Jonathan foreman aiding and abetting a crime
One of the less dramatic but no less damaging side effects of humanitarian aid is the distortion of local economy when aid agencies arrive to set up refugee camps or hand out emergency rations. Not only do prices go up for everything from water to fuel, but professionals abandon their jobs to work as interpreters and drivers. Then there are the "taxes" that the agencies routinely pay local warlords or garrison commanders to secure permission to operate or in return for "security" in dangerous regions.
These payments sometimes take the form of food, radios or even vehicles. As a result, the armed payee is not only wealthier, and better able to continue the fight against his rivals, he also gains vital prestige; local people see that foreigners pay court to him. Sometimes agencies go further and allow militias or equally vicious army units or oppressive political parties to control who gets food and water. This notoriously happened in the Hutu refugee camps in Goma and happens today in parts of Ethiopia.
Some moral compromise is inevitable in the grueling, dangerous business of emergency aid. Kurtz in pursuit of their ideals. They have become the enablers and accomplices of murderous militias and brutal regimes, prolonged wars, and even collaborated in forced relocations. The refugee camps they operate have become sanctuaries for terrorists and rear bases for guerrilla armies.
A young Rwandan refugee sips some soup at a newly functional refugee camp some 25 miles west of Bukavu, Zaire, Wednesday, August 24, There, as chronicled by Linda Polman in her devastating book War Games, the world's aid agencies and NGOs competed fiercely to help the Hutu power genocidaires who had fled Rwanda with their families. As so often happens, they ran the refugee camps, taxing the population, taking vehicles and equipment when they needed it, and controlling the supply of food to civilians so as to favor their members.
Even worse, they used the Goma refugee camps as bases for murderous raids into Rwanda. The massacres they carried out stopped only after the army of the new Rwandan government crossed the border and overran the camps. As Rieff pointed out, an analogous situation would have been if at the end of World War II, an SS brigade fled from the death camps it was administering and took refuge, along with its families, in Switzerland, and then, fed by aid workers, raided into Germany in an effort to kill yet more Jews.
There are many other examples of conflict being fomented and prolonged by those housing and aiding refugees, accidentally or deliberately. Refugee warriors, as some have called them, operating from the sanctuary of camps established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others, have created mayhem everywhere from the Thai-Cambodia border to Central America and the Middle East.
Sometimes aid agencies have allowed this to happen as a result of ignorance. Sometimes it's a matter of Red-Cross-style humanitarian ideology taken to the edge: a conviction that even the guilty need to be fed or a belief that providing security in refugee camps would be an abandonment of neutrality.
And sometimes it's because those providing aid are supporting one side in a conflict. The U. For decades, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan allowed or encouraged Palestinian refugee camps to become bases for guerrilla and terrorist activity. This should make it clear that the aid world's traditional ways of dealing with refugee flows are inadequate.
Even purely civilian camps such as Zaatari, the sea of tented misery in Jordan that houses a million Syrians, quickly became hotbeds of radicalism and sinkholes of crime and violence, not least because they are unpoliced and because they are filled with working age men with nothing to do. USAID, founded in , continues to be the largest and most important.
Its priorities have shifted over the years. President Nixon took American aid in a different direction, working with Hubert Humphrey to pass the so-called "New Directions" legislation that prompted a new emphasis on health, education and rural development. The next revolution in American foreign aid took place during the administration of George W. But the most radical Bush administration shift in aid policy may have been its increase in aid to Africa. Among other initiatives, Bush more than quadrupled funding for education on the continent.
It was subsequently cut by the Obama administration. Although aid is traditionally divided into two main types, development aid and humanitarian aid, one can categorize American aid in terms of the places it's sent, bearing in mind some amount of foreign assistance goes to countries.
There is aid given to genuinely poor countries in an honest effort to help needy people there. Then there is aid to relatively wealthy states whose elites are too irresponsible to take care of their own people. A good example is the aid the United States sends to India, a country that can afford to send rockets to Mars and which has its own growing aid program, but whose ruling elite is content to tolerate rates of malnutrition, illiteracy and curable disease that are worse than those of sub-Saharan Africa.
A third category is aid given as a foreign policy bribe. This is not the same thing as aid used as a tool of public diplomacy, because its target is a foreign country's ruling elite. The most obvious examples are Egypt and Pakistan. America gives Egypt money and in return the enriched Egyptian military, with its prestigious American weaponry, promises not to attack Israel.
