The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Back a ways we had a thread on defense cases for vampires, this is a follow-up, using post in that thread for expansion.

Please note if you are presenting fictional accounts, or other accounts.

In fiction who defends vampires?

What fictional cases have you read against vampires?


For those who Identify as vampires, what legal issues, civil, and criminal can, or have come from your practices?

If you are drawing energy from someone, and they feel you left them drained mentally, could they seek civil litigation against the practicing vampire?

What if a once compliant donor turns to criminal accusations?

First of all, there's no way to prove in court that a psychic feeding was performed, and the case would be thrown out of any decent courtroom.

If a donor turns to legal action, what, pray tell, would (or could) be their accusation? "I willingly cut myself so this person could drink my blood, so I'm suing them for $100,000"?

Malicious cases are likely to have creative charges to suit the prosocution.

If I talk you out of an entire fortune you will seek action right?

No, because I ultimately made the choice not to go for the fortune. If there's no extortion or force involved, there shouldn't be a case.

Cohersion to donate.

Theft by pretense.

As well as ant verbal contract breaches.

I've never thought about this before, but it just struck me that this would make a great Boston Legal or Law & Order episode. Dabbler you better hurry up and copyright your idea!

In all seriousness though it poses an interesting legal question. As for blood donors even if a donor is willing and always remains willing I could see somebody throwing a fit on behalf of the greater good and causing problems.

They need a legal aide office for Vampires. Ooops forgot I'm supposed to be serious.

Another thing that comes to mind for me is the thought that the Vampires, which come to mind for me, posses such powers that they would be in many ways above human law.

A creature with supernatural speed, strength, intelligence, and reflexs, combined with all the magical possibilities and the fact that they're immortal would be impossible to regulate if it did not wish to be regulated.

The last thread made a hypathetical case, cases brought on by outside intervention could bring an entire circle to court, criminal or civil.

First off, I agree that the case for the "psi" vampire would be thrown out since the lack of physical proof is relevant...Save for if the individual were put into a weakened state that they could prove was the doing of the "psi" vamp itself. But that would become an entirely differant scenerio of forcing someone into ill health, which really does not account for "psi" vampirism...But neglect.

As for the blood scenerio, I don't think the case would involve a "donor" since this is more like a fetish scenerio. Technically the case that led to this followup was being taken into account that a true vampire was on trial and therefore a "donor" was not needed.

If I remember correctly the case was about the vampire trying to prove itself innocent of the charges against him. Through technical evidence of the consumption of blood but not through a donor. Wish we had the other thread.

My point being, a real actual undead vampire was on trial, not a "human living vampire" that think they need a "donor".

Well stated. Still how on earth would they get a Vampire to court if that vampire didn't want to go to court?

Easily answered, it is called purgery(sp) under law that if subpeonaed, or instantered...All individuals, vampires included have no choice but to either stand trial or witness or face mandatory jail time.

could use BDSM cases, and bondage. i remember reading a court case about it and its pretty much set the precedent for the rest. i could see the negligence, if infection, serious injury, or death occurred.

if minors are involved then it is assault.

maybe tomorrow or the next day (its 5 am here) ill try to look it up. i also remember one of a representative from my parts trying to make some ban on it.

A case for consideration, A girl commits suicide, behind she leaves a journal, the parents find they are filled with references to feeding, and

"I feel I am not producing enough energy for me Lord Master, he only wants more and more."

An investigation turns up, a bright girl that declined in a matter of Months to a depressed, anxious recluse, ditching her extra curriclur activity for what was previously unknown activity..

considering that most here who identify as vampires claim to be nothing more then human other wise.. the going to court is set.. what say ye' in their defense?

well like i said minors would be a different story. but the same laws that apply to lets say BDSM and whipping people, burning them with candle wax. would apply i imagine.

Let us make her a junior collage age female, one still living at home.

From what you have laid out I don't think it would win in Justice court, at least not with a good lawyer. The girl's suciede was her own doing. However, I can see the "Vampire" being held responsible in civil court.

I agree criminal charges would be hard to arrange.

The media storm around a civil trial would press those who identify as vampires into the public eye, accountability will be expected.

dabbler i understand the concept delervied, yet most these trails that or would come up would probably be thrown in the direction of criminal insane on part. if it did not than the laws of each state and age of children change. so each state would have laws pertaining to some degree of participation. look at the manson trails. even tho it was found or stated that he did not have a hand in the pate murders he is still doing life inprison for the INVOLVEMENT in this. so I would see the states taking this defense or side of it. If not monatary value in courts would be subject next.

