Re: Bounty Hunter Arrested?
=> Vox Populi©
<kyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158263255.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Carmen wrote:
>> rob wrote:
>> > MSNBC just had a flash on "Dog" being arrested and extradited to
>> > Mexico, Maybe they were showing an old story? Not showing up on other
>> > news stations. Wtf? I must have been dreaming.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/palzt
>>
>> "Dog" Chapman Arrested, Faces Extradition
>>
>> Posted Sep 14th 2006 2:38PM by TMZ Staff
>> Filed under: Celebrity Justice, TV
>> Duane MSNBC's Rita Cosby is reporting that Duane Dog Chapman, star of
>> the A&E reality series "Dog the Bounty Hunter," and two members of his
>> bounty hunting team (including his son) were arrested by U.S. officials
>> today for extradition to Mexico. Cosby is reporting that Mexican
>> government officials wanted the three men sent back there in relation
>> to a three-year-old case.
>>
>> In 2003, Chapman traveled to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to retrieve Max
>> Factor cosmetics heir Andrew Luster, who was wanted in the U.S. on rape
>> charges. Luster is now in jail, serving a 124-year term. The Chapmans
>> were jailed in Mexico for a brief time for the incident three years
>> ago. Bounty hunting is considered a crime in Mexico.
>>
>> Dog's wife, Beth Chapman, said 12 armed marshals "came through the
>> door" at 6:00AM this morning. She said they took their daughter's
>> boyfriend down at gunpoint. Dog was sleeping at the time.
>>
>> TMZ spoke with Nicky Credic from the U.S. Marshals Office. She said,
>> "The arrest warrant was signed by a U.S. magistrate in Hawaii on
>> September 13. The warrant was based on a formal request based on a
>> diplomatic note from the government of Mexico."
>
>
> Just what is Chapman alleged to have done wrong?
It's called KIDNAPPING, asswipe.
You American scum think that other country's laws don't apply to
you, but you expect your U$ laws to apply to others.
What an arrogant wanker.
>
> I was overjoyed when Chapman nailed Luster -- an utterly loathesome
> scumbag who used to prowl the bars of Santa Barbara, sneak drugs into
> womens' drinks, take them back to his home and anally rape them while
> they were unconscious. In fact, Luster filmed himself doing so.
>
=> Vox Populi©
richard
Bounty hunters have no legal authority to do anything outside of the USA
boundaries.
It's a wonder "Dog" wasn't held for kidnapping.
Probably somebody saw the show and decided to make "Dog" a national hero?
=> Vox Populi©
"richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message news:eecms...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
> news:4509db3d$0$25775$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>>
>> "=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
He WAS held for kidnapping in Mexico. He posted bail and promissed to appear in
Mexican court. He then fled the country and jumped bail, becoming an
international fugitive from justice, just like the Luster scumbag he was
chasing.
> Probably somebody saw the show and decided to make "Dog" a national hero?
He's a convicted murderer, been arrested 18 times for violent crimes including
robbery. He's gonna rot in a Mexican cell where he belongs.
Mike
"richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
news:eecms...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> news:4509db3d$0$25775$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>>
>> "=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out by
arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! The means does
NOT justify the end! Perhaps if dog got the fedaralies to arrest him, have
him sent to the USA to face charges they would have been happier. How would
americans and the american government feel if some mexican came into the
states, and "arrested" dog for these crimes, and took him back to mexico
against his free will?
tiny dancer
"Mike" <goui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HfqOg.79153$sS1....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
> news:eecms...@news2.newsguy.com...
> For once richard me and you see eye to eye!
> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out by
> arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! The means does
> NOT justify the end! Perhaps if dog got the fedaralies to arrest him, have
> him sent to the USA to face charges they would have been happier. How
would
> americans and the american government feel if some mexican came into the
> states, and "arrested" dog for these crimes, and took him back to mexico
> against his free will?
Not the same thing at all. Luster was tried and convicted of his crimes.
Felonies, I might add.
>
>
Notebook
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xvqOg.1$Cs...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Utterly irrelevant.
The convicted felon Duane Chapman committed felonies in Mexico,
and will be convicted and imprisoned there.
FragileWarrior
news:450a361e$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net:
And yet Mexico can't do squat about all those assholes who load up a semi
with 100 men, women and children and run them across the border
illegally.... tsk tsk tsk...
Maybe we should have asked them to clean up a little bit of their mess
before we helped them arrest someone who did a service to us by nabbing
someone all the law enforcement agencies couldn't manage to find, eh?
Mike
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xvqOg.1$Cs...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
tiny dancer
The Mexicans had all of 'em in jail, including Luster. If they didn't want
to let him go at the time, they should've just hung on to him. I'm sure
there would be lots of Mexican females who were *just waiting* to be drugged
and raped by Luster. Dog did a community service for both the U.S. & Mexico
IMO.
>
>
Mike
breaking the law.
This is the year 2006, no the wild west. You can't just go into another
country and decide to enforce your laws on them. Bounty hunting is illegal
in mexico, and dog should have respected those laws.
Estrella
If there was anything legally to happen to Dog, by law it had to
happen in 2003. Now 3 years later, it is 2006. Dog can not be
retried. How would you like it Mike, that if you went to court in the
US over something and finish your case, and later 3 years later, your
case starts over. This is not how law works???????
tiny dancer
To me, it would be a different situation had Luster been of Mexican descent.
Since he was an American, on the lam in Mexico, my opinion, if the dog got
him, no prob.
As I said before, the Mexican's had Luster & dog & crew in their jail. If
they found what the dog did to be against their law, then they should have
held on to Luster. By letting Luster go back to the states, they in effect
negated their authority IMO.
Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country, drugging
and raping, fine by me. They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women around
Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load. Bottom line
is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's crime in
Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition IMO.
td
>
>
=> Vox Populi©
"FragileWarrior" <FragileWarrior@f'loonsmustdie.com> wrote in message
> "Notebook" <n...@no.no> wrote in
>>> news:HfqOg.79153$sS1....@read1.cgocable.net...
>>>>
>>>> "richard" <d...@john.son> wrote in message
>>>> news:eecms...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> snipped> >
>>>> For once richard me and you see eye to eye!
>>>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you
>>>> out by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law!
>>>> The means does NOT justify the end! Perhaps if dog got the
>>>> fedaralies to arrest him, have
>>>> him sent to the USA to face charges they would have been happier.
>>>> How
>>> would
>>>> americans and the american government feel if some mexican came into
>>>> the states, and "arrested" dog for these crimes, and took him back
>>>> to mexico against his free will?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not the same thing at all. Luster was tried and convicted of his
>>> crimes. Felonies, I might add.
>>
>> Utterly irrelevant.
>>
>> The convicted felon Duane Chapman committed felonies in Mexico,
>> and will be convicted and imprisoned there.
>
> And yet Mexico can't do squat about all those assholes who load up a semi
> with 100 men, women and children and run them across the border
> illegally.... tsk tsk tsk...
Why do you lie?
>
> Maybe we should have asked them to clean up a little bit of their mess
> before we helped them arrest someone who did a service to us by nabbing
> someone all the law enforcement agencies couldn't manage to find, eh?
Sure, and maybe other countries should ask the U$$A to clean up all their
domestic problems before honoring any extradition treaties between them
and the U$$A, eh dipshit? Do you practice being an ignoramus, or does
it come naturally?
Proof the U$$A is the "greatest" nation on earth:
Prisoners (per 1,000 people)
United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
France 0.8
Austria 0.8
Spain 0.8
Switzerland 0.7
Denmark 0.7
Belgium 0.7
Italy 0.6
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4
Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)
United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7
Death row inmates
United States 2,124
Japan 38
All others 0
Murder rate (per 100,000 people)
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
France 4.60
Portugal 4.50
Australia 4.48
Germany 4.20
Belgium 2.80
Spain 2.28
Switzerland 2.25
Italy 2.18
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Austria 1.80
Greece 1.76
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Ireland 0.96
Finland 0.70
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people)
United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5
Rape (per 100,000 people)
United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
France 6.77
Switzerland 6.15
Luxembourg 5.00
Spain 4.43
Austria 4.40
Belgium 4.00
Greece 2.40
Ireland 1.72
Japan 1.40
Portugal 1.20
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
United States 221
Canada 94
France 90
Belgium 66
United Kingdom 63
Italy 50
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Ireland 46
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Switzerland 23
Norway 22
Greece 7
Japan 1
TYPE OF OFFENSE (Sentenced Pop. Only) - Federal Prisoners
Drug Offenses 59.6%
Robbery 9.8%
Property Offenses 5.5%
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 6.8%
Violent Offenses 2.7%
Firearms, Explosives, Arson 8.6%
White Collar 1.0%
Immigration 2.8%
Courts or Corrections 0.8%
National Security 0.1%
Continuing Criminal Enterprise 0.8%
Miscellaneous 1.5%
THE INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE
The U.S. is the most violent society in the industrialized world, and probably
the entire world as well. Although it doesn't have the most police per capita,
the U.S. does have the toughest laws and punishments by far. The question of
which came first, the chicken or the egg, is becoming much less relevant as time
passes; the U.S. has been following this "get tough" approach for decades, with
no significant reduction of its violent crime rate.
=> Vox Populi©
Coming up next episode on "Amerika's Dumbest Criminals"
=> Vox Populi©
You really are a lowlife bigoted racist piece of shit, aren't you ?
>Dog did a community service for both the U.S. & Mexico
> IMO.
But then again, you're racist white-trash, and your opinion don't count for
shit.
>
>>
>>
>
>
=> Vox Populi©
"Estrella" <estrella...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158336806.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> It is called double jeopardy. In 2003, the Mexican govt' released Dog.
> If there was anything legally to happen to Dog, by law it had to
> happen in 2003. Now 3 years later, it is 2006. Dog can not be
> retried.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks, aren't you moron?
> How would you like it Mike, that if you went to court in the
> US over something and finish your case, and later 3 years later, your
> case starts over. This is not how law works???????
STFU you stammering jackass, the convicted murderer Duane Chapman
JUMPED BAIL in Mexico and FLED the country.
=> Vox Populi©
'cept the opinion of a white-trash racist like you don't make international law.
=> Vox Populi©
"default" <1...@here.us> wrote in message
news:5kAOg.17821$xV....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> He acted on behalf of the victims who are not in a position to do anything to
> defend themselves.....obvoiusly Mexico believes in perpetuating victimization,
> by punishing those who seek to capture fugitives from justice.
