Difficult Civil Rights Question

[footfootfoot]

Were Ken Lay's actions re: Enron criminal?

[Stormieweather]

I think there is a difference between threatening bodily harm and threats of other potentially criminal activities.

If Joe Shmoe threatens to blow my head off, he has already committed the crime of assault. If he has a gun at the time of the threat, it is assault with a deadly weapon.

The law allows a person to defend themselves if their life is threatened. The threat must be immediate and believable in order to use deadly force as a defense. Some states require a person to actually attempt a retreat before they can become aggressive in this defense, but others say the threat itself is enough. IE: If Joe Shmoe has a water gun and is squirting me with it, telling me he's going to send me to my next life, I would be unable to justify (in court) the use of a real gun to shoot HIM with because the threat was not believable. Or lets say Joe Shmoe tells me he is going to blow my head off during a bar brawl. If I go home, sleep it off, then go buy a gun and go shoot Joe Shmoe a day or two later, this won't fly because the threat was not immediate.

However, if Joe Shmoe threatens to steal all my money, it is just a threat. If I were a wise person, I would take steps to ensure my money was safe but unless he actually snatches my money away, he hasn't committed a crime.

The definition of what is and when a crime occurs varies depending on the crime itself. The Supreme court (state and/or federal) decides how to apply these definitions in cases where there is a dispute.

Stormie

[BigV]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Were Ken Lay's actions re: Enron criminal?

copycat.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by BigV

copycat.

No, I was rephrasing it to avoid the semantic trap of "if, when."

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

No, I was rephrasing it to avoid the semantic trap of "if, when."

Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.

As for Mr. Lay...he got busted, he's been convicted, his appeals aren't exhausted. Things are looking pretty good for him ending up a convict.

If you're asking if I would have voted to convict were I on the jury (I was almost on a jury today, by the way...they turned out not to need me), I couldn't say, since I didn't spend umpty-leven days listening to the evidence.

BigV...what exactly was it that 9th was saying that you're interested in? I seem to recall that he was doing the "preemptive use of force" riff with Bruce. {L/l}ibertarians (especially the big-L variety) are very fond of the "non-initiation of violence" dealie...and it *is* a conforting shibboleth.

Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm. I'm comfortable with the justification statue here in the Commonwealth and don't beleive it restricts my options unreasonably. My Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence", but people's eyes usually glaze over when she tries to lay it down.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.

As for Mr. Lay...he got busted, he's been convicted, his appeals aren't exhausted. Things are looking pretty good for him ending up a convict.

If you're asking if I would have voted to convict were I on the jury (I was almost on a jury today, by the way...they turned out not to need me), I couldn't say, since I didn't spend umpty-leven days listening to the evidence.

BigV...what exactly was it that 9th was saying that you're interested in? I seem to recall that he was doing the "preemptive use of force" riff with Bruce. {L/l}ibertarians (especially the big-L variety) are very fond of the "non-initiation of violence" dealie...and it *is* a conforting shibboleth.

Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm. I'm comfortable with the justification statue here in the Commonwealth and don't beleive it restricts my options unreasonably. My Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence", but people's eyes usually glaze over when she tries to lay it down.

First off, Ken Lay died, and any appeals he has remaining must be plead in a much higher court. Based on this:

Since Lay died prior to exhausting his appeals, according to Roma Theus of the Defense Research Institute (an organization of defense attorneys), his conviction is considered abated pursuant to precedent in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court governing the district where Lay was indicted; however a formal filing must first be made. When abatement occurs the law would view it as though he had never been indicted, tried and convicted.

I wanted to know your opinion as to the "crime-ness" of what happened. I wasn't trying to trick you, only to expand on the focus on the word "crime". 9th started it in response to rkz, and your picked it up in my post.

This:

Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm.

is pretty clear.

This

Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence",

may be clearer still, and more useful. I don't know, and I'm all out of eye glaze. Honestly, I believe the same way. Reasonable people could easily differ as to what circumstances would constitute that belief. I have never been faced with those circumstances. I'm glad for my good fortune.

I'm believe in self defense, of course. And I'm not really interested in mincing words with you or anyone else as to the :rollseyes: difference between crime conviction intention violence etc etc. I was trying to understand you. And rkzenrage, too. Understand more thoroughly than just knowing the definitions of the words displayed. That takes more effort, and is almost always worth it.

The words are important, too; don't get me wrong. But understanding the words without understanding the meaning is like seeing and smelling a delicious meal you may not taste. It does not nourish or satisfy.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.

Proper usage?

Of cat skinning, the ways are many.

BigV has already pointed out that Mr. Lay (by faking his death, he's living on a compund with Jim Morrison and a few others, possibly Ayn Rand) has neatly avoided having any guilt associated with his name...

[mrnoodle]

Civil rights are what they are. But I'm afraid that radical islamists are going to use our own squeamishness about all things race-related as a weapon to kill more of us.