The Juice is Loose Juiced (Trees And Things)

wetkarma: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:23:38 EST

Well its no secret that libertarians (who as you know I lean towards) and some aspects of the far-right have philosophies in company. Sarah Palin leans libertarian like I do, so its no surprise to me that she would favor jury nullification. I don't object

wetkarma: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:06:22 EST

josh,
Apologies -- certainly I didn't meant to ignore you point. I thought I had addressed it by saying that there are flaws in the jury system. Certainly if you don't select a jury 'of your peers' -- i.e. if only a specific portion of the population i

thefadd: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:48:07 EST

This was not so much a problem with juries themselves but one cultivated by a prosecutorial system in which judges were complicit in not allowing blacks to serve on juries. It is the responsibility of the justice system to ensure fair juries in the first p

joshv: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:02:58 EST

You might be pleased to know that you are in good company. Governor Palin also supports jury nullification. Seems the far right is pretty fond of the conce

joshv: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:39:35 EST

"Nah - I trust juries use their judgement in place of the law. "

I've given you an example (which you ignored) where juries could not be trusted to use their judgment in place of the law. In the south, not so long ago, it was quite common to find

thefadd: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:13:22 EST

Hey, if you wanna take your chances with a jury of your peers, be my guest :-)

skeptic: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:55:32 EST

As long as the police are going to have to get involved anyway, it would seem that O.J. Simpson would have done better to just call the police in the first place, rather than trying to seize the memorabilia by force, or even (as he might have done) trying

thefadd: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:45:11 EST

Not even the cops can shoot someone if they try to escape from being arrested unless they pose a direct threat in which case anyone with a legal fire arm can do the same in most states. Of course you need the police to complete the booking and jailing proc

wetkarma: Re: You have a ton of faith, wetkarma.

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:44:35 EST

MayorB - you make a lot of valid anecdotal points and I freely concede that the way that jurys are selected has its flaws.

However, Confucius was said to have said, never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.

There are hundreds o

skeptic: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:23:47 EST

So even if you are trying to make a citizen's arrest you might still need the police to come and make a more official type of arrest, particularly if the person you are trying to arrest is as well armed (or better armed) than you are.

And could you also

MayorBob: You have a ton of faith, wetkarma.

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:57:32 EST

Having served on juries, I'm less than ready to replace the framework of laws for the considered judgments of 12 people randomly selected from the general population. There is no entrance requirement to serve on a jury, basically it's simply register

wetkarma: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:36:56 EST

I see - you believe that individuals should be able to substitute their own judgment in place of the law. All individuals? You trust everyone's judgment?

Nah - I trust juries use their judgement in place of the law. The la

Shy Elf: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:55:57 EST

In that case, they can have a standoff, and call the police and have the police take both groups to court to have the court decide what to do. The police aren't supposed to be judge and jury either.

joshv: Re: in my shoes

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:35:26 EST

I see - you believe that individuals should be able to substitute their own judgment in place of the law. All individuals? You trust everyone's judgment?

You might look to relatively recent US history for some very sinister examples of jury

pO157: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:50:32 EST

I'm not sure how it works in every area, but I was under the impression that citizens can't arrest people for minor crimes or events that occur outside their presence.

I thought the point behind a citizens arrest was that you could stop a mugger from b

skeptic: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:04:33 EST

If it is true that all citizens, whether they are members of a police force or not, have exactly the same rights and responsibilities for the enforcement of the law, then why do we even bother to hire police? We are all police, in effect. &nbs

wetkarma: Re: in my shoes

Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:03:13 EST

joshv,
As you suspect, I'm indicating my support for jury nullification.

That said - just like in defamation where truth is a defense, you shouldn't be able to be convicted for armed robbery if the stuff in question is provably yours.

thefadd: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:39:01 EST

The idea that a police officer has more "rights" in enforcing the law is a fallacy. All individuals have the same rights and social responsibilities in enforcing the law. I would merely point to the case of the New Jersey governor, Corzine. He was not issu

skeptic: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:50:44 EST

When citizens act as if they are police officers, by enforcing the law themselves rather than leaving that to actual police, they are either being public-spirited citizens fulfilling their civic duty, or they are vigilantes, typically reinterpreting the la

thefadd: Re: Citizen's Arrest

Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:41:18 EST

This wouldn't have happened if Johnny Cochran were still alive.

