Saratoga County Public Defender: Fill & Download for Free

I have. I served from October-December 2017 on a county level grand jury in Saratoga County, NY. So everything I’m going to say here is governed by NY state law.I know I’ve written about it elsewhere, but I can’t find the answer to link to, so I guess I’ll repeat it.It was a very interesting and enlightening experience.First, understand that for a grand jury there’s no voir dire, no dismissals for cause. We had to have 23 people for our panel. 30 were called, 27 showed up the first day. The judge asked if anyone wanted to apply for a hardship exemption, and four people did. The rest of us were sworn in. If there had been fewer than 4 hardship requests, 23 would have been chosen by lot.Any decision of the grand jury had to be agreed to by 13 jurors (half the full panel), even if not all the jury was present on a given day. IIRC, we had to have at least 19 jurors in order to hear a case, so it was possible to ask to be excused on specific days.We were scheduled to meet as needed, and they planned to hold it to only Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of each week but warned us that if something big came up we might be called in on Monday or Friday. As it turned out, we never were. I think we probably met about half the possible days during the term. The DA tried to give us as much notice as possible; we would typically get an email on Friday telling us which days the next week we would meet and how many cases we’d hear each day.The first thing was being instructed by the judge; I knew most of what we were told, but not all. Every case we heard started with an indictment, which is the statement of charges and evidence under which the state wanted to bring someone to trial. It’s commonly said that a grand jury “indicts” someone, but indictment is technically the process of bringing the accusation.Basically, we could do three things with any case we heard:Return “no bill” - that is, say that the indictment presented by the state was not sufficient to bring the accused to trial.Return a “true bill” - which is saying that the indictment was sufficient to bring the accused to trial. The standard for doing this was whether there was reasonable cause to believe that a) an offense was committed, and b) that the accused committed the offense.Issue a report - this is an odd one, and is quite unusual and pretty much only happens in public corruption cases.A grand jury is an investigative body, which means that we had the ability to ask questions of any witnesses or of the prosecutors.They impressed on us that it is a felony to disclose any specific information presented in the jury room and that they take that very seriously. We elected a foreman (in this case, it was a man), an alternate, and we were ready to go.We never heard from a potential defendant. It was explained to us that an accused could ask to testify to the grand jury, but that that very seldom happens because (since it isn’t a trial) they have no right to an attorney during the proceeding and there is no notion of cross-examination.We only heard felony cases, which means an offense that carries a potential sentence of at least 1 year in jail. We could (and did) act on some counts that were misdemeanors if they were part of a case around a felony. In New York, no person can be tried on a felony charge without having been indicted by a grand jury.Generally we’d hear one or two cases in any day we were called in and adjourn by lunchtime. In most of the cases, we only heard testimonial evidence, almost always from various law enforcement officers but sometimes also from victims or witnesses. Even when there was other evidence, most of the evidence was testimonial. There were several cases where computer documents or images were presented as evidence, some where surveillance camera images or footage were presented, and a few where physical evidence was presented.The ADAs tried to present an entire case in one day because if it went across two or more days, only the jurors present for all the presentation of evidence could vote on the indictment. Over the term, we probably heard about 30–35 cases.Here’s the general outline of how a case would go.We would convene in the jury room. The only people present were the jurors, the stenographer, and one or two prosecutors (in our case, this was always assistant DA’s).The ADA would announce the case and read us the applicable sections of the law under which they wanted to try the accused and (if appropriate) legal definitions of terms used in the law.The ADA would call witnesses, who would be sworn in and asked questions by the ADA. We were allowed to ask question at any time, though they preferred that we wait and ask them at the end of the questioning.The ADA would again read to us the pertinent sections of law and ask if we had any questions about the law. They were allowed to answer questions about the specifics of the law if we didn’t understand, but not about the evidence presented beyond asking the stenographer to read back testimony or show us documents/physical evidence.The ADA and stenographer would leave the jury room while we deliberated. We were left any physical evidence that had been presented, and we could call back the stenographer if there were questions about testimony. Otherwise, it was just us. We deliberated and voted on all the counts under consideration.We called the ADA and stenographer back and gave them our decision.It was a really interesting experience, and I came away with a number of observations:I was really impressed at how seriously all the jurors took the proceedings. Phones/tablets/etc were forbidden while a we were actually hearing evidence or a presentation from the prosecutor, but most of us were checking email and such between witnesses. But everyone was very attentive to all the testimony and presentations. We didn’t often have questions, but there were 3–4 cases where we had a number of questions for several witnesses.I was also very impressed at how prepared