Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Just to continue stirring things up, remember, a prosecutor can charge someone for anything so long as the grand jury finds probable cause. There's a big jump from finding probable cause to finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although, if justice was to truly prevail, one would hope that the defendant might get his opportunity to explain his views to a group of Marines on shore leave.... :-D -Wes Re: RE off topic but important Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser charges. Re: RE off topic but important > > >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion? >> >> Mike >> >> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is >>> done >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I never said it was or wasn't. I just thought this was interesting. >>> texaslp@... 07/25/05 2:24 PM >>> Rick, The key phrase here is " dignified way " . I don't think any of us would say on the ground, under a car, is in any way dignified. Tater LaChance wrote: Interesting tidbit of information: US Code, Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8(k) - " The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. " Rick LaChance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 > , the question was not necessarily if they set the car on fire, but whether they had INTENT to destroy or damage the car. That's a much harder burden that merely proving the car was on fire. M> No it's not. The intent is the placing of the pile of burning flags under a car. Had the intent been to burn the flags, it would be easier to accomplish in the open. Placing them under the car is the intent for arson and meets the elements. > I'm with you, I think flag burning is right down there with cross burning. Both are despicable acts, but in a free society, we have a right to engage in speech (either verbal or symbolic) that others find disgusting. M> Regardless of what the courts say, flag burning is not speech and should not be protected. Want to burn an image of a flag? Go ahead. Burn a flag? That's treason and I'll be nice and give you your choice - federal prison, or deportation to a country willing to take you. And no, your possessions stay here - they were earned with US currency, which you denounced. > I thank you for your service as a veteran, not the least of which is defending the rights of Americans to disagree with the prevailing opinion. M> America does not run on majority opinion. 51/49 does not decide most issues. We run on representative democracy, and constitutional changes require a 2/3rd's majority and ratification. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, had the perpetrator intended to make a statement, burning them in the open would more openly display that statement. However, the perpetrator not only burned the flags under a car, they burned the car - and no reasonable person could expect that a fire UNDER a car wouldn't catch the vehicle on fire. You can assume, by the action or set of actions required to place the flags under the car before lighting them (or, even more exigently, moving a flaming set of flags under a car) that the intent was, in fact, to place burning flags under a car, and you can derive from that the actual intent was to not only burn the flags, but to burn the car to. Actions speak louder than words, and the defendants actions, in this case, scream arson. Thank you for your service - now go to the guilty room and find a verdict. Mike PS - the last sentence is shamelessly stolen from a quote Wes uses OFTEN, and I think is FUNNY... > -- the defense lawyer would not have to prove a thing. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. We have the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor has to prove that the defendant intended to set the car on fire. There's a slam-dunk case for theft of the flags and for criminal mischief by burning the flags. However, to win an arson case, the prosecution has to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant lit the flags on fire with the intent to burn the car. > > -Wes > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage? > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > -- I beg to differ, but the usual practice is not to sentence someone > to jail/prison AND probation. If you read the law, you'll find that > probation used to be defined as a probated sentence. In other words, it's > just like a probated EMS suspension. The state does not follow through with > the sentence so long as certain conditions are met. Hence, you can't hit > someone with jail/prison (misdemeanor convicts go to jail, felony convicts > go to prison) and probation for the same crime. You can, in certain > circumstances, require a minimal amount of confinement (2-3 days in jail, or > serving some weekends in jail) with a probated sentence. > > As to arson, I've taken the liberty of cutting and pasting the Texas statute > prohibiting arson. Could you prove each and every one of these elements? I > may not do much criminal law anymore, but I'm not seeing that burning a flag > fits the statutory elements. If you think I'm wrong, please point me to the > place in the statute or relevant Texas case law. > > -clipped- > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit. You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury, that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get damaged. Re: RE off topic but important Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage? The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty to believe.... No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. -Wes Re: RE off topic but important I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit. You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury, that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get damaged. Re: RE off topic but important Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage? The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 No hard feelings here. I enjoy a little spirited debate now and then. Besides, difficult people keep things interesting. You are right by the way. An attorney I know told me once that it's not always the facts on trial, but the laywers and the one the jury likes most wins. hows that for a cynical view of the adverserial system. Re: RE off topic but important > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car > owned > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting > a > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any > damage? > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I have jury duty on the 8th! I can't wait. " Your honor, does failing to signal lane change carry the death penalty? Can it? Oh, and what's jury nullification? " Mike > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty to believe.... > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > -Wes > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit. > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury, > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get > damaged. > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage? > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 It's always enjoyable to see a look on the judges face when you ask 'em where the ropes are. Re: RE off topic but important >> >> >> Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags >> accidently >> caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car >> owned >> by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that >> setting a >> fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any >> damage? >> The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Another