Shy Elf: Citizen's Arrest

Tue, 7 Oct 2008 04:52:16 EST

Despite it being more common to have a police officer do it for you, in order to avoid charges of false arrest, a citizen's arrest by force is legal in all 50 states. The two dealers were caught in the act of knowingly selling stolen property, which

delete me: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:17:21 EST

That's never been a valid defense for receiving stolen property, has it? You'd be legally obliged to return it, though I suppose it would take more than mere say-so.

"Hey, is that my money in your wallet?"

thefadd: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:02:52 EST

Personally, Beardsley's testimony was enough to convince me that not enough of the facts were actually present to find any conviction. I'd have to deny the assumed "facts" that OJ just went in somewhere with guns drawn and wouldn't let people leave. You've

thefadd: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:54:29 EST

Granted the kidnapping charges, which are I believe the ones which have him facing life in prison, were likely drawn up as payback for his getting off on the criminal murder charges 13 years ago.

The kidnapping conviction was because the juror

joshv: Re: in my shoes

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:56:18 EST

I am interested in how you would write a law to accommodate Mr. Simpson's behavior as legal. Perhaps you could take a stab at it here. Or are you just indicating your support of jury nullification.

wetkarma: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:17:43 EST

The person with your property is not necessarily the thief. A response of, "Bugger off. I bought these on Ebay and I can prove it," would sort of complicate your claim, wouldn't it?

Sure it would. But thats the point - I get

joshv: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:28:13 EST

You should be held accountable for breaking whatever laws you break, whether or not your are retrieving your own property.

MayorBob: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:47:51 EST

I think you're missing the point here. I don't believe anything I posted was indicative of saying to you, "you have no right to confront someone you believe stole your property." Once again, where's the evidence that this is what OJ did?

zyxwvutsr: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:34:09 EST

Attacking them in a hotel room with guns, and holding them against their will is another matter entirely

What if it were sneaking into the hotel room and retrieving the property? I mean, is it specifically the use of force th

zyxwvutsr: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:31:29 EST

Were I to see someone with them...I would want to confront the thief directly

The person with your property is not necessarily the thief. A response of, "Bugger off. I bought these on Ebay and I can prove it," would sort of c

pO157: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:25:44 EST

I tend to agree that it was a bit trumped up. Since around here (not Vegas) armed home robberies or burglary without serious injury seems to get resolved as a low level felony or misdemeanor the whole thing seems a bit crazy. And you can't tell me everybod

joshv: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:10:42 EST

Well, you are changing the rules on us here. I have nothing against the idea that somebody who believes they have been wronged should have the right to publicly confront the person who they believe has wronged them.

Attacking them in a hote

port1080: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:04:38 EST

And what if you thought you saw your bike, and accosted the person riding it, and then it turned out not to be yours? Or it turned out that your wife sold the bike to this person but didn't tell you about it? There are very good reasons

wetkarma: Re: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:55:59 EST

Are you saying that you support the right of people to say, "hey you stole that shit from me", pick up guns and go and get it?

Generally speaking - yes. Recently I had two bicycles stolen from my garage here in London. Were I to see someone

wetkarma: Re: in my shoes

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:50:37 EST

Really, so it's ok for people to break the law, just as long as they are trying to reclaim stuff they believe is rightfully theirs?

my view is that if its against the law for people to reclaim their stuff, then its the law thats wrong.

joshv: Re: in my shoes

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:36:05 EST

Really, so it's ok for people to break the law, just as long as they are trying to reclaim stuff they believe is rightfully theirs?

MayorBob: Not Guilty On All Twelve Counts?

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:13:47 EST

Granted the kidnapping charges, which are I believe the ones which have him facing life in prison, were likely drawn up as payback for his getting off on the criminal murder charges 13 years ago. But, I missed the part where OJ used the court system

wetkarma: in my shoes

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:14:32 EST

I haven't really followed the trial that closely, but from what I know (he went into a hotel room with guns to get stuff he owned) - I'd have probably voted him not-guilty.

If someone had taken my stuff and tried to sell it, I'd want to take it back by