Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
Steve Bertsch
I am posting the following account on behalf of my wife, who, having
a real job, is without Internet access. Here is her story...
------------ begin included text -------------------------------------------
On the morning of November 11, 1993, I went to the Meijer store in
Hilliard, Ohio, to do some Christmas shopping. At the checkout terminal the
cashier seemed to be having some difficultly with the barcode scanner; it
was entering some items twice, and these double entries had to be manually
voided by the cashier. After all this was finally sorted out, I paid the
total and started to leave the store.
Just as I was pushing the shopping cart out the door, two very rude
plain-clothes security guards blocked my exit, and demanded that I come with
them. At this point I considered myself to be under arrest, and remembering
Meijer's propensity to violence, thought it best not to resist. (Some of you
may remember the incident with Leroy Spangler, who had his neck broken by
Meijer's security.) I asked several times what the problem was, and eventually
was told I was "leaving the store without paying for my merchandise." I showed
them a receipt, but they still insisted I come with them. After being escorted
down the hall to a small room, they changed their accusation. A third person
entered the room, and while shaking a video cassette in my face, accused me
of collaborating with the cashier to defraud the store! They had another hushed
conference in the hall, then came back in and told me they had made a mistake,
and I was free to go.
On my way out of that store I stopped just long enough to return all the
purchases I had just made. I will never again set foot in any Meijer store.
Mary Bertsch
------------ end text-------------------------------------------------------
[The arrogance and stupidity of these Meijer cops is truly amazing. A
simple hardware problem at a point-of-sale terminal became, in their minds, a
criminal conspiracy worthy of their heavy-handed storm trooper tactics. One
would think that, after paralyzing Mr. Spangler, they might have lightened up a
bit. Apparently this is not the case, they still assume all their customers are
criminals. I can only hope they change their policies before another innocent
shopper is severely injured by these people. -Steve]
Steve Bertsch
Santa Claus
>From: sber...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steve Bertsch)
>Subject: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
>Date: 16 Nov 1993 03:46:30 GMT
>Mary Bertsch
>------------ end text-------------------------------------------------------
Clearly they had no right to do this. They should have first went to the
cashier first...NOT the customer.
Meijer people do tend to be a bit stupid.
The opinions expressed by me are mine /\ Santa Claus
and mine alone...but YOU should / \ s108...@cedarville.edu
listen...It could prove helpful. / o o\
/o o \
/ O O \
/ o o o \
/o O o O o O \
/ \
Halloween is over, is it / I LOVE \ HO, HO, HO, and a
Christmas yet? / CHRISTMAS \ Merry Christmas to all
/____________________\ And to all a good...
|__________|
Paul A Prior
story about meijer incident deleted ...
Meijer is the worst department store I have ever seen in my life.
I will NEVER ever shop there because I have been defrauded almost
every time I go in there by their "flaky" registers charging me
more than the price or by double charging me. I think that it is
store policy or that the registers are rigged to double charge a
certain percentage of the time.
> [The arrogance and stupidity of these Meijer cops is truly amazing. A
>simple hardware problem at a point-of-sale terminal became, in their minds, a
>criminal conspiracy worthy of their heavy-handed storm trooper tactics. One
>would think that, after paralyzing Mr. Spangler, they might have lightened up a
>bit. Apparently this is not the case, they still assume all their customers are
>criminals. I can only hope they change their policies before another innocent
>shopper is severely injured by these people. -Steve]
I had not heard about the Spangler incident - might you fill me in?
Also, though I am certainly no fan of spurious litigation, if a customer
really had his neck broken by the rent-a-cops at Meijers and is pressing
charges/lawsuit, I would consider forwarding your story to them as wel
as it might help their case....
--
-------...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 621-8240----------------
Paul A. Prior -- Med IV I am Homer of Borg... + | |
Ohio State College of Medicine resistance is fut.. Check --=oOo=--
Happy user of OS/2 2.1! hmmmm...donut!.... six!
Paul R Kust
state.edu (Paul A Prior) writes:
>In article <2c9lpj$r...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sber...@magnus.acs.ohi[comments deleted]
>
>I had not heard about the Spangler incident - might you fill me in?
>
>Also, though I am certainly no fan of spurious litigation, if a customer
>really had his neck broken by the rent-a-cops at Meijers and is pressing
>charges/lawsuit, I would consider forwarding your story to them as wel
>as it might help their case....
Spangler was resisting the Meijer rent-a-cops when they broke his neck. I
don't remember any criminal charges being filed and I believe Meijer settled a
civil suit out of court.
As for me, I shop at Meijer only for groceries. Their prices on dairy products
are pretty good, and the produce prices are okay if the produce is any good
(but you do have to check it carefully). If I have any real shopping to do, I
go elsewhere. I have never had a problem with double charging or security.
>-------...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 621-8240----------------
[.sig deleted]
--
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kus...@osu.edu / ku...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
| In theory, practice and theory are the
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'. | same. In practice, theory and practice
Yes I play, I just don't play well.| are different.
Genevra L Finnell
Perhaps the originator would find it helpful to provide some of the local
TV stations with this situation. They quite often compete with each other for
interesting tidbits such as these. I think Meijer's should provide this person
with a written apology and a $300.00 gift certificate, no expiration date. The
+employees should be provided with sensitivity training and perhaps a
transendental meditiation course, to help with the necessary social
enlightenment needed for a job as a security person. Perhaps a visit to a
lawyer would not be a bad idea either. If the case appears sound and likely to
win, many lawyers will not ask for a retainer. Do keep us posted. This should
not be happening in our society in 1993.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In article <2capfs$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ppr...@magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu (Paul A Prior) writes:
>In article <2c9lpj$r...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sber...@magnus.acs.ohi
o-state.edu (Steve Bertsch) writes:
>
>story about meijer incident deleted ...
>
>
>> [The arrogance and stupidity of these Meijer cops is truly amazing. A
>>simple hardware problem at a point-of-sale terminal became, in their minds, a
>>criminal conspiracy worthy of their heavy-handed storm trooper tactics. One
>>would think that, after paralyzing Mr. Spangler, they might have lightened up
a
>>bit. Apparently this is not the case, they still assume all their customers a
re
>>criminals. I can only hope they change their policies before another innocent
>>shopper is severely injured by these people. -Steve]
>
>I had not heard about the Spangler incident - might you fill me in?
>
>Also, though I am certainly no fan of spurious litigation, if a customer
>really had his neck broken by the rent-a-cops at Meijers and is pressing
>charges/lawsuit, I would consider forwarding your story to them as wel
>as it might help their case....
>
>
Genevra L Finnell
-state.edu (Steve Bertsch) writes:
>
>
>a real job, is without Internet access.
I must draw your attention to your comment about "a real job." I am very proud
of the work I do at OSU and consider it to be a real job. The pay is not
commesurate with similar positions in the corporate world, however, that does
not mean the work and fulfillment I receive is not real or worthy. A volunteer
job can be a real job also. I have never learned so much in my life, nor felt
that I can really make a difference in a student's attitude. I believe I
consistently provide students with up to date
information (more than they were aware existed), new options,
a listening ear, and have them leave my center quite often with a smile on
their face and a feeling that the "trip to my area" was worth the extra
walking.
Occasionally, I have become frustrated at times, with the staff or other
departments and
with paying the bills. I will confess that I have made similar statements
about needing a "real job." But the benefits like the internet access, the
free
tuition, the easy access to knowledge, the computer training I am receiving,
and the valuable experience I'm gaining with supervising others
really do compensate in my case and I make do with doing my shopping at
osu.for-sale group and other creative means, and really do not "want."
Thus, I thought, for any other frustrated staff who stay for the students and
not the high pay, perhaps they might also like to express the things they too
find rewarding about working at OSU.
btw, I do not mean to make light of your situation at Meijers. I sent a
message to this group earlier, expressing my consternation and suggesting some
possible options. I hope to hear more about this as further developments come
up. I love email! Well, my morning break is over, and I must get back to "the
job."!! Jenny Finnell, PACE Library (CCS-Ohio Union)
Matthew D Lammers
taking a job here at OSU, I once was employed by the Meijer Co. at store
# 58, Sawmill Road.
I must confess that Meijer is the most underhanded and digustingly
sneaky store to work for. I was employed 10 months before finally
walking in the door, looking about, and leaving...Never to be seen
in that store again.
Meijer 'cops' are rejects that can't find anything better to do for the
$4.95/hr. they 'earn.' (No joke, $4.95 is accurate.) Their training
consist of 'brain-washing' and a pledge of loyalty to the store...
They get to watch neat little videos telling them all about Meijer's
history and what a dominant company they are in the market. They're also
told what 'kind of people' to look for...Now I'm sure this is common to
a lot of training, but the extent at which they are 'taught' is borderline
to biggotry, hate, and sheer stupidity. While working there, I saw some of
the most ignorant things take place before me...It was incredible! These
people are soooo stupid! (All Meijer stores included--not just Cols.)
As for remarks about the scanners. We did not set up anything to defarud
the customer. (Which actually surprised me.) Scanning errors occurred on
such a large basis due to the magnitude of the info. in the scanning
computer. (over 14,000 items.) NCR supplied the scanners to the Cols.
stores, and they were clear on describing errors that can result from
a 'brain-dead' cashier...As for the double-scans...I have no idea what's
up with that...As for the conspiracy theory...Well, Meijer does have a legit.
concern here...A LOT OF cashiers were guilty of this act...But the extent
to which this person in the thread was treated was rediculous!!! (But,
it really doesn't surprise me, again! Meijer security never tailed the
real thieves... They choose easier targets.)
There's so much more to tell, but in order not to bore the readers, I'll
end here...But with any requests, I will post more!!! It's my personal
vendetta against that DAMN STORE!!! They treat employees so badly...Which,
in turn, creates problems with customers...(But I'm not defending the store,
mind you!)
GOD! What took me so long to leave that place? DOWN WITH MEIJER!!!
--
Matthew David Lammers, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH USA
For the latest about me, finger: mlam...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Internet address: LAMB...@osu.edu -OR- mlam...@world.std.com
"Who, ME?! Are you calling on me, professor?!"
Alan Bunch
Alan
ala...@symix.com
In article <2catdh$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mlam...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Matthew D Lammers) writes:
|> This Meijer thread is very interesting. Before coming to my senses and
|> taking a job here at OSU, I once was employed by the Meijer Co. at store
|> # 58, Sawmill Road.
|>
|> I must confess that Meijer is the most underhanded and digustingly
|> sneaky store to work for. I was employed 10 months before finally
|> walking in the door, looking about, and leaving...Never to be seen
|> in that store again.
|>
<MUCH DELETED>
Steven Francisco
>From: mlam...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Matthew D Lammers)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
>Date: 16 Nov 1993 15:59:45 GMT
I want to comment about the scanners. The number of items is irrelavent if
the program is working properly. More items may slow the system down, but
will not affect the number of errors (as a percentage of items anyway). The
Wal-mart store where I work also has NCR scanners, and we have very few
errors. All of the errors I have seen were due to incorrect signs or
mistakes when entering price changes into the computer.
Steven Francisco
S008...@Cedarville.Edu
010101010101010101010101010
1 Steven Francisco 1
0 S008...@Cedarville.edu 0
101010101010101010101010101
jeffrey imes
>taking a job here at OSU, I once was employed by the Meijer Co. at store
># 58, Sawmill Road.
Likewise.
>I must confess that Meijer is the most underhanded and digustingly
>sneaky store to work for. I was employed 10 months before finally
>walking in the door, looking about, and leaving...Never to be seen
>in that store again.
Although I didn't work quite as long there (Summer '91), I did quite the
same thing. I go back once in a while, just to see the cashiers being
repressed by their managers. :)
>As for remarks about the scanners. We did not set up anything to defraud
>the customer. (Which actually surprised me.) Scanning errors occurred on
>such a large basis due to the magnitude of the info. in the scanning
>computer. (over 14,000 items.)
It's kinda like the delays involved in getting things done on our mainframes
here at OSU. So much info to process that once in a while, the computer
glitches. I had my scanners at Meijer 2x-charging, no-charging, all kinds
of problems. (Which the company promptly told me were _my_ problems, of
all things.)
>As for the conspiracy theory...Well, Meijer does have a legit.
>concern here...A LOT OF cashiers were guilty of this act...But the extent
>to which this person in the thread was treated was rediculous!!! (But,
>it really doesn't surprise me, again! Meijer security never tailed the
>real thieves... They choose easier targets.)
From what I recall, the first group that the Meijer agents targeted were
their own employees! This is ludicrous, because there were already ways of
tracking register cash, but inventory is tougher to track. For an
organization that prided itself on honesty and company loyalty, this seems to
be a direct contradiction of their philosophy. The security bozos cared more
about weeding out the bad apples than catching shoplifters.
>There's so much more to tell, but in order not to bore the readers, I'll
>end here...But with any requests, I will post more!!! It's my personal
>vendetta against that DAMN STORE!!! They treat employees so badly...Which,
>in turn, creates problems with customers...(But I'm not defending the store,
>mind you!)
Please do post more. I'd like to hear your experiences at Sawmill, and
compare them to mine.
Last note, of all the jobs I've held in the past, the summer cashier job at
Meijer has to be the worst oe I've had, based on the working environment,
attitude of managers, and the sheer amount of work to be done at such a low
pay rate. I recommend this job for all masochists out there.