winning answer is " Your honor, does the jury get to do the execution? " -Wes Re: RE off topic but important It's always enjoyable to see a look on the judges face when you ask 'em where the ropes are. Re: RE off topic but important >> >> >> Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags >> accidently >> caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car >> owned >> by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that >> setting a >> fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any >> damage? >> The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Hey Wes, When I have been called for jurry duty, I have found the phrase " bring the guilty bastard in here so we can get this over with now, " usually gets me excused immediately...... > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty to believe.... > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > -Wes > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit. > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury, > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get > damaged. > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage? > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 It works even better for a civil trial!!!! -Wes Re: RE off topic but important > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was being flip > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it down a bit. > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple times (I > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of the flags > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but I think it > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the effort to > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence would > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence collected > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he intent to > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under an > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on a jury, > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on purpose. I do > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, mental > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a leagal > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a crack > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing to get > damaged. > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags accidently > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the car owned > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that setting a > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause any damage? > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Nah, for a civil trial, I always look the attorney in the face and ask what the maximum award possible is, bacause If I have to be here to listen to these two idiots argue this out, someone is going to pay someone something big. CB > > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which > attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury > duty to believe.... > > > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > > > -Wes > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was > being flip > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > down a bit. > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > times (I > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of > the flags > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but > I think it > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > effort to > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence > would > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > collected > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > intent to > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under > an > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on > a jury, > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > purpose. I do > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, > mental > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > leagal > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a > crack > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing > to get > > damaged. > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > accidently > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the > car owned > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that > setting a > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > any damage? > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 , I've taken the liberty of forwarding your name to several trial lawyers in Beaumont. They'll be putting on some asbestos and Vioxx cases forthwith. -Wes Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was > being flip > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > down a bit. > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > times (I > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of > the flags > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but > I think it > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > effort to > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence > would > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > collected > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > intent to > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under > an > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on > a jury, > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > purpose. I do > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, > mental > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > leagal > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a > crack > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing > to get > > damaged. > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > accidently > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the > car owned > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that > setting a > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > any damage? > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 This is just going downhill fast! LOL > > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which > attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury > duty to believe.... > > > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > > > -Wes > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I was > being flip > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > down a bit. > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > times (I > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All of > the flags > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, but > I think it > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > effort to > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that evidence > would > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > collected > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > intent to > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire under > an > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were on > a jury, > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > purpose. I do > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way (age, > mental > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > leagal > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up a > crack > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can a > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect nothing > to get > > damaged. > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > accidently > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath the > car owned > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps that > setting a > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > any damage? > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Don't forget some product malfunction cases..........Exploding Pinto's or Chevy Trucks......that kind of thing. Or my favorite, the guy who sues because he amputated 4 of his fingers when he reached under the running lawnmower, and sues the maker of the lawnmower. > > > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which > > attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury > > duty to believe.... > > > > > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > > > > > -Wes > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I > was > > being flip > > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > > down a bit. > > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > > times (I > > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All > of > > the flags > > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, > but > > I think it > > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > > effort to > > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that > evidence > > would > > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > > collected > > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > > intent to > > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire > under > > an > > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were > on > > a jury, > > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > > purpose. I do > > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way > (age, > > mental > > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > > leagal > > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up > a > > crack > > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can > a > > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect > nothing > > to get > > > damaged. > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > > accidently > > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath > the > > car owned > > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps > that > > setting a > > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > > any damage? > > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 LMFAO! Now THAT'S funny! Mike On 7/25/05, Wallace Blum, EMT-Paramedic wrote: > Nah, for a civil trial, I always look the attorney in the face and > ask what the maximum award possible is, bacause If I have to be here > to listen to these two idiots argue this out, someone is going to > pay someone something big. > > CB > > > > > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which > > attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury > > duty to believe.... > > > > > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > > > > > -Wes > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I > was > > being flip > > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > > down a bit. > > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > > times (I > > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All > of > > the flags > > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, > but > > I think it > > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > > effort to > > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that > evidence > > would > > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > > collected > > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > > intent to > > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire > under > > an > > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were > on > > a jury, > > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > > purpose. I do > > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way > (age, > > mental > > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > > leagal > > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up > a > > crack > > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can > a > > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect > nothing > > to get > > > damaged. > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > > accidently > > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath > the > > car owned > > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps > that > > setting a > > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > > any damage? > > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Actual case from my hometown of Corpus Christi. Burglar breaking into a high income house, trips over a lamp cord and falls, breaking his pelvis and arm. He laid there until the homeowners came home to find him and called 911. He sued for personal injury and loss of livelihood..........He won the suit for all current and future medical bills, pain and suffering in the amount of $8,000,000....and loss of livelihood based on what he averaged a month from fencing his stolen wares............I want to say this happened in like 1992 or so. Nothing like a south texas Jurry! > > > > Ultimately, in my cynical opinion, it all comes down to which > > > attorney can persuade twelve people too stupid to get out of jury > > > duty to believe.... > > > > > > > > No hard feelings -- I just like being difficult. > > > > > > > > -Wes > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I > > was > > > being flip > > > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > > > down a bit. > > > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > > > times (I > > > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All > > of > > > the flags > > > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, > > but > > > I think it > > > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > > > effort to > > > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that > > evidence > > > would > > > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > > > collected > > > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > > > intent to > > > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire > > under > > > an > > > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were > > on > > > a jury, > > > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > > > purpose. I do > > > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way > > (age, > > > mental > > > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > > > leagal > > > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up > > a > > > crack > > > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can > > a > > > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect > > nothing > > > to get > > > > damaged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > > > accidently > > > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath > > the > > > car owned > > > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps > > that > > > setting a > > > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > > > any damage? > > > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > > > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 My friend, never, never get sued in south of San or east of Houston. -Wes Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > > > > I do understand the burden of proof, and who has it (sorry, I > > was > > > being flip > > > > again trying to provide altenate theories). OK, lets break it > > > down a bit. > > > > You have a person or persons intentionally trasspasing multiple > > > times (I > > > > think it was 20 flags stolen) in order to engage in theft. All > > of > > > the flags > > > > were stuffed underneath a car and set on fire. I'm sorry sir, > > but > > > I think it > > > > can be argued that the intent was