Thread: Duane 'Dog' Chapman Says Feds Sold Him Out to Mexico in Exch

I would think the dog's own people would know he was charged with kidnapping. It never appears to say anything about a kidnapping charge . Furthermore, dog never went to trial so how could they have failed to convict him? It looks like he posted bail and never returned to answer.Read the link yourself (closely).

They failed in that they attempted to get him on kidnapping and it didn't stick.

http://starbulletin.com/2003/07/12/news/story8.html

As you suggested, read closely.

At any rate, my point was you should research a topic before making comments about the people on this board such as:

You all seem to want the laws followed and it appears that you don't want Chapman to be charged and extradited. Ironic?

So bounty hunting is a form of kidnapping, I understand now. Nontheless, he was never charged. Again, that is why initially I stated, "if in fact." Furthermore, the article in the Star Bulletin is an interview of the dog, so I don't know how credible it would be as many who are charged with crimes tend to have a conflict of interest in speaking the truth. I do know however that the greatest legal system in the world was willing to sign an arrest warrant, so at this point the legal system wins over the dog. If you would have had me read the Star Bulletin, I would have read closely enough to realize that kidnapping and bounty hunting in the legal sense are the same in Mexico.
The point on my initial post remains that dog should answer the charges and I don't know why you wouldn't want him to if in fact we are all about following the law. Evidently our legal system was convinced of this and therefore facilitated this process. Am I missing anything?

Nontheless, he was never charged.

Evidently you have not read or heard anything by any source on this matter since it's the main contention for the current situation.

.... I don't know how credible it would be as many who are charged with crimes tend to have a conflict of interest in speaking the truth

Are you saying a corrupt government is more credible?

...so at this point the legal system wins over the dog.

If that were true, they'd not be out on bail despite the attempt by the government (Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Johnson) to withhold the constitutional right to bail.

If you would have had me read the Star Bulletin, I would have read closely enough to realize that kidnapping and bounty hunting in the legal sense are the same in Mexico.

Had you read closely, you would have realized that Beth mentions that paying a fine in lieu of jail is an option in Mexico which is the route they sought. Interesting point to look up, don't you think?

The point on my initial post remains that dog should answer the charges and I don't know why you wouldn't want him to if in fact we are all about following the law. Evidently our legal system was convinced of this and therefore facilitated this process. Am I missing anything?

Yes, you are missing something ... alot of something. First of all, not one person here has said nor implied that the Chapmans should be held above the laws. What you do see here, is people who believe in their innocence and pointing out things that don't add up with this situation.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Nontheless, he was never charged.

Evidently you have not read or heard anything by any source on this matter since it's the main contention for the current situation.


[quote:1d7dw5jz].... I don't know how credible it would be as many who are charged with crimes tend to have a conflict of interest in speaking the truth

Are you saying a corrupt government is more credible?

...so at this point the legal system wins over the dog.

If that were true, they'd not be out on bail despite the attempt by the government (Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Johnson) to withhold the constitutional right to bail.

If you would have had me read the Star Bulletin, I would have read closely enough to realize that kidnapping and bounty hunting in the legal sense are the same in Mexico.

Had you read closely, you would have realized that Beth mentions that paying a fine in lieu of jail is an option in Mexico which is the route they sought. Interesting point to look up, don't you think?

The point on my initial post remains that dog should answer the charges and I don't know why you wouldn't want him to if in fact we are all about following the law. Evidently our legal system was convinced of this and therefore facilitated this process. Am I missing anything?

Yes, you are missing something ... alot of something. First of all, not one person here has said nor implied that the Chapmans should be held above the laws. What you do see here, is people who believe in their innocence and pointing out things that don't add up with this situation.[/quote:1d7dw5jz]

Evidently, I was thrown off by your legal term "bust", "charged", and "failed to convict". If a court fails to convict it is because at trial you were not convicted or you should use unambiguous terms such as "charges were not filed", or "charges were dropped." (You can pick that up in Criminal Procedure, 1st year of law school)

No, I am saying our government facilitated the process and it would be reasonable to infer that the U.S. government felt the evidence before them was convincing.

