Lawdog Posted July 20 Posted July 20 So preventable, and equally so frustrating. Second City Cop: Twice in Three Days 1 3 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 20 Posted July 20 Seems like you couldn’t make up more ridiculous situations than are reported here!! It’s hard to believe that people are subjected to this environment and continue to elect these idiots!! 2 Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted July 20 Posted July 20 Probably why we have so many idiots. The big cities seem to like them!😕 2 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 20 Posted July 20 28 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said: It’s hard to believe that people are subjected to this environment and continue to elect these idiots!! They believe the propaganda of free bread and circuses in perpetuity. BUT On the main point, Did he threaten anyone? Did he brandish it? The open container while armed is mildly troubling, but not a deal breaker. Same for the twice in under a week. Other articles say it was "in a sling on his back" and he also had a 5" serrated blade knife in a "holster." One of the charges is "felon in possession of a weapon." OK, and? Was he still having to report to the State? If not, I can't see why there should be any prohibition. I guess he can't cook at home unless he only buys stuff that's already cut up. Too little information, too much OMYGAWD!!!!I'm. Do I like it? No, not really, it makes me twitchy. But feelings shouldn't be the basis for law. I'm on the fence with this. Philosophically, I think that once a person is no longer under any State supervision requirement, all civil rights should automatically be restored. Emotionally, his actions show lack of judgment and make me twitchy, as I noted above. But wanting to base law and enforcement on feelings makes me no different than Newsom and Bonta. 1 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 20 Posted July 20 22 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: They believe the propaganda of free bread and circuses in perpetuity. BUT On the main point, Did he threaten anyone? Did he brandish it? The open container while armed is mildly troubling, but not a deal breaker. Same for the twice in under a week. Other articles say it was "in a sling on his back" and he also had a 5" serrated blade knife in a "holster." One of the charges is "felon in possession of a weapon." OK, and? Was he still having to report to the State? If not, I can't see why there should be any prohibition. I guess he can't cook at home unless he only buys stuff that's already cut up. Too little information, too much OMYGAWD!!!!I'm. Do I like it? No, not really, it makes me twitchy. But feelings shouldn't be the basis for law. I'm on the fence with this. Philosophically, I think that once a person is no longer under any State supervision requirement, all civil rights should automatically be restored. Emotionally, his actions show lack of judgment and make me twitchy, as I noted above. But wanting to base law and enforcement on feelings makes me no different than Newsom and Bonta. We differ on this to a certain extent! I’m of the opinion that the conviction for a felony committed with a weapon SHOULD disqualify a person from possessing weapons, including weapons grade cutlery and cutlery of any kind outside of the offender’s residence unless the conviction is exsponged or was otherwise rescinded. Felonies that involve weapons and result in personal injury or death of victims should further preclude voting as well and in these cases I believe that those restrictions should be permanent and unless it is later proven to have been a wrongful conviction that those rights cannot be restored! 1 1 Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted July 20 Posted July 20 I'm finding myself concurring with BW on this one. 1 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 20 Posted July 20 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: weapons grade cutlery "Weapons grade cutlery," Gracie? (insert wry, ironic grin) Is that like "military grade assault weapons?" I get what you're saying. Emotionally I somewhat agree with you. But there's that ugly "E" word again. Looking at pictures of the guy my gut reaction is, "What the hell is he doing walking free?" But I'm convinced that law and law enforcement based on gut feeling and emotion results in bad law. Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 20 Posted July 20 Emotion has nothing to do with my position. A crime that results in the injury or death of a victim should carry a more stringent penalty as a matter of penalty equaling greater deterrence. I also believe that crimes committed with a weapon should carry MANDATORY stiffer sentences! Having lived with LEOs and Corrections officers for many years, I can tell you for certain that stiffer sentences DO work as a deterrent! 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted July 20 Posted July 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: Emotion has nothing to do with my position. A crime that results in the injury or death of a victim should carry a more stringent penalty as a matter of penalty equaling greater deterrence. I also believe that crimes committed with a weapon should carry MANDATORY stiffer sentences! Having lived with LEOs and Corrections officers for many years, I can tell you for certain that stiffer sentences DO work as a deterrent! 