Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol I can prove I work for the DOJ by posting my ID
because you seem to keep alluding that I'm not
again you are wrong and you can type up as many responses as you want
and no that good samartian law point I brought up wasn't baseless
Generally in America if you cannot be liable civil you won't be charged criminally either
for every point you make about how it could possibly be the child's stepfather, there are many more cases where a child is abducted in America
You have smartly continued to ignore my question as to what would you want bystanders to do if they suspected your child was being abducted....
I dont really care if you work for the DOJ, but your postings here either show 1, that you dont really, or 2, that you are unqualified to do so. You have jumped from one argument (that charges never happen) to another (Good Samaritan Law), all of which have been proven wrong. Now you are onto yet another error..
Generally in america, you wont be charged criminally if civil charges cant be filed? Wrong, there is a huge difference between the standards of guilt between the civil courts and criminal courts in america.
Example: Someone goes into someone elses home to burglarize it, the home owner shoots and kills the intruder out of retaliation, not for defense, and indeed it could be deemed a criminal act in many parts of the country, particuarly if the invader is shot in the back. (Texas of course one such exception). A criminal charge could indeed be filed against the owner, but you would be hard pressed to find a jury to award money to a home invader. (again, it does indeed happen though)
Reality in america is that individuals are "generally" first charged with a criminal act because the standards are much higher to prove guilt, and then upon a finding of guilt in the criminal courts, then a civil complaint is filed using the guilty finding as partial evidence of guilton the civil trail. You cant however use civil guilty findings during a criminal hearing because the standards are much lower in a civil court than criminal.
But even if you were correct that "Generally" wont be charged, that would mean you conceed that it does happen, which means you have also dropped the other pathetic argument that it never happens.
Have you bothered yet to look up in your "legal" books the definition of "false imprisonment"? Had these individuals detained the perpetrator wrongly, again, that would be one charge that the perpetrator could have asked been filed against them. You many not be so worried about the "black men" in question that you dont care to see them go to jail wrongfully for trying to save someone, but I do. I'd prefer they also be better safe than sorry by not assuming that they are qualified to apprehend an individual and detain them without authority, thereby risking their own prison term.
I dont really care if you work for the DOJ, but your postings here either show 1, that you dont really, or 2, that you are unqualified to do so. You have jumped from one argument (that charges never happen) to another (Good Samaritan Law), all of which have been proven wrong. Now you are onto yet another error..
Generally in america, you wont be charged criminally if civil charges cant be filed? Wrong, there is a huge difference between the standards of guilt between the civil courts and criminal courts in america.
Example: Someone goes into someone elses home to burglarize it, the home owner shoots and kills the intruder out of retaliation, not for defense, and indeed it could be deemed a criminal act in many parts of the country, particuarly if the invader is shot in the back. (Texas of course one such exception). A criminal charge could indeed be filed against the owner, but you would be hard pressed to find a jury to award money to a home invader. (again, it does indeed happen though)
Reality in america is that individuals are "generally" first charged with a criminal act because the standards are much higher to prove guilt, and then upon a finding of guilt in the criminal courts, then a civil complaint is filed using the guilty finding as partial evidence of guilton the civil trail. You cant however use civil guilty findings during a criminal hearing because the standards are much lower in a civil court than criminal.
But even if you were correct that "Generally" wont be charged, that would mean you conceed that it does happen, which means you have also dropped the other pathetic argument that it never happens.
Have you bothered yet to look up in your "legal" books the definition of "false imprisonment"? Had these individuals detained the perpetrator wrongly, again, that would be one charge that the perpetrator could have asked been filed against them. You many not be so worried about the "black men" in question that you dont care to see them go to jail wrongfully for trying to save someone, but I do. I'd prefer they also be better safe than sorry by not assuming that they are qualified to apprehend an individual and detain them without authority, thereby risking their own prison term.
Once again PGH you blow alot of smoke with very little actual context to any of the points I made
FIRST you give a horrible example. And even said "you'd be hard-pressed to find a jury to award money to the home invader".
Which says that you didn't listen to my point! What I clearly said was IF A PERSON CANNOT BE held LIABLE for an act IN CIVIL COURT GENERALLY THEY CANNOT/WILL NOT BE CHARGED IN CRIMINAL COURT.
