# Carjacker chased down and killed by parents/mob in Philadelphia



## WhatInThe (Jul 12, 2019)

A carjacker was chased down and killed by the parents and mob in Philadelphia after the thief stole a car with children in it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/philadel...ct-takes-off-with-car-full-of-children-police


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 12, 2019)

Oh dear, what a tragedy all round!! if the mother hadn't been so stupid as to leave her car engine running with her children inside the car... the opportunist thief would be alive today!!..now one man is dead, several men will doubtless be charged with manslaughter...

So many lives needlessly ruined!!


----------



## raybar (Jul 12, 2019)

"When she went inside, the woman reportedly left her car running with her three children -- a 7-month-old, a 1-year-old and a 5-year-old -- inside."

If that's true, she should be charged with child endangerment. 

As for the thief - - grand theft auto and 3 counts of kidnapping - - well, under the law he should have been arrested and prosecuted,  but even so, many people might think he got what he deserved.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 12, 2019)

Yes, my first thought about this was like yours, raybar. what kind of an idiot leaves three such young children in a car with the engine running?  The 5-year-old could have decided to "drive," and all three kid would be dead.


----------



## win231 (Jul 12, 2019)

Yes, brain-dead mother.  But at least justice was served.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 12, 2019)

Hopefully murder charges will be filed against all the vigilantes and the "mother" does time for being a moron.


----------



## win231 (Jul 12, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> Hopefully murder charges will be filed against all the vigilantes and the "mother" does time for being a moron.



No murder charges.  Manslaughter charges also unlikely.  "We were trying to make a citizen's arrest, which we have the right to do & he resisted arrest."
Check out this case in Missouri:  No charges - only a few fines.  The case was declared "unsolved," WITH 46 WITNESSES.  And this was a planned & premeditated murder (well deserved):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy


----------



## johndoe (Jul 13, 2019)

It's Philly, it's what you would expect. Their Eagles and Phillies fans are not much better.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 14, 2019)

Justice was NOT served. Vigilante Justice is seen in Third World countries. Unfortunately, the US seems headed that way.

Anyone who believes a car jacker, who may, or may not, have had any idea that kids were in the car, deserves death, needs a reality check. 

I hope those responsible for his death do get prison time. This will be an interesting case to follow.


----------



## win231 (Jul 14, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> Justice was NOT served. Vigilante Justice is seen in Third World countries. Unfortunately, the US seems headed that way.
> 
> Anyone who believes a car jacker, who may, or may not, have had any idea that kids were in the car, deserves death, needs a reality check.
> 
> I hope those responsible for his death do get prison time. This will be an interesting case to follow.



There is a reason the U.S. seems headed toward vigilante justice.  The reason is our pathetic revolving-door justice system - that victimizes all of us.  People can only take so much injustice.  A case in point:  Post #7.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 14, 2019)

win231 said:


> There is a reason the U.S. seems headed toward vigilante justice.  The reason is our pathetic revolving-door justice system - that victimizes all of us.  People can only take so much injustice.  A case in point:  Post #7.


Ah, so you're going to leave "justice" up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses, eh?  Gee, that's sure to go really well. Uh-huh, sure, you betcha! Lemme outta here!


----------



## win231 (Jul 14, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> Ah, so you're going to leave "justice" up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses, eh?  Gee, that's sure to go really well. Uh-huh, sure, you betcha! Lemme outta here!



"Leaving justice up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses" is exactly how our jury system works.


----------



## AnnieA (Jul 14, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> Hopefully murder charges will be filed against all the vigilantes and the "mother" does time for being a moron.



Not saying it was right to kill the carjacker, but I doubt they'll be charged since the mob got started as an effort to protect endangered children.  Mom should be charged for negligence.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jul 14, 2019)

win231 said:


> No murder charges.  Manslaughter charges also unlikely.  "We were trying to make a citizen's arrest, which we have the right to do & he resisted arrest."
> Check out this case in Missouri:  No charges - only a few fines.  The case was declared "unsolved," WITH 46 WITNESSES.  And this was a planned & premeditated murder (well deserved):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy


Have you seen the ads (on Sundance Channel) that there's going to be a mini-series documentary on the Ken McElroy story?   It starts Thursday, August 1...   https://www.sundancetv.com/shows/no-one-saw-a-thing


----------



## C'est Moi (Jul 14, 2019)

win231 said:


> "Leaving justice up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses" is exactly how our jury system works.


 Sad, but true.


----------



## Trade (Jul 14, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Yes, my first thought about this was like yours, raybar. what kind of an idiot leaves three such young children in a car with the engine running?  The 5-year-old could have decided to "drive," and all three kid would be dead.



My old man left me in the car by myself when I was about 4 and went into a bar to partake of his favorite beverage, a shot in a beer. But he wasn't stupid. He didn't leave the car running with the keys in it. Plus I got to meet Buffalo Bill.


----------



## rgp (Jul 14, 2019)

He's dead ? ....... Works for me. Now lets' put the mother in jail.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 14, 2019)

win231 said:


> "Leaving justice up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses" is exactly how our jury system works.


Hmm...... So, if this carjacker had been arrested, and his case had gone to trial, he would've received the death penalty? Hardly!


