Still believe in our jury system? https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/t2526 Runboard| Still believe in our jury system? en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:39:39 +0000 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:39:39 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32997,from=rss#post32997https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32997,from=rss#post32997quote:cooter50 wrote: And as to the OP, Yes I do still believe in our Judicial system fraught with issues yes but better than I see elsewhere. Better than some dictatorships. Places like the Philippines maybe but still not good. Our jury system needs to go. It doesn't work well enough to keep using it. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:32:52 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32996,from=rss#post32996https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32996,from=rss#post32996quote:The culpability is not a derivative of how serious the crime was Actually I agree totally - US law however (in its application) is not so sure. A 13 year old charged with a trivial or minor offense will usually be tried as a juvenile but once the offense becomes more serious it becomes usual for it to be heard in an adult court and an 'adult' penalty applied. which is of course totally wrong, either 13 year olds have faculty, in which case the should be always tried in an adult court or they do not. To say they dont have faculty when they steal a packet of candy but do when they kill some one is plain stupid. I'm making is that if people like Mary Bell are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be treated accordingly so are 13 year old boys in both countries. This country has had a great tendency to let them off the hook for crimes like murder. Messers Bell, Thompson and Vennables were treated like children - they did not serve sentences of the length applied to an adult in similar circumstances nor they they serve their sentences in conditions in which an adult would have served. And I reject totally your assertion that "the US a great tendency to let them off the hook for crimes like murder." There are over 2000 child offenders serving life without parole sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18, Curtis Fairchild Jones served 17 years for murder committed when he was 12nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:30:43 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32995,from=rss#post32995https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32995,from=rss#post32995quote:cooter50 wrote: The parent(s) involved with the 13 year old are also a component of the problem. Having a loaded weapon in availability range of that child, not keeping it under wraps, under lock and key, keeping the child distanced from it. As well teaching the child the difference between right wrong and the indifference of those around them to law. At least one parent played a role in the tragedy but the 13-year-old was still primarily to blame. But I agree that teaching children things like not pointing them at other people is extremely important if you are going to have them around. Best thing is probably not to have them around if you have children in the house unless they are locked up in a safe. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:28:30 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32994,from=rss#post32994https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32994,from=rss#post32994quote:mais oui wrote: quote:True but still less time locked up than what some older teen males received in this country for murder. Some were let out after only a few months of incarceration. And that was in the relatively liberal country of England, not the "law and order" USA. sorry but to me that seems garbled. you compare Mary Bells's treatment In UK to that of older people in the US. and then compare UK as a 'relatively liberal country' to 'law and order US' But Mary Bell was 50 years ago and followed close behind the crimes of the 'Moors Murderers' and shortly after we had confined the death penalty to the pages of history A better comparison would have been the James Bulger murder (which was still over 30 years ago)in which two ten year old boys were convicted of murder - they served less than 9 years in the same secure boarding school type facility which had housed Mary Bell. But there is a world of difference between the actions of Thompson, Venables and Bell and the momentary foolishness of the 13 year old in the OP. I never said that the 13 year old in the OP should get a pass I simply opined that in my view his culpability was minimal The culpability is not a derivative of how serious the crime was. The point I'm making is that if people like Mary Bell are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be treated accordingly so are 13 year old boys in both countries. This country has had a great tendency to let them off the hook for crimes like murder. And in this case, momentary foolishness or not, what he did was extremely serious. He killed an innocent person due to his stupidity. He was also more responsible for what happened than his father. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:17:13 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32920,from=rss#post32920https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32920,from=rss#post32920quote:cooter50 wrote: The parent(s) involved with the 13 year old are also a component of the problem. Having a loaded weapon in availability range of that child, not keeping it under wraps, under lock and key, keeping the child distanced from it. As well teaching the child the difference between right wrong and the indifference of those around them to law. I taught my kids the difference between right and wrong, same with the grand kids, the problem lies with they do wrong sometimes anyway, that is part of child rearing and growing up. When I had guns, they didn't know where they were, should be a no brainer. nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:48:35 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32874,from=rss#post32874https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32874,from=rss#post32874And as to the OP, Yes I do still believe in our Judicial system fraught with issues yes but better than I see elsewhere.