continuing proofs America is wacko [2]

"Guns lead to assumptions (nearly always false it seems). The father has a gun so he assumes the 17 year old does too. If it was a gun free society that assumption would never have occurred and the immediate response to that assumption- lethal force - would not therefore follow either." - Petty

I think you make a very good point here - this might sound strange to you non-fjordians {{{though you are a strange lot }}}, but police officers don't carry guns in Norway on regular patrol/field service (or whatever it's called). Armed robberies are very rare, and there are few homicides in comparison with other countries. From wikipedia: "The 2008 murder rate was 0.69 people per 100,000 head of population". Sure, there are incidents the police might have been able to handle better if they carried guns, but if the statistics are anything to go buy, there's good reason to think that because the police don't usually carry guns, criminals often won't either.

Same here Ringdrotten.

And every time the UK police are polled on whether or not they want guns they say no every time, overwhelmingly.

Armed police means armed criminals. Its always going to be an escalation.
Here if you commit a crime with a gun as opposed to without one the punishment is automatically way more severe.
That reduces the desire of criminals to be armed, and knowing the police aren't going to just open fire on you also seems to work for them deciding not to arm themselves.




David, the thing that concerns me here is form the report it sounds like the police consider it a closed book. It doesnt seem like it will go to Court and a jury to decide if it was appropriate force.
So where is the justice for the family of the deceased in such circumstances?- all their son did was make a mistake, get a bit horny and take up his girlfriends offer of sneaking into her room at night- I did the same as a teenager with my girlfriend. He did not deserve to die for that and his family deserve a full hearing of the circumstances tested in a Court of Law.

As I said at the beginning, this sucks for everybody involved.  If this happened in a state with different laws, it might be appropriate to have a jury trial, but who wins then? (And should justice even contain the word "win"? But that's a bigger issue.)  

The parents of the young man get to live in a media circus with no chance to grieve properly.
The father probably feels lower than shit anyway. What useful purpose does a media circus and further punishment serve for him?  
And above all, what about the poor girl? It's almost too painful to think about what she's going through right now. Imagine having your father in jail while FOX News discusses your most intimate secrets in prime time. Imagine going to school.....  

The other way to look at it is that the young man made a mistake comparable to drinking too much or driving too fast, and he ended up dying, as sometimes happens when we use bad judgement.  Tragedy has many flavors. This is just one of many.

And again, I keep thinking about the poor girl.  What does justice mean for her?

A 17 year old is dead. That has to be properly accounted for.

It would be a tragedy if it was a media storm over a trial. In the UK there is no filming in court, no trial by tv, and strict laws on what can and what cannot be reported whilst a trial is ongoing.
How the US deals with court coverage is a problem of its own making.

I have no doubt the father does feel like shit, but he should, he ended a young life for no good reason, or at best for a mistaken reason. That there should be consequences for doing so seems appropriate to me. And if a jury finds he acted, in whatever the exact circumstances were, appropriately then his name is publicly cleared and he has legal protections from slander ect.

For the girl I dont see any outcome being good for her. And she should be given all assistance she requires in coming to terms with what has happened. But I dont think consideration of her position alone is reason enough for justice not to take place.

The considerations of those grieving for a dead son should bear equal weight.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:A 17 year old is dead. That has to be properly accounted for.

Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of paperwork being generated for those interested in "accounting".  

It would be a tragedy if it was a media storm over a trial. In the UK there is no filming in court, no trial by tv, and strict laws on what can and what cannot be reported whilst a trial is ongoing.
How the US deals with court coverage is a problem of its own making.

It is. But it's a BIG problem.  If you're under 18 you're protected from the press, but in a hypothetical trial of the father there would be no protections unless a judge took special action.

I have no doubt the father does feel like shit, but he should, he ended a young life for no good reason, or at best for a mistaken reason. That there should be consequences for doing so seems appropriate to me. And if a jury finds he acted, in whatever the exact circumstances were, appropriately then his name is publicly cleared and he has legal protections from slander ect.

