Woman blinded by acid wants same fate for attacker

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Just a note...I was being sarcastic about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I firmly believe in the doctrine, and I think too many people ignore it.

That said - when someone pleads insanity, it's not like they get to walk right out the door and re-enter society. They get treatment for what is most likely a serious mental defect. It's not always like in "Law and Order" where they're throwing it out as a last-ditch defense or some sort of bargaining tactic. Some of these people have serious mental issues, and honestly don't know the difference between right and wrong.




On the drunk driving and the bar being responsible for your actions...that's not the case in every state. Some states have statutes that protect bars from liability if someone they are serving goes out and injures another person; the rationale is that the bar/tavern shouldn't be responsible in a civil or criminal sense for every person that they serve. There are a number of states that agree with your rationale, but a bunch don't; it really just depends where you are.

I know it looks like the criminal is protected to the detriment of the innocent person, but I think there's another way to look at it. Not every person who is accused of a crime is guilty, and not every crime is as serious as it appears at first glance. The laws are set up (or, the aim is that the laws are set up) so that, in those cases when someone is actually innocent, or that the crime wasn't as serious as first thought, the person has a fair shot of re-entry to society. Now, it doesn't work out that way in a lot of cases; innocent people are put on death row or spend years in prison, and guilty people walk the streets.

On the death row issue; check out this website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ . There's also lots of resources on the web that talk about innocent people who have spent decades in jail, or who have been put to death. There are also first-hand accounts from those innocent people who spent 10, 20, 30 years or more in prison. Having executions the same day as guilty verdicts would virtually ensure that more innocent people were put to death.

I'm just a law student, not yet a lawyer, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt...it's just my views on the whole thing.



Law practice can be broken down, for the most part, into private practice and public service. When Kevin says he's going "private," he means that he'll do criminal defense for a law firm, rather than being a public defender.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The law can be broken down into some fairly simple concepts. There's broad overarching policy, then there's the minutia. Basically, at least in response to some of the situations you've described, I see two overarching principles: 1) Everyone has to act within the parameters of reasonable care, always; 2) You can only harm someone when necessary, and when it's necessary, you can only use the amount of force which is reasonably calculated to stop them from harming you.

Maybe these things won't seem so bad if you understand the logic behind them.

With respect to the bar, the bartender knows or should know when someone has been served too much to be driving. We require those bartenders to not intentionally, by action or inaction, put drunk drivers on the road. To do so is to create an unreasonable risk of harm or death to the public at large, not to mention the drunk. In one of these cases, the drunk is not 'protected.' He gets sued also. It's just that in this society, we like to make injured people whole as priority one. We let the insurance company of the drunk and the insurance company of the bar/bartender fight amongst themselves to decide who pays what.

With regard to the second thing, you have a fleeing burglar. While you might feel violated, society does not condone you taking a life because you have suffered some feeling of harmed security and maybe lost some property. We think lives, even those of criminals are worth more than stuff and hurt feelings. If, however, that burglar is in your home, generally speaking (DO NOT ACT ON WHAT I AM SAYING HERE!!! KNOW YOUR OWN STATE LAW BECAUSE I DON'T!!!), you can use whatever force is reasonable in getting them off of your property or abating the risk they pose.

As for juries, most countries don't use juries. We do. Look at what just happened over in Pennsylvania where a couple of judges were caught taking payments from private prisons for sending youthful offenders their way. The jury system keeps that sort of corruption from infiltrating our criminal justice system for the most part. There are lots of other reasons for and against juries, but as to the jury selection, a/k/a voire dire, both sides want to have a fair and unbiased jury. It's important to know whether any jurors have certain biases which could either result in a mistrial or someone being wrongfully acquitted/convicted. Maybe that's flawed also, but I can't think of a better system really.

In sum, if you have a problem with the law, it's best to take a step back and examine the underlying broad principles. I think those'll help you make better sense of what at first seems unfair.



Working for a law firm is private. Working for the state isn't. I don't want to get into what exactly my plans are (you could probably search through my old posts if you care), but I'm not going to be working for the government.

To Kevin and Ksig, you both made valid points, but think about what you're saying here. I understand you two are becoming attorneys and all, and it's obvious you know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the law, but let's put you in the innocent person's shoes. Not saying that this will happen to either of you or your families because I hope it doesn't. But let's say you lost a loved one due to some idiot who can't control his liquor. Wouldn't you want him to fry for that? Or what if it was 2am and some asshole broke into your home, and as he was taking your things, you chased him out with a gun (not shooting him to avoid getting prosecuted yourself) he comes back, because you didn't blow him away, and he kills a loved one. I don't care what society says about the value of human life. If he's a criminal and he's in my house, taking my things, or making my family feel unsafe, I should be able to blow his fking brains out without being prosecuted. If the United States passed laws that looked at the criminals as the pos that they are, then the crime rate would drop tremendously. I'm all for the jury law, but I'm not for the selection process. I agree, it's very flawed because I think it's unfair to select who gets put on the jury and who doesn't. We all have racist and biased reactions to people. Anyone who tells you they don't they're full of sht. And for the sick people who murder innocent people and then plead insanity, just get rid of them. If they really are sick, why should they get treatment, but then the innocent victims still have to suffer the loss. Forever. Fk em. Get rid of em.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

To Kevin and Ksig, you both made valid points, but think about what you're saying here. I understand you two are becoming attorneys and all, and it's obvious you know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the law, but let's put you in the innocent person's shoes. Not saying that this will happen to either of you or your families because I hope it doesn't. But let's say you lost a loved one due to some idiot who can't control his liquor. Wouldn't you want him to fry for that? Or what if it was 2am and some asshole broke into your home, and as he was taking your things, you chased him out with a gun (not shooting him to avoid getting prosecuted yourself) he comes back, because you didn't blow him away, and he kills a loved one.

Actually, I can answer this from personal experience. My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver two years ago. It was his third DUI; he was so intoxicated that he fell asleep at the wheel after the collision. Mind you, he crossed over the center line and hit us head-on, and his estimated rate of speed was 70 mph; so, that gives you an idea of how drunk he was at the time. My wife and I are lucky to be alive today.

So, with that said, it hasn't changed my views on these legal issues.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

I don't care what society says about the value of human life. If he's a criminal and he's in my house, taking my things, or making my family feel unsafe, I should be able to blow his fking brains out without being prosecuted. If the United States passed laws that looked at the criminals as the pos that they are, then the crime rate would drop tremendously. I'm all for the jury law, but I'm not for the selection process. I agree, it's very flawed because I think it's unfair to select who gets put on the jury and who doesn't. We all have racist and biased reactions to people. Anyone who tells you they don't they're full of sht. And for the sick people who murder innocent people and then plead insanity, just get rid of them. If they really are sick, why should they get treatment, but then the innocent victims still have to suffer the loss. Forever. Fk em. Get rid of em.

I could go on for pages about this topic, but I'll keep it short...

You're taking a very specific situation (someone breaking into your house), and asking that the entire criminal law be re-written to answer that concern. I understand the emotional response, but you really need to look at it big picture.

As to those who plead insanity - again, it's not sane people pleading it as some sort of bargaining chip. If you're that interested and passionate about the topic, it may be worth it for you to do some research into the area, and read stories of people who were actually mentally ill when they have committed serious crimes. When these people go into treatment, it's not like they're going to the Hilton. Additionally, they're still being taken out of society, so it's not like they automatically get to walk the streets free and clear.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Actually, I can answer this from personal experience. My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver two years ago. It was his third DUI; he was so intoxicated that he fell asleep at the wheel after the collision. Mind you, he crossed over the center line and hit us head-on, and his estimated rate of speed was 70 mph; so, that gives you an idea of how drunk he was at the time. My wife and I are lucky to be alive today.

So, with that said, it hasn't changed my views on these legal issues.

Agreed.

I was in a car accident involving a drunk driver. My friend and I were hit from behind when this drunk a-hole ran a red light and hit us after we made a right turn. He was stumbling as he got out of the car, and he fled the scene, leaving his sister in the car. We later found out that he was on probation, and he was actually driving his sister's car.

I don't know what you mean, Zyphyrus, when you say, "Wouldn't you want him to fry for that?" but I would not want him to get the death penalty. I do believe, however, that he should definitely do jail time, which he is.

Another thing to remember is that people make mistakes. Sometimes out of stupidity, sometimes it's a one time thing and they learn their lesson, sometimes they just don't know any better. Let's take the whole breaking and entering example... let's suppose people break into your house. You hear noise from your bedroom, you get up, grab your gun, and you head downstairs. It's dark, but you see two men in your kitchen going through your purse. They notice you and they start to run out the back door. As they're running across your lawn, you shoot and kill them both.

