"He lived great, and he died great"

[USU78]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

However, Joseph wasn’t innocent either.  He shouldn’t have wanted the destruction of the printing press.

Abatement of printing press upon a finding of public nuisance by elected municipal legislative body justifies murder by mob of mayor and mayor's brother, since mayor shouldn't want things you disapprove of.

 

Gotcha.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Abatement of printing press upon a finding of public nuisance by elected municipal legislative body justifies murder by mob of mayor and mayor's brother, since mayor shouldn't want things you disapprove of.

 

Gotcha.

Please don’t completely misrepresent what I said.  I said Joseph wasn’t innocent, but nothing justifies the mob murdering him.  

He should not have ordered or wanted the destruction of the printing press.  He was arrested for something he shouldn’t have done and he wouldn’t have been in jail otherwise.  But he should not have been murdered.  Nothing makes that right.

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Please don’t completely misrepresent what I said.  I said Joseph wasn’t innocent but nothing justifies the mob murdering him.  

Temporizing murder because he had it coming is, in short, despicable.

And you are plainly temporizing.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Temporizing murder because he had it coming is, in short, despicable.

And you are plainly temporizing.

Not at all.  Just relating the truth.  Read my edit.

Do you believe he was innocent of being involved in the destruction of the printing press?

You’re in denial if you misrepresent this as Joseph being 100% innocent, IMO.  You can try to justify it, but he should not have been surprised that he was arrested and ended up in jail.  What took place there afterwards though, there is no justification for that.

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I believe Joseph had every right to defend himself and fight back.  There is absolutely no way anyone can rightfully claim that the mob was in the right.

However, Joseph wasn’t innocent either.  He shouldn’t have wanted the destruction of the printing press.  The Expositor contained no lies (from what I’ve read, no one can quote anything that wasn’t the truth).  Joseph quite simply was afraid of being exposed.  Maybe he should have just owned up to the truth about his polygamy and then he would have lived.  Who knows?  Either way, he most definitely should not have been murdered as he was.

You are correct he did destroy the press, and there is some grey area as to the legality of that. However, here in America, mob killings are not an appropriate punishment. They killed him for his beliefs, when those beliefs did not match their own.  

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You are correct he did destroy the press, and there is some grey area as to the legality of that. However, here in America, mob killings are not an appropriate punishment. They killed him for his beliefs, when those beliefs did not match their own.  

Where have I stated that his murder was right or justified?  It definitely was not.  I’m just saying that Joseph was not completely innocent and was in jail for something he should not have done (IMO).  They were within legal rights to arrest him and put him in jail.

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not at all.  Just relating the truth.  Read my edit.

Do you believe he was innocent of being involved in the destruction of the printing press?

You’re in denial if you misrepresent this as Joseph being 100% innocent, IMO.  You can try to justify it, but he should not have been surprised that he was arrested and ended up in jail.  What took place there afterwards though, there is no justification for that.

There.

Was.

No.

Crime.

No probable cause to believe a crime was committed.

No probable cause to support an arrest.

No justification under any legal fiction anybody could come up with.

This was judicial murder.

JSJr's actions and motivations are irrelevant.

And you're temporizing yet.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There.

Was.

No.

Crime.

Sure there was.  A printing press and business was vandalized and destroyed and burned., that’s a crime.

There wasn’t a chance for those accused of the crime to be convicted, but we have records that tell us who was involved.

Joseph should not have been murdered.  But there was a crime committed.

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where have I stated that his murder was right or justified?  It definitely was not.  I’m just saying that Joseph was not completely innocent and was in jail for something he should not have done (IMO).  They were within legal rights to arrest him and put him in jail.

I was not suggesting that you did, I was agreeing with your point. The rest of what I said, is like with many posts to answer the question that you own post might solicit. Sorry if any misunderstanding. 

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sure there was.  A printing press and business was vandalized and destroyed and burned., that’s a crime.

There wasn’t a chance for those accused of the crime to be convicted, but we have records that tell us who was involved.

Joseph should not have been murdered.  But there was a crime committed.

Official action cannot be vandalism. Where did you get such a ridiculous notion?

You can and should address the issue you're dancing around: whether the nuisance finding was legally supportable. But that's a civil, not a criminal matter.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I was not suggesting that you did, I was agreeing with your point. The rest of what I said, is like with many posts to answer the question that you own post might solicit. Sorry if any misunderstanding. 

No problem.

 I’m just trying to state the truth and be honest here.  I believe the murders of Joseph and Hyrum were completely unjustified and were murder.  There’s nothing they did that will make that right or ok.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Official action cannot be vandalism. Where did you get such a ridiculous notion?

You can and should address the issue you're dancing around: whether the nuisance finding was legally supportable. But that's a civil, not a criminal matter.

There was enough suspicion of a crime to lead to them being arrested and held.  

