Discuss Gun Laws (..in light of recent events)

[ITSTOCK]

I heard the most stupid thing on the news yesterday, and just couldn't believe what I was hearing. They are saying this...

"THERE SHOULD BE A LAW WHERE YOU GET 20 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AT A COP."


Now honestly, as a society, where the **** did we go wrong???? Why would they even try passing a law where shooting at an officer gets you 20 years automatically, but murdering someone in cold blood gets you 6, out in 2 years. It's the most screwed up logic that I have ever heard. So now we will have maybe 2 less police shootings in Philly (because they are shooting at the police to kill them, they don't care about prison sentence anyway) , and there will still be 250 murders by shooting each year, because everyone knows that they will be out in a couple years anyway if caught.

Why would they not make the law 20 years for shooting at ANYONE (unless, obviously, self defense)?? IF they passed a law where it was a min. of 20 years for shooting at someone, there would probably be 1/3 of the murders there are right now. I know that's not perfect, but it is quite the improvement.



So here are my proposed laws to go along with gun laws...I'll list the gun laws first...


You have 72 hours to report a stolen firearm. If done so past the deadline, you have just committed a felony (unless circumstances such as vacation). If someone doesn't report a firearm stolen, they are either nuts or stupid. Either way, the felony means that they won't be purchasing any more guns. I know that if any of my guns were stolen, the first thing I would do is report them. It's literally stupid to not report it, as your gun can now be used in a crime. It's got your prints all over it, and possibly a paper trail ;) .

If a gun is stolen from your property, and it was not locked up, you have just committed a felony. You lose your guns and lose the right to buy them in the future, because you are too stupid to own one in the first place.


If you buy a firearm for someone who can not legally purchase a firearm, you get 5 years in prison, fines, and also have just committed a felony. This means, no more straw purchases for you.


That's all for the gun laws. No reduced sentences. No probation. Just the min. required jail time. Prosecutors, feel free to tack on more time.


Now for laws that go along with guns....


20 years min. for shooting at ANYONE (NOT JUST A COP, THAT'S RETARDED). 20 years min. means 20 years min. Not a day less.


Life/death sentence if you kill someone. That's life/death sentence, not 2 years and parole. Not 6 years. Not 88 years. It's your life, whether it's stuck in the jail cell, or burning in hell.


Now I know people are going to stress over the lax. gun laws, and wanted to make a preemptive thread. The guns laws are NOT lax. The gun laws are strict, and on paper, carved in stone (theoretically). The laws that go along with crimes committed with guns are strict laws. The problem is, they are not enforced. You can add all of the laws that you want, but if at the end of the day, you give some savage 2 years for murdering a poor kid caught in the crossfire, people are going to continue to kill others. If you listened to the reports, 85% of the shootings were committed by felons. This means that 85% of the shootings happened with people who did not legally purchase guns. Making more gun control laws will do nothing. Enforcing the current laws, and making them stricter will do something (well, more than just writing more laws down on paper).



I have also heard that people can only buy 1 gun per month. That's 12 guns per year. I know people who buy about 15 guns per year, and haven't shot at anyone, nor do they give their guns away. It's a retarded law, that will only effect true hobbyists. I would like to see statistics/numbers/records of people with "straw purchases" that buy this many guns/year. :roll:


Your thoughts and what should be gun laws and what should not?

[gpzjack]

I don't own a gun and probably never will....but i think there should be paperwork like a title and regulations but definately no bans...then the only ones with guns would be the criminals. LOL I love it when they want to make it all this time for shooting at a cop...shouldn't matter... a life is a life whether its a cop or other person and should be punished accordingly. 20 years from now we will have no freedoms in this country.

[den9]

im almost positive in nj if u have a gun stolen from ur house u get in trouble for not keepin it locked up, or something

if 85 percent of murders are by felons, that means gun laws shouldnt change, that way more good guys have guns, to stop the bad guys.

if guns are illegal only the bad guys will have them, leaving the good guys defenseless

edit- there is paperwork and background checks for all handguns.
rifles and shotguns are less strict, but most criminals dont bother with rifles and such.

[zerioustt]

i completely agree with you on all points!

we need to put the fear of god into these scumbags shooting people. its absolutely rediculous that killing a cop should land you more jail time than any other human being. throw them in jail and lock away the key, society as a whole would be better off. they need to give them weapons in prison so they can off one another to bring down the prison population.

[97TurboDSM]

i have a question about your locked up gun law..say your gun got stolen from your house and your house was locked. does that count? thats private property where the firearm is technichally "locked". if its hidden somewhere in your house thats locked would that count? or are you talking strictly of a gun safe? i dont mean to ruffle any feathers, im just curious because these questions will most certainly be raised.

I personally do not own a gun so I'm not exactly sure what the perameters are to obtaining a weapon legally, but it doesnt seem too hard to do. that said, im not sure how they would make it any harder. ie, they already perform background checks correct? along with a valid license, birth certificate, etc.

My opinion is that most of the gun crime occurs when weapons are obtained illegally. if there was a way to prevent this then the solution would be much easier but unfortunately i dont think there is a surefire way to keep guns from being bought and sold illegally.

[Gorilla Unit 33]

all of the above should be real laws, by all means. If your stupid enough to kill someone in anyway other then self defense you should be doing 20 to life if not take the death penalty.

/end

[dragonfly2k3]

I would say that teh gun should have to be in your home, your home locked, and the gun not in plain sight. IE : in some form of cabinet or chest. I also dont think mandatory trigger/chamber locks are a bad idea, they're not terribly hard to remove but atlast its time consuming.

[wrx_snobordr]

The only thing I do not agree with is the lock up law. If I purchase a gun and want to leave it on my kitchen table that is my right. I should not have my rights limited because some criminal might break into my house. He is the criminal, not me.

