Poll
Question:
A guy you do not know very well confesses to you that he murdered someone 30 years ago. He says he feels sorry about it and needed to get it off his chest. Do you...
Option 1: ... pat him on a shoulder and buy him another drink. Then go on Languish to retell this sad, sad story.
votes: 28
Option 2: ... report him to the police.
votes: 16
Option 3: ... lure him away, then exsanguinate him, cut his body into portable pieces that you later dump into the bay inside black plastic bags.
votes: 5
Inspired by the murder thread.
Hint: one of the answers is what normal people do. This being Languish, I suspect it will be the least popular one.
I vote narc the fucker. He will probably in the future regret telling you and since he has used human death before he might get the silly idea to use it again.
IF he was defending himself from a homosexual predator i'd go buy him a beer.
If he is a sailor who claims not to be interested in gay sex I wouldn't believe his "confession".
Maybe I would report him. I don't think i would have if some WW2 vet told me a story like that when I was in 10th grade.
Quote from: syk on December 12, 2009, 06:20:08 AM
Maybe I would report him. I don't think i would have if some WW2 vet told me a story like that when I was in 10th grade.
Well, you are a German. Pretty much all your WW2 vets are murderers. :P
blackmail him for cash
Couldn't someone do both 1 & 3?
Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2009, 06:27:58 AM
Quote from: syk on December 12, 2009, 06:20:08 AM
Maybe I would report him. I don't think i would have if some WW2 vet told me a story like that when I was in 10th grade.
Well, you are a German. Pretty much all your WW2 vets are murderers. :P
Meh, I thought about bringing the difference up in that other thread and decided against it. I am not with Tucholsky ("Soldiers are murderers") on that.
I'd blackmail him into telling me about his time as soldier and learn his dirty tricks.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2009, 06:50:09 AM
I'd blackmail him into telling me about his time as soldier and learn his dirty tricks.
Then go on a shooting rampage?
Situational.
As someone already brought up.
Did he kill a fag? Buy him a beer.
Did he kill a politician? Buy him a beer.
Did he kill a journalist? Buy him a beer.
Etc. etc.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2009, 07:29:59 AM
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2009, 06:50:09 AM
I'd blackmail him into telling me about his time as soldier and learn his dirty tricks.
Then go on a shooting rampage?
Perhaps.
Who is he, who did he kill and why.
No one answer.
If some git admits it to me for brutally killing some complete stranger then I'm going to the police.
If its my friend and its because he found the guy robbing his house or somesuch then...let it go and hope for the best.
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2009, 08:52:28 AM
Who is he, who did he kill and why.
No one answer.
If some git admits it to me for brutally killing some complete stranger then I'm going to the police.
If its my friend and its because he found the guy robbing his house or somesuch then...let it go and hope for the best.
No, the true question is, "What if the victim was gay?"
Personally, what if the murderer was gay and had killed a straight guy for refusing his advances?
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2009, 08:52:28 AM
Who is he, who did he kill and why.
No one answer.
If some git admits it to me for brutally killing some complete stranger then I'm going to the police.
If its my friend and its because he found the guy robbing his house or somesuch then...let it go and hope for the best.
You have friends "you don't know very well"? Ok, I guess I thought this will be read by people who are not sociopaths.
Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2009, 09:09:51 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2009, 08:52:28 AM
Who is he, who did he kill and why.
No one answer.
If some git admits it to me for brutally killing some complete stranger then I'm going to the police.
If its my friend and its because he found the guy robbing his house or somesuch then...let it go and hope for the best.
You have friends "you don't know very well"? Ok, I guess I thought this will be read by people who are not sociopaths.
And yet you post it on Languish. :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2009, 09:09:51 AM
You have friends "you don't know very well"? Ok, I guess I thought this will be read by people who are not sociopaths.
I'm a student, some people remain friends for years but lots of people only come here for 6 months then vanish. Though I would call them friends I wouldn't claim to know them too well.
30 year old murder? Don't really give a fuck.
In the case of the WW2 sailor there's a few things to consider when you decide what to do upon hearing his story (not in order):
1. Is it even true? People tell less than truthful tales all the time, for many different reasons.
2. Is the guy a friend? Unlike what some posters will tell you two men can be friends. Do I want to potentially destroy his life over some ancient shit?
3. Will going to the police realistically have a chance to lead to conviction? Will the guy even confess his deed to the police? This is real life, not Cold Case.
4. Will the dead guy's family be helped by the death resurfacing? Maybe a criminal suddenly painting their WW2 hero as a faggot isn't really helpful.
5. Do I want to be known as the guy who runs to the police over this kind of thing? Regardless of what I think it will make me look assish.
6. Should he have killed the guy on a dreadnought instead?
etc
I'm not a priest and I'm not a lawyer, and I like to testify in court.
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Probably not, although I would happily take his money to represent him if someone else did.
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
:blink: You'd report the allegedly gay dead sailor but not the murderer?
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
What happens if by chance some time later you run into the guy as a prosecutor? Or a judge, for that matter? Do you recuse yourself?
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
But she was hot, so you let it go.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
What happens if by chance some time later you run into the guy as a prosecutor? Or a judge, for that matter? Do you recuse yourself?
Uhum.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
What happens if by chance some time later you run into the guy as a prosecutor? Or a judge, for that matter? Do you recuse yourself?
You got it.
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 12:18:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
What happens if by chance some time later you run into the guy as a prosecutor? Or a judge, for that matter? Do you recuse yourself?
You got it.
When you recuse yourself do you have to explain why in detail?
Quote from: HVC on December 12, 2009, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 12:18:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
What happens if by chance some time later you run into the guy as a prosecutor? Or a judge, for that matter? Do you recuse yourself?
You got it.
When you recuse yourself do you have to explain why in detail?
Of course not. The fact that you know the person is normally enough. Not to mention a situation when you have been the person's lawyer in the past - that's pretty much an automatic kick.
um I'd likely do nothing other than re-tell the story. People lie. a lot. especially about unverifiable things 30 odd years ago.
