Lead us not into temptation ... American gun laws

[Auriga]

Apple Pulls Civil War Games From App Store Over Confederate Flag

Civil War games based on real, historical battles.

Here's an example of how it's not just the issue of one flag flying on state grounds in one state. The issue is having a ripple effect over every area now. First, it was one flag. Then it became about the flag design and then retailer felt the need to remove it from their shelves. Now, anything from our history that involves the flag is being taken away. No wonder people believe "The Dukes of Hazard" will be banned soon!

 

[outsidethecamp]

Here's an example of how it's not just the issue of one flag flying on state grounds in one state. The issue is having a ripple effect over every area now. First, it was one flag. Then it became about the flag design and then retailer felt the need to remove it from their shelves. Now, anything from our history that involves the flag is being taken away. No wonder people believe "The Dukes of Hazard" will be banned soon!

No, they won't be banned. No one wants that. They just want you to change (for them).

 

[Gene2memE]

[QUOTE="dgiharris, post: 68151641, member: 32257

We've done nothing for long enough, I'm all for trying something.

Expanding and expediting the death penalty would be a good start. We also need more prisons, longer sentences.[/QUOTE]

US incarceration rates are already the highest in the world, at six times the OECD average. US incarceration duration has increased 38% in the past 25 years and the rate of life imprisonment by 83%, despite the fact that the research on sentence severity and crime rates shows that sentencing severity has no effect on the level of crime in society.

The US is one of ~20 countries globally that still carry-out executions. There are another ~40 that still have the death sentence on their books, but rarely, if ever, actually act on them. There is no correlation between the number of executions in the US and the rate of crime.

You want to reduce the crime rate, then do the following:

Reduce poverty and income inequality
Increase education standards
Increase vocational training programmes for inner city under 25 males
Introduce high visibility, community-centric proactive policing and reduce the antagonistic 'them-us' training in US police forces
Eliminate mandatory sentencing laws and provide more rehabilitation opportunities for criminals
Increase the amount of green space (parks ect) available for public use and gentrify inner-city areas
Increase immigration. Immigrants, on average work longer hours, commit crimes at 1/4 the rate, are more upwardly socially mobile than US-born nationals, and their children are more likely to finish high-school (although not more likely to go to college)

 

[dgiharris]

....You want to reduce the crime rate, then do the following:
Introduce high visibility, community-centric proactive policing and reduce the antagonistic 'them-us' training in US police forces
Eliminate mandatory sentencing laws and provide more rehabilitation opportunities for criminals
Increase the amount of green space (parks ect) available for public use and gentrify inner-city areas
Increase immigration. Immigrants, on average work longer hours, commit crimes at 1/4 the rate, are more upwardly socially mobile than US-born nationals, and their children are more likely to finish high-school (although not more likely to go to college)

A lot of police have this attitude whenever they approach a Black or Hispanic man...

changing their attitudes when dealing with minorities would go a long ways towards lowering crime rate stats.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

US incarceration rates are already the highest in the world, at six times the OECD average. US incarceration duration has increased 38% in the past 25 years and the rate of life imprisonment by 83%, despite the fact that the research on sentence severity and crime rates shows that sentencing severity has no effect on the level of crime in society.

The US is one of ~20 countries globally that still carry-out executions. There are another ~40 that still have the death sentence on their books, but rarely, if ever, actually act on them. There is no correlation between the number of executions in the US and the rate of crime.

You want to reduce the crime rate, then do the following:

Reduce poverty and income inequality
Increase education standards
Increase vocational training programmes for inner city under 25 males
Introduce high visibility, community-centric proactive policing and reduce the antagonistic 'them-us' training in US police forces
Eliminate mandatory sentencing laws and provide more rehabilitation opportunities for criminals
Increase the amount of green space (parks ect) available for public use and gentrify inner-city areas
Increase immigration. Immigrants, on average work longer hours, commit crimes at 1/4 the rate, are more upwardly socially mobile than US-born nationals, and their children are more likely to finish high-school (although not more likely to go to college)

Those are great ideas, but not very likely to succeed. The foundation of the penal code, and therefore the whole criminal justice system, must be the death penalty. We must strengthen that foundation with speedy execution of that sentence. If we do this everything else will fall into place.
If people know they will get away with murder, they will continue to commit murder. What isn't realized about murder is that most attempts fail. If these attempts succeeded there would be such a national outcry that the death penalty would return with a vengeance (pun intended).

The death penalty brings closure to everyone involved and affected, including the nation itself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A lot of police have this attitude whenever they approach a Black or Hispanic man...

changing their attitudes when dealing with minorities would go a long ways towards lowering crime rate stats.

