Palin B-I-L exonorated. It really is okay to zap kids with a stun gun.

[jimpeel]

That is according to the sheriff's department so let's just zap them all!

Obviously a specious lawsuit with no merit.

At least Palin's B-I-L zapped his own kid so that makes it doubly okay.

SOURCE

Sheriff's Deputy Accused of Zapping 3 Kids With Stun Gun

Monday, July 20, 2009

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. — A sheriff's deputy zapped three children with a stun gun at an Illinois emergency youth shelter, threatening to sodomize one of them before choking a fourth child and throwing her in a closet, according to a federal civil-rights lawsuit.

The suit against Jefferson County sheriff's deputy David Bowers and another deputy claims they were unprovoked in the incident at the adolescent center in southern Illinois that houses youths ages 11 to 18, often with behavioral issues.

No charges have been filed in the case. Sheriff Roger Mulch, who also is named in the lawsuit, said Monday the deputies followed protocol and did "nothing out of the ordinary."

The suit, filed July 1, called the deputies' actions "extreme, outrageous and unjustified," and it does not release the names or ages of the three boys shot with the stun gun. The fourth kid was a foster child who did not live at the center, according to the lawsuit.

The suit claims that Bowers and sheriff's deputy Lonnie Lawler went to the center near Marion on July 4, 2008 in response to a report that three teenagers were acting unruly. But the young people suing the deputies were not those disruptive children, the lawsuit said.

Bowers allegedly pushed one boy toward his bed, and repeatedly shocked him with a stun gun. Bowers then held down a second boy, stunned him several times and threatened to sodomize him, ultimately causing the child to soil himself, the lawsuit claimed.

A third child complied with the deputies' demands that he sit on a couch, but Lawler handcuffed him before Bowers zapped him repeatedly, the lawsuit said.

The fourth child, a girl, pleaded with the deputies to stop but Lawler handcuffed her. Bowers lifted her off the ground, pressed her against a wall and choked her, the lawsuit alleges.

"Do you want to live or die (expletive)?" the lawsuit, filed July 1, claims Bowers asked the girl before she was thrown into a closet, vomiting.

Bowers did not immediately return messages left at his home, and Lawler does not have a listed home telephone number. It was not known whether either had an attorney.

Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, which runs the center, said Monday after reviewing the lawsuit that he was "really alarmed and distressed by the allegations."

"These are young people often traumatized in their circumstances, and that they, like all children, needed to be treated with dignity and respect," he said, noting that the shelter serves a myriad of children, ranging from runaways from placement elsewhere to youths between foster homes.

Mulch portrayed the center as a chronic hassle, this year accounting for more than 100 requests for his department's help.

He defended his deputies, saying separate investigations by his department and Illinois State Police determined Bowers and Lawler did nothing wrong.

 

[Professur]

This is what happens when you're not allowed to spank your kids ....

 

[randomJACKASS]

OK Jim, I know our justice system bothers you but here is how it is. In criminal cases one must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. All too often this gets missed even so. In civil matters one must be proved in the wrong by "preponderance of the evidence". Our own Thomas Jefferson whom you "Gawd and Countree" types so like to think you understand said:

"It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail"

I happen to agree with him, for the simple fact, that if the guilty man that goes free is a bad man, we will catch him later, but to the innocent man who is hung wrongly, no justice can ever be possible for him and his entire family.

I know you are probably (quietly) one of the foremost attorneys or law scholars in the land right? Well with all your many other hats (inventor, engineer, theologian, economist, general fucking pain in the ass....) you might need to bone up on law again.

 

[jimpeel]

Once again you fail to get the facetiousness of the post.

Go back and read up on the threads which are dedicated to Palin, and what her B-I-L did, and how many here defended his actions. THAT was the point.

Now, here we have another zapping incident. Let's see what the peanut gallery has to say on this one.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Once again you fail to get the facetiousness of the post.

Go back and read up on the threads which are dedicated to Palin, and what her B-I-L did, and how many here defended his actions. THAT was the point.

Now, here we have another zapping incident. Let's see what the peanut gallery has to say on this one.

No you miss my point. None of us was there, nor knows anyone who was in either case, the courts judge based on the evidence given which could lead them far from the truth and so we all are; like the retired business man who lolls in the Florida sunshine in the winter complaining of the sad state of the nation; the minister who sighs over the sins of the twentieth century; politicians and reformers who are sure all would be Utopia if the rest of the world would only behave....