The U$$A punishes kidnappers too.
vivisectrix
>It is called double jeopardy. In 2003, the Mexican govt' released Dog.
>If there was anything legally to happen to Dog, by law it had to happen
>in 2003. Now 3 years later, it is 2006. Dog can not be retried. How
>would you like it Mike, that if you went to court in the US over
>something and finish your case, and later 3 years later, your case
>starts over. This is not how law works???????
No, there's no double jeopardy, even if we were functioning under American
Law in this case, which we aren't. Dog jumped bail in Mexico. He did the
same thing that he dogs his perps for. He didn't go to trial, so there's
no retrial. The case has never been over.
Personally, I'm hoping the man and his family walk free and clear from
this, because I think they're entertaining as hell. There's a level of
white trash that just appeals to me and they hold that line very well. But
your arguments don't stand up to the facts of the case, because after we
disprove the issue of double jeopardy, you're still talking about how
"law" works, and what you're forgetting is that "law" is different in
different countries. Bounty Hunting isn't legal in Mexico, and Dog got
arrested for an illegal act in Mexico, one that *isn't* illegal in
America. If we want visitors to obey our "stupid" laws, then we Americans
need to practice the basic decency of obeying their "stupid" laws when we
are on their soil.
Vivi
--
I wanna play with a pathetic suicidal masochist.
=> Vox Populi©
"vivisectrix" <vivis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:450ad9f5...@news.gci.net...
> Estrella:
>
>>It is called double jeopardy. In 2003, the Mexican govt' released Dog.
>>If there was anything legally to happen to Dog, by law it had to happen
>>in 2003. Now 3 years later, it is 2006. Dog can not be retried. How
>>would you like it Mike, that if you went to court in the US over
>>something and finish your case, and later 3 years later, your case
>>starts over. This is not how law works???????
>
> No, there's no double jeopardy, even if we were functioning under American
> Law in this case, which we aren't. Dog jumped bail in Mexico. He did the
> same thing that he dogs his perps for. He didn't go to trial, so there's
> no retrial. The case has never been over.
>
> Personally, I'm hoping the man and his family walk free and clear from
> this, because I think they're entertaining as hell. There's a level of
> white trash that just appeals to me and they hold that line very well. But
> your arguments don't stand up to the facts of the case, because after we
> disprove the issue of double jeopardy, you're still talking about how
> "law" works, and what you're forgetting is that "law" is different in
> different countries. Bounty Hunting isn't legal in Mexico, and Dog got
> arrested for an illegal act in Mexico, one that *isn't* illegal in
> America.
Actually it IS illegal in many States, and if the convicted murderer
Duane Chapman had kidnapped Luster is one of those states, he'd be
facing similar criminal charges.
In fact being that Dog is a Convicted Felon/Murderer, he couldn't
even get licensed as a Bail Enforcement Agent in those states
that require licensing, which is why he hides out in Hawaii where
it is still a wild-west show.
And the Body-Armor that he appears to wear in some earlier episodes
is a Crime, as there are state and federal laws against Convicted Felons
possessing/using body armor. In fact the way they use/brandish
Pepper-Spray as an aggressive weapon would also be a crime in many
jurisdictions.
So what you got is a white-trash convicted felon/murder chasing other
criminals around as staged entertainment in some pathetic holier than thou
opera.
> If we want visitors to obey our "stupid" laws, then we Americans
> need to practice the basic decency of obeying their "stupid" laws when we
> are on their soil.
>
> Vivi
> --
> I wanna play with a pathetic suicidal masochist.
How about a Sadist?
tjab
tiny dancer <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country, drugging
>and raping, fine by me.
Really?
Bo Raxo
Estrella wrote:
> It is called double jeopardy.
No, it isn't.
> In 2003, the Mexican govt' released Dog.
On bail. He skipped bail.
> If there was anything legally to happen to Dog, by law it had to
> happen in 2003.
Bullshit.
> Now 3 years later, it is 2006. Dog can not be
> retried.
He was never tried in the first place. He skipped bail.
Oh, and in the post where you said Chapman arrested Luster: he
couldn't arrest anyhbody in Mexico, because he doesn't have the
authority. He could notify the authorities and have *them* arrest the
criminal, which is what he should have done.
> How would you like it Mike, that if you went to court in the
> US over something and finish your case, and later 3 years later, your
> case starts over. This is not how law works???????
>
What you know about the law wouldn't fill a Post-It note.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer wrote:
>
> As I said before, the Mexican's had Luster & dog & crew in their jail. If
> they found what the dog did to be against their law, then they should have
> held on to Luster. By letting Luster go back to the states, they in effect
> negated their authority IMO.
>
WTF? They let him out on bail. You know, a promise to appear. You
want to reward him for jumping bail?!?
> Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country, drugging
> and raping, fine by me.
Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
where Luster was, or even grabbed him and turned him over to the
authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
Chapman was greedy, that's all.
> They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
> probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women around
> Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load. Bottom line
> is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's crime in
> Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition IMO.
>
Kidnapping is a misdemeanor? He was charged with illegal detention,
conspiracy, and now add jumping bail.
Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
"Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> tiny dancer wrote:
> >
> > As I said before, the Mexican's had Luster & dog & crew in their jail.
If
> > they found what the dog did to be against their law, then they should
have
> > held on to Luster. By letting Luster go back to the states, they in
effect
> > negated their authority IMO.
> >
>
> WTF? They let him out on bail. You know, a promise to appear. You
> want to reward him for jumping bail?!?
>
>
> > Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country,
drugging
> > and raping, fine by me.
>
> Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
> where Luster was,
Giving him time to flee again? C'mon, you think the Mexican police are
going to 'jump right on it'? And you call me naive? Luster had already
been on the run how long? With very 'deep pockets'. Sheesh!
or even grabbed him and turned him over to the
> authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
Turning him over to the Mexican authorities for a similar fiasco as what
happened in France with *what's his name*? the 'unicorn killer'?? How
long did it take to extradite him?
>
> Chapman was greedy, that's all.
You may believe greedy. Personally, I don't. Dog is a bounty hunter by
trade. He would have known that the million dollars was cash, not bond.
Personally, I believed the dog when he said he was doing it so the victims
could rest easy. *If* there was a reward for it, fine, but I don't think
that was his motive. JMO
>
> > They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
> > probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women around
> > Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load. Bottom
line
> > is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's crime
in
> > Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition IMO.
> >
>
> Kidnapping is a misdemeanor? He was charged with illegal detention,
> conspiracy, and now add jumping bail.
>
> Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
> to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
> street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
> happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
> arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
What? Your scenario is not at all the same.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer wrote:
> "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tiny dancer wrote:
> > >
> > > As I said before, the Mexican's had Luster & dog & crew in their jail.
> If
> > > they found what the dog did to be against their law, then they should
> have
> > > held on to Luster. By letting Luster go back to the states, they in
> effect
> > > negated their authority IMO.
> > >
> >
> > WTF? They let him out on bail. You know, a promise to appear. You
> > want to reward him for jumping bail?!?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country,
> drugging
> > > and raping, fine by me.
> >
> > Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
> > where Luster was,
>
>
> Giving him time to flee again? C'mon, you think the Mexican police are
> going to 'jump right on it'?
Why not?
> And you call me naive? Luster had already
> been on the run how long? With very 'deep pockets'. Sheesh!
>
Yes, he'd been on the run. But if Chapman told them where to find him,
why wouldn't they pick him up? It was a high profile case.
>
>
> or even grabbed him and turned him over to the
> > authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
>
>
> Turning him over to the Mexican authorities for a similar fiasco as what
> happened in France with *what's his name*? the 'unicorn killer'?? How
> long did it take to extradite him?
Because Ira Einhorn was facing the death penalty. If that had been
dropped, he would have been back here in a jiffy, the Philly
authorities were just stubborn.
No such problem with the ironically named Luster.
>
>
> >
> > Chapman was greedy, that's all.
>
>
> You may believe greedy. Personally, I don't. Dog is a bounty hunter by
> trade. He would have known that the million dollars was cash, not bond.
>
The greed was that he would be famous for this high profile case, and
could parlay that in to money. Which he did.
> Personally, I believed the dog when he said he was doing it so the victims
> could rest easy. *If* there was a reward for it, fine, but I don't think
> that was his motive. JMO
The man is a publicity whore. Puhleeze.
>
>
> >
> > > They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
> > > probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women around
> > > Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load. Bottom
> line
> > > is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's crime
> in
> > > Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition IMO.
> > >
> >
> > Kidnapping is a misdemeanor? He was charged with illegal detention,
> > conspiracy, and now add jumping bail.
> >
> > Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
> > to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
> > street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
> > happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
> > arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
>
>
> What? Your scenario is not at all the same.
>
What is not the same? Person one commits a horrible crime, flees
country one for country #2. Person number two chases person one to
country #2, kidnaps person number one, returns him to country number 1.
Exact parallel to Chapman and Luster.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
>
> tiny dancer wrote:
> > "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
> > news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > tiny dancer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I said before, the Mexican's had Luster & dog & crew in their
jail.
> > If
> > > > they found what the dog did to be against their law, then they
should
> > have
> > > > held on to Luster. By letting Luster go back to the states, they in
> > effect
> > > > negated their authority IMO.
> > > >
> > >
> > > WTF? They let him out on bail. You know, a promise to appear. You
> > > want to reward him for jumping bail?!?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country,
> > drugging
> > > > and raping, fine by me.
> > >
> > > Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
> > > where Luster was,
> >
> >
> > Giving him time to flee again? C'mon, you think the Mexican police are
> > going to 'jump right on it'?
>
> Why not?
Aren't most Mexican police *suspected* of being corrupt? They've got their
hands full facilitating the drug runners, human smugglers, and keeping our
border patrols 'at bay', etc.
>
> > And you call me naive? Luster had already
> > been on the run how long? With very 'deep pockets'. Sheesh!
> >
>
> Yes, he'd been on the run. But if Chapman told them where to find him,
> why wouldn't they pick him up? It was a high profile case.
It was a high profile case here in the states. Obviously not so in Mexico.
After all, Andrew wasn't 'hiding out' in some small mexican village. He was
living it up in Puerto 'whatever'. He was found with money and GHB. He
wasn't exactly 'slipping under the screen' of recognition, was he?
>
> >
> >
> > or even grabbed him and turned him over to the
> > > authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
> >
> >
> > Turning him over to the Mexican authorities for a similar fiasco as what
> > happened in France with *what's his name*? the 'unicorn killer'?? How
> > long did it take to extradite him?