So in civil courtthe circle she was in would be .. Libal.

Yes i would think thats where it wouold end up.

Look whats going on with the myspace trial right now, laws find ways of getting into the publics eyes for reasons. if enough people feel saddened or upset with whats going on than laws are deemed to react. prison, monatarty or even worse shall be the final verdict.

As I understand the law, the basis for any legal complaint is evidence of an actual crime having been committed. Where vampirism is concerned (at least as defined by popular culture and fiction) this would seem to equate to an actual attack or assault upon an alleged victim and/or plaintiff during with there is verifiable loss of energy and/or blood against the will of same. Now, while an actual physical assault and, more to the point (literally), the draining of blood from an unwilling "victim" would most certainly leave plenty of physical evidence for same, yet where a claim of psychic attack is concerned... good luck hoping to find any evidence thereof given that there is no way to quantify such a claim. And without evidence, regardless of perception on the part of either alleged "vampire" or victim... there is no case.


- Upir'

Many states through out the United States have laws that make living the vampiric lifestyle a "felony" and one would always be open for civil liabilities for disparaged donors. Yet, it is no more of a risk than any random sexual encounter that one may have.

I would be interested in links to such laws.

Umpir What about civil action?

The difference between this and the myspace thing, I assume we're referring to the suicide as a result of cyber bullying, is that we're assuming that though the donor killed herself she was a willing participant in the acts that drove her to suicide.

All though I wonder if a case could be made that she was emotionally manipulated and brainwashed into being a donor, whether she was or not isn't relavent, I just think that a very good prosecuter might be able to make that case.

The Journal/diary would be a real focus, how detailed the enteries where, would make the case stronger or weaker.

dabbler -

While civil actions (lawsuits) do not have to have much if any evidenciary foundation to be filed, yet once in court the same problem would still present itself: you would still need actual evidence to win any such case. And good luck finding any in the case of an alleged psychic (dare I say it: imaginary?) "attack." After all, there is no way to measure "energy" such that one could provide evidence of life energy having been "drained" by someone else. Then again, if one were able to gather together the right group of superstitious persons on a jury... who knows?

(Sadly, given that recently in Aliso Viejo, California a bill almost got passed that would have banned Dihydrogen Monoxide [that's right... water] due to the scientific ignorance and ecological zealotry of its politicians, that day may not be that far off.)


As for a sanginary attack, obviously there would still need to be physical evidence of such an assault, though if the attack were real such evidence ought to be fairly easy to come by and better prosecuted as a criminal case.


- Upir'

A phycologist would likely present a case for the activity of vampires in a civil action.

dabbler -

Well of course a psychologist would in the case of an alleged psychic "attack." Yet the point remains, unless there is some evidence of an actual attack, there is no case. Instead, all you would have is the testimony of the alleged victim claiming that the plaintiff "attacked" him/her. And if this is ever deemed sufficient evidence in an actual court of law... then we will have indeed reverted back to the days of the Salem Witch Trials when anyone can be accused, indicted, and condemned based solely on the testimony of a few alleged "victims"... and nothing more.

Let us all hope and pray our decaying intellectual faculties as a society never digress to the degree that we return to such superstitious barbarism, for if we ever do... a resurgence of a new "Burning Times" would be but a heartbeat away.


- Upir'

An "alleged vampire" that boasts of a psychic attack on a website or e-mail establishes an evidenciary foundation for a civil law suit.

Doru -

Precedent for your claim?

Rules of Procedure and Rules of Evidence in all civil courts through out the nation.

Doru -

???

Stating in any written form that I have "psychically" attacked someone provides actionable evidence of such an attack is not found in any legal precedent or principle and violates no law or statute with which I am aware. If I am wrong, then state the legal precedent for such a claim as you make.


