POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

Thank you for the moral support and your third eye. Seeing...

CRC wrote:Really interesting discussion.

CRC wrote:Very interesting conversational topic.

Again, thank you. Isn't that the point - to create interesting discussions? Even if I have to choose sides that I'd really rather not argue. I know that I tend to choose controversial subjects. Subjects that will not be wholly popular. All symptomatic of my logical mind seeing angles that no one else sees and the fact that I must remain true to myself. I grab horns of a bucking bull and oftentimes seize the tail of a lion and tackle topics that may frighten the timid. Not to "troll-whatever the hell that is" not to "throw something up against the wall until it sticks," not to anger the larger part of the masses who do not wish to actually engage in interesting conversation. But hopefully to stimulate those minds as well and to act as a reprieve - not a replacement - for the mundane, monotonous passtime of crunching numbers instead of a few thinking caps.

And honestly, though a bit selfish of me admittedly, to feed the logical mind that lives within me which sees things that make me go "hmm."

Someone once said...

There is nothing more erotic than good conversation.

I've been accused of much in many threads. Louis' accusation represents the latest...

Unfortunately, Cthia's opening premises, as is so often the case, are invalid, making the ensuing discussion, as the French would have it, caduque.

I must admit this is both confusing and alarming.

Alarming inasmuch as I wouldn't have believed it to come from the mind of Louis R. *shrug*

Confusing, because there is no original premise. Instead, there are two questions posed.

Why hasn't Thomas Theisman been arrested for murder and treason, treason and murder?

Can the ends be justified by these means?

I think it is a fair question. A salient question that raises a valid point. An interesting point I think, however unpopular it may be.

Thomas Theisman murdered Saint-Just. And there is NO sugar coating that. He might would avoid the charge of treason by some twist of magic or support of the good ole boy network who has the latest North Hollow Files of "He who is in P-O-W-E-R" because his-story controls the press. But the fact of the matter is... Theisman committed murder.

Speaking of that which several have thrown into the pot. What exactly will Haven's history record regarding the coup? I'm still interested in what Elizabeth ultimately thinks of it. Not her official words. But her personal thoughts discussed with her husband, perhaps with Honor, with Michelle and with Ariel.

Speaking of remaining true to myself. The difference in this case is that I long ago acknowledged that I am not a personality that can run away from his crimes. I'd've shot Saint-Just as well. But turned myself in to some authority, especially if I care for my Republic.

Duckk wrote:So if Theisman had to dispose of St. Just in a less than legal way, in service of the greater good, then he'd do it and live with that blotch on his soul.

True, as supported by textev as if we as readers would even need textev regarding this point. As if!

Yes, Theisman had always done his duty. Would always do his duty, without flinching or hesitating, whatever its demands.

However, as effected, Theisman is not the only one living with a blotch on his soul. So too is his beloved Republic. IMHO.

Having pretty much ground the treason argument into the ground lets talk about wheather you can make a murder charge stick. I think you could make a case for "defence of others" that would be more trouble to prove and messy enough in court to make the exercise extremely problimatitic as to which way a trial would go. Precedent and/or the exact wording of the legal code in question in a level of detail we just don't have is needed to disprove this potential defence.

On the topic of wheather or not the shooting of OSJ was illegal we need to consider the possibility of continuing resistance by the person being shot.

In most jurisdictions this is considered a judgement call and you can bring prior known behavior into this decision. In this case the most salient argument in favor of immediately shooting him is his know detonation of nuclear devices inside a city limits. Second we have well documented evidence of growing paranoia and mental instability.

Given how small a transmitter capable of such a detonation could be may be you could argue that immediate execution of such a dangerous prisioner was a necessity to preserve the lives of untold millions at risk of being killed by further detonations of hidden nuclear devices.

While on the surface this may seem a somewhat specious argument a good defence should be able to use OSJ's documented history of mass murder via WMDs to muddy the waters to a very significant degree. Especially in the context of a confused situation.

cthia wrote:My curiosity is getting the best of me.

Does anyone else assimilate that quote the same way?

Speaking of curiousity, I am still really curious what you think or thought the Harison quote was meant to express.

cthia wrote:
Confusing, because there is no original premise. Instead, there are two questions posed.