the prosecutors were. The old saying about “a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich?” That came from Sol Wachtler, Chief Justice of NY. And I could see how that could happen. But in the cases I heard, in virtually every case I thought the prosecution well exceeded the reasonable cause standard. And over the term, we voted “no bill” on only one count of one indictment. It was clear that they weren’t going to bring cases that they weren’t pretty certain of getting a true bill. And both in the questions asked and the discussion during deliberation, there was a very appropriate (IMO) level of skepticism about the evidence presented. Some of the cases we all immediately agreed were open-and-shut. Others we had a lot of back and forth about.We heard a number of grand larceny cases, several rape/sexual assault cases, a couple of child pornography cases, and one murder. Some of the testimony was pretty hard to listen to.Saratoga County is split. The southern half, roughly, of the county is urban/suburban and the northern half is mostly rural. The southern half is wealthy, the northern half is distinctly less so. With two exceptions, every case we heard happened in the northern half of the county (north of Saratoga Springs, if you’re looking at a map or familiar with the area).We were called in unexpectedly once. The DA’s office had problems with an indictment from the previous jury term and needed to get a superseding indictment in a case involving a drug deal and a murder. That one was the only case we heard that had a lot of physical evidence.Two things that I’d already been generally convinced of but am now really convinced of: most criminals really aren’t very bright, and most people are really bad liars. In multiple cases we saw video recorded in interrogation rooms, and people would tell the most obvious and preposterous lies to the police. It only took gentle questioning and occasionally showing them a bit of evidence to get most of them to completely change their story.Every case we heard where there was more than one accused, as soon as the police started talking to one of them they would immediately throw the other person under the bus. “It was him, it wasn’t me!” And the other person would then do the same thing.

It is an alternate 1777.The American Revolutionary War is going on.The Continetal army had succeeded in several battles such as the Battle of Trenton, and had successfully liberated most New Jersey from December 25th, 1776 -December 26th, 1776. However, the British have a plan up there sleeves. That plan was the Saratoga Campaigns of 1777. The plan was to split the United States in two by invading through New York. The campaign would be led by two forces. The northern forces led by General Burgoyne, and the Southern forces led by General Howe. The plan was simple. General Howe moves his forces from New York City too meet up with General Burgoyne’s moving forces from upstate New York. They would meet at Saratoga where they would defeat the American forces and successfully split the US and cut there communication lines.Of course, in our timeline, the campaign was never successful. General Howe abandoned the campaign and led a force of British soldiers to capture Philadelphia instead. This indirectly doomed the British. Because General Howe abandoned the campaign, General Burgoyne’s forces were left unsupported, causing the British forces to lose the Battle of Saratoga. This would basically mark a turning point in the war, since at the time, Benjamin Franklin was in Paris negotiating with King Louis XVI. When news of the American victory at Saratoga came to Paris, King Louis XVI agreed to join the war against Britain, recognize American independence, and aid the United States of America in the American Revolutionary War. Soon, other nations like Spain and the Dutch joined the war. With international aid, the United States of America won the American Revolutionary War.In this timeline, General Howe never abandons the Saratoga Capaigns of 1777 and the British are able to split the United States in two. Because of this, two things happen. One, The British screw up US communication lines between the Northern States and the Middle and Southern States. The forces then begin fortification, and later begins campaigns across New York. Eventually, the state of New York falls back to the British. Two, the British victory at Saratoga discourages King Louis XVI from joining the war. Because of this, Benjamin Franklin is sent home, no agreement, and no allies. From then on, Britain is able to begin a campaign in the Southern States. In this alternate timeline, the United States is not able to prevent British forces moving into Georgia and South Carolina. Campaigns also begin in New England. States like Rhode Island and Connecticut fall. Eventually, Massachusetts would suffer the same fate. The United States is desperately trying to defend the New English States and the Southern States. However, the struggles only end up with both falling to the British. By 1780, the British are marching towards Philadelphia. The Continetal Congress, the early provisional government of the United States, is desperate. Some delegates call for surrender. By 1781, British forces encircle Philadelphia. All hope for the revolution has parished. Continetal Army basically surrenders to the British Army. The United States of America is dissolved. The British basically restore the thirteen colonies, and all delegates of the Continetal Congress, all generals of the Continetal Army, including George Washington, and everyone involved in the American Revolution are hanged for treason. The United States of America goes down in the history books as an unrecognized state which tried to rebel against the crown.With the end of the American Revolutionary War, Britain is basically enforcing there rule over the re-formed thirteen colonies more then ever. When the US Civil War ended in our timeline, the Southern States were basically occupied militarily. States were divided by military district, though this would end after the end of the Reconstruction Era. I would imagine something like this happening to the re-formed thirteen colonies, with increased military presence. There is a new mentality within colonist, similar to “the South will rise again” mentality after the US Civil War. Colonist would remember the United States of America and the American Revolutionary War. Most importantly, they would remember the patriots cause for republicanism.Like it or not, the United States of America was the first true republic since the Roman Republic. You may ask “what about the Marritime Republics during the Middle Ages?”