[BAB]

Hey all.

So my brother, in a momentary lapse of reason, decides to do a "lawn job" one night last month. Never done it before, was with friends, just "one of those things" young people are prone to do. Not a serious one, just a couple ruts. But unlike most people, he got caught...homeowner got the plate number. Anyway, judge came down hard...for the charge of criminal damaging, he got one year suspended license, close to a $1000 fine, one year probation, and 90 days jailtime, with 60 suspended. Now, I'm one who feels private property is sacred, and that anyone who violates another's property in such a way should be heavily fined and made to pay restitution/repair the damage and make a personal apology. But even I felt his punishment was pretty harsh, especially for a first time offender for this crime, or any other for that matter. But that's another story. So anyway, apparently, at least in Ohio, being under probation, for anything, means no possession, ownership, carrying, etc. of any firearms. So last week the cops show up at 11:30 on a weeknight to take his guns. To add insult to injury, the cop doing the collection was quite an arrogant ***, uttering such gems as "I'm an officer, and I only have three guns" (my brother has four). When my brother inquired as to how he was supposed to defend himself, the officer stated, "You've lived here for 22 years and you've been fine so far", implying that if nothing has happened in the past, it won't in the future. Keep in mind that this WAS a good neighborhood, years ago, but it has been steadily in decline, and there is now drug-dealing going on across the street, as well as occasional thefts and break-ins. My brother's house was broken into last fall, in fact. My brother inquired further, asking, "What if I'm here one night and hear a window break...". He was cut off at that point only to be told, "You can't shoot somebody for breaking your window", which of course was NOT my brother's point. He then asked, trying to ascertain whether any situation was acceptable for deadly according to this officer, "What if someone is in here and they level a gun at me?". Mr. Officer replys, "If someone did that, I'd just beat the s**t outta them." Oh, okay then. Sheesh. So on to the collection. Obviously, all four firearms were rounded up. Officer then procedes to ask him where his 30-30 is. My brother has never owned a 30-30 (though I'm sure he'd like to). Officer then says, "Well, maybe it was a 30-06". My brother has never owned a 30-06 (though I'm sure he'd like to). Officer then comes across three pellet guns, only one of them operational, and that one just barely. Those, too, are confiscated. Next comes a rather strange episode...the confiscating of some ammuntion. My brother has (had) quite a bit, but for some reason, only about half of it was taken. And get this, he took a tin of .177 cal. pellets, but left behind 200 rounds of 12 ga. buckshot. Only reason we could come up with for his pickiness was that he was probably picking out what he wanted to burn up at the range this weekend. :confused: My brother was given an itemized receipt of the guns, but not the ammo apparently (I've haven't personally reviewed the receipt). He can apparently get the guns back (yeah, good luck) after the period of probation ends, but only after a hearing to judge, I assume, whether he is "fit" to have his rights under the 2nd amendment and the Ohio state constitution restored. He is currently in talks with his lawyer to determine whether he can get the firearms transfered, or "sold" to me for the duration, as he rightly doesn't trust them in their hands for a year (if not much longer).

As I look out on my front porch, I see the American flag. We are in America. But sometimes I wonder...

So, like the title says, next time your thinking of doing a lawn job...

Sorry for the long post...I just needed to vent a bit. How did we get to the point where one can lose one's rights so easily?

[El Tejon]

30 days executed for a Class B misdemeanor on a cherry!!!:what: :eek:

Which county? Which court? Who's the judge?

Oops, I see it must be Ohio. Never mind.

[Ed Brunner]

and it came back to bite him in the end.
I don't know anything about Ohio courts. How old is your brother?

[BAB]

My brother is 22. This is Hamilton County, Ohio.

We have wondered if perhaps the judge has had a lawn job performed on his property in the past and is holding a grudge.

He is appealing the jail sentence. He's already seen a different judge, who in a preliminary hearing seriously questioned the harshness of the sentence, esp. the time behind bars. He and his lawyer will be appealing to her to get the firearms released to me when next they meet.

[Atticus]

"So anyway, apparently, at least in Ohio, being under probation, for anything, means no possession, ownership, carrying, etc. of any firearms."

Wow...I didn't realize that. Paying for, and installing new sod would have been a lot more fair and fitting.

[BAB]

Hi Atticus,

Yeah, me neither. That's what the officer claimed though. I'm going to try and do some online research myself, because I'm curious how this could be. Regardless, it should take a LOT more to lose one's rights than this. If we'd had known this would happen, he would've sold me the guns, a buck a piece. :)

Paying for, and installing new sod would have been a lot more fair and fitting.

I agree. My brother went back to the guy's house recently on his own free will and made a personal apology and offered to do the work himself. The guy, who turned out to be the township fire chief, was quite a nice guy and understanding of the whole issue. He said he was impressed that my brother would make an unforced trip over to apologize face-to-face. Maybe the chief can talk to the new judge. ;)

[CZ-75]

How did they know he had the guns?

I didn't know OH had a registration scheme in place.

[biere]

Hamilton county has a lot of problems, I grew up there and lived there for over 20 years. Icky comes to mind.

And probation is mean, because the alternative is jail.

As I recall you see an actual probation officer, and there can be check in times and all sorts of things. I think police get to search you with no reason if they suspect you of anything, remember you could be in jail instead. The guns are a biggy, get those transferred asap. There can be limits on if you can go out of state without notifying police and all sorts of stuff.

Depending on where this occurred there is a lot of hamilton county that has delinquint kids doing mail box baseball and lawn jobs in rich areas. And the poor areas are what is known so well for the cincy riots these days. Overall it is way too easy to run into trouble these days in that county, I moved a couple counties east and can't believe the difference in how people act and behave.

Good luck to your brother, I do think he should be punished for what he did but after living in that area I know full well some things can bring major trouble.

A search about probation was a major eye opened since I thought my friend was making up a lot of the above when he was on it. This was 8+ years ago, and maybe probation restrictions vary with what you did, but he was seriously limited in many things that I did not give a second thought too.

[Pilgrim]

He could have refused probation.

[BAB]

CZ-75,

The only way I think they knew he had firearms was when they first came to arrest him the night of the incident, he had two of them sitting out on the dining room table in plain view. He was planning on cleaning them if I recall correctly. This, of course, freaked the officers out somewhat...they ran the serial numbers...everything was clean, so no problem then and there. One of the officers couldn't resist giving the usual "guns are dangerous, why do you need them?" type lecture. That officer was playing quite the jerk that night. Fortunately the other officer on the scene was real professional and played straight and fair with my brother. The two of them even struck up a conversation on firearms, particularly the officer's duty weapon (40 S&W...didn't catch the make of the sidearm).

BTW, looking at the title of my thead, I can see how someone might get the idea that I am implying that the fine members of this board may be inclined to commit such acts. Such is certainly not the case...I know everyone here is above such things.:)

[Quartus]

Paying for, and installing new sod would have been a lot more fair and fitting.


Oh, I'd vote for more than that. But in the form of restitution of some kind on TOP of replacing the lawn, NOT jail time! :what:

[CZ-75]

Like being sentenced to public service?


Jail time for this is ridiculous, as is having his second amendment rights usurped - for a misdemeanor.

Only a matter of time before getting a speeding ticket and having to give up your guns are SOP.

[Pendragon]

So, some seem to think that if you get caught vandalizing property, and you have not been caught before, you should just have to... undo the bad you did?

Do any of you people own homes?

I hate vandals, and I am glad your brother got what he got. He made a choice to destroy someones property and got caught and now its all "boo-hoo! my brother is not a REAL criminal!"

I am also glad they came and took his guns. Anyone unthinking and inconsiderate and senslessly destructive enough to do what he did deserves what he got. I think it is appropriate that he go before a judge and do a nice number to get them back.

Destroying someones property for kicks is out and out evil. Stop trying to soft pedal it - your brother is lucky he got caught - he gets a big does of reality and hopefully he will realize how stupid he was and never comit a crime against another citizen again.

The word vandal comes from the name of the tribes that would go around just destroying civilizations. Burning books, wrecking pretty buildings - they were thugs who could not create anything and just got their kicks by wrecking stuff.

I will stop here before I get really worked up...

[Airwolf]

Only a matter of time before getting a speeding ticket and having to give up your guns are SOP

That day is approaching far faster than most people are willing to believe.


I despise senseless acts but in this case it's pretty obvious that the young man had a brain-fart and did something dumb. The fact that he went on his own accord to apologize to the victim, offered restitution and established some rapport with the "victim" speaks volumes to me about this persons character.

The lack of "justice" in our Justice System is one of the major issues tearing this nation apart at the foundations.

IMHO this sentence reeks of the "Zero Tolerance" that so many of us here passionately despise. Crushing a young man’s life under the state’s boot for a single isolated incident and depriving him of Constitutional rights for such a minor property crime only serves to diminish this nation a bit more.

[bedlamite]

Only a matter of time before getting a speeding ticket and having to give up your guns are SOP.

There are places in this country where 20 over is a felony.

[BAB]

Geez Pendragon,

You're welcome to your opinion, but sheesh.

Yes, I own a home. It sits on acreage in a rural area. Seems like everyone around here thinks my land is theirs to use as they seem fit, regardless of how vulgar and destructive their actions. You should see the graffiti inside my barn, or the four-wheeler and snowmobile ruts.

Last night I had to run a couple snowmobilers off my land. Muddy land...you should see the ruts. I suppose I could have put bullets through their hearts on the spot, but I felt a polite yet firm explanation of the concept of private property and trespassing was suitable for the time being, especially given their good attitudes and attentive nature as I spoke to them. Now, if it happens again, then we'll start to see some fireworks.

Punishment should fit the crime and the criminal. I guess you and I have different views on the severity of this particular crime, or perhaps on the importance of considering not just the offense, but the offender as well.

So I'm just curious, for what offenses should one lose their Second Amendment rights, temporarily or permanently, and for what offenses should one get to retain those rights? I'm not trying to start anything with you by asking this...I'm genuinely curious. We can take this to e-mail if you wish.

[Pilgrim]

IMHO this sentence reeks of the "Zero Tolerance" that so many of us here passionately despise. Crushing a young man’s life under the state’s boot for a single isolated incident and depriving him of Constitutional rights for such a minor property crime only serves to diminish this nation a bit more.

As I said before, the young man could have refused probation. Then the prohibition against possessing firearms could not have been imposed unless the state has other statutory prohibitions against possessing firearms for committing a misdemeanor property crime.

Probation is supposed to correct the aberrant behavior. It is also supposed to be legal and reasonable. It sounds like in this case the judge needed a tale to tell at his Rotary Club meeting to show how tough he is on crime so he will get reelected. After all, judges are politicians. Most at the state trial court level are elected.

I don't know about Hamilton County, OH, but in Kings County, CA the jail is terribly overcrowded. The Sheriff operates under a stipulated Superior Court agreement to keep the jail population below a certain level by releasing non-violent inmates early and citing to appear non-violent pretrial inmates who normally can't make bail. It would certainly screw up the works if a "tough on crime" judge suddenly had a whole group of convicted defendants refuse probation and opt for serving their time in jail. Convicted offenders also have the opportunity to serve their fine in jail at the rate of $30 per day.

There is an emerging concept in community corrections called restorative justice. It seeks to establish a sense of contrition and feeling for the victim on the part of the offender. The offender is encouraged to work with the victim to make amends and restore the victim to where he was before the offense. This case seems perfect for restorative justice.

[BAB]

There are places in this country where 20 over is a felony.

Really? You see, this is what I'm most concerned about with this whole episode. The ease with which one can be "legally" stripped of rights these days.

I am also glad they came and took his guns. Anyone unthinking and inconsiderate and senslessly destructive enough to do what he did deserves what he got.

This statement could be applied to so many different offenses it's scary.

I know one coworker, and a couple others in my life, that would readily apply this statement to us owners, carriers and users of firearms, especially those of us who would employ a firearm in self-defense.


Yes, my brother's actions were, as Pendragon notes, unthinking, inconsiderate, and senselessly destructive. No one can convince me otherwise, especially, Pendragon, as a home and property owner:) But were his actions unthinking, inconsiderate, and senselessly destructive enough to justify the stripping away of GOD-GIVEN and CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS?

[Dennis]

"... were his actions unthinking, inconsiderate, and senselessly destructive enough to justify the stripping away of GOD-GIVEN and CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS?"

Frankly, Americans are getting what the majority of Americans deserve. Unfortunately, rains and government transgressions fall on the just and unjust alike.

This is only the beginning of what happens when five philosophies come together:
1) There is no God (therefore no God-given rights),
2) There is no violation of the Constitution if the government SAYS there is no violation (because "they" interpret the law),
3) "Necessity" and "safety" are more important than Freedom, Liberty and/or personal responsibility,
4) Because severe evil is evil, the lesser evil is good (rather than a lesser evil), and
5) To resist is "not viable."

This WILL get worse. We've earned it. We'll get it. We (as a country) deserve it.

[CZ-75]

There are places in this country where 20 over is a felony.


I'm a multiple felon then.

I really want to know where this is because I don't want to drive there.

It's one thing to get caught and get points and a fine, but quite another when you can lose your rights and do a year + in jail, all for a traffic violation. DWI and reckless driving are the only exceptions I can think of, and they are misdemeanors.

They don't hang pickpockets, do they?

[CZ-75]

If the owner of the yard accepts restitution and an apology, why is it the state's job to add additional punishment?

The state was not wronged. Sounds like collectivism when we argue that the property of an individual being destroyed is a matter for us all to be concerned over. Should the offender make a habit of it and/or not be able to offer restitution, then I can see the state having an interest.

However, since the state actually owns all property, then charges rent, in the form of property taxes, maybe they do have an interest after all.

Don't believe me? Don't pay the taxes and see how long it is before your property is "leased" to a new tenant.

[USGuns]

That is way too harsh. Can't he appeal?

And to take someone's 2nd amendment right away for making ruts in someones yard is ludicrous.

Finally, while he has our sympathies, tell him to grow up. 22 is way too old to be doing adolescent pranks. Firearm ownership requires responsibility and maturity.

[BAB]

USGuns,

He's appealing the jail time as he is the only one in the house, there's a pet to take care of, and he is the primary caretaker of our elderly grandmother. He is also trying to get the firearms transferred into my care. Everything else he accepts as just punishment for his offense.

Finally, while he has our sympathies, tell him to grow up. 22 is way too old to be doing adolescent pranks. Firearm ownership requires responsibility and maturity.

The part about growing up...very true. I don't need to tell him to grow up, he knows how I feel about what he did. He was very hesitant to even tell me about it...thought I would hate him for it and disown him as a brother.

The replies to this thread have brought up a question in my mind...does responsibility and maturity (or the lack thereof) in one part of one's life necessarily transfer to another? Just because someone shows a lack of judgement behind the wheel, or while out drinking with friends, or with his/her finances, does that automatically mean he/she operates that way in ALL areas of his/her life, i.e., can we assume that his/her interaction with firearms will be just as lacking in judgement and responsibility? I know some gunowners who, in my opinion, act questionably in certain parts of their lives, but are some of the safest, most responsible people you'll meet when it comes to firearms. Just food for thought.

Thanks, everyone, for the replies. I enjoy reading them all, regardless of the views expressed!

[MLH]

But don't think they should take away his gun rights. BUT, do you realize how much money is lost every year to these hooligans? Millions and possibly Billions of dollors are thrown away because of these pranks and a lot of it isn't covered by insurance. It comes out of somebodies pocket. Much of the time the taxpayers pocket and increases in insurance rates. A lot of this goes on on golf courses and can run into the thousands of dollars. Think about it. Probably more money lost than all of the bank robberies put together.

[Jim March]

Taking pleasure in harming somebody else's property IS pretty bad. Taking pleasure in hurting a person is a lot worse. I can truthfully say I'm not afflicted with either disease, and I distrust those who are.

[CZ-75]

In the end, though, the kid will pay for his mistake, quite literally, out of his pocket.

Restitution, fine, court costs, and lawyer's bill seem like quite enough. Being in jail A) drains taxpayer resources and B) cuts into his ability to pay his expenses.

Assigning severe penalties for minor infractions undermines the system. I mean, what more can they give to severe offenders?

[coonan357]

I can agree with pendergon, as a homeowner (condo ) we help take care of the 7 acres of land that surrounds the buildings and lawncare is expensive (especially in the west subs of chicago) we help keep the cost down by doing it ourselves , but since we live on the end of a road and they are doing construction around us the 4 wheelers ( trucks and atvs) think this is open terrritory for them and they have torn up our lawn , and fences, plus they park on the grass on our property , the construction company thats doing the land development is not to happy becausde they tear up what they have graded and leveled , and they have helped us out when they found out we where policing the properties , to the point they actually have bartered with us on dirt and stone , but the point is it willfull destruction of ones property, your own brother stated what would happen if someone broke into his house .. well let me see its ok for him to break the law by driving on someones property ( by driving across his lawn ) but its not ok for someone to do something to his ..(double standards?? ) I say do your time and be quiet and think before doing something stupid again .. serve your time for crimes committed , and feel lucky he didn't have criminal tresspass and public endangerment charges placed against him if somone was on the lawn and if he hit them .( a felony ) , and his vehicle impounded and sold for the damages done . at least he should do community time , and fix the guys lawn .

[45Badger]

Gotta say, I'm with Pendragon on this. Original post mentions "this WAS a good neighborhood" and "been in decline".

BAB's brother (and his rocket scientist friends) with his stupid, immature behavior contriubutes to the decline.

Neighborhoods don't go bad when the first murderer, prostitute, or drug dealer move in. They go bad when idiotic, immature, destructive behavior starts and is tolerated.

Hope this teaches him a lesson. Losing the guns is a bummer, but I don't have ton of sympathy on that either. With rights come responsibilities. Little Brother didn't demonstrate a lot of respect for property and rights of others, and shouldn't whine (and neither should BAB on his behalf). You play, you pay.

He's lucky he didn't get a good *** whipping on top of his legal problems.

[BAB]

Hey, I reserve the right to whine all I want...where's the "whining" smilie? :)

Allow me to reiterate: I take a very dim view of trespassing, vandalism, etc. I won't publicly state what I've wanted to do to some such offenders in the past. My brother committed the crime, and he will be punished. Fine by me, as long as the punishment is just and fitting, both absolutely and relatively. I'm getting a feeling that some of the previous posters seem to think I condone such behavior, that I think there shouldn't be consequences (at least for a blood relative). If this is the case, I suggest you reread my posts, and do so carefully this time. Reread CZ-75's posts as well, because I share many of his same concerns. As you reread my initial post, note that most of it is devoted to the issue of suspension of rights, as well as the attitudes and actions of the state enforcers. That's my main concern here...that's the issue I would like to deal most with in this thread. It appears to me we are moving more and more towards a system that calls for the suspension or permanent removal of one's rights for less and less. Question: Is this an acceptable part of one's punishment? If so, where's the cutoff as far as type and level of offense committed? That's what I'm trying to focus on in this thread, the broader picture, not this individual case. I'd still like to hear an opinion or two on the questions posed in my last post...curious to know what the fine members of THR think.

