Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vigilante Justice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post


    Sorry, Roger Stone trial.

    If he was convicted then this was not a result of one juror...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikki
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    What Flynn jury trial?

    Are you confusing it with Manafort and the one juror who was refusing to convict him? Eventually she was persuaded to join the rest of the jurors and convict Manafort for some crimes . The rest of the jurors wanted to convict him for all crimes.

    Anyway, yes, this can happen in any setting! I would not be surprised if we see it in Arbery's trial even if the evience is ovewhelming against the defense. A single "confederate" juror can impact the whole trial and serve of justice.

    Sorry, Roger Stone trial.


    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post


    Exactly! Like the judge and one juror in the Flynn trial. She was clearly biased against Flynn, and the judge as well.
    What Flynn jury trial?

    Are you confusing it with Manafort and the one juror who was refusing to convict him? Eventually she was persuaded to join the rest of the jurors and convict Manafort for some crimes . The rest of the jurors wanted to convict him for all crimes.

    Anyway, yes, this can happen in any setting! I would not be surprised if we see it in Arbery's trial even if the evience is ovewhelming against the defense. A single "confederate" juror can impact the whole trial and serve of justice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikki
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    This is true everywhere and including in cases when the law is against you. We have seen how one juror could protect defendants who were obviously guilty (the case of cop shooting on the back a person running away is one example). .

    I assume in a case of attempting looting, the jury and the judge will be more willing to accept the defendant's claims of self-defense.

    Exactly! Like the judge and one juror in the Flynn trial. She was clearly biased against Flynn, and the judge as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post


    In CA even when the law is on your side, it all depends on the judge and jury. It can go either way.



    This is true everywhere and including in cases when the law is against you. We have seen how one juror could protect defendants who were obviously guilty (the case of cop shooting on the back a person running away is one example). .

    I assume in a case of attempting looting, the jury and the judge will be more willing to accept the defendant's claims of self-defense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikki
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Based on the CA law which permit it

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=26035

    25850.


    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.


    On the other hand, the duty to retreat still applies (lives over property). But even within such legal constrains, a CA owner with a gun can still discourage looters. The latter are usually opportunistic and typically will not assume the risk of confronting an armed person who (even in California) can still use his weapon to defend himself if he is in danger.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...e-floyd-unrest

    California liquor store owner uses AR-15 to protect his property from looters in George Floyd unrest

    In CA even when the law is on your side, it all depends on the judge and jury. It can go either way.




    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post

    It is vigilante justice if they do so without legal authority.

    I live in a rural incorporated part of CA, where long guns and handguns can be openly carried with a permit from the local sheriff.

    Based on the CA law which permit it

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=26035

    25850.


    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.


    On the other hand, the duty to retreat still applies (lives over property). But even within such legal constrains, a CA owner with a gun can still discourage looters. The latter are usually opportunistic and typically will not assume the risk of confronting an armed person who (even in California) can still use his weapon to defend himself if he is in danger.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...e-floyd-unrest

    California liquor store owner uses AR-15 to protect his property from looters in George Floyd unrest

    Last edited by pamak; 04 Jun 20, 21:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikki
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    So, we can agree that in Philadelphia it is not considered vigilante justice to have business owners protect with firearms their business.

    By the way, the liberal and anti-gun California permits loaded guns in places of lawful business
    It is vigilante justice if they do so without legal authority.

    I live in a rural incorporated part of CA, where long guns and handguns can be openly carried with a permit from the local sheriff.


    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post


    I'm surprised it took this long for people to push back. Philadelphia have a stand your ground law called the Castle Doctrine.


    So, we can agree that in Philadelphia it is not considered vigilante justice to have business owners protect with firearms their business.

    By the way, the liberal and anti-gun California permits loaded guns in places of lawful business

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=26035


    ARTICLE 4. Other Exemptions to the Crime of Carrying a Loaded Firearm in Public [26000 - 26060]

    ( Article 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


    26035.

    Nothing in Section 25850 shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person’s place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.



    Still, it is a good thing in these times to remind people the boundaries of the law so that no one crosses them based on the false belief that he has a right to serve "justice"
    Last edited by pamak; 04 Jun 20, 20:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post

    The mayor of Phily said he will not tolerate vigilante justice but will tolerate the looting and destruction in his city.
    He did not say that.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
    THEY RIOT AND LOOT, THEN THEY FIGHT AMONGST EACH OTHER OVER THE ITEMS THEY HAVE STOLEN!


    https://www.bitchute.com/video/m5UOXZPdpCCv/

    Animals!

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikki
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Does same section of the penal code apply to police brutalities?
    IF you're trying to imply that police have different standards than the rest of us, then YES...you get it and I agree.

    But that doesn't excuse participation in questionable behaviors, regardless of your profession.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post
    The police was useless against the looters and violent protesters because they have liberal city and state leaders who won't allow them to do what needed to be done to quell the riots. They allowed the looters to loot at will because of that.
    Does same section of the penal code apply to police brutalities?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikki
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Does that apply to the police as well? Funny how it doesn't seem to do so.

    The police was useless against the looters and violent protesters because they have liberal city and state leaders who won't allow them to do what needed to be done to quell the riots. They allowed the looters to loot at will because of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post
    If the demonstrators and protestors allow the agitators and instigators to hide behind them, then they are complicit in the criminal activities committed. They are aiding and abetting felony criminal behavior. In other words, they are accomplices in the violence and looting.
    Does that apply to the police as well? Funny how it doesn't seem to do so.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X