From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:36:04 GMT
Organization: ILS

In article <92280.52834.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>,
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

> 
> Thomas is the worst?  About WHAT?  I think any liberal would automatically
> treat Thomas differently than any other justice.  Scalia is probably worse
> for liberals, but Thomas, because of all of the hysteria around him, is the
> favorite liberal whipping boy.


Many "libeerals" don't like  Scalia,  but the man is clearly not dumb. 
Thomas make decisions that put his intelligence in question. 



> >> Wow, a legal scholar, and he knows all those legal terms.  If a person was
> >> sentenced to jail for a crime, that's fair.  If the guards beat him, then
> >> you sue for assualt and battery, or whatever.  They MAY be violating his
> >> constitutional rights, but not the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.
> 
> >Why not, if the guards beat him with the consent of the administration why
> >is it not creul and unusual punishment.
> 
> Technically (though I don't advocate it), the Constutition says "cruel AND
> unusual punishment."  Around the world, the death penalty is not unusual
> (though it may be cruel), and neither is torture.  However, as cruel as they
> may be, they are NOT cruel AND unusual.  Just a semantic clarification.
>

Many countries don't require that people be provided with lawyers, so whats
your point.  In the United States torture is unusual.




 
> Realistically, though, I agree that state-sanctioned beatings should be
> outlawed, and those responsible should be held on criminal charges.
> 
> >Youre stupid reasoning here has bottomed out to simply it is not creul and
> >unusual punishement because it is not creul and unusual punsihement.
> 
> >>
> >> >If the media didn't explain it how did you learn about it,  better yet how
> >> >did I learn about since I knew of the case also?
> >>
> >> Try watching Court TV sometime, they spend a lot more time than the regular
> >> media, looking for sound bites.  As they summed it up, this was an
> >> extremely complicated case, not just a video.  The cops were tried for
> >> trying to KILL King, not just beating him.  Had they been tried for
> >> the beating, they probably would have been convicted.  Trying to prove
> >> they were trying to kill him was a little more difficult.
>  >
> 
> >Where did you make this up?  The police were tried for a number of things
> >including assault,  but murder or attempted murder was not a
> >charge.
> 
> Actually, I believe that the charge was "assault with intent to commit serious
> bodily harm."  The *intent* portion of that sentence is what sprung the LA
> Four.  I have heard legal beagles tell me that in other states, this roughly
> the equivalent of attempted murder.  The prosecution had to prove beyond a
> reasonable doubt that while the officers were beating King, they were intending
> (that's the key word, INTENDING) to inflict serious and permanent bodily harm.
> Without such proof (IMHO, assault WAS proven, but not intent), the jury could
> not convict.  It's all or nothing.  If the jury feels that the police did use
> excessive force, but did not intend to inflict such harm, then they can not
> convict on a lesser charge (i.e. simple assault with a deadly weapon).  They
> MUST convict for the charged crime, or acquit.

If memory serves there were an number of other charges as weel,  in fact
they if they had not been charges od assualt with a deadly weapon or simple
assualt and battery,  wouldn't they be tried of these lessers charges now?

And what ever happened to the Bsuh promise of Civil Rights charges against
the police?


> 
> 
> Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
> ****************************************************************************
> FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems in the REAL
>         WORLD!  Film at 11...
> 
>