>
> Because Ira Einhorn was facing the death penalty. If that had been
> dropped, he would have been back here in a jiffy, the Philly
> authorities were just stubborn.
That's not the way I recall it. Einhorn was tried in absentia which is what
the French protested. IIRC, Philly agreed to the DP issue, yet France still
wanted to hang on to Ira. Why anybody would want to hang on to scum like
that escapes me, but they did.
>
> No such problem with the ironically named Luster.
That part of it was exactly the same, as a matter of fact. Luster slipped
out before his trial was completed, therefore his trial and verdict were
also 'in absentia'.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Chapman was greedy, that's all.
> >
> >
> > You may believe greedy. Personally, I don't. Dog is a bounty hunter by
> > trade. He would have known that the million dollars was cash, not bond.
> >
>
> The greed was that he would be famous for this high profile case, and
> could parlay that in to money. Which he did.
Oh c'mon, like dog would have any idea he'd get a reality show out of it.
Personally, I like the dog. Like vivi said earlier, for some odd reason,
they kind of grow on you. Not like most white trash, a cut above. ;}
>
> > Personally, I believed the dog when he said he was doing it so the
victims
> > could rest easy. *If* there was a reward for it, fine, but I don't
think
> > that was his motive. JMO
>
> The man is a publicity whore. Puhleeze.
As opposed to, oh say anyone else on TV, movies, media, etc.? What, the
rest of 'em are all 'in it for altruistic reasons'?
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
> > > > probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women
around
> > > > Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load.
Bottom
> > line
> > > > is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's
crime
> > in
> > > > Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition
IMO.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Kidnapping is a misdemeanor? He was charged with illegal detention,
> > > conspiracy, and now add jumping bail.
> > >
> > > Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
> > > to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
> > > street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
> > > happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
> > > arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
> >
> >
> > What? Your scenario is not at all the same.
> >
>
> What is not the same? Person one commits a horrible crime, flees
> country one for country #2. Person number two chases person one to
> country #2, kidnaps person number one, returns him to country number 1.
> Exact parallel to Chapman and Luster.
So what you are asking is 'some Japanses guy, murders somebody *in Japan*.
And some Japanese 'bounty hunter' grabs 'em here in the states and
transports 'em back to Japan to stand trial. And you think we are going to
clammer for getting the, your words, *horrible* criminal back here. And
short of that, we're gonna *want* to get the Japanese citizen who took the
*horrible* murderer back to Japan to face his *justice* there, we're gonna
want to 'hunt that sucker down and bring him back here?' For what? It was
a Japanese crime, Japanese perp, and Japanese bounty hunter.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
=> Vox Populi©
<estrella...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158347237.2...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Vox Populi
"In fact being that Dog is a Convicted Felon/Murderer, he couldn't
even get licensed as a Bail Enforcement Agent in those states
that require licensing, which is why he hides out in Hawaii where
it is still a wild-west show. "
So Vox, You believe that Dog should never ever work. You want him to
starve to death. He's a bounty hunter, because he is preventing crime
and he is making a living. But you would rather he live homeless
begging for food.
=======
So you don't support Convicted Felons being denied any professional
licenses, eh?
======
"And the Body-Armor that he appears to wear in some earlier episodes
is a Crime, as there are state and federal laws against Convicted
Felonspossessing/using body armor. In fact the way they use/brandish
Pepper-Spray as an aggressive weapon would also be a crime in many
jurisdictions. "
=======
The equipment that Dog uses is appropriate for his job. Dog is not
uses body armor to rob a bank. He uses body armor, so he does not get
shot by people who want to commit crimes.
=======
Same could be said if he were to carry a firearm, so you support
convicted felons being able to possess weapons/guns/armor that
the Federal and State laws now deny them, eh?
==========
And if Hawaii gives Dog an
opportunity to make an honest living and reduce crime, that is what
getting back to society is all about. Most criminals released from
jail commit more crime, because bigots like you prevent them from
obtaining employment, preventing them from getting housing, and they
are forced to commit crime or starve to death.
========
So once they serve their sentence, and have paid their debt to society,
the ex-felons shouldn't be denied ANY rights, like voting, licenses,
housing, federal loans, possession of weapons, running for elected office,
etc, etc, eh?
=================
"So what you got is a white-trash convicted felon/murder chasing other
criminals around as staged entertainment in some pathetic holier than
thou opera. "
===========
For someone to call another white trash, Nigger, Spic,
etc, then you probably have a brown shirt at home and practice the
goose step.
=======
You are white ... trash, aren't you?
=> Vox Populi©
"Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
Hip Tip: IIRC, the warrants from Costa Rica and Nicaragua against Ollie North
and Co.
are still active, so all the Dog Groupies won't have any qualms if a private
citizen captures,
kidnaps, and does a "special rendition" on Ollie as he leaves his Radio Studio,
eh?
Bo Raxo
> "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
> > to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
> > street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
> > happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
> > arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
>
> Hip Tip: IIRC, the warrants from Costa Rica and Nicaragua against Ollie North
> and Co.
> are still active, so all the Dog Groupies won't have any qualms if a private
> citizen captures,
> kidnaps, and does a "special rendition" on Ollie as he leaves his Radio Studio,
> eh?
LMAO, excellent. Though I am not sure why Costa Rica would have
warrants out for the Reaganauts. But Nicaragua, yeah, we should
definately allow the Contra-loving North, Poindexter, Schultz, et.al.
be snatched up. They were, after all, supporting terrorists.
Funny how so many conservatives have forgotten that.
=> Vox Populi©
That's not all, Ira was Tried in Absentia, completely in absentia, not like
Luster who fled mid trial. Most civilized countries do no try people in absentia
realizing the inherant unfairness of such proceedings, and as such most
International
Extradition Treaties do not allow for someone tried in absentia to be
extradicted
to face a waiting sentence, the claimant nation must promise to extend a new
fair
and full trial to the defendant.
Likewise most civilized countries have long abolished the death "penalty", so
they won't extradite anyone to such a barbaric and perverse nation that would
subject the defendant to it.
>
> No such problem with the ironically named Luster.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Chapman was greedy, that's all.
>>
>>
>> You may believe greedy. Personally, I don't. Dog is a bounty hunter by
>> trade. He would have known that the million dollars was cash, not bond.
>>
>
> The greed was that he would be famous for this high profile case, and
> could parlay that in to money. Which he did.
He'll have plenty of time to write a book while he's cooling his heels
in a Mexican carcel.
>
>> Personally, I believed the dog when he said he was doing it so the victims
>> could rest easy. *If* there was a reward for it, fine, but I don't think
>> that was his motive. JMO
>
> The man is a publicity whore. Puhleeze.
Where do these idiots and imbeciles come from?
>> >
>> > > They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
>> > > probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women around
>> > > Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load. Bottom
>> line
>> > > is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's crime
>> in
>> > > Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition IMO.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Kidnapping is a misdemeanor? He was charged with illegal detention,
>> > conspiracy, and now add jumping bail.
>> >
>> > Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
>> > to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
>> > street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
>> > happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
>> > arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
>>
>>
>> What? Your scenario is not at all the same.
>>
>
> What is not the same? Person one commits a horrible crime, flees
> country one for country #2. Person number two chases person one to
> country #2, kidnaps person number one, returns him to country number 1.
> Exact parallel to Chapman and Luster.
Spot on.
=> Vox Populi©
There were a few different legal issues at play, one was the Death Penalty had
to be tossed as per the extradition treaties that the U$$A signed with the rest
of the world, the other was the issue of the Trial in Absentia, which again most
civlized countries do not accept, and Ira had married and was, IIRC, and
extablished
legal citizenship in Europe with all the rights that any european citizen would
have.
>
>
>
>>
>> No such problem with the ironically named Luster.
>
> That part of it was exactly the same, as a matter of fact. Luster slipped
> out before his trial was completed, therefore his trial and verdict were
> also 'in absentia'.
IIRC Ira's trial was completely in absentia, wasn't it?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Chapman was greedy, that's all.
>> >
>> >
>> > You may believe greedy. Personally, I don't. Dog is a bounty hunter by
>> > trade. He would have known that the million dollars was cash, not bond.
>> >
>>
>> The greed was that he would be famous for this high profile case, and
>> could parlay that in to money. Which he did.
>
>
> Oh c'mon, like dog would have any idea he'd get a reality show out of it.
> Personally, I like the dog. Like vivi said earlier, for some odd reason,
> they kind of grow on you. Not like most white trash, a cut above. ;}
Rednecky kind.
>
>
>>
>> > Personally, I believed the dog when he said he was doing it so the
> victims
>> > could rest easy. *If* there was a reward for it, fine, but I don't
> think
>> > that was his motive. JMO
>>
>> The man is a publicity whore. Puhleeze.
>
>
> As opposed to, oh say anyone else on TV, movies, media, etc.? What, the
> rest of 'em are all 'in it for altruistic reasons'?
So what next, Nancy Grace teaming up with Geraldo Rivera in a new
reality show called "Special Rendition" where they run around the world
privately kidnapping and sequestering "wanted criminals" to bring them
back to "American Just-us" ?
And you think the FBI will give the Jap Hunter a pass when they are apprehended
in the U$A mid kidnap, post bail promising to appear, then flee the country
jumping bail?
Why do you asswipes think that U$$A law applies worldwide, to everyone, yet
the U$$A and any American can piss on the other 201 Sovereign State's laws, eh?
That arrogant ignorant thinking is what gets 100s of U$ citizens imprisoned
every
year in foreign countries, some of them even facing execution for their blatant
ignorance of the host countries rule of law. And no, Brad Pitt and Robert
Redford
aren't gonna bust you out of a foreign death row in a nick of time either ....
transporter
You need to gargle with Drano and swallow it all, you POS!
Notebook
> => Vox PopuliŠ wrote:
>> "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan.
>>> Came to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy
>>> off the street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you
>>> think would happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially
>>> if he was arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
>>
>> Hip Tip: IIRC, the warrants from Costa Rica and Nicaragua against
>> Ollie North and Co.
>> are still active, so all the Dog Groupies won't have any qualms if a
>> private citizen captures,
>> kidnaps, and does a "special rendition" on Ollie as he leaves his
>> Radio Studio, eh?
>
> LMAO, excellent. Though I am not sure why Costa Rica would have
> warrants out for the Reaganauts.
'cause the arrogant US criminal scumbags used a ranch in northern Costa Rica
as a base of operations for their arms dealing and terrorism against the
people
of Nicaragua, in violation of Costa Rican law and their neutrality policy.