You cannot possibly think that what took place with the illegal breaking into a business, ransacking and vandalizing and burning was not a crime.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

There was enough suspicion of a crime to lead to them being arrested and held.  

You cannot possibly think that what took place with the illegal breaking into a business, ransacking and vandalizing and burning was not a crime.

CFR. Cite the CRIMINAL statute(s) allegedly violated.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

There was enough suspicion of a crime to lead to them being arrested and held.  

You cannot possibly think that what took place with the illegal breaking into a business, ransacking and vandalizing and burning was not a crime.

Quote

The destruction of the Expositor issue (i.e., the paper itself) was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_the_destruction_of_the_''Nauvoo_Expositor''_legal%3F

Since it was done under the direction of the Nauvoo City Council, it would not have been an illegal breaking in any more than it is illegal for police to enter a locked home these days with a warrant.  The local government (City Council) had the right to declare something a nuisance and order certain actions to be taken (entering the business and the destruction of the newspaper copies, but not the actual property that created it which was the type and the press itself).

Quote

A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.[25] Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. As a result, Oaks concludes that while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or "abate," the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.[26]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

Just now, USU78 said:

CFR. Cite the CRIMINAL statute(s) allegedly violated.

You really believe that breaking into someone’s business and ransacking and destroying property wasn’t against the law.  I’ve read they threw equipment into the street and butnied it!

Come on, USU, you know that was a crime. 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_the_destruction_of_the_''Nauvoo_Expositor''_legal%3F

Since it was done under the direction of the Nauvoo City Council, it would not have been an illegal breaking in any more than it is illegal for police to enter a locked home these days with a warrant.

Ok.  Thanks.  I have to say that this doesn’t make it right though.

Then why was he arrested and what was he charged with?

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You really believe that breaking into someone’s business and ransacking and destroying property wasn’t against the law.  I’ve read they threw equipment into the street and butnied it!

Come on, USU, you know that was a crime. 

Answer the CFR. Or be proven disingenuous, deceitful or, at best, ignorant.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  Thanks.  I have to say that this doesn’t make it right though.

Then why was he arrested and what was he charged with?

Going off of wiki, which iirc since I last studied it had this detail right...he was first charged with inciting a riot and then when that was dismissed, was rearrested and charged with treason for declaring martial law.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

I like this quote preceding Joseph's famous rough stone rolling 2peter1 discourse, “I do not think there have been many good men on the earth since the days of Adam; but there was one good man and his name was Jesus. Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else."

"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.”

Joseph Smith jr. 21 may 1843 History of the Church (5:401)

Part of Joseph’s greatness was his humility. And no one here has said he is the Savior’s equal. 

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You really believe that breaking into someone’s business and ransacking and destroying property wasn’t against the law.  I’ve read they threw equipment into the street and butnied it!

Come on, USU, you know that was a crime. 

No, you're definitely right Julie.  I can't believe there is anyone who defends the destruction of this printing press.  It was a crime and wrong for anyone to be a part of.  

I also agree with you though, that nothing will ever justify the killing of Joseph and Hyrum.  That was horrible and a tragedy.

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, you're definitely right Julie.  I can't believe there is anyone who defends the destruction of this printing press.  It was a crime and wrong for anyone to be a part of.  

CFR.

Cite the criminal statute(s) allegedly violated by JSJr and Hyrum.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Going off of wiki, which iirc since I last studied it had this detail right...he was first charged with inciting a riot and then when that was dismissed, was rearrested and charged with treason for declaring martial law.

Thank you, Calm.  I’ll read more about this.  I’m always searching and learning.  I know that today this would be a crime (destruction of this printing press). 

So do you believe the charge was valid enough to hold them in jail (what you describe above)?

[JulieM]

Here’s this that is interesting (then I’m off of here until tomorrow):

“A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. As a result, Oaks concludes that while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or  ‘abate,’ the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[blueglass]

56 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  Thanks.  I have to say that this doesn’t make it right though.

Then why was he arrested and what was he charged with?

Grand jury indicted Joseph on charges of adultery and fornication, and the 2nd for lying about it.  Nauvoo stake president William Marks served on the grand jury which issued the warrant for arrest.

People vs. Joseph Smith, May 23, 1844, Circuit Court Record, Hancock 
County, Book D.
Joseph Smith Indictment and Arrest Warrant, MS 3464, Church History Library

https://rationalfaiths.com/joseph-smiths-indictment-for-adultery-and-fornication/

Sexual Slander and Polygamy in Nauvoo

by John S. Dinger

Journal of Mormon History, 2018, Volume 44, Issue 3

Edited July 1, 2018 by blueglass

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here’s this that is interesting (then I’m off of here until tomorrow):

“A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. As a result, Oaks concludes that while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or  ‘abate,’ the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

Thank you.