Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[gehringer_2]

45 minutes ago, Archie said:

I'm not disagreeing with background checks but there needs to be some changes made so they work better.  When myself or anyone goes to buy a gun most times that check takes about 15 minutes but it can take days depending on the how well staffed they are on the government end.  I don't know what they want to do to expand them.  It may be a good plan and maybe not.  No matter what it wouldn't have stopped the kid from getting the gun because the father was the legal purchaser.

There are much bigger issues in the criminal justice system that needs to be looked at.  One of the big ones is proper sentencing,  bail reform and the no bail guidelines in NY and other places.  They let violent offenders walk around free because they don't want to be offensive to certain people.  Other are given light sentences.  For example the two girls who killed the Uber driver in a carjacking in Washington DC.  They are in Juvenile Detention until they are rehabilited or until they are 21 years old at the latest.  They should be spending a lot of time in prison.  You like to blame things on the GOP but its the democrats that are letting these criminals walk free and continue to commit violent crimes.  

Hmmm. Seems to me Clinton(D) passed the harsh sentencing laws and Grassley (R) has been at least one working to change them, but carry on.

[MichiganCardinal]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

There are much bigger issues in the criminal justice system that needs to be looked at.  One of the big ones is proper sentencing,  bail reform and the no bail guidelines in NY and other places.  They let violent offenders walk around free because they don't want to be offensive to certain people.  Other are given light sentences.  For example the two girls who killed the Uber driver in a carjacking in Washington DC.  They are in Juvenile Detention until they are rehabilited or until they are 21 years old at the latest.  They should be spending a lot of time in prison.  You like to blame things on the GOP but its the democrats that are letting these criminals walk free and continue to commit violent crimes.  

I’ll entertain this discussion, but not as an imaginary either/or with discussions about gun control that should have been enacted decades ago.

[Tiger337]

People with any kind of criminal history should not be allowed to buy guns.  Crumbley should not have been allowed to get a gun.  If you're not a responsible person, then you probably won't be responsible with a gun.  

[Archie]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Hmmm. Seems to me Clinton(D) passed the harsh sentencing laws and Grassley (R) has been at least one working to change them, but carry on.

You should take a look at what's happening today.  New York and California have no bail rules. Other places have low bail but this mostly follows liberal prosecutors and judges.  These judges are the ones giving light sentences for violent crimes.  Look what happened to Darrell Brooks in WI after he was out on $1000 bail.  That's not the only case.  One complaint is we are running out of prison space.  If that's the case they should be building a lot more.  Our population is growing daily.

[Archie]

45 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

People with any kind of criminal history should not be allowed to buy guns.  Crumbley should not have been allowed to get a gun.  If you're not a responsible person, then you probably won't be responsible with a gun.  

I don't think either been convicted of a felony or violent crime such as domestic violence.  The worst is a DUI, writing bad checks and child support problems.  None of that would disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm in Michigan.  When you buy a firearm in Michigan you have to fill out a questionnaire and then that information is run through the background check.

[Kacie]

9 minutes ago, Archie said:

You should take a look at what's happening today.  New York and California have no bail rules. Other places have low bail but this mostly follows liberal prosecutors and judges.  These judges are the ones giving light sentences for violent crimes.  Look what happened to Darrell Brooks in WI after he was out on $1000 bail.  That's not the only case.  One complaint is we are running out of prison space.  If that's the case they should be building a lot more.  Our population is growing daily.

You're joking, right?  Build more prisons?  

[MichiganCardinal]

I’ll stop beating around the bush about my disdain for prosecutors, yesterday and this morning’s search, and the juvenile justice system generally, because I can’t lie, it is personal for me. I’m going to change some minor details to preserve what little internet anonymity I have left.

I’m the adoptive parent to an older teenage boy. When he was 13, he went on the run from the foster care system after he was physically abused at a residential facility. While on the run for almost a year, NO ONE (and I mean absolutely no one) was looking for him. When I would come home from California, I would perform my due diligence because I cared about him, and actually located him on one occasion. Police did a drive-by when I called, nothing more.

While on the run, homeless, no family, nothing to speak of, he turned to crime. With two adult men, he committed a robbery. It was poorly done, no one was hurt, they got nothing out of it.