Its purpose was to persuade the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment to reduce its sponsorship of Islamist terrorism in the region and in particular its murderous efforts to destabilize the U. A fourth category is aid given as part of what was called the war on terrorism, which has been dominated by reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A fifth, linked category is aid used for the purpose of public diplomacy. This has become increasingly controversial in the aid community. Controversies about the utility and effectiveness of aid do not necessarily break down along conventional Left vs. Right ideological lines. Interestingly, people who identified with the Left rather than the Right have recently argued that foreign aid does not win friends for America and should not be seen as a useful tool of public diplomacy. They often refer to Pakistan and a study that showed that American humanitarian aid after the Kashmir earthquake did not have a lasting positive effect on Pakistani attitudes toward the United States.
This is a problematic argument, not least because Pakistan is a special case. It is a heavily aided country in which key state actors foster anti-Americanism and have done so for a long time. An American rescue effort in one corner of the country was never likely to win over the population, especially as the state played down that effort in order to make its own efforts seem less feeble.
Moreover, those who insist that aid does not win friends abroad or influence foreign populations may have philosophical and ideological reasons for taking such a view. Many in the aid industry prefer to see aid as something that should be given without regard to any benefit to the donor country, other than that feeling of having done the right thing that comes from an altruistic act.
Others are politically hostile to efforts by Western governments to win hearts and minds as part of the war on terrorism. My experiences in aided countries in Africa and South Asia tend to contradict this argument. In Somalia, for example, the vital but decayed highway between the capital and the coast is still referred to affectionately as "the Chinese Road" some three decades after it was built. It's also no secret that in many parts of Africa, you encounter positive attitudes to contemporary China thanks to more recent infrastructure projects, despite the abuses and corruption that so often accompany Chinese economic activity.
A general view of a refugee camp is seen in the city of Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, June 12, Provincial Reconstruction Team before it closed. This is a localized response to a local benefit. It would be naive, though not unusual on the part of U. At the same time, there seems to be evidence that bad aid makes things worse.
That could take the shape of shoddy or failed projects; projects that employ disliked outsiders, and programs that everyone knows have been commandeered or ripped off by corrupt local officials. It is probably fair to say that effective foreign aid can win friends for America, but mainly on a local basis and only if it reflects genuine local needs and preferences, and if the beneficiary population is not already steeped in anti-American prejudice.
Aid and Afghanistan Anyone who follows media reports about the American-led reconstruction effort in Afghanistan — the greatest aid effort since the Marshall plan — could be forgiven for thinking it has been a total disaster. But anyone who has spent time there and seen how much has changed since knows that this is nonsense. The millions of girls in school, the physical and economic transformation of Kabul and other cities, the smooth highways that make commerce possible are only the most obvious manifestations of success.
At the same time, the waste, theft, corruption and incompetence is at least as spectacular as these achievements. It is not clear that Afghanistan is a radically more corrupt society than other countries that have been the target of major aid efforts, that its ruling elite is uniquely irresponsible, cynical and self-interested, or that foreign government agencies and NGOs working there have been especially naive and incompetent.
But it's important to remember that aid to Afghanistan is not just on a uniquely large scale, offering vast opportunities for theft, misdirection and waste. It's also much more closely scrutinized than any other aid effort in history. Afghan police officers drag a sack full of blankets. Soldiers were meeting with village representatives to assess their needs, provide humanitarian aid assistance and to gain intelligence about the region. Nor has there been an equivalent of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction turning a jaundiced eye on big, notoriously inefficient U.
On the other hand, Afghanistan may well be uniquely infertile ground for development aid, thanks to decades of brutalizing war, a historically feeble state whose primary function has been preying on those who lack access to effective armed force and a traditional political culture in which no one expects government officials to be better than licensed bandits. Much of the controversy that has accompanied the aid effort in Afghanistan has involved criticism of work by the Defense Department and the military.
No one who has seen how weapons systems are procured for the U. But whether they are that much worse than efforts funded by other government departments such as the State Department or USAID is another question. That they have tended to attract particular opprobrium from news media and the special IG could simply reflect institutional dislike of the military or opposition to the Afghan war. There is evidence that in many places the military did a better job of providing aid than USAID and the rest of the aid establishment.
This was partly because the military wasn't hamstrung by security concerns; unlike USAID, its employees were willing and able to go anywhere in the country. Local commanders with the ability to hand out funds may have lacked development experience, but they were there where help was needed and, unlike many aid professionals, saw no shame in asking locals what assistance they wanted.
USAID's bureaucratic, box-ticking approach was arguably unsuitable for a country as damaged, impoverished, misgoverned, traumatized and dysfunctional as Afghanistan. Where the military decided to build schools, it did so quickly and efficiently, assuming that American or Afghan aid agencies would then find teachers, buy schoolbooks and make the projects sustainable.
