
|perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or
|about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
|judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights
|around arrest and incarceration.
|
|Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't
|want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they
|didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following
|me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm
|too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell
|remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.
Unfortunately, in Arizona alledged shoplifting is a capital crime
punishable by summary execution.
Quote from: http://www.1delta.net/news0604.html
" D.A. Will NOT File Charges In Death Of Shoplifter
(Tucson,AZ-June 13,2004)--On Feb 26, Frank Hernandez,36, entered the
Safeway Food & Drug store and was soon suspected of shoplifting by the
store's Security Guards. When the Security Guards tried to detain
Hernandez for questioning, the suspect resisted and a struggle ensued
resulting in Hernandez death. On Fri. the Pima County Attorney's
Office stated they do NOT plan to file charges in the case against the
store & Security Guards involved. An autopsy showed Hernandez died of
"asphyxia due to neck compression" and also had internal hemorrhaging
and suffered blunt-force injuries. In a letter to the Tucson Police
Department, Deputy County Attorney Rick Unklesbay said, "Frank
Hernandez's death is tragic, but I cannot conclude that it is
criminal." Unklesbay said several factors played into his decision,
from witness accounts that described Hernandez as provoking the fight
to a state law that allows merchants to detain suspected shoplifters.
Another state law also allows people to use physical force when
detaining others for law enforcement."
End quote.
A newspaper article indicated that the security guard had no problem
whatsoever "taking down" Mr. Hernandez, so I believe that any
"self-defense-in-fear-of-my life" defense is inapplicable.
Note the last two sentences in the quoted material. Any store
employee, or agent can detain *anyone* they suspect of shoplifting.
If that person resists, physical force can be used to detain the
individual. It appears that if this escalates to *deadly force* that
is okay too.
ARS 13-1805.5.C states: A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee,
with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable
manner and for a reasonable time any person suspected of shoplifting
as defined in subsection A of this section for questioning or
summoning a law enforcement officer.
ARS 13-1805.5.D states: Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or
criminal action against a peace officer, a merchant or an agent or
employee of such merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful
imprisonment or wrongful detention.
(I will write more about the above in another post.)
ARS 13-408 states: A person is justified in using physical force
against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would
believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe
is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal
damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or
control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these
circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.
None of these sections seem to apply to shoplifting, but the DA
obviously thinks they do.
So in Arizona anyway, if you leave the Borg and the buzzer goes off as
you go out the door because the clerk didn't zap the rfid tag, and you
keep walking, you can be killed. Who said the wild west was dead.
On 17 Aug 2004 19:09:26 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Leon writes:
>
>>Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
>>punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
>>is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
>>stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
>>Again, don't let the criminal piss on your shoe and tell you is raining.
>
>Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with
>the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
>
>Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away
>with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right
>to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
>
>If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had
>perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or
>about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
>judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights
>around arrest and incarceration.
nothing unfortunate about that. those laws came into being for very
specific and valid reasons, reasons that remain present.
>
>Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't
>want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they
>didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following
>me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm
>too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell
>remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.
>
>And then call the lawyers.
>
>Charlie Self
>"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
>Devil's Dictionary
bridger responds:
>>perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners,
>or
>>about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
>>judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular
>rights
>>around arrest and incarceration.
>
>
>nothing unfortunate about that. those laws came into being for very
>specific and valid reasons, reasons that remain present.
Yes, well...I was aiming at sarcasm and even missed irony, I guess.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Clif" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back
> of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop
covered
> in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
> call him a pig"
>
> There are some people out there who will only respect a
> policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
> are not helping them, they dont care
>
> Clif
EXACTLY... Next thing you know our soldiers will loose our respect...
Ah.. seems like this happened to our admiral soldiers during the Viet Nam
war.
I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back
of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop covered
in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
call him a pig"
There are some people out there who will only respect a
policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
are not helping them, they dont care
Clif
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice,
> with
> > the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
>
> No, simply that the suspect stop running when a police officer is chasing
> him. If the officer breaks a law then he will have to deal with that
> problem. But If you run from a policeman and he tells you to stop and you
> don't, you are just asking for problems as well you should be.
>
> > Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people
get
> away
> > with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the
> right
> > to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
>
> You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was
> someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
> anyone to stop and to stop that person.
>
> > If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though,
> had
> > perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle
> prisoners, or
> > about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has
> perfect
> > judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular
> rights
> > around arrest and incarceration.
>
> It is not a perfect world and never will be as long as we allow criminals
to
> rule our lives and get away with breaking the law. Still I believe that a
> policeman should work within the law but a policeman is only human and if
> you piss him off you should expect the consequenses. When people stop
> respecting the policemans athority they should not expect to be treated
like
> royalty.
>
> > Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them.
>
> But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers
> to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
> The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.
