While technically accurate going by the description of the law, I think there's an obvious difference when one "rescues" someone from law enforcement rather than kidnapping someone from law enforcement with the intent to murder them. The law should be clarified, and a new statue written to handle and penalize this situation.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/17/10177446-prosecutors-aim-new-weapon-at-occupy-activists-lynching-allegation
QuoteProsecutors aim new weapon at Occupy activists: lynching allegation
By Kari Huus, msnbc.com
Sergio Ballesteros, 30, has been involved in Occupy LA since the movement had its California launch in October. But this week, his activism took an abrupt turn when he was arrested on a felony charge — lynching.
Under the California penal code, lynching is "taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer," where "riot" is defined as two or more people threatening violence or disturbing the peace. The original purpose of the legal code section 405a was to protect defendants in police custody from vigilante mobs — especially black defendants from racist groups.
Whether its use in this case will be upheld by California's courts is uncertain. But the felony charge — which carries a potential four-year prison sentence — is the kind of accusation that can change the landscape for would-be demonstrators.
Occupy protesters bring their discontent to Congress
"Felonies really heighten the stakes for the protesters," said Baher Azmy, legal director at Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. "I think in situations where there are mass demonstrations and a confrontation between protesters and police, one always has to be on the lookout for exaggerated interpretations of legal rules that attempt to punish or squelch the protesters."
Ballesteros, a teacher-turned-social-activist, was one of two people arrested during an "art walk" in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday. He and other Occupy LA activists — maybe 200, he said — had joined the procession to bring their message about social injustice to the thousands of gallery-goers.
One protester who was playing a drum was arrested after stepping off the curb into the street. Ballesteros said that in doing so, the drummer was joining hundreds of other people who could not fit on the crowded sidewalk.
Occupy protesters underwhelmed by senator's staff
Ballesteros said he was across the street when he saw the arrest — which he said looked excessively rough -- and it was "startling." Under legal advice, Ballesteros is not providing additional detail, but apparently he objected — in some fashion — to the arrest. A video of the crowded scene posted on YouTube shows Ballesteros on the ground, being handcuffed.
He was booked into jail on a felony charge, the Los Angeles Police department confirmed, and released on $50,000 bail early Tuesday morning.
'I can't go out and express myself'
Ballesteros is not the first protester to face this 1933 California law.
Occupy Oakland activist Tiffany Tran, 23, was arrested Dec. 30 and charged with "lynching." At an arraignment four days later, prosecutors opted not to file the charges, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported. They could change their minds until the one-year statute of limitations expires.
advertisement
"Now I feel I can't go out and express myself as I should be able to," Tran told the paper.
Houston DA turns up the heat on Occupy activists
In the handful of protest cases in which lynching has been used as a charge in the past, it later has been dropped. However, in one case, a court concluded that "lynching" could include "a person who takes part in a riot leading to his escape from custody."
Most states have laws against lynching — largely drafted to prevent white supremacists and other vigilante groups from using violence against African Americans and white people who supported them. Hundreds of lynchings of this sort took place in the late 1800s through the mid-1900s.
Trying to silence him?
Ballesteros, who spoke to msnbc.com on Monday, said that he does not believe he will be convicted of lynching.
"They don't have much," he said of the case against him.
He also faces a misdemeanor charge for his arrest Nov. 30, when he was among more than 200 people who defied eviction from an encampment on the grounds of Los Angeles' City Hall. There was an arraignment for protesters arrested that day, but they were told no charges yet had been filed.
"They have a year to do so," said Ballesteros. "Now they certainly will. It's obvious. It's all political."
:nelson:
Sure, let's make the consequences of being arrested at an Occupy site so dire that it becomes a rational response to deliberately attack any police officer who attempts an arrest.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:15:27 PM
Sure, let's make the consequences of being arrested at an Occupy site so dire that it becomes a rational response to deliberately attack any police officer who attempts an arrest.