But in your example you give a case that goes to trial in front of the jury which says the court had deemed the Person CAN be liable (it is moot to say whether the jury WILL find them liable) AND OF COURSE THEREFORE CAN BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY AS WELL (in your example). The point is if it went trial (in front of jury) than the defendant CAN BE HELD Liable by law (as in your example)
BUT (like the point I was making) if it is against the law for a person to be held liable (Good Samaritan Law for example) then the case wont go to trial the Court would immediately dismiss it
again PGH I've noted numerous times where I'd make a point but then in your response you challenge me but not on the main point I was actually making
Secondly the point you keep making about the Guy (who was holding the girl) could have said the Black Guys were false imprisoning him. Which I never argued against! HE could've said that
HELL YOU CAN PRACTICALLY FILE against someone FOR ANYTHING
BUT MY POINT WAS THE BLACK GUYS WOULD NEVER BE CHARGED
for example: Lets say I stop you from robbing someone and then hold you down and cops show up. You could theoretically file that I held you against your will (false imprisonment) . But I would never ever be charged for it. Even if you were not robbing the lady and I had mistaken I STILL WOULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR IT! That is my point PGH you keep missing....
There is no scenario where those two men would have BEEN CHARGED for any crime! Period!
I am on westlaw right now researching to prove to you that no one could be charged for trying to help out someone in danger (since you don't want to cite a case where they have been charged).
And also prove to you that GENERALLY (and I say generally because if im not mistaken there is no law that stipulates this) but if it is AGAINST THE LAW to hold SOMEONE CIVIL responsible(meaning you cant sue them for a particular act) then they WONT BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY FOR IT EITHER....
You dismiss me as not knowing what I'm talking about. But I know you are wrong. And lets agree to do this until one proves the other wrong by citing actual cases and judgments....
Once again PGH you blow alot of smoke with very little actual context to any of the points I made
Once again you give a horrible example. And even said "you'd be hard-pressed to find a jury to award money to the home invader".
Which says that you didn't listen to my point! What I clearly said was IF A PERSON CANNOT BE held LIABLE for an act IN CIVIL COURT GENERALLY THEY CANNOT/WILL NOT BE CHARGED IN CRIMINAL COURT.
But in your example you give a case that goes to trial in front of the jury which says the court had deemed the Person CAN be liable (it is moot to say whether the jury WILL find them liable). The point is if it went trial (in front of jury) than the defendant CAN BE HELD Liable by law
BUT (like the point I was making) if it is against the law for a person to be held liable (Good Samaritan Law for example) then the case wont go to trial the Court would immediately dismiss it
again PGH I've noted numerous times where I'd make a point but then in your response you challenge me but not on the main point I was actually making
Secondly the point you keep making about the Guy (who was holding the girl) could have said the Black Guys were false imprisoning him. Which I never argued against! HE could've said that
BUT MY POINT WAS THE BLACK GUYS WOULD NEVER BE CHARGED
for example: Lets say I stop you from robbing someone and then hold you down and cops show up. You could theoretically file that I held you against your will (false imprisonment) . But I would never ever be charged for it. Even if you were not robbing the lady and I had mistaken I STILL WOULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR IT! That is my point PGH you keep missing....
There is no scenario where those two men would have BEEN CHARGED for any crime! Period!
I am on westlaw right now researching to prove to you that no one could be charged for trying to help out someone in danger (since you don't want to cite a case where they have).
$2.25 million for home invader shot by cop - Chicago Breaking News (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/family-of-home-invader-shot-by-cop-to-get-225-million.html - broken link)
that took all of 2 seconds to prove you were wrong, and yes, its happened against home owners also. Pretend it doesnt happen but it does..
I'm going to leave you be with your pretend land, you can have the last word because anyone can read these threads and decide for themself. We live in a sue crazy world, and only a fool would pretend that had this not been a staged event, the perpetrator could have thought he was going to be attacked, and with the number of witnesses around, he might even have had witnesses.
You can pretend that its right to take the law into your own hand, which indeed would be ironic considering your claim of employment, but no one would ever tell you that its ok to detain others if you are not legally allowed to. Doing so is violating the law PERIOD..
$2.25 million for home invader shot by cop - Chicago Breaking News (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/family-of-home-invader-shot-by-cop-to-get-225-million.html - broken link)
that took all of 2 seconds to prove you were wrong, and yes, its happened against home owners also. Pretend it doesnt happen but it does..