> But Nicaragua, yeah, we should
> definately allow the Contra-loving North, Poindexter, Schultz, et.al.
> be snatched up. They were, after all, supporting terrorists.
>
> Funny how so many conservatives have forgotten that.
I haven't, and if the traitor Ollie North ever sets foot outside the USA,
say Mexico,
he may well find himself getting a personal Tijuanna Taxi ride all the way
to San Jose.
John J
> Personally, I'm hoping the man and his family walk free and clear from
> this, because I think they're entertaining as hell. There's a level of
> white trash that just appeals to me and they hold that line very well.
He is laughed at and reviled in Honolulu, esp the whining haole bitch of a
wife. His boy has had his ass kicked a few times off camera, and there are
rumors that they have had to pay off some of the people they have roughed
up.
Duane and crew ain't dog shit and I for one hope they get to enjoy the
hospitality of a Mexican prison for a while.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer wrote:
> "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
> news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tiny dancer wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country,
> drugging
> > > and raping, fine by me.
> >
> > Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
> > where Luster was,
>
>
> Giving him time to flee again? C'mon, you think the Mexican police are
> going to 'jump right on it'? And you call me naive? Luster had already
> been on the run how long? With very 'deep pockets'. Sheesh!
>
>
>
> or even grabbed him and turned him over to the
> > authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
>
>
> Turning him over to the Mexican authorities for a similar fiasco as what
> happened in France with *what's his name*? the 'unicorn killer'?? How
> long did it take to extradite him?
>
Ah, a little research revealed that you're completely wrong on this
aspect.
The Smoking Gun has the arrest warrant. Check page 15 - the Mexican
police intercepted Chapman's group on their way to the airport. The
police took Luster in to authority at that time, and they extradited
him to the U.S. Didn't take long at all.
See:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0915061dog16.html
Also interesting in those docs is that Chapman videotaped his capture
of Luster. Yeah, no idea at all that he might try to parlay that in to
a reality show, he was just shooting something for the family to watch
when he got home. What was that you were saying about naive?
Bo Raxo
=> Vox Populi©
"Bo Raxo" <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:1158387189....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> tiny dancer wrote:
>> "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > tiny dancer wrote:
>> > >
>
>> >
>> >
>> > > Like I said, if they wanted Luster to roam free in their country,
>> drugging
>> > > and raping, fine by me.
>> >
>> > Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
>> > where Luster was,
>>
>>
>> Giving him time to flee again? C'mon, you think the Mexican police are
>> going to 'jump right on it'? And you call me naive? Luster had already
>> been on the run how long? With very 'deep pockets'. Sheesh!
>>
>>
>>
>> or even grabbed him and turned him over to the
>> > authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
>>
>>
>> Turning him over to the Mexican authorities for a similar fiasco as what
>> happened in France with *what's his name*? the 'unicorn killer'?? How
>> long did it take to extradite him?
>>
>
> Ah, a little research revealed that you're completely wrong on this
> aspect.
>
> The Smoking Gun has the arrest warrant. Check page 15 - the Mexican
> police intercepted Chapman's group on their way to the airport. The
> police took Luster in to authority at that time, and they extradited
> him to the U.S. Didn't take long at all.
Imagine that, a regular alt.true-crime hysteric is dead wrong on the
facts of the case ... imagine.
>
> See:
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0915061dog16.html
>
> Also interesting in those docs is that Chapman videotaped his capture
> of Luster. Yeah, no idea at all that he might try to parlay that in to
> a reality show, he was just shooting something for the family to watch
> when he got home. What was that you were saying about naive?
Naive? Perhaps you meant to say -- criminal coddling milquetoast.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
=> Vox Populi©
"transporter" <tr...@porter.org> wrote in message
news:c9JOg.263771$TD2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
transporter = Len Tropy = thundercrow = Phantom 309 = sam bam wrote:
From: Phantom 309 (a.k.a Sam Bam)
<3glne.117227$Yr4.93...@fe07.news.easynews.com>
"No, on your knees child - NOW!!!!!!!
You will be my little slut puppy. I will have you
down on your knees, willing to suck cock or a strap on."
=> Vox Populi©
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kKDOg.357$vi3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>>
>> tiny dancer wrote:
>>> "Bo Raxo" <fore...@earthcorp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1158344409....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> tiny dancer wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>> they found what the dog did to be against their law, then they should have
>>>>> held on to Luster. By letting Luster go back to the states, they in
>>>>> effect
>>>>> negated their authority IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WTF? They let him out on bail. You know, a promise to appear. You
>>>> want to reward him for jumping bail?!?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and raping, fine by me.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, that makes no sense. If Chapman had told the Mexican authorities
>>>> where Luster was,
>>>
>>>
>>> Giving him time to flee again? C'mon, you think the Mexican police are
>>> going to 'jump right on it'?
>>
>
>
> Aren't most Mexican police suspected of being corrupt? They've got their
> hands full facilitating the drug runners, human smugglers, and keeping our
> border patrols 'at bay', etc.
>
>
>
>>
>>> been on the run how long? With very 'deep pockets'. Sheesh!
>>>
>>
>> why wouldn't they pick him up? It was a high profile case.
>
>
> It was a high profile case here in the states. Obviously not so in Mexico.
> After all, Andrew wasn't 'hiding out' in some small mexican village. He was
> living it up in Puerto 'whatever'. He was found with money and GHB. He
> wasn't exactly 'slipping under the screen' of recognition, was he?
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> authorities, he wouldn't be facing charges.
>>>
>>>
>>> Turning him over to the Mexican authorities for a similar fiasco as what
>>> long did it take to extradite him?
>>
Rednecky kind.
>>> could rest easy. If there was a reward for it, fine, but I don't think
>>> that was his motive. JMO
>>
>> The man is a publicity whore. Puhleeze.
>
>
> As opposed to, oh say anyone else on TV, movies, media, etc.? What, the
> rest of 'em are all 'in it for altruistic reasons'?
So what next, Nancy Grace teaming up with Geraldo Rivera in a new
reality show called "Special Rendition" where they run around the world
privately kidnapping and sequestering "wanted criminals" to bring them
back to "American Just-us" ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They obviously didn't, as they let him go. The
>>>>> probably thought they had enough problems with all the dead women around
>>>>> Tijuana. Adding Luster to the mix might put 'em on over-load. Bottom line
>>>>> is, they sent Luster back to the states, no harm/no foul. Dog's crime in
>>>>> Mexico was a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing to warrant extradition IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kidnapping is a misdemeanor? He was charged with illegal detention,
>>>> conspiracy, and now add jumping bail.
>>>>
>>>> Let's put it this way. Say someone committed a murder in Japan. Came
>>>> to the U.S. Someone from Japan travels here, kidnaps the guy off the
>>>> street, and smuggles him out of the country. What do you think would
>>>> happen to the guy who captured the killer? Especially if he was
>>>> arrested, granted bail, and fled the country?
>>>
>>>
>>> What? Your scenario is not at all the same.
>>>
>>
>> What is not the same? Person one commits a horrible crime, flees
>> country one for country #2. Person number two chases person one to
>> country #2, kidnaps person number one, returns him to country number 1.
>> Exact parallel to Chapman and Luster.
>
>
> So what you are asking is 'some Japanses guy, murders somebody in Japan.
> And some Japanese 'bounty hunter' grabs 'em here in the states and
> transports 'em back to Japan to stand trial. And you think we are going to
> clammer for getting the, your words, horrible criminal back here. And
> short of that, we're gonna want to get the Japanese citizen who took the
> horrible murderer back to Japan to face his justice there, we're gonna
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
> by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! [...]
F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some rich
boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not two
miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
> > by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! [...]
>
> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some rich
> boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not two
> miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
> removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
And if "Dog" just shot him in the back, should Mexico thank him too?
Should we?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you
>>> out by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law!
>>> [...]
>> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some
>> rich boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not
>> two miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
>> removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
> And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted felon,
he's not allowed to.)
> should Mexico thank him too?
If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you up
and throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales. (And for a
gun charge, they want a whole lot more than chump change.)
> Should we?
Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway. This
way, it would just save this state the cost of warehousing him.
Larry
<aJkPg.168512$5i3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
>
> >>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you
> >>> out by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law!
> >>> [...]
>
> >> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some
> >> rich boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not
> >> two miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
> >> removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
>
> > And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
>
> Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted felon,
> he's not allowed to.)
And he wasn't allowed to bounty-hunt in Mexico, either!
There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
jurisdiction you're in.
> > should Mexico thank him too?
>
> If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you up
> and throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales. (And for a
> gun charge, they want a whole lot more than chump change.)
>
> > Should we?
>
> Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway. This
> way, it would just save this state the cost of warehousing him.
Fine. That's a compelling argument for the death penalty. But its
inapplicable to this case. Either Dog broke Mexican law or he didn't.
Ken Smith
> In article
> <aJkPg.168512$5i3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> >> Mike wrote:
>>
>> >>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you
>> >>> out by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law!
>> >>> [...]
>>
>> >> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some
>> >> rich boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not
>> >> two miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
>> >> removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
>>
>> > And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
>>
>>Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted felon,
>>he's not allowed to.)
>
> And he wasn't allowed to bounty-hunt in Mexico, either!
>
> There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
> jurisdiction you're in.
Unless you are the authorities ... in which case, you are above the
law and beyond it. Torture? Secret prisons? Binding precedent? Law
is for the little people....
>> > should Mexico thank him too?
>>
>>If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you up
>>and throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales. (And for a
>>gun charge, they want a whole lot more than chump change.)
>>
>> > Should we?
>>
>>Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway. This
>>way, it would just save this state the cost of warehousing him.
>
> Fine. That's a compelling argument for the death penalty. But its
> inapplicable to this case. Either Dog broke Mexican law or he didn't.
Dog evidently broke Mexican law, and at least in Mexico, they still
have the rule of law. May he spend a long time with las cucarachas....
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
>>>>> by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! [...]
>>>> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some rich
>>>> boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not two
>>>> miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
>>>> removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
>>> And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
>> Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted felon, he's
>> not allowed to.)
> And he wasn't allowed to bounty-hunt in Mexico, either!
But it wasn't the U.S., nor the state of California, that would have
prevented him
> There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
> jurisdiction you're in.
Yeah, yeah. But sh*t happens. He was performing a service, not just for us,
but also for the Mexicans (whether they care to acknowledge it or not).
