|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the UK it's also legal to detain someone, and some harm may come from binding someone to a chair or similar. So, yes there is a bit of stretch to what's proportionate and necessary. I guess there might be some thought of intention and whether the harm caused is the intent or an unintended consequence. The intent in tying someone up is to detain them until the police arrive, rope burns as the suspected thief tries to move are unintentional consequences. The intent of grabbing a cricket bat to give a burglar a fright may result in injury if instead he decides to rush you.
OK, it's legal to detain a burglar until the police arrive. So presumably it's also legal to use reasonable force in order to do so.
So if, in the course of using reasonable force to detain a burglar, the burglar fights back (hardly an unexpected turn of events) and your self-defence causes a fatal injury (say you hit him with a paperweight that was on the table and break his skull) is that still reasonable?
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation seems to be arguing that someone faced with a burglar in their house should simply go back to bed and let him finish his felonious work in peace. After all, any confrontation whatsoever has the potential to fatally escalate.
Of course, they also seem to be suggesting that anyone faced with any confrontation whatsoever should also run away lest they have to defend themselves with lethal force. Which seems pretty darn unreasonable.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yet, it appears from what I've read, that in the US self-defence is used to justify injury and even death to protect property.
Not in this state (MN), in any case:
quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
source
Basically, the only justifiable use of deadly force here is to prevent death or great bodily harm to oneself or someone else. The part about "preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode" has been significantly constrained by case law; it only applies to one's dwelling, not one's yard, garage, outbuildings, driveway, etc. Also exactly what constitutes "preventing the commission of a felony" has been narrowly defined by the courts.
It does, however, remove in one's home the general duty to retreat if reasonable that would apply in a public place in MN.
Also, as my friend (and local firearms instructor) Joel Rosenberg used to put it, "Shooting someone in self-defense is the second-worst thing that could have happened that day". Meaning (and I don't think that anyone here has addressed this) that even if one is completely justified in shooting and killing an assailant, one isn't off scot-free - there will be lawyers to pay, both in criminal court and in the inevitable civil suit that follows. (MN law prohibits a criminal or his heirs from suing for injuries sustained in the course of criminal activity, but one still ends up in court making that argument.)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation
That's the flaw in your argument. No-one's arguing for all possible steps, rather for all reasonable steps.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Also, as my friend (and local firearms instructor) Joel Rosenberg used to put it, "Shooting someone in self-defense is the second-worst thing that could have happened that day". Meaning (and I don't think that anyone here has addressed this) that even if one is completely justified in shooting and killing an assailant, one isn't off scot-free - there will be lawyers to pay, both in criminal court and in the inevitable civil suit that follows.
Most police and military who have had to kill someone in the line of duty, say that it disturbs them for years afterward, if not forever. I think it would be a horrible thing to live with.
Added to all that, they may well be pilloried on the internet. In Zimmerman's case, although we can't really know what's in his heart, I think the whole thing changed him dramatically for the worse. It's my belief (obviously guessing) that before Trayvon he was a fairly ordinary, if wrong headed guy, who had a gun and dreamed of being a hero to his neighbors. There were character witnesses at the time saying he seemed like a good guy and was not at all racist. After Trayvon, he received so much negative attention and hatred, that he became angry and defensive and is not a complete and total jerk, violent with his wife and probably now a racist.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation
That's the flaw in your argument. No-one's arguing for all possible steps, rather for all reasonable steps.
And I think "all" is a flaw no matter what else you put with it.
Because that's part of the invitation for hindsight. That's the invitation for people to sit around after the event, without the pressure of the actual situation, and think up things you could have done, and then tell you that you really should have thought of that at the time, in the pressure of the situation.
My fundamental objection to this boils down to this distinction: the law as it stands in places like the UK and Australia and the US looks at what you actually did and asks whether it was reasonable. All these other proposals instead look at what you could have done and ask whether those options were reasonable.
Any legal test that pushes in that direction creates serious risks of people who weren't actually there telling you what you should have thought of and punishing you for not having thought of every option, when there is unlikely to have been time to think through the possibilities. The critical time period in most of these events is far shorter than the time it has taken me to write that post, never mind the amount of time that has been spent raking over the facts of any case that gets a media profile.
