Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters

On Mar 11, 7:56 am, chsw <chsw10...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:18 pm, chsw <chsw10...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:24 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:58 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
Verbal aggressiveness does not always lead to physical harm.
American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those
which are not credible.
If a person who lives 2,000 miles away says he wants to punch you out,
it is not a credible threat.
If he is your next door neighbor, it would be considered credible..
You must look at the context and circumstances.
But even from 2000 miles away someone who expresses an intent to
physical violence is not likely to encourage others to respond to him,
read what he says, or treat him in a friendly manner.
--
That's true, but I was discussing the subject in a strictly legal
context.
I have a legal background and I love the law, so I sort of venture
into it whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy.
That's also why I deal with words very precisely here.
Sometimes when I ask for proof, I'm not denying what the person said.
I'm simply doing what lawyers do.
It's become a habit with me.
Then you know, as someone who studied law (I notice that you do not say
that you're an attorney...), that mere physical proximity is not the
sole criterion for determining credibility of threat.  Other factors can
be involved, including probability of travel, the likelihood that the
victim will be or ever need to be in proximity to the accused, history
of the accused and even history of the victim as to whether the threat
caused fear, reasonable or not.  Additionally, mere words are regulated
in some localities.  Likewise, certain threats, credible or not, are
actionable if said with intent.  I'd recommend that if you don't mean
it, don't say it.
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm curious about that.  I knew several lawyers who started off
as prosecutors in the armed forces.  They all had to pass a
civilian bar exam somewhere as well as a military law exam before
their service would let them practice before courts-martial.

How could you not have been a lawyer but practiced as a prosecutor?

I didn't get involved in court's-martial. I said I was a prosecutor
under UCMJ Article 15, which is the Commanding Officer's Non-Judicial
punishment. In such a proceeding, the CO is the judge and jury. I
prepared the case against the accused(gathered evidence, interviewed
witnesses, etc) and acted as his accuser before the Captain of our
ship.
The accused has the option of representing himself or having an
officer represent him.
These proceedings take place while the ship is underway in mid ocean
where there is no opportunity to assemble a Jury or a judge. It is
what you might call quick justice. The CO has only a limited range of
punishments he can impose under Art 15.For some offenses under the
UCMJ, the accused can demand a court-martial.
Most of them don't ask for CM because the punishments available there
are much more severe.

UCMJ=Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's on the Internet if you
care to read it.

OK.  Was not familiar with this aspect of military law.

Very few people who have not served in the US military are familiar
with it.
Many rights American civilians take for granted do not exist under the
UCMJ.
There is no freedom of speech under UCMJ. There is no right to quit
your job under the UCMJ.
You can be severely punished for being late for work or overstaying
your vacation.
You can be severely punished for disobeying an order from a superior
or even for showing disrespect for a superior.
If you are assigned a watch station in wartime, you can get the death
penalty for deserting your post or your unit.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... If a person who lives 2,000 miles away says he wants to punch you out, ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ... same is true for the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ... etc) and acted as his accuser before the Captain of our ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading