Inauguration performer's killers (one on probation for unlawful use of firearm, sentenced 12 days prior)
 

this will probably be deleted because everyone is arguing guns elsewhere.. but this is EXACTLY where the problem lies.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/jus...google_cnn

This scenario fits the exact typical characters statistics of the vast majority of gun homicides. I posted this prior and posted all the statistics. Look for it if you want to question the percentages. But gun homicides are typically committed by minorities in an urban area with no more than a H.S. education in gang related incidents. If I knew their family income I would cite that too (but I don't).

Notice the one statement that I could only find in this particular article (most others didn't mention it or weren't specific at all about it). One was just sentenced to two years probation for unlawful use of a firearm, 12 days before shooting the girl!! I'm sure stricter gun control laws would've stopped these gang members from killing .. If we truly wanted to fix the problem maybe we'd start being harsher to people who break the law. Obviously the probation didn't make them hesitate in shooting someone who wasn't the person they meant to kill.

Do statistics say this works? How harsh and what laws?

What's their punishment now?

Are you familiar with the term "plea bargaining"?

Uh...so get rid of plea bargains?

Inauguration performer's killers (one on probation for unlawful use of firearm, sentenced 12 days prior)

The charges come 12 days after Hadiya was shot to death at a park in what her godfather, Damon Stuart, described as an "ideal community" on Chicago's South Side.

Maybe I am misreading these two statements but they seem contradictory.

DJ said:If we severely limit plea bargains, we would severely limit the "revolving door" and the joke that the current judicial system has become.

Plea bargains are a pretty crucial part of the criminal justice system. 90-95% of criminal convictions are from plea bargains. If you think all of these cases should go to trial, it would likely cost local and federal government trillions of dollars, not to mention the cost of building more prisons.

Have you seen plea-bargaining in progress? Very often criminals walk away with a slap on the wrist compared to the crimes they had committed due to "plea-bargaining". So the prosecutor makes a deal to let them off the hook if they plead guilty to a much lesser charge with reduced or no jail time instead of their original crimes, then the prosecutor can claim a high "conviction rate" or clearance rate.

Many street criminals will up-front tell you that they don't care that they are arrested and charged with a crime - they say their liar lawyer will just get them off easy like he did last time....You are exactly correct, but we are getting what we don't pay for, which is criminals going through the revolving door of the justice system and back out on the street to commit more crimes.

So you know for a fact that they had committed those alleged crimes simply because they were charged with them?

How convenient. Why even bother to have any trial?

You keep referring to "crimes" that haven't actually been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

In addition, you also conveniently gloss over the fact that the prosecutor may lose at trial, thereby letting the alleged criminal off without even that slap on the wrist.

Street criminals showing inappropriate bravado? No way!

Perhaps that has more to do with how they spend their time in prison as opposed to how long they spend in prison.

You betcha, many of the ones I'm referring to, but not "simply because they were charged". Many of them were caught in the act.
We gotta give the lawyers something to do....


The slimeball defendant doesn't need to have the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt if the slimeball defendant pleads guilty with a plea-bargain. He gives up his right to a trial. :bulb:

True for some, but many are bargained away that would have been slam dunks.

Once in a while they might say something that is actually true....

Many don't even make it to prison, even though they should, if it weren't for plea-bargaining.

Simply because they were "caught in the act" doesn't mean that they were caught doing what the prosecution alleges.

The police burst into a room as one man shoots another man in the chest. Was the shooter caught in the act of murder? Manslaughter? Self-defense?

Your thinly-veiled disdain for the civil rights of the accused is duly noted.

You miss the point. You weren't referring to the crimes to which the defendant plead guilty, but to the original criminal charges against him:

So the prosecutor makes a deal to let them off the hook if they plead guilty to a much lesser charge with reduced or no jail time instead of their original crimes, then the prosecutor can claim a high "conviction rate" or clearance rate.

Those original "crimes" were never proven in a court of law. They are merely *charges* levied against the accused.

Go to law school. Become a prosecutor. Then you get to make those calls.

