Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/19/2006 10:36:13 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: blam; FairOpinion; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 24Karet; 3AngelaD; ...
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

2 posted on 06/19/2006 10:36:38 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Monday, June 19, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv
Petroglyph are worth the price of the rock, as far as I'm concerned. The rock belongs to the public, if on public land.

Next question?

5 posted on 06/19/2006 11:32:21 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv

This is why I am a legalist/absolutist. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is what I grew up under; and as far as I'm concerned, "intent" is a Liberal cop-out, to excuse leftists purposely breaking the law "for the higher good".

Perhaps, intent can be useful at sentencing; but not for guilt/innocence questions...PERHAPS.

You stole it; it was protected public property, on public land: neither your "intent", nor the monetary value, mean anything.

The snapping point on this was an Oregon theft case, where the theif was found 'not guilty', becasue the prosecution could not PROVE the thief "meant to" permanently appropriate an expensive ring to his own possession. He had broken in; stolen the ring; pawned the ring; spent the money...then told the court he "intended" to redeem the ring and return it at a future date: THEREFORE, according to Oregon higher courts, he had NOT stolen the ring, but had "only" borrowed it without permission.

If these yahoos could convince the court they "intened" to put the boulders back,after displaying them in their yard for awhile, under that "intent" assininity, they would again be 'not guilty'.

The Ninth Circus has again committed legal mayhem, this time to our national heritage and future understanding of our past.


6 posted on 06/19/2006 12:30:13 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch ("Plowmarks", Art, or Writing...now we may never know. Thank you, Ninth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv

In the process of stealing artifacts they inevitably destroy others.


8 posted on 06/19/2006 6:47:29 PM PDT by Dustbunny (Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson