Insurance co's rake it in!

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:29:30 -0500, Ivan Otter Rudakov
> wrote:

>Just....Bravo on the sex offender bit. Very true, unfortunately. Happened
>to a friend. It seems like in America (rant) Murderers and DUIers are
>punished less than sex offenders, becuase there is no registration for
>them, yet they commit FAR more repeat offences. This country is obsessed
>with an oxymoron of "sex is naughty" combine with" sex sex sex". Its
>quite....stupid really. (/rant)
>
Of course the case cited was ludicrous, but there are an awful lot of
real no joke no **** sex offenders out there and I have no problem
with the death penalty (by my own hand of course) for anyone who harms
either of my children. Rape my wife, pay wife your life as well.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

Actually, the case cited was a real case out of Kern County,
California with one exception, the mother, who provided the girl with
birth control pills, actually testified for the boy. I forget who
turned in the initial complaint, but, once the DA had it in hand,
nobody could get it dropped. He was found guilty anyway and sent to an
adult correctional facility.

As for those who would prey on children, women, the elderly, etc, as
long as it is done in keeping with the law,

"string 'em up... it'll teach 'em a lesson."

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:16:13 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:29:30 -0500, Ivan Otter Rudakov
> wrote:
>
>>Just....Bravo on the sex offender bit. Very true, unfortunately. Happened
>>to a friend. It seems like in America (rant) Murderers and DUIers are
>>punished less than sex offenders, becuase there is no registration for
>>them, yet they commit FAR more repeat offences. This country is obsessed
>>with an oxymoron of "sex is naughty" combine with" sex sex sex". Its
>>quite....stupid really. (/rant)
>>
>Of course the case cited was ludicrous, but there are an awful lot of
>real no joke no **** sex offenders out there and I have no problem
>with the death penalty (by my own hand of course) for anyone who harms
>either of my children. Rape my wife, pay wife your life as well.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:23:55 -0700, Spike > wrote:

>Actually, the case cited was a real case out of Kern County,
>California with one exception, the mother, who provided the girl with
>birth control pills, actually testified for the boy. I forget who
>turned in the initial complaint, but, once the DA had it in hand,
>nobody could get it dropped. He was found guilty anyway and sent to an
>adult correctional facility.
>
>As for those who would prey on children, women, the elderly, etc, as
>long as it is done in keeping with the law,
>
> "string 'em up... it'll teach 'em a lesson."
>
Oh I believed it was a real case alright. It was absolutely to insane
not to be. What was ludicrous is the fact that it actually happened.

Just because there is a faulty application of the law does not mean
the law itself is faulty. If some pedophile junkie pond scum
molested/raped/tortured one of your children you wouldn't want them
hung by the neck? If they weren't and got back out you wouldn't want
to know they just moved in down the street?

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:16:13 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:29:30 -0500, Ivan Otter Rudakov
> wrote:
>>
>>>Just....Bravo on the sex offender bit. Very true, unfortunately. Happened
>>>to a friend. It seems like in America (rant) Murderers and DUIers are
>>>punished less than sex offenders, becuase there is no registration for
>>>them, yet they commit FAR more repeat offences. This country is obsessed
>>>with an oxymoron of "sex is naughty" combine with" sex sex sex". Its
>>>quite....stupid really. (/rant)
>>>
>>Of course the case cited was ludicrous, but there are an awful lot of
>>real no joke no **** sex offenders out there and I have no problem
>>with the death penalty (by my own hand of course) for anyone who harms
>>either of my children. Rape my wife, pay wife your life as well.
>
>Spike
>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
>16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
>225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
>"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
>I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
> -JFK Inaugural Address

--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

>>
>>As for those who would prey on children, women, the elderly, etc, as
>>long as it is done in keeping with the law,
>>
>> "string 'em up... it'll teach 'em a lesson."
>>
>Oh I believed it was a real case alright. It was absolutely to insane
>not to be. What was ludicrous is the fact that it actually happened.
>
>Just because there is a faulty application of the law does not mean
>the law itself is faulty. If some pedophile junkie pond scum
>molested/raped/tortured one of your children you wouldn't want them
>hung by the neck? If they weren't and got back out you wouldn't want
>to know they just moved in down the street?
>
As the last line in my post pointed out... there's no major argument
there regarding the sickos. But, it's not all good law with faulty
application. The way many new laws read, the judge is given no leeway
in sentencing. I deem that to be faulty law when the "innocent" (as in
the cited case) become victims.

My point is that when people write/support knee jerk reactions into
law, there has to be some mercy for those who are not criminals in the
same sense. And it is knee jerk response when there is no thought but
to rid society of a condition when no consideration is given for
exceptions.

I'm sure many here know of laws which were implemented because
something happened in a rare instance, and someone thought a law was
necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. Situations, which
might never have happened again anyway.