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
oh shoot actually I just remembered I met a guy at a poetry reading once who told me he had killed a couple of people... one a crime of passion that got him jail at 15 (in the 30's) and one guy he shivved in prison, in a him or me situation. he spent five years in solitary after that one. Told me he kept sane by reciting "O Captain My Captain!" to himself.
He'd done his time, so no reason to report him.
Would not report.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
On murder probably not.
Quote from: BuddhaTold me he kept sane by reciting "O Captain My Captain!" to himself.
That sounds totally sane. I didn't know you could keep someone in solitary for that long. Thought it fell under cruel and unusual. :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 12, 2009, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
On murder probably not.
I figured they wouldn't.
Would put my horror and disgust into building better death camps for homos, and drafting the proclamations that will make sending the homos there compulsory.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 12, 2009, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
On murder probably not.
Quote from: BuddhaTold me he kept sane by reciting "O Captain My Captain!" to himself.
That sounds totally sane. I didn't know you could keep someone in solitary for that long. Thought it fell under cruel and unusual. :unsure:
Canadians don't have our Constitutional protections. And remember, he's talking about someone being sent to jail in the 1930's, when a lot of the way prisoners were treated wouldn't fly today.
Anyway, in general, I'd be hesitant to report someone that confessed to having committed a murder 30 years ago. For one thing, in the US at least, you couldnt testify against him in court--your testimony would be excluded by the hearsay rule. But it would depend on the exact circumstances.
A confession to murder would fit at least two exceptions to the hearsay rule, as an admission by a party to be used against them and as an admission against a person's interest.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
Is a "statue of limitations" the opposite of the "statue of liberty"? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
Is a "statue of limitations" the opposite of the "statue of liberty"? :unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mortalwombat.com%2FSpecial%2FStatue_of_Limitations.jpg&hash=ed5de5b2b230f7566af59495e56ce0dbe51c7998)
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
Summary conviction matters must be charged within 6 months of the offence.
Indictable matters have no limit.
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
In the US that is the sacred bond between a hooker and a john.
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
Is a "statue of limitations" the opposite of the "statue of liberty"? :unsure:
har har, I screwed up a word.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2009, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2009, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
I once did have someone admit to a 30 + year old sexual crime in my capacity as a lawyer... :zipped:
Does Canada have a statue of limitations?
Is a "statue of limitations" the opposite of the "statue of liberty"? :unsure:
har har, I screwed up a word.
Oh, I thought this was Marty asking a serious legal question.
har har again.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
In the US that is the sacred bond between a hooker and a john.
:lol:
I would track down Martinus, kill him and destroy the body. Then I would wait 30 years and tell my grandson and then have him post about it on a Languish equivalent 20 years later.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.
If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.
This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2009, 10:30:20 PM
I would track down Martinus, kill him and destroy the body. Then I would wait 30 years and tell my grandson and then have him post about it on a Languish equivalent 20 years later.
AAR please. :)
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 13, 2009, 10:30:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.
If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.
This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.
Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story? That sounds completely ridiculous to me. What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 12:44:25 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 13, 2009, 10:30:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.
If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.
This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.
Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story? That sounds completely ridiculous to me. What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.
I can confirm..
Quote from: Jaron on December 14, 2009, 12:57:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 12:44:25 AM
Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story? That sounds completely ridiculous to me. What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.
I can confirm..
You are a non-crazy portuguese?
I see two things wrong with you answering that question.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 01:07:22 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 14, 2009, 12:57:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 12:44:25 AM
Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story? That sounds completely ridiculous to me. What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.
I can confirm..
You are a non-crazy portuguese?
I see two things wrong with you answering that question.
:grr:
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 12:44:25 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 13, 2009, 10:30:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.
Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.
If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.
This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.
Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story? That sounds completely ridiculous to me. What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.
A quick google search by me suggest otherwise. (I have no idea if this is a credible source)
https://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/AttyClient/2007_Atty_Client_Update/At_Client_PORTUGAL.pdf
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 12:44:25 AM
Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story? That sounds completely ridiculous to me. What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.
First, here is a government decree about client privilege, of all classes, Journalists and Lawyers in particular:
http://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/GC17/Governo/Ministerios/PCM/MAP/Notas/Pages/20070713_MAP_Com_Sigilo_Jornalistas.aspx
It determines that the Court many order any of them to breach their ethical ties with their sources (journalists) and clients (Lawyers) if the higher interests of Justice so demand. In other words, the Court may order the Lawyer to say what he really knows about his client.
(this government decree put a journalist behind bars for refusing to tell his sources in a case where he revealed serious crimes, but did not say who did commit them)
http://www.trp.pt/jurisprudenciacivel/civel08_1390.html
This other is a Court ruling regarding the attitude a Lawyer should have when a client tells him/her about something very relevant to the carrying out of Justice.
Basically, it says the Lawyer should go to the local reponsible of the Order, tell him what he knows and get offical authorization by the Order to go and tell the authorities what he/she now knows.
It notes that the breach of solicitor/client privilege by the Lawyer is:
"Not punishiable if it is revealed as part of the carrying out of a superior juridical duty or has as objective a legitimate public or private interest when, taking into consideration the interests in conflict and the duties of information that, regarding the circumstances, are imposed upon the judicial agent"
"não será punível se for revelado no cumprimento de um dever jurídico sensivelmente superior ou visar um interesse público ou privado legítimo, quando, considerados os interesses em conflito e os deveres de informação que, segundo as circunstâncias, se impõem ao agente".
So, let me see if I get this straight... you think that [as is done in your country], if a Laywer knows and is really convinces his client is truly guilty, he should either keep trying to get him/her off or simply move aside without letting anyone know the Truth.
While I note that in my country a Lawyer should, if he truly knows that his/her client is guilty, make sure that Justice gets done.
And I'M the crazy one? :huh:
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 14, 2009, 03:52:55 PM
So, let me see if I get this straight... you think that [as is done in your country], if a Laywer knows and is really convinces his client is truly guilty, he should either keep trying to get him/her off or simply move aside without letting anyone know the Truth.
