U.S.is exporting crime and terror to Canada

[웃 910]

That's crazy!!! His lawyer was an incompetent #######.

He went in Fall of 2002 and got out March of 2008.

By May 2008 he got arrested for felon in possession of a firearm.

In fall of 2002 he was 18...He has spent 2 months outside of prison since.

This is his actual sentence (sentenced in NOV 08) for being an ex con (B&E committed at 16 and then getting caught with a gun):

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

He went in Fall of 2002 and got out March of 2008.

By May 2008 he got arrested for felon in possession of a firearm.

In fall of 2002 he was 18...He has spent 2 months outside of prison since.

This is his actual sentence (sentenced in NOV 08) for being an ex con (B&E committed at 16 and then getting caught with a gun):

That's really nuts!!!!

I tend to think of home invasion as a violent offense, or at least potentially as one.

The image I have in my mind of this crime is the homeowners pistol whipped and bound and gagged while the perps are robbing the place. That seems pretty darn violent to me. Maybe that's not what your high school pal did, but if that's the basic concept of a home invasion, I'd say years of jail time seems appropriate.

He probably got a hanging judge...and that's all she wrote.

[웃 910]

I tend to think of home invasion as a violent offense, or at least potentially as one.

The image I have in my mind of this crime is the homeowners pistol whipped and bound and gagged while the perps are robbing the place. That seems pretty darn violent to me. Maybe that's not what your high school pal did, but if that's the basic concept of a home invasion, I'd say years of jail time seems appropriate.

My view is people commit a home invasion try as hard as humanly possible to scope out the target home and make 110% sure nobody is home. They don't want the police called. They don't want to do prison time. They don't want to get arrested that day. Chances are they will run away as fast as they can if they spot someone in the home because there intention was to get inside when the owners were away....Usually in broad daylight..

I do not have any stats but I'd say the above scenario is 95% of all home invasions.

The other 5% is when they know you are there. They know you have something. And they are going to either kill you for it or hurt you badly for it. They are prepared to take it to the next level. And that is the scenario you described...

In either case it is a very serious crime deserving of jail time...

Edited August 11, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

My view is people commit a home invasion try as hard as humanly possible to scope out the target home and make 110% sure nobody is home. They don't want the police called. They don't want to do prison time. They don't want to get arrested that day. Chances are they will run away as fast as they can if they spot someone in the home because there intention was to get inside when the owners were away....Usually in broad daylight..

I do not have any stats but I'd say the above scenario is 95% of all home invasions.

The other 5% is when they know you are there. They know you have something. And they are going to either kill you for it or hurt you badly for it. They are prepared to take it to the next level. And that is the scenario you described...

In either case it is a very serious crime deserving of jail time...

I concur.

[slim 1,514]

we live in a society together.

Here's the problem. We don't live in a society together. The people in Chicago who shoot each other rarely venture past the gates of those who are protected by normalcy. Sure, you can see them on the train or standing around when you drive down the street, but very seldom are the everyday activities of those who live a normal life interrupted by criminals. It's a problem of perception more than anything. When you hear about 1,500 people getting gunned down... how many of them do you know personally?

In every major urban area in this country there truly is an "us and them." Sometimes that's blurred by colors but typically the "us" can be a few different colors and includes a few of the "them" color, but more often than not, the "them" is one color. (Or in Chicago's case, two colors.) We're often told we live together as a society and we're all one big happy family. That couldn't be farther from the truth. "They" are paid to live in certain neighborhoods and do nothing more than hang out, smoke weed, watch cable and reproduce. Until that changes, the situation will remain the same. "They" will continue to be violent, parasitic plagues upon their own communities.

When examined from that aspect it becomes apparent that race has very little to do with it other than the initial qualifying factor for that lifestyle. In this country (and especially places like Chicago) we've developed an entire culture of parasitic leeches who continue to breed unchecked by the natural forces that control population in every other species on earth.