You call the police. They arrive. They go through the pockets of the two guys lying on the ground outside and they find their wallets with their IDs. They were both 16. The parents of the two young boys show up and are devastated.

Would you not feel the least bit guilty?

You said a few posts back that you'd be surprised that you would go to jail if you shot at burglars as they were leaving your house. In the example you gave in your last post, you said something to the effect of, " What if you don't shoot him as he's leaving and he comes back and kills a loved one?" Well guess what, that sucks. But you can't preemptively kill someone because you have a hunch that they might come back and kill your family. What kind of a defense would that be?

"Well, you see your honor, he was stealing some of my money, so I shot him."
"Wasn't he leaving your house?"
"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

[agzg]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

"Well, you see your honor, he was stealing some of my money, so I shot him."
"Wasn't he leaving your house?"
"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

YOU LEFT-WING LIBERAL NUTJOB STOP BRINGING UP GEORGE W. BUSH!

[AGDee]

Vigilante justice is a scary concept.

I worked for a family owned dry cleaners in high school. There were two brothers who lived together. One night, one of them woke up and heard someone "breaking in". He ran downstairs with his gun and shot the guy. He didn't have good aim, luckily, because he shot his brother in the leg as he was stumbling around the kitchen after a late night of drinking way too much.

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Vigilante justice is a scary concept.

I agree that it is; however, one must consider the fact this kind of "justice" is not uncommon in Iran and other Islamic countries. The Islamic law "eye for an eye" is merely an echo of Hammaribi's code and other similar Persian laws that governed this region over 2,000 years ago.

This is also a part of the world that encourages honor killings of female rape victims...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

This is also a part of the world that encourages honor killings of female rape victims...

I've heard about that with Sunnis, but not the Iranian/Persian Shia.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

Joe Horn ITY?

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Actually, I can answer this from personal experience. My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver two years ago. It was his third DUI; he was so intoxicated that he fell asleep at the wheel after the collision. Mind you, he crossed over the center line and hit us head-on, and his estimated rate of speed was 70 mph; so, that gives you an idea of how drunk he was at the time. My wife and I are lucky to be alive today.

So, with that said, it hasn't changed my views on these legal issues.



I could go on for pages about this topic, but I'll keep it short...

You're taking a very specific situation (someone breaking into your house), and asking that the entire criminal law be re-written to answer that concern. I understand the emotional response, but you really need to look at it big picture.

As to those who plead insanity - again, it's not sane people pleading it as some sort of bargaining chip. If you're that interested and passionate about the topic, it may be worth it for you to do some research into the area, and read stories of people who were actually mentally ill when they have committed serious crimes. When these people go into treatment, it's not like they're going to the Hilton. Additionally, they're still being taken out of society, so it's not like they automatically get to walk the streets free and clear.

I'm saying to get rid of the insane too (if they hurt or kill someone) Basically whatever they do to someone else, do the same exact thing back to them. It's only fair man. It's only fair. That way the morons who try to use that as a cop out, fry too.

Back to your drunk driving incident. First off, I'm sorry to hear that happened to you and your wife, glad to see you're still here to talk about it. What baffles the hell out of me is why was that his 3rd DUI? See, this is what erks the fk out of me. It's shit like this that, that make the law all wrong. No, I can't change it, but I can voice an opinion on it, like I'm doing now. I just can't see what you don't get about that. I know you're in school for it, so you have to understand the law in order to enforce or defend it, but I would have a hard time enforcing something or defending something that I believe is wrong. Seriously dude, think about what you just said. This sick fuck hit you and your wife at over 70mph, and then on top of that it was his 3rd DUI. WTF!!!! How does that happen? Here's a story for ya. Today, I had to get a ticket waved. A few weeks ago the cops stopped me because my tail lights weren't working, so he said that I would get a ticket in the mail. He said it would be waved once I got the matter fixed. I fixed it that day and kept the receipt. I got the ticket in the mail a couple of days ago, and it said that I had to mail it in before 3-5-09. He said that I could have any cop sign off on it, so I took it to the cops in my city to have it done. Out of curiosity I asked the cop behind the counter what would happen if I forgot to mail it in. He said if it wasn't mailed in by the 5th there would be a warrant out for my arrest. Once he told me that, I decided to drive the signed off ticket to the court house rather than mailing it to make sure that it was waved. I had them make copies of everything for my records, and that cost me 2 bucks. Now, what kind of shit is that. There would be a warrant out for my arrest for a simple fix it ticket, but yet you and your wife get hit by a drunk driver who is out doing the shit again for the 3rd fking time. Then OJ Simpson gets off on murder charges (his own fking wife). Dude, that's bullshit! If it isn't then I don't what is. If I forgot to to have the ticket signed off on, fine me and then garnish my wages, but don't arrest me. I could see if I killed or hurt someone, or robbed a bank but a fix it ticket? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I mean . . . you really have to look at both sides here.