Hey Dennis...thanks for chiming in, I always enjoy your posts, even if they can be a little "doom and gloom" from time to time :D (I agree, by the way, with your outlook and assessment).

Thanks again for the input, everyone.

[BAB]

Almost forgot...

Some of you feel it's acceptable to suspend my brother's second amendment rights in this case. Fine...that's your opinion and your welcome to it. But I'm curious...why stop there? Should we suspend his freedom of speech? His right to vote? Etc., etc...

[Eric Bryant]

As a homeowner, I can understand getting upset over a display of disrespect like this so-called "lawn job". Should this action be punished? Hell ya! (especially considering that 22 is more than just a bit old for this sort of thing)

But, really, is this the sort of thing that justifies taking away someones right? Not at all, in my book. Fine the guy, make him work his *** off (either in repairing the damage or by doing some community service), but confiscating his guns is going way, way, WAY too far! I guess I wouldn't know how to respond to someone who thinks that this is a proper course of action.

My concern over the security of my property is overriden by my concern over the preservation of our rights.

[Dennis]

Personally, I think the judge should have taught them a lesson by giving them options. After all, options are good, right?

Option 1: Jail. One year. I would make this an option because I would not want these young men to attend jail as a “criminal finishing school” for a stupid, malicious prank.

Option 2: (Assuming the culprits have jobs)
- No fines. Fines are simply a “cost of being young” to rich kids (ref the Kennedys) and devastating to the parents of poor kids.

- Minimal court costs. Courts are not supposed to be profit-making ventures for our government(s).

- Restitution? You bet. Every night after work, every Saturday (minimum eight hours), every Sunday (minimum eight hours after church), the entire group shows up to restore the lawn to pristine beauty. They are not finished until the job is done to the landowner’s and the court’s satisfaction. (Darned right the judge, or his assigned representative, should have to go look.)

- When restitution (the lawn job) is finished, their next job would be several hundred hours of community service under the same conditions as their first job. They can clean parks, paint the firehouse, pick up garbage along the sides of the county roads, etc.

- Every minute they are late or “don’t show” is an equal amount of time they must spend in jail when the job is finished (unless specifically excused beforehand, if possible, by the judge for due cause such as illness, doctor’s visits, attending funerals, etc.).

- Without prior permission from the court, their driving privileges would be limited to home, work, and their after-work job. If found anywhere else, driving or not, before the end of the lawn job AND the community service (without prior approval of the court),they go directly to jail.

- Probation for five years. If convicted of ANY crime other than a class C misdemeanor, they revert to option 1 (one year jail time) regardless of the amount of progress made restitution or community service.

- If restitution, community service and five years probation are completed successfully, three years after the completion of probation, each young man could appeal to have his record expunged.

Taking their firearms is nonsense, unconstitutional, and blind retribution rather than punishment.

I have seen judgments such as the above given in my county. It works. It rehabs the young man without making him a “criminal’s apprentice” in some jail. It gives a stiff lesson in the responsibility attached to rights. It keeps the offender in the public’s eye as a deterrent to similar offenses (unlike the “invisibility” of putting the man in jail). But it doesn’t ruin his life.

This also keeps the punishment (the sentence) under local control. If punishments become inappropriate (e.g. inconsistent, too lenient, too severe, etc.) the people have the opportunity to replace the local judge. ;)
- - - -

BTW, first of all make sure there is not more to the story.
- Why was this particular landowner picked by these young men?
- Were all the young men equally guilty? (Mere presence at the crime does NOT mean equal guilt!)
- etc.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but simple answers too frequently are simply wrong.
- - - - -

BAB,
I don't mean to be gloomy... I'm angry... downright fed up! :banghead:

[45Badger]

OK, so what is Indiana/local law in this case. If law says jail, send him to jail. If it says take away firearms, away they go! If law does not allow/mandate those courses of action, your brother may have a case.

As for police attitude, they weren't on a social call. My sister in law is a LEO. When she's talking to/at you as a suspect, every thing she says is intended to get more and correct info out of you. Many of those questions were probably meant to keep him off balance and talking (not thinking) fast.

If you don't like the laws, that's why we get to vote.

[Pilgrim]

As you reread my initial post, note that most of it is devoted to the issue of suspension of rights, as well as the attitudes and actions of the state enforcers. That's my main concern here...that's the issue I would like to deal most with in this thread.

I suspect if you were able to ask the judge why the suspension of firearms possession he would probably answer, "That's the way I've always run probation." If you were able to dig a little deeper, you would find that suspension of firearms possession came from the probation officer who wants to make life a little safer for his deputy probation officers.

Everything I've read or have been taught on the subject of probation is it is supposed to be legal and reasonable. Probation shouldn't be so restrictive that it is impossible to comply with. Also it should correct the aberrant behavior that caused the problem in the first place. One really has to stretch to connect firearms ownership with irresponsible behavior on the victim's front lawn.

I was surprised your brother was fined but not ordered to make restitution. Or maybe I missed that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If restitution wasn't ordered, then the victim in this case has to sue your brother for damages.

I wish your brother well in appealing the sentence. My gut instinct says he won't get very far. Again, I think probation with these conditions exists because no one has ever refused probation. If the jail fills up with more and more people who refuse this kind of probation, things might change.

On another tack, if this judge has a habit of being heavy handed with everyone he deals with, it probably shows up in traffic court and civil judgments. Maybe your brother can lead a political effort to have him voted out of office the next election.

Good luck.

[12-34hom]

If you can't do the time - don't do the crime.

By the way, exactly where in the U.S. is it a felony to exceed the posted speed limit over 20 mph? [If not engaged in some other type of serious crime]

Where do people get this stuff....


:cuss:

12-34hom.

[BAB]

If law says jail, send him to jail. If it says take away firearms, away they go!

Even if the law is unjust/unConstitutional? I really hope you don't mean this like it sounds :eek:...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume at this time that you don't. The anti-rights crowd is working hard to ensure not only that more and more "offenses" are placed on the books, but that each offense, legitimate or not, is punished increasingly severely, which in many cases means losing more and more rights. I am seeing this most prominently with regards to our second amendment rights. We are heading towards a day where none of us will be allowed to exercise our rights, because we will have all violated a law of some kind or another, and part of our punishment will be the surrender of our rights. But hey, if that's what the law says...

As for voting our way out of this mess...lot of good that's done. There just aren't enough of us that cast our votes with this issue in mind, for one thing.

Does the above mean I think that criminal damaging should not be a crime and/or should not carry a heavy penalty (I really like what Dennis outlined :) )? NO! But nor do I think that should, blanketly, be grounds for the suspension of a right that (I thought) we all held so dear.

By the way, I am NOT a legal scholar, but I get the distinct impression when reading the section of the Ohio Revised Code (sorry, don't have time to get the link now) that prescribes the penalty for criminal damaging that, while jail time and heavy fines are options that are in no way refused to judges handing down sentences, such penalties were meant by the legislature to be reserved for dangerous and/or repeat offenders. So while the judge was within his authority to hand down that sentence, I would wager that those who wrote that law would have reason to pause should they have occasion to review the facts of the case. I mention this just because...

Pilgrim,

Don't remember if I mentioned it or not, but he was ordered to pay for a company come in and repair the damage. I think it would be better for him to have to do the work himself, pay for all supplies, etc....like what Dennis prescribed above. Makes it a more personal and meaningful punishment than just shelling out a couple hundred bucks.

12-34hom,

Just curious...what does your handle represent?

[Zander]

I will stop here before I get really worked up...Too late...you've just given a rationale for abrogating the Constitutional Rights of a citizen and the seizure of his firearms and anything the local jackboots deem similar.

I'm not often struck speechless by anything, but this is an exception.

What in the world are you thinking?!?

[JohnBT]

Well, if that's what the law is and you don't like it, then work to change it. Meanwhile, this whining and crying is making me sad. To extend the logic that the Right to own a gun in inviolate...then even those folks locked up in a cell should be able to be armed. I mean, It's a Right, right? Yeah, that's great logic. Go on.

Personally, I wouldn't want some dumb SOB hanging out in my front yard trying to learn how to patch up the mess he made cutting doughnuts in the lawn and tearing up the bushes and flowers.

Just out of curiosity, how long were the "two ruts" he made and how deep? How fast was he going? Did he knock down any small trees or sections of fence? Did he throw a beer can or two at the house, shout something at the owner or maybe flip him the bird while laughing hysterically and blowing the horn?

Just curious. Could explain why the guy was ticked.

This didn't happen to be the yard of someone he was mad at? You know, the high school principal or the manager of the store that barred him for loitering or something.

Something doesn't add up.

I know, I know, "It was only grass and dirt." Not his though.

And while you're on this 'rights' kick, what about the homeowner's rights? But it was only grass and dirt. Boo hoo, my guns, me me me me me me. Sigh.

Maybe the boy is better off without guns around until he gets his impulse control problem under control.

John

[BAB]

Evening, John.

Well, if that's what the law is and you don't like it, then work to change it.

We'll certainly be looking into it.

Meanwhile, this whining and crying is making me sad.

Cheer up, my friend.

...Right to own a gun in inviolate...