We not only allow it to happen... we encourage it. And we do so because it enables the rest of us to live lives untouched by violence, crime, and fear. And the worst part is we're allowed to feel good about it because by waking up every day and going to work, paying our taxes, and living a "normal life" we're "helping" those people who are less fortunate than us.

Next time you drive through a war zone, instead of feeling sorry for those people, why not think about a productive way they can get their lives back on track and join the rest of us in the real world. The world where if you don't work, you don't eat. Where you take care of your own problems instead of sitting there all day to fill out some papers so someone else can take care of you.

And then aks them... "Would you like to be able to take care of yourself for a change?"

Their answer may surprise you. And it's extremely hard to feel sorry for them after you've heard it from their own mouth.

So why then is the murder rate such an issue? In my estimation, it is the capricious nature combined with the preventabilty of such actions.

Murders aren't an issue for the vast majority of our population. But, like most things that are "social issues" we've been conditioned from a very early age (through media and public schools) that we're supposed to feel sorry for those afflicted by these "problems" while simultaneously ignoring the underlying causes.

When you take into account the causes... it's a lot easier to hold those responsible accountable.

I think jail time is appropriate for breaking and entering. It's a pretty serious charge.

Breaking and entering is a non-violent crime. Do you really want people to go to jail for non-violent crimes?

I think you addressed this in your other post and I'd tend to agree with you that a term of 6 days to 6 months is probably about right. I'd add that it should be for second or subsequent offenses though.

I tend to think of home invasion as a violent offense, or at least potentially as one.

Typically the difference between a B&E and home invasion is if someone's home. Every state has different rules but one is violent, one is not. A home invasion is almost like a kidnapping since the homeowners are "taken prisoner" while the crime is committed. Home invasion is a very serious offense.

But, there needs to be a distinction between a "whoops, somebody was home so I jumped out the window" and a "get on the floor and put your hands behind your back." Those are definitely two different crimes.

If we could better assess who's a threat to society and who isn't, our justice system would actually do all of us some justice. Criminals and non-criminals alike.

[웃 910]

Here's the problem. We don't live in a society together. The people in Chicago who shoot each other rarely venture past the gates of those who are protected by normalcy. Sure, you can see them on the train or standing around when you drive down the street, but very seldom are the everyday activities of those who live a normal life interrupted by criminals. It's a problem of perception more than anything. When you hear about 1,500 people getting gunned down... how many of them do you know personally?

In every major urban area in this country there truly is an "us and them." Sometimes that's blurred by colors but typically the "us" can be a few different colors and includes a few of the "them" color, but more often than not, the "them" is one color. (Or in Chicago's case, two colors.) We're often told we live together as a society and we're all one big happy family. That couldn't be farther from the truth. "They" are paid to live in certain neighborhoods and do nothing more than hang out, smoke weed, watch cable and reproduce. Until that changes, the situation will remain the same. "They" will continue to be violent, parasitic plagues upon their own communities.

When examined from that aspect it becomes apparent that race has very little to do with it other than the initial qualifying factor for that lifestyle. In this country (and especially places like Chicago) we've developed an entire culture of parasitic leeches who continue to breed unchecked by the natural forces that control population in every other species on earth.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[slim 1,514]

Exactly.

It's one thing to get a tattoo on your upper arm or wear Jordans and your hat sideways after work when you're hanging out at the park. Quite another to have a lifestyle of "keeping it real" where you walk around all day with your pants saggin and tattoos on your face and neck. Some people don't seem to understand the difference between the two.

Those people tend to shoot each other more often than Canadians.

[웃 910]

I want one of these:

Exactly.

It's one thing to get a tattoo on your upper arm or wear Jordans and your hat sideways after work when you're hanging out at the park. Quite another to have a lifestyle of "keeping it real" where you walk around all day with your pants saggin and tattoos on your face and neck. Some people don't seem to understand the difference between the two.

Those people tend to shoot each other more often than Canadians.

Gary doesn't understand the difference. He thinks you arm "the good citizens" in the hood and all of a sudden problem solved.

