RE off topic but important

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

>>

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

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

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-

>

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.

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.