• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Denial of Rights

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I am not going to do the leg work for folks and cut&paste definitions of sophomoric and screed. You are unfamiliar with the words, go look them up.

Yes, deniedmyrights, I asked for a citation for both of your legal asssertions because they are 1) assertions and 2) do not match any known law or legal ruling. Some others have tried to offer alternative explanations of what you might have meant, but 1) they were off-base and 2) you never confirmed or denied that you agreed with what they wrote, so we are all still in the dark. As for the rest of your discussions about laws and legal reasoning - let's just say the less I comment the less unhappy you will be.

For those that are unaware, stealing a person's horse in the Wild West was tantamount to murder as it left them afoot in an extremely hostile (natural elements and Indians) environment with a greatly reduced chance of survival and ability to reach civilization/shelter. Rough frontier justice to say the least, but much more understandable than being lynched for cattle rustling which was also considered indirect murder by stealing a person's source of income.

Now here's the part where some of you are going to be amazed - I never said I disagreed with the basic premis deniedmyrights wrote about. As someone else had mentioned, he was preaching to the choir. What I would have really appreciated, along with a pause for a paragraph every now and then, was sometthing new or different about the topic. The same old sermon gets old after hearing it so many times. Taking a guess that deniedmyrights is young it is possible that he is just discovering what many of us have known for a long time. What he might do to improve his reception is to learn how to get to his point without thinking that it is all brand new to us as well (in other words, a little research on the issue to see if it's really necessary to teach an old dog how to suck eggs).

From where I look at things deniedmyrights seems to be passionate. That's good. Now all he needs to do is catch up with the rest of us.

stay safe.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
18 - 20 year old, Makes a mistake and steals something. WOW! I guess we can be glad that they didn't MISTAKENLY RAPE someone. I know a man that mistakenly committed adultery 9 times.

I know this guy but he told me he just slipped and fell; he happend to land on 9 different ladies and had trouble getting up-down-up-down.....
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
U.S. Supreme Court
SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

316 U.S. 535

SKINNER
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma.
No. 782.

Argued and Submitted May 6, 1942.
Decided June 1, 1942.

Petitioner was convicted in 1926 of the crime of stealing chickens and was sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory.


You can read the whole case if you like. The man was convicted for felony theft of chickens. This is just one of many.

Getting better with the cites, however, you missed the point of it. The chicken stealing charge was in 1926. The underlying felony was stealing chickens worth more than $20. So..... he didn't steal A chicken, he stole many chickens. Do you know how many chickens could be bought for $20 in 1926? (I don't but more than one).

$20 in 1926, according to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm (see, that is a cite) is $244.89 today. I know that in MO, writing a check that bounces that is over $250 is a felony. (can't find the cite, sorry).

Are you more pissed that you were bullied into giving up your rights or that stealing jumper cables from a truck is a felony?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Are you saying these things to make yourself out to be far above anyone else on here. Is it because you have been on here longer that makes you feel that you are so far beyond anyone else? I do not understand your figuratively looking down your nose at me because I am the new guy on here. It seems that most of the others get what the point is.

I did not see you asking for legal proof of God!
So.... you decide to come on here and within 8 posts you are going to pick a fight with everyone? Hmmm.... Maybe this isn't the forum for you.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Sorry I did not say CHICKENS plural instead I said CHICKEN singular!

You must be a lawyer!

If you notice I did not say I was charged with stealing jumper cables, I thought being a lawyer you would recognize that. The charge was burglary of of vehicle.

Are you one of those people that when ask to sweep the floor you only sweep the part they pointed at? Then when ask why you did not sweep the floor your claim is that you did sweep it exactly where they pointed.

Come on! I thought you had more common sense than that.


Ahhhh..... I love the ignore function.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The gentleman in question was convicted once of stealing chickens and twice of robbery. That made him a "habitual criminal."
Note please, chickens, not chicken.

If one steals a single chicken worth $10 on the open market that's a misdemeanor.
If one steels a hundred chickens worth $1,000 on the open market that's a felony.

At the time "... A statute of Oklahoma provided for the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy, of "habitual criminals" -- an habitual criminal being defined therein as any person who, having been convicted two or more times, in Oklahoma or in any other State, of "felonies involving moral turpitude," is thereafter convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Oklahoma for such a crime..."
In the case mentioned, once he had been convicted twice, it didn't matter if he knocked over Fort Knox or stole a penny gumball from a candy machine, he was going to be adjudged a 'habitual violator'

The case before the Court is in regard to Equal Protection under the law and was unconcerned with the justice or injustice of incarcerating a person for stealing a chicken or chickens.