===========================================================================
Jeffrey Imes "If at first you don't succeed,
CIS Undergraduate Student skydiving is not for you."
im...@cis.ohio-state.edu -- Unknown
Matthew D Lammers
n Francisco) writes:
>In article <2catdh$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlam...@magnus.acs.oh
io-state.edu (Matthew D Lammers) writes:
>>From: mlam...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Matthew D Lammers)
>>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
>>Date: 16 Nov 1993 15:59:45 GMT
[whole lot deleted]
>
>>
>
>>As for remarks about the scanners. We did not set up anything to defarud
>>the customer. (Which actually surprised me.) Scanning errors occurred on
>>such a large basis due to the magnitude of the info. in the scanning
>>computer. (over 14,000 items.) NCR supplied the scanners to the Cols.
>>stores, and they were clear on describing errors that can result from
>>a 'brain-dead' cashier...As for the double-scans...I have no idea what's
>>up with that...As for the conspiracy theory...Well, Meijer does have a legit.
>>concern here...A LOT OF cashiers were guilty of this act...But the extent
>>to which this person in the thread was treated was rediculous!!! (But,
>>it really doesn't surprise me, again! Meijer security never tailed the
>>real thieves... They choose easier targets.)
>
>>There's so much more to tell, but in order not to bore the readers, I'll
>>end here...But with any requests, I will post more!!! It's my personal
>>vendetta against that DAMN STORE!!! They treat employees so badly...Which,
>>in turn, creates problems with customers...(But I'm not defending the store,
>>mind you!)
>
>>GOD! What took me so long to leave that place? DOWN WITH MEIJER!!!
>>--
>> Matthew David Lammers, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH USA
>> For the latest about me, finger: mlam...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>> Internet address: LAMB...@osu.edu -OR- mlam...@world.std.com
>> "Who, ME?! Are you calling on me, professor?!"
>I want to comment about the scanners. The number of items is irrelavent if
>the program is working properly. More items may slow the system down, but
>will not affect the number of errors (as a percentage of items anyway). The
>Wal-mart store where I work also has NCR scanners, and we have very few
>errors. All of the errors I have seen were due to incorrect signs or
>mistakes when entering price changes into the computer.
>
>Steven Francisco
>S008...@Cedarville.Edu
>
You are correct, Steven. In my excitement I didn't clearly
express myself...The errors happened when things were not
entered in the Main Computer Correctly, or tagged on the shelves
correctly...
The accuracy of the scanner is near perfect! (Good reads.) The
prices may be wrong, but the read was good. People think that when
the scanner comes up with the wrong price, it's the scanner's fault.
Not so. If the scanner even gives a price, it was a good read. The
incorrect price comes from an incorrectly entered price in the
computer. I don't think people realize the UPC code is NOT the price,
only an assigned permanent number for reference when the computer needs
to look it up. It's basically an item number.
Thanks, Steven...
Later,
michael todd smith
Not to over-simplify the problem, but correct me if I'm wrong:
Isn't Meijer based in "THE STATE UP NORTH". I think I read that somewhere,
but I could be wrong. Anyway, this might be an explanation for many of the
problems shared in this thread. Just a thought from a true Buckeye fan.
GO BUCKS! BEAT THE BLUE OUT OF MICHIGAN!
--
Michael T. Smith |Internet: msm...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Computer Science/ASC | mts...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Senior - OSU |
Matthew D Lammers
Many of you have mailed me asking for more about Meijer. OK...
Meijer is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And is a family owned
mega-monster enterprise. The original founder, Hendrik Meijer and
his wife Gezina, were Scandinavian. They came to the U.S. when they were
about 30...
Hendrik Meijer opened his first store, Thrifty Acres, soon after
showing up in America. He sold primarily groceries, and his concept
was to have a store that offered a wide selection at cut-rate prices,
without sacrificing quality. He also wanted the customers to rely
on themselves for service, reducing his workforce.
The store seemed to catch on, and before we knew it, there were more
and more Thrifty Acres appearing all over Michigan. It wasn't until
later that the stores took in the Meijer name, adopted a new logo, and
style of thought. (This is probably what killed that cheap bastard!)
Before long, the first Meijer stores showed up. Offering more than
groceries, it seemed a brilliant idea had been born. The idea was to
offer the customer EVERYTHING at one place, so while Mom was shopping
for the groceries, Dad could go check out the automotive section, and
Jimmy and Judy could run wild through the rest of the store. With this
thinkingm Meijer hoped they'd be able to corner the market on goods that
otherwise would be sold elsewhere. When Jane Doe was in the store, she'd
buy other things that she might have gone elsewhere for...I digress...
...I'll skip some stuff in the interest of time...
Hendrik & Gezina passed the empire over to the kids. Meijer's HQs in
Michigan all have the kids names in the building or street name. Meijer
is headed up by the oldest son, Hank?, who makes unscheduled visits to
ALL Meijer stores at least once a year. He gets followed around like the
President of the U.S. by an entourage of people kissing his ass whenever
he opens his mouth...
The company does not sell stock to anyone. They are owned entirely
by the greedy kids.
The sizes of the store are getting bigger. In Columbus, the latest store
exceeded 80,000 sq. ft. of usable floor space. And stock is even bigger.
The stores give new employees such a line about how valuable they are
and then never wnat you to leave. But, in reality turn-over is high.
Meijer likes this...No raises for anyone, and no insurance to pay if
you don't stay. (And that's from a manager's mouth!)
Management techniques are not very good at all. Standard practices are
not even followed! They go by whatever the kids say, and before this,
whatever Hendrik said...No deviation from his plan! He assumed his ideas
would work for any given store, irregardless of the situations.
But don't be fooled! Meijer is making the BIG $$$$!! I've seen the
quarterly profit reports and projections...(It's the goose that laid
the golden egg.)
I was never impressed with the condition of the store behind the scenes.
You'd never buy anything from there if you saw it...And the people they
hired to work in food-preparation! Oh My GOD! I never bought anything
from the Deli Dept again!
For the work we did, pay was terrible! I hear people say that we really
didn't deserve what we made. But if they even had an idea of what hell
was placed on out shoulders, they'd think twice! Standing up for four
hours at a time, scanning groceries is NOT easy. Especially for a 6'4"
tall person, who has to lean over to reach the terminal...Visits to the
doctor for help were frequent. (At my own expense.) We didn't even
receive any sort of perks. The ONLY discount we go was a 10% savings
certificate good on hard-goods (non-food) only...10%??? A slap in the
face.
Have you ever wondered why you couldn't charge food at Meijer? It's
because the cheap-bastards don't want to loose any profit on food.
Companies like Visa, MC, Discover charge retailers a percent of the
sales for use of a card. So, Meijer's profit margin on food was so small
they didn't want to loose more.
I have to end it here, due to space constraints, but I have more to
tell. I'll post later...
Later,
Robert M Ettinger
I was visiting friends in East Lansing, MI last year and we decided to go out
and buy beer so we went to the Meijer down the street. Since it was a party we
were buying a few cases. Before we got in line my friend and I pooled our
financial resources to pay for the beer. When we got to the register, the
cashier refused to sell us the beer. The reason? She saw the transfer of
funds and just knew that one of us was underage and the other was buying the
beer. (Not only are Charles and I both 30, but we don't even look anywhere
near 21...sorry to say)
She then asked for our IDs and says, "ok, now who's who?" Charles is
African-American and I am not. So when I told her I was Charles she *really*
became angry. And she still refused to sell us the beer.
I was so angry I just left. I thought afterwards I should have complained, but
it after hearing some of these stories it would have been a waste of my time.
BTW...I've never been back.
Robert
Ken Jongsma
but I want to provide some balance here...
We spend in excess of $6000 per year at Meijer for groceries and department
store items and have done so for 8 years. Neither my wife nor myself have
ever found anyone at Meijer to be less than helpful.
Security at all the Meijer stores in this area consist of a retired greeter
at the door and a few "hidden" cameras.
Ken
--
Ken Jongsma If you like the IRS
Smiths Industries You're Going to *LOVE* jon...@swdev.si.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan Clinton Health Care 73115...@compuserve.com
Ken Jongsma
>Security at all the Meijer stores in this area consist of a retired greeter
>at the door and a few "hidden" cameras.
Let me re-phrase that! It should be "Visible security..."
thomas.e.lester
>In article <2capfs$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ppr...@magnus.acs.ohio-
>state.edu (Paul A Prior) writes:
>>In article <2c9lpj$r...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sber...@magnus.acs.ohi
>o-state.edu (Steve Bertsch) writes:
>>
>>story about meijer incident deleted ...
>>
>>
>Spangler was resisting the Meijer rent-a-cops when they broke his neck. I
Okay, so what constitutes resisting ? If they are not
"real" police, they are making a civilian arrest.
As such, they have no right to use force for restraint.
If I were approached by such "store cops" I would refuse to budge.
I would demand that they call real police and file a formal arrest
complaint before I would allow a search of me or my parcels.
If I were beaten for my refusal, would I be accused of resisting ??
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lester att!cblph!tel
Sonerai IIL (under TEST) (614) 860-3259
N4LX (614) 927-8106
Arthur S. Kamlet
>>Spangler was resisting the Meijer rent-a-cops when they broke his neck. I
>
> Okay, so what constitutes resisting ? If they are not
> "real" police, they are making a civilian arrest.
> As such, they have no right to use force for restraint.
>
> If I were approached by such "store cops" I would refuse to budge.
> I would demand that they call real police and file a formal arrest
> complaint before I would allow a search of me or my parcels.
>
> If I were beaten for my refusal, would I be accused of resisting ??
Well, citizens can make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in
their presence.
So a store cop who sees you commit a misdemeanor (or felony) can
arrest you, and can use sufficient force to overcome your resistance
to that arrest.
If you start to leave the store cop can restrain you.
If you later are found guilty of the charge for which you were
arrested, you will probably lose a false arrest suit.
If you are not found guilty, then it's up to a court to determine
if it's a false arrest, and you have a good chance of winning.
If you ask the store cop to call a real cop, and the store cop sign
a written complaint stating he saw you commit a specified
misdemeanor in his presence, the real cop can take you into custody.
In general, for a felony the real cop will not arrest you for a
misdemeanor not committed in his presence, but if a store cop
arrests you, the real cop can take you into custody. There's really
a difference. If you file a false arrest charge, it's not the real
cop who did the arresting.
So you may not want to call a real cop since you may end up in the
pokey, and can think about a lawsuit but is that really the best
thing at the moment?
In the Spangler case, he was awarded a few million dollars because
of at least three separate reasons:
1. He was paralyzed. That alone might have been enough.
2. He never stole anything. He brought in old batteries to see
if Miejers carried the same batteries. They didn't. So he
put the old batteries back in his pocket and was stopped leaving
the store and told he was shoplifting the batteries (that
Meijers didn't even carry.)
3. At the time, the Meijer store cops were taught to use, and did
use "Pain Compliance" to stop people from leaving.
What's pain compliance? If someone starts to leave, hurt him;
inflict pain, to prevent him from leaving.
In Spangler's case, it left him paralyzed. I recall he was a
short, non-athletic 50-ish man, and the two store cops were
young, strong, tall, muscular types. Surprise!
This was all documented in the Columbus Dispatch at that time,
which is why it might be a good idea to contact them with this
latest information.
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Brian D Daher
>of at least three separate reasons:
Interesting thread, correction here though. The man was awarded almost 12
million dollars, the biggest civil award in the history of Franklin County.
Meijer employee Terrence (Sawmill Road, Lottery desk) said it's being
appealled. Part of his job is to check people's receipts when they leave. I
jokingly asked him if they don't show it, does he stop them and break their
necks. He said that wasn't funny.
> 3. At the time, the Meijer store cops were taught to use, and did
> use "Pain Compliance" to stop people from leaving.
>
> What's pain compliance? If someone starts to leave, hurt him;
> inflict pain, to prevent him from leaving.
All during the trial and after the award, Meijer's refused to modify their pain
compliance policy. Only a few months afterward did they say they will no
longer use pain compliance. BTW, the main security bimbo at Sawmill looks like
Michael Bolton.
> In Spangler's case, it left him paralyzed. I recall he was a
> short, non-athletic 50-ish man, and the two store cops were
> young, strong, tall, muscular types. Surprise!
Sorry again to interrupt but I think the man was 60 or more.
My own ramblings:
I don't steal (from Meijer's) :-) so I haven't been too worried. I have
noticed that Meijer's seems to take shoplifting very seriously (confirmed by a
Michigan resident.) I live off Sawmill Road and spend nearly *ALL* of my
available money at Meijer's. They still have the best prices on food (beating
even Cub imho) and they have everything I can ever need except for lumber and
Pounce (cat snacks.) The fact that they're open 24 hrs. really helps as my
schedule doesn't always fit that of the usual Dublin area shopper (everything
seems to close at 9:00, I'm just getting my second wind by then!) Lil'
Professor and Barnes and Noble are staying open later but you never have to
worry about rushing to Meijer's because they're always open. (The bagels are
right out of the oven at about 5:30 a.m. on weekends, mmmm....)
If anyone has anything bad to say about Meijer's besides them being strict loss
prevention freaks, I'd love to hear it. Are they racist? Are they
homophobes?? Do they contribute money to Rev. Wildmon or other crazy
evangelists? Do women have equal opportunity for advancement? If former
employees want to say the management worked you hard, that's more of sour
grapes from someone who wanted a cushy job and didn't get it. If someone has
information that Meijer's funds Operation Rescue, that's the kind of stuff that
would keep me away, no matter what the convenience, prices, etc.
Thanks for letting me air my humble opinion....
Brian
--
.....................................................................
o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o .
/|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ .
/ \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ .
Mitchell D Dysart
of my recent jury duty service...
In short, the defendant claimed that the victim had stolen his car in his
presence. A chase ensued, and eventually the two got into a fight. The
car thief then tried to run, but the car owner chased him and caused
some bodily harm in order to restrain him.
There were various other facts in this case, but, after a long and
arduous set of instructions from the judge regarding citizen's arrest
powers, self-defense, and stopping a fleeing felon, we, the jury, found
the the defendant guilty of _felonious assault_, a 2nd degree felony
in Ohio.
So, the moral of the story is, do not ever attempt to enforce a citizens
arrest. Do not use force to stop somebody for a property violation.
And if this happens to you, promptly swear out a complaint with the
police department. As we understood the judges instructions, use of force
(particularly deadly force which, by the way, can be just about anything)
to stop a crimminal (felony or misdemeanor) for a non-life threatening
situation, by a private citizen (that is, somebody not possessing a
peace officer's commission issued by the State), *is itself a felony*.
I have no question that our jury would have found those Meijer security
guards gulity of felonious assault.
Michael R Conners
et) writes:
>In article <CGn82...@cbnews.cb.att.com> t...@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lest
er) writes:
>>>Spangler was resisting the Meijer rent-a-cops when they broke his neck. I
>>
>
>
>Well, citizens can make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in
>their presence.
>
>So a store cop who sees you commit a misdemeanor (or felony) can
>arrest you, and can use sufficient force to overcome your resistance
>to that arrest.
>
>If you start to leave the store cop can restrain you.
>
>If you later are found guilty of the charge for which you were
>arrested, you will probably lose a false arrest suit.
>
I just did some research on this subject. Here's the deal:
Indeed, there is a case for false imprisonment. There have been cases when
a detainment of only a few minutes has been an instance of false imprisonment.
But, a statute in the Ohio revised Code states that a merchant can detain
a person if thye think that there is a reason to believe that shoplifting
has occurred, and that the detention can last long enough in order to make
some type of investigation.
The two principles are held in tension between each other.
>If you are not found guilty, then it's up to a court to determine
>if it's a false arrest, and you have a good chance of winning.
>
Actually, a jury would decide in that situation. More often than not the
decision goes in favor of the store, unless unreasonable circumstances
occurred - i.e.- hours of time, etc.
>If you ask the store cop to call a real cop, and the store cop sign
>a written complaint stating he saw you commit a specified
>misdemeanor in his presence, the real cop can take you into custody.
>In general, for a felony the real cop will not arrest you for a
>misdemeanor not committed in his presence, but if a store cop
>arrests you, the real cop can take you into custody. There's really
>a difference. If you file a false arrest charge, it's not the real
>cop who did the arresting.
>
>So you may not want to call a real cop since you may end up in the
>pokey, and can think about a lawsuit but is that really the best
>thing at the moment?
>
>
>In the Spangler case, he was awarded a few million dollars because
>of at least three separate reasons:
>
> 1. He was paralyzed. That alone might have been enough.
>
> 2. He never stole anything. He brought in old batteries to see
> if Miejers carried the same batteries. They didn't. So he
> put the old batteries back in his pocket and was stopped leaving
> the store and told he was shoplifting the batteries (that
> Meijers didn't even carry.)
>
> 3. At the time, the Meijer store cops were taught to use, and did
> use "Pain Compliance" to stop people from leaving.
>
> What's pain compliance? If someone starts to leave, hurt him;
> inflict pain, to prevent him from leaving.
>
> In Spangler's case, it left him paralyzed. I recall he was a
> short, non-athletic 50-ish man, and the two store cops were
> young, strong, tall, muscular types. Surprise!
>
>This was all documented in the Columbus Dispatch at that time,
>which is why it might be a good idea to contact them with this
>latest information.
I appears that Spangler's case went outside of the bounds of reasonable
detainment and use of force.
--
*** Michael Conners - THE Ohio State University ***
** Compare and Contrast: **
Carter Administration Clinton Administration
- Elvis dead - Barbra Streisand all too lively
tim werner
>I just did some research on this subject. Here's the deal:
>Indeed, there is a case for false imprisonment. There have been cases when
>a detainment of only a few minutes has been an instance of false imprisonment.
>
>But, a statute in the Ohio revised Code states that a merchant can detain
>a person if thye think that there is a reason to believe that shoplifting
>has occurred, and that the detention can last long enough in order to make
>some type of investigation.
>
>The two principles are held in tension between each other.
I remember reading a few years back (sorry, I don't remember any of the
details) of a case where a man was detained after checking out his groceries
at a supermarket. I think they went through an extra shopping bag that he
had brought in with him, or else looked through the pockets of his jacket.
At any rate, this happened in front of the other customers. The store
didn't find anything. The man sued for 100's of thousands of dollars
for the pain of his embarrasment, and won.
Bill Stoll
>So, the moral of the story is, do not ever attempt to enforce a citizens
>arrest. Do not use force to stop somebody for a property violation.
>And if this happens to you, promptly swear out a complaint with the
>police department. As we understood the judges instructions, use of force
>(particularly deadly force which, by the way, can be just about anything)
>to stop a crimminal (felony or misdemeanor) for a non-life threatening
>situation, by a private citizen (that is, somebody not possessing a
>peace officer's commission issued by the State), *is itself a felony*.
>I have no question that our jury would have found those Meijer security
>guards gulity of felonious assault.
Does this mean that people can't use handguns to defend their home
from unarmed burglars?
--
Bill Stoll
w...@cblpd.att.com
J Greely
(Bill Stoll) writes:
>Does this mean that people can't use handguns to defend their home
>from unarmed burglars?
In general, armed self-defense in the home is legal, although you
should draw a distinction between "defending your home" (property,
that is), and "defending yourself and your family". A criminal who
enters an occupied dwelling can be assumed to be prepared to deal with
resistance, and can be held at gunpoint for the police, or, if he
attacks you, shot. If he tries to run away, he is no longer a threat
(even if he's got your thousand-dollar stereo), and you have no legal
right to shoot him. In fact, if you chase after him and get into a
fight, you're most likely guilty of assault.
Don't take this as a justification for prowling around a dark house
with a gun in your hand, looking for the thug; that's a good way to
get killed, or worse yet, to kill a family member. The best thing to
do is get the family together behind a locked door, call the police,
and be prepared to use the gun if someone tries to get through the
door. Your insurance will replace the stereo if he gets away, but it
won't replace *you*.
[side note: so how do you know he's unarmed, anyway? a snub-nose .38
tucked into a belt is practically invisible until it's used against
you, and there are enough knives and blunt instruments in the average
household for your burglar to arm himself very quickly if he feels the
need. more to the point, a six-foot, 200-pound man doesn't usually
*need* a weapon to hurt or kill people, particularly women, children,
and senior citizens]
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, and self-defense law varies widely
around the country. If you're considering keeping a loaded firearm in
the home for protection, consult an experienced attorney in your area.
To read up on the subject, the following books are a good start:
The Truth About Self Protection
by Massad Ayoob
Bantam Books, 1983, for The Police Bookshelf
ISBN 0-553-19519-0
In the Gravest Extreme:
The role of the firearm in personal protection
by Massad F. Ayoob
The Police Bookshelf, 1980
ISBN 0-936297-00-1
Accidental deaths of children aged 0-4 in 1984:
firearm: 34
cigarette lighter: 90
-- Centers for Disease Control,
"Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report,"
March 11, 1988
--
J Greely (72604...@compuserve.com, jgr...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Nathan Yerian
>>So, the moral of the story is, do not ever attempt to enforce a citizens
>>arrest. Do not use force to stop somebody for a property violation.
>>And if this happens to you, promptly swear out a complaint with the
>>police department. As we understood the judges instructions, use of force
>>(particularly deadly force which, by the way, can be just about anything)
>>to stop a crimminal (felony or misdemeanor) for a non-life threatening
>>situation, by a private citizen (that is, somebody not possessing a
>>peace officer's commission issued by the State), *is itself a felony*.
>>I have no question that our jury would have found those Meijer security
>>guards gulity of felonious assault.
>
>from unarmed burglars?
No, it doesn't. These 2 situations are different: one is in public,
the other is on private property, where B & E can be proven, and
my word is law.
--
*******************************************************************************
| nye...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | This .sig recommended for |
| yer...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu | ages 8 & up. |
*******************************************************************************
Steve Wilson
My own ramblings:
I don't steal (from Meijer's) :-) so I haven't been too worried. I have
Spangler didn't steal either, and he probably didn't worry before they
paralyzed him. Perhaps he should have worried about it. Perhaps the
rest of us should, too.
Thanks for letting me air my humble opinion....
Brian
--
.....................................................................
o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o .
/|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ .
/ \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ .
- Steve Wilson
st...@MorningStar.Com
J. Daniel Smith
>In article <2c9lpj$r...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sber...@magnus.acs.ohio
>-state.edu (Steve Bertsch) writes:
>>
>>
>> I am posting the following account on behalf of my wife, who, having
>>a real job, is without Internet access.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>I must draw your attention to your comment about "a real job." I am very proud
>of the work I do at OSU and consider it to be a real job. The pay is not
Lighten up. I took the comment about having "a real job" and thus no
Internet access to mean that in the "real world" (i.e. outside of
academica and computer companies) most people DON'T have
Internet/USENET access.
Dan
--
==== message is author's opinion only -- it is not an official statement ====
J. Daniel Smith Applicon, Inc.
(313) 995-6395 Ann Arbor, Michigan (USA)
dsm...@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com (Internet), AAACA1::DSMITH (SINet)
Greg Smith
>from unarmed burglars?
All you should do if the burglar is unarmed is detain him. If "detention"
involves some negative feedback such as assorted broken bones and facial
injuries, so be it. If it's too late and you already shot the guy, it would be
good if you had a sterile throw-down weapon to put in his hand.
By "sterile" I mean free of any traces of you or your premises: no
fingerprints, dust, oil, fibers, etc.; and stored in a plastic bag until
needed.
I don't condone unjustified shootings but hey, nobody forced the guy to break
into your house.
If you are prepared to shoot someone who breaks into your house to protect
your physical well-being, you should be equally prepared to protect yourself
from our defective legal system.
Greg Smith
NCR Corporation
GPPG Services Development
Phone......(513)445-4098 FAX.......(513)445-7196
VOICEplus.......622-4098 E-mail... greg.n...@DaytonOH.ncr.com
Expressed opinions don't necessarily reflect those of AT&T/NCR.
Jeff A Poling
> your physical well-being, you should be equally prepared to protect yourse
Other stuff deleted.
Some of you might remember that our police chief shot a man breaking into
his house. The press release explaining the legality of his action included
the text of an Ohio Supreme Court decision that said (paraphrasing) that you
had the legal right to use deadly force, under any circumstances, on a person
who is breaking into your home, has broken into your home, or is causing
substantial damage to your home.
--
Vice | ATARI COMPUTER ENTHUSIASTS OF COLUMBUS | ST TT Falcon
President | P.O.BOX 29103 | 8-bit
of: | COLUMBUS, OHIO 43229-0103 | Lynx Jaguar
* 2nd Wednesday of every month, 7:30pm, at Chemical Abstracts *
Robert M Ettinger
>If anyone has anything bad to say about Meijer's besides them being strict
>loss
>prevention freaks, I'd love to hear it. Are they racist? Are they
>homophobes?? Do they contribute money to Rev. Wildmon or other crazy
>evangelists? Do women have equal opportunity for advancement? If former
>employees want to say the management worked you hard, that's more of sour
>grapes from someone who wanted a cushy job and didn't get it. If someone has
>information that Meijer's funds Operation Rescue, that's the kind of stuff
>that would keep me away, no matter what the convenience, prices, etc.
So...let's see if I got this right...if Meijer is racist or homophobic you
wouldn't shop there. But if they use methods of pain complience (sometimes to
the point of permanent paralysis) on innocent parties, then that's ok?
There prices must be better than I thought!
Genevra L Finnell
======================= Real Job Thread ===================================
(article copied below)
Point well taken Dan...
I probably read too quickly and wasn't aware of the other
uses of the expression at OSU.
Actually, a majority of my friends though not
at OSU, don't have "real jobs" either, as most have internet access for free.
I thank another reader who concurred my
thoughts on the matter (sorry, have not had time to thank her for her reply to
my email inbox). Hope I have sufficiently lightened up! Will be
unable to respond to any other comments directed to me till after my vacation
on Nov. 30. Jenny Finnell
=============================================================================
In article <dsmith.753647110@scy9> dsm...@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com (J. Daniel
Smith) writes:
>In <2carv5$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gfin...@magnus.acs.ohio-state
Doug S. Caprette
>> If you are prepared to shoot someone who breaks into your house to protect
>> your physical well-being, you should be equally prepared to protect yourse
>> from our defective legal system.
>
> Other stuff deleted.
>
> Some of you might remember that our police chief shot a man breaking into
>his house. The press release explaining the legality of his action included
>the text of an Ohio Supreme Court decision that said (paraphrasing) that you
>had the legal right to use deadly force, under any circumstances, on a person
>who is breaking into your home, has broken into your home, or is causing
>substantial damage to your home.
>--
I believe the rationale behind this is that the actions enumerated above may be
considered by a reasonable person to be evidence that the prepetrator presents
s serious threat to the safety of the occupant.
It would be a different matter if the homeowner were to shoot the intruder from
outside his(the homeowner's) house.