There's a deep air of unreality in going down the path of asking a defendant "why didn't you do X", when the truth might simply be that the defendant didn't think of X at the time. Is that what we're looking to punish people for?
I much prefer a system that holds you account for the actions you actually took, not for other actions you failed to take.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No. Twilight. I reacted to the using of a contrived example.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes "All" is also a flaw. I think it is the package as a whole that should be view as reasonable. And the added complication of at what point does this become a confrontation in which the reasonable test is applied.
I've done ten unreasonable things this morning but I don't expect them to be held against me if I end up in a self-defence situation later in the afternoon.
However to nail my colours to the mast In terms of nailing a traffic offence if you had breakfast at 9am in Miami and wound up in Orlando at 11am you should be given a speeding ticket. The fact that you don't have a witness observing a speeding car on the highway doesn't get you off.
Likewise if you start following someone who was minding their own business in a public place and wind up with an angry provocation where you shoot them then the chances that you were unreasonable at some point inbetween must be quite high.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise if you start following someone who was minding their own business in a public place and wind up with an angry provocation where you shoot them then the chances that you were unreasonable at some point inbetween must be quite high.
If this is supposed to be a summary of Martin/Zimmerman, I would query it. "Angry provocation"? Do you think that following someone is sufficient to be an "angry provocation"?
I ask partly because people do seem to say pretty often some version of "Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin". As if following someone could be foreseen to be sufficient in and of itself to trigger physical confrontation. All I can say to that is I've walked behind any number of people, without intentionally following them, and I'm awfully glad none of them has ever got the wrong interpretation of my path into their head.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well since heads were banged against concrete and shots were fired there was clearly anger at some point. And I think Zimmerman's own testimony is that he initiated the contact between them - not that Martin flew at him to start with. But I accept Martin could have made the initial encounter more angry than it needed to be.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Gee D has already pointed out that you've also not taken into account the requirement for proportionality. You dismissed this as not addressing your argument. It bloody well is, just apparently not to your liking.
Stand your ground laws remove proportionality. This case from Texas illustrates this clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
If you had read my entire post (something you keep forgetting to do before taking me to task) you would see that I was showing Mousethief that he was wrong to imply a great race war going on in America where it's routine for people to go out looking for people of the opposite race to murder. The stats, in any context, demonstrate that, that couldn't possibly be going on because there are relatively few opposite race murders in either direction.
There is not a "race war" in America, not in the typical use of the word. What does exist is systemic oppression of minorities, especially black people. That is what your statistics ultimately represent.
Please, and I mean this sincerely, let me know when it appears I am misreading you, because I am attempting not to. quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
At least they're not reacting to arguments you didn't make.
No Prophet reacted strongly to my "story about guns," that didn't have a single gun in it, LilBuddha thinks we're on opposite sides when we aren't, Gee D's checking our spelling. This is what happens when we're almost all on the same side in the "Fucking guns," thread. Nit picking takes over.
Thinking of this in terms of sides is problematic as there are multiple issues here. I do not think we are on opposite sides, but do think we see things from a slightly different perspective. Whether or not Zimmerman had in his mind to kill a black person, race is an issue in this case. It cannot help but be an issue. Race pervades American thinking. Not necessarily hate, but the history of America doesn't really allow for equal regard. Not yet.
Somewhere between Zimmerman spotting Martin walking and the conclusion of the trial, race played a part.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Gee D has already pointed out that you've also not taken into account the requirement for proportionality. You dismissed this as not addressing your argument. It bloody well is, just apparently not to your liking.
Stand your ground laws remove proportionality. This case from Texas illustrates this clearly.
I think I've made it clear I don't support stand your ground laws. LeRoc's list of insufficiently "moral" laws includes places such as England and Australia that don't have stand your ground laws.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whether or not Zimmerman had in his mind to kill a black person, race is an issue in this case. It cannot help but be an issue. Race pervades American thinking. Not necessarily hate, but the history of America doesn't really allow for equal regard. Not yet.
Somewhere between Zimmerman spotting Martin walking and the conclusion of the trial, race played a part.
Maybe it's time to not just talk about what happens to you when walking while black, and to start talking about what happens nowadays if you carry a gun while white.
It is exactly this descent into memes that I rail against in these sorts of cases. The horrible fallacious reasoning that says that because of the history of black people being wrongly shot, this case must be another case of a black person being wrongly shot is exactly what makes the wrong cases into highest-profile causes.
The outrage of another example of "a white guy getting away with shooting a black guy" is fanned brightest in the cases where the police and prosecutors do nothing visible - when they lay no charges - precisely because they look at the facts of the individual case and determine that THIS white guy SHOULD get away with it, because it is genuinely lawful.
And that is the whole problem with what has happened with race in these cases. The anger about white guys getting away with shooting a black guy has morphed into a determination that NO white guy should get away with shooting a black guy, no matter what the circumstances of the case.
And according to the principles of our legal system, that's actually worse. We've gone from guilty people going free to a desire to see innocent people be jailed. Yes, innocent.
Don't get me wrong, there are cases that have been in the news where I've looked and thought holy crap, that's bad. But it's the cases that get the most publicity of all - Zimmerman, or the policeman in Missouri - those are the cases where as the evidence is presented, the grounds for a conviction look shakier and shakier. And what's not shaken is the demand for a conviction. THIS white guy who looks like he won't be punished becomes a stand-in and symbol for all the other white guys that weren't punished.
Race is an issue in this case. And that's a colossal problem, just as much as systemic racism is a problem.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The outrage of another example of "a white guy getting away with shooting a black guy" is fanned brightest in the cases where the police and prosecutors do nothing visible - when they lay no charges - precisely because they look at the facts of the individual case and determine that THIS white guy SHOULD get away with it, because it is genuinely lawful.
The problem is when there clearly is a systematic problem then the systematic problem also includes the police and prosecutors that we would need to trust have done their job in this individual case. So of course the flames are fanned.
One of the most insidious things about institutional racism is that you never know. One knows statistically speaking that one will be turned down for jobs where race is a factor, and that one will experience unfriendly responses where race is a factor. Being turned down and wondering if race was a factor, or being treated harshly and wondering if it was race, but not knowing either way and therefore not being able to calibrate a response really fucks with your head.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's the cases that get the most publicity of all - Zimmerman, or the policeman in Missouri - those are the cases where as the evidence is presented, the grounds for a conviction look shakier and shakier. And what's not shaken is the demand for a conviction.
Yes. Initial reports and speculation were deeply biased* against Zimmerman and this stirred up widespread outrage. As more facts came in, the details of the case shifted dramatically but the emotion didn't budge. Thinking Fast Thinking Slow perhaps sheds some light on this behaviour.
I very much considered myself a progressive at the time but was badly shaken by seeing how (a) much-mocked conservative talking points were repeatedly shown to be right, and (b) liberals wouldn't acknowledge their mistakes and just ramped up the scorn and anger. Orfeo was one of the few people on the Ship who said "hang on guys" and I respect him a great deal for it.
(* For instance NBC doctoring audio tapes to make Zimmerman sound racist. This was shamefully dishonest, and if Fox had done similar we'd have all been furious. Barely a word of protest from the liberals I know online.)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation seems to be arguing that someone faced with a burglar in their house should simply go back to bed and let him finish his felonious work in peace. After all, any confrontation whatsoever has the potential to fatally escalate.
I don't think anyone has argued that we should take all possible steps. The strongest argument has been "all reasonable steps", which isn't the same. And I'd call being required not to confront a burglar in your home unreasonable.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe it's time to not just talk about what happens to you when walking while black, and to start talking about what happens nowadays if you carry a gun while white.
It is exactly this descent into memes that I rail against in these sorts of cases. The horrible fallacious reasoning that says that because of the history of black people being wrongly shot, this case must be another case of a black person being wrongly shot is exactly what makes the wrong cases into highest-profile causes.