The law is "supposed" to be handed down with equality, fairness, and
mercy. The latter was the break from the then European idea that if
you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you went to
prison for, in many cases, life.

As in the cited case, there are the true sickos, and then there are
those who, because of the way a law is written, are labeled so when
they don't deserve it. Most of us here were at some point in time in
our teens. There but for the grace of God, any one of us might have
gone.




Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:03:21 -0700, Spike > wrote:

>
>>>
>>>As for those who would prey on children, women, the elderly, etc, as
>>>long as it is done in keeping with the law,
>>>
>>> "string 'em up... it'll teach 'em a lesson."
>>>
>>Oh I believed it was a real case alright. It was absolutely to insane
>>not to be. What was ludicrous is the fact that it actually happened.
>>
>>Just because there is a faulty application of the law does not mean
>>the law itself is faulty. If some pedophile junkie pond scum
>>molested/raped/tortured one of your children you wouldn't want them
>>hung by the neck? If they weren't and got back out you wouldn't want
>>to know they just moved in down the street?
>>
>As the last line in my post pointed out... there's no major argument
>there regarding the sickos. But, it's not all good law with faulty
>application. The way many new laws read, the judge is given no leeway
>in sentencing. I deem that to be faulty law when the "innocent" (as in
>the cited case) become victims.
>
That was a reaction (good, bad or indifferent) to many liberal judges
not doing what they really needed to do. There are plenty of people
wasting away in prisons who don't need to be there as they are no
major harm to society, and others who are released to prey on us once
again who should have been strung-up the first time around. I can't
remember the exact details were there was a semi-recent case of a
pedophile getting out and raping some little girl after killing her
family. It wasn't his first go around and he should have never ever
got a second chance.

>My point is that when people write/support knee jerk reactions into
>law, there has to be some mercy for those who are not criminals in the
>same sense. And it is knee jerk response when there is no thought but
>to rid society of a condition when no consideration is given for
>exceptions.
>
Again in your case it should have never ever gone to trial and
should've been handled at the DA level with a plea bargain. More then
likely ineffective counsel or over anxious DA.

>I'm sure many here know of laws which were implemented because
>something happened in a rare instance, and someone thought a law was
>necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. Situations, which
>might never have happened again anyway.
>
I am trying to think of one, but for the life of me I really can't.
That doesn't mean I agree with all laws or even follow all laws. It
only means that I either have to accept it or work to change it.

>The law is "supposed" to be handed down with equality, fairness, and
>mercy. The latter was the break from the then European idea that if
>you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you went to
>prison for, in many cases, life.
>
Personally I think the concept of debtors prisons or indentured
servitude should be brought back. Stealing is stealing regardless of
the circumstances. However, the party harmed should have the majority
say in the sentence and should be allowed to made whole again.

>As in the cited case, there are the true sickos, and then there are
>those who, because of the way a law is written, are labeled so when
>they don't deserve it. Most of us here were at some point in time in
>our teens. There but for the grace of God, any one of us might have
>gone.
>
It every instance there are the extremes at either end of the
spectrum. In order to make an omelet (or society safe) a couple of
eggs gotta be broke. My cousin is a rather high ranking LE Officer.
He has a saying that goes something like "Sometimes the person sent
away isn't guilty of the crime, but very rarely are they truly
innocent." Every time a crime goes down there are the "Usual
Suspects" who get checked out. They are usually just waiting to get a
chance to catch a guy who they know is dirty, but haven't been able to
prove it.

Hang em, Hang em high. -- Some Western I saw once.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:15:07 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:03:21 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>
>>

>>
>That was a reaction (good, bad or indifferent) to many liberal judges
>not doing what they really needed to do. There are plenty of people
>wasting away in prisons who don't need to be there as they are no
>major harm to society, and others who are released to prey on us once
>again who should have been strung-up the first time around. I can't
>remember the exact details were there was a semi-recent case of a
>pedophile getting out and raping some little girl after killing her
>family. It wasn't his first go around and he should have never ever
>got a second chance.

True, but the reaction was, essentially, and overreaction. An over
compensation which restricted the hands of all judges, liberal or hard
line.

That is a difference between sexual predators like pedophiles, and
murderers, robbers, etc. With the exception of real wackos (the
Hannibal the Cannibal types), murderers, robbers, etc, can choose not
to commit. The sexual predator is driven to commit and can not be
rehabilitated or cured. The repeat offense is nearly 100%. Even with
castration, the drive is still there, and the perp will use other
means to try to assuage the drive.