--
d...@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
| Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC |
| Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The sword cannot cut itself." -- Unknown
Mitchell D Dysart
>from unarmed burglars?
>--
>Bill Stoll
>w...@cblpd.att.com
As a matter of fact, you could use your handgun to confront the burglar,
and probably use it with impunity if you felt your life was threatened.
But, if you shot the guy while he was fleeing, or, if you knew he was
unarmed but shot anyway just to detain him, you are definitely
overstepping legal bounds.
--Mitch Dysart
Scott Amspoker
>I remember reading a few years back (sorry, I don't remember any of the
>details) of a case where a man was detained after checking out his groceries
>at a supermarket. I think they went through an extra shopping bag that he
>had brought in with him, or else looked through the pockets of his jacket.
>
>At any rate, this happened in front of the other customers. The store
>didn't find anything. The man sued for 100's of thousands of dollars
>for the pain of his embarrasment, and won.
A local record store routinely fails to "de-activate" the merchandise
I am buying causing the shoplifting alarm to go off as I leave the
store. Sure, the situation is cleared up immediately but the other
customers do look up from their browsing and stare. I once chastised
the sales clerk about the legal implications of their false alarms
on innocent customers. Now I wonder what kind of legal hassle they
might be inviting by their carelessness.
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | [X] NONE OF THE ABOVE
|
sc...@bbx.basis.com |
Lee C. Brink
Note: I base my opinions on NYS Law & Syracuse Police policy (As
taught at the academy). Your milage may vary.
>> Well, citizens can make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in
>> their presence.
Citizens can make an arrest for an OFFENSE. This includes harrassment
& traffic violations. A citizen is not obligated to make an arrest
though. And here in NY the use of force is quite limited at the
arrest phase for both cops & citizens.
You also may want to check into how Ohio deals with security guards.
Here in NY, if you get certification (Which will be mandatory within
18 months) the security guard becomes a peace officer, with nearly all
the powers of the police while on the job.
>> So a store cop who sees you commit a misdemeanor (or felony) can
>> arrest you, and can use sufficient force to overcome your resistance
>> to that arrest.
>> If you start to leave the store cop can restrain you.
>> If you later are found guilty of the charge for which you were
>> arrested, you will probably lose a false arrest suit.
>> If you are not found guilty, then it's up to a court to determine
>> if it's a false arrest, and you have a good chance of winning.
This is true here in NY, provided that the security guard is not
certified. If he is, then your case is almost impossible to win, as
the requirement for an arrest for the security guard goes from 'in
fact' to 'reasonable.'
>> 3. At the time, the Meijer store cops were taught to use, and did
>> use "Pain Compliance" to stop people from leaving.
>> What's pain compliance? If someone starts to leave, hurt him;
>> inflict pain, to prevent him from leaving.
Be careful what you say here. Pain compliance, as taught here in
Syracuse & Onodaga County, means using pressure points to cause pain
to "encourage" the suspect to comply with verbal commands. The most
notable pressure point is just behind your ear.
Pain compliance does not mean twist his neck to the snapping point,
breaking limbs, or other methods or "hurting" someone. It is not used
to prevent escape (As taught here in NY). It is used to make the
suspect comply with directives to allow handcuffing.
>> In Spangler's case, it left him paralyzed.
Then this was not Pain Compliance Technique (Sp?). The actual
technique leaves no physical damage. Just a numb area when the
pressure is relieved.
>> I recall he was a short, non-athletic 50-ish man, and the two
>> store cops were young, strong, tall, muscular types. Surprise!
About what? That two thugs beat up on an old man? No surprise there.
That Pain Compliance did the damage? I can't believe that.
Before playing games with security guards, make sure that you know the
law in your state. Security may have the same powers as the police in
their area of employment, which could make your day not only more
unpleasant, but with no legal recourse either.
--
Lee
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC |
| l...@nova.npac.syr.edu Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
| 315-443-1722 |
| "And he harkened unto her: 'Hark Hark' harkened he..." - Stimpy |
| Robin Hork |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Lee C. Brink
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Note: I base my opinion on NYS Penal law
>> In short, the defendant claimed that the victim had stolen his car in his
>> presence. A chase ensued, and eventually the two got into a fight. The
>> car thief then tried to run, but the car owner chased him and caused
>> some bodily harm in order to restrain him.
>> There were various other facts in this case, but, after a long and
>> arduous set of instructions from the judge regarding citizen's arrest
>> powers, self-defense, and stopping a fleeing felon, we, the jury, found
>> the the defendant guilty of _felonious assault_, a 2nd degree felony
>> in Ohio.
>> So, the moral of the story is, do not ever attempt to enforce a citizens
>> arrest.
Lie back and enjoy it, eh? Wait for the police, which could take 20+
minutes? Sorry, that is unacceptable. If I see someone committing a
felony and I have the physical ablility to stop him and arrest him,
I'm damn well going to try.
Why is it that so many people today feel that the average citizen
should not have even rudimentary powers of self defense or arrest?
<sarcasm on>
What did this country do when law enforcement officers were days away,
and not minutes? Let the crime happen? Submit to the bad guy saying
'If only the police were here to save us?' I think not.
<sarcasm off>
>> Do not use force to stop somebody for a property violation.
>> As we understood the judges instructions, use of force
>> (particularly deadly force which, by the way, can be just about anything)
>> to stop a crimminal (felony or misdemeanor) for a non-life threatening
>> situation, by a private citizen (that is, somebody not possessing a
>> peace officer's commission issued by the State), *is itself a felony*.
That is different here in NY. So long as the crime was done in fact,
then a citizen may use up to, but not including, deadly physical force
to apprehend the criminal. So here in NY, the citizen above would NOT
in all likelyhood be convicted of anything, provided that the suspect
he grabbed actually did the crime. Now that doesn't save the citizen
from a lawsuit, but he is safe from criminal prosecution.
J Greely
greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) writes:
>All you should do if the burglar is unarmed is detain him. If
>"detention" involves some negative feedback such as assorted broken
>bones and facial injuries, so be it. If it's too late and you already
>shot the guy, it would be good if you had a sterile throw-down weapon
>to put in his hand.
Greg, when giving people advice that could send them to jail for a
very long time, could you at least do them the courtesy of adding a
disclaimer to let them know that this is your opinion and is not based
on a firm knowledge of self-defense law?
If you lie to the police in a self-defense shooting, you have lost
your right to claim self-defense. By faking evidence, you have
proclaimed yourself a criminal, and modern ballistics will verify this
(fer chrissakes, a "sterile throw-down gun"?!? what a great way to
send yourself to prison!). I recommend laying off the TV movies and
consulting someone with real experience in this area. The two books I
posted about earlier, written by a police officer who has served as an
expert witness in numerous armed self-defense cases, will wake you up
fast.
>I don't condone unjustified shootings but hey, nobody forced the guy to break
>into your house.
And, hey, no one forced you to perjure yourself, either.
"In a single movement -- too fast for the
naked eye to follow -- I spin, grab my scope,
drop my gun on my foot, cry out in pain, pick
up my gun, drop my scope on my *other* foot,
pick up my scope, and raise it to my eyes.
The sight I see comes as a shock.
"Mere moments later, I realize my mistake and
turn the scope around."
Chuck Dinsmore
I am posting this in order to locate a first cousin of mine. His last
name is Dinsmore. He is a practising attorney in the Washington DC area
or in Hyattsville Md.
His fathers name was Murray. My fathers name was John and was Murray's
brother.
I have never met or spoken to my cousin, so I thought I would try a
cyberspace search. If he has Internet access maybe he will see this
post. If not, any help would be appreciated. Transfer this message to
him and ask him to please respond.
Thanks in advance.
Chuck Dinsmore
(ci...@eskimo.com or chuck.d...@scifacnet.com)
Chuck Dinsmore
I am looking for an attorney named Robert Dinsmore who practises in the
Washington DC or Hyatsville Md. area. This attorney is my first cousin
whom I have never met or spoken to.
If he has Internet access an sees this post, all well and good. If not,
please relay this post to him.
His fathers name was Murray Dinsmore, and he was the brother of my father
John Dinsmore.
I can be reached at work in the Seattle, Wa. area at (206) 224-4701 or at
home (206) 932-8370
email to
ci...@eskimo.com or chuck.d...@scifacnet.com
Thanks in advance;
Bill Dunn
>Hi Netters;
>Thanks in advance.
Try the State Bar for Maryland and Virginia and the DC Bar Association
for the District. Also, if you know the law school he went to, call them.
--
William G. Dunn 7610...@compuserve.com, wd...@access.digex.net
James P Laird
>available money at Meijer's. ...
>The bagels are right out of the oven at about 5:30 a.m. on weekends
cardboard that Meijer's sells instead? I guess there is no
accounting for taste.
--Jim Laird
neel...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
there. I knew that the store security would always watch me just becuase I
froicked through the store. I feel they should be classified as a homphobe
store as well as very discriminaing.
Robert M Ettinger
>> So...let's see if I got this right...if Meijer is racist or homophobic you
>> the point of permanent paralysis) on innocent parties, then that's ok?
>>
>Meijers is a homophobic store. I get treated like shit when I used to shop
>there. I knew that the store security would always watch me just becuase I
>froicked through the store. I feel they should be classified as a homphobe
>store as well as very discriminaing.
I was responding to the original post that implied it's not ok to shop at
Meijer if they are racist or homophobic but it *is* ok to shop there if they
unduly accuse customers of stealing and cause them physical pain and paralysis
by trying to restrain them. Any of those reasons is good enough NOT to shop at
Meijer. I have a hard time saying that one is ok and one is not.
How were you treated like shit? How did Meijer discriminate against you?
kna...@ibeam.intel.com
>>Meijers is a homophobic store. I get treated like shit when I used to shop
>>there. I knew that the store security would always watch me just becuase I
>>froicked through the store. I feel they should be classified as a homphobe
>>store as well as very discriminaing.
>
As importantly, how were you "frolicking" and why were you doing it?
(Assuming you meant 'frolic' above.)
Rob
--
Rob Knauerhase [kna...@ibeam.intel.com] Intel Mobile Software Lab
"... the industry's future may be taking shape in a secluded Intel
Corporation laboratory tucked among the farm fields of Oregon."
-- John Markoff, _New York Times_
Rob Boudrie
>
>By "sterile" I mean free of any traces of you or your premises: no
>fingerprints, dust, oil, fibers, etc.; and stored in a plastic bag until
>needed.
>
This is much harder to do that to describe, and even an expert in
forensic evidence might make a mistake. Besides the moral grounds
about lying in to the police and in court, there ar estrong practical
indicators that this is not a good strategy.
Sterile? Hmmm... Not even fibers from the agressor's pcoket? Fingerprint
patterns indicitive of a planted knife rather than a held one? Prints
on the decedent's skin (yes, the FBI crime lab can raise these).
In any self defense shooting where the agressor is killed, you are a
MURDER SUSPECT. Faking evidence is an excellent way to facilitate the
transition to convicted murdered.
rob boudrie
Todd E. Van Hoosear
This is a followup to a couple of posts a while back (the thread has since
taken on a new focus).
I myself was a loyal *smirk* Meijer employee (sorry, that's "associate") at
two Meijer stores (one outside of Detroit and one in East Lansing) for
almost three years.
Now that you know who I am (GO STATE!), here's what I have to say:
Someone wrote:
: Many of you have mailed me asking for more about Meijer. OK...
:
: Meijer is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And is a family owned
: mega-monster enterprise. The original founder, Hendrik Meijer and
: his wife Gezina, were Scandinavian. They came to the U.S. when they were
: about 30...
A correction here: Hendrik and Gezina were Dutch immigrants. Hendrik came
here first, Gezina followed a long while later. (You can read about this
whole wonderful story by picking up the biographical/historical book at
almost any checkout lane (or at least in the book section). I forget the
name of it.)
Robert M Ettinger (rett...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: I was visiting friends in East Lansing, MI last year and we decided to go out
: and buy beer so we went to the Meijer down the street. Since it was a party w
: were buying a few cases. Before we got in line my friend and I pooled our
: financial resources to pay for the beer. When we got to the register, the
: cashier refused to sell us the beer. The reason? She saw the transfer of
: funds and just knew that one of us was underage and the other was buying the
: beer. (Not only are Charles and I both 30, but we don't even look anywhere
: near 21...sorry to say)
: She then asked for our IDs and says, "ok, now who's who?" Charles is
: African-American and I am not. So when I told her I was Charles she *really*
: became angry. And she still refused to sell us the beer.
Requesting IDs from both people, _especially_ in the case where there is a
transfer of funds before the sale of alcohol, or even just if two people are
in line together, is SOP for most liquor stores up here. _Refusing_ to sell
alcohol on the basis of being a smart ass (I mean it in the nicest way,
really ;) is _not_. Reminds me of an incident with the Canadian border patrol,
but I won't get into that here....
Also, in re: to an even earlier post about Meijer security (the original
topic, I believe :), after an incident where a Meijer store security
associate was stabbed to death (at the Northville Meijer, where I used to
work!!) while in pursuit of a shoplifter, Meijer has restricted the
extent to which security can get involved in the pursuit, apprehension and
detention of suspected thieves. They're not allowed to chase any more.