You have mentioned this several times. I'm not doing this, and I don't think most people here are. Are there people doing this? Absolutely. are they the majority, I don't think so. This case has made the news, in part, because it is not as cut and dry as you seem to be presenting.
quote:
The outrage of another example of "a white guy getting away with shooting a black guy" is fanned brightest in the cases where the police and prosecutors do nothing visible - when they lay no charges - precisely because they look at the facts of the individual case and determine that THIS white guy SHOULD get away with it, because it is genuinely lawful.
And that is the whole problem with what has happened with race in these cases. The anger about white guys getting away with shooting a black guy has morphed into a determination that NO white guy should get away with shooting a black guy, no matter what the circumstances of the case.
Again, not what I am saying. My point to Twilight about racism is that it is much more pervasive than some think. And can be subtle. It affects the way the people determine threat, the way the police investigate, the way judges and juries evaluate the evidence and the witnesses.
Few trials areas simple as collect and weigh the evidence, this is simply not how humans work.
The judgement of guilty or not guilty is often subjective. From the initiating act itself, to who do the jury believe can affect the final outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think I've made it clear I don't support stand your ground laws. LeRoc's list of insufficiently "moral" laws includes places such as England and Australia that don't have stand your ground laws.
I know this. Since the Zimmerman case is what sparked this particular tangent, it is a relevant comment. IMO.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Zimmerman's post-trial mindset:
"George Zimmerman Taunts Trayvon Martin’s Parents: ‘They Didn’t Raise Their Son Right’" (The Daily Beast).
NOTE: This is not an objectively-written article. More of a combination of feature and editorial. But it does reference things Zimmerman has actually said and done. Oh, and the link in the 2nd paragraph goes to the wrong place.
I think, FWIW, that whether he really believes he was *the* victim, or is trying to believe that to quell whatever's going on inside him, he's setting himself up for someone to decide Zimmerman has gone too far, and make him shut up. Not that anyone *should* use violence against him, but someone may feel pushed too far.
I wonder what kind of verdict *that* person would get?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what kind of verdict *that* person would get?
If it wasn't a crime to shoot arseholes, there'd be a lot fewer people around.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
whether he really believes he was *the* victim, or is trying to believe that to quell whatever's going on inside him
I've said before that Zimmerman does not appear to be reacting in the way that I would expect the vast majority of people to react to having killed someone. There does not appear to be any regret or remorse, though if that article is correct he went through some rough times emotionally so that may just be an impression gained by his dropping out of the media spotlight only to reappear to sell his gun. I'm willing to accept that he is deliberately creating this "hero" persona as a coping mechanism for emotional distress caused by having shot Martin, and the way he marketed the gun reinforces that "hero" persona. It may work for his emotional stability, but it's not making him any friends outside the gun-nut community.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've said before that Zimmerman does not appear to be reacting in the way that I would expect the vast majority of people to react to having killed someone. There does not appear to be any regret or remorse, though if that article is correct he went through some rough times emotionally so that may just be an impression gained by his dropping out of the media spotlight only to reappear to sell his gun. I'm willing to accept that he is deliberately creating this "hero" persona as a coping mechanism for emotional distress caused by having shot Martin, and the way he marketed the gun reinforces that "hero" persona. It may work for his emotional stability, but it's not making him any friends outside the gun-nut community.
Interesting idea Allan. Now let's try to sort through the possible emotional shit this hollowpoint might be splattering his way through.
I'm thinking something in Level 1, like delusional projection: "Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature." or "Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency...".
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief:Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
Yeah I know (I saw it just happened with you too).
Sometimes I feel like it's dangerous to say two things in the same post, because some fool will pounce on the one, and the other will be totally ignored. Or perhaps two things on the same day. Or week. Or perhaps to say anything at all in certain threads once the malaise has set in. When sputtering, drooling anger takes the place of rational discourse, rational discourse needs to find another gig.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
whether he really believes he was *the* victim, or is trying to believe that to quell whatever's going on inside him
I've said before that Zimmerman does not appear to be reacting in the way that I would expect the vast majority of people to react to having killed someone. There does not appear to be any regret or remorse, though if that article is correct he went through some rough times emotionally so that may just be an impression gained by his dropping out of the media spotlight only to reappear to sell his gun. I'm willing to accept that he is deliberately creating this "hero" persona as a coping mechanism for emotional distress caused by having shot Martin, and the way he marketed the gun reinforces that "hero" persona. It may work for his emotional stability, but it's not making him any friends outside the gun-nut community.
