Posts by ThiChi

In a civilized country it is not the death penalty but the deeds of violent criminal and the murderer that should be viewed as barbaric. The death penalty –– rightly used by a developed legal system –– is somewhat the opposite of barbaric. It is a mark of civilization since it reveals justice and righteousness. Additionally it reinstates the respect and dignity of all victims of crime etc.
It is not barbaric to remove a violent criminal or a murderer who has injured and killed fellow humans. It is not barbaric to make the earth a somewhat more safe, calm and just place. On the other hand it is barbaric to let the murderer spend a few years in prison and then give him freedom and the possibility to walk on the graves on his victims and maybe continue to terrify and torture people.

Justice in itself is irreplaceable, good and always perfect. But when handled by humans it happens that mistakes are made. But because justice on occasion fails to fall on the right person must not mean that we abandon it. Since justice in some cases and some crimes is unable to give any alternative to the death penalty we must accept that the final justice - the death penalty –– has its chosen and determined place in the book of laws. A death penalty is just as irrevocable as the death of the victim of the crime. No one can therefore deny that the capital punishment means the fairest and highest punishment for the murderer.
It becomes unacceptable if hundreds of violent criminals and murderers are to avoid the death penalty in order for no innocent person to accidentally be executed. It would mean that we for ever are forced to abandon justice for such criminals. And thinking of the victims it would also be to sacrifice the respect, the compassion and the inviolable worth of the human life on the altar. These sacrifices would pass the limit of tolerability with big steps.

15

High Times are Here Agian

by ThiChi in

jw
friends

funny how things can change:.

cannabis is given health all clear.

by david taylor home affairs correspondent .

ThiChi

The Point: Police can and do seize property without a warrant or court review FIRST. The property owner then must act to recover the property, (very costly) or loose the property. This is truly a sad time in our country.

15

High Times are Here Agian

by ThiChi in

jw
friends

funny how things can change:.

cannabis is given health all clear.

by david taylor home affairs correspondent .

ThiChi

Yep, no court review here:

When Willie Jones, a Nashville landscaper, paid cash for an airline ticket, city police suspected him of being a drug dealer. They searched him, found no drugs, but seized the $9,000 he was planning to bring on his flight to Houston to buy shrubs for his business. It took Jones two years and a federal lawsuit to get his money back.

In 1993, Chicago police, acting on a tip from a burglary suspect, searched the family-owned Congress Pizzeria looking for stolen property. They found none. But they did find $506,231 in cash, which they promptly seized from owner Anthony Lombardo. The government later argued that it should be allowed to keep Lombardo's money because he must have been involved in narcotics trafficking since most people don't have that kind of cash lying around. It was Lombardo's burden to prove otherwise. In 1997, a federal appeals court issued a stinging criticism of the government's conduct in this case and ordered the money returned.

15

High Times are Here Agian

by ThiChi in

jw
friends

funny how things can change:.

cannabis is given health all clear.

by david taylor home affairs correspondent .

ThiChi

No court review here!

Forfeiture of Vehicles By Impounding
FEAR-List Bulletin posted by Leon Felkins, 3/5/98

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The San Jose Mercury News reports on March 4, 1998 that the city of Sunnyvale has been effectively forfeiting vehicles by impounding and making it difficult for the owners to retrieve them. "The combination of the city wrongfully holding the cars longer than it should and selling them without proper notice results in the forfeiture of vehicles of people with limited financial resources,'' said George Brown, of a law firm that filed a class action against this practice.

A minor infraction, such as improper lane changing, can result in the auto being impounded. The cost of getting the auto back can be more than the auto is worth for older cars and some owners simply don't have the funds to pay for their release.

The article further states:

"Earlier this week, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Martin ordered the city to change its auto-impound policies or return to court April 28 to show why it has not done so. City officials won't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit, and Sunnyvale is preparing its response, spokesman David Vossbrink said. In the meantime, he said, the city's towing policies will not change."

