IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th April 2012, 03:44 AM   #41
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,886
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I have trouble believing these folks set their traps for animals, since according to the ranger who found them they seemed to be designed to kill something the general height and shape of a human. Going to use a 20-pound spiked ball swinging at human-head-height to kill a rabbit? Give me a break. And their "accidentally forgot about it" claim might not be worth much if it's true they were talking about the traps on Facebook.

Can't they be charged with attempted murder of the park ranger? He wasn't hurt, but it's purely by chance. What are people who plant explosive devices usually charged with if the device is found and disarmed without hurting anyone?
If they swore it was a trap for Bigfoot, how would you prove they were lying? Lots of people believe in Bigfoot, and people have been hunting it for a couple(?) of centuries.

The answer to your second question is some sort of terrorism charge. But that's apples and oranges, anyway. Setting a bomb in Times Square bears no relation at all to setting a trap in the woods. You can't reasonably expect to convict the trapper of terrorism, and you can't reasonably expect the bomber to get off by pleading negligence.
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!

Last edited by Beady; 25th April 2012 at 03:58 AM.
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 03:58 AM   #42
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,886
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Why doesn't common law work in cases like this?
According to my Black's Law Dictionary, common law (as you're probably thinking about it), is "The law that doesn't apply to constitution or statute." I don't think relying on common law would be a good habit to get into.

Judicial common law requires a recorded historical precedent, and is sometimes called "judicial activism."
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 04:02 AM   #43
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
According to my Black's Law Dictionary, common law (as you're probably thinking about it), is "The law that doesn't apply to constitution or statute." I don't think relying on common law would be a good habit to get into.

Judicial common law requires a recorded historical precedent, and is sometimes called "judicial activism."
I am thinking of it (perhaps wrongly) as law that judges make through decisions, thereby setting precedent, where statute law doesn't deal with a situation adequately.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 05:24 AM   #44
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,886
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
I am thinking of it (perhaps wrongly) as law that judges make through decisions, thereby setting precedent, where statute law doesn't deal with a situation adequately.
That is the judicial common law. Again according to Black's, this applies only to the federal courts, and defers to state law where applicable. Also, and Black's is a little vague about this, common law appears to apply primarily to questions of property. A "common-law state" is defined as one that has not yet adopted community property laws. There is such a thing as a common-law crime, but it is defined as a crime punishable under common law rather than statute law, which isn't that helpful.

One other thing: a judicial decision has to be designated as a precedent before it is binding in other cases.
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 07:06 AM   #45
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
He should have reset the trap and made a few new ones for whoever rigged them in the first place.
This is a horribly bad idea.
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 11:02 AM   #46
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
If they swore it was a trap for Bigfoot, how would you prove they were lying? Lots of people believe in Bigfoot, and people have been hunting it for a couple(?) of centuries.

The answer to your second question is some sort of terrorism charge. But that's apples and oranges, anyway. Setting a bomb in Times Square bears no relation at all to setting a trap in the woods. You can't reasonably expect to convict the trapper of terrorism, and you can't reasonably expect the bomber to get off by pleading negligence.
My schooling is a little rusty but if there was a predicate offense, meaning they intended to commit a crime and they set the traps they are guilty of a felony conspiracy charge or perhaps an "attempted" charge. It looks to me like they are either not working this hard enough or these mopes are so stupid, scared and repentant that they're going with a "teach them a lesson" charge.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 12:05 PM   #47
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
No, they fear an acquittal on a more-serious charge that can't be sustained by evidence.
I'm not sure what evidence would be required beyond what they have. Unless these kids are mentally challenged, they understood that their spiked-rock trap had a small but significant chance of killing someone.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 01:20 PM   #48
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
I should hope so, but the piddling charge seems to indicate that prosecutors fear sympathy in favor of the booby-trappers.
I would happily sit on the jury -see if we could use jury nullification to flay and hang them.


By their "ahem...." potatos
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 01:26 PM   #49
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush View Post
It's not even close to being banned.

Most states require the traps to be tagged with their owner's name, and that trap lines be checked (often daily, sometimes every 72 hours, depending on the state). Some states don't allow leghold traps, or require that leghold trap jaws be smooth (no teeth). Hell, some states still allow snares, as long as the snare opening is smaller than a certain size (to prevent catching deer).

