20 November 2009
theget
least the writers felt the need to deal with the perception because
they had a reporter ask Jack about his liberal agenda.
It seems plausible that the accountant shot the thieves/shakedown
artists knowing that it might help him get a better deal. But it
isn't certain.
There are perhaps a few problems with the story. The accountant
didn't seem the type to have an *unlicensed* shotgun. Although they
struggled for motivation it didn't seem likely to me that the
corrections guy in waiting would throw away his future on a rumor,
although I suppose it has happened. I suspect that in NY, given past
behavior of various DA in NYC (I remember hearing about a case where
a guy who used a rifle like a baseball bat to defend a neighbor who
was being attacked was going to be prosecuted for using a firearm
until protests stopped it.) I think it's likely that a prosecution
would have at least started against a guy who used an unlicensed
weapon. It's true that we did eventually see an attempt to get an
indictment, but this came much later, and after Cutter presented the
accountant with an award.
I suspect the grand jury returning no true bill is more realistic.
The guy had plausible deniability. But I wonder, suppose he had taken
out the gun, threatened them, and if that didn't work, shot a hole in
his ceiling as a warning. He might've been less of a hero then and
maybe it would have been easier to prosecute him.
Somehow the way the characters first the detectives, then the
prosecuters, interacted in this ep reminded me of the older shows.
Some nice discussion of the issues with people taking somewhat
conflicting sides and getting their minds changed.
And yes, I suppose that the bottom has fallen out of the real estate
market. Still, that library is some project. It looks like an entire
neighborhood will be gone. I wonder what it was like getting approval
for that and facing the inevitable local protests.
As to our little gambler's hope that he would have been able to hold
up the project if he could have bought the accountant's store. I'm
pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
According to the article NYS is one of seven states that hasn't passed
laws to stop this kind of thing.
And two people dead and our little gambler is getting five years?
Hmmm... The big hole in this is that the corrections guy was told
that there were Krugerrands in the store. But in order for
intimidation to work they would have had to make clear to the
accountant that it was intimidation. So they get to the store and say
what? Perhaps "We're here to intimidate you by beating you up." Then
the corrections guy is going to wonder why he is along for the ride.
I wonder about it too. That part of the story made very little sense
to me. I think they needed to leave someone alive to connect the
dots, but they could have done a better job of that. I enjoyed the
ep, but thought the writing was weak.
Another ep without a criminal trial decision at the end. I wonder if
this is more like RL and was a decision to make the show more
realistic.
So far this season, no green hat and I don't think we a got a mention
of global warming this week. Hooray!
Is Van Buren going to be cured?
Have a nice day.
Theget
David / Amicus
Regarding the unlicensed gun. He had it for like 45 years. Back then
when he first got it did he need to have it licensed?
Jeff Gersten
went from intimidation to the threat of great bodily harm?
And the worker and the robber who survived knew each other and had
feuded in the past; what a red herring that turned out to be. But, he
was a "good boy" who just wanted to be a corrections officer, but felt
entitled to rob a storefront.
McCoy going for a murder indictment was off the wall He knew they would
have a hard sell even getting that past a Grand Jury, and yet he thought
he had any chance to get a unanimous verdict from a trial jury?
PREPOSTEROUS! Or maybe his office has unlimited resources to pursue
cases tat are not winnable. lol
And I'm getting real tired of the Lieutenant's cancer. Remember when in
the good old days the show was about the cases and issues, not the
personal lives of the characters.
D.F. Manno
<01dd781b-d99a-45a6...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> I'm
> pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
Calling it "evil" is hyperbole, don't you think?
> According to the article NYS is one of seven states that hasn't passed
> laws to stop this kind of thing.
Which is exactly what the court said the remedy was.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Religion ... the only winning move is not to play!
theget
> How many times did the worker have to get kicked in the head before it
> went from intimidation to the threat of great bodily harm?
I don't think we saw that. He was getting stitches though.
>
> McCoy going for a murder indictment was off the wall He knew they would
> have a hard sell even getting that past a Grand Jury, and yet he thought
> he had any chance to get a unanimous verdict from a trial jury?
> PREPOSTEROUS! Or maybe his office has unlimited resources to pursue
> cases tat are not winnable. lol
Maybe he resented feeling that he was played?
> And I'm getting real tired of the Lieutenant's cancer. Remember when in
> the good old days the show was about the cases and issues, not the
> personal lives of the characters.
I don't think it's a personal issue. I think it's related to
occasional mentions of health care. Or did I imagine those?
Theget
jack
>
> And I'm getting real tired of the Lieutenant's cancer. Remember when in
> the good old days the show was about the cases and issues, not the
> personal lives of the characters.
Forgetting Lennie and his drug-addict daughter?
David / Amicus
And then there was also Rey Curtis' ill wife. I think that was the
reason his character left the unit.
Jeff Gersten
On Nov 21, 4:36 pm, JeffGers...@webtv.net (Jeff Gersten) wrote:
>>How many times did the worker have to get
>>kicked in the head before it went from
>>intimidation to the threat of great bodily
>>harm?
>I don't think we saw that. He was getting
>stitches though.
And if he kept getting kicked, it would only get worse.
>>McCoy going for a murder indictment was off
>>the wall He knew they would have a hard sell
>>even getting that past a Grand Jury, and yet
>>he thought he had any chance to get a
>>unanimous verdict from a trial jury?
>>PREPOSTEROUS! Or maybe his office has
>>unlimited resources to pursue cases tat are
>>not winnable. lol
>Maybe he resented feeling that he was
>played?
He does not have either unlimited funds or unlimited openings in court
calendars. You cannot pursue unwinnable cases unless you're Jack McCoy
>>And I'm getting real tired of the Lieutenant's
>>cancer. Remember when in the good old
>>days the show was about the cases and
>>issues, not the personal lives of the
>>characters.
>I don't think it's a personal issue. I think it's
>related to occasional mentions of health care.
>Or did I imagine those?
You did not imagine that, but it's still a personal issue that has been
cropping up every episode.
theget
> In article
> <01dd781b-d99a-45a6-870c-8d8c784e3...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > I'm
> > pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> > Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> > For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
>
> Calling it "evil" is hyperbole, don't you think?
I really couldn't think of a more suitable word to describe the evil
that was Kelo.
Theget
David Johnston
wrote:
>Always nice to see a mention of Hudson U.
>
>
>Regarding the unlicensed gun. He had it for like 45 years. Back then
>when he first got it did he need to have it licensed?
Nope. Reminds me that I got a bunch of long guns in my house, (in a
locked cabinet to which I have never had a key). When a law was
passed requiring me to register them, I became a criminal by not
bothering, (since to get them out I'd have to take an axe to the
cabinet). Soon I shall no longer be a criminal since the law is
being repealed.
David Johnston
Gersten) wrote:
>How many times did the worker have to get kicked in the head before it
>went from intimidation to the threat of great bodily harm?