Fast forward a year and a half, he’s doing better and has turned himself in (and was placed BACK INTO the very same abusive residential - another soapbox for another time)…. The prosecutor charged him as an adult with Armed Robbery, while pleading out the two other men to testify against him. Mind you, he was not the ringleader by any stretch of the imagination. They tried really freaking hard to put a homeless 13yo foster youth away for a substantial portion of his life, at least 8 years. Thanks to my character testimony on his behalf that I flew back to give, as well as a phenomenal public defender, he was sentenced as a juvenile and served 18 months in juvenile detention (which was also abusive and neglectful, but that’s yet another soap box). Mind you, 18 months is more than either of the other two served (both of whom have reoffended multiple times since).

Upon release, he came directly to my home. It hasn’t been easy, but in the first loving home he’s ever been in, he’s done incredibly well under the circumstances.

Almost every prosecutor I have come across has no real interest in the true sense of the word justice. They’re scummy and constantly pull the tactics McDonald has in the last week to look good to the politicians, the cameras, and the people who have no freaking idea what life is like for the people below them on the social ladder. They want to get rid of the poor kids, the black and brown kids, and the kids who landed in situations that their privileged lives couldn’t ever imagine. All the while appealing to those at their level and above, “aren’t you happy the world is a better/cleaner place now?” They want to look in the book and say “how do I lock this person up for as long as possible?”, without any mind that in the vast majority of crimes, that person WILL be released eventually, and become a member of society again, just like you and me.

Right now, those two parents (who deserve their day in court, as heinous an act as their son committed and as negligent as they appear to be) have been absolutely vilified by the court of public opinion, because that’s the way McDonald wanted it to be. Never mind whether they are actually guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter (which I think will be an interesting question for a jury to answer if they can find a fair one).

The answers to societal problems of inequity and criminality cannot be to just sit on our hands and wait for individuals to do what everyone knew (or should have known) they were going to do, throw them in a cell and lose the key when they do, and then pat each other on the back while they rot years away. Yet people fall hook-line-sinker into that line of thinking.

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, Archie said:

You should take a look at what's happening today.  New York and California have no bail rules. Other places have low bail but this mostly follows liberal prosecutors and judges.  These judges are the ones giving light sentences for violent crimes.  Look what happened to Darrell Brooks in WI after he was out on $1000 bail.  That's not the only case.  One complaint is we are running out of prison space.  If that's the case they should be building a lot more.  Our population is growing daily.

I'm not arguing there are not places going overboard with bail diversion - it is the new "thing", and like any other reform that is probably overdue, it is being overdone in places. I am arguing that it is not a particularly partisan issue. WI state legislature is still in R hands and until recently had a R gov. A lot of state GOP legislatures love sentence/bail/prison reform because in many states corrections are or are close to, the single biggest item in the budget anymore.

Edited December 4, 2021 by gehringer_2

[MichiganCardinal]

22 minutes ago, Archie said:

You should take a look at what's happening today.  New York and California have no bail rules. Other places have low bail but this mostly follows liberal prosecutors and judges.  These judges are the ones giving light sentences for violent crimes.  Look what happened to Darrell Brooks in WI after he was out on $1000 bail.  That's not the only case.  One complaint is we are running out of prison space.  If that's the case they should be building a lot more.  Our population is growing daily.

What do you think is the point of bail? These are people who have NOT been convicted of a crime. The purpose is not to prevent crime while awaiting trial, it’s to hold a deposit to ensure people return to court for their trial.

If Brooks could have been predicted to commit more violent crimes while out, he should have been denied bond. No one can predict that 100% though. If you give him (and the 10000s of people like him who don’t commit violent acts while awaiting trial) a bond they cannot afford (like I don’t know… $500k), you’re just jailing 10000s of people who haven’t been convicted of anything, many of whom will be found not guilty at the end of the day. Meanwhile they are losing their job, their homes and cars, their relationships with their significant others and children, and everything they care about.

And what do you think happens when you build more prisons and jail more people, even for just those who are convicted and sentenced to harsh penalties? You get more people exiting jail without jobs, homes, cars, or relationships, who the state then has to either support or be just STUNNED (/s) when they reoffend.

The US already holds something like 20-25% of the world’s prisoners…. Maybe another thing we should look to other countries for models in fixing.