Just my $2. (Even after working there all that time, I _still_ shop there!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- The Dual Lives of Todd E. Van Hoosear -
``'''
(._.) Graduate Assistant, | Graduate Student,
(_) Hypermedia and Instructional | Department of Communication,
`---' Support Services, | Michigan State University
MSU Computer Laboratory | East Lansing, MI 48824
Internet ID: vanh...@msu.edu OR: vanh...@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu
BITnet ID: vanh...@msu.bitnet My Mac: lalaland.cl.msu.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todd E. Van Hoosear
There is an interesting article on scanners in the lastest issue of US
News and World Report (dealing with congressional responces to scanner
inaccuracies). (Can't remember exact date. There's a guy sitting in a
bed with the caption "Patient Heal Thyself" or some such thing...)
Anyway, the report found that something like 9% of all scans were
inaccurate in some way, and either 66% or 88% of those scans resulted
in an error favoring the store.
Meijer, of course (and other stores too--is it the law?) awards people
with extra money if they find an inaccuracy. I forget the actual amount,
but it _is_ significant, as I distictly recall (having worked in the
marking and receiving rooms of a couple Meijer stores) being told to
price everything very carefully (we verified a lot by computer) otherwise
we lose a lot of money.
William December Starr
In article <knauer.7...@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu>,
kna...@ibeam.intel.com said:
>>> Meijers is a homophobic store. I get treated like shit when I used
>>> to shop there. I knew that the store security would always watch me
>>> just becuase I froicked through the store. I feel they should be
>>> classified as a homphobe store as well as very discriminaing.
>>
>> How were you treated like shit? How did Meijer discriminate against
>> you?
>
> As importantly, how were you "frolicking" and why were you doing it?
> (Assuming you meant 'frolic' above.)
And even more importantly, are you sure that it was a frolic and not a
mere detour?
(Note: the above is a joke that only people who've had to study
master/servant tort liability law will get... :-)
-- William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com>
James Cook
: Hi Netters;
: I am posting this in order to locate a first cousin of mine. His last
: name is Dinsmore. He is a practising attorney in the Washington DC area
: or in Hyattsville Md.
: His fathers name was Murray. My fathers name was John and was Murray's
: brother.
Call you public library. Ask them if they carry the Martindale Hubble
directory of lawyers nationwide. That may have the name and phone and
address for him.
Call information operator assistance in the DC area. Ask them to give
you the name and address of that man, who is an attorney.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
James Cook Internet: jc...@netcom.com
San Francisco Bay, Calififornia Compuserve: 76520,2727
Steven Francisco
>From: vanh...@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu (Todd E. Van Hoosear)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - About the Scanners
>Date: 24 Nov 1993 21:51:10 GMT
>There is an interesting article on scanners in the lastest issue of US
>News and World Report (dealing with congressional responces to scanner
>inaccuracies). (Can't remember exact date. There's a guy sitting in a
>bed with the caption "Patient Heal Thyself" or some such thing...)
>Anyway, the report found that something like 9% of all scans were
>inaccurate in some way, and either 66% or 88% of those scans resulted
>in an error favoring the store.
Just for I record, the price file in the computer (or the price on the
shelf) is at fault if the computer returns a price different from what is
marked. If the barcode was not interpreted properly, it is unlikely any
price would be found.
>Meijer, of course (and other stores too--is it the law?) awards people
>with extra money if they find an inaccuracy. I forget the actual amount,
>but it _is_ significant, as I distictly recall (having worked in the
>marking and receiving rooms of a couple Meijer stores) being told to
>price everything very carefully (we verified a lot by computer) otherwise
>we lose a lot of money.
At Wal-mart we give $3.00 or price of the item, whichever is less (last I
checked anway). No, it is not a law. It's just to make the customer happy.
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> - The Dual Lives of Todd E. Van Hoosear -
>``'''
>(._.) Graduate Assistant, | Graduate Student,
> (_) Hypermedia and Instructional | Department of Communication,
>`---' Support Services, | Michigan State University
> MSU Computer Laboratory | East Lansing, MI 48824
> Internet ID: vanh...@msu.edu OR: vanh...@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu
> BITnet ID: vanh...@msu.bitnet My Mac: lalaland.cl.msu.edu
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
010100110101010001000101010101100100010101001110
1 0
1 Steven Franscico 1
1 S008...@Cedarville.edu 0
1 0
0 The opinions expressed in this post may or 0
0 may not be my own. If they are not mine I 1
1 am probably trying to start a discussion. 1
0 0
1 I can't think of anything else to fill this 0
1 border with. 1
0 0
0 1
001011001010100100101100001001110010100000100100
Larry Rogers
>>
>In general, armed self-defense in the home is legal, although you
>should draw a distinction between "defending your home" (property,
>that is), and "defending yourself and your family". A criminal who
>enters an occupied dwelling can be assumed to be prepared to deal with
>resistance, and can be held at gunpoint for the police, or, if he
>attacks you, shot. If he tries to run away, he is no longer a threat
>(even if he's got your thousand-dollar stereo), and you have no legal
>right to shoot him. In fact, if you chase after him and get into a
>fight, you're most likely guilty of assault.
>
> Don't take this as a justification for prowling around a dark house
>with a gun in your hand, looking for the thug; that's a good way to
>get killed, or worse yet, to kill a family member. The best thing to
>do is get the family together behind a locked door, call the police,
>and be prepared to use the gun if someone tries to get through the
>door. Your insurance will replace the stereo if he gets away, but it
>won't replace *you*.
>
>
I have come to the conclusin that the best way to protect your property
in Ohio is with a camera with a zoom lense. This is even more the case
for those protecting a farm, where you have a lot of expensive equipment
stored outside.
J Greely
rog...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu writes:
>I have come to the conclusin that the best way to protect your property
>in Ohio is with a camera with a zoom lense.
I'd add to the list a good insurance policy and alarm system.
Replacing standard locks with decent ones wouldn't hurt, either. Guns
are obviously sub-optimal for protecting private property, since you
can't count on always being home, awake, and aware of the problem.
A nagy Istvan
>Xref: cedarnet oh.general:506 misc.legal:15229
>Newsgroups: oh.general,misc.legal
>Path: cedarnet!calvin!gumby!destroyer!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!world!wdstarr
>From: wds...@world.std.com (William December Starr)
>Subject: Re: Meijer: Shop til you're dropped
>In-Reply-To: kna...@ibeam.intel.com
>Message-ID: <CH5Ko...@world.std.com>
>Sender: wds...@world.std.com (William December Starr)
>Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
>References: <2cgsk0$a...@charm.magn <2ctvdv$o...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <knauer.7...@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 13:41:15 GMT
>Lines: 23
I guess, cuz I sure didn't.
Dear Homo:
Stores are for shopping, not frolicking.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$ "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, you $
$ can always tell the one who gets hit. He's the $
$ one that yelps." -My dad. *:-) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$ I am writable at S107...@cedarville.edu and my $
$ name, Steve Estep, also known as A Nagy Istvan. $
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A nagy Istvan
>Xref: cedarnet oh.general:503 misc.legal:15163
>Path: cedarnet!calvin!gumby!yale!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!msuinfo!cl-next4!vanhoose>Newsgroups: oh.general,cmh.general,osu.opinion,misc.legal
>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
>Followup-To: oh.general,cmh.general,osu.opinion,misc.legal
>Date: 24 Nov 1993 21:41:50 GMT
>Organization: Michigan State University
>Lines: 72
>Distribution: na
>Message-ID: <2d0kev$16...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
>References: <2catdh$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <2cb8hd...@gecko.ci <2cbke5$3...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cl-next4.cl.msu.edu
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
>: I was visiting friends in East Lansing, MI last year and we decided to go out
>: and buy beer so we went to the Meijer down the street. Since it was a party w
>: were buying a few cases. Before we got in line my friend and I pooled our
>: financial resources to pay for the beer. When we got to the register, the
>: cashier refused to sell us the beer. The reason? She saw the transfer of
>: funds and just knew that one of us was underage and the other was buying the
>: beer. (Not only are Charles and I both 30, but we don't even look anywhere
>: near 21...sorry to say)
>: She then asked for our IDs and says, "ok, now who's who?" Charles is
>: African-American and I am not. So when I told her I was Charles she *really*
>: became angry. And she still refused to sell us the beer.
>Requesting IDs from both people, _especially_ in the case where there is a
>transfer of funds before the sale of alcohol, or even just if two people are
>in line together, is SOP for most liquor stores up here. _Refusing_ to sell
>alcohol on the basis of being a smart ass (I mean it in the nicest way,
>really ;) is _not_. Reminds me of an incident with the Canadian border patrol,
>but I won't get into that here....
Got an easy solution for that. Don't buy beer.
A nagy Istvan
>Xref: cedarnet oh.general:508 misc.legal:15540
>Newsgroups: oh.general,cmh.general,osu.opinion,misc.legal
>Path: cedarnet!calvin!gumby!destroyer!news.cic.net!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!att-out!oucsboss!oucsace!ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu!ROGERSL
>From: rog...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu (Larry Rogers)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
>Sender: use...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Network News Poster)
>Reply-To: rog...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
>Organization: Ohio University Computing & Technology Services
>References: <CGn82...@cbnews.cb.att.com> <CGnGo...@cbnews.cb.att.com> <2ceevn$7...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <CGp30...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>,<1993Nov18....@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 20:22:37 GMT
>Lines: 27
What a shame that we ain't allowed to rid the world of a few more criminals.
I think we should vote for a bill that says they have to wait five days to
rob our houses after they notify us.
A nagy Istvan
>Xref: cedarnet oh.general:507 misc.legal:15470
>Newsgroups: oh.general,cmh.general,osu.opinion,misc.legal
>Path: cedarnet!cedarville.edu!s0082576
>From: s008...@cedarville.edu (Steven Francisco)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - About the Scanners
>Lines: 62
>Sender: ne...@cedarville.edu
>Organization: Cedarville College, Cedarville, OH
>References: <2c9lpj$r...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <2catdh$2...@charm.magnu <2cb86c$3...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <2d0l0e$16...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 20:16:48 GMT
>010100110101010001000101010101100100010101001110
>1 0
>1 Steven Franscico 1
>1 S008...@Cedarville.edu 0
>1 0
>0 The opinions expressed in this post may or 0
>0 may not be my own. If they are not mine I 1
>1 am probably trying to start a discussion. 1
>0 0
>1 I can't think of anything else to fill this 0
>1 border with. 1
>0 0
>0 1
>001011001010100100101100001001110010100000100100
Steve. You've been cought fooling around outside cedarnet. But I guess I
have too.
Daniel A Fiore
Hmm. These experiences sound awfully familiar to my own experiences while
working at Marshall Field's in Columbus. Lovely management (NOT) and you
should hear the descriptions of "types" of shoplifters to look out for. More
info upon request.
sohl,william h
>>>
>>In general, armed self-defense in the home is legal, although you
>>should draw a distinction between "defending your home" (property,
>>that is), and "defending yourself and your family". A criminal who
>>enters an occupied dwelling can be assumed to be prepared to deal with
>>resistance, and can be held at gunpoint for the police, or, if he
>>attacks you, shot. If he tries to run away, he is no longer a threat
>>(even if he's got your thousand-dollar stereo), and you have no legal
>>right to shoot him. In fact, if you chase after him and get into a
>>fight, you're most likely guilty of assault.
And that is one of the major things wrong in this country. Anyone
should be able to protect his/her property using whatever force is needed.
If some human garbage thug is running off with my TV, VCR , why
shouldn't I be able to go after him and stop him? Please...no
bleeding heart crap about the use of force not being warranted
for theft, etc. Why do you think we have so much more crime today?
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet wh...@cc.bellcore.com
Todd E. Van Hoosear
: Just for I record, the price file in the computer (or the price on the
: marked. If the barcode was not interpreted properly, it is unlikely any
: price would be found.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with the technology. The
problem is with the humans using the technology. ;)
Todd E. Van Hoosear
: In article <2d0kev$16...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> vanh...@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu (Todd E. Van Hoosear) writes:
: > [...]
: >Requesting IDs from both people, _especially_ in the case where there is a
: >in line together, is SOP for most liquor stores up here. _Refusing_ to sell
: >alcohol on the basis of being a smart ass (I mean it in the nicest way,
: >really ;) is _not_. Reminds me of an incident with the Canadian border patrol,
: >but I won't get into that here....
: Got an easy solution for that. Don't buy beer.
Eeep!
: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
: $ "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, you $
: $ can always tell the one who gets hit. He's the $
: $ one that yelps." -My dad. *:-) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
: $ I am writable at S107...@cedarville.edu and my $
: $ name, Steve Estep, also known as A Nagy Istvan. $
: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
--
Steven Francisco
>From: vanhoose@cl-next4 (Todd E. Van Hoosear)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - About the Scanners
>Steven Francisco (s008...@cedarville.edu) wrote:
>: Just for I record, the price file in the computer (or the price on the
>: shelf) is at fault if the computer returns a price different from what is
>: marked. If the barcode was not interpreted properly, it is unlikely any
>: price would be found.
>Yes, I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with the technology. The
>problem is with the humans using the technology. ;)
I'm just picky about that I guess. Actually, most problems with computers
are really with the users not doing somthing right.
Computer don't make mistakes; they just repeat them thousands of times per
second -- probably not original
010101010101010101010101010
1 Steven Francisco 1
0 S008...@Cedarville.edu 0
101010101010101010101010101
A nagy Istvan
>From: wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
True. I agree with you 100%
Richard Parent
>
>>And that is one of the major things wrong in this country. Anyone
>>should be able to protect his/her property using whatever force is needed.
>>If some human garbage thug is running off with my TV, VCR , why
>>shouldn't I be able to go after him and stop him? Please...no
>>bleeding heart crap about the use of force not being warranted
>>for theft, etc. Why do you think we have so much more crime today?