I'll have to look back in the thread, but I don't know that anyone is saying this...we are debating it in the context of this case for the most part...whether it is appropriate, constitutional, etc. I think we all agree that there are certain cases that do warrant removal of rights by the state...violent felonies, and such. This was a misdemeanor. You're certainly welcome to offer your own opinion on the subject.

Personally, I wouldn't want some dumb SOB hanging out in my front yard trying to learn how to patch up the mess he made cutting doughnuts in the lawn and tearing up the bushes and flowers.

Dumb SOB? Come on, this is uncalled for. You don't know him, and while you can say anything you want, especially about his actions, statements like this are childish and counterproductive, IMHO. Were his actions dumb, stupid, idiotic, and totally inappropriate? Hell yes! Does that automatically make HIM all those things? Not in my opinion. For example, I think your statement is childish...however, I will not automatically jump to the conclusion that you must be...because I don't know you and can't in good faith make such a judgement. But that's just me;) .

Just out of curiosity, how long were the "two ruts" he made and how deep? How fast was he going? Did he knock down any small trees or sections of fence? Did he throw a beer can or two at the house, shout something at the owner or maybe flip him the bird while laughing hysterically and blowing the horn?


IIRC, the marks were about fairly short in length (I'll see if I can get you a figure, if you really want to know) in a crescent pattern, the ends of the crescent being the curb. No deep ruts...ground was frozen and lightly snowcovered. Can't comment on speed, except I believe the exit was fairly slow given the tirespin on frozen and snowy ground. I haven't spoken the the chief, but I suspect that's what gave him time to commit the plate number to memory. No damage to any trees or fence (that I've been informed of...if I find out differently, John, you'll be the first to know), no beer cans, no alcohol involved. Can't comment on your other points (or are they assumptions?)

This didn't happen to be the yard of someone he was mad at? You know, the high school principal or the manager of the store that barred him for loitering or something.

I guess you missed it when I stated that the property owner turned out to be (meaning they didn't know ahead of time...random choice) the township fire chief. BTW, it's Springfield Township, Hamilton Co., Ohio. I'm sure you can find the gentleman's contact info on the web. Feel free to contact him and ask him details, should you so desire.

Barred for loitering? Another assumption?

Something doesn't add up.

Elaborate, please. Feel free to ask. I'll answer any reasonable question to the best of my knowledge so long as it's posed in a mature and adult-like manner.

I know, I know, "It was only grass and dirt." Not his though.

And while you're on this 'rights' kick, what about the homeowner's rights? But it was only grass and dirt.

No, it most certainly is not just "grass and dirt" (don't fret, I know you're being sacastic here...:) ) This grass and dirt was and is someone's property (or is it the state's being as we all pay rent on it?...debate for another day). Property rights are highly important. So are gun rights. That's part of what we're debating on this thread...does violation of one justify losing another?...is one more important than the other?...what is just punishment for the violation of certain rights by another person?...are there degrees to such violations, or is it all-or-nothing?

Maybe the boy is better off without guns around until he gets his impulse control problem under control.

Impulse control problem? Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be implying that this is a chronic behavior by using the word "problem" (like drinking "problem", gambling "problem"). If you're making this accusation, I'd like to know on what evidence you base it on. I see this statement in one of two ways...akin to the "dumb SOB" and "barred for loitering" comments, or a misreading of your comments on my part. If the latter is true, I apologize to you, John.

[Dennis]

John,

And let me guess. You or the courts are the folks who can tell who has this "impulse control" problem and who doesn't and how to rehabilitate those who need to be re-educated.

Well, *I* have an impulse control problem. When our various American governments (including the courts) take powers not given them by the Constitution, my impulse is to deem it illegal.

When people support such tyranny, my impulse is to disagree. ;)

[NewShooter78]

I think that taking the firearms was a bit heavy handed, as well as the jail time. Long probation, restitution, and court costs in this case should be enough of a deterant from future behavior. I don't know if any of you have been on probation and have done community service, but its no picnic! I've done it, won't get into it because its not relavent, but that was enough to change my dumb ways. In fact, gun ownership has made me a more responsible person because the last things that I want to loose are my constitutional rights (special emphasis on the SA).

[Pendragon]

Too late...you've just given a rationale for abrogating the Constitutional Rights of a citizen and the seizure of his firearms and anything the local jackboots deem similar.

I'm not often struck speechless by anything, but this is an exception.

What in the world are you thinking?!?


More than happy to explain. I still stand by my statements 100%.

1. This "his 2ndA rights were violated!" is total bull crap. He is a criminal, convicted (I presume) and given due process. He is not a felon and has not permanently lost his right to own guns. He could have got 6 months in jail (if I recall) but got probation. Guess what? You don't get to keep your guns with you in jail people. He should be pretty glad that he is still walking around with the majority of his freedoms intact.

2. The comparing of losing your guns for willful destruction of property - which, please note, would be considered mala in se (inherently wrong) with losing our rights because of mala prohibitum (wrong because we say so) is just ridiculous. He is not the kid who found his grand pappys short barreled rifle and tried to sell it.

3. I think his punishment is very appropriate. I also believe he comitted a crime against the community as much as against the home owner. Clearly the homeowner reported the crime. The crime rate for that area has gone up. This could contribute to increased insurance premiums for everyone in the area as well as harm property values. I would bet the neighbors were aware it happened - they are wondering if they will be next. Crime does not occur in a vacuum and had ripple effects beyond the simple destruction of a few sqft of grass.

No - I dont think it would be appropriate for someone to shoot him for doing this. Nor do I think it should be a felony - but 6 months without guns and the costs and infringements on his liberty are very appropriate in these circumstances.

Based on what you said, if I were a betting man, I would bet your brother lives a pretty squeaky clean existence after this is done. He is probably a decent person, but I think this experience will be good to beat any remaining traces of hooliganism out of him and we will all be better off for it. :)

[Dennis]

“More than happy to explain. I still stand by my statements 100%.”

Okay, Pendragon, I’m more than happy to ask you to explain and eager to see how you stand by your statements 100%.

“This ‘his 2ndA rights were violated!’ is total bull crap. He is a criminal, convicted (I presume) and given due process.”

Remember that a Class C misdemeanor is still a crime. Surely (in a leap of faith here) you are not suggesting that driving 57 in a 55 zone (which is a crime—a Class C misdemeanor) requires the “criminal” to provide the government (or court) with a list of property owned, leased, rented, borrowed or otherwise on the premises of his domicile for the government to select WHICH property is “offensive” for personal possession in America. Surely not. So:

- For what crimes should a person lose his property?
- Which property should he lose? All firearms? Knives? Pocket knives and kitchen knives or only “offensive” knives. Define the property you find “offensive” for “convicted” persons to own, possess, or otherwise have in their home while they are in jail.
- For which crimes should a person lose which property? Is there a “sliding scale” of offenses and property to be confiscated? What sort of system do YOU believe rational, Constitutional and appropriate for “your” society?
- What list of inventory must the “criminal” provide, and
- To whom must he provide it, and
- When (ie how quickly)?
- If no property list is provided, do the police get to rummage around the “convicted” person’s home and take whatever they like?
- If not, what do they get to take?
- How do they go about taking it?
- What care must they give the confiscated property?
- Why does the “convicted” person or his representative not have the right to sell the offensive property to generate revenue to pay his fines, court costs, etc.
- When, and by what process, does the convict get his property back—if you believe he or his family should be able to possess such property?

And now the toughie. Where in the name of the U.S. Constitution do you justify the loss of ANY property, firearms or otherwise, for ANY crime? Constitution now—not some (what did you call it?) bull crap thought up by unconstitutional means. Don’t cop out and say “the law’s the law.” You’re defending and explaining your statements which you stand by 100%. Or, just come out and say no matter what our government does, you believe we must slavishly obey.

He is not a felon and has not permanently lost his right to own guns.

Why should a felon permanently lose his right to own guns?
Where is it in the Constitution?
Do you mean ALL felons (errors on income tax, etc.) or only felons convicted of a crime of violence?

Oh, and in Texas, a felon who stays out of trouble for five years regains his Right to Keep and Bear Arms in his domicile. Care to comment?

“He could have got 6 months in jail (if I recall) but got probation. Guess what? You don't get to keep your guns with you in jail people. He should be pretty glad that he is still walking around with the majority of his freedoms intact.”

- Guns “with you in jail people.” That was not an issue—and you know it—but it gives us an idea of what you think of us. The issue is having guns at home—but then, you knew that. Didn’t you?
- If *I* am convicted of a crime, why should my wife lose her right to protect herself, our children and our property?
- Are you suggesting there are other “of his freedoms” he should have lost? Right to vote? Speak in public, perhaps? Give us a list and explain in detail as you “stand by [your] statements 100%.”
- Are you suggesting certain relatives should also lose some “minority” of their freedoms because of their familial relationship with a “convicted” criminal? (57 in a 55 zone again comes to mind)

Oh, and I’ll stand by my questions 100% but I most certainly reserve the right to revise, extend and clarify both my comments and my questions.

Let ‘er rip, boy! Let’s hear your explanations!

[Master Blaster]

Finally, while he has our sympathies, tell him to grow up. 22 is way too old to be doing adolescent pranks. Firearm ownership requires responsibility and maturity.


A 22 year old turfing lawns???

Thats the kind of prank a 16 year old might think is funny but a 22 year old?

When I was 17 we thought that people who do this were idiots.

I'm surprised that the judge didn't suspend his drivers license for 6 months, At 22 you should know that a car is not a toy.