Everything else I agree with but I would take them further. Prison would cease to be a resort compared to the days of old. I would make jails like the Jail in Arizona, tent cities. There would no longer be stores where criminals could buy outside goods. 3 meals a day, no tv, no magazines...nothing. I would allow a library and a GED program to allow those who wish to improve their lives to do so.

[poolmike]

More laws won't do a thing. Also, it should never be mandatory to lock a gun in your own home. If someone breaks into my place, I sure don't want to be fumbling with some lock before I can blow the intruders head off.

[SovXietday]

Amen, adding gun laws won't do ****.

[97TurboDSM]

i agree with wrx_snowbrdr that maybe gun laws arent the problem and our jail systems are too lax. i think inmates have too many privileges and would be right along side when they decided to eliminate any luxuries. tv, entertainment, etc. start with jail and maybe gun crime will diminish

[ITSTOCK]

poolmike and 97turbo, when I refer to locking up the gun, I mean locking up the gun.

A sufficient effort is locking up your home, and not putting them in plain view, OR, locking them up in a safe or room.

I carry a gun (CCW), and I sleep with a gun next to me (not locked up). BUT, when I am not carrying, or sleeping, my guns are always locked up. I go up to bed, unlock the safe, switch my carry gun to my home defense gun, and go to bed. When I wake up in the morning, I switch guns again, lock the safe, and I'm on my way.

I don't think that guns should be left out in the open, in plain view, unattended, however, it is the homeowners right. Therefore, as stated, locking your home, while is seems sufficient, isn't. Locking your home with guns out of site of windows, in a closet, in a gun safe, hidden somewhere, etc., is sufficient. In the end, I agree that it would be a hard law to make. Honestly, I don't know how I would word it. It's sounding like a worse and worse idea, though I'll continue to do it anyway.

EDIT: Dragonfly, well said!


GPZJACK,

The problem with registrations are really simple. If you look (factually) at other countries with gun registration laws, as a measure of gun control, within the decade, stricter laws were passed and all registered guns were collected and destroyed by the government, that is, all registered, LEGAL guns. The other problem with this is that it will not help to control violence, at all. Like I said, 85% of murders happen with illegal firearms. Registration would do nothing to lower the rates.


And about prison being to "easy". Some of those maximum security prisons are like country clubs compared to how the people are used to living! I agree completely!

[importpower99]

I don't see how strict gun penalities would help the current problem. I think we should put more focus on preventing the crime, not worrying about what we should do after a crime has been committed. If criminals were worried about penalties, no one would commit murder anymore. Murder has had the same penalty for hundreds of years. It's either the death penalty or life in prison, and yet murder hasn't stopped.

Building "tent city" creates a problem, because everybody forgets about "the other inmates". "The other inmates" are what correctional officers are called. If you put inmates in 100 degree weather, you are putting the CO's there too.

And for anybody who thinks prison is a country club, your wrong. I used to think the sameway, until I went to one. Their's nothing fun about prison, it's no country club, it's not a resort. It's hell, with a little food.

[97TurboDSM]

And for anybody who thinks prison is a country club, your wrong. I used to think the sameway, until I went to one. Their's nothing fun about prison, it's no country club, it's not a resort. It's hell, with a little food.

and yet prisons are still overcrowded. if they were so bad, people would be doing whatever they could to stay out of them yet we are running out of prison space. that is neither here nor there since this is the gun law discussion thread but i wanted to voice my opinion on that matter. now back on topic.

[wrx_snobordr]

I don't see how strict gun penalities would help the current problem. I think we should put more focus on preventing the crime, not worrying about what we should do after a crime has been committed. If criminals were worried about penalties, no one would commit murder anymore. Murder has had the same penalty for hundreds of years. It's either the death penalty or life in prison, and yet murder hasn't stopped.

Building "tent city" creates a problem, because everybody forgets about "the other inmates". "The other inmates" are what correctional officers are called. If you put inmates in 100 degree weather, you are putting the CO's there too.

And for anybody who thinks prison is a country club, your wrong. I used to think the sameway, until I went to one. Their's nothing fun about prison, it's no country club, it's not a resort. It's hell, with a little food.

I was the one who said it was a country club and if you will notice I said compared to the old days. Meaning, the days when a jail was a hot, dirty concrete and dirt box with bread and water as food. I am sure they are no picnic, but its not supposed to be, ITS JAIL!

You say what about the CO, what about them? If we take away all the amenities for the prisoners that we are wasting money on I would have no problem increasing the pay to the CO's for making their job a bit hotter. I am sure they would be happy with a nice pay raise.

You can't focus on one issue. You need to focus on the whole picture. Better education of our youth, strictly enforcing the laws on the books, toughening up the prisons, just because some hard criminals do not think about the consequences other petty criminals do and this would make them think just a little bit harder.

[dragonfly2k3]

the sentence for murder is nearly never life in prison or the death penalty. Most people will get sentenced to 20, serve 14 and be done.

[97TurboDSM]

Any kind of first degree murder is a class 1 felony and is punishable by death or life imprisonment. In Arizona, the trial jury decides whether the defendant has committed first degree murder. Then the judge holds a separate sentencing hearing to determine the proper sentence. A.R.S. § 13-703 outlines the various 'aggravating' and 'mitigating' factors that the judge must consider in reaching a decision about whether to impose the death penalty.

http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=309

[garrettej8]

if you are over 21 you should be required to own a gun, in my opinion.

[Chair-Force]

poolmike and 97turbo, when I refer to locking up the gun, I mean locking up the gun.

A sufficient effort is locking up your home, and not putting them in plain view, OR, locking them up in a safe or room.

I carry a gun (CCW), and I sleep with a gun next to me (not locked up). BUT, when I am not carrying, or sleeping, my guns are always locked up. I go up to bed, unlock the safe, switch my carry gun to my home defense gun, and go to bed. When I wake up in the morning, I switch guns again, lock the safe, and I'm on my way.

