Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Look for a mistrial, or a retrial, in the Colin Ferguson fiasco.
    
    

    Me thinks Colin will lose his battle and request a retrial based on not
    getting good concil, there for he can get a new trial.

	Colin will be found guilty, but won't start serving his sentence until
the contract of his newly appointed position of Baseball Commisioner runs out.
Kind of like what Daaaaaaaaaaarraaaaaallllll Strawberry is doing with his tax
evasion.....

    I wonder who declared Colin Ferguson *competent* to stand trial???
    The man is obviously Looney Tunes; even though the attack on the
    commuters was horrible, it's obvious this guy has gone too far around
    the bend.
    
    

   <<< Note 17.1898 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I wonder who declared Colin Ferguson *competent* to stand trial???
>    The man is obviously Looney Tunes; even though the attack on the
>    commuters was horrible, it's obvious this guy has gone too far around
>    the bend.
 
	Remember, the legal definition of "incompetent" is very precise
	and has little realtionship to the "common" definition.

Jim   
    

    Jim,
    
    Does the meaning of competent vary from state to state?  Locally I've
    seen evaluations done by professionals and many times the results 
    are "so and so" is not competent to stand trial and they are remanded
    immediately to the closest state mental hospital.
    
    I'm just wondering if Colin Ferguson is being tried because of pressure
    from the victim's families.  Don't get me wrong, I think Ferguson
    should be sitting in the cell next to "Son of Sam" for the rest of his
    days (wonder what their conversation would be like)?
    
    I think I'm pretty conservative most of the time, but Ferguson is more
    than "3 fries short of a Happy Meal" :-}  I just can't imagine why the
    State of NY would want to waste money trying this guy.
    

    he's getting a trial because he has the right to one, regardless
    of how overwhelming the evidence is. the judge is being (way) 
    lenient with him offering every latitude. there will be no reversals
    on this one. i can't see how he can claim inadequate defense since
    he's representing himself. 
    
    the guy's a gonner...
    
    Chip

    In N.Y. the judge said he was competent to stand trial so therefor he
    can represent himself. If he was incompetent he would still need a
    trial but a lawyer would represent him, more of a "protection of
    rights" than a trial to find him guilty or innocent.
    
    It is unfortunate that N.Y. at this time doesn`t have an execution
    because he would certainly qualify for it. It seems that the witnesses
    are handling the stress of faceing this guy just to release some of the
    hostilities they are holding in.  

   <<< Note 17.1901 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Does the meaning of competent vary from state to state?  Locally I've
>    seen evaluations done by professionals and many times the results 
>    are "so and so" is not competent to stand trial and they are remanded
>    immediately to the closest state mental hospital.
 
	Some, but not much.

	There are generallly two cases where a defendant will not stand
	trial. First, if he can not assist in his own defense. Obviously
	does not apply to Fergusson since he is representing himself. And
	second if it can be shown that the defendant is legally insane,
	ie. not responsible for his actions. Also does not apply to
	Ferguson.

>    I think I'm pretty conservative most of the time, but Ferguson is more
>    than "3 fries short of a Happy Meal" :-}  I just can't imagine why the
>    State of NY would want to waste money trying this guy.
 
	An insanity plea could result in committment, then treatment,
	and possible release after the "cure". I'm pretty sure the
	State does not want Ferguson to ever again see the light of
	day.

Jim

    
    
     I wonder how much money and grief the state of NY would've saved if
    there was someone on that train who was packin' legally....

    .1901
    As long as there is no death penalty in N.Y. he stands to see the light
    of day in due time. He could be a free man in 30 or so years with good
    behavior.

    
    
    	average sentence served for murder is 7years....
    
    

    .1909
    Since there was more than one killed he (Colin) will serve more than 7
    years but I know where your comin from.

I don't know about NY, but in MA you really spend your life in prison if
you're sentenced to life-with-no-parole.  Of course, the last years might
be in a prison/nursing-home.

    I can not remember one person ahveing served his/her entire life in
    prison in N.Y. (unless they were 90 years old when committed). I~m sure
    there are but they may well have been bad boys in the prison.

re .1907:

>     I wonder how much money and grief the state of NY would've saved if
>    there was someone on that train who was packin' legally....

You forgot the cost of the trial of the person who shot Colin...even if it
was legal somehow...(if not a cop)..

    
    <------
    
    I think you'd get enough people sending in money to defray the costs..
    for both the sate and the "perp"...
    
      Besides... it woulda been a 1 day affair and nothing more... the
    media doesn't thrive on hero types too long...
    

    .1906	Bingo!!
    
    I'm fairly certain (IMHO) that NY went for the trial rather than
    risk him getting out of a mental institution any time soon.  I just
    wanted to see if anyone would "fess" up that they were thinking the
    same way.
    
    I'm still not sure this couldn't get overturned, though.  Obviously
    he can "assist" in his own trial because he's not in a vegetative
    state; but to say that Ferguson is legally sane is stretching it.
    
    I agree with Krawicki; if someone on the train had been carrying
    a gun, there might have been victim #1; odds are there wouldn't have
    been anyone else (other than Ferguson).
    
    Does anyone seriously think Berkowitz will get out?  They could put
    this dude next to "Sam"; maybe Ferguson will be able to hear Sam's
    dog talking to him :-}
    
    

  I've seen a little of the trial and while he's not doing a great job in his
own defense, he seems very much aware of what he's doing. 

  The other day when the prosecution asked a witness what someone said, he
raised an objection based on hearsay. It was overruled due to some hearsay
exception but the fact that he was able to identify the fact that 

  1. He was in court
  2. A witness was on the stand
  3. A witness was asked what someone said
  4. Testimony as to what someone else said is hearsay

indicates that he is at least competent enough to understand what's going on.
He has lawyers helping him with his defense but the Court TV reporter said that
he made that objection without being prodded by one of his advisers. 

  I think that if he loses the verdict will stand, especially if he decides
to handle his own appeal.

  George

>  I've seen a little of the trial and while he's not doing a great job in his
>own defense, he seems very much aware of what he's doing. 

	He was diagnosed as paranoid and delusional.  I guess we can only
	wait to see if/how these problems will manifest themselves in court.

	

    .21
    In N.Y. thats normal.z
    
    
    

    ,I don't know about NY, but in MA you really spend your life in prison
    ,if you're sentenced to life-with-no-parole
    
     In 1988, a study done on sentences served for murder convictions in MA
    showed the average was was 12 years. At the time, even 1st degree
    murderers sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole" were
    getting out, as the state got around the no parole problem by changing
    the conviction to 2nd degree (after n years had passed). It was an
    issue in the 88 presidential election.

    I believe that his case gives reason to why representing yourself is
    reping a fool. But, Hey! I have repped myself in court. Not for murder
    though! 
    
    Last dude to do this was Charlie Manson.

    .but to say that Ferguson is legally sane is stretching it.
    
     Nobody said he was sane. He was judged competent to stand trial. They
    only care about two things: do you understand the charges (he does) and
    do you understand the difference between right and wrong (he claims
    to.)
    
     That he is clearly defective mentally does not render him incompetent
    to stand trial. And he has the right to represent himself if he so
    chooses. Hence the easy win for the prosecutor.

> Hence the easy win for the prosecutor.

Not to mention the high entertainment value for the public. If Colin
hadn't actually killed some people, the whole thing might actually be
deemed laughable.

    i'd say trying to subpeona Clinton and Cuomo is a manifestation...
    
    Chip

    <<< Note 285.19 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I'm still not sure this couldn't get overturned, though.  Obviously
>    he can "assist" in his own trial because he's not in a vegetative
>    state; but to say that Ferguson is legally sane is stretching it.
 
	You can be nutty as a fruitcake and still be LEGALLY sane.
	As I said earlier, the two definitions are very different.

Jim

                     <<< Note 285.20 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I think that if he loses the verdict will stand, especially if he decides
>to handle his own appeal.

	There is case law turning down appeals based on "inadequate 
	representation" for those who chose to represent themselves.

	The judge told him it was a bad idea, his court appointed lawyers
	told him is was a bad idea. But the decision was his to make.
	He won't win a new trial on appeal, regardless of who files
	the papers.

Jim

         <<< Note 285.24 by MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>

>    Last dude to do this was Charlie Manson.
    
    Bzzzttt!  Wrong!  
    
    Ted Bundy represented hisself.
    
    Mark.

    -1 is that was Bundy said when the foreman read the verdict? :-)

    Gee. I though he said watch my brother Al Bundy and his family on the
    Fox channel network!:)

    I thought it was watch my cousin, King Kong Bundy, in the WWF!

    i thought it was "hey mom, i'm going to the bay of fundy."

    
    Is that where christians go for vaca???
    

When they want a cow, they go to the barn.

    
     Ted Bundy was offered a deal - plead guilty and be sentenced to life
     in prison. 
    
     Paul
    
     

    It was a racial crime as he admitted hating all whites and Asians. As
    one other noter mentioned, it's a real shame some off duty cop wasn't 
    there to take him out with a head shot as soon as he started shooting.
    This racist killer will not see the outside for a long time. You think
    a parole board is going to release him? Sirhan Sirhan can't get
    released and he only killed one person. 

    Ted Bundy was executed (at his request) wasn't he?
    
    Chip

 
yes, he was executed (not sure if it was his request, though)






Jim

    
    RE: .39
    
     If this country (especially NY) didn't have such ridiculous gun-ban
    laws... sigh.. It didn't necessarily have to be an off duty cop... Any 
    private citizen with a basic knowledge and/or training could've taken out
    the jerk...

    
      Ted Bundy did not want his death sentence carried out.
    
      Paul
    
    

    Bundy denied for years and years that he was guilty. Only when his
    execution became imminent did he start confessing -- and this was done
    in a feeble attempt to bargain for a stay of execution.
    
    Had his last minute negotiation been successful, one of the murders
    he might have confessed to (eventually) was that of a teenage
    girl from somewhere in New Hampshire (maybe near Hanover area?).
    

    Collin has been on the TV, some clips show that he has been watching
    allot of old Perry Masion re-runs......... I don't believe the
    dialoge that he is allowed to carry with the victums and witness's!
    Too bad someone didn't shoot the sucker in self defence.....
    

	He might have watched the Matlock reruns.... :-)

      I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this because I
      haven't read this string, but I saw a portion of his defense
      and he said something to the effect that there was a conspiracy
      because there were 94 counts against him and the incident took
      place in 1994, but if it took place in 1927, there would have
      been 27 counts against him.
    
      The guy looked dead serious!
    
      I'm not saying he's criminally insane, but clearly he's mentally
      ill.

It was mentioned, but not in this topic.  Maybe in News Briefs?

	I mentioned it, I think in TTWA, but it wasn't 94 and 27 -
	it was 93 and 25.

    I think it's appalling that the victims who survived have to face
    this maniac in open court and submit to his cross-examination :-(
    
    One woman was pretty cool under the circumstances.  I didn't get her
    name, but she was wearing a green sweater on the day she testified.
    Ferguson was apparently trying to get her to say that he didn't shoot
    her, but she looked straight at him (her hand shaped like a gun) and
    said "no, you put the gun in my face like this, looked at me, then
    fired.  I played dead when I hit the floor so you wouldn't shoot me
    again".
    
    I'm sorry, this entire trial is obscene.  We're making the survivors
    victims twice!
    

	Apparently some of the victims are happy to help put him away.

	I wonder if the conspiracy theory he's proffering is simply
	a defense cooked up by himself and the lawyers advising him,
	or if he _really_ believes there is a conspiracy, being that	
	he's a paranoid, delusional type.

    
    This looney jerk even suggested to one of the victims, who was on the
    stand at the time, that he was a coward because he tried to shield
    himself with one of the dead victims bodies...

    
      Actually, this sort of travesty has its up side.  The victims
     get to face the bum.  It exposes the weaknesses of our legal system.
    
      bb

    Re: .52
    
    His original lawyers planned to offer the "black rage" defense, so it
    seems likely that Ferguson dreamed up the conspiracy by himself.

>    This looney jerk even suggested to one of the victims, who was on the
>    stand at the time, that he was a coward because he tried to shield
>    himself with one of the dead victims bodies...
    
    	How would Ferguson know this if he weren't the one seeing his
    	aim shielded by another victim?

    
>>    	How would Ferguson know this if he weren't the one seeing his
>>    	aim shielded by another victim?

	I didn't see the cross-examination, but I suppose it's possible
	that the victim described his own actions, and then Ferguson
	implied he was a coward.  He could have implied that regardless of
	whether or not he was the shooter.  I didn't see that the claim was
	that he saw his aim being shielded.

    	Oh, undoubtedly there is plenty of "reasonable doubt" and legal 
    	"decorum" to dismiss my claim, but that doesn't make one's gut 
    	instinct wrong, just legally indefensible.

>>    	Oh, undoubtedly there is plenty of "reasonable doubt" and legal 
>>    	"decorum" to dismiss my claim, but that doesn't make one's gut 
>>    	instinct wrong, just legally indefensible.

	Clearly, your "gut instinct" is not wrong.  He's guilty.
	But you asked how he would have known and I was just offering
	one way he could have.

>	Clearly, your "gut instinct" is not wrong.  He's guilty.

George isn't around, is he?

RE      <<< Note 285.56 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	How would Ferguson know this if he weren't the one seeing his
>    	aim shielded by another victim?

  Yup, I'm around.