The lynching would be the attempting to take someone back who was being arrested. :huh:
Or "[object]--in some fashion." -_-
Which you may do by accident, or more precisely instinct and without reflection; or simply be accused thereof. At which point--assuming, for the sake of this argument, that a application of the lynching statute is correct and a conviction shall arise--you might as well engage in desperate street fighting with the cops, since your life is functionally over.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:15:27 PM
Sure, let's make the consequences of being arrested at an Occupy site so dire that it becomes a rational response to deliberately attack any police officer who attempts an arrest.
That's a good idea, because then they can roll the tanks in and crush the insurrection.
At which point public opinion turns emphatically against the government, and real change becomes possible.
But I'd probably prefer if they used interfering with a peace officer instead or similar instead of a statute obviously not intended for such a situation.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:22:02 PM
Or "[object]--in some fashion." -_-
Which you may do by accident, or more precisely instinct and without reflection; or simply be accused thereof. At which point--assuming, for the sake of this argument, that a application of the lynching statute is correct and a conviction shall arise--you might as well engage in desperate street fighting with the cops, since your life is functionally over.
:huh:
Potentially 4 years of a felony = life over? Besides unless you think there are no cameras, you are better off not doing anything. After all, I think your life is definitely over if you are cut killing a cop while trying to prevent an arrest. ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
At which point public opinion turns emphatically against the government, and real change becomes possible.
But I'd probably prefer if they used interfering with a peace officer instead or similar instead of a statute obviously not intended for such a situation.
Why would public opinion turn against a government who is dealing with violent maniacs bent on destroying civilization?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
While technically accurate going by the description of the law, I think there's an obvious difference when one "rescues" someone from law enforcement rather than kidnapping someone from law enforcement with the intent to murder them. The law should be clarified, and a new statue written to handle and penalize this situation.
We have enough people pretending to be lawyers here as it is, Tim.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2012, 11:36:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
At which point public opinion turns emphatically against the government, and real change becomes possible.
But I'd probably prefer if they used interfering with a peace officer instead or similar instead of a statute obviously not intended for such a situation.
Why would public opinion turn against a government who is dealing with violent maniacs bent on destroying civilization?
Because it's in bed with greedy maniacs who are bent on destroying civilization.
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2012, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:22:02 PM
Or "[object]--in some fashion." -_-
Which you may do by accident, or more precisely instinct and without reflection; or simply be accused thereof. At which point--assuming, for the sake of this argument, that a application of the lynching statute is correct and a conviction shall arise--you might as well engage in desperate street fighting with the cops, since your life is functionally over.
:huh:
Potentially 4 years of a felony = life over?
Life as one knows it, certainly; a life worth living, highly likely.
In any event potential felony convictions have a way of inciting people to a desperation they may not otherwise feel and acts they may not otherwise perform. Do you disagree? How many traffic-stops-gone-wrong involve unwillingness to pay a fine, and not the prospect of arrest and serious jail time?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 12:25:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2012, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:22:02 PM
Or "[object]--in some fashion." -_-
Which you may do by accident, or more precisely instinct and without reflection; or simply be accused thereof. At which point--assuming, for the sake of this argument, that a application of the lynching statute is correct and a conviction shall arise--you might as well engage in desperate street fighting with the cops, since your life is functionally over.
:huh:
Potentially 4 years of a felony = life over?
Life as one knows it, certainly; a life worth living, highly likely.
In any event potential felony convictions have a way of inciting people to a desperation they may not otherwise feel and acts they may not otherwise perform. Do you disagree? How many traffic-stops-gone-wrong involve unwillingness to pay a fine, and not the prospect of arrest and serious jail time?
I think you are confused. What poor little rich kid protesting the man is going to go for more blood in cases like this? If anything they'll be more concerned about the hassle of getting their lawyer to get them off. I don't think they are going to go for the jugular and start taking police out.
The point is--despite my glibness--is that I don't think raising the stakes is good for anyone. Not protestors, obviously; not cops; not public order.