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 16, 2019)

I strongly  believe that vigilante "justice" is always wrong.  Chasing a man down and beating him to death has nothing to do with justice -- it is barbarism in it's purest form, nothing more.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 17, 2019)

win231 said:


> "Leaving justice up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses" is exactly how our jury system works.



No, it isn't.  Go spend some time in a courtroom.  Even when juries get it wrong, and they DO, they do not beat another human being to death.


----------



## Trade (Jul 17, 2019)

I'll admit that vigilantism has no place in a civilized society. 

But that doesn't stop me from occasionally fantasizing about doling some out.


----------



## win231 (Jul 17, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> No, it isn't.  Go spend some time in a courtroom.  Even when juries get it wrong, and they DO, they do not beat another human being to death.



No....they just free murderers & rapists so they can continue victimizing.


----------



## win231 (Jul 17, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> Hmm...... So, if this carjacker had been arrested, and his case had gone to trial, he would've received the death penalty? Hardly!


No - if he was convicted, he would have been imprisoned....for a short time, then granted early release after serving less than half of his sentence, then he would have victimized more innocents.  This way, he won't do it again.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 17, 2019)

win231 said:


> No - if he was convicted, he would have been imprisoned....for a short time, then granted early release after serving less than half of his sentence, then he would have victimized more innocents.  This way, he won't do it again.


You're scary, man, but you're entitled to your opinions, and I'm glad we can all express our own, on this wonderful forum!


----------



## Sunny (Jul 17, 2019)

So, Win, by your logic, any time anyone behaves badly or breaks the law, he/she should be beaten to death by an enraged mob?  Instead of this newfangled trial by jury system, invented in 9th century England, let's go back to the good old days! 

Anyone accused of any wrongdoing will be instantly removed from this earth forever, and all the members of the mob that beat him to death can sleep better at night in their snug (or maybe, smug?) little beds.


----------



## win231 (Jul 17, 2019)

Sunny said:


> So, Win, by your logic, any time anyone behaves badly or breaks the law, he/she should be beaten to death by an enraged mob?  Instead of this newfangled trial by jury system, invented in 9th century England, let's go back to the good old days!
> 
> Anyone accused of any wrongdoing will be instantly removed from this earth forever, and all the members of the mob that beat him to death can sleep better at night in their snug (or maybe, smug?) little beds.



Ah....yes.  a perfect example of "Logic by way of extreme exaggeration & nonsense."  Much like: "So....if you believe people have a right to own guns for self defense, you think everybody - including murderers & bank robbers should own guns."

No - only morons would be in favor of executing everyone for any crime, regardless of how minor.  But this guy wasn't shoplifting.  Carjacking & kidnapping are not minor crimes. You seem to forget that this guy was not only a carjacker, he also kidnapped children.  And he probably would not have died if he didn't put up a fight when people tried to stop him. Yes, kidnapping means he got what he deserved.   Perhaps you feel they should have just stood by & let him get away with the kids.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 17, 2019)

win231 said:


> Ah....yes.  a perfect example of "Logic by way of extreme exaggeration & nonsense."  Much like: "So....if you believe people have a right to own guns for self defense, you think everybody - including murderers & bank robbers should own guns."
> 
> No - only morons would be in favor of executing everyone for any crime, regardless of how minor.  But this guy wasn't shoplifting.  Carjacking & kidnapping are not minor crimes. You seem to forget that this guy was not only a carjacker, he also kidnapped children.  And he probably would not have died if he didn't put up a fight when people tried to stop him. Yes, kidnapping means he got what he deserved.   Perhaps you feel they should have just stood by & let him get away with the kids.


Do me a favor, please post the link that reveals that the guy knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the kids were in the car, before he jumped in, and I'd like the source where you read how he put up a fight when apprehended, before the mob started beating him to death.  Thanks.


----------



## win231 (Jul 17, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> Do me a favor, please post the link that reveals that the guy knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the kids were in the car, before he jumped in, and I'd like the source where you read how he put up a fight when apprehended, before the mob started beating him to death.  Thanks.



If he was too blind to notice two kids in the car, he'd have to be too blind to drive.  Either way, it doesn't matter to me.  I wouldn't let someone steal my dog; much less my child.  They'd pay dearly, either way.  One less dirtbag to add to our pathetic revolving-door justice system.


----------



## 911 (Jul 17, 2019)

Obviously, here in Pennsylvania, the culprit would have been charged with felony theft and kidnapping. Other charges could have been brought,  but the D.A. would have decided what, if any, additional charges would have been added to the list. I can think of a few. 

Mob justice just can’t or shouldn’t prevail. However, if the mob had a reasonable expectation that the children’s lives were in jeopardy, then the D.A. has a tough call. 

I think there was a similar case somewhere down south where the carjacker did kill the child inside the car, so again, if this is true, it could be used as a precedent. Too many possibilities, but I think that at least some charges will be handed down. 

The jails are full. Criminals are being given fair sentences, but because of over-crowding, the Parole Boards have had to give in or capitulate by allowing prisoners to go free with shorter than normal time. The juries are permitted to recommend sentencing, but judges normally use guidelines as set by the DOJ. After using several pre-sentence reports from all sides, the judge will then hand down his final decision. 