I didn't see it that way. I was mainly talking about after the fact or knowing without a doubt, that he committed the crime.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I don't know what you mean, Zyphyrus, when you say, "Wouldn't you want him to fry for that?" but I would not want him to get the death penalty. I do believe, however, that he should definitely do jail time, which he is.

Another thing to remember is that people make mistakes. Sometimes out of stupidity, sometimes it's a one time thing and they learn their lesson, sometimes they just don't know any better. Let's take the whole breaking and entering example... let's suppose people break into your house. You hear noise from your bedroom, you get up, grab your gun, and you head downstairs. It's dark, but you see two men in your kitchen going through your purse. They notice you and they start to run out the back door. As they're running across your lawn, you shoot and kill them both.

You call the police. They arrive. They go through the pockets of the two guys lying on the ground outside and they find their wallets with their IDs. They were both 16. The parents of the two young boys show up and are devastated.

Would you not feel the least bit guilty?

You said a few posts back that you'd be surprised that you would go to jail if you shot at burglars as they were leaving your house. In the example you gave in your last post, you said something to the effect of, " What if you don't shoot him as he's leaving and he comes back and kills a loved one?" Well guess what, that sucks. But you can't preemptively kill someone because you have a hunch that they might come back and kill your family. What kind of a defense would that be?

"Well, you see your honor, he was stealing some of my money, so I shot him."
"Wasn't he leaving your house?"
"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

So fking what! Pay for the mistake. We all make them, so we pay for them. You call driving drunk a mistake? It's not a mistake, it's a dangerous act that can possibly kill someone else who has done nothing but get into his car. Fk that! Yeah, if he kills someone he should fry. If he hurts someone, he should hurt, if he ruins the car, he should buy them a new car even if it has to come out of his check through garnishment.

You just don't get it do you?
Listen. It's MY house, MY fking property that I pay for, why the hell should anyone I don't fking know be there? Do they pay the bills there? No they don't. No, I wouldn't want to shoot a 16 year old kid or anyone else for that matter, but if it's dark and he's in MY house, he dies. I wouldn't care if the lights were on, I'm blowing him away, and should be justified in doing so. If I later find out he's 16, no I wouldn't feel guilty. Not at all. He shouldn't have been in my house on my property. I wouldn't shoot him for the fear of him coming back to kill my family, I would be protecting my family at the time the incident happened. I HAVE THAT RIGHT!!! I call total bullshit on your whole post. It's almost like your own their side. This is what I mean. The criminal is protected and given too many rights in this country. I'm all about an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Whatever you do to me, should be done right back to you. Have you ever seen the movie " An Eye for an Eye"? it was about this woman who's daughter got raped by some controlling sexually crazed prick. What pissed me off about the whole movie it this dick head is out running the streets after he raped and killed this woman's daughter. She basically had to go around the law or trick the law just to kill this guy. What should have happened is the cops should have found this guy and asked her what she wanted to do. It should be her chioce. Me personally, I would send him to prison, let him get raped there, and then let him out so I could put a bullet right through his head. The same thing he did to my daughter should be done back to him. What part of that are you not understanding? This country puts too much value on human life and they should, provided that person is humane.

I disagree with you 100%. No fking way.

And I'm a dude so I don't carry a purse.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

I'm saying to get rid of the insane too (if they hurt or kill someone) Basically whatever they do to someone else, do the same exact thing back to them. It's only fair man. It's only fair. That way the morons who try to use that as a cop out, fry too.