While I note that in my country a Lawyer should, if he truly knows that his/her client is guilty, make sure that Justice gets done.
And I'M the crazy one? :huh:
A lawyer isn't a judge or jury. The function of the trier of fact is to assess guilt or innocence. The lawyer's task is, within the rules of ethics, to obtain the best result possible for their client, based on the facts.
A lawyer cannot counsel perjury (that is, they cannot allow their client to lie on the stand). They can however state that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove their client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's how our system works. It is up to the state to prove a person guilty. If the state cannot do that, after going through the trial process, that person must be allowed to go free no matter what the lawyer thinks of him or her.
I wonder if this thread would exist if the story was about some guy throwing someone overboard because of an argument over cards or something, rather than Tah Gay Panic?
I suspect....not.
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2009, 06:00:50 PM
I wonder if this thread would exist if the story was about some guy throwing someone overboard because of an argument over cards or something, rather than Tah Gay Panic?
I suspect....not.
Of course not.
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2009, 06:00:50 PM
I wonder if this thread would exist if the story was about some guy throwing someone overboard because of an argument over cards or something, rather than Tah Gay Panic?
I suspect....not.
You can't generalize like that. :(
Homophone.
I wouldn't go to the police, because
a) The only "proof" I would have is some old man's word, who may be suffering from Alzheimer's;
b) All the police could do is question the guy and get the same "proof", which isn't really proof.
Under normal circumstances you can't convict someone of a crime simply because they claim to have done something.... at least not in this country (and probably not Canada either).
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 08:02:48 AM
I wouldn't go to the police, because
a) The only "proof" I would have is some old man's word, who may be suffering from Alzheimer's;
b) All the police could do is question the guy and get the same "proof", which isn't really proof.
Under normal circumstances you can't convict someone of a crime simply because they claim to have done something.... at least not in this country (and probably not Canada either).
Sure you can. :mellow:
:huh: Really?
So if I go into a police station and say "I killed John Doe" despite there being no evidence I did so or that John Doe even exists, I can go to jail?
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 10:23:32 AM
:huh: Really?
So if I go into a police station and say "I killed John Doe" despite there being no evidence I did so or that John Doe even exists, I can go to jail?
I would demand you fucking hang.
So if I started having paranoid dellusions I killed somebody named Sally Henrietta Olafson and I confessed it to the cops they would prosecute even if they had no record of somebody named Sally Henrietta Olafson actually being murdered?
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 10:49:21 AM
So if I started having paranoid dellusions I killed somebody named Sally Henrietta Olafson and I confessed it to the cops they would prosecute even if they had no record of somebody named Sally Henrietta Olafson actually being murdered?
BB would prosecute at least!
Quote from: PDH on December 15, 2009, 10:45:53 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 10:23:32 AM
:huh: Really?
So if I go into a police station and say "I killed John Doe" despite there being no evidence I did so or that John Doe even exists, I can go to jail?
I would demand you fucking hang.
Better to demand that he hang while fucking.
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2009, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: PDH on December 15, 2009, 10:45:53 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 10:23:32 AM
:huh: Really?
So if I go into a police station and say "I killed John Doe" despite there being no evidence I did so or that John Doe even exists, I can go to jail?
I would demand you fucking hang.
Better to demand that he hang while fucking.
Oh no he diddin. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftomdiaz.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fflo_1_td20cardn_la301_0420.jpg&hash=71096490d1422489c5fa3ed0a16b32922b03c6d3)
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2009, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: PDH on December 15, 2009, 10:45:53 AM
I would demand you fucking hang.
Better to demand that he hang while fucking.
Why do you hate David Carradine :(
edit - FUCK, beat by 11 seconds!
Regarding Martim Silva's post, I think there is a confusion about two issues here.
For example in Poland you have a difference between "ordinary" client-lawyer privilege and criminal defense lawyer privilege.
If the information is something you found out when providing ordinary out-of-court legal advice for your client, then in exceptional cases you may be required to testify in criminal cases.
This is quite different from the situation when you find out about some information while acting in your capacity as the client's defender in a criminal case - in a situation like this, you cannot be required to testify under any circumstances.
I suspect the situation may be similar in Portugal, and Martim Silva is confusing the two situations.
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2009, 11:56:59 AM
Martim Silva is confusing the two situations.
No offense but I find this unlikely in the extreme.
And also, there is a third situation - when the client tells a lawyer he or she intends to commit one of the listed serious felonies - then the lawyer is required to report that.
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 10:23:32 AM
:huh: Really?
So if I go into a police station and say "I killed John Doe" despite there being no evidence I did so or that John Doe even exists, I can go to jail?
Maybe BB is talking about the WW2 example where presumably there is a named missing sailor on a named ship and probably a date.
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 08:02:48 AM
I wouldn't go to the police, because
a) The only "proof" I would have is some old man's word, who may be suffering from Alzheimer's;
b) All the police could do is question the guy and get the same "proof", which isn't really proof.
Under normal circumstances you can't convict someone of a crime simply because they claim to have done something.... at least not in this country (and probably not Canada either).
I have the opposite view. The proof may exist but the police might be missing that last bit that links the murder to someone. By going to the police you may provide the identity of the murderer which allows the police to connect all the evidence and close the case.
Indeed. It's not your position to assess if the evidence is sufficient etc. Of course, if the claim is outlandish and completely incredible, it's another thing but the "there's probably not enough evidence to convict the guy anyway" justification is bullshit.
One would think that a gay man would be more wary of painting the world in strict black and white.
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
One would think that a gay man would be more wary of painting the world in strict black and white.
Marti is a fat trucker sitting in Oregon who wishes he was gay.
edit: and wishes he went to law school.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2009, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
One would think that a gay man would be more wary of painting the world in strict black and white.
edit: and wishes he went to law school.
Don't we all.
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2009, 12:10:00 PM
Indeed. It's not your position to assess if the evidence is sufficient etc. Of course, if the claim is outlandish and completely incredible, it's another thing but the "there's probably not enough evidence to convict the guy anyway" justification is bullshit.