I think it could be. Raise the deterrent and scare some kids off.
You're approaching it, I suppose, from the standpoint that protests are intrinsically evil.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 12:40:14 AM
You're approaching it, I suppose, from the standpoint that protests are intrinsically evil.
I'm approaching it from the standpoint that college students with their lives ahead of them aren't going to want to risk getting felony records. I don't see why one has to be anti-protest if one dislikes protestors trying to prevent cops from arresting people.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 12:41:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 12:40:14 AM
You're approaching it, I suppose, from the standpoint that protests are intrinsically evil.
I'm approaching it from the standpoint that college students with their lives ahead of them aren't going to want to risk getting felony records. I don't see why one has to be anti-protest if one dislikes protestors trying to prevent cops from arresting people.
The police have already show a broad interpretation of "resistance".
Yes, all cops are the same.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 01:11:55 AM
Yes, all cops are the same.
Well they do all dress the same... But when you make a law (or chose to enforce it creatively), you should take into consideration the worst in people, not the best. After all, laws are not meant to restrict the just.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 02:56:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 01:11:55 AM
Yes, all cops are the same.
Well they do all dress the same... But when you make a law (or chose to enforce it creatively), you should take into consideration the worst in people, not the best. After all, laws are not meant to restrict the just.
Seems like we'd have few laws then - seeing as how most could potentially be abused.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 12:37:43 AM
I think it could be. Raise the deterrent and scare some kids off.
Huh? What do kids have to do with this? This was a 30-year-old school teacher. I am pretty sure people are already cautious about assualting police officers...not that the story even says exactly what the guy did.
Surely you are not advocating enforcing laws in such a way to scare people, kids or no, from peaceably assembling since that is a basic Constitutional right.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 08:49:54 AM
Seems like we'd have few laws then - seeing as how most could potentially be abused.
Um the reason we have many laws is because of the ones that are abused. The basic ideology of this country is good laws are preferred over relying on the goodness of humans.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 08:49:54 AM
Seems like we'd have few laws then - seeing as how most could potentially be abused.
Opposite actually.
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. :cool:
I'm agin charging these dudes with lynching.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 11:22:02 PM
Or "[object]--in some fashion." -_-
Which you may do by accident, or more precisely instinct and without reflection; or simply be accused thereof. At which point--assuming, for the sake of this argument, that a application of the lynching statute is correct and a conviction shall arise--you might as well engage in desperate street fighting with the cops, since your life is functionally over.
Look at the bright side; it will mean that the term "lynching" will lose its strong emotive context, and those KKK types who engaged in early 20C lynching will be rehabilitated from hate-criminals into mere protestors.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
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. :cool:
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. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 10:43:12 AM
Look at the bright side; it will mean that the term "lynching" will lose its strong emotive context, and those KKK types who engaged in early 20C lynching will be rehabilitated from hate-criminals into mere protestors.
This is not the first state to abuse lynching legislation. The ability it gives prosecutors to convict people merely for being present as part of the mob is too powerful to not to be tempting.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
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. :cool:
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. :cool:
I love it when faggots think that punishing criminals properly is 'unjust'. :mad:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 12:40:14 AM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
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. :cool:
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. :cool:
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. :cool:
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?
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.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
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.
QuoteAll 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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 12:48:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
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!
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 12:55:59 PM
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.
Can a personal loan ever be classified as theft? that is if it isn't paid in time?
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.
How its made is ok. i stopped watch Walker Texas Ranger when he took on a bear and won :D
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 12:53:57 PM
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).
Quote from: HVC on January 18, 2012, 01:02:29 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 12:48:11 PM
Nice strawman.
I suppose you would know.
QuoteAs 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.
Quote"Interfering with an arrest" is not itself a crime.
It is, actually. Google that specific phrase & see for yourself.
QuoteYou 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?
QuoteThat 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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:00:44 PM
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!