  I didn't see this part of the testimony but according to Court TV Ferguson is
not denying being on the train, he's denying being the shooter. I believe at
one point he indicated that he was on the train, someone took his gun, and
started shooting. That would explain him seeing what was going on and it would
explain his gun being the murder weapon.

  That's not to say that I believe him, so far the testimony from the witnesses
has been very compelling.

  George

>  I didn't see this part of the testimony but according to Court TV Ferguson is
>not denying being on the train, he's denying being the shooter. I believe at
>one point he indicated that he was on the train, someone took his gun, and
>started shooting. That would explain him seeing what was going on and it would
>explain his gun being the murder weapon.

    	Maybe.  MAYBE.  But when you consider that once the gunman started
    	shooting, everyone took cover, it would be reasonable to consider
    	that were Ferguson not the gunman, he would have also been taking
    	cover and not concentrating on the details of the behaviors of
    	others on the train.  I believe it is reasonable to assume that
    	only the gunman would be concentrating enough on his targets to
    	know such specific behaviors of one of them.

  Maybe and maybe not. I could conceive of a situation where someone would be
looking into the next car to see if the gunman were coming his way or headed in
the other direction. 

  In any case I don't think it's all that big a point, the witnesses who keep
saying "when you shot me ..." sound very credible and he's not doing that good
a job at creating reasonable doubt. Looks like a slam dunk to me.

  Then again, you can never predict what a jury will do,
  George

>>	I believe it is reasonable to assume that
>>    	only the gunman would be concentrating enough on his targets to
>>    	know such specific behaviors of one of them.

	Nah.  A number of the victims who have testified so far knew
	a surprising amount of detail.

    
    This is a "situational ethic" I like to place myself in...
    
    If I was packing.... what would I do? Would I take cover first and then
    draw? Would I walk or run towards the perp? Would I stay put? Where
    would I aim... body mass or head? Who's in between? Two quick shots or
    keep firing till the mag is empty...
    
     Would I hesitate? Would I start thinking. or let my training take
    over.... would I think of the consequences?

  None of the above. Quite clearly you would pull out a miniature chess
game and start analyzing a P-Q4 opening.

  George

    
    <-----
    
    Maybe you would...
    
    It's not that easy to decide.... I was watching one of those Beyond
    2000 programs on Discovery where they tout new and wonderful things...
    
     They were showing an inter-active device that police forces use for
    all sorts of different situations... It's amazing at the things the
    cops did/didn't do...
    

    re .66
    
    	I've thought about the same situation too. The best course I've
    come up with is to get ready to fire without drawing attention to
    myself. Wait for a clear shot and empty the mag into the perp's chest.
    
    Hopefully I would be able to execute the plan without error.
    
    ed

    ...not only did a white guy take his gun, but the 3-4 magazines
       that would have been required to shoot 25 poeple!
    
       this gets more and more bizarre (Colin).
    
       it's painfully obvious that he's "plum run outa oxygen"...
    
       Chip
      

    I wonder who he will call to the witness stand today? It is sad to say
    that if Colin ia a one in a million then there are 7 more just like him
    in manhattan alone.

	"Let the record show that the witness pointed
	 to the third man in the second row."

That *was* a good one, Jack.

(Just hope he wasn't watching.... he might be ducking
 behind the podium today...)

Colin wrapped up his defense yesterday.  In an
"often incoherent" statement to the judge, he
brought up the fact that his arrest was part of
a conspiracy.  He claims that there is a plot to
have him murdered if he's sent to prison.  According
to Ferguson, Jeffrey Dahmer's death was also part
of the plan.

    Sounds to me like a 20 minute deliberation. Which probably means it'll
    take them a lot longer. :-)

 I believe he also said the guards coerced him into being on Larry King's
 show Tuesday night.




Jim

re:  coerced onto Larry King's show

Well, that part probably *is* true!	:^)

re: Doctah

I figured they'd be out just about long enough to count hands.

What? No verdict on this puppy yet?

What _ARE_ they doing?

 prolly laughing whilst going over the transcripts

    Ummmm, you don't think a bunch of New Yawkers will allow this
    looney tune to walk; it's not possible, right?
    
    
    

  Guilty, verdict returned about an hour ago..

    Courtroom spectators cheered as Colin was being lead away.
    
    (But he wasn't yelling, "I won!  I won!", Jack)
    

    .74 ..a plot to have him murdered.. There is that hope. I am sure many
    of the family members of the victims are hoping that it's true. Don't 
    suppose he said that just to get our hopes up do you?

    he will be getting real laywers for his appeal. he won't be defending
    himslef again.
    
    guilty on a-l-l counts (which were many).
    
    Chip

    Q: Is his appeal based on a claim of inadequate rewpresentation?  If
    so, it should be denied.
    
    ME

	.86
	
	reportedly, he'll be claiming he wasn't fit to stand trial.

>    guilty on a-l-l counts (which were many).

Not according to the article I read.  He was found guilty on the murder and
attempted murder counts (and I think some gun counts), but not guilty on
some minor counts whose specifics I disremember.

 I think they found him not guilty on violation of civil rights charges.




Jim

    Is the appeal automatic?  I seem to remember the judge questioning
    Ferguson at length when Ferguson was seeking to represent himself
    and the judge stated that he wouldn't be able to appeal later on
    the basis of lack of representation.
    
    Or are we back to he wasn't sane enough to stand trial etc.?????
    
    

> I think they found him not guilty on violation of civil rights charges.

Yeah, that was it.

    There were 93 charges bought against Ferguson and I think he was found
    not guilty of the civil rights issue.

    big surprise here... i caught a news-bite and the talking head stated
    that he was guilty on all counts (more at 6pm). figgers...
    
     Chip

I had heard this weekend that the appeal will be handled by Kunzler (sp?)
and that he's basing it on the fact that Colin wasn't competent to be on
trial and the State of NY should never have allowed him to represent
himself.

Perhaps George can enlighten us as to why an upstanding member of the
legal profession feels the necessity to try to get this guy off, even
after what we've witnessed. Surely there must be a greater purpose
served by such action . . . 

Kunstler.

    -1 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s
    
                                  &
    
                              Publicity
    
    without the two being mutually exclusive, of course....
    
    
    Chip

    >an upstanding member of the legal profession
    
     I thought you said Kunstler would be handling the appeal. :-)
    
     Kunstler gets a rise out of winning difficult cases; he seems to be
    especially excited when a savage eludes justice. I think it's a
    combination of an inflated sense of self-importance and a lust for
    publicity.

Why, Doctah, how insensitively blunt of you!

:^)

(I woulda thought the same. But I can't wait to hear George's rationalization.)

RE         <<< Note 285.94 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Perhaps George can enlighten us as to why an upstanding member of the
>legal profession feels the necessity to try to get this guy off, even
>after what we've witnessed. Surely there must be a greater purpose
>served by such action . . . 

  I think we've been over this before.

  Our system of justice is based on Common Law which is an adversary system. In
order to insure fairness it is felt that the best way to make the system work
is to see that the defendant in a criminal case is represented by a competent
attorney who zealously works in their client's interest.

  Is that what you were after?

  George

    Didn't Ferguson turn down Kuntzler's offer before the trial?
    
    

>    Didn't Ferguson turn down Kuntzler's offer before the trial?
    
See .95.    

  There's no reason why you can't hire a new lawyer for an appeal.

  George

  After the verdict was announced and Ferguson was lead away I was watching the
victims give a statement on Court TV. 

  To a person they all demanded tougher gun control laws and asked for a ban
against various types of guns. They specifically mentioned weapons with large
clips and automatic or semi-automatic weapons. 

  George

    idjits.

    I only need a semi-automatic shot gun to hunt deer. Anything else just
    wouldn`t serve my needs.

    Yes, I saw the woman promoting the banning of guns.  Apparently she
    wants to join her departed family member.  She doesn't seem to grasp
    that every train rider should be carrying a piece!
    
    -Jack

>                     <<< Note 285.104 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>clips and automatic or semi-automatic weapons. 

Automatic weapons are already effectively banned(not impossible to get
legally just almost so) 
When shooting sheep any revolver and a collection of speed-loaders would have 
done as much or more damage. (a .357 vs the wimpy 9MM he did use, or a
.44 or .41)
A decent shotgun would have done more damage.  OR he could have bought a gun 
on the black-market, guns being run into the country from abroad every-day
(read history of MENA arkansas for example)

However, citizens allowed to carry legally could have stopped the slaughter
before it was well started.
Amos

  Can you imagine if everyone on a crowed train had a semi-automatic or an
automatic and they all opened up at once? 

  There would have been more than 6+1 bodies carried away. 

  I did get a good chuckle though. With all those victims lined up to talk
about a conviction it looked like a media feast for the Republicans and then
all of a sudden instead of talking about victim's rights or the death penalty
they all called out for gun control. 

  :*)}
  George

    No George:
    
    All it conveyed was a typical mushminded New York mentality.  Nothing
    different!
    
    -Jack

    If you were to ride the trains often you might want to carry one. I
    rode them for almost 4 years and never had a problem. I`ve known people
    who have been on them twice in 5 years and they were robbed, mugged or
    worse.

RE        <<< Note 285.110 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    All it conveyed was a typical mushminded New York mentality.  Nothing
>    different!
    
  So clear thinkers would have all been pack'en heat and would all have opened
up at the 1st sign of danger, even on a crowed train.

  The bodies would have been piled knee deep. And oddly enough, Colen Ferguson
would probably have dived under a seat and no one would have had any clue
that he was the one that started it all.

  Imagine the story, the train stops, the door opens and there are 40 dead,
another 80 injured, and know one with any idea how it all started.

  George

    And what gun law, aside from the several Colin Ferguson already broke,
    was going to prevent this from happening? Jack's right... this is
    typical foam at the mouth "there ought to a law" garbage.
    
    -b

    Typical George... no one said everyone had to be packing. I don't
    hear many pro-RKBA people demanding everyone carry a gun. But if
    New York wasn't run by such a bunch of bone-heads, perhaps it would
    be obvious that some law abiding citizens will choose to carry guns,
    and could be helpful in situations such as this.
    
    -b

  Maybe and maybe not. Probably changes your perspective when you've stared
down the wrong end of one of those things.

  But no matter how you cut it, it's funny hearing conservatives talk about
victims of crime as "idiots" who are "foaming from the mouth". 

  I wonder if any of these people will be invited to the Republican National
Convention to talk about how victims should have a stronger voice in the
judicial system?

  George

    Re: .114
    
    >no one said everyone had to be packing.
    
    This is what I found in .107:
    
    |She doesn't seem to grasp that every train rider should be carrying a 
    |piece!
    
    Okay, it says "should" instead of "has to."  Wanna quibble?

    I would hope that the RNC would be open to anyone who could express a
    thoughful opinion on the subject, backed up with clear evidence that
    what they propose would work. However, being the victim of a crime
    doesn't make one articulate or wise, and so I see no need to supply
    the clueless with a pulpit.
    
    Intelligent debate is useful, cry-baby ranting is not.
    
    -b

>                                                I see no need to supply
>    the clueless with a pulpit.

What about SOAPBOX?

    Well, I didn't write .107, and I also said _most_ pro-RKBA people
    would be opposed to forcing people to carry guns (and in fact,
    I'm not sure the "should" in .107 means that anyway.)
    
    What I think you will find agreement on among the pro-RKBA contingent
    is that the law-abiding citizens should have the choice to carry.
    Many will choose not to, for various reasons, and that's fine.
    Others will choose to carry, and could be of potential benefit
    in these situations.
    
    -b

    
    
    Funny George, you going on and on about everyone "open firing".  Here's
    a free clue.  I guarantee you that everyone wouldn't have open fired. 
    To say that is just more liberal extremism trying to make a point by
    taking it to extremes.  
    
    Chelsea, the queen of quibble talking about quibbling?  Where's that
    P&K note.  Fact is that the quote you copied doesn not make your point,
    feel free to try again......
    
    
    Mike

    Re: .120
    
    >Where's that P&K note.
    
    Have you _no_ sense of irony, you humorless git?
    
    >Fact is that the quote you copied doesn not make your point,
    
    I guess you wanna quibble.  Fine.  Prove it.

>                     <<< Note 285.115 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

I'll type it real slow this time George, automatics are already banned.

>  Maybe and maybe not. Probably changes your perspective when you've stared
>down the wrong end of one of those things.

I have, it does, that is why I will not go without.

>  But no matter how you cut it, it's funny hearing conservatives talk about
>victims of crime as "idiots" who are "foaming from the mouth". 

most victims are not idiots, nor do they foam, these that appeared on TV are
idiots due, not to their victim status, but to their call for laws which will 
do nothing.


>  I wonder if any of these people will be invited to the Republican National
>Convention to talk about how victims should have a stronger voice in the
>judicial system?

and BTW in Massachusetts why is it the "conservatives" pushing for 
victims-rights legislation and the lawyers, liberals and other criminals 
fighting it?
Amos

	oh goodie, dueling gun control topics.

>                        -< semi-automatics at 50 paces >-

Wouldn't that put them in separate cars?

And George, anent .107 (not trying to speak for Jack)
In Florida when permits were made available to everyone, today, seven-years 
later only 3% of folks have applied so on a train-car you might see one or two 
folks carrying. Not everyone would, nor does the NRA want everyone to.

Amos

|When shooting sheep any revolver and a collection of speed-loaders would have 
|done as much or more damage. (a .357 vs the wimpy 9MM he did use, or a
|.44 or .41)
    
    Nonsense!  One only need to look at the video of the shooting at the
    White House to see what utter rubbish such a statement is.  Once the
    clip was emptied, the "sheep" -- unarmed -- stopped the attack.
    