Back to your drunk driving incident. First off, I'm sorry to hear that happened to you and your wife, glad to see you're still here to talk about it. What baffles the hell out of me is why was that his 3rd DUI? See, this is what erks the fk out of me. It's shit like this that, that make the law all wrong. No, I can't change it, but I can voice an opinion on it, like I'm doing now. I just can't see what you don't get about that. I know you're in school for it, so you have to understand the law in order to enforce or defend it, but I would have a hard time enforcing something or defending something that I believe is wrong. Seriously dude, think about what you just said. This sick fuck hit you and your wife at over 70mph, and then on top of that it was his 3rd DUI. WTF!!!! How does that happen? Here's a story for ya. Today, I had to get a ticket waved. A few weeks ago the cops stopped me because my tail lights weren't working, so he said that I would get a ticket in the mail. He said it would be waved once I got the matter fixed. I fixed it that day and kept the receipt. I got the ticket in the mail a couple of days ago, and it said that I had to mail it in before 3-5-09. He said that I could have any cop sign off on it, so I took it to the cops in my city to have it done. Out of curiosity I asked the cop behind the counter what would happen if I forgot to mail it in. He said if it wasn't mailed in by the 5th there would be a warrant out for my arrest. Once he told me that, I decided to drive the signed off ticket to the court house rather than mailing it to make sure that it was waved. I had them make copies of everything for my records, and that cost me 2 bucks. Now, what kind of shit is that. There would be a warrant out for my arrest for a simple fix it ticket, but yet you and your wife get hit by a drunk driver who is out doing the shit again for the 3rd fking time. Then OJ Simpson gets off on murder charges (his own fking wife). Dude, that's bullshit! If it isn't then I don't what is. If I forgot to to have the ticket signed off on, fine me and then garnish my wages, but don't arrest me. I could see if I killed or hurt someone, or robbed a bank but a fix it ticket? Give me a break.


I didn't see it that way. I was mainly talking about after the fact or knowing without a doubt, that he committed the crime.


So fking what! Pay for the mistake. We all make them, so we pay for them. You call driving drunk a mistake? It's not a mistake, it's a dangerous act that can possibly kill someone else who has done nothing but get into his car. Fk that! Yeah, if he kills someone he should fry. If he hurts someone, he should hurt, if he ruins the car, he should buy them a new car even if it has to come out of his check through garnishment.

You just don't get it do you?
Listen. It's MY house, MY fking property that I pay for, why the hell should anyone I don't fking know be there? Do they pay the bills there? No they don't. No, I wouldn't want to shoot a 16 year old kid or anyone else for that matter, but if it's dark and he's in MY house, he dies. I wouldn't care if the lights were on, I'm blowing him away, and should be justified in doing so. If I later find out he's 16, no I wouldn't feel guilty. Not at all. He shouldn't have been in my house on my property. I wouldn't shoot him for the fear of him coming back to kill my family, I would be protecting my family at the time the incident happened. I HAVE THAT RIGHT!!! I call total bullshit on your whole post. It's almost like your own their side. This is what I mean. The criminal is protected and given too many rights in this country. I'm all about an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Whatever you do to me, should be done right back to you. Have you ever seen the movie " An Eye for an Eye"? it was about this woman who's daughter got raped by some controlling sexually crazed prick. What pissed me off about the whole movie it this dick head is out running the streets after he raped and killed this woman's daughter. She basically had to go around the law or trick the law just to kill this guy. What should have happened is the cops should have found this guy and asked her what she wanted to do. It should be her chioce. Me personally, I would send him to prison, let him get raped there, and then let him out so I could put a bullet right through his head. The same thing he did to my daughter should be done back to him. What part of that are you not understanding? This country puts too much value on human life and they should, provided that person is humane.

I disagree with you 100%. No fking way.

And I'm a dude so I don't carry a purse.

You're nuts.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

I'm saying to get rid of the insane too (if they hurt or kill someone) Basically whatever they do to someone else, do the same exact thing back to them. It's only fair man. It's only fair. That way the morons who try to use that as a cop out, fry too.

Word. You guys probably remember that horrific Greyhound bus murder from last summer (if not, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Mclean)
That has not gone to trial yet, but I'm sure that the perp will not do any time at all, despite killing the victim in front of tonnes of people and pretty much gutting and decapitating him on the bus. His lawyers claim "Wendigo" psychosis. Oy.

And another trial wrapped at the end of 2008:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...ath-trial.html
Some dude stabbed his friend over 33 times death, got 5 years and "manslaughter".

Brutal.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

I understand you two are becoming attorneys and all, and it's obvious you know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the law, but let's put you in the innocent person's shoes. Not saying that this will happen to either of you or your families because I hope it doesn't. But let's say you lost a loved one due to some idiot falsifying a report or messing up police work or flat-out inventing evidence that resulted in a conviction of your loved one, who spent the rest of their life in prison (or was executed) because the law is intended to immediately and swiftly malign the criminal rather than protecting the rights of legitimate citizens. Wouldn't you want him to fry for that?

I mean . . . you really have to look at both sides here.