There ya go, so you do accept the 5th amendment.
To which clause thereof do u have reference ?
Do you also accept that the government should prosecute
potential cases where this law is broken?
Only to the point of a simple inquest
to ascertain the operative facts,
in this case that the boys were in a state of violent felony (burglary),
at the time and place of the loss of life. Permit me to explain:
Suppose that 65 year old John Q. Public is on his way home from his retirement party,
looking at his gold watch, as he strides thru some trees,
when he falls victim to a mugging. He is pushed to the ground
and he is struggling to defend his life and other property.
He picks up a rock and desperately bashes one of the malefactors
in the face with it, thereby knocking out an eye. The other muggers flee.
Someone calls police, who arrest mugger and mugee for knocking
out mugger 's eye. Mugger sues mugee for use of excessive force.
D.A. prosecutes mugee, calling him a vigilante, saying that he shoud
have been satisfied to call police.
Even if Mr. Public WINS
both the civil and criminal cases,
his own lawyers' fees
may well be so high as to wipe out Mr. Public 's life savings,
possibly including forfeiture of his home, so that he is reduced
to his condition before he got his first job after high school.
That 's not a joke.
This potential is a very serious matter.
You seemed to have a knee jerk reaction against the government
prosecuting at all, but how else would such a determination
(whether it was self defense or murder) be made?
By an inquest into the operative facts,
in this case: whether the boys were in a state of felony
at the time n place of the loss of life.
If this were found to have been the case,
then the case woud not
proceed to the grand jury,
the idea being to keep defendant 's (Mr. Gonzalez 's) lawyer fees low.
My knee jerk reaction is THIS:
if a citizen falls victim to violent, predatory felony, from which
he must defend his life n other property, GOVERNMENT shoud NOT
make that WORSE
, more stressful, more financially painful, than it already has been.
The government that we have created, that we nurture
thru our taxes, shoud not torment the hand that feeds it (Mr. Gonzalez).
Government shoud not throw salt in the wound
after the criminal has caused the original injury.
We citizens need to insist upon a very strong public policy
that government (police and D.A.) must
be very sympathetic
TO THE VICTIM
, not to the predator.
There shoud be very severe penalities (loss of pensions, fines and incarceration)
for police and for D.A.s who fail to impliment that policy.
This is literally a matter of life n death:
if a citizen falls prey to a violent felon,
hesitation in his defense may =
" He who hesitates is lost." Every citizen, of any age, shoud know
that he is not threatened by his own government
if he rises quickly and aggressively to his own defense
(or to defense of his mother or his children) in the face of criminal violence.
We need to live in a society wherein no citizen will be retarded
in his personal defense from criminal violence, by FEAR
of his own government.
Why would you acquit him?
Because the trial evidence showed that the decedent
was in a state of violent felony at time of the JUSTIFIABLE
I have never had a burglary.
If it ever happens, I intend to let the burglar go
( except that if he charges at me, then I will shoot to kill, as fast as possible ).
Having said that, as to MYSELF
, my own personal choice,
if I ever sit on a jury wherein evidence shows that a decedent
was committing a violent crime when defendant killed him,
that will be enuf for me to acquit.
I deeply believe that once a criminal begins a robbery, or a burglary
or any violent crime, it is morally very proper for the victim
to kill the predator, and I will support the victim
You already stated that you have no idea if he was acting in self defense
or if he carried out an illegal execution so what would you base that legal opinion on?
That is error.
I did not say that, nor did I think it.
Changing the subject, for a moment:
a few weeks ago, I fleetingly complained to u
about loss of censorship of obscenity on this new forum.
I 've had second thoughts about that.
On reconsideration, when Bill chooses to say:
" No ******* way " I think my sensibilities
can live with that; in a spirit of libertarianism, I withdraw
my earlier complaint, and instead, I substitute my suggestion
that u allow free use of language on this forum, as u r doing now.
I wish people woud restrain themselves from excrementitious references,
but I am not King of the World n people do not have to follow my preferences.
The extant state of affairs is nowhere NEAR
as it was on Abuzz, as to abusive obscene speech.
I don 't believe that those abusers are on this forum at all.
I also wish to thank u
for your obvious efforts to find n bring good and interesting topics here for our discussion.