Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Crime and punishment


towtruck
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will overlook the fact that you called me either corrupt or brainwashed and incompetent. Once. We all get upset, so I'll chalk it up to you being grumpy. I'd take it kindly if you'd avoid personal attacks in the future, however. 
 
If your courts and cops are that corrupt, call the FBI. I'm not kidding. The DOJ has entire branches set up to work with both police departments and clean up corruption. They're the reason that New Orleans is operating under a consent decree. And while I will say that it's theoretically possible for an innocent man to accept a plea to just make it go away, I know that is NOT normal behavior. Normal people want vindication when they're innocent. When I put a guy in a holding cell, I watch to see what he does. If he lays down and goes to sleep, or even relaxes completely, he's guilty, he knows it, he's accepted his fate, at least for the time being. An innocent man? He's pacing. He's sweating, he's nervous, he's worried, he's scared. He is in a jam not of his making, and he will defend himself  until his dying breath. I've locked up lots of bad people, and not once has that been wrong. The innocent do not take pleas unless they're stupid. If you get a dump truck of a defense attorney, you get a new one. That line that the defense attorney supposedly said is laughable at best. 
I apologize for the corrupt part but I will have to disagree with the innocent not taking a plea part . My stepson is as you say innocent people are , still in shock that this is happening but not giving up, a guilty man would be a fool not to take 15 days instead of 3 life sentences . Where I disagree is, someone with a history of drugs or other problems or a history of getting into trouble with the law will and do make pleas that a sensible man would not . Back in the early 90's I had a friend who worked in the new Orleans FBI office and transfered to Lafayette . According to her the FBI considered over 1/3 of the DAs corrupt . I don't know how it is in La .now but I know it is that bad here in Mo.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2019 at 3:05 PM, Retcop said:

 

My apologies for not giving TT the credit to the link on that great article...

 

Since I have readily admitted that this issue remains a conundrum for me, I keep coming back 

to the fact that these laws help keep really bad people off the street for longer periods of time.

I am also painfully aware that the otherwise "OK guy" who just happens to stumble into a felony conviction 

with no criminal history orone so insignifican't it is meaningless, so very rarely happens as to be statitically zero.

I know so many felons I would never hand a loaded gun to them.  Imho, proposition of a law that codifies this "trustworthy test"

and a path back to full rights status does not seem to me to be an unreasonable way to satisfy everyone's concerns. 

Sorry for the late reply. This post has drained my energy. I've stated how I feel as best my limited writing skills allows. I feel you deserve an answer. Even a late one.

 

When a felon is released from prison then we are in effect handing them a loaded gun. They have the ability to obtain a firearm. Law or not. They can go right on murdering, raping, molesting, and robbing until caught and incarcerated. 

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I see the possibility of me and millions of others wearing a felon tag in the future.  Should the anti-gun legislatures pass laws either asking us to turn in our firearms or trying to confiscating them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joel74 said:

Sorry for the late reply. This post has drained my energy. I've stated how I feel as best my limited writing skills allows. I feel you deserve an answer. Even a late one.

 

When a felon is released from prison then we are in effect handing them a loaded gun. They have the ability to obtain a firearm. Law or not. They can go right on murdering, raping, molesting, and robbing until caught and incarcerated. 

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I see the possibility of me and millions of others wearing a felon tag in the future.  Should the anti-gun legislatures pass laws either asking us to turn in our firearms or trying to confiscating them.

You are not alone with these statements. But....being made to commit a felony by unlawful means is a whole different ball of wax. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn’t read all 12 pages so I might have missed this point. 

 

What would everyone think if instead of just loosing your 2nd amendment rights you lost other rights as well. 

 

From now on of convicted lf of a felony you lose your right to free speech and your right to vote. 

 

 

How how do you think that would go over politically?

 

Are you a felon? 

Yes sir

ok shut up. No more talking or you go to jail. We don’t have to listen to you anymore. 