For the girl I dont see any outcome being good for her. And she should be given all assistance she requires in coming to terms with what has happened. But I dont think consideration of her position alone is reason enough for justice not to take place.

The considerations of those grieving for a dead son should bear equal weight.

This is where I think we both agree and differ.

We agree for the need for justice for all the people involved.

Where we differ is I don't see justice as only happening in a courtroom. As a matter of fact, I see lawyers and courtrooms as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted.  

True Justice works best when it's reached by all the people and families involved, and if that can be reached I don't see any need to go further unless there is a clear law broken.

David H wrote:And again, I keep thinking about the poor girl.  What does justice mean for her?

While speculation of this sort is rather risky, I have to wonder what the outcome would have been if the girl had not told her father she didn't know who the boy in her room was.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Deputy-constables-Dad-shoots-teen-boy-found-in-daughters-bedroom-250041711.html

According to detectives, his 16-year-old daughter let McCormick in the house and snuck him into her bedroom.  Her younger brother went to say good night and saw two feet sticking out under the bed, detectives said. He then went to get his father.  The father walked in and asked questions, but his daughter claimed to not know McCormick. The father then called 911, but an argument ensued with the teenage boy.  The father told deputies that McCormick dropped his hands as if to grab something, so the man opened fire. The teen died at the scene.

Not that I know anything about her situation, but I think my sympathies will be remaining with the deceased.

I don't see any need to go further unless there is a clear law broken.- David

There it seems is the main difference in our laws. Here there would be a very big question mark over whether a law had been broken. On the surface at least he seems guilty of using disproportionate force to the circumstances (even more so after reading the report Eldo just provided).
And that would be decided in a Court of Law in front of a jury, not by local police.
If you let your police do that then you are effectively making them the last word in what is or is not interpreted as a criminal act.

Oh.

Still, everybody loses. Nobody wins.

No nobody wins. But on the other hand do you want the message sent out you can shoot someone dead, even a minor, in any circumstances without fear of even seeing a Courtroom, just so long as they are in your house when it happens?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
And that would be decided in a Court of Law in front of a jury, not by local police.
If you let your police do that then you are effectively making them the last word in what is or is not interpreted as a criminal act.

Here it's decided by the County Prosecutor, who's got a limited budget which he tries to use as effectively as possible to get the bad guys gone.
If people can settle things among themselves, he's got more time and money to prosecute the real criminals.

This was exactly the argument for Washington and Colorado to decriminalize marijuana-- it frees up a lot of money for prosecuting real criminals.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And that would be decided in a Court of Law in front of a jury, not by local police.
If you let your police do that then you are effectively making them the last word in what is or is not interpreted as a criminal act.

My understanding is that in the US, it's the state's attorney (also known as a district attorney; the equivalent to a crown prosecutor) who makes the decision of whether or not to pursue charges in a case, usually in cooperation with police investigators. In some states, including Texas, it is required that a grand jury review and approve the indictment before the prosecution can proceed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

Simulpost with Dave.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No nobody wins. But on the other hand do you want the message sent out you can shoot someone dead, even a minor, in any circumstances without fear of even seeing a Courtroom, just so long as they are in your house when it happens?

As I said before, that message is very effective in reducing burglaries in rural areas.  

Here its the Crown Prosecution. They decide if the Crown will take a case to Court.
An incident like this however would almost certainly go to court just to establish what actually happened and because there is dead minor to account for.

That doesn't really sound all that different from the American system. This guy is almost certainly going to have to go before a judge and/or a grand jury, regardless of whether or not he has a full criminal trial.

More info: http://www.co.travis.tx.us/courts/criminal/district/167court/process.asp

Thats good to hear Eldo. From the original report I read the police gave the impression they considered it a closed case already.

Well even if the police think it's going to be open and shut, they still have to go through the motions. For what it's worth, the local news article I posted on the last page says that the case will indeed be going before a grand jury.