We have one out here who was released after serving his full term.
Technically, he had done his payment to society. The guy was driven
out of several towns. The last i heard, the state had set him up in a
trailer within the grounds, but out side San Quentin prison, and there
he lives.
>
>>My point is that when people write/support knee jerk reactions into
>>law, there has to be some mercy for those who are not criminals in the
>>same sense. And it is knee jerk response when there is no thought but
>>to rid society of a condition when no consideration is given for
>>exceptions.
>>
>Again in your case it should have never ever gone to trial and
>should've been handled at the DA level with a plea bargain. More then
>likely ineffective counsel or over anxious DA.

Election year, court appointed defense lawyer, and a public up in arms
over rising reports of sexual assaults (which for the most part were
between spouses, and many were later either proven false or recanted).
>
>>I'm sure many here know of laws which were implemented because
>>something happened in a rare instance, and someone thought a law was
>>necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. Situations, which
>>might never have happened again anyway.
>>
>I am trying to think of one, but for the life of me I really can't.
>That doesn't mean I agree with all laws or even follow all laws. It
>only means that I either have to accept it or work to change it.

While it is not from this country; it actually comes from Malaysia; a
government official walking down the street stepped in some gum which
someone had cast aside. He became so irate he went back and pushed
through a new law. It is now illegal to chew gum there, and violation
is subject to caning.
>
>>The law is "supposed" to be handed down with equality, fairness, and
>>mercy. The latter was the break from the then European idea that if
>>you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you went to
>>prison for, in many cases, life.


>>
>Personally I think the concept of debtors prisons or indentured
>servitude should be brought back. Stealing is stealing regardless of
>the circumstances. However, the party harmed should have the majority
>say in the sentence and should be allowed to made whole again.

Indentured servitude is essentially legalized slavery... a condition I
thought we had put behind us.

True. Stealing is stealing. Suppose someone who is mentally impaired
commits a theft. Or a five year old child? And does society want to
bear the financial burden approaching $100,000 per year for a $2 loaf
of bread?

Consider your own situation if, for example, (and I know this sounds
like a good idea for a movie) your child needed medical treatment you
could not afford. What lengths would you go to save your child? Or
wife? or whoever?
>
>>As in the cited case, there are the true sickos, and then there are
>>those who, because of the way a law is written, are labeled so when
>>they don't deserve it. Most of us here were at some point in time in
>>our teens. There but for the grace of God, any one of us might have
>>gone.
>>
>It every instance there are the extremes at either end of the
>spectrum. In order to make an omelet (or society safe) a couple of
>eggs gotta be broke. My cousin is a rather high ranking LE Officer.
>He has a saying that goes something like "Sometimes the person sent
>away isn't guilty of the crime, but very rarely are they truly
>innocent." Every time a crime goes down there are the "Usual
>Suspects" who get checked out. They are usually just waiting to get a
>chance to catch a guy who they know is dirty, but haven't been able to
>prove it.

That's just fine, UNLESS you happen to be one of those extremes.
Remember that when you get caught up in a situation and they're
sending you away. Just accept it because a 'couple of eggs gotta get
broke"... (not that I expect it to happen to you, but put yourself in
the position of the "extreme at one end or the other."

I don't like to disagree with another cop, but that attitude, while it
may be right on the mark, sucks if we are to be a nation of laws.
Yeah, I used to get PO'd to see my perp take a walk. But, even though
I think it has gone too far in protecting the bad guys, I'm not going
to throw out the Construction I've sworn to uphold with that kind of
outlook.
>
>Hang em, Hang em high. -- Some Western I saw once.

Yeah. One place i worked, our theme song was "The Good, The Bad, and
The Ugly"

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:24:08 -0700, Spike > wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:15:07 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:03:21 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>That was a reaction (good, bad or indifferent) to many liberal judges
>>not doing what they really needed to do. There are plenty of people
>>wasting away in prisons who don't need to be there as they are no
>>major harm to society, and others who are released to prey on us once
>>again who should have been strung-up the first time around. I can't
>>remember the exact details were there was a semi-recent case of a
>>pedophile getting out and raping some little girl after killing her
>>family. It wasn't his first go around and he should have never ever
>>got a second chance.
>
>True, but the reaction was, essentially, and overreaction. An over
>compensation which restricted the hands of all judges, liberal or hard
>line.
>
Of course if was an over reaction, but the public was fed up with the
coddling of some major perpetrators. In places were judges aren't
elected and aren't doing the job that the public wants them to do what
is the alternative?