>
A viscerally attractive attitude in extreme cases. But what if you
find out you made a mistake in maiming someone - got the wrong person
or he really didn't steal anything. Or if you maim someone for making an
'honest mistake' and picking up the wrong coat for example?
And at what dollar amount do you assign to various 'use of force'?
OK to kill someone for stealing $1? $30 book? $1000 stereo?
'Human garbage thug', you say. How about a hungry kid swipes your apple when
you're having a bad day? OK to kill him to stop him from getting away?
The extreme case of a human garbage thug
stealing your valuabe property is easy to think about; try some
tougher ones. This may do a lot for reducing crime, but probably
not for reducing violence.
rick
--
Rick Parent Department of Computer and Information Science
Ohio State University
par...@cis.ohio-state.edu 2036 Neil Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43210-1277
Daniel A Fiore
gerald frank cermak
>In article <CHG1M...@walter.bellcore.com> wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov29....@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> rog...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu writes:
>>>In article <1993Nov18....@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>, jgr...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>In general, armed self-defense in the home is legal, although you
>>>>should draw a distinction between "defending your home" (property,
>>>>that is), and "defending yourself and your family". A criminal who
>>>>enters an occupied dwelling can be assumed to be prepared to deal with
>>>>resistance, and can be held at gunpoint for the police, or, if he
>>>>attacks you, shot. If he tries to run away, he is no longer a threat
>>>>(even if he's got your thousand-dollar stereo), and you have no legal
>>>>right to shoot him. In fact, if you chase after him and get into a
>>>>fight, you're most likely guilty of assault.
>
>>And that is one of the major things wrong in this country. Anyone
>>should be able to protect his/her property using whatever force is needed.
>>If some human garbage thug is running off with my TV, VCR , why
>>shouldn't I be able to go after him and stop him? Please...no
>>bleeding heart crap about the use of force not being warranted
>>for theft, etc. Why do you think we have so much more crime today?
>
Is your property more valuable than someone else's life? Is _this_ the
attitude our country was founded upon? I think _NOT_.
Being a college student implies you understand the rewards of hard work. Your
education (not necesarrily the degree), will make you more employable in the
future, as one reward. Hopefully, you will find your life, to this point and
in the future a wonderful experience, because of this.
I assume someone important in your life (parents?) instilled values in you
that led you to higher education. These people are most likely helping you to
accomplish this goal, financially, emotionally, or both.
You are fortunate.
Some people are less fortunate: parents in jail, or dead, or abusive, etc.
They may not have been taught the same 'values' for respect of other's and
their property. Sometimes good people are driven to act against their nature
due to extreme circumstances. Good people also make mistakes.
There is an immense difference between crimes against one's property and
crimes against a person. Laws have reflected this for ages.
I recently experienced an attempted break-in to my car. I chased some
theives away before they broke-in, but they still did $800 damage to the door.
I was outraged. I wanted revenge. I contemplated buying a shotgun. Instead
I filed a claim with my insurance agent and they are paying for it to be
repaired. Had I used a shotgun to protect my property, in 10 years I might
still be living with the knowledge I had taken another person's life. Either
way in 10 years, my car will probably be a pile of scrap metal in a junk-yard,
long forgotten.
If your property is more valuable than some unknown person's life & health,
then our country has failed in teaching the basic premises of its constitution,
at least in your case.
Gerry Cermak
student
"We tend to idealize tolerance, then wonder why we find ourselves
infested with losers and nut cases" - Patrick Hayden
J Greely
>should be able to protect his/her property using whatever force is needed.
Taken literally, this would authorize land mines for kids who cut
across your lawn. You might call that an "unreasonable" example, not
in keeping with the spirit of your statement, but you're asking for
the right to use lethal force in a non-life-threatening situation,
based on your hasty opinion of the character ("human garbage thug") of
the person involved. Consider what happens when other people are
allowed to apply this rule to you; you might not realize that your
actions violate their interpretation of what is "reasonable" or
"criminal", and they blow your head off defending their property.
Ever gone up to the wrong car in a dark parking lot and tried to
unlock it? *boom*
>Why do you think we have so much more crime today?
Something to do with the revolving-door nature of the "justice"
system, I would argue, given that roughly a third of the violent
crimes in the US are committed by persons on some form of early
release (parole, probation, bail, etc). Population density and
poverty also have a lot to do with it: roughly ten percent of all the
violent crime in the US happens in New York City.
We could always bring up things like quality of education and job
training, and the increasing number of people who are encouraged to
spend their entire lives taking government handouts and *not* taking
responsibility for their own lives and futures.
"Neighbors!! We got neighbors! We ain't
supposed to have any neighbors, and I just
had to shoot one."
-- Ron Post
gerald frank cermak
>>Is your property more valuable than someone else's life? Is _this_ the
>>attitude our country was founded upon? I think _NOT_.
>
It was considered the same as murder to steal someone's horse
because of the importance of the horse to man in those times. A man
could literally die if his horse was stolen from him in certain
situations (Indians, deserts, etc.).
They also used to practice slavery, should we bring that back too?
>It IS an attitude our country was founded on. Maybe if they brought back
>hangings we'd have less crime, eh?
There has never been any statistical evidence correlating decreased crime
with increased executions. NEVER.
While it is true that capital punishment was used for crimes in
addition to murder and treason (burglary, rape, and other felonies),
This was a carry over from Europian Laws. I believe the founding
fathers of this country saw something better than that, when they
wrote the constition.
Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia states:
"Reform of the death penalty began in Europe by the 1750s, and was
championed by such thinkers as the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria,
the French philosopher Voltaire, and the English law reformer Jeremy
Bentham. They argued that the death penalty was needlessly cruel,
overrated as a deterrent, and occasionally imposed in fatal error.
Along with Quaker leaders and other social reformers, they defended
life imprisonment as a more rational alternative."
Gerry Cermak
student
"Law makers typically lag 20 years behind common-thought" - unknown.
Dwight Starr
What in the hell does this have to do with Meijers??? Change the subject!!
--
INTERNET dst...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
CAMPUS dst...@gate.us.ohio-state.edu or st...@x1.us.ohio-state.edu
Greg Smith
>attitude our country was founded upon? I think _NOT_.
Back then they used to hang people in public for stealing horses (property).
thomas.e.lester
>
>>hangings we'd have less crime, eh?
>
>There has never been any statistical evidence correlating decreased crime
>with increased executions. NEVER.
Well, a dead man has never been a repeat offender !!!
That is a good enough statistic for me.
>
>While it is true that capital punishment was used for crimes in
>addition to murder and treason (burglary, rape, and other felonies),
>This was a carry over from Europian Laws. I believe the founding
>fathers of this country saw something better than that, when they
>wrote the constition.
The founding fathers didn't count on a legal system that treats
criminals like tourists on vacation. with a revolving door
policy that puts repeat offenders on the streets to kill
again.
The 12 year old in California might take exception to your
generous and forgiving thoughts.
At least her surviving parents would !
Most hardened criminals do not offer anything to society to justify
their continued existance. We do not OWE them a safe secure life
at public expense. Their crimes have negated their right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia states:
>
>"Reform of the death penalty began in Europe by the 1750s, and was
>championed by such thinkers as the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria,
>the French philosopher Voltaire, and the English law reformer Jeremy
>Bentham. They argued that the death penalty was needlessly cruel,
>overrated as a deterrent, and occasionally imposed in fatal error.
>Along with Quaker leaders and other social reformers, they defended
>life imprisonment as a more rational alternative."
>
>
>Gerry Cermak
>student
>
>"Law makers typically lag 20 years behind common-thought" - unknown.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lester att!cblph!tel
Sonerai IIL (under TEST) (614) 860-3259
N4LX (614) 927-8106
robert c lalonde
Or at least fewer criminals! :)
^^^^^
--
Robert C. LaLonde (Rob) |Internet: lalo...@osu.edu,
Computer Science Masters Student | : lal...@cis.ohio-state.edu,
First Year | or UUCP: osu-cis!lalonde
A nagy Istvan
>From: t...@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
> The 12 year old in California might take exception to your
> generous and forgiving thoughts.
> At least her surviving parents would !
> Most hardened criminals do not offer anything to society to justify
> their continued existance. We do not OWE them a safe secure life
> at public expense. Their crimes have negated their right to
> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I'll say Amen to that one.
>--
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Lester att!cblph!tel
> Sonerai IIL (under TEST) (614) 860-3259
> N4LX (614) 927-8106
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not a sig. Any appearance of this to a genuine sig file
is purely coincidental. In fact, this whole posting may just be
a figment of your imagination. But if you truly believe in your
heart that this is genuine, you may direct all flames, writings
and other such nonsense to Steve Estep. My address, which truly
is genuine, is, S107...@cedarville.edu. Alias, A Nagy Istvan.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shuofeng cai
of justice, rights, law, tradition, morality, etc..., believe it or not, NO one
actually cares about others when his/her own rights(whatever it is called) are
violated, to protect his/her rights, any possible means will be used, not
seldomly at the expense of other people's life in the history of human race.
To most people, human rights means his/her own rights, especially when things
become really tricky. No matter what your belief is, no matter how you talk
like a supreme court judge, if somebody happens to break into your house,
you might as well shoot the person, as decisively as anybody else, with all
the pride and without any regret.
sohl,william h
>>From: lal...@cis.ohio-state.edu (robert c lalonde)
>>Subject: Re: Meijer - Shop at your own risk.
>
>
>>>>Is your property more valuable than someone else's life? Is _this_ the
>>>>attitude our country was founded upon? I think _NOT_.
>
>>>Back then they used to hang people in public for stealing horses (property).
>>>It IS an attitude our country was founded on. Maybe if they brought back
>>>hangings we'd have less crime, eh?
>
>>Or at least fewer criminals! :)
>
>crimes, only violent crimes, and then only in the case of conviction beyond
>any doubt. Hanging, frying, gassing innocent people is nasty business.
>
>People keep saying that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime. Who
>cares?! We aren't executing criminals to scare other criminals. We execute
>criminals because they are too dangerous to remain in society and must be
>eliminated for the common good.
I can't wait for the bleeding heart liberals to come to the aid of the
racist animal that just shot all those people on the LIRR. It'll be
an interesting thing to watch. Is that guy guilty...absolutely.
Governor Cuomo will have his hands full dealing with his anti-death
penalty position when/if this gets to trial.
Greg Smith
>From: lal...@cis.ohio-state.edu (robert c lalonde)
>>>Is your property more valuable than someone else's life? Is _this_ the
>>>attitude our country was founded upon? I think _NOT_.
>>Back then they used to hang people in public for stealing horses (property).
>>It IS an attitude our country was founded on. Maybe if they brought back
>>hangings we'd have less crime, eh?
>Or at least fewer criminals! :)
> ^^^^^
and ZERO repeat offenders. I don't support capital punishment for most
gerald frank cermak
> Human nature being the way it is, behind all the meaningless discussion
Human Nature? Let me propose the following: YOUR NATURE IS LEARNED. Not
all cultures/religions teach such a selfish high regard for one's belongings
over a human life.
>of justice, rights, law, tradition, morality, etc.., believe it or not, NO one
>actually cares about others when his/her own rights(whatever it is called) are
>violated, to protect his/her rights, any possible means will be used, not
>seldomly at the expense of other people's life in the history of human race.
A Zen story:
Two monks were walking along a path and began to cross over a
small creek. The first monk stopped and pondered aloud, "What
a life it must be as a fish." The second monk responded, "Who
are YOU to presume you know the nature of fishness." To which
the first monk responded, "How arrogant of you to presume I
*don't* know the nature of fishness." At which point both monks
walked on, enlightened.
How presumptious of YOU to state with fact that you know what others think.
>To most people, human rights means his/her own rights, especially when things
>become really tricky. No matter what your belief is, no matter how you talk
>like a supreme court judge, if somebody happens to break into your house,
>you might as well shoot the person, as decisively as anybody else, with all
>the pride and without any regret.
What if *you* walked into the wrong house on your way to a Halloween Party?
click...click...BOOOOMMMMMM, you're dead.
Is this the kind of society you want to live in? Not me.
This thread has been dancing around a very basic issue of today's society:
CRIME PAYS. The end to crime will happen when crime no longer pays.
Creating death penalty for less serious crimes will not work for one basic
reason: not very many criminals are actually caught. Most criminals are
not caught the first time they commit a crime, nor the 2nd, 3rd.... Robberys
are usually perpetrated when the residents are away. Very, very few crime
allows you the opportunity to protect your property in person. Statisitics
also show that gun owners run a higher chance of being shot with their own
guns, than shooting a criminal.
Sure, many repeat criminals exist. Many new criminals are being born this
very moment, or are they? What happens to a person to send him down a path of
life in which committing crime is the norm? Psychologists have pondered this
idea for a long time, some say it is inherited, some say it is learned. The
answer is immaterial.
Instead, we must all work together to create a society in which it is more
rewarding to follow the rules than it is to break them. Mutual cooperation
*is* a basic nature of sapiens. This can be evidenced by the very fact
that you and I are able to communicate in this newsgroup.
Gerry Cermak
student & Dynamic Optimist.
Phillip E Krueger
>crimes, only violent crimes, and then only in the case of conviction beyond
>any doubt.
But this is precisely the problem -- how can a jury be certain without any
doubt? Several people have been convicted and executed, who were later shown
to be innocent.