Eldorion wrote:That doesn't really sound all that different from the American system.  This guy is almost certainly going to have to go before a judge and/or a grand jury, regardless of whether or not he has a full criminal trial.

More info: http://www.co.travis.tx.us/courts/criminal/district/167court/process.asp

Yes, but only if they decide to arrest him on a felony, right?

Shortly after the arrest, the defendant is taken before a magistrate to be formally charged. At this hearing, the defendant is told specifically what law he is accused of breaking, and is read his Miranda Rights.

That's presumably what the investigators are looking for guidance about in the first article you posted.

HCSO investigators said they will present their findings to the Harris County Grand Jury for its consideration.

Lancebloke wrote:From what I can read, people are making lots of assumptions here.1#  Without the detail of the situation that led to the shooting it is difficult to say if he should be tried for murder,  man slaughter or at all.

For example, it's night, boy and girl are playing kinky tie up like Figgy does.2#  Dad walks in, can't see much but can see outline of his daughter tied and gagged with a man in the bed. Man reaches over to the bed side table and you cannot see what for.
.

  I refer your learned persons to exhibit 1# and exhibit 2# case for the prosecution Figgs v Cheeky Blighter, all rise in court.

 

 

 

Just seeing this. It seems to hinge on how much it looked like the teenager was reaching for something dangerous, whether the father had the gun trained on him or made a snap reflexive reaction during the heat of an out of control argument, etc etc.

Yes, this should most definitely go to trial, but I'm afraid it's hard to tell if the witnesses can count as unbiased, or even which direction their biases will lay.

Dave, while I agree that most things are best settled outside a court of law, a possible murder is not one of them. I doubt the families can act rationally under these circumstances and need impartial mediation at the least. And there is nothing clear cut about this case, at least given what we know so far.

A bit more on this story-

'The father who police said fatally shot a 17-year-old boy in his daughter's bedroom should be charged with murder, the victim's distraught mother says.
Zakia McCormick also can't understand why the man accused of firing the fatal shot Thursday is not behind bars.
"If you take a life, you give your life," the newspaper quoted a teary Zakia McCormick as saying. "We're suffering. Why isn't he suffering too?"
The Harris County Sheriff's Office is investigating the shooting and has said a grand jury will determine if charges are warranted.
Although a grand jury will review the case, prosecutor Warren Diepraam said on Friday that it is unlikely that the father will be charged.
The family said Johran, a high school junior, was considering enlisting in the Air Force. He also was considering a career as a mechanic.'

So it might go before a jury but even if it does the prosecutor doesn't think he will even be charged.
So the rule is its perfectly fine to shoot a child in the head in your own home in America- questions wont even be asked and you wont even face any charges.
I find that as distasteful a notion of justice as I do a shocking one.

halfwise wrote:
Dave, while I agree that most things are best settled outside a court of law, a possible murder is not one of them.  

I recognize that I'm in the minority here,  and I don't want to overgeneralize, but I strongly believe that there are times when the legal system is overzealous, especially when there are high-profile cases like possible murders, and especially once the media is involved.   The need to get a conviction to please the media often outweighs the interests of true justice.

Just look at all the "convicted murderers" who have recently been being found innocent after decades in prison due to DNA evidence and the tireless efforts of Justice Project volunteers.  In my opinion sending an innocent person to prison is much worse than sending nobody to prison, yet it happens all the time.  There are concepts of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" that seem to go by the wayside when the press gets a hold of a story and mob justice kicks in.  For example Petty just recently declared this father a murderer. That's not my idea of justice.  Opening people's lives and personal tragedies for our entertainment is not my idea of justice.

I don't know these people, but the tragedy is clear.  If, after the police have interviewed everybody, the justice system determines there's not enough evidence that there was criminal intent to bring this to trial, then that's probably the right call.   Lacking evidence, you're almost guaranteed to do more harm than good by pressing ahead.  My humble opinion, of course.