tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post7258480687874137851..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: On prejudice, politics and prosecutionRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-628222602953313112014-07-26T15:15:44.781-05:002014-07-26T15:15:44.781-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12524452101149430269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-84236185619616528902014-01-28T11:03:15.598-06:002014-01-28T11:03:15.598-06:00Nice of the professor to profess not to know if a ...Nice of the professor to profess not to know if a crime should have been charged and then lay out the feeble case for not charging. How can a law professor say the prosecutor would need to, "prove to someone else that the men to be charged acted with criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt." Is criminal intent an element of each and every offense these people could have been charged with? Really?<br /><br />Worse, the professor says it's not legally accurate to say there's no right to restrain a lawbreaker. Unfortunately, he's wrong about that. There is a limited commonlaw citizens arrest power IF a person has probable cause to believe a felony took place and a statutory exception for storekeepers and security guards. Neither of these exceptions applied in West Allis. <br /><br />I'd really like the professor's legal justification for his statement that, "[I]t wasn't wrong for other patrons to restrain Stingley." Why not, exactly? Where is the legal justification for their actions? Actions, mind you, that caused a boy's death.<br /><br />I only hope the Stingley family finds a lawyer to sue the gas station's insurance carrier and litigate the killers into the poorhouse. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com