 Author
|
Topic: Another NH man accused of harmless weapon discharge - faces decades in prison (Read 13935 times)
|
|
TJames
|
NAP is a social contract. A constitution that requiters protection to exist.
The government becomes a monopoly when it taxes. Otherwise it can be useful like measuring weights and coins and settling disputes so we don't end up with honer killings.
Is it more important to punish thugs or to protect people? We understand that prison is not meant to scare people into submission but to keep those who would violate the rights of others out of the public. Without government libertarians could not implement this policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
(mods: probably want to go back to reply #13 and split this off, then move it to the philosophy sub-forum) NAP is a social contract. A constitution that requiters protection to exist. The NAP is a moral principle. And there's no such thing as a "social contract." A contract is an explicit agreement between specific individuals. You can't be "born into" a contract. The government becomes a monopoly when it taxes. Otherwise it can be useful like measuring weights and coins and settling disputes so we don't end up with honer killings. No, taxing is not required. If a government says, "this is the only government allowed in this area, whether you folks living here want a different one, or not, then it is a monopoly. By definition. Is it more important to punish thugs or to protect people? Libertarian philosophy denies the legitimacy of any sort of punishment. If you harm someone, you owe restitution to your victim. Not to "punish" you, but to repair the damage that your innocent victim suffered. We understand that prison is not meant to scare people into submission but to keep those who would violate the rights of others out of the public. Without government libertarians could not implement this policy. Libertarians don't put people in cages. If you cause harm, you make restitution, and that's the end of it. If you're a habitual offender, well, chances are one of your victims is armed, and will end up shooting you in the process of one of your crimes. Either way, the problem is addressed. Killing someone might be necessary; locking him in a cage is just sadism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
10stateswithnh
|
We don't know if he fired his gun in an "arbitrary" direction. There's no indication that he fired it in a safe direction. Unless he installed a bullet trap in the ceiling, there's no way that the ceiling qualifies as a safe direction. I presume that, if he did fire into a proper bullet trap, he would have made mention of that... I'm curious about how you would set the amount of restitution owed to someone who could have been hurt by someone but wasn't. The victim determines the restitution necessary to heal the damage the victim suffered. Threatening someone with a deadly weapon would tend to be pretty serious, and is actual harm. From the moment this posting started, you've been assuming that Max did the most dangerous possible thing in this situation, without that I can see, any evidence for that, based solely on vague statements about what the government ALLEGES to have occurred - biased a bit against him? He couldn't be all that irresponsible, if his renters trust him to watch their little kids as I saw when I stayed in his house my first two weeks in NH, last year. I don't claim to have seen him with a gun - but what exactly have you seen him do that struck you as irresponsible? What harm did the people in the house suffer from his actions - that's what I'm trying to ascertain? I don't think much good could come from a system where anyone who was around someone firing a gun gets to ask however much they want for "mental anguish" and automatically gets it - everyone would be so afraid to fire guns even for self-defense, and it just doesn't seem like it's really consistent with liberty for someone to get compensation for the fact that they were afraid for a few seconds. Um, it's potential harm, rather than actual, which is so often used as a slippery slope argument by statists to have government regulate everything. How do you avoid turning a system of restitution into such a joke in a free society? It seems to me compensation based on actual harm is libertarian, basing it on potential harm that didn't occur is not because it introduces an element of arbitrariness into the system. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
