Sweden joins the US

[richard]

goddamn sweden is really going downfuckinghill. oh well atleast theres still norway

[TheoK]

The father isn't out of danger yet, though. The prosecutor will take the case to the Court of Appeals. A case like this can go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the District Court they had two judges and five jurors instead of the ususal Court with one judge and three jurors.

[odeon]

It's been a much talked-about case here. I, for one, am glad to see him acquitted, and think it proves that there is still justice here.

BTW, I don't agree with much of what Fjordman says. He considers the very existence of Islam to be a threat to the Western world so he isn't someone I would characterise as "tolerant".

[TheoK]

The father's "nervous conditions" are ADHD and Tourette's, by the way. And some of his kids are auties.

[Callaway]

The father isn't out of danger yet, though. The prosecutor will take the case to the Court of Appeals. A case like this can go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the District Court they had two judges and five jurors instead of the ususal Court with one judge and three jurors.

You mean that even if you are acquitted of a crime in Sweden, the prosecutor can continue to prosecute you through appeals?



It does not work like that here in the US. 

[TheoK]

The father isn't out of danger yet, though. The prosecutor will take the case to the Court of Appeals. A case like this can go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the District Court they had two judges and five jurors instead of the ususal Court with one judge and three jurors.

You mean that even if you are acquitted of a crime in Sweden, the prosecutor can continue to prosecute you through appeals?



It does not work like that here in the US. 

Yes, the prosecutor can appeal as well as the defendant. Even more; a prosecutor can often appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, which defendants usually can not. As defendant, you need a special permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which you (or ususally your lawyer) apply for, when you appeal to the Supreme Court. 98-99% of the appeals to the Supreme Court from defendants will be dismissed.

But to be quite fair, the Chief Public Prosecutor's appeal was dismissed when he appealed to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals had freed the hitman Christer Petterson for the murder of Prime Minister Olof Palme.

But, as the link says, Sweden is finished as civilisation. The so called FRA-law, which this thread was originally about, is unconstitutional and won't catch many terrorists in spe or Russian mafia members, but merely some file-sharers and small criminals.

[odeon]

Christer Petterson was hardly a "hitman". A small-time crrok, yes, but "hitman" is stretching it, IMO. He was a drunk, mostly, and I'd be very surprised if he did, in fact, kill Olof Palme.

Are you a Swede, TheoK?

I agree with you re the FRA law. It should never have happened in the first place. I suspect it will be the downfall of this government.

[TheoK]

He wasn't a hitman in the American sense, but he sometimes collected "debts" for other criminals and was known for brutally beating people up for this purpose. He was earlier convicted for manslaughter.

Christer Pettersson


I prefer not to reveal my nationality.

[Parts]

In my state if they are in the house and you feel threated you can shoot them but you can't chase after them.  In Texas I think you can shoot them in your yard if they are armed

[TheoK]

You can shoot them in Texas alright. They don't even have to be armed, they just have to put a foot on your property.

In Sweden, you usually go to jail for what in the US would be self-defense.

[Callaway]

You can shoot them in Texas alright. They don't even have to be armed, they just have to put a foot on your property.

In Sweden, you usually go to jail for what in the US would be self-defense.

I don't think that you can shoot someone just for being an unarmed trespasser on your property inTexas unless they are breaking into your car, destroying your property, or doing something threatening, but I'm not sure about this.

[DirtDawg]

You can shoot them in Texas alright. They don't even have to be armed, they just have to put a foot on your property.

That's bullshit!
It is not considered self defense when you kill someone, even in Texas, unless there was a impending threat of bodily harm to a human.

There is a precedent, often cited, where an intruder was shot to death inside a person's house and the homeowner was not charged.  The logical result to that is that people have shot trespassers and drug their bodies into their houses to escape prosecution. That trick no longer works in this day of "microscopic" evidence collection.

You can not shoot someone for walking on your land, but bad-ass Texans want people to THINK that they may be shot for doing so, in order to deter theft. That seems to work on some, especially if you hang up a sign with a gun on it.

[DirtDawg]

You can NOT get away with using deadly force on a human to protect "property" of any sort, not even livestock.




.....     OH, unless you are the mayor of the town where I grew up and there are some fucking union organizers trying to talk to your illegal alien workforce. You can shoot them, it seems and later be re-elected.

[Callaway]

I know that in Texas you can use deadly force to protect your property, not just your person.

A Texas attorney said that you could, anyway.

I just don't think that extends to someone simply tresspassing on your property without damaging anything.

[TheoK]

Sorry, I was wrong. Though I know about that precedent, I believe. It was an elderly man that shot a burglar with four shots after the burglar had broken into his home and beaten him up, right?