Re: Should habitual felon "Dog" Chapman be jailed or not?
=> Vox Populi©
> In article <D6-dnfFEiIV7k-bY...@comcast.com>, ellis_jay
> <elli...@firstbase.coma> wrote:
>
>>>>> These guys seem to be spouting off without thinking about it.
>>>>> I don't know why they think this is such a big crime.
>>
>> Kidnapping. Think about it.
> I'm not ignoring it -- but deciding anything based on that term is
> silly.
Sez you, the ignorant criminal-apoligist who can't even
figure out how to use a line-break when replying to a message.
> We don't have to ignore context. We don't have to ignore any
> other aspect of the incident. In many respects, it was a capture of a
> felon.
Which, in Mexico and depending on circumstance in the U$A too,
is kidnapping.
Olliver North, John Hull and other criminals from the Iran/Contra crew
are wanted, indicted felons by the Gov't of Costa Rica for crimes they
commited in Costa Rica. So you have no problem with a private
citizen, Costa Rican or other, capturing and dragging Ollie and crew
from their homes in the U$$A and forcibly rendering them to
Costa Rica to face justice there, eh?
And those Costa Rican bounty hunters, if caught in the act by U$
police, shouldn't be prosecuted, just a small fine, etc, etc...
>
>> To "be" a felon a trial and conviction must first occur. It isn't
>> the other way around. Isn't it like that in your world too?
> This isn't a courtroom. We can make the leap to say that since he
> wasn't allowed to leave the country and he did in fact leave the
> country, that he is guilty of that. The courts may have to go that
> extra step, but we don't have to argue that he is innocent.
Are you talking about Luster? IIRC he was convicted, in partial
absentia, having fled after his trial had started.
>
>>> He became a felon by leaving the state and country (any time) after
>>> his indictment.
>>
>> I would not think that is so. The indictment would not matter would
>> it?
> The indictment is the specific statement of the court that this person
> is being charged with a specific crime. Until it happens, he is just
> being held for investigation, and there are limits to that.
Luster was indicted, tried and convicted. He fled during the final
days of his trial, which continued without his presense and rendered
a guilty verdict, IIRC.
>
>> Only failure to appear and jumping bond would insure that he was
>> (the perp) fleeing prosecution-not just leaving after indictment.
> Well, no -- fleeing does not 'insure' anything except he doesn't want
> to go to trial. Lots of innnocent people run from prosecution.
Yep, and in many jurisdictions, actual innocense isn't a defense
for jumping bail, fleeing, or violating other orders of the court.
>
>> One could leave
>> after being indicted and return for trial, right?
> No, being released after the indictment still requires him to stay in
> that state and, obviously, the country. He has an obligation to be
> present at the trial, and he may not flee prosecution.
Correct.
>
>>> But I don't think it has to be kidnapping,
>>
>> Sounds like it to me. The guy is probably a dirt bag and deserves
>> jail, but laying hands on another and forcibly moving their body
>> from point A to Point B against their will sounds like kidnapping
>> to me.
> Sure it is -- if you only know that much. But we know more about the
> situation, and we have NO reason to ignore that additional info in
> making any statement about it. No court would ignore it.
The Mexican court won't ignore it either, yet Duane Dogface Chapman
was WARNED by the Mexican authorities to NOT engage in the
actual capture of Luster, that it was illegal in Mexico to do so,
and the Habitual Felon Chapman deliberatly IGNORED the Mexican
Gov't and went ahead and kidnapped Luster anyway and refused to
turn him over to the proper Mexican authorities for a proper
extradition to the U$$A.
>
>> And Dog violated a sovereign nation's laws
>> and, you know, the Mexican authorites had every right to shoot him
>> while performing the act.
> Shoot him? Arrest and detain, and jail him, but no, even in Mexico
> they wouldn't have reason to shoot anyone!
LOL! ... you really have no fuckin' clue about Mexico, do you?
>
>> Once he crossed over he is just another Joe Blow.
> Yes; but the person he was taking was someone Mexico may have
> cooperated to capture.
Yep, under THEIR due process, laws and rules. Not the habitual felon
Dogface Chapman.
> That is my point - he wasn't taking a random
> person, or starting a ransom scheme.
He was ransoming Luster, that's the ENTIRE POINT, and the
entire reason why the Habitual Felon Chapman ignored the Mexican
Gov't and kidnapped Luster on his own -- Chapman wanted the reward $$ !
> It was someone the US authorities
> wanted and he didn't have Mexican authority -- but it isn't correct to
> say he wouldn't have had it.
Why do you lie and simply fabraicate bullshit? Chapman would
NEVER have the authority to capture ANYONE in Mexico,
as PRIVATE BOUNTY HUNTING is ILLEGAL in Mexico.
Got it?
>That is what Mexico has to decide now.
>
>>> since there is a very serious
>>> international flight issue that the US would have certainly
>>> cooperated over (and they did, in fact).
>>
>> We have extradition treaties with Mexico now? When did that happen?
> No, I didn't say treaty. But we have a very well-established
> cooperation with Mexico, and they have a very serious interest in
> cooperating in many situations. The 19th century is long past.
>
>>>>> All Chapman did was capture the guy in the wrong place.