>
>And the worker and the robber who survived knew each other and had
>feuded in the past; what a red herring that turned out to be. But, he
>was a "good boy" who just wanted to be a corrections officer, but felt
>entitled to rob a storefront.
>
>McCoy going for a murder indictment was off the wall
It's another idiotic McCoy prosecution.
theget
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:36:41 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> wrote:
>
> >Always nice to see a mention of Hudson U.
>
> >Regarding the unlicensed gun. He had it for like 45 years. Back then
> >when he first got it did he need to have it licensed?
>
> Nope. Reminds me that I got a bunch of long guns in my house, (in a
> locked cabinet to which I have never had a key). When a law was
> passed requiring me to register them, I became a criminal by not
> bothering, (since to get them out I'd have to take an axe to the
> cabinet).
Or call a locksmith.
> Soon I shall no longer be a criminal since the law is
> being repealed.
When a law is repealed does that mean that you can't be prosecuted if
you broke it during the time it was in effect?
I suppose it's different if the law is invalidated by a court
decision.
Theget
David Johnston
D.F. Manno
<b0f1bca1-fe23-4699...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm
> > > pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> > > Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> > > For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> > > linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
> >
> > Calling it "evil" is hyperbole, don't you think?
>
> I really couldn't think of a more suitable word to describe the evil
> that was Kelo.
Some people bitch and moan about "judicial activism" and "legislating
from the bench" - until the court issues a ruling and invites
legislatures to craft a remedy. Then they bitch and moan some more.
theget
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm
> > > > pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> > > > Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> > > > For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> > > > linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
>
> > > Calling it "evil" is hyperbole, don't you think?
>
> > I really couldn't think of a more suitable word to describe the evil
> > that was Kelo.
>
> Some people bitch and moan about "judicial activism" and "legislating
> from the bench" - until the court issues a ruling and invites
> legislatures to craft a remedy. Then they bitch and moan some more.
Are you criticizing that? Personally, I think complaints are a good
thing.
Theget
D.F. Manno
<4152795d-df2b-48df...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> >�theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > > D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> > > > > Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> > > > > For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> > > > > linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
> >
> > > > Calling it "evil" is hyperbole, don't you think?
> >
> > > I really couldn't think of a more suitable word to describe the evil
> > > that was Kelo.
> >
> > Some people bitch and moan about "judicial activism" and "legislating
> > from the bench" - until the court issues a ruling and invites
> > legislatures to craft a remedy. Then they bitch and moan some more.
>
> Are you criticizing that? Personally, I think complaints are a good
> thing.
Personally, I think hypocrisy is not a good thing.
theget
I must be slow today. You lost me. Can you please be more explicit
about the hypocrisy you're referring to?
TIA
Theget
David Johnston
If some hypothetical person was in the habit of complaining about
judicial activism, and then turned out and demanded in a case like
that, this would be hypocrisy.
theget
I really must be slow today. I don't understand. Demanded what in a
case like that?
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
Judicial activism. Like for example blocking the land grab.
theget
Thank you. I understand. But blocking the land grab, as you so
delightfully put it, wouldn't have been judicial activism, but rather
an appropriate interpretation of the phrase "public use". I think the
argument could be made that the evil that was Kelo was judicial
activism.
Perhaps we are starting from different assumptions.
Theget
paristalks
> Always nice to see a mention of Hudson U.
>
like a running joke for him.
Sue
David Johnston
Yeah, it's never judicial activism when it's what the person speaking
wants.
I think the
>argument could be made that the evil that was Kelo was judicial
>activism.
It was the kind of activism that consisted of standing by and not
doing something.
theget
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:19:41 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> >I really must be slow today. I don't understand. Demanded what in a
> >> >case like that?
>
> >> Judicial activism. Like for example blocking the land grab.
>
> >Thank you. I understand. But blocking the land grab, as you so
> >delightfully put it, wouldn't have been judicial activism, but rather
> >an appropriate interpretation of the phrase "public use".
>
> Yeah, it's never judicial activism when it's what the person speaking
> wants.
I did say that we may have started with different assumptions, didn't
I?
Although, I tend to think of Griswold and Roe as likely being
activism, they did result in a practical outcome that I prefer. So,
maybe it can be judicial activism even when it's something that is
wanted. Maybe.
> I think the
>
> >argument could be made that the evil that was Kelo was judicial
> >activism.
>
> It was the kind of activism that consisted of standing by and not
> doing something.
Yes. We do have different assumptions. It's not quite clear to me
that they stood by and did nothing. SCOTUS took the case and decided
it.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
SCOTUS decides every case they hear, but all they did was decide not
to over-rule the law.
Hunter
8d8c78...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
says...
> It seem to me that the show is becoming somewhat liberal. Maybe. At
> least the writers felt the need to deal with the perception because
> they had a reporter ask Jack about his liberal agenda.
---
Always has been really, but it never really bothered me.
>
> It seems plausible that the accountant shot the thieves/shakedown
> artists knowing that it might help him get a better deal. But it
> isn't certain.
---
He would had had to have come up with that plan instantly. And even
if he did figure out it was just a shake down thing, so what? They
came in with a gun and started beating on an employee. I would had
shot too. What he did wrong was lie about his story. I don't think
the fact that Stan shot a (apparently) unarmed person first. He was
part of Dwayne's crew and helping him rob the place so it is not as
if he was innocent. Hell, if the guy with the gun shot and killed the
owner and/or the employee Jack would rightly have the other two up
for felony murder even if they didn't have a gun because they are
just as guilty as the guy who actually shot for the fact they were
helping him rob the place. I don't feel bad for any of them.
>
> There are perhaps a few problems with the story. The accountant
> didn't seem the type to have an *unlicensed* shotgun.
----
I'm guessing you don't live in New York City? The most otherwise
honest and nice people who operate their own store front business
could have an unlicensed gun under the counter, especially seeing how
hard it is to get a gun license in New York City. Any robber who robs
a bodega or a pizza shop or a hole in the wall chicken n' ribs
restaurant has an excellent chance of catching a bullet if he tries
to rob a place like that. Shop owners having unlicensed weapons is
not uncommon in New York City, especially in high crime areas were
they could had been robbed three, four, five times. Better to get a
unregistered gun and perhaps later deal with a misdemeanor charge
than go though the many hoops to possess a legal firearm in New York
City-or worse get shot in a robbery. Another thing, it was a shotgun
and not a hand gun and it was not sawed off for concealment when
carried, so the Sullivan Act renders it a misdemeanor. Even if it was
a hand gun the Sullivan Act it would had been a misdemeanor. No, I
find that aspect of the story totally believable.
>
> Although they
> struggled for motivation it didn't seem likely to me that the
> corrections guy in waiting would throw away his future on a rumor,
> although I suppose it has happened.