    While you all have fantasies of Robo-scum able to pause and reload
    with perfect efficiency with their precious speed-loader, in the
    real world it is *MUCH* easier to just keep pulling the trigger.
    
    In the real world, real scum drop their speed-loaders.
    
    In the real world, while the real scum pauses to reload, real "sheep" have
    have a chance respond.
    
    Even unarmed "sheep."
    
|   A decent shotgun would have done more damage.
    
    More damage per shot.  Far fewer shots.  (And a hell of lot harder
    to conceal carry.  And a hell of a lot harder to use in the confines of
    a railroad car.  I know, I know, the scum would have sawed off their
    shotgun to get around these problems....)
    
|   However, citizens allowed to carry legally could have stopped the
|   slaughter before it was well started.
    
    Armed citizen fantasy.  Since armed carry *permits* even in highly
    armed counties in the US are such a low percentage, and the percentage
    of people who carry even when they have permits is not 100%, even if we
    transplanted to LIRR to Dade County it would have been improbable that
    there would have been more than a couple of people carrying in that
    car.
    
    Of those, the chances that either of them would have been in a position
    to shoot, let alone to actually get a shot off, is so small as to be
    worthy of no mention at all.  And I would argue that the percentage
    of people who carry who would do more than what almost every passenger
    on the train did - try to hide and not get shot - is so small that
    you all are just replaying your, well, fantasy.
    
    And....
    
| those who carry usually know what they're doing
    
    Goodness, given the high percentage of HIGHLY TRAINED people who, in
    a high stress situation, once they start to shoot, don't stop until
    their clip is empty, I'd say your confidence that IF someone on the
    train responded and *IF* they managed to get off a shot and IF they
    managed to hit the attacker that they would *NOT* also hit a few
    innocent bystanders...
    
    ...well, it works in fantasies.  Back in the real world....
    
    								-mr. bill

    .126
    
    > In the real world, while the real scum pauses to reload, real "sheep" have
    > have [sic] a chance respond.
    >
    > Even unarmed "sheep."
    
    mr_bill, it's fak that "have a chance to respond" and "respond" are not
    synonymous.  in the real world, that is.

RE   <<< Note 285.120 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    Funny George, you going on and on about everyone "open firing".  Here's
>    a free clue.  I guarantee you that everyone wouldn't have open fired. 
>    To say that is just more liberal extremism trying to make a point by
>    taking it to extremes.  
    
  Well so what if "everyone wouldn't have opened fire". All it would have taken
on a crowed train would be a few armed with semi-automatic weapons and the
death toll would have mounted.

  George

    >on a crowed train would be a few armed with semi-automatic weapons and the
    >death toll would have mounted.
    
    George,
    
    Which is it? 1) Your'e applying for a job on the psychic friends
    network or 2) just spouting a crock of BS because you feel like
    it?
    
    -b

    
    George
    
    Didn't you know?? It's highly fashionable to go to work carrying
    a semi-automatic weapon. It's the perfect accessory for the well
    dressed man, or woman
    
    Mark

RE   <<< Note 285.122 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>most victims are not idiots, nor do they foam, these that appeared on TV are
>idiots due, not to their victim status, but to their call for laws which will 
>do nothing.

  Now wait a minute, make up your mind. ALL of the victims who talked after
the trial called for a ban on weapons. Every single one. Now are they or are
then not idiots? Should we listen to victims of crime or not?

>and BTW in Massachusetts why is it the "conservatives" pushing for 
>victims-rights legislation and the lawyers, liberals and other criminals 
>fighting it?

  Not so. In Massachusetts liberals are pushing for what victims of violent
crime really need which is health insurance. Liberals in Massachusetts also are
in favor of stalking laws and shelters for battered women which makes sense
when you consider that the majority of violent crimes are domestic violence.

  As for lawyers, every single prosecutor that ever fought to put a violent
criminal in jail in Massachusetts was a lawyer. How can you say that those
people are criminals?

  George

    .131
    
    > ALL of the victims who talked after
    > the trial called for a ban on weapons.
    
    the germane point being that no ban, no matter how stringent or how
    well policed, is going to prevent a determined individual from getting
    a gun through the underworld.  or making his/her own.  the genie is out
    of the bottle, george.  you can't put it back, and wishing guns out of
    the hands of law-abiding citizens only aggravates the advantage
    criminals have.  is that what you want?

                         <<< Note 285.109 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
    >Can you imagine if everyone on a crowed train had a semi-automatic or
    >an automatic and they all opened up at once?
    
    The odds are that the incident would have ended with fewer
    deaths/injuries. Better, in fact , if the civilians opened fire, as
    opposed to cops, since civilians are staistically far less likely to
    shoot innocent bystanders.
    
    Jim 
    

RE              <<< Note 285.132 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    ...of the bottle, george.  you can't put it back, and wishing guns out of
>    the hands of law-abiding citizens only aggravates the advantage
>    criminals have.  is that what you want?

  I'm not talking about what I want, I'm talking about what the victims of
Colen Ferguson wanted. Each one of them, one after the other.

  As Republicans everywhere are so fond of saying, "Let the victim's be heard".

  George

    >Nonsense!  One only need to look at the video of the shooting at the
    >White House to see what utter rubbish such a statement is.  Once the
    >clip was emptied, the "sheep" -- unarmed -- stopped the attack.
    
    The proper term is magazine. NNTTM. It is worth noting though that
    you combine a high-volume opinion without even knowing the proper
    vocabulary.
    
    >While you all have fantasies of Robo-scum able to pause and reload
    >with perfect efficiency with their precious speed-loader, in the
    >real world it is *MUCH* easier to just keep pulling the trigger.
    
    >In the real world, real scum drop their speed-loaders.
    
    Ah, I see. Perhaps then you could tell us what type of firearm
    (just the general name would suffice) that one uses a speed-loader
    with? I mean, if you're so familiar with the foibles of speed-
    loaders then you must be aware of their use...
    
    >In the real world, while the real scum pauses to reload, real "sheep" have
    >have a chance respond.
    
    As scum goes, Colin Ferguson wasn't very bright. Spare magazines
    are available for most pistols. He stood there trying to feed
    ammo into the magazine from a gun that hadn't been fired before.
    The spring is pretty tight in most new magazines, until they've
    had a few hundred rounds through them.
    
    >More damage per shot.  Far fewer shots.  (And a hell of lot harder
    >to conceal carry.  And a hell of a lot harder to use in the confines of
    >a railroad car.  I know, I know, the scum would have sawed off their
    >shotgun to get around these problems....)
    
    Saw both the butt and barrel off. No problem to conceal. Harder
    to use in a railroad car? Hardly. Remember, that the police
    generally prefer shotguns for close quarters combat use. The
    reason handguns are more popular for defense purposes is that
    concealable shotguns are illegal (due to the modifications
    made to them). But you knew that. The tube capacity of a pump
    shotgun and the magazine capacity of a large caliber pistol
    (such as a 45) are similar... 7 to 10 rounds.
    
    >Armed citizen fantasy.  Since armed carry *permits* even in highly
    >armed counties in the US are such a low percentage, and the percentage
    >of people who carry even when they have permits is not 100%, even if we
    >transplanted to LIRR to Dade County it would have been improbable that
    >there would have been more than a couple of people carrying in that
    >car.
    
    Well, thanks to the highly effective gun control laws drafted by
    libs like yourself, there's not many urban centers left where the
    law-abiding could even carry a gun, so this is hardly supporting
    evidence, now is it?
    
    >Goodness, given the high percentage of HIGHLY TRAINED people who, in
    >a high stress situation, once they start to shoot, don't stop until
    >their clip is empty, I'd say your confidence that IF someone on the
    >train responded and *IF* they managed to get off a shot and IF they
    >managed to hit the attacker that they would *NOT* also hit a few
    >innocent bystanders...
    
    I know at least a half dozen readers of this notefile who are
    quite skilled with handguns and know exactly where to shoot
    someone for the most effective stopping power. While the media
    and the libs (especially the dem libs) have been busy trying
    to gut the RKBA (that's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", but since
    you obviously know everything there is to know about this
    subject, of course you knew that too), there has been a
    significant jump in gun sales and training. There are a lot of
    people out there now who are well-trained in the use of firearms.
    Your assumption that gun owners could not respond to a dangerous
    situation is a shining example of the arrogance of liberalism.
    
    >...well, it works in fantasies.  Back in the real world....
    
    The real world according to ... ? In the real world I live in,
    there are thousands of examples where people successfully defended
    themselves with firearms, while unarmed people who are denied
    their constitutional rights are routinely slaughtered.
    
    -b

    
    
    >Nonsense!  One only need to look at the video of the shooting at the
    >White House to see what utter rubbish such a statement is.  Once the
    >clip was emptied, the "sheep" -- unarmed -- stopped the attack.
    
    Nit, the MAGAZINE (not clip) was not empty. The gun jammed and the
    perp was unable to clear it and reload with another MAGAZINE.
    
    >In the real world, while the real scum pauses to reload, real "sheep"
    >have a chance respond.
    
    	The LIRR was the "real world", how come no one stopped Ferguson?
    
    >|   A decent shotgun would have done more damage.
    
    >    More damage per shot.  Far fewer shots.  (And a hell of lot harder
    >    to conceal carry.
    
    	By the accounts I've seen, Ferguson was able to reload once with an
    	additional 15 rounds, for a total of 30 shots. 12ga. 00 Buck packs
    	9 pellets (.32 caliber) into every shell. Standard 5 round magazine
    	gives you 45 rounds, a 50% increase in what Ferguson was able to
    	come up with.
    
    >Armed citizen fantasy.  Since armed carry *permits* even in highly
    >armed counties in the US are such a low percentage, and the percentage
    >of people who carry even when they have permits is not 100%, even if we
    >transplanted to LIRR to Dade County it would have been improbable
    >that there would have been more than a couple of people carrying in that
    >car.
     
    	So, if only "a couple" of innocents have the opportunity to stop
    	such an incident, you consider that a "bad" thing?
    
    	Conversely, is having "no chance" a "good" thing?
    
    Jim

    There you have it folks, George speaks. What victims of violent
    crime want is health insurance!!!!
    
    I've got health insurance, George. It's from Smith and Wesson.
    It insures my health nicely, thank you, especially when there's
    violent crime.
    
    -b

  So are you saying that victims of violence don't need health insurance?

  What would happen if you didn't get off a shot with your Smith and Weston
because the perp came up from behind and shot you instead? What would you do if
you didn't have health insurance? 

  What good is your Smith and Weston going to do once the perp is in jail
and you are suffering from the effects of having been shot?

  Also I wonder why you took my words out of context and didn't mention the
other things that liberals in Massachusetts support?

  George

    
    GEORGE
    
     Whats being said is people are tried of being victims!
    
     It's people with your belief's that help people become victims, the
    Supreme Court has stated that the individual is responsible for his/her
    own first line of self defense, but you disarm that same individual and
    try and tell them its for there own good....
     I get sick hearing this same BS from mouths like yours, why don't you
    go and put your energy into doing something about the criminal and his
    acts rather than acting the rights of law abiding persons.....
    
    
    
    Dave 

    Weston or Wesson?
    
    Isn't Wesson like the oil???? 

re: .109 (George)

>  Can you imagine if everyone on a crowed train had a semi-automatic or an
>automatic and they all opened up at once? 
>
>  There would have been more than 6+1 bodies carried away. 

"Can you imagine somebody having a heart attack at a cardiac convention?
Poor guy'd have 31 IVs dripping in him, 17 separate EKG sets taped to him,
and 7 fingers up his arse (the proctologist's convention was next door)."

Let's join the real world, ok?   If "everybody" were packing we'd have a tiny
page 89 story, "A crazed would-be mugger had to change his underwear after
26 subway riders all pulled weapons and aimed them at the assailant.  He
did manage to get one shot off early in the disturbance, but his
mind was quickly changed when he saw the woman he just missed shooting
draw a 9mm pistol from her purse.  "Thank goodness I was armed," she
was quoted as saying.  "I'd hate to be like a fish in a barrel."

We need to be blunt: It's The Criminal, Stupid.  (not directed at you, george)

I want to be safe.  We can either pay for 12,500,000 more police officers
to guard each of us personally (20/1 ratio), which I'm not willing to do,
or we can have peaceful, law-abiding people in the general public that
are armed, to be both help and deterrent.  

\john

    I take it a clip clips on and a magazine is inserted into the gun,
    correct?

  Geez, listen to the flames. Why is it that the guys who want guns the most
are always the ones with the shortest fuze? 

  If at some time in the near future you guys find you are no longer blinded
by the flames coming out of your a** try reading what I wrote, not what you
think I wrote and find one place where I said you couldn't have your blasted
guns. 

  All I did was to report what the victim's said in the Ferguson trial and
right away you've got to shoot the messenger.

  Of course, what would you expect from a bunch of gun nuts?

  George

 re .140


  Wesson, like the oil, not Weston (like Jack, the actor).




 Jim

    George, try plugging your "maybe, maybe not" statement to your
    position b-e-f-o-r-e writing it in here just to avoid a little
    shrapnel... Hope this helps.
    
    My opinion... ya, your perspective changes when you're staring
    down the barrel. The majority reaction would probably be one of
    survival at all costs (including dumping a mag as quickly as 
    possible into the scumbag).
    
    I will agree with your position that to attack the victims and
    their families with name-calling is quite inappropriate no matter 
    how "knee-jerk"  and wrong the reaction is. i support their right
    to "foam at the mouth". if they don't have that right at this point,
    no one does.
    