I don't think that guns should be left out in the open, in plain view, unattended, however, it is the homeowners right. Therefore, as stated, locking your home, while is seems sufficient, isn't. Locking your home with guns out of site of windows, in a closet, in a gun safe, hidden somewhere, etc., is sufficient. In the end, I agree that it would be a hard law to make. Honestly, I don't know how I would word it. It's sounding like a worse and worse idea, though I'll continue to do it anyway.

EDIT: Dragonfly, well said!


GPZJACK,

The problem with registrations are really simple. If you look (factually) at other countries with gun registration laws, as a measure of gun control, within the decade, stricter laws were passed and all registered guns were collected and destroyed by the government, that is, all registered, LEGAL guns. The other problem with this is that it will not help to control violence, at all. Like I said, 85% of murders happen with illegal firearms. Registration would do nothing to lower the rates.


And about prison being to "easy". Some of those maximum security prisons are like country clubs compared to how the people are used to living! I agree completely!

Word on the registration part. Making gun laws stricter for law abiding CCW carriers isn't going to reduce crime. If anything it will make Johnny Q. Public unable to defend himself.

[ITSTOCK]

Any kind of first degree murder is a class 1 felony and is punishable by death or life imprisonment. In Arizona, the trial jury decides whether the defendant has committed first degree murder. Then the judge holds a separate sentencing hearing to determine the proper sentence. A.R.S. § 13-703 outlines the various 'aggravating' and 'mitigating' factors that the judge must consider in reaching a decision about whether to impose the death penalty.

http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=309

Yes, that is how the law is written. We all already know this. Unfortunately, out here in the real world, a first degree murder isn't handed out when it should be, and deals are made.

[ITSTOCK]

And for anybody who thinks prison is a country club, your wrong. I used to think the sameway, until I went to one. Their's nothing fun about prison, it's no country club, it's not a resort. It's hell, with a little food.

I also called prison a country club....in comparison to how a lot of the inmates were PREVIOUSLY living. Whether they were homeless, in and out of homes, so poor they couldn't afford tv's (cable!), food, and games, etc. The point of calling it a country club is to describe how many amenities they have.

[importpower99]

I was the one who said it was a country club and if you will notice I said compared to the old days. Meaning, the days when a jail was a hot, dirty concrete and dirt box with bread and water as food. I am sure they are no picnic, but its not supposed to be, ITS JAIL! [QUOTE]
Treating people like useless animals, seems great to you because they are in prison and your out here. But, what happens when they get out of prison and continue to act like useless animals?
[QUOTE]the sentence for murder is nearly never life in prison or the death penalty. Most people will get sentenced to 20, serve 14 and be done.
Where is that?
I also called prison a country club....in comparison to how a lot of the inmates were PREVIOUSLY living. Whether they were homeless, in and out of homes, so poor they couldn't afford tv's (cable!), food, and games, etc. The point of calling it a country club is to describe how many amenities they have.
In that way, yeah I guess it would seem like a country club if you were homeless or poor before. But what about the others. Prison sucks, I went on a field trip to visit a prison. It smells, it's hot in the summer time (no a/c for the inmates nor the guards), cold in the winter time, people tell you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. It's not fun.
But back on topic......

[dragonfly2k3]

everywhere. Its called a plea bargain. It saves everyone lots of money and time. If you look at it that time is money it saves everyone tons of money.

[importpower99]

The only time you can plea bargin when you committed murder is when you rolling on someone else. Murder carries a mandatory life in prison sentence. The only thing you can plea bargin is whether the death penalty is still on the table or if theirs a chance you can get parole. But you are right it does save money and time, and theres pros and cons to plea bargining too!

[dragonfly2k3]

Again, if it is first degree. Most plea bargains will allow the felon to plea to second degree which does not carry the mandatory life sentence. Its a win for him since he will serve basically nothing and its a win for the prosecutor because they dont have to waste their time in court and its a win for the court system because it doesnt put us another 9 months behind.

[Tiny]

If I pull that trigger I’m going to jail till I’m 40
If I kill that person I’m going to die either in jail or in the next 10 years
So why am I going to do it?

What motivates a shooter? Money, desperation, mental illness?

How bout the fact that they don't get caught?

Who gives a **** about gun laws? Give every person a gun in the city, but when the use it to harm another person without provocation then they get caught, hassled, tried, detained, roughed up a bit, then hopefully incarcerated for a few years. That will at least make them hesitate next time.

In a city with hundreds of unsolved murders, why wouldn't they shoot? Its easier to take what you want without earning it, especially if they aren't going to give a **** about catching you.

But god forbid someone shoots a cop...maybe when these morons shoot another innocent bystander we get the same type of reaction as if they shot a cop. Search everyone that walks by, bust into houses, detain groups of people on the corners.

Make EVERYONE's life miserable until the shooter is caught. Put the witnesses in a position to affect their own lives by talking.

AHHHHH see, I hate getting started on this because now I want to shoot someone.

[garrettej8]

But god forbid someone shoots a cop...maybe when these morons shoot another innocent bystander we get the same type of reaction as if they shot a cop. Search everyone that walks by, bust into houses, detain groups of people on the corners.

Make EVERYONE's life miserable until the shooter is caught. Put the witnesses in a position to affect their own lives by talking.

this is what should be happening but people are too stupid and oblivious to see what's going on. it's just going to get worse.

[ITSTOCK]

The only time you can plea bargin when you committed murder is when you rolling on someone else. Murder carries a mandatory life in prison sentence. The only thing you can plea bargin is whether the death penalty is still on the table or if theirs a chance you can get parole. But you are right it does save money and time, and theres pros and cons to plea bargining too!