Even California allows trapping, (with legholds) for crying out loud. And they don't allow anything!
Anything that would help people protect themselves anyway - wouldn't want to de-mellow the burglars, rapists and general scofflaws now would we??,,,
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 01:37 PM   #50
Howie Felterbush
Bow Tie Daddy
 
Howie Felterbush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the twilight, singing all the old lullabies
Posts: 7,599
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Anything that would help people protect themselves anyway - wouldn't want to de-mellow the burglars, rapists and general scofflaws now would we??,,,
Yeah, it's hard to find a Conibear trap big enough to squish a burglar.
__________________
"Don't be too offended by the likes of him - I hear he doesn't even own ascots." -JoeyDonuts
"I must be more tired than I thought. Howie, you are starting to make sense." -MG1962
"You're a mean old evil cynic. And mean." Halfcentaur
"...wing collars are like an ocular violation."-TubbaBlubba
Howie Felterbush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2012, 02:15 PM   #51
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
If they swore it was a trap for Bigfoot, how would you prove they were lying? Lots of people believe in Bigfoot, and people have been hunting it for a couple(?) of centuries.
I don't know about Utah, but some states have laws against harrassing Big Foot. Washington has. As a very minimum, every charge related to unlawful hunting should also be filed against the trapper.

Quote:
The answer to your second question is some sort of terrorism charge. But that's apples and oranges, anyway. Setting a bomb in Times Square bears no relation at all to setting a trap in the woods. You can't reasonably expect to convict the trapper of terrorism, and you can't reasonably expect the bomber to get off by pleading negligence.
They should at least run it up the flag pole. There are a lot of terrorist organizations operating in Utah in preparation for the RaHoWa. Finding that these goons had anything to do with one of them would be like finding a Wahabi in Mecca.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 04:03 AM   #52
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,886
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
My schooling is a little rusty but if there was a predicate offense, meaning they intended to commit a crime and they set the traps they are guilty of a felony conspiracy charge or perhaps an "attempted" charge. It looks to me like they are either not working this hard enough or these mopes are so stupid, scared and repentant that they're going with a "teach them a lesson" charge.
How do you prove Intent? You need a confession or some sort of statement (like on a Facebook page) by the accused.

Originally Posted by Modified View Post
I'm not sure what evidence would be required beyond what they have. Unless these kids are mentally challenged, they understood that their spiked-rock trap had a small but significant chance of killing someone.
Hence the charge of negligence.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I don't know about Utah, but some states have laws against harrassing Big Foot. Washington has. As a very minimum, every charge related to unlawful hunting should also be filed against the trapper.

They should at least run it up the flag pole. There are a lot of terrorist organizations operating in Utah in preparation for the RaHoWa. Finding that these goons had anything to do with one of them would be like finding a Wahabi in Mecca.
Maybe they had a Bigfoot license? Geez! The point is that they can claim they were after anything but humans, and you can't prove otherwise.

Everybody, hold up a moment. Let's not forget something: Double Jeopardy. If these two are accused of a crime and are acquitted, then they cannot be charged again for that same incident. That is, if someone tries to kill you, and is acquitted, then they cannot subsequently be charged with, say, assault for that same attack. You cannot keep on putting someone on trial until you find a charge that sticks; you've got one chance and one chance only. You must find the most serious charge you can, that will be supported by the evidence. In this case, there apparently is/was no evidence to support intent or conspiracy, so you are left with only the trap(s) and the ID of their builder(s), plus the absence of any sort of safety measure. That's it; that's all you've got to work with. Common sense might tell you there's more to it, and there probably is, but how do you produce common sense in a courtroom for a jury to examine? You can theorize all you want but the defense can theorize, too, and they just may come up with a more-convincing theory, one that is at least good enough to introduce reasonable doubt. Once you depart from the facts, the best storyteller will win.
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!

Last edited by Beady; 26th April 2012 at 04:09 AM.
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 06:07 AM   #53
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
How do you prove Intent? You need a confession or some sort of statement (like on a Facebook page) by the accused.



Hence the charge of negligence.



Maybe they had a Bigfoot license? Geez! The point is that they can claim they were after anything but humans, and you can't prove otherwise.
To the best of my knowledge, hedgehogs are illegal gear for anything.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 07:18 AM   #54
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,886
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
To the best of my knowledge, hedgehogs are illegal gear for anything.
So, add that to the charges (if it's true).
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 08:01 AM   #55
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
How do you prove Intent? You need a confession or some sort of statement (like on a Facebook page) by the accused.
snip
Well, a confession is good way. A statement against interest like on an FB page or statement of witnesses who heard a confession. Statements against interest are an exception to a hearsay rule. Evidence to show they intended to hold a victim or dispose of a body would be good too. Honestly, these two mopes posting on FB, you split them up and explain the prisoner's dilemma (two suspects one possible deal) I'm going to say a confession would not be hard.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:20 AM   #56
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,886
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Honestly, these two mopes posting on FB, you split them up and explain the prisoner's dilemma (two suspects one possible deal) I'm going to say a confession would not be hard.
Prob'ly not, but we're dealing with what's in the story.
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.