Well yeah, I don't think anyone's disputing that. What I'm disputing is what the appropriate punishment is when someone does rough someone up to collect a debt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:00:44 PM
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!
Well yeah, I don't think anyone's disputing that. What I'm disputing is what the appropriate punishment is when someone does rough someone up to collect a debt.
Extortion has strong organized crime connotations. I believe that is part of why it attracts a much more serious punishment than, say, a bar fight.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
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?
Yep. That stuff just drives me nuts. We give the government special powers to handle specific problems and then it gets used for a bunch of other areas it was never intended. Sort of like how anti-terrorism stuff is used to fight the drug war. Just pisses me off. It is fundamentally dishonest, if legislators and law enforcement believe they should have expanded powers in all areas then that is what they need to pass and enforce.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
Yep. That stuff just drives me nuts. We give the government special powers to handle specific problems and then it gets used for a bunch of other areas it was never intended. Sort of like how anti-terrorism stuff is used to fight the drug war. Just pisses me off. It is fundamentally dishonest, if legislators and law enforcement believe they should have expanded powers in all areas then that is what they need to pass and enforce.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Quote from: PDH on January 18, 2012, 01:38:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
Yep. That stuff just drives me nuts. We give the government special powers to handle specific problems and then it gets used for a bunch of other areas it was never intended. Sort of like how anti-terrorism stuff is used to fight the drug war. Just pisses me off. It is fundamentally dishonest, if legislators and law enforcement believe they should have expanded powers in all areas then that is what they need to pass and enforce.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
:(
If you give law enforcement a tool, I don't see how they can be faulted for using that tool. If you have a problem with how any particular peice of legislation was initially justified, well, take it up with your legislators.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:55:56 PM
If you give law enforcement a tool, I don't see how they can be faulted for using that tool. If you have a problem with how any particular peice of legislation was initially justified, well, take it up with your legislators.
I look forward to my form letter response.
Sorry but I am going to fault people for how they choose to interpret the law just as much for how they decide to write it.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:29:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:00:44 PM
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!
Well yeah, I don't think anyone's disputing that. What I'm disputing is what the appropriate punishment is when someone does rough someone up to collect a debt.
Extortion has strong organized crime connotations. I believe that is part of why it attracts a much more serious punishment than, say, a bar fight.
Which is why people think that it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest to charge the guy in your example with extortion. Or to charge the guy in the article in the OP with "lynching"--it should be faily obvious that he didn't break someone out of police custody to string 'em up from the nearest tree or lamppost, which I the connotation that "lynching" carries. There are plenty of charges that could be brought that don't have that connotation, depending on the jurisdiction--obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, and others (also depending on exactly what the guy actually did).
Quote from: grumbler
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.
From the opening post:
QuoteUnder the California penal code, lynching is "taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer," where "riot" is defined as two or more people threatening violence or disturbing the peace.
To me, it sounds like you would have to at least have an implicit threat of violence in order to convict under the California lynching law.
Quote from: dps on January 18, 2012, 02:27:13 PM
Which is why people think that it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest to charge the guy in your example with extortion. Or to charge the guy in the article in the OP with "lynching"--it should be faily obvious that he didn't break someone out of police custody to string 'em up from the nearest tree or lamppost, which I the connotation that "lynching" carries. There are plenty of charges that could be brought that don't have that connotation, depending on the jurisdiction--obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, and others (also depending on exactly what the guy actually did).
How the hell is it "intellectually dishonest" to charge extortion. Beating someone up in order to get them to pay you money is the very definition of extortion.
From wiki:
QuoteExtortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.
From the Criminal Code:
QuoteEvery one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 18, 2012, 01:04:27 PM
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.
Should have gone with How it's Made. Sometimes that show can be quite interesting.
Free the Whitehorse 1!
Quote from: Kleves on January 18, 2012, 02:36:49 PM
Free the Whitehorse 1!
After he does about 2 months!
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:34:03 PM
How the hell is it "intellectually dishonest" to charge extortion.
he was extorting his own money back :lol:
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?