One exception to this rule is felony murder, which is automatic life/no parole in this state.


----------



## win231 (Jul 17, 2019)

911 said:


> Obviously, here in Pennsylvania, the culprit would have been charged with felony theft and kidnapping. Other charges could have been brought,  but the D.A. would have decided what, if any, additional charges would have been added to the list. I can think of a few.
> 
> Mob justice just can’t or shouldn’t prevail. However, if the mob had a reasonable expectation that the children’s lives were in jeopardy, then the D.A. has a tough call.
> 
> ...



I think it's wrong to assume the mob beat him to death out of revenge.  More likely, he resisted & was injured during the struggle.  When suspects resist arrest by police officers, they can also end up dead, which is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
If felony murder is an automatic life/no parole, how are some of the Manson murderers being granted parole? And why should it take the Governor to veto it?


----------



## rgp (Jul 18, 2019)

win231 said:


> I think it's wrong to assume the mob beat him to death out of revenge.  More likely, he resisted & was injured during the struggle.  When suspects resist arrest by police officers, they can also end up dead, which is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
> If felony murder is an automatic life/no parole, how are some of the Manson murderers being granted parole? And why should it take the Governor to veto it?



Different state, than 911 was referring to.

On the rest I agree. I have no use / no sympathy for criminal thugs. IMO any_* planned *_crime should bring the death penalty . If they can plan a crime against society .... then [again opinion] society does not need them. I assure you if _*that*_ were implemented .... crime rates would drop like a rock.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 18, 2019)

rgp said:


> Different state, than 911 was referring to.
> 
> On the rest I agree. I have no use / no sympathy for criminal thugs. IMO any_* planned *_crime should bring the death penalty . If they can plan a crime against society .... then [again opinion] society does not need them. I assure you if _*that*_ were implemented .... crime rates would drop like a rock.



Jeez, did you read "1984," and adopt its Big Brother operating philosophy as your credo?  I'm really getting freaked out by some of y'all, no lie!


----------



## Sunny (Jul 18, 2019)

Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.

(You did say, "planned crime."  So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense.  Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.
> 
> (You did say, "planned crime."  So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense.  Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")



I'll stick with 1984: Any offenses against Big Brother were capital crimes. You never knew, though, when you were going to be taken out, as I recall. 

I do like your AIW comparison, to be sure! Nice!

One thing that I take heart in: We're mostly older folks, in here. When we're gone, hopefully the extremist, scary ideologies will be gone, too! Then again, without getting into politics, an offense that'll get me banned, I can say that the world, today, seems to be putting out some very scary ways of looking at things!


----------



## Sunny (Jul 18, 2019)

Treeguy, we can only hope.


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 18, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> I'll stick with 1984: Any offenses against Big Brother were capital crimes. You never knew, though, when you were going to be taken out, as I recall.
> 
> I do like your AIW comparison, to be sure! Nice!
> 
> *One thing that I take heart in: We're mostly older folks, in here. When we're gone, hopefully the extremist, scary ideologies will be gone, too! Then again, without getting into politics, an offense that'll get me banned, I can say that the world, today, seems to be putting out some very scary ways of looking at things!*



You must be joking TG..with all the permanently offended snowflakes nowadays...once this elder genaration are gone, there'll be no-one at all to bring them to their senses...


----------



## Trade (Jul 18, 2019)

hollydolly said:


> You must be joking TG..with all the permanently offended snowflakes nowadays...once this elder genaration are gone, there'll be no-one at all to bring them to their senses...



I guess I must be one of those rare old geezers who thinks young people today are on the whole a lot more reasonable than some of these nasty old set in their ways curmudgeons.


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 18, 2019)

Trade said:


> I guess I must be one of those rare old geezers who thinks young people today are on the whole a lot more reasonable than some of these nasty old set in their ways curmudgeons.


 I wish it were so..TG...


----------



## rgp (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.
> 
> (You did say, "planned crime."  So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense.  Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")



 OK, I may have painted with a broad brush....but then you knew that. I am just sick & tired of crime/criminals, and sick & tired of coddling them.

 But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with ....


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 18, 2019)

hollydolly said:


> I wish it were so..TG...


That was from Trade, not me.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 18, 2019)

rgp said:


> OK, I may have painted with a broad brush....but then you knew that. I am just sick & tired of crime/criminals, and sick & tired of coddling them.
> 
> But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with ....



Yeah, in your world, the saying would be: Kids WON'T be kids! It would go right up there with: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 18, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> That was from Trade, not me.


 oops sorry Both....


----------



## 911 (Jul 18, 2019)

win231 said:


> I think it's wrong to assume the mob beat him to death out of revenge.  More likely, he resisted & was injured during the struggle.  When suspects resist arrest by police officers, they can also end up dead, which is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
> If felony murder is an automatic life/no parole, how are some of the Manson murderers being granted parole? And why should it take the Governor to veto it?



So, yes, Pennsylvania is a bit quirky right now with sentencing due to the political climate. Here in the Commonwealth, If a defendant is found guilty of felony murder, or what most people refer to as first degree murder, the best the defendant can hope for is life/no parole. The death penalty is always on the table, however, our Governor has put a moratorium on the death penalty until he leaves office. 