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:27:37 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32868,from=rss#post32868https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32868,from=rss#post32868The parent(s) involved with the 13 year old are also a component of the problem. Having a loaded weapon in availability range of that child, not keeping it under wraps, under lock and key, keeping the child distanced from it. As well teaching the child the difference between right wrong and the indifference of those around them to law.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:45:49 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32865,from=rss#post32865https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32865,from=rss#post32865quote:True but still less time locked up than what some older teen males received in this country for murder. Some were let out after only a few months of incarceration. And that was in the relatively liberal country of England, not the "law and order" USA. sorry but to me that seems garbled. you compare Mary Bells's treatment In UK to that of older people in the US. and then compare UK as a 'relatively liberal country' to 'law and order US' But Mary Bell was 50 years ago and followed close behind the crimes of the 'Moors Murderers' and shortly after we had confined the death penalty to the pages of history A better comparison would have been the James Bulger murder (which was still over 30 years ago)in which two ten year old boys were convicted of murder - they served less than 9 years in the same secure boarding school type facility which had housed Mary Bell. But there is a world of difference between the actions of Thompson, Venables and Bell and the momentary foolishness of the 13 year old in the OP. I never said that the 13 year old in the OP should get a pass I simply opined that in my view his culpability was minimalnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:43:21 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32863,from=rss#post32863https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32863,from=rss#post32863quote:that really doesnt follow they are not allowed to drive - no matter how proficient they are because they lack the essential skills of decision making and if their decision making processes are such that they are prohibited from driving why are they capable of making decisions about a gun?-mais You're still comparing two different things. Not being able to make decisions about things which require adult level abilities is not the same thing as not having the mental capacity to recognize basic things like the fact that pointing a gun at some innocent person is not a good idea. Teenagers, including ones who are 13, are not complete idiots with no concept of reality at all. They are responsible when they do something that is extremely stupid like shooting and killing their friend. quote:Remember Mary Bell? She was only 10 when she first committed murder. She was locked up for 12 years by the British authorities. Firstly that was a very long time ago and secondly 12 years for two murders and a sexual mutilation - not too bad. True but still less time locked up than what some older teen males received in this country for murder. Some were let out after only a few months of incarceration. And that was in the relatively liberal country of England, not the "law and order" USA. The main point though is that what she did was taken seriously and she was held accountable even at the very young age of 10. quote:To say that she was 'locked up' is a little misleading , yes she was deprived of her liberty but she was not placed in jail it was more like a secure boarding school Not surprising since she was initially only 10 years old. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:16:05 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32832,from=rss#post32832https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32832,from=rss#post32832quote:Yes but whether they can drive perfectly well or not they bear responsibility for what they do if they commit a crime. that really doesnt follow they are not allowed to drive - no matter how proficient they are because they lack the essential skills of decision making and if their decision making processes are such that they are prohibited from driving why are they capable of making decisions about a gun? Remember Mary Bell? She was only 10 when she first committed murder. She was locked up for 12 years by the British authorities. Firstly that was a very long time ago and secondly 12 years for two murders and a sexual mutilation - not too bad. To say that she was 'locked up' is a little misleading , yes she was deprived of her liberty but she was not placed in jail it was more like a secure boarding schoolnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:07:07 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32824,from=rss#post32824https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32824,from=rss#post32824quote:sorry Im not following your logic I know lots of 13 and 14 yearolds that can drive perfectly well but are not allowed to.