From the moment this posting started, you've been assuming that Max did the most dangerous possible thing in this situation... No, there are plenty of more-dangerous things he could have done. Firing randomly into the crowd, for example. ...without that I can see, any evidence for that, based solely on vague statements about what the government ALLEGES to have occurred - biased a bit against him? What is alleged to have happened is, as far as I can tell, a consistent story from all tellers. Not exactly identical on all details (which would be a dead giveaway of a fake story, anyway), but consistent on him firing into the ceiling. He couldn't be all that irresponsible, if his renters trust him to watch their little kids as I saw when I stayed in his house my first two weeks in NH, last year. I don't claim to have seen him with a gun - but what exactly have you seen him do that struck you as irresponsible? I formed by opinion of him as irresponsible around guns, years ago, back when he lived at Little Minnesota. I've seen him point loaded guns at others, just for example; not trying to shoot them; just not taking any sort of care with where he pointed the gun. I've also heard him threaten violence against multiple individuals for merely disagreeing with him. What harm did the people in the house suffer from his actions - that's what I'm trying to ascertain? I don't think much good could come from a system where anyone who was around someone firing a gun gets to ask however much they want for "mental anguish" and automatically gets it - everyone would be so afraid to fire guns even for self-defense, and it just doesn't seem like it's really consistent with liberty for someone to get compensation for the fact that they were afraid for a few seconds. Um, it's potential harm, rather than actual, which is so often used as a slippery slope argument by statists to have government regulate everything. How do you avoid turning a system of restitution into such a joke in a free society? It seems to me compensation based on actual harm is libertarian, basing it on potential harm that didn't occur is not because it introduces an element of arbitrariness into the system. Threats of violence are, in and of themselves, violent actions. The harm when a threat is made is very real, not potential at all. Someone is forced to modify his behavior in order to avoid the threatened harm. If not, then (just for one example) mugging would be a non-violent interaction. "Give me your wallet or I'll stab you!" - "Okay, here's my wallet; just don't hurt me" - "See, look, he voluntarily gave me his wallet; I didn't cause any actual harm..." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
RidleyReport
|
From Max:
"Jury selection is the morning of Monday, March 12th at Rockingham County Courthouse, 10 Route 125, Brentwood.
Opening arguments are set for Tuesday, March 13th, probably in Courtroom #1 with Judge William Delker."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bazil
|
If he fired the bullet straight up with the foreknowledge there was no one above him then I see no crime. A bullet moving straight up will come down at terminal velocity, which is some where in the hundred mile an hour zone, not enough to injure anyone. A) Plenty of folks are injured and even killed by falling bullets. Firing into the air is grossly negligent. B) According to all accounts, he fired it into the basement ceiling. Below the potentially-occupied first floor. Those bullets aren't going straight up, they are being fired at an angle so gravity doesn't reduce their momentum by that much. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" - a friend
|
|
|
|
10stateswithnh
|
Obviously, threatening force is a violation of the NAP, and I'm not trying to excuse anyone who does it - just wondering how you determine the proper restitution, especially in this type of situation being alleged here where it's a careless or negligent endangerment (which winds up with no one actually hurt) rather than a deliberate threatening?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!
|
|
|
|
10stateswithnh
|
In the previous post, I wasn't trying to say careless endangerment shouldn't be restituted for - just that it's a different situation. My thoughts - anyone wishing to continue associating with the person who does such a thing, would want them to go to a gun safety course, one which they can verify the person has completed, and is known to cover things like why firing your gun into the ceiling is a violation of other people's right to life, even if you own your property. Also, those wishing reassurance would want to see some arbitration set up, between the gun-firer and the people who had been there (not to include those who invaded or were also being violent and were being driven off) to set a restitution amount and a payment plan - still not sure though what proper restitution would be. Without these 2 conditions, ostracism of the person might seem justified - not saying that I know any of the facts of this case and would assume that in this specific case it should be handled that way. Certainly I disagree with the idea of locking someone up for this.
Again, not saying we should ostracize Max - I don't know what happened - but IF he in fact fired his gun into the ceiling, when people could be overhead, he did jeopardize and risk their lives and owes them something. IF. The whole thing would be over by now, and we would know, if we had private arbitration instead of this ridiculous government court system.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Update March 14, 2012 Seabrook official stands trial in shooting incident at party By Angeljean Chiaramida Staff writer http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x2029125756/Seabrook-official-stands-trial-in-shooting-incident-at-partyAbramson, who is representing himself, cross-examined the officers, repeatedly asking if any had found a knife in their search of the home. All denied finding a knife, but Hersey said he'd found an ax outside in the street before he entered the home.
