'Tis the season: Guns ! Guns ! Guns!

[therealUT]

Violent crime has been cut in half in America over the last 30 years

False.

 

[OrangeYankee]

1. Who is in charge of deciding whether the evidence is sufficient?

2. I understand there are going to be costs that are not readily quantifiable or that appear to be merely unfair. I think this exists on both sides, though. If one bringing the charges is already accepting the risk of being fined, then I have no problem with the other costs (I also think that the fine can include compensation to the jury and the defendant).

3. There is no reason that I can think of as to why the defendant ought to have to appear in court. The defendant can always hire someone else to appear, or if the defendant believes that the case is so incredibly weak, the defendant might simply choose not to appear at all. The burden is still on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime.

4. If the defendant does believe that the accusers case is strong enough that it warrants a strong rebuttal, then how does that argue in favor of not having a trial?

Or be proactive and conduct an investigation and if said person is found to have acted in self defense or the defense of others don't bring any charges up in the first place, and save the taxpayers the expense? I kind of see where you are going with this... but, and I am no lawyer, you are treating criminal cases as if they were civil. No tom dick or harry can initiate a criminal trial as far as I know. Either way I just don't agree with your assertion.

If it's a civil case... then the defendant can counter sue the pants off the defendant for having such a stupid loved one?

 

[volmaverick]

Am I reading this right? You want a person who shot and killed a gunman that is mowing down children to receive a first degree murder charge!?!
Are you a member of the ACLU?





WTF!!!!!!!

You are correct!!!! He wants all people charged with first degree murder that defend them self and others

 

[therealUT]

But what if they don't levy a fine? Are the taxpayers on the hook? Me? The stinking judge?

If the jury does not levy a fine because the jury thinks that there was actually sufficient evidence to bring about a trial, then I fail to see what the problem is.

 

[therealUT]

Or be proactive and conduct an investigation and if said person is found to have acted in self defense or the defense of others don't bring any charges up in the first place, and save the taxpayers the expense? I kind of see where you are going with this... but, and I am no lawyer, you are treating criminal cases as if they were civil. No tom dick or harry can initiate a criminal trial as far as I know. Either way I just don't agree with your assertion.

If it's a civil case... then the defendant can counter sue the pants off the defendant for having such a stupid loved one?

The distinction between Civil and Criminal cases is residue from the time when there were actual Sovereigns who felt that there were crimes that affected them personally (that the fact that such crimes were committed was an insult to the Sovereign). Many legal theorists (Bentham, Austin, Hohfeld, Hart, Dworkin), while working within the structure of criminal and civil, take the distinction to be theoretically meaningless. I agree with them. The only crimes that ought to exist are crimes against individuals; courts ought to be places to mediate disputes between individuals. The state ought not be bringing disputes to the state.

 

[therealUT]

You are correct!!!! He wants all people charged with first degree murder that defend them self and others

I want all of them charged? Not at all. I want the option to charge to be available to individuals and not to reside with the state.

 

[utvolpj]

I want all of them charged? Not at all. I want the option to charge to be available to individuals and not to reside with the state.

I get the idea but I'm not sure choosing 1st degree first is going to garner much support. Charge them with a shooting and go from there (kind of like police handle every officer involved shooting but with a little more teeth)

 

[lawgator1]

Obviously, by now we are all aware of reports that more than 10 children may be dead. Elementary school kids, in class.

Even if that is not the case, we can only pray that this incident, and the others over the last few years, convince our political leaders to stop listening to the gun lobby and to stand up and do what is right, which is to dramatically restrict the possession of, sale of, or access to, hand guns.

The argument that they are often stolen is small consolation here. If people could not lawfully buy them in the first place, they would not be there to be stolen. And its not like that is a rare thing. We know what the problem is -- its the initial purchase.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire gun lobby right now ought to take a long had look at the horror their "hobby" is causing.

 

[OrangeYankee]

The distinction between Civil and Criminal cases is residue from the time when there were actual Sovereigns who felt that there were crimes that affected them personally (that the fact that such crimes were committed was an insult to the Sovereign). Many legal theorists (Bentham, Austin, Hohfeld, Hart, Dworkin), while working within the structure of criminal and civil, take the distinction to be theoretically meaningless. I agree with them. The only crimes that ought to exist are crimes against individuals; courts ought to be places to mediate disputes between individuals. The state ought not be bringing disputes to the state.

Fair enough and if you think the individuals would be fully responsible for the payments the court would use to keep itself open, then that would blow my fiscal argument against you out of the water.