USAID, by contrast, was required to get the relevant permissions from the ministry of education in Kabul and then provincial ministries, both of which were incompetent and corrupt, and was so slow in the execution of its mandates that its tardiness threatened to undermine the war for hearts and minds. Worried about losing hard-won gains, aid organizations are racing to finish projects or find new sources of funding before the impending troop withdrawal.
Key positions such as the head of the Office of U. Foreign Disaster Assistance went unfilled for an unconscionably long time, and overall aid spending fell. To the extent that the administration paid attention to foreign aid, its primary concern seems to have been to reverse or undo the priorities of the Bush administration.
Accordingly, efforts to promote democracy and civil society in third world countries were defunded. Countries that had been given more aid as an apparent reward for joining the international coalition in Iraq were now penalized for the same reason. The second Obama administration has seen a relative normalization of aid policy and an increase in overall aid spending. It has been said that this party of soldiers, when on their march, pushed Fosdick with a bayonet while he was standing peaceably in the street, and struck Brewer as soon as they got to the Custom-house, which shewed their design was to disturb the peace, and not to preserve it.
But as Fosdick himself says, that, upon his refusing to move out of his place, they parted and went by him, you will consider whether it is not more reasonable to suppose, that what he calls a push was an accidental touch owing to the numbers in the street, rather than any thing purposely done to hurt him; and so with regard to the blow said to be given to Brewer.
But supposing the push purposely given by one of the party, and the blow by him or another of them, it will by no means be sufficient to prove a design in the whole party, to disturb the peace, nor will all of them be involved in the guilt of one or more of them that broke the peace, unless they actually aided or abetted him or them that did it; because they were assembled and sent forth for a different purpose, and a lawful one. And it is said, that while they were at the Custom-house, before they fired, some of them attempted with their bayonets to stab every one they could come at, without any reason at all for so doing.
Such conduct to be sure can neither be justified nor excused. But as the time was so very short, and some of the witnesses declare the people were crouding upon the soldiers, and that they were moving their guns backwards and forwards crying stand off, stand off, without moving from their station, you will consider whether this may not be what other witnesses call an attempt to stab the people.
But, be that as it may, if the party was a lawful assembly before, this not being the act of the whole, would not make it unlawful. The Council for the Crown insist, that the firing upon the people was an unlawful act, in disturbance of the peace, and as the party fired so near together, it must be supposed they previously agreed to do it; that agreement made them an unlawful assembly, if they were not so before, and being so when they fired, all are chargeable with the killing by any one or more of them.
However just this reasoning may be, where there is no apparent cause for their firing, yet it will not hold good where there is. If each of the party had been at the same instant so assaulted, as that it would have justified his killing the assailant in defence of his own life, and there upon each of them had at that same instant fired upon and killed the person that assaulted him, surely it would not have been evidence of a previous agreement to fire, or prove them to be an unlawful assembly; nor would it have been evidence of such agreement though the attack was not such as would justify the firing and killing, if it was such an assault as would alleviate the offence, and reduce it to manslaughter, since there would be as apparent a cause of the firing in one case as in the other, and though not so good a cause, yet such an one as the law, in condescension to human frailty greatly regards.
You will therefore carefully consider what the several witnesses have sworn, with regard to the assault made upon the party of soldiers at the Custom house, and if you thereupon believe they were, before, and at the time of, their firing attacked by such numbers, and in such a violent manner, as many of the witnesses have positively sworn, you will be able to assign a cause for their firing so near together, as they did, without supposing a previous agreement so to do.
As neither of the soldiers fired more than once, it is evident that he who fired last, could not thereby in fact, abet or encourage the firing of any of those who fired before him, and so it cannot be evidence of such abetment. And if he who fired first and killed, can justify it, because it was lawful for him so to do, surely that same lawful act cannot be evidence of an unlawful abetment.
And though he who first fired and killed, may not be able to justify the doing it, yet if it appears he had such a cause for the killing as will reduce it to Manslaughter, it would be strange indeed if that same act should be evidence of his abetting another who killed without provocation, so as to make him who fired first guilty of murder. If therefore this party of soldiers, when at the Custom house, were a lawful assembly and continued so until they fired, and their firing was not an actual unlawful abetment of each other to fire, nor evidence of it, they cannot be said to have in consideration of law killed those five persons or either of them, but it must rest on the evidence of the actual killing: and, if so, neither of the prisoners can be found guilty thereof, unless it appears not only that he was of the party, but that he in particular infact did kill one or more of the persons slain.
That the five persons were killed by the party of soldiers or some of them, seems clear upon the evidence, and indeed is not disputed. Some witnesses have been produced to prove that Montgomery killed Attucks; and Langford swears Killroy killed Gray, but none of the witnesses undertake to say that either of the other prisoners in particular killed either of the other three persons, or that all of them did it.