>That is a difference between sexual predators like pedophiles, and
>murderers, robbers, etc. With the exception of real wackos (the
>Hannibal the Cannibal types), murderers, robbers, etc, can choose not
>to commit. The sexual predator is driven to commit and can not be
>rehabilitated or cured. The repeat offense is nearly 100%. Even with
>castration, the drive is still there, and the perp will use other
>means to try to assuage the drive.
>
>We have one out here who was released after serving his full term.
>Technically, he had done his payment to society. The guy was driven
>out of several towns. The last i heard, the state had set him up in a
>trailer within the grounds, but out side San Quentin prison, and there
>he lives.
>>
>>>My point is that when people write/support knee jerk reactions into
>>>law, there has to be some mercy for those who are not criminals in the
>>>same sense. And it is knee jerk response when there is no thought but
>>>to rid society of a condition when no consideration is given for
>>>exceptions.
>>>
>>Again in your case it should have never ever gone to trial and
>>should've been handled at the DA level with a plea bargain. More then
>>likely ineffective counsel or over anxious DA.
>
>Election year, court appointed defense lawyer, and a public up in arms
>over rising reports of sexual assaults (which for the most part were
>between spouses, and many were later either proven false or recanted).
>>
>>>I'm sure many here know of laws which were implemented because
>>>something happened in a rare instance, and someone thought a law was
>>>necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. Situations, which
>>>might never have happened again anyway.
>>>
>>I am trying to think of one, but for the life of me I really can't.
>>That doesn't mean I agree with all laws or even follow all laws. It
>>only means that I either have to accept it or work to change it.
>
>While it is not from this country; it actually comes from Malaysia; a
>government official walking down the street stepped in some gum which
>someone had cast aside. He became so irate he went back and pushed
>through a new law. It is now illegal to chew gum there, and violation
>is subject to caning.
>>
>>>The law is "supposed" to be handed down with equality, fairness, and
>>>mercy. The latter was the break from the then European idea that if
>>>you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you went to
>>>prison for, in many cases, life.
>
>
>>>
>>Personally I think the concept of debtors prisons or indentured
>>servitude should be brought back. Stealing is stealing regardless of
>>the circumstances. However, the party harmed should have the majority
>>say in the sentence and should be allowed to made whole again.
>
>Indentured servitude is essentially legalized slavery... a condition I
>thought we had put behind us.
>
>True. Stealing is stealing. Suppose someone who is mentally impaired
>commits a theft. Or a five year old child? And does society want to
>bear the financial burden approaching $100,000 per year for a $2 loaf
>of bread?
>
>Consider your own situation if, for example, (and I know this sounds
>like a good idea for a movie) your child needed medical treatment you
>could not afford. What lengths would you go to save your child? Or
>wife? or whoever?
>>
>>>As in the cited case, there are the true sickos, and then there are
>>>those who, because of the way a law is written, are labeled so when
>>>they don't deserve it. Most of us here were at some point in time in
>>>our teens. There but for the grace of God, any one of us might have
>>>gone.
>>>
>>It every instance there are the extremes at either end of the
>>spectrum. In order to make an omelet (or society safe) a couple of
>>eggs gotta be broke. My cousin is a rather high ranking LE Officer.
>>He has a saying that goes something like "Sometimes the person sent
>>away isn't guilty of the crime, but very rarely are they truly
>>innocent." Every time a crime goes down there are the "Usual
>>Suspects" who get checked out. They are usually just waiting to get a
>>chance to catch a guy who they know is dirty, but haven't been able to
>>prove it.
>
>That's just fine, UNLESS you happen to be one of those extremes.
>Remember that when you get caught up in a situation and they're
>sending you away. Just accept it because a 'couple of eggs gotta get
>broke"... (not that I expect it to happen to you, but put yourself in
>the position of the "extreme at one end or the other."
>
>I don't like to disagree with another cop, but that attitude, while it
>may be right on the mark, sucks if we are to be a nation of laws.
>Yeah, I used to get PO'd to see my perp take a walk. But, even though
>I think it has gone too far in protecting the bad guys, I'm not going
>to throw out the Construction I've sworn to uphold with that kind of
>outlook.
>>
>>Hang em, Hang em high. -- Some Western I saw once.
>
>Yeah. One place i worked, our theme song was "The Good, The Bad, and
>The Ugly"
>
>Spike
>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
>16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
>225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
>"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
>I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
> -JFK Inaugural Address

--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:24:08 -0700, Spike > wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:15:07 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:03:21 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>
Whoops sent to fast.

>That is a difference between sexual predators like pedophiles, and
>murderers, robbers, etc. With the exception of real wackos (the
>Hannibal the Cannibal types), murderers, robbers, etc, can choose not
>to commit. The sexual predator is driven to commit and can not be
>rehabilitated or cured. The repeat offense is nearly 100%. Even with
>castration, the drive is still there, and the perp will use other
>means to try to assuage the drive.
>
>We have one out here who was released after serving his full term.
>Technically, he had done his payment to society. The guy was driven
>out of several towns. The last i heard, the state had set him up in a
>trailer within the grounds, but out side San Quentin prison, and there
>he lives.
>
People are scared. They know that LE in this country is able to do
very little to prevent crime. Sure they do a pretty good job of
catching the guy after the fact, but their hands are tied in actual
prevention efforts. At best they are able to protect us from those
horrible speed demons. Perhaps we need to create one of those
prisoner islands were they can all go to live and murder, rape & rob
each other to their hearts content.

>>>My point is that when people write/support knee jerk reactions into
>>>law, there has to be some mercy for those who are not criminals in the
>>>same sense. And it is knee jerk response when there is no thought but
>>>to rid society of a condition when no consideration is given for
>>>exceptions.
>>>
>>Again in your case it should have never ever gone to trial and
>>should've been handled at the DA level with a plea bargain. More then
>>likely ineffective counsel or over anxious DA.
>
>Election year, court appointed defense lawyer, and a public up in arms
>over rising reports of sexual assaults (which for the most part were
>between spouses, and many were later either proven false or recanted).
>>
Well there ya go. Through in politics and throw logic out the window.

>>>I'm sure many here know of laws which were implemented because
>>>something happened in a rare instance, and someone thought a law was
>>>necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. Situations, which
>>>might never have happened again anyway.
>>>
>>I am trying to think of one, but for the life of me I really can't.
>>That doesn't mean I agree with all laws or even follow all laws. It
>>only means that I either have to accept it or work to change it.
>
>While it is not from this country; it actually comes from Malaysia; a
>government official walking down the street stepped in some gum which
>someone had cast aside. He became so irate he went back and pushed
>through a new law. It is now illegal to chew gum there, and violation
>is subject to caning.
>>
Like I said, add politics to the mix and throw logic away.

>>>The law is "supposed" to be handed down with equality, fairness, and
>>>mercy. The latter was the break from the then European idea that if
>>>you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you went to
>>>prison for, in many cases, life.
>>>
>>Personally I think the concept of debtors prisons or indentured
>>servitude should be brought back. Stealing is stealing regardless of
>>the circumstances. However, the party harmed should have the majority
>>say in the sentence and should be allowed to made whole again.
>
>Indentured servitude is essentially legalized slavery... a condition I
>thought we had put behind us.
>
Not really, they are two distinct things. Indentured Servitude is a
state where you work for me until your debt to me is paid off. Steal
from me then work for me for free until what you stole is paid off.
Or at least go wash police cruisers or something. It is just applying
the concept of public service to the person harmed.

>True. Stealing is stealing. Suppose someone who is mentally impaired
>commits a theft. Or a five year old child? And does society want to
>bear the financial burden approaching $100,000 per year for a $2 loaf
>of bread?
>
Well this brings in the concept of knowledge of your actions and being
responsible for them. They mentally defective and children have
always had (and should) punch out clauses. But again if I steal your
loaf of bread and your family goes hungry who is going to make you
whole? Does my going to jail serve you? Is it justice for you? What
if you just wanted me to come over and clean your yard in repayment?
Should not the victim of any crime have some say in the punishment?

>Consider your own situation if, for example, (and I know this sounds
>like a good idea for a movie) your child needed medical treatment you
>could not afford. What lengths would you go to save your child? Or
>wife? or whoever?
>>
Saw that movie. Really didn't like it and it set up the scenario
where a certain thing was made OK in a movie so it should be OK in
society. Some people wait to the last minute to go to extreme
efforts, others through proper due diligence & effort take care of
things up front. I have medical care for me & mine for life. Just
took a little twenty year stint in indentured servitude.

>>>As in the cited case, there are the true sickos, and then there are
>>>those who, because of the way a law is written, are labeled so when
>>>they don't deserve it. Most of us here were at some point in time in
>>>our teens. There but for the grace of God, any one of us might have
>>>gone.
>>>
>>It every instance there are the extremes at either end of the
>>spectrum. In order to make an omelet (or society safe) a couple of
>>eggs gotta be broke. My cousin is a rather high ranking LE Officer.
>>He has a saying that goes something like "Sometimes the person sent
>>away isn't guilty of the crime, but very rarely are they truly
>>innocent." Every time a crime goes down there are the "Usual
>>Suspects" who get checked out. They are usually just waiting to get a
>>chance to catch a guy who they know is dirty, but haven't been able to
>>prove it.
>
>That's just fine, UNLESS you happen to be one of those extremes.
>Remember that when you get caught up in a situation and they're
>sending you away. Just accept it because a 'couple of eggs gotta get
>broke"... (not that I expect it to happen to you, but put yourself in
>the position of the "extreme at one end or the other."
>
Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. As I said before
I don't agree with nor follow (all of the time) all of the laws of the
land. However, when (and if) I do get popped I take it like a man. I
know I did wrong and pay the price. After all I made a choice.

>I don't like to disagree with another cop, but that attitude, while it
>may be right on the mark, sucks if we are to be a nation of laws.
>Yeah, I used to get PO'd to see my perp take a walk. But, even though
>I think it has gone too far in protecting the bad guys, I'm not going
>to throw out the Construction I've sworn to uphold with that kind of
>outlook.
>>
As you say it is perhaps right on the mark so it is easy to see why it
can be developed. LE simply arrests and presents for prosecution.
After that a different group of people take over. Now I am not
talking about setting people up or falsifying evidence. What he means
by that is a skell is a skell. For every crime they catch them for
there are numerous ones they never did catch them or were unable to
present enough evidence for to prove in a court of law. So while they
may end up successfully putting him away for X, he may have been
guilty for the other twenty five letters of the alphabet for which
they could not make a case. An example is they really, really liked a
guy for a series of smash & grabs at local businesses. They couldn't
make a case on that but while under surveillance they caught him
stealing car stereos. Once he went away the smash & grabs at
businesses stopped. Could be happenstance, but they didn't think so.

>>Hang em, Hang em high. -- Some Western I saw once.
>
>Yeah. One place i worked, our theme song was "The Good, The Bad, and
>The Ugly"
>
Now that was a good movie. I used to love those spaghetti westerns.
I think I OD on them though.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:21:14 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:24:08 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:15:07 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>
>People are scared. They know that LE in this country is able to do
>very little to prevent crime. Sure they do a pretty good job of
>catching the guy after the fact, but their hands are tied in actual
>prevention efforts. At best they are able to protect us from those
>horrible speed demons. Perhaps we need to create one of those
>prisoner islands were they can all go to live and murder, rape & rob
>each other to their hearts content.

In part, that is because people don't understand law enforcement is
not really there to prevent crime except in the psychological sense.
As much as it would like to be proactive, it seldom can be.
Historically, it's always been reactive... something happens and the
cops react. (If we ever get mind reading we could turn that around.)

That and the job of law enforcement is really to investigate and
report at which point it's handed over to the DA and the courts. It
was one of the hardest things to instill in rookies. While, as a
citizen, we should care what happens in a case, as cops we should not
be concerned. Once we have done our part in the justice system, as
long as we did our part right, it becomes someone else's
responsibility (ie DA, judge, jury, etc). Put the revolving door out
of your mind as much as humanly possible.

The best we could hope for is to keep a minimal lid on chaos, and,
hopefully, be able to help people who get in a bad situation. There's
just way too many of them and not nearly enough of us.

Actually, the island idea isn't too bad (I saw that movie). And the
military could use it as a nuke test site. Goes along with my idea for
defeating Red China without firing a shot. Send them every one of our
airline planes, cargo craft, etc. Give 'em free tickets to
Disneyworld. Give 'em half enough fuel to get to the states, and leave
out the section of the flight manual covering landing instructions.
>

>>
>>Election year, court appointed defense lawyer, and a public up in arms
>>over rising reports of sexual assaults (which for the most part were
>>between spouses, and many were later either proven false or recanted).
>>>
>Well there ya go. Through in politics and throw logic out the window.
>

>>>
>Like I said, add politics to the mix and throw logic away.

Which often results in knee jerk reactions to problems which don't
really exist, or exist only minimally.
>

>>
>>Indentured servitude is essentially legalized slavery... a condition I
>>thought we had put behind us.
>>
>Not really, they are two distinct things. Indentured Servitude is a
>state where you work for me until your debt to me is paid off. Steal
>from me then work for me for free until what you stole is paid off.
>Or at least go wash police cruisers or something. It is just applying
>the concept of public service to the person harmed.

Except that historically, indentured servitude was still slavery by
another name. People worked off their crimes (no matter how petty)
it's true. But during that period it was not unusual for the servant
to be mistreated, women forced into prostitution, men and children
doing hard labor without compensation. Indentured servants were
supposed to work off their debt but still be paid for their efforts,
which was rarely the case. Often, when their period of servitude was
worked off, they were sent forth with nothing to get them started
over. That forced many to resort to theft to survive which got them
right back where the had been... or worse. In many other cases, their
"master" kept them in debt by overcharging them for room and board,
etc, just as was done to share croppers and coal miners.
>

>Well this brings in the concept of knowledge of your actions and being
>responsible for them. They mentally defective and children have
>always had (and should) punch out clauses. But again if I steal your
>loaf of bread and your family goes hungry who is going to make you
>whole? Does my going to jail serve you? Is it justice for you? What
>if you just wanted me to come over and clean your yard in repayment?
>Should not the victim of any crime have some say in the punishment?

I don't have a problem with restitution. Nor do I have a problem with
laws which prohibit criminals from making a profit from their crimes
(ie movie rights, book deals, etc).
>
>>Consider your own situation if, for example, (and I know this sounds
>>like a good idea for a movie) your child needed medical treatment you
>>could not afford. What lengths would you go to save your child? Or
>>wife? or whoever?
>>>
>Saw that movie. Really didn't like it and it set up the scenario
>where a certain thing was made OK in a movie so it should be OK in
>society. Some people wait to the last minute to go to extreme
>efforts, others through proper due diligence & effort take care of
>things up front. I have medical care for me & mine for life. Just
>took a little twenty year stint in indentured servitude.

