PDA

View Full Version : A Corrupt Unaccountable Legal System?


Revolt Now
December 26, 2000, 19:22
How many of you feel that we have a "just" legal system?

How many of you feel we have a corrupt, unaccountable, legal system?

How many of you feel the legal system even has a right to hear cases like those recently brought against the firearms industry in PA and MASS?

Now we are going to sue the manufacturers of selected devices for their irresponsible manufacturing and sale?

What provisions do these companies really have to defend themselves agaisnt such frivelous suits? They can hire a battery of attorneys but then who wins in the end?

IMHO Somethings gotta give,
Bill

DK
December 26, 2000, 19:55
Part of the solution is called "Tort Reform". Klinton was against it as is probably 90% of the trial lawyers in this country. (wonder why? http://www.fnfal.com/forums/wink.gif )

The system is certainly not what it was intended to be. We have far to many "activist judges" legislating from the bench (the Fla. Supremes spring to mind). The seperation of powers is very clear, the legislative branch makes laws, not the judicial, but these liberals will do what they want until someone stops them.

Rant off...

DK

------------------
Historically Freedom is bought with steel, not gold...

Revolt Now
December 26, 2000, 21:11
For an example of heinous crimes I was looking for the freak who raped and dismembered a little girl (she survived). Three doctors testified that he was an eminent threat to himself and others, he was released and lived in Florida. Less than 1 year later he beat his live-in girlfriend to death as neighbors listened in horror and pleaded with 911 to send someone to the rescue(they knew who he was). Maybe someone remembers? It was the case where the police did not arrive for over an hour because of a "shift change".


I could not find that one, but with all the great examples of FILTH we have in this country I was able to find another loser as an example of what I am talking about..

A man who murdered two children, is suspected of murderer at least one more, is due to be released and live in Greensboro. But! the neighbors will be informed he is a predatory sex offender. http://www.fnfal.com/forums/mad.gif

Well, aint that frickin dandy.. anybody looking for a roomie?
http://www.gocarolinas.com/news/carolinas/1999/10/19/killer.html

Another case, Anybody remember Arthur Shawcross? He was selling his "artwork" on e-bay not too long ago.

"Shawcross, 54, is serving a term of 250 years to life for 12 second-degree murder convictions in 1991 in Monroe County. He was received into the state prison system on February, 1, 1991, and has been an inmate at the maximum-security Sullivan prison in Sullivan County since March 22, 1991. Shawcross is not eligible for parole until January 10, 2240."

They forgot to mention that prior to those 12 convictions (12 bodies they were able to find, I am sure he killed many more) he had 2 convictions for raping/sodomizing/and murdering two children.

As memory serves me he served less than 15 years for those kids. He should have been BBQd after the verdict was turned in!

Time served? rehabilitated? http://www.fnfal.com/forums/mad.gif

The people involved in the releases of those individuals should be criminally prosecuted as well as have their pants sued off!

This country is sick,
Bill


[This message has been edited by Revolt Now (edited December 26, 2000).]

Chupacabra
December 26, 2000, 21:44
Just? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
More like Just-us.
Perjury is the coin of the realm of the legal system today and it is no longer about who's right or wrong, it's about who's got the better lawyer.
When someone is convictid it's always because "Justice was served" regardless if they were innocent. However when they're acquitted, it's always because the defense lawyer was a scumbag, the defendant lied and the jury was stupid.

Revolt Now
December 26, 2000, 22:00
Originally posted by Chupacabra:
Just? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
More like Just-us.


I am glad you found that so entertaining.

That was the whole point of the post, to start a conversation on how people felt about the legal system.

Its sad that we, as a nation, do not demand better.

Bill

Southern Yankee
December 27, 2000, 03:43
Its sad that we, as a nation, do not demand better.
The reason, IMO, we don't demand better is from the fact we live in a "Not in my backyard" country. Most people don't give a flying rats a$$ about anything that doesn't affect them directly. The sad part is once it does affect them its probably to late, Kalifornia comes to mind.
The real question is then, "What will it take to make the sheeple of this country see what is happening all around them? To their neighbors? And once they do see it, will it be too late?" Food for though http://www.fnfal.com/forums/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by Southern Yankee (edited December 27, 2000).]