    They're simply misguided.
    
    Chip

>                     <<< Note 285.128 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Well so what if "everyone wouldn't have opened fire". All it would have taken
>on a crowed train would be a few armed with semi-automatic weapons and the
>death toll would have mounted.

Typical liberal who must take every opportunity to demonize an object.
Hitler had a philosophy of propaganda that said basicly "repeat a lie often 
enough, in simple terms, and it will become fact."
Adolph would be proud of your efforts to convince the public that jews, err I 
mean semi-auto's are the problem.

Amos

           <<< Note 285.142 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Ooo Ah silly me" >>>

>    I take it a clip clips on and a magazine is inserted into the gun,
>    correct?

	A "clip" is a ammunition feeding device that is used to
	"strip" rounds into the gun. After the gun is loaded,
	it is discarded. A magazine is inserted into the gun.

Jim

RE   <<< Note 285.146 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>Typical liberal who must take every opportunity to demonize an object.
>Hitler had a philosophy of propaganda that said basicly "repeat a lie often 
>enough, in simple terms, and it will become fact."
>Adolph would be proud of your efforts to convince the public that jews, err I 
>mean semi-auto's are the problem.

  Now there's an intelligent argument. "I'm right and your wrong because you
are like Adolph Hitler".

  Like I said, isn't it always amazing that the people who are the most in
favor of packing heat seem to be the ones who blast away rather than engaging
in rational debate.

  I guess that shouldn't be a surprise.

  What I said was not a lie. It's only a lie if I believe it to be not true
and say it for the expressed purpose of deceiving someone. Can you prove that
I am lying? Remember, arguments about guns don't apply here, to prove that
I'm the next Adolph Hitler you have to prove that my intent was to deceive
and not to express what I believe is my opinion.

  George

    
    
    	George, we have engaged in ration debate with you. You are
    convinced you are right and we are convinced we are right. Kind of a
    stalemate doncha think?
    
    	Sometimes we pro-gun folks flame because we've presented rationale
    arguments and have had them dismissed. After that we just get
    p*ssed...:*)
    
    
    jim

RE       <<< Note 285.149 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    	George, we have engaged in ration debate with you. You are
>    convinced you are right and we are convinced we are right. Kind of a
>    stalemate doncha think?

  Right about what, I haven't really expressed any opinions. All I did was
to point out what the victims said and suddenly I'm Adolph Hitler.
    
>    	Sometimes we pro-gun folks flame because we've presented rationale
>    arguments and have had them dismissed. After that we just get
>    p*ssed...:*)
    
  Shooting the messenger by claiming that the messenger not only created the
message but deliberately lied hardly seems rational. 

  George

>    	George, we have engaged in ration debate with you.

So which is better, K-rations or MREs?

    George:
    
    I'll keep my gun anyway thank you.
    
    -Jack

    
    
>  Shooting the messenger by claiming that the messenger not only created the
>message but deliberately lied hardly seems rational. 
    
    	When the messenger comes across with his/her information in a smug
    fashion it can tend to irritate the party receiving the information. In
    other words, you pointed out that you "had to laugh" when you heard
    what the victims said. I think that's the sticky part....
    
    
    jim

    RE: .128
    
    >Well so what if "everyone wouldn't have opened fire". All it would
    >have taken on a crowed train would be a few armed with semi-automatic 
    >weapons and the death toll would have mounted.
    
    
    Maybe.... maybe not...

    .147
    
    > A "clip" is a ammunition feeding device that is used to
    > "strip" rounds into the gun. After the gun is loaded,
    > it is discarded. A magazine is inserted into the gun.
    
    let's see if we can confuse the uninitiated even further.  the m1
    garand rifle uses 8-round clips, not magazines.  these clips are
    inserted, with their rounds in place, into the rifle from the top of
    the receiver when the bolt is held back by the follower.  when the last
    round is fired, the clip is ejected and the bolt is again latched back
    by the follower.
    
    so the difference isn't that clips are used to strip rounds into the
    arm.  the difference is that clips are simple pieces of springy metal
    that don't actually feed the rounds - they depend on the spring-loaded
    follower in the piece to do that - while magazines are rigid assemblies
    that include a separate spring.  magazines are not ejected when empty.
    
    hee hee hee...

    Depends on their aim.  
    
    Personal hot button:
    
    NO ONE who hasn't had some firearms training should carry firearms. 
    Marksmanship is too important, particularly in crowded situations. 
    However after a class which includes target, safety and legal issues,
    any citizen in current good standing with the law should be able to get 
    an LTCC.
    
    meg

    not to be confused with stripper clips to do feed the rounds into
    an internal magazine... 

    
    
    Most people who I know who are serious about firearms and carrying
    concealed take the issue damn seriously.  They are interested in the
    best stopping power with the least chance of collateral damage to
    person or surroundings.  I think the idea of a class is good, however,
    it should be run by a nongovernment entity.  I would suggest the NRA,
    but I don't want to see this organization connected in any way to the
    government.
    
    
    Mike 

    re Note 285.147 by BSS::PERCIVAL
    
    Thanks. Got it.

re: .139, Dave

>    GEORGE

>							why don't you
>    go and put your energy into doing something about the criminal

But, he is. He's very clearly stated that he fully supports the concept
that Colin Ferguson should have the opportunity of several appeals on
whatever basis. George, like most liberals, wants to do everything
possible to help the criminal.

And, George, regardless of your reference to Common Law and the idea
that the accused has the right to good representation, how the hell
do you figure that should apply in this case? This idiot Ferguson
was advised not to represent himself, did anyway, and rightfully lost
his case. Why should he get a "second chance"? Not to mention which,
since he's quite obviously guilty (are we going to get the "allegedly"
bull crap again?), why would anyone in their right mind stand forth to
try to help get him off? What motivates a scumbag lawyer to attempt to
exonerate someone that they quite clearly know is guilty? Do you feel
that that's particularly "ethical" or "proper"?

Colin Ferguson's butt ought to be sizzling on Old Sparky, and you're
trying to tell us he deserves an appeal. Unbelievable.

    
    RE: classes
    
     FYI... one coming up in March at the Nashua Fish and Game..
    
     If you're interested, write and as soon as I get details, will mail
    you...

    >Colin Ferguson's butt ought to be sizzling on Old Sparky, and you're
    >trying to tell us he deserves an appeal. Unbelievable.
     
     A clearer picture of liberalism vis a vis crime control could not be
    painted (without Sarah Brady, that is.)

                     <<< Note 285.148 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Like I said, isn't it always amazing that the people who are the most in
>favor of packing heat seem to be the ones who blast away rather than engaging
>in rational debate.

	Note 21 is replete with rational debate concerning the fallacy of
	gun control AND the efficacy of civilian concealed carry.

	YOUR reply concerning the "body count" if other riders had been
	carrying was irrational.

Jim

RE        <<< Note 285.160 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>But, he is. He's very clearly stated that he fully supports the concept
>that Colin Ferguson should have the opportunity of several appeals on
>whatever basis. George, like most liberals, wants to do everything
>possible to help the criminal.

  No, George like every liberal, wants to protect the civil liberties of
the innocent. And under common law if you take away civil liberties from
any defendant, that can be used as precedent to take civil liberties away
from innocent citizens.

>This idiot Ferguson
>was advised not to represent himself, did anyway, and rightfully lost
>his case. Why should he get a "second chance"? 

  Who knows. That's why you have appeals. Notice I never said that I thought
the verdict should be overturned, I just said he should have a right to an
appeal.

  Conservatives who say we should not allow appeals are not really that
different from people who say we should string people up without a trial.
If you don't have an appeals, how do you know if there were or were not
reversible errors in a trial?

>Not to mention which,
>since he's quite obviously guilty (are we going to get the "allegedly"
>bull crap again?), why would anyone in their right mind stand forth to
>try to help get him off? What motivates a scumbag lawyer to attempt to
>exonerate someone that they quite clearly know is guilty? Do you feel
>that that's particularly "ethical" or "proper"?

  I don't know, what motivates a scum bag conservative who wants to set a
precedent that would deny any and all citizens the right to a fair trial
and the right to appeal?

>Colin Ferguson's butt ought to be sizzling on Old Sparky, and you're
>trying to tell us he deserves an appeal. Unbelievable.

  Citizens in a free society deserve the right to fair trials and appeals
and you are trying to say that we deserve martial law and summery judgment?
Far more unbelievable.

  George

    
    Ah.. I see Meowski...
    
    You take one man's opinion and convert it to conservatives in general
    for a typical liberal broad brush...
    
      I believe we went over this appeal process in another note? Did you
    choose to ignore that, for the sake of the chicken little school of
    debate?

    
    
    George, you are at your liberal games again.  By lumping appeal in with
    fair trial you try to discredit people.  You libs ever going to learn
    new tactics?  I am basically consevative and I want to see a fair
    trial for Mr. Fergueson, for Mrs. Smith or anyone else who is accused
    of a crime.  I guess the grounds under which an appeal would be filed
    is what I would be interested in.  If it's because of bad legal 
    representation, this was addressed by the court before the trial and
    thus not a valid reason.  
    
    Mike

    
    RE:CLASSES/COLORADO
    
     If you're interested, write I have the details, will mail
    you...
    
     This for persons located in Colorado!

|   Perhaps then you could tell us what type of firearm (just the general
|   name would suffice) that one uses a speed-loader with?
    
    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLVER.
    
    Is that general enough?
    
    Now can I count on you to correct Jim Percival's math?  (It's in
    285.136.  I'll even give you a hint.  Is 9x5 = 45?  Or is it 5?)
    
    
    Bottom line.  *EVEN* in areas of this country where a relatively high
    percentage of people conceal carry, the percentage is still quite low.
    So low that more likely than not there would not have been a SINGLE
    passenger in that car carrying concealed.  If there had been a single
    passenger in the car carrying concealed, the chances that Colin
    Ferguson would have been stopped by that person would still be low.
    If there had been more than one person carrying concealed in the car,
    the chances of stopping Colin Ferguson don't improve much.
    
    So low that the idea that conceal carry *would* have made a difference
    here is just laughable.
    
    So, continue to fantasize that if only you had been sleeping in that
    train car and you had been carrying concealed and you awoke to the
    sound of gun fire you would have made a difference.
    
    
    What we all agree on is that George is always wrong and his fantasy of
    a train car filled with people shooting at each other only happens in
    cartoons.
    
    								-mr. bill

RE   <<< Note 285.166 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>I guess the grounds under which an appeal would be filed
>    is what I would be interested in.  If it's because of bad legal 
>    representation, this was addressed by the court before the trial and
>    thus not a valid reason.  
    
  The problem is that you have to back up one level of abstraction to be able
to understand the appeal process.

  The state of New York would not be listening to an appeal just to decide if
Colen Ferguson should have had a lawyer. They would be listening to an appeal
to decide if the decision to allow him to proceed without a lawyer was made
properly.

  If it was, then the decision, what ever it is, stands. If it was not, then
he would get a new trial.

  But as it is, that point is practically moot. Colen Ferguson has said he
doesn't want to appeal on the grounds of incompetent representation, he wants
to appeal on issues related to the evidence.

  George

RE   <<< Note 285.165 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>      I believe we went over this appeal process in another note? Did you
>    choose to ignore that, for the sake of the chicken little school of
>    debate?

  I've been over this with you before, I have no idea if it's the same note
to which you are referring. But no, I have never hidden from a debate in this
file. If I did not participate it was for lack of time.

  George

    Didn't Ferguson dismiss the lawyer initially assigned to him because
    the lawyer wanted to use an insanity plea?
    
    If this is the case, how can he be allowed to use his mental
    state to mount an appeal now?
    
    

    
    
    RE: .168  BZZZT, wrong.  There are speed loaders for shotguns and for
    loading magazines as well, but thanks for playing.
    
    
    Mike

    In this context, we were talking about speed loading a handgun.
    Specifically, a revolver.
    
    
    Thank you very much.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

RE   <<< Note 285.171 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Didn't Ferguson dismiss the lawyer initially assigned to him because
>    the lawyer wanted to use an insanity plea?
    
  I think that he asked for him to be barred from the court room but he
retained him for advice between sessions.

>    If this is the case, how can he be allowed to use his mental
>    state to mount an appeal now?

  Ferguson has said he does NOT want his mental state used as the basis for an
appeal. His attorneys want to use it based on an objection they entered to him
being allowed to defend himself.
    
>      -< Is there ANYONE who wants to see this guy walking the streets? >-

  No one wants Ferguson out on the streets except for Ferguson himself. Well
maybe his mother, I don't know. However there are a great many people who do
not want Colin Ferguson's case used as a precedent to do away with the right
to a fair trial and the right to an appeal.

  George

    >	By the accounts I've seen, Ferguson was able to reload once with an
    >	additional 15 rounds, for a total of 30 shots. 12ga. 00 Buck packs
    >	9 pellets (.32 caliber) into every shell. Standard 5 round magazine
    >	gives you 45 rounds, a 50% increase in what Ferguson was able to
    >	come up with.
    
    Here's the "math problem" Bill was referring to... unfortunately,
    Bill seems to not be reading carefully, so I have to explain Jim's
    point to him.
    
    A _single_ shotgun shell contains 9 .32 caliber pellets. That means
    that 9 shots are fired at once. On a shotgun without a choke, which
    would certainly be the case for a sawed-off shotgun, the 9 pellets
    would spread fairly rapidly. Each pellet could be potentially
    lethal. So, if you fire 5 shotgun blasts into a crowd, you could
    conceivably do nearly the same damage as shooting 45 single shots.
    