I hate to say this again, but you REALLY don't understand how the system works. Here is literally the first link that came up when I googled, just to show you an example.

http://ch.backfence.com/news/showPost.cfm?mycomm=EV&bid=116

I can post literally hundreds of trials if you would like me to? You will just have to wait a day or two when I have the time to copy and paste all of the links.

[ITSTOCK]

Where is that?


In about half of the states, even with a FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION, the felon is eligible for parole in as little as 20 years. Again, that is if they are convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which, as stated, is usually pleaded down to a second degree murder.


Oh, here is the second google link...

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/4314996/detail.html

The judge then sentenced Harris to a 25-year prison sentence, with 10 years suspended.

The girl's mother, Beverly Brooks, is furious about the punishment given to her daughter's attacker, WBAL-TV 11 News reporter Noel Tucker reported. Harris could be eligible for parole in 7½ years.

That means he gets a max 15 year prison sentence.

[ITSTOCK]

[QUOTE]

In that way, yeah I guess it would seem like a country club if you were homeless or poor before. But what about the others. Prison sucks, I went on a field trip to visit a prison. It smells, it's hot in the summer time (no a/c for the inmates nor the guards), cold in the winter time, people tell you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. It's not fun.
But back on topic......

Prison is SUPPOSED TO SUCK. The good news for the people who "only" raped someone, or "only" stole everything that a family had, or "only" attempted to kill another, is that they won't have to stay in a hell hole for AS LONG AS a murderer. However, sometimes the murderer does get to spend less time (rape should be the same as murder though, maybe worse...castration).

Why do you feel BAD for someone who either A)volunteers to WORK there, or B)volunteers to commit a crime and end up there? I can't believe that you even bothered stated that! :eek:

[importpower99]

Ok, we got lost somewhere, I meant to say If your convicted of murder 1, it's mandatory life in prison, and the DA will plead their case to the judge to decide whether or not you will get a shot at parole. And when the DA wants to plea bargin, it usually means that they may not have enough evidence to get a conviction,
EX. from your second link

""Nobody actually saw the shooting, there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting -- that's one of the things we had to evaluate in making a plea offer such as this. We explained that to the mother, I think she understood that was the nature of the case, what we had to deal with that this was an appropriate plea," Rafter said."
Not saying every scenario is like this, there could be other reasons.

And after re-reading the first article; the reason the DA offered a plea, was because they wouldn't be able to get a murder one against him. If you REALLY understand how the system works, they will charge you with everything under the sun, and your attorney will have most of them dropped. Ask anyone who's been arrestted.
But.......sorry for ruining your gun thread :p

[importpower99]

Prison is SUPPOSED TO SUCK. The good news for the people who "only" raped someone, or "only" stole everything that a family had, or "only" attempted to kill another, is that they won't have to stay in a hell hole for AS LONG AS a murderer. However, sometimes the murderer does get to spend less time (rape should be the same as murder though, maybe worse...castration).

Why do you feel BAD for someone who either A)volunteers to WORK there, or B)volunteers to commit a crime and end up there? I can't believe that you even bothered stated that!
__________________

I don't feel one inch of remorse for them. However, if you treat them like **** for five years, how do you think they will act when they get out? They not going to be up standing citizens, they will probably cycle back into the system after a year or two. But we will still have to deal with them for those one or two years.

And who volunteers at a prison?

[ITSTOCK]

Ok, we got lost somewhere, I meant to say If your convicted of murder 1, it's mandatory life in prison, and the DA will plead their case to the judge to decide whether or not you will get a shot at parole. And when the DA wants to plea bargin, it usually means that they may not have enough evidence to get a conviction,
EX. from your second link



Exactly the point. If you are convicted of First Degree Murder (or Murder 1 in your words), you have the possibility of parole in as soon as 20 years (there is also some clause that allows for 15 years, don't remember the name though off the top of my head). That is IF you are convicted of FIRST DEGREE, and haven't pleaded down to SECOND DEGREE. (I feel like I'm repeating myself??)


If there is enough evidence to convict someone of 2nd Degree Murder, charge them with first degree. There is too much leniency in the current laws, which again, was exactly the point. Yes, I understand the whole "1000 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man gets punished". But in lots of cases, it's even more cut and dry than the FIRST LINK THAT SHOWED UP ON GOOGLE. :wink:



If you REALLY understand how the system works, they will charge you with everything under the sun, and your attorney will have most of them dropped. Ask anyone who's been arrestted.
But.......sorry for ruining your gun thread :p

First, you aren't ruining any thread. It's completely on topic.

Now, "most of them dropped" (lets just say "reduced"). I don't even need to reply to it. You said it yourself. AGAIN, that's EXACTLY THE POINT. I don't know if you are trying to debate what I am saying, or just agreeing with it. :bigeek:

[ITSTOCK]

I don't feel one inch of remorse for them. However, if you treat them like **** for five years, how do you think they will act when they get out? They not going to be up standing citizens, they will probably cycle back into the system after a year or two. But we will still have to deal with them for those one or two years.

And who volunteers at a prison?

Who volunteers at a prison?

The criminals voluntarily commit the crimes, that's why they are there. The prison EMPLOYEES volunteered to sign up for the job. Nobody forced the prisoners to commit the crimes, and nobody forced the employees to work there.

And as to "treat them like **** for five years, how do you think they will act when they get out?" They will either be productive members of society, or they won't. They will either NEVER want to go back to prison again because they hated it, or they will continue to be savages who don't care what prisons like.

[importpower99]

If there is enough evidence to convict someone of 2nd Degree Murder, charge them with first degree. There is too much leniency in the current laws, which again, was exactly the point. Yes, I understand the whole "1000 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man gets punished". But in lots of cases, it's even more cut and dry than the FIRST LINK THAT SHOWED UP ON GOOGLE.