But I think it is. Otherwise, you could be the one accused of making a prank call to the police, or you could be sued by the person you reported for damaging his/her reputation.
Report him to the police.
Let the police find out wheather is true or not.
I have zero tolerance for criminals.
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 01:24:02 PM
Report him to the police.
Let the police find out wheather is true or not.
I have zero tolerance for criminals.
Ok. So you meet a fellow Israeli like you, who served in the army and is now an American citizen and soldier. He tells you that at some point, he shot Palestinians civilians in the head, after they were neutralized during the sweep of their house.
You report him?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=63a18d3ea0e3e85dabd3e05debdd669d27616884)
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Apparently not, since Malthus originally said that the dude liked to blab about it, and no one else turned him in.
So the question then becomes what parameters about the story need to change before people tip over to reporting him. Time elapsed? Sympathy for the vic (Marty's thesis)? Risk of reoccurence?
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2009, 01:33:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 01:24:02 PM
Report him to the police.
Let the police find out wheather is true or not.
I have zero tolerance for criminals.
Ok. So you meet a fellow Israeli like you, who served in the army and is now an American citizen and soldier. He tells you that at some point, he shot Palestinians civilians in the head, after they were neutralized during the sweep of their house.
You report him?
We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies.
Now, if in your example the guy had killed a fellow soldier, or a civilian back home, for whatever reason, I would personally drag his ass to the nearest MP station.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 01:40:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Apparently not, since Malthus originally said that the dude liked to blab about it, and no one else turned him in.
So the question then becomes what parameters about the story need to change before people tip over to reporting him. Time elapsed? Sympathy for the vic (Marty's thesis)? Risk of reoccurence?
Certainly those are all important, though Marty has his head firmly up his ass if he thinks I was sympathetic to the guy in question
because he punched and then killed a gay guy.
Some other factors:
- How you are positioned relative to the guy (for example, I was a kid in grade 10 at the time and the guy was a respected prof - I dare anyone to say with a straight face that they would go to the cops on such flimsy grounds when they were high school kids);
- The circumstances of the crime (crimes during wartime tend to attract less concern: "I fragged a gung ho officer 40 years ago in WW2 who was going to get us all killed" as opposed to "I killed a girl and buried her body at the cottage 40 years ago").
Assuming the presence of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege, I congratulate my client on his craftiness in avoiding prosecution, and step away slowly until I leave arm's reach. Then I stop returning phone calls and letters, and move to a different state, changing my name.
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2009, 01:33:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 01:24:02 PM
Report him to the police.
Let the police find out wheather is true or not.
I have zero tolerance for criminals.
Ok. So you meet a fellow Israeli like you, who served in the army and is now an American citizen and soldier. He tells you that at some point, he shot Palestinians civilians in the head, after they were neutralized during the sweep of their house.
You report him?
We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies.
Now, if in your example the guy had killed a fellow soldier, or a civilian back home, for whatever reason, I would personally drag his ass to the nearest MP station.
So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2009, 01:49:33 PM
- The circumstances of the crime (crimes during wartime tend to attract less concern: "I fragged a gung ho officer 40 years ago in WW2 who was going to get us all killed" as opposed to "I killed a girl and buried her body at the cottage 40 years ago").
Morale have to be bottom low for that to happen.
These days, we get pissed off that there are not enough missions, that we are completely restricted by the rules of engagement, and that our officers are pussies that don't even want us to return fire when we get shot at. It is gay as fuck. I had to do a shitload of paperwork for the little skirmish I had the other day. The single one time I have fired my weapon during this deployment.
Which brings us to a conversation I had today with a friend of mine about how much better our army is today compared to the Viet Nam era US Army. We are far more motivated, dedicated, disciplined and professional.
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?
Dude, the pals are waging a propaganda war. Every time some of them get killed in combat, their buddies retrieve their weapons, and bring the media to show them unarmed dead bodies.
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?
Dude, the pals are waging a propaganda war. Every time some of them get killed in combat, their buddies retrieve their weapons, and bring the media to show them unarmed dead bodies.
That's not answering my question :huh:
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:15:30 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?
Dude, the pals are waging a propaganda war. Every time some of them get killed in combat, their buddies retrieve their weapons, and bring the media to show them unarmed dead bodies.
That's not answering my question :huh:
Perhaps because the question was stupid?
It's not a stupid question. Did you even read what he wrote? Perhaps you're not the right person to accuse others of stupidity.
Viper asked him if he'd report another Israeli who shot Palestinians civilians in the head. Siege replied "We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies."
The question was one of shooting civilians in the head. Siege replies that we are talking about murdering fellow citizens, not killing enemies. So according to Siege, shooting a Palestinian civilian in the head isn't murder, because the Palestinian civilian is an enemy, and not a fellow citizen.
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
It's not a stupid question.
Yeah it is. "So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool?" is a very stupid question in the context it was asked.
Edit: Actually, disregard the context-part, its a very stupid question no matter what the context is.
Quote
Viper asked him if he'd report another Israeli who shot Palestinians civilians in the head. Siege replied "We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies."
The question was one of shooting civilians in the head. Siege replies that we are talking about murdering fellow citizens, not killing enemies. So according to Siege, shooting a Palestinian civilian in the head isn't murder, because the Palestinian civilian is an enemy, and not a fellow citizen.
Thats not how I read that conversation. And that is not how I would characterize his answer.
From the context of the question, the question was put as if he would report a fellow soldier who had shot a "neutralized civilian" (whatever that means) in a combat situation. He said no, but if the soldier had shot a civilian back home he would. That to me seems to indicate that he will make a difference between a shot fired in a combat zone, and a shot fired in a "non-combat-peaceful-civilian-situation". I cant say I agree with him, but who knows, Ive never been in a situation like that so I cannot say how I would react.
Be that as it may however, the question is still stupid since you seem unable to put the question/answer in proper context and you seem to be more interested in deliberately mischaracterizing his position than anything else.