Why hasn't Thomas Theisman been arrested for murder and treason, treason and murder?

Can the ends be justified by these means?

.

Your original premises are implied:
1) That Theisman committed murder, and
2) That Theisman committed treason.

Unfortunately, without access to the PRH legal codes in effect at the time of the action, murder, or the degree thereof, is unknown and unknowable. Likewise for treason.


.

One consequence of Saint-Just being summarily shot which I don't think has been raised in this thread thus far...

It deprived the provisional government of Haven of an opportunity to order the StateSec remnants to stand down and essentially catapulted Haven into a three or four years long civil war.

I'm not saying all SS forces would have obeyed such an order from a captive Saint-Just, but possibly enough to shorten that conflict by a year or two.

As for Theisman - if put on trial, I imagine most juries would refuse to convict(considering the evidence that could be put to them - not the situation which we readers witnessed). If convicted, he would get a presidential pardon.

munroburton wrote: As for Theisman - if put on trial, I imagine most juries would refuse to convict(considering the evidence that could be put to them - not the situation which we readers witnessed). If convicted, he would get a presidential pardon.

Good point. I doubt a jury would convict as well, but if the Republic's constitution is anything like the US, the president could simply pardon him a-priori.

cthia wrote:
Confusing, because there is no original premise. Instead, there are two questions posed.

Why hasn't Thomas Theisman been arrested for murder and treason, treason and murder?

Can the ends be justified by these means?

.

DJMcDonald wrote:Your original premises are implied:
1) That Theisman committed murder, and
2) That Theisman committed treason.

Unfortunately, without access to the PRH legal codes in effect at the time of the action, murder, or the degree thereof, is unknown and unknowable. Likewise for treason.


.

Well.

Were both really implied? Or simply symptomatic of your survivor's guilt and the baggage carried about by your anxiety, caused by your fear of being exposed and charged with withholding evidence of a federal crime as a reader? LOL

Ok, I admit to implying the first because murder, Theisman did commit.

On the second charge of treason I was teetering, somewhat. Only somewhat. There had to be a voice for the segment of the population who supported the Just regime.

What were Saint-Just's approval ratings? Did they reach an all time low of 36 % as our own POTUS? Point being, there must have been some approval ratings by jaded constituents of the population. And that segment smelled the blood of the treasonous...

Fee-fi-fo-freighter. I smell the blood of a stinking traitor.

Aren't there always jaded constituents? LOL

CRC wrote:

munroburton wrote: As for Theisman - if put on trial, I imagine most juries would refuse to convict(considering the evidence that could be put to them - not the situation which we readers witnessed). If convicted, he would get a presidential pardon.

Good point. I doubt a jury would convict as well, but if the Republic's constitution is anything like the US, the president could simply pardon him a-priori.

Not unless all of the databanks have been erased. If not and then they are as a result of the trial, then that is another serious offense waiting to be levied of "tampering with evidence" and "obstructing justice" for starters.

Surely the DA of the prosecuting team -- representing the segment of the population of Team Just and Anti-Pritchart -- would subpoena ship's records and testimonies of eyewitnesses.

Could certain eyewitnesses afford to risk perjuring themselves and ending their careers?

And the plot thickens.

cthia wrote:

DJMacdonald wrote:Your original premises are implied:
1) That Theisman committed murder, and
2) That Theisman committed treason.

Unfortunately, without access to the PRH legal codes in effect at the time of the action, murder, or the degree thereof, is unknown and unknowable. Likewise for treason.

Fixed the misspelling of my last name
.

Ok, I admit to implying the first because murder, Theisman did commit.

An accusation not supported by the facts in evidence. Gentlebeings of the Jury, I admit that my client, Right the Honorable Thomas Theisman, Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of War to this great restored Republic, did, on the date in question, cause the late Mr. Oscar Saint-Just to become the late Mr. Oscar Saint-Just.

However, upon perusal of Title 10, RH Code, Section 235, one finds that eliminating the head of the previous government with a single pulser shot is defined as 'vermin control', and not as any of the various forms of homicide up to and including murder.

.