 

ITS CRAZY!!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2019 at 7:32 AM, Joel74 said:

Sorry for the late reply. This post has drained my energy. I've stated how I feel as best my limited writing skills allows. I feel you deserve an answer. Even a late one.

 

When a felon is released from prison then we are in effect handing them a loaded gun. They have the ability to obtain a firearm. Law or not. They can go right on murdering, raping, molesting, and robbing until caught and incarcerated. 

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I see the possibility of me and millions of others wearing a felon tag in the future.  Should the anti-gun legislatures pass laws either asking us to turn in our firearms or trying to confiscating them.

 

I am with you farther along the way than you may believe. 

In the first place, I believe that people you use a deadly weapon. (most often a gun or  blade) in the commission of a crime should

be locked up for a VERY long time.  

Secondly, I don't see what is unconstitutional for someone who uses a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, 

to have, as part of their sentence, a period of time, under supervision of the Court, where the felon must reach certain goals

that decades of studies have shown make that person less likely to commit another crime, let alone a violent crime. Using a deadly weapon to commit

a crime is a line crossed, that, Imho, should not be tolerated by society. 

We have become a society that is more concerned with the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victims. In the old days, it seemed if you used a gun in a crime, say goodbye, cause you were going away for a loong time. Today, we plead them down or give them 3 chances before they even catch a felony rap.  Bringing a gun or a knife to your crime

shows intent and forethought that you will happily and easily use effective means of inflicting great bodily harm or death to achieve your goal, and/or to make your escape.

I see nothing wrong with society making the decision that these people need harsher punishments than some others, and if the felon has chosen to use a gun to get what he wants, he is going to have to jump through some hoops to shoe society he has become a stable non-violent member of that society. 

Don't do the crime if you are not willing to do the time.  I am OK with some felons  have a path to being able to defend themselves with a firearm. 

Maybe just in their own castle. But one thing I know for sure about them is that they are willing to bring a deadly weapon out into MY community to commit their crime,

and don't give a damn who or how many get hurt or dead because they wanted to steal some money, for example. 

 

This has been tiring for me, too, Joel.  It's not easy to go against the flow, and the problems that come with not being an absolutist on this point. 

Endanger my family by using a gun to commit your crime, you are going to suffer the penalties. On one hand, we have the folks who believe that young people who criminally use a gun should catch a break.  And not prove themselves? No way.   Then we have those who think that anyone, no matter how many times they have committed crimes using a gun, should be able to stroll into their local gun shop, elbow to elbow with the law-abiding, to pick out their next guns to commit their next crime with. 

 

I happen to believe there is a middle ground. The multiple felon should be kept incarcerated (if the law and the Judges would allow, but they don't, usually.

and the young buck who MAY deserve a break must prove himself to his community before full rights are restored, and that goes beyond the 2A.

After almost 30 years of seeing our system work from the street and from the Court House, that's my conclusion. 

 

I don't think I can put it any better, so carry on. If we disagree, won't be the first nor the last time. But this thread has gone extremely well 

and I have great respect for those whose opinion differs.  As I said, we are not that far apart. I believe that society has a little duty left to the law abiding,

if we believe the young, "good hearted" felon deserves a break instead of a very long prison sentence, or that a career criminal thinks the same way as you or I.   

Take care, Joel.  All the best, gents.    :tiphat:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Retcop said:

 

I happen to believe there is a middle ground. The multiple felon should be kept incarcerated (if the law and the Judges would allow, but they don't, usually.

and the young buck who MAY deserve a break must prove himself to his community before full rights are restored, and that goes beyond the 2A.

After almost 30 years of seeing our system work from the street and from the Court House, that's my conclusion. 

 

I don't think I can put it any better, so carry on. If we disagree, won't be the first nor the last time. But this thread has gone extremely well 

and I have great respect for those whose opinion differs.  As I said, we are not that far apart. I believe that society has a little duty left to the law abiding,

if we believe the young, "good hearted" felon deserves a break instead of a very long prison sentence, or that a career criminal thinks the same way as you or I.   

