A de facto death sentence for the "mentally ill" and ex-cons is barbaric

eye95 said:

The fact remains that you childishly and dishonestly put words in the mouth of another poster that were not his. You can deny it all day long. You can try to justify it till the cows come home.

But you did it.

It is dishonest.

It is childish.

You could have just asked for clarification, but you took the dishonest and childish tack.
____________________________

Another possible reply:

So, you admit to childishly and dishonestly putting words in the mouth of another?

Wait, I just put words in your mouth.

No, I didn't. There was a question mark at the end!

Yes, I did! The post still reads as though you said something that you did not.

Maybe that will help you get it. I doubt it, but maybe.

Not moving on.

Click to expand...

As I said before, just because you say something doesn't make it true, and it also doesn't mean I care. I don't have to defend myself from you because frankly I don't care about what you think. Most of your posts on the forum is whining about someone doing something in a way you don't approve of, and frankly I couldn't care less. I don't care if you think what I did is childish and dishonest, because in my opinion it's not. So you can either get over it, or continue your whining, which is what I'm sure you will do.

Reasonable said:

I have never been arrested or treated poorly by the police.

Why is it that you are all so afraid? Is it something you have done?

I got nothing to fear and will soon be on my way.

Click to expand...

lol! You're going to find out the hard way one day, I promise you.

A person with an attitude such as yours has very much to be afraid of from police. Right off the bat, I guarantee you break laws you don't even know exist.

1) The GCA is not a "de facto death sentence" 2.5 million people die each and every year in the United States, of these 16500 people on average will die as the result of a homicide. meaning across the entire population exactly 0.006% of people die from a criminal act...

hardly a death sentence. I'd say far more of these ex-con's death sentences comes in the form of catching some .38 special from a startled home owner when they decide home invasion is easier then working.... or maybe some police issue .40 hollowpoints when they reach under their car seat during a traffic stop in the ghetto at two in the morning. The premises of this argument is demonstrably false, if someone leaves prison and stays clean they're not extremely likely to be killed in a criminal attack.

2) as far as the above argument, Eye95 is right, ABdobbs, acknlowdge you were a little harsh and move on....

ADobbs1989 said:

As I said before, just because you say something doesn't make it true, and it also doesn't mean I care. I don't have to defend myself from you because frankly I don't care about what you think. Most of your posts on the forum is whining about someone doing something in a way you don't approve of, and frankly I couldn't care less. I don't care if you think what I did is childish and dishonest, because in my opinion it's not. So you can either get over it, or continue your whining, which is what I'm sure you will do.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you care enough what I think to keep defending your behavior.

I will freely say that I care enough about honesty in posting that I will continue to point out the dishonest way in which you put words in the mouth of another every bit as long as you continue to defend that which you say you need not defend.

Not moving on. So, again:

ADobbs1989 said:

One of those what? One of those people who point out when someones view is part of the problem? [emphasis added] Yeah I guess I am.

Click to expand...

The poster said nothing of the sort. You are putting words in his mouth, implying that he said something he did not. That is dishonest and childish. If you truly wanted to know what he meant, you would have stopped after the first sentence. You might have actually gotten an answer. Did you want one? I am thinking not.

EMNofSeattle said:

I'd say far more of these ex-con's death sentences comes in the form of catching some .38 special from a startled home owner when they decide home invasion is easier then working.... or maybe some police issue .40 hollowpoints when they reach under their car seat during a traffic stop in the ghetto at two in the morning.

Click to expand...

Fact: most felons are not violent, or even criminals in any meaningful sense of the word. They are merely lawbreakers.

Thank you. That is what it's supposed to be all about.

eye95 said:

The poster said nothing of the sort. You are putting words in his mouth, implying that he said something he did not. That is dishonest and childish. If you truly wanted to know what he meant, you would have stopped after the first sentence. You might have actually gotten an answer. Did you want one? I am thinking not.

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? You're delusional.

Frankly, I'm fed up with eye95's constant and unjustified bullying accusations of lying. So much so that I'm going to trace this conversation and see who's right:

To the forum: nobody put any words in anybody's mouth so far as I can see. The unreasonable "Reasonable" made an ambiguous post, which ADobbs1989 inquired as to the precise meaning of. He did so in no way changing the original quote, and his use of the question mark made it clear that he was inquiring as to the precise meaning, not asserting what it was.

The question in the first sentence was sufficient, but the second was clearly sarcasm and not "putting words" in Reasonable's mouth. I submit that to do what ADobbs1989 did is quite clearly the sarcastic application of his interpretation to Reasonable's post, coupled with a request for clarification of what the original intended meaning may have been.