There is no malum in se here, and THAT is what we should take into account,
not just the vagaries of some mindless foreign law.
>>> should Mexico thank him too?
>> If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you up and
>> throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales. (And for a gun
>> charge, they want a whole lot more than chump change.)
>>> Should we?
>> Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway. This way,
>> it would just save this state the cost of warehousing him.
> Fine. That's a compelling argument for the death penalty. But its
> inapplicable to this case. Either Dog broke Mexican law or he didn't.
This is a prosecutor's response. Either Dog is an evil man, or he's not.
And it is ABUNDANTLY clear that he is NOT! Sending him off to be some third
world hellhole prison serves absolutely no useful purpose for anyone.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Larry wrote:
[...]
>> There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
>> jurisdiction you're in.
> Unless you are the authorities ... in which case, you are above the law and
> beyond it. [...]
As, for example, Craig Hum or Jeff Leslie.
Theodore A. Kaldis
[...]
> Dog evidently broke Mexican law, and at least in Mexico, they still have
> the rule of law.
Psuh. Not if you can pay the requisite bribe demanded by the Federales
(whose [ahem] committment to the rule of law is VERY well known).
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@avenuecable.com> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Larry wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>> Mike wrote:
>
> >>>>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
> >>>>> by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! [...]
>
> >>>> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some rich
> >>>> boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not two
> >>>> miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
> >>>> removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
>
> >>> And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
>
> >> Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted felon, he's
> >> not allowed to.)
>
> > And he wasn't allowed to bounty-hunt in Mexico, either!
>
> But it wasn't the U.S., nor the state of California, that would have
> prevented him
Right, which is why it's not the US or California prosecuting him!
> > There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
> > jurisdiction you're in.
>
> Yeah, yeah. But sh*t happens. He was performing a service, not just for us,
> but also for the Mexicans (whether they care to acknowledge it or not).
> There is no malum in se here, and THAT is what we should take into account,
> not just the vagaries of some mindless foreign law.
Vagaries? Mindless law? He *kidnapped* someone. That's not some
unique, bizarre concept only found in foreign law. You can't kidnap
someone against their will just because you think the ends justify the
means or the person being kidnapped is a bad person.
> >>> should Mexico thank him too?
>
> >> If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you up and
> >> throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales. (And for a gun
> >> charge, they want a whole lot more than chump change.)
>
> >>> Should we?
>
> >> Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway. This way,
> >> it would just save this state the cost of warehousing him.
>
> > Fine. That's a compelling argument for the death penalty. But its
> > inapplicable to this case. Either Dog broke Mexican law or he didn't.
>
> This is a prosecutor's response. Either Dog is an evil man, or he's not.
> And it is ABUNDANTLY clear that he is NOT! Sending him off to be some third
> world hellhole prison serves absolutely no useful purpose for anyone.
Not at all. I don't think he's evil. I think he's done alot of good
for society, at least after he turned his life around. But it doesn't
give him a free pass on breaking the law. Should his good intentions be
taken into account in sentencing? Sure. But it has nothing to do with
guilt or innocence.
John J
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@avenuecable.com> wrote in message
news:450ECAF3...@avenuecable.com...
>
> This is a prosecutor's response. Either Dog is an evil man, or he's not.
> And it is ABUNDANTLY clear that he is NOT! Sending him off to be some
> third
> world hellhole prison serves absolutely no useful purpose for anyone.
It gets a bad TV show off the air, IMO that would be worth having him lie
with the cockroaches
=> Vox Populi©
> In article <450ECAF3...@avenuecable.com>,
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@avenuecable.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped
>>>>>>> you out by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke
>>>>>>> mexican law! [...]
>>
>>>>>> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down
>>>>>> some rich boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a
>>>>>> courtroom not two miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico
>>>>>> should THANK Dog for removing an AMERICAN criminal from their
>>>>>> streets.
>>
>>>>> And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
>>
>>>> Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted
>>>> felon, he's not allowed to.)
>>
>>> And he wasn't allowed to bounty-hunt in Mexico, either!
>>
>> But it wasn't the U.S., nor the state of California, that would have
>> prevented him
>
> Right, which is why it's not the US or California prosecuting him!
But is was why the Judge in California ruled that the murderer Dogface Chapman
was NOT entitled to any of Luster's bail $$.
>
>
>>> There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
>>> jurisdiction you're in.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. But sh*t happens. He was performing a service, not
>> just for us, but also for the Mexicans (whether they care to
>> acknowledge it or not). There is no malum in se here, and THAT is
>> what we should take into account, not just the vagaries of some
>> mindless foreign law.
>
> Vagaries? Mindless law? He *kidnapped* someone. That's not some
> unique, bizarre concept only found in foreign law. You can't kidnap
> someone against their will just because you think the ends justify the
> means or the person being kidnapped is a bad person.
Really? So you unequivocally condemn the Fascist Bu$h / U$ policy
of "special rendition", indeterminate incommunicado detentions in Gitmo, Iraq,
Afhanistan,
etc, eh?
>
>
>>>>> should Mexico thank him too?
>>
>>>> If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you
>>>> up and throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales.
>>>> (And for a gun charge, they want a whole lot more than chump
>>>> change.)
>>
>>>>> Should we?
>>
>>>> Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway.
>>>> This way, it would just save this state the cost of warehousing
>>>> him.
>>
>>> Fine. That's a compelling argument for the death penalty. But its
>>> inapplicable to this case. Either Dog broke Mexican law or he
>>> didn't.
>>
>> This is a prosecutor's response. Either Dog is an evil man, or he's
>> not. And it is ABUNDANTLY clear that he is NOT! Sending him off to
>> be some third world hellhole prison serves absolutely no useful
>> purpose for anyone.
>
> Not at all. I don't think he's evil. I think he's done alot of good
> for society, at least after he turned his life around.
He's a rat fuck criminal scum.
> But it doesn't
> give him a free pass on breaking the law. Should his good intentions
> be taken into account in sentencing? Sure. But it has nothing to do
> with guilt or innocence.
Wow... it must be a Blue Moon out, Larry and I finally agree on something,
and not once in this post did you make your usual imbecilic error of law.
=> Vox Populi©
And maybe the Mexican Prison officials will force him to get rid of the World's
Most Dangerous Mullet.
=> Vox Populi©
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
>>> jurisdiction you're in.
>
>> Unless you are the authorities ... in which case, you are above the
>> law and beyond it. [...]
>
> As, for example, Craig Hum or Jeff Leslie.
Or the 12 Jurors who were UNANIMOUS in finding Cameron Brown
culpable in the killing of his own daughter!
3 - The Dale Earnhardt Story
in Mexico, I was kidnapped by corrupt Mexican police officers that were
paid by a private Mexican citizen (not ordered by their superiors) to
find someone who had kicked his son's ass. I, a U.S. born citizen of
Hispanic heritage and with a build of 5'10 170 lbs at 14 was mistaken
for this other guy the corrupt Mexican police had been paid to get. I
identified myself as a U.S. citizen repeatedly (I speak fluent Spanish)
and it wasn't until someone who new me told them that I was a minor
that they let me go...with bruised kidneys, a broken rib, a slight
concussion, and later, swelling and black and blue marks from all of
the repeated blows that three grown men gave me...a scared 14 year old
kid who put up the most terrified fight possible to defend himself. My
mother and grandmother had to be given sedatives for this experience
and I spent a week bed-ridden.
Dog may have a shady past, and he did break an unreasonable Mexican
law, but he captured a man who hurt many women and is now doing 124
years in the United States of America. All of you who are against Dog
should consider the good he did for which he didn't get a penny (if I
have read correctly). I sugest you go to www.dogdefensefund.com and
contribute. This fund was set up by one of Luster's victims.
Carmen
3 - The Dale Earnhardt Story wrote:
> In 1982, at 14 years of age, while on vacation visiting my grandparents
> in Mexico, I was kidnapped by corrupt Mexican police officers that were
> paid by a private Mexican citizen (not ordered by their superiors) to
> find someone who had kicked his son's ass. I, a U.S. born citizen of
> Hispanic heritage and with a build of 5'10 170 lbs at 14 was mistaken
> for this other guy the corrupt Mexican police had been paid to get. I
> identified myself as a U.S. citizen repeatedly (I speak fluent Spanish)
> and it wasn't until someone who new me told them that I was a minor
> that they let me go...with bruised kidneys, a broken rib, a slight
> concussion, and later, swelling and black and blue marks from all of
> the repeated blows that three grown men gave me...a scared 14 year old
> kid who put up the most terrified fight possible to defend himself. My
> mother and grandmother had to be given sedatives for this experience
> and I spent a week bed-ridden.
>
> Dog may have a shady past,
Shady past? *18 armed robberies and an accessory to the murder of Jerry
Lee Oliver* And that's just what he got *caught* doing. That's a
pitch black past. That's the sort of past that makes me wonder why
there are people in jail for the rest of their lives for selling a
couple of pounds of marijuana and people like him out on the streets.
Yes, he caught Luster and got him put away. That doesn't make him an
angel. He should have never have been out of jail himself. He
certainly never served enough time for the things he did.
Carmen
I Ms Individual Rights
>> Dog may have a shady past,
>
> Shady past? *18 armed robberies and an accessory to the murder of
Jerry
> Lee Oliver* And that's just what he got *caught* doing. That's a
> pitch black past.
You have proof of this? Or is it just Pox's usual trolling?
> That's the sort of past that makes me wonder why
> there are people in jail for the rest of their lives for selling a
> couple of pounds of marijuana and people like him out on the streets.
> Yes, he caught Luster and got him put away. That doesn't make him an
> angel. He should have never have been out of jail himself. He
> certainly never served enough time for the things he did.
I'd like to see the proof.
--
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
Why is it that the liberals define things as slavery that aren’t
slavery, like voluntary mutually consenting employer-employee
relationships, while not defining things as slavery that are slavery,
like taxation?
Carmen
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
> "Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> >> Dog may have a shady past,
> >
> > Shady past? *18 armed robberies and an accessory to the murder of
> Jerry
> > Lee Oliver* And that's just what he got *caught* doing. That's a
> > pitch black past.
>
> You have proof of this? Or is it just Pox's usual trolling?
>
> > That's the sort of past that makes me wonder why
> > there are people in jail for the rest of their lives for selling a
> > couple of pounds of marijuana and people like him out on the streets.
> > Yes, he caught Luster and got him put away. That doesn't make him an
> > angel. He should have never have been out of jail himself. He
> > certainly never served enough time for the things he did.