----
It may, this is the closest example I can find so far:
"Rookie NYPD cop busted in $113G Pennsylvania bank heist
BY Veronika Belenkaya and Ethan Rouen
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Updated Friday, April 11th 2008, 2:28 AM
[edit]
Torres is the latest in a string of young cops charged with crimes -
often to pad their paychecks. Many rank-and-file officers have
complained that the Police Academy has lowered its standards as the
starting pay has dropped. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has
denied that, saying recruits are now better educated and more
diverse. But in the past two years, at least four cops have been
charged with felonies.
In July 2006, NYPD recruit Kabeer Din tried to hire an undercover cop
posing as a hit man to kill his girlfriend.
Officers Hector Alvarez and Miguel Castillo told New Jersey police
they were investigating terrorism when they were caught trying to rob
a Bergen County drug den in May 2007, cops said. Four months later,
NYPD recruit Claribel Polanco, a mother of two, allegedly committed
welfare fraud.
Too poor to pay his electric bill, Officer Patrick Venetek of
Brooklyn was cleaning his gun in the dark when it accidentally went
off in February. The bullet struck an 18-month-old boy in the
apartment below."
The kid threw away his career over that and he was about the same age
as Angel in the episode. The article didn't mention a specific motive
but he seemed to be just plain greedy.
>
> I suspect that in NY, given past
> behavior of various DA in NYC (I remember hearing about a case where
> a guy who used a rifle like a baseball bat to defend a neighbor who
> was being attacked was going to be prosecuted for using a firearm
> until protests stopped it.) I think it's likely that a prosecution
> would have at least started against a guy who used an unlicensed
> weapon. It's true that we did eventually see an attempt to get an
> indictment, but this came much later, and after Cutter presented the
> accountant with an award.
---
It is as Rubirosa said, it would be a futile gesture to go after an
old man who was defending his life, the life of his employee and his
property from armed thugs over a misdemeanor and she was right.
>
> I suspect the grand jury returning no true bill is more realistic.
> The guy had plausible deniability. But I wonder, suppose he had taken
> out the gun, threatened them, and if that didn't work, shot a hole in
> his ceiling as a warning. He might've been less of a hero then and
> maybe it would have been easier to prosecute him.
---
In a high pressure situation you don't think like that, it
often doesn't come to mind to shot people in the leg and it is not by
any means easy, probably especially for a 70 year old man. For
instance even Cops aren't that good a shot in situations like that,
that is why they are trained to shoot for the center mass, that is
the upper torso. It is the biggest target. With an untrained civilian
it is even harder but his unfamiliarity with firing a gun was
compensated for by it being a shot gun, but a leg hot is still
difficult and more importantly it probably wouldn't had prevented
Dwayne or the other two from firing back. In a situation like that
unless the robbers were surrendering or retreating he was justified
in shooting them. The order he shot them at would be trivial to a
jury when they hear that one of the Robbers was beating a employee.
It would be for me on either a Grand jury or a jury if the case was
laid out to me as it was in the episode. I'd sure want my boss to
step up for me in that situation, just don't shot me by accident.
>
> Somehow the way the characters first the detectives, then the
> prosecuters, interacted in this ep reminded me of the older shows.
> Some nice discussion of the issues with people taking somewhat
> conflicting sides and getting their minds changed.
>
>
> And yes, I suppose that the bottom has fallen out of the real estate
> market. Still, that library is some project. It looks like an entire
> neighborhood will be gone. I wonder what it was like getting approval
> for that and facing the inevitable local protests.
----
Not easy usually, but if there are no landmarks and the land lords
and the shop owners are given a good price in this market they would
sell. Not every development is opposed in New York City and having a
new library in the neighborhood would be an easy sell to the
residents.
>
> As to our little gambler's hope that he would have been able to hold
> up the project if he could have bought the accountant's store. I'm
> pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
> According to the article NYS is one of seven states that hasn't passed
> laws to stop this kind of thing.
---
It's not the same. The episode's case was about one private person,
Max, trying to force another private person, Stan, to sell out to
him. It wasn't a case in which the land was going to be commercially
used and the Government using it eminent domain power under the
constitution but possibly abusing it. It is not the same type of case
as in the article because there was no government attempt to take the
property. The episode's plot is more akin to a car jacking than a
eminent domain case.
>
> And two people dead and our little gambler is getting five years?
> Hmmm...
---
It was a very weak circumstantial case at best. Basically it would be
trying to convict him for him just knowing one of the "robbers".
There is no direct evidence that Max ordered the "robbery", only that
he knew one of the robbers an had used him in his dispute with the
old guy and even then he didn't use him to intimidate the old guy,
He, the future robber, was out side when Stan chased out Max out into
the street. Most important of all the one person who could had linked
Max to the plot was dead.
>
> The big hole in this is that the corrections guy was told
> that there were Krugerrands in the store. But in order for
> intimidation to work they would have had to make clear to the
> accountant that it was intimidation. So they get to the store and say
> what? Perhaps "We're here to intimidate you by beating you up." Then
> the corrections guy is going to wonder why he is along for the ride.
> I wonder about it too. That part of the story made very little sense
> to me. I think they needed to leave someone alive to connect the
> dots, but they could have done a better job of that. I enjoyed the
> ep, but thought the writing was weak.
----
I don't think it was the writing that was weak. It was the intent to
make the case very weak. The two other robbers were stooges for
Dwayne and the rich kid hired. It was intended for Stan to get the
message and sell out with Stan recognizing .
>
> Another ep without a criminal trial decision at the end. I wonder if
> this is more like RL and was a decision to make the show more
> realistic.
---
Most criminal cases end in plea deals and not jury trials and in this
case a No True Bill from the Grand Jury. The case was much too weak
and the person indicted too sympathetic.
>
> So far this season, no green hat and I don't think we a got a mention
> of global warming this week. Hooray!
>
> Is Van Buren going to be cured?
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Theget
---
Don't know about the green hat but it could be no, Van Buren mayn't
be cured.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
theget
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:09:46 -0800 (PST), theget
>
>
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 1:00 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:19:41 -0800 (PST), theget
> >Yes. We do have different assumptions. It's not quite clear to me
> >that they stood by and did nothing. SCOTUS took the case and decided
> >it.
>
> SCOTUS decides every case they hear, but all they did was decide not
> to over-rule the law.
They decided to hear the case. In this case IIRC the precedents had
already overturned the law since use and purpose do not IMO mean the
same thing. YMV.
Theget
theget
> In article <01dd781b-d99a-45a6-870c-
> 8d8c784e3...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
> says...>
[snippage]
> > It seem to me that the show is becoming somewhat liberal. Maybe. At
> > least the writers felt the need to deal with the perception because
> > they had a reporter ask Jack about his liberal agenda.
>
> ---
> Always has been really, but it never really bothered me.
My view was that the show was sometimes liberal and sometimes
conservative and sometimes neutral. I think this season its been a
little more consistently liberal.
>
> > It seems plausible that the accountant shot the thieves/shakedown
> > artists knowing that it might help him get a better deal. But it
> > isn't certain.
