Anyone know any felon shooters?

[PCGS65]

Yeh blackrazor isn't that something. I first thought it was a joke untill I read the article. The thread I copied that from is in the legal and political section. :banghead:
I also was wondering when it would be a felony for first time DWI. But according to "essex county" in New Hamphire it is as of this year.

The coming police state is closer than we think!!

 

[M-Rex]

PCGS65,

I just read your story. WOW. What the hell is going on in this country?! A Felony for burning leaves, and yet the fine is only $50? I've had parking tickets for more than $50, so by that logic it would now be acceptable to issue felony parking tickets! Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the old constitution, we don't really use that anymore.

Slightly off topic, but this story has me wondering, is it even legal for local counties/cities to enact ordinances where a felony conviction can result? Let's say you're driving through some backwoods rural town and they have made smoking a felony. There go all your rights?!?! Because some 500 person community is offended by smoking?

On this we agree. A felony for burning leaves is silly, as is the scenario you you outlined above. But, don't blame the 'police'. Blame the legislators and the lobbies they answer to.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

M-Rex,

First and foremost, yes, I do blame the legislators. They are the worst of the worst, from traitors like Feinstein/Schumer/Boxer down to the aspiring small town fascists who pass laws making leaf burning a felony. They are the true enemies of freedom.

Secondly, I blame the criminals, the scumbags, and the lowlifes. Now mind you I'm not talking about your modern leaf burning, bald eagle feather posessing "criminal", but the gang banging, murdering, rapists who deserve to have their guts carved out with a spoon. If it weren't for these sub-human sacks of $&#% infesting our inner cities, we wouldn't have all these legislators making so many crazy laws.

HOWEVER, I cannot hold the police completely blameless. No one's forcing anyone to become a police officer, it is a voluntary choice. A choice which allies you with legislators, who's laws you are duty bound to enforce, regardless of how wrong they are. And if you choose to be part of a police force which enforces felony leaf burning, then you become a willing accomplice to tyranny.

Any issues I have with police are very region dependent. If you're a small town cop in Alaska, hey, you're probably an upstanding great guy. OTOH, if you're an ATF field agent who enjoys shooting someone's family in Idaho because you don't agree with their politics... well...

 

[M-Rex]

M-Rex,

First and foremost, yes, I do blame the legislators. They are the worst of the worst, from traitors like Feinstein/Schumer/Boxer down to the aspiring small town fascists who pass laws making leaf burning a felony. They are the true enemies of freedom.

Secondly, I blame the criminals, the scumbags, and the lowlifes. Now mind you I'm not talking about your modern leaf burning, bald eagle feather posessing "criminal", but the gang banging, murdering, rapists who deserve to have their guts carved out with a spoon. If it weren't for these sub-human sacks of $&#% infesting our inner cities, we wouldn't have all these legislators making so many crazy laws.

HOWEVER, I cannot hold the police completely blameless. No one's forcing anyone to become a police officer, it is a voluntary choice. A choice which allies you with legislators, who's laws you are duty bound to enforce, regardless of how wrong they are. And if you choose to be part of a police force which enforces felony leaf burning, then you become a willing accomplice to tyranny.

Any issues I have with police are very region dependent. If you're a small town cop in Alaska, hey, you're probably an upstanding great guy. OTOH, if you're an ATF field agent who enjoys shooting someone's family in Idaho because you don't agree with their politics... well...

I agree with everything you said, except the third paragraph. That is just transfering the blame off of those who should rightfully carry it...and it sounds like more wacko anti-cop, 'black helicopter' drek.

When I wore a badge, I certainly wasn't an 'ally' of Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer. In fact, I openly stood against them on a few occasions, and spoke before my local county supervisors wanted to restrict FFL 'home firearms dealers'. So, I'll thank you not to paint us all with the same 'dey-iz-out-to-gets-us' brush.

