Posted on 11/09/2007 9:21:36 AM PST by SergeiRachmaninov
I don't cite this as in any way undercutting Reid's position in the current matter, but the irony is striking.
Some have mentioned Al Sharpton's potential interest. I think that if either a jury or the DA decides not to punish Reid, we can count on Sharpton and company attempting to turn this into another Jena Six-style circus.
There’s a big difference in Reid not being charged and Sharpton and the rest of those idiots raising cane over it. The problem is, the ONLY “racism” I see any more is projected from the Black leaders in this country.
For years we kept hearing people saying “The military is rampant with Racism”.
I was in 26 years. The only time I heard the “N” word was when a black person said it himself. In all those years, I heard a few black men complain about racism, but when asked when and where it was taking place, they could only give “vague” answers.
No one would ever pin point it to a person, or group.
That’s not to say it wasn’t happening, somewhere, but if it was, it was extremely muted and usually fell on deaf ears anyway.
It’s people like Jackson and Sharpton that keep it alive and well in the South.
Whether or not Reid has a criminal history ISN’T RELEVANT. See, this where people always try to go with these things, and where several in this thread have tried to take it.
They will point to the fact that dead fella had a criminal history and all the folks here who’ve said “Reid should be charged” will say the dead guy’s PAST record shouldn’t be taken into account, ONLY THIS INCIDENT>
Well, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander folks.
If you want to point out Reid’s history (and I’m not directing this specifically at you Sergei) then you also need to point out the dead guy’s list of crimes.
Basically, this guy got caught in a bad position and wound up in the middle of an accident.
Reid, if it was more than a decade ago, probably paid for his crimes and was trying to make a life for himself. He also, if indeed had a record and had such “previous experiences” himself probably instinctively KNEW he was being robbed.
So... tough on the dead guy.
I"m not advocating anything. I'm looking at the law and laying out some scenarios, some more likely than others. I've already agreed with you that it's unlikely that Reid will face charges. Unlikely isn't impossible,
>>>No, it's a plausible outcome based on having seen these things before. The family of the deceased will press for a prosecution, and Reid's supporters will push the opposite way. A plea to a minor offense lets Reid off the hook for any serious punishment, and lets the DA argue that he didn't let him off "scot free."
Extremely unlikely that Reid will plead to ANYTHING. It is UNLIKELY there will be charges. Period. So, you're continuing to make this supposition that he'll be charged.
I don't know the dude. I don't know what he's likely to do. I also don't know the political dynamics of the area. If there's a large and vocal black population, there could be pressure to bring charges. I'm not making any suppositions -- just laying out a possible scenario, where all involved reach a deal that means little real punishment for Reid but doesn't open a rift in the town for the duration of the trial.
It is you who are making assumptions. You assume that you have all the relevant facts at hand based on a brief news article at the beginning of the investigation. I'm the guy spinning some possibilities, but admitting that I don't know all the facts.
>>>The sheriff doesn't have the last word, and he isn't the only person who has the DA's phone number.
The Sheriff doesn't have the "last word", he has the FIRST word. If the SHERIFF, who in nearly EVERY county of this country is the "Highest legal law enforcement authority" says "This man should not be charged" the DA isn't going to push it.
This ain't Dodge City. The DA does not need the sheriff's permission to bring charges. He does not answer to the sheriff. And I'd like to see some support for your claim that the sheriff is the top LEO in "nearly EVERY" county -- a lot of counties have police chiefs and marshals' services that handle specific areas of responsibility.
In DeKalb County, Georgia, where I live, the sheriff's department mostly serves warrants and administers the jail. In some Georgia counties, they also handle courthouse security and prisoner transfers -- other counties have a marshals' service for that.
There was some talk in DeKalb of abolishing the sheriff's department altogether, after decades of fairly extreme corruption that culminated in the sheriff-elect being murdered at the behest of the man he defeated. The police department already had the primary duty for most law enforcement, and the marshals could take over the jails. It didn't end up happening, and the current sheriff is by all appearances clean.
I cite the following: "In the United States a sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law enforcement officer of a county and commander of militia in that county."