to damage the car from the > > > effort to > > > > gather the materials to do the deed. I do understand that > > evidence > > > would > > > > need to be collected to show that the fire was intentionally set > > > > (accelerants, the presence of the burned flags, and any evidence > > > collected > > > > from the accused). When a fire is lit on purpose, it is with he > > > intent to > > > > burn something. Burning causes damage. If you light a fire > > under > > > an > > > > object, it will be damaged in some way. I feel that if I were > > on > > > a jury, > > > > that I could reasonably think that the car was damaged on > > > purpose. I do > > > > understand that the person might be incompatent in some way > > (age, > > > mental > > > > issues), but that is not known at this point. This may not be a > > > leagal > > > > statement, but I'm going to write it anyway. You don't light up > > a > > > crack > > > > pipe without intending to get high. Or, in the reverse, how can > > a > > > > reasonable person light a fire under something and expect > > nothing > > > to get > > > > damaged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: RE off topic but important > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think a defense lawyer would try to prove that the flags > > > accidently > > > > caught on fire and just happened to find their way underneath > > the > > > car owned > > > > by a person who just lost a serving family member? Or perhaps > > that > > > setting a > > > > fire underneath a car wouldnt be expected to cause damage cause > > > any damage? > > > > The intent sure seems to be there unles spontanious combustion > > > ocoured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Mr. Ogilvie I did not intend to say that you agreed with burning the flag. If that is how you understood it, then my apologies. However i do point out that it is still against the law in Texas. While Texas has stricken several laws in the last year that were ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court, This law was not removed and still stands. The situation caused by enforcing this law might deter an officer from action but it would be a lawful arrest. As for an arson charge, it is ultimately up to the jury and as any officer knows juries are quite often biased from the beginning for one side or the other. I believe an arson charge would easily make it past the grand jury in my county and probably end up with a guilty conviction. It would be hard for someone to prove in the negative that they did not intentionally or knowingly set the vehicle on fire by their actions. Why place the flags under the vehicle if you did not want the vehicle to burn? My personal opinion is don't bother with the court but introduce the suspect to the soldier's brothers in arms and close the door. Problem solved without lawyers. ExLngHrn@... wrote: Mr. Ince -- I have never AGREED with burning the flag. Rather, I am pointing out established constitutional precedent as enacted by the United States Supreme Court. I'd refer you to Texas v. , 491 U.S. 397 (1989). In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of criminal appeals' decision when the Court found that petitioner's interest in preventing breaches of the peace did not support respondent's conviction because his conduct did not threaten to disturb peace; petitioner's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood did not justify a criminal conviction for engaging in political expression. Part of honoring our country and its heritage is to respect the law and our institutions. One of those institutions founded in law is our Supreme Court. Our laws and Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law. Until the Supreme Court revisits the case or an amendment to the Constitution is passed by a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate, then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, the right to burn a flag, while despicable, is protected under law. -Wes Ogilvie damned lawyer Re: RE off topic but important Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser charges. Re: RE off topic but important > > >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion? >> >> Mike >> >> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is >>> done >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 -- Ince wrote: My personal opinion is don't bother with the court but introduce the suspect to the soldier's brothers in arms and close the door. Problem solved without lawyers. Well, THAT is an interesting alternative. An old proverb reads 'If you seek revenge, dig two graves'. Larry in Houston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 There are several laws in multiple states that are declared unconstitutional, but remain on the books. While the courts may declare a law unconstitutional, only the legislature can repeal the actual statute. -Wes Re: RE off topic but important Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser charges. Re: RE off topic but important > > >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion? >> >> Mike >> >> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is >>> done >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 There is always that obscure law that lurks out there until some jail house lawyer finds it and uses it to his advantage. Several years back a Texas inmate found an old law that said upon discharge from prison, each prisoner should be given a horse, saddle, long rifle with X amount of ammunition for it, and $20.00. He pushed and pushed, and they agreed to do it. He was arrested before he was off prison grounds for being a convicted felon in posession of a firearm & posession of a firearm on prison grounds. He was booked, tried, convicted, and got 10 more years in the same prison. He was smart wasn't he? LOL > >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is > >>> done > >> > >> > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Regardless of the court ruling all i am saying is that it is still a valid arrest in the state of Texas. The Penal Code is the law for law enforcement officers, not the court. You may be beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride. ExLngHrn@... wrote: There are several laws in multiple states that are declared unconstitutional, but remain on the books. While the courts may declare a law unconstitutional, only the legislature can repeal the actual statute. -Wes Re: RE off topic but important Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser charges. Re: RE off topic but important > > >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion? >> >> Mike >> >> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is >>> done >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 There's a lot of truth in that saying. However, if a peace officer knowingly makes an arrest for a statute they know is unconstitutional, they've got bigger issues with civil rights complaints -- both civil and criminal. As to civil liability, I'd refer you to 42 U.S.C. 1983. -Wes Re: RE off topic but important Public service is all well and good for minor crimes, but arson is a more serious charge, and the crime that was comitted. A similar crime (minus the flag and dead soldier issue) happened in the neighborhood my mother lives in. The person was caught and convicted of arson and served time. Perhaps jail time for arson, and probation and public service for the lesser charges. Re: RE off topic but important > > >> What is justice for this incident, in your opinion? >> >> Mike >> >> >>> I hope the law in that part of the country do not rest until justice is >>> done >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.