Crime Vigilante Justice

In the civil trial he was held responsible and liable. Guilt or innocence is a criminal finding not available in civil actions.

I believe in the legal world there is no difference. I ask for someone admitted to plead before the bar to clarify.

you mean to get some in prison props? he is serving another life sentence for the MURDER of Dahmer. Scarver had no leg in the Dahmer situation other than being an animal killing another animal. He is as poor an example for justified killing as you can find.

 

Which means there WAS evidence, hence no opportunity to claim "innocence".

Of course there is a difference. Innocence means there is no evidence and no connection between the accused and the crime. OJ was acquitted, found not guilty. That means the jury did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There as evidence...mostly DNA but the jury did not find it enough to convict.

He had as much leg as anyone else since Dahmer committed crimes that were judged by a jury of his peers. Society demands justice. I have yet to read about anyone other than Dahmer's momma who had an issue with what happened.

 

Very troubling series of comments.

Eye for an eye justice outside of the established legal system is a primitive idea that goes along with trial by battle or dunking witches. Society established a system of laws enforced by duly appointed representatives (police & courts & if applicable prison). Is it perfect? No but it is better than the alternatives.

Dahmer WAS dealt with by society and was being punished for his crimes. To claim otherwise is to be obtuse or reject the whole reason for laws, courts & social order. What you seem to advocate is individuals do as they see fit.
Popular opinion such as you note above is NOT justice but mob rule. By the same reasoning you use , personal justification, Dahmer was perfectly within his rights to act as he did.

A truly conservative outlook would see that laws and the system of justice are the bedrock of a civil society and that going outside of it for any reason weakens the foundation.

 

@red55 @Winston1

I'm going to flip it and speak VERY slowly to both of you pedophile loving knuckleheads.

I get it, everyone deserves a trial. They absolutely do. There is no question about it, I have not ever said they didn't. HOWEVER in some cases when there is a STRONG emotional connection to the crime people will do things that aren't "within the limits of the law" so to speak.

My issue with you two knot heads isn't over whether or not doucet or this drunk idiot deserved a trial it is with both of your willingness to overlook the fucking obvious and shade to some back alley shyster of a defense attorney to find a loop hole to let this scum roam the free earth another damn minute. I will admit that with the most recent case I don't know what the drivers BAC was. That would sway my thinking/feelings on the case heavily if it turns out he was .09 vs .21 or something extreme like that.

@Winston1 my analogy was spot on. You just missed the point. @red55 talks so much about a trail and how important it is to prove guilt, well, OJ got his and the jury returned a NG verdict. For him to still think/assume/assert that OJ is guilty is nothing short of hypocritical. After all, there is just as much evidence on Doucet as there was on OJ. Why he continues to dismiss the fact that he took the kid to California is beyond me. I guess in his mind it didn't happen even though the arrest records, the news stories are all public record. My personal feelings are that Red is somehow related to Doucet. Why else would he fight so hard for him

@red55 Pretty much laid it out above amigo. What don't you get, why won't you acknowledge that Doucet took that boy to California? Do you think he was taking him to Disney Land? Why is his now public record of what happened suddenly invalid? Do you think it would have been a different story if Doucet wasn't wearing a .38 slug in his brain right now? Of course not. Look I get it, I have said it before and I will say it again, I would MUCH rather him be in a cell with Bubba wearing his punk ass out day in and night out. I would. My point is I can relate to Gary and why he did what he did. I understand. It doesn't make it right or just but I get it. It is impossible for you to see it my way because you don't have children and don't you dare try and rebut me with some legal or moral bullshit. You just can't understand until you have a child, everything you think and believe to be true will fly right out the window when it comes to things like this.

 

Sure if did. I menioned innocent people being kept locked up l. You asked, "since when?" My comment about since bondsmen could make a living was speaking to a business that came about as a result of, sometimes innoncent people siffing in jail awaiting trial cause they couldnt make bail. Capiche?

 

and by the way,

You are troubling Winston.

 

@shane0911 Maybe we are having a difference in terminology here..Let me rephrase. I know OJ is not guilty as a jury found him so. I also am sure he killed his ex-wife and Ron Brown. His verdict was a failure of the legal system BUT rather than kill him on their own the families of his victims sued OJ and won a judgment and are hounding him through the legal system. That my friend was the correct and right action.

I also understand the anger that Gary held for Doucet....BUT society doesn't work when people take personal vengeance like he did. You say you understand what Gary did was wrong yet seem to applaud his murder of Doucet.

Again the system is set up to give defendants every break for good reason. Usually the defendant has far fewer resources that the state and a conviction has a such an impact on a convicted person. As Ben Franklin said " “Better that a hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,”

Again it is very disturbing when people of any stripe but especially conservative so easily dismiss the rule of law. That is what separates us from the savages.

 

@Winston1

If I remember correctly just about the entire town of Baton Rouge thought he was a hero and the DA's office knew they would piss a lot of people off if they did much to him.

Geez Winston, join the conversation. This has NOTHING to do with any verdict. It really doesn't have a lot to do with Plauche did. It has to do with someone (just like you did) saying that they THINK OJ is guilty but when it comes to Doucet they say "Weeeeellll, we just don't know" That my friend is bullshit.

 

Shane I never said ANYTHING about what I thought Doucet did and made no comment on his actions. I said he was never tried as he should have been. I believe that Plauche did no one a favor by killing him as personal vengeance is not a solution in a civil society. There is little difference except in scale between what Plauche did and the rioters in Ferguson. They both took the law and vengeance into their hands to the detriment of all. Doucet should have been tried, convicted and spent the rest of a miserable life in Angola.
Now I was in BR at the time and also believe Doucet did do all the things he was accused of. In effect Plauche let him off easy.