It would be interesting to know how common this practise is across the land.

15

High Times are Here Agian

by ThiChi in

jw
friends

funny how things can change:.

cannabis is given health all clear.

by david taylor home affairs correspondent .

ThiChi

“”I've been a cop for five years.. and I have worked many wrecks where the person was high on marijuana...Sure. Let's give out another intoxicant. The difference between marijuana and alcohol is that marijuana stays longer in your system. (average 30 days from one marijuana cigarette). Wrong on this next statement:
quote:

Now with asset forfeiture, you can loose your house or car without a Court Order or review if you are involed with any illegal drugs, and even if you did not know that drugs were even an issue (like if a friend had drugs on them without your knowelege).

Not in the USA! Sorry..but you need to go thru a civil process, and need a court order to seize assets. The law enforcement agency splits the assets with the state, district attorneys office, and any other agencies involved in the seizure.”“”

__________________________________________________________________

I must disagree. The governments own statistics show that accidents with pot were in conjunction with other drugs, like alcohol. However not with pot alone (driver error? You don't have to be hight on pot for driver error).

One study, in essence, tested each of its thirty-six subjects--marijuana-users where were also "familiar with the effects of alcohol"--three times: once, as a control, under the influence of no drug at all; once with a "normal social high" dose of marijuana; and once with two large drinks of alcohol, which were intended to put his blood-alcohol level at approximately .10 percent (in most states the presumptive level for drunken driving is at .15 percent). In each test the subject "drove" the simulator for three periods of twenty-three minutes beginning one half hour, two and a half hours, and four hours after the "drug" use. Using standard statistical techniques, the author of the paper determined that there was no significant difference between the performance under the influence of marijuana and under no drug at all but that there was a considerable difference between these two and the performance under alcohol." From "Marijuana The New Prohibition" 1970 by Professor John Kaplan pp. 293 - 294 (pb.) Cannabis does not impair driving performance as much as alcohol

I too work for a government agency.
Two main categories of forfeiture statutes exist in today’’s legal system: criminal forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture concerns the seizure of property presumed to have a relation to a crime or to be obtained as a consequence of criminal activity. No determination of criminal guilt is necessary to trigger a civil asset forfeiture, which is in rem, or against property, in nature.

The second category involves criminal forfeitures, which are primarily in personam——against the person——in nature. A criminal forfeiture results after a conviction for the crime to which the forfeited property is related. This can occur upon a showing that the property is contraband (illegally obtained, obtained through the profit from a crime, or involved as an instrument of the underlying offense), as a consequence of sentencing, or as a condition of a plea bargain. Fewer injustices are likely to result in this category of forfeiture, given the more protective procedural safeguards in criminal prosecutions.

Nonetheless, several concerns arise in the analysis of criminal forfeiture laws. Eighth Amendment protections from excessive fines and the implied protection against disproportionate punishments must be considered. In fact, on June 22, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a violation of a customs law requiring reporting of more than $10,000 in cash transported across the border warranted a forfeiture of $357,144 in lawfully obtained cash carried by the defendants. Finding the forfeiture disproportionately high given the nature of the violation and limiting their opinion to the distinct issue of criminal forfeiture, the Court held for the first time that a criminal forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines clause.
Though these and other problems arise in both categories of forfeitures, their significance to the criminal category lies primarily beyond the scope of this report. Criminal forfeiture is particularly relevant to this report’’s analysis, however, when innocent owners or co-owners of property are punished as a result of such forfeitures.

