im tired of the whole concept of charging ppl with extra stupid crap only so that they can be released early. how about we charge them for the one main thing they did wrong, and keep them in jail for the full lentgh of a real sentence not this lenient crap for violent criminals.
Wearing Body Armor could be a felony
- Thread starter atblis
- Start date
- Status
Depends... How high do you want the turnover rate to be for Corrections Officers? Right now, the only thing that allows them to keep some semblance of order in prisons is the threat that good time/gain time can be revoked. Take that away, and you won't be able to find anybody to man the towers, much less work the housing units.
Flyboy
Member
Close. You get one trial, for multiple offenses. Yes, you must be convicted of the initial offense--say, murder, in the case of my righteous-but-unappreciated shooting--but you do not get tried for murder, and then tried again on the body armor charge. Instead, the DA brings one case with everything he has--an old lawyer's trick, throw everything at it and see what sticks.
The problems with this are A) the DA can now say "you're looking at eighty-five years for everything," instead of the ten you'd be facing for a manslaughter charge (probably the best he could have gotten, on a truly righteous shoot). That gives him leverage in the form of scaring defendants with a truly heinous sentence, and encourages to plead out when they should fight--it changes the expectation value of the trial.
B) As I said, I'm inclined to think it will prejudice the jury. Think about it--when you hear of somebody with a charge sheet as long as your arm, what's your first impression of him? Again, this is true because all of the charges are tried at once, not in sequence.
Flyboy
Member
Agreed. I don't mind the idea of (limited) parole, but I think there's also something to be said for adding time for bad behavior. Then we could get rid of the need to artificially inflate sentences, and still encourage inmates to behave themselves well.
A man (or woman) needs to know the exact duration of the maximum amount of time he's going to be required to spend in payment for an act he/she's committed. You can't say "You get ten years, more or less, depending on the whim of the Corrections staff watching over you..." For one, it's too easy to get cased up, and a guy could go in for ten years, and spend the rest of his life inside. This could be done by corrupt officials of government employees as easily as by inmates.
Back to the purpose of this post...
An analogy:
Supposition #1: Suppose you're dating this girl, and for whatever reason, you get so hacked off at her that you decide to ram her house with your car, intending to kill her. Suppose that despite your best efforts, she emerges unscathed.
Supposition #2: Suppose that instead of ramming her house with your car, you go and steal an eighteen-wheeler, weld up all kinds of railroad ties all over it to make it into a battering ram, and load it up with 35 tons of bricks. Suppose, that despite having her house rammed, railroaded, and flattened... she emerges unscathed.
What do you think you should be charged with for case #1, and should the charges for case #2 be worse than case #1?
atblis
Member
Yes but
You took offensive actions in your analogy. Body armor is passive.
And again I present the notion that perhaps the person simply does not want to be shot. The fact that they are aware they may be shot is meaningless.
You took offensive actions in your analogy. Body armor is passive.
And again I present the notion that perhaps the person simply does not want to be shot. The fact that they are aware they may be shot is meaningless.
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
atblis wrote:
i believe there needs to be an enhancement for wearing body armor in the commission of a violent felony because it sends a message out to crooks that if they decide they want to wear body armor and they are caught, chances are they will serve a longer sentence. further it is probably an aggravating factor when choosing the sentence term (i.e., 2-10 years you'll probably get closer to 10 yrs than 2 yrs).
the fact that they believe they will be shot, again, is because they are committing a violent felony. the fact that they are aware that they may be shot is definitely anything but meaningless. it means that if they want to take the extra protection then they have a stiffer price to pay if they are caught.
again, i dont think people can claim self defense when they are in the commission of a violent felony. would you be singing this tune if your loved one was killed by a violent felon wearing body armor? if your loved one was unsuccessful in defending themselves because they shot an aggressor in self defense, and the aggressor was wearing body armor, would you be defending the aggressor's right to wear body armor?
i believe there needs to be an enhancement for wearing body armor in the commission of a violent felony because it sends a message out to crooks that if they decide they want to wear body armor and they are caught, chances are they will serve a longer sentence. further it is probably an aggravating factor when choosing the sentence term (i.e., 2-10 years you'll probably get closer to 10 yrs than 2 yrs).
the fact that they believe they will be shot, again, is because they are committing a violent felony. the fact that they are aware that they may be shot is definitely anything but meaningless. it means that if they want to take the extra protection then they have a stiffer price to pay if they are caught.
again, i dont think people can claim self defense when they are in the commission of a violent felony. would you be singing this tune if your loved one was killed by a violent felon wearing body armor? if your loved one was unsuccessful in defending themselves because they shot an aggressor in self defense, and the aggressor was wearing body armor, would you be defending the aggressor's right to wear body armor?
Flyboy
Member
Evidence of Premeditation
As with the semi-trailer example, donning body armor before committing a crime is evidence of premeditation. Premeditated crimes are already punished more severely (either by statute, as in the different degrees of murder, or de facto, as when a prosecutor argues in sentencing that the convicted deserves a harsher sentence due to the nature of the crime), so we really don't need to be stacking charges on there.
The problem isn't lack of things with which to charge the accused, it's that judges are goofy in sentencing, and prosecutors would often rather make a deal than go to trial. You can't fix a major problem with a band-aid, and the unintended consequences usually end up causing more problems (which, in turn, get their own band-aid, and so on ad infinitum until you have a code of laws that looks like, well, ours).
As with the semi-trailer example, donning body armor before committing a crime is evidence of premeditation. Premeditated crimes are already punished more severely (either by statute, as in the different degrees of murder, or de facto, as when a prosecutor argues in sentencing that the convicted deserves a harsher sentence due to the nature of the crime), so we really don't need to be stacking charges on there.
The problem isn't lack of things with which to charge the accused, it's that judges are goofy in sentencing, and prosecutors would often rather make a deal than go to trial. You can't fix a major problem with a band-aid, and the unintended consequences usually end up causing more problems (which, in turn, get their own band-aid, and so on ad infinitum until you have a code of laws that looks like, well, ours).
Not really. Not in Florida, anyway (the only state I know the legel system somewhat well). Here, each each crime has a specific punishment attached to it. The criminal, during sentencing, is assigned points for such things as past criminal history and severity of the crimes he's being sentenced for this go around. The number of points tallied up determines sentence. Cut and dry. Not to mention our "10-20-Life" law and our "minimum mandatory" laws. No, a sentence here is pretty much an excercise in accounting, which may be why I'm in favor of adding points on using additional charges for things like wearing body armor.
In my analogy, the perpetrator takes the premeditated step of heavily armoring his weapon before striking. In the OP's question, the perpetrator takes the premeditated step of heavily armoring himself before robbing. The only defense you could take is if you take the position that he had no intention of committing a robbery, he only wore the body armor as a part of his normal routine, and the robbery "just happened" as he went about his normal, lawful routine. I take the position that the robbery was premeditated when he donned the armor, and that by doing so, he made himself into a more effective weapon for doing evil. In my (possibly twisted) view of things, that deserves a greater punishment than not.
atblis
Member
I need to read
I haven't read all of the cimes that this particular statute applies to, but I think it might not apply to robbery.
I haven't read all of the cimes that this particular statute applies to, but I think it might not apply to robbery.
Flyboy
Member
Notwithstanding my opposition to "mandatory minima" (there's always a situation in which they're not appropriate, and "mandatory" removes the ability to adjust for that), what you're saying doesn't diminish my argument at all--in fact, I could claim it as support. If you run through aggravating factors at sentencing as a checklist, then there's absolutely no reason for wearing body armor during commission to be a separate criminal charge, and thus no reason for charge-stacking. I'm not opposed to it being considered during sentencing--it's obviously evidence of premeditation in almost every case*--but that can be accounted for in sentencing, without making a separate law against it.
* Thought experiment: come up with a circumstance in which wearing body armor would not be evidence of premeditation. I have a few, which I'll share later.
That's actually MY point. The only real "aggravating factors" are previous convictions, and whether or not the crime was especially heinous. Assume an armed robbery conviction; the penalty is what it is. In order for the criminal to get more prison time (which he may richly deserve), the judge can't just say, "Well, you've been an exceptionally bad boy, so I'm going to add ten more years to your sentence..." In order to get those extra years, there have to be extra charges brought, and convictions obtained. The easiest way to do this is to make things like using a firearm, wearing body armor, and wearing a mask or disguise separate charges. I'd have to assume that this is also the least costly for the taxpayer, since more things can get settled out in one trial.
I'm sure I could come up with several, too. For instance... I have an aunt and uncle that are notoriously cheap. I mean... the kind of cheap where they refuse to leave tips for waitresses, they recycle fast-food drink cups...
We were in a decent restaurant once, and the bill came up to just under a hundred bucks. My aunt counted out the exact total of the bill, in cash, down to the penny, and gave it to our waiter (no tip included--I left some cash behind). Turns out she miscounted her cash, and shorted the guy a twenty. He caught up to us as we reached our car, and she paid him the rest. Officially, we could have all been charged with "theft of services" -- a misdemeanor. Since I CCW, though, it could have been upgraded to "armed robbery", and if I had been wearing body armor... well, you get the idea.
This is why I'm also in favor of letting the judiciary have some discretion in sentencing.
Correct me if I am wrong, but here in Maryland isn't it a crime for an ex-felon to possess body armor? So once you are convicted, sentenced and paid your dept to society, you are no longer eligible to protect yourself with something as passive as a bullet proof vest, let alone any defensive weapon!
atblis
Member
Possibly
State codes are searcheable online. I recommend looking things up if your in doubt. Don't take law enforcement officer's words as gospel.
Maryland is a special place (that I don't go).
State codes are searcheable online. I recommend looking things up if your in doubt. Don't take law enforcement officer's words as gospel.
Maryland is a special place (that I don't go).
^^^
Want to bet? Try to research Pennsylvania's title 18 ("Crimes and Offenses") online. The only copy is outdated by years, hosted on some ex-lawyer's AOL webspace, and half of the links are broken.
You can read and search the entire PA code except for title 18. Why? Because they don't want you to know what is and isn't illegal when the police stop you in traffic or knock on your door.
Seriously, go on and try it. Google is your friend. I'll wait.
Want to bet? Try to research Pennsylvania's title 18 ("Crimes and Offenses") online. The only copy is outdated by years, hosted on some ex-lawyer's AOL webspace, and half of the links are broken.
You can read and search the entire PA code except for title 18. Why? Because they don't want you to know what is and isn't illegal when the police stop you in traffic or knock on your door.
Seriously, go on and try it. Google is your friend. I'll wait.
Connecticut law 53a-217d: Criminal possession of body armor. (Class a misd.)
Prohibits previously convicted felons from possession. Google search yields examples where ex felons have been charged for merely wearing, absent other charges. Other cases where a search of felon's home turned up a vest; additional stacked charge, and he wasn't even wearing it.
Also curious, Conn. law 53-342b: Can't sell body armor, except in person, face-to face. It says nothing about the seller having to run a background check, though!
This law also contains the ubiquitous LE exemption, that we see so often in today's two-tiered justice system. 
Prohibits previously convicted felons from possession. Google search yields examples where ex felons have been charged for merely wearing, absent other charges. Other cases where a search of felon's home turned up a vest; additional stacked charge, and he wasn't even wearing it.
Also curious, Conn. law 53-342b: Can't sell body armor, except in person, face-to face. It says nothing about the seller having to run a background check, though!
This law also contains the ubiquitous LE exemption, that we see so often in today's two-tiered justice system. DomMega
Member
I'll just remind you guys of the North Hollywood Shootout that happened right down the street from where I'm sitting just a little time ago. That one solitary act of a bank robbery, totally changed what law enforcement carried and how certain situations were handled. 2 men with fully automatic rifles went into a Bank of America and proceeded to rob it. After they made it outside the employees locked themselves in the bank vault because they knew the bags of money were about to start smoking, making the money worthless. (Whatever that stuff is called, I forget.) After the bank robbers saw this, they immediately tried to go back into the bank if I recall, and the doors were locked. The police showed up and the shootout began.
They were outgunned. If you google the North Hollywood shootout it will tell you what the robbers were carrying along with the type of body armor. The police were outgunned. They showed up with 9mm handguns while getting shot at with armor-piercing fully automatic .223 rounds. Who has the upper hand? After seeing how ineffective their armament was, they ran into any sporting good stores they could find to allocate 12 gauge shotguns and rifled slugs. They knew that against the body armor and such, the slugs wouldn't kill them but they may have the possibility of breaking some bones, thus slowing them down. It wasn't until SWAT was called in they were able to stop the last fleeing suspect as the first one had already commited suicide by that point.
That is the reason for such laws. It has nothing to do with whether you're wearing body armor and carrying a weapon on your person. It has more to do of whether you've already assimulated yourself to become an aggressive menace to society and commit a felonius act with your current gear. So you may fire at unsuspecting victims while most any attack on yourself would be more or less futile. Such additional charges as you're all saying only come into effect after a violent act by the person wearing such things is commited.
They were outgunned. If you google the North Hollywood shootout it will tell you what the robbers were carrying along with the type of body armor. The police were outgunned. They showed up with 9mm handguns while getting shot at with armor-piercing fully automatic .223 rounds. Who has the upper hand? After seeing how ineffective their armament was, they ran into any sporting good stores they could find to allocate 12 gauge shotguns and rifled slugs. They knew that against the body armor and such, the slugs wouldn't kill them but they may have the possibility of breaking some bones, thus slowing them down. It wasn't until SWAT was called in they were able to stop the last fleeing suspect as the first one had already commited suicide by that point.
That is the reason for such laws. It has nothing to do with whether you're wearing body armor and carrying a weapon on your person. It has more to do of whether you've already assimulated yourself to become an aggressive menace to society and commit a felonius act with your current gear. So you may fire at unsuspecting victims while most any attack on yourself would be more or less futile. Such additional charges as you're all saying only come into effect after a violent act by the person wearing such things is commited.
stevetexas
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 67
13. Is it legal for civilians to buy Body Armor?
In general, yes - for law-abiding folks. A felony conviction makes possession of Body Armor illegal under federal law and in many states.
Residents of Connecticut are prohibited from buying Body Armor unless the sale is face to face (or unless the buyer is a police officer, Police Department, or military).
We cannot ship to residents of Connecticut
who are not police or military.
Some states are considering new legislation to prohibit or restrict sales of Body Armor to civilians, e.g., New York.
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Quick_Answers.shtml#13
In general, yes - for law-abiding folks. A felony conviction makes possession of Body Armor illegal under federal law and in many states.
Residents of Connecticut are prohibited from buying Body Armor unless the sale is face to face (or unless the buyer is a police officer, Police Department, or military).
We cannot ship to residents of Connecticut
who are not police or military.
Some states are considering new legislation to prohibit or restrict sales of Body Armor to civilians, e.g., New York.
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Quick_Answers.shtml#13
chemist308
Member
I think what may have prompted this is the well known duo who in 1997 suited up in armor and AK47s, robbed a bank and had an extended shoot-out with LEOs who were severly underequiped...
Personally I think that law is assinine. As said it prevents folks from protecting themselves through passive means. Felons aren't even allowed to buy the stuff, despite the fact that it would certainly reduce gun deaths. This may be off the wall but think about it; two drug dealers are less likely to kill other with armor. The answer is not to ban body armor (BATFEBA...) but rather to properly equip LEOs. If any of them had a decent rifle in their car, the duo would have been stopped right outside the bank.
Personally I think that law is assinine. As said it prevents folks from protecting themselves through passive means. Felons aren't even allowed to buy the stuff, despite the fact that it would certainly reduce gun deaths. This may be off the wall but think about it; two drug dealers are less likely to kill other with armor. The answer is not to ban body armor (BATFEBA...) but rather to properly equip LEOs. If any of them had a decent rifle in their car, the duo would have been stopped right outside the bank.
atek3
Member
Slippery Slope... First you ban wearing them during a crime, then you ban ownership by felons, then you require permits for nonfelons, then you don't issue any more permits... same tactics they use to outlaw guns...
I personally want body armor to be legal, even if some vanishingly small percentage of criminals will abuse it... same with guns.
atek3
I personally want body armor to be legal, even if some vanishingly small percentage of criminals will abuse it... same with guns.
atek3
Aguila Blanca
Member
I have no problem with making it a criminal offense to use body armor in the commission of a felony, just as I have no problem with making it a criminal offense to use a firearm in the commission of a felony. That's the way laws should be written. Citizens should not be restrained from owning inaminate objects, but using them for felonious purposes is fair game in my book.
- Status