- Upir'

With the below detailed studies, it adds expert testimony to the law suit:

"The Vampirism & Energy Work Research Study is a detailed sociological and phenomenological study of the real vampire community conducted by Suscitatio Enterprises, LLC (http://www.suscitatio.com). The specific focus of this study concerns individuals who personally identify as psychic and/or sanguinarian vampires. Two surveys were released in 2006 that were answered by over 700 individuals from all paths within the vampire community and throughout the World. The first was the Vampire & Energy Work Research Survey (VEWRS) with 379 Questions in March 2006; and the second was the Advanced Vampirism & Energy Work Research Survey (AVEWRS) with 688 Questions in August 2006. From 2006 to 2008 a combined response total (VEWRS & AVEWRS) reached over 1,000 surveys or over 500,000 individually answered questions; making it the largest and most in-depth research study ever conducted on the real vampire community or subculture. Not only are we now able to provide the organization and quantification to questions vampires have been asking themselves for years, but we have increased the standard of research and subsequent analysis on the community through the creation of such a vast body of data."

From the following link:
http://community.livejournal.com/psyvamps

Doru -

Let's reverse this to show how legally ludicrous such a claim is:

If, by your claim, stating that I psychically "attacked" someone entitles an alleged "victim" to seek legal redress... then contrariwise, my stating that I psychically benefitted someone should entitle me to sue for compensation from that person I claimed to have benefitted psychically. If no more evidence than this is needed... then both would be considered legally actionable.

And yes, while a written statement of intent to physically harm someone is actionable... yet I know of no case where a claim of "psychic" intent to harm has ever made it into a court of law... much less succeeded therein. Though, again, the way society is decaying... the day may soon come that it does.


- Upir'

Upir,

The case in point:

Lori Drew, the woman who was the adult involved in the cyber harassment and cyber bullying of Missouri teen Megan Meier, which ultimately led to Megan hanging herself in November, is the subject of a Grand Jury investigation which has been convened to determine whether Lori Drew can be charged with fraud for her fraudulant use of MySpace.

They could use posts of psychic energy draining as fault, it just takes the right jury.

Doru -

Polls and surveys taken of those in the "vampire community" who, by very definition, pretend to emulate and/or actually believe themselves to be fictional "vampires" provides no actual evidence except for the questionable mental state of those participating therein. This is not evidence of any kind for the actual existence of such alleged psychic "powers."

I could conduct just as many surveys among die-hard Star Wars fan or Star Trek fans likewise "documenting" their belief in Ewoks, Vulcans, Wookies,and Klingons. Yet this does not provide actual evidence for the existence of any such. Nor would a similar survey done of such fanatics on the validity of the "Vulcan Mind Meld" or "The Force" legitimize either as a reality.

Again... where are the legal precedents for your claims?


- Upir'

The case hinged on an unprecedented — and, some experts say, highly questionable — application of computer-fraud law.

Drew was not directly charged with causing Megan's death. Instead, she was indicted under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which in the past has been used in hacking and trademark theft cases.

The courts obviously do not need legal precedence, they make it up as they try you!

Doru -

I am familiar with the Lori Drew case... and this was a case of actual verifiable and continual harrassment and psychological (not PSYCHIC!) badgering that eventually wore the girl down and may or may not be suffiicient for conviction. However, yet again, the actions taken by Ms. Drew were ... in fact ... actual ACTIONS and not psychic or imaginary at all. Her words were real, her harassment and fraudulent use of MySpace to vilify and undermine her victim's reputation among others was equally real. Yet... the fact that she used words only and nothing more stretches to the extreme her legal responsibility in this case. After all, the decision to actually cause the death of the victim was not Ms. Drew's... but a decision made and taken solely by the alleged victim.

In claims of psychic attacks... no such words are involved. In fact, nothing is! It is all ... imaginary.


- Upir'

Doru -

No... they do not just "make it up" as they go along.

As anyone familiar with legal principles knows... legal precedence is the foundational basis upon which cases are tried. Almost the entire first and second year of Law School focuses on learning the hundreds if not thousands of key cases that establish legal precedents, the knowledge of which is absolutely imperative to the litigator in a court of law.


- Upir'

All you need to do is say you committed the act, then you have to prove you "didn't".

Upir,

Many experts that examined the case disagree with you. Please review the experts opinions again.

The case hinged on an unprecedented — and, some experts say, highly questionable — application of computer-fraud law.

Doru -

Again... not true. Confessions of actual crimes are routinely thrown out of courts nationwide even when evidence is there to support them. Thus, saying (or writing) that you actually physically did something is NOT even sufficient grounds at all for prosecution... unless there is actual EVIDENCE (there's that pesky word again) to back up the charge. And to say you did something... psychically? Well, they would be far more likely to immediately order a psychological screening to determine your mental competency long before the thought of prosecution would ever cross their minds.


- Upir'

Your living in a dream world. There are numerous people convicted of crimes they did not commit but for various reasons "falsely" confessed. "Law" is not black and white but many shades of gray.

Doru -

You make my case for me: computer fraud law is... a precedent. And if they wish to try her on that, then so be it. Yet again, this is far removed from indicting her on a murder charge for words alone... and that, in case this was missed, was my primary point: words alone are not sufficient grounds for charging someone with murder or manslaughter unless those words somehow constitute a contract in the enlisting of another to commit the crime (e.g., the words contracting a murder for hire).


- Upir'

Doru -

Their case hinges on whether Ms. Drew's words constituted a psychological (again... not psychic) breakdown that might have led to her ultimate decision of suicide. This might then make her criminally culpable to some degree. And if additionally they can pin additional charges of "computer fraud" against her, I'm sure they'll try that, too. But obviously, this latter charge is not the same as making her legally culpable for her suicide.

As for living in a "dream world," I'm not the one here touting surveys from "vampires" claiming supernatural and/or psychic powers. ;)


- Upir'

There is an old saying:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Meaning:

"An animal, and by implication a person, will only do what it/he wants to do."

Doru

Doru -

well stated... which also furthers strengthens my argument against "psychic attacks" forcing others to act against their will, as well.


- Upir'

Theft by Pretense Laws could be used if dues where collected by the group,
Oddly enough I had not heard of the MS case before putting the hypathetical case up.


Psycological manipulation, proxy under pretense of psychic. I think suits used by families of cults would be explored as well, details of the victims
Change in behavior, and resulting withdraw, and co-dependency.

Bringing forward other donors and evaluating their mental health.

Of not monetary rewards, the case would address the issues, similar to as mentioned above.

Imagined Scenerios are allowed here.

I'm going to have to agree with much of what UpirLikhyj has already stated.

In civil cases the first thing you need to be able to demonstrate is damage. And when a monetary settlement is sought, one must be able to articulate, demonstrate and defend a monetary equivalent for the losses alleged. Then one must show evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the defendant. And thirdly; there must be a causal link demonstrated between the losses and the actions/inactions of the defendant.

It would be highly probable that in any case where a psychic attack was alleged, one would have a great deal of difficulty in demonstrating a financial loss as well as providing sufficient evidence to constitute a causal link between the losses claimed and the actions alleged. A civil court judgment hinges on a preponderance of evidence as opposed to the "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria applied to criminal cases. Even with such a low standard of evidence it's going to be beyond the ability of even the most skilled prosecuting attorney to demonstrate such a causal link.

And any attorney with that degree of skill isn't likely to place his career and reputation on the line with any case of such minimal merit.

As for court-precedence; when such precedence exists, it becomes a standard against which future cases are tried. When it doesn't exist, judicial outcome will determine court precedence for such cases in the future. However court-precedence isn't beyond challenge and is over-turned on occasion.

Beastt17 -

Very well put.

Upir and beast great posts,

yet when we determine physic do we mean manipulated to do such a crime. Once again charlie mansons case. well documented on all levels. he sits in prison and has said not to have actually done the killlings(no_evidence) but manipulate the family into it.

One ponders on the legalities of all court actions todate. for they came about because society wants them to, Innocent or not.

Vampiric tendiesy do not have to be proven to be at fault. society dictates this with discrimnation of all sub cultures,( goth, paginism, witches, satinism). and laws will be made to protect those against this always. socirty has always pointed their fingers against what our society does not deem right.

Well, in fictional cases I'm sure that there are vampire lawyers that will assist others of their kind in legal cases. Also, when energy feeding, it'd be pretty damn hard to get proof that a vampire is feeding psychically from them. Also, for real life vampyres, many of us follow the black veil and covenant. Which all of these clearly state that we only feed from complying donors and that we never mess around with minors.

cadrewolf -

Thank you for your kind remarks.

With regard to Charles Manson, while obviously he succeeded in influencing, manipulating, and controlling those who followed his teachings and who were thereafter ordered by him to go out and commit murder, yet none of this was done... psychically, which is the topic here. Now, had Charles been able to motivate others to murder based solely on some claimed psychic ability alone... then you would have a case study worthy of consideration.