:rolleyes:

No doubt he was drunk or smoking something at the time this occurred?

Has he been arrested for DUI before?
How about drunk and disorderly?

I think there is more to the story given the sentence.

:scrutiny:

[BAB]

Morning, Master.

When I was 17 we thought that people who do this were idiots.
Same here. Unfortunately, some people grow up faster than others, and some never do.

No doubt he was drunk or smoking something at the time this occurred?
He says he wasn't, and I believe him. If he was and he's lying to me, I'll be the first to kick his ***!

Has he been arrested for DUI before?
How about drunk and disorderly?

No, and no.

What, you've never known a sober person to do something stupid? I'm sure we've all witnessed this from time to time. :)

[Salpalinja]

I am stupid, I know. But what is a lawn job exatly.

:confused:

[Dennis]

BAB's brother intentionally drove a car across a citizen's lawn and made some ruts. See the very first post for details. :)

[GregoryTech]

I have no problem with someone on probation having their constitutional rights suspended, as long as they are fully and completely restored upon completion. Probation is an alternative to jail, and I believe the state has a right to attempt to control the environment in this situation. It is, after all, the punishment phase.

[Pendragon]

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Dennis, I am not here to argue about whether felons should or should not be able to own firearms and under what circumstances. I do think that felons should be in jeapordy of losing their 2ndA rights, but I think that should be a seperate process where the DA (or whomever) files some pettition stating that such and such is a danger, etc.

However, in this case, we plainly have:

1. a criminal act
2. due process
3. constitutionally valid infringement of liberty and property in (I would argue) reasonable proportion.

As for your assertion that I should outline the sliding scale and the exact point at which people should lose certain property, I find that absurd.

If they start confiscating weapons for speeding violations, there would be hell to pay. The government knows we barely tolerate speed laws and keep the fines and the process within certain bounds.

Additionally, it goes to intent. People who speed do not necessarily do so with malice or criminal intent. However, I think it would be difficult to argue that vandalism can be done without malice or criminal intent.

Thats a nice tall horse you got there buddy ;)

[Don Gwinn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed that probation is an alternative to imprisonment. In other words, it is the choice of the convicted. Now, I've never known of anyone who chose prison or jail over probation, but they could. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that someone who is being offered a merciful choice can be forced to accept conditions if he accepts that merciful choice.

[CZ-75]

I like the "it's the law" type of arguments. Or the "don't like it, change it" ones.


So is the GCA of '68. doesn't make it right.

We've tried to change it for some time, but popular sentiment isn't tantamount to the "rightness" of something.


Plain and simple, jail for this is ridiculous.

Drunk drivers don't have to do this kind of time for first offenses, and they put the lives of everyone in the community in danger. They also keep their guns, despite worse judgement than used in defacing property.

If the kid pays a fine and restitution, possibly community service, then the matter is well settled.

I really hate it when I get some stupid "throw the book at them" approach told to me for a triviality.

Jail:

A) Costs taxpayers money

B) Possibility of harm to those sentenced

C) Increases economic burden on those sentenced (Guess who might end up picking that up, oftentimes?) and decreases possibility of restitution

D) Harms family members counting on sentenced for support

E) Severity of punishment exceeds the severity of the crime





F) DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Oh, my 14-year old (then) neighbor broke my window with a slingshot some years back. His old man payed for a new one and I considered it settled (Dad probably whipped his a--, too).

Maybe I should have insisted he be executed with a shot to the back of the head? Or, at least, castrated so that he wouldn't perpetuate future generations of potentially stupid kids.

:rolleyes:

[QuickDraw]

You stated that the victim was the Fire Cheif?
Bad juju.The Fire Cheif is very politically connected!Probably
personal friends with the Cheif of Police or Sheriff.

On another note,it seems that in the past,if you commited crime X
you received punishment Y.Now it seems that the courts are
running out of punishment and keep upping the punishment.
What does firearms ownership have to do with the crime?
I noticed the Judge didn't limit his 1st ammendment rights.

QuickDraw

[BAB]

Hi all.

I've noticed some folks expressing confusion over there being both jail time and probation, instead of just one or the other. I don't know the legalities of it all, and I'll ask about this specifically next time I talk to my brother and/or his attorney. All I know is that although jail time was ordered, he hasn't served yet pending an appeal of that part of the sentence. I suppose then that he was ordered on probation until that time, or something like that. I'm just not familiar enough with Ohio's system to help clear this point up for you guys.

Sorry, but that's all I can offer at this time:) .

Take care, all.

Edit: After some very limited online checking, I found that Ohio instituted new sentencing laws in July 1996, under which a judge can order BOTH jail time and a period of probation.

[Chaz]

I am dismayed at some of the responses I have read here. Can anyone explain to me what firearms had to do with his crime? The facts as I understand them are:

Someone used a motor vehicle to drive onto anothers property as a prank. (Hence the crime of vandelism)

Thats same person gets caught.

That same person goes through the courts and either admints or is found guilty.

That same person recieves several "sanctions" for his crime including fines, probation, drivers license suspension, restitution, and jail.

This same person goes to the victim of his crime and apologizes. (This more speaks of his character outside the bounds of the court system)

At what point in this whole incident do firearms play a role? It seems to me that the punishment, though a bit harsh in my opinion, has dealt with the problem. He has been fined, made to pay for the damage, lost the ability to legaly operate a motor vehicle, will be scrutinized by the state for the next year, and possibly lost his freedom of movement for 30 days. All the elements of the crime have been dealt with. So I ask again, at what point to firearms play a role?

This confiscation of his firearms do not fit the crime and is obviously a political agenda being applied. Not necessarily from the judge but from the lawmakers of the state. A "zero tolerance" one size fits all, feel good legislation to further the careers of politicians. We have many opinions but struggle against a common enemy. Those who would take away our firearms, our God given rights themselves. This wont happen all at once, rather it will occure through incrementalism. And in that case we are our own worst enemy.

This crime does not necessitate the removal of his guns and I must disagree with those who think this is ok. It's only one more step in the battle.

Respectfully,
Chaz

[Dennis]

Pendragon,

I think it would be difficult to argue that vandalism can be done without malice or criminal intent. If you include stupidity and thoughtlessness in that, I'll agree with you.

I do think that felons should be in jeapordy of losing their 2ndA rights, but I think that should be a seperate process where the DA (or whomever) files some pettition stating that such and such is a danger, etc. And I may agree with that so long as the petition is a requirement and must show due justification rather than the automatic process typically involved with legal (marital) separations or with minor acts of vandalism, non-violent misdemeanors, etc.

As for your assertion that I should outline the sliding scale and the exact point at which people should lose certain property, I find that absurd. I agree that's absurd; however, it's your concept of "infringement of liberty and property in ... reasonable proportion" that calls such absurdity into question.

You've expressed the opinion that this minor, non-violent vandalism against property justifies loss of Second Amendment guarantees. I, for one, disagree. Therefore, for me to question what acts you believe should require nullification of which Constitutional guarantees is the crux of the matter--no more absurd than your hypothesis.

You note, If they start confiscating weapons for speeding violations, there would be hell to pay and I agree. Then you try to justify the anomalous punishment in question by saying people who speed do not necessarily do so with malice or criminal intent. In cases where people grossly exceed the speed limit you know that's not correct. The intent to ignore the law is there and that is criminal intent. The difference is the lack of property damage unless and until a vehicle crash is involved. Therefore you still have:
1. A criminal act (typically a Class C misdemeanor) and
2. Due process (fine, etc.).
Yet you (apparently) believe that such offenses do not require confiscation of firearms.

Good. Apparently we agree speeding doesn't nullify the Bill of Rights. Yet you believe minor vandalism nullifies CERTAIN Rights.

Again, find it as absurd as I find your conclusion if you must, but please address how to implement this unwarranted and illegal confiscation of personal property and your justification for leaving a family legally unable to defend themselves, etc. (ref my earlier post).

In other words, Pendragon, rather than a curt "absurd," remember that you are More than happy to explain. [You] still stand by [your] statements 100%.

Explain which offenses justify forfeiture of which Rights and which property and how it should be done. I'm not asking for a complete recap of state and federal law, merely an indication of your concept of "reasonable proportion" and how to implement it.

Yepper, I do ride a tall horse. He's called "Constitution" and he's no gelding! He even bites ME sometimes but he's MY horse and I'll both defend him and ride him until I die.

"The weak are the handmaids of the wicked." I like that. :) But what do you call those who blindly support illegal tyranny?

[Pilgrim]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always believed that probation is an alternative to imprisonment. In other words, it is the choice of the convicted. Now, I've never known of anyone who chose prison or jail over probation, but they could. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that someone who is being offered a merciful choice can be forced to accept conditions if he accepts that merciful choice.

You are correct. In fact, probation is an essential part of community corrections because in most cases there isn't enough room in the jail to punish everyone with incarceration. Parole is the same way. If there was no parole in California, we wouldn't have enough prisons.

Do some people refuse probation or parole? Yes they do. Not many, but they are out there. I had a conversation with a state corrections officer and he has encountered prison inmates who refuse parole because of the control and intrusion into their private lives.

In most cases the conditions of probation and parole include submission to search and seizure at any time. It also includes submission to "inspections" of one's household and workplace. There is a woman in Fresno County who was returned to prison for 8 months for a parole violation because her policeman husband left his work pistol out where she could have access to it and the parole agent came visiting.