If you would like to argue the grave injustice of imprisoning someone for stealing a chicken or chickens, please cite to the court case regarding such.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html
The second Supreme Court case generated by the eugenics movement tested a 1935 Oklahoma law that prescribed involuntary sexual sterilization for repeat criminals. Jack Skinner was chosen to test the law’s constitutionality. He was a three-time felon, guilty of stealing chickens at age nineteen, and convicted twice in later years for armed robbery. By the time his case was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1942 some 13 states had laws specifically permitting sterilization of criminals.

http://www.answers.com/topic/skinner-v-oklahoma
Skinner, convicted once for stealing chickens and twice for armed robbery, was ordered to submit to a vasectomy under the Oklahoma Criminal Sterilization Act.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/jmadeira/readings/01_skinner_v_oklahoma.pdf
Petitioner was convicted in 1926 of the crime of stealing chickens and was sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory. In 1929 he was convicted of the crime of robbery with fire arms and was sentenced to the reformatory. In 1934 he was convicted again of robbery with firearms and was sentenced to the penitentiary. He was confined there in 1935 when the Act was passed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=An...v=onepage&q=skinner stealing chickens&f=false
Convicted in 1926 for stealing chickens, Skinner was sentenced to Oklahoma's State Reformatory. By 1934 he had been convicted of two more crimes, including robbery with a firearm. Because of the number of his felony convictions, Skinner faced a state-mandated vasectomy under Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act. This act required sterilization for offenses of "moral turpitude" but did not require the same procedure for felonies such as embezzlement or other white-collar crimes.


Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/civlib/powerpoint/Privacy-abridged.pdfCriminal Sterilization Act of 1935 allowed for compulsory sterilization after three or more convictions for crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude"
Jack T. Skinner, had been convicted once for chicken-stealing and twice for armed robbery.


It would appear that Mr. Skinner, far from being given a felony rap for stealing a chicken (chicken or chickens is immaterial in counting "three-strikes") was given felony convictions for the relatively minor crime of pointing guns at people and forcibly taking their money.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Fallschirmjäger said:
The gentleman in question was convicted once of stealing chickens and twice of robbery. That made him a "habitual criminal."
Note please, chickens, not chicken.

If one steals a single chicken worth $10 on the open market that's a misdemeanor.
If one steels a hundred chickens worth $1,000 on the open market that's a felony.
Real common sense here.

I'm confused; if you are agreeing with me then "thanks, it was nothing", if not - -
Are you saying that there's a difference between robbing someone of a single $100 bill and robbing them of ten $10 dollar bills?


I'm on your side in regards to not denying people of their right to be able to provide for their own self defense (as the government has decided that it has no responsibility for such)


I am saying that you are citing to the wrong examples to prove your point.
The case you are citing to is about whether or not Williams was rightly sterilized. If you want to argue that Williams was wrongly imprisoned for stealing chickens or a chicken, cite to the case where he was convicted of that.

Williams' stealing of a chicken or chickens may have been a mistake, a lark, a joke or even youthful indiscretion. Two Armed Robberies that followed were not.
Williams lost his nuts, and THAT was ruled as violating his rights.
 
Last edited:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Getting better with the cites, however, you missed the point of it. The chicken stealing charge was in 1926. The underlying felony was stealing chickens worth more than $20. So..... he didn't steal A chicken, he stole many chickens. Do you know how many chickens could be bought for $20 in 1926? (I don't but more than one).

$20 in 1926, according to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm (see, that is a cite) is $244.89 today. I know that in MO, writing a check that bounces that is over $250 is a felony. (can't find the cite, sorry).

Are you more pissed that you were bullied into giving up your rights or that stealing jumper cables from a truck is a felony?


I am afraid you are wrong about the amount. It is a $500 check(or checks totaling $500), unless they don't have an account with the bank, then it is a Class C felony.


Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 570
Stealing and Related Offenses
Section 570.120


4. Passing bad checks is a class A misdemeanor, unless:

(1) The face amount of the check or sight order or the aggregated amounts is five hundred dollars or more; or

(2) The issuer had no account with the drawee or if there was no such drawee at the time the check or order was issued, in which cases passing bad checks is a class C felony.



So, $0-$499 is a misdemeanor, $500 and up is a felony. If, however, a person were to write any check and not actually have an account with the bank it is a felony.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
The only thing that defines a crime as a felony is how long the court sentences you to be incarcerated. I think that is one of the points the OP was trying to make. Crimes that would, in times passed, get you incarcerated for over a year(which is the definition of a felony) now may only get you a few months in the county jail(and thus only be a misdemeanor). I think this shows a valid point. While the OP used examples of criminal sentences sliding one way down the scale, they could also slide the other. I admit that it would generally take an act of the legislature to re-define a criminal act to do so. There are examples of "misdemeanor" crimes(domestic abuse for one) stripping away Constitutionally protected rights, so it not like it can't happen.

I would also point out that the stripping of felon's rights came about because of a gun control measure, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prior to this act it was not nationally accepted that someone convicted of a felony should lose their right to self defense. I find it sad that so many people who are so vehemently against gun control now, have no problem accepting it in this form.

Here are what define misdemeanors and felonies in MO


Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 558
Imprisonment
Section 558.011

Sentence of imprisonment, terms--conditional release.
558.011. 1. The authorized terms of imprisonment, including both prison and conditional release terms, are:

(1) For a class A felony, a term of years not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years, or life imprisonment;

(2) For a class B felony, a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years;

(3) For a class C felony, a term of years not to exceed seven years;

(4) For a class D felony, a term of years not to exceed four years;

(5) For a class A misdemeanor, a term not to exceed one year;

(6) For a class B misdemeanor, a term not to exceed six months;

(7) For a class C misdemeanor, a term not to exceed fifteen days.




It is also worth pointing out that a person need not serve the entire time(released for good behavior, etc.) to be considered a felon, only be sentenced to that amount of time.
 
Last edited:
Top