Take care, Joel.  All the best, gents.    :tiphat:

 

Part of the issue of how things historically were handled and the way it's done now, is that over time we've broken down various aspects into too many "degrees of severity". For example, when someone killed somebody it used to pretty much be either murder, self defense, or an accident. Now we have homicide, negligent homicide, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc....., each of which carry their own set of sentencing guidelines that have "flexibilities" for sentencing AND plea deals to boot.

 

Everything has been so watered down or become such a legal "what if" game that the penalties no longer act as deterrents at all because nobody typically knows what they can or will be charged with, or what the lawyers will bargain it down to, OR what the penalty will ultimately be. The legal eagles have changed the playing field to no longer represent it simply as right or wrong, but rather "can we muddy it up enough and confuse enough jurors to get what we want because nobody can possibly understand and take into account all the emotional complexities that lead up to it". What a load of CRAP!

 

You are either guilty of a crime or you're not. You either did it or you didn't. If you're guilty, then you pay the price, and when your debt is paid if you're still sucking air then your rights are restored and life goes on.

 

Honor and simplicity no longer exist within our legal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2019 at 6:37 AM, Longhair said:

Part of the issue of how things historically were handled and the way it's done now, is that over time we've broken down various aspects into too many "degrees of severity". For example, when someone killed somebody it used to pretty much be either murder, self defense, or an accident. Now we have homicide, negligent homicide, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc....., each of which carry their own set of sentencing guidelines that have "flexibilities" for sentencing AND plea deals to boot.

 

Everything has been so watered down or become such a legal "what if" game that the penalties no longer act as deterrents at all because nobody typically knows what they can or will be charged with, or what the lawyers will bargain it down to, OR what the penalty will ultimately be. The legal eagles have changed the playing field to no longer represent it simply as right or wrong, but rather "can we muddy it up enough and confuse enough jurors to get what we want because nobody can possibly understand and take into account all the emotional complexities that lead up to it". What a load of CRAP!

 

You are either guilty of a crime or you're not. You either did it or you didn't. If you're guilty, then you pay the price, and when your debt is paid if you're still sucking air then your rights are restored and life goes on.

 

Honor and simplicity no longer exist within our legal system.

It would be nice to get a case law purge, so to speak, and clean up a lot of the language we now employ when trying someone. Get back to basics. 

 

My local court plays 'let's make a deal' before every traffic court session. The officers are waiting in a room and the lawyers come in and find out who has what case. Then they discuss what they want out of it and the original broken law is plead down to something else so it keeps it off the offenders record but they still have to pay money to the court. I have been part of it when I was there to testify to one of my cases. I can only imagine it goes on the same in higher courts. It's a game so both sides feel they won. The offending driver gets to keep his license and the court gets it's money...it really solves nothing and the cycle repeats when the offender breaks the law again. If the driver would have been held to the original law he would be out of a job and he would no longer be breaking the law.....instead the cycle is to not take away his job and let him re-offend.....just like we are now doing by not locking up our criminals and letting them roam free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, towtruck said:

It would be nice to get a case law purge, so to speak, and clean up a lot of the language we now employ when trying someone. Get back to basics. 

 

My local court plays 'let's make a deal' before every traffic court session. The officers are waiting in a room and the lawyers come in and find out who has what case. Then they discuss what they want out of it and the original broken law is plead down to something else so it keeps it off the offenders record but they still have to pay money to the court. I have been part of it when I was there to testify to one of my cases. I can only imagine it goes on the same in higher courts. It's a game so both sides feel they won. The offending driver gets to keep his license and the court gets it's money...it really solves nothing and the cycle repeats when the offender breaks the law again. If the driver would have been held to the original law he would be out of a job and he would no longer be breaking the law.....instead the cycle is to not take away his job and let him re-offend.....just like we are now doing by not locking up our criminals and letting them roam free.