Believe it or not I can't argue with that logic, but where I think it's sticky is this: Ok plantiff wins a criminal case as lined above. Who then decides punishment? And who enacts it? The plantiff? The judge? The jury? I'm going to guess it'd be the Judge or like a civil case the the jury who sets the final "sentence/settlement."

 

[utvolpj]

Even if that is not the case, we can only pray that this incident, and the others over the last few years, convince our political leaders to stop listening to the gun lobby and to stand up and do what is right, which is to dramatically restrict the possession of, sale of, or access to, hand guns.

where is the report he used a handgun? Also, many of the others were done by guns other than handguns. Don't use incorrect facts to try and make a political stand

If people could not lawfully buy them in the first place, they would not be there to be stolen.

good grief

 

[Burhead]

Obviously, by now we are all aware of reports that more than 10 children may be dead. Elementary school kids, in class.

Even if that is not the case, we can only pray that this incident, and the others over the last few years, convince our political leaders to stop listening to the gun lobby and to stand up and do what is right, which is to dramatically restrict the possession of, sale of, or access to, hand guns.

The argument that they are often stolen is small consolation here. If people could not lawfully buy them in the first place, they would not be there to be stolen. And its not like that is a rare thing. We know what the problem is -- its the initial purchase.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire gun lobby right now ought to take a long had look at the horror their "hobby" is causing.

You have to learn how to separate the criminal from the "gun lobby"...

 

[Vol4LifeLCA]

If the jury does not levy a fine because the jury thinks that there was actually sufficient evidence to bring about a trial, then I fail to see what the problem is.

Problem would be people not bringing legitimate cases because they fear being fined by the jury finding their case didn't have sufficient evidence.

 

[NEO]

First the episode in Washington State at the mall, now the one in Connecticut at the elementary school. When will you guys finally admit that guns possession in this country is way, way too easy?

I am not for everyone owning a gun but this would have happened now matter what.

Lawgator people have been killing each other since they could find a rock to throw. Guns weren't even around until a few hundred years ago and the Romans killed quite a few people without ever needing them.

The tragedy today is sad and the school (all schools) need to be on lock down so someone can't just walk in. But gun control would not have helped this.

 

[OrangeYankee]

Obviously, by now we are all aware of reports that more than 10 children may be dead. Elementary school kids, in class.

Even if that is not the case, we can only pray that this incident, and the others over the last few years, convince our political leaders to stop listening to the gun lobby and to stand up and do what is right, which is to dramatically restrict the possession of, sale of, or access to, hand guns.

The argument that they are often stolen is small consolation here. If people could not lawfully buy them in the first place, they would not be there to be stolen. And its not like that is a rare thing. We know what the problem is -- its the initial purchase.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire gun lobby right now ought to take a long had look at the horror their "hobby" is causing.

This may get me banned but i don't care. People like you are whores plain and simple. You are using this tragedy to advance your agenda. And I'm not just looking at gun control advocates. I'm looking at the other side as well in this, because the argument that if someone was properly trained and carrying heat, yes I'm sure the gunmen would have gotten a whole lot less than a 100 shots fired off. (Then we could be arguing if he should be tried or not!)

I'm not saying we can't go back and look at this situation and present arguments. But Jesus Howard Christopher man, this situation isn't even 5 hours old yet.... And the idea that there are people cradling their lifeless children while people are using this tragedy to advance their political desires just sickens me.

 

[therealUT]

I get the idea but I'm not sure choosing 1st degree first is going to garner much support. Charge them with a shooting and go from there (kind of like police handle every officer involved shooting but with a little more teeth)

If an individual chooses to bring the charge of first-degree murder, then said individual incurs the risk of at least showing that their is a credible reason to think that it could have been first-degree murder. The individual does not have to bring first-degree charges; however, it is not for the state to tell the individual what complaints they can and cannot make.

 

[OrangeYankee]

You have to learn how to separate the criminal from the "gun lobby"...

To him and those of his ilk they are one and the same...

 

[utvolpj]

If an individual chooses to bring the charge of first-degree murder, then said individual incurs the risk of at least showing that their is a credible reason to think that it could have been first-degree murder. The individual does not have to bring first-degree charges; however, it is not for the state to tell the individual what complaints they can and cannot make.

and if there is no individual to bring charges then it comes back to the state. Not sure I want the general pop to start levying charges

 

[therealUT]

Fair enough and if you think the individuals would be fully responsible for the payments the court would use to keep itself open, then that would blow my fiscal argument against you out of the water.

1. There are practical problems in determining the monetary value of assessing the fines. Those would have to worked out in great detail and tailored to individual societies and individual situations.