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

The answers to societal problems of inequity and criminality cannot be to just sit on our hands and wait for individuals to do what everyone knew (or should have known) they were going to do, throw them in a cell and lose the key when they do, and then pat each other on the back while they rot years away. Yet people fall hook-line-sinker into that line of thinking.

++++

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

What do you think is the point of bail? These are people who have NOT been convicted of a crime. The purpose is not to prevent crime while awaiting trial, it’s to hold a deposit to ensure people return to court for their trial.

If Brooks could have been predicted to commit more violent crimes while out, he should have been denied bond. No one can predict that 100% though. If you give him (and the 10000s of people like him who don’t commit violent acts while awaiting trial) a bond they cannot afford (like I don’t know… $500k), you’re just jailing 10000s of people who haven’t been convicted of anything, many of whom will be found not guilty at the end of the day. Meanwhile they are losing their job, their homes and cars, their relationships with their significant others and children, and everything they care about.

And what do you think happens when you build more prisons and jail more people, even for just those who are convicted and sentenced to harsh penalties? You get more people exiting jail without jobs, homes, cars, or relationships, who the state then has to either support or be just STUNNED (/s) when they reoffend.

The US already holds something like 20-25% of the world’s prisoners…. Maybe another thing we should look to other countries for models in fixing.

the concept started in the middle ages.  when you captured somebody, you held them for ransom.  but then you would let them go on so they could rustle up the money to pay the ransom and then come back when its paid.  the french king captured at poitiers being the most famous example.  or richard the lionheart.

but i digress.

i think bail is possibly unconstitutional.  you get arrested, you havent been convicted yet.  by what right can they hold you?  so im sympathetic to "anti-bail" prosecutors (like our own here in chicago).  but with that is going to come increases in crime because you are likely putting people back on the street who are in criminal gangs who will return to do criminal things.

as i believe you noted before, the reasons for crime are society based reasons, and local prosecutors and cops arent the ones that can really influence that on a large scale.  bail reform has its positives - not locking people up for minor offenses cause they cant pay - and negatives - letting out people who will commit other crimes again before being tried for their last crime.  i tend to favor the bail reformers.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, buddha said:

think bail is possibly unconstitutional

There is a point there with respect to the sense of the bill of rights but you run into the problem with the black and white text in the 8th amendment. If they had intended to ban bail, they would not have instead set limits on it. That's a hard argument to get around. Far harder (logically if not politically) than banning handguns under the 2nd would be.

When you have an internal logical inconsistency you probably need (or at least should have) an explicit amendment to make the change. I know - the amendment process is broken, but that's not the founders' fault.

Edited December 4, 2021 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

52 minutes ago, Archie said:

I don't think either been convicted of a felony or violent crime such as domestic violence.  The worst is a DUI, writing bad checks and child support problems.  None of that would disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm in Michigan.  When you buy a firearm in Michigan you have to fill out a questionnaire and then that information is run through the background check.

Sure, but gun laws in this country suck.  I am saying he SHOULD NOT be allowed to own a gun.  If you're not a responsible person, you don't get to own a gun.  DUI is very high on my list of my irresponsible activties.  

[Motor City Sonics]

I smoked some weed last night.  I don't do it often anymore.    Did I hallucinate this or did I actually see where the Premiere of Florida wants to basically militarize citizens?       Oh,  that'll work.  

Edited December 4, 2021 by Motor City Sonics

[Kacie]

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Archie]

2 hours ago, Kacie said:

You're joking, right?  Build more prisons?  

If that's what it takes to get violent offenders off the streets then its what we have to do.  A lot of people that want to give these free passes haven't been victims.  Its no wonder we have so many armed citizens and guns in this country.  There is a reason why we have to protect ourselves.

[Archie]

2 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

What do you think is the point of bail? These are people who have NOT been convicted of a crime. The purpose is not to prevent crime while awaiting trial, it’s to hold a deposit to ensure people return to court for their trial.

If Brooks could have been predicted to commit more violent crimes while out, he should have been denied bond. No one can predict that 100% though. If you give him (and the 10000s of people like him who don’t commit violent acts while awaiting trial) a bond they cannot afford (like I don’t know… $500k), you’re just jailing 10000s of people who haven’t been convicted of anything, many of whom will be found not guilty at the end of the day. Meanwhile they are losing their job, their homes and cars, their relationships with their significant others and children, and everything they care about.