>
> ---
> He would had had to have come up with that plan instantly. And even
> if he did figure out it was just a shake down thing, so what? They
> came in with a gun and started beating on an employee. I would had
> shot too. What he did wrong was lie about his story.
Yes. But he wasn't being indicted for that, so no true bill. Even if
he was indicted for that, I suspect no true bill.
> > There are perhaps a few problems with the story. The accountant
> > didn't seem the type to have an *unlicensed* shotgun.
>
> ----
> I'm guessing you don't live in New York City? The most otherwise
> honest and nice people who operate their own store front business
> could have an unlicensed gun under the counter, especially seeing how
> hard it is to get a gun license in New York City. Any robber who robs
> a bodega or a pizza shop or a hole in the wall chicken n' ribs
> restaurant has an excellent chance of catching a bullet if he tries
> to rob a place like that. Shop owners having unlicensed weapons is
> not uncommon in New York City, especially in high crime areas were
> they could had been robbed three, four, five times. Better to get a
> unregistered gun and perhaps later deal with a misdemeanor charge
> than go though the many hoops to possess a legal firearm in New York
> City-or worse get shot in a robbery.
Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.
> Another thing, it was a shotgun
> and not a hand gun and it was not sawed off for concealment when
> carried, so the Sullivan Act renders it a misdemeanor. Even if it was
> a hand gun the Sullivan Act it would had been a misdemeanor. No, I
> find that aspect of the story totally believable.
But surely there is no shortage of stupid criminals who rob stores.
So what happens IRL. Do the store owners get prosecuted?
This last one, sad as it is, doesn't seem to belong with the others.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3vtqcr
>
> The kid threw away his career over that and he was about the same age
> as Angel in the episode. The article didn't mention a specific motive
> but he seemed to be just plain greedy.
So cops being criminals is getting more common. Interesting article,
thanks for that.
> It is as Rubirosa said, it would be a futile gesture to go after an
> old man who was defending his life, the life of his employee and his
> property from armed thugs over a misdemeanor and she was right.
But they tried anyway and lost.
>
> > I suspect the grand jury returning no true bill is more realistic.
> > The guy had plausible deniability. But I wonder, suppose he had taken
> > out the gun, threatened them, and if that didn't work, shot a hole in
> > his ceiling as a warning. He might've been less of a hero then and
> > maybe it would have been easier to prosecute him.
>
> ---
> In a high pressure situation you don't think like that, it
> often doesn't come to mind to shot people in the leg and it is not by
> any means easy, probably especially for a 70 year old man. For
> instance even Cops aren't that good a shot in situations like that,
> that is why they are trained to shoot for the center mass, that is
> the upper torso. It is the biggest target. With an untrained civilian
> it is even harder but his unfamiliarity with firing a gun was
> compensated for by it being a shot gun, but a leg hot is still
> difficult and more importantly it probably wouldn't had prevented
> Dwayne or the other two from firing back. In a situation like that
> unless the robbers were surrendering or retreating he was justified
> in shooting them. The order he shot them at would be trivial to a
> jury when they hear that one of the Robbers was beating a employee.
> It would be for me on either a Grand jury or a jury if the case was
> laid out to me as it was in the episode. I'd sure want my boss to
> step up for me in that situation, just don't shot me by accident.
I agree. I was curious about the story though. I think above I meant
to say it would've been less easy to prosecute him.
However, and this might be related to the issue of the writing:
People don't think like that in these kinds of situations? But in the
story Stan is lying about his motivation for shooting one of the guys
first and not the other? I'm not quite sure I can reconcile those
two.
> > And yes, I suppose that the bottom has fallen out of the real estate
> > market. Still, that library is some project. It looks like an entire
> > neighborhood will be gone. I wonder what it was like getting approval
> > for that and facing the inevitable local protests.
>
> ----
> Not easy usually, but if there are no landmarks and the land lords
> and the shop owners are given a good price in this market they would
> sell. Not every development is opposed in New York City and having a
> new library in the neighborhood would be an easy sell to the
> residents.
Even the ones who are going to be displaced?
>
> > As to our little gambler's hope that he would have been able to hold
> > up the project if he could have bought the accountant's store. I'm
> > pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> > Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> > For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> > linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
> > According to the article NYS is one of seven states that hasn't passed
> > laws to stop this kind of thing.
>
> ---
> It's not the same. The episode's case was about one private person,
> Max, trying to force another private person, Stan, to sell out to
> him. It wasn't a case in which the land was going to be commercially
> used and the Government using it eminent domain power under the
> constitution but possibly abusing it. It is not the same type of case
> as in the article because there was no government attempt to take the
> property. The episode's plot is more akin to a car jacking than a
> eminent domain case.
I was thinking about the future of the project if it was resisted.
Then the government can step in and take the property for a public
_purpose_. It might all get very complicated. Max's plan might work,
but he might also get hearty thank you and farewell from the city.
Also, what's he going to do with the property in the meantime? I
think there are property taxes to deal with.
> > The big hole in this is that the corrections guy was told
> > that there were Krugerrands in the store. But in order for
> > intimidation to work they would have had to make clear to the
> > accountant that it was intimidation. So they get to the store and say
> > what? Perhaps "We're here to intimidate you by beating you up." Then
> > the corrections guy is going to wonder why he is along for the ride.
> > I wonder about it too. That part of the story made very little sense
> > to me. I think they needed to leave someone alive to connect the
> > dots, but they could have done a better job of that. I enjoyed the
> > ep, but thought the writing was weak.
>
> ----
> I don't think it was the writing that was weak. It was the intent to
> make the case very weak. The two other robbers were stooges for
> Dwayne and the rich kid hired. It was intended for Stan to get the
> message and sell out with Stan recognizing .
How would Stan get the message? I think that Max's plan had some
downside risk. Like Stan could have pretended to be intimidated and
gotten all of Max's personal info needed to sell to him and then gone
to the cops and reported him. Even if it's not a homicide I think this
kind of thing, violence and extortion, might get their attention.
> Don't know about the green hat but it could be no, Van Buren mayn't
> be cured.
I suppose we will find out about Van Buren, but the lack of green hat
makes me grateful for small favors.
Theget
theget
> Isn't this supposed to be the final season for the show? The writers may
> figure they can do whatever they want with the characters if they know
> we'll never see them again.
Shouldn't they be thinking about Law & Order, The Movie?
Theget
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <MPG.25762d6b2...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't know about the green hat but it could be no, Van Buren mayn't
>> be cured.
>
>Isn't this supposed to be the final season for the show?
What gives you that idea?
Hunter
da5b5a...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
says...
> On Nov 21, 10:13 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:36:41 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Always nice to see a mention of Hudson U.
> >
> > >Regarding the unlicensed gun. He had it for like 45 years. Back then
> > >when he first got it did he need to have it licensed?
