Guy Gets caught breaking into trailers, Killed
- Thread starter pearlpro
- Start date
How many felony convictions are enough before someone is put away for good? Two? Three? Twenty? At what point does it become clear that they are NOT going to change?
tenntrucker
Expert Expediter
The scum crack heads that broke into my house had multiple felony convictions. They kept receiving light sentences, getting out early for "good behavior" and right back into being thieves. There is no fixing scum like that. How should society protect itself from career criminals?
They were both 17, both were part of a "home invasion" ring out of Toledo. They would be driven to an area where they would gain entry into homes. One did no time for the break in of my house and the other got a whole 5 years. That in spite of multiple prior felony convictions.
They were both 17, both were part of a "home invasion" ring out of Toledo. They would be driven to an area where they would gain entry into homes. One did no time for the break in of my house and the other got a whole 5 years. That in spite of multiple prior felony convictions.
Last edited:
tenntrucker
Expert Expediter
I could give you my answer but it will send a large number of people here off on a raving tangent.....
sent from my Galaxy S3
Last edited:
I don't think anybody on this esteemed board has the answer. However, one thing is certain, beating a thief to death is not the answer.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Quite possibly far worse than some Middle Eastern regimes (Saudi Arabia ?) than many advocating for death would sanctimoniously condemn.
Turtle: the fear LOSer referred to and the fear FDR referred to have been addressed in the same manner: reducing a country's ability to use the nuclear option on a macro scale, and reducing crime on the micro level by employing law enforcement.
Both are about as successful as possible: we can sleep at night without fear that we will be nuked, or that our homes will be invaded by criminals. That the latter continues to happen is something we can not entirely eliminate, unless we're willing to live in a police state. That's what I meant when I said that living without fear of criminals would require sacrifices we don't want to make: our freedom.
And please don't pretend that fear is never irrational, unjustified, exaggerated, or used to exploit people, because we all know better.
Both are about as successful as possible: we can sleep at night without fear that we will be nuked, or that our homes will be invaded by criminals. That the latter continues to happen is something we can not entirely eliminate, unless we're willing to live in a police state. That's what I meant when I said that living without fear of criminals would require sacrifices we don't want to make: our freedom.
And please don't pretend that fear is never irrational, unjustified, exaggerated, or used to exploit people, because we all know better.
Minor point, but when FDR made his Four Freedoms speech, nuclear weapons did not exist.
I'm not pretending that at all. Fear in the context of which FDR spoke is not a fear that includes any of those things. You have to introduce a brand new context to get to those areas. I have a deeply ridiculous fear of wasps and hornets (rational, justified, not exaggerated, I tell you). I go to bed at night and dream of being attacked by gazilions of wasps. But that kind of fear is of a whole 'nuther context than what FDR and the Freedom from Fear is all about.
But the freedom from fear that LOSer desires is not what FDR promised, it's what a police state would be needed to enjoy. And I, for one, don't want that much 'security', thank you.
Nuclear weapons didn't exist, but atomic bombs did, and they may as well have been nuclear, for all the difference it made to those innocent civilians living in Hiroshima & Nagasaki... Truman was POTUS at the time, but it was FDR who oversaw the development of the atom bombs, and that's the fear he hoped to take out of the equation. Using them was a harsh way to accomplish that goal, but it certainly worked. [So far]
Nuclear weapons didn't exist, but atomic bombs did, and they may as well have been nuclear, for all the difference it made to those innocent civilians living in Hiroshima & Nagasaki... Truman was POTUS at the time, but it was FDR who oversaw the development of the atom bombs, and that's the fear he hoped to take out of the equation. Using them was a harsh way to accomplish that goal, but it certainly worked. [So far]
I heard he's going to run for President in 2016...............
If he does...............I'LL VOTE FOR HIM!!!
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES GEORGE W ZIMMERMAN
Far Cry better than what we have now........................
George Zimmerman: 'I'm homeless and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder' | Mail Online
Your Hero. Now he says he had a regular conversation with Martin, after he shot him! And - get this: he "thought the bullet only went through Martin's shirt, and got lost"
Idiot knows less about how guns and bullets work than I do!
SMH, big time.
I'm not in favor of gun control, but we seriously need some form of moron control, because morons like Zimmerman [and the guys in Ok] kill people.
It is not the answer, BUT, if the "justice system" continues to play the revolving door game you will see people doing more on their own. It it how it works.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Tony Baretta had the answer: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" To every action there is a reaction. If he wasn't there it wouldn't have happened and the perpetrator would likely still be alive today. We still have private property laws in this country..At least for now...
His wife found that out.
OR, MAYBE if there had been a concealed carry person here:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/veteran-friend-beaten-outside-detroit-221341527.html
No law stopped this, no cop protecting.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/veteran-friend-beaten-outside-detroit-221341527.html
No law stopped this, no cop protecting.
As I have stated before, this case is quite different than the one in the OP. In this case, the use of deadly force to stop the attack would be permissible.
It is the plethora of instances like the one in the video, the multitude of break ins, the endless litany of assaults, murders, rapes, muggings etc. UNLESS the ENDLESS revolving door is closed, the "mob rule" problem will grow. It will ONLY stop when the reason for it ends. The ball is in the "court" of the so-called "justice system". THEY can stop it by doing their job.
I don't count you in that roll, I KNOW I am not in that role, what "us" are you talking about?