Blood of Tyrants
December 27, 2000, 10:48
Anyone else notice that the heaviest crime occurs in the most heavily DemoNAZI areas with the highest taxes and the most liberal policies? DemoNAZI/liberal judges are by and large more lenient on criminals and more likely to be corrupt. Trial lawyers who make the most money by using the legal system to extort it from others also support the DemoNAZI party. Fortunately, most of the judges have seen the foolishness of allowing lawsuits on the criminal misuse of a legal product or else some lawyer will come up with the bright idea of suing Louisville Slugger over a murder committed with one of their baseball bats.

The problem s NOT the legal system, it is the DemiNAZIs/liberals who have infested it. Tort reform is desperately needed in this country because the DemoNAZIs gave been using civil courts to destroy this country.

I would like to see a system like in Great Britian where anyone may sue anyone else but the loser must pay the winner's legal bills. That would stop most of the frivilous lawsuits from ambulance chasers who work on the "no win, no money" method. Most of them would either starve to death or get a real job.

DABTL
December 27, 2000, 11:52
Sorry to inform you Blood but the State of Texas has more people confined for drug offenses alone than all but one of the other 49 states. And we are true and true Republican. Our governor was just made President you know.

So far as tort reform goes, the only people whining about that are those who have no knowledge of the system today. Go talk to anyone who has been illegally arrested or has had an on the job injury in Texas. Go ask them how much justice they got. And Lord knows when you sue a doctor for sawing your leg off when you went to him for acne problems you are a bad person. Shame on all those people who have had a family member run down by a rock truck and wanted funeral money from the truck company.

When you don't know something about the legal system, and don't want to learn, it is easy to write all kinds of criticism based on information from the tabloids and goof ball publications. Go down to the courthouse in your area one day and watch. This should sober you up.

xcpd69
December 27, 2000, 12:23
Bill,

While I freely admit I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (or the internet), I did learn some few things in my 15+ years working in law enforcement communications.

I noticed a very high percentage of the people we arrested for serious felonies, should have still been in jail for previous convictions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that people in jail, DON'T commit new felonies on the street,while They are in jail.

I noticed people arrested for DUI very often had rap sheets showing multiple previous convictions for reckless driving, each of which coincided with other traffic violations and "Transporting open containers of alcohol". In other words, the reckless was reduced from DUI. They get to keep going until they kill someone.

The system is broken, it doesn't work well, and I'm so disgusted with what little I have personally seen, that, even if I could, I would no longer care to participate.

When it's barbarians against the civilized, the barbarians usually win.



------------------
Lonny

"There are no 'Dangerous Weapons', only 'Dangerous Men.'"-Sergeant Zim-

Revolt Now
December 27, 2000, 14:39
Originally posted by cpd69:
Bill,

>>"While I freely admit I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (or the internet), I did learn some few things in my 15+ years working in law enforcement communications."

You do not have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong, to distinguish truth from lies.

>>"I noticed a very high percentage of the people we arrested for serious felonies, should have still been in jail for previous convictions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that people in jail, DON'T commit new felonies on the street,while They are in jail."

Ahmen Brother..

>>"I noticed people arrested for DUI very often had rap sheets showing multiple previous convictions for reckless driving, each of which coincided with other traffic violations and "Transporting open containers of alcohol". In other words, the reckless was reduced from DUI. They get to keep going until they kill someone."

This one I can personally relate to.. I had a drinking partner (when I was an alcoholic) that was arrested 9 times (maybe more) for DUI/DWI. Shane Deleon is his name. His family is well connected, his dad was the former president of the Maryland Bar.

Shane was able to skirt the law for years. (he was in his early 40s at that time) His father no doubt helped him out of jams. He would drive to the poolroom with a 12 pack of MGD stuffed behind the passenger seat and laugh about all the times he had been in trouble.

Well, he aint laughing no more.

He hit a roller blader and killed them. Now, when its too late, they put him in jail.

Honestly, I think he was only given as harsh a sentence as he was because he tried to flee.

Here, I found a link: (he was convicted btw) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50838-2000May1.html

>>"The system is broken, it doesn't work well, and I'm so disgusted with what little I have personally seen, that, even if I could, I would no longer care to participate."