>
> I'd like to see the proof.
Understood. This is just the stuff he himself owns up to on his own
website, not hearsay:
http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/main.php
The two relevant excerpts:
"He's also the king of comebacks -- a modern-day hero who was once a
zero after serving time in a Texas prison for first-degree murder. It's
a conviction he claims was unfounded and later candidly discusses, for
the first time ever, with MidWeek."
"Dog knows what it feels like to be a wanted man. As a juvenile, he had
his share of run-ins with the law from Colorado to Mexico, including 18
arrests for armed robbery."
The guy did 18 freaking months for his role in the murder of Jerry Lee
Oliver. I believe in rehabilitation, but there has to be some
punishment along with it. He didn't do his time for all his crimes.
Carmen
I Ms Individual Rights
I don't know the details of the case but that seems to explain why he
doesn't carry a gun, if he's a convicted felon. ( laws which I think
should be repealed per the 2nd Amendment - free people should have the
human right to keep & bear arms )
Carmen
Yes, it isn't a noble matter of choice. It's a matter of law. That's
also why he's based out of Hawaii. In most states a felon can't get a
license to be a bounty hunter. In Hawaii he can.
Carmen
=> Vox Populi©
> In Message-ID:<1158697370....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> that generally seems to mitigate the severity of sentencing.
Certainly more that a tat of the Red Crescent or perhaps 666 on your forehead
...
Larry
We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from renditions,
Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
=> Vox Populi©
> In article <1158688384.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "3 - The Dale Earnhardt Story" <d...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>> In 1982, at 14 years of age, while on vacation visiting my
>> grandparents in Mexico, I was kidnapped by corrupt Mexican police
>> officers that were paid by a private Mexican citizen (not ordered by
>> their superiors) to find someone who had kicked his son's ass. I, a
>> U.S. born citizen of Hispanic heritage and with a build of 5'10 170
>> lbs at 14 was mistaken for this other guy the corrupt Mexican police
>> had been paid to get. I identified myself as a U.S. citizen
>> repeatedly (I speak fluent Spanish) and it wasn't until someone who
>> new me told them that I was a minor that they let me go...with
>> bruised kidneys, a broken rib, a slight concussion, and later,
>> swelling and black and blue marks from all of the repeated blows
>> that three grown men gave me...a scared 14 year old kid who put up
>> the most terrified fight possible to defend himself. My mother and
>> grandmother had to be given sedatives for this experience and I
>> spent a week bed-ridden.
>
> ¿Tal vez, se gusta unas chistes?
>
>
>> Dog may have a shady past, and he did break an unreasonable Mexican
>> law,
>
> as one could get. Besides, Luster posted the entire million dollars
> for his bail, there was no outstanding bond, hence no bail bondsmen
> to be a bounty hunter for. Even if there was an outstanding bond,
> bounty hunters don't go to foreign countries. The FBI and the US
> Marshall Services have better resources to do that. He wouldn't be
> looked upon as a hero if he took up to 350k in Luster's bail that he
> demanded in court and that wouldn't go to victims of Luster crime.
> (There were probably many, many more than the 3 victims in the case.)
>
> If Chapman also didn't skip the country, he wouldn't be in the mess
> he is in right now. He has only himself to blame. He didn't screw up
> once in this imbroglio, he screwed up a couple times. Going to Mexico
> on tourist visa, not telling the police down there what he was up to,
> kidnapping and taking Luster to the airport, and refusing to give him
> up to the Police, when they demanded that Chapman's group to turn him
> over. Skipping the country was the last bonehead act.
>
> He got the same lead that the FBI got two days later, and Luster
> was too much of a self centered wimp to go into serious hiding or get
> away from the life he pursued which was surfing and partying.
>
> What Chapman did was really stupid. No one should go to a foreign
> country and pretend they have a free reign to do what he or she wants
> to do. If he showed some respect or know he was risking getting
> himself in big trouble, he wouldn't be in the trouble he is in right
> now.
>
>> but he captured a man who hurt many women and is now doing 124
>> years in the United States of America. All of you who are against Dog
>> should consider the good he did for which he didn't get a penny
>
> Hunter in California when he pursued Luster. He wasn't entitled to
> one dime of Luster's bail. The Judge ruled correctly in that hearing.
Exactamundo !
=> Vox Populi©
Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates international
law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
Good job, Larry.
Larry
> > Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>
> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates international
> law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>
> I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>
> Good job, Larry.
It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
If you can't see this, you're the ignoramus. And you're an asswipe
anyway.
Notebook
> "Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote
> news:1158690451.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> The Dale Earnhardt Story wrote:
>>>
>>> Dog may have a shady past,
>>
>> Shady past? *18 armed robberies and an accessory to the murder of
>> Jerry Lee Oliver* And that's just what he got *caught* doing. That's a
>> pitch black past. That's the sort of past that makes me
>> wonder why there are people in jail for the rest of their lives for
>> selling a couple of pounds of marijuana and people like him out on
>> the streets.
>
>
> to handle a real job, other than bullying, harassing
> and intimidating ordinary folks or timid individuals,
> if one day he won't be allowed to do what he does....
He's a violent criminal biker-Thug, always has been, and always will
be 'till he's in the grave.
Ken Smith
> In article <450ECAF3...@avenuecable.com>,
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@avenuecable.com> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
>>>>>>>by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some rich
>>>>>>boy lowlife (so that he could be brought back to a courtroom not two
>>>>>>miles away from where I'm sitting). Mexico should THANK Dog for
>>>>>>removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets.
F*CK American "law!" Craig Hum performed a service by putting some
ne'er-do-well lowlife surfer-dude in jail so he could be brought into a
courtroom where you HAVE been sitting. We should all praise Craig Hum
for removing an AMERICAN criminal from their streets!
Uh, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty," Ted?
Funny how the 'standards' change when your baby-killin'
brudder-in-law is involved. We refuse to grant bail to suspected
murderers like Cam so that people like Dog don't have to go get them.
>>>>>And if "Dog" just shot him in the back,
>>>>
>>>>Dog CAN'T shoot him -- he doesn't carry guns. (As a convicted felon, he's
>>>>not allowed to.)
>>>
>>>And he wasn't allowed to bounty-hunt in Mexico, either!
>>
>>But it wasn't the U.S., nor the state of California, that would have
>>prevented him
>
> Right, which is why it's not the US or California prosecuting him!
Mexico has the prerogative to enforce its own law, Ted -- even when
you don't like the outcome.
>>>There's really no difference. You have to abide by the laws of the
>>>jurisdiction you're in.
>>
>>Yeah, yeah. But sh*t happens. He was performing a service, not just for us,
>>but also for the Mexicans (whether they care to acknowledge it or not).
>>There is no malum in se here, and THAT is what we should take into account,
>>not just the vagaries of some mindless foreign law.
>
> Vagaries? Mindless law? He *kidnapped* someone. That's not some
> unique, bizarre concept only found in foreign law. You can't kidnap
> someone against their will just because you think the ends justify the
> means or the person being kidnapped is a bad person.
Ted seems to think so. He suffers from the layman's view that what
he likes is constitutional and/or legal, but what he doesn't like is not.
>>>>>should Mexico thank him too?
>>>>
>>>>If an American gets caught carrying a gun in Mexico, they lock you up and
>>>>throw away the key. Unless you pay off the Federales. (And for a gun
>>>>charge, they want a whole lot more than chump change.)
>>>
>>>>>Should we?
>>>>
>>>>Why not? He (Dog's quarry) is never getting out alive anyway. This way,
>>>>it would just save this state the cost of warehousing him.
>>>
>>>Fine. That's a compelling argument for the death penalty. But its
>>>inapplicable to this case. Either Dog broke Mexican law or he didn't.
>>
>>This is a prosecutor's response. Either Dog is an evil man, or he's not.
>>And it is ABUNDANTLY clear that he is NOT! Sending him off to be some third
>>world hellhole prison serves absolutely no useful purpose for anyone.
Sure, it does! It demonstrates for all the world to see that at
least in Mexico, the law is the law, and everyone is subject to it.
Even arrogant gringos like Dog.
> Not at all.
I emphatically agree. Whether his intentions were good or evil, the
fact remains that Dog knowingly violated the law, kidnapping a man when
he had exactly no legal right to. The rule of law is supposed to apply
to all of us, even though Kofi Annan admitted that the concept has been
relegated to the dustbin of quaint notions of antiquity. That a blow is
struck for the law is always cause for celebration -- as so few of them
are these days.
> I don't think he's evil. I think he's done alot of good
> for society, at least after he turned his life around. But it doesn't
> give him a free pass on breaking the law. Should his good intentions be
> taken into account in sentencing? Sure. But it has nothing to do with
> guilt or innocence.
I agree entirely. You can't pull a Bush and try to obtain
retroactive absolution for the commission of crimes against humanity --
it cheapens the law and ultimately, discredits it. Justice Brandeis
minced no words:
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials
be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the
citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be
imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government
is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches
the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the govern-
ment becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites
every man to become a law unto himself.116
Ken Smith
>
>>>We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from renditions,
>>>Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>
>>Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates international
>>law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>>
>>I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>
>>Good job, Larry.
>
> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory norms
of international law. I cannot find any justification in law for the
kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
> If you can't see this, you're the ignoramus. And you're an asswipe
> anyway.
Yes, he is.
Larry
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
> > "=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote:
> >
> >>>We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from renditions,
> >>>Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
> >>
> >>Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates international
> >>law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
> >>
> >>I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
> >>
> >>Good job, Larry.
> >
> > It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
> > government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>
> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory norms
> of international law. I cannot find any justification in law for the
> kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions; simply
that conceptually, a state incarcerating suspected
criminals/terrorists/enemies is entirely different from a private
citizen doing what he thinks is right.
The state can be acting legitimately or illegitimately, but the
framework and rules are entirely different.
Ken Smith
> In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>>In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from renditions,
>>>>>Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates international
>>>>law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>>>>
>>>>I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>>>
>>>>Good job, Larry.
>>>
>>>It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
>>>government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>>
>> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory norms
>>of international law. I cannot find any justification in law for the
>>kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
>
> I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
However, you have to concede that the point is relevant to current US
policy. Our President is not above the law, any more than Dog is above
Mexican law. The notion that our nation would engage in well-documented
acts of terrorism in concentration camps like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
is appalling, and it's incumbent upon us to ensure that it never happens
again.
For the most part, these people were not enemies of the State; they
were MADE INTO enemies of the State by our leaders. Cf., Nazi Germany.