-mais Yes but whether they can drive perfectly well or not they bear responsibility for what they do if they commit a crime. quote:It snot a matter of lack of ability it is a matter of law - with the freshman brain surgeon it is the opposite he hasnt the training but might be allowed in law if the patient consented. And what the law doesn't allow them to do in regard to driving a car or performing brain surgery is irrelevant. They are responsible when they commit a crime even when they are 13 years old. quote:If not 13 then what? Significantly younger. Remember Mary Bell? She was only 10 when she first committed murder. She was locked up for 12 years by the British authorities. If a girl that young can be responsible for a murder then a 13 year old boy can be responsible for negligent homicide with a gun. quote:If you were a highly intelligent toddler then your parents more than any one would have know that and should have acted accordingly. It can be difficult to gauge the intelligence of a toddler. They can fool you. quote:BTW the only safe place for a gun not in use is in a safe - I dont consider trigger locks adequate I would have no objection to legally requiring that guns be kept in safes for two reasons. One to keep them out of the hands of children and two, to keep them out of the hands of criminals. quote:who decides what is a place that a highly intelligent toddler might discover? in MY view the arbiter of that should be a highly intelligent toddler if the toddler finds it is wasnt hidden well enough!    An adult has to decide where a gun is safely beyond a child's reach and you've already decided that. A safe. And I agree. quote:A driver who is alcohol impaired not only has his ability to drive impaired he also has his ability to make wise decisions impaired. That just sounds like something a drunk wants people to believe when he is looking for people to let him get away with some crime. In reality unless he was a complete idiot even before he got drunk he will know that he isn't in any shape to be driving a car when he is staggering to his car and has trouble putting the key in the ignition. quote:Your parents had no such impairment and must surely have realised how highly intelligent you were and failed to take adequate steps to safe guard both you and the wider community from a firearm. I didn't go outside with the gun and terrorize the neighborhood. I just pointed it at them inside our home putting the fear of God into them. They learned their lesson and the guns were removed from the house. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:00:51 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32729,from=rss#post32729https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32729,from=rss#post32729quote:True. That's why those matters you brought up like not being able to drive a car at the age of 13 were irrelevant sorry Im not following your logic I know lots of 13 and 14 yearolds that can drive perfectly well but are not allowed to. It snot a matter of lack of ability it is a matter of law - with the freshman brain surgeon it is the opposite he hasnt the training but might be allowed in law if the patient consented. quote:I don't even believe most adults are qualified to sit on a jury YAWN! quote:true and I have no problem with a lower limit. 13 years old isn't it. If not 13 then what? quote:I still disagree. Underestimating the ability of a highly intelligent toddler to find a hidden loaded gun If you were a highly intelligent toddler then your parents more than any one would have know that and should have acted accordingly. BTW the only safe place for a gun not in use is in a safe - I dont consider trigger locks adequate If the gun is left out or placed somewhere where a child can easily find it that is another matter. who decides what is a place that a highly intelligent toddler might discover? in MY view the arbiter of that should be a highly intelligent toddler if the toddler finds it is wasnt hidden well enough! quote:A drunk driver could make that claim but it wouldn't be a valid one. There is still a big difference between knowingly risking the lives of people by drunk driving and unknowingly risking lives by leaving a gun where you believe it is safe from the curiosity of a child. A driver who is alcohol impaired not only has his ability to drive impaired he also has his ability to make wise decisions impaired.   Your parents had no such impairment and must surely have realised how highly intelligent you were and failed to take adequate steps to safe guard both you and the wider community from a firearm nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:57:00 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32725,from=rss#post32725https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32725,from=rss#post32725quote:you wouldnt let a freshman do brain surgery because he has not had the training we are not talking about training we are talking about the innate ability to be responsible.-mais True. That's why those matters you brought up like not being able to drive a car at the age of 13 were irrelevant. quote:If some one isnt responsible enough to judge your actions (in a jury) how can he be responsible enough to judge his own? I don't even believe most adults are qualified to sit on a jury. Your argument would require folks to excuse even adults if they committed a murder because of their poor judgment powers when that is precisely why they would commit a murder in the first place. quote:suppose for a moment that I accept your premise, would a ten yearold be responsible? a 6 year old? a three year old? No but a 13-year-old would be. quote:there has to be a lower limit or you would be jailing toddlers for shooting people (Veronica Rutledge was shot dead by her two year old - what do you think 20 years in the slammer be long enough even though he would still be a young man on his release?) True and I have no problem with a lower limit. 13 years old isn't it. quote:Im sorry but they absolutely did! I still disagree. Underestimating the ability of a highly intelligent toddler to find a hidden loaded gun is not an offense that justifies prison time. If the gun is left out or placed somewhere where a child can easily find it that is another matter. quote:How? both are the result of stupidity and both can result in multiple deaths - at least the drunk driver can claim that his judgement was impaired by alcohol when he was stupid presumably your parents were not judgement impaired. A drunk driver could make that claim but it wouldn't be a valid one. There is still a big difference between knowingly risking the lives of people by drunk driving and unknowingly risking lives by leaving a gun where you believe it is safe from the curiosity of a child.   nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:31:59 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32723,from=rss#post32723https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32723,from=rss#post32723quote:katie5445 wrote: You are giving them more credit than they deserve, which is not their fault. I've raised kids and I'm raising grand kids and 'parenting' does not work that way, they don't know better, unless they are taught and half the time that doesn't stick either. You cross your fingers and hope they eventually get it as they age into maturity. At the end of the day it is the parent who should know better, if not for that parent, that child would still be alive. I would agree that depending on the circumstances the parent(s) shares in the responsibility for what happened but the teen is primarily responsible. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:10:41 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32718,from=rss#post32718https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32718,from=rss#post32718The US has a fairly complex judicial system, to review it in a classroom setting is very revealing as to the basis of Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Guilt. All criminals INCLUDING those witnessed in the activity of proceedings is granted their day in court according to Federal Law. Otherwise we would be no different than the ME or any other nation in the ability to jail, hold, torture or torment until the 'Accused' dies as happens in many foreign instances. Or you have Kangaroo Tribunals as the Amanda Knox situation where proof was never forth coming as an absolute but by association found guilty.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:33:35 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32705,from=rss#post32705https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32705,from=rss#post32705quote:No, but that's irrelevant. I also wouldn't let an 18-year-old freshman in college perform brain surgery or be an astronaut but if he committed murder I'd hold him responsible. you wouldnt let a freshman do brain surgery because he has not had the training we are not talking about training we are talking about the innate ability to be responsible. If some one isnt responsible enough to judge your actions (in a jury) how can he be responsible enough to judge his own? quote:If he shoots someone he is responsible for that just as he would be responsible if he decided to take his father's car and go for a joyride. suppose for a moment that I accept your premise, would a ten yearold be responsible? a 6 year old? a three year old? there has to be a lower limit or you would be jailing toddlers for shooting people (Veronica Rutledge was shot dead by her two year old - what do you think 20 years in the slammer be long enough even though he would still be a young man on his release?) quote:They did not morally deserve to go to prison Im sorry but they absolutely did! quote:Getting drunk and driving a car is quite different from putting a gun where you don't believe a toddler can find it and being surprised when he or she does. How? both are the result of stupidity and both can result in multiple deaths - at least the drunk driver can claim that his judgement was impaired by alcohol when he was stupid presumably your parents were not judgement impaired nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:27:59 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32700,from=rss#post32700https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32700,from=rss#post32700You are giving them more credit than they deserve, which is not their fault. I've raised kids and I'm raising grand kids and 'parenting' does not work that way, they don't know better, unless they are taught and half the time that doesn't stick either. You cross your fingers and hope they eventually get it as they age into maturity. At the end of the day it is the parent who should know better, if not for that parent, that child would still be alive.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 03:16:35 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32697,from=rss#post32697https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32697,from=rss#post32697quote:katie5445 wrote: If your parents are that irresponsible, at 13 how exactly are you to know responsibility, from the responsibility fairy? Even a 13-year-old should know better than to point a real gun at their friend and to take guns very seriously. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:59:50 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32696,from=rss#post32696https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32696,from=rss#post32696quote:would you let him vote? enlist in the army? marry? serve on your jury? sign for credit?-mais No, but that's irrelevant. I also wouldn't let an 18-year-old freshman in college perform brain surgery or be an astronaut but if he committed murder I'd hold him responsible. quote:you seem to think that he has adult capabilities so its only logical that he should be allowed to do the above things. A classic case of "apples and oranges." The fact that he isn't capable of performing certain adult tasks or simply isn't allowed to do so doesn't mean that he isn't responsible for what he does do. If he shoots someone he is responsible for that just as he would be responsible if he decided to take his father's car and go for a joyride. If he wrecked the car and ran over a policeman while doing so not only would he be considered responsible for it he would be held accountable. quote:Actually they did and depending on the state they not only morally but legally deserved to go to jail. They did not morally deserve to go to prison. My dad was a gun collector and neither of them believed the gun was available to me. They were surprised when I managed to gain access to it. Also, after that incident my mom saw to it that it never happened again by getting the guns out of the house. quote:You say its OK because no one was hurt and it was just a silly mistake suppose I were to drink a half dozen martinis hop into my car and drive down the road would that be OK - it was after all a silly mistake and no one got hurt. Getting drunk and driving a car is quite different from putting a gun where you don't believe a toddler can find it and being surprised when he or she does. quote:Its a bit late sending some one to jail after some one gets killed. I agree. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:57:47 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32634,from=rss#post32634https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32634,from=rss#post32634If your parents are that irresponsible, at 13 how exactly are you to know responsibility, from the responsibility fairy?nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:10:16 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32633,from=rss#post32633https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32633,from=rss#post32633quote:I consider the 13 year old to be a little too old for him not to have the primary responsibility for what happens. would you let him vote? enlist in the army? marry? serve on your jury? sign for credit? you seem to think that he has adult capabilities so its only logical that he should be allowed to do the above things. quote:Neither of my parents deserved to be placed in prison for years for leaving a loaded gun where I could find it as a toddler. actually they did and depending on the state they not only morally but legally deserved to go to jail. You say its OK because no one was hurt and it was just a silly mistake suppose I were to drink a half dozen martinis hop into my car and drive down the road would that be OK - it was after all a silly mistake and no one got hurt. Its a bit late sending some one to jail after some one gets killednondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:08:08 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32630,from=rss#post32630https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32630,from=rss#post32630quote:katie5445 wrote: Persons aren't always charged in an accident, sometimes it is an accident depending what happened and who was involved. The father I would have put him in jail for years, the kid would get counseling and monitoring. I have read several swimming pool drownings of children over the years with kids and no one held responsible it was called an accident. The parents didn't see it as justice for the kid, they said it would be the last thing their son would want to happen to his life long friend. Neither of my parents deserved to be placed in prison for years for leaving a loaded gun where I could find it as a toddler. They simply made a careless mistake which fortunately didn't cost anyone his life. In this case the boy was plenty old enough to know to never point a gun at anyone unless in self-defense. Pointing guns at innocent people is stupid and only a very foolish 13-year-old would have pointed a gun at his friend even if he didn't believe the gun was loaded. As for the DA, he was simply being more objective about who was responsible for what happened than the parents of the slain boy who knew the other boy and cared more about him than the DA. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:28:37 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32629,from=rss#post32629https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32629,from=rss#post32629quote:mais oui wrote: quote:Why wouldn't you hold a thirteen year old responsible for shooting someone? It's not like they are completely brainless. completely brainless no (although in my experience most 13 yearold boys are almost completely brainless) But when a 13 year old is playing with his fathers loaded gun and someone gets shot I would hold the father at least 80% at fault I wouldn't. I consider the 13 year old to be a little too old for him not to have the primary responsibility for what happens. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:22:27 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32600,from=rss#post32600https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32600,from=rss#post32600I KNOW I have posted it before but I love the story and it demonstrates the attitude to being dumb with a gun. A man shot a 9 yearold girl in a Halloween costume because he thought she was a skunk! despite the girl receiving extensive injuries he was only charged with misdemeanor assault! there have been two cases in recent weeks of hunters shooting after dusk (illegally in one case)and mistaking people out walking dogs for deer in neither case does prosecution seem likely - although its too early to tell - there will definitely however be a prosecution for the hunting violation!nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:21:39 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32599,from=rss#post32599https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32599,from=rss#post32599Persons aren't always charged in an accident, sometimes it is an accident depending what happened and who was involved. The father I would have put him in jail for years, the kid would get counseling and monitoring. I have read several swimming pool drownings of children over the years with kids and no one held responsible it was called an accident. The parents didn't see it as justice for the kid, they said it would be the last thing their son would want to happen to his life long friend.