-- Phil
--
Asst. Prof., Ohio State University ph...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Dept. of Computer and Info. Science ..!osu-cis!cis.ohio-state.edu!philk
2036 Neil Ave. Columbus, OH 43210-1277 (614) 292-2565
shuofeng cai
>A Zen story:
>
> Two monks were walking along a path and began to cross over a
> small creek. The first monk stopped and pondered aloud, "What
> a life it must be as a fish." The second monk responded, "Who
> are YOU to presume you know the nature of fishness." To which
> the first monk responded, "How arrogant of you to presume I
> *don't* know the nature of fishness." At which point both monks
> walked on, enlightened.
This is purely an OLD joke in eastern culture. You might as well add
"The second monk responded 'How arrogant of you to presume I don't know you
don't know the nature of fishness.' The first monk responded 'How arrogant of
you to presume I don't know you don't know I don't know the nature of
fishness'".
If you believe the philosophy presented in the story, you are believing
NOTHING is understandable, and NOTHING can be generalized. If that is true, all
the philosophers should die, because whatever a philosopher says, there will
be some idiot coming out and say, "how presumptious you say that! how do you
know what others think!" (as if every statement has to be agreed by every
human being to be true)
Based on such a philosophy, instead of saying "Mike is sick", you will
have to say "Mike says he is sick"; instead of saying "Marry is beautiful", you
can only say: "Marry thinks she is beautiful." Oh! Man! What a terrible world
that would be!
Everybody, including you and I, can make any generalization
about any characteristics of the whole human race without the need of
consluting every human being on this earth. Such a statement of generalization
can be right or wrong, but it will not be "presumptious" or "arrogant" only
because you don't know what others think, unless you really don't understand
the nature of generalization. You got it?
Shuofeng
Mike Waters
greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) wrote:
> People keep saying that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime. Who
> cares?! We aren't executing criminals to scare other criminals. We execute
> criminals because they are too dangerous to remain in society and must be
> eliminated for the common good.
Imprisonment for the rest of their life is not only currently an option, it
is just as effective and (suprise) quite a bit cheaper!
--
Mike Waters rcr...@email.mot.com AA...@KC7Y.PHX.AZ.US.NA
Hate is not a "Family Value"
Paul G Hostetler
>In article <greg.n.smith...@daytonoh.ncr.com>,
>greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) wrote:
>
>> People keep saying that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime. Who
>> cares?! We aren't executing criminals to scare other criminals. We execute
>> criminals because they are too dangerous to remain in society and must be
>> eliminated for the common good.
>
>Imprisonment for the rest of their life is not only currently an option, it
>is just as effective and (suprise) quite a bit cheaper!
What percentage of convicts awarded life imprisonment actually
die of old age in prison?
Wouldn't the death penalty be far less expensive if the process
of perpetual appeals were eliminated?
Andrew Laurence
>What percentage of convicts awarded life imprisonment actually
>die of old age in prison?
If they are sentenced to life in prison WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE,
I would venture a guess that ALL of them die in prison, though not
necessarily of "old age" (not really a cause of death anyway).
>Wouldn't the death penalty be far less expensive if the process
>of perpetual appeals were eliminated?
Yes! In fact, we could eliminate a LOT of costs if we just had the police
shoot on sight if it even LOOKED like someone might be committing a serious
crime. In fact, if you see a black guy driving a new BMW, why not just blow
him away? He must be a drug dealer! [HEAVY SARCASM INTENDED - PLEASE DO NOT
QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT].
We live in a democracy where people are assumed innocent until proven
guilty and everyone (including those accused of crimes) has rights. We
can administer justice fairly and effectively without trampling on any-
one's rights. Any measures which erode the right to a fair jury trial
make the streets LESS, not MORE safe.
>>
>>--
>>Mike Waters rcr...@email.mot.com AA...@KC7Y.PHX.AZ.US.NA
>>
>>Hate is not a "Family Value"
--
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Andrew Laurence Oakland, California USA |
| laur...@netcom.com Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8) |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| If I were a moose and you were a cow, |
| would you love me anyhow? - Fred Small |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
Michael Rothstein
>Can people at least support the "three strikes and you're out" initiative
>-- a repeat offender sentenced for the third time automatically gets life
>in prison without possibility of parole? This solution is actually cheaper
>than the death penalty in present-day America? Why? A study showed that
>because of the elaborate appeals process available to people convicted of
>capital crimes and sentenced to death, it costs more money to keep pushing
>such a case through the court system than it does to simply keep the person
>incarcerated for the rest of his life.
Yes; however, I would like to see that kind of thing enacted at the
_federal_level_; the real smart-asses would just move from state to
state otherwise...
--
Michael Rothstein (Kent State U)| Any similarity between Kent State's opinions
(roth...@mcs.kent.edu) | and my opinions is strictly coincidential.
James Douglass Del-Vecchio
>Yes; however, I would like to see that kind of thing enacted at the
>_federal_level_; the real smart-asses would just move from state to
>state otherwise...
Can't do it. Almost all of the violent felonoies are state
laws. The simple solution is to include felonies convictions earned
in other states in the tally.
JD
Mitchell D Dysart
>Yes; however, I would like to see that kind of thing enacted at the
>_federal_level_; the real smart-asses would just move from state to
>state otherwise...
One other thing to consider --- you would have to build ALOT more prisons
and hire ALOT more guards, etc. That means you would have to pay ALOT
more taxes. You might be able to run prison-based businesses to help
defray to costs, but these would compete with legitimate privately-owned
businesses (except the prison labor would cost next to nothing).
I don't believe that the increased incarceration rate would deter crime, because
most violent criminals don't worry about being caught. But it would, arguably,
make the streets safe at least from the ones who have already commited some
crimes.
Also, to be effective, you would have to use the carrot and stick approach.
The whole concept of prison would have to be changed, at least for the first
time (and probably the second time) offenders, to emphasize rehabilitation
as well as punishment. For the third time offenders, the question is
neither one of rehabilitation or punishment. It is merely one of segregating
the most dangerous people from the rest of society.
Now, as the 80's demonstrated, people don't want to pay ANY more taxes,
let alone ALOT. Maybe they would for this, but maybe that money would be
better spent in helping guide children away from crime in the first place
(like better schools, getting mothers off of welfare, etc. etc.).
One last point -- most violent crimes these days are drug-related, either
directly related to drug trafficking, or related to people stealing to
support an expensive drug habit. What do people think about drug legalization,
and letting market forces fix the problem?
Gary Sanders
>roth...@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Michael Rothstein) writes:
>
>Also, to be effective, you would have to use the carrot and stick approach.
>The whole concept of prison would have to be changed, at least for the first
You need to make prisons the most vile and disgusting places around.
The warden should rule with an iron glove, not let the prisoners rule
the jail and the warden just keeps them inside the walls as is the
case with many prisons. There was a newspaper story about several
inmates. One question ask by the reporter was why don't your fear prison.
Almost everyone said because life was better in jail than out. There
were clothed, feed, they had TV and cable room to exercise. The jails
were not a place to fear.
--
Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)
gary.w....@att.com
AT&T Bell Labs
614-860-5965
Paul Race
>In article <2ej5km$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> phos...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul G Hostetler) writes:
>>
>>Wouldn't the death penalty be far less expensive if the process
>>of perpetual appeals were eliminated?
>Unfortunately, if we reduce the appeals process, we increase the chance of
>executing an innocent person. Even with the appeals process as it is, we're
>aware of a dozen or so people who have been executed who were later shown to
>be innocent.
> -- Phil
Yes that's a risk a society must face. On the other hand, how many hundreds
of people have been murdered by career criminals who would still be alive
today if the criminals had gone to the chair after the first or second or
third killing?
My employer is not responsible for my opinions. I'm not
altogether sure that I am!
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Race Paul....@DaytonOH.ncr.com |
| (513) 445-1665 FAX: 445-7196 |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R Chloupek
>One last point -- most violent crimes these days are drug-related, either
>directly related to drug trafficking, or related to people stealing to
>support an expensive drug habit. What do people think about drug legalization,
>and letting market forces fix the problem?
===========
Of course, we could legalize everything and reduce the crime rate to zero. =)
Frank
--
Frank R. Chloupek fchl...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
My *other* account has an interesting .sig.
John Turnbull
There are two ways to look at it, you can either make jail worse, or you can
make it better on the outside. I don't think it is possible to make jail
worse than the outside. As long as people are in a bad enough position on
the outside that they are willing to risk a lot to find some relief from
their problems there will be crime.
John
Robert D. Silverman
:>>>Is your property more valuable than someone else's life? Is _this_ the
:>>>attitude our country was founded upon? I think _NOT_.
:
:>>Back then they used to hang people in public for stealing horses (property).
:>>It IS an attitude our country was founded on. Maybe if they brought back
:>>hangings we'd have less crime, eh?
:
:and ZERO repeat offenders. I don't support capital punishment for most
:crimes, only violent crimes, and then only in the case of conviction beyond
I will not get involved in this debate except to note that as a practical
matter if you have a death penalty for crimes less severe than murder, then
it costs the criminal nothing to kill his victim, rather than merely injuring/
maiming/etc.
I would expect the number of murders to increase under these conditions.
If you institute the death penalty for rape (for example), I would expect
a lot of rapists to kill their victims as well as raping them. Dead victims
tell no tales and the penalty is the same.
I think this point is commonly overlooked.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Paul Schmidt
: In article <2ena6q$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dys...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mitchell D Dysart) writes:
: >One last point -- most violent crimes these days are drug-related, either
: >directly related to drug trafficking, or related to people stealing to
: >support an expensive drug habit. What do people think about drug legalization,
: >and letting market forces fix the problem?
: ===========
: Of course, we could legalize everything and reduce the crime rate to zero. =)
I do not want violent criminals out on the streets. Those who favor
drug legalization do not want to remove laws on violent crimes. We just
want to have a principled approach to what is lawful and what is
illegal. If you initiate force against another person, or use fraud, it
should be against the law. The government should be held to these same
principles and therefore should not be allowed to initiate force against
peaceful individuals using an illegal intoxicant in a manner that harms
no one else. If you abandon the principle of initiation of force to
make laws then everything can be made illegal just because 51% think it
should be.
: Frank
: --
: Frank R. Chloupek fchl...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
: My *other* account has an interesting .sig.
--
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, pjs...@tijc02.uucp
"May it be to the world...
to assume the blessings and security of self-government." -- Thomas Jefferson
chlo...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
> In article <2epvuo$h...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> fchl...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Frank R Chloupek) writes:
>>
>>BY such a rationale, one should be allowed to...
>>
>>Own any and all weaponry: guns, explosives, etc.
> ----Well, in times of peace and harmony, this does seem absurd. But if
> the government ever goes off of the deep end, or is unable to protect
> you or your family, I'm sure you would be one of the first to
> obtain whatever weapons you needed.
I don't like guns. I have never owned one and probably never will.
As for the other responses, it seems that the answers are logical and coherent.
I don't necessarily buy the "the state can do what it wants on its own
property" point since I would contend that the state is a reflection of the
populace and that property of the state is actually that held in common by the
individuals.
>>If you want to operate on libertarian principles, you have to go the whole
>>9 yards.
>
> ----Obviously you are just plain wrong. You can pick and choose principles,
> some socialist, some capitalist, some libertarian, some authortarian. In
> fact, I think a major problem with finding solutions to these problems is
> the idea that you can't have a system taking good points from each way of
> thinking.
But you must have a competing principle to use as well. If you hold the
freedom of the individual as sacrosanct then so long as no other person
is hurt, all actions must be allowed. I myself integrate a number of
principles into my thinking and try to hold none as absolute. The statement
made was something on the order of action should anoly be illegal when they
involve force or fraud. When you state an absolute it is an absolute.
What other principles do you use in your lawmaking?
>>The original post, however, did not speak to drug legalization on libertarian
>>principles. It said we have a lot of drug related crime, why don't we
>>legalize drugs. IMHO, the mere fact that a law is being broken is not
>>sufficient reason to eliminate it.
>
> ----As author of the original post, I assure you it was based at least in part
> on libertarian principles. I am libertarian in a large number of ways.
> But I also think that rampant libertarianism overlooks many things, not
> the least of which is "no man is an island" and tends to come up with a
> sub-optimal solution. By the way, I didn't say legalize drugs because
> the drug laws were being broken. I said we should _consider_ legalizing
> drugs because most violent crime is directly related to the fact that
> drugs themselves are illegal.
and I still think that that is not a legitimate reason to look at legalization.
There are reasons to look at legalization and I am not 100% opposed to
legalization. Tobacco, alcohol, caffenie, and possibly marijuana have effects
which are sufficiently minor and pose only a minor threat to oneself and others
that the loss of freedom incurred through criminalizing (or keeping them
criminal) is more of a threat.
Frank
P.S> I'm likely as much of a libertarian as you :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R. Chloupek CHLO...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University)
"Tea was one of the ten daily meals eaten during the nineteenth century
when it was fashionable to be fat (the other nine were breakfast, elevenses
, lunch, luncheon, tiffin, high tea, dinner, supper, and midnight snack).
Tea is still popular in Washington, D.C., where any sort of useless and
silly activity can always find a place." --P.J. O'Rourke
TC(v1.12) T6C3L2w (h(+)++(hl-) a+v w+ y e+ f? t+(1-10) k s-- q-
John Turnbull
>In article <2epvuo$h...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> fchl...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Frank R Chloupek) writes:
[I agree with most of Mitchell's points I deleted]
>>Drive at whatever speed they want to.
