Special deal for special people (cops, of course)

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

F4GIB

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
1,165
Location
Midwest
A California state assemblyman [and former cop] wants to give a break to law enforcement officers convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Under a bill filed by Jay La Suer (R-La Mesa), a law that requires increased prison time for those who use a firearm while committing a crime would exempt police officers and others "acting in good faith and in the performance of his or her duties.''

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns25may25,1,2398328.story


So many special deals. Cop-felons are exempt from the 1968 federal Gun Control Act; cop-wife beaters in Minnesota regularily get their cases reopened, pleas withdrawn, and original charges dismissed "in the interests of justice;" ... and it goes on ad nauseum.
 
I don't see that as such a bad thing. Key word here is "involuntary." IMO most involuntary manslaughter convictions are bogus, and are a direct result of our "someone must be blamed at all costs" attitude in this society. Sometimes bad things happen. A negligent homicide should either warrant a murder conviction or an outright acquittal. IANAL, but this is my legal system too.
 
With regard to the "wife beaters" getting their cases reopened. The Lautenberg domestic violence act is just another Ex Post Facto law, unconstitutional, but the courts do not seem to agree. There is evidence that persons in the past would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge following a domestic dispute of some sort, whether or not anyone was 'beaten'. Years later they find out they can no longer own a firearm due to the charge that they plead to 30 years ago. Cops among them. I have no problem with the cases being reopened and allowed to go away, as long as thid option is available to any person in this predicament who wants to keep or get his gun rights back.

Ben
 
One of the greatest aspects of the evolution of the law in the west is the fact that the law pertains to everyone equally (at least in theory).

It's sad and dangerous that this hard won principle is being fretted away in well-meaning,but foolish legislation.:uhoh:





nero
 
A negligent homicide should either warrant a murder conviction or an outright acquittal. IANAL, but this is my legal system too.
Click to expand...
I can't quite agree with this.

By definition, "murder" requires a direct intention to kill. First degree murder also requires premeditation, second degree murder (for those jurisdictions that recognize it) does not.

Killing someone in the process of doing something, but without the direct intention of killing them, is not "murder." Depending on the circumstances it may be a lot of things, or none, but it isn't "murder."

Case in point: Jayson Williams. There's no question that he shot that guy. It appears that it was accidental/negligent -- he was playing with a loaded shotgun while he was loaded himself. Gun went off, driver was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Negligent homicide? You bet. Murder? I don't think so.
 
Giga, what makes you think that they would not be exempt?
Click to expand...

.... Because that would be insane? Even your typical pro-gun from-my-cold-dead-hands member around here doesn't think felons should own firearms. I'm not in that camp -- but the general population allows it for police officers?

I'm not disputing you -- and you're right there's no reason to think they wouldn't be excempt given the way our laws work in this country.

I'll have to mark this day down as being the day that it finally hit me: I'm not a citizen, I'm a revenue stream for government projects. They let excercise some of my natural rights some of the time if I play nice.

I feel so defeated and let down.
 
from the article itself, buried behind the headline...

The legislation was amended in the Assembly so that the exception to the gun law would apply to all citizens, not just police officers. The bill won unanimous approval in the Assembly on May 17 and will now be considered by the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunately this is NOT accurate.

The legislation was amended in the Assembly so that the exception to the gun law would apply to all citizens, not just police officers.
Click to expand...

The bill now sayspolice officers and others "acting in good faith and in the performance of his or her duties.''

Show me an ordinary citizen who can meet the "in the performance of his or her duties" requirement. There aren't any. Self-defense is a justification, not a duty.

The change is B.S. designed to fool reporters for the LA Times but not to keep you and I out of jail.
 
Hey, Giga, tell which colour pill you want and I'll tell you something else about the SSA of '68 which from your previous post will blow your mind.
Click to expand...

I dunno about GB, but I want to take the red pill.
 
F4, well, could be someone summoned to aid a LEO. Don't know CA statutes, so just a guess based on ours.

Trey, if Giga stops by, you tell him, but the SSA of '68 did not disqualify ALL felons. Want to guess what kind of felonies (kind of stuff that the "elite" may find themselves facing) were exempted from Title 18?:D

carpet, hey, I can't sleep after boxing, too old to fall asleep right after a shower.:D Besides, I'm USUALLY multi-tasking. :cool: Wagon is sure getting heavy though. :scrutiny:
 
Trey, if Giga stops by, you tell him, but the SSA of '68 did not disqualify ALL felons. Want to guess what kind of felonies (kind of stuff that the "elite" may find themselves facing) were exempted from Title 18?
Click to expand...

You're destroying my faith in humanity. This is awesome.

Gimmie more.
 
The way it's ammended now, it covers private security folks for sure.

BUT: with the whole "police have no duty to protect you" thing going on in the courts, it's clear that we HAVE a duty for self defense. So at present, yes, I'd damn well try and stretch it my way if the issue came up.

Other factors: Jay LaSuer is a generally very pro-gun legislator. But he's also an ex-cop so he often gets a bug up his tail on police issues.

My take: stay neutral. Yes, it's a bit ugly but...it won't hurt us, might help, and it's not worth honking off LaSuer if we complain.
 
Maybe the more fundamental problem is with convicting someone in the first place if they really were "acting in good faith and in the performance of his or her duties.''




:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
50bmg: Descent into Madness 48 Hours in the California Legislative System
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
carp killer
C
T
  • Locked
3 More Arrested in Rogue Cop Robberies
Replies
1
Views
526
Janitor
J
T
  • Locked
Cops Speak Out
Replies
0
Views
899
TheeBadOne
T
J
  • Locked
LA cops stage robberies to look like legitimate raids.
Replies
0
Views
582
jsalcedo
J
W
  • Locked
Pistol for police marketed to the public
Replies
22
Views
1K
average_shooter
A
Back
Top