5 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said: We differ on this to a certain extent! I’m of the opinion that the conviction for a felony committed with a weapon SHOULD disqualify a person from possessing weapons, including weapons grade cutlery and cutlery of any kind outside of the offender’s residence unless the conviction is exsponged or was otherwise rescinded. Felonies that involve weapons and result in personal injury or death of victims should further preclude voting as well and in these cases I believe that those restrictions should be permanent and unless it is later proven to have been a wrongful conviction that those rights cannot be restored! An easy way for me to look at it is a twist on history and tradition. If the crime (many felonies) would have resulted in death (likely by hanging) at the founding, then the new method of long-term incarceration can also carry penalties extending both beyond release and beyond supervision. At the founding, this concept was Civil Death. Can not make contracts, vote, or do much of anything else. A societal outcast. This comes from medieval common law and adopted by the colonies. So I have no problem with disarming violent felons. I do struggle with the question of non-violent felons. I struggle with it because counterfeiting was a capital offense at the founding. Edited July 20 by John Kloehr Any jury would sentence Otto to die by hanging 1 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 21 Posted July 21 5 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said: Emotion has nothing to do with my position. A crime that results in the injury or death of a victim should carry a more stringent penalty as a matter of penalty equaling greater deterrence. I also believe that crimes committed with a weapon should carry MANDATORY stiffer sentences! Mandatory stiffer sentencing, I agree. But that's not a blanket lifetime ban for all felonies. And I'd say that your using the phrase "weapons grade cutlery" does suggest that emotion plays a part. 3 hours ago, John Kloehr said: An easy way for me to look at it is a twist on history and tradition. If the crime (many felonies) would have resulted in death (likely by hanging) at the founding, then the new method of long-term incarceration can also carry penalties extending both beyond release and beyond supervision I'll agree with that if it's included on a case by case basis and stipulated in the sentence. Again, it's the blanket prohibition, which now seems to include "weapons grade cutlery," that I find loathsome Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted July 21 Posted July 21 8 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said: weapons grade cutlery Careful with this one. The 9-11 terrorists used ordinary box cutters to hijack 4 airliners. 1 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 21 Posted July 21 When I say weapons grade cutlery I’m speaking of knives like Bowies, K-bars, daggers, and other fighting knives. Swords, machetes, sabers, and the like should be off limits to violent felons who have used weapons in the commission of a crime and been convicted. I’m not in any way being misleading or ambiguous! Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 21 Posted July 21 8 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said: When I say weapons grade cutlery I’m speaking of knives like Bowies, K-bars, daggers, and other fighting knives. Swords, machetes, sabers, and the like.. A 3" pairing knife is a fighting knife. So, two classes of implements. But pole arms are fine. Got it 8 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said: I’m not in any way being misleading or ambiguous The term "and the like" isn't exactly specific. Emotionally, I sort of agree with you, and I have no issue with it If it's in the wording of the sentence That's it, put it in the sentence. Not that hard to do. But, as I've said above, I object to the blanket prohibition on a class of people. Not trying to insult you, but I see in your position the same slippery slope we all rail against in the antis. Look what's happening with knives in the UK. Spell it out in the sentence, through due process per the Constitution, fine, no problem with that. I'd like to see that happen. But not a blanket prohibition on a large class of people. Soon " off limits to violent felons " becomes "all felons" which then becomes "let's include violent misdemeanors" and it won't be long until we reach the "nobody but licensed chefs need weapons grade cutlery, and those must be locked up when not in use." 1 1 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 21 Posted July 21 Extrapolating to the absurd is the typical emotional response! You could include hat pins and javelins as well, but intent and results have to be a limiting factor. If you sharpen the end of a mop handle and use it to injure or kill someone, you’ve met the standard! That’s what we have been fighting because of the wording in the Second Amendment. That’s what is happening in Great Britain and other places. Emotional absurdity! I