> simply that conceptually, a state incarcerating suspected
> criminals/terrorists/enemies is entirely different from a private
> citizen doing what he thinks is right.
Again, it's probably a matter of semantics, as it frequently is when
we disagree. At least in theory -- which the Bush regime has shattered
on so many levels, it is difficult to keep count! -- the State can only
act legitimately within the confines of law. As the Supreme Court said
more than a century ago:
No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No
officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.
All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest,
are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.
> The state can be acting legitimately or illegitimately, but the
> framework and rules are entirely different.
While we empower the State to act in our stead, the State cannot do
what we in law and equity would not be able to do. For example, while
the State wages war against foreign powers in our stead on an "as
needed" basis, we are (self-)tasked to defend the Constitution against
"all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC." I would submit that this entitles
citizens to take lethal action against those public officials who commit
treasonous breaches of the Constitution, including those who refrain
from doing their duty. Conversely, I would not submit that it is a
legitimate ground for vigilante justice, as it violates the due process
rights of the citizen being lynched.
The distinction? You can't have a "trial" if there is no mechanism
by which to conduct one. We can act outside the confines of "the law"
when an emergency arises; the State can never do so.
Ken Smith
Sounds more and more like Cam Brown all the time.... :)
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>> > In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
>> > "=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from renditions,
>> >>>Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>> >>
>> >>Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates international
>> >>law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>> >>
>> >>I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>> >>
>> >>Good job, Larry.
>> >
>> > It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
>> > government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>>
>> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory norms
>> of international law. I cannot find any justification in law for the
>> kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
>
>I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
You weren't? Who wrote "We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much
different from renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like?"
=> Vox Populi©
>>>
>>> We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from
>>> renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>
>> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
>> international law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>>
>> I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>
>> Good job, Larry.
>
>
> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>
Well, that's a keeper, and the quintessentian example of your profound
itellectual dysfunction. 'nuff said.
> If you can't see this, you're the ignoramus. And you're an asswipe
> anyway.
How original.
=> Vox Populi©
>>
>>>> We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from
>>>> renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
>>> international law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>>>
>>> I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>>
>>> Good job, Larry.
>>
>> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
>> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>
> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory norms
> of international law.
Well, if they did that, it wouldn't be Kidnapping or Torture, now would it
moron?
> I cannot find any justification in law for the
> kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
>
>> If you can't see this, you're the ignoramus. And you're an asswipe
>> anyway.
>
> Yes, he is.
LOL! -- Ken "molten steel" Smith's got a new pal ...
=> Vox Populi©
> In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>> In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
>>>
>>>>> We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from
>>>>> renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
>>>> international law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
>>>>
>>>> I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>>>
>>>> Good job, Larry.
>>>
>>> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
>>> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>>
>> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory
>> norms of international law. I cannot find any justification in law
>> for the kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
>
> I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
Translation: Larry the Legal Imbecile was ignoring the instant facts
which disprove his absurdly indefensible amoral position.
=> Vox Populi©
> Larry wrote:
>> In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from
>>>>>> renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
>>>>> international law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic
>>>>> statutes. I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good job, Larry.
>>>>
>>>> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
>>>> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>>>
>>> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory
>>> norms of international law. I cannot find any justification in law
>>> for the kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
>>
>> I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
>
> However, you have to concede that the point is relevant to current
> US policy. Our President is not above the law, any more than Dog is
> above Mexican law. The notion that our nation would engage in
> well-documented acts of terrorism in concentration camps like Abu
> Ghraib and Guantanamo is appalling, and it's incumbent upon us to
> ensure that it never happens again.
Bwahahahaaaaaaaa! Sure Ken "the appeaser" Smith, like they said "never again"
after they arrested all the U$ Citizens who looked "Japanese" and imprisoned
them in concentration camps in the '40s.
As long as there are spineless amoral cowards like you and Larry in
this country, history will repeat itself over and over again, anytime
the ignorant collective masses get "scared" and roll over and piss on
themselves.
>
> For the most part, these people were not enemies of the State; they
> were MADE INTO enemies of the State by our leaders. Cf., Nazi
> Germany.
Oh really? So the U$ Gov't can criminalize entire groups of PEOPLE as a whole,
or the Religion of those people, or the Associations of those PEOPLE,
at their own instant caprice, for political expediency or as a distractive
scapegoat?
Is your Religion ATF (Washington) Approved?
>
>> simply that conceptually, a state incarcerating suspected
>> criminals/terrorists/enemies is entirely different from a private
>> citizen doing what he thinks is right.
>
> Again, it's probably a matter of semantics, as it frequently is when
> we disagree. At least in theory -- which the Bush regime has
> shattered on so many levels, it is difficult to keep count! -- the
> State can only act legitimately within the confines of law. As the
> Supreme Court said more than a century ago:
>
> No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No
> officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.
> All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest,
> are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.
LOL! as long as there are do-nothing milquetoasts like you in this
society, who will countenance the like of Statist/Fascists like Larry,
the above concepts isn't worth the toilet paper it's written upon.
>
>> The state can be acting legitimately or illegitimately, but the
>> framework and rules are entirely different.
>
> While we empower the State to act in our stead, the State cannot do
> what we in law and equity would not be able to do.
The State will do any god-damn thing it wants to do, law or no law,
as long as spineless sycophants refuse to stop it.
>For example, while
> the State wages war against foreign powers in our stead on an "as
> needed" basis, we are (self-)tasked to defend the Constitution against
> "all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC." I would submit that this
> entitles citizens to take lethal action against those public
> officials who commit treasonous breaches of the Constitution,
Yeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The ONLY person in recent U$ history with the spine to do that
was Timothy McVeigh.
> including those who refrain from doing their duty. Conversely, I
> would not submit that it is a legitimate ground for vigilante
> justice, as it violates the due process rights of the citizen being
> lynched.
Yet State Sponsored Lynching is ok by you, eh Ken?
I recently found an old copy of the Denver Post inside the wall
of one of my rental properties, it was dated 1942 just prior to
the U$ involvement in the war. The corollaries and stories
are utterly horrifying in the context of current events, it IS
history repeating itself, verbatim, all over again.
One of articles is a little ditty about the Colorado Supreme Court
upholding the FORCED STERILIZATION statute, the one that
mandated anyone (read Negro/Chinaman) who was convicted
of 3 crimes was FORCIBLY STERILIZED by the State. The plaintiff
seeking relief was a 3-time convicted CHICKEN THIEF.
Now before you brush that off into the dusty basement of your self-rationalizing
mind, ponder that fact that for such an abhorrent immoral statute to exist,
grown men acting a legislators must conceive, prepare and the majority of
both the Senate and House must agree upon it, the People of the State must
at least tacitly support or demand it, the Governor must allow it, and the
grown men of Law enforcement community must actually Prosecute it,
and the educated men on Judiciary must actually execute it, and the majority of
the members of the final check and balance, the Appellate Courts must
uphold and deem it to be Constitutional. Then, and only then, can the
state forcibly sterilize the poor and/or hungry who have the termerity
to steal food for their survival.
Now tell me again how much of this "faith" that you still suffer from
are you willing to vest upon a "collective" of the same imbeciles, morons,
amoral cretins and generally evil pukes who make up the "individuals" of said
society?
> The distinction? You can't have a "trial" if there is no mechanism
> by which to conduct one.
You seem intimately familiar with that.
> We can act outside the confines of "the law"
> when an emergency arises; the State can never do so.
LOL! -- all The State has to do is "change the law" ... yet they are
too fucking lazy to even bother with that nuisance anymore. The
Sheeple like asswipe Larry don't care, and the delusional Kkkonspiracy
Kooks like you are too distracted tilting at windmills to effectively
do anything about it.
Game over, the U$$A as a Society loses!
=> Vox Populi©
> In article <x-2468F4.01...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
>>>>
>>>>>> We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from
>>>>>> renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
>>>>> international law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic
>>>>> statutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good job, Larry.
>>>>
>>>> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
>>>> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
>>>
>>> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory
>>> norms of international law. I cannot find any justification in law
>>> for the kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
>>
>> I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
>
> You weren't? Who wrote "We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much
> different from renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like?"
Typical Larry The Asswipe, he can't even maintain logical consistency
within consecutive paragraphs.
He'll claim "no citations exist", then rely on citations that other's provide.
He'll claim that the Newtonian Laws of Gravity don't apply to Cameron Brown.
He'll claim that only "one state" bans smoking in their Prisons/Jails.
He'll claim that "reasonable doubt" is "unreasonable" ... if he doesn't agree
with the reason.
He'll claim "there is no such thing as a DNA warrant"
He'll claim that the Judge can't consider hung Jury tally in setting
post-mistrial bond.
Sometimes he'll even disprove his own point within THE SAME sentence, if
you can imagine that level of schizophrenia. And of course he claims to not
only be a lawyer (LOL!) but to be a working Prosecutor in Jew York.
Now if that don't send a chill down your spine ...
Ken Smith
=> Vox Populi© wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
How many Bush Administration officials have you shottoday, Voxie?
Talk is cheap, Voxie. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut
up. You're not doing anything more than anyone else.
3 - The Dale Earnhardt Story
Que lastima la manera en que piensas.
It is true that Duane Chapman most likely isn't licensed in California.
It is true that bounty hunting is not legal in Mexico, and, it is true
that the FBI got the same information about Luster around the same time
that he did...but...who got Luster???? Once again, who got Luster???
Who knows what red tape the FBI would have had to go through to get
Luster in Mexico. Dog just did it.
> What Chapman did was really stupid. No one should go to a foreign
> country and pretend they have a free reign to do what he or she wants to
> do. If he showed some respect or know he was risking getting himself in
> big trouble, he wouldn't be in the trouble he is in right now.
>
> > but he captured a man who hurt many women and is now doing 124
> > years in the United States of America. All of you who are against Dog
> > should consider the good he did for which he didn't get a penny
>
> Because he didn't have a contract or was license to be a Bounty Hunter
> in California when he pursued Luster. He wasn't entitled to one dime of
> Luster's bail. The Judge ruled correctly in that hearing.
>
> -c
Larry
wrote:
> In article <x-2468F4.01...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry wrote:
> >> > In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
> >> > "=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from renditions,
> >> >>>Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
> >> >>
> >> >>Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
> >> >>international
> >> >>law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
> >> >>
> >> >>I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
> >> >>
> >> >>Good job, Larry.