> >
> > Nope. Reminds me that I got a bunch of long guns in my house, (in a
> > locked cabinet to which I have never had a key). When a law was
> > passed requiring me to register them, I became a criminal by not
> > bothering, (since to get them out I'd have to take an axe to the
> > cabinet).
>
> Or call a locksmith.
That would produce a witness and a paper trail.
>
> > Soon I shall no longer be a criminal since the law is
> > being repealed.
>
> When a law is repealed does that mean that you can't be prosecuted if
> you broke it during the time it was in effect?
Yes.
>
> I suppose it's different if the law is invalidated by a court
> decision.
>
> Theget
Same thing. Once the law is overturned, repealed it is no longer in
effect and you don't have to worry about it if you broke it
undetected before.
Hunter
c3a1de...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
says...
> On Nov 24, 6:16 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <01dd781b-d99a-45a6-870c-
> > 8d8c784e3...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
> > says...>
>
> [snippage]
>
> > > It seem to me that the show is becoming somewhat liberal. Maybe. At
> > > least the writers felt the need to deal with the perception because
> > > they had a reporter ask Jack about his liberal agenda.
> >
> > ---
> > Always has been really, but it never really bothered me.
>
> My view was that the show was sometimes liberal and sometimes
> conservative and sometimes neutral. I think this season its been a
> little more consistently liberal.
I think it has been consistently liberal for most of its run, that
said Dick Wolf has stated his dislike of defense attorneys.
>
> >
> > > It seems plausible that the accountant shot the thieves/shakedown
> > > artists knowing that it might help him get a better deal. But it
> > > isn't certain.
> >
> > ---
> > He would had had to have come up with that plan instantly. And even
> > if he did figure out it was just a shake down thing, so what? They
> > came in with a gun and started beating on an employee. I would had
> > shot too. What he did wrong was lie about his story.
>
> Yes. But he wasn't being indicted for that, so no true bill. Even if
> he was indicted for that, I suspect no true bill.
Well, he went before the Grand Jury and wasn't indicted which is a No
True Bill. The grand jury thought it was trivial about the order of
shooting and it is easy to believe he was a confused old man and
shake down or robbery at least one of the Intruders were armed and
menacing Stan with a Gun and pistol whipping his employee, those
facts were not disputed so the shooting order and the fact that Stan
could've known one of the intruders before didn't matter to the Grand
Jury.
> > > There are perhaps a few problems with the story. The accountant
> > > didn't seem the type to have an *unlicensed* shotgun.
> >
> > ----
> > I'm guessing you don't live in New York City? The most otherwise
> > honest and nice people who operate their own store front business
> > could have an unlicensed gun under the counter, especially seeing how
> > hard it is to get a gun license in New York City. Any robber who robs
> > a bodega or a pizza shop or a hole in the wall chicken n' ribs
> > restaurant has an excellent chance of catching a bullet if he tries
> > to rob a place like that. Shop owners having unlicensed weapons is
> > not uncommon in New York City, especially in high crime areas were
> > they could had been robbed three, four, five times. Better to get a
> > unregistered gun and perhaps later deal with a misdemeanor charge
> > than go though the many hoops to possess a legal firearm in New York
> > City-or worse get shot in a robbery.
>
> Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.
That is the attitude, and again it is only a misdemeanor violation of
the Sullivan Act, all but making gun ownership in that situation all
but legal.
> > Another thing, it was a shotgun
> > and not a hand gun and it was not sawed off for concealment when
> > carried, so the Sullivan Act renders it a misdemeanor. Even if it was
> > a hand gun the Sullivan Act it would had been a misdemeanor. No, I
> > find that aspect of the story totally believable.
>
> But surely there is no shortage of stupid criminals who rob stores.
> So what happens IRL. Do the store owners get prosecuted?
Oh it happens all the time in real life. And yes store owners do get
arrested for having unlicensed weapons even in acts of self defense.
Here are two articles on the same story of a Clerk defending himself:
"Robber's Gun Didn't Go Off; Police Say Bodega Man's Did
By COREY KILGANNON
Published: Friday, March 26, 2004
The man who entered the Ramon Food Market, a Queens bodega, looked
like any other customer. That is, until he rushed behind the counter,
pulled a stocking over his face and jammed a 9-millimeter Glock
pistol to the right temple of Edwin Marte, who was working the cash
register, Mr. Marte recalled.
The man with the Glock, identified by the police as Bevin Keitt, 26,
of Brooklyn, shouted ''hold up, hold up, holdup,'' at 8 p.m.
Wednesday and demanded money, recalled Mr. Marte, 35. But instead of
handing over the money, Mr. Marte said he grabbed a revolver that was
kept under the cash register and put it to Mr. Keitt's head, creating
a dramatic face-off, with each man holding a gun to the other's head.
Both men fired -- or tried to.
''I heard 'click, click, click,''' and then a single shot, Mr. Marte
tearfully recalled yesterday. Mr. Marte thought he had been shot, but
instead Mr. Keitt's gun had misfired, creating only clicks before its
magazine clip of bullets fell to the ground.
The gun Mr. Marte held worked, however, sending a bullet through the
back of Mr. Keitt's head. Mr. Keitt lunged for the door, knocking
over a shelf of bread, and he stumbled out of the store, on the
corner of 109th Street and the southbound service road of the Van
Wyck Expressway in Richmond Hill.
Mr. Marte dialed 911, and the police arrived to find Mr. Keitt
collapsed two blocks away but still alive. He was in stable condition
last night at Jamaica Hospital Center, a hospital spokesman said. Mr.
Keitt is facing first-degree felony charges of attempted robbery, and
second-degree menacing charges, said a spokesman for the Queens
district attorney, Richard A. Brown.
As for Mr. Marte, who did not have a gun permit, he was arraigned
yesterday on a misdemeanor charge of criminally possessing a weapon
and released on his own recognizance until an April 5 court
appearance.
''Based upon a preliminary review of the facts and circumstances,''
Mr. Brown said, it appeared that Mr. Marte shot Mr. Keitt in self-
defense.
Mr. Marte said that he had worked at the bodega for seven months,
often 16 hours a day, but was now afraid to return to work there.
''I never thought I'd go out to work and support my family and have
to go through something like this,'' he said, seated in the lobby of
a hotel last night where he was staying instead of his Queens home,
for fear of possible reprisal from friends of Mr. Keitt, he said.
Store employees said yesterday that there was roughly $2,000 in the
store, between the cash register and the safe, and that the store had
been robbed at gunpoint three times in the past three years.
[edit]
Here is another take on the story that was originally reported in New
York Newsday and reposted by The New American magazine, with
ultimately what happened to Marte:
Clerk foils robbery.(Exercising The Right)
The New American
May 17, 2004
Lee, Robert W.
"Shortly before 8 p.m. on March 24 in the Queens, New York, town of
Jamaica, Ramon Food Market clerk Edwin Marte was watching television
during a lull in business. Just then a man, later identified as Devin
Keitt, entered the bodega donned a black ski mask, and shouted,
"Holdup!" several times.
Marte quickly pulled a .38-caliber revolver from under the counter
and pointed it at the thug. He later told Newsday, "We pointed guns
at each other. He got scared and I got scared ... I don't know what
his intention was but I didn't want to kill him."
Marte heard three clicks as Keitt tried to fire his weapon. Then
Marte pulled the trigger of his own gun once, but in the turmoil did
not realize that he had hit Keitt. In fact, the frightened clerk
momentarily thought that he himself may have been shot. Then he saw
the magazine from the gunman's firearm fall to the floor, alter which
Keitt turned and fled, knocking over a shelf of snacks on the way
out. "He ran off like a madman," Marte recalled for Newsday.
Marte's bullet had found its mark, entering behind Keitt's ear and
exiting the back of his head (but missing his brain). The wounded man
ran about a block-and-a-half before collapsing. He was taken to a
local medical center in stable condition and was expected to survive.
He faces attempted robbery, menacing and weapon violation charges
that could bring up to 15 years in prison. At the time of the robbery
attempt, he was on parole, having been conditionally released by
parole officials last September after serving more than three years
for possession of stolen property.
Incredible as it may seem, the store clerk was himself charged with
misdemeanor criminal possession of a weapon. As News-day reported on
March 25, "Police and prosecutors ... say that while it is clear
Marie was defending himself when he shot Devin Keitt ... he did not
have a license to use the .38-caliber revolver." If convicted, he
faced up to one year in jail.
The March 26 New York Post reported Queens District Attorney Richard
Brown's preliminary finding that Marie had indeed "acted in self-
defense". Otherwise, he would have been charged with an even more
serious crime.
Public support for the beleaguered clerk quickly developed. Andres
Veras, a Queens bodega owner who was shot by robbers in March while
his nine-year-old daughter looked on, praised Matte and asked
rhetorically, "What are you supposed to do, wait until they kill
you?" Gerry Free, a regular Ramon Food Market customer, told News
day, "I stand on his behalf. The guy is a good guy. Yeah, I feel they
should let him go." And Fernando Mateo president of the Latino
business advocacy group Hispanics Across America, escorted Matte from
court following his March 25 arraignment. "Mr. Marte is not a
criminal," Mateo told reporters. "He's a hero."
On April 6, Queens prosecutors had second thoughts and dropped the
gun charge against Marte. Can't prosecute a hero.
So yes even cases like that they do face weapons charges but just
like in the episode in this case the DA had second thoughts and
dropped the charges after reading the writing on the wall. In the
episode Rubirosa didn't even let it get that far.
The criminals usually use a firearm to rob. It would be stupid of
them to try to rob a store with anything less than a gun. There have
been idiots who robbed stores with a knife and many times they ended
up being brained by a Louisville slugger the store owner keeps behind
the counter for minor altercations if not shot by the store owner.
But even if the owner is armed it doesn't always help as in this
tragic June 2007 robbery:
"Shot Bodega Owner on Life Support
The police continued to look for the robbers who shot a Queens bodega
owner in the face on Monday night. Bolivar Cruz, a Dominican
immigrant, is still on life support; the Post reports that two of his
seven daughters were working in store at the time and that Cruz tried
to protect them. According to Police Commissioner Kelly, Cruz did
take out a gun (unlicensed) but did not get a chance to fire it. It's
unclear whether the robbers saw Cruz's gun. Cruz is not expected to
survive.
http://gothamist.com/2007/06/13/shot_bodega_own.php
Sadly, he later died:
http://gothamist.com/2007/06/14/bodega_owner_di.php
The guy had his two teenaged daughters in the store working for him.
If he lived and he was able to shoot the robbers I doubt very much
the Queens DA would press charges in that situation-not unless he
doesn't want to win the next election.
To be fair though sometimes the store owner gets it wrong:
"Bodego Owner Shoots Youths, Killing One
By IAN FISHER
Published: Saturday, November 30, 1996
The owner of a bodega in Brooklyn opened fire on a group of five
teen-agers who he suspected were trying to steal junk food on
Thursday night, killing one, a 15-year-old shot in the back, and
wounding another as they ran out of the store, the police said.
The police said they had no indication that the teen-agers, walking
home from Thanksgiving dinner, had actually been trying to steal
anything, and none of them had criminal records. The bodega's owner,
Juan Pablo Abreu, a Manhattan resident in his 30's, was charged with
second-degree murder, attempted murder, assault and criminal
possession of a weapon, although the gun had not been found
yesterday."
[edit]
Here is the New York Daily News take on it:
Those kids were good kids and a misunderstanding developed and one
was shot in the back and killed and another wounded, and it appears
he got rid of the gun which was most likely unregistered but I have
to find the follow up stories to be sure, but as this shows sometimes
fear gets the better part of people and the store owner is not the
hero.
---
That's true, it was part of the article's last paragraph. It is a
case of at most criminal neglect, not deliberate criminality or wrong
doing. It is tragic in fact, he was too poor to pay his electric bill
on a policeman's salary. Imagine that, his salary couldn't pay the
electric bill.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3vtqcr
> >
> > The kid threw away his career over that and he was about the same age
> > as Angel in the episode. The article didn't mention a specific motive
> > but he seemed to be just plain greedy.
>
> So cops being criminals is getting more common. Interesting article,
> thanks for that.
---
If they are lowering the standards to apply and graduate. You can
have a minor misdemeanor record and still be a police officer IIRC.
Maybe, even a felony conviction if it isn't too serious, you know
like being caught vandalising property when you are a kid, childish
things like that, but don't hold me to that I have to check.
>
> > It is as Rubirosa said, it would be a futile gesture to go after an
> > old man who was defending his life, the life of his employee and his
> > property from armed thugs over a misdemeanor and she was right.
>
> But they tried anyway and lost.
---
That was after they got new testimonial evidence so if they tried to
indict Stan on the misdemeanor, they would had lost more; although I
think you don't face Grand Jury indictment on misdemeanor charges.
> >
> > > I suspect the grand jury returning no true bill is more realistic.
> > > The guy had plausible deniability. But I wonder, suppose he had taken
> > > out the gun, threatened them, and if that didn't work, shot a hole in
> > > his ceiling as a warning. He might've been less of a hero then and
> > > maybe it would have been easier to prosecute him.
> >
> > ---
> > In a high pressure situation you don't think like that, it
> > often doesn't come to mind to shot people in the leg and it is not by
> > any means easy, probably especially for a 70 year old man. For
> > instance even Cops aren't that good a shot in situations like that,
> > that is why they are trained to shoot for the center mass, that is
> > the upper torso. It is the biggest target. With an untrained civilian
> > it is even harder but his unfamiliarity with firing a gun was
> > compensated for by it being a shot gun, but a leg hot is still
> > difficult and more importantly it probably wouldn't had prevented
> > Dwayne or the other two from firing back. In a situation like that
> > unless the robbers were surrendering or retreating he was justified
> > in shooting them. The order he shot them at would be trivial to a
> > jury when they hear that one of the Robbers was beating a employee.