On the contrary it seems that one of the six did not fire, and that another of them fired at a boy as he was running down the street, but missed him if he had killed him, as the evidence stands, it would have been murder but the witnesses are not agreed as to the person who fired at the boy, or as to him who did not fire at all.
It is highly probable, from the places where the five persons killed fell and their wounds, that they were killed by the discharge of five several guns only. If you are upon the evidence satisfied of that, and also that Montgomery killed Attucks, and Killroy Gray, it will thence follow that the other three, were killed, not by the other six prisoners, but by three of them only: and therefore they cannot all be found guilty of it.
And as the evidence does not shew which three killed the three, nor that either of the six in particular killed either of the three, you cannot find either of the six guilty of killing them or either [ of ] them. As he is charged with murder, if the fact of killing be proved, all the circumstances of necessity or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by him, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him, for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice untill the contrary appears.
In doing it, you will observe the rules I have before mentioned, and not forget the part that some of the witnesses took in this unhappy affair, and if upon the whole it appears to you, that Montgomery was attacked, in such a violent manner, as that his life was in immediate danger, or that he had sufficient reason to think it was, and he thereupon fired and killed Attucks, for the preservation of his own life, it was justifiable homicide; and he ought to be acquitted.
If you do not believe that was the case, but upon the evidence are satisfied, that he was by that assembly, assaulted with clubs and other weapons, and there-upon fired at the rioters and killed Attucks: then you ought to find him guilty of manslaughter only. But if upon the evidence you believe, that Montgomery, without being previously assaulted, fired, and killed Attucks: then you will find him guilty of murder.
But you must know, that if this party of soldiers in general were pelted, with snow-balls, pieces of ice and sticks, in anger, this, without more, amounts to an assault, not only upon those that were in fact struck, but upon the whole party; and is such an assault as will reduce the killing to manslaughter.
A man by becoming a soldier, doth not thereby lose the right of self-defence which is founded in the law of nature. If you are satisfied upon the evidence, that Killroy killed Gray, you will then enquire, whether it was justifiable, excusable or felonious homicide, and if the latter, whether it was with, or without malice. If the attack was upon the party of soldiers in general, and in the manner I have just mentioned, as some of the witnesses say it was, it is equally an assault upon all, whether all were in fact struck, or not, and makes no material difference, as to their respective right of firing: for a man is not obliged to wait until he is killed, or struck, before he makes use of the necessary means of self defence.
If the blows with clubs were, by an enraged multitude, aimed at the party in general, each one might reasonably think his own life in danger; for though he escaped the first blow, he might reasonably expect more would follow, and could have no assurance, that he should be so fortunate as to escape all of them. And therefore, I do not see but that Killroy is upon the same footing with Montgomery; and your verdict must be the same as to both, unless what Hemmingway swears Killroy said, or the affray at the Rope-walk, or both, materially vary the case.
If the witness is not mistaken as to the words, the speech was at least, very imprudent and foolish. However, if Killroy, either in jest or in earnest, uttered those words, yet if the assault upon him was such, as would justify his firing and killing, or alleviate it so as to make it but manslaughter, that will not inhance the killing to murder. In the tumult of passion the voice of reason is not heard, and it is owing to the allowance the law makes for human frailty, that all unlawful voluntary homicide is not deemed murder.
Upon the same principle, where the assault is such, as makes the killing manslaughter, the killing ought to be attributed to the assault, unless the evidence clearly shows the contrary. This meeting of Killroy and Gray was casual upon the part of Killroy at least; he was lawfully ordered to the place where he was and had no right to quit his station without the leave of Capt.
Preston; nor were any of the party obliged to retreat and give way to the rioters, but might lawfully stand, and repel force by force. It is needless for me to say what you ought to do with regard to the other six prisoners, in case they had gone to the Custom-house, not to protect the Sentry, but to disturb the peace, or after they got there and before the firing had agreed so to do; or in case they had actually unlawfully abetted the killing: because none of these things have been testified, nor can any of them be deduced from any thing which has been given to you in evidence.
Having already said much more upon this occasion, than I should have thought necessary in a like case, at any other time, I shall add no more. Justice Oliver. Gentlemen of the Jury, This is the most solemn trial I ever sat in judgment upon. It is of great importance to the community in general, and of the last importance to the prisoners at the bar. I have noticed your patience and attention during the course of the trial, which have been highly commendable and seem to have been adequate to the importance of the cause.
