Vern Humphrey
Member
Amen. The idea that we have to wait for a drunk driver to wipe out a group of children on the sidewalk before we can do anything about him is ludicrous.
How do we "enforce the laws we already have"?
- Thread starter Yosemite Sam
- Start date
- Status
HKUSP45C
Member
Officers'Wife said:
Agreed, but so do people who drive distracted or on the phone or tired.
We shouldn't "amp up" consequences for the "reason" for breaking the law.
ETA:
Vern Humphrey said:
This is a place I'm torn about, as a peaceful member of a civilized community. A person who drives drunk and doesn't kill anyone hasn't actually broken any of "nature's laws" BUT if I fire a gun into a crowd and don't hit anyone it isn't as if I didn't put them all in jeapordy.
In this one, specific, case I could see a good argument for "prior restraint" types of arrests. Only because I think any intelligent human realizes that one can't operate a motor vehicle, firearm, explosives, band-saws, guitars or a butcher's knife (essentially any instrument which has a chance of injuring another) while under the influence of mind altering substances. Simply put; those who have CHOSEN to adulterate their minds with substances AND have put, demonstrably, the entirety of their local population in grave danger should be guilty of attempted homicide. Which doesn't need to be enhanced with a "reason" for doing it.
Last edited:
Enforce the laws we have. This means, when a guy kills someone, we lock him up. For life. Or for death. Whatever.
I don't believe in gun control laws. If we can't trust a man to carry a gun in society, I don't believe we can trust him to be loose on society. If someone is a violent criminal, they should never be freed.
I won't get into the drug debate right now. I just want the cop who was arguing about drugs to think about how much of the problems are caused by drug laws. You don't see liquor store owners doing drive bys on each other, you don't see them resorting to criminal justice when someone steals from them.
Drug laws are well intended, but the fact is that they do have bad consequences.
I don't believe in gun control laws. If we can't trust a man to carry a gun in society, I don't believe we can trust him to be loose on society. If someone is a violent criminal, they should never be freed.
I won't get into the drug debate right now. I just want the cop who was arguing about drugs to think about how much of the problems are caused by drug laws. You don't see liquor store owners doing drive bys on each other, you don't see them resorting to criminal justice when someone steals from them.
Drug laws are well intended, but the fact is that they do have bad consequences.
Vern Humphrey
Member
In fact some states DO have laws against doing distracting things while driving. Arkansas just passed a law against texting while driving.
Nicodemus38
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 583
the first big step is to stop plea deals for most crimes. for example its common for a violent offender to commit 30 armed house break ins and have the DA convert those 30 felonies into a single misdemeanor of say, illegal entering/trespass and give the punk 2 years probation.
HKUSP45C
Member
Vern Humphrey said:
You have an uncanny knack for missing the point.
The point I was *trying* to make was: There's no need to make new things illegal or enhance currently illegal things based upon the circumstances.
When you endanger the lives of others it shouldn't matter "why" you did it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.
The problem is, you can't do anything to someone for doing something that's not illegal.
It's one thing for a cop to go into court and say, "I observed him texting while driving, a violation of Arkansas Code XX-XXX, and pulled him over."
It's another thing entirely for the cop to say, "I observed him eating an apple, or drumming his fingers on the dash and I think that's dangerous, so I pulled him over."
Until the case goes to court and the defense lawyer shreds the arresting officer on the stand.
HKUSP45C
Member
Vern, I guess I was talking about how "it should be" as opposed to how "it is."
By the way, crossing a yellow/white line, failure to obey a sign, exceeding the speed limit, encroaching on a cross walk, impeding the flow of traffic are all perfectly good reasons to pull a driver and shake him down.
By the way, crossing a yellow/white line, failure to obey a sign, exceeding the speed limit, encroaching on a cross walk, impeding the flow of traffic are all perfectly good reasons to pull a driver and shake him down.