> >> >
> >> > It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
> >> > government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
> >>
> >> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory norms
> >> of international law. I cannot find any justification in law for the
> >> kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
> >
> >I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
>
> You weren't? Who wrote "We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much
> different from renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like?"
I did. And you obviously don't get my point.
As I said, "It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than
Larry
"=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <4510CE89...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry wrote:
> >>> In article <4510bc18$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
> >>> "=> Vox PopuliŠ" <v...@popu.li> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> We don't agree vox. Chapman's case is much different from
> >>>>> renditions, Gitmo, foreign prisons, and the like.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, sooo much different when The State kidnaps and violates
> >>>> international law, treaties and ignores it's own domestic statutes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see you're back to being a legal ignoramus and asswipe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good job, Larry.
> >>>
> >>> It is different when a private citizen kidnaps someone than when a
> >>> government incarcerates a suspected criminal/terrorist/enemy.
> >>
> >> Provided, of course, that they properly respect the peremptory
> >> norms of international law. I cannot find any justification in law
> >> for the kind of torture our government has knowingly engaged in.
> >
> > I wasn't commenting specifically on current US policy or actions;
>
>
> Translation: Larry the Legal Imbecile was ignoring the instant facts
> which disprove his absurdly indefensible amoral position.
Now you think it is "amoral" for a government to incarcerate a suspected
criminal/terrorist/enemy?
tjab
Harry K
I watched the first and second episodes of the TV show. 1st one out of
curioisity, the second one to see if my opinion was right...it was.
That show is so fake I can't stand to even listen to it (wife insists
on watching it).
I did watch the 'The family speaks out' special the other night. What
a batch of bull.
If those people actually believe the things they where saying about the
law, they have to be dumbest bond agents ever. It was so bad I am
wondering if the whole thing isn't just a publicity stunt and all deals
have already been made.
Harry K
Karen
Harry K wrote:
> I watched the first and second episodes of the TV show. 1st one out of
> curioisity, the second one to see if my opinion was right...it was.
> That show is so fake I can't stand to even listen to it (wife insists
> on watching it).
>
> I did watch the 'The family speaks out' special the other night. What
> a batch of bull.
>
> If those people actually believe the things they where saying about the
> law, they have to be dumbest bond agents ever. It was so bad I am
> wondering if the whole thing isn't just a publicity stunt and all deals
> have already been made.
I bet you are no fun to watch TV with.
Karen
Estrella
> Yes, it isn't a noble matter of choice. It's a matter of law. That's
> also why he's based out of Hawaii. In most states a felon can't get a
> license to be a bounty hunter. In Hawaii he can.
>
> Carmen""
Ex convicts can petition the court to have the right to get a liscense.
It isn't easy, but it is possible, especially since it is employment.
An example is Jugde Joe Brown on TV. He is like Judge Judy. He is an
ex convict that society gave a chance. Many times a stupid teen does a
horrible crime. But he was given a chance to go on with life and he is
a judge with a liscense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carmen
Um, not sure who told you such a thing but you're mistaken. Joe Brown
has a spotless background, came out of South Central, earned his way to
where he is now through his own hard work *without* ever becoming a
criminal. That's part of his success story. He didn't let his
surroundings dictate his behavior. I suggest you do some reading up on
the gentleman.
Carmen
tjab
Estrella <estrella...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ex convicts can petition the court to have the right to get a liscense.
> It isn't easy, but it is possible, especially since it is employment.
>An example is Jugde Joe Brown on TV. He is like Judge Judy. He is an
>ex convict that society gave a chance.
Judge Judy is an ex-convict?
Estrella
life does not end after prison. There are many people who have done
stupid things as a teen. They may have got arrested. Perhaps Judge
Joe Brown was the wrong example. Then I'll give the example that
anyone can choose an honest life, after jail. Just because Dog has a
criminal background, does not mean that he can not live life as an
honest person now.
I went on the internet and researched Judge Joe Brown. Joe Brown has
stated
"I tried not to sentence anyone in the conventional way if I could
think of a better way to get their attention," says Brown. Judge
Brown's unusual method of administering justice stemmed from his
childhood. Born in Washington, D.C., he relocated to South Central Los
Angeles as a young boy. The only child of hard-working teachers, Brown
formed his tough-love philosophy early on.
"I grew up in one of the toughest neighborhoods in South Central Los
Angeles," he says. "If you saw the movie, 'Boyz 'n the Hood,' that was
the way I grew up. I watched my parents tough it out on a daily basis,
and I saw that what really kept them going was making a difference to
others," he states. "That's why today, 'making a difference to others'
is everything I'm about."
People should be kind, caring and humane. When they are not, it's my
job to try and turn them around.""
Estrella
Right now Luster is in jail for hurting women. He was found with drugs
to rape women and had a book with a list of names to hurt. If anyone
has a bad word to say about DOG for arresting a rapist, then you should
have Luster freed from jail and sent to Mexico. You can not have Dog
arrested for placing Luster in jail, and then keep Luster in jail.
Release Luster and send him to Mexico. All of the police officers and
judges who are keeping Luster in a US prison are just as responsible as
DOG for Luster's arrest. Dog does not work alone. Dog dropped Luster
off to a US jail. Why did the US keep Luster, if Mexico wanted him in
2003, then why did the US not give Luster to Mexico in
2003?????????????????
Carmen
Estrella wrote:
> No. My whole point is being taken out of context. My point is that
> life does not end after prison. There are many people who have done
> stupid things as a teen. They may have got arrested. Perhaps Judge
> Joe Brown was the wrong example. Then I'll give the example that
> anyone can choose an honest life, after jail. Just because Dog has a
> criminal background, does not mean that he can not live life as an
> honest person now.
It seems to be rather difficult for him. He posted bond in Mexico,
which is a monetary promise to appear when the time comes in court. He
makes his living by hunting down people who break that promise
themselves, then *he* goes and does the very same thing. When push
came to shove living a completely honest life and facing up to
responsibility for his actions seems to be more that Mr. Chapman was
willing to do.
Carmen
Carmen
That's a false dichotomy, one of the logical fallacies. It falsely
offers the listener only two options, deliberately ignoring other
viable options.
The merit of Andrew Luster's incarceration is a separate issue from
Duane Chapman's wrongdoing. The same end could have been accomplished
had Mr. Chapman notified the authorities (Mexican or American) of
Andrew Luster's whereabouts. In Mexico it is illegal to bounty hunt.
That is what Duane Chapman is in trouble for. He then compounded his
legal woes by skipping out on his bond.
Carmen
I Ms Individual Rights
> No. My whole point is being taken out of context. My point is that
> life does not end after prison.
It seems to for most people. Almost no one will hire them unless they're
dishonest with employers about being ex-convicts. They aren't allowed to
keep and bear arms, or even vote in many places. It sustains the cycle
that prison put them in.
> There are many people who have done
> stupid things as a teen. They may have got arrested. Perhaps Judge
> Joe Brown was the wrong example. Then I'll give the example that
> anyone can choose an honest life, after jail. Just because Dog has a
> criminal background, does not mean that he can not live life as an
> honest person now.
I'll tell you, I was checking out a forum for bounty hunters and they
flame anyone who even mentions his name there. They say that he gives
bail enforcement agents a bad name with his tactics and his breaking of
the law in Mexico and fleeing that country to avoid prosecution for it.
--
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
Why is it that the liberals define things as slavery that aren’t
slavery, like voluntary mutually consenting employer-employee
relationships, while not defining things as slavery that are slavery,
like taxation?
I Ms Individual Rights
>
> Right now Luster is in jail for hurting women. He was found with
drugs
> to rape women and had a book with a list of names to hurt. If anyone
> has a bad word to say about DOG for arresting a rapist, then you
should
> have Luster freed from jail and sent to Mexico.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I understand the FBI was right behind
Dog, when he got Luster, and they were about to do it right.
> You can not have Dog
> arrested for placing Luster in jail, and then keep Luster in jail.
Of course they can.
I Ms Individual Rights
I Ms Individual Rights
Wayne Delia
> Ex convicts can petition the court to have the right to get a liscense.
> It isn't easy, but it is possible, especially since it is employment.
> An example is Jugde Joe Brown on TV. He is like Judge Judy.
A shrill, argumentative, crow-like voiced lady?
> He is an ex convict that society gave a chance.
Judge Judy isn't an ex-con. Neither is Judge Joe Brown. The one you're
thinking about is Judge Greg Mathis. In fact, Mathis admits to having a
troubled childhood and being an ex-con in the opening credits of his show.
> Many times a stupid teen does a
> horrible crime.
Duane Chapman is a stupid teen? He looks much older than that, as does
Greg Mathis.
> But he was given a chance to go on with life and he is
> a judge with a liscense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your point still hasn't sunk in. Maybe if you used more exclamation
points it might work.
WMD
Estrella
Not eveyone follows the law. It was the law to have Blacks sit in the
back of the bus. Rosa Parks broke that law. She went to jail to
change that racist law.
Martin Luther King broke the law with his boycotts.
There are many laws still on the books that are unconstitutional.
Dog broke a minor law in Mexico. Dog did not kill anyone in Mexico.
Dog did not commit arson in Mexico. The crime he committed in Mexico
is considered a minor crime, and a Mexican policeman was with him. The
US gladly took Luster and jailed him in 2003. The US could have
extradited both DOG and Luster back to Mexico in 2003. The US did not
do this. Now 3 years later, Mexico wants Dog for a crime that is
considered minor in Mexico. If Dog goes to a Mexican prison, he may be
killed or shanked. He could come out missing an eye or with a broken
jaw. The crime does not fit the punishment. If Dog commited such a
savage crime, then he deserves a trial in the US>
Carmen
Nice try at injecting emotionalism into the discussion, but let's
stick with the facts. Mr. Chapman wasn't being noble when he broke
his bond agreement. He was serving nobody but himself. It doesn't
matter if you like the laws of Mexico or not. When an American breaks
Mexican law, in Mexico, they are subject to the same penalties
Mexicans in Mexico are for breaking that same law. When a Mexican
breaks an American law in America they're subject to the same
penalties that an American would be. Duane Chapman doesn't "deserve"
anything other more than anyone else who broke that law in Mexico and
then broke bond does - a trial in Mexican courts. Believe it or not,
being American isn't a magical passport to do anything one damn well
pleases anywhere in the world one damn well pleases.
Carmen
--
Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's
biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's
physics.
Carmen
Harry K
Ya got that right! I don't hesitate to call BS when I see it. One
reason why I won't watch 'reality shows' or any show starring an
animal.
Harry K
Harry K