>>
>> Yeah. Across some border somewhere. Without legal papers. He broke
>> Mexican law to save his bonding agent money. Lots of people break
>> laws for money. Bank robbers, insurance scammers, bad folk of all
>> sort. You trying to tell me that only good guys are allowed to
>> break laws?
> Boy, you are really taking this to the extremes to avoid the facts.
It is you who avoids the facts and fabricates nonsense.
The habitual felon Dogface Chapman DELIBERATELY broke Mexican Law.
Private Bounty Hunting is ILLEGAL in Mexico.
Chapman was WARNED by the Mexican authorities and still ignored them.
Chapman's motivation was financial, fame and the large $$ reward for Luster.
=> Vox Populi©
> In article <D6-dnfFEiIV7k-bY...@comcast.com>, ellis_jay
> <elli...@firstbase.coma> wrote:
>
>>>>> These guys seem to be spouting off without thinking about it.
>>>>> I don't know why they think this is such a big crime.
>>
>> Kidnapping. Think about it.
> I'm not ignoring it -- but deciding anything based on that term is
> silly.
Sez you, the ignorant criminal-apologist who can't even
figure out how to use a line-break when replying to a message.
> We don't have to ignore context. We don't have to ignore any
> other aspect of the incident. In many respects, it was a capture of a
> felon.
Which, in Mexico and depending on circumstance in the U$A too,
is kidnapping.
Oliver North, John Hull and other criminals from the Iran/Contra crew
are wanted, indicted felons by the Gov't of Costa Rica for crimes they
committed in Costa Rica. So you have no problem with a private
citizen, Costa Rican or other, capturing and dragging Ollie and crew
from their homes in the U$$A and forcibly rendering them to
Costa Rica to face justice there, eh?
And those Costa Rican bounty hunters, if caught in the act by U$
police, shouldn't be prosecuted, just a small fine, etc, etc...
>
>> To "be" a felon a trial and conviction must first occur. It isn't
>> the other way around. Isn't it like that in your world too?
> This isn't a courtroom. We can make the leap to say that since he
> wasn't allowed to leave the country and he did in fact leave the
> country, that he is guilty of that. The courts may have to go that
> extra step, but we don't have to argue that he is innocent.
Are you talking about Luster? IIRC he was convicted, in partial
absentia, having fled after his trial had started.
>
>>> He became a felon by leaving the state and country (any time) after
>>> his indictment.
>>
>> I would not think that is so. The indictment would not matter would
>> it?
> The indictment is the specific statement of the court that this person
> is being charged with a specific crime. Until it happens, he is just
> being held for investigation, and there are limits to that.
Luster was indicted, tried and convicted. He fled during the final
days of his trial, which continued without his presence and rendered
a guilty verdict, IIRC.
>
>> Only failure to appear and jumping bond would insure that he was
>> (the perp) fleeing prosecution-not just leaving after indictment.
> Well, no -- fleeing does not 'insure' anything except he doesn't want
> to go to trial. Lots of innnocent people run from prosecution.
Yep, and in many jurisdictions, actual innocence isn't a defense
for jumping bail, fleeing, or violating other orders of the court.
>
>> One could leave
>> after being indicted and return for trial, right?
> No, being released after the indictment still requires him to stay in
> that state and, obviously, the country. He has an obligation to be
> present at the trial, and he may not flee prosecution.
Correct.
>
>>> But I don't think it has to be kidnapping,
>>
>> Sounds like it to me. The guy is probably a dirt bag and deserves
>> jail, but laying hands on another and forcibly moving their body
>> from point A to Point B against their will sounds like kidnapping
>> to me.
> Sure it is -- if you only know that much. But we know more about the
> situation, and we have NO reason to ignore that additional info in
> making any statement about it. No court would ignore it.
The Mexican court won't ignore it either, yet Duane Dogface Chapman
was WARNED by the Mexican authorities to NOT engage in the
actual capture of Luster, that it was illegal in Mexico to do so,
and the Habitual Felon Chapman deliberately IGNORED the Mexican
Gov't and went ahead and kidnapped Luster anyway and refused to
turn him over to the proper Mexican authorities for a proper
extradition to the U$$A.
>
>> And Dog violated a sovereign nation's laws
>> and, you know, the Mexican authorites had every right to shoot him
>> while performing the act.
> Shoot him? Arrest and detain, and jail him, but no, even in Mexico
> they wouldn't have reason to shoot anyone!
! ... you really have no fuckin' clue about Mexico, do you?
>
>> Once he crossed over he is just another Joe Blow.
> Yes; but the person he was taking was someone Mexico may have
> cooperated to capture.
Yep, under THEIR due process, laws and rules. Not the habitual felon
Dogface Chapman.
> That is my point - he wasn't taking a random
> person, or starting a ransom scheme.
He was ransoming Luster, that's the ENTIRE POINT, and the
entire reason why the Habitual Felon Chapman ignored the Mexican
Gov't and kidnapped Luster on his own -- Chapman wanted the reward $$ !
> It was someone the US authorities
> wanted and he didn't have Mexican authority -- but it isn't correct to
> say he wouldn't have had it.
Why do you lie and simply fabricate bullshit? Chapman would
USA1st
Yes..for being the biggest redneck on TV.