skirtcafe.org

Further news update from Monday:-

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Ag ... 21681.html

A further news update after the initial hearing and plea but not much more at the moment:-

http://berkeley.patch.com/groups/police ... en-on-fire.

How can you plead not guilty when the bus CCTV clearly shows him doing it, and the lawyer accepts that. Maybe it isn't "aggravated mayhem" in the US courts but a young person could have been killed because of it. I would say it is a serious matter which the lawyer still wishes to dismiss as a prank gone wrong. It is atill an assault charge in my books!

The trial seems to be due to start this month.

Must wonder how this would have gone if it had happened to a female.
Steve.

skirtingtoday wrote:...How can you plead not guilty when the bus CCTV clearly shows him doing it, and the lawyer accepts that...

As the article says, "the question is what the circumstances were and what Thomas' state of mind was." What took place could be a complete accident, attempted murder, or anything between based solely on what this Richard Thomas was thinking at the time.

I've seen claims that American law is much more dependent on intent than British law. Perhaps that's what's going on here.

As to the defense attorney, it's his job to pursue any defense, no matter how illogical it seems, that'll get his client off free.

Caultron wrote:As the article says, "the question is what the circumstances were and what Thomas' state of mind was." What took place could be a complete accident, attempted murder, or anything between based solely on what this Richard Thomas was thinking at the time.

I didn't read the article, but one would hope that in practice a jury would see through those sorts of shenanigans and focus on what the predictable outcome would be. One doesn't set fire to somebody if he's asleep as a "prank"; in that case the entirely predictable outcome would be bad burns, if not life-threatening burns. One might try it on a fully-awake and capable comrade who may be in on the game, but to do it to a sleeping stranger -- and I don't care how much their look may put you off -- is something entirely different.

I've seen claims that American law is much more dependent on intent than British law. Perhaps that's what's going on here.

That's the basis for the varying "degrees" of murder, and the separate charges of "manslaughter" and the slightly newer "negligent homicide".

Murder is charged when it is know that the defendant intended to kill the victim. The very nasty form, "First Degree Murder" is the one that I believe the Brits know as "Murder with Malice of Forethought" -- this one involves contemplating, designing, and then executing the crime; "Second Degree Murder" is usually charged when there was intent but no premeditation -- this is usually charged in cases where there is extreme rage involved as when one, hypothetically, walk in on a lover or wife who is with someone else, or, occasionally, in bar-brawls.

The formal charge of "Manslaughter" is typically brought where there has been a wrongful death and the defendant is responsible for that death but may or may not have intended it.

The newer one, "Negligent Homicide", is usually used when nothing else will really stick but the DA needs to make a good showing of things. This involves a wrongful death brought about by the negligence of the charge. An example of this might be failure to act (appropriately) if somebody falls through thin ice and is drowning. If a witness to the event knows the event has happened and doesn't do something to mitigate the situation there's a risk of charge. In the above, I do not know if a defence of, "I immediately called 911 on my mobile to summon help" is good enough.

As to the defense attorney, it's his job to pursue any defense, no matter how illogical it seems, that'll get his client off free.

Any and all cases, no matter how heinous the offence, deserve a robust and energetic defence. Without that, the legal system falls apart because there's nothing to keep the State in check.

Of course, in practice, as I've witnessed first-hand, sometimes the system IS "dead from the neck up", and that's a sobering, and terrifying, thing to watch unfold.

STEVIE wrote:Must wonder how this would have gone if it had happened to a female.
Steve.

I couldn't agree more with that notion. A male who did that to a female (in the Western world) would not likely escape jail time. The fact that it happened in Berkeley CA lends optimism that punishment, in this case, will be meted out appropriately. Had the crime occurred in any of a number of other places, the seriousness of the assault might have well been ignored simply because it was a male wearing the skirt. Regional attitudes vary immensely in the US and, with so many elected judges and prosecutors, impartial jurisprudence would be in doubt in many states and localities simply because of the prevalent social and political attitudes. Still, should the assailant be severely punished, it will be no surprise to see the story inflame the pseudo-outrage of America's corpulent ayatollah of the airwaves (Limbaugh), and of the multitudes of sanctimonious radio preachers purveying gender bigotry veiled as Christian belief.