But, what was really in the can of "Arizona Iced Tea". We used to put beer in a soda can when I was a kid (way back in the '50's). Note that the guy didn't want the cop to examine the contents of the can. Mmmm?

 

[Hakan101]

But, what was really in the can of "Arizona Iced Tea". We used to put beer in a soda can when I was a kid (way back in the '50's). Note that the guy didn't want the cop to examine the contents of the can. Mmmm?

I think in the video it's found out the guy wasn't hiding alcohol just being belligerent.

On one hand I do think this sucks that the cop arrested him for basically no reason. But I just can't help but also feel this dude should have just given him the can and proved his innocence, then got on with his day. Why do people feel the need to complicate police situations? It's like nobody knows how to act in society anymore. Cops have this power, they can get away certain things but they can't arrest you if a) are a law-abiding citizen, and b) you act properly and cooperate. There's really nothing wrong with this basic concept.

Of course every time I say that someone has to say "Oh yeah just submit to authority and don't ask questions. Bla bla bla 1984." But I have yet to see a case where cops get away with overstepping their boundaries when you meet those a) and b) criteria.

 

[SuperCloud]

I don't know if anyone saw that Jim Jefferies standup comedy about "Gun Control" in the United States? He's a comedian from Australia apparently. While I disagree with him on the right to pack heat... I have to say he was incredibly funny. I laughed so hard watching that youtube part of his show.

 

[Gene2memE]

The foundation of the penal code, and therefore the whole criminal justice system, must be the death penalty.

Why? Where is the necessity?

Countries that have the death penalty on their books have generally higher rates of crime in society, particularly violent crime.

Countries that have no death penalty in their legal codes outnumber those that do by better than three to one. These states see no need to have executions, yet the vast majority of them have criminal justice systems that function just as effectively, if not more effectively, than that in the US.

We must strengthen that foundation with speedy execution of that sentence. If we do this everything else will fall into place.

Again, why? What is special about the threat of execution for crime, as opposed to the threat of permanent incarceration?

If people know they will get away with murder, they will continue to commit murder.

The data would suggest the opposite. You get a little into a chicken and the egg issue, but countries with the death penalty have higher rates of murder, generally speaking, than countries that don't.

The same is true for US states. States with no death penalty have lower murder rates than states with death penalties. Significantly so. In the past 20 years, states with no death penalty have had a murder rate 36% lower than states that do have it on their book.


When you look at the actual data, your arguments about the death penalty are demonstrably invalid. Fear is the wrong basis for a criminal justice system.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why? Where is the necessity?

Countries that have the death penalty on their books have generally higher rates of crime in society, particularly violent crime.

Countries that have no death penalty in their legal codes outnumber those that do by better than three to one. These states see no need to have executions, yet the vast majority of them have criminal justice systems that function just as effectively, if not more effectively, than that in the US.



Again, why? What is special about the threat of execution for crime, as opposed to the threat of permanent incarceration?



The data would suggest the opposite. You get a little into a chicken and the egg issue, but countries with the death penalty have higher rates of murder, generally speaking, than countries that don't.

The same is true for US states. States with no death penalty have lower murder rates than states with death penalties. Significantly so. In the past 20 years, states with no death penalty have had a murder rate 36% lower than states that do have it on their book.


When you look at the actual data, your arguments about the death penalty are demonstrably invalid. Fear is the wrong basis for a criminal justice system.

Sooo, Dylann Roof should not be executed?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think in the video it's found out the guy wasn't hiding alcohol just being belligerent.

On one hand I do think this sucks that the cop arrested him for basically no reason. But I just can't help but also feel this dude should have just given him the can and proved his innocence, then got on with his day. Why do people feel the need to complicate police situations? It's like nobody knows how to act in society anymore. Cops have this power, they can get away certain things but they can't arrest you if a) are a law-abiding citizen, and b) you act properly and cooperate. There's really nothing wrong with this basic concept.

Of course every time I say that someone has to say "Oh yeah just submit to authority and don't ask questions. Bla bla bla 1984." But I have yet to see a case where cops get away with overstepping their boundaries when you meet those a) and b) criteria.

I think the guy should have handed the can to the cop then got down on the ground, face-down-spread-eagle.......to embarrass the cop. I think this would be a great maneuver by all blacks that are stopped by cops for no other reason than harassment. The other blacks that were present should all have done this as well. Upon seeing this even blacks down the street could follow suit. What an embarrassing spectacle that would be.