Ahmen

Blood of Tyrants
December 27, 2000, 15:08
Bill, I have no problem with someone suing over REAL damages, but it is nitwits like the stupid old lady who spilled hot coffee on herself while driving and then receives a $4 million dollar settlement, or the morons who smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and then claim that they didn't know that smoking was bad for them, or the 14 people who get on a bus AFTER it is rear-ended by a truck and claim neck injury that really chap my ass.
Those people are simply looking to make their own stupidity pay off. They are crooks looking to use the courts to extort money from others.

Also, while I do not use nor condone the use of drugs, I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban them. To bolster my argument, I point to the fact that alcohol is probably one of the most detrimental drugs around and it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Why should marijuana be treated differently than alcohol? Ever hear of a kid dying after taking 21 hits from a bong on his 21st birthday?

Revolt Now
December 27, 2000, 15:32
Originally posted by Blood of Tyrants:
Bill, I have no problem with someone suing over REAL damages, but it is nitwits like the stupid old lady who spilled hot coffee on herself while driving and then receives a $4 million dollar settlement, or the morons who smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and then claim that they didn't know that smoking was bad for them, or the 14 people who get on a bus AFTER it is rear-ended by a truck and claim neck injury that really chap my ass.
Those people are simply looking to make their own stupidity pay off. They are crooks looking to use the courts to extort money from others.

Also, while I do not use nor condone the use of drugs, I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban them. To bolster my argument, I point to the fact that alcohol is probably one of the most detrimental drugs around and it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Why should marijuana be treated differently than alcohol? Ever hear of a kid dying after taking 21 hits from a bong on his 21st birthday?

Unfortunately I was not a choir boy when I was younger. I honestly never tried marijuana, I knew I would like it too much. I abused alcohol instead because it was more socially acceptable.

I feel the same way you do about the drug, I would rather see people smoke a joint than drink a six pack. (if it were my choice they would not get high at all)

I believe marijuana is illegal for one reason. TAXES.

Its too easy to grow. You can grow it anywhere... outdoors, indoors.

Alcohol is not as easy to replicate so they are able to justify licensing its production and applying stiff taxes to its manufacture and sale.

People could be hurt (and have been) by bootleg liquor. Skunk weed never killed anybody.

How would they justify prohibitting people from growing it for personal use if it were legal? How would they justify the taxes?

Once again, it all boils down to the money..

Hemp was the #1 cash crop of the colonies for many years. You can be sure many of the founding fathers probably smoked it a time or two.

Its one of the strongest (if not THE strongest) natural fibers on the face of the earth.

Its fast growing, You get 6x the yield of paper pulp from and Acre of hemp as you do from an acre of trees.

The first levis jeans were made of hemp, sails were made of hemp, it has many uses.


The thieves in government want to make sure they get their share.

Right now they get it through prosecuting trafficers and users... Drug war my ass.

Bill

DABTL
December 27, 2000, 16:04
Again, the exceptional stories from the newspapers. Did you ever find out if the little old lady collected? I did.

I have seen habitual use of marihuana destroy as many lives as I have alcohol. I have seen people high on everything kill others.

I have also seen the sons of privilege, such as Dubya, get away with all kinds of things that I would probably have been jailed for doing. Fortunately, I was the son of cop who worked his way through law school. One thing though, I have also learned to think about what I am doing so that down the road I do not have the regrets that Dubya and others now have.

The other thing you will notice about these posts is that the police always assume that misdemeanors are reduced felonies when they catch someone committing felonies. My experience has been that those are usually the high end of what could have been charged. You see, after you have done this awhile, you see people that you know will get into further trouble unless something happens. The cops sense this also and try to put some charge, as serious as possible, on the defendant to try a deterence effect. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.

