portisfan24 wrote:Read the whole thread and some interesting points were brought up for both sides, as of now I'm on the fence. I would like to ask one question though. Everyone who keeps going on about the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment, isn't there also something in your bill of rights or constitution (I'm Canadian not sure which it is) about the right to an attorney and a fair trial? Somehow I doubt this guy with a shotgun constitues a fair trial.
I think you're referring to his Miranda rights, but more or less you're right. That's why I chose the word "execute". He acted as the judge, jury and executioner.
portisfan24 wrote:I would like to ask one question though. Everyone who keeps going on about the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment, isn't there also something in your bill of rights or constitution (I'm Canadian not sure which it is) about the right to an attorney and a fair trial? Somehow I doubt this guy with a shotgun constitues a fair trial.
I don't think I've said anything about the right to own a gun, but I do believe in our rights to protect ourselves, so my take on it is simple. This wasn't a questionable situation at all. It's not like the criminals might be found innocent in a court of law, they were flat guilty and caught in the act. So what's an attorney going to do other than waste taxpayer money by wasting the court's time? And as to fair trial, the guys were stone guilty. No way they win in court.
Now had this old boy seen a guy down the street selling his neighbor's television set and the old boy shot and killed him, then I'd say sure, the guy didn't get a fair trial and that is wrong. For all anyone knew the guy selling the television found it after it fell off the crook's truck, or he bought it from the crooks cheap and didn't know it was stolen. So that person is certainly entitled to a fair trial. Caught in the act though? Stone cold guilty? Nah, no trial is needed to determine their innocence/guilt.
I am the Reaper of Men, The Chaser of Souls, The Weaver of Nightmares, I am The Heart of Darkness. I now, and ever will be, The Purity of Evil.
Mookie4ever wrote:Dog the Bounty Hunter and Emelio Estevez wouldn't last two seconds in Madison's neighbourhood
Scary isn't it?
I think I've worn out the backspace button on my keyboard thanks to Madison. Sometimes it's therapeutic to type something even if you ultimately decide not to post it.
Madison wrote:This wasn't a questionable situation at all. It's not like the criminals might be found innocent in a court of law, they were flat guilty and caught in the act. So what's an attorney going to do other than waste taxpayer money by wasting the court's time? And as to fair trial, the guys were stone guilty. No way they win in court.
Are you serious? No way they win in court? We've both seen cases where people who have been "caught in the act" and are seemingly as guilty as can be are found not guilty. You seem to be insinuating that because they are "stone guilty" they don't deserve a fair trial. That's obsurd. Our legal system is based on the fact that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, that's why everyone is to be granted a fair trial. We have to give the "stone guilty" a fair trial to protect the wrongfully accused. And even if they are found guilty, the penalty for breaking into someones house and taking their television isn't death, and it shouldn't be. If, however, you feel it should be, the way to go about changing that is to vote for, campaign for, and otherwise support candidates who would bring Hammurabian penalties to the justice system, not to take matters into your own hands and start gunning down everyone you assume is guilty of taking a TV. Or you could always take the advice given earlier in this thread and if you're not pleased with the laws in the US that guarantee the accused a fair trial and protect them from cruel and unusual punishments, move somewhere that doesn't have such protections. I hear Darfur is lovely this time of yearl.
(Also, by "you" I don't necessarily mean you, Madison. It's the royal "you")
Madison wrote:This wasn't a questionable situation at all. It's not like the criminals might be found innocent in a court of law, they were flat guilty and caught in the act. So what's an attorney going to do other than waste taxpayer money by wasting the court's time? And as to fair trial, the guys were stone guilty. No way they win in court.