“”The Framers of the United States Constitution understood that freedom depends upon the vigorous protection of private property rights and that this protection was therefore the most sacred obligation of government. However, despite Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, recent years have witnessed a massive expansion of a legal practice known as "asset forfeiture," which allows government to violate the very property rights it is charged with protecting.
Hundreds of asset forfeiture laws——many of them intended to stop illegal drug trafficking——give state and federal law enforcement agents the power to seize property even without proof of the owners’’ guilt in a criminal trial because, in many cases, the government considers the property itself to be the criminal.
Use of forfeiture by authorities has exploded. In Michigan alone, law enforcement agents in a recent year used forfeiture laws in 9,770 instances to seize more than $14 million in private property.
This Mackinac Center for Public Policy report examines the practice of asset forfeiture in Michigan and recommends reforms to help authorities prosecute criminals while still protecting the property rights of innocent citizens and preserving the freedom and due process rights of everyone.
Michigan and federal policy makers should
Remove incentives for law enforcement agencies to employ asset forfeiture. End the twin practices of allowing law enforcement agencies to profit from the sale of the assets they seize and paying informants to provide information to help build forfeiture cases.
End federal "adoption" of state forfeiture cases. State law enforcement agents should be prohibited from asking federal agents to "adopt" forfeiture cases. Michigan property owners should not have to fight the full resources of the federal government, whose forfeiture laws provide less of a barrier to asset seizure.
Shift the burden of proof from property owners to government. Property owners must currently establish the "innocence" of their property once it has been seized. Government should be required to show proof that disputed property is connected to illegal activity before it can be seized.
Establish nexus and proportionality requirements for forfeiture. Current law should be changed to require government to show connection between specific property and a crime for which guilt has been found. The amount of property seized should be in proportion to the crime committed by its owner.
Eliminate legal hurdles to citizens’’ ability to challenge forfeiture. Lawmakers should extend the length of time citizens are given to file claims to seized property and eliminate the requirement that they post bond to do so. Successful claimants should be reimbursed by the government for expenses incurred during forfeiture proceedings.
Require law enforcement agents to publicly justify forfeiture proceedings. Law enforcement agencies should be required to publish an explanation each time they seize and retain private property. The resulting public awareness will encourage self-restraint on the part of law enforcement agencies.
Enact protections against forfeiture for innocent owners of property. Language in forfeiture statutes should be strengthened to ensure that property owners who have not participated in, or acquiesced to, a crime committed with their property are not punished with forfeiture.
Give third-party creditors the chance to recover seized property. Innocent third parties with an interest in seized property, such as lien holders, should be given a judicial remedy to recover against the government.
Ensure that asset forfeiture reforms do not include an expanded definition of criminal behavior. If asset forfeiture is allowed only upon proof of a related crime, lawmakers should resist any urge to broaden the definition of criminal behavior to include currently noncriminal activities.
The principles of private property, limited government, and individual liberty that America’’s founders cherished must be preserved for all generations. These reforms at the state and federal levels will help guarantee that the citizens of Michigan continue to enjoy the benefits of those principles and remain protected from unjustified and arbitrary seizure of their personal possessions.”“

15

High Times are Here Agian

by ThiChi in

jw
friends

funny how things can change:.

cannabis is given health all clear.

by david taylor home affairs correspondent .

ThiChi

144,001:

I try to call them as I see them: Also, I want to apologize if I did mis quote you on the DP thread.. I’m sorry and enjoy your viewpoints and posts.......

55

If Russell Were Alive Today He'd Be DF'd For

by Dutchie in

jw
friends

i was just thinking that if charles taze russell were alive today he wouldn't even recognize the religion he started.

in fact, many of the things he did are now disfellowshippable offenses.

for instance, he had a christmas tree in the bethel home and he wore a beard.

ThiChi

""The following doctrines are an example as to how Bible Students still retain the basic teachings of Pastor Russell in contrast with "Jehovah's Witnesses," who do not.

One of the main teachings of Pastor Russell was that all would be enlightened with a knowledge of God's Truth before they are placed on trial and judged for their final destiny. For the majority of mankind this would be when they are raised from the dead at the time of the general resurrection. Their final judgment would be based on their conduct while enlightened and not on their conduct while in ignorance. This teaching separated Bible Students from all other religious groups. Now it separates them from "Jehovah's Witnesses" as well.