In Florida, simple traffic tickets are not crimes. They are called civil infractions. The point is to increase safety, not be draconian over a speeding infractio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, towtruck said:

It would be nice to get a case law purge, so to speak, and clean up a lot of the language we now employ when trying someone. Get back to basics. 

 

My local court plays 'let's make a deal' before every traffic court session. The officers are waiting in a room and the lawyers come in and find out who has what case. Then they discuss what they want out of it and the original broken law is plead down to something else so it keeps it off the offenders record but they still have to pay money to the court. I have been part of it when I was there to testify to one of my cases. I can only imagine it goes on the same in higher courts. It's a game so both sides feel they won. The offending driver gets to keep his license and the court gets it's money...it really solves nothing and the cycle repeats when the offender breaks the law again. If the driver would have been held to the original law he would be out of a job and he would no longer be breaking the law.....instead the cycle is to not take away his job and let him re-offend.....just like we are now doing by not locking up our criminals and letting them roam free.

I like going to traffic court. In traffic court, I get to present my own cases. Whenever a lawyer shows up to traffic court, I've already won. They're paying a few hundred bucks to get someone out there to run their yap for them, and that will add up over time if they keep it up, even if I lose every case. However, traffic cases are easy to prove, especially ones that are serious enough to warrant hiring an attorney. Most times I have the violation on video, so I just roll the tape. The lawyers don't care, they get paid either way. Of course they prefer a deal because it makes their client happy. But in the end, they're getting paid anyway. 

 

BTW, in traffic court, I have probably presented a few hundred cases, and I've only lost one. That one was when I was very, very new, and put the wrong cross street on the citation, and didn't amend it prior to trial. The case was dismissed, the defendant wasn't found not guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most lawyers don't expect to win a traffic case. They try to avoid points, and if a person wasn't  jerk, or have a terrible driving record, that is what happens. Any you're right, the client pays a few hundred dollars. Once in a while the leo doesn't show up (especially in Palm Beach County)and the case is dismissed. Then I look like  hero. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Gmountain said:

In Florida, simple traffic tickets are not crimes. They are called civil infractions. The point is to increase safety, not be draconian over a speeding infractio.

In the commercial world we have access to a drivers inspection history. Our goal is compliance. We will verbally warn first, then write an in house fix it ticket, and then do a real ticket next based on the offenders ability to learn from previous mistakes. By the time they get to a courthouse they really do need to get what they have coming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2019 at 8:37 AM, Longhair said:

Part of the issue of how things historically were handled and the way it's done now, is that over time we've broken down various aspects into too many "degrees of severity". For example, when someone killed somebody it used to pretty much be either murder, self defense, or an accident. Now we have homicide, negligent homicide, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc....., each of which carry their own set of sentencing guidelines that have "flexibilities" for sentencing AND plea deals to boot.

 

Everything has been so watered down or become such a legal "what if" game that the penalties no longer act as deterrents at all because nobody typically knows what they can or will be charged with, or what the lawyers will bargain it down to, OR what the penalty will ultimately be. The legal eagles have changed the playing field to no longer represent it simply as right or wrong, but rather "can we muddy it up enough and confuse enough jurors to get what we want because nobody can possibly understand and take into account all the emotional complexities that lead up to it". What a load of CRAP!

 

You are either guilty of a crime or you're not. You either did it or you didn't. If you're guilty, then you pay the price, and when your debt is paid if you're still sucking air then your rights are restored and life goes on.

 

Honor and simplicity no longer exist within our legal system.

 

Hmmm. I kinda agree with this. 

 

Can you tell me what used to happen to a man caught molesting a woman or child?? 

 

Me thinks I would be perfectly ok with going back to that. My wife and children shure would feel safer at home alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, calebj06 said:

 

Hmmm. I kinda agree with this. 

 

Can you tell me what used to happen to a man caught molesting a woman or child?? 

 

Me thinks I would be perfectly ok with going back to that. My wife and children shure would feel safer at home alone. 

Not much, truthfully. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...