    Also, Bill, my point about the speed loaders was exactly what Mike
    said. _You_ were talking about speed loaders and about "dropping
    them", so I, knowing exactly what you meant, wanted to see if you
    had any idea that speed loaders were not only for revolvers. You
    didn't, but again, thanks for playing. I'm demonstrating that you're
    arguing from a technically void position...
    
    -b

>					there are a great many people who do
>not want Colin Ferguson's case used as a precedent to do away with the right
>to a fair trial and the right to an appeal.

And if we didn't have a society full of scumbag lawyers who'd try to pull
something by claiming that was an applicable precendent . . . .

It all gets back to the lawyers, doesn't it?

I'm not necessarily sure that "justice is served" by protecting the rights
of the likes of Colin Ferguson. Certainly society is not well served. At
least if a carrying passenger on the LIRR had taken him out in self-defense
we wouldn't be faced with this mess.

   <<< Note 285.168 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Now can I count on you to correct Jim Percival's math?  (It's in
>    285.136.  I'll even give you a hint.  Is 9x5 = 45?  Or is it 5?)
 
	You live in a world where 9X5 is NOT 45?? You should note that
	we are dealing with the number of projectiles flying through
	the air.
   
>    Bottom line.  *EVEN* in areas of this country where a relatively high
>    percentage of people conceal carry, the percentage is still quite low.

	Well if we use the Florida data, it works out to around 2% of
	the population have carry permits. 

>    So low that more likely than not there would not have been a SINGLE
>    passenger in that car carrying concealed.

	The odds are (based on the above) 2 in 100, or 1 in 50. How
	many passengers were there in the car at the time of the shooting?

>  If there had been a single
>    passenger in the car carrying concealed, the chances that Colin
>    Ferguson would have been stopped by that person would still be low.

	I would be interested onthe data that this conclusion is derived
	from.

>    If there had been more than one person carrying concealed in the car,
>    the chances of stopping Colin Ferguson don't improve much.
 
	Even more interested in THIS data.

>    So low that the idea that conceal carry *would* have made a difference
>    here is just laughable.
 
	I don't find the OPPORTUNITY for making a difference all that
	laughable. The lack of opportunity is certainly not.
   
Jim

RE        <<< Note 285.176 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>And if we didn't have a society full of scumbag lawyers who'd try to pull
>something by claiming that was an applicable precendent . . . .

  Those lawyers are not scumbags. They are just doing their job of trying to
zealously represent their client's interest. In fact, if they did anything
less they would get disbarred. If you don't like the system, why not tell
us what you would replace it with rather than attacking those individuals
who are just trying to make the system work?

>It all gets back to the lawyers, doesn't it?

  No, it all gets back to scumbags who would rather see our society ruled by
martial law and summary judgment rather than protecting the rights of the
citizens.

>I'm not necessarily sure that "justice is served" by protecting the rights
>of the likes of Colin Ferguson. 

  Nor do you seem to feel that it's worth protecting the rights of the
innocent. Because under common law, if you take away the rights of one
individual set a precedent that endangers the rights of everyone. 

  George

                     <<< Note 285.169 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The state of New York would not be listening to an appeal just to decide if
>Colen Ferguson should have had a lawyer. They would be listening to an appeal
>to decide if the decision to allow him to proceed without a lawyer was made
>properly.

	I doubt that this will be the basis of an appeal. The right to
	represent oneself is pretty absolute. The question will be was
	Ferguson competent to stand trial in the first place.

Jim

    
    I think I'd prefer "martial law" to "black rage"....
    

RE   <<< Note 285.180 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    I think I'd prefer "martial law" to "black rage"....
    
  And there in lies a fundamental difference between liberals and many
conservatives. Liberals are willing to take risks to preserve freedom. Many
conservatives would just as soon see freedom compromised in the interest of law
and order. 

  George

    
    
    Ah say ski....!! Pay attention boy!! Ah say boy!! Pay attention!!
    
    It was a joke son.. ah say!! A joke!!!
    
    Ah say boy!! Your sarcasm meter is off today!! Pay attention boy!!
    

  So how am I suppose to tell. People have been calling for a system of
martial law and summary judgment all afternoon.

  Are they all pulling my leg?

  George

||When shooting sheep any revolver and a collection of speed-loaders would have 
||done as much or more damage. (a .357 vs the wimpy 9MM he did use, or a
||.44 or .41)
    
||   Perhaps then you could tell us what type of firearm (just the general
||   name would suffice) that one uses a speed-loader with?
    
    This stuff is called context.  Next time you want a     ing list,
    how about asking for a    ing list.  If you want "types" ask for
    "types".  If you ask for type [singular], expect to get an anwser
    for the type we were talking about.
 
|   So, if you fire 5 shotgun blasts into a crowd, you could conceivably do
|   nearly the same damage as shooting 45 single shots.

    Nonsense.
    
    It is quite clear you know so much about guns that you believe the
    spread from a sawed off shotgun is planar.  Or maybe you believe people
    in train cars sit on the ceiling.  Either way, you are wrong.
    
    								-mr. bill

.136>    >In the real world, while the real scum pauses to reload, real "sheep"
>    >have a chance respond.
>    
>    	The LIRR was the "real world", how come no one stopped Ferguson?
    
    	I thought that unarmed subway riders *did* stop him.  Eventually.
    	Three of them.  And Clinton had them visit the White House, and
    	that's why Ferguson wanted to call Clinton as a witness.
    
    	Maybe I'm mixing stories...

>  And there in lies a fundamental difference between liberals and many
>conservatives. Liberals are willing to take risks to preserve freedom. Many
>conservatives would just as soon see freedom compromised in the interest of law
>and order. 

Funny, I thought it was the other way around ...

Doug.

What were subway riders doing on the LIRR?

>  Those lawyers are not scumbags. They are just doing their job of trying to
>zealously represent their client's interest. In fact, if they did anything
>less they would get disbarred.

George - the man is quite obviously guilty of having killed six people and
wounded a number of others. There are multiple witnesses to the fact. There
is no "alleged" about it. HE did it. And he was found guilty by a jury of his
peers. No one on the face of this earth with the exception of Colin himself
feels there's a "reasonable doubt" that he committed those crimes. Now,
don't try to tell me that an attorney representing him in an appeal is
just doing his job to avoid disbarment. Any attorney representing him in
an appeal is attempting to get an obviously guilty man off easier. That's
plain wrong - just as wrong as if someone were to commit perjury. Hiding
it behind the machinations of the legal system doesn't sweeten it any.

>				 If you don't like the system, why not tell
>us what you would replace it with rather than attacking those individuals
>who are just trying to make the system work?

Here's a novel idea. Reason. Expect the courts and the lawyers to act
reasonably, send the guilty to their just rewards and stop expanding the
law libraries with endless technicalities. Admit that scum like Ferguson
should be done away with, do so, and get on with life. Do you truly believe
that if Colin is denied an appeal that millions of innocent people will
perish at the hands of our judicial system because a precedent was set?
Remember, the guy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This isn't a case of
only circumstantial evidence.

>  No, it all gets back to scumbags who would rather see our society ruled by
>martial law and summary judgment rather than protecting the rights of the
>citizens.

When the "citizens" whose rights are being protected are the likes of
Colin Ferguson, society is being made a mockery of. THAT'S what I want to
see put to an end. Because the quicker it happens, with swift and capital
punishment, the quicker more sick whackos like Colin Ferguson may begin
to think twice before they go on a rampage, knowing full well that they'll
never have to suffer, because of the precedents being set by guys like
Colin. Precedents work both ways, doncha know.

>  Nor do you seem to feel that it's worth protecting the rights of the
>innocent. Because under common law, if you take away the rights of one
>individual set a precedent that endangers the rights of everyone. 

See above. I believe that in cases where you have multiple unimpeachable
witnesses and cases where you have signed confessions (i.e. cases which
do not hinge strictly on circumstantial evidence), the judicial system
should not be hampered by appeals and the like. Fry 'em and be done with it.

 >  It is quite clear you know so much about guns that you believe the
 >   spread from a sawed off shotgun is planar.  Or maybe you believe people
 >   in train cars sit on the ceiling.  Either way, you are wrong.
  
 A shotgun full of 00 buck, aimed down just left or right of the center isle
 of a train will take out a hell of a lot more than any single projectile 
 pistol. And it'll do it a hell of lot faster ...

 Doug.  

RE    <<< Note 285.186 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>>  And there in lies a fundamental difference between liberals and many
>>conservatives. Liberals are willing to take risks to preserve freedom. Many
>>conservatives would just as soon see freedom compromised in the interest of law
>>and order. 
>
>Funny, I thought it was the other way around ...

  Well it is if you are speaking in icons and not talking issues.

  When it comes to taking risks to preserve the right to a fair trial, right
to appeal, freedom from illegal search, and other fundamental rights it's
generally the liberals who are on the side of freedom.

  Check the notes here, who wants to use the Colin Ferguson case to set a
precedent limiting the rights of every citizen to a fair trial and who wants
to see those rights preserve even if it means risking another trial?

  George

 >  	I thought that unarmed subway riders *did* stop him.  Eventually.
 >   	Three of them.  And Clinton had them visit the White House, and
 >   	that's why Ferguson wanted to call Clinton as a witness.
 
 Yes, but how many folks had to be shot/killed before the opportunity presented
 itself.

  Doug.

    
    RE: .183
    
    ski...
    
    >People have been calling for a system of martial law and summary
    >judgment all afternoon.
    
    
      Name them!! or at least reference the appropriate replies!

>                    Because the quicker it happens, with swift and capital
> punishment, the quicker more sick whackos like Colin Ferguson may begin
> to think twice before they go on a rampage, knowing full well that they'll
> never have to suffer, because of the precedents being set by guys like
> Colin. Precedents work both ways, doncha know.

Jack, do you really think that _any_ kind of punishment would be a deterrent
for a "sick whacko?"

RE        <<< Note 285.188 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Here's a novel idea. Reason. Expect the courts and the lawyers to act
>reasonably, send the guilty to their just rewards and stop expanding the
>law libraries with endless technicalities. 

  Ok so what you are saying is that rather than determining guilt in a court
of law with each side being represented by council, you would rather have
lawyers, the very people you so despise, making the decisions as to who is
innocent and who is guilty. Lawyers in the privacy of their offices should
decide who deserves a fair trail and who does not. 

  You are delegating quite a responsibility to those whom you despise.

>See above. I believe that in cases where you have multiple unimpeachable
>witnesses and cases where you have signed confessions (i.e. cases which
>do not hinge strictly on circumstantial evidence), the judicial system
>should not be hampered by appeals and the like. Fry 'em and be done with it.

  And how does an appeal court know if those unimpeachable witnesses and
signed confessions were part of a trial unless they review the case?

  George

    
    RE: .193
    
    Gerald,
    
     Charles Manson would be classified in my book as a ""sick whacko"...
    
    If not for the fact that he rants and raves at his parole hearings, he
    would have been let out a long time ago. The parole board would have
    classified him as "corrected" and freed him...
    
      Now, if Manson had been fried as he should have... there never would
    be that opportunity to have a "corrected, sick whacko" around to
    perhaps commit mayhem on innocent people...
    
      You can't prevent whackos from doing it the first time, but you can
    make damn sure it never happens again...
    

As looney and delusional as Colin Ferguson may be, jurors have stated that
he quite clearly understood right from wrong and understood the gravity
of the actions of which he was accused.

I think that Colin Ferguson was able to display (barely) enough lucidity
in court that the possibility exists that he could reason the consequences
of his actions had those consequences been made painfully clear in terms
of a punishment, and that that might have acted as a deterrent. I don't
state that it was "Likely" in his case, but certainly not out of the realm
of possibilities. I think that there are others "close to the edge" that
could similarly come to such a conclusion and potentially stem their
activities rather than stepping off that edge. The possibilities may be
extremely remote, but they are a damn sight better than the example
currently being set, i.e., "Don't worry - nothing will happen to you."

|   So, if you fire 5 shotgun blasts into a crowd, you could conceivably do
|   nearly the same damage as shooting 45 single shots.

    >Nonsense.
    
    >It is quite clear you know so much about guns that you believe the
    >spread from a sawed off shotgun is planar.  Or maybe you believe people
    >in train cars sit on the ceiling.  Either way, you are wrong.
    
    First, I never claimed to know much about guns. Fact is, I admit
    all the time that I know very little about them. You want someone
    who knows a lot about guns, start with the likes of Amos Hamburger
    or Jim Sadin or Jim Percival, etc. Me? I own guns, so I feel
    it is my responsibility to know as much as I can about them.
    But I'm no expert. On the other hand, I'm not shooting my mouth
    off like I _was_ an expert...
    
    So, let's disect what I said, and see if we can't get a little
    sense going here... first, I think we can reasonably assume that
    the spread of a shotgun blast is not completely random, and that
    directly above and below the barrel are probably not in the plane.
    Agreed? Good. Now, let's assume that you were firing the weapon
    from waste high, in a trajectory parallel to the floor. If
    your "target audience" is relatively close (within 10 to 15 feet),
    chances are pretty good that a fair amount of those projectiles
    are going to hit them. No? Did I ever say every projectile
    would hit them? No. Did I ever say that every projectile would
    be lethal? No.
    
