Prosecutors aim new weapon at Occupy activists: lynching allegation

[derspiess]

You're approaching it, I suppose, from the standpoint that protests are intrinsically evil.

Nice strawman.  As grabon said, protest is one thing and interfering with an arrest is another. 

All of you who are shrieking about misapplication of the lynching law-- did you have the same reaction when the racketeering law was used to stop abortion clinic protests?

[Barrister]

I love it when people do stupid stuff knowing it is against the law, but not knowing how serious the crime is.  I love laying charges of robbery and/or extortion when the accused thinks he only committed a minor theft.    

I love it when government hacks admit that they love it when their faceless unthinking bureaucracy exerts itself to inflict unjust punishments on the people it nominally serves. 

In what possible way is it unjust?

You have a certain class of people who know (or think they know) how the system works.  They know they broke the law and expect to get punished - but they don't realize how serious.

War story: buddy borrows money from his neighbour, then doesn't pay him back.  Neighbour sees him in the street and starts to lay a beating on him, demanding his money back.  He gets charged with assault, and shows up in court wanting to plead guilty to assault.  He figures he'll get a month in jail.

I get the file and say - wait a second.  Beating someone up for money constitutes extortion.  So I lay the charge, guy is outraged, but too bad.  Takes it all the way to trial before being found guilty of extortion, and getting a year in jail instead of a month.   

I agree the term "lynching" by itself doesn't seem to describe what took place, but nevertheless using force to break someone out of police custody is an extremely serious act.



By the way - you guys did catch that while police arrested the fellow for lynching, the prosecutors haven't proceeded with that charge, right?

[Admiral Yi]

I like you Beeb, but that sounds like a bullshit charge too.

If buddy gets pickpocketed on the street, beats up the pickpocket to get his wallet back, that should be extortion too by your logic.

[grumbler]

Nice strawman.  As grabon said, protest is one thing and interfering with an arrest is another.   

Nice strawman.  As Valmy has pointed out, protesting against an unjust arrest (someone gets pushed off the sidewalk and they get arrested) is a very proper form of "interference."  "Interfering with an arrest" is not itself a crime.  You have to use force or threaten the use of force or physical intervention.  Under this interpretation of "lynching," you do not.

All of you who are shrieking about misapplication of the lynching law-- did you have the same reaction when the racketeering law was used to stop abortion clinic protests?

That was silly, though less silly than this.  Yet the shrieking of the anti-choice folks was deafening.  That guy who is shrieking about the misapplication of the lynch laws is nothing by comparison.

[Barrister]

Nice strawman.  As Valmy has pointed out, protesting against an unjust arrest (someone gets pushed off the sidewalk and they get arrested) is a very proper form of "interference."  "Interfering with an arrest" is not itself a crime.  You have to use force or threaten the use of force or physical intervention.  Under this interpretation of "lynching," you do not.

While as a practical matter you will generally only see an obstruct peace officer charge where they physically intervene, it is not a legal requirement and I could imagine some scenarios where such a charge is made out without the application of any force.

[grumbler]

I like you Beeb, but that sounds like a bullshit charge too.

If buddy gets pickpocketed on the street, beats up the pickpocket to get his wallet back, that should be extortion too by your logic.

Hack bureaucrats get rewarded by following bureaucratic imperatives, not common sense.  If the bureaucracy rewards the prosecution and conviction of more serious crimes more than lesser crimes, then the hack bureaucrat is going to charge as seriously as he/she thinks possible while getting a conviction, bullshit charges or not.

This is the very reason why I oppose government powers above the minimum necessary, and don't trust government to carry out things like capital punishment.  It's not that I don''t think there are crimes that deserve the death penalty; it is that the kinds of people who serve the government bureaucracies and run for political office are not competent to exercise that power.

[garbon]

Actually it isn't clear to me what the accused in question did. After all, per his lawyer's advice he's only said that he objected in some form.

[Barrister]

I like you Beeb, but that sounds like a bullshit charge too.

If buddy gets pickpocketed on the street, beats up the pickpocket to get his wallet back, that should be extortion too by your logic.

Hack bureaucrats get rewarded by following bureaucratic imperatives, not common sense.  If the bureaucracy rewards the prosecution and conviction of more serious crimes more than lesser crimes, then the hack bureaucrat is going to charge as seriously as he/she thinks possible while getting a conviction, bullshit charges or not.

This is the very reason why I oppose government powers above the minimum necessary, and don't trust government to carry out things like capital punishment.  It's not that I don''t think there are crimes that deserve the death penalty; it is that the kinds of people who serve the government bureaucracies and run for political office are not competent to exercise that power.

You'll be happy to know then that no prosecution service I am aware of rewards people for getting convictions for more serious charges.  Their only concern is for getting the "right" charge, not the most serious one.  I drop charges far more than I order more serious ones, but both are necessary in certain circumstances.

Yi, your pickpocket example is a tough one because their the pickpocket has broken the law, and thus you would be justified to arrest that person until police arrive, which necessarily involves the application of force.  So no you can't "beat someone up", but you can get physical.

But if no other crime has been committed, you can't start roughing people up to collect on a debt!

[Barrister]

Actually it isn't clear to me what the accused in question did. After all, per his lawyer's advice he's only said that he objected in some form.

Yeah, I went back to the news story and I can't tell what he did either.  I'm guessing that's part of why the prosecutor's haven't proceeded with charges.

[HVC]

Can a personal loan ever be classified as theft? that is if it isn't paid in time?

[Ed Anger]

Shit like Beeb pulled was why in Walker Texas Ranger, the criminals kept going after Alex, the chick prosecutor.

Yes, I watched every Walker episode in '06. Bite me. It was either that, American Chopper or How its Made.

[HVC]

How its made is ok. i stopped watch Walker Texas Ranger when he took on a bear and won

[grumbler]

While as a practical matter you will generally only see an obstruct peace officer charge where they physically intervene, it is not a legal requirement and I could imagine some scenarios where such a charge is made out without the application of any force.

Sorry, should have added "in the US" to my post (ans you should add "in Canada" to yours).  I have no idea  what the law may read in Canada - I was replying to Spicey.

In every state statute I was able to find in the US, interference had to be physical or involve the threat of physical intervention (unless it was the person who was resisting arrest, and then a lack of physical action would apply as well).

[Barrister]

Can a personal loan ever be classified as theft? that is if it isn't paid in time?

"ever" is such a tough word.  I suppose if the person never intended to pay the loan back it might make out a theft charge, but good luck proving that.  But as a general rule, no - not paying your debts is NOT a crime.

[derspiess]

Nice strawman.

I suppose you would know.

As Valmy has pointed out, protesting against an unjust arrest (someone gets pushed off the sidewalk and they get arrested) is a very proper form of "interference." 

Depends on the nature of the protest-- not just of the individual, but of the group itself.  If it's a peaceful, relatively well-ordered demonstration, I wouldn't consider it to be interference in the first place.  But if it's riotous in nature I don't have any problem with arresting someone for interfering.

"Interfering with an arrest" is not itself a crime.

It is, actually.  Google that specific phrase & see for yourself. 

You have to use force or threaten the use of force or physical intervention.  Under this interpretation of "lynching," you do not.

Did we read the same article?

That guy who is shrieking about the misapplication of the lynch laws is nothing by comparison.

I think it's relative to what he actually did.  Funny that he decides to actually shut up about it "under legal advice" when it comes to that part of his story.