> > It would be for me on either a Grand jury or a jury if the case was
> > laid out to me as it was in the episode. I'd sure want my boss to
> > step up for me in that situation, just don't shot me by accident.
>
> I agree. I was curious about the story though. I think above I meant
> to say it would've been less easy to prosecute him.
---
As it is they couldn't even indict him. No, only the victim's-the
dead robbers that is-family and the girl friend of the guy who wanted
to be a corrections officer felt that he should had shot the guy in
the leg.
>
> However, and this might be related to the issue of the writing:
>
> People don't think like that in these kinds of situations? But in the
> story Stan is lying about his motivation for shooting one of the guys
> first and not the other? I'm not quite sure I can reconcile those
> two.
---
That was the prosecution's argument I don't buy it that because Stan
recognized one of the robbers from an earlier shakedown attempt then
he should think that he wasn't in serious danger of being killed, not
with a gun being waved around and then his employee being brutalized.
He didn't know the guy's ultimate intentions. It was still a high
pressure situation and most untrained people don't think clear in
those situations. Stan's employee knew karate but all that went out
the window when he saw the gun. Stan just pointed and shot, the gun
being a shotgun helping out his marksmanship.
>
> > > And yes, I suppose that the bottom has fallen out of the real estate
> > > market. Still, that library is some project. It looks like an entire
> > > neighborhood will be gone. I wonder what it was like getting approval
> > > for that and facing the inevitable local protests.
> >
> > ----
> > Not easy usually, but if there are no landmarks and the land lords
> > and the shop owners are given a good price in this market they would
> > sell. Not every development is opposed in New York City and having a
> > new library in the neighborhood would be an easy sell to the
> > residents.
>
> Even the ones who are going to be displaced?
---
If they could get a better place to live, yes, it is not as if it
were their actual houses they owned, but most likely rundown
tenements they were living in. No real sentimental attachments except
perhaps to the neighborhood they grew up in but the actual apartment?
Doubtful. The attitude would most likely be "if you can get me a
better apartment in a better neighborhood with the same rent or
cheaper then I'd go". It would mostly be up to the landlord anyway.
> >
> > > As to our little gambler's hope that he would have been able to hold
> > > up the project if he could have bought the accountant's store. I'm
> > > pretty sure that if the library had approval they'd find a way to let
> > > Kelo v. New London do its dirty work and take the store away from him.
> > > For those of you that don't remember the evil that was Kelo here's a
> > > linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
> > > According to the article NYS is one of seven states that hasn't passed
> > > laws to stop this kind of thing.
> >
> > ---
> > It's not the same. The episode's case was about one private person,
> > Max, trying to force another private person, Stan, to sell out to
> > him. It wasn't a case in which the land was going to be commercially
> > used and the Government using it eminent domain power under the
> > constitution but possibly abusing it. It is not the same type of case
> > as in the article because there was no government attempt to take the
> > property. The episode's plot is more akin to a car jacking than a
> > eminent domain case.
>
> I was thinking about the future of the project if it was resisted.
> Then the government can step in and take the property for a public
> _purpose_. It might all get very complicated. Max's plan might work,
> but he might also get hearty thank you and farewell from the city.
> Also, what's he going to do with the property in the meantime? I
> think there are property taxes to deal with.
---
Sell it to the City presumably. But the point is the government had
no hand in this particular case. It was probably if you can get the
residents, that is the landlords in that neighborhood to sell to you
fine, but it is not as if the government was pushing for the library,
it was a proposed gift from a philanthropist.
>
> > > The big hole in this is that the corrections guy was told
> > > that there were Krugerrands in the store. But in order for
> > > intimidation to work they would have had to make clear to the
> > > accountant that it was intimidation. So they get to the store and say
> > > what? Perhaps "We're here to intimidate you by beating you up." Then
> > > the corrections guy is going to wonder why he is along for the ride.
> > > I wonder about it too. That part of the story made very little sense
> > > to me. I think they needed to leave someone alive to connect the
> > > dots, but they could have done a better job of that. I enjoyed the
> > > ep, but thought the writing was weak.
> >
> > ----
> > I don't think it was the writing that was weak. It was the intent to
> > make the case very weak. The two other robbers were stooges for
> > Dwayne and the rich kid hired. It was intended for Stan to get the
> > message and sell out with Stan recognizing .
>
> How would Stan get the message? I think that Max's plan had some
> downside risk. Like Stan could have pretended to be intimidated and
> gotten all of Max's personal info needed to sell to him and then gone
> to the cops and reported him. Even if it's not a homicide I think this
> kind of thing, violence and extortion, might get their attention.
---
There wasn't any actual evidence of extortion. The prosecution
inferred it from who most had to gain and it was Max but only because
they placed a felony charge over his head. If the "robbery" went as
planned then it would had been Stan's word against Max's with Max
most likely to be believed.
>
> > Don't know about the green hat but it could be no, Van Buren mayn't
> > be cured.
>
> I suppose we will find out about Van Buren, but the lack of green hat
> makes me grateful for small favors.
>
> Theget
---
I forgot; what was the green hat?
David / Amicus
There was one with Chris Noth in it.
theget
> In article <27304c19-5ac5-4ce7-ad8d-
> c3a1de1a4...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
> says...> On Nov 24, 6:16 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <01dd781b-d99a-45a6-870c-
> > Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.
>
> ---
> That is the attitude, and again it is only a misdemeanor violation of
> the Sullivan Act, all but making gun ownership in that situation all
> but legal.
What happens if you are caught defending yourself a second time with
an unregistered weapon? Do you happen to know if DC v Heller has made
any difference here? I know it's a decision that doesn't apply to the
states, but I wonder if the states are anticipating changes. I
Fascinating. Do you happen to know if Marte was convicted of
anything?
[snippage]
> Incredible as it may seem, the store clerk was himself charged with
> misdemeanor criminal possession of a weapon.
Ah, so I know the author of this piece isn't from New York.
> On April 6, Queens prosecutors had second thoughts and dropped the
> gun charge against Marte. Can't prosecute a hero.
Ah, ok, that answers the question I asked.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ye8cpu2
>
> So yes even cases like that they do face weapons charges but just
> like in the episode in this case the DA had second thoughts and
> dropped the charges after reading the writing on the wall. In the
> episode Rubirosa didn't even let it get that far.
Good. And it's good to know. More stories like this one and there'd
probably fewer occurrences of this kind of crime to begin with. But
perhaps this was part of the point you were making?
>
> The criminals usually use a firearm to rob. It would be stupid of
> them to try to rob a store with anything less than a gun. There have
> been idiots who robbed stores with a knife and many times they ended
> up being brained by a Louisville slugger the store owner keeps behind
> the counter for minor altercations if not shot by the store owner.