The occasion of this trial is the loss of five of our fellow-subjects, who were killed on the evening of the 5th of March last: whether the prisoners at the bar are chargeable with their death or not, it is nevertheless our part to adore the divine conduct in this unhappy catastrophe, and to justify the ways of GOD to man. Here are eight prisoners at the bar who are charged with the murder of those five persons, and whose lives or deaths depend upon your verdict.
They are soldiers, but you are to remember that they are fellow-subjects also. There have been attempts to prejudice the minds of the good people of this province against the prisoners at the bar, and I cannot help taking notice of one in particular, which included also an insult on this Court published in one of the Weekly Papers the day before this trial was to have come on.
If you, Gentlemen, have seen or read any of the libels which have been published, and have imbibed prejudices of any sort, I do now charge you, in that sacred Name which you have in the most solemn manner invoked for the faithful discharge of your present trust, to divest your minds of every thing that may tend to bias them in this cause: It is your duty to fix your eyes solely on the scales of justice and as the law and evidence in either scale may preponderate, so you are to determine by your verdict.
Gentlemen, the prisoners at the bar are indicted, with others, for the murder of five different persons; viz. Observe, that the five prisoners I have now named, are severally charged as principals in the different supposed murders, and the others as aiding and abetting, which in the sense of the law makes the latter principals in the second degree. I should have given to you the definitions of the different species of homicide, but as my brother hath spoke so largely upon this subject, and hath produced so many and so indisputable authorities relative thereto, I would not exhaust your patience which hath so remarkably held out during this long trial.
But I would add one authority to the numbers which have been produced, not that it immediately relates to this case, but I the rather do it, because I see a mixt audience, and many from the country whom it more directly concerns: it is cited from the celebrated Ld. Whosoever sheddeth Mans blood, by Man shall his blood be shed, hath lately been urged in the most public manner very indiscriminately, without any of the softenings of humanity.
Moses in his code of laws, mentions the same, though in different words, viz. He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death: but be pleased to remember Gentlemen, that Moses was the best Commentator on his own laws, and he hath published certain restrictions of this law, as, If one thrust another of hatred that he die, the slayer shall surely be put to death; but if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or cast a stone upon him, not seeing him, so that he die, in those cases there were cities of refuge appointed for the manslayer to flee to, that his life might be safe: so that to construe that law to Noah strictly, is only to gratify a blood thirsty revenge, without any of those allowances for human frailties which the law of nature and the English law also make.
I would recommend to you, Gentlemen, in order to your forming a just verdict in this cause, to satisfy yourselves in the first place, whether or not the prisoners at the bar were an unlawful assembly when they were at the Custom-house, for on that much depends their guilt or innocence. That they were nigh the Custom-house when the five persons mentioned in the indictments were killed, you can have no doubt, for it is conceded.
Inquire then how they came there. Now, two officers viz. Mason and Capt. Consider next, whether those who were collected around the prisoners at the bar, were a lawful or unlawful assembly; and in order to satisfy yourselves, weigh the evidence that hath been offered impartially.
But I cannot help taking notice in this place, that some delicacy hath been used at the bar, in calling those people a mob. Mob is only a contraction of a Latin word which signifies a tumultuous croud gathered, but I shall use the legal phrase and call such a croud a riotous assembly, if the sound is more agreeable than mob. As my brother Trowbridge has been very full in his remarks upon the evidence, and as you Mr. Foreman have wrote down from the witnesses mouths what they testified, which is somewhat uncommon, and for which you are to be applauded, I shall therefore only make a few remarks on those I think the most material testimonies, not beginning in the order of examination, but in the order of time.
At Olivers-dock he says, he saw numbers with clubs: one man was loading his piece, and said he would do for some of them scoundrels that night, and said, damn the villains, scoundrells, Soldiers and Commissioners, and damn the villain who first sent them here, they should not remain here above two days longer.
Allow me, Gentlemen, to make a pause at this last part of the evidence, viz. Damn the villain who first sent them here; and make an observation which I am sorry for the occasion of, the expression having been justified. I venture to affirm that man a villain who uttered it, for it was his Majesty who sent them here, and here they were fixed by his order and authority.
Jeffries hath been so distinct and particular, that you cannot but remember his testimony. As to the pains which have been taken to exculpate this town from being concerned in the fatal action of that night, they seem to me to have been unnecessary.
It is true, there hath been, in times past, no place more remarkable for order and good government than this town; but as it is a seaport town and of great trade, it is not to be wondered at, that the inhabitants of it should be infected with disorder as well as other populous places. All this was before the soldiers had formed. It would be too tedious to recite the numbers of testimonies to prove a design to attack the soldiers: I have selected a few, which seem to prove the intent, for there are no less than thirty-eight witnesses to this fact, six of whom the council for the King have produced.