Well it's more then just evidence that is needed, in order to be found guilty of first degree murder the DA has to prove to the jury that the murder was Premeditative.
ex. If the guy in the first article knew the girl would be walking by at exactly 3:30 p.m and he would take her in the back alley then shoot her with his gun. That is what the DA would need to prove if they want to convict him of 1st degree murder. Now if he said, that she just happened to be walkin by and he accidently shot her in the alley after he put her there, then all they would be able to get is 2nd degree murder.
Who volunteers at a prison?

The criminals voluntarily commit the crimes, that's why they are there. The prison EMPLOYEES volunteered to sign up for the job. Nobody forced the prisoners to commit the crimes, and nobody forced the employees to work there.

And as to "treat them like **** for five years, how do you think they will act when they get out?" They will either be productive members of society, or they won't. They will either NEVER want to go back to prison again because they hated it, or they will continue to be savages who don't care what prisons like.
If you volunteer for something, you perform a serivce willingly without pay. And since CO's collect a paycheck, they don't volunteer. And the criminals don't volunteer to commit crimes, their is personal gain involved (money,power, etc).

[wrx_snobordr]

I don't feel one inch of remorse for them. However, if you treat them like **** for five years, how do you think they will act when they get out? They not going to be up standing citizens, they will probably cycle back into the system after a year or two. But we will still have to deal with them for those one or two years.

Given the number of repeat offenders who cycle in and out of jail it does not appear making the conditions more habitable has helped the situation any. In fact, crime per capita has steadily increased overall as the prison system has become more humane and more lax on parole. I can not say if the two are directly correlated, I can't find a study so it could just be a coincidence. But I think that making prisons a little less hospitable will have an effect on some people. You said it yourself, when you visited the prison it looked like hell. Well, that got to you and is a deterrent to not commit a crime. Take away the amenities and use the money to increase CO pay and institute more effective drug and education programs and we might see a decline in prison rates.

Also, I am not saying we torture them. But, they were not upstanding citizens BEFORE they went in. So they really deserve nothing but the basics. If they have nothing to occupy their time but focusing on getting clean and an education or a skill to use when they leave I think it might decrease the number of repeat offenders.

[ITSTOCK]

Well it's more then just evidence that is needed, in order to be found guilty of first degree murder the DA has to prove to the jury that the murder was Premeditative.
ex. If the guy in the first article knew the girl would be walking by at exactly 3:30 p.m and he would take her in the back alley then shoot her with his gun. That is what the DA would need to prove if they want to convict him of 1st degree murder. Now if he said, that she just happened to be walkin by and he accidently shot her in the alley after he put her there, then all they would be able to get is 2nd degree murder.



If you willingly kill someone, you should get life in prison or the death penalty (again, read the first post of this thread) . The DA shouldn't have to prove anything other than the event happened. The criminal, after robbing a girl of her phone, ran, the girl followed, and the man shot her. This should be life in prison (again, this is the point of the thread, you kill someone, you get life in prison or death, not 5 years, not 10 years, not 15 years, life in prison, or death).

But anyway, for debate sake, lets use the "premeditated" circumstance.

A man, willingly, and knowingly takes some girls cell phone. The man is armed with a gun. Upon being followed, the man turns, pulls out his gun, and shoots an otherwise defenseless girl/person. The man was armed, and deliberately shot at the defenseless victim, of whom he already robbed.

By definition, it is the rational thought in which the murder happens, in order to increase the likelihood of success.

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

I would say that no matter how you look at it, the man knew that he was shooting the victim in order to get away. It would certainly appear that the criminal shot the victim to get away. The thought process happened, and he knew that he had a better chance of getting away if he shot her. That's premeditated, and I would hope that a lawyer would argue for it. Whether the decision happens in 1 second, or 5 days, he knew why he was shooting the victim, whom he just robbed.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder )



If you volunteer for something, you perform a serivce willingly without pay. And since CO's collect a paycheck, they don't volunteer. And the criminals don't volunteer to commit crimes, their is personal gain involved (money,power, etc).

No, you are missing the main definition of volunteer. It's an action that is performed willingly. Look at the US ARMED FORCED. It is composed of an entire VOLUNTEER ARMY. That is, what it is.

The number 1 definition of VOLUNTEER....

1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volunteer


You are using volunteer as you want, and as a second definition, which is fine, but whether you want to believe it or not, they volunteer themselves to either work there, or commit the crime. Or, using your definition, or definition number 2...

2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.

A murderer kills someone willingly and without pay (well, sometimes they do get paid, stupid hit men!). A CO signs up for the job willingly and without pay. He gets paid for the job after he willingly agrees to work there.


At any rate, they are there because their OWN ACTIONS led them there. Nobody forced them to be there (well perhaps some inmates were forced to commit crimes, but lets keep this one simple :wink: ).

[Cutlass372]

Wtf is the point of owning a gun for protection if you need to lock it up.. Hold up murderer.. let me unlock my 12 gauge or other weapon from the cabinet before you try killing my family.. Yes the rate of shootings is bad, but there will never be a shortage of weapons.. if someone really wants to get one, you know they will. People need to find a better way of preventing these things BEFORE they happen, not just worrying about the consequences after the fact..

[ITSTOCK]

Wtf is the point of owning a gun for protection if you need to lock it up.. Hold up murderer.. let me unlock my 12 gauge or other weapon from the cabinet before you try killing my family..

It would be a GREAT idea to READ before responding :wink: There are only 2 pages in this thread, so hopefully you can get past the first couple of posts to have an accurate understanding. Or in the very least, read the first page. There are responses and clarifications there.

None of us stated that you need to have your guns locked up at all times. In fact, I stated that I carry a gun, and sleep with a gun next to me (and even stated, UNLOCKED, of course). The point to locking up a gun is so that when you AREN'T HOME, the gun is still not in the open for a potential thief.