. Those were only republics in the sense that they didn’t have monarchies. However, there not even close to the definition of a republic. The people of those counties didn’t elect representatives to rule on there behalf, and the law wasn’t a public matter to the people. For example, Venice had characterics of an elective monarchy and was ruled by a doge, which served for life, was powerful within restrictions and levels of oversight. Genoa and Pisa were oligarchies, Amalfi was a Dutchy, Ragusa was an aristocracy, and Noli was an aristocratic oligarchy. As for the Commonwealth of England, the office of Lord Protectorate, the head of the Commonwealth, was hereditary. Even the Dutch Republic’s head of state position, the office of stadholder, was a hereditary position. The Enlightenment Era brought forth new ways of thinking to both Europe and North America. The Founding Fathers favored the idea of a republic, the rule of law, and representative democracy. By the time the Decleration of Independence was adopted, all thirteen states had Republican constitutions. All offices of the Continental Congress, the early provisional government of the United States of America, were not hereditary what so ever, but rather elected positions. Republicanism in the United States had more of an effect on the globe then people think. Important documents from the French Revolution such as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen were inspired by American Republicanism, as it was based on the Declaration of Independence. Speaking of the French Revolution…One major change to this timeline is the absence of the French Revolution. Assuming that France never joined the American Revolutionary War, there debt never significantly increase. France being in debt due to the American Revolutionary war was one the factors that led to the French Revolution, as it lead to King Louis XVI taxing the common people. Plus, the American Revolutionary War led to several naval battles in the English Channel between France and Britain, so France needed the money to repair its navy. Of course, there were many other factors such as a bad harvest going on in France, but the debt was a major factor. What does this mean? Well, it means that the French Revolution never happens, or at least is delayed SIGNIFICANTLY. France never becomes a republic and King Louis XVI is never executed via guillotine. Because of this, the Jacobins never rise to power. Without the Jacobins, there is never a reign of terror, meaning that they are never voted out of office and the directory never succeeds the them. Without the directory, there is never a weak oligarchy govering over France. No weak government, no Napoleon Bonaparte rising to power. This effectively changes nearly all of modern history. There is no Napoleonic Wars and the invasion of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 never happens. The Confederation of the Rhine is never born. Without the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vieanna is never organized by the coalition after the Napoleonic Wars. Because of this, the Confederation of the Rhine is never replaced by the German Confederation. The German Confederation wasn’t really a nation, nor a confederation in the sense of a confederal government. It was more of an alliance between Prussia and several Germanic states that were former members of the Holy Roman Empire. Ether way, German nationalism never increases. Without this nationalism, members of the German Confederation never fight together against Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian War. Also, there wouldn’t be a Napoleon III. Since the Franco-Prussian War never happens, members of the German Confederation are never unified as the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm I. This means that the German Empire never agrees to join the war that Austria-Hungary declared on Serbia. This means that World War I never happens, though there is still a war in the Baltic between Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. Without the German Empire, Germany is never involved in World War I. There is never a Treaty of Versailles and Germany’s military is never limited. Kaiser Wilhelm II never abdicates, and the Weimar Republic is never established. Since the United States obviously no longer exist, there is never economic downturn in 1929, which never spreads around the World due to imposed tariffs. As we know, the global economic downturn is called the Great Depression. One of the nation’s that suffered it was Germany, which was already in large amounts of debt. Because of this, two things change. One, Because Germany never suffers from huge amounts of debt from World War I, Germany never suffers from a weak government, and Germany doesn’t exist in the first place, Hitler never gains popularity and never rises to power in 1933. Without Hitler, Nazi Germany never invades Poland, thus World War II never occurs. Without World War II, Europe never suffers post war borders and is never divided by the Iron Curtain. Also, decolonization would have never happened. World War II ruined the idea of European Imperalism. Plus, there was no longer a reason to colonize more land as the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers and were fighting indirectly through proxy wars. Today, we could even see still see European colonies today in this alternate timeline. Two, the