But in the end the bottom line is it may be fun to bat around our ideas but none of it means squat diddly....

 

[2minkey]

Once again you fail to get the facetiousness of the post.

oh those peanut gallery peasants!

 

[MrBishop]

No charges have been filed in the case.

It's a lawsuit, right? Like MJ's molestation lawsuit and OJs civil lawsuit. He's not under arrest, or hunted by the law.

If he's guilty of a crime, why isn't he under arrest? I'll never understand this double-jeopardy loophole of yours.

 

[randomJACKASS]

....If he's guilty of a crime, why isn't he under arrest? I'll never understand this double-jeopardy loophole of yours.

"It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail"

That right there is a part of the reasoning. I also think the guys who thought up double jeopardy had very prescient thinking on what was to come in this country. Wrongful conviction, even in death penalty cases has run rampant.

You see the second principle in play here, is that no American, even a guilty one should have his constitutional rights trampled on by poor conduct by police and other investigative authorities. That is why cases get thrown out on technicality, and as much as we hate to see it, I for one thank god it happens. It keeps the police honest. If they fuck it up the first time, they don't get another bite at the apple. Chances are though if the crime is serious enough they still have some option to get the guilty party on a related charge.

Lastly, if you knew the amount of prosecuting attorneys who made their whole reputation and career off some high profile wrongful conviction, you'd see why. A lot of those pieces of shit, (remember they are lawyers, but often ones not good enough to do private practice) refuse to admit they were wrong in the face of incontrovertible evidence. We are talking iron clad DNA cases proving the innocence of one man and the guilt of another. Because of our wild system we have a lot of "true crime" shows on TV, you yourselves probably have access to ID or "Investigation Discovery"? Unfortunately even some of the judges are in on this refusal to admit mistakes and some of these proven innocent men still remain behind bars. I admit I am a fan of such shows, and I have to tell you I have never once seen any prosecutor or judge admit they were wrong, and we are talking hundreds of cases when they were wrong!

So essentially there is a lot wrong with our system when it comes to reversal of wrongful convictions, but thank God those bastards can't come at you over and over, at least that is one thing I think we have gotten right.

 

[Professur]

It keeps the police honest.

You owe me a keyboard, ya bastard. I was drinking when I read that. Now I'm gonna have soda nose all day. Coke burns, ya know. Police honest .... ?ROFL

 

[MrBishop]

That right there is a part of the reasoning. I also think the guys who thought up double jeopardy had very prescient thinking on what was to come in this country. Wrongful conviction, even in death penalty cases has run rampant.

You see the second principle in play here, is that no American, even a guilty one should have his constitutional rights trampled on by poor conduct by police and other investigative authorities. That is why cases get thrown out on technicality, and as much as we hate to see it, I for one thank god it happens. It keeps the police honest. If they fuck it up the first time, they don't get another bite at the apple. Chances are though if the crime is serious enough they still have some option to get the guilty party on a related charge.

Lastly, if you knew the amount of prosecuting attorneys who made their whole reputation and career off some high profile wrongful conviction, you'd see why. A lot of those pieces of shit, (remember they are lawyers, but often ones not good enough to do private practice) refuse to admit they were wrong in the face of incontrovertible evidence. We are talking iron clad DNA cases proving the innocence of one man and the guilt of another. Because of our wild system we have a lot of "true crime" shows on TV, you yourselves probably have access to ID or "Investigation Discovery"? Unfortunately even some of the judges are in on this refusal to admit mistakes and some of these proven innocent men still remain behind bars. I admit I am a fan of such shows, and I have to tell you I have never once seen any prosecutor or judge admit they were wrong, and we are talking hundreds of cases when they were wrong!

So essentially there is a lot wrong with our system when it comes to reversal of wrongful convictions, but thank God those bastards can't come at you over and over, at least that is one thing I think we have gotten right.

You misunderstand my statement. I understand the need for rules re: Double-jeopardy.

What I don't understand is why a loophole such as a civil lawsuit is allowed to be used to effectively try a person twice.

Take person A. Mr A. got arrested for a supposed DWI accident causing injury. He blew .1% over the limit. He goes to court and gets off because
Blood tests indicate that some medical condition gives him a naturally high blood-alcohol level (he wasn't drinking) and the accident was captured on video and it was the other driver that blew through a red light causing the accident.