>----Same as above (in fact, this is already implemented on racetracks, right?)
I see no problem with having "superhighways" similar to the German Autobahn,
where there are no speed limits, but there are fairly strict rules as to
driving conduct.
John
Some guy who stole Mike's password
Well said Mr. Berry!
Best post I've seen on this group yet.
Send a copy to ol' Bill, at his Pres@whitehouse address!
Frank R Chloupek
>Frank R Chloupek (fchl...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2ena6q$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dys...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mitchell D Dysart) writes:
>
>: >One last point -- most violent crimes these days are drug-related, either
>: >directly related to drug trafficking, or related to people stealing to
>: >support an expensive drug habit. What do people think about drug legalization,
>: >and letting market forces fix the problem?
>: ===========
>: Of course, we could legalize everything and reduce the crime rate to zero. =)
>
>I do not want violent criminals out on the streets. Those who favor
>drug legalization do not want to remove laws on violent crimes. We just
>want to have a principled approach to what is lawful and what is
>illegal. If you initiate force against another person, or use fraud, it
>should be against the law. The government should be held to these same
>principles and therefore should not be allowed to initiate force against
>peaceful individuals using an illegal intoxicant in a manner that harms
>no one else. If you abandon the principle of initiation of force to
>make laws then everything can be made illegal just because 51% think it
>should be.
BY such a rationale, one should be allowed to...
Own any and all weaponry: guns, explosives, etc.
Possess any form of pornography (not to produce, but to own)
Operate cars or other machinery while intoxicated (so long as no one is hurt)
Drive at whatever speed they want to.
If you want to operate on libertarian principles, you have to go the whole
9 yards.
The original post, however, did not speak to drug legalization on libertarian
principles. It said we have a lot of drug related crime, why don't we
legalize drugs. IMHO, the mere fact that a law is being broken is not
sufficient reason to eliminate it.
Frank
chlo...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
> I think legalizing drugs is an excellent idea, for several reasons.
>
>
> 1. Violence in America would drop dramatically. As I understand it, most
> drug-related violence does *not* consist of somebody becoming violent after
> shooting up. Most drug-related violence consists of (in hypothetical order):
>
> a. People who use violence while stealing to support their habit. With a
> free market in drugs, prices would drop dramatically, thus making it possible
> for most addicts to support their habit via lawful work.
Let's make it free. Then nobody will ahve to steal for drugs
>
> b. Drug deals gone bad. When a deal goes bad in an open market, there are
> peaceful means of recourse for the victim. One could complain to the Better
> Business Bureau or Consumer Reports; one could file a lawsuit; one could just
> do business with somebody else. These options aren't open to black market
> dealers, so they are far more likely to resort to violence when a deal goes
> bad.
>
> c. Gangs and syndicates who battle over turf. Open market competitors
> also battle over turf, but their weapons are advertising, sales gimmicks,
> and just plain providing a better product at a lower price. At their most
> violent, they might use lawsuits or government regulations to protect their
> turf. Any of these options is preferible to the weapons of choice that black
> marketeers use when fighting over turf. Legalizing drugs would put an end to
> turf wars. (Some claim that drugs dealers would continue to use violence even
> if drugs were legal, but I doubt it. After all, alcohol was once illegal; when
> was the last time you heard of a turf war over alcohol?)
>
Then we should legalize gambling as well. Even "respectable businesses" have
resorted to illegal activities in their pursuit of turf.
> d. Criminals out on the street due to lack of prison space. Prison space
> is a finite resource. When you put a drug user in a cell, you have one less
> space for a murderer, or a rapist, or some other violent criminal. By
> legalizing drugs and granting amnesty to all prisoners whose only crime was
> drug use (or possession or trafficking), we would have plenty of space to put
> the violent criminals-- without raising taxes or building new jails. More
> violent criminals in jail means fewer on the streets, and fewer on the streets
> means safer streets.
I will agree that if jail space is limited for whatever reason that the most
dangerous criminals should be locked up preferentially to less dangerous ones
and for longer periods. I also agree that the sentencing for possession (which
is a minor crime IMO) is out of whack relative too other crimes and likely also
on an absolute scale. However, that does not lead to the conclusion of
legalization, only to more rational sentencing.
> e. Dealers who use violence to avoid being caught. Currently, dealers
> have to use violence (or at least the threat of it) to prevent citizens and
> police from interferring in their trade. If drugs were legal, there would be
> no need to do so.
>
All these arguments are variations on a theme. Legalize drugs to reduce drug
related crimes. I still don't believe that is a reasonable rationale to
legalize an activity.
> 2. Legalizing drugs would help to make drug use safer. The War on Drug Users
> has two side effects that make drug use even more dangerous than it would
> normally be. They are:
>
> a. The Drug War makes it difficult to obtain pure, high-quality samples
> of the drugs in question. For one thing, the clandestine nature of drug
> manufacturing makes it impossible to build a high-quality facility for making
> drugs. Instead, drug makers must do their work hurriedly, leading to careless-
> ness in the manufacturing process. There is no time for quality control
> procedures or product testing. Another problem is that high profits that come
> from the drug trade, coupled with the fact that most dealers have a near mono-
> poly on their turf, encourages dealers to dilute their drugs with impurities
> to increase the number of "servings" that can be made from the same amount of
> raw drug. These impurities are often responsible for drug-related deaths,
> since a) The impurities may be themselves toxic, b) the impurities may react
> with the drug to form toxic substances in the body, and c) it is impossible to
> know how much drug (or even which drug, if the dealer uses other drugs for the
> dilution) one is taking.
>
Well that means that the government must *regulate* the drug trade if it
legalizes it (which will probably lead to more bureaucracy then the current
drug war) Taxes to pay for drug inspectors, etc.
Seriously though, yes that is a cost and why you can't make bootleg alcohol
(among other reasons). You do have to consider whether drugs in their "pure"
form (as would be obtained through whatever governmental regulation you desire)
are harmful and the extent of that harm. I believe that harm exists and varies
for variuos drugs.
> b. The Drug War has halted all progress towards the creation of safe
> recreational drugs.
So we should legalize things that are dangerous in the hope that something
safer comes along?
> 3. The Drug War hinders the economy. Hiring police officers, purchasing new
> weapons, printing up propaganda-- These things cost money, and that money comes
> from taxes. Any money I spend on taxes is money I can't spend on food, or
> clothes, or education, or CDs, or any of a thousand things I might purchase.
> That lowers my standard of living, and it also lowers the standard of living of
> the farmer, or the tailor, or the teacher, or the musician, or whoever makes
> the products I would have bought. Now multiply that by 240 million Americans
> and you get *thousands*, perhaps hundreds of thousands of farmers, tailors,
> teachers, musicians, and others who cannot enjoy the standard of living they
> otherwise might have had. Since *they* now have less money, *they* can't
> afford to purchase as much, and so the people *they* buy from are now worse
> off, and so on ad infinitum. And of course, corporations and businesses are
> also taxed, which leaves them with less money to create more jobs, or to do
> research to improve their product, etc. Not to mention that legalizing drugs
> would also create thousands of new jobs, thus helping many of the currently
> unemployed, and making it possible to cut taxes further as there would be fewer
> people on welfare.
Yes it does. There is an economic cost to every action that the governemtn
takes, be it enforcement of drug laws, environmental regulations, tarriffs,
maintanance of an army, etc. You must ceratinly balance these costs against
whatever risks you take by letting things go unchecked.
>
> 4. The Drug War is endangering freedoms Americans once took for granted. By
> far the scariest is the current search and seizure policy, in which the govern-
> ment can confiscate your property *without* first finding you guilty (or even
> charging you) of a crime. All they have to do is arrest you on a drug-related
> charge, at which time they can confiscate your property. If you are later
> found innocent (or released without ever going to trial) you have to sue the
> government to get your property back. The burden of proof is now on you to
> prove that your property was wrongly taken. This hits the poor especially
> hard, as they a) can't afford to lose what little property they have, and b)
> can't afford to hire lawyers or take time off work to go to court. Less scary,
> but still disturbing, is the way the criteria for legal searches has been
> broadened over the last few decades. These changes were made primarily to
> accomodate the people who complained that the police "had their hands tied
> behind their backs" by laws that protected a person's right to be free from
> unreasonable searches and seizures.
>
The Supreme Court has recently declared the confiscation of property in that
manner unconstitutional and I applaud that decision. I support either of the
bills icurrently in Congress (though I prefer the Conyers bill) to establish
much stricter criteria for property confiscation.
> 5. The Drug War has turned drug users, most of whom are ordinary people "just
> like us", into second-class citizens. We have enough artificial distinctions--
> race, gender, sexual preference, religious affiliation, etc.-- to divide
> us against ourselves and keep us hating one another for years to come. So why
> bother adding yet another useless prejudice to the list?
Its only a useless prejuidice if you feel there is no reasonable criteria for
making drugs illegal. If there is then it is not an artificial distinction.
Many criminals are "ordinary citizens" (in fact, most ordinary citizens are
criminals in some way or another.) That does not mean that their particular
crime should be eliminated.
>
> 6. The Drug War is likely to keep expanding to cover drugs that are currently
> legal. You may find out you don't like the Drug War so much once they come for
> *your* drug.
Why will it expand? Can you support this claim? The next round of large use
legal drugs are alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene. I see no serious move to make
any of them illegal.
>
> For the record, I don't use recreational drugs-- not even politically correct
> drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. I like the feeling of knowing my
> mind is functioning at peak capacity, without being disturbed by any alien
> molecules in my bloodstream. But I really don't feel like paying more taxes
> for somebody else's holy war, and I *certainly* don't feel like losing my life,
> or the life of a loved one, to the violence which that holy war causes. If
> you don't like drugs, don't use them. If you don't like drug users, don't
> associate with them. But trying to control the bloodstreams of everybody in
> America is worse than useless-- it engenders violence, causes death and injury,
> drags down the economy, endangers freedom, and promotes hatred. All without
> even achieving its goal.
Fine, I don't use drugs except for alcohol and caffiene. I have friends who do
use them and use them responsibly. There are legitimate arguemnets for the
legalization for *some* drugs, but these arguements are complicated and do not
rely on the "if we legalize it, it will reduce crime" arguement.
One must balance the right of the individual to control one's own body versus
the interest of the state in protecting its citizens (from themselves and
others). Then one takes into account the addictiveness and side effects of the
drug in question, coupled with its main effects and detectability (to prevent a
pilot from flying while stoned for example, no Exxon Valdezes)
Frank
Edward C. Kwok
>
> I see the word "perpetual." That is the key. We can't eliminate the appeals
> process (that would violate the person's civil rights) but we can limit the
> process within reason. When the guy was convicted, the burden of proof was on
> us (innocent until proven guilty and all that). If the guy wants to appeal
> after convicted, he should be considered "still guilty until proven innocent."
> The state has already proven in court that he is guilty. They shouldn't have
> to do it again, and again, and again.
That's the law currently. You can't appeal if you can't find legal error.
Not only that, you have to find "harmful" legal error. Speaking from a very
general sense, a harmful legal error is one such that the outcome would
more likely than not be different had the legal error not been committed.
Specific standards of course vary from state to state.
In the late 1980's, the Rhenquist court found many "harmless errors". When I
first read about some of these harmless errors, my reaction was "What?" As
a matter of fact, it used to be that, after exhausting all state procedures,
the defendant could still use the federal court, where it was believed to be
a more careful and some what fairer forum. The habeus procedure has been cut
back so much that it is now quite difficult to invoke. The reason: the
federal court is not meant to be a place where a defendant claim and prove
actual innocence. I, of course, am taking a poetic license in paraphrasing
honorable Justices Rhenquist and Thomas. I am no longer following U.S.
Supreme Court criminal cases, since I now seldom find the time for such
endeavor. I hope the Clinton appointees have a moderating influence.
>
> The convict should be given no more than 3 appeals or three years, whichever
> comes later, to prove his innocence. If at the end of that period he has not
> provided reasonable doubt as to the validity of the original conviction,
> Bzzzzzaaaapppp!
>
> This type of law should be standardized nationwide, no variance from state to
> state.
Giving them each 3 appeals is much more generous than what we have now.
It is almost the rule now that they get between zero and one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible says there ain't no such thing as the moral majority....
chlo...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
What gives the government any right to impose *any* driving regulations?
The individual has a right to operate his proerty in the manner he sees fit.
So long as he does not injure anyone else, what gives the government any right
to control this behavior. If you say it is the threat of injury to others one
can use analogous arguements with drug use (as one can with alcohol and many
other things).
Now you must examine the interest of the state in protecting its citizens and
balance it against the indiciduals freedom. Different drugs will lead to
differnet conclusions.
Alan Cassel
: I will not get involved in this debate except to note that as a practical
: matter if you have a death penalty for crimes less severe than murder, then
: it costs the criminal nothing to kill his victim, rather than merely injuring/
: maiming/etc.
: I would expect the number of murders to increase under these conditions.
: If you institute the death penalty for rape (for example), I would expect
: a lot of rapists to kill their victims as well as raping them. Dead victims
: tell no tales and the penalty is the same.
: I think this point is commonly overlooked.
This is a good point.
One might add that this logic holds if the death penality is applied for
murder in that a person who has already killed once, and thus is subject
to the death penalty, has no further reason not to kill again to evade
capture. Thus, an argument exists in favor of not imposing the death
penalty except for serial and mass murderers, if at all.
This argument should be given serious consideration by all those who
would expand the range of crimes for which the death penalty could be
imposed.