Russian Revolution is ether delayed SIGNIFICANTLY or never happens at all. World War I basically starved the Russians and caused hyperinflation in Russians. One load of bread in Russia was EXTREMELY expensive during the war. World War I was just one the important factors that led to the Russian Revolution. Without the Russian Revolution, The Soviet Union is never established. Without these two important factors, the Cold War never occurs. Most importantly, modern conflicts such as the War on Terror never occurs. Modern history is entirely altered.However, this isn’t a good thing. If World War I never happened, then most likely another war as deadly as the Great War would occur. Tensions were always high for most of Europe, especially before the Napoleonic Wars. There could’ve been many more alternate wars just as bad as World War I. Also, the US victory in the American Revolutionary War indirectly leading to the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, ext, doesn’t mean it’s the US fault. That like blaming Albert Einstein for the Chernobyl disaster.There are other changes such as the 1st British Empire never falling and Austrialian colonization being delayed, but if I went into that, the entire answer would flood the whole page.However, the question is what AMERICA would look like if the US lost the American Revolutionary War. Well, let me tell you…What would North America look like today? Well Canada, the United States, and the West Pacific would be one large country, part of the British Commonwealth.What would South America look like today? It would be made up of both Spainish and Portuguese colonies. However, some independent nations could also exist.Also, some of the people that have answered this question say that Slavery would end quicker. This is entirely false. Although Britain did end slavery quicker then the US did (the US ended slavery in 1865 while Britain ended slavery in 1833), we have to realize why the US didn’t end slavery quicker then it should’ve. It was because of the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s. It allowed Cotton to be harvested faster. It was originally invented so that slaves wouldn’t have to pick cotton. Ironically, this expanded slavery to a large degree since slaves were used to pick cotton using the machine. Cotton became more profitable. Because of this, ether two things could happen. One, Britain bans slavery the same date like our timeline, leading to a Southern colonial revolt, or two, Britain would delay its ban on slavery in its colonies. As the Industrial Revolution expands the economy, slavery would ether way end.The people that would get the best out of the US loosing the war would be the Native Americans. As an American, I have to admit we haven’t been kind to them for most of history. In this alternate timeline, the British would allow the natives to keep huge amounts of there land yet Britain would influence those lands, similar to Indian reservations today.And what about Canada? Well, modern Canadian culture would have not existed. Let me explain why. Loyalist moved out of the United States of America and into Northern lands during the American Revolutionary War. These places include Robertland, New Foundland, and even Quebec. Most of modern Canada today would be even more ethically French. Imagine Quebec but for even more parts of Canada.In conclusion, several good and bad things would happen if the United States lost the American Revolution. However what it does show is that the US has had a very important impact in history, both good and bad. What else does it show? It shows that human history took a different path simply because a general in the American Revolutionary War wanted personal glory and abandoned his duties.

The British Government, not the American government somewhat of a long story.While the USA were British colonies they were first set up in the early to mid 1600s with colonial charters going over legalities, all of them basically agreed that colonists retained all legal rights under English law of the 1600s as Englishmen, and that Parliament in England had no authority over them, that each colony could (and did) set up it’s own legislature. They (both colonists & legislature) were sworn as loyal to the English king, but not to the English Parliament.That made any attempt by the English (Or British after the act of union) Parliament to tax the North American colonies illegal.That would be ignoring the charters with the King, and the legal authority of the colonial legislatures. For several years this resulted in passive non-compliance and verbal and written protests of the illegality of the tax acts by Parliament.Note — this is critical — the amount of tax was not at all at issue. The issue was whether parliament had any authority at all to tax American colonists, or pass laws on them at all.Now pointing out that by English Tradition and law the people had a right to keep and bear arms dating back in England to the Saxon conquest of Roman Britain ~ 600 AD, that ended in England in the aftermath of WWI when the then Tory parliament wanted to disarm labor, and to legally do so had to disarm everyone. But that was ~ 150 years after the UK & USA split up.As I said in English speaking society to well after the time of the Revolution Englishmen had a right to keep and bear arms. Also, English speaking society then literally had no police as we understand the term meaning tax paid law enforcement officers.Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century[This is based on the version of the article on my hard disk, and so may differ in detail from the published version. It is published here with the permission of the University of Chicago Roundtable , where it originally appeared.] Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century David Friedman The criminal justice system of England in the 18th century presents a curious spectacle to an observer more familiar with modern institutions. The two most striking anomalies are the institutions for prosecuting offenders and the range of punishments. Prosecution of almost all criminal offenses was private, usually by the victim. Intermediate punishments for serious offenses were strikingly absent. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the early years of the century, English courts imposed only two sentences on convicted felons. Either they turned them loose or they hanged them. [1] Parts I and II of this essay describe the institutions for prosecution and the forms of punishment. In parts III, IV and V I argue that, contrary to the view of almost all modern commentators and many contemporary ones, these institutions may have made considerable sense. The shift in the early 19th century towards punishment by imprisonment and law enforcement by paid police, and the later shift to public prosecution, were driven by discontent with the performance of the existing institutions. But it is far from clear whether that discontent was justified. I will argue that both contemporary critics and modern historians have missed important elements in the logic of the system of private prosecution, elements that help explain why it lasted as long as it did and worked as well as it did. Part I: The Private Prosecution of Crime England in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French. Under English law, any Englishman could prosecute any crime. In practice, the prosecutor was usually the victim. It was up to him to file charges with the local magistrate, present evidence to the grand jury, and, if the grand jury found a true bill, provide evidence for the trial. [2] In some ways, their system for criminal prosecution was similar to our system of civil prosecution. Under both, it is the victim who ordinarily initiates and controls the process by which the offender ishttp://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.htmlEngland in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French.American colonists in addition to needing to defend themselves from criminals, had to deal with hostile Indian tribes. They also found great utility in being able to hunt game. They used, and held as important, the right to keep and bear arms far more than Englishmen in England.The only defense of the colonists against criminals and hostile Indians was themselves in militias. On setting up these Colonies the British Government provided no military support at all. Colonists had their own arms and militia for self-defense, and that was all.To take their arms away, where hostile native tribes had tried before to exterminate them was just unthinkable to the colonists.As discussed the arguments over taxes that the colonists held the Parliament had no right to impose had been going on since the 1760s during the French and Indian War - WikipediaThe Parliament held that American colonists owed for that, which American colonists held as absurd as English speaking colonists on the east coast of North America outnumbered French colonists in Quebec about 33:1. The French colonists were not a credible threat to the English colonys.They had not asked for British Troops, and what the British did is conquer the French colonies in what is now Canada, they were not defending the existing British colonies.Finally the arguments over taxes boiled over when the British government sent troops to Boston and soon after tried to confiscate arms belonging to the colonists. The first battle took place on 19 April 1775.Battles of Lexington and Concord - WikipediaThe British Army 's infantry was nicknamed " redcoats " and sometimes "devils" by the colonists. They had occupied Boston since 1768 and had been augmented by naval forces and marines to enforce what the colonists called The Intolerable Acts , which had been passed by the British Parliament to punish the Province of Massachusetts Bay for the Boston Tea Party and other acts of protest. General Thomas Gage was the military governor of Massachusetts and commander-in-chief of the roughly 3,000 British military forces garrisoned in Boston. He had no control over Massachusetts outside of Boston, however, where the implementation of the Acts had increased tensions between the Patriot Whig majority and the pro-British Tory minority. Gage's plan was to avoid conflict by removing military supplies from Whig militias using small, secret, and rapid strikes. This struggle for supplies led to one British success and several Patriot successes in a series of nearly bloodless conflicts known as the Powder Alarms . Gage considered himself to be a friend of liberty and attempted to separate his duties as governor of the colony and as general of an occupying force. Edmund Burke described Gage's conflicted relationship with Massachusetts by saying in Parliament, "An Englishman is the unfittest person on Earth to argue another Englishman into slavery." [12] The colonists had been forming militias since the very beginnings of Colonial settlement for the purpose of defense against Indian attacks. These forces also saw action in the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 when they fought alongside British regulars. Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older (there were exemptions for some categories) and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers. [13] Gage effectively dissolved the provincial government under the terms of the Massachusetts Government Act , and these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the military threat from Britain. [14] British government preparations A February 1775 address to King George III , by both houses of Parliament, declared that a state of rebellion existed: We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said Province; and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements entered into by your Majesty's subjects in several of the other Colonies, to the injury and oppression of many of their innocent fellow-subjects, resident withinhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_ConcordThe Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9] The battles were fought on April 19, 1775 in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge. They marked the outbreak of armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in America.