"Generally (but not always)" is not close to "in nearly EVERY county." And Wikipedia is a weak cite. I do not know if the sheriff in this case shares law enforcement duties with a police chief. I do know that the DA, or state's attorney (the terminology varies) will face a different set of pressures and standards than the sheriff faces, and that they do not answer to him.
"North Carolina
The office of sheriff is constitutionally mandated in North Carolina. It is an elected law enforcement office.
The sheriff has duties in all three branches of law enforcement: Policing, Courts/Criminal Justice and Corrections/Jail. The Office of the Sheriff is the primary law enforcement agency for the unincorporated areas of North Carolina's counties. The Sheriff, as the County's chief law enforcement officer, has jurisdiction anywhere in the County, including municipalities, where the Sheriff's Office provides assistance and support to local law enforcement agencies."
That's fine. The sheriff, at least in NC, has the primary responsibility for enforcing laws, preventing or interrupting crime, investigating crimes, and arresting offenders. Prosecuting cases is not his responsibility.
>>>Yes, I am. That's why I used a first-person pronoun. The fact of the matter is that all of us on this thread are armchair-quarterbacking in this case, because we don't have all the facts and we're not in the game, unless someone here has a connection to this case they haven't mentioned.
Again, you're wrong. No, neither you nor I can talk specifically about the details of this case, other than the facts we do know. I have had experience with a similar incident, so I'm not "talking out my ass" or armchair quarterbacking.
In point of fact, yeah, you are. You admit that you weren't there and don't know all the facts. To drag out the analogy, if you weren't at the line of scrimmage and didn't take the snap, you're an armchair quarterback. No matter how many times you've played other games on other days.
No, I don't know all the details, but I can read as well as anyone can.
Then you should be able to recognize what is not in the story as well as what is.
I have not heard anything NEW on the case as of this morning, so that notwithstanding, what the SHERIFF says goes. If he sees no charges pending, then there are NO CHARGES PENDING.
It's a given that there are no charges pending. I don't see any reason for the sheriff to be ignorant of, or to lie about, something that's a matter of public record. And the more days go by without political pressure to bring charges, the less likely they will be.
>>>So would I, if I felt I could do so without unreasonable risk to myself or other. Including, even, the perp.
This is where we differ. If someone is stealing from me, he is taking my earnings, my hard-earned "stuff". For the most part, I'm not going to just shoot someone, but if they are in my home, or on my property and trying to leave with my "stuff", they are taking their lives in their hands. They are taking their lives in their hands if the enter ANYONE'S Property anywhere.
This is a point on which we might just have to agree to disagree. My stuff is not worth a life. I draw a clear, sharp line between violent crime and property crime -- and when in doubt, err on the side of caution, that is, stopping the crime before it can escalate.
The point here, and where you and I apparently differ is that you don't want to harm anyone. Good for you. I'm all for stopping a criminal in his tracks, even if he is harmed. He doesn't belong there, he's going down somehow. Whether it's a 2X4 to the forehead or a shotgun, HE entered ILLEGALLY, committed a felony, and is now considered a fleeing felon. He's going to get stopped, even IF he has to be harmed in the process.
But where do you draw the line? I would endorse, and am prepared to use, deadly force to end a burglary or a mugging. A rape or a homicide, that goes without saying. But if you endorse deadly force to capture, not to interrupt, when there is no imminent threat to a person, where do you draw the line? Vandalism? Graffiti? Shoplifting?
Again, you don't know me, so you can't make rash assupmtions about what I am willing to risk, and my reasons. (For your information, I TRAIN people how to behave in those very emergency situations that you mentioned. I go 3-4 times a year to a college where law professionals are taught, and I train them in "quick thinking", and emegency survival... duh. I THINK I know what I am talking about. And I am certain you don't.)
I can't compete with your credentials. My dad has a list of POST certifications longer than my arm -- literally. I looked up and printed out his history for him so he could take it to get his federal CCW as a retired LEO. He's the guy who taught me So I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm not wholly ignorant.
