Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Gang agenda includes home invasions

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    This is sobering, chilling, disturbing news.

    Police are virtually powerless to stop this activity.


    http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=8867477


    NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY.com) -- Alleged gang leaders faced off in Norfolk Federal Court Tuesday. Their testimony revealed disturbing new details about the secret lives of local gangsters ina group called the Bounty Hunter Bloods.
    The gang is linked to the beating death of a 19-year-old man last summer in Ocean View.
    One of the most ruthless, self-confessed gang leaders in Norfolk, Marlon Reed, aka "Boss," was on the stand most of the day testifying against two of his accused fellow gang leaders.
    Reed testified there are now at least 400 members of the Bounty Hunter Bloods in seven chapters around Norfolk. On the stand Reed mentioned the names of fellow Bloods, like Pee Wee, Bone and Sugarbutt.
    He testified about gang members shooting people in the face, burning people all over their bodies with a clothes iron and jamming screwdrivers into people's arms and legs.
    All of it, everday life when you are a member of the Bounty Hunter Bloods.
    Reed is the government's star witness against Mikal Mix, aka "Stash," and Gary Toliver, aka "BG," alleged members of the Bounty Hunter Bloods.

    The charges against Mix and Toliver range from kidnappings and carjackings to maimings and home invasions.
    As Reed, 33, took the stand, he testified that some Bloods are as young as nine years old and a majority of them are teenagers.

    He said gang members "put in work" by selling drugs and robbing and beating people.
    And gang members are punished with a 31 second beating by five other Bloods standing in a five point star.
    Mix and Toliver stared straight at Reed as his testimony continued.
    Reed said Bloods make their money through robberies, drug sales and home invasions because, according to one of the rap songs they recorded, "working 9 to 5 don't cut it."
    Reed testified that girls in the gang, known as "rubies" are used to lure robbery victims. Rubies also "put in work" selling drugs and doing home invasions. And Rubies can rise to the level of top "General."
    Reed said rubies are initiated into the gang either by being "sexed in" in which they are forced to have sex with five Bloods, or they can "shoot a 31" in which they are beaten for 31 seconds with bats, sticks, guns and other weapons.
    To be a Blood, members must take an oath and pledge allegiance to their RED flag. The Bloods even have their own "Constitution" that members must live by.
    Reed testified that the children in the gang, the 8 and 9 year olds, are given written copies of their Constituion to study and memorize.
    Also, Bloods don't use the letter "C.""C" represents Crips, their rival gang. So if a Blood wanted to say "Coleman Place" in Norfolk, they would change it and say "Boleman Place."
    On the stand, Reed saidthe Bloods are actively recruiting new members right now. Their goal, rule all of Norfolk with fear and an iron fist.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Our government empowers these people through the prohibition of drugs. The people have done their part through self-disarmament in their false security and complacent reliance on government protection.

    The solution to the problem created by these rather pathetic children is twofold: one, the people must empower themselves by taking up arms in their day-to-day activies, and two, the government must disarm these lazy ne'er-do-wells by taking away their source of easy income: drug sales driven underground by immoral and unconstitutional prohibitions.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    da7f2q8 wrote:
    Police are virtually powerless to stop this activity.

    ...The charges against Mix and Toliver range from kidnappings and carjackings to maimings and home invasions.
    Mix and Toliver stared straight at Reed as his testimony continued.
    Reed said Bloods make their money through robberies, drug sales and home invasions .... ...
    On the stand, Reed saidthe Bloods are actively recruiting new members right now. Their goal, rule all of Norfolk with fear and an iron fist.
    This is a great reason to open carry hand guns and long guns.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    These articles alone establish reasonable fear of great bodily harm in a simple carjacking.

    The elements of common law self-defense are four: Be innocent of instigation. Be in fear of harm. Attempt to withdraw. Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil.

  5. #5
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Our government empowers these people through the prohibition of drugs. The people have done their part through self-disarmament in their false security and complacent reliance on government protection.

    The solution to the problem created by these rather pathetic children is twofold: one, the people must empower themselves by taking up arms in their day-to-day activies, and two, the government must disarm these lazy ne'er-do-wells by taking away their source of easy income: drug sales driven underground by immoral and unconstitutional prohibitions.
    +1 The organized crime from bootlegging dried up overnight when prohibition was repealed. The same thing would happen to most gang violence if the unconstitutional drug laws were repealed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Our government empowers these people through the prohibition of drugs. The people have done their part through self-disarmament in their false security and complacent reliance on government protection.

    The solution to the problem created by these rather pathetic children is twofold: one, the people must empower themselves by taking up arms in their day-to-day activies, and two, the government must disarm these lazy ne'er-do-wells by taking away their source of easy income: drug sales driven underground by immoral and unconstitutional prohibitions.
    +1 The organized crime from bootlegging dried up overnight when prohibition was repealed. The same thing would happen to most gang violence if the unconstitutional drug laws were repealed.
    There's still Shot Houses out there but few and far between. In the rare cases where they get busted it's because of tax evasion. Or as our liberal buddies call it the governmant not getting there "fair share"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    vt357 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Our government empowers these people through the prohibition of drugs. The people have done their part through self-disarmament in their false security and complacent reliance on government protection.

    The solution to the problem created by these rather pathetic children is twofold: one, the people must empower themselves by taking up arms in their day-to-day activies, and two, the government must disarm these lazy ne'er-do-wells by taking away their source of easy income: drug sales driven underground by immoral and unconstitutional prohibitions.
    +1 The organized crime from bootlegging dried up overnight when prohibition was repealed. The same thing would happen to most gang violence if the unconstitutional drug laws were repealed.
    There's still Shot Houses out there but few and far between. In the rare cases where they get busted it's because of tax evasion. Or as our liberal buddies call it the government not getting there "fair share"
    People make choices and must live with the consequences of those choices.Everyone knows selling andusing drugs is againstthe law. There are many laws against gangs as well. Should we do away with those lawsthat combat gangs? We could have a zero murderrate tomorrow if we did away with laws against murder(yes an extreme example, but still relevant)

    Excusing poor choices by blaming the Government for the problem IMO, is not just wrong, but overlooks the fact laws work for the overwhelming majority of people in this Country.





  8. #8
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    vt357 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