I'm going to leave you be with your pretend land, you can have the last word because anyone can read these threads and decide for themself. We live in a sue crazy world, and only a fool would pretend that had this not been a staged event, the perpetrator could have thought he was going to be attacked, and with the number of witnesses around, he might even have had witnesses.
You can pretend that its right to take the law into your own hand, which indeed would be ironic considering your claim of employment, but no one would ever tell you that its ok to detain others if you are not legally allowed to. Doing so is violating the law PERIOD..
Dude I cant believe you would cite a case that has nothing to do with what we are disputing. That cop shot the kid when there was no imminent danger. Which throughout this thread ive given you examples that the shooter CAN be held liable Criminally and civil
What we are disputing is whether or not someone can be charged for trying to save someone else (in imminent danger, as the girl was)
That cop case you cited is not even CLOSE to what we are disputing.....
****If the intruder had the cop wife hostage or he charged his wife or family (which is an imminent danger) THEN the COP shot the intruder. The cop would never be charged****
Dude I cant believe you would cite a case that has nothing to do with what we are disputing. That cop shot the kid when there was no imminent danger. Which throughout this thread ive given you examples that the shooter CAN be held liable Criminally and civil
What we are disputing is whether or not someone can be charged for trying to save someone else (in imminent danger, as the girl was)
That cop case you cited is not even CLOSE to what we are disputing.....
****If the intruder had the cop wife hostage or he charged his wife or family (which is an imminent danger) THEN the COP shot the intruder. The cop would never be charged****
Try again please!
And in the OP story, there was no imminent danger, there was an impression of one, but impressions are not reality or justification for breaking the law.
You can go and respond and babble to yourself, I'm tired of trying to explaining the obvious, that its not ok to violate the law regardless of ones intent, and with your job, you should know better.
Babble a response, I promise I wont respond again because you are starting to sound like a broken record. Ok to break the law, please...
Leave it to City Data to take an awesome story and turn it into a racial ****fest.
Kudos to those 2 dudes. BTW, anyone noticed all those pale-faces marching up the WTC for the FDNY on 9/11. Thought so....
Nothing racial at this Point Shizzle, PGH is the ONLY person who has responded that has criticized the guys who were trying to help with his baseless non-facts....
My earlier point is that race had nothing to do with their willingness to help. They were willing to help because they were young, in a group and oblivious to the dangers of poking their nose in someone elses business. I did not see a group of nice young white teen agers walk by so we dont know how they would have responded.
The fact that the people here wanted to focus on my terminolgy of "punk" while ignoring the main thrust of my argument is typical of this forum.
In your original post you doubted the veracity of this study because they didn't show what 'white punks' would have done in this situation thus you were inferring that the heros of the story were 'black punks'.
Why not say 'this was the only group of young males - who knows if others also would have been prone to help'?
And you are rather new here to have developed a sense of how 'typical' this forum may or may not be. I have been here long enough to sense a stormfront troll post from a mile away.
Elizabeth Smart has nothing to do with the topic. She is an unrelated story. That would be like someone arguing not to eat hamburgers using mad cow disease as the excuse, or not getting in a car to drive, because we can all remember tragic car accidents.
Elizabeth Smart was a tragic story, this is not. It could have been had the perpetrator been real, or had the perpetrator not been taking part of a story and then claimed the individuals attacked him for "no reason". It would be his word against their, and even if they would happen to win at trial, they still would not have been a winner due to the inconvenience it would have placed upon their life.
As other posters have commented, some chose to call the police, (which would have been my reaction), other would have chosen to go in and "save" the girl, but abductors dont take part in highly vocal kidnappings, and had this been real, the chances of him having a weapon, thereby turning this from an abduction to a hostage situation for example would have been a far worse outcome.
We are talking about the chances of the public helping a potentially abducted child or not. How is this not relevent to the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? After all, her abductors took a masked young girl around, refused to let her speak to other people yet noone called the police. Frankly, I doubt they would have called the police if she had told them her name and begged for help -- after all, why get involved? One may get sued......
The truth of the matter is that the young men in this story took a chance - luckily it just turned out to be a tv show. But maybe if someone had 'took a chance' when Adam Walsh was being led out of Sears by his kidnapper, perhaps he would be alive.
Life is about taking chances and making judgement calls. Sometimes that means making a mistake and sometimes that just might mean saving a life. Pick your side - and god help you if your potential rescuers pick the side of non involvement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