 

[dgiharris]

I think in the video it's found out the guy wasn't hiding alcohol just being belligerent.

On one hand I do think this sucks that the cop arrested him for basically no reason. But I just can't help but also feel this dude should have just given him the can and proved his innocence, then got on with his day. .....

I really get annoyed by this sort of group think.

First off, if you watch the video the man did NOT identify himself as law enforcement initially. He just walked up to him and say, "Hey, what are you drinking, let me see..."

Sorry, if you are some random dude walking up to me demanding to not only know what I'm drinking but that I also hand it to you, I'm going to tell you to take a long walk off a short peer.

Then, the cop proceeded to disrespect him. I'm a grown man, I'm not breaking any laws, I'm not your boy, so seriously F off.

....Why do people feel the need to complicate police situations?

If you have done nothing wrong, and have broken no laws, then I do not have to consent to your mistreatment whether you are a stranger, a policeman, a fireman, an astronaut, etc.

Lets say right now a police officer comes to your front door and says, "Hey, what are you doing inside your home? I'd like to come in to make sure you aren't cooking Crystal meth..."

The officer has no probable cause, no warrant, should you just consent???

Your logic is of the "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong then just cooperate."

I couldn't disagree more. Do you know how many "innocent" people are in jail because they did not assert their rights.

...It's like nobody knows how to act in society anymore. Cops have this power, they can get away certain things but they can't arrest you if a) are a law-abiding citizen, and b) you act properly and cooperate. There's really nothing wrong with this basic concept.

So basically, according to you, we don't have Civil Rights or Constitutional Rights. Or, we have them until some random cop decides to encroach on them. ANd if said random cop decides to encroach on your Civil and Constitutional Rights according to you you are just better off letting him so you can prove your innocence despite the fact you are doing nothing wrong.

...
Of course every time I say that someone has to say "Oh yeah just submit to authority and don't ask questions. Bla bla bla 1984." But I have yet to see a case where cops get away with overstepping their boundaries when you meet those a) and b) criteria.

You just did. For crying out loud, that video showed a 100% innocent man doing nothing wrong and some cop approached him without probable cause. Did the black man stumble and lose balance, was he slurring his words, was he incoherent, did he almost wreck his car in the parking lot. No, he was drinking out of a can labeled Arizona Ice Tea.

Could he have had alcohol in it? Sure, but why stop there. Why not accuse him of having Cocaine in his pocket and a dead hooker in the trunk of his car. I'm being 100% serious.

I feel as if you have no idea what probable cause is or what it means to have Civil and Constitutional Rights and a Justice System that is innocent until proven guilty...

Sorry, I just can't agree. If I'm doing nothing wrong and I'm a tax paying citizen then the police need to respect me and treat me with respect. I'm not a 9-yr old child. Don't come up to me with your hand out demanding that I put my drink in your hand so you can make sure I"m not breaking the law. To me, that is not only disrespectful but also offensive in the extreme. I did not join the military and fight a war so I could come home and NOT have my Civil and Constitutional Rights all because you are some racist cop with an agenda...

 

[Gene2memE]

Sooo, Dylann Roof should not be executed?

No more so than Anders Brehivik or Martin Bryant.

Neither of them face execution, but the countries they live in still have effective criminal justice systems.

 

[Hakan101]

I think the guy should have handed the can to the cop then got down on the ground, face-down-spread-eagle.......to embarrass the cop. I think this would be a great maneuver by all blacks that are stopped by cops for no other reason than harassment. The other blacks that were present should all have done this as well. Upon seeing this even blacks down the street could follow suit. What an embarrassing spectacle that would be.

Hahahahahaha that is fantastic. They should seriously do that I could imagine that becoming a viral thing. Unfortunately I think most of them would interpret that as submission instead of seeing the wit behind it.

 

[Hakan101]

I really get annoyed by this sort of group think.