I worked and earned similar coverage, though I wonder sometimes if I
didn't pay more in the long run. You are right, and still there are
too many exceptions; people falling through the cracks no matter how
hard they try; to make the laws so rigid.
>
>>That's just fine, UNLESS you happen to be one of those extremes.
>>Remember that when you get caught up in a situation and they're
>>sending you away. Just accept it because a 'couple of eggs gotta get
>>broke"... (not that I expect it to happen to you, but put yourself in
>>the position of the "extreme at one end or the other."
>>
>Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. As I said before
>I don't agree with nor follow (all of the time) all of the laws of the
>land. However, when (and if) I do get popped I take it like a man. I
>know I did wrong and pay the price. After all I made a choice.

But that wasn't the condition. The condition was there are extremes at
each end. In the case where you did NOT do the crime, would you be
satisfied to take it like a man because you know you just happen to be
one of the extreme cases? I doubt it.
>
>>I don't like to disagree with another cop, but that attitude, while it
>>may be right on the mark, sucks if we are to be a nation of laws.
>>Yeah, I used to get PO'd to see my perp take a walk. But, even though
>>I think it has gone too far in protecting the bad guys, I'm not going
>>to throw out the Construction I've sworn to uphold with that kind of
>>outlook.
>>>
>As you say it is perhaps right on the mark so it is easy to see why it
>can be developed. LE simply arrests and presents for prosecution.
>After that a different group of people take over. Now I am not
>talking about setting people up or falsifying evidence. What he means
>by that is a skell is a skell. For every crime they catch them for
>there are numerous ones they never did catch them or were unable to
>present enough evidence for to prove in a court of law. So while they
>may end up successfully putting him away for X, he may have been
>guilty for the other twenty five letters of the alphabet for which
>they could not make a case. An example is they really, really liked a
>guy for a series of smash & grabs at local businesses. They couldn't
>make a case on that but while under surveillance they caught him
>stealing car stereos. Once he went away the smash & grabs at
>businesses stopped. Could be happenstance, but they didn't think so.

To a point I would agree. HOWEVER, when you think well we couldn't get
the perp for this stuff we are sure he's done before, we'll make up
for it with this time borders on ignoring due process just to put
someone away. Granted, it provides a high degree of satisfaction for
making him pay at least a little, but it tosses aside the basic
foundation of the principles upon which the nation was founded. And
THAT is something I have a major problem with. I think those
principles have been eroded way to far as it is, and various groups
are still trying to take more (think ACLU). To look at criminal
prosecution in this light is, IMHO, just helping the erosion.
>
>>>Hang em, Hang em high. -- Some Western I saw once.
>>
>>Yeah. One place i worked, our theme song was "The Good, The Bad, and
>>The Ugly"
>>
>Now that was a good movie. I used to love those spaghetti westerns.
>I think I OD on them though.

Yeah? Ever watch those things (or even TV shows) in a foreign
language? Talk about ROFLMAO!!!! Hoss Cartwright in Japanese?

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:06:54 -0700, Spike > wrote:
<snip>

>>Not really, they are two distinct things. Indentured Servitude is a
>>state where you work for me until your debt to me is paid off. Steal
>>from me then work for me for free until what you stole is paid off.
>>Or at least go wash police cruisers or something. It is just applying
>>the concept of public service to the person harmed.
>
>Except that historically, indentured servitude was still slavery by
>another name. People worked off their crimes (no matter how petty)
>it's true. But during that period it was not unusual for the servant
>to be mistreated, women forced into prostitution, men and children
>doing hard labor without compensation. Indentured servants were
>supposed to work off their debt but still be paid for their efforts,
>which was rarely the case. Often, when their period of servitude was
>worked off, they were sent forth with nothing to get them started
>over. That forced many to resort to theft to survive which got them
>right back where the had been... or worse. In many other cases, their
>"master" kept them in debt by overcharging them for room and board,
>etc, just as was done to share croppers and coal miners.
>>
>
Just because it was implemented in a faulty manner previously doesn't
mean to me it isn't worth looking into again with better controls. I
just think there are to many personal property crimes where the victim
ends up with the ****ty end of the stick and the Perp gets three hots
& a cot at a facility with color TV's exercise rooms, arts & crafts
and so on and so forth. For many of them life in the slams is better
then what they had on the outside.

