Prosecutors aim new weapon at Occupy activists: lynching allegation

[HVC]

How the hell is it "intellectually dishonest" to charge extortion.

he was extorting his own money back

for normal muggings do you charge people with extortion? or did you do it in this case becasue the guy, in your view, was being smug thinking he’d get off with slap on the wrist sentence?

So how'd you like it if the bank sent someone around to kick in your teeth because you're late on your credit card bill.  After all - you do owe them the money.

No - that's not how you do business in this world.  If you have a dispute with someone about money there are options available to you.

You could charge someone with extortion when there's a "normal mugging", but the offence of robbery is equally as serious as extortion is.  In fact if they guy in my story had succeeded in getting some money from the guy I would have charged him with robbery.

i never said he shouldn't be charged, it's just that extortion seems like the wrong charge. Maybe it's my non-lawyery understanding of the law that's wrong, i'll freely concede that.

[HVC]

although if banks went around beating people who took out bad loans the economy might be better now

[Admiral Yi]

I would be really pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for being late on a credit card payment, but I don't think I would a whole lot less pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for looking at his girlfriend's ass.

[Barrister]

I would be really pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for being late on a credit card payment, but I don't think I would a whole lot less pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for looking at his girlfriend's ass.

I would disagree I guess.  Most crimes of violence tend to be 'crimes of passion'.  Someone gets out of hand and acts irrationally.  Definitely a crime, definitely should be punished.  But generally viewed as somewhat less serious because of the lack of foresight or planning.

Extortion is the opposite.  It's a calm, rational act, and one done for personal gain.  As such it will attract a more serious sentence.

That being said, the law is bad for sometimes paying far too much attention on what category a specific act is.  Is it an assault, or is it an extortion?  Is it a B&E, or unlawfully in a dwelling house?  Is it a theft or is it a robbery?  Was it an assault, or was it a sexual assault?  Very minor changes in a specific fact pattern can change it from one to the other, and in each case those minor changes in fact can lead to very major differences in the sentence.  I can't defend that.

Back to my war story - by moving to extortion he got a much more serious penalty than he woould have for assault.  I think it was the right outcome because I don't think the courts deal with "simple" assaults anywhere near serious enough.

[mongers]

Which is why police, prosecutors and bureaucrats should be given very limited and clearly delineated powers. 

Over here under new labour the police were given a whole raft of new powers to play with and what happened, they often used those powers in a inappropriate, arbitrary or heavy handed way, so the tough anti-terrorist legislation was invariably used against people who weren't terrorists, but people trying to use their rights to free speech or demonstrate  in a peaceful manner. Or just people who annoyed the coppers.

[ulmont]

If you give law enforcement a tool, I don't see how they can be faulted for using that tool.

Here, our executive branch is supposed to independently determine if a statute is constitutional, and not to apply a statute in unconstitutional ways.

[Barrister]

If you give law enforcement a tool, I don't see how they can be faulted for using that tool.

Here, our executive branch is supposed to independently determine if a statute is constitutional, and not to apply a statute in unconstitutional ways.

Here too - we have to act in compliance with the consitution in everything we do.

But Valmy was criticizing how a law passed to tackle one thing might be used for some other purpose.  As long as it isn't an unconstitutional purpose, I do't see the problem with it.

[derspiess]

Does the school bully get charged with extortion for wedgying a nerd for his lunch money?

I remember that specifically being mentioned in my junior high's student code of conduct (well not the wedgying per se, but threatening violence).

[Ideologue]

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

No; although you may fraudulently enter such a loan, but that requires a lot more than just not paying it back.

Well, perhaps in Poland or something.

[Razgovory]

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?

How did that work?  Also, have the Occupy types started blowing up buildings and sniping doctors?

[Ideologue]

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.

As is obstruction of a peace officer and lynching.  It's not like some creative cop or prosecutor is stretching a crime to cover an act that is obviously bad, but would otherwise not be criminal; it's a creative cop or prosecutor twisting the spirit of a statute in order to ratchet up the consequences of an offense that is already well-covered by an existing law, in other words to deter that crime, and perhaps participation in any protest that involves yelling at/criticizing police, whatsoever.  Further, in the application, it is not altogether clear that even obstructing took place.

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?

I wasn't aware of that, but it's very likely that I would find that uncool, yes.  I mean, shit, I'm reasonably okay with Westboro pulling their shenanigans.  It may make me angrier when people I may (or may not, it's always hard to tell with these guys) agree with are victimized in such a fashion, but it is not a Occupy-centric stance I'm taking.  My reaction would be the same if the affected individual had been a Tea Partier, a Nazi, or an anti-Air Force demonstrator.

[Ideologue]

I would be really pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for being late on a credit card payment, but I don't think I would a whole lot less pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for looking at his girlfriend's ass.

I would disagree I guess.  Most crimes of violence tend to be 'crimes of passion'.  Someone gets out of hand and acts irrationally.  Definitely a crime, definitely should be punished.  But generally viewed as somewhat less serious because of the lack of foresight or planning.

Extortion is the opposite.  It's a calm, rational act, and one done for personal gain.  As such it will attract a more serious sentence.

Forgetting the differing levels of moral culpability, I also imagine that it's much harder to deter crimes of passion, by their nature, so ratcheting up sentences has little to no effect in that regard; whereas sentences for premeditated acts, or acts where premeditation can be inferred or is implied by law, are justifiable on both punitive and deterrent grounds.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, I'm not sure how totally lacking in premeditation your average bar fight is.

[Ideologue]

I'd say relatively, compared to predatory crime, like rape or robbery.  As someone who's been in several bar fights, they're certainly not cold-blooded.

[Barrister]

I would be really pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for being late on a credit card payment, but I don't think I would a whole lot less pissed if a bank employee kicked in my teeth for looking at his girlfriend's ass.

I would disagree I guess.  Most crimes of violence tend to be 'crimes of passion'.  Someone gets out of hand and acts irrationally.  Definitely a crime, definitely should be punished.  But generally viewed as somewhat less serious because of the lack of foresight or planning.

Extortion is the opposite.  It's a calm, rational act, and one done for personal gain.  As such it will attract a more serious sentence.

Forgetting the differing levels of moral culpability, I also imagine that it's much harder to deter crimes of passion, by their nature, so ratcheting up sentences has little to no effect in that regard; whereas sentences for premeditated acts, or acts where premeditation can be inferred or is implied by law, are justifiable on both punitive and deterrent grounds.

Absolutely.