You are right if you are out on bail, you are free. That's why even some defendants charged with murder are given bail. Ask dog if he's in the clear; and I said "at this point", indicating this may change.

Well if Beth said it, it must be true. Everything is not "fine", as evidenced by the fact that dog would not be in this situation. Our government also felt not everything was "fine" and approved of his arrest.

Nothing ever adds up if you only look at the defendant's side. I saw that our own government approved of his arrest and thus indicates that they felt there was sufficient probable cause to arrest the dog. If he was arrested he should be extradited and answer to the charges as should anyone.

Evidently, I was thrown off by your legal term "bust", "charged", and "failed to convict". If a court fails to convict it is because at trial you were not convicted or you should use unambiguous terms such as "charges were not filed", or "charges were dropped." (You can pick that up in Criminal Procedure, 1st year of law school)

Didn't know "bust" was a legal term, thought it was slang. And I cannot take credit for terms as being "mine" when they aren't. If you wanna get into splitting hairs over terminology, it seems to indicate you have no other viable argument on that aspect.

Aside from that, what does terminology have to do with your claim they were never charged when the fact is they were.

No, I am saying our government facilitated the process and it would be reasonable to infer that the U.S. government felt the evidence before them was convincing.

Then you think it's unreasonable to conclude the Chapmans are innocent just because the government couldn't possibly be in the wrong on this? You think it's also unreasonable to question the motives of a corrupt government?

You are right if you are out on bail, you are free. That's why even some defendants charged with murder are given bail. Ask dog if he's in the clear; and I said "at this point", indicating this may change.

The point was that your statement came at a date (today) when things had already changed, thereby your statement was outdated. I never implied the Chapmans were in the clear, where do you get that idea? Oh because people think they are innocent? Doesn't mean they are clear until the courts say so.

Well if Beth said it, it must be true. Everything is not "fine", as evidenced by the fact that dog would not be in this situation. Our government also felt not everything was "fine" and approved of his arrest.

I never said Beth was correct. I clearly stated that I thought it was an interesting point she made and thought it would be something worth looking into.

Nothing ever adds up if you only look at the defendant's side. I saw that our own government approved of his arrest and thus indicates that they felt there was sufficient probable cause to arrest the dog. If he was arrested he should be extradited and answer to the charges as should anyone.

You come across as saying they are guilty until proven innocent. And /or maybe you think the legal system (and the government) are perfect. The rest of us know better.

Having said that, I am now removing myself from this as I do not wish to further respond to someone who is arguing just for the sake of arguing, particularly when they choose not to do some basic research on the topic.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Evidently, I was thrown off by your legal term "bust", "charged", and "failed to convict". If a court fails to convict it is because at trial you were not convicted or you should use unambiguous terms such as "charges were not filed", or "charges were dropped." (You can pick that up in Criminal Procedure, 1st year of law school)

Didn't know "bust" was a legal term, thought it was slang. And I cannot take credit for terms as being "mine" when they aren't. If you wanna get into splitting hairs over terminology, it seems to indicate you have no other viable argument on that aspect.

Aside from that, what does terminology have to do with your claim they were never charged when the fact is they were.

[quote:3lnxe3zx]No, I am saying our government facilitated the process and it would be reasonable to infer that the U.S. government felt the evidence before them was convincing.

Then you think it's unreasonable to conclude the Chapmans are innocent just because the government couldn't possibly be in the wrong on this? You think it's also unreasonable to question the motives of a corrupt government?

You are right if you are out on bail, you are free. That's why even some defendants charged with murder are given bail. Ask dog if he's in the clear; and I said "at this point", indicating this may change.

The point was that your statement came at a date (today) when things had already changed, thereby your statement was outdated. I never implied the Chapmans were in the clear, where do you get that idea? Oh because people think they are innocent? Doesn't mean they are clear until the courts say so.

Well if Beth said it, it must be true. Everything is not "fine", as evidenced by the fact that dog would not be in this situation. Our government also felt not everything was "fine" and approved of his arrest.

I never said Beth was correct. I clearly stated that I thought it was an interesting point she made and thought it would be something worth looking into.