First off, if you watch the video the man did NOT identify himself as law enforcement initially. He just walked up to him and say, "Hey, what are you drinking, let me see..."
Sorry, if you are some random dude walking up to me demanding to not only know what I'm drinking but that I also hand it to you, I'm going to tell you to take a long walk off a short peer.
Then, the cop proceeded to disrespect him. I'm a grown man, I'm not breaking any laws, I'm not your boy, so seriously F off.
If you have done nothing wrong, and have broken no laws, then I do not have to consent to your mistreatment whether you are a stranger, a policeman, a fireman, an astronaut, etc.
Lets say right now a police officer comes to your front door and says, "Hey, what are you doing inside your home? I'd like to come in to make sure you aren't cooking Crystal meth..."
The officer has no probable cause, no warrant, should you just consent???
Your logic is of the "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong then just cooperate."
I couldn't disagree more. Do you know how many "innocent" people are in jail because they did not assert their rights.
So basically, according to you, we don't have Civil Rights or Constitutional Rights. Or, we have them until some random cop decides to encroach on them. ANd if said random cop decides to encroach on your Civil and Constitutional Rights according to you you are just better off letting him so you can prove your innocence despite the fact you are doing nothing wrong.
You just did. For crying out loud, that video showed a 100% innocent man doing nothing wrong and some cop approached him without probable cause. Did the black man stumble and lose balance, was he slurring his words, was he incoherent, did he almost wreck his car in the parking lot. No, he was drinking out of a can labeled Arizona Ice Tea.
Could he have had alcohol in it? Sure, but why stop there. Why not accuse him of having Cocaine in his pocket and a dead hooker in the trunk of his car. I'm being 100% serious.
I feel as if you have no idea what probable cause is or what it means to have Civil and Constitutional Rights and a Justice System that is innocent until proven guilty...
Sorry, I just can't agree. If I'm doing nothing wrong and I'm a tax paying citizen then the police need to respect me and treat me with respect. I'm not a 9-yr old child. Don't come up to me with your hand out demanding that I put my drink in your hand so you can make sure I"m not breaking the law. To me, that is not only disrespectful but also offensive in the extreme. I did not join the military and fight a war so I could come home and NOT have my Civil and Constitutional Rights all because you are some racist cop with an agenda...

As I said I sympathize with the dude and agree the cop shouldn't have arrested him. Also I am pretty sure with this footage the judge will have ruled in the black man's favor and against the cop. But I am talking about a general principle where people feel the need to resist the police and be uncooperative in different situations than this one. Here the cop overstepped his boundaries (another recent case was the teen pool party one) but on the whole for things like routine traffic stops and etc. there is no need to give them a hard time. There was one a year ago in the Chicagoland area where a man refused to show his ID at a traffic stop, and wouldn't come out of the car when the cop asked so the cops eventually broke the window open and tased him out. That sounds harsh but it's like, just show your ID and move on with it. The cops weren't being suspicious of him until he gave them a hard time.

 

[dgiharris]

As I said I sympathize with the dude and agree the cop shouldn't have arrested him. Also I am pretty sure with this footage the judge will have ruled in the black man's favor and against the cop. But I am talking about a general principle where people feel the need to resist the police and be uncooperative in different situations than this one. Here the cop overstepped his boundaries (another recent case was the teen pool party one) but on the whole for things like routine traffic stops and etc. there is no need to give them a hard time. There was one a year ago in the Chicagoland area where a man refused to show his ID at a traffic stop, and wouldn't come out of the car when the cop asked so the cops eventually broke the window open and tased him out. That sounds harsh but it's like, just show your ID and move on with it. The cops weren't being suspicious of him until he gave them a hard time.

Look, I don't think you really appreciate what Civil and Constitutional Rights are. According to the law derived from the Constitution, Police have no right nor authority to take action against the citizenry WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

Period. Exclamation Point.

My constitutional rights and civil rights should apply regardless of how big an A-hole I am. I have the right to give police and anyone a hard time if I want to. I have the right to be nice if I want to. My constitutional rights and the constitution of the United States is supposed to supercede everything. The President, The Congress, the Supreme Court, and especially Joe Schmo cop with his high school degree.

Basically, what you are arguing is that we only have our rights if we are nice and if the cops grant us our rights. And that is not the way this country and our justice system is supposed to work.

Here is the fifth amendment
Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[71]

The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.[88]

I have the right to NOT incriminate myself or aid in my own incrimination and incarceration. If police pull me over WITHOUT probable cause, I am under no legal obligation to answer any of their questions or provide them access into my vehicle. Period. If I do, I do as a courtesy. If I don't and decide to be an A-hole about it, then that is my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!!

I just don't think you understand what it is you are advocating. You are inferring that you should be nice and that if you are not nice then you shouldn't be afforded the rights and protections of teh constitution and if the police illegally overstep their authority and assault you then it is your own fault for not being nice.

Look, either the Constitution applies to us or it doesn't. There shouldn't have to be a qualifier of us being nice.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

Lets say right now a policeman knocks on your door and says, "Hey, I'd like to come in and search your house, look through your computer to make sure that you aren't running a child inappropriate contentography ring or a meth lab, do you mind?"

Would you let him? Would you be nice and say, "Sure officer, I have nothing to hide." Or would you tell him to take a walk because he has no probable cause.