California also has the death penalty and they do sentence people accordingly, but again, their Governor has not signed a warrant to exercise the sentence in a long time. When the Manson family was sentenced to death, the SCOTUS overturned all death penalty sentences as being cruel and harsh punishment because of the manner of which some states were using to carry it out. So, all states commuted all death sentences to life/no parole. In California, if a prisoner can show cause why parole should be considered, such as having a terminal illness, then the Governor could grant them an exception and ask for parole. 

Vigilante justice is definitely not a good thing. We may not always agree with the court’s sentence, but allowing everyone due process is the proper method that a civilized society operates. Allowing street gangs to dish out whatever punishment they feel is needed will only bring about chaos in our society. And street gangs, thugs or whatever group that is involved in these attacks should be held accountable. 

I often think about John Gotti’s neighbor that struck and killed John’s youngest son and months later went missing. The young child darted out into the street in front of then oncoming car and was struck and killed. Years later, the neighbor (driver of the car) was declared dead by the courts. Last seen, he (the neighbor) was being shoved into a white van and never seen or heard from again. Was that fair?


----------



## rgp (Jul 18, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> Yeah, in your world, the saying would be: Kids WON'T be kids! It would go right up there with: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!




 I never said that, I said I was _*WRONG*_ stating it as i did. Please do not put words in my mouth.


----------



## 911 (Jul 18, 2019)

D.A.’s and Prosecutors have two rules they live by:

1. Never file any charges that you can’t substantiate 
2. Never take any case to court that you don’t have a reasonable chance of winning.

So, here we gave a carjacking with kids in the car. The carjacker is caught and beat to death. After all the legal wrangling is over, the jury, which will be made up by the mob’s peers, will issue the final verdict.

What’s the chances of getting a guilty verdict, if their peers think the mob did the right thing?


----------



## win231 (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.
> 
> (You did say, "planned crime."  So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense.  Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")



No one in their right mind would advocate such stupidity as executing kids for mischief.  Not a logical way to make your opinion seem valid.


----------



## win231 (Jul 18, 2019)

911 said:


> D.A.’s and Prosecutors have two rules they live by:
> 
> 1. Never file any charges that you can’t substantiate
> 2. Never take any case to court that you don’t have a reasonable chance of winning.
> ...



Zero - as it should be.  Much like in the case in post #7


----------



## win231 (Jul 18, 2019)

Trade said:


> My old man left me in the car by myself when I was about 4 and went into a bar to partake of his favorite beverage, a shot in a beer. But he wasn't stupid. He didn't leave the car running with the keys in it. Plus I got to meet Buffalo Bill.


So did my dad when I was 4 or 5.  He wasn't very smart, either.  Especially since he knew I played with every button & switch in the car - including that starter button.  He did learn not to leave me in the car any more after I played with that pull-out parking brake & the car rolled down a steep hill & crashed into a tree.  Could have been another car or a pedestrian.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 18, 2019)

> "Leaving justice up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses" is exactly how our jury system works.



That's a very interesting statement, Win. The operational part is "incredibly ignorant."  And that's the difference between a jury trial and an enraged mob.

You say the actions of an ignorant mob are the same as the actions of a jury that has sat through many hours, sometimes weeks or even months, of hearing testimony, seeing evidence, evaluating witnesses, listening to the logic advanced by both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, etc. The jury may have been just as ignorant as the mob on the first day of the trial, but they are sworn to consider all evidence and render as just a verdict as possible. And if the prisoner is sentenced to death, it isn't by the hands of the same people who found him guilty.

Of course, the outcome isn't always ideal. But it's very, very different from the outcome of an enraged mob with weapons in their hands and the adrenaline running. It's the difference between civilization and anarchy.


----------



## win231 (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunny said:


> That's a very interesting statement, Win. The operational part is "incredibly ignorant."  And that's the difference between a jury trial and an enraged mob.
> 
> You say the actions of an ignorant mob are the same as the actions of a jury that has sat through many hours, sometimes weeks or even months, of hearing testimony, seeing evidence, evaluating witnesses, listening to the logic advanced by both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, etc. The jury may have been just as ignorant as the mob on the first day of the trial, but they are sworn to consider all evidence and render as just a verdict as possible. And if the prisoner is sentenced to death, it isn't by the hands of the same people who found him guilty.
> 
> Of course, the outcome isn't always ideal. But it's very, very different from the outcome of an enraged mob with weapons in their hands and the adrenaline running. It's the difference between civilization and anarchy.


We use a jury system in this country because it's the cheapest option; not the best option.  I compared the ignorance of people on a jury to the complaint about an ignorant mob.  The mob provided justice & also prevented the deaths of 2 children.    Jurors are "sworn to consider all the evidence" etc. but they are not legal experts & have their own prejudices & thoughts about what justice is. That's why a good defense attorney can confuse them & that's why they get it wrong so many times.
That's where the quote comes from:  "A jury consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty."