Abramson also peppered officers with questions concerning the quality of the camera used to take the evidence photos.
Conway next called criminologist Mark Dupre to the stand. A 17-year veteran of the State Police Crime Lab, Dupre confirmed that the spent shell found the night of the incident matched the markings of three other bullets fired from Abramson's gun. Abramson spent more than half an hour cross-examining Dupre, attempting to cast doubt on the reliability of forensic evidence in ballistic matches.
Abramson said yesterday that he is pleased with the way the trial is proceeding. He is expected to mount his defense tomorrow.
Abramson is assisted by James Godbout, standby counsel from the state public defender's office, appointed by the court to help Abramson if needed.
On Monday, the first day of trial, the jury was chosen and then taken to Abramson's house to view the scene.
According to state law, the charge of reckless conduct is a class B felony and, should he be convicted, Abramson could face a sentence of three and a half to seven years in prison and a $4,000 fine for each charge. In addition, if convicted of a felony, Abramson would no longer be allowed to own guns. At the time of the incident, Abramson had a gun carry permit, but he surrendered it as a condition of bail. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
If he fired the bullet straight up with the foreknowledge there was no one above him then I see no crime. A bullet moving straight up will come down at terminal velocity, which is some where in the hundred mile an hour zone, not enough to injure anyone. A) Plenty of folks are injured and even killed by falling bullets. Firing into the air is grossly negligent. B) According to all accounts, he fired it into the basement ceiling. Below the potentially-occupied first floor. Those bullets aren't going straight up, they are being fired at an angle so gravity doesn't reduce their momentum by that much. Unless it was mounted into a jig which was carefully squared to make sure the gun was pointing straight up, then it was almost certainly fired at an angle. Probably a significant one. In the previous post, I wasn't trying to say careless endangerment shouldn't be restituted for - just that it's a different situation. My thoughts - anyone wishing to continue associating with the person who does such a thing, would want them to go to a gun safety course, one which they can verify the person has completed, and is known to cover things like why firing your gun into the ceiling is a violation of other people's right to life, even if you own your property. Also, those wishing reassurance would want to see some arbitration set up, between the gun-firer and the people who had been there (not to include those who invaded or were also being violent and were being driven off) to set a restitution amount and a payment plan - still not sure though what proper restitution would be. Only the victims know how much harm they suffered. In most cases, of course, the parties would likely pre-negotiate limits. If you're going to go in and demand a trillion dollars, which I cannot conceivably pay, there's no reason for me to even show up. Presumably, over time, market forces will determine typical amounts, so such negotiations, in most cases, would simply consist of agreeing to the customary amounts, unless one party or the other felt there was some reason to insist on different amounts. And yes, part of that might be "go take a safety course." If you steal my car, the harm you cause is not only the loss of my car, but creating a situation where I will have some level of future worry that my car will, again, be stolen. If you do something reckless which might have injured me, part of the harm is the future concern I will feel if you are near. So if you volunteer to take proactive steps to assuage my concerns by obtaining training to help you avoid future recklessness, that would reduce the harm I suffered as a result of your actions, so it would reduce the restitution that you would owe me. Certainly I disagree with the idea of locking someone up for this. Indeed. This is between him and those who claim they were victimized. I'm fairly well convinced that he did it, based upon the available evidence, but even it I was present and there was not the slightest doubt in my mind what happened, I still wouldn't support what the State is doing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
One round fired into the backyard. All of the police, police photos, and witnesses have denied that any bullets went into the ceiling during the trial.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
10stateswithnh
|
That's better.
I assume the trial is still ongoing? How are you doing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
That's better.
I assume the trial is still ongoing? How are you doing? The jury returned a guilty verdict on one of the five counts. According to the report, he's free on bail, pending sentencing. Hopefully, he will be given a suspended sentence. Regardless of one's acts, forcibly locking someone in a cage is inhuman behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
I was just convicted on one felony count. Next time something like that happens, I'll just go to my room and let people stab each other to death.
Never risk prosecution to help anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