Officers'Wife
Member
I'm told DUI is against the law in many states. It's even enforced in such red-neck havens as Bass Lake Indiana. The concept of mitigating circumstances has been in place for many years now. Such mitigation has been used as a factor in sentencing as well. Mind you, should a person want to drink in their home I say more power to them. If said person wants to get blindly drunk it falls under the heading of everyone has a God given right to mess up their lives as they see fit. My tolerance ends the moment they make the choice to use a deadly weapon while drinking. Considering that every time we load our children in a vehicle we make the necessary assumption those we share the road with are capable and competent to drive. Those not capable and competent- by accident or design - have a duty to not drive for the good of a peaceful society. The office of the law is to ensure a peaceful society, ergo purposely driving (or shooting for that matter) while impaired is well within what government was designed to do.
THE DARK KNIGHT
Member
A lot of times, enforcing existing laws means charging someone caught with a violation, instead of just letting it slide.
What the heck does that mean? Well in cities like Newark with high crime rates theres a constant flow of low lifes going in and out of the system. Sometime's they'll catch some dirtbag dealing drugs with an illegal gun in his pants, but he's just a little fish, and they want after the big timers. So they'll drop the gun charge and just give him a drug possession charge, in exchange for info on his suppliers, etc. It's not uncommon to have people in cities like this who have been arrested 3 dozen times over a period of twenty years.
Another thing to consider is some of our cities are so bad that the police lose morale. It's so awful out there, that these cops go to work, see how bad things are, and just think "man, forget this, I'll just do my time here and get home to my wife and kids" to many it becomes not even worth it for their pay. They see the system is broken, they see other cops are crooked, they see just had bad the crime is and hopeless many of the people are, and they just stop risking it.
12131
Member
First thing first, by putting all bleeding heart liberals in jail, then everything else will fall into place.
HKUSP45C
Member
Officers'Wife said:
I'm fairly certain (betcha your paycheck) that DUI is illegal in all 51 states.
First, if you assume that everyone on the road is competent and capable to drive, then, well, I have have no solace for you.
Second, if you think a drunk behind the wheel is more dangerous than a homicidal maniac, then, well, I have no solace for you.
Finally, if you think that everyone who has a "duty not to drive" will do so willingly, then, well, I have no solace for you.
Facts are: People will drive under circumstances which will get them years in jail. Suspended, running, possession, having a "young lady" in the car, wanted, drugs, open containers, warrants ... and on.
The real question is: Why do we continue to "elevate" crimes when we already have crimes that are against the law?
Why do we need to make things "more illegal?"
inSight-NEO
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 842
Enforcing this or that or allowing for greater sentences never seems to work. After all, Im sure many individuals (using weapons to commit a violent crime) never actually believe they will be caught...as stupid as that sounds.
Hiring more LEOs and/or building more prison facilities means more spending...and I think we all are aware of where the USA is in terms of that one.
But, I will say this: Strict gun laws (aimed at the "reduction" of violence) will most certainly do more harm than good when it comes to law abiding gun owners who rely on these weapons for personal protection.
Officers'Wife
Member
Exactly why such people need to be removed from a peaceful society.
And the goal isn't to make them 'more illegal' but to lengthen the time those a threat to a peaceful society are removed from society.
inSight-NEO
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 842
Again, this does not seem to matter. Either A). Many violent offenders truly believe they will not be caught, B). violent offenders accept the consequences and go forward anyway (not caring if they end up in prison) or C). really dont give a damn if they go to prison...in fact, they just might WANT to go to prison...for whatever the reason.
Longer sentences really amount to nothing, IMHO. However, promising certain death (for the exceptionally violent offenders) could mean something. But, this is the USA and therefore, even the majority of violent "criminals" are treated with "kid gloves"- the rest are protected by the "criminal hugging" liberals.
Officers'Wife
Member
And if you have bought into the theory that the office of the law is deterrence, I have no solace for you.
inSight-NEO
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 842
Umm..My statement(s) purported that the "office of the law" is indeed NOT an effective factor here. Im assuming you quoted me as an opponent of your quoted theory and not an advocate of it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
And all of those are defined as offenses by law.
