Posted on 07/20/2002 1:06:37 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:07:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
July 20, 2002 -- A fed-up Bronx man who blew away a crackhead thief who was rifling through his car was sentenced yesterday to nine years in prison.
Victor Vicenty, 54, whose car had been burglarized at least four times in the past, shot and killed Kevin Bethea in May 2001 in the hand, chest, shoulder and buttocks with an unlicensed .22-caliber rifle near the Soundview Houses.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So, could you please tell us exactly where you live, what times you are and are not at home, and what kind of car you drive (preferably with the license number so that we don't get it mixed up with anyone else's car).
Since you obviously feel that what you own is meant to be shared with anyone who wants to take it, I just thought that we would make it easy ... and, if we do it while you're not home, you won't have to face the anguish of standing there and doing nothing while we do so.
Dial 9-1-1???
It is clear the cops would do nothing, since this perp had robbed FOUR TIMES in the past and was still on the streets, running free.
The only mistake this guy did was not to use a bigger caliber rifle or a 12-guage. One shot to the head would have ended this scumbags life.
Not quite. Here in Texas deadly force is authorized to protect property.
Thank God I live in Texas.
I'll defer to our Texas FReepers on the question but judging from what I have read here over the years, Texas has some pretty good laws about use of deadly force to protect property. In fact, it has been noted, more than once, that just being on someone else's property after dark is sufficient reason to cause them to assume ambient temperature.
Me too, only I confronted him during the act and let him walk while I called police. Half hour later they caught the scum. What I didnt realize till after he walked was that he had my presc. sun glasses ($450.00) in his possession which he did not have when they apprehended him. So, I was out the sunglasses but hey, they caught him
Forgot to mention that he never showed up for his arraignment.... LOL!!!
Lesson learned: Next time the only justice served will be by me
On the other hand, I watched Judge Dredd last night for the first time and understand the sentiment.
unlicensed .22-caliber rifle
"One of the more obscene phrases one would hope not to have to read. You can't license the exercise of a right."
"I cannot send out a message to the community that this is acceptable behavior," Judge Martin Marcus said before sentencing Vicenty. "Indeed, the message I must send out is the opposite."
Discover How Judges that Preside
Over Jury Trials Routinely Violate the Constitution.
"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," Warren said. "I just won't give [the disapproved instruction]." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
The above statement in bold told to jurors, since 1894 has been in violation of each Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The Sixth Amendment reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Prior to 1894 judges routinely told jurors that they were to judge the facts and the law. ...And the law. For the defendant, a jury that judges the law upholds his right to a jury that is not partial for the government. It is the defendants right to have a jury that judges the law as well as the facts.
To judge all facts in the case includes judging the most critical fact -- that a person was charged with breaking a certain and specific law or laws. Without that there can be no case to take to trial. It is the primary and most critical fact for which the government makes its case. Pressing criminal charges against a person gets the process in motion. The reason it must be the prosecution that gets the process started is because the suspect/defendant is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty in court.
Thus it was not the person's/defendant's actions that initiated force against any person or their property. For, until the defendant has received the verdict it is not known whether the arresting law enforcement officer acted in self-defense in correctly upholding the law or unknowingly acted with initiation of force while attempting to uphold the law. That is, the LEO making the arrest had reason to believe the person broke the law and then the DA (district attorney) pressed charges against the suspect. Yet the LEO/DA/government don't know for certain that the suspect/defendant broke the law. That detail will be answered by the jury.
What does it mean when the jury's verdict is an acquittal? It means the charges against the defendant were in error. That is, the defendant never broke the law he was charged with breaking. The law has been judged by the jury to have been wrongfully charged against the defendant. The jury says, "No. The law does not apply to the defendant breaking it. The law only applies in that the defendant abided the law." The law has been deemed to have been wrongfully applied -- the law does not apply to the defendant.
Guess what? That's what jury nullification is -- the jury discovers the same thing. That is, with jury nullification the jury decides that the law does not apply to the defendant -- the law had been wrongfully applied.
As per the Sixth Amendment the defendant has the right to an impartial trial wherein the jury judges the law. For there is no way the jury can avoid judging the law. The jury has only two choices, 1) the law was correctly applied/charged against the defendant, or 2) the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
It is each judge's job responsibility to ensure that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are protected. The primary key to each trial is the laws that the defendant is charged to have violated. It is by way of the facts presented by the prosecution and the defense during the trial that the primary key -- law as charged -- is judged to have been correct or in error. The facts presented by the prosecution and defense are secondary. That's the nature of cause and effect relationships. When one thing cannot exist without the other first being present the first thing is primary and the effect of that is secondary.
