If you were on the jury, how would you vote?

Cornhusker · #41 09/14/11, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturelover

Not trying to argue with you about the outcome since we are both agreed on that, I'm just looking at it from a less capitalistic and less materialistic perspective. You may call it an expensive piece of equipment, I call it an expensive toy.

If the owner thought so highly of his expensive toy that he worked hard to buy and valued above the life of a man then he should have safeguarded it better and had it locked up tight so that it wouldn't be a temptation to any potential thief whether the thief was a relative (which he was) or not.

No toy or piece of equipment to play with is worth a man's life, no matter how expensive it is.

.

You shouldn't have to lock things up to keep someone from stealing it.
People don't care about right from wrong any more.
I don't feel sorry for the thief one bit. He tried to take something someone else worked hard for.
He gets no sympathy, and neither does the guy who shot him in the back

InvalidID · #42 09/14/11, 01:55 PM

A 'friend of a friend' found someone in his barn who was on his property stealing metal and tools. The owners dog had penned him in and wouldn't let him out.

When he and his wife went into the barn the thief made like he was going to rush the wife before realizing she was holding a 12 gauge. Neither of them fired a shot mind you. Once he realized the homeowners were armed he laughed, put his hands in the air, and said I guess ya got me.
The thief expected the folks to simply hold him and call the police. It was no big deal to him that he'd spend a few weeks in county lockup and get on with his life of drugs and crime. This line of thought stopped once the butt of a Mosin Nagant knocked several of his teeth out. He yelled at them, telling them they aren't allowed to do that... They then proceeded to whoop his *** until he fowled himself.

What's the point of this story? These people expect you will follow the rules even though they don't. They aren't afraid of getting arrested so have nothing to stop them from committing the crimes they commit. Sometimes you need a bigger stick than the law provides. Letting people know that stealing from you could result in death is a decent stick and should serve it's purpose. I think the guy doing the shooting was wrong to shoot a man in the back yes, but no 20 years in prison wrong.

Sawmill Jim · #43 09/14/11, 02:02 PM

Well if he hadn't turned to run he could got shot in the front

FourDeuce · #44 09/14/11, 02:02 PM

"I should be able to leave my doors unlocked and keys in my truck. It's NOT yours to take. But bleeding hearts continue to allow this to be okay."

It's more than okay. It's not the poor criminal's fault, since NOTHING is anybody's fault today. When people do bad things it's not because they are bad. It's because their Mommy didn't give them enough love or candy when they were little, or because society is keeping them down, or because they had too much sugar that morning.

I recently read a fiction book about a vigilante who went around shooting some of the worst slime in American criminal society. The FBI investigated, and eventually caught the guy, but by the time they caught him he had plenty of support among the law-abiding citizens.

Why do you think the movie Death Wish was so popular?

FourDeuce · #45 09/14/11, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sawmill Jim

Well if he hadn't turned to run he could got shot in the front

One of my favorite movie lines is by Lou Gossett, in the movie El Diablo. It's a comedy western. Anthony Edwards plays a schoolteacher who has a student kidnapped by a local thug, so he goes looking for El Diablo, the Greatest Gunfighter in the West. He finds him(Lou Gossett) and persuades him to help him rescue the girl. When Edwards finds El Diablo, he's standing there looking at somebody who is looking the other way. El Diablo pulls out his pistol and shoots the other guy in the back. When Edwards looks at him in shock and says, "But you shot him in the back!!!????", El Diablo spits some tobacco juice in the dirt and replies, "He had it to me."

InvalidID · #46 09/14/11, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

One of my favorite movie lines is by Lou Gossett, in the movie El Diablo. It's a comedy western. Anthony Edwards plays a schoolteacher who has a student kidnapped by a local thug, so he goes looking for El Diablo, the Greatest Gunfighter in the West. He finds him(Lou Gossett) and persuades him to help him rescue the girl. When Edwards finds El Diablo, he's standing there looking at somebody who is looking the other way. El Diablo pulls out his pistol and shoots the other guy in the back. When Edwards looks at him in shock and says, "But you shot him in the back!!!????", El Diablo spits some tobacco juice in the dirt and replies, "He had it to me."