N00b fight! :lol:
*pops popcorn*
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2009, 01:49:33 PM
Certainly those are all important, though Marty has his head firmly up his ass
Coulda stopped right there.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 15, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
It's not a stupid question.
Yeah it is. "So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool?" is a very stupid question in the context it was asked.
Edit: Actually, disregard the context-part, its a very stupid question no matter what the context is.
Quote
Viper asked him if he'd report another Israeli who shot Palestinians civilians in the head. Siege replied "We are talking about murder, as in murdering your fellow citizens, not about war or killing enemies."
The question was one of shooting civilians in the head. Siege replies that we are talking about murdering fellow citizens, not killing enemies. So according to Siege, shooting a Palestinian civilian in the head isn't murder, because the Palestinian civilian is an enemy, and not a fellow citizen.
Thats not how I read that conversation. And that is not how I would characterize his answer.
From the context of the question, the question was put as if he would report a fellow soldier who had shot a "neutralized civilian" (whatever that means) in a combat situation. He said no, but if the soldier had shot a civilian back home he would. That to me seems to indicate that he will make a difference between a shot fired in a combat zone, and a shot fired in a "non-combat-peaceful-civilian-situation". I cant say I agree with him, but who knows, Ive never been in a situation like that so I cannot say how I would react.
Be that as it may however, the question is still stupid since you seem unable to put the question/answer in proper context and you seem to be more interested in deliberately mischaracterizing his position than anything else.
If my business was mischaracterizing his position, I WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED HIM WHAT HE MEANT. I'd just have mischaracterized it straight ahead, for chrissake! :huh:
Now, if I didn't understand Siege correctly, he can say what he meant. But don't go saying it's stupid of me to ask. :huh:
If fact, if anyone's in the business of mischaracterizing, it is you who is mischaracterizing me.
Edit:
As for
QuoteThats not how I read that conversation. And that is not how I would characterize his answer.
Well, that's what he wrote.
Good to see you Siege, keep up the good fight.
Good to see you here Siege. We are around if you need to blow off some steam.
Sounds like you are having a rather uneventful deployment so far.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 01:40:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Apparently not, since Malthus originally said that the dude liked to blab about it, and no one else turned him in.
So the question then becomes what parameters about the story need to change before people tip over to reporting him. Time elapsed? Sympathy for the vic (Marty's thesis)? Risk of reoccurence?
Well, time elapsed would be part of it, I think. Also, I think it makes a difference with older events whether or not there is/was actually an investigation and knowledge that a crime was committed. For example, in the story Malthus told, it seems that there was no realization that the victim was murdered--apparantly it was thought that he fell overboard. OTOH, there was a series of unsolved murders in my home town a couple of years before I was born; if someone confessed to me that they had been the killer, I think I'd tell the police, even though it's been almost 50 years.
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
So killing unarmed palestinian civilians is cool because that's killing enemies, and is not murder?
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Because it is a bogus concept?
Palestinians and Israelis are not enemies. Some Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel (and therefor most Israelis), and vice-versa, but this idea that person A is an enemy of person B merely by virtue of the fact that A is Palestinian and B is Israeli is an absurd contention. Hannan Ashrawi is not an enemy of any Israelis, insofar as I know. Jamal Zahalka is not the enemy of any Palestinians, insofar as I know.
I am not sure why the concept that people are
not enemies because of "blood" is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
So far I have seen no sign that it is a difficult concept for anyone. Well, in the media and from professional Israel haters I've seen plenty of signs, but none in this thread and none by migliamaster.
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Because it is a bogus concept?
Palestinians and Israelis are not enemies. Some Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel (and therefor most Israelis), and vice-versa, but this idea that person A is an enemy of person B merely by virtue of the fact that A is Palestinian and B is Israeli is an absurd contention. Hannan Ashrawi is not an enemy of any Israelis, insofar as I know. Jamal Zahalka is not the enemy of any Palestinians, insofar as I know.
I am not sure why the concept that people are not enemies because of "blood" is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Excellently put grumbler, that's my position as well.
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Ok, relating back to the Mathus WWII example. I think it's even more important in that instance because of the circumstances surrounding it. Was the dead sailor reported missing? Was he reported as deserting ship? Was he reported as a suicide? If he was reported as deserting or suicide than his name has been tarnished in the eyes of his family, friends, and his country. It might seem like a small thing but to report his murder to the naval authorities could have a profound change in his final status and could give his family a tremendous piece of mind to know he hadn't deserted or killed himself. Is it likely that the navy could prove who exactly the murderer was? Maybe. The guy seems free and easy with his story. Would it go anywhere? Probably not but it could change a lot of people's lives for the better.
Murder is murder. If he did it once than he can do it again (and I have been told by multiple murders that the second time is easier). Chances are he probably will not. I, personally, would sleep better at night knowing that I tried to do something, no matter how futile, so that if it does happen again I am not spending the rest of my life wondering what if I had told would it have happened. That's a lot of guilt.
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Because it is a bogus concept?
Palestinians and Israelis are not enemies. Some Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel (and therefor most Israelis), and vice-versa, but this idea that person A is an enemy of person B merely by virtue of the fact that A is Palestinian and B is Israeli is an absurd contention. Hannan Ashrawi is not an enemy of any Israelis, insofar as I know. Jamal Zahalka is not the enemy of any Palestinians, insofar as I know.
I am not sure why the concept that people are not enemies because of "blood" is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Exactly!
It's an easy way out for the haters. If they exam their "blood" enemies too closely than it would become hard to hate them as a group. Dehumanizing them and making them into a faceless group is the key to making it easier to hurt them in the name of whatever cause on either side.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 05:07:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
So far I have seen no sign that it is a difficult concept for anyone. Well, in the media and from professional Israel haters I've seen plenty of signs, but none in this thread and none by migliamaster.
I do. The expectation is constantly that Israel should be the ones keeping Gaza afloat while Hamas is in charge and oddly that is not working. It is a tremendous set up.