    Now, consider this. How many criminals of the Colin Ferguson
    ilk go to the range and practice? Not many, right? So, does
    it not follow that a shotgun in the hands of such a person
    is probably as lethal as a handgun? Remember, handguns take
    practice. On the other hand, it has been my _direct_ experience
    that people who carry handguns for protection generally are
    quite good with them. They practice.
    
    I have asserted that one such individual _could_ make a
    difference in this type of situation. Most gun carriers
    I know are cool cucumbers who are very familiar with combat
    handgun techniques. You seem completely unwilling to accept
    that such people exist, when in fact, you're arguing with
    several of them. I know if I was on that train, I would have
    been damn happy to have an Amos Hamburger or a Gene Haag
    on board. Damn happy.
    
    You use the fact that no such people were on board as an argument
    to support your claim that it _could not_ happen. I say, that
    what you are actually doing is making a very good case for the
    pro-RKBA argument, since it is the liberal destruction of
    the RKBA that has led to the situation where no one in allowed
    to legally defend themselves (or others) in places like NYC.
    
    -b

RE        <<< Note 285.196 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>As looney and delusional as Colin Ferguson may be, jurors have stated that
>he quite clearly understood right from wrong and understood the gravity
>of the actions of which he was accused.
>
>I think that Colin Ferguson was able to display (barely) enough lucidity
>in court that the possibility exists that he could reason the consequences
>of his actions had those consequences been made painfully clear in terms
>of a punishment, and that that might have acted as a deterrent. 

  So fine and I assume that you based your opinion on seeing him on TV. That's
great. But the question is, should he be denied an appeal?

  On what basis would an appellant court turn down his appeal? Unlike you they
would NOT have seen him on TV and even if they did they would be more
interested in the procedures involved in deciding if he should have the right
to defend himself, not on the way that he defended himself.

  Remember during an appeal it is not Colin Ferguson who is on trial, it is in
effect the trial judge that is on trial. How is an appeal court suppose to know
how well that judge made his decision unless they review the case?

  George

>  Ok so what you are saying is that rather than determining guilt in a court
>of law with each side being represented by council, you would rather have
>lawyers, the very people you so despise, making the decisions as to who is
>innocent and who is guilty. Lawyers in the privacy of their offices should
>decide who deserves a fair trail and who does not. 
>  You are delegating quite a responsibility to those whom you despise.

I haven't any idea how you arrived at that bizarre conclusion based on what
I said. No. That is not my proposal at all. My proposal is that when it's
been shown beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, by a court of
law through a jury trial, on other than circumstantial evidence, appeals
aren't an option.

>  And how does an appeal court know if those unimpeachable witnesses and
>signed confessions were part of a trial unless they review the case?

I don't know - how 'bout one o' them little check boxes marked "This verdict
reached based on signed confessions and/or unimpeachable witnesses" on
the case record, initialled by all legal counsels and the judge?

    Colin SNARF.

RE        <<< Note 285.199 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>My proposal is that when it's
>been shown beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, by a court of
>law through a jury trial, on other than circumstantial evidence, appeals
>aren't an option.

  Courts never say one way or the other whether the case was decided on
circumstantial or direct evidence so how would anyone ever know on what basis
the jury made their decision? 

>I don't know - how 'bout one o' them little check boxes marked "This verdict
>reached based on signed confessions and/or unimpeachable witnesses" on
>the case record, initialled by all legal counsels and the judge?

  And how would the lawyers and judge know just which evidence the jury
based their verdict?

  George

> But the question is, should he be denied an appeal?

Yes.

I swear, George, you're beginning to remind me of Tim Meadows playing the part
of Colin on SNL a few weeks ago. The man is unquestionably guilty and he
should be denied an appeal.


>  On what basis would an appellant court turn down his appeal?

On the basis of the umpteen witnesses who saw the man commit the crimes and
who so testified. You don't need a formal appeal to present that data - it's
already in the court record.

   <<< Note 285.184 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    It is quite clear you know so much about guns that you believe the
>    spread from a sawed off shotgun is planar.  Or maybe you believe people
>    in train cars sit on the ceiling.  Either way, you are wrong.
 
	It is quite clear that spatial analysis is not one of
	your strong suits.

	A 6 foot diameter pattern would be sufficient (and probably all
	one could expect within 20 or 30 feet).

Jim

    
    
    George,
    
    
    Do you think that appeal process is abused?  Do you think that what it
    has turned in to is what the design was menat to be?  
    
    
    
    Mike

        <<< Note 285.202 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>> But the question is, should he be denied an appeal?

>Yes.

>I swear, George, you're beginning to remind me of Tim Meadows playing the part
>of Colin on SNL a few weeks ago. The man is unquestionably guilty and he
>should be denied an appeal.

	We need to be certain of our definitions. "An Appeal" has been, or
	will be filed on Ferguson's behalf. The Appelate Court with 
	jurisdiction is required to hear the appeal. They can sustain
	the appeal, overturning the conviction, or they can deny the
	appeal, upholding the conviction.

	I'm assuming that you believe that the Court should deny the
	appeal, not refuse to hear the appeal.

	Correct?

Jim

RE        <<< Note 285.202 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>  On what basis would an appellant court turn down his appeal?
>
>On the basis of the umpteen witnesses who saw the man commit the crimes and
>who so testified. You don't need a formal appeal to present that data - it's
>already in the court record.

  And how would the appeals court know anything about those witnesses if
they didn't review the case? Remember, they didn't see any of this on TV
nor do they base their rulings on what they see in the press.

  George

RE   <<< Note 285.204 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    Do you think that appeal process is abused?  Do you think that what it
>    has turned in to is what the design was menat to be?  
    
  No I do not think it is abused. It was meant to insure that citizens receive
fair trials and it does just that.

  George

>	I'm assuming that you believe that the Court should deny the
>	appeal, not refuse to hear the appeal.
>	Correct?

Correct.

>  And how would the appeals court know anything about those witnesses if
>they didn't review the case?

They have full access to the court records for the case for review without
reopening the issue (granting an appeal), do they not?

RE        <<< Note 285.209 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>They have full access to the court records for the case for review without
>reopening the issue (granting an appeal), do they not?

  No that's not the way it works. Reviewing those records is part of the
appeal process.

  George

>                     <<< Note 285.181 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  And there in lies a fundamental difference between liberals and many
>conservatives. Liberals are willing to take risks to preserve freedom. Many

Except, of course, when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

>  No that's not the way it works. Reviewing those records is part of the
>appeal process.

Then on what basis do they decide to grant or deny the appeal?

RE   <<< Note 285.211 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>Except, of course, when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

  You know it's funny, there are 10 amendments in the bill of rights, 15 other
amendments and the Constitution itself is many pages long but when ever
conservatives try to defend themselves on their love of freedom they always
point back to that one amendment.

  There is disagreement between liberals and conservatives over the meaning
of the 2nd amendment. Liberals feel it refers to a "well regulated militia"
and conservatives feel it is open ended. This is at best controversal.

  But how many other lines from the Constitution can you point to and say
conservatives have a stronger record than liberals? Check out the list. When
it comes to freedom,  Liberals believe in free speech, freedom of and from
religion, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, due process, the
right to appeal, and the list goes on.

  And what rights do conservatives protect? Well in fact the list is just as
long, it consists of guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, 
guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, 
guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, 
guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, 
guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns.

  George

    
    <------
    
    it's replies like that George that want to make me throw out the baby
    with the bath water, when reading your entries...
    

|   	Well if we use the Florida data, it works out to around 2% of
|	the population have carry permits. 
|
|    	The odds are (based on the above) 2 in 100, or 1 in 50.
    
    Only if you assume that every one of the people who have a CC permit
    carry all the time.  The data does not back that up.  Neither does real
    life.  My friends who have CC permits do *not* bring their piece into an
    art gallery opening, for example.  (Nor do they bring them on trains.)
    Arguing that if only if only if only an armed citizen had been present
    the scum with the gun could have been stopped before he had a chance
    to get past the brie is nothing but fantasy.
    
    The chances of the friends with carry permit being at the opening are
    small enough to begin with.  The chances of them carrying into the
    opening are also small.  The product of the two is near zero.
    
    
    To make it clear.  Would I be upset if my friends did carry into an
    opening?  No.  Would I be upset if they took out some scum who raided
    an art opening with a semi-auto?  No.  Do I expect them to do so?  No.
    
    I expect the way it would go down is the way it always goes down.
    Everyone would duck, lots of people would get hurt and killed, and
    sooner or later the scum would run out of shots, and he'd either
    get grabbed or run away.
    
    
    Basing public policy on fantasy senarios is not the basis of rational
    public policy.  All claims by your side that you are rational does not
    change this.  Your senario is *FANTASY*!
    
    (Has there *ever* been such a crime where your side has *NOT* taken
    advantage to promote this "if only some law abiding citizen had a gun"
    fantasy?)              

    								-mr. bill

RE        <<< Note 285.212 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Then on what basis do they decide to grant or deny the appeal?

  It's pretty much automatic. The way it works is something like the following.

  After a criminal trial, if the defendant loses they can appeal. It varies
somewhat from state to state but for the most part they do this by typing out
their request for an appeal and filing it, at least in triplicate, with the
clerk of the proper appellant court. 

  Like any case it is assigned a docket number and scheduled for an open date.
As the date approaches, a panel of appellate judges is selected to hear the
appeals scheduled for the time and place that includes the appeal in question. 

  As the day for that particular appeal draws closer, the judges (usually there
are 3) read the briefs of the parties and review the record of the trial. Then
on the day of the appeal itself lawyers from both sides are given some amount
of time to address the court. 

  During their arguments, the judges pepper the lawyers with questions. By now
they have reviewed the lawyers briefs and the records of the court. After
arguments the judges retire and at some time normally within a few days they get
together and discuss the case. 

  After discussion they vote. One judge is selected to write a majority opinion
and normally either or both of the other judges join his argument. If the vote
is 2-1 often the dissenting judge writes a dissenting opinion. If the judges are
not able to agree on their reasoning, then the 3rd judge might join one of the
other judges to form a majority vote but he might write a concurring opinion
giving different reasoning for his verdict. 

  Several weeks later they announce their decision along with other cases that
they reviewed in the same time frame. 

  Before the case is assigned a docket number and an open date the judges have
no idea what the case is about. In fact they don't even know which judges will
hear the case.

  George 

    
    Read:
    
    my friends = everyone in the known universe

RE   <<< Note 285.214 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    it's replies like that George that want to make me throw out the baby
>    with the bath water, when reading your entries...
    
  Better watch out, if you throw that baby in a lake most people in this file
won't allow you a fair trial.

  George

OK for the techie aspects.

A shotgun with an open choke(no choke) as in sawed-off, would have an average 
spread of approximately one to two inches per yard of forward travel. in other 
words at 3 feet from the barrel you have a 2" circle(this is where I'll give 
Mr. Bill a few points[not the whole game]) at 15 yards or one end of car to 
the other you will have a 30" diameter circle. or more or less circular 
pattern. the shot will move at slightly different speeds so it would not 
appear from the side as a flat line if you get my analogy. the more shot in
a shell(as in smaller pellets) the more the shot pattern looks like a ball of 
shot growing larger over distance. smaller pellets loose velocity faster than
large ones so 00-buck is more lethal then #9.

That said, my favorite load for social ocasions is the Remington 12 pellet 
00-buck with granular packaging to prevent/reduce deformation in the
barrel. since 5x12 = 60 with half or more heading toward a steel floor with 
resultant ricochet possibilities and others heading toward the cieling
(but again with ricochet possibilities) in the first few seconds
the number of pellets flying and potential injury/wounding/death would be very 
high, higher than his 9MM. reloading a shotgun is easily accomplished
fairly quickly so the possibility of firing 8 to 10 rds before anyone 
tried to take him down by physical means rather than a gun is quite high.
I believe he would have caused far more death and injury than he did.

all of which means that after handguns are banned by the "if it saves 
one-life" crowd shotguns will have to be eliminated from society as well.

but as for me,,, cold dead fingers etc.

re: .216, George

So, then, the appellate committee/court/judges DO get to see the court
records on the case prior to deciding whether to grant or deny the
appeal. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what you just said?

    > I expect the way it would go down is the way it always goes down.
    > Everyone would duck, lots of people would get hurt and killed, and
    > sooner or later the scum would run out of shots, and he'd either
    > get grabbed or run away.
    
    I consider this reported perception/expectation a direct result of
    inconsistent reporting of the facts in other cases by the news media.
    I do *not* agree that this is the way it always goes down.
    
    DougO

    
    
    re: .215
    
    	Mr. Bill,
    
    	Your scenario is as much speculation as Jim's.
    
    
    jim

>  Better watch out, if you throw that baby in a lake most people in this file
>won't allow you a fair trial.


No - you've misunderstood, George - a trial is fine, but no appeals.

:^)

    
    RE: .218
    
    
    >Better watch out, if you throw that baby in a lake most people in this
    >file
    
    
      There ya go again... "most people in this file"....
    
     name them!! reference replies!!!
    
    
     I asked you to do that and you ignored it... going about your merry
    way repeating the fantasy...
    
      BTW.... I wouldn't compare you to old Adolph.... more like Joseph
    Goebbels... he's the author of that famous quote...
    

RE        <<< Note 285.220 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>So, then, the appellate committee/court/judges DO get to see the court
>records on the case prior to deciding whether to grant or deny the
>appeal. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what you just said?

  No, the case is scheduled before the judges review the records for the case. 
Appeals are mandatory, they hear what ever cases come before them. Only the
Supreme Court decides what cases they want to hear and then only in certain
circumstances.