The best way I could explain him the difference between "the hoods" of Burlington, VT and Chicago, IL were that the people of Burlington are armed....the people of Chicago are armed and extremely dangerous!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Typically the difference between a B&E and home invasion is if someone's home. Every state has different rules but one is violent, one is not. A home invasion is almost like a kidnapping since the homeowners are "taken prisoner" while the crime is committed. Home invasion is a very serious offense.

But, there needs to be a distinction between a "whoops, somebody was home so I jumped out the window" and a "get on the floor and put your hands behind your back." Those are definitely two different crimes.

If we could better assess who's a threat to society and who isn't, our justice system would actually do all of us some justice. Criminals and non-criminals alike.

The line between a home invasion and breaking and entering is becoming blurred with a series of scams that seem to blend the two together. Courts do make a distinction between the two scenarios that you posed, even when the district attorney's don't. However, frequently, in the scenario you used, where someone crawling into a window stumbles upon a family that was not expected to be home, the perpetrator gets violent. I guess an extreme fight or flight reaction.

I think all criminals pose some threat to society, and no mitigating factors can diminish that. There is the financial threat as well as the physical threat of being shot or stabbed, even when it is an accidental.

Exactly.

It's one thing to get a tattoo on your upper arm or wear Jordans and your hat sideways after work when you're hanging out at the park. Quite another to have a lifestyle of "keeping it real" where you walk around all day with your pants saggin and tattoos on your face and neck. Some people don't seem to understand the difference between the two.

Those people tend to shoot each other more often than Canadians.

You seem to completely discount the element of access. So because I have tattoos and my pants are probably lower than most white people, I'm maintaining a "keeping it real" lifestyle? Stereotypes are sometimes right, but more often than not, are pure bullsh!t.

[slim 1,514]

Gary doesn't understand the difference. He thinks you arm "the good citizens" in the hood and all of a sudden problem solved.

The best way I could explain him the difference between "the hoods" of Burlington, VT and Chicago, IL were that the people of Burlington are armed....the people of Chicago are armed and extremely dangerous!

If you arm EVERYONE (as Gary so often posts) what you end up with is the good people outnumbering the bad because there are more good people than bad and they create an environment that's too dangerous for bad people to operate.

The problem in Chicago is not that there are too many people armed, it's that there are too many bad people armed and the good people aren't shooting them on sight.

The line between a home invasion and breaking and entering is becoming blurred with a series of scams that seem to blend the two together. Courts do make a distinction between the two scenarios that you posed, even when the district attorney's don't. However, frequently, in the scenario you used, where someone crawling into a window stumbles upon a family that was not expected to be home, the perpetrator gets violent. I guess an extreme fight or flight reaction.

Exaclty why it's imperative the courts look at each case closely. There are criminals out there who are lifetime criminals yet they don't want to hurt anyone and would rather go to jail for getting caught than beating someone up. Then you have criminals that will beat up the whole family in an attempt to intimidate them into not testifying. That's an extreme difference but one we should be keen to distinguish. One of those should be locked up (or worse) for a long time. The other, not so much.

I think all criminals pose some threat to society, and no mitigating factors can diminish that. There is the financial threat as well as the physical threat of being shot or stabbed, even when it is an accidental.

We could reevaluate how we view our crime and punishment system. I'm not too keen on locking someone up for a simple burglary because that does nothing to address the reason they're a burglar in the first place. If anything, it exacerbates the problem since they're not able to keep gainful employment and make a life for themselves.

We can't reward folks for being criminals. But, we could take some of those billions of dollars and put them to use on public works projects which employ criminals and "the less fortunate."

You seem to completely discount the element of access. So because I have tattoos and my pants are probably lower than most white people, I'm maintaining a "keeping it real" lifestyle? Stereotypes are sometimes right, but more often than not, are pure bullsh!t.

That is a bullsh!t argument. If you wear your pants below your @$$ and have tattoos on your face you won't be taken seriously in a professional environment. If you want to do that at home on your own time, more power to you. But, when you show up to a job interview wearing your hat cocked to the side, it's doubtful you'll end up with gainful employment. That is not a racist concept, that is a fact of the business world.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Exaclty why it's imperative the courts look at each case closely. There are criminals out there who are lifetime criminals yet they don't want to hurt anyone and would rather go to jail for getting caught than beating someone up. Then you have criminals that will beat up the whole family in an attempt to intimidate them into not testifying. That's an extreme difference but one we should be keen to distinguish. One of those should be locked up (or worse) for a long time. The other, not so much.

I agree that there is a difference between the two classes of criminals, but I don't think the margin is extreme. There are a lot of courtroom defendants who suddenly become contrite and apologetic, yet turn around and rob someone. I think the system does a bad job of recognizing those who made a mistake and can actually rehabilitate, and those who have made a career choice. Then there are the crimes that may seem stupid in nature, but such indifference should preclude them from certain rights.

We could reevaluate how we view our crime and punishment system. I'm not too keen on locking someone up for a simple burglary because that does nothing to address the reason they're a burglar in the first place. If anything, it exacerbates the problem since they're not able to keep gainful employment and make a life for themselves.

We can't reward folks for being criminals. But, we could take some of those billions of dollars and put them to use on public works projects which employ criminals and "the less fortunate."

I agree with you on this point.

That is a bullsh!t argument. If you wear your pants below your @$$ and have tattoos on your face you won't be taken seriously in a professional environment. If you want to do that at home on your own time, more power to you. But, when you show up to a job interview wearing your hat cocked to the side, it's doubtful you'll end up with gainful employment. That is not a racist concept, that is a fact of the business world.

Your initial post, which I responded to wasn't that detailed. Thank you for clearing that up. From your post, which I thought was quite vague, it appears that you were generalizing all people who have sagging pants and tattoos.

[slim 1,514]

I agree that there is a difference between the two classes of criminals, but I don't think the margin is extreme. There are a lot of courtroom defendants who suddenly become contrite and apologetic, yet turn around and rob someone. I think the system does a bad job of recognizing those who made a mistake and can actually rehabilitate, and those who have made a career choice. Then there are the crimes that may seem stupid in nature, but such indifference should preclude them from certain rights.

Do you think a shift from jail time to some type of counseling/work program would make an impact?

Not something like the traditional community service while on probation scheme we have in place now but more of a "lifestyle change" where folks would be relocated to small towns out in the sticks and work on programs like community farms or factories while going through intensive counseling?

We could take all the money we waste on jails right now and literally "hire" every small-time criminal to work in small businesses. They show up and do OK, they get paid by the government (not the business) and go through counseling. Once their period (six months, a year?) is done, they'd be hired on by the company. Businesses get a "free" laborer and society gets a productive individual plus one more job created. It also stops urbanization dead in it's tracks and integrates our suburban and rural communities.

If it doesn't work out, they go straight to the penal colony!

I agree with you on this point.

I think we disagree on the internet quite a bit but in real life, our views are probably quite similar.

Your initial post, which I responded to wasn't that detailed. Thank you for clearing that up. From your post, which I thought was quite vague, it appears that you were generalizing all people who have sagging pants and tattoos.

I am generalizing them. They're keeping it real!

I fully support their right to do so. Anyone can wear whatever they want at any time. But, like the "band guys" if you have long hair, tattoos and piercings, you're not going to work in an office building downtown unless you can clean it up before work every day. There's just something about a lip ring that sceams "don't take me seriously!" And that's easily fixed by removing it before work every day. Sleeve, neck and facial tats don't just disappear once you punch the clock.

I support everyone's right to express themself any way they choose. But, don't complain to me about "nobody will hire me" when you have a teardrop under your eye. Plus, there are jobs out there where a professional look isn't required. Work one of those! Don't blame me (and the rest of society) for the way your lifestyle choices have affected your life.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

And then aks them... "Would you like to be able to take care of yourself for a change?"