Probation is supposed to be legal and reasonable. However, the conditions of probation are pretty much what the judge says they are. Take it or leave it. If a convicted person says no, then he serves his time and pays his fine. No visits from the probation officer. No restrictions on behavior unless specifically authorized by statute.

[GregoryTech]

Chaz,

I mostly agree with you. In fact, I side with those who believe that once a felon has (completely) served his time, he should automatically get his rights to keep and bear arms (yes, have and carry) back. However, I also believe that during the time that someone is serving his sentence on probation and parole, he is not fully entitled to all of his constitutional rights if a judge declares certain conditions (on a case by case basis) as a requirement for his release. Once the sentence is fully served, I believe an American Citizen is once again entitled to his full constitutional rights.

[CZ-75]

he is not fully entitled to all of his constitutional rights if a judge declares certain conditions (on a case by case basis) as a requirement for his release. Once the sentence is fully served, I believe an American Citizen is once again entitled to his full constitutional rights.


Let's just give'em 70 years of probation, then.


If the original crime wasn't a felony, then firearms should not be a factor.

[GregoryTech]

Let's just give'em 70 years of probation, then.

If the original crime wasn't a felony, then firearms should not be a factor

If the original crime wasn't a felony, then you'd have a hard time giving him 70 years probation.

Bottom line for me: Probation, prison, and parole = actively serving a punishment for a crime. You've given up your rights and handed them to the state to control. Not a criminal, or not actively serving a sentence for a crime, state has no say except what the constitution explicity authorizes.

[BAB]

Afternoon, Gregory.

I can see where you're coming from (not saying I agree, necessarily :) )...so then let me ask you this: What happens as more and more previously legal actions are criminalized, with the associated punishments for violations (I'm thinking in particular of firearms restrictions, and the War on Terror). More and more of us could end up having rights suspended and/or revoked by the state in a scenario like this.

Curious as to your thoughts.

[GregoryTech]

Hi BAB,

That's the other side of it, and "they're" attacking us at both ends. I realize this. There is a dumpster here in South Florida posted with a notice that illegal dumping (putting a bag of your household trash) is a FELONY. This means that if you put a bag of garbage in this dumpster, you can lose your rights to own firearms FOREVER. It's outragous. It's one of the reasons why I simply can not support the idea that once convicted of any felony, a person automatically loses his rights to kba. I still differentiate "while serving" from "time served" though. You raise a good point though. It is another angle at which "they" can attack.

[BAB]

There is a dumpster here in South Florida posted with a notice that illegal dumping (putting a bag of your household trash) is a FELONY. :what:

Man, I know that's theft of services (or something like that, I think it's called), and it should be illegal, but a felony?! That's part of what scares me as well...grossly increased penalties for various crimes (legitimate and otherwise), and the loss of rights that results.

I apologize if you've already said and I missed it, but do you think that the suspended or revoked rights should relate to the crime committed? In my brother's case, I see no reason for them to have taken the guns...he committed no crime with them. How about taking some of his right to enjoy HIS property, maybe with a little eye-for-an-eye...let the fire chief do a couple rounds on my brother's lawn...in a firetruck!:D

[CZ-75]

If the original crime wasn't a felony, then you'd have a hard time giving him 70 years probation.


For now.

[DCR]

Your brother got hosed. I think the judge was all too aware of whose lawn got damaged and your brother was an opportune defendant for the judge to "make an example of."

Probation is harsh; you sign away your 4th and 14th amendment rights in most all instances. (But remember, he ALWAYS has the 5th and 6th; he should shut up and lawyer up if things get hairy dealing with a PO). Most probation conditions are no drinking, no drugs, no crimes (duh!), and the rest of the conditions are usually tailored more to the crime - no possession of alcohol in the home if the crime was DUI, etc.

As the others kind of mentioned, but did not say directly, it's a choice:
(1) Top out the sentence, meaning I sentence you to the maximum penalty and you serve that amount of time, or
(2) accept the conditions of the probation office (to which the courts usually give a free hand to fix terms and conditions they want for supervision of probationers) and I won't give you as much, or any jail time, but will hold it over your head as an incentive to live up to the conditions of probation.

I have to say I've never heard of turning over one's arms as a condition of misdemeanor probation for a nonviolent offense, but sadly I'm not entirely surprised given that judges and probation offices have wide discretion, and RKBA is not taken entirely seriously in all states.

Please go help your brother by making sure he won't get zapped for violating the terms and conditions of probation; some PO's (not the good ones) openly state that they view their job as to make the probationer fail. Have him get a copy of all terms and conditions he will be subject to (they're usually happy to give a copy; that way they can say they provided the probationer a copy to take home to prove knowledge of the terms) and "violation-proof" his home. If no alcohol is a condition, get rid of the beer-can or whiskey bottle collection, or the chianti-bottle candlestick. Get rid of anything that might even remotely be incriminating of ANYTHING illegal - razor blades, reloading scales, extra boxes of baggies, though innocently possessed, raise the eyebrows of PO's on a surprise inspection. Move the ammo they didn't take to your house for storage. And don't just try to hide these things - get them off the property. These guys are well-trained and very experienced at finding stuff that some pretty clever probationers hide. Lastly, if he has anything in the home that he would find embarassing being listed on the front page of the paper, with pictures of him and all his immediate family next to the article, get rid of them or store them elsewhere. PO's are very intrusive, and are not above using knowledge of embarassing facts to "encourage" compliance with other requests or conditions they may add.

Study the terms of probation closely; there may be wiggle room - if the term just says "firearms" but not "weapons," he has plenty of options available for self defense (see THR's alternative force forum or TFL's archives for ideas.) And best of luck with his request for sentencing reconsideration; though I think we all know his actions warrant punishment, but this judge was excessive.

[Pendragon]

I do think that felons should be in jeapordy of losing their 2ndA rights, but I think that should be a seperate process where the DA (or whomever) files some pettition stating that such and such is a danger, etc. And I may agree with that so long as the petition is a requirement and must show due justification rather than the automatic process typically involved with legal (marital) separations or with minor acts of vandalism, non-violent misdemeanors, etc.

To clarify, I think that once you are a felon, there should be a process where you can lose your guns and gun rights. It should be similar to a menatal competency hearing - they argue that you are violent, you argue that what you did was a non violent "white collar" crime. Etc. Right now its automatic and while I think it should be likely that you lose these rights, it should not be automatic.

As for your assertion that I should outline the sliding scale and the exact point at which people should lose certain property, I find that absurd. I agree that's absurd; however, it's your concept of "infringement of liberty and property in ... reasonable proportion" that calls such absurdity into question.

I already quoted Article 7 where it is clearly constitutional to deprive people of liberty and property after due process. Our disagreement here seems to be over the degree of punishment.

You've expressed the opinion that this minor, non-violent vandalism against property justifies loss of Second Amendment guarantees. I, for one, disagree. Therefore, for me to question what acts you believe should require nullification of which Constitutional guarantees is the crux of the matter--no more absurd than your hypothesis.

This is indeed the crux of the matter.

First, lets note that from what I understand, his guns were more impounded for the duration of the probation than out and out confiscated. They ought be returned to him in 6 mos - I would have a problem if they were taken permanently.

Well, unlike some people here, I do not think that a persons crime need be gun related or specifically violent to warrant the impounding of their arms for the duration of their probation. I will not consider those unreasonable who disagree with me.

I think any crime that is destructive in nature and shows either malice or wreckless disregard for lives and property - that should be enough for a judge to at his discretion impound a persons arms - or, if they are married, order that the person not use them for a certain period of time. I think it should be up to the judges discretion - note that most judges are elected, so if a judge is yanking guns for doing 70 in a 55, then he ought be unelected.

Second - there is the assertion that the next thing we see is that we are all going to lose our guns for going (as someone said) 57 in a 55.

Please - join us here in reality.

I have been pulled over a LOT (like at least 50 times). I was told that I had a car that matched the description of certain local raskals. I have got a few tickets, some of them for driving too fast. Now, I did not run from the cops, I treated them with ample respect and I got my ticket and sometimes a lecture and moved on. There were times I was going more than 20 over the limit and could have got hauled in, but the officer has a level of discretion - this was on back country roads, I was not driving in an otherwise wreckless manner (tailgating, unsafe passing, etc) but I presume that if my behavior had appeared extreme enough to the officer, he would have arrested me and I would have had to deal with it. Also note that I was younger and did not own guns so that was not really on my mind then like it would be now.

I think that there are situations where people are driving maybe only 20 over, but they are doing so in dense traffic, tailgating, cutting people off, swerving violently, etc.

Our system is run by humans for a reason - the people in our judicial system have levels of discretion from the officer to the DA to the judge and so on. The reason is, every case is different and it is appropriate to judge people not just for their actions, but for the context of their actions.

Now as to the young man appologising - that is great and it shows that he is not a waste of skin, but if I understand correctly, he did this after everything was processed.

You note, If they start confiscating weapons for speeding violations, there would be hell to pay and I agree. Then you try to justify the anomalous punishment in question by saying people who speed do not necessarily do so with malice or criminal intent. In cases where people grossly exceed the speed limit you know that's not correct. The intent to ignore the law is there and that is criminal intent. The difference is the lack of property damage unless and until a vehicle crash is involved. Therefore you still have:
1. A criminal act (typically a Class C misdemeanor) and
2. Due process (fine, etc.).
Yet you (apparently) believe that such offenses do not require confiscation of firearms.

I believe that in some cases impounding a persons arms may be appropriate for doing nothing more than driving like a maniac. For simply speeding? No - but when you speed too much, it becomes "wreckless driving" and thats a whole new ball game and yes, I would support such measures in some cases for people convicted of severe wreckless driving.