Compare them Gentlemen, and then determine whether or not there is any room to doubt of the numbers collected around the soldiers at the Custom house, being a riotous assembly. I will return now to the soldiers and view their behaviour whilst they were going upon duty at the Custom house, and whilst they were there. As they were going from the Main guard to their post, to support the Sentry, who by the way behaved with a good temper of mind, in endeavouring to avoid a dispute, by attempting to get into the Custom house, which he was by no means obliged to do, I say, as they were going down, Nathaniel Fosdick says, they bid him make way, but he refused: instead of forcing him to give way, he says, they gave way to him, and passed to their post; when they got there, they loaded; and John Gridley says, that, whilst they were loading, he passed between the files and they put up their guns to let him pass.
I cannot find, upon examining the testimonies, that any one soldier stir[r]ed from his post, and indeed it might have been fatal to him to have broke his orders; but on the contrary, it hath been said, that had they stepped forward, they might have killed the people, but they only pushed their bayonets as they stood, to keep off the people who were pressing on them; at the same time, bidding them keep off.
Now consider whether the prisoners had any just provocation to fire upon the inhabitants, for that some of them did fire, you can be in no doubt. There are nigh thirty witnesses who have sworn to words of provocation uttered against the prisoners, as daring them to fire, and threatning to kill them; but you must remember that words only, are no provocation in law to justify the killing of a person; but if threatning expressions are attended with an attempt on the life of a man, in such a case a killing may be justified; and if any such facts appear in this trial, you must consider them thoroughly.
And here, I would take notice of the testimonies of some of the witnesses, viz. I know not how to account for such testimonies, unless by the witnesses being affrighted, which some of them say they were not: they themselves perhaps may satisfy their own minds. Jeffries relates an account which he had from Patrick Carr, one of the deceased, who on his death bed repeatedly told him and confirmed it but a few hours before he died, that he went with a design against the soldiers, that the soldiers were pelted as they were going to their post, that he thought they were abused and that they would really have fired before, for he heard many voices cry out, kill them, and that he thought they fired to defend themselves: that he forgave, and did not blame the man, whoever he was, that shot him; that he blamed himself for going to the riot, and might have known better, for he had seen soldiers called to quell riots, hut never saw any bear half so much before.
This Carr was not upon oath, it is true, but you will determine, whether a man, just stepping into eternity, is not to be believed; especially in favour of a set of men by whom he had lost his life. Ye have one difficulty to solve, Gentlemen, and that is, that there were five persons killed, and here are eight soldiers charged with murdering them.
Now one witness says, that the Corporal did not fire, and Thomas Wilkinson says, that the guns of the third or fourth man from the eighth flashed, so that there are two guns of eight not discharged and yet it is said seven were fired. This evinces the uncertainty of some of the testimonies. My brother Trowbridge hath explained the difficulty of charging any one prisoner with killing any one particular person, and hath adduced an authority from Lord Chief Justice Hale, to support him; so that this maxim of law cannot be more justly applied, than in this case, viz.
That it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than one innocent person suffer: indeed as to two of the prisoners, there is no great doubt of their firing, namely, Montgomery and Killroy. As to Montgomery, it seems to be agreed that he was on the right, and Richard Palmes says, that a piece of ice or a stick struck his gun before he fired: and Andrew, Mr.
As to Killroy, there have been stronger attempts to prove him guilty of murder than any other. Two witnesses have sworn, that his bayonet was bloody next morning; but nothing hath been offered in evidence to prove how it came so; I have only one way to account for it; if it was bloody, viz. Nicholas Ferreter, who the week before beat one of the soldiers at the Rope-walks, says further, that Killroy was then at the Rope-walks; but at the same time he says, that Killroy uttered no threatnings but only daring the Rope-makers to come out.
But Samuel Hemmingway says, that some time before the 5th March he heard Killroy say, that he would not miss an opportunity of firing on the inhabitants. How the conversation was had, whether it was maliciously spoke or was jocose talk doth not so fully appear, but it would be extream hard to connect such discourse with this transaction; especially, as his being at the Custom House was not voluntary, but by order of his officer.
Thus Gentlemen, I have as concisely as I could, without doing injustice to the cause, summed up the evidence to you: I was afraid of being tedious, otherwise I should have more minutely considered it. If upon the whole, by comparing the evidence, ye should find that the prisoners were a lawful assembly at the Custom house, which ye can be in no doubt of if you believe the witnesses, and also that they behaved properly in their own department whilst there, and did not fire till there was a necessity to do it in their own defence, which I think there is a violent presumption of: and if, on the other hand, ye should find that the people who were collected around the soldiers, were an unlawful assembly, and had a design to endanger, if not to take away their lives, as seems to be evident, from blows succeeding threatnings; ye must, in such case acquit the prisoners; or if upon the whole, ye are in any reasonable doubt of their guilt, ye must then, agreeable to the rule of law, declare them innocent.