I haven't been following this story too closely, but reading that last article linked, this last paragraph jumped out.

"A large number of Thomas' family members and friends came to his hearing today to support him, as did two ministers who have visited him in custody at Alameda County Juvenile Hall.

DuBois said the ministers are supporting Thomas because he has "an
attractive and engaging personality."

I have known too many people in my life who could have been described like that, and I trust very few of them.

Indeed, PS. Most successful politicians, for example. It's that personality that helps them make enough friends and win enough votes to get to the top. Doesn't mean they are honest or blessed with good judgment.

The question was, in essence, how Richard Thomas and his lawyer could possibly plead not guilty when recordings clearly show Thomas setting Sasha Fleischman (or more likely his clothing) on fire.

And the only answer seems to lie in claiming Thomas didn't mean it. Like, maybe Fleischman only meant to hold the lighter (or whatever) near Thomas as a prank. A serious and dangerous prank, for sure, but only just an innocent tease gone horribly wrong for reasons outside Thomas's control.

What chance is there of this being true? Less than 1%, I'd say, maybe less than 0.01%.

But if Thomas's lawyer wants to prove him innocent, he needs to convince the jury that slim chance is what happened.

Not, BTW, that support or sympathize with Richard Thomas in any way. But defense attorneys trying to get guilty people off free is a necessary (if repugnant) component of the adversary system of justice.

@Caultron The job of a defense attorney is to speak in favour of the client that gets him off the hook in best case scenario. It is not "guilty" until proven innocent as you might prefer which would be just a minuscule bit better as a lynch mob.

Skirtilator: actually, I think we're pretty close on this.

The job of a defense attorney isn't to find and punish the guilty party, even if that person is the attorney's own client. The job is to get the client acquitted by any means possible, no matter how far-fetched,

In this case, there's videotape showing one person setting another on fire, and the defense attorney's job is to prove that wasn't a crime. That may not appeal to our sympathies and sensibilities, and it may even be crazy, but in the adversary system of justice that's his job.

I've thought of a "parallel" of sorts for this.
The girl, in a certain mode of dress, was "asking for it", when she was assaulted.
Spurious, crass, or just plain stupid, call it what you will.
The man in the skirt set himself up, apart, different.
What else did he expect?
I'm a parent, and if my kids displayed anything like this behaviour, in any form, I'd have failed.
I'd like to think, that this "defence" wlll never work, however?
Steve.

No one likes seeing a defense attorney trying to get an "obviously" guilty scum bag off free.

But in the adversary system of justice, that's their job and also the right of the accused.

Not that support scumbags, be they lawyers, defendants, or whatever. But i do believe a fair trial requires best defense.

I think most people are ok with people being properly defended. However, in far too many cases, the defense starts using "let's confuse the issue, bore the jury to death, drag this out long enough, and sacrifice the truth" as tactics to get the best result for the accused. It makes it seem like the accused has rights, but victims don't.

On the other hand, it seems that we are having more and more cases of people found innocent after years of being incarcerated for a crime they did not commit.

Obviously, we have a flawed system. But then, who among us is perfect?

I think most people are ok with people being properly defended. However, in far too many cases, the defense starts using "let's confuse the issue, bore the jury to death, drag this out long enough, and sacrifice the truth" as tactics to get the best result for the accused. It makes it seem like the accused has rights, but victims don't.

It doesn't matter what most people think, because they cannot think. Therefore your first sentence is a platitude. Rights are legal fictions and I guess you are too old for fairy tales. The lawyers job is to defend the accused to the best of ability. It is not about the truth but about the consequences of the truth. He provides arguments who possibly let the accused get off the hook or release the accused to get him a lower sentence. No confusion, just arguments whose credibility lead to a result.

On the other hand, it seems that we are having more and more cases of people found innocent after years of being incarcerated for a crime they did not commit.

Obviously, we have a flawed system. But then, who among us is perfect?

It is not flawed, it works fine. The goal is not truth or moral justice but to serve those in charge. Don't expect 100% restitution for the falsely incarcerated.