Brained? Why hit them where it do so little damage? ;)
>
> But even if the owner is armed it doesn't always help as in this
> tragic June 2007 robbery:
>
> "Shot Bodega Owner on Life Support
[snip]
>
> The guy had his two teenaged daughters in the store working for him.
> If he lived and he was able to shoot the robbers I doubt very much
> the Queens DA would press charges in that situation-not unless he
> doesn't want to win the next election.
Does that imply that attitudes in NY about gun ownership and usage are
changing?
> To be fair though sometimes the store owner gets it wrong:
>
> "Bodego Owner Shoots Youths, Killing One
> By IAN FISHER
> Published: Saturday, November 30, 1996
>
> The owner of a bodega in Brooklyn opened fire on a group of five
> teen-agers who he suspected were trying to steal junk food on
> Thursday night, killing one, a 15-year-old shot in the back, and
> wounding another as they ran out of the store, the police said.
>
> The police said they had no indication that the teen-agers, walking
> home from Thanksgiving dinner, had actually been trying to steal
> anything, and none of them had criminal records. The bodega's owner,
> Juan Pablo Abreu, a Manhattan resident in his 30's, was charged with
> second-degree murder, attempted murder, assault and criminal
> possession of a weapon, although the gun had not been found
> yesterday."
Very sad. Probably indicates there would be a market for training
people to make better decisions in these kind of situations.
>
> Here is the New York Daily News take on it:
> Those kids were good kids and a misunderstanding developed and one
> was shot in the back and killed and another wounded, and it appears
> he got rid of the gun which was most likely unregistered but I have
> to find the follow up stories to be sure, but as this shows sometimes
> fear gets the better part of people and the store owner is not the
> hero.
That's really too bad. I wonder what kind of penalty he's going to
get.
> > > Too poor to pay his electric bill, Officer Patrick Venetek of
> > > Brooklyn was cleaning his gun in the dark when it accidentally went
> > > off in February. The bullet struck an 18-month-old boy in the
> > > apartment below."
>
> > This last one, sad as it is, doesn't seem to belong with the others.
>
> ---
> That's true, it was part of the article's last paragraph. It is a
> case of at most criminal neglect, not deliberate criminality or wrong
> doing. It is tragic in fact, he was too poor to pay his electric bill
> on a policeman's salary. Imagine that, his salary couldn't pay the
> electric bill.
Hmmm... I have some trouble believing that. According to http://www.nypdrecruit.com/
a first year get over $46K. Base increases to over $76 after 5.5
years. Some of the wording is a little difficult to understand, but it
looks like it can go up to $90K.
> If they are lowering the standards to apply and graduate. You can
> have a minor misdemeanor record and still be a police officer IIRC.
> Maybe, even a felony conviction if it isn't too serious, you know
> like being caught vandalising property when you are a kid, childish
> things like that, but don't hold me to that I have to check.
As a kid maybe. I seem to recall some of the detectives on the show
having conversations about bad stuff they did when they were kids, but
didn't get caught. Besides, I sometimes think that the purely pure of
heart might not make the best LEOs.
> As it is they couldn't even indict him. No, only the victim's-the
> dead robbers that is-family and the girl friend of the guy who wanted
> to be a corrections officer felt that he should had shot the guy in
> the leg.
Yes. I can see why she'd feel that way. But most people aren't going
to have that ability in those situations. Besides, although I have no
personal knowledge of the difficulty, I think that shooting people in
the leg thing like shooting the gun out of the hand is more a thing
for the movies. Ok, I remember once seeing it done, but the shooter
had a sniper rifle. The look on the face of the guy who had the gun
shot out of his hand was pretty good though.
Also: Shotgun.
>
> > However, and this might be related to the issue of the writing:
>
> > People don't think like that in these kinds of situations? But in the
> > story Stan is lying about his motivation for shooting one of the guys
> > first and not the other? I'm not quite sure I can reconcile those
> > two.
>
> ---
> That was the prosecution's argument I don't buy it that because Stan
> recognized one of the robbers from an earlier shakedown attempt then
> he should think that he wasn't in serious danger of being killed, not
> with a gun being waved around and then his employee being brutalized.
> He didn't know the guy's ultimate intentions. It was still a high
> pressure situation and most untrained people don't think clear in
> those situations. Stan's employee knew karate but all that went out
> the window when he saw the gun. Stan just pointed and shot, the gun
> being a shotgun helping out his marksmanship.
Or lack? ;) Yes. I think we agree here.
> > > ----
> > > Not easy usually, but if there are no landmarks and the land lords
> > > and the shop owners are given a good price in this market they would
> > > sell. Not every development is opposed in New York City and having a
> > > new library in the neighborhood would be an easy sell to the
> > > residents.
>
> > Even the ones who are going to be displaced?
>
> ---
> If they could get a better place to live, yes, it is not as if it
> were their actual houses they owned, but most likely rundown
> tenements they were living in. No real sentimental attachments except
> perhaps to the neighborhood they grew up in but the actual apartment?
> Doubtful. The attitude would most likely be "if you can get me a
> better apartment in a better neighborhood with the same rent or
> cheaper then I'd go". It would mostly be up to the landlord anyway.
Have things changed in NYC? I recall that it's very very hard to get
someone who has signed a lease, or even their relatives, out of an
apartment. Cheaper? Maybe they'd move for that. But maybe not.
Besides, the longer you stay put, the cheaper your rent stays. I
think getting people out is a tough sell.
> > I suppose we will find out about Van Buren, but the lack of green hat
> > makes me grateful for small favors.
>
> > Theget
>
> ---
> I forgot; what was the green hat?
In previous seasons Jack has worn a green hat. I did not like the
green hat. I hated the green hat. I think it was out of character for
Jack.
Theget
Hunter
JeffG...@webtv.net says...
> How many times did the worker have to get kicked in the head before it
> went from intimidation to the threat of great bodily harm?
---
I agree. I think the owner would had been justified to shoot the
moment that gun of the robber was lowered for any reason short of
surrendering. If he put up his hands and then the store owner shot
him then it would be murder.
>
> And the worker and the robber who survived knew each other and had
> feuded in the past; what a red herring that turned out to be.
---
Often leads turn out to be just that in real life.
>
> But, he
> was a "good boy" who just wanted to be a corrections officer, but felt
> entitled to rob a storefront.
---
Kids do stupid things. Too much short term thinking.
>
> McCoy going for a murder indictment was off the wall He knew they would
> have a hard sell even getting that past a Grand Jury, and yet he thought
> he had any chance to get a unanimous verdict from a trial jury?
> PREPOSTEROUS! Or maybe his office has unlimited resources to pursue
> cases tat are not winnable. lol
---
That was futile, but McCoy is a liberal.
>
> And I'm getting real tired of the Lieutenant's cancer. Remember when in
> the good old days the show was about the cases and issues, not the
> personal lives of the characters.
Life happens to people, even to L&O characters. I simply don't mind
see it. It shows what makes them tick.