From: ritchey@bones.nas.nasa.gov (Robert M. Ritchey)
Subject: Difference between Civil Rights and Criminal Law (Long)
Followup-To: Re: An addendum to the Koon, et. al. trial discussion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 14:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: ritchey@bones.nas.nasa.gov (Robert M. Ritchey)

 
I would have responded by email, but since you posted to the net I felt that it
deserved a public reply.  By looking at your last comments, I ASSume this is
what you want, is it not?  I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.  But I
bet you thought that I would just go flaming without checking my facts, WRONG!!
To start with, we corresponded by email NOT by posting to the net as YOU 
implied.  But since you were trying to piss me off, here goes my reply.  I will 
try to keep it as factual as possible, please bear with me if I slide a bit.
                             
In article <1992Aug12.050837.20188@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> A few months ago (early May, to be a bit more precise) there was a 
|> discussion in this newsgroup about the trial of Wind, Briseno, Powell, 
|> and Koon for their participation in the Rodney King beating.  During that
|> discussion, one of the participants in this newsgroup chose to give us a 
|> grand example of why the term "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.      

I wrote to you alone O' Brilliant One. As for our correspondence, I do beleive 
it started on 4th of May.  That discussion was for your edification since you
seemed to genuinely be interested in the truth.  I had no intentions of posting 
to the net and making someone look bad, or myself ominously important.  I just
tried to give you information that you obviously didn't know.  But since you 
claim to be the All Knowing One, I will clarify as to what happened. It started
out with alot of good ideas and discussion going back and forth on the trial and
related material, until YOU decided that I obviously didn't know what I was
talking about.  At which point I asked for clarification to make sure that we
were both on the same frequency and I never heard from you again, until now.
If I insulted you, I am sorry you took it that way, but it was up to you to tell
me that you felt that way, rather than wait for evidence that supposidly 
supports your view to appear then try and insult me.  Since you didn't reply to 
my last email, and it appeared to be getting into arguing rather than a 
discussion I didn't bother to pursue the discussion any further, since it surved no purpose.  If you don't remember the discussion, I will refresh your memory.  
I do have all the email you sent to me, and the ones I sent to you {This is not 
a threat, so don't even start trying to make it into one}.  As to the original 
subject, I do beleive it started due to your ASSumtion that the military down 
in LA was not trained in Riot control.  I had originally sent you email to 
inform you this was not true.  That military police ARE trained in Riot 
Control, and that most or all Military Policemen have had at least some 
training in it. I also relayed to you my 6 yrs of experience in the Air Force 
as a Security Policeman including 4 yrs as a Supervisor. Including experience 
in 4 Riot Control Situations.  You then admitted that you didn`t know this and 
offered to publicly apologize if I was fairly sure of this (I said don't bother) 
but you ASSumed again, saying this was a small portion of the military.  Well 
let me educate you again MORON!!  The military members that perform Military 
Police duties are a large portion of at least 2 Services (Army, AF) that I know 
of.  Now if you have more relavant experience and/or knowledge in this area 
then enlighten us O' Great One.  

|> In particular, despite my pointing out to him several times that there's a 
|> BIG difference between a civil suit and a civil rights suit, he maintained
|> that a civil rights suit was NOT a criminal suit, that the defendants in such
|> a suit (actually, in a non-criminal case, they'd be respondants rather than
|> defendants) would NOT face incarceration if convicted.  