----------



## win231 (Jul 18, 2019)

Here is another carjacker who didn't fare too well.  (no children in the car, but it's a different story when someone uses a deadly weapon - a knife - during a robbery)  Again, favorable result:

https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...7/18/phoenix-carjacker-brings-knife-gunfight/


----------



## Sunny (Jul 18, 2019)

Win, your cynical attitude about our entire system of justice is horrifying, to put it mildly. Just to answer part of what you said, no, the jury doesn't consist of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. It is very easy to get out of jury duty if one wants to. The one time I was on a jury, in a car theft case, I found it an inspiring experience. My fellow jurors were serious and a little bit awed to be in that jury box, not an ignorant, brutal mob such as you seem to be advocating, but people who were glad to be part of the process.  We took the case very seriously. The guy was obviously guilty, and we found him guilty in an hour or less. He did not get away with his crime.

The prosecutor and the defense attorney likewise took their jobs seriously. They explained everything to us so that it would be perfectly clear, and answered any questions. After the trial ended, they called us in to a meeting and asked us what factors led us to a guilty verdict. They seemed genuinely interested in learning from the experience.

So no, we didn't form an outraged mob to tear a car thief limb from limb, as you would probably have preferred, Win. Sorry, but I prefer to live in a country that has advanced beyond the cave man days.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 18, 2019)

win231 said:


> We use a jury system in this country because it's the cheapest option; not the best option.  I compared the ignorance of people on a jury to the complaint about an ignorant mob.  The mob provided justice & also prevented the deaths of 2 children.    Jurors are "sworn to consider all the evidence" etc. but they are not legal experts & have their own prejudices & thoughts about what justice is. That's why a good defense attorney can confuse them & that's why they get it wrong so many times.
> That's where the quote comes from:  "A jury consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty."



First off, I think you grossly underestimate and demean your fellow citizens who serve on juries. 

And what would your idea of the "best option" be?  Just throw the accused off a  roof or stick them in prison and get it over with, on the assumption that if you are accused of a crime, you must be guilty?  Or maybe let the king decide?  Or maybe professional jurors who would be even more susceptible to personal prejudices and, BTW, to bribes and special interests?  Or just let the arresting officers decide?  Or better yet go out in the streets and recruit a mob of angry people and give 'em all clubs and tell 'em to have at it?

Our jury system is based on the British system, in place for hundreds of years.  It isn't the cheapest option -- actually a jury trial is quite an expensive undertaking -- and that is not why it is used.  It is used in an effort to guarantee that all defendants get due process and a fair trial, a basic tenet of our society.  The system is not perfect, but it is the best there is.


----------



## win231 (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Win, your cynical attitude about our entire system of justice is horrifying, to put it mildly. Just to answer part of what you said, no, the jury doesn't consist of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. It is very easy to get out of jury duty if one wants to. The one time I was on a jury, in a car theft case, I found it an inspiring experience. My fellow jurors were serious and a little bit awed to be in that jury box, not an ignorant, brutal mob such as you seem to be advocating, but people who were glad to be part of the process.  We took the case very seriously. The guy was obviously guilty, and we found him guilty in an hour or less. He did not get away with his crime.
> 
> The prosecutor and the defense attorney likewise took their jobs seriously. They explained everything to us so that it would be perfectly clear, and answered any questions. After the trial ended, they called us in to a meeting and asked us what factors led us to a guilty verdict. They seemed genuinely interested in learning from the experience.
> 
> So no, we didn't form an outraged mob to tear a car thief limb from limb, as you would probably have preferred, Win. Sorry, but I prefer to live in a country that has advanced beyond the cave man days.



Yeah....and the moronic jurors in Simi Valley who found those four douchebag cops who pounded on Rodney King & got him 4 million dollars & all charges dropped instead of a 3rd strike 20-year sentence were also serious & intelligent.  The only thing they took seriously was their racism & prejudice - like the four cops.
You can look at things through Rose-Colored Glasses all you want.  I prefer reality.  When I want fantasy, I go to Disneyland.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 18, 2019)

rgp said:


> I never said that, I said I was _*WRONG*_ stating it as i did. Please do not put words in my mouth.



Uh, no. To wit:
"But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with .... "
*You *put the words in your own mouth!


----------



## Sunny (Jul 19, 2019)

Win, of course juries deliver verdicts that are "wrong" sometimes. Or verdicts with which YOU may not agree. So what?  Does that mean that the entire jury system is nonsense, and we'd be better off leaving it to a brutal mob of ignoramuses with their adrenaline running?  Not to mention the alcohol that might be pickling their brains?  Just return to (as I said before) cave man "justice?"

Holly, I rarely disagree with you, but I do on this subject. Calling people who want a system of due process, rather than mob rule, "snowflakes" means you consider our Founding Fathers snowflakes, plus those who implemented it in your country much earlier. That system of law is a large part of what makes our two countries desirable places to live.  In spite of its flaws, and the fact that sometimes juries might make dumb decisions, I'll go along with the snowflake system.

Your very own Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."  The same could be said of western world jiurisprudence.

Trade, I agree with your assessment of the younger generation vs. the old curmudgeons. In general, the young folks are a lot kinder, not carrying all the baggage of those brought up in the "good old days."  People who were severely punished in their own youth tend to perpetuate the punishment on others, sad to say.


----------



## rgp (Jul 19, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> Uh, no. To wit:
> "But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with .... "
> *You *put the words in your own mouth!



Yeah, and I put a  at the end which you conveniently dropped from your quote. If you are going to quote me .... quote me completely.