The second thing about these posts you will notice is that it is always the judge, prosecutor or defense lawyer at fault. The reality is a lot of cases are filed hoping the defendant will plead guilty. A good lawyer knows this and uses it effectively to aid and assist the defendant. The cops know this also, but like to blame the system. Been there before and we revisit this all the time.

mparrish
December 27, 2000, 20:17
First of all, those who read my posts know pretty well where I stand on crime & punishment issues. In this post, I will make some additional points:

1) The "War on Drugs" is a failure. The war has turned itself from a proactive approach to dealing with serious drug offenders into a cash cow system of seizures, forfeitures and fines. Some departments live for the cash seizures bring. Frankly, I could give a rat's backside what you snort or smoke in the confines of your own home or immediate property. The only time you will see me get serious about narcotics is when you are either a pathetic junkie pusher selling to kids or are driving under the influence of what you snorted or smoked. Those affect my greater community directly. Personally, I never did narcotics as Dad was a Respiratory Therapist who scared the bejeebers out of me as a kid. However, my vice would have to be fresh chocolate chip cookies. God help me, I do love them so! No issue with hemp, either.

With regards to what fellow member "Bill" has posted, I do not know his background. Mine is street cop who follows the law. I assume nothing because assumptions will get me injured or killed. That being said, I file all types of cases, felonies and misdemeanors, to the prosecutor. What I see is a system concerned with the big cases and with what will generate money for the system. Yes, there are some bright points and my municipal court is occasionally one. But I see overworked prosecutors who are looking to make a mark and the occasional hard worker. I see a liberal justice system which believes in warm fuzzies when harsh reality would be better served. I see criminal defense lawyers who do use the system to their advantage. And I see a system of repeat, habitual offenders who care little for a system that will not make them pay for what they have committed. When I see rapes pled down, I get disappointed. When I see DUIs pled down, I get annoyed. When I arrest the thugs weeks after they swore to they judge that they would be a good little boy or girl, I work harder to lay as many charges on them as I can.

I do so because in the end, charges are pled down and society suffers. I blame no one other than those who sit quietly in the background of society, watching what is happening and saying or doing nothing so long as crime doesn't affect them directly.

I applaude and support those who work tirelessly to make the system work and who are honest in their work, from competent prosecutors, defense lawyers, legislators to judges and fellow cops. But in the end, we know the system is slowly failing. If not, three strikes laws or hard time for armed crime laws would have not been needed.

Bill, would enjoy discussing this in greater detail and getting more of your opinions via e-mail. You make some fine points. Let's discuss more that way.

Have a safe New Year's celebration all!

Morris

LiquidTension
December 27, 2000, 23:03
War on drugs = war on my paycheck. It would be nice if we could decide where our tax money went...I definitely would NOT give money to DEA or any other Nazi agency if I had the choice. If there was no war on drugs there wouldn't really be a reason for the DEA to exist as such a large organization. You think the government is going to pass a law that makes it smaller? Not damn likely.

Marijuana is illegal because the cotton industry would be destroyed if it were legal. Weed as a recreational activity is illegal because the government has been preaching for so long that it's bad that they can't turn around and legalize it without making fools out of themselves and telling the public that they were lying all along (which we already know since it's legal in some places for medicinal use).

Is the legal system just? Sometimes. If the lawyers are crooked, justice is not served even if the criminal goes to jail or the innocent are set free. The end does NOT justify the means in all cases.

The line has been blurred between the 3 branches of government and that's the way it's going to stay until we have some major reform. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen without some type of national crisis.

My brain is tired from a 2 hour philosophical conversation earlier tonight so I'm going to end my comments here. I'll continue later if anyone really wants me to =)

DABTL
December 27, 2000, 23:34
Having been around drugs for many years I have a different perspective from those of you who have heard about or read about drugs. First you need to understand that long term drug abuse kills both the user and those around them. I know many long term drug abusers whose health has failed, their teeth have fallen out and their family and friends have deserted them. That is what happens to people who are obsessed with drugs. Second, there are people who are going to be drug dependent with or without drugs. They are either using or fighting not to use. Third the war on drugs has made a business of crime and crime prevention. Lots of money there for anyone who wants to play.

The judicial system is clogged now with people whose only crime is self medication. We have changed a medical problem into a criminal problem. This got started under Richard Nixon and continues to get votes today. It has been a bonanza for lawyers, cops and prosecutors. If drugs were decriminalized today there would be a lot of people I know out of a job. They would be forced to get productive jobs.