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
When you make a judgement specifically described as how you expect most people to react then you are also making a statement that some people react differently.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation
That's the flaw in your argument. No-one's arguing for all possible steps, rather for all reasonable steps.
Alan was also arguing that it's never reasonable to use deadly force to defend property. Which leaves the property owner in something of a quandary unless there's a clear distinction between the initial actions to defend her property and the subsequent actions to defend her life, especially when the actions to defend her life only became necessary because of the reaction of the burglar to her attempt to defend her property.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Only speaking of NSW, self-defence is never a defence to a a claim of intentional or reckless killing purely to protect property, prevent criminal trespass or to remove someone committing a criminal trespass (Crimes Act 1900 s.420).
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Alan was also arguing that it's never reasonable to use deadly force to defend property.
Alan will speak for himself but I think you are making a leap to get from there to all possible measures to avoid using deadly force. I would agree with not killing people in order to prevent them stealing my money. On the other hand if someone is in my house with a gun even if their likely motive is theft I think it is reasonable that deadly force is used in self-defence since it is reasonable to be concerned about a threat to life.
Likewise if someone is in my house fiddling with the safe it is reasonable for me to challenge them, including threatening them with a firearm if I have one. If at that point they charge at me then the situation changes and my life may be in danger and deadly force becomes reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to blow them away at the outset in case they charge at me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise if someone is in my house fiddling with the safe it is reasonable for me to challenge them, including threatening them with a firearm if I have one. If at that point they charge at me then the situation changes and my life may be in danger and deadly force becomes reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to blow them away at the outset in case they charge at me.
OK. So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously? If so, then by your own argument it must also be reasonable to use deadly force in defence of your life if they respond to your challenge by, say, attacking you and smashing your head into the pavement.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise if someone is in my house fiddling with the safe it is reasonable for me to challenge them, including threatening them with a firearm if I have one. If at that point they charge at me then the situation changes and my life may be in danger and deadly force becomes reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to blow them away at the outset in case they charge at me.
OK. So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously?
No, no it isn't. It is reasonable to alert the authorities. That is it in that situation. Because not a damn thing is actually happening.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously?
No, no it isn't. It is reasonable to alert the authorities. That is it in that situation. Because not a damn thing is actually happening.
No challenge is reasonable at all? Not "are you supposed to be here" (remember, this is a gated community) or "where are you going" or "what are you doing", or even "can I help you"? Nothing at all?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To someone merely walking down a street? Doing not a damn thing illegal?
Why is immediate suspicion so palatable to you?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
There is a big difference between "not looking upset enough on television" and " making a goddamn trophy out of the gun you used to kill someone. "
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If one is talking about a gated community of four houses and one could reasonably know everyone who ought to be in the gated community a challenge is reasonable. If not it isn't.
In any case I very much doubt that the sequence of events was "Hi do you mind me asking who you are?" to full on physical assault. It's not remotely credible.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There is a big difference between "not looking upset enough on television" and " making a goddamn trophy out of the gun you used to kill someone. "
Yeah I was going to say that as well. It doesn't diagnose the mind-set of a killer but it does suggest real problems in valuing a human life.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yeah I was going to say that as well. It doesn't diagnose the mind-set of a killer but it does suggest real problems in valuing a human life.
I don't think that Zimmerman's actions post-shooting give us much insight into his personality pre-shooting: it's quite possible the media vilification broke him.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
OK. So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously?
No, no it isn't. It is reasonable to alert the authorities. That is it in that situation. Because not a damn thing is actually happening.
It depends what you mean by "challenge". It also depends on whether there is a public right of way through the gated community.
If there's no right of way, then a stranger could be trespassing. It's certainly reasonable to ask him what he's doing here - maybe he's visiting someone in one of the houses, but if he's not, then trespass is actually happening.