Ha! I'm partial to Unforgiven when Clint shoots the tavern owner. Guys yell at him " He was unarmed!" Clint replies "Well he shoulda armed himself." Hilarious.

Ozarks Tom · #47 09/14/11, 04:10 PM

I believe in Texas it's known as the "Sundown" law. Once the sun goes down a thief is bought and pair for. Mid-day, not so much. You may assume I voted acquit.

FourDeuce · #48 09/14/11, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvalidID

Ha! I'm partial to Unforgiven when Clint shoots the tavern owner. Guys yell at him " He was unarmed!" Clint replies "Well he shoulda armed himself." Hilarious.

I'm always quoting Clint's other two lines from Unforgiven:
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
"We all got it coming, kid."

Smalltowngirl · #49 09/14/11, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

You shouldn't have to lock things up to keep someone from stealing it.
People don't care about right from wrong any more.
I don't feel sorry for the thief one bit. He tried to take something someone else worked hard for.
He gets no sympathy, and neither does the guy who shot him in the back

You really should read the thread up in Homesteading Questions about the apples.

Moral-Legal, would you?
Who knew if the place looks uninhabited, it's fine & dandy to take what isn't yours & some of the comments were by folks I thought were older and should know right from wrong

Life & ethical behavior have certainly changed since I was growing up & learning right from wrong.

plowjockey · #50 09/14/11, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

"It's NOT a jury's job to decide on what they think is right or wrong."

Actually that depends on who you listen to. If you listen to the Officers of the Court(Judges, lawyers, etc.), they want all that power kept in their hands. If you listen to the people behind the FIJA, they think the citizens should look at EVERY aspect of the case, including whether the law is good or not.
I find it VERY interesting how many lawyers will dismiss potential jurors quickly if they find out you have even heard of the FIJA. It seems like they're working to hide any knowledge of it from everybody and keep most people from even hearing about it.
http://fija.org/
Quick way to get out of the jury box.

The FIJA sound's like a group of dangerous clowns, IMO.

They might want to try to read the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:

Second, there must be assurance that the jurors chosen are unbiased,
i.e., willing to decide the case on the basis of the evidence
presented.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con017.pdf

The FIJA "spin" on our Constitution sounds wonderful. Don't worry about the facts of the case - just call it as you see it.

Quote:

Also, you can do more "political good" as a juror than in practically any other way as a
citizen: your vote on the verdict is also a measure of public opinion on the law itself--an
opinion which our lawmakers are likely to take seriously. Short of being elected to office
yourself, you may never otherwise have a more powerful impact on the rules we live by
than you will as a trial juror.

No wonder attorneys will send them packing.

Sound like a great way to get out of jury duty, though. Too bad one would have to join the FIJA, otherwise it would be perjury, to say you belonged, just to get boot from jury duty.

FourDeuce · #51 09/14/11, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowjockey

The FIJA sound's like a group of dangerous clowns, IMO.

They might want to try to read the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe they already read it.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con017.pdf

The FIJA "spin" on our Constitution sounds wonderful. Don't worry about the facts of the case - just call it as you see it.

That's strange. I never read ANYWHERE saying "don't worry about the facts of the case". Do you have a quote of THEM saying that? The stuff I've read from them say pay attention to ALL the facts in the case and not just the ones the lawyers want you to pay attention to.

No wonder attorneys will send them packing.

Yeah, everybody knows how ethical attorneys are. They would never try to keep power in their hands, being such nice people. It's not a coincidence that lawyers are often compared to prostitutes(although I think the comparison is an insult to prostitutes).

Sound like a great way to get out of jury duty, though. Too bad one would have to join the FIJA, otherwise it would be perjury, to say you belonged, just to get boot from jury duty.

Actually you don't have to say you "belong" to any movement. Just mentioning that you are AWARE of the FIJA will often result in you never being seated in the jury box. That reeks of something like cronyism to me. Something is flaky when the "powers-that-be" don't even want people to know about things they don't control.