Obviously people can be brainwashed through the repetitive teaching of cultish philosophies and practicing of rituals to the point that they accept and embrace the twisted philosophies of their teachers. However, none of this is "psychic" in nature at all. Thus, it is not legally actionable and is not on point with the topic here.

As for the alleged discrimination against sub-cultures in our society, this is a separate issue entirely, as I see it.


- Upir'

The murders where not hatched by Manson he deligated Watson to pick a house Watson picked u perifially the
idea of a well isolated house, the person that once lived there moved.

yes dabbler, but the thought was inplanted already and finding them not there, did not matter. they acted out the roles. but the courts no matter the roles played all were condemed to death before the laws changed.

As soon as someone claims to be a vampire and kills for energy or blood action will take place and society will deem all to be accountable.

But co-dependence played a major pert in the manson murders, I think peoples fears of such groups, would press a civil case, not on the alledged vampire activity, but on the psycological case involved by proxy. How would a group that "drains" a persons "energy", be responsible for the decline of a participants mental stability, a journal/diary would build such a case.

cadrewolf -

If one wants to claim being a vampire, yes... society has a right to question the credibility of such a claim as well as the mental/emotional stability of the person making any such. And if you wish to argue that this might be considered discrimination or prejudice, I suppose you can at least attempt the argument.

However where murder or killing is concerned, anyone so committing such a heinous act, whether as a supposed "vampire" or not, should indeed be held fully accountable... and preferably be forced to pay for such with their own life, as justice ought to require.


- Upir'

Manapulating is a good term for the action if death even by themselves still is manupulated by all factors. Manson is said to have stopped clocks and by a glance he could hush people. Donot know but it is said to have happened.

Vampires with a donor or what if that person kills themselves are is found dead i shall say would not the courts look to the vampiric tendies of the other for the cause. manupilating the death to say.

Thyank you Upir

a statement i have been trying to reach.

dabbler -

Of course codependency is a factor in any brainwashing or cult experience, and most certainly played a huge factor in the Manson case.

Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with psychic ability or prosecution for same (which I believe is the topic of this forum thread) and even less to do with Charles Manson.


- Upir'

it goes to association. How a group can condition an individual, to withdraw from a stable environment.

the charges in the myspace case have been modified since the original indictment since there is physical evidence that the woman created a false myspace account with false information and used said account to harass another individual these are multiple acts in clear violation of myspace's terms of agreement which is a legally binding contract you must agree to to be a member.

In the manson case it was essentially a case of conspiracy to commit murder which is actually a worse charge than murder itself. It's similar also to hiring a "hitman" to kill someone you're still just as guilty of murder as though you pulled the trigger yourself. For conspiracy the act must involve 3 or more persons.

In both cases there is physical evidence and witness testimony, without that no amount of precedence would make a case on it's own.

while not every case has a precedence before it one way or another there will be precedence afterward that may or may not be adhered to so in a sense it is sort of "made up as they go along" but it has to have physical evidence at the very least even more so if there is no witness testimony to corroborate the physical evidence.

At this time there is no way to prove psychic damage of any kind so any case along that line would be dismissed right away.

An alleged victim of an alleged vampire would have a better chance of proving psychological damage since you could show physical manifestations of said damage and psychiatrists could bear witness to the damage also.

As for the vampire community being held liable not likely since the entire community would have had to had contact with said victim. That would be like saying since the driver of car 1 hit car 2 all drivers of cars are guilty of hitting car 2.

In the case of a blood donor there would have to be physical evidence that the blood was taken against the will of the donor. Just the donor making an accusation alone is not enough. In the absence of physical evidence there would need to be extensive witness evidence by multiple witnesses.

Proving even a civil case without at least some physical evidence is very difficult at best.

Just to clarify; conspiracy to commit murder is not a more serious or severe charge than murder itself. The point is simply that conspiracy to commit murder means that any connected charge of murder will be premeditated, which usually carries with it a greater penalty than unpremeditated murder. But getting caught conspiring without actually committing murder is a lesser charge than murder.

In many states conspiracy to commit murder if the murder was committed carries a worse sentence than murder and or increases the likely hood of the death penalty if applicable in that state. Manson originally received a death sentence but for a time California did away with the death penalty so his sentence was commuted to life.

Wolvie,

Can you provide the statutes from even one state which confirm the suggestion that conspiracy to commit murder carries a more significant penalty than actually committing murder?