Miglia seems to be trying to bait Siegey about Palestinian Civilians because...I don't know...he just cannot accept that fact?
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Because it is a bogus concept?
Palestinians and Israelis are not enemies. Some Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel (and therefor most Israelis), and vice-versa, but this idea that person A is an enemy of person B merely by virtue of the fact that A is Palestinian and B is Israeli is an absurd contention. Hannan Ashrawi is not an enemy of any Israelis, insofar as I know. Jamal Zahalka is not the enemy of any Palestinians, insofar as I know.
I am not sure why the concept that people are not enemies because of "blood" is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Yeah I did not say anything about blood only political realities for the past several decades. If you want to mean that all Israelis and Palestinians have some sort of blood lust for each other...well I don't think you necessarily need that to be enemies.
Quote from: Strix on December 16, 2009, 12:03:36 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Ok, relating back to the Mathus WWII example. I think it's even more important in that instance because of the circumstances surrounding it. Was the dead sailor reported missing? Was he reported as deserting ship? Was he reported as a suicide? If he was reported as deserting or suicide than his name has been tarnished in the eyes of his family, friends, and his country. It might seem like a small thing but to report his murder to the naval authorities could have a profound change in his final status and could give his family a tremendous piece of mind to know he hadn't deserted or killed himself. Is it likely that the navy could prove who exactly the murderer was? Maybe. The guy seems free and easy with his story. Would it go anywhere? Probably not but it could change a lot of people's lives for the better.
Murder is murder. If he did it once than he can do it again (and I have been told by multiple murders that the second time is easier). Chances are he probably will not. I, personally, would sleep better at night knowing that I tried to do something, no matter how futile, so that if it does happen again I am not spending the rest of my life wondering what if I had told would it have happened. That's a lot of guilt.
There is no really practical way to desert a ship in the North Atlantic in wartime in winter, so I'd not lose any sleep over the possibility that his family considered him a deserter. Most likely, such a death would be put down to an accident.
I doubt that any stink stirred up would change anyone's life for the better, and can easily see it changing many people's lives for the worse - certainly it would not do his wife, kids and grand-kids any good. The argument from utility is worthless in this case.
As far as chances of a repeat goes, I'd think this was the poster-child case for the opposite. The guy committed a crime as a young man, was haunted by guilt for forty years, and became a well-respected professor without a hint of any subsequent bad behaviour. Does it seem likely to you to be the sort of person who is going to be a serial killer on the side? Someone likely to be a repeat killer is more likely to be someone who did *not* feel guilt.
A better argument is that kicking up an investigation serves the ends of justice, in *spite* of all the harm likely to come to others by bringing up a 40 year old crime. Throw into the mix the fact that any such investigation is quite likely to be utterly futile (even if you succeeded in interesting some investigator in it - I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to take seriously a grade 10 student's allegations that a prof he just met that day confessed a 40 year old murder to him - of some unnamed person on an unnamed ship in WW2).
I never lost any sleep over it, and the guy has been dead for something like 20 years now anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
I do. The expectation is constantly that Israel should be the ones keeping Gaza afloat while Hamas is in charge and oddly that is not working. It is a tremendous set up.
Miglia seems to be trying to bait Siegey about Palestinian Civilians because...I don't know...he just cannot accept that fact?
He seems to be trying to bait Seebrew because Seeb's prior post about not killing your own civilians left open the possibility that killing someone else's civilians is OK.
Quote from: Strix on December 16, 2009, 12:03:36 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
What I think is BS is that people in this thread are saying that (relating back to the Malthus WWII example) in this situation they would actually go to the police and report the guy. You might think, philosophically, that this is the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a second anyone would *actually* do this, aside from possibly someone like Beeb who is constantly in contact with the police in his town anyway so presumably is very familiar with them (same might go for Strix).
Ok, relating back to the Mathus WWII example. I think it's even more important in that instance because of the circumstances surrounding it. Was the dead sailor reported missing? Was he reported as deserting ship? Was he reported as a suicide? If he was reported as deserting or suicide than his name has been tarnished in the eyes of his family, friends, and his country. It might seem like a small thing but to report his murder to the naval authorities could have a profound change in his final status and could give his family a tremendous piece of mind to know he hadn't deserted or killed himself. Is it likely that the navy could prove who exactly the murderer was? Maybe. The guy seems free and easy with his story. Would it go anywhere? Probably not but it could change a lot of people's lives for the better.
Murder is murder. If he did it once than he can do it again (and I have been told by multiple murders that the second time is easier). Chances are he probably will not. I, personally, would sleep better at night knowing that I tried to do something, no matter how futile, so that if it does happen again I am not spending the rest of my life wondering what if I had told would it have happened. That's a lot of guilt.
Because of your position, aren't you considered an officer of the court, and therefore legally required to report something like this?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2009, 02:43:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
I do. The expectation is constantly that Israel should be the ones keeping Gaza afloat while Hamas is in charge and oddly that is not working. It is a tremendous set up.
Miglia seems to be trying to bait Siegey about Palestinian Civilians because...I don't know...he just cannot accept that fact?
He seems to be trying to bait Seebrew because Seeb's prior post about not killing your own civilians left open the possibility that killing someone else's civilians is OK.
I don't think it was baiting, because it seems to me that that was exactly what Seigy was getting at. That, or that no Palestinian are to be considered civilians. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for clarification.
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 05:07:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
So far I have seen no sign that it is a difficult concept for anyone. Well, in the media and from professional Israel haters I've seen plenty of signs, but none in this thread and none by migliamaster.
I do. The expectation is constantly that Israel should be the ones keeping Gaza afloat while Hamas is in charge and oddly that is not working. It is a tremendous set up.
Miglia seems to be trying to bait Siegey about Palestinian Civilians because...I don't know...he just cannot accept that fact?
:huh:
What the hell are you talking about? Who's said anything about Gaza or Hamas? I sure haven't.
And pray do tell how I am "baiting" Siege - all I did was repeat his exact words back at him,
and ask him if that was what he meant.