[ThePrimerSuspect]

the only thing i disagree with is the rate of punishment depending on who you shoot. if you shoot at a cop (or any law enforcement), 20 years minimum is fair because he is there to protect you. if you shoot at a kid, the same sentence is fair. hit a cop or a kid and you get the death penalty. there should be no argument. but lets look at the people getting shot. innocent bystanders, i agree that it is still taking a life, and the minimum sentence, depending on the circumstances, should be life. but if you shoot a drug dealer, if you shoot any other criminals, i think you should be rewarded. the problem is not in the laws, they are gonna get weapons one way or another. its not in the way they are being enforced either. its the fact that they dont get punished. there is no simple solution, unfortunately.

[importpower99]

If you willingly kill someone, you should get life in prison or the death penalty (again, read the first post of this thread) . The DA shouldn't have to prove anything other than the event happened.

I'm glad your not incharge of anything, because that statement alone violated the 5th, 7th and 8th amendments. :cool:

But anyway, for debate sake, lets use the "premeditated" circumstance.

A man, willingly, and knowingly takes some girls cell phone. The man is armed with a gun. Upon being followed, the man turns, pulls out his gun, and shoots an otherwise defenseless girl/person. The man was armed, and deliberately shot at the defenseless victim, of whom he already robbed.

By definition, it is the rational thought in which the murder happens, in order to increase the likelihood of success.


Quote:
Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

I would say that no matter how you look at it, the man knew that he was shooting the victim in order to get away. It would certainly appear that the criminal shot the victim to get away. The thought process happened, and he knew that he had a better chance of getting away if he shot her. That's premeditated, and I would hope that a lawyer would argue for it. Whether the decision happens in 1 second, or 5 days, he knew why he was shooting the victim, whom he just robbed.



I don't know how else to explain this to you. That wasn't first degree murder.
Theres nothing to prove that he intended to kill her.
You are a gun owner, you know all gun shot wounds aren't fatal, it's not a Quentin Tarantino film.
No, you are missing the main definition of volunteer. It's an action that is performed willingly. Look at the US ARMED FORCED. It is composed of an entire VOLUNTEER ARMY. That is, what it is.

The number 1 definition of VOLUNTEER....

1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volunteer


You are using volunteer as you want, and as a second definition, which is fine, but whether you want to believe it or not, they volunteer themselves to either work there, or commit the crime. Or, using your definition, or definition number 2...

2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.

A murderer kills someone willingly and without pay (well, sometimes they do get paid, stupid hit men!). A CO signs up for the job willingly and without pay. He gets paid for the job after he willingly agrees to work there.


I don't know what to say about this. The CO does not agree to work without pay. He gets paid the first day he punches in. Your gonna have to break down your point a little better.
You used the first definition of "volunteer" which is fine. I used the one that is more adjusted for the topic.

At any rate, they are there because their OWN ACTIONS led them there. Nobody forced them to be there (well perhaps some inmates were forced to commit crimes, but lets keep this one simple ).

Could this thread get any more complicated, we went from guns to prisons to sentencing procedures. :mrgreen:

[importpower99]

Given the number of repeat offenders who cycle in and out of jail it does not appear making the conditions more habitable has helped the situation any. In fact, crime per capita has steadily increased overall as the prison system has become more humane and more lax on parole. I can not say if the two are directly correlated, I can't find a study so it could just be a coincidence. But I think that making prisons a little less hospitable will have an effect on some people. You said it yourself, when you visited the prison it looked like hell. Well, that got to you and is a deterrent to not commit a crime. Take away the amenities and use the money to increase CO pay and institute more effective drug and education programs and we might see a decline in prison rates.

Also, I am not saying we torture them. But, they were not upstanding citizens BEFORE they went in. So they really deserve nothing but the basics. If they have nothing to occupy their time but focusing on getting clean and an education or a skill to use when they leave I think it might decrease the number of repeat offenders.


I said I thought it was hell, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. Sure it may have detered me, but not everyone gets to take a class trip to a state prison. And education programs are there for prisoners along with trade skills. The problem is they cost money, most people in prison aren't able to take out student loans.

They have been trying different methods of stopping repeat offenders since the turn of the 1900 century, warehouse era, rehabilitation era, etc.

[ITSTOCK]

I'm glad your not incharge of anything, because that statement alone violated the 5th, 7th and 8th amendments. :cool:



You are over simplifying what I stated. Think about it for two seconds. I'm not stating exactly what I typed in that post, it goes along with everything else (as in proving that not only the event happened, but he actually shot the person).


I don't know how else to explain this to you. That wasn't first degree murder.
Theres nothing to prove that he intended to kill her.
You are a gun owner, you know all gun shot wounds aren't fatal, it's not a Quentin Tarantino film.


Look at the laws. Intention and premeditation to kill can be decided in seconds.


But you are correct, I am a gun owner, and I know that EVERY GUN SHOT CAN BE FATAL. You're right, it's not a Quentin Tarantino film. But you still don't shoot people unless you intend to kill them, or acknowledge that you shooting them could kill them. I'm truely sorry that YOU aren't aware of this. If you believe that you just point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, and don't want to kill them, you (without breaking the rules, I don't actually mean YOU), are retarded.


I don't know what to say about this. The CO does not agree to work without pay.



Let me put it like this, since you don't seem to understand. NOBODY IS FORCING THE CO TO WORK THERE. GET IT? GOOD. Read the definition, read my post, read whatever you want, and it's apparent that you still don't/won't understand.



Could this thread get any more complicated, we went from guns to prisons to sentencing procedures. :mrgreen:

This was all part of the thread, although the thread title IS a bit misleading.

[importpower99]

Let me put it like this, since you don't seem to understand. NOBODY IS FORCING THE CO TO WORK THERE. GET IT? GOOD. Read the definition, read my post, read whatever you want, and it's apparent that you still don't/won't understand.


So your saying we all volunteer at our jobs? If so, then I see where your going!

Look at the laws. Intention and premeditation to kill can be decided in seconds.