Finally, having dealt with prosecutors for years, I find that most cases are not pled down to some lower offense. The concept of an overworked public employee is silly. As one very adept prosecutor I know said last week 'It is hard doing nothing for long periods.' He is right. The criminal justice system is based on doing the same thing over and over again. See the crime, file the charge, try the case and start over. That covers about 95% of the cases tried at the courthouse. It is mundane repitition.

All this talk about the system is crashing is nothing more than political diatribes aimed at swaying your vote. Go to the courthouse in your area and talk to the judges and lawyers. You will find it is serious business to all concerned. You might be surprised.

Blood of Tyrants
December 28, 2000, 03:38
Bill, I never said that drugs weren't bad for you or that they do not destroy lives. But alcohol is DEFINITELY more destructive than some of the illegal drugs.

The question is, where in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to ban them? I have absolute proof that they can't ban alcohol without a constitutional amendment.

Recreational drugs were NOT illegal in this country until the early part of this century. I know you have heard of that period when at least some of the federal government actually followed the Constitution.

Revolt Now
December 28, 2000, 10:09
Originally posted by BARLEY POP:
[B]Marijuana is not Hemp I know I've seen both and smoked only the other. Wonderful youth, Hemp will give you the headache of your life. All those Hemp fields that are now only living in the ditches, hence ditch weed are some kids intro to a big A$$ (PC) headache. Like all industries if Hemp was allowed in country the cotton and other fiber based plants used for paper to clothing would go out of business. Do you think the Tree Huggers are protesting for Hemp because they only want to get high.
B]


Sorry to spread misinformation. My post was a little misleading, it was not intentional. I work with Tree Huggers on a daily basis. http://www.fnfal.com/forums/smile.gif

I use the terms interchangeably because the plants are similar. They are both forms of cannabis. Industrial hemp has a very low THC content, too low to make it useful to people who want to get high.

Do I believe the founding fathers only grew one strand of hemp? about as much as I believe they only grew one kind of corn. Thus the smoking comment.

Marijuana and Hemp are a lot more similar than Pro-hemp web pages would have you believe. While I am not a horticulturalist I would bet that Hemp could be genetically engineered to produce more THC. Just as other forms of cannibus which currently contain a high level of THC could be used to make the same products as hemp.

Personally I am all for allowing hemp to be grown in the US, both kinds.
Bill

thorlin
December 28, 2000, 11:01
I like these threads. They get me back in touch with my younger years...

The hemp thing reminds me of my years at the University of Arizona, watching the unshaven, undeodorized, dreadlock wearing hemp protestors on the mall... those were good days...

The beer thing reminds me of brewing my own awfull beer during that same period. Remember, Beer is Food.

The milk thing from BP reminds me of how much I love a good cold glass of chocolate milk. Always have, always will. Of course, it gives me a bit of the wind, but we all make foolish choices about what we put into our bodies...

Mike

straightblast
December 28, 2000, 14:43
Tort Reform, what a catchy little phrase. Aw, forget about the 7th Amendment, what good is it anyway? Probably not much more viable today than the amendment which allows us to speak freely, and that other one, uhh, yeah, the 2nd Amendment.

Careful when you start buying into corporate bullsh*t about "reforming" the constitution.

Never ceases to amaze me how many gun owners whine about how the congress-critters oughta keep their hands off one part of the constitution, but happily stand around egging on the rape of another part. Maybe I am just old fashioned, either you believe in the whole Constitution...or you believe in none of it.

Enquiring Minds
December 28, 2000, 17:09
Careful when you start buying into corporate bullsh*t about "reforming" the constitution.

True. We don't want to let the corporate power-mongers take away the only viable check and balance that individuals and small groups have against them. We do, however, need some clear thinking on how to rein in features that are truly excesses.

e.g. It is absurd that whole classes of wholesome outdoor recreation are virtually eliminated because a statitistically insignificant number of dorks/idiots/morons go out and kill or maim themselves. Perhaps the tort system IS working on the whole, but we are being misled by a few sensational stories. Certainly the mainstream media is a corporate mouthpiece much more than it is any voice or LIGHT of the people.

bitethisbullet
December 28, 2000, 21:07
Alright guys, I've read ya'lls posts, so get ready to hear it 'cause I'm about to step up on my soap box,and I'm gonna be here for a while.