( . . . )In late 1774, Colonial leaders adopted the Suffolk Resolves in resistance to the alterations made to the Massachusetts colonial government by the British parliament following the Boston Tea Party. The colonial assembly responded by forming a Patriot provisional government known as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and calling for local militias to train for possible hostilities. The Colonial government exercised effective control of the colony outside of British-controlled Boston. In response, the British government in February 1775 declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion.About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligencegathering, Patriot leaders had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations.The colonists chased the British troops back to Boston killing more British than Americans were lost.:This was a shocking and totally outrageous act by the British government to American colonists, to try and disarm colonists was to leave them and their children vulnerable to attack by anyone, including Indians.Monstrous!!Colonies that had been holding that Massachusetts people were a bunch of hotheads about taxes, on hearing of the events at Lexington & Concord now their militia marched to the aid of Massachusetts from surrounding colonies.In addition — to even more offend, insult and horrify the colonists — the British started paying Indians allied with the British government for American colonist scalps, including women and children.Murder of Jane McCrea Helped Defeat a British ArmyThe Death of Jane McCrea, 1804 by John Vanderlyn. “In the history of the Revolutionary War, perhaps no single incident is recorded which, at the time of its occurrence, created more intense sympath…http://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/murder-of-jane-mccrea-artful-propaganda-that-defeated-a-british-army/On July 27, 1777, in Argyle, New York, north of Saratoga, John Allen’s family was attacked and brutally murdered by a party of Native Americans aligned to British General ‘Johnny’ Burgoyne. Husband John, his wife Eva Kilmer, their three small children; daughters Eva and Elizabeth and baby John, and Eva’s younger sister Catherine Kilmer, were killed. So too were three African American slaves on loan to the family; Tom, Sarah, and another whose name is lost to history. Nine in all. That same day, a young women was taken by a pair of Native Americans who so too were allied with the British. Shortly thereafter, Jane McCrea was shot and scalped. Two terrible atrocities. Yet the first was instantly forgotten while Jane’s death horrified a nation. It solidified the Continental Army’s determination to stand firm while stirring thousands of revengeful militiamen to march north and drive out the British army along with their hoard of ‘savages.’Not to lessen the terror all victims experienced before a painful death, but the question arises… Why was McCrea’s murder so different than the hundreds of settlers who, throughout the American Revolution, died at the hands of both whites and Native Americans. How could one life impact an entire nation when hundreds of others who succumbed to the same fate did not? Perhaps the answer is instinctive, emotions that one could argue stem back to the time when humanity lived in caves. Within weeks of Jane’s demise, an embellished take on the story had already spread throughout the colonies.The Rhetoric and Practice of Scalping - Journal of the American RevolutionScalping, the removal of the scalp from the head often for use as a trophy, is usually regarded as a uniquely sanguineous Indian practice...https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/09/rhetoric-practice-scalping/The best-known case of scalping during the Revolution is the tale of Jane McCrea, a women who was engaged to a Loyalist lieutenant when she was abducted, scalped, and shot by Indians under the command of British Lt. Gen. John Burgoyne. Continental commanders immediately realized that the incident could be used to garner greater popular support and military recruits for their cause. To this effect, Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates wrote a scathing letter to Burgoyne in September 1777, with copies sent to Congress and many Philadelphia newspaper presses, primarily blaming the British for the incident:[9]That the savages of America should in their warfare mangle and scalp the unhappy prisoners, who fall into their hands, is neither new nor extraordinary; but that the famous Lieut General. Burgoyne, in whom the fine gentleman is united with the soldier and the scholar should hire the Savages of America to scalp Europeans and the descendants of Europeans; nay more, that he should pay a price for each scalp so barbarously taken, is more than will be believed in England until authenticated facts shall in every Gazette, convince mankind of the truth of the horrid tale – Miss McCrea, a young lady lovely to the sight, of virtuous character and amiable disposition, engaged to be married to an officer in your army; [she] was … carried into the woods, and there scalped and mangled in the most shocking manner … [by] murderers employed by you.[10]The offense, was that the British government was not only employing Indians against colonists, but paying them cash rewards for scalps of colonist women and children as proof of their murder.If that is not heinous enough — I don’t know what would be.In any case the bill of rights in the US Constitution are all based on actual wrongs done by the British government to English speaking colonists in what became the USA. Every one of those rights have counterparts of tyrannical acts by the British government on colonists.The bill of rights if you read closely basically says the US government cannot do those things, it is forbidden from behaving like that.