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2009, 10:23:32 AM
:huh: Really?
So if I go into a police station and say "I killed John Doe" despite there being no evidence I did so or that John Doe even exists, I can go to jail?
I said "Sure you can", not "it will happen 100%". It would, as in so many things, depend on the situation.
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
And also, there is a third situation - when the client tells a lawyer he or she intends to commit one of the listed serious felonies - then the lawyer is required to report that.
We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2009, 12:13:08 PM
Yeah I did not say anything about blood only political realities for the past several decades.
No, you said nothing about realities, you said things only about how you were not sure why people couldn't "get" some bogus bumper-sticker concept. My response is that people are not as stupid as you assume.
QuoteIf you want to mean that all Israelis and Palestinians have some sort of blood lust for each other...well I don't think you necessarily need that to be enemies.
I have no idea what the first part of this means, but I would assert that you
do need to be enemies to be enemies, and there are Palestinians who are not enemies of Israelis, and vice-versa. Ergo, your assumption-conclusion is false.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2009, 08:11:14 PM
We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.
One would think this rule would be universal (and insofar as I have hear anyone on thie issue, it seems to be). Are you aware of any exceptions to this rule (which I assume you would have to remember from your legal ethics class)? And I have always been curious as to how serious the offense must be to warrant the violation pf privilege; felony? violence? with a victim?
If someone confesses murder to me, I'm not going to believe it under any and all circumstances. Even if he shows me the body.
According to my ethics textbook, Florida and Virginia require a lawyer to disclose a client's intention to commit any crime.
Half the states allow a lawyer to report a client's intention to commit any crime.
The remainder allow a lawyer to disclose only a client's intention to commit a crime "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm."
These rules may have been loosened somewhat in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley regarding financial crimes; my text is from 2003.
Quote from: grumbler on December 16, 2009, 10:33:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2009, 08:11:14 PM
We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.
One would think this rule would be universal (and insofar as I have hear anyone on thie issue, it seems to be). Are you aware of any exceptions to this rule (which I assume you would have to remember from your legal ethics class)? And I have always been curious as to how serious the offense must be to warrant the violation pf privilege; felony? violence? with a victim?
It is far from universal, as the exception has only been put into various codes of professional conduct in the last couple of decades or so. Once upon a time solicitor-client privilege was considered so sancrosanct no exception could be made in any circumstance.
The extent of the exception varies upon your jurisdiction. Because of course everyone cares, here's the Yukon wording (which is really just cribbed from the Canadian Bar Association model rules):
QuotePublic Safety Exception
2. Where a lawyer believes upon reasonable grounds that
there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of
death or serious bodily harm, including serious psychological
harm that would substantially interfere with health or wellbeing,
the lawyer shall disclose confidential information where
it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the death or harm,
but shall not disclose more information than is required.2
3. The lawyer who has reasonable grounds for believing that
a dangerous situation is likely to develop at a court or tribunal
facility shall inform the person having responsibility for
security at the facility and give particulars, being careful not to
disclose confidential information except as required by
Code of Professional Conduct 17
paragraph 2 of this Rule. Where possible the lawyer should
suggest solutions to the anticipated problem such as:
(a) the need for further security;
(b) that judgment be reserved;
(c) such other measure as may seem advisable.3
I believe other jurisdictions are worded slightly more broadly so it is not restricted to only crimes of violence.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 15, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
From the context of the question, the question was put as if he would report a fellow soldier who had shot a "neutralized civilian" (whatever that means) in a combat situation.
Neutralized civilian, as in, you make a sweep in the house, you make sure people are unarmed/pose no threat while you investigate the house for suspected ennemy combattants. On your way out, you shoot a civilian.
I did say an Israeli soldier, but it could be an American soldier saying the same thing about an Iraki civilian.
Quote
He said no, but if the soldier had shot a civilian back home he would. That to me seems to indicate that he will make a difference between a shot fired in a combat zone, and a shot fired in a "non-combat-peaceful-civilian-situation". I cant say I agree with him, but who knows, Ive never been in a situation like that so I cannot say how I would react.
It indicates that to him Palestinians are the ennemy, with or without weapons.
Willingly killing an unarmed civilian in a combat situation is the same as shooting someone of the street.
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Because it is a bogus concept?
Palestinians and Israelis are not enemies. Some Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel (and therefor most Israelis), and vice-versa, but this idea that person A is an enemy of person B merely by virtue of the fact that A is Palestinian and B is Israeli is an absurd contention. Hannan Ashrawi is not an enemy of any Israelis, insofar as I know. Jamal Zahalka is not the enemy of any Palestinians, insofar as I know.
I am not sure why the concept that people are not enemies because of "blood" is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Probably because most people understand the concept of loyalty. For many people, being part of a group is a big deal.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2009, 11:43:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 16, 2009, 10:33:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2009, 08:11:14 PM
We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.
One would think this rule would be universal (and insofar as I have hear anyone on thie issue, it seems to be). Are you aware of any exceptions to this rule (which I assume you would have to remember from your legal ethics class)? And I have always been curious as to how serious the offense must be to warrant the violation pf privilege; felony? violence? with a victim?
It is far from universal, as the exception has only been put into various codes of professional conduct in the last couple of decades or so. Once upon a time solicitor-client privilege was considered so sancrosanct no exception could be made in any circumstance.
The extent of the exception varies upon your jurisdiction. Because of course everyone cares, here's the Yukon wording (which is really just cribbed from the Canadian Bar Association model rules):
QuotePublic Safety Exception
(snip)
I believe other jurisdictions are worded slightly more broadly so it is not restricted to only crimes of violence.
Grazie
Quote from: ulmont on December 16, 2009, 10:42:28 PM
According to my ethics textbook, Florida and Virginia require a lawyer to disclose a client's intention to commit any crime.
Half the states allow a lawyer to report a client's intention to commit any crime.
The remainder allow a lawyer to disclose only a client's intention to commit a crime "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm."