Nothing ever adds up if you only look at the defendant's side. I saw that our own government approved of his arrest and thus indicates that they felt there was sufficient probable cause to arrest the dog. If he was arrested he should be extradited and answer to the charges as should anyone.

You come across as saying they are guilty until proven innocent. And /or maybe you think the legal system (and the government) are perfect. The rest of us know better.

Having said that, I am now removing myself from this as I do not wish to further respond to someone who is arguing just for the sake of arguing, particularly when they choose not to do some basic research on the topic.[/quote:3lnxe3zx][/quote]
My initial thoughts remain the same. If he is or was charged with a crime in Mexico he needs to answer to those charges and be extradited. Dog claims he thought everything was ok however ignorance of the law is never a defence. I feel that people oppose this only because it is Mexico and Mexico is a corrupt government; however how can we expect Mexico to extradite their citizens if we as a world power do not set the example. I am sure many in other countries feel we are also corrupt and yet we feel it is unfair if they don't extradite? If illegal immigrants are not above the law, neither is the dog. You should split hairs over certain legal terms as they often make all the difference in the world in the outcome of a case.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Evidently, I was thrown off by your legal term "bust", "charged", and "failed to convict". If a court fails to convict it is because at trial you were not convicted or you should use unambiguous terms such as "charges were not filed", or "charges were dropped." (You can pick that up in Criminal Procedure, 1st year of law school)

Didn't know "bust" was a legal term, thought it was slang. And I cannot take credit for terms as being "mine" when they aren't. If you wanna get into splitting hairs over terminology, it seems to indicate you have no other viable argument on that aspect.

Aside from that, what does terminology have to do with your claim they were never charged when the fact is they were.

[quote:mmq5vr54]No, I am saying our government facilitated the process and it would be reasonable to infer that the U.S. government felt the evidence before them was convincing.

Then you think it's unreasonable to conclude the Chapmans are innocent just because the government couldn't possibly be in the wrong on this? You think it's also unreasonable to question the motives of a corrupt government?

You are right if you are out on bail, you are free. That's why even some defendants charged with murder are given bail. Ask dog if he's in the clear; and I said "at this point", indicating this may change.

The point was that your statement came at a date (today) when things had already changed, thereby your statement was outdated. I never implied the Chapmans were in the clear, where do you get that idea? Oh because people think they are innocent? Doesn't mean they are clear until the courts say so.

Well if Beth said it, it must be true. Everything is not "fine", as evidenced by the fact that dog would not be in this situation. Our government also felt not everything was "fine" and approved of his arrest.

I never said Beth was correct. I clearly stated that I thought it was an interesting point she made and thought it would be something worth looking into.

Nothing ever adds up if you only look at the defendant's side. I saw that our own government approved of his arrest and thus indicates that they felt there was sufficient probable cause to arrest the dog. If he was arrested he should be extradited and answer to the charges as should anyone.

You come across as saying they are guilty until proven innocent. And /or maybe you think the legal system (and the government) are perfect. The rest of us know better.

Having said that, I am now removing myself from this as I do not wish to further respond to someone who is arguing just for the sake of arguing, particularly when they choose not to do some basic research on the topic.[/quote:mmq5vr54][/quote]
My initial thoughts remain the same. If he is or was charged with a crime in Mexico he needs to answer to those charges and be extradited. Dog claims he thought everything was ok however ignorance of the law is never a defence. I feel that people oppose this only because it is Mexico and Mexico is a corrupt government; however how can we expect Mexico to extradite their citizens if we as a world power do not set the example. I am sure many in other countries feel we are also corrupt and yet we feel it is unfair if they don't extradite? If illegal immigrants are not above the law, neither is the dog. You should split hairs over certain legal terms as they often make all the difference in the world in the outcome of a case. "Bust" is not a legal term that's why I stated "your legal term," indicating it was a product of your reasoning.