----------



## Judycat (Jul 19, 2019)

Too many angry people walking around doing impulsive things. A mob of this type is terror. This is not why we have laws. It's why we have courts.


911 said:


> Obviously, here in Pennsylvania, the culprit would have been charged with felony theft and kidnapping. Other charges could have been brought,  but the D.A. would have decided what, if any, additional charges would have been added to the list. I can think of a few.
> 
> Mob justice just can’t or shouldn’t prevail. However, if the mob had a reasonable expectation that the children’s lives were in jeopardy, then the D.A. has a tough call.
> 
> Still the group could have held onto him and handed him over to authorities in this case. Instead they decided to act like a band of lower primates and beat the man to death. Nope. It's a crime. Sorry.


----------



## win231 (Jul 19, 2019)

Judycat said:


> Too many angry people walking around doing impulsive things. A mob of this type is terror. This is not why we have laws. It's why we have courts.



911,
"Still the group could have held onto him and handed him over to authorities in this case. Instead they decided to act like a band of lower primates and beat the man to death. Nope. It's a crime. Sorry."
The only way the group could have held onto him was if he didn't put up a struggle.  I'm assuming you weren't there, so you don't know what occurred.


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 19, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Win, of course juries deliver verdicts that are "wrong" sometimes. Or verdicts with which YOU may not agree. So what?  Does that mean that the entire jury system is nonsense, and we'd be better off leaving it to a brutal mob of ignoramuses with their adrenaline running?  Not to mention the alcohol that might be pickling their brains?  Just return to (as I said before) cave man "justice?"
> 
> Holly, I rarely disagree with you, but I do on this subject. Calling people who want a system of due process, rather than mob rule, "snowflakes" means you consider our Founding Fathers snowflakes, plus those who implemented it in your country much earlier. That system of law is a large part of what makes our two countries desirable places to live.  In spite of its flaws, and the fact that sometimes juries might make dumb decisions, I'll go along with the snowflake system.
> 
> ...


 I agree with all of this Sunny.. and all your other comments on this subject... but I'm sticking by my ''snowflake comment'' that's my own personal opinion, and I've witnessed it in action and  believe it can only get worse.....


----------



## Judycat (Jul 19, 2019)

Ugh! I accidently hit the Post button, then tried to edit and then delete my above comment. It didn't work. I tried like 3 or 4 times to rid this thread of it, and it still showed up. Blah. Please ignore my post, I don't know WTH I'm talking about.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jul 19, 2019)

rgp said:


> Yeah, and I put a  at the end which you conveniently dropped from your quote. If you are going to quote me .... quote me completely.



I will stay polite, here, because this is Happy Land!


----------



## 911 (Jul 19, 2019)

Keep in mind, no defendant has to have a trial by jury. Any defendant may opt for a bench trial, whereby only the judge decides guilty or not guilty. The constitution does not guarantee anyone of a trial by their peers, only a trial by jury, if so desired. 

Maybe 10 years ago, there was a lot of talk about having professional juries made up of former judges, attorneys and Prosecutors. It would definitely add expenses to the cost of the trial, but the idea is to get it right and maybe stop this appeal after appeal merry-go-round.


----------



## win231 (Jul 19, 2019)

911 said:


> Keep in mind, no defendant has to have a trial by jury. Any defendant may opt for a bench trial, whereby only the judge decides guilty or not guilty. The constitution does not guarantee anyone of a trial by their peers, only a trial by jury, if so desired.
> 
> Maybe 10 years ago, there was a lot of talk about having professional juries made up of former judges, attorneys and Prosecutors. It would definitely add expenses to the cost of the trial, but the idea is to get it right and maybe stop this appeal after appeal merry-go-round.



Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial.  He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors.  Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jul 19, 2019)

win231 said:


> Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial.  He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
> And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors.  Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.


And lest we forget; not all judges are intelligent.      They are just as human as the rest of us.


----------



## win231 (Jul 19, 2019)

C'est Moi said:


> And lest we forget; not all judges are intelligent.      They are just as human as the rest of us.



100% correct.  I forgot about all those kids the judges returned to their abusive parents who then murdered them.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 19, 2019)

win231 said:


> Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial.  He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
> And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors.  Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.



I would like to point out that you are using "intelligent" and "ignorant" as if they were the opposite of each other.  They are not.

"Intelligence" is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.

"Ignorance" is simply the lack of knowledge.

A jury who is "ignorant" of the law will be instructed by the judge on the law that applies to the case before it.

A judge is pretty intelligent or he wouldn't be where he/she is  -- having had to get through law school (acquiring knowledge), passing the bar and practicing law (applying said knowledge).


----------



## 911 (Jul 20, 2019)

Without going back through my journal, I will just make the statement that I have given testimony in several trials. In my own opinion, I don’t think juries have always gotten the verdict correct. Not because it wasn’t the verdict that I wanted, but because I didn’t think they applied the judge’s instructions properly.

In civil cases, I have noticed that the plaintiffs have sometimes, (a lot of times), done better by going with a bench trial, instead of a jury trial. I have also noticed that if a case is tried in a county that is more liberal, the jury awards have been larger. In criminal trials that were tried in liberal counties the sentences have been about equal to conservative counties. 