These rules may have been loosened somewhat in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley regarding financial crimes; my text is from 2003.
In the latest version of the ABA Model Rules, rule 1.6 permit disclosure "to prevent client from commiting a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another" or to "prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial or property of another that is reasonably certainn to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or a fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services."
In the context of a business organization, model rule 1.13 provides that a lawyer needs to go the highest authority within the organization first before disclosure.
According to my handy chart, some states have adopted these changes, some do not permit disclosure, some have adopted modified versions, and New Jersey appears to require disclosure.
Can you tell that I had a professional responsibility exam Monday? :bleeding:
Quote from: stjaba on December 17, 2009, 11:37:12 PM
In the latest version of the ABA Model Rules, rule 1.6 permit disclosure "to prevent client from commiting a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another" or to "prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial or property of another that is reasonably certainn to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or a fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services."
In the context of a business organization, model rule 1.13 provides that a lawyer needs to go the highest authority within the organization first before disclosure.
According to my handy chart, some states have adopted these changes, some do not permit disclosure, some have adopted modified versions, and New Jersey appears to require disclosure.
Can you tell that I had a professional responsibility exam Monday? :bleeding:
We do
not absolutely require disclosure; basically, NJ's Rules of Professional Conduct are a carbon copy of the Model Rules.
QuoteRPC 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).
(b) A lawyer shall reveal such information to the proper authorities, as soon as, and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, to prevent the client:
(1) from committing a criminal, illegal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm or substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another;
(2) from committing a criminal, illegal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to perpetrate a fraud upon a tribunal.
(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal, illegal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services had been used;
(2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, or to establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or disciplinary complaint against the lawyer based upon the conduct in which the client was involved; or
(3) to comply with other law.
(d) Reasonable belief for purposes of RPC 1.6 is the belief or conclusion of a reasonable lawyer that is based upon information that has some foundation in fact and constitutes prima facie evidence of the matters referred to in subsections (b) or (c).
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rpc97.htm#1.6 (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rpc97.htm#1.6)
Basically, we can only breach confidentiality if we believe someone is going to be harmed or killed, if we know a client is perjuring/will perjure themselves, or if silence would leave us complicit in an act of fraud.
Contact my textbook publisher- it explicitly states New Jersey is a "shall reveal" state.
The model rules are different- "may reveal." which would permit but not require disclosure. I'm assuming shall reveal means the same thing as must reveal.
Edit:
Based on reading the whole section, New Jersey appears to require disclosure in some cases, and permits disclosure in other cases. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that New Jersey never requires disclosure.
Quote from: stjaba on December 17, 2009, 11:44:53 PM
Contact my textbook publisher- it explicitly states New Jersey is a "shall reveal" state.
The model rules are different- "may reveal." which would permit but not require disclosure. I'm assuming shall reveal means the same thing as must reveal.
Edit:
Based on reading the whole statute, New Jersey appears to require disclosure in some cases, and permits disclosure in other cases. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that New Jersey never requires disclosure.
I never said that New Jersey "never requires disclosure"; I only said that it leaves the lawyer discretion in cases where silence would not result in harm to another person or amount to perjury or fraud.
Also, consider that when we're reading rules of conduct that govern ethics, rather than statutes that govern specific actions, suggestive words like "may" could imply an ethical obligation, and are only intended to allow a lawyer to judge whether or not following the rule could cause more harm.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if any state's lawyer was asked to explain his conduct when he knowingly allowed his client to perjure themselves, the investigating committee would read that "may" as "must, unless doing so would cause more harm."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 17, 2009, 11:53:30 PM
Also, consider that when we're reading rules of conduct that govern ethics, rather than statutes that govern specific actions, suggestive words like "may" could imply an ethical obligation, and are only intended to allow a lawyer to judge whether or not following the rule could cause more harm.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if any state's lawyer was asked to explain his conduct when he knowingly allowed his client to perjure themselves, the investigating committee would read that "may" as "must, unless doing so would cause more harm."
I don't think so. There's a big difference between being permitted to do so, and being reqiured to do so. Given the ramification of breaking the rules(punishment up to disbarment) I think the drafters of each state's codes are very careful over the words chosen, and whether something is permitted or required is very distinguishable. There is some variation between how the states have adapted the model rules, and if New Jersey has (for instance) changed "may" to "shall" it's because it is turning an option into an requirement. I highly doubt courts would interpret a may as a must, especially in the context of confidentiality, which is considered sacred.
Besides, why use may when you mean must? There's a really big difference between the two. I don't recall any cases that I read this past semester where may was interpreted as must or vice-versa.
Also, the restatement of law governing lawyers, which is influential in the formation of ethical codes, states in section 66 first 1) lawyer
may(note not must) disclose in certain situations and in subsection 3) a lawyer who takes action or decides not to action permitted under this section is not, soley by reason of such action or inaction, subject to professional discipline." In other words, it's pretty explicit that may is to be strictly interpreted as may and not must.
Quote from: stjaba on December 18, 2009, 12:08:32 AM
I don't think so. There's a big difference between being permitted to do so, and being reqiured to do so. Given the ramification of breaking the rules(punishment up to disbarment) I think the drafters of each state's codes are very careful over the words chosen, and whether something is permitted or required is very distinguishable. There is some variation between how the states have adapted the model rules, and if New Jersey has (for instance) changed "may" to "shall" it's because it is turning an option into an requirement. I highly doubt courts would interpret a may as a must, especially in the context of confidentiality, which is considered sacred.
Besides, why use may when you mean must? There's a really big difference between the two. I don't recall any cases that I read this past semester where may was interpreted as must or vice-versa.
Actually, the operative words are "may" and "shall." There is a difference between "must" and "shall" as well.
I would agree with you, though, that no court would read the "may" as "shall" if the lawyer can show that he/she considered whether to reveal or not and decided, on balance, not to reveal. I would note that the circumstances surrounding "may reveal" are those in which the lawyer has a personal interest. If the interests being harmed are other peoples' then the "shall reveal" portion appears to apply.