 

[PCGS65]

Yes blackrazor and M-rex, I wonder what fines and how much jail time comes with a class C felony in Indiana for burning leaves? If I was a cop in Indiana and caught someone burning leaves for the first or second time. I would explain how excessivly severe the penalty is then walk away. Kind of like what police can do when pulling someone over for traffic violations. I for one could not enforce such a ludicrous law. :banghead:

 

[M-Rex]

Yes blackrazor and M-rex, I wonder what fines and how much jail time comes with a class C felony in Indiana for burning leaves? If I was a cop in Indiana and caught someone burning leaves for the first or second time. I would explain how excessivly severe the penalty is then walk away. Kind of like what police can do when pulling someone over for traffic violations. I for one could not enforce such a ludicrous law. :banghead:

+1 Agreed. I don't really know what a 'class C felony' is, as we don't have them here in California.

 

[thorn726]

Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.

funny. maybe not for felonies, but you should see how far the cops will stretch to write a ticket around here.

smoking a cigarette to close to a store entry is against the law.
same with jaywalking, riding your bike the wrong way, etc.

some get a warning, some get a ticket

honestly, it is a law problem more hta na police problem. techincally the police sohuld do their jobs and enforce the law, they shouldnt be put in the position of deciding "is it fair to apply this law to this person"

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Selective enforcement of the law is a particularly bad idea, history has shown this time and again. This is how we wind up with racist police departments, busting people for being the wrong race, when all they did was break a law that would never be enforced on a white guy. Remember, as a police officer, you have taken an oath to enforce the law, if you agree to be a police officer, you agree to arrest somebody for burning leaves, stripping them of their rights forever. In my mind, the only acceptable response to that situation would be to resign in disgust.


M-Rex,

If you were ordered to arrest all gunowners due to a new law that was just placed on the books, what would you do?

 

[thorn726]

tell us he's already retired so it is moot

havent you been following?

ha ha.

 

[M-Rex]

Selective enforcement of the law is a particularly bad idea, history has shown this time and again. This is how we wind up with racist police departments, busting people for being the wrong race, when all they did was break a law that would never be enforced on a white guy. Remember, as a police officer, you have taken an oath to enforce the law, if you agree to be a police officer, you agree to arrest somebody for burning leaves, stripping them of their rights forever. In my mind, the only acceptable response to that situation would be to resign in disgust.


M-Rex,

If you were ordered to arrest all gunowners due to a new law that was just placed on the books, what would you do?

Again, you are showing your ignorance of how the system works, and what working in law enforcement entails. I counted six out-and-out fallacies in your first paragraph alone. You are simply arguing in broad generality with a lot of 'I heards' and 'my friend saids', and 'well, everyone knows thats'.

There is such a thing as 'officer discretion'. You call it 'selective enforcement'. This is most used dealing with infractions. What would serve the greater good? A warning, or a citation? There are times when either one is appropriate. In general, misdemeanors must occur in an officer's presence to be acted upon. Felonies can be acted upon whether they occur in the officer's presence or not. Both misdemeanors and felonies require the 'probable cause' standard for arrest. It is not so simplistic that if I hear of(or heard of, and the case may be), I don't suddenly mount my black and white steed and roar off to combat evil. It isn't like what is shown on television.

Furthermore, taking the oath isn't like signing a contract signing away all cognitive ability and judgement.

In my mind, the only acceptable response to that situation would be to resign in disgust.

Yes, and 'in your mind', you are completely wrong, naive to the point of ridicule, and ignorant to a fault of how the real world works. Plainly, and simply, you do not know what you are talking about.

Besides, your point about the 'burning leaves felony' is moot. The author of the article you were citing was wrong. Read it.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/sto...20051018-sbt-LOCL-B1-County_bracing_for_l.sto

Violators will get one warning. After that, they can be charged with a Class C civil infraction and be fined $50.

 

[NineseveN]

While I think some are being a bit hard on M-REX, I can't say his attitude did not bring it upon himself. He has some very valid points...these things are not as commonplace as TV makes them out to be, but they do happen. Anyone that tries to say otherwise without proof should be taken very lightly. It's a system of human beings, regardless of how well or strict or even open to interpretation those rules are, just like every single system comprised of human beings, designed by human beings, it is fallible and subject to error.

There are a lot of gray areas here, let's try not to be too biased either way. My opinion is that when even simple things, things that aren't even felonies, things that should not even involve the legal system (such as Act 20/section 302 in PA or the way domestic violence laws are written in FL) can revoke a right guaranteed in the Constitution permanently, things are wrong, and the legal system is being perverted.