I further submit that if someone doesn't want another person to apply their own interpretation to a statement, and ask whether that interpretation is correct, then perhaps the first person should avoid the puerile tactic of making intentionally vague remarks.

I'm not going to engage this ridiculous debate any further, but I'll leave it up to the forum to make their own judgements.

JoeSparky said:

So, you are OK with the process whereby anyone who is experiencing a consenual or nonconsenual encounter with Mr. Leo needs to be DISARMED for the course of the encounter?

Click to expand...

Reasonable said:

yea i am.

Click to expand...

ADobbs1989 said:

Then you, and those like you are the problem. Pathetic.

Click to expand...

Reasonable said:

Wow. You are one of those.

Click to expand...

ADobbs1989 said:

One of those what? One of those people who point out when someones view is part of the problem? Yeah I guess I am.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

And one of those* too!

Before you ask: *Posters who put words in others mouths, such as you just did with that post. Why don't you just ask him the question in the first sentence, and leave it at that. Simple, huh?

Click to expand...

And then, based on this rather unremarkable exchange, eye95 goes on a tirade against "dishonesty" and his archnemesis, the act of "[putting] words in the mouth of another."

I submit that his constant tactic of asserting "dishonesty" in the most innocent of remarks (usually of the sarcastic variety) is in fact tantamount to a plausibly-deniable ad hominem: a means of implicitly calling a person a liar, and so discrediting (or so he imagines) their views, all while maintaining the facade of innocence and civility.

marshaul said:

Fact: most felons are not violent, or even criminals in any meaningful sense of the word. They are merely lawbreakers.

Click to expand...

but the OP isn't talking about non-violent people or whether or not certain crimes should be felonies, he's talking every felon should be suddenly allowed to go pickup guns legally at a shop so if a police officer stops a convicted rapist on his way to go rape someone's 16 year old daughter and he has a gun, the officer only can tip his hat and say "goodday" yeah don't think so. the prohibition of felons in possession is a useful tool. when someone betrays your trust, do you suddenly trust them again once more? no you wait until they can prove they're trustworthy again. when someone betrays society's trust by harming members of society, they should no longer have all the rights and privilages of that society....

besides your numbers are not completely accurate. as of 2010 over half of prisoners in state custody are violent felons. true only 5% or so of people in federal custody are violent offenders, but for every federal prisoner there's about 90 or so state prisoners. so violent people do comprise the majority of people sitting in prison as felons....

EMNofSeattle said:

but the OP isn't talking about non-violent people or whether or not certain crimes should be felonies, he's talking every felon should be suddenly allowed to go pickup guns legally at a shop so if a police officer stops a convicted rapist on his way to go rape someone's 16 year old daughter and he has a gun, the officer only can tip his hat and say "goodday" yeah don't think so. the prohibition of felons in possession is a useful tool. when someone betrays your trust, do you suddenly trust them again once more? no you wait until they can prove they're trustworthy again. when someone betrays society's trust by harming members of society, they should no longer have all the rights and privilages of that society....

besides your numbers are not completely accurate. as of 2010 over half of prisoners in state custody are violent felons. true only 5% or so of people in federal custody are violent offenders, but for every federal prisoner there's about 90 or so state prisoners. so violent people do comprise the majority of people sitting in prison as felons....

Click to expand...

I agree that not all "felons" should lose the RKBA for life. Considering what some of these "felonies" are, the punishment does not fit the crime. I just don't see it as a rights issue. It is a proper matter for a public policy decision using republican means.

The best solution would be to make certain crimes, crime by crime, not using sweeping definitions like "felonies," subject to the loss of the RKBA as part of the process of sentencing. As with incarceration, probation, fines, and other forfeitures of rights after due process, the law should define minimums and maximums within which the judge can impose the loss of the RKBA for a period of time (up to and including for life).

However, as much as I think the current system is overbroad, imposing the loss of the RKBA indiscriminately, with no practical recourse to get the right back, it just is not a rights issue. If we want to fix this, we need to approach it as a public policy issue, getting the legislature to reform how the RKBA is lost, after due process, and for how long.

JoeSparky said:

So, you are OK with the process whereby anyone who is experiencing a consenual or nonconsenual encounter with Mr. Leo needs to be DISARMED for the course of the encounter?

Click to expand...

Reasonable said:

yea i am.

Click to expand...

