continuing proofs America is wacko [2]

Mrs Figg wrote: I would be surprised if the kid had just been walking down the road minding his own buisness, nobody gets shot for just walking, so he must have been up to something violent,

Normally that should be true, but life is often more complex, especially when people's fears and prejudices come to play.

In this case a 17 year old boy is visiting with his other parent in a nice community that's been recently having some burglaries. He walks to the store to get snacks before watching a game on TV. As he's walking home he's a bit unfamiliar with the neighborhod and he's looking at the houses. So far there's nothing would get you or me into trouble.

George, the volunteer neighborhood watch guy watching from his car, sees his actions as suspicious and calls 911. He says, "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

The very first words from the police are, "OK. This guy, is he white, black, or hispanic?" Reply:"He looks black." (That's where race first comes into the transcript.) Later he says, "He's got his hand in his waistband and he's a black male." (implying he George thinks he's got a gun.)

George becomes increasingly agitated as he watches the young man who has now become a suspect, saying things like "These assholes! They always get away!" and "Fucking [unintelligible]!" He gets out of the car and starts following him. (I suspect his gun gave him the confidence to do this.)

The boy is talking to a girl on the phone as he walks and describes a creepy white dude who has started following him. He runs. George chases him. A fight follows. A gun is fired. A boy is dead.

Did the boy Trayvon put up a fight or not? We'll never know for sure. I might have in his shoes. He was afraid, and for a good reason.

What seems clear to me is that each of them was scared of the other, and I think their personal racial stereotypes and age stereotypes were a big part why this turned violent. George saw himself as defending his community from a stereotypical young black hoodlum, and Trayvon saw himself as defending himself against a stereotypical big white racist who attacked him for no reason when he was walking back from the store. Without the stereotypes I doubt the tragedy would have happened.

This where my problem with it lies- the boy was innocent right up to the point the confrontation happened- exactly what happened then the court never established- which is why the verdict went as it did.
But the action of following someone is what led to the tragedy. Had Zimmerman simply reported it to the police and waited - as he was told to by the police-then this boy would still be alive.

Did the boy defend himself physically when confronted? Probably, I think I would have if I had thought someone threatening to me was following me- but in a state where you have a right to kill in self defence- had the boy had a gun and shot Zimmerman first I wonder how it would have been treated in the US-young black boy shoots neighbourhood watch man. Sadly I think I can imagine

And even without a gun- if the lad felt his life was being threatened by this adult with a gun (and with good reason) surely he had a right also to defend himself including using lethal force? Both sides could be said to be attacking in 'self defence' here.
Which is why I think laws which allow lethal force should be rare indeed and only apply in very special circumstances.

In the UK you are allowed to defend yourself, your property, or your family- but the law states the force must be proportional- which is decided on the evidence by a jury.
So for example a few years ago a farmer shot a burglar and killed him- but as he shot the crim in the back as he was leaving the court found the farmer had used excessive force and that it was not justified and he was convicted.


Proportional force seems more sensible a way to tackle this in law than simply giving carte blanche to killing people.
Had the court had to decide if the force used was proportional I doubt Zimmerman would have walked from the court room a completely free man.

I think that untrained pseudo military neighbourhood watch people with guns are very dangerous. A professional would not have got into that ridiculous and lethal situation. Whoever gave him carte blanche to roam about with a gun trying to impose his rules of conduct need to be seriously investigated. Who has the legal right to employ these untrained vigilantes on suburban streets. They are as dangerous as the criminals.

Petty wrote:Proportional force seems more sensible a way to tackle this in law than simply giving carte blanche to killing people.
Had the court had to decide if the force used was proportional I doubt Zimmerman would have walked from the court room a completely free man.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think that untrained pseudo military neighbourhood watch people with guns are very dangerous..... They are as dangerous as the criminals.

Good points both. This would have been the instructions to the jury if the NRA Stand-your-ground legislation hadn't passed in Florida a few years ago:

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.
The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

Unfortunately many criminals had figured out that by these rules there was nothing anybody could do to them, and they were taking advantage of it.

Armed vigilantes are pretty scary. The normal rules for neighborhood watch is that people be unarmed, and that they observe but not confront suspects. Zimmerman broke both those guidelines in a big way. But unfortunately people who enjoy power tend to volunteer for these jobs, and you get these abuses.

And my point (which I forgot to make) is that if there's any good to come out of this tragedy, it's that all over the Nation neighborhood watch groups have been reviewing their policies and improving their training because of this. Everybody now can see the consequences of carrying a gun, and of jumping to conclusions.

That's why I'd really been hoping the jury would return a manslaughter conviction. It would have make it absolutely clear that if you choose to carry a gun you are not allowed ANY mistakes!

one shouldn't take the law into our own hands. there is a reason we got the police and a justice system.

The trouble is that unless you live in a city or large town that can afford a big police department, there just aren't enough officers to do anything. Our county Sheriff's office depends on all of us to take care of most of our own problems.

Another example of why I'm glad we have 50 different states with 50 different legal systems!

Here's an article from Arkansas about training of some of their teachers and administrators to carry firearms in schools. This could go wrong in so many ways, but in a democracy you've just got to let these things play themselves out.... 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARMING_TEACHERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-30-03-10-57

That sounds like a very well-thought out and carefully considered idea.  