Is there any other right that can be stripped from a felon that has been released from prison and paid their debt to society and that is specifically guaranteed in the constitution except as otherwise noted to be revoked upon the conviction of a crime? If not, why is the 2A different? If you say it is because firearms are dangerous or it is for the greater common good, congratulations, you've just joined the VPC...it's is a very slippery slope indeed, there should be no tolerance or compromise on things of this nature.

 

[M-Rex]

While I think some are being a bit hard on M-REX, I can't say his attitude did not bring it upon himself. He has some very valid points...

Thank you. I didn't realize that confidence was an 'attitude' these days.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

M-Rex,

I see that despite your lengthy response, you still haven't answered the one and only question I posed to you. Care to try again?

 

[M-Rex]

M-Rex,

I see that despite your lengthy response, you still haven't answered the one and only question I posed to you. Care to try again?

No, thank you. It's irrelevent.

 

[NineseveN]

M-REX.

I apologize that my confidence at being right, and knowing what I'm talking about bothers you. Thank you for the mini-psychoanalysis.

Nice edit.

Point, set, match.

Anyway, it's not your confidence, I can appreciate that, I think we should all have so much confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and blind dimissal, and it is easy to cross when one is so convinced they are right. We all do it, though most of us humble folks can admit that...maybe not in the heat of the moment, but eventually. I only hope that once this discussion settles that you at least come away with some new viewpoints, I am rather certain I will.

 

[M-Rex]

M-REX.



Nice edit.

Point, set, match.

Anyway, it's not your confidence, I can appreciate that, I think we should all have so much confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and blind dimissal, and it is easy to cross when one is so convinced they are right. We all do it, though most of us humble folks can admit that...maybe not in the heat of the moment, but eventually. I only hope that once this discussion settles that you at least come away with some new viewpoints, I am rather certain I will.

One humble folk does what one can to remain civil.

So far, I've seen nothing to convince me that my viewpoint was in error, but I appreciate what you're saying.

 

[NineseveN]

One humble folk does what one can to remain civil.

It is difficult, is it not? I appreciate that we all have remained more or less civil throughout this discussion. I can also appreciate your viewpoint, I tend to disagree with a lot of it, but does not mean I find no merit in anything you are saying here.

Peace.

 

[PCGS65]

Hey M-rex how you doing? The THR moderator Lawdog checked on a class C felony in Indiana here it is..........

Okay, quick Google check of the Indiana Statutes reveals that a Class 'C' Felony in Indiana will net you 2-8 years in the pen and a fine not to exceed $10,000.
Sec. 6. (a) A person who commits a Class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar50/ch2.html

Geeeeeesss How would you like to lose everything you have for burning leaves? The house and wife would be gone. Tough to make the mortgage payment if in jail for a minimum of 2 years.

I don't even want to think about whats next...........

 

[neoncowboy]

Interesting look into the mind of a cop for sure.

I guess it always just spoke to me in simpler terms:
1. The law anymore is a joke, bad laws are passed in huge volume all over the country (eg: AW bans, felony DUI, broad powerd of DFACS, gun-free school zones, etc ad nauseum).
2. LEOs are sworn to enforce the law. Period.
3. If the law is bad...and the LEOs are servants of the law...then what does that make LEOs?

Sorry M-Rex, I'm trying not to be ignorant of how it works in real life, it just seems really that simple to me.

More and more, the law is being designed to strip rights from people and craft a society of subservients to the government. Being an enforcer of those laws ultimately makes one an agent of whatever evil is being done by government.

It's certainly honorable to dress for work everyday with the intent to stand between criminals and the innocent as a protector and all that...but I don't know that it makes up for the fundamental of being a sworn agent of a wrong, enslaving government out-of-control.

I guess if your take on the overreaching intrusion of government into the lives of citizens isn't like mine...and you excuse it by just blaming the laws on the voters...you could mind-f#@# your way into seeing yourself as a hero of the people or whatever.

I'm not buying it though.

Look at some of the asinine, freedom-hating laws that LEOs enforce...and recognize that the primary allegiance isn't to the people...but to those laws. In California especially, it won't take a genius to see that LEOs aren't serving and protecting the people, they're serving and protecting their masters.