explained, succinctly, my definition of a violent felony. I said felonies in which victims were physically injured or killed by the actions of criminals who were in possession of a weapon! Nobody physically harmed? When their time is served or restitution is made or both as required by their sentence and they are legally released from their obligation to society, the convict can apply to have those rights restored. The only possible grey area that I can think of is where the victim of the crime is physically injured or killed by the criminal using bare hands, (or other body parts) and that COULD be placed under the violent felony blanket as well! Shove the victim into the path of an oncoming vehicle and they’re injured or killed? You’ve met the standard. If I were to apply emotion to the mix, I’d probably go for even stiffer sentences and punishments!! Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 21 Posted July 21 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: Extrapolating to the absurd is the typical emotional response! You could include hat pins and javelins as well, but intent and results have to be a limiting factor. If you sharpen the end of a mop handle and use it to injure or kill someone, you’ve met the standard! Look at California and say that again with a straight face. I've lived, and am living, that exrapolation to the absurd. Example..."bullet buttons." Our Legislature (Sacramento Supreme Soviet) required that a tool be used to swap magazines in certain firearms. So, to comply with that, the "bullet button" was invented. Then, I think around 2018, the quockerwodgers and capons in Sacramento started complaining that complying with the requirements that a tool be used to operate the magazine release button was "exploiting a loophole" and so changed the law again. So, please, don't try to lecture me about "extrapolating to the absurd." I've been fighting it for decades. And, talking about legal absurdity, if you make your "assault weapon" featureless, you can take off the bullet button and the stuff to quickly break it open to operate the magazine release, and put the original magazine release back on. Yeah, I'm living the "exploiting to the absurd" every darned day, thank you very much. 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 21 Posted July 21 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: That’s what we have been fighting because of the wording in the Second Amendment. That’s what is happening in Great Britain and other places. Emotional absurdity! BINGO!!!! 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: I explained, succinctly, my definition of a violent felony. I said felonies in which victims were physically injured or killed by the actions of criminals who were in possession of a weapon! Not initially. You tossed out the same type of vague, emotionally laden phrase that the antis use. 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: Nobody physically harmed? I take it that's a reference to my first comment on this thread. The link in the OP only said he was arrested for carrying a machete. It made no reference to the open container, then being uncooperative with police, and only after his arrest finding the machete. My initial response was based ONLY on the information in the OP which made it seem that his only crime was carrying the machete. Which means that it's illegal for ANYONE to carry a machete. Yeah, it may be weird, but if you aren't threatening or brandishing, why shouldn't you be able to do that? Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 21 Posted July 21 There was NO emotion in my original statement! If you read it that way it was likely your own transference. I’m not interested in a confrontation here, so I will politely bow out of the conversation. Be safe! Have fun! Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 21 Posted July 21 Again, sorry, but saying "weapons grade cutlery," which you didn't try to define until several posts later, is no different than the antis appeal to emotion by saying "military grade " or "military style." Same with "and the like." Maybe not quite the same emotional impact, but it leaves the door wide open...as you yourself indicated with your jab (pun intended) about a sharpened mop handle. Now that that idea is out, don't put it past some idiot to introduce a bill in some state legislature requiring that all mops and brooms be locked up when not in use. As I said, I live with "extrapolation to the absurd" every single day. Don't put it past people in power to make laws on such extrapolation. Quote
Lawdog Posted July 21 Author Posted July 21 We're all on the same side here, guys. Take a breath. Not everything needs to be public. The curse of text/email is you can't see the person's face, hear their tone and/or gauge their expressions. If you're not sure of the context a quick PM will clear it up. 2 Quote
Texas Joker Posted July 21 Posted July 21 And yet ex cons weren't disarmed until 1968. Might fail the historical context test. 2 1 Quote
Texas Joker Posted July 22 Posted July 22 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-constitutional-argument-against-federal-gun-law-gets-first-major-court-test 2 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.