Good. Apparently we agree speeding doesn't nullify the Bill of Rights. Yet you believe minor vandalism nullifies CERTAIN Rights.

No, I believe that when you are convicted of a crime and given your due process, that the judicial system can then deprive you of your property, your liberty and even your life (and please, lets not discuss capital punishment for vandalism).

You are the one who is crowing all about the constitution but this person was deprived of his liberty and his property through a process endorsed by the constitution. If you think this was "cruel and unusual punishment" then you should make your case on those grounds, but I doubt there is a court in the land that would listen to that argument.

Again, find it as absurd as I find your conclusion if you must, but please address how to implement this unwarranted and illegal confiscation of personal property and your justification for leaving a family legally unable to defend themselves, etc. (ref my earlier post).

You may try to argue unwarranted, but it is most certainly not illegal (at least from a constitutional perspective). I say the young man was unwise, destructive, and dangerous in his behavior. Nobody here seems to be arguing that he was anything but that. I think the confiscation of arms can be appropriate when people are convicted of behavior that is destructive and dangerous. I leave it to the judge, he makes a decision - maybe it was overly severe - thats the risk you take when you commit a crime.

In other words, Pendragon, rather than a curt "absurd," remember that you are More than happy to explain. [You] still stand by [your] statements 100%.

Yes, I still stand by my statements which I made based on the case as I understood it. Please note that I do not necessarily think the young man is a danger with his guns - I only think that in this case, it is appropriate for a judge (and possibly the probation officer, but I might waffle if he alone made the decision) to impound the guns for the duration of the probation.

Explain which offenses justify forfeiture of which Rights and which property and how it should be done. I'm not asking for a complete recap of state and federal law, merely an indication of your concept of "reasonable proportion" and how to implement it.

If a person commits acts which show extreme levels of negligence or violence or a propensity to destroy property or harm people, then I think it appropriate that if you are going to let them walk around in society that you impound portions of their property that may facilitate their tendencies. It is not an exact science because we cannot see the future or read minds, but we have a process and I think it worked in this case.

As for the assertion that he is now "defenseless" well, that is his problem. So - if you get assessed a fine and you lose your house or you become imprisoned and you cannot support your family - is it then the fault of the judicial system for "ruining your life"? Hardly - its just another reason to not commit crimes.

Yepper, I do ride a tall horse. He's called "Constitution" and he's no gelding! He even bites ME sometimes but he's MY horse and I'll both defend him and ride him until I die.

Yes, well, please ask your trusty steed about article seven and then get back to us.

"The weak are the handmaids of the wicked." I like that. But what do you call those who blindly support illegal tyranny?

I would put them in the same category as those who blindly oppose justice as outlined by the Constitution. ;)

[Quartus]

The anti-rights crowd is working hard to ensure not only that more and more "offenses" are placed on the books, but that each offense, legitimate or not, is punished increasingly severely,


OUCH!!! FUNDMENTAL ERROR HERE!


Of the "know your enemy" variety.

It is NOT just the "anti-rights crowd" crowd that is pushing this. It is not even primarily the "anti-rights crowd" that is pushing this.


It is the garden variety, Republican voting, Law and Order crowd that is mostly to blame.

It's also the silver haired "give me my Social Security check and keep me safe" crowd that is pushing this. It is the soccer moms that are pushing this.

It's even sometimes some of us "I'm tired of criminals getting off scott free crowd" that are to blame.


This push towards greater and greater punishments for lesser and lesser crimes is a reaction to our legal system's failure to deal with crime. Which is why I disagree vehemently with this statement:

If there was no parole in California, we wouldn't have enough prisons.

If we had no parole, no probation, no plea bargaining, no endless appeals, no exlusionary rule; if trials were quick and sensible and sentence meted out quickly and fairly, we'd have plenty of prisons. In fact, we'd have plenty of EMPTY prisons, and the folks that make those $1000 stainless steel prison toilets would be begging for business.

[CZ-75]

Well, unlike some people here, I do not think that a persons crime need be gun related or specifically violent to warrant the impounding of their arms for the duration of their probation.

Kommiefornia is getting to you.


Our system is run by humans for a reason - the people in our judicial system have levels of discretion from the officer to the DA to the judge and so on. The reason is, every case is different and it is appropriate to judge people not just for their actions, but for the context of their actions.

Like the "discretion" used to prosecute those two business owners in Baltimore for ventilating an armed burglar?

Now as to the young man appologising - that is great and it shows that he is not a waste of skin, but if I understand correctly, he did this after everything was processed.

Wasn't exactly like he had time to listen to his conscience before being processed.



As for the assertion that he is now "defenseless" well, that is his problem. So - if you get assessed a fine and you lose your house or you become imprisoned and you cannot support your family - is it then the fault of the judicial system for "ruining your life"? Hardly - its just another reason to not commit crimes.

All this for ruining some grass? Give me a break. It'll grow back by next year. And, no, the kid should fix it and pay for it, not wait to let it grow back.

Severe punishment for trivial crimes undermines my faith and that of others in the justice system.

As a taxpayer, I'd certainly be gratified at the system for allocating its resources to lock up some kid for "farming" someone's yard. Particularly someone who's "connected."

I wish I was as sanguine as you are about the right and honest intentions of our politicians (an elected judge most certainly is), but a lot of prosecutors care more about their convictions (and how that can be parlayed into votes) than about the guilt or innocence of the accused. I suspect judges feel they are getting "brownie points" as well. These folks are hardly unbiased or disinterested.

[Chaz]

However, I also believe that during the time that someone is serving his sentence on probation and parole, he is not fully entitled to all of his constitutional rights if a judge declares certain conditions (on a case by case basis) as a requirement for his release. Once the sentence is fully served, I believe an American Citizen is once again entitled to his full constitutional rights.

The trouble with this is it requires men of integrity to run the system. As we all know this is not always the case. There are many stories in which the firearms are "lost" and or due process fails due to corrupt individuals. Additionaly, should not the punishment fit the crime?

I wish I was as sanguine as you are about the right and honest intentions of our politicians (an elected judge most certainly is), but a lot of prosecutors care more about their convictions (and how that can be parlayed into votes) than about the guilt or innocence of the accused. I suspect judges feel they are getting "brownie points" as well. These folks are hardly unbiased or disinterested.

Politicians are politicians. They do what they have to to survive. Just look at the 2 cases in NYC now involving the use of firearms to defend lives and familiy. Despite the evidence the "zero tolerence" prosicuters are still pursing "illegal weapons possesion charges" against the vitims of the crimes. Surly they have discretion to prosecute or not but hey proceed because it will garner them possibly more convictions and hence better political standing. Common sense be damned! Does anyone here think that the congress, as they voted on the AWB in 94 knew what a flash hider was? I doubt many of them knew what an AK47 or AR15 looked like. But it was the hot topic at the time and they did what they had to do to survive. Though the above has little to do with the case at hand, nontheless it proves a point.

The grass was killed, not the owner. Let the man keep his guns.

Edited for spelling (that I could find:D )

[Pilgrim]

If we had no parole, no probation, no plea bargaining, no endless appeals, no exlusionary rule; if trials were quick and sensible and sentence meted out quickly and fairly, we'd have plenty of prisons. In fact, we'd have plenty of EMPTY prisons, and the folks that make those $1000 stainless steel prison toilets would be begging for business.

Plea bargaining takes place in about 90% of all criminal cases. Source? Criminology by Larry Siegal Ph.D. University of Massachusetts, 7th edition, Wadsworth Press. If plea bargaining was eliminated, which by the way became very popular during Prohibition, where would we find the courtrooms and judges to handle all the extra trials? I've seen Driving Under the Influence trials which should be slam dunk affairs go on for 2-3 days.

Same source by Siegal, studies show that exclusionary rule violations resulting in rejected cases occur in only about 1-2 percent of all crimnal cases. The percentage is a little higher, perhaps 3% in drug cases. Would you eliminate the exclusionary rule and give the FBI free reign to tap your phones and put a bug in your computer because you posted something inflammatory on THR?

Without parole, what would be the incentive for a prison inmate to obey the rules and not cause trouble? The prison staff won't beat him? Beating prisoners is against the law.

Endless appeals? The U.S. Supreme Court pretty much put an end to that when California executed Robert Alton Harris. If endless appeals was such an effective tactic, why is Texas so successful at executing its murderers?

It's easy to say, "Do away with the Constitutional safeguards and the loopholes that let the criminals off," but when its one of your own that gets pulled into the criminal justice system, just listen to all complaining about heavy handed cops, zero tolerance policies, and overzealous prosecutors.

[Pendragon]

I suppose much of my position is due to the fact that I do not consider the crime to be trivial.

My home is my castle and vandals ripping up the yard would piss me something fierce. In some ways, I think vandals are worse than thieves. Thieves at the very least, steal to acquire. Vandals destroy property for a thrill. I find that actually more repugnant.

Yes, the damage was small monetarily, but that is not the point - the guy is going to deal with a lot of sucky things for 6 months and then he will get his guns back and move on.

Certainly this outcome is on the severe side of the scale but that does not make it unjust.

I soundly reject that a vandal restoring the property to how it was is enough to put things right. That is restitution, but there should be some retribution and punishment.