ADobbs1989 said:

One of those what? One of those people who point out when someones view is part of the problem? Yeah I guess I am.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

And one of those* too!

Before you ask: *Posters who put words in others mouths, such as you just did with that post. Why don't you just ask him the question in the first sentence, and leave it at that. Simple, huh?

Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:

but the OP isn't talking about non-violent people or whether or not certain crimes should be felonies, he's talking every felon should be suddenly allowed to go pickup guns legally at a shop so if a police officer stops a convicted rapist on his way to go rape someone's 16 year old daughter and he has a gun, the officer only can tip his hat and say "goodday" yeah don't think so.

Click to expand...

I'm OK with very long sentences for convicted rapists.

Not to mention the fact that, while you might not like your prospective rapist from buying his gun in a shop, a law prohibiting him from doing so in no way prevents him from obtaining one somewhere else.

Also a gun isn't the prerequisite... tool... needed for raping 16 year olds (or victims of any age, for that matter). Conflation alert.

...a useful tool...

Click to expand...

...Ahem...

Speaking of which:

besides your numbers are not completely accurate. as of 2010 over half of prisoners in state custody are violent felons. true only 5% or so of people in federal custody are violent offenders, but for every federal prisoner there's about 90 or so state prisoners. so violent people do comprise the majority of people sitting in prison as felons....

Click to expand...

Are you quite sure about that?

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf

• From 1990 to 2002, 18% of felony convictions in the 75 largest counties were for violent offenses, including 7% for assault and 6% for robbery.

...SNIP...

The SCPS sample is a 2-stage strati- fied sample, with 40 of the 75 most populous counties selected at stage one and a systematic sample of State court felony filings (defendants) within each county selected at stage two. The 40 counties were divided into 4 first- stage strata based on court filings.

Click to expand...

That's the most recent government statistic I can find. Furthermore, the trend seems to be a decrease in the proportion of violent felonies; according to my research, the percentage of felony convictions for violent offenses hasn't been over 50% since the mid-seventies.

Feel free to prove me wrong with equally authoritative references.

EMNofSeattle said:

but the OP isn't talking about non-violent people or whether or not certain crimes should be felonies, he's talking every felon should be suddenly allowed to go pickup guns legally at a shop so if a police officer stops a convicted rapist on his way to go rape someone's 16 year old daughter and he has a gun, the officer only can tip his hat and say "goodday" yeah don't think so.

Click to expand...

I'm OK with very long sentences for convicted rapists.

Not to mention the fact that, while you might not like your prospective rapist buying his gun in a shop, a law prohibiting him from doing so in no way prevents him from obtaining one somewhere else.

Also a gun isn't the prerequisite... tool... needed for raping 16 year olds (or victims of any age, for that matter). Conflation alert.

...a useful tool...

Click to expand...

...Ahem...

Speaking of which:

besides your numbers are not completely accurate. as of 2010 over half of prisoners in state custody are violent felons. true only 5% or so of people in federal custody are violent offenders, but for every federal prisoner there's about 90 or so state prisoners. so violent people do comprise the majority of people sitting in prison as felons....

Click to expand...

Are you quite sure about that?

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf

• From 1990 to 2002, 18% of felony convictions in the 75 largest counties were for violent offenses, including 7% for assault and 6% for robbery.

...SNIP...

The SCPS sample is a 2-stage strati- fied sample, with 40 of the 75 most populous counties selected at stage one and a systematic sample of State court felony filings (defendants) within each county selected at stage two. The 40 counties were divided into 4 first- stage strata based on court filings.

Click to expand...

You'll note those are definitely state offenses, in state courts.

That's the most recent government statistic I can find. Furthermore, the trend seems to be a decrease in the proportion of violent felonies (I have a reference for New York State having a violent felony rate of 39% in 1996). According to my research, the national percentage of felony convictions for violent offenses hasn't been over 50% since the mid-seventies.

Feel free to prove me wrong with equally authoritative, cited references. If you can do so, I'll gladly concede the point.

marshaul said:

I'm OK with very long sentences for convicted rapists.

Not to mention the fact that, while you might not like your prospective rapist from buying his gun in a shop, a law prohibiting him from doing so in no way prevents him from obtaining one somewhere else.

Also a gun isn't the prerequisite... tool... needed for raping 16 year olds (or victims of any age, for that matter). Conflation alert.



...Ahem...

Speaking of which:



Are you quite sure about that?

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf



You'll note those are definitely state offenses, in state courts.

