This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: ggbonner
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.carmack/282.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1...
Message Board Post:
American jurisprudence does not work that way. People don't go into criminal court to
prove their innocence. The prosecuting attorney has the burden to prove that one was
breaking the law. And you don't need money to defend. If you can't afford defense,
an attorney will be appointed on your behalf.
The vandalism you spoke about is an act of destruction, whereas the other is an act of
enhancement. So the other cases you mention are NOT similar.
But my purpose in writing is not to describe procedural jurisprudence. My reason for
writing is to point out that acts performed that *some people* don't like does not
necessarily equate to a violation of the law, even if that person thinks the act is
vandalism or desecration. The standard is what a *reasonable person* would think.
Presuming the conclusion is a logical fallacy. To carry the analogy a step further: CO2
causes carbonation (a form of chemical weathering) of tombstones; cars exhaust CO2::
Therefore anyone driving to the cemetery is desecrating the site. Anyone who breathes on
my grandpappy's stone gets the fuzz called on him by Yours Truly.
The most that would happen in the prior case is trespass, or perhaps malicious injury of
private/public property, if the engraving was somehow shown to have be done wrong. This is
a far cry from the "Class I Felony" mentioned. And to even bring up the notion
of felonious assault in regards to shaving cream seems rather more an attempt at
fear-mongering than rational discourse on the topic at hand.
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply
to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.