FWIW, not everyone shares your belief that the accused are just-about-nearly-almost-always guilty. Or that trials are mainly for kicks & giggles.

Jail/prison would have been a more accurate term. Given our current population of inmates, I'd say there were still "many" of them who end up there, despite the use of plea-bargaining.

True in general. I'm speaking of certain specific situations that I'm aware of.


More accurately a thinly-veiled disdain for some (not all) liars lawyers.


You'll have to forgive me, I guess I am certainly missing your point. Once the guilty defendant accept the "deal" and pleads guilty, he forfeits his right to trial on any of the crimes that he has committed, no matter what the actual *charges* are, and they were never proven in a court of law because he never went to trial, but had plead out on the bargain.

Nah, there are other professions in the field of the law that are more satisfying and rewarding IMHO. ;)

I'm not sure what you're talking about... If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't have been arrested in the first place, and there has to be a trial before they can be pronounced guilty and sentenced....


And many go right out the revolving door with probation, deferred sentencing, charges dismissed, etc.

Please don't misunderstand me, I fully realize that in the legal system plea-bargaining is necessary because of many reasons including the fact that most jurisdictions don't have the resources, facilities, personnel, time and money to try every case. However I believe that it is absolutely true that many cases are bargained away for convenience and a lawyer sort of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" situation between the PA and the PD. It goes "against the grain" to see guilty individuals going through the system repeatedly and getting off lightly repeatedly - but that's our system.

Because resorting to repeated group smears constitutes "thinly-veiled"?

:rolleyes:


You erroneously refer to the defendant's supposed "original crimes", which, as you concede, were never proven in a court of law. Therefore, you cannot legitimately refer to them as actual "crimes", but mere criminal charges levied against the accused. You are trying to essentially "convict" him for those "original crimes" despite any such legal standing to do so.


I didn't know bitching about how other people do a job for which you are not qualified constituted a "legal profession"...

Wow. Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating your inherent bias in all things related to criminal justice.

All people arrested are guilty.

And the trial is not an attempt to have an impartial panel determine the truth, but merely a formality in order to get to sentencing those who are guilty because they have been arrested.

You do more in a single post to disrespect this country & the principles upon which it was founded than a 100 high school English teachers stomping on 100 U.S. flags.

:vomit: :sick:

So you want to ban a practice that you acknowledge is "necessary" to the system? Sounds on par with all of the other ridiculous claims you make.

This is the issue. We allow violent people back on the streets, those people commit the majority of the "gun violence," and then the gun control lobby cries for more gun control laws. This was illegal, and we allowed a knowingly violent guy out on probation who then--shocker--killed someone. Stricter penalties for violence would have saved this person's life. Gun bans would not since he was already prohibited from owning a gun.

The fact that I was j/k must have slipped past you....



We are not in a court of law, and an opinion expressed on an internet forum is not an opinion expressed in any official capacity. If I know someone is guilty based on knowledge that I possess, then they're guilty in my opinion, therefore I refer to them as "crimes" in general that they have committed. Much different from a legal perspective in a court of law.

You're right, we should leave that to the lawyers....

Well, my bad for not including a dozen lol's or rolleyes or something so that the fact that I was absolutely just kidding wouldn't go right over your head. But I understand how that could happen, since often sarcasm tends to do that with me sometimes when I am reading too literally, and apparently that is what happened to you.

If there was a different alternative that would work within the system, I'd ban plea-bargaining in a split second, and I'm not j/k.

Yes, it is not like a Law & Order episode either. Trials are expensive. Jails are expensive. The justice system is clogged with non-violent offenders -- drug offenses, petty theft, prostitution, etc. If you want tougher sentencing that's one thing, but I wouldn't blame it on plea bargains.

Not really.

Many of those "non-violent offenders" go through the system with a slap on the hands and become more seasoned criminals due to lenient treatment. I don't blame it totally on plea-bargains, but that takes a very large part of the blame. I wish I could agree with you, but I've seen it too many times in action, and to many of the criminals it is a big joke. But unfortunately it's a part of our system.

Fine, then plea bargain sentences down to 1 year instead of 10 in appropriate cases. Not probation for gun charges.

Funny how after years of "3 strikes" laws and other determinate sentences for serious crimes, we now enjoy the lowest crime and homicide rates in 40-50 years.

Could it be that the threat of actual incarceration might discourage offenders?

Why is it that those who are most in favor of new gun laws, consistently oppose prosecuting existing laws?

Yes, really.

Conviction rates are exactly what motivates prosecutors in how they handle cases. DA's need them to be re-elected, and federal prosecutors need them to keep their jobs.

Because, in the aggregate, prosecuting existing gun laws has little or nothing to do with preventing the disproportionate number of gun related deaths that occur in our country. Stopping the flood of dangerous firearms that are available -- which would prevent bad people from getting guns in the first place, even the previously law abiding ones, like the Newtown shooter -- more directly addresses the problem.

Substantiation?

So addressing those that commit crimes doesn't do anything compared to systematically removing firearms from the law abiding. Interesting.

The substantiation is common sense. The NRA likes to throw around the idea that federal firearms prosecutions have dropped, without mentioning that firearms crimes are usually prosecuted at the state level and that violent crime in general has dropped (and that they've also sought to have the ATF weakened).

Consider the problem: the U.S. has a disproportionate number of firearms and firearms deaths per citizen. Most (or all?) of the recent mass killings are inflicted by previously "law abiding" people. How would enforcing the laws already on the books have prevented these people from carrying out their crimes? If they had less efficient weapons and smaller magazines, on the other hand, we know that they could not have killed as fast. In other words, stemming the supply of large magazines and assault weapons is a sure thing. Some vague notion of enforcing existing laws is not.

Those are your words, not mine.

So you were discussing state level prosecutions in response to a post about all prosecutions? Makes sense. However, your common sense is still flawed in that your correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation; nor does it lead credence to not allowing federal prosecutions doesn't do anything for gun related deaths.

Why are you now changing the goal posts to only include those that commit mass killings? The OP is an entirely valid example of a failed prosecution that could have prevented a firearm death. This person wasn't law abiding and yet was still able to kill. How about we solve that issue before an outright ban based on the sheer minority of law abiding that may kill (discounting those that are mentally ill and should have restrictions already).

What is fast? The VT shooter committed his murders over a long period of time with supposed inefficient hand guns and smaller magazines. Clearly that didn't do much, huh?

The Newtown shooter had 2 handguns as well as his AR. He took the time to put over 2 shots in each kid. Clearly time wasn't an issue in terms of his spree, and the large magazines he used was of a minimal factor.

Based on what exactly? The vast, vast majority of firearm homicides are caused by handguns. Rifles (not even the subset of ARs) account for a fraction of firearm homicides (4%). And the notion of limiting magazine size has already been shown to be negligible in terms of homicides. The outrage against law abiding AR owners is entirely misguided based on a few highly publicized instances.

Change it to all killings then. Which will more directly lead to fewer firearms related deaths -- fewer firearms or more federal prosecutions? Again, the answer is pretty much common sense.


Since we are talking about all killings, look at it on a larger scale, if 1000 gun murderers have three minutes to kill (Group A) and 1000 gun murderers have 30 seconds (Group B), which group members, on average, will kill more people?

Common sense based on flawed reasoning. Which guns are you looking to ban specifically?

This question illustrates what, exactly?

Faster guns with more bullets kill more people. Again, this is common sense. But as I've said before, most ardent pro-gun folks deliberately ignore common sense.

Your example didn't include any reference to firearms or number of bullets.

And yet contrary to your common sense, most murders aren't caused by fast guns and lots of bullets.

Hell, even the mass muders that happened could have still happened with pistols and limited magazines. Time was something they all had considering there was no opposition until police arrived and located the shooters.

A larger magainze means more bullets and more time to shoot, no?


Fast guns and lots of bullets make murder easier, which is why we need to regulate guns. It's the same reason why I am not allowed to possess a nuclear bomb. It makes murder too easy.

A larger magazine shot for 5 seconds can kill less then many smaller magazines over a large amount of time, no?

And yet the vast majority of murders are caused by slow guns with small magazines. Which is why AWB is pointless.

Again, which guns do you want to ban?

Well that and it's not arms.

That's claptrap.

Attempting to purchase a gun by a prohibited person, is a federal felony. Yet there are no more than a handful of prosecutions a year brought for that felony, despite thousands of perpetrators signing an admission of guilt, multiple times.

The NRA has been asking for increased prosecutions in that example, as well as others, for many years.

"Disproportionate" compared to what?

Some selected countries, that had different numbers regardless of gun availability or laws?

Prosecuting those who break the law isn't a "vague notion", except in the minds of those who eschew holding criminals responsible for their own actions.

What is a vague, and false notion, is that banning specific types of firearms or their magazines, will have a meaningful effect on those who want to break current laws, or the exceedingly rare madman.

That hasn't been true anywhere such notions have been implemented.

If you let out and stop sending non-violent drug offenders to prison, there would be more time and money to prosecute the ones who are violent offenders. :bulb:

So hiring a bunch of federal prosecutors and going after these people is going to reduce firearms murders? Again, it's almost always state law that local authorities use to go after gun crimes. Moreover, it's interesting that the NRA has fought against empowering federal enforcement agencies like the ATF. It almost seems like the whole "enforce the laws on the books" talking point is a red herring to distract us from the real issue.

The U.S. has a disproportionate number of firearms murders compared to other first world countries. I'm sure you know this already, though. :D

Often they are one and the same. :bulb:

Who knows? If they aren't going to prosecute the laws, why are they in the books? If the point is to keep guns away from criminals, why aren't those criminals prosecuted when they lie trying to buy a gun?

Link to show that the NRA has fought the ATF from enforcing existing laws?

Which is the arbitrary banning of a small subset of firearms?

Here is a question for you, if we create additional Federal laws banning the sale and ownership of certain firearms, who is going to enforce those laws since supposedly there is no one able to enforce current laws?

Why didn't you quote the fact he did?

Seems he was correct.

We have a gang problem. It's not as bad as Mexico's (which is why they have the highest murder rate among first world countries). It's pretty bad though compared to the rest of the OECD nations.

So mandatory minimums only work for drugs I guess. We can let the gun-toting felon out on probation as long as he didn't have a bag of weed on him.... :rolleyes:

:faint:

This is sig worthy. The sad thing is that this seems to be prevalent among cops.

Not that it's really the issue, but mandatory minimums do not work for drugs. Judges have pushed back in this area and sentencing guidelines have seen a lot of reform over the past decade. The vast majority of drug cases are resolved as plea bargains anyway.

They don't work for drugs yet we have non-violent people in prison because of them, requiring violent offenders get released?
I'm not for mm, but to say they don't work is a meaningless comment as "work" implies a specific result. Whether or not you are convicted by trial or plea bargain, some crimes still require the mm. If you want to get serious about guns, then I would expect a proposals like mm for crimes involving firearms but you don't hear that from the gun control crowd. I'm not saying they would be good or useful, but the lack of these sorts of proposals to get tough on felons using guns is why I believe their agenda is not always what they claim it to be.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/...ailinmates

48.1% (47% federal) of inmates have used cocaine or crack at some point.

there's some serious correlation with drug use and crime.. both violent and theft.

something I've mentioned before.. is that jails should be much harder than they are. If jails were that horrible of a place people would obviously attempt to avoid being placed there. For example one can stick their finger in a lightsocket and get a small shock (not pleasant, but certainly not that bad, people will even do it on a dare). Compare that to say.. holding your hand on hot burner, or putting a knife through your hand. Things you certainly wouldn't do on a dare.. The more negative the effect the less prone you are to allow it to occur.

Careful, you're going to run afoul of the ACLU....
Exactly, and when the more negative effect is consistent, instead of randomly applied there is more of a reason not to allow it to occur.

Depends on your skill level...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuiy3-hFpys