And what do you think happens when you build more prisons and jail more people, even for just those who are convicted and sentenced to harsh penalties? You get more people exiting jail without jobs, homes, cars, or relationships, who the state then has to either support or be just STUNNED (/s) when they reoffend.

The US already holds something like 20-25% of the world’s prisoners…. Maybe another thing we should look to other countries for models in fixing.

Brooks had a bit of history and anyone in that office with a lick of common sense would have know he was a danger in some capacity.  Nobody thought he would drive through a parade but he was a danger with his record and what he was charged with.

[Tigeraholic1]

24 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

 

[Motor City Sonics]

4 hours ago, oblong said:

It’s the democrats fault these trumpies let their kid get a gun and he shot people. 
 

sound. 

Remember, the bad Katrina response was Obama's fault. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612

[Archie]

2 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I’ll stop beating around the bush about my disdain for prosecutors, yesterday and this morning’s search, and the juvenile justice system generally, because I can’t lie, it is personal for me. I’m going to change some minor details to preserve what little internet anonymity I have left.

I’m the adoptive parent to an older teenage boy. When he was 13, he went on the run from the foster care system after he was physically abused at a residential facility. While on the run for almost a year, NO ONE (and I mean absolutely no one) was looking for him. When I would come home from California, I would perform my due diligence because I cared about him, and actually located him on one occasion. Police did a drive-by when I called, nothing more.

While on the run, homeless, no family, nothing to speak of, he turned to crime. With two adult men, he committed a robbery. It was poorly done, no one was hurt, they got nothing out of it.

Fast forward a year and a half, he’s doing better and has turned himself in (and was placed BACK INTO the very same abusive residential - another soapbox for another time)…. The prosecutor charged him as an adult with Armed Robbery, while pleading out the two other men to testify against him. Mind you, he was not the ringleader by any stretch of the imagination. They tried really freaking hard to put a homeless 13yo foster youth away for a substantial portion of his life, at least 8 years. Thanks to my character testimony on his behalf that I flew back to give, as well as a phenomenal public defender, he was sentenced as a juvenile and served 18 months in juvenile detention (which was also abusive and neglectful, but that’s yet another soap box). Mind you, 18 months is more than either of the other two served (both of whom have reoffended multiple times since).

Upon release, he came directly to my home. It hasn’t been easy, but in the first loving home he’s ever been in, he’s done incredibly well under the circumstances.

Almost every prosecutor I have come across has no real interest in the true sense of the word justice. They’re scummy and constantly pull the tactics McDonald has in the last week to look good to the politicians, the cameras, and the people who have no freaking idea what life is like for the people below them on the social ladder. They want to get rid of the poor kids, the black and brown kids, and the kids who landed in situations that their privileged lives couldn’t ever imagine. All the while appealing to those at their level and above, “aren’t you happy the world is a better/cleaner place now?” They want to look in the book and say “how do I lock this person up for as long as possible?”, without any mind that in the vast majority of crimes, that person WILL be released eventually, and become a member of society again, just like you and me.

Right now, those two parents (who deserve their day in court, as heinous an act as their son committed and as negligent as they appear to be) have been absolutely vilified by the court of public opinion, because that’s the way McDonald wanted it to be. Never mind whether they are actually guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter (which I think will be an interesting question for a jury to answer if they can find a fair one).

The answers to societal problems of inequity and criminality cannot be to just sit on our hands and wait for individuals to do what everyone knew (or should have known) they were going to do, throw them in a cell and lose the key when they do, and then pat each other on the back while they rot years away. Yet people fall hook-line-sinker into that line of thinking.

How a child is raise is so important in their lives and their future success.  Sounds like you are giving him a good family to give him the opportunity he needs.

I think the prosecutor is certainly using the media for her personal benefit.  I know the parents need to answer the charges but having BOLO broadcast everywhere is over the top in my opinion.  I think she has an uphill battle to convict the parents on anything no matter how deserving it may be.

[Tiger337]

46 minutes ago, Archie said:

If that's what it takes to get violent offenders off the streets then its what we have to do.  A lot of people that want to give these free passes haven't been victims.  Its no wonder we have so many armed citizens and guns in this country.  There is a reason why we have to protect ourselves.