As I said at first, this cause is of the last importance to the prisoners, their lives or deaths depend upon your verdict; and may you be conducted by the Supreme Wisdom to return such an one, as that your hearts may not reproach you so long as you live, and as shall acquit you at that tribunal, where the inmost recesses of the human mind shall be fully disclosed.
There are two pages numbered , and none numbered Wallis, 1] Salk. A collection and translation into English of all the early English reporters. James Baley Saw White.
The defendant previously was convicted at trial in connection with a separate indictment.
| Jonathan foreman aiding and abetting a crime | Ethereum ubuntu 15 |
| What does plus 5 mean in betting | 194 |
| Free forex indicators website | Given that policemen everywhere in South Asia tend to be little more than uniformed, licensed bandits, this should not have come as such a surprise to Western trainers and planners. Other circumstantial evidence for aid as a corrosive force includes the fact that the countries that have received the most non-military foreign aid in the last six decades have a disproportionate tendency to collapse into anarchy: Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, the countries that this web page received the most aid per capita include Somalia, pre-earthquake Haiti, Liberia, Nepal, Zaire and the Jonathan foreman aiding and abetting a crime territories. In general, those who market development or humanitarian assistance to the public are still unwilling to admit that delivering effective aid is difficult in the best of circumstances, and even harder in the ill-governed, chaotic, impoverished societies where it seems most needed. Afghan refugees rush for blankets during a relief distribution in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, Feb. For the law pays such regard to human frailty, as not to put an hasty act, and a deliberate one, upon the same footing with regard to guilt. They have no memory of life under the Taliban and have opportunities for literacy and education that much of the adult population were once denied. Whatever Republican and Democratic candidates say now, it seems unlikely that questions of cutting or boosting or reforming foreign aid will play a major role in the election. |
| Uva basketball line | 763 |
NBA BETTING WEBSITES
In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that previous appeal judgements have not conducted extensive analyses of specific direction. The lack of such discussion may be explained by the fact that prior convictions for aiding and abetting entered or affirmed by the Appeals Chamber involved relevant acts geographically or otherwise proximate to, and thus not remote from, the crimes of principal perpetrators.
For example, an individual accused of aiding and abetting may have been physically present during the preparation or commission of crimes committed by principal perpetrators and made a concurrent substantial contribution. Where an accused aider and abettor is remote from relevant crimes, evidence proving other elements of aiding and abetting may not be sufficient to prove specific direction.
In such circumstances, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, holds that explicit consideration of specific direction is required. The factors indicating that acts of an accused aider and abettor are remote from the crimes of principal perpetrators will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. Such factors may include, but are not limited to, geographic distance. See also paras 42, The Appeals Chamber also discussed types of evidence that may prove specific direction.
The Appeals Chamber notes that previous judgements have not provided extensive analysis of what evidence may prove specific direction. Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber observes that in most cases, the provision of general assistance which could be used for both lawful and unlawful activities will not be sufficient, alone, to prove that this aid was specifically directed to crimes of principal perpetrators.
If an ostensibly independent military group is proved to be under the control of officers in another military group, the latter can still be held responsible for crimes committed by their puppet forces. However, as explained above, a sufficient link between the acts of an individual accused of aiding and abetting a crime and the crime he or she is charged with assisting must be established for the accused individual to incur criminal liability. You provided some type of assistance or encouragement to help the principal commit the crime.
Most of the time, those who are accused of aiding and abetting are considered to be just as criminally liable as the principal who committed the crime. However, it is very likely that the principal will receive a much harsher sentence than someone who is accused of aiding and abetting.
An accessory is someone who is aware that the principal has committed a crime and helps him in some way, such as hiding evidence that could be used to convict him or helping him escape capture. If you dispose of the weapon that he used to commit the crime so law enforcement officers cannot find it and use it as evidence against him, you are now considered an accessory to the crime.
However, helping a friend without knowledge that he committed the crime does not make you an accessory. Accessories will face criminal charges for their role in the crime, but most of the time, the charges and penalties are less severe for an accessory than they are for the principal. Innocent people are often accused of aiding, abetting, or acting as an accessory to a crime. If you are facing these accusations, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Reisch Law Firm.
Schedule a free consultation by calling or filling out this online form.