Pastor Russell was led to believe in a future probation because millions have died and continue to die without hearing the Gospel. Of those that hear, uncertainty and confusion exists in their minds because Churchianity of today is burdened with contradictory beliefs and teachings. "Jehovah's Witnesses" see no further probation for any of the present generation who do not subscribe to their teachings - which means that a large percentage of the world's population is to perish eternally in Armageddon. In this respect their views are less generous than most established Churches. They not only see no hope for those who live today, who do not subscribe to their teachings, but they entertain no hope for a large percentage of the millions who have gone into the grave since the creation of man. For example, those of Sodom, Samaria, Gomorrah, etc., - they believe those people perished eternally, with no hope for a resurrection, while Pastor Russell pointed to the Scriptures, such as Ezek. 16:55, where it declares that these are all going to return to their "former estate." And our Lord, in Matt. 10:15, confirms this thought when He said, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city" - (speaking of the Jews) Thus our Lord pointed forward to a day of judgment for those people who died centuries ago. And again it says, in Acts 17:31 that, "He hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness."

The "Jehovah's Witnesses" deny that Adam will ever have a resurrection, while the Scriptures plainly state that Jesus Christ tasted death "for every man." Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2: 5,6. Pastor Russell pointed out these Scriptures and many others such as 1 Cor. 15: 22, - "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Also Hosea 13:14, --"I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: 0 death, I will be thy plagues; 0 grave, I will be thy destruction."

Pastor Russell taught, according to the Scriptures, that now is "the day of salvation" for those who are to be the Bride of Christ, the Little Flock; and that another day - a day of salvation is awaiting mankind in general, in the Millennial Age -"the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:21) This view broke with the concept of salvation current in his day. At that time nearly all evangelists taught a literal hell of torment for those who did not accept Christ in this life. They felt hell-fire threats were necessary to restrain evil and, if need be, to bring salvation by fear. Many theologians have since broadened their concept of salvation beyond this life, but "Jehovah's Witnesses" hold strongly to the position that those who reject their message are rejecting salvation. Contrary to our Lord's Word, every "Jehovah's Witness" becomes a missionary of life or death, using the fear of eternal destruction or second death, as their final appeal.

The Jewish people figure in another difference between Pastor Russell and the "Jehovah's Witnesses." After applying the Scripture, "Ye are my witnesses saith Jehovah" (Isa. 43:12) to them-selves, "Jehovah's Witnesses" declare that the Jewish people have no special role in the Divine Plan since the death of Jesus. On the contrary, Pastor Russell taught that the Jewish people and nation have a leading role in the Divine Plan for man, and accordingly during the year 1910 he spoke to vast Jewish audiences, comforting them according to the Scripture, Isa. 40:2 - "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." He encouraged them not to join the various churches of today but to wait for the fulfillment of the many Old Testament promises that they would be blessed as a nation. While they were yet a scattered and dispersed people, he said, upon the basis of these promises, that they would be regathered to Palestine and established as an independent nation. Time has proven this to be so. Although denied by "Jehovah's Witnesses," Bible Students today teach that the new state of Israel emerged in Divine Providence and is a precursor to the fulfillment of God's promise to that nation that, - "Lo the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land, that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it." (Jer. 30:3)

And again, Jer. 24:6, 7, says, - "I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

And a further promise in Jer. 31:27-34 was that, - "Like as I have watched over them to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy and to afflict; so will I watch over them to build and to plant saith the Lord... and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in that day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they break . . . but this shall be the covenant that I will make... I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their . . . and they shall be my people . . . I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more."

From these facts it can be seen that Pastor Charles T. Russell was neither in principle nor in spirit, the founder of "Jehovah's Witnesses."""

3

Just got reply at PLN

by avengers in

jw
friends

i gues not everybody there knows i'm 'bad'influence.. hello avengers,.

wolfprncez has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - a little about me.

- in the parlor forum of pure language network.. this thread is located at:.

ThiChi

When the shark bites, with his teeth babe, and he shows his pearly whites...........