Not quite, the DA might be able to prove intention, but premeditation is hard.
Look I understand the point your trying to get across (about the guy shooting the girl), but there are laws in place to protect citizens like you and I from being convicted of a crime we didn't commit. Don't you agree that everyone deserves a fair trial, to be found guilty or innocent by a jury of their peers?

[dragonfly2k3]

I did not even read the article and i can tell you that there most certainly WAS pre-meditation. Think of it this way, the man stole the girls phone, the girl began to persue, his first reaction was to run. That shows he was thinking, when he realized he could not run he shot. His pulling the trigger was not out of fear or uncontrolled anger, it was a decided last resort. Pre-meditation just occured.



Also, yes, we all voluntarily work our jobs. We get payed for the tasks we complete but we volunteer to take on those tasks.

[importpower99]

I did not even read the article and i can tell you that there most certainly WAS pre-meditation. Think of it this way, the man stole the girls phone, the girl began to persue, his first reaction was to run. That shows he was thinking, when he realized he could not run he shot. His pulling the trigger was not out of fear or uncontrolled anger, it was a decided last resort. Pre-meditation just occured.

Thats not enough to be premeditative, thats why the DA settled with 2nd degree murder. He never plotted a plan to kill her. In the heat of the moment he figured he couldn't get away(as you say), so then he shot her. Thats no more then 2nd degree murder.
For it to be first degree murder:
He would have had to plan to kill her.
If he knew should would be walking by with a cell-phone, and knew that he couldn't outrun her and knew he would have to kill her to get away then it would be 1st degree murder. But the DA will have to prove that, which is next to impossible, then they would be able to convict him. I know it's not easy to understand, because he clearly shot her to get away(personally I think he should have gotten convicted of murder 1), but rules are rules.

Also, yes, we all voluntarily work our jobs. We get payed for the tasks we complete but we volunteer to take on those tasks.
NO, I understand what he was saying, just not where he was going. Because he saying if a police officer gets killed it's their own fault, if someone dies in the army fighting for their country, it's their fault because they signed up.

I'll state this example agai

[dragonfly2k3]

The DA DOES NOT have to prove that he knew all of those things. Murder 1 is killing someone with a clear mind. He did NOT have to have a fully thought out plan, he simply has to have run the thought through his head in a clear state of mind. Him simply thinking about it, then deciding to kill her is MORE THAN ENOUGH pre-meditation for murder one. The DA settled to murder two because they all know he did it, it guarantees him he wont be charged with murder 1, and the DA gets to move on to the next case.

[importpower99]

The DA DOES NOT have to prove that he knew all of those things.

If they want a conviction they do.

Murder 1 is killing someone with a clear mind

Thats correct, but it also has to be premeditative. Other wise it could be murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree. And manslaughter.

He did NOT have to have a fully thought out plan, he simply has to have run the thought through his head in a clear state of mind. Him simply thinking about it, then deciding to kill her is MORE THAN ENOUGH pre-meditation for murder one.

Do you think he had a clear state of mind after he mugged the girl and then she started chasing after him? (how ofen does that happen?) And him thinking of a back-up plan, because plan "A" failed does not count as premeditative. If they can prove that he planned to commit plan "B", before plan "A" occurred then he would be convicted.

The DA settled to murder two because they all know he did it, it guarantees him he wont be charged with murder 1, and the DA gets to move on to the next case.
Kinda!
They knew, they would'nt get a murder 1. so they offered murder 2 and he was oviously guilty, so it worked in both their favors. But you pretty much summed it up in that paragraph. Good OL' assembly line justice!

[ITSTOCK]

So your saying we all volunteer at our jobs? If so, then I see where your going!


We are not forced to work there. We go to work on our own free will, hence, by definition, we volunteer to wake up and go to work every day.


Not quite, the DA might be able to prove intention, but premeditation is hard.
Look I understand the point your trying to get across (about the guy shooting the girl), but there are laws in place to protect citizens like you and I from being convicted of a crime we didn't commit. Don't you agree that everyone deserves a fair trial, to be found guilty or innocent by a jury of their peers?

The guy was found guilty of shooting the girl, and killing her, hence, second degree murder. You do NOT see the point that I am trying to get across, though I have typed it several times. The guy was found guilty of shooting and killing a girl, yet will only be in prison for a decade. The point is, he should be in prison for life, or he should get the death sentence. THAT is the point, which I have typed out rather clearly multiple times. Premeditated or not (which again, there can EASILY be a case that there was premeditation), he shot and killed someone (whom he just robbed).

[ITSTOCK]

NO, I understand what he was saying, just not where he was going. Because he saying if a police officer gets killed it's their own fault, if someone dies in the army fighting for their country, it's their fault because they signed up.

I'll state this example agai

Get real dude! Read the thread. I'll quote what I already typed..

Why do you feel BAD for someone who either A)volunteers to WORK there, or B)volunteers to commit a crime and end up there? I can't believe that you even bothered stated that!

It has nothing to do with ANYONE being killed. It has to do with what YOU stated...

In that way, yeah I guess it would seem like a country club if you were homeless or poor before. But what about the others. Prison sucks, I went on a field trip to visit a prison. It smells, it's hot in the summer time (no a/c for the inmates nor the guards), cold in the winter time, people tell you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. It's not fun.


You get the award of the day for taking things out of context, congratulations. :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Look, it's as simple as this. A CO at a prison takes on the job knowing what, or thinking he knows what, his job is going to be like. He assumes the risk of working in stinky, hot, or cold conditions. He volunteered to get the job there, nobody forced him to work there. If the CO doesn't like his job, he can quit. If he wants more pay, he can ask or work at another prison.

[ITSTOCK]

he figured he couldn't get away(as you say), so then he shot her.

When you put it that way...that IS PREMEDITATION. He rationally thought that the only way of getting out, was to shoot her.

Premeditations legal definition is this...

"careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action."

Again though, it doesn't matter if it's premeditated or not. Put the trash in jail for life, or execute him for murdering someone.

[importpower99]

The guy was found guilty of shooting the girl, and killing her, hence, second degree murder. You do NOT see the point that I am trying to get across, though I have typed it several times. The guy was found guilty of shooting and killing a girl, yet will only be in prison for a decade. The point is, he should be in prison for life, or he should get the death sentence. THAT is the point, which I have typed out rather clearly multiple times. Premeditated or not (which again, there can EASILY be a case that there was premeditation), he shot and killed someone (whom he just robbed).

When you put it that way...that IS PREMEDITATION. He rationally thought that the only way of getting out, was to shoot her.

Premeditations legal definition is this...


Quote:
"careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action."


A crime which is not premeditated would be something like....

I don't know what to tell you, you have the definition in front of you, yet you still can't comprehend simply english.
Try re-reading it over and over again until you get it. I'm not gonna spend time to write the same thing over and over again, read the definition and then the crime, and then get back to me.
And if you have problems understanding why the guy only got what he got, then write a letter to congress about today's laws, and the penal system.
Originally Posted by importpower99
NO, I understand what he was saying, just not where he was going. Because he saying if a police officer gets killed it's their own fault, if someone dies in the army fighting for their country, it's their fault because they signed up.

I'll state this example agai

Get real dude! Read the thread. I'll quote what I already typed..

Look, it's as simple as this. A CO at a prison takes on the job knowing what, or thinking he knows what, his job is going to be like. He assumes the risk of working in stinky, hot, or cold conditions. He volunteered to get the job there, nobody forced him to work there. If the CO doesn't like his job, he can quit. If he wants more pay, he can ask or work at another prison.

You say CO's volunteers and it's their fault because they know of the conditions as you state right above! And then I apply your logic to another proffession and then I need to "get real".
Thanks DR. Phil

[ITSTOCK]

I don't know what to tell you, you have the definition in front of you, yet you still can't comprehend simply english.
Try re-reading it over and over again until you get it. I'm not gonna spend time to write the same thing over and over again, read the definition and then the crime, and then get back to me.


Again, simple. Did he think that shooting her would allow him to get away? You stated that this is probably what he believed. Proving is a different point, and as already agreed upon, tough to impossible to do. Either way, premeditation, or the careful thought process, can happen in 1 second, a split second, or years of planning.


And if you have problems understanding why the guy only got what he got, then write a letter to congress about today's laws, and the penal system.


Did you read the first post of this thread? It was about the current laws not being enforced, and how if you kill someone, you should be sent to prison for life (unless in self defense).


You say CO's volunteers and it's their fault because they know of the conditions as you state right above! And then I apply your logic to another proffession and then I need to "get real".
Thanks DR. Phil

It has nothing to do with FAULT. They accept a job knowing that it's going to suck. Do you think that people sign up for the army thinking that they are going to be living in a mansion? NO. They accept the responsibility that life could be hell. They volunteer to do so. Do you think a prison CO signs up for the job thinking that his life is never going to be in danger, he is going to wear a suit every day, he is going to sit in an air conditioned room and watch movies all day? NO. At least I hope not. So the POINT OF THE REPLY IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS....

You think that prisons should be nice places because there are "other" people in there, like CO's.

You aren't really this simple, are you? Take two seconds of your time, read over the thread, and get back to me. :wink: Actually, let it soak in to your brain for 2 minutes, not 2 seconds. You are not making ANY sense.

[dragonfly2k3]

importpower believes he is a lawyer and has clearly never had a GOOD law class with an instructor that knew what they were talking about.

/thread.

[importpower99]

importpower believes he is a lawyer and has clearly never had a GOOD law class with an instructor that knew what they were talking about.

/thread.
No, studied pre-law. And you can't understand the law, so who cares.

[wrx_snobordr]

No, studied pre-law. And you can't understand the law, so who cares.

If you studied pre-law then you would know that both of you have valid points as far as the law goes. Law is interpretive and not set in stone, it is constantly evolving. If ITSTOCK wants to try and prove that pre-meditation does not take a lengthy, determined planning process but instead only a split second choice to give yourself a favorable outcome, getting away with the robbery, he can. If you want to try and prove that the law says the murder was a random act that involved nothing more than a reaction you can do that. The outcome would be up to the jury. If ITSTOCK wins it becomes precedence in that jurisdiction but in no place else. However, since this is not a real case neither of you can claim victory.

I said I thought it was hell, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. Sure it may have detered me, but not everyone gets to take a class trip to a state prison. And education programs are there for prisoners along with trade skills. The problem is they cost money, most people in prison aren't able to take out student loans.

They have been trying different methods of stopping repeat offenders since the turn of the 1900 century, warehouse era, rehabilitation era, etc.

It does not matter. You still proved my point a harsh environment is a deterrent to crime, the harsher it is the more people will be deterred. A class trip to a state prison is not needed for the deterring effect to take place either. Word spreads, news outlets do stories and people talk. How do you think I found out about the Arizona jail? I never visited it, but he was changing the system and it was news so we found out. If we instituted his practices nationwide there would be countless stories and broadcasts dedicated to the story and people would learn. Remember, it is not the hardened criminal or the psychopath who have no concern for the well being of others or the possible penalty for criminal a criminal act we are trying to reach, it is the everyday person who is considering committing a crime.

Also, the education programs in jail are paid for by the state. If we took money from frivolous things like cable tv and air conditioning and moved them to more education programs it would serve a dual purpose. Making jail a deterrent, not much more pleasantest than a life on the streets while also educating the people inside to be functioning members of society it will have a positive impact on driving down crime, I think.

[poolmike]

Looks like Governor Eddie is at it again, trying to pass the 1 gun per month limit again TODAY! Jacka$$. That won't fix a single thing.