Please read the Constitution and American History because I do not think you understand what Rights entail and what they mean for a supposedly free society.

 

[SteveB28]

Those are great ideas, but not very likely to succeed. The foundation of the penal code, and therefore the whole criminal justice system, must be the death penalty. We must strengthen that foundation with speedy execution of that sentence. If we do this everything else will fall into place.
If people know they will get away with murder, they will continue to commit murder. What isn't realized about murder is that most attempts fail. If these attempts succeeded there would be such a national outcry that the death penalty would return with a vengeance (pun intended).

The death penalty brings closure to everyone involved and affected, including the nation itself.

The death penalty is little more than an act of vengeance. Most civilised, developed nations have realised this some time ago.

Consider:

There is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime.
There is plenty of evidence that innocent people are placed on death row.
The economic cost to the community is many times greater than the alternative of life imprisonment.

 

[Hakan101]

Look, I don't think you really appreciate what Civil and Constitutional Rights are. According to the law derived from the Constitution, Police have no right nor authority to take action against the citizenry WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

Period. Exclamation Point.

My constitutional rights and civil rights should apply regardless of how big an A-hole I am. I have the right to give police and anyone a hard time if I want to. I have the right to be nice if I want to. My constitutional rights and the constitution of the United States is supposed to supercede everything. The President, The Congress, the Supreme Court, and especially Joe Schmo cop with his high school degree.

Basically, what you are arguing is that we only have our rights if we are nice and if the cops grant us our rights. And that is not the way this country and our justice system is supposed to work.

Here is the fifth amendment
Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[71]

The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.[88]

I have the right to NOT incriminate myself or aid in my own incrimination and incarceration. If police pull me over WITHOUT probable cause, I am under no legal obligation to answer any of their questions or provide them access into my vehicle. Period. If I do, I do as a courtesy. If I don't and decide to be an A-hole about it, then that is my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!!

I just don't think you understand what it is you are advocating. You are inferring that you should be nice and that if you are not nice then you shouldn't be afforded the rights and protections of teh constitution and if the police illegally overstep their authority and assault you then it is your own fault for not being nice.

Look, either the Constitution applies to us or it doesn't. There shouldn't have to be a qualifier of us being nice.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

Lets say right now a policeman knocks on your door and says, "Hey, I'd like to come in and search your house, look through your computer to make sure that you aren't running a child inappropriate contentography ring or a meth lab, do you mind?"

Would you let him? Would you be nice and say, "Sure officer, I have nothing to hide." Or would you tell him to take a walk because he has no probable cause.

Please read the Constitution and American History because I do not think you understand what Rights entail and what they mean for a supposedly free society.

No I am saying if you are an A-hole about it chances are you have something to hide or are the kind of person to cause trouble. Barging into someone's house without a warrant and demanding to search the place is a very far cry from a routine traffic stop. When it gets to that point then we can talk about it. Until then, I don't think people should be A-holes over showing your bloody ID.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The death penalty is little more than an act of vengeance. Most civilised, developed nations have realised this some time ago.

Some crimes are so heinous that vengeance is needed.

There is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime.

Of course not. Criminals don't believe they will be caught. I've never read a news release right after an execution warning that this might happen to me too, if I commit murder. Execution is meant to punish the offender, not be a deterrent to others. However, if speedily done it would most certainly be a deterrent to others. To repeat; most criminals don't think they will be caught.

There is plenty of evidence that innocent people are placed on death row.

False or sloppy prosecution is dealt with in the bible. Adopt this and the problem will go away.

The economic cost to the community is many times greater than the alternative of life imprisonment.

Limited appeals leading to timely execution will solve that problem.

 

[SteveB28]

Some crimes are so heinous that vengeance is needed.

Then we are no longer speaking of justice. We are speaking instead of the barbarity as practised in the ancient world.

Of course not. Criminals don't believe they will be caught. I've never read a news release right after an execution warning that this might happen to me too, if I commit murder. Execution is meant to punish the offender, not be a deterrent to others. However, if speedily done it would most certainly be a deterrent to others. To repeat; most criminals don't think they will be caught.

Please point to any jurisdiction wherein the introduction/maintenance of the death penalty has acted as a deterrent to violent crime.

False or sloppy prosecution is dealt with in the bible. Adopt this and the problem will go away.

I see. Given that the discovery of innocents being sentenced to death has largely come about as a result of DNA experimentation, could you please indicate how Bronze and Iron Age scientists were capable of this technology?

Limited appeals leading to timely execution will solve that problem.

You would deny people of their legal rights. You would send more innocents to their deaths. To save money?