Juries are a lot of times confused by a judge’s instructions and also by laws, even when explained. Juries have handed notes to judges asking to clarify a law or an instruction. Going back to the Casey Anthony case, IMO, how she walked away without being found guilty of at least negligence. 

Sometimes, it all comes down to a jury’s interpretation of “reasonable doubt.” They sometimes take that as meaning “all doubt.” It’s really been a sticking point with a lot of juries and someone needs to come up with a better phrase or terminology that the normal person can better understand.


----------



## rgp (Jul 20, 2019)

win231 said:


> Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial.  He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
> And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors.  Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.



 Not arguing with you ... as i do not know. But I have heard some law professionals say a person is better off with a judge, than a jury. Due to the fact that the judge purportedly has the ability to keep emotion out of their decision ? Where juries are prone to be much more emotional _in_ their decisions. Some even say , a jury decision is almost always emotional. Because they have no professional knowledge of the law, beyond the judges instructions.

This is why in the case of a black/white or male/female defendant , they try to seat a _balanced_ jury, in the case _of _a jury trial.


----------



## win231 (Jul 20, 2019)

rgp said:


> Not arguing with you ... as i do not know. But I have heard some law professionals say a person is better off with a judge, than a jury. Due to the fact that the judge purportedly has the ability to keep emotion out of their decision ? Where juries are prone to be much more emotional _in_ their decisions. Some even say , a jury decision is almost always emotional. Because they have no professional knowledge of the law, beyond the judges instructions.
> 
> This is why in the case of a black/white or male/female defendant , they try to seat a _balanced_ jury, in the case _of _a jury trial.


The jurors in the first trial of the 4 officers who pounded on Rodney King were not balanced.  They were all white.  And obviously, all racist.  That's why they arrived at the "not guilty" verdict.  Interesting how 2 of the officers were found guilty in the Federal trial.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 20, 2019)

Repeating the obvious fact that at times juries (and judges) make mistakes, and that most people on juries are not Supreme Court justices, is absolutely no justification for a lynch mob. Ever. I can't believe this actually has to be said to some members of this "friendly forum," but there it is. And that was the original subject of this discussion.


----------



## 911 (Jul 20, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Repeating the obvious fact that at times juries (and judges) make mistakes, and that most people on juries are not Supreme Court justices, is absolutely no justification for a lynch mob. Ever. I can't believe this actually has to be said to some members of this "friendly forum," but there it is. And that was the original subject of this discussion.



The issue with what you have stated is that when a judge makes a mistake, the defendant has the right to appeal and have the judge’s decision overturned. When a jury errs with a wrong verdict, there is no appeal (if found not guilty) because of no “double jeopardy,” unless the jury rules against the defendant and then he may appeal yet again. 

With all the posts that have been made regarding this issue, it appears that the consensus is to allow juries and not vigilantes to decide the fate of the perpetrator.


----------



## win231 (Jul 20, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Repeating the obvious fact that at times juries (and judges) make mistakes, and that most people on juries are not Supreme Court justices, is absolutely no justification for a lynch mob. Ever. I can't believe this actually has to be said to some members of this "friendly forum," but there it is. And that was the original subject of this discussion.


The situation with the trial of the 4 officers was not a "mistake."  An all-white racist jury is not a mistake.  It is a setup for an unjust racist verdict - which is exactly what happened.  That is what makes our jury system the pathetic joke that it is.  And that is what led to the riots that followed.  That is also what sometimes contributes to mob justice.   And that is what leads to a lack of respect for police officers.  People are willing to accept that there will be some bad police officers.  But people are NOT willing to accept that such officers will get away with it because our legal system doesn't want to prosecute or convict them.  And when they are convicted, they received only a fraction of what a non officer would receive for the same crime. 

Example:  One of the moronic jurors was interviewed after the first "not guilty" verdict for the 4 officers.  The reporter asked her if she thought the verdict was just.  She replied, "Yes, because Rodney King was a big, powerful man."  (True example of an idiot assigned to be on a jury).


----------



## rgp (Jul 21, 2019)

I think the whole point is being lost here ........All these guys that make the news, that we tend to discuss on boards like this,   Had they not committed a crime, they would have never been beaten. Or sometimes in the case of being stopped for suspicion [of] a crime, they fail to comply with officers demands. They choose to fight ...... that is when things go bad. I am not dismissing bad behavior by some [rogue] officers but , I have said it before, & I am now. If one does not want a bad, perhaps violent interaction with the police ? Behave, stay on the legal side of the law ..... simple.


----------



## 911 (Jul 21, 2019)

There’s almost always an exception to the rule, as in the Rodney King case. And, we know that there are a few bad cops, juries, prosecutors, judges, etc. So, if we wouldn’t have a jury trial, what would be the next better thing? Professional jury, no, that’s no good for some, so how should we decide the fate of a defendant?