In the state where I live, facilitating a crime, attempting but failing to commit a crime and conspiring to commit a crime all carry a penalty one level lower than actually committing the crime in question. For example; attempting, facilitating or conspiring to commit a class 1 felony is a class 2 felony. Attempting, facilitating or conspiring to commit a class 2 misdemeanor is a class 3 misdemeanor.

I would suggest that you might be very hard pressed to present the statutes from any state which imposes a greater penalty for conspiring to commit any crime than is imposed for actually committing the crime. But in that I'm not intimately familiar with the statutes in every state, I'll reserve judgment until you've had an opportunity to substantiate your assertion.

As I pointed out conspiracy in a successful murder not the attempt there is a big difference just as in attempted murder and murder.

oops P.S. based on out comes of cases versus actual statutes the manson case is a good example before his sentence was commuted. some of the ones that committed the acts received a lesser sentence than what manson received depending on their involvement with the conspiracy.

Wolvie,

Again, I ask that you present a statute to support your stance. I've done a bit of looking around and what I find is that in most states, conspiracy carries the same penalty as the crime itself.

In the Manson case, all four of the suspects on trial were sentenced to the death penalty. They were all convicted of either murder or conspiracy to commit murder. It is likely that Manson received more counts of conspiracy to commit murder while those actually doing the killing received fewer counts of murder. In that in California conspiracy to commit a crime carries the same penalty as the crime itself, Manson likely received a guilty verdict for conspiracy in each murder, while those committing the murders did not all take an active role in the actual killing of each victim.

Add to that the differences presented by mitigating and aggravating circumstances and Manson's behavior, and the reasons for his incarceration beyond that of others directly involved in the crimes becomes fully explained.

So do you have a statute to back your assertion?

Like stated before if vampire killings seem to get thrown into mentally disturbed people and not the crime a good example is Roderick Ferrell case. it just seem that society gives people a sterotyped view of things.


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/vampires/8.html

So any cult based charges would still be on the table in a civil case,
with The Diary of the girl who commited suicide, and any group members the legal aid turns lideget.

My dad did time with Manson, three doors down for 3 years, back when he was a level 3 solitary.

He is very cunning, but very simple, he makes people feel obliged to handle his whims. Yet gets very emotional, personally cutting verbally when he even feels he is not getting his way.

My dad said people like that could have done a lot worse then Manson.. Squeaky is not to be pshawed either.

Dabbler as I understand it in reference to cult charges you would only be able to go after the leaders of that specific part of the "cult" and possibly any of the members that had direct contact with the victim.

When it comes to "vampires" there are many individuals that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the rest of vampire society.

There was a case about 10 yrs ago a young man from KY believed himself to be a vampire from playing a role playing game. He drove down to FL with some friends and killed his girlfriend's father and stepmother and drank some of their blood. He acted alone so no one else in vampire society was charged. The game was investigated to see if anything in it could have lead to his actions and absolutely no evidence that the game even suggested any actions of that type were found so charges against the game company were never even considered. He was not a part of the Black Vail so they could not be charged for example. Now if he had been acting under the direction of someone within the Black Vail and there was evidence to support it then they could have possibly been charged. Knowing that the Black Vail even discourages blood drinking much less murder the group itself could not have been charged even if a member within the Black Vail had told him to do those things only that individual could have been charged. Let me make it clear that this person had no connection to the black vail I merely used the black vail for hypothetical connections to illustrate a point since it's a group many are familiar with.

I have noticed a couple of posts here that instigate a jury of relative peers depends on the outcome. In this situation, what then if the Grand Jury representation was thrown out, and a private case was maintained?

I know this is a rediculous question, I just thought I would throw it out there for those of whom were wondering.

The Grand Jury for a vampire vs Private Hearing for a vampire...

Justice in the Vampire community, I am sure news of indescretion would make its way back to the community.

A jury of peers, that did come-up in the last legal thread as well.

A jury of your peers in this country is a jury of adult (18 or older) United States of America citizens. Race, creed, gender, occupation and religion are irrelevant according to the constitution. So there is no basis just because the jury isn't "vampires" for them to be dismissed. If for some other reason criminal charges were to be dropped or even if the person is acquitted of criminal charges a civil case can still be filed as the OJ Simpson case proved. Makes no sense logically since we are supposed to be protected by double jeopardy. It also takes less evidence to find someone guilty in a civil case, again as this case showed. In a civil case though only monetary damages can be sought.