Double jeopardy states that Mr A can't be tried again for THAT accident or THAT cause of DWI.

The family of the other driver has other ideas though and places a Civil lawsuit against Mr A for DWI causing injury, requesting $250k for pain and suffering (The other driver has a sore back and can't go to work for 6 months).

As I see it, that's double-jeopardy. My question is: Why is a second trial even allowed?

 

[randomJACKASS]

No not at all, it's a civil court and the action is brought against the defendant by a private party, as opposed to the original charges in criminal court, brought by the state or federal government. The evidentiary and burden of proof rules are different as explained earlier, where in civil court there is a more relaxed burden of proof (as mentioned earlier in this thread; preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court) .

Private citizens effected by the crime could sue endlessly, but only the state is bound by double jeopardy.

 

[randomJACKASS]

....Private citizens effected by the crime could sue endlessly....

Actually that and overturning wrongful convictions are the only two really bad aspects of our system that need major overhaul in my opinion. (The court system, not the penal system, which is another matter entirely.)

 

[JTP]

I investigated this thread just to learn what a "B-I-L" was.
After reading, I'm so bored I think I'll get back to my siesta
If only lawyers knew how incredibly sleep-inducing they are...overpaid hypnotists
(Yawning face)

 

[jimpeel]

No charges have been filed in the case.

It's a lawsuit, right? Like MJ's molestation lawsuit and OJs civil lawsuit. He's not under arrest, or hunted by the law.

If he's guilty of a crime, why isn't he under arrest? I'll never understand this double-jeopardy loophole of yours.

Actually, we have triple jeopardy:

• You can be tried by the state.
• You can be tried by the feds.
• You can be tried in civil court.

Remember OJ? He was found not guilty in a state court but found guilty of the same charges in a civil action.

There are others.

 

[jimpeel]

My question is: Why is a second trial even allowed?

As I stated, there can actually be three trials.

In Canada, the prosecution can appeal an acquittal and if they win the appeal they can get a retrial as many times as it takes. Here, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal and their only recourse is if they can gain new, previously unheard, evidence.

SOURCE

Canada

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded. In contrast to the laws of the United States, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict. It has been suggested that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, Martin L Friedland, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just one of many factors.

A notable example of this is the case of David Ahenakew, who was tried a second time after being acquitted.

The Federal Prosecution Service
Part V
PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL
Chapter 22

22 THE DECISION TO APPEAL
22.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the criteria the Attorney General of Canada applies in deciding whether to appeal an acquittal or sentence. It also identifies who should make the decision to appeal on behalf of the Attorney General and the process for deciding.

 

[MrBishop]

Actually, we have triple jeopardy:

• You can be tried by the state.
• You can be tried by the feds.
• You can be tried in civil court.

Remember OJ? He was found not guilty in a state court but found guilty of the same charges in a civil action.

There are others.

Again...why allow it?

As I stated, there can actually be three trials.

In Canada, the prosecution can appeal an acquittal and if they win the appeal they can get a retrial as many times as it takes. Here, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal and their only recourse is if they can gain new, previously unheard, evidence.

Yes..we've done that one before. The appeal (which is a request for a mistrial/retrial) is based on whether the rule of law was applied properly during the hearings. The closest American version of this would be if it was discovered that the jury were threatened if they didn't vote for 'innocent', or the lawyers destroyed or hid evidence, or judge was found to be at a conflict of interest.

 

[randomJACKASS]

....Here, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal and their only recourse is if they can gain new, previously unheard, evidence....

Actually that isn't even true. If you try someone for murder, sometimes the feds may try them again, but if you are acquitted you can legally hold a press conference admitting to the murder and spelling out every detail and nobody can touch you. It has happened before.

 

[Cerise]

Look at Phil Spector.

Jury can't be split at a murder trial. The second trial found him guilty.


Robert Blake, on the other hand, walked.

 

[Inkara1]

You can't be tried again on the same charge. That's an important point.

 

[Gonz]

You can't be tried twice for the same capital offense

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Unless you are LA cops in a racial crime.

Or have property that has skinny nosed mouse or horntooting owls.

Or...well, this one, the second, ninth & tenth aren't really important.
NM