>>Well this brings in the concept of knowledge of your actions and being
>>responsible for them. They mentally defective and children have
>>always had (and should) punch out clauses. But again if I steal your
>>loaf of bread and your family goes hungry who is going to make you
>>whole? Does my going to jail serve you? Is it justice for you? What
>>if you just wanted me to come over and clean your yard in repayment?
>>Should not the victim of any crime have some say in the punishment?
>
>I don't have a problem with restitution. Nor do I have a problem with
>laws which prohibit criminals from making a profit from their crimes
>(ie movie rights, book deals, etc).
>>
The problem is a lot of them never ever make restitution. Either the
amount is to great or they don't have the resources. I think not only
the felons shouldn't profit from their crimes, but no one should.
That means the DA, the Defense Attorney, or even the LE officials
involved can't generate a dime off of it. If they do it all goes to
the victim or their families. The Scott Peterson case is an excellent
example. All sorts of ancillary people are raking it in on the death
of that poor woman and her unborn child. It is sickening.

<snip>
>
>I worked and earned similar coverage, though I wonder sometimes if I
>didn't pay more in the long run. You are right, and still there are
>too many exceptions; people falling through the cracks no matter how
>hard they try; to make the laws so rigid.
>>
Myself as well. I was career Military and have quite a few health
problems and some service connected issues.
>
<snip>
>
>>Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. As I said before
>>I don't agree with nor follow (all of the time) all of the laws of the
>>land. However, when (and if) I do get popped I take it like a man. I
>>know I did wrong and pay the price. After all I made a choice.
>
>But that wasn't the condition. The condition was there are extremes at
>each end. In the case where you did NOT do the crime, would you be
>satisfied to take it like a man because you know you just happen to be
>one of the extreme cases? I doubt it.
>>
Well call me unrealistic, but I just can't imagine myself being
convicted of something I didn't do. I am just never in those
situations. However, if for some reason I was tried & convicted for
something I was 100% innocent for I would suspect it would have to be
a set-up job which I do know happens. I would fight & fight & fight
and then would have to eventually have to resign myself to my lot in
life. I wouldn't be happy about it, but what else can you do but make
the best out of a bad situation?

I know that if my wife died under mysterious circumstances I would
become suspect number one with a bullet until it could be proved I
didn't do prior to LE investigating anyone else.
<snip>
>
>To a point I would agree. HOWEVER, when you think well we couldn't get
>the perp for this stuff we are sure he's done before, we'll make up
>for it with this time borders on ignoring due process just to put
>someone away. Granted, it provides a high degree of satisfaction for
>making him pay at least a little, but it tosses aside the basic
>foundation of the principles upon which the nation was founded. And
>THAT is something I have a major problem with. I think those
>principles have been eroded way to far as it is, and various groups
>are still trying to take more (think ACLU). To look at criminal
>prosecution in this light is, IMHO, just helping the erosion.
>>
No if and's or buts the constitution must be obeyed, but I am a pretty
strict constitutionalist and think that the courts have gone a little
overboard in some of their decisions. I think in quite a few
situations they err on the side of the defendant disregarding good
solid police work made in good faith, but with perhaps some really
minor technical issue. It is often said that nowadays in the Criminal
Justice System the only Justice is for the Criminal.

>>>>Hang em, Hang em high. -- Some Western I saw once.
>>>
>>>Yeah. One place i worked, our theme song was "The Good, The Bad, and
>>>The Ugly"
>>>
>>Now that was a good movie. I used to love those spaghetti westerns.
>>I think I OD on them though.
>
>Yeah? Ever watch those things (or even TV shows) in a foreign
>language? Talk about ROFLMAO!!!! Hoss Cartwright in Japanese?
>
Oh yeah I was career Military and lived in several overseas locations
and got to watch American TV shows & Movies in other languages.
Pretty damn funny. There was a spin-off from Happy Days called Joanne
loves Chagi (or something like that) just so happens Chagi is Korean
slang for penis. So it was Joanne loves dick. There was another one
where the character was named Chi-Chi. That is Korean for Titties.
Many other examples. Dutch TV is the absolute best with some of the
late-night Japanese coming in a close second.

One more thing, I do believe that LE could be a little more involved
in preventing crime. I don't know how it works/worked where you were,
but in many places the revenue from traffic violations goes to the
Police Department. Because of this a lot effort is put into catching
those lawless speeders. Not the tailgaters, or the red-light runners
who cause accidents, but the speeders because it is easy to set-up in
one area and monitor Radar. Now in my area is just half of the force
that is used for Traffic Enforcement was moved into patrolling
neighborhoods, perhaps on bicycles, where their presence is seen &
felt and they do a little of the good old beat cop style of police
work I think a lot of property crimes could be prevented. I know
you'll disagree, but it is just how I feel. The only crimes I've ever
been a victim of is property crimes that were more a crime of
opportunity because my neighborhood is never ever patrolled even
though I am about 2 miles from a police substation. But boy howdy do
they set-up speed traps.
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)