As far as the original subject of the post, a just legal system, our legal system went to hell in a handbasket with the introduction of "loose constructionism". Many times the guy who can afford the best lawyers wins in a law suit, often times a criminal who can afford a good attorney will walk, such is life, nothing is perfect, this includes our legal system. If you think the lady who sued McDonalds over hot coffee was bad, listen to this, a lawsuit over a hot PICKLE falling out of a hamburger and landing on someones leg, they sued and won. The problem with these types of lawsuits is that the idiot plaintifs who are to lazy to get a job and work for their money are constantly trying to find a way to get rich quick, which is why their broke within 5 years of winning a settlement(on average), and the idiot judges rule in their favor. After one idiot wins this inspires the other half-a -billion idiots to do the same thing, thus our legal system is flooded with b.s. cases that should be thrown out by our retarded judges. The problem with criminals not being convicted is that sometimes it is better to let a criminal walk for the purpose of protecting our individual liberties. I beleive that O.J. was guilty as sin, the point is the police didn't have a warant when they searched his home, the evidence had to be thrown out, and he had to be accquited. When some looser psychotic nut-case goes out and rapes some ten year old girl, and our incompitent police-force forgets to get a warant, then even I believe he should be acquited, he MUST be acquited. Although we don't like to think about the things, these things are what's known as "The Cost of Freedom", however if that girls daddy tracks him down and blows his brains out after the trial, the jury not only has the ability to, but the right and responsibility, to hand down a plea of not guilty. As American citizens this is how we voice our opinion on, and influence our government. The problem is that 90% of Americans don't know this, they don't want to know this, they don't want to vote, they don't want to serve on a jury, they don't want to sit in on city council meetings they do not want to be well educated individuals, not just in law but period. These are the same people who are anti-gun, these are the same people who are anti-death penalty, these are the same people, who are against logging, and against hunting; they don't understand about setting a precedent, they don't understand about being responsible for your actions, they don't understand about land management, and managing our wildlife resources. They don't want to, and you can argue with them until you're blue in the face, you might as well be talking to a wall, because they will not allow themselves to understand, because to understand they would have to possess knowledge about these and other things, and to possess knowledge is to have responsibility, and these people do not wish to have responsibility, they don't know how to handle it; you see ignorance truly is bliss.

Back to crime, the crime rate would be seriously reduced if we as a country would enforce stricter punishments for crimes, especially serious crimes, but we do not want to be responsible for taking that mans life, even if he did kill 20 people. If we started to do this people would think about this before comitting a crime, and the crime rate would be seriosly reduced.

As far as people griping about judges making legislation, they don't, they can't, in actuality the jury has far more control over that than the judge. Judges, chiefly S.C. justices, have something called Judicial Review. This means they can look at a law and declare it unconstitutional, in lower courts judges can choose not to enforce a law if they believe it is unconstitutional(and yes it is legal, they can do it, believe it)as mention earlier juries have the right not to convict a man if they believe he is being tried for a crime that they beleive shouldn't be illegal.

Right now the system is broken, our founding fathers did not intend the system for todays judges or people, but it is our right and duty to continue to participate in and influance the system, no matter how corrupt or screwed up it gets. cpd69 when we give up we give up our rights and our right to gripe about it.

As far as the war on drugs, that's a waste of time, the only thing that we can do is try to influence and educate young people about the negative effects of drugs. We should get rid of the DEA and simply fund anti-drug advertising.


Whewwwwwww, I think I'll get down of my soapbox, but please continue to respond. I look forward to further conversation, after all We learn something new every day, and often times from each other.

Johnny

xcpd69
December 29, 2000, 02:45
Johnny,

Pretty good post, I agree with a lot of what you say.

As far as giving up, maybe age and infirmaties have some to due with it, as well as resignation and despair. Call it as you will, I figured out I can no longer feel like I "make a difference" at that level.

So, since I am unable, or unwilling, to participate at that level anymore, I have withdrawn into my primary goal. Protecting my family as best as I can. Call it cowardice, or a strategic withdrawel. Both fit, depending on perspective.

But I once did my part, and was good at it. If I may say so. Somewhere along the way it stopped being fun.



------------------
Lonny

"There are no 'Dangerous Weapons', only 'Dangerous Men.'"-Sergeant Zim-