Their answer may surprise you. And it's extremely hard to feel sorry for them after you've heard it from their own mouth.

Murders aren't an issue for the vast majority of our population. But, like most things that are "social issues" we've been conditioned from a very early age (through media and public schools) that we're supposed to feel sorry for those afflicted by these "problems" while simultaneously ignoring the underlying causes.

When you take into account the causes... it's a lot easier to hold those responsible accountable.

Most people want to be given a chance, that's all. Not a hand out but a hand up. A two-pronged attack ameliorating conditions as well as retraining and counseling is needed. Locking up people solves nothing, it's just makes them unable to function in society so they become repeat offenders. Some people, for whatever reason are bad and they will not change. Those incorrigible types must be locked up, but they are fairly rare.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Do you think a shift from jail time to some type of counseling/work program would make an impact?

Not something like the traditional community service while on probation scheme we have in place now but more of a "lifestyle change" where folks would be relocated to small towns out in the sticks and work on programs like community farms or factories while going through intensive counseling?

We could take all the money we waste on jails right now and literally "hire" every small-time criminal to work in small businesses. They show up and do OK, they get paid by the government (not the business) and go through counseling. Once their period (six months, a year?) is done, they'd be hired on by the company. Businesses get a "free" laborer and society gets a productive individual plus one more job created. It also stops urbanization dead in it's tracks and integrates our suburban and rural communities.

If it doesn't work out, they go straight to the penal colony!

I think we disagree on the internet quite a bit but in real life, our views are probably quite similar.

I am generalizing them. They're keeping it real!

I fully support their right to do so. Anyone can wear whatever they want at any time. But, like the "band guys" if you have long hair, tattoos and piercings, you're not going to work in an office building downtown unless you can clean it up before work every day. There's just something about a lip ring that sceams "don't take me seriously!" And that's easily fixed by removing it before work every day. Sleeve, neck and facial tats don't just disappear once you punch the clock.

I support everyone's right to express themself any way they choose. But, don't complain to me about "nobody will hire me" when you have a teardrop under your eye. Plus, there are jobs out there where a professional look isn't required. Work one of those! Don't blame me (and the rest of society) for the way your lifestyle choices have affected your life.

Personal responsibility, FTW. Changing environment as well as lifestyle should help the vast majority of criminals.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Do you think a shift from jail time to some type of counseling/work program would make an impact?

Not something like the traditional community service while on probation scheme we have in place now but more of a "lifestyle change" where folks would be relocated to small towns out in the sticks and work on programs like community farms or factories while going through intensive counseling?

We could take all the money we waste on jails right now and literally "hire" every small-time criminal to work in small businesses. They show up and do OK, they get paid by the government (not the business) and go through counseling. Once their period (six months, a year?) is done, they'd be hired on by the company. Businesses get a "free" laborer and society gets a productive individual plus one more job created. It also stops urbanization dead in it's tracks and integrates our suburban and rural communities.

If it doesn't work out, they go straight to the penal colony!

I think we disagree on the internet quite a bit but in real life, our views are probably quite similar.

I am generalizing them. They're keeping it real!

I fully support their right to do so. Anyone can wear whatever they want at any time. But, like the "band guys" if you have long hair, tattoos and piercings, you're not going to work in an office building downtown unless you can clean it up before work every day. There's just something about a lip ring that sceams "don't take me seriously!" And that's easily fixed by removing it before work every day. Sleeve, neck and facial tats don't just disappear once you punch the clock.

I support everyone's right to express themself any way they choose. But, don't complain to me about "nobody will hire me" when you have a teardrop under your eye. Plus, there are jobs out there where a professional look isn't required. Work one of those! Don't blame me (and the rest of society) for the way your lifestyle choices have affected your life.

Don't be getting the small towns involved with trying to rehabilitate gang bangers and hoods. Were doing just fine as it is. We don't need that kind coming to our towns.