I have never been the one to say break any laws,yet in this respect, I would have to say to forget it. It has been over a year since this happened with the Dog why is it that just now they decide to want to proscecute him for his crime?I do not trust the Mexican government in any way, they are totally corrupt and could not gaurantee Dogs safety. This is a misdemeanor charge only, and Dog deserves a medal for nabbing a convicted serial rapist and bringing him back to face his justice.

Gabriel, I have one question for you, why is it you are not demanding that Mexico extradict all the citizens of their country who came over our borders illegally, raped our women and children, and murdered our citizens, then ran back over the border because they knew Mexico would not send them back here to stand trial for their crimes? Why Gabriel, are you so concerned with Dog being returned there for his terrible crime of nabbing a rapist ? This scum Dog and his sons nabbed was one of our citizens, not even a citizen of Mexico, why aren't you screaming to high heaven about the crimes commited against our citizens by Mexican citizens and their refusal to extradite them?

For all of you, “The Law’s the Law” folks out there who are hell bent on seeing Dog pay for “Breakin’ the law”, try some of these laws on for size- (And yes, they are all true and verifiable).

In the State of Alabama it is illegal to play dominoes on Sunday.

In the State of California it is illegal to set a mouse trap without a hunting license.

In the State of Georgia it is illegal to change the clothes on a store front mannequin unless the shades are down.

In the State of Iowa it is illegal to kiss for more than five minutes.

In the State of Michigan it is illegal for a woman to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission.

In the Country of Mexico it is illegal for an American citizen to arrest another American citizen wanted for extradition to the U.S. on 87 counts of rape and torture.

Are these ridiculous laws enforced by the American government? Yes, the last one.

But your saying,”It’s not the same…we’re talking about Deprivation of Liberty! That’s more serious than ‘setting a mouse trap without a license’ Okay…okay…my law abiding friends…

How about this…

In 1989 a Chinese student stood in illegal protest in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, China. He broke the law and was never seen or heard from again. FACT

Between 1893 and 1945, Mahatma Ghandi carried out illegal protests in South Africa and India. He broke the law and spent a great deal of time in prison. FACT

In 1955 Rosa parks refused an order to sit at the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She broke the law, was arrested and subsequently tried for “Civil Disobedience”.

All of these were 100% enforceable laws at one time, ladies and gentlemen. Tell me, how would you recommend these ‘Law Breakers” were dealt with?

Oh…here it comes…”Dog is no Ghandi…Dog is no Rosa Parks…he’s a mullet headed…etc.” No folks, he’s not Mahatma Ghandi, or Rosa Parks, he’s Duane Chapman. But what all of these people do have in common is a sense of civic responsibility and moral fortitude to do the RIGHT thing, even in the face of great personal consequence.

Did Dog know it was illegal to recover Luster from Mexico? Yes. He’s never denied that. But how many ridiculous, corrupt, and unjust laws must be broken before human dignity, justice, and basic common sense finally win out?

As long as we’re chanting, “The laws the law!”, I’m afraid human ignorance will continue to reign supreme.

Free Dog.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I have never been the one to say break any laws,yet in this respect, I would have to say to forget it. It has been over a year since this happened with the Dog why is it that just now they decide to want to proscecute him for his crime?I do not trust the Mexican government in any way, they are totally corrupt and could not gaurantee Dogs safety. This is a misdemeanor charge only, and Dog deserves a medal for nabbing a convicted serial rapist and bringing him back to face his justice.

Gabriel, I have one question for you, why is it you are not demanding that Mexico extradict all the citizens of their country who came over our borders illegally, raped our women and children, and murdered our citizens, then ran back over the border because they knew Mexico would not send them back here to stand trial for their crimes? Why Gabriel, are you so concerned with Dog being returned there for his terrible crime of nabbing a rapist ? This scum Dog and his sons nabbed was one of our citizens, not even a citizen of Mexico, why aren't you screaming to high heaven about the crimes commited against our citizens by Mexican citizens and their refusal to extradite them?

Mexico should extradict all fugitives to back to the United States. I however would be reluctant to agree that Mexico should extradict those who are facing the death penalty. Instead, if the victims' family or DA's office agrees to seek a maximum of a life sentence, I would agree that any fugitive should be extradicted under any circumstances.