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:14:43 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32598,from=rss#post32598https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32598,from=rss#post32598quote:Why wouldn't you hold a thirteen year old responsible for shooting someone? It's not like they are completely brainless. completely brainless no (although in my experience most 13 yearold boys are almost completely brainless) But when a 13 year old is playing with his fathers loaded gun and someone gets shot I would hold the father at least 80% at faultnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:58:41 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32597,from=rss#post32597https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32597,from=rss#post32597quote:katie5445 wrote: By the way the parents of the victim, fought against the DA and supported the kid, does that mean the DA cares and the parents don't? They certainly cared a lot more about the shooter than the DA did. They apparently cared about as much for him as they did their own son. The DA did not. He was more interested in justice for the victim. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:45:38 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32596,from=rss#post32596https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32596,from=rss#post32596quote:katie5445 wrote: quote:Philer wrote: quote:katie5445 wrote: How about this scenario. This is an event I had read that circumstances change little, pretty much repeating a similar story. There is going to be a trial in WA. for manslaughter, a 13 y.o. boy who shot and killed his best buddy with his dads shotgun, playing around thinking it unloaded. The DA agrees it is an accident without intention but is charging the kid because HE was reckless. This is the 5th time I have seen this in WA. state, the kid is in orange, handcuffed, sitting next to an attorney on trial, while the parent who left out the loaded gun is in the audience. To me if you can hire a hit man to murder someone the hit man gets 20 to life and you get life or the death penalty, why isn't the parent on trial who started the motion of injury or death? The boy was charged because the DA cared enough about the victim of the shooting to charge him. Who was the victim? Presumably another male approximately his age. Also in this case the DA is most likely thinking that the 13 year old was old enough to know better than to accidentally shoot his friend and is holding him more responsible than the dad. As for your hit man scenario, I never believed in giving the actual killer a lighter sentence than someone who hired him. That makes no sense. The kid that died was his best buddy, they were both fooling around with the gun and the father got zero charges. I wouldn't hold a 13 y.o. responsible in this case but the dad would be in jail, maybe it'd teach these parents not to leave out a loaded weapon if he had several years in jail and by no means do I think this is taking gun laws "seriously" if the right person isn't punished, since this is the 5th case in a few years, I'd say the message isn't being received by adults. Why wouldn't you hold a thirteen year old responsible for shooting someone? It's not like they are completely brainless. I also have no big problem with going after parents who negligently leave guns lying around where kids can get them but who do you charge? The father, the mother or both of them? And what punishment do you inflict? My parents unintentionally allowed me access to a gun when I was a toddler and neither of them really deserved to be sent to prison. After I picked up the gun and pointed it at them without firing it my mom saw to it that I didn't get access to one again by getting them out of the house. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:40:38 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32595,from=rss#post32595https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32595,from=rss#post32595quote:although its not really a relevant point in the context of this discussion.-mais Except for the fact that it points to one of the main problems in our jury system. Bias. People can't "accidentally" shoot police officers and get away with it because this society cares too much about police officers to allow them to do that. That concern and bias would be demonstrated by most juries even when a real accidental shooting of a cop took place. My view is that the same concern should be shown for the average citizen who doesn't carry a badge. Accidental shootings should be taken much more seriously than they are. quote:Mmmmm 'messing around' is a bit emotive and isnt really supported by evidence. If it would help - I suspect it wouldnt - I could provide a list of cases where some one has been shot in a public place by some one 'messing around with a gun' and wasnt charged. It really isnt so rare Not rare enough. I wouldn't mind looking at any cases you'd like to list. quote:Im not sure that that is the case - in a case very like that of Oskar Pretorious Tiffany Segule was in bed when she heard unexpected noises shooting through her bedroom door she shot her husband in the chest he was bringing her breakfast in bed - no charges Jessica Utz shot her husband at the dinner table at the time the police said that she 'might' face charges but I cant find any thing that says that she was charged Makanzie Halinski shot her boyfriend forehead, killing him and was sentenced to 7 years - she claimed that she thought the gun was not loaded This Missouri case is more typical. A young white woman was found guilty of first degree murder even though she claimed the shooting was an accident. She was also given a life sentence with no parole. Even assuming that the shooting wasn't accidental with little evidence indicating that it wasn't, why wasn't she convicted of second degree murder? What evidence was there of premeditation? It sounds like a spur of the moment shooting to me. http://www.kfvs12.com/story/31932449/hayti-woman-found-guilty-of-shooting-killing-boyfriend-sentencednondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:31:47 +0000 Re: Still believe in our jury system?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32593,from=rss#post32593https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p32593,from=rss#post32593By the way the parents of the victim, fought against the DA and supported the kid, does that mean the DA cares and the parents don't?nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:12:46 +0000