>
> > want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket
because
> they
> > didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them
> following
> > me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things.
>
> Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you
> will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
> something that you have not paid for.
>
> >I'm too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure
as
> hell
> > remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going
down.
> >
> > And then call the lawyers.
>
> And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the
> liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right
> to protect their property?
>
>
>
>
>
Clif responds (though God knows to what):
>I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back
>of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop covered
>in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
>call him a pig"
WTF does this have to do with a clerk jumping someone?
>There are some people out there who will only respect a
>policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
>are not helping them, they dont care
Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Cops/firemen/EMS
deserve respect when they do their jobs well. When they don't, they deserve no
respect.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
We got off topic of an off topic post, its all good, dont get upset. If you
want to deal with that specific, how does a clerk jumping someone have to do
with someone being a witness to shoplifting...life is too short to argue
this much
Have a great day Charlie
Clif
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clif responds (though God knows to what):
>
> >I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the
back
> >of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop
covered
> >in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
> >call him a pig"
>
> WTF does this have to do with a clerk jumping someone?
>
> >There are some people out there who will only respect a
> >policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
> >are not helping them, they dont care
>
> Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Cops/firemen/EMS
> deserve respect when they do their jobs well. When they don't, they
deserve no
> respect.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
Believe me, I have no problem embarrasing people in public, ask my neices
and nephews lol
Clif
"Eddie Munster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:w%[email protected]...
>
>
> Clif wrote:
>
> their wallet will belong to me :-)
> >
>
> Don't go willingly. Make sure you get falsly detained. And be sure it is
> an embarrassing scene with them dragging you off.
> You have to cover all the angles.
>
> John
>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:19:17 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Revenge streak or not, those employees had better be damned sure those
>people
>> they are injuring can be proved to be thieves. If there's the slightest
>doubt,
>> they open themselves and WalMart to a case of which lawyer's dream,
>especially
>> with personal injury added to false accusations.
>
>I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
>is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
>protect the guilty.
>
>
>
>
any law that limits a corporation is good (TM)2004
On 17 Aug 2004 23:37:21 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>bridger writes:
>
>>
>>any law that limits a corporation is good (TM)2004
>
>I'm gonna steal that!
>
>Charlie Self
>"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
>Devil's Dictionary
I'll send my lawyer right over to beat the crap outta you... <G>
I could only hope they mistake me for a thief :-) May God have mercy on
their souls because their wallet will belong to me :-)
ok back to the shadows ...
Clif
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom responds:
>
> >n the other
> >hand, twice in the last month, I've been almost knocked down by
aggressive
> >staff at WalMart as they chased a shoplifter out of their store and
tackled
> >them right in front of me. The last shoplifter was screaming in pain
that
> >they had broken some part of his body. And a third time, the emt's were
> >attaching a body board to a young lady on the tarmac as I approached the
> >store. I suspect another tackling had taken place. This particular
store
> >seems to be on a revenge streak since a shoplifter shot a couple of
> >employees (not fatally) before the cops shot her (fatally) as she was
being
> >interviewed in the security office a couple of years ago.
>
> Revenge streak or not, those employees had better be damned sure those
people
> they are injuring can be proved to be thieves. If there's the slightest
doubt,
> they open themselves and WalMart to a case of which lawyer's dream,
especially
> with personal injury added to false accusations.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
> Devil's Dictionary
Sears has an asset protection department. There sole purpose is to stop
inventory loss. I'm surprised that this store is allowing this to happen.
It's a quick way to get the AP manager replaced.
I work part time in a Sears stock room (gotta love that employee discount), and
in my 2 years there I've seen them nab plenty of shoplifters, tools aren't
usually what they're after. Watches, jewelry, electric razors and clothes are
their favorite targets.
Kevin Daly
http://hometown.aol.com/kdaly10475/page1.html
Hey BUB where are you located? I was living in Blue Island till I moved to
Cinci. Larry
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This post will be a little depressing to some of you, so you might want to
read
> it with a friend - and then wonder why prices might be a little higher at
> Sears.
> I was at the Sears Hardware in Alsip, IL last week, checking out at the
> register.
> This big kid in a winter parka sauntered in and started crusing the tool
> aisles,
> up and down, up and down. One of the older male employees called for
help,
> but all they would do was stand a couple of aisles away with their backs
to the
> kid. It was pretty obvious what was happening. The next day I went in
for
> something or other and asked the old guy if what I thought I was seeing
was
> what was really happening, and he said, yeah, on a daily basis. Many of
the
> Sears Hardware stores are going under. They're staffed with a skeleton
crew
> of mimimum wage employees whose only self-defense training is for punching
> themselves in the chest to get the pacemaker going again, so they aren't
> going to run out the door to tackle the guys. So if you want to add to
your
> tool collection, come over to Sears Hardware. It's open season.
>