Jonathan foreman aiding and abetting a crime potter pay per better place download free
Crw2601 Definitional Elements of a Crime pg 46 to 54ALGO EXCHANGE CRYPTO
Worried, Della follows him down, to see a huge amount of cash in the bags, as Rob worked frantically to stuff it all into a hole in the wall behind the heating unit. When they tell her they have evidence that Rob committed a bank robbery recently, she acts shocked, and denies knowing anything about it.
The truth is, she has suspected as much the day he brought the cash home, but has been reluctant to say something. Throughout the investigation, in this example of aiding and abetting, Della denies any involvement with, or even knowledge of the crime. History of Aiding and Abetting as a Crime In the United States, the first law dealing with the issue of holding someone responsible for assisting someone in the commission of a crime was passed in The law made it a crime to aid, counsel, advise, or command someone in the commission of a murder , or of robbery on land or sea, or of piracy at sea.
In , the law was expanded to include the commission of any felony. In , the law was done away with, and replaced with a more modern statute, now found in 18 U. Section The changes primarily include modernization of language and grammatical style. Section became 18 U. Section 2 a. This updated law makes it clear that someone who aids and abets the commission of a crime will be punished as though he or she did commit the crime. In a federal case, those elements include: The accused specifically intended to aid in the commission of the crime, for the purpose of making the endeavor successful; The accused took positive action to aid, or participated in some element of, the commission of the crime, though the level of participation may be relatively small; Someone other than the accused actually committed the underlying crime.
To gain a conviction, a jury must be convinced that the elements of aiding and abetting are present, beyond a reasonable doubt. In truth, once the prosecution establishes that the defendant knew about the crime, or the unlawful purpose of some element, it has made sufficient connection for the jury to convict. Differences Between Aiding and Abetting, and Accessory Both aiding and abetting, and acting as an accessory to a crime, are illegal acts.
Specific laws regarding these actions vary by jurisdiction , and the definitions overlap in some ways, leading to their interchangeable use. There are differences between aiding and abetting, and accessory, however. Aiding — the giving of assistance or support to someone else in their commission of a crime. Abetting — the encouragement, or motivating someone to commit a crime.
This may include rabble-rousing, goading, and instigating someone, or a crowd, to commit an illegal act. Accessory — a person who actually assists in the commission of a crime committed primarily by someone else.
In most jurisdictions, the law distinguishes between an accessory after the fact, and an accessory before the fact, lending additional prosecutorial power. To be convicted of this type of crime, however, the prosecution must prove that the accomplice knew that a crime was being, or had been, committed by the principal. What is Conspiracy The primary difference between aiding and abetting or being an accessory to a crime and a conspiracy is whether or not the crime was actually committed.
While the former are charges imposed after the crime has been committed — naming a third party who helped in some way to facilitate or cover up the crime — someone can be charged with conspiracy, even if the crime never happened. This is not to say that anyone who daydreams up a crime can be charged with conspiracy. If, however, two or more people collaborate on how to commit a specific crime, coming up with plans to carry it out, they have conspired to commit that crime.
Should something happen to prevent them from engaging that plan, they still have committed the crime of conspiracy. For example: Armand, an executive assistant at a finance firm, knows that his boss keeps certain passwords and login information in a notebook in his desk drawer. He befriends Letti, who he knows has no problem doing things that are morally questionable.
Another employee overhears Armand and Letti talking over lunch on the patio, and mentions it to management, who calls the police. The prosecutor must present proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. The crime was committed by another person. The person charged with aiding and abetting assisted in the commission of the crime. The person charged with aiding and abetting knew of the intention or plans to commit the crime. The crime of aiding and abetting may be brought against persons who knowingly aids, counsels, induces or procures the commission of a crime.
The actions of the person accused of aiding and abetting must be accompanied with the intent to facilitate the crime. What possible defenses can I raise if I am prosecuted for aiding and abetting? You can prove that you had no knowledge of the plans to commit a crime.
You may also prove that as soon as you realized that you may be involved in a criminal act, you stopped your support and encouragement of the commission of the crime. You can prove that you warned the persons who committed the crime or that you repudiated the crime.
You can prove that you notified law enforcement of the crime about to be committed or being committed. Can I raise the defense of alibi? The defense of alibi is an assertion that you could not have aided or abetted in the commission of the crime because at the time and place the crime was committed you were elsewhere and it was impossible for you to have been at the time and place where the crime was committed.
Just because you are not present when the crime was committed does not mean that you did not assist or facilitate the commission of the crime. The acts that aided and abetted the commission of a criminal offense may have been committed prior to the commission of the crime itself.
3 comments
Voodoojar
3 way handicap betting soccer software
Tojamuro
liberforex hyip script
Tagrel
las vegas betting odds ufc 148 torrent