  In fact in many states defendants don't even have to file an appeal in a
capital case, the appeal is automatic. 

  Here is the order of events for most appellant courts. Mileage may differ
from state to state:

  1). Case is filed and scheduled
  2). Judges are selected
  3). Judges review records
  4). Lawyers argue before judges
  5). Judges vote
  6). Judges write opinions
  7). Judges announce verdict

  George

Re   <<< Note 285.224 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>      There ya go again... "most people in this file"....
>    
>     name them!! reference replies!!!
>    
>     I asked you to do that and you ignored it... going about your merry
>    way repeating the fantasy...
    
  Now who's too dense to spot a joke when they see one?

  George

    
    Ah... I see....
    
    So when I see Meowski refering to conservatives and "most people" and
    the like, I can just ignore it cause it's a joke... 
    
     My apologies there George.... I guess I was just being Polish again..
    

re: .225, George


Thanks for the explanation, but confusion still exists.

At what point in the timeline is the "appeal" granted or denied?

RE        <<< Note 285.228 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Thanks for the explanation, but confusion still exists.
>
>At what point in the timeline is the "appeal" granted or denied?

  Well it depends what you mean. If you mean at what point is the appeal
scheduled to be heard it's when ever the lawyers file the appeal with the clerk
of the appellant court and he/she puts it on the calendar.

  In the Supreme Court of the United States there are some cases that work a
little differently. They also have appeals which are pretty much automatic but
there is also another method with a name something like "Writ of Certitory" (or
"Sertirory", something like that). 

  In any case, anyone in the country can apply to the Supreme Court for that
type of writ from any court in which they were a defendant and the judges vote
on whether or not they want to accept those cases. If 4 of 9 judges vote to
hear the case it gets scheduled. 

  One of the most famous cases they took through that method was when a guy
named Gabrael challenged the State of Florida because he had been convicted
without a lawyer. The Supreme Court took that case and he won. It is because of
that case that all defendants have a right to an attorney. 

  However certain cases coming up through appeal from the Federal Circuit Court
of appeals are mandatory and the Supreme Court must take them. I believe that
when a Circuit Court finds a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional the
Supreme Court must take it.

  There is a whole set of rules that say when a case must be taken by the
Supreme Court and when it is optional but for most appeals courts it's just
a matter of having the clerk put the case on the calendar.

  George

   <<< Note 285.215 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Only if you assume that every one of the people who have a CC permit
>    carry all the time.  The data does not back that up.

	You use the term "data". This implies that you have some "data".
	Would you care to share it?

>    Arguing that if only if only if only an armed citizen had been present
>    the scum with the gun could have been stopped before he had a chance
>    to get past the brie is nothing but fantasy.
 
	No it's not. Look at the words and tell me that this is not
	a logical argument.

>    I expect the way it would go down is the way it always goes down.
>    Everyone would duck, lots of people would get hurt and killed, and
>    sooner or later the scum would run out of shots, and he'd either
>    get grabbed or run away.
 
	But we'll never really know as long as the victims remain
	unarmed. There HAVE been cases where an armed citizen HAS
	stopped such slaughter. THe most recent one I've heard
	about was at a resturant in Nashville.

>    Basing public policy on fantasy senarios is not the basis of rational
>    public policy.  All claims by your side that you are rational does not
>    change this.  Your senario is *FANTASY*!
 
	So you favor no chance over any chance? And you consider this
	something to base public policy on?

>    (Has there *ever* been such a crime where your side has *NOT* taken
>    advantage to promote this "if only some law abiding citizen had a gun"
>    fantasy?)              

	Not that I'm aware of. I will always favor the CHANCE of self-
	defense vs. the certainty of being defenseless.

Jim

Ferguson gave a rambling 3.5 hour statement at his sentencing hearing yesterday.
He argued that his conviction should be set aside.  The judge refused to do so.

  I watched one of the victims give a statement to the court today..Frank Barker
  I believe..quite a statement he read..

  I gathered Ferguson wants to be able to rebut these statements..




 Jim

 Yesterday Court TV interviewed one of the men who is "helping" Ferguson
 with legal advise.  The man, whose name I've forgotten, was moved to tears
 by what the victims and families had to say, all the while Ferguson showing
 no emotion whatsoever, which astounded the interviewee.




 Jim

    i saw a couple of the victims make statements. not fun...
    
    Chip

    I can't believe nobody used the word "maggot" in describing him.
    
     I think the judge should have given the guy the 5 minutes he asked
    for.

    -1 one guy called him garbage (close?)...
    
    
    Chip

 I set up my vcr to record the hearing today (at least until the OJ show
 starts).  I'm interested in hearing what Ferguson has to say (and if he
 makes it out of the courtroom alive after he says it).




Jim

If you'd be willing to lend the tape afterwards, Jim, I'd appreciate a chance
to see it as well. I didn't have the forethought to set my VCR.

 No problem, Jack...hopefully I set it properly and my cat won't mess around
 with the remotes :-/




 Jim

  ... most likely it will just be a rehash of his closing argument.

  But maybe not,
  George

    
    
    He says he's going to specifically address each and every victims
    statement.
    
    
    Mike

 re .241



 Yep...what a mockery.  I just wonder what those folks are going to respond
 to that.

    Oh, dear, a videotape only goes up to six hours on super-long play.

 I just programmed mine to the schedule they followed yesterday...Ferguson
 from 9-12 then OJ til 3:15, during which time the VCR is asleep.  It wakes
 up at 3:15 and goes til 4:30 when the OJ show resumes, at which time it 
 goes back to sleep.




 Jim

    Hope they have some strong deputies to restrain that guy that
    asked for 5 minutes alone with Ferguson.
    
    I know it's becoming prevalent to allow victims to address their
    attacker, however it might be better if Ferguson was not allowed
    to rub any more salt in the victim's wounds.
    
    

    .245 oh ya... he looked like he had some huge arms inside that
         sports coat and he was p.o.'d in a big way.
    
         Chip

    
    Would that be arms, or _arms_?
    
    You know, _arms_.
                    

Just heard on the radio that Ferguson has been sentenced to the equivalent
to life in prison.  

AAA

    
    
    	re: .247
    
    	no matter what definition of arms, I think Colin is in big trouble.
    
    
    

RE   <<< Note 285.245 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>                    -< Must Ferguson be allowed to speak? >-

  As it always is with Common Law, the question is not "Should Ferguson be
allowed to speak?", the question is, "during any sentencing hearing from this
time forward in which the prosecution is allowed to speak, should the defense
be allowed to speak?" 

  Deny Ferguson his chance to speak and you set a precedent under which
tomorrow's defendant who may not have been involved in such an obvious case
will not be allowed to respond to the lynch mob. 

  George 

   >> oh ya... he looked like he had some huge arms inside that
   >> sports coat and he was p.o.'d in a big way.

	i dare say a lot of people would have felt a little better
	if he'd been allowed to punch Ferguson's lights out.

	er, except of course for Mr. Delbalso, who would have opted
	to have him put to death for doing so.

	;> hi there Jack.

>	er, except of course for Mr. Delbalso, who would have opted
>	to have him put to death for doing so.

Not at all, Di. Where would you find a witness if anyone poked Colin? :^)

Ferguson was given 25 years to life on each of the six counts of murder,
to be served consecutively.

He was also given 25 years for each of the 19 assault and battery charges.

He'll never leave prison.  And I don't think he should.

/john

He may never get to prison. His performance in this trial proves he is
certifiably insane.

Just wait for the lawyers to start the appeal starting with going for a
mistrial for the judge letting a_insane guy defend himself.

TTom

 and I'm sure there are plenty of scumbag lawyers who'd take the case.





 Jim

| <<< Note 285.255 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| and I'm sure there are plenty of scumbag lawyers who'd take the case.


	But the dream team is already busy.... :-)

George can find someone for Colin, I'm sure . . . Afterall, Colin has a right
to be let go, doncha know.

 Well, my VCR woke up as intended and recorded the remainder of the victim state
 ments as well as most of the statement by Ferguson (Court TV cut him short, but
 then returned with some clips of it).  The poor guy claims he is a victim, of
 course and proceeded to be critical of the victims/families saying that they
 were racsists (of course).  He also said it was no coincidence that his sen-
 tencing today , comes exactly 1 year after he was attacked in jail..

 Unfortunately we'll probably see him again come appeal time.



 Jim

    If he were to get out, I wouldn't give him 2 weeks on the street.

 I wonder if he'll last 2 weeks in the pokey.






 Jim

RE        <<< Note 285.257 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>George can find someone for Colin, I'm sure . . . Afterall, Colin has a right
>to be let go, doncha know.

  Ok, I'm just curious. Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle, we hear the right wing
distortion of my argument that I've given here but I'm just curious. Can any of
you right wingers predict what my argument will be here? 

  Hint, I will not say it's great if criminals are turned lose on the street.

  Note: I'm not asking if you agree with the argument I always make at this
point in this debate, I'm just curious as to whether you can understand it and
and articulate it.

  I suspect that you can do neither but go ahead and prove me wrong.

  George

 .261   ooooh, it's like a little pop quiz.  i'm all tingly.

    
    6 life terms, one for each victim. He won't be seeing the outside world
    again in his lifetime.

    >Can any of you right wingers predict what my argument will be here?
    
     Prolly something to the effect of ineffective representation due to
    his mental state, or maybe you'll shoot the works and go for the "he
    was incorrectly found competent to stand trial" charade.
    
     FWIW- I hope he lasts much longer than 2 weeks in prison. He doesn't
    deserve a quickly and painless end.

That would be some horse puckey about the right of the convicted to all
due appeals granted by our legal system, and the fact that denying them
such sets a dangerous precedent for future cases, because, after all,
someday, someone, might actually be innocent.

Am I close, George? Did I articulate it to your satisfaction?

Now, you tell me - do you see the point that the majority of people don't
particularly care about the issue of precedents in this particular case
because this scumbag Ferguson is without any question as guilty as sin
of atrocious crimes, and, regardless of what the legal system says, he
does not deserve any appeals, much less the "right" to continue to draw
breath. And, further, if the legal system and its practitioners were not
as corrupt as they were, they would gladly excuse Ferguson his "right"
to an appeal, and collectively look the other way in the process, so that
the issue of a "precedent" was immaterial, as in, "What do you mean,
Colin Ferguson had no access to appeals? I never heard of such a thing."

While I fully recognize the impracticality of what I propose, it's a damn
sight better than giving Ferguson an appeal. The point of appeals, quite
clearly and simply, is to allow attempts to obtain lesser sentencing.
Why on earth does this animal deserve that? You tell me.

Your "just" legal system is what's responsible for scumbuckets like
Ferguson still breathing, George. I don't care for that.

    
    2 executions in Illinois early Wednsday morning. Next one is set for
    May 17th. Many, many, more to come as most of the 166 people on death
    row have exhausted all their appeals. This should ease the overcrowding
    in the near future.
    
    Mark

RE        <<< Note 285.265 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Now, you tell me - do you see the point that the majority of people don't
>particularly care about the issue of precedents in this particular case
>because this scumbag Ferguson is without any question as guilty as sin
>of atrocious crimes, and, regardless of what the legal system says, he
>does not deserve any appeals, much less the "right" to continue to draw
>breath. 

  Now this is curious. You understand my argument but then you say something
that implies you don't understand my argument. Why would the fact that
Ferguson is obviously guilty cause people to want to put themselves at
greater risk of being falsly convicted themselves?

>Your "just" legal system is what's responsible for scumbuckets like
>Ferguson still breathing, George. I don't care for that.

  It's obvious that when you take a deep breath you understand deep inside
why it is important for a free nation to give every person brought before
the bar a fair and impartial trial but like so many conservatives you seem
to believe that if you squint your eyes and make everything real fuzzy then
reality will go away and your more simplistic world will work.

  As you recognized in your 1st paragraph, if we did what the rest of your note
implies it would endanger each and every citizen of this country by exposing us
all to potential abuses by government. 

  George

RE           <<< Note 285.266 by POBOX::BATTIS "Contract Studmuffin" >>>

>    2 executions in Illinois early Wednsday morning. Next one is set for
>    May 17th. Many, many, more to come as most of the 166 people on death
>    row have exhausted all their appeals. This should ease the overcrowding
>    in the near future.
    
  In what way is putting people on death row to death going to ease the
overcrowding in the general prison population? They don't use the same cells. 

  And even if they did, in what way does putting 166 people to death make a
dent in a population of nearly 1,000,000 people nation wide?

  George

DAMNIT ALL, GEORGE! THE MAN HAS ALREADY HAD HIS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL
AND WAS FOUND GUILTY. THAT'S ENOUGH!

Why are you so damn intent upon giving him "one more chance to be heard"?

    Did anyone catch the clip where Ferguson stood up all ready to make
    his rebuttal to the court and all the victims and their families
    present stood up and walked out en masse?  Evidently they returned
    to hear the reading of the verdict, then stood and applauded as 
    Ferguson was led out.  I think they finally got his attention.
    
    BTW, Ferguson passed the competency test 3 times!!!
    
    

    
    
    
    One wonders if George would be so lenient if it were one of his loved
    ones killed.
    
    
    Mike

RE:   <<< Note 285.270 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>
                 -< Hopefully, he'll never walk streets again >-

   > Did anyone catch the clip where Ferguson stood up all ready to make
   > his rebuttal to the court and all the victims and their families
   > present stood up and walked out en masse?  Evidently they returned
   > to hear the reading of the verdict, then stood and applauded as 
   > Ferguson was led out.  I think they finally got his attention.
    