I think if you steal $10, you should be fined $100 or maybe even $500 or $1000. Yes, the punishment should fit the crime, but I think if you do a crime, you should come out of it poorer and much worse off than the victim. Otherwise, what are we saying? Do a crime and the punishment will cost you about what you gained by committing the crime? Thats the stupidist thing I can imagine.

Every crime has a benefit to the criminal. Theft gains property, murder vents rage or removes a problem individual, vandalism gives a thrill, etc. My point is that the cost of getting caught should be much much greater than the benefit. It is not a trade off, and if we put the cost and benefits on parity, there is little deterrent.

Develop

Impulse

Control

.

[jrhines]

What punishment did the "lawn rider" expect to get if he was caught?

[John Galt]

I agree with Pendragon that the punishment seems about right. Especially considering that 30 days might make a 22 yr old wake UP! and not do such things in the future.

The "lawn job" is like sneaking over and crapping on the guy's head and then getting away with it and having a good laugh.

On the other hand, stealing his guns is ridiculous. Make sure he goes to court and gets a court order for their return.

** I don't really believe in jail for most crimes. A public caning would have been much more appropriate.

[Fair 'n Square]

Pendragon, good for you! Don't be swayed in your convictions! You would have made a good apprentice to Torquemada during the Spanish Inquisition. :D

[CZ-75]

I don't really believe in jail for most crimes. A public caning would have been much more appropriate.

I'd go for that if it was an option. Caning/restitution or Jail. I don't agree that it should be public for something trivial.

Rapists should be caned in public before going on to serve their life sentences. Child molesters should be caned in public before being hanged, publicly. People who abuse children or animals should get a public caning, in addition to prison.

[CZ-75]

BAB,

I think that if your brother lived around Montgomery, or Indian Hill, or in Anderson or West Chester TWPs, he'd have gotten off with less.

[Pendragon]

Pendragon, good for you! Don't be swayed in your convictions! You would have made a good apprentice to Torquemada during the Spanish Inquisition.

oooh! you got me there! I did not expect that! but then, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :rolleyes:



...yawn...



All I see here is whining and moaning about some kid who made a mistake and got pinched and pinched pretty hard.

Lots of strutting around playing Captian Liberty and hinting at shades of tyranny and extremism and archaic witch hunting.

I could not possibly be more underwhelmed by your collective lack of substance. I do sympathize with BAB - it must be painful to see his brother go through the system.

No, its all "poor kid, vandalism is such a trivial crime". '

Many of you are trying to paint me as some kind of closet tyrant.

Hmm, lets see, was it my concern with due process? Is it my concern that private property, especially a persons house should be near sacrosanct? Is it my belief that the process should be painful and exact a cost that is uncomfortable enough to discourage a repeat performance?

There is another thread in this forum about how many on the left are trying to alter the meaning of the language to suit their purposes.

I think many of you make the same mistake - although I will grant that it is probably born out of laziness instead of something more sinister.

Regardless, there are actual tyrants in this world and using the word to describe people who prefer harsher sentencing simply degrades the language and the impact of the word.

I thought you people were better than that.

[BAB]

Quartus,

Hmmm, have to admit I hadn't thought about it like that, but I think you're right.


CZ-75,

You seem familiar with the area...are you from around there? I grew up in Finneytown, and my brother continues to reside in the area.


Pendragon,

Have to say I respect the high regard in which you hold private property rights. Perhaps if more folks had a greater understanding and respect for these rights, we would be better off...perhaps we could dump the current rental (property tax) system, too. I still disagree that gun rights should be subject to suspension in a case like this, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can, though, see consistency in your position in that you view the crime committed as a very serious one, which, in turn, would call for much more serious consequences.

I would like to ask you the following question, then, to gain a bit more perspective on your views: Would you support the upgrading of the crimes of criminal damaging, criminal trespass, etc. to felonies? In some areas, I wonder if they might already be felonies for multiple offenses, but I mean for the first offense.


Have a good day, folks.

[Pendragon]

I would support them being "leaners" or whatever - where they can go misdemeanor or felony.

I think there would have to be a high standard for felony vandalism and a very high standard for felony tresspass.

And no, I would not support felony charges in your brothers case. :)

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Hmmmm...

Very good points all around. And civil, too, even from the "primary antagonists".

I thank you. Good manners are what The High Road's about, at least for me. Threads like this one validate this place, and are an example to us all. :) Keep up the good work.

Ok, enough of the group hugs. Opinion time.

Felons should be able to petition for rights restoration. The ATF'S "no funding" excuse is crap. Felonies are rather too loosely spread around to deny some form of redress. Court review works for me, (Better than the ATF!) but the option must exist. Denial of redress because of cheezy excuses is nothing short of abuse.

Suspending something as fundamental as someone's right to self-defense for anything LESS than a felony is an abrogation of rights that I find reprehensible. The "temporary-ness" of the condition is not good enough, as that opens the system to potential abuse. (What's "good cause" for your CCW? According to whom?) If rights can be abrogated by misdemeanors at all, even for "short periods" (Defined by what standards?), then what is the point of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in the first place?

Some laws deny gun rights based on "certain misdemeanor crimes of violence". I don't much like this extension of rights denial, really. Lautenberg BUGS me. I also have hard time regarding almost any property crime a "crime of violence". Lawns don't bleed. This begs the felony definition question again, to me. Vandalism can be perpetrated on a felony level, but that wasn't the case here. (BTW, here in Kaliforny the 4th. Ammendment suspension that probationers get extends to EVERYBODY IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD! :what: Found that out when a room-mate had a DUI problem. The cops/PO's could barge in and search whenever, and WHERE-ever in the house they wanted with no notice, regardless of the non-criminal status of the rest of the room-mates. Now I wonder if they coulda swiped my guns, too. I just LOVE guilt by association! :mad: )

I can understand and even support giving judges wide latitude in applying sentences. Mandatory sentencing winds up applied like zero tolerance, it denies any flexibility for mitigating circumstances. But I DO NOT like the idea of arbitrarily handing out the power of stripping rights. That is not in accordance with the founding principals of the social contract we call the Constitution. Since when is rights-eroding incrementalism acceptable if a judge is responsible? We allow the judiciary branch such power?

Sighhh...:rolleyes:...I guess we do. :( No wonder the democRATS challenge any legislation that passes that they dislike in court. They have figured out where the REAL power in this country lies: safely in the hands of who are not elected and have their authority for life.

That explains why the D'Rats squeak so very shrilly about judicial appointments, also. Judges who disagree with their "Living Document" ideology wouldn't support their challenges of legitmately passed legislation. Go figure...:rolleyes:

We need to up-end our gubmint and give it a good shaking. Smack it around a bit, and tell it who's boss. That's the ticket...

Awe, nuts. That'd be buzzing the sheep, wouldn't it?

Ok, down off my soap box. You can yell at me now, should you be aso inclined. I'll even listen! ;)

[JohnBT]

Having reconsidered my previous position, I now believe that the victim, the Chief it turns out, should have invited the poor boy over for dinner and a movie. Just kidding.

What can I say? The poor child got bit on the butt by the Bad Luck Bird. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Then again, he could consider himself lucky that he didn't pick the yard of that wacko couple that went back and shot at those girls for throwing snowballs at their daughter.

As far as calling him names, well, it's not like he got hit on the head by a falling star and I'm making fun of him - he went and did a no-no of his own free will and got caught doing it.

As far as referring to it as an 'impulse problem' - you mean he planned this little escapade out in advance with forethought and malice and couldn't pull it off? That's worse.

Sorry he got caught. Better luck next time and I hope the lawyer doesn't eat you out of house and home to beat this down to reckless driving or something similar.

John

[Quartus]

The trouble with this is it requires men of integrity to run the system.

Aye, there's the rub! But that is EXACTLY what we've got with our Constitution. That's exactly why the system is breaking down. Lack of morality.


As for the argument (a page or so back) that eliminating plea bargaining, probation and parole would overwhelm the legal system, thank you for bringing that up. You stated the argument well!


It's nonsense. Short-sighted nonsense. There would be a major 'traffic' jam for a few months, until the reality of the new system sunk in. Then you'd see crime rates drop like a rock. They are where they are now precisely because we have made our penal system a toothless tiger with our three Ps.

That's why "3 strikes" laws have had such a big effect - they put some teeth into the legal system again. (A poor solution to a bad problem, IMO, but instructive nonetheless.)

And where did I say anything about getting rid of Constitutional safeguards? Where in the Constitution do you find that criminals should go free over some minor technicality? Where do you find that relevant evidence should not be seen by a jury unless every T is crossed and every I is dotted? And all the other nonsense that is our current legal system?


As for this kid, I agree with Pendragon about the seriousness of the crime, but I think the punishment should fit the crime. Taking his guns doesn't. Making him pay several times over for the repair of the lawn does. Making him mow the lawn for a year does. Making him wear a sign telling of his crime WHILE he mows the lawn does. Taking away his driver license does. Confiscating his truck does. Doing ALL of that would certainly not be overkill in my book.

But guns have nothing to do with the crime, and should have nothing to do with the punishment.

[Ledbetter]

That cracked me up.

Seriously, people with impulse control problems in one area (stupid and undisciplined enough to skid around the fire chief's lawn in February) generally have them in others as well. And no, I don't want to hear about your brother's. He should start trying to pass himself off as an adult ASAP.

I don't think I'd put him on my list of "People I'd Like to Go Shooting With" in any event.

[Carlos Cabeza]

Hard call but................If you wanna dance, you gotta pay the piper............When I was a youngster I did some custom landscaping too, but I had the sense to do it where nobody would even notice. AT THE LAKE !