2. There is a great fiscal benefit in such a model. Most of the crimes that are currently handled by the state are crimes that have no assignable victim. Such crimes would be void in a system in which an individual had to bring a complaint of a specific wrongdoing. The fiscal relief would be enormous.

Believe it or not I can't argue with that logic, but where I think it's sticky is this: Ok plantiff wins a criminal case as lined above. Who then decides punishment? And who enacts it? The plantiff? The judge? The jury? I'm going to guess it'd be the Judge or like a civil case the the jury who sets the final "sentence/settlement."

I have no problem with having legislative guidelines regarding maximum sentences for certain crimes. Then, I think it would be up to the judge and the jury to decide how to punish so long as the punishment does not exceed the maximum sentence.

While, ideally, I am a proponent of corporal punishment and penal sentences only for offenders that will never come back out into society, those measures do not have to be adopted in order for the system to work.

 

[hndog609]

1. Who is in charge of deciding whether the evidence is sufficient?

Be able to demonstrate SOME kind of reason. Seat a Grand Jury or something if you must but the idea that "So and so wants to drag you to trial for murder 'cause they want to". doesn't work for me. YMMV

2. I understand there are going to be costs that are not readily quantifiable or that appear to be merely unfair. I think this exists on both sides, though. If one bringing the charges is already accepting the risk of being fined, then I have no problem with the other costs (I also think that the fine can include compensation to the jury and the defendant).

If you're ready to include that last bit I can at least entertain the idea.

3. There is no reason that I can think of as to why the defendant ought to have to appear in court. The defendant can always hire someone else to appear, or if the defendant believes that the case is so incredibly weak, the defendant might simply choose not to appear at all. The burden is still on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime.

We're kinda back on that "In TRUT's parallel universe." bit again. Making statements about actual events in our reality and the rules currently in place but really meaning "if it were happening in my world" makes for awkward conversation. Mila Kunis "ought to" be in my lap as I type this as far as I'm concerned. That's not the current reality of things. I don't think your "everybody should be charged thusly" works well in the current reality of things either.

4. If the defendant does believe that the accusers case is strong enough that it warrants a strong rebuttal, then how does that argue in favor of not having a trial?

I'm not even sure I understand this last one unless it's entirely encapsulated in "TRUT's World" again. If I'm expected to be in court for murder when I'm walking through a ticker tape parade in my honor for saving (though I had to kill some very bad people in the process) that bus load of oncology kids on their Make a Wish Foundation trip, something is all hell kinds of wrong.

 

[Burhead]

https://twitter.com/Ryan__Lanza

Might be his Twitter page.

 

[therealUT]

Problem would be people not bringing legitimate cases because they fear being fined by the jury finding their case didn't have sufficient evidence.

While it is a problem, it is not a problem without workable solutions. Just as it takes twelve jurors to convict, it could just as easily take twelve jurors to levy a fine (or eleven, ten, nine). There are ways to make it as fair as is possible without letting the state decide which complaints are legitimate and which are not.

The greater problem would be that of a rich miser, who cares little about his wealth but wants to inflict revenge upon others and thinks that if he pushes enough bogus charges one will eventually go through.

 

[therealUT]

and if there is no individual to bring charges then it comes back to the state. Not sure I want the general pop to start levying charges

I think where there is an assignable victim who is still alive, that victim has sole authority to decide to press charges. I think when that victim is dead (or incapacitated) any advocate can file a complaint.

This does get messy due to double-jeopardy (why wouldn't a friend of the killer rush to file a complaint before everyone else and then build an incredibly weak case); however, it is possible that there are practical ways in which it could be tweaked and made workable.

 

[utvolpj]

The greater problem would be that of a rich miser, who cares little about his wealth but wants to inflict revenge upon others and thinks that if he pushes enough bogus charges one will eventually go through.

or the poor (who are also likely to be less educated on the difference in charges) who do not have the means. Have a problem with the value of the victim determining the severity of the crime

 

[Vol4LifeLCA]

While it is a problem, it is not a problem without workable solutions. Just as it takes twelve jurors to convict, it could just as easily take twelve jurors to levy a fine (or eleven, ten, nine). There are ways to make it as fair as is possible without letting the state decide which complaints are legitimate and which are not.

The greater problem would be that of a rich miser, who cares little about his wealth but wants to inflict revenge upon others and thinks that if he pushes enough bogus charges one will eventually go through.

Other problem is asking lay people to try and interpret the law. The law is complicated and unless you mandate the jurors have law degrees, then how can you expect lay people to understand whether or not there is sufficient evidence.

 

[volmaverick]

The Killer