Jury of peers? hmmm would this also be for the young boy who allegely killed his father, so his peers would be his age who has no concept of law? ponders

Legal ramifictions have always taken place over our societies fears of not understanding or knowing cultures. if two individuals , let say one goth and the other a prominant figure were both in trouble who would infact be sitting in the courtroom. prejudice and racism against societies outcasts have been dominant for years and years.

damn, gone for a day and the thread is buried...

well any ways thought this site would help out a little

http://www.fvza.org/cases.html

and i also found this:

Wisconsin State Senator Seeks to Criminalize Vampires


State Senator James R. Baumgart, Democrat from Sheboygan, has drafted legislation aimed at criminalizing vampire or vampire-like activity directed at juveniles.

Baumgart says the legislation will close loopholes in the law that hampered prosecution of Phillip K. Buck for his role in preying on teen-age girls. The proposed bill, Senate Bill 213, would classify any action "causing the mutilation of a child" as a Class E felony, with a fine of $10,000 and maximum imprisonment of up to five years.

However, if during the mutilation of the child, the child suffers "great bodily harm," the offender faces the same fine and imprisonment of up to ten years, which is a Class D felony.

If the offender goes the next step and "consumes the child's blood," the person is guilty of a Class C felony, and could face fines of $10,000 and up to fifteen years imprisonment.

Buck had pleaded no contest to fourth-degree sexual assault and causing bodily harm to a child. He was sentenced to ten years and nine months prison time for cutting several teen-age girls with a razor (or encouraging them to cut themselves with a razor), then drinking their blood.

"This would protect juveniles from exploitation of people that want to get into this kind of sadistic ritual. If adults want to do that, it's one thing," said Baumgart.

"If adults want to do it, that's one thing?" Shouldn't that be criminalized too? Hard to believe such laws aren't already on the books.-HP

as far as UK law is concerned about the practice of bloodletting i found this:

http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/UK-law.shtml

http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/bloodletting_and_law.shtml

I looked at a lot of this and started to laugh and then brought in my daughter who is a Paralegal and she busted up laughing reading some of this. She is not a lawyer but she graduated Summa Cum Laude as a Paralegal and my father has a Juris Doctorate in law. She has worked for the DA in the largest county in the US. She also stated there are no laws involving vampyrism per se. Victimizing children is another thing in any way. Now the lady on myspace made a false claim as to who she was and she is being sued which is not the fault of myspace and has nothing to do with this thread. A wrongful death happened due to her actions.

I wanted to put up something from a person who knows how trials work. Granted she is not an attorney but the only difference is they present the case in court. She has been very actively involved in cases and knows the same laws the attorneys know...she has to. One lawyer dealt with criminal cases as well. So I wrote what she said:

When Doru mentioned someone bragging about a psi attack in writing, he was correct when he said this could be used as evidence in a civil trial. Upir trying to argue that there is no precedence for this is considerably naive. While using this as evidence in a criminal trial could possibly be challenged due to 5th Amendment rights, in a civil court the rules of evidence are very different.

In a criminal trial guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Decisions in civil trials are based on the preponderance of the evidence...meaning whoever presents the best case. For example, this is why OJ Simpson could be found "not guilty" in a criminal trial and then be found liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman in a civil suit.

If your fallowing the codes (which would mean that in no way are you feeding from a minor or any other illigal acks and your doner is willing) There shouldn't be a case. Iwould have to say BDSm I'm sure I spelled that wrong That could definatly give you a slap on any of those acts.

Again I say, there is a huge differance between vampirism and fetish.

If the individual was true vampire, then the act of the bloodlet would be out of permission/consent. Now if the vampire were just indulging itself off of a stranger then it would be a definitive no contest. Since the stranger was clearly assaulted.

The fetish would be just your average individual would likes the taste of blood and prefers to manipulate individuals into partaking of the act. Not vampire, just your average joe. To me, this would validate the statesman's concern. But to actually confront a vampire who was well aware of the law's, unless the statesman was a bit prejudice or bias against the vampire...Much like in the HBO series: Trueblood, then the vampire would indeed know its place in both sides of its society.

Thus the jury of peers, vs closed court.

If the jury of peers had a grudge against said vampire, then where would the case turn? As for the closed court...Would the lawyer be vampire, or human?