Are you serious? No way they win in court? We've both seen cases where people who have been "caught in the act" and are seemingly as guilty as can be are found not guilty. You seem to be insinuating that because they are "stone guilty" they don't deserve a fair trial. That's obsurd. Our legal system is based on the fact that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, that's why everyone is to be granted a fair trial. We have to give the "stone guilty" a fair trial to protect the wrongfully accused. And even if they are found guilty, the penalty for breaking into someones house and taking their television isn't death, and it shouldn't be. If, however, you feel it should be, the way to go about changing that is to vote for, campaign for, and otherwise support candidates who would bring Hammurabian penalties to the justice system, not to take matters into your own hands and start gunning down everyone you assume is guilty of taking a TV. Or you could always take the advice given earlier in this thread and if you're not pleased with the laws in the US that guarantee the accused a fair trial and protect them from cruel and unusual punishments, move somewhere that doesn't have such protections. I hear Darfur is lovely this time of yearl.
(Also, by "you" I don't necessarily mean you, Madison. It's the royal "you")
Hey Art , totally off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask you about "obsurd". I've seen you use it a few times . Are you sure you don't mean "absurd"? Or is "obsurd" an inside joke or something I'm not aware of? I only ask because you're a bright guy so it's weird to see you use a word that doesn't exist.
True, I've seen guilty people manage to go free. Typically it's due to either a really dumb jury (which isn't surprising given the level of education for the average American nowadays), or due to a technicality.
And I've never once said our legal system should be changed to giving the death penalty for a crime such as this (I'd get flayed alive for suggesting something like that ), just that death is a possible logical ramification of breaking into someone's house to steal. It's not strange or unusual at all. I also haven't said that going around and gunning down anyone that anyone else assumes is guilty. In this case, there was no question about innocence/guilt though, so it's a bad example to use for that one.
And no worries about the "you". All is good.
I am the Reaper of Men, The Chaser of Souls, The Weaver of Nightmares, I am The Heart of Darkness. I now, and ever will be, The Purity of Evil.
Madison wrote:Hey Art , totally off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask you about "obsurd". I've seen you use it a few times . Are you sure you don't mean "absurd"? Or is "obsurd" an inside joke or something I'm not aware of? I only ask because you're a bright guy so it's weird to see you use a word that doesn't exist.
haha...I think we talked about this before on the baseball side. I seem to remember you asking me about it previously, which you would think would be enough for me to stop spelling it that way. I really don't know why I continually do it. I know how to spell the word, and I generally notice it when someone else spells it wrong, but for whatever reason, I always use the 'o' in place of the 'a'. Odd. There's a couple other words that I always spell wrong, too.
Madison wrote:Hey Art , totally off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask you about "obsurd". I've seen you use it a few times . Are you sure you don't mean "absurd"? Or is "obsurd" an inside joke or something I'm not aware of? I only ask because you're a bright guy so it's weird to see you use a word that doesn't exist.
haha...I think we talked about this before on the baseball side. I seem to remember you asking me about it previously, which you would think would be enough for me to stop spelling it that way. I really don't know why I continually do it. I know how to spell the word, and I generally notice it when someone else spells it wrong, but for whatever reason, I always use the 'o' in place of the 'a'. Odd. There's a couple other words that I always spell wrong, too.
If we talked about it before, chalk it up to my Old Man Syndrome as I don't remember it. Makes sense and cool though. I just had to ask.
I am the Reaper of Men, The Chaser of Souls, The Weaver of Nightmares, I am The Heart of Darkness. I now, and ever will be, The Purity of Evil.
Art Vandelay wrote:I really don't know why I continually do it. I know how to spell the word, and I generally notice it when someone else spells it wrong, but for whatever reason, I always use the 'o' in place of the 'a'. Odd. There's a couple other words that I always spell wrong, too.
I'm like that with several words too, I seem to recall from my Psych 201 class there's a fancy term for it.
Is there any update on the case? Given how slowly the legal system moves probably not.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by josebach » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:51 am 
, totally off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask you about "obsurd". I've seen you use it a few times 
. Are you sure you don't mean "absurd"? Or is "obsurd" an inside joke or something I'm not aware of? I only ask because you're a bright guy so it's weird to see you use a word that doesn't exist. 