Officers'Wife
Member
However, my statement was specific as deterrence, not the general term factor. Honest people do not need law to 'keep them honest,' no law will transform the dishonest to honest. The law can ensure a peaceful society only if all facets of the law do their jobs. Without common sense laws that actually address violence from the legislature society cannot expect peace. Without fair and unbiased enforcement society cannot expect peace. Without meaning sentencing from the courts effectively removing those that cannot or will not abide by the rules of a peaceful society from that society, the entire system cannot even reach it's target of the illusion of justice.
Too many laws on the books attempt to enforce morality. Even more attempt to regulate tools. In the end, it is not the guns, it is not the cars, it is not the alcohol or drugs that prevent that peaceful society. It is the poor judgment of those unwilling to accept the duties inherent in the rights retained by a free people. The Constitution gives the framework for suppressing the rights of those that can't live up to the duties. The legislature, the police and the courts are equally to blame for the failure to apply that framework.
floridaboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 334
I think it may be that having so many seemingly rediculous laws has bred a contempt for the law. Examples: helmet law for motorcycles. Seat belt laws for cars. It's my life and should be my risk. (I wear a helmet, usually not seat belts.) Marijuana laws, my guess would be that well over 50% of adults between 60 and 25 have smoked weed. Maybe 10% do reguarly. They generally aren't hurting anyone, and most folks get sort of sleepy from pot. I doubt theres much mayhem associated with pot smoking. Cigarette smoking gets harder to do in most places, and much more expensive. It's even a crime for me to smoke in a building that I own, since it's a place of business.But if everyone quit, they'd have to raise everyone's taxes to make up the revenue. If it's not a crime of theft, fraud, property or violence, maybe it shouldn't be a crime.
Officers'Wife
Member
My largest frustration is reading Indiana court news. Case after case after case where people are found guilty of violating probation and given... more probation. I remember on one occasion I attended a party and met a superior court judge and mentioned the trend. I was informed, quite rudely, that the county couldn't afford to incarcerate the violators. My reply was simply three words- guns or butter. I was not surprised his honor did not understand the reference.
inSight-NEO
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 842
What you propose (in your statement) is an interesting conundrum; how can/why does a society so lacking in "morals" insist on protecting criminals based on issues concerning "morality?" Who really knows...
It seems as if too many laws attempt (haphazardly so) to preserve the rights of those who have rendered their personal "rights" as forfeit (ie, criminals) via violent acts against society. Frankly, I have no concern for such individuals...they should reap what they sow.
Officers Wife- I think you and I essentially feel the same way. We just differ in the way in which we express our beliefs.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
But what do we mean by "morality?"
Are laws against prostitution merely there to enforce morality? Hint: check the recent ACORN scam, where ACORN was advising a purported pimp and prostitute on importing underage sex slaves from Central America. Prostitution is not a victimless crime.
Are laws against drugs merely there to enforce morality? The DOJ statistics show 25% of criminals convicted of murder say they were under the influence of drugs at the time of the crime.
Are laws against driving under the influence merely there to enforce morality? More than half of all fatal traffic accidents involve alcohol.
Officers'Wife
Member
Cherry pick data much? Importing underage persons for 'immoral' purposes is a separate issue already addressed by federal law.
As for your '25%' how many of those were in the process of obtaining more drugs from sources growing increasingly violent due to the legality of the commerce. This example is much akin to people living in an area several yards below sea level blaming the President when their homes get flooded. Drug use in commission of a crime would be more cheaply handled as an aggravating circumstance in the courts, not as a general matter of law.
As for the 'ACORN' ... the pimping/prostitution statute gives the criminal a lesser charge to plea to making it possible for them have less time to wait incarcerated before they get back to business as usual.
And if you want to quote statistics, there is one that states only one in ten crimes committed are actually brought to prosecution. I believe it would better serve society if those 10% were murderers, rapists and armed robbers than the losers on the street renting their bodies or the recreational drug user that 'parties' in their home.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