If there is a public right of way, then he's perfectly entitled to walk on it, even if he's a bit poor and scruffy and walking past some expensive houses. Being poor, or black, in a rich white neighbourhood isn't a crime - maybe he just likes to walk past nice houses and admire them.
It's still not unreasonable for a resident to walk over and say something like "Hi, I'm Jim, I haven't seen you around here before." Attempting to engage passers-by in conversation is also completely legal behaviour. But there's no obligation for the walker to respond in any way, and there are no grounds for the resident to attempt to impede his progress.
[ 19. May 2016, 18:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
Lindy's case is seared in my brain forever. My parents taught my brothers and me not to cry, we knew we'd be spanked twice as long if we cried. Now I can't cry in public at all, ever. I'm sure there were people at my mother's funeral that thought I didn't love her because I didn't cry.
Now I watch true crime shows like "Dateline," and "48 Hours," and see people charged with the murder of loved ones because they weren't crying enough at the scene and juries basing decisions on how much crying the suspect does and I live in fear.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
Lindy's case is seared in my brain forever. My parents taught my brothers and me not to cry, we knew we'd be spanked twice as long if we cried.
Absolutely same here, Twilght. This is exactly why the comparison irked me. There are all kinds of easily understandable reasons a person might not cry in public, but not a whole lot for auctioning off a gun you popped someone with on Ebay, even if it was genuinely self defense.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
There is a big difference between "not looking upset enough on television" and " making a goddamn trophy out of the gun you used to kill someone. "
It wouldn't have been a goddamn trophy though, would it? Why does anyone know who Zimmerman even is? It's not through self-promotion.
The only reason this gun can be a trophy to "the right" is because folk on "the left" howled about it so goddamn much. The gun isn't famous because he killed someone with it. the gun is famous because people caused an enormous media storm at the prospect of Zimmerman not being put on trial.
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think that Zimmerman's actions post-shooting give us much insight into his personality pre-shooting: it's quite possible the media vilification broke him.
Bingo.
[ 19. May 2016, 23:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And now the gun is a symbol of him BEING put through a trial because of that media storm.
As much as I think trying to sell the gun is a dumb move, I think it's a thoroughly understandable move on his part.
Because thinking he ought to be remorseful in that way only makes sense if you're locked in the mindset that he was actually guilty of murder and "got away with it". From his point of view, though, he's been put through a shitstorm and it's the fault of people who wouldn't accept that he didn't have a legal case to answer. You think he ought to be remorseful about that? No, he's going to be angry about that. I sure as hell would be angry if people had forced me to be put on trial.
[ 19. May 2016, 23:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why does anyone know who Zimmerman even is? It's not through self-promotion.
I suspect people know who Zimmerman is is because he shot an unarmed kid who was walking home from the store. In most of the world that would be front page news - and, that would be true if it was murder, self-defence or accidental. In the US, the normality of it required some (in)action by the police (not seeming to investigate immediately) to catapult it into public consciousness.
For the majority of people though I expect Zimmerman was forgotten as the case sank into the mass of other gun deaths, just another statistic, with people still using the #BlackLivesMatter largely ignorant of the particular black life that sparked it off.
Then Zimmerman auctions his gun. What the hell is that if not self-promotion?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
him BEING put through a trial because of that media storm.
...
I sure as hell would be angry if people had forced me to be put on trial.
Eh? Forced through a trial? He shot a kid, dead. Surely that action demands a thorough investigation to determine as far as possible the events that lead upto that? And, if there is any possibility that it wasn't self-defence then presenting the evidence to a jury is surely the right thing.
Is that not how the legal system works? We don't take the word of the killer when he says "It was self-defence. Look, I've a bump on the back of my head to prove it". The prosecution present their case with supporting evidence, the defence attempts to show there is reasonable doubt in the account of the prosecution, and the jury decides whether or not the prosecution evidence supports the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is that not how the legal system works?
No. Normally the legal system does not work by people overriding the original decision of the prosecuting authorities by kicking up an enormous fuss. I'm not talking about how the trial was conducted, I'm talking about the fact that a trial was conducted at all.
Every day, the police and the director of public prosecutions (or whatever the equivalent office is called) make decisions about whether a case ought to be pursued further or not.