The original discussion was on the difference between Criminal Law and Civil
Rights.  As to this, I beleive that we came to an agreement that there was a 
major difference.  As to the difference between a Civil Suit and a Civil Rights 
Case, this is where I beleive the confusion was.  If YOU had replyed, we may 
have been able to clear this one up too.  As to the word "respondants" take a 
look at a dictionary sometime O' Literate One and then tell me that the 
difference between a respondant and a defendant.  (There isn't one, a respondent 
{correct spelling} IS a defendent.}  I beleive that we agreed that Criminal Law 
was a violation of local/State/Federal Law, while Civil Rights were just that, 
a violation of a persons Constitutional Human Rights {Civil Rights}.  Now as to
punishment, I do beleive that we also agreed that a Criminal CASE could/would
produce a conviction punishable by jail, etc..., and that a Civil Suit would be
an award/or annulment of a complaint that the complaintant has had their civil
rights violated.  Which usually requires restitution for violations to those
rights if proven to be violated.  For example, money, hiring someone due to 
their qualifications for a job (proving use of race,sex,religion, etc.. were 
used as a criteria), requirement of giving a job back based on Equal 
Opportunity and Treatment discrimination. (Please, if I am wrong, correct me)  
A Criminal Rights Case is a violation of Federal Law and is punishable as a 
Criminal Law violation relating to those laws on which are based on Civil 
Rights, NOT a violation of a persons civil rights but a violation of the law 
that protects those rights.  I think that the disagreement is actually based 
on two words; CASE and SUIT.  A CASE IMHO is a Court hearing that is based on 
violation of Law and if convicted could/would be punishable by jail for 
example.  Where SUIT is based on correcting a wrong to someone, by a person or 
corporation and requires restitution if proven, i.e. requires that the person 
must correct their error, i.e. paying money to someone.  King could sue, due to 
violation of his Civil Rights (which I think he should do, anybody heard 
anything on this?), but the Gov't must charge and prove violation of Federal 
Law, which in my opinion is Criminal in nature.  (I am always open to 
suggestion or correction.)   

|> I furthermore pointed out that a difficulty with civil rights suits
|> is the problem of double jeopardy. 

I also pointed out at the time, that there was more than one way to skin a cat.
That all they had to do, was to find a Law that interpreted the violation in a
different way.  For example, if you strike an officer, can he not charge you 
with resisting arrest, striking an officer, assault,etc...?  Where I come from 
they are all the same thing, but Legally they are considered different charges.
IMHO all the Feds have to do, is find Laws that interpret these alleged 
allogations (not proven in a court yet) as violating a Federal Law in a  
different way. (Any opinions?)  Just because it isn't right, doesn't mean it
won't happen, or it can't happen.

|> Well, yesterday, Wind, Briseno, Powell, and Koon were arraigned on charges 
|> of CRIMINAL civil-rights violations.  
      ^^^^^^^^
The key word there is CRIMINAL.  As I said many times before, violations of
Federal Law, even if they are Civil Rights are based on Federal Laws.  As I 
said before, a violation of a Law is criminal in nature, NOT civil.  Now that 
Law may be the protection of Civil Rights, BUT it is a Law.  Therefore the 
trial is based IMHO on the violation of Federal Laws RELATING to Civil Rights.      

|> If convicted, they face penalties of up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 
|> in fines apiece.  Further, there's speculation that defense will file a 
|> motion for dismissal on grounds that "the officers already have been tried 
|> in state court on substantially the same accusations."  

I think that the answer above anwers this one.  As I said a Criminal Law
violation.  As to the motion to dismiss, that's up to the courts.  But I 
would be suprised.

|> So, I ask our local military moron: 
|> Are you NOW willing to admit you had your head up your ass so far you 
|> couldn't see daylight?

Excuse me, but I don't think you're qualified to call anybody a moron except 
yourself.  As for military, I am no longer in the military, but I personally
don't think your qualified to judge anyone in or ever associated with the 
military on anything either.  You may be qualified to talk about how it feels 
to be picked up by the police for alleged violations of Criminal Law (As you
emailed me).  (Drinking and driving is a Criminal Offense if you didn't know 
it.)  I for one have never had that opportunity, so I will have to bow to your 
vast experience in this area.  And as for your last remark about having my head 
up my ass, well I think that we can tell who has who's head up their ass {or 
in the ground for that matter}.  I am willing to let the net decide that and 
encourage discussion on the areas listed above.  The whole intent of the net 
is to become more informed and educated after all, in stead of showing what a 
pompous ASS you can be is it not?  In your disclamer, you state that your
expertise is in VAXen and VMS, I suggest that you go back to something you 
know.  At least you admit that you can't (supposidly) be held responsible for 
anything you say otherwise.

To the net populous:  I apologize for such a long post, but I felt it was
necessary to clear this up.  I also think that the original subject is an
excellent discussion topic.  I tried to keep it as factual as possible, and
keep the flamage down as much as possible.  I leave the discussion open for
discussion on the net as they see fit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Robert Ritchey            | I speak for myself and no other orginization, or
email: ritchey@nas.nasa.gov | group.  I do not speak for my employer or anyone                                | else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~