In other US news, Bradley Manning has been found not guilty of aiding the enemy, which was the most serious charge against him and the one that carried a possible penalty of life imprisonment, though he was convicted of 20 other charges against him and according to the BBC still faces up to 154 years imprisonment for those.

That's a relief about the aiding the enemy charge. It makes the prosecution look a little foolish, but they must have known they were over-reaching. As for the others, 154 years sounds like media hype. I'll wait until the sentence is official before I worry about it too much.

To Fjordian eyes there's not much difference between a life sentence and 154 years in jail If you get a life sentence, can you get released early? And let's say he gets 154 years, can he be released early then?

What like when hes 120?

90, perhaps, if he behaves nicely I meant it more as a hypothetical question, as there really is no difference between life imprisonment and 150 years of jail - why can't they just call it what it is, and look less stupid.

how come what this guy did is worse than murder?  

There is a big difference, but it gets a little complicated. Basically since they're him a number of years, there's now room to negotiate. Are the years served end to end for each offense, or can several be served a the same time? Are there years that can be taken off for good behavior? None of that applies to a life sentence.

It's like the difference in horsetrading between the owner saying "Not for sale" and saying "$50,000". Once you have a number you've got something to negotiate.

So wouldn't it make more sense for the judge to pass the sentence- then everyone to work out if some is consecutive ect then announce the final actual number- with the usual margin for potential good behaviour?

I don't know the military rules at all, but everything we're hearing now is the press getting a bit out ahead of the facts I think.  Id advise we give it 24 hours to settle and to let some legal minds review the decision before jumping to any conclusions.

Thanks for explaining, David. It's all very confusing for us Fjordians - longest sentence you can get in Norway is 21 years, so we don't really understand it when the numbers get as high as in the states

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So wouldn't it make more sense for the judge to pass the sentence- then everyone to work out if some is consecutive ect then announce the final actual number- with the usual margin for potential good behaviour?

When the sentence is final we should have more precise figures for how long Manning will have to serve in prison. My understand is that 154 years is the theoretical maximum for the crimes he was convicted of. He won't necessarily receive the maximum sentence, though.

Ringdrotten wrote:Thanks for explaining, David. It's all very confusing for us Fjordians - longest sentence you can get in Norway is 21 years, so we don't really understand it when the numbers get as high as in the states

It does get a little absurd with the numbers, but prosecutors (at least in civilian courts, though they seem to have done the same in Manning's case) will bring as many charges as they can so that in case one or more fails to stick for some reason they'll still have other things to nail the accused on. If all or most of the charges resulted in convictions then you can get absurd totals. For example, Ariel Castro, who kidnapped three women in Cleveland and took a plea bargain to avoid a possible death penalty, has received life plus 1000 years after pleading guilty to 937 counts.

As Dave points out though, the raw number is not always the same as time actually spent in prison for a number of reasons.

Ringdrotten wrote:Thanks for explaining, David. It's all very confusing for us Fjordians - longest sentence you can get in Norway is 21 years, so we don't really understand it when the numbers get as high as in the states

Could you  clarify that for me Ringo?  Let's say you committed a series of 21 armed robberies over several years before they caught you (not you personally of course.)  Are you saying that when they finally brought you to justice, the sentence would be just be 21 years, the same as if you had only done one?

Yup, 21 years is max, nomatter how many killings or robberies you committed. Even Breivik (the guy who killed all those people on the 22th of july 2011) only got 21 years. He'll be locked up for life though, as he's mentally f**** up and poses a serious threat to society, so they can keep him in a psychiatric ward. But his prison sentence is 21 years, strange though it might sound.

OK I think I understand the logic. So what happens if Breivik kills somebody while he's in prison? Is that still covered under the 21 years, or can a new conviction and sentence be given?  

Let me ask that question is three cases. What happens if he kills a prison guard before he is convicted? After he is convicted but before he served the full 21 years? After he has served his sentence and is transferred to the psych ward?

I would think at the very least that, after a criminal had served the full 21 year sentence and was released into the public, he would then be subject to a new 21 years. He wouldn't now have a fee pass to kill again with no penalty, would he?

"I would think at the very least that, after a criminal had served the full 21 year sentence and was released into the public, he would then be subject to a new 21 years. " - David

That is correct. Once you've served your sentence you can get sentenced to a new penalty as soon as you get out, if you do something criminal.

As to the rest of your questions, I had no idea! So I had to google a bit, and though I didn't find an answer to all your questions, I found something at least. When a convict has served the full time of his sentence (let's say that in this case that sentence is 21 years), his case will be considered. If he or she still poses a threat to others, the sentence can be extended by up to five years. When the extended period of time is served, the case will be up for consideration again, and if the convict is again deemed dangerous, there will be another extended period, after which the case will be considered for a third time, and then for a 4th, 5th, 6th and so on. There is no limit to how many times a person's case can be considered or how many extra years a convict may be forced to serve in jail after the initial sentence (in our case, 21 years) is served, which means that, in theory (and no doubt with Breivik, in practice too) we too have life sentences that actually do last until the convict dies in prison. I am not sure what would happen a prisoner kills another or a guard while in prison, but I'm guessing he'd be moved to a higher security place, and then when the case of his release is to be considered he'll have to serve another 5. I'll come back to this if ever I find out for sure, but that's my guess.