Worth mentioning is that LEOs and civilians are subject to different standards, LEOs have more training, are expected to exercise their duties with more skill and judgment, and have more leeway to use force. On the other hand, they're subject to tighter scrutiny -- they are expected to know and adhere to professional standards, where a civilian would be judged by the "reasonable person" rule.
Another analogy. If I come upon someone having a heart attack, and I attempt CPR, the law is quite forgiving if I fail to save the guy, or even if I cause harm (a broken rib that then punctures a lung is not an uncommon complication with amateur CPR). An MD would be held to a stricter standard because he's expected to know better than I.
This is my understanding of the situation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Reid comes home. He finds a sedan with two men inside it or near it. He then rams it. At the time, he does not know that his property is in the trunk. He does not know if they're just a couple of dudes who happened to run out of gas or pop a flat right in front of his gate. That reaction is dangerous.
I'm not saying he should be locked up for life. I'm just saying that the authorities can't blow it off. At the very least, there needs to be an investigation, and the cops need to straighten out the story.
Mr. REID SAW people running to their car, and trying to get the HELL OUT OF THERE. And yes, in that particular instance, you're damned RIGHT I'm going to block them in, even if I have to RAM their car to stop them.
Another case where we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'd be disinclined to risk my nice shiny vehicle to ram some crook's hooptie. It's likely a deep scuff on my finish would cost me more than his entire car cost him.
If they are people *I* DO NOT KNOW, and they are on MY PROPERTY, DEPARTING QUICKLY, then SOMETHING IS WRONG. You're damned RIGHT I'm going to prevent them from leaving as I arrive. How do *I* know there is a problem? Same way he did. They weren't calm, and they were in a BIG HURRY.
According to whom? I didn't see that in the news article. If it was in the article, it's based on one person's version of events. I didn't see any quotes from the surviving thief.
How the HELL do I know they just didn't murder my wife and grandchildren and they are trying to get the hell out??????
How do you know that about any given person on any given street on any given day?
>>>How far down the criminal food chain does that logic extend? "Officer, he'd still be alive if he hadn't shoplifted a pack of gum and forced me to hit him in the face with a baseball bat."
It ought to go all the way down the criminal food chain.
Agree to disagree again. I don't think the death penalty is a proportional response to petty crime.
Stealing is WRONG, period, no matter from whom something is stolen, or what is stolen.
Cheating on your spouse is wrong. Spitting on the sidewalk is wrong. Promising a date you'll call and then not calling is wrong. Undertipping for good service is wrong. Lying about your GPA is wrong. Cutting off another driver in traffic is wrong. Playing your music too loud way into the night is wrong.
None of these wrongs justify homicide.
There are no "degrees of wrongness". It's PLAIN WRONG, PERIOD. TV, CAR, gum, candy, it doesn't MATTER.
No "degrees of wrongness?" There's no distinction between swiping a newspaper and raping a child? That is insane.
It's utter bullshit for you to think that somehow the criminal who was stealing should be treated "better" than the man who was stolen from.
There's no question of the thief being "treated 'better'" than the man he stole from -- the thief is stone dead.
It's that liberal, bullshit attitude that lets those bastards walk free from prison after they have raped a woman, molested or raped a child, stolen thouands in cash or items from others, shop lifted from stores or car jacked someone.
The belief that punishment should follow an investigation, arrest, trial and conviction isn't a "liberal, bullshit attitude." It's a quaint little thing we like to call the law. At the top of that pyramid is the Constitution. Remember that? Presumption of innocence? Bueller? Bueller?
It's that liberal, bullshit attitude that weakens the laws we already have, and the SAME crap that tries to do things like take away our gun rights.
I'm not trying to take away anyone's gun rights. I just believe that those rights do not give you the right to blaze away any time you're pissed off.
Buddy, the ONLY people that will have guns when they take our gun rights are criminals, and you will still be there being SOFT on them.
Soft on them? Only if "soft" means a hollow point that mushrooms on impact. Threaten me or mine, and you'll leave my house feet-first with a large hole in your person. Run away with my TV, and I'll buy a new TV.
For starters, as a matter of philosophy I don't believe property is worth a life. Past that, I don't need the nightmares. Even when a killing is legally and morally justified, it takes a toll on normal, sane people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.