Normally, their decisions are not overturned by a loud ill-informed rabble who reduce the case to "he shot a kid dead" as if that is the sum total of what needs to be proved.
How do you know the investigation wasn't "thorough"? It sure seems to have been reasonably thorough given that it reached the same conclusion as the trial did. What exactly was achieved by that trial, other than making a right-wing cause out of Zimmerman? A celebrity who can now sell his gun for far more?
I've seen indications that the police proposed charging Zimmerman with manslaughter (but were advised by the prosecution that there wasn't sufficient prospect of a conviction). So any suggestion that the police just waved it all away and immediately accepted a bump on the head is yet more simplistic bunkum. They poked and probed his story.
[ 20. May 2016, 00:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Every day, the police and the director of public prosecutions (or whatever the equivalent office is called) make decisions about whether a case ought to be pursued further or not.
Of course they do. But, is it an everyday occurrence for that decision to be made within a few hours? Especially when there is someone dead? What I read said that Zimmerman was in custody for less than 6h, including the time spent on treating his head wound. It seems unbelievable that within those few hours the police had got the ballistics report and other forensics, that they had interviewed all the witnesses who had come forward, and done door to door enquiries in the neighbourhood to see who else might have seen something relevant and all the other routine steps in an investigation. And, then collated the evidence, presented it to the prosecutors office and considered whether the evidence was sufficiently clear to let Zimmerman go without charge or continue to investigate. They managed to do all that in a few hours?
That that very cursory investigation reached the same conclusion as the jury after a full investigation and trial doesn't alter the fact that it was a very cursory investigation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Every day, the police and the director of public prosecutions (or whatever the equivalent office is called) make decisions about whether a case ought to be pursued further or not.
Of course they do. But, is it an everyday occurrence for that decision to be made within a few hours? Especially when there is someone dead? What I read said that Zimmerman was in custody for less than 6h, including the time spent on treating his head wound. It seems unbelievable that within those few hours the police had got the ballistics report and other forensics, that they had interviewed all the witnesses who had come forward, and done door to door enquiries in the neighbourhood to see who else might have seen something relevant and all the other routine steps in an investigation. And, then collated the evidence, presented it to the prosecutors office and considered whether the evidence was sufficiently clear to let Zimmerman go without charge or continue to investigate. They managed to do all that in a few hours?
That that very cursory investigation reached the same conclusion as the jury after a full investigation and trial doesn't alter the fact that it was a very cursory investigation.
And again, based on what I've seen, this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?
Do you believe that the only way to interview witnesses, gather forensics and what have you is to do it while someone sits in custody? The implications of that for the justice system are actually quite frightening. How long do you think the police could draw out such a system, repeatedly coming up with another thing they have to check out before they'll let you go?
The world is now driven all the time by knee-jerk reactions to surface events. No wonder all sorts of professions are finding it increasingly hard to do their actual job, because much of it occurs behind the scenes and the public is now so used to having everything splashed on their screens they're starting to believe that if it wasn't broadcast it didn't happen.
[ 20. May 2016, 01:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?
Everything I've read (at least those which go into any sort of detail) say he was "released without charge". That is more than just releasing someone, and strongly implies that the police see no reason to continue investigating. If they still considered charges possible then surely he would have been released on bail, or detained (subject to judicial process) if he was considered a danger to the public or a flight risk, while the investigation continued.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?
Everything I've read (at least those which go into any sort of detail) say he was "released without charge". That is more than just releasing someone, and strongly implies that the police see no reason to continue investigating.
Wow. You need some logic lessons then. Hell maybe you just need to watch some crime procedurals on TV.
Please feel free to explain how exactly one distinguishes between releasing without charge and ending the investigation, and releasing without charge while continuing to investigate, based not on an announcement about the investigation but the lack of a charge. This should be good.
And how one of them gets labelled as "just" releasing someone whereas the other kind of release is not "just" releasing. Even though the only action they both involve is (wait for it)... releasing.
I'll tell you what WOULD be more than "just" releasing. It would be charging and releasing. You're trying to make the absence of an event into something meaningful, not the presence of one.