 

[M-Rex]

Hey M-rex how you doing? The THR moderator Lawdog checked on a class C felony in Indiana here it is..........

Okay, quick Google check of the Indiana Statutes reveals that a Class 'C' Felony in Indiana will net you 2-8 years in the pen and a fine not to exceed $10,000.
Sec. 6. (a) A person who commits a Class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar50/ch2.html

Geeeeeesss How would you like to lose everything you have for burning leaves? The house and wife would be gone. Tough to make the mortgage payment if in jail for a minimum of 2 years.

I don't even want to think about whats next...........

Thanks PCGS65. I would certainly say that is a bit excessive for burning leaves. I think the author of the article in question that mentions the Class C felony wrote 'felony' where he meant 'infraction', as evidenced in the other article I quoted earlier.

 

[PCGS65]

Yes M-Rex, I want to think there is a mistake about it being a felony. But untill I hear otherwise I don't like to assume. Take care.

 

[M-Rex]

Interesting look into the mind of a cop for sure.

I guess it always just spoke to me in simpler terms:
1. The law anymore is a joke, bad laws are passed in huge volume all over the country (eg: AW bans, felony DUI, broad powerd of DFACS, gun-free school zones, etc ad nauseum).
2. LEOs are sworn to enforce the law. Period.
3. If the law is bad...and the LEOs are servants of the law...then what does that make LEOs?

Sorry M-Rex, I'm trying not to be ignorant of how it works in real life, it just seems really that simple to me.

More and more, the law is being designed to strip rights from people and craft a society of subservients to the government. Being an enforcer of those laws ultimately makes one an agent of whatever evil is being done by government.

It's certainly honorable to dress for work everyday with the intent to stand between criminals and the innocent as a protector and all that...but I don't know that it makes up for the fundamental of being a sworn agent of a wrong, enslaving government out-of-control.

I guess if your take on the overreaching intrusion of government into the lives of citizens isn't like mine...and you excuse it by just blaming the laws on the voters...you could mind-f#@# your way into seeing yourself as a hero of the people or whatever.

I'm not buying it though.

Look at some of the asinine, freedom-hating laws that LEOs enforce...and recognize that the primary allegiance isn't to the people...but to those laws. In California especially, it won't take a genius to see that LEOs aren't serving and protecting the people, they're serving and protecting their masters.

You are entirely entitled to your worldview, no matter how mistaken it may be. Though, your anger and venom is wasted on the wrong group of people. You are simply pumping up your own anti-cop bias with generality. Blaming a cop because of bad law is like blaming your mechanic when General Motors maked a bad automobile.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Blaming a cop because of bad law is like blaming your mechanic when General Motors maked a bad automobile.

This is a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be to blame the GM auto worker for building a car with a faulty design... and I would blame them. No one's forcing them to build cars, but if they do it anyway despite known design flaws which get people killed, blood is on their hands.

Likewise, no one's forcing you to go into the field of law enforcement, that was YOUR decision. And if, as the result of YOUR desicion are obligated to enforce tyrannical laws... well, you do the math. This whole "I'm just following orders" BS didn't fly 60 years ago, and it still doesn't today. No one's buying it. If you think the laws are bad, then don't sign up to enforce them. Sheesh. If you don't think the laws are bad, then just admit it.

You *still* haven't answered my original question, and your silence is damning. It has everything to do with this discussion, and I think you're afraid that your answer will paint you into a corner (because it will).

Oh, and here's another question for you (although I doubt you'll answer it). Were the German police wrong to round up the Jews during WW2? I mean, they didn't make the laws, they were just enforcing them, right?

 

[PCGS65]

Thanks PCGS65. I would certainly say that is a bit excessive for burning leaves. I think the author of the article in question that mentions the Class C felony wrote 'felony' where he meant 'infraction', as evidenced in the other article I quoted earlier.

M-Rex I just read the article you posted(I must have missed it)that sounds more like it a $50 fine. But the way the government is going wanting to imprison everybody I would belive something like that eventually.
Thanks for the info.

 

[M-Rex]

M-Rex I just read the article you posted(I must have missed it)that sounds more like it a $50 fine. But the way the government is going wanting to imprison everybody I would belive something like that eventually.
Thanks for the info.

No problem at all, my friend.