Pops2 · #52 09/14/11, 11:26 PM

plowjockey
the US legal system PREDATES the constitution and is based in english common law (except for LA which is based in the napoleonic code) as such judges may LEGALLY base precedent on court cases in britain prior to the revolution. likewise the RIGHT of jury nullification predates the constitution and even the colonization of America. the constitution does NOT grant rights to the people it defines the limitations on government (which have clearly been exceeded numerous times) and specifically prohibits the government from violating those rights. nullification is one such right. the reason there is even an organization like FIJA is because most people are ignorant of their rights & the legal system will not inform them of rights beyond Miranda.

InvalidID · #53 09/14/11, 11:28 PM

Speaking to jury duty, I've always been of a mind that if it's clear someone has done something wrong (note I didn't say illegal) they should be punished. An example would be some jackass bilking a little old lady out of her life savings by selling her bad investments. While he may follow the letter of the law, if it's clear he knew he was selling her crap in order to get a commission I say lock him up.
On the other side I say if someone did something illegal (but I think the law is wrong) I'd never vote to convict. I don't care if the letter of the law say's I'm suppose to or not, that's WHY we call jury's.

Pops2 · #54 09/15/11, 12:34 AM

true
if juries were there to make a determination based on the technicalities of the letter of the law they wouldn't be made up of anyone but lawyers. juries are there to administer justice, sometimes justice & the law are not the same thing.

FourDeuce · #55 09/15/11, 12:26 PM

It seems that Prohibition was thrown out because the "dangerous clowns" AKA citizens decided the law was wrong and should be done away with. There are other examples, such as the Civil Rights struggle.

stormrider27 · #56 09/15/11, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturelover

If the owner thought so highly of his expensive toy that he worked hard to buy and valued above the life of a man then he should have safeguarded it better and had it locked up tight so that it wouldn't be a temptation to any potential thief whether the thief was a relative (which he was) or not.

No toy or piece of equipment to play with is worth a man's life, no matter how expensive it is.

.

The thief obviously thought the toy was worth more than his own life or he would not have tried to steal it from a man he must have known was armed.

If the thief never went on his property he would not have been shot in the back or otherwise. Was it excessive? Maybe. Should it be criminal NO WAY.

Storm

FourDeuce · #57 09/15/11, 09:19 PM

"Originally Posted by naturelover
If the owner thought so highly of his expensive toy that he worked hard to buy and valued above the life of a man then he should have safeguarded it better and had it locked up tight so that it wouldn't be a temptation to any potential thief whether the thief was a relative (which he was) or not."

Do you also blame rape victims when they get raped for "tempting" the rapists?

Seems like bending over backwards to blame the victim is a LOT of effort. The person who decided to steal somebody else's property did have a little bit to do with the attempted theft.
Somehow I get the feeling that no matter how much he locked it up and safeguarded it some people would still try to blame him for having a thief try to steal it.

Cornhusker · #58 09/16/11, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

"Originally Posted by naturelover
If the owner thought so highly of his expensive toy that he worked hard to buy and valued above the life of a man then he should have safeguarded it better and had it locked up tight so that it wouldn't be a temptation to any potential thief whether the thief was a relative (which he was) or not."

Do you also blame rape victims when they get raped for "tempting" the rapists?

Seems like bending over backwards to blame the victim is a LOT of effort. The person who decided to steal somebody else's property did have a little bit to do with the attempted theft.
Somehow I get the feeling that no matter how much he locked it up and safeguarded it some people would still try to blame him for having a thief try to steal it.

Darn rich people tempting po' folks into a life of crime.

FourDeuce · #59 09/16/11, 05:10 PM

And women tempting all those rapists and wife abusers into breaking the law. I guess children are guilty of tempting child molestors too. Looks like everybody is guilty except the people breaking the law.

sirquack · #60 09/20/11, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

In the American colonies the law didn't allow them to defy the King, but aren't you glad they did?

I follow your logic, but I also don't think that means as a civil society which I hope most of us are, that we can't just ignore the law. I follow the law by stopping at stop signs and stop lights even if there is no one else coming the other direction. I don't steal my neighbors possessions or covet his wife if he is not home.

While the theif was wrong in his actions, shooting someone who is no longer a threat to you is not the way I as a civil person would have acted. Especially over a possession. As I have said before, it this was a life or limb situation related to my life or my family the outcome would be different.