[ 20. May 2016, 02:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Go and do some googling and you'll find signs of continued police activity between the night of the shooting and the day that Martin's father held a press conference calling for charges to be laid.
You'll find the medical examiner, you'll find the police talking to Martin's father, you'll find them talking to Zimmerman's neighbours. I can't be 100% positive at this instant because I can't find the relevant link again, but I believe you'll find them interviewing Zimmerman again.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Please feel free to explain how exactly one distinguishes between releasing without charge and ending the investigation, and releasing without charge while continuing to investigate, based not on an announcement about the investigation but the lack of a charge.
Releasing and ending the investigation. "You're free to go, we're not going to charge you with anything".
Releasing while continuing the investigation. "You're free to go. But don't leave town, we may want to question you further. Depending on the investigation we may charge you later, so keep in touch with your lawyer as well"
Of course, laws vary a bit with jurisdiction. But, I would expect in most places there's a maximum period you can be detained without charge (probably with some process whereby a judge can extend that by a short amount). After that the police would be required to release the suspect on bail, if there is insufficient evidence at that time to charge, or release without charge. The difference does, to my naive and non-lawyerly eye, imply that if there's the possibility of evidence that would warrant a charge then you release on bail, and if you think there is no charge to answer regardless of what further investigation may reveal you release without charge.
It is, of course, possible that the police release Zimmerman on bail and every single media outlet that I've seen was sloppy and reported that as released without charge. But, if that was the case then a statement to the effect of "he's been released on bail pending the conclusion of our investigation, when a decision on whether or not to charge him will be made" would have taken a lot of the wind from the sails of the petition to reopen the investigation and charge him. The momentum of the petition, the growing public appeal against the decision to release without charge, tends to imply no such statement was made.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again, based on what I've seen, this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?
Do you believe that the only way to interview witnesses, gather forensics and what have you is to do it while someone sits in custody? The implications of that for the justice system are actually quite frightening. How long do you think the police could draw out such a system, repeatedly coming up with another thing they have to check out before they'll let you go?
Sadly Orfeo, that is what happens here. There is a whole series of offences in respect of which there is a presumption against a grant of bail - murder being one of these. An accused can easily be in gaol for 18 months before coming up for trial, and then be acquitted.
Had this event occurred here, Zimmerman would have been questioned, then charged with murder. He would have been committed for trial, and at trial would have been found not guilty after a defence of self-defence was run. The prosecution could not have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted to the extent necessary to protect himself. Until then he would almost certainly have been in custody. While he was languishing in gaol, the police would have been carrying out forensic testing of the gun, analysing blood samples, taking statements and following up anything that they may have suggested.
And things can go wrong. JB v R decided 3 weeks ago by the Court of Criminal Appeal is an example. At age 16, in 2010 JB was convicted of murder and sentenced to 16 years gaol before becoming eligible for parole, with an additional term of 7 years. Subsequent appeals were unsuccessful - the trial had been conducted correctly and the sentence was appropriate. Then new lawyers for JB found some additional material and petitioned for an enquiry into guilt. To cut a long story short, the petition was initially investigated by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, who ended up telling the Court in 2015 that the conviction was in fact wrong. Part of the problem was that the police had not disclosed very relevant material. From 2010 until 2015 when the conviction was quashed JB was wrongly in gaol, in effect losing his late teen years.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Please feel free to explain how exactly one distinguishes between releasing without charge and ending the investigation, and releasing without charge while continuing to investigate, based not on an announcement about the investigation but the lack of a charge.
Releasing and ending the investigation. "You're free to go, we're not going to charge you with anything".
Releasing while continuing the investigation. "You're free to go. But don't leave town, we may want to question you further. Depending on the investigation we may charge you later, so keep in touch with your lawyer as well"
I'll use small words. Both of these look like release without charge on a media report.
Oh. And you apparently think police release people on bail? Have you NEVER watched a crime show? Bail is when someone has been charged and brought to court. If your argument is based on "the police didn't require bail" because in your addled mind the police can require bail from a person who hasn't been charged, then that explains a hell of a lot.
[ 20. May 2016, 05:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