Does the school bully get charged with extortion for wedgying a nerd for his lunch money?
Quote from: HVC on January 18, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:34:03 PM
How the hell is it "intellectually dishonest" to charge extortion.
he was extorting his own money back :lol:
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.
Edit: no, that's wrong. It would still be extortion because he was not stealing the money. But robbery and extortion carry the exact same penalties, and indeed are right beside each other in the Code.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 02:42:10 PM
Does the school bully get charged with extortion for wedgying a nerd for his lunch money?
Again, that would be more properly charged as robbery.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 18, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:34:03 PM
How the hell is it "intellectually dishonest" to charge extortion.
he was extorting his own money back :lol:
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.
although if banks went around beating people who took out bad loans the economy might be better now :lol:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:55:56 PM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on January 18, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 01:55:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 02:42:10 PM
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).
Quote from: HVC on January 18, 2012, 01:02:29 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 12:40:14 AM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 12:40:14 AM
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.
QuoteAll 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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
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.
Well, I'm not sure how totally lacking in premeditation your average bar fight is.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 18, 2012, 03:56:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
How did that work?
Are you asking how effective it was, or how the litigation took place?
QuoteAlso, have the Occupy types started blowing up buildings and sniping doctors?
Not that I'm aware of. But they do certainly have their violent fringe elements.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: dps on January 18, 2012, 02:27:13 PM
Which is why people think that it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest to charge the guy in your example with extortion. Or to charge the guy in the article in the OP with "lynching"--it should be faily obvious that he didn't break someone out of police custody to string 'em up from the nearest tree or lamppost, which I the connotation that "lynching" carries. There are plenty of charges that could be brought that don't have that connotation, depending on the jurisdiction--obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, and others (also depending on exactly what the guy actually did).
How the hell is it "intellectually dishonest" to charge extortion. Beating someone up in order to get them to pay you money is the very definition of extortion.
From wiki:
QuoteExtortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.
From the Criminal Code:
QuoteEvery one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
It's intellectually dishonest because you yourself admitted that the term has connotations of organized crime, regardless of the fact that the formal definition makes no mention of organized crime.
The term also carries a huge implication that the offender had no legal right to the money that they attempted to obtain, whereas in your example the defendant did have a right to the money (though of course he went about attempting to obtain payment in an inappropriate and criminal manner).
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2012, 05:26:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
How did that work?
Are you asking how effective it was, or how the litigation took place?
QuoteAlso, have the Occupy types started blowing up buildings and sniping doctors?
Not that I'm aware of. But they do certainly have their violent fringe elements.
Both. I suspect the violent Fringe element exists mostly in the propaganda of people like Breitbart.
[deleted]
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
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. :cool:
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. :cool:
:yes:
Indeed.
I do not love either thing.
QuoteBoth.
I don't want to butcher the legalistic aspects of it (that's what our forum lawyers are for), but basically the RICO Act was passed by Congress in the 1970s specifically to take down organized crime family bosses and other members whose syndicates committed criminal acts but they themselves did not directly take part. IIRC there are both criminal and civil penalties under the act.
I think NOW started suing anti-abortion activists in the 80s or 90s and won, and at some point there was a federal injunction against abortion clinic protests, based on RICO. It eventually made it to the USSC about 7 or 8 years ago where it unanimously (?) struck down the earlier decisions by lower courts.
QuoteI suspect the violent Fringe element exists mostly in the propaganda of people like Breitbart.
Everything you disagree with seems to be a Breitbart conspiracy. I suppose you think he orchestrated the Oakland riots?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941/ns/us_news-life/t/occupy-protesters-disavow-oakland-violence/#.Txdpj6VSTgd
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-13/occupy-movement-violent-fringe/51188258/1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/issue-of-violence-divides_b_1101715.html
Not exactly a strong case, derspiess. That's just how Oakland rolls. ;)
I thought he meant something series like bombings and shootings and stuff.