That's the most recent government statistic I can find. Furthermore, the trend seems to be a decrease in the proportion of violent felonies (I have a reference for New York State having a violent felony rate of 39% in 1996). According to my research, the national percentage of felony convictions for violent offenses hasn't been over 50% since the mid-seventies.

Feel free to prove me wrong with equally authoritative, cited references. If you can do so, I'll gladly concede the point.

Click to expand...

I only had a minute to look at stuff before leaving, so I used numbers of people currently in the prison system, i'll concede my numbers are only of the population of offenders actually behind bars as of 2010

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

First of all, I think conviction rates tell the tale better than actual numbers of felons behind bars.

Consider: people convicted of nonviolent felonies spend less time in prison on average (by quite a bit, actually). Think about what that means – the percentage of prisoners currently behind bars will always be biased towards violent felons, because nonviolent felons are released after much shorter intervals. To simplify greatly, imagine that in January I convict 5 people of violent felonies, sentencing them to (say) 10 years, and 5 more people of nonviolent felonies, allowing them to be released in a period of "not more than 12 months". Then, if I sample the rate of violent felons behind bars at the end of the year, the contribution from my convictions in January will be 100% violent felons – despite the fact that my conviction rate (and thus rate of voting right and 2A deprivation) was only 50% violent.


Even then! You're using the 1974 data. Go back and look at the page. As of 2010 only 47.7% behind bars are violent felons! Therefore, I concede nothing – my original statement stands.

Not to mention that felons behind bars are irrelevant insofar as nobody's arguing they be armed (or permitted to be). It's all those nonviolent felons released after short intervals who are the issue.

Conviction rates reveal the scope of legal injustice. But even by the kindest metric – the rate currently behind bars – most felons are not violent.

I think my point is well made. And that being the case, it does not make sense for felony conviction to ipso facto lead to a semi-permanent deprivation of rights, when most felons aren't even violent.

EMNofSeattle said:

but the OP isn't talking about non-violent people or whether or not certain crimes should be felonies, he's talking every felon should be suddenly allowed to go pickup guns legally at a shop so if a police officer stops a convicted rapist on his way to go rape someone's 16 year old daughter and he has a gun, the officer only can tip his hat and say "goodday" yeah don't think so. the prohibition of felons in possession is a useful tool. when someone betrays your trust, do you suddenly trust them again once more? no you wait until they can prove they're trustworthy again. when someone betrays society's trust by harming members of society, they should no longer have all the rights and privilages of that society....

besides your numbers are not completely accurate. as of 2010 over half of prisoners in state custody are violent felons. true only 5% or so of people in federal custody are violent offenders, but for every federal prisoner there's about 90 or so state prisoners. so violent people do comprise the majority of people sitting in prison as felons....

Click to expand...

The problem here is that "society" does not give me my rights. I am born with them. It would be more correct to say that the society I live in recognizes the fact that I am born with an inalienable fight to self defense. This is not to say that society cannot change the length of time I am denied these rights for violating it's social norms and laws. However, once a person has completed the assigned punishment for such a violation those inalienable rights return.

I used to have legal case bookmarked involving a suit brought by a jailed man who said his Constitutional rights were being violated by being deprived of his firearms in prison. The Court ruled that the man could be stripped if his rights because allowing him them could prevent the state from ensuring he completed his sentance. Citizen, Marshal, anyone else recall that case? The point being the prohibition was only to ensure compliance and not as a punishment for the crime.

And, according to our Constitution, your rights may be forfeit after due process of law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

And, according to our Constitution, your rights may be forfeit after due process of law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Cite?

5th amendment

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 offense 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

Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:

5th amendment

Click to expand...

Indeed. The Constitution does authorize deprivation of right, provided there is "due process".

Of course, the Bill of Rights was intended to provide a bare minimum standard of right to be upheld. There's no reason we should cripple ourselves before we're even out the gate by failing to demand a much higher standard of right than the bare minimum.

Otherwise we just get to watch them whittle away at that bare minimum, as they've been doing for so long now.

Thank you, I was waiting for someone to bring up the fifth. Because IF you read that the fifth does not say rights that can be taken away with due process. It specifically spells out those things that can be taken away as part of punishment. When that punishment is over the due process ends. NOT only that the state does not have the authority to take away those things from the family of that person, or that families rights.

Add in to that that it does not work and wastes the tax payers money, it should not be allowed. Felons still vote, and get away with it. They still buy guns and get away with it. It has been proven in court and at the SCOTUS levels that the only rights that are given up by due process are life, liberty, and property. Prisoners still retain rights outside of those punishments.