We already have more prisoners per 100,000 than any country in the world.  A few more won't hurt. The more the merrier!  

[MichiganCardinal]

39 minutes ago, Archie said:

Brooks had a bit of history and anyone in that office with a lick of common sense would have know he was a danger in some capacity.  Nobody thought he would drive through a parade but he was a danger with his record and what he was charged with.

I would guess 75% or more of people who come into trouble with the law on any given day have past run-ins with the law. 

Prior to the Waukesha Parade incident, he was charged in the prior incident with Obstructing a Police Officer, 2nd Degree Reckless Endangerment, Disorderly Conduct, Battery, and Bail Jumping. The incident itself came from the mother of one of his children calling police and stating that he had tried to run her over, displaying to police a tire mark on her pant leg. A much more standard incident for police contact than the high-profile ones that have been talked about extensively here.

Say that Waukesha never happened, that Brooks pled not guilty to those charges, went to trial, and evidence came out that completely exonerated him. This was a vindictive ex and video from across the street that the police didn't see in their investigation shows the woman rubbing her leg against a tire after he's left, and it's not clear that he hit her at all. These are all things that might not be known at arraignment, but could certainly come out at trial.

If he had been denied bond or given an outrageous bond that a low-income individual such as himself could never afford, that means that he sat incarcerated for months awaiting this trial, for having done absolutely nothing wrong (in this incident at least).

What he ultimately did was tragic, without a doubt, and the world would be a better place now if he had been denied bond. That doesn't mean that we should be reactionary and now more harshly punish every future person who walks through the doors of a courtroom accused of violating a law. Accusations are only accusations, and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It also doesn't mean that if his bond was higher but still affordable with collateral (say $10k) that it wouldn't have happened.

[MichiganCardinal]

48 minutes ago, Archie said:

I think she has an uphill battle to convict the parents on anything no matter how deserving it may be.

I agree with this.

If there is an impartial jury of peers (or two) to be found in Oakland County, I think the defense has a really strong case here. Holding parents criminally liable for their child's actions is a very slippery slope, and I don't know if there is any precedent. They were negligent without a doubt in my mind, and would almost certainly be found responsible for damages in a civil suit. Did they commit involuntary manslaughter though? I'm not sure.

Say someone has a kid who is 15-17, mentally ill, but usually good at hiding it and very resistant to medication or therapy. Parent goes to the corner store for something one day and the kid has a mental breakdown, grabs a knife from the block in the kitchen, and kills someone who is just walking their dog down the street. Is that parent criminally responsible for their child's actions? They didn't force the child to be seen by a mental health professional after all. They left the child without supervision. They didn't secure their knives. Keep in mind that with no weapons charges being filed, that likely means they broke no laws as it comes to storing the weapon (which is infuriating in its own right, but also a separate conversation from whether the Crumbley parents are guilty).

It will be an intriguing case to follow.

[Kacie]

1 hour ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I agree with this.

If there is an impartial jury of peers (or two) to be found in Oakland County, I think the defense has a really strong case here. Holding parents criminally liable for their child's actions is a very slippery slope, and I don't know if there is any precedent. They were negligent without a doubt in my mind, and would almost certainly be found responsible for damages in a civil suit. Did they commit involuntary manslaughter though? I'm not sure.

Say someone has a kid who is 15-17, mentally ill, but usually good at hiding it and very resistant to medication or therapy. Parent goes to the corner store for something one day and the kid has a mental breakdown, grabs a knife from the block in the kitchen, and kills someone who is just walking their dog down the street. Is that parent criminally responsible for their child's actions? They didn't force the child to be seen by a mental health professional after all. They left the child without supervision. They didn't secure their knives. Keep in mind that with no weapons charges being filed, that likely means they broke no laws as it comes to storing the weapon (which is infuriating in its own right, but also a separate conversation from whether the Crumbley parents are guilty).

It will be an intriguing case to follow.

You're scoffing at others for jumping to conclusions and biased against the prosecutor, but do you know all the evidence the prosecutor has?  The victims haven't even been buried yet.  The slippery slope stuff is a bit over the top.  From the very little information that has been released, this appears to be more than just innocent parents who didn't notice their weird kid had an issue.  They were near the Canadian border in a warehouse, but sure, they were planning on turning themselves in.  They're totally innocent, it's the big bad prosecutor being a meanie.