It is accepted that the defendant acted in a manner that appeared to have broken the law and was one factor in the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment that the person's actions violated the law. It cannot be misconstrued that the defendant's actions are the primary cause. For the defendant is deemed innocent and only suspected to have broken the law. The primary cause is the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment to set the court process in motion -- not the suspect's actions.
As per the Sixth Amendment an impartial jury favors neither the government nor the defendant.
Each jury that each judge has failed to inform the jury that they are to judge the law as well as the facts as they pertain to the case/trial has caused each of those juries to favor the government over the defendant.
Since 1894 each judge that has presided over jury trials has routinely violated the constitution. Concurrently, each defendant in each of those trials has had his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury violated. ....Violated by the judge presiding over the trial.
At issue in People v. Engelman, 02 C.D.O.S. 6411, was California Jury Instruction 17.41.1, which judges give before deliberations. It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law. California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
As shown earlier the jury cannot disregard the law for it is the law that is the primary key being judged.
"Unless jurors are informed of their solemn responsibility to report misconduct, I predict that many judgments will be reversed simply because the trial judge never had the opportunity to cure the problem." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
That is trivial compared to the fact that virtually every judge presiding over jury trials routinely violates defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. Now there's a valid reason why many judgments will be reversed. Reversed simply because the judge violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when he instructed the jury to favor the government over the defendant.
That is acceptable so long as you don't go overboard. I work as a bouncer, and I can tell you from experience that so long as you don't take it too far, cops will work with you to ensure that you aren't charged.
One thing that hasn't been discussed is the threat of violence. Since the man who was arrested had a rifle, why didn't he just threaten the thief with it and hold him until the police arrived?
Then, you can spend some time in court, spending money, defending yourself against the lawsuit the thief is liable to bring against you.
The threat of being sued by someone that you have to beat-up is exaggerated. Few criminals (or ordinary citizens) have the time, money, or knowhow to fight and win a lawsuit. They might file, but the judge would just throw it out at the initial hearing.
I might add, what if the thief is much larger than you are, what do you do then?
That's not something that I really have to consider, but others might. My suggestion is to use tools that match the threat and that big guys usually don't protect their knees as well as they should. Flip him on his back, and he's damn near helpless.
Of primary importance is human life, but since that didn't seem to touch many people on the board I added a more concrete reason.
Interesting that you could go to jail over $400, but a thief might get 90 days, at most.
Relative harm makes the difference; a vigilante kiling vs. stealing a stereo.
When one can go to jail defending property rights, it means property rights are under serious assault in this country.
He didn't go to jail for defending his property, he went to jail for using a disproportionate amount of force while defending his property.
Maureen Dowd: Wow! You win the "Word Twister of the Week" prize, how did you do it BlueLancer?
BlueLancer: Well I took Zeroisanumber's comments and twisted them around so that instead of being and argument against extra-judicial killing, it was an argument for a commie property-sharing initiative.
MD: Well, I know that I'm impressed...Say have you ever thought of being a journalist? There's an opening at the NY Times.
You don't know that, the article just said that the car had been broken into four times, not that the thief had done it four times.
The only mistake this guy did was not to use a bigger caliber rifle or a 12-guage. One shot to the head would have ended this scumbags life.
Killing is a big thing fogarty, it changes everything that you do and everything that you are. If you run up against this situation, then I hope you make a better decision then the man doing 9-years did.
That's right... call it "Community Adjudicating."
And while we're at it, I'd like to see more "Community Lawyering" for the nice attorneys who get perps off on technicalities.
If they think "Community Policing" is a good idea, let the judges and lawyers walk in the "community's" shoes themselves.
sorry, yes it was prescription sunglasses. Perp obviously put them on during his escape and realized they were useless to him so he threw them away.
You know what really bothers me about this is the fact that I am a law abiding citizen. I was walking past this perp as he was walking to my convertible and stopped and observed him reaching into my car doing what he was doing not realizing that the only thing of value in the car was my sunglasses.
I stopped, walked back to the afro guy and asked him what he was doing and the rest was history. I let him walk thinking he got nothing of value until after I called the cops and checked out my car and discovered my glasses gone.
Here's my history: I had a stereo system stolen from a 78 MG, my current car which is a 95 Honda Del S0l I had the spoiler ripped off the back 3 days after I bought it, a year later I had the antenna torn off, I've had a pair of brand new skis stolen at a ski resort here in northern Michigan.
Where has all of this gotten me? The latest incident I walked up to the perp and let him get away thinking the law would help. Yea, they caught the guy but he gave a phony address and never showed up for arraignment. I'm tired of being a victim, I'm tired of following the law and letting the judicial system attempt to instill order in this crazy out of control world.
The next time I encounter a perp I have every intention of administering my own justice as determined by whatever crime this damn perp is committing.....
I'm mad as hell and ain't gonna take it any more!
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.