    

     Yes..I also caught a couple shots of one of the assistant DAs crying as
     victim after victim blasted Ferguson..and he had the arrogance to be
     critical of them..not one bit of remorse did he show..blame the system,
     blame the "racists"..



    Jim    
    

Ferguson should receive the same treatment as any other person found guilty
of a crime.  If that means a lot of appeals, so be it.

Bob

    
    re .269
    
    Why would we want to preclude all those lawyers out
    there from making huge amounts of money (primarily
    tax dollars) while seeking true "justice".
    
    We all know, it's not the money but the truth that
    is being sought.
    
    Walter
    
    
    

    
    With any luck, Colin will be suitably "Dahlmerized"...
    

    I'll bet Ferguson would fail the continentcy test today.

    My memory is a little sketchy on this, but he may not have an
    easy time mounting an appeal.  I seem to recall in the early stages
    of his trial (when he decided to act as his own attorney) the judge
    took great pains to point out that if the trial didn't go they way
    Ferguson wanted, that he (CF) couldn't turn around and say at a 
    later date that he didn't have adequate representation or he wasn't
    competent to stand trial.
    
    A woman named McCarthy (wife and mother of 2 of the victims) said
    all the families agreed that Ferguson was sick, but aside from being
    obnoxious, Ferguson seemed to have a firm grasp on how to work "the
    system".
    
    As the judge said "he was self-centered and self-absorbed"; he
    obviously over-rated his abilities to act as his own attorney.  I
    don't think the law guarantees an appeal for being stupid!!
    
    If the authorities were smart, they'll allow Ferguson to work on
    his appeal to his heart's content (he'll be kept in isolation);
    who is to say the "appeal" HAS to get heard any time soon?
    
    

 I wonder if there'll be a "Colin's greatest hits" video tape.  I missed much
 of the trial and only caught a few of his zingers.




Jim

RE        <<< Note 285.269 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>DAMNIT ALL, GEORGE! THE MAN HAS ALREADY HAD HIS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL
>AND WAS FOUND GUILTY. THAT'S ENOUGH!
>
>Why are you so damn intent upon giving him "one more chance to be heard"?

  But how do you know it was a fair and impartial trial?

  How do you know if there was or was not reversible error?

  The problem is that you just don't understand how the system works. The fact
that someone is arguing in favor for the right to an appeal does not mean they
want people to have another chance, it means that they want a system in which
there are assurances that people get at least one chance and that if a person's
rights are violated someone will catch the error.

  George

RE   <<< Note 285.271 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    One wonders if George would be so lenient if it were one of his loved
>    ones killed.
    
  Yes, if one of my loved ones was killed I would not see that as a reason to
do away with the protection that every man woman and child in this country
has from abuse of power by the government.

  The thing that makes me wonder is why you want to strip away the rights
of every person in this country. I assume that it's because like most
conservatives you can't stand the notion of freedom and want to see this
country turned into a police state.

  George

    
    
    Don't try and put words in my mouth, pilgrim.......
    
    
    He was tried, during that trial he was id'd by several of his victims. 
    He had a fair trial, he is history.  
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    
    
    Georgie, Georgie, Georgie.........it's you libs who want the government
    to solve all its problems for them.  Get a clue.
    

>  But how do you know it was a fair and impartial trial?

Because millions of people saw it right on their very own color teevees,
George. And, 'cuz there was a bunch of them upstanding honest lawyers present.
How's about them apples?

Why on earth would anyone possibly DOUBT that he's had a fair and impartial
trial, George? Can you give me ten reasons to doubt it? Can you give me 2?
Reasons that can be substantiated based on the fact that the trial was
internationally televised?

>  How do you know if there was or was not reversible error?

The word of the umpteen witnesses and victims is good enough for me. Why
isn't it for you? This is not an OJ case based solely on circumstantial
evidence, George. We've been over this ground about a zillion times.

>  The problem is that you just don't understand how the system works. The fact
>that someone is arguing in favor for the right to an appeal does not mean they
>want people to have another chance, it means that they want a system in which
>there are assurances that people get at least one chance and that if a person's
>rights are violated someone will catch the error.

He got his one chance. Why do you think he didn't? Why should he have another?
The point of any appeal for this idiot is most definitely to give him another
chance. No one in their right mind is arguing that he's been slighted his
chance. No one in their right mind is arguing that his rights have been
violated. I'm very much in favor of simply saying, "You've had your chance,
animal. Good luck in the zoo, unless you'd prefer to be put out of your
misery first."

    alleged fair trial...
    
    Chip

RE   <<< Note 285.281 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    Don't try and put words in my mouth, pilgrim.......

  I'm not putting any words in your mouth that are not there. You want to
deny this guy the right to an appeal. If that is done, that can be used as
precedent to deny anyone a right to an appeal. What else can you mean other
than the fact that you want the protection of every citizen done away with?
    
>    He was tried, during that trial he was id'd by several of his victims. 
>    He had a fair trial, he is history.  

  How do you know he had a fair trial? Remember, what you see on TV or read in
the press does not count, only a review of the transcript and arguments by the
attorneys in the presence of the appeals court count as evidence of whether
he did or did not have a fair trial.

  George

    How do we know anybody had a fair trial George?  
    
    -Jack

RE        <<< Note 285.286 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    How do we know anybody had a fair trial George?  
    
  In the United States it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine if
someone got a fair trial. To off load the work of that court the Circuit Court
of Appeals was created to help review cases and look for errors. Most states
in the United States follow the same system.

  George

George, what if the Supreme Court fails?  For instance, do you think the
Rosenbergs had a fair trial?

    	Surprising, George, that you (of all people) have such little
    	faith in the justice system that all trials have to be appealed
    	to the Supreme Court to ensure that they are fair.

    
    
    RE: /285  You are a liar, George.  It's that simple.  Show meONCE where
    I have said that this piece of shite should have the right to file an
    appeal.  I await your apology......

RE     <<< Note 285.289 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Surprising, George, that you (of all people) have such little
>    	faith in the justice system that all trials have to be appealed
>    	to the Supreme Court to ensure that they are fair.

  That's not what I said. Go back and read my note again.

  George

    I don't think George is arguing that Ferguson should appeal the
    verdict.  I think George is arguing that the justice system should work
    the same way for Ferguson as it does for anyone else -- if he can find
    grounds for appeal, then the appeal should be heard; if he cannot find
    grounds for appeal, that's the end of it.
    
    The cornerstone of the Constitution is equal protection under the law. 
    I would not be at all eager to go messing around with that, not matter
    how good it feels.  Mucking around with government in order to feel
    happy is a mighty expensive form of entertainment.

RE  <<< Note 285.288 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>George, what if the Supreme Court fails?  For instance, do you think the
>Rosenbergs had a fair trial?

  Everyone understands that no justice system can ever be perfect. That's why
we talk about "reasonable doubt" instead of "any possible doubt".

  Under our system everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The Appeals Courts
have the responsibility of reviewing trials to make sure they are fare.

  The fact that no system can ever be perfect is one major reason why I am
against the death penalty. You never can be perfectly sure.

  George

RE           <<< Note 285.293 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I don't think George is arguing that Ferguson should appeal the
>    verdict.  I think George is arguing that the justice system should work
>    the same way for Ferguson as it does for anyone else -- if he can find
>    grounds for appeal, then the appeal should be heard; if he cannot find
>    grounds for appeal, that's the end of it.

  Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

  George

    
    You insinuated that the trial wasn't fair and justice wasn't served. 
    What evidence do you have of that?
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    Ah, poor George Pataki, too slow.  Signed the Empire State's shiny
    new frying machine, but too late for Colin.
    
      bb

RE   <<< Note 285.296 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    You insinuated that the trial wasn't fair and justice wasn't served. 
>    What evidence do you have of that?
    
  I never said any such thing.

  George

    I dunno George, you keep preaching to some of us that we have to
    assume/presume someone is innocent until proven guilty; why 
    shouldn't we assume/presume Ferguson got a fair trial?
    
    He didn't want them there, but there were several lawyers present
    to watch out for Ferguson's interests.
    
    Yes, he has the right to appeal *IF* the trial wasn't fair and justice
    wasn't served; unless and until it's proven this didn't happen I'm
    not going to lose any sleep over CF.  I would think the courts have
    more pressing things to do than worry over some nit-picking appeal
    that won't do a thing to mitigate the end results of Ferguson's
    actions.
    
    Think about it George, some poor individual who REALLY is innocent
    of a crime could be wasting away in some cell because their case
    cannot get a place on a docket because the docket is too crowded due
    to frivolous appeals.

    Wacko-snarf!

RE   <<< Note 285.299 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I dunno George, you keep preaching to some of us that we have to
>    assume/presume someone is innocent until proven guilty; why 
>    shouldn't we assume/presume Ferguson got a fair trial?

  The way the system works it this. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The
court of original jurisdiction attempts to give the defendant that trial.

  Since courts are not perfect there is a system in place called appeal courts
that can review a proceeding to insure that the defendant got a fair trial.
If they are convinced there were no errors of law, the verdict stands. If they
find reversible error, then the defendant still has not had his fair trial
and they order a new one.
    
>    He didn't want them there, but there were several lawyers present
>    to watch out for Ferguson's interests.

  Well then if that's correct the state should have a good shot at defeating
the appeal. That does not mean that defendants do not have a right to try
for an appeal.
    
>    Yes, he has the right to appeal *IF* the trial wasn't fair and justice
>    wasn't served; unless and until it's proven this didn't happen I'm
>    not going to lose any sleep over CF.  

  This makes no sense. It is the purpose of the appeal to determine if the
trial was fair. This is like saying a defendant has a right to a trial if
he is innocent. How do you know if the trial was fair or not without an
appeal?

>    Think about it George, some poor individual who REALLY is innocent
>    of a crime could be wasting away in some cell because their case
>    cannot get a place on a docket because the docket is too crowded due
>    to frivolous appeals.

  And who is to decide which appeal is frivolous and which is not if you do
not allow proceeding to be reviewed by a higher court?

  George

I think some of you might want to go back and read some of George's reply over.
He didn't say CF didn't get a fair trail, he didn't say he should get another
trail. 

He said he has the right to appeal; that's all.

He didn't say the appeal should be granted. I suspect he feels any appeal
should be denied.

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 285.302 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>He didn't say the appeal should be granted. I suspect he feels any appeal
>should be denied.

  Yes I believe this would be the case. In fact CF himself is against using
his incompetence as a grounds for appeal, he wants to appeal on other points
that have even less chance of success.

  Still I believe he is entitled to file that appeal even though from what
we know having watched much of the trial on TV it doesn't stand much of a
chance for success.

  George

    George isn't the only one being misinterpreted.  A number of us have
    said that he is *entitled* to an appeal; can't you grant us the
    right to be human and say we wish he would just drop it and not 
    carry this travesty any further?
    
    My God, if any of you watched some of those survivors and their families
    addressing Ferguson and the court and didn't get a lump in your
    throat as I did, then you're made of stronger stuff that I.  Almost
    everyone who addressed the court wound up saying they just wanted 
    this to be over; if this is dragged out with appeal after appeal, it
    will NEVER allow the survivors to get back some semblance of peace
    in their lives.
     

RE   <<< Note 285.304 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    George isn't the only one being misinterpreted.  A number of us have
>    said that he is *entitled* to an appeal; can't you grant us the
>    right to be human and say we wish he would just drop it and not 
>    carry this travesty any further?

  Sure I have no problem with that. In fact I'd be happy to see that myself
because it would save the victims a lot of grief.

  But that's a whole lot different than saying he shouldn't have the right
to an appeal.

>if this is dragged out with appeal after appeal, it
>    will NEVER allow the survivors to get back some semblance of peace
>    in their lives.

  Because there is no death penalty in New York they will probably not be
bothered by a lot of appeals. The press will lose interest and his appeals
are likely to fail anyway.

  If there were a death penalty, the press would constantly be following the
story, rubbing it in the victim's faces, and the victim's would have to wait
years for the conclusion of the case.

  George

    >  Because there is no death penalty in New York
    
    Make that, there "was" no death penalty in New York when these crimes
    were committed.  There is now - Pataki signed it into law last month,
    as someone else referred to a few notes ago.
    
    DougO

Mods --

Shouldn't this note be retitled "George Maiewski defends himself"?

    
    ... and the judge apparently expressed regret that he couldn't
        use it on our dear Mr. Ferguson...
    

RE    <<< Note 285.308 by MPGS::MARKEY "Specialists in Horizontal Decorum" >>>


    ... and my opponents are expressing regret that they couldn't
        use it on me.
    
  George

    >... and the judge apparently expressed regret that he couldn't
    >    use it on our dear Mr. Ferguson...

    "It", of course, referring to the death penalty, not George,
    although I suppose in some circles they are considered
    synonymous... :-)

    -b

    If there was any doubt in Pataki's mind about re-instating the
    death penalty, Ferguson probably took care of that.
    

>    ... and my opponents are expressing regret that they couldn't
>        use it on me.

Not at all, George. Not at all.

    
    
    RE: .305  Since we're splitting hairs here, George......no, he doesn't
    have a right to an appeal, he has a right to file an appeal but not a
    right that it be granted. :')
    
    
    And as far as anyone wanting to use anything one you, I for one, don't. 
    Heck, I don't even not like you, how could I when I don't even know
    you.  
    
    
    Mike (who can disagree and argue and not take it personally)