----------



## win231 (Jul 21, 2019)

I don't consider the Rodney King case an "exception."  I also don't consider the O.J. case an exception.  They were just more publicized.  I also don't think the Lena Baker case was an exception.   I've witnessed racist cops chatting about their exploits & how they have "fun" & I knew what goes on long before we heard douche bag Mark Fuhrman's stupidity on tape (which was partly responsible for allowing O.J. to get away with two murders). Many defense attorneys are former cops & make their careers defending racist cops when they commit a crime, so nothing they say or do surprises me.
I'm in favor of professional jurors.  In fact, I'd be willing to go to whatever school would be required & obtain whatever degree needed & I would have made it my career.  Anything is better that what we have now.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 21, 2019)

Win, you really don't want to let go of this, no matter what anybody has to say about it. 

Your desire for "professional jurors" brings to mind the brilliant humor of Gilbert & Sullivan's The Mikado. They used Japan to make fun of the British legal system, in which some of the characters were the Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, Pooh-Bah, the Lord High Everything Else, and The Mikado (emperor of Japan),  is rolling on the floor laughing at his own legal sentences:

My object all sublime, I shall repeat in time,
To let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime,
And make each prisoner pent unwittingly represent
A source of innocent merriment, of innocent merriment.

All prosy, dull society sinners who chatter and bleat and bore,
Are sent to hear sermons from mystical Germans who preach from ten till four...

And so on. Your "professional jury" would fit right in!


----------



## win231 (Jul 21, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Win, you really don't want to let go of this, no matter what anybody has to say about it.
> 
> Your desire for "professional jurors" brings to mind the brilliant humor of Gilbert & Sullivan's The Mikado. They used Japan to make fun of the British legal system, in which some of the characters were the Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, Pooh-Bah, the Lord High Everything Else, and The Mikado (emperor of Japan),  is rolling on the floor laughing at his own legal sentences:
> 
> ...



Sunny,


----------



## win231 (Jul 21, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Win, you really don't want to let go of this, no matter what anybody has to say about it.
> 
> Your desire for "professional jurors" brings to mind the brilliant humor of Gilbert & Sullivan's The Mikado. They used Japan to make fun of the British legal system, in which some of the characters were the Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, Pooh-Bah, the Lord High Everything Else, and The Mikado (emperor of Japan),  is rolling on the floor laughing at his own legal sentences:
> 
> ...



Sunny, your repeated replies indicate that YOU don't want to let go of this.  What unseen force is compelling you to respond?


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 21, 2019)

win231 said:


> Sunny, your repeated replies indicate that YOU don't want to let go of this.  What unseen force is compelling you to respond?



Perhaps Sunny is motivated by her interest in justice and the rule of law, rather than mob violence.


----------



## win231 (Jul 21, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Perhaps Sunny is motivated by her interest in justice and the rule of law, rather than mob violence.



Everyone has the right to their opinion.  And also the right to express it, whether someone else agrees with it or not.  And for those who really don't want to know my opinion, there is a feature called "Ignore" that doesn't cost anything.


----------



## 911 (Jul 27, 2019)

The last that I have been told is that the D.A. is still investigating the case.

IMO, I would have had no problem with the father catching the carjacker and along with the mob would have then held him for police to take into custody.

All these people did was to commit another crime.


----------



## win231 (Jul 27, 2019)

911 said:


> The last that. I have been told is that the D.A. is still investigating the case.
> 
> IMO, I would have had no problem with the father catching the carjacker and along with the mob would have then held him for police to take into custody.
> 
> All these people did was to commit another crime.


You can't possibly know that since you weren't there.  If the suspect resisted & had to be restrained, that could have resulted in his death.  It happens frequently with police officers too; a suspect resists arrest, there is a struggle & the suspect dies of injuries while being restrained or has a heart attack.


----------



## MeAgain (Jul 27, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> You're scary, man, but you're entitled to your opinions, and I'm glad we can all express our own, on this wonderful forum!



Somebody threatens to take one of your kids you lose it at least temporarily.
  People are getting very frustrated with all these thugs making life miserable and unsafe for them.
   Mother should be cited and father and mob awarded a medal. This thug could have killed the child in a hot pursuit chase. Highjacking is one thing risking life of child a whole new ball game.
    If he would have tried it here he would had a lot quicker end most down here are armed and don't like criminals endangering our kids.
   Of course we don't stop the drug pushers or gangs so guess we'er no better when it comes right down to the nitty gritty.


----------



## 911 (Jul 27, 2019)

He never had a chance to resist. The carjacker got caught in traffic and could not move, allowing for the dad to catch up to him and begin pulling him out of the car. That’s when the others joined in and decided to take justice into their own hands.

Mob justice or mob violence? Neither one is or should be accepted in today’s society.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 27, 2019)

win231 said:


> You can't possibly know that since you weren't there.  If the suspect resisted & had to be restrained, that could have resulted in his death.  It happens frequently with police officers too; a suspect resists arrest, there is a struggle & the suspect dies of injuries while being restrained or has a heart attack.



I seriously doubt that a MOB could not have restrained the man without killing him.


----------



## win231 (Jul 27, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> I seriously doubt that a MOB could not have restrained the man without killing him.


The suspect may have had a pre-existing health issue that made the struggle fatal - as happens frequently with police officers making an arrest.
And, it doesn't matter to me.  If I caught up with someone who kidnapped my child, I wouldn't need a mob; he'd be dead long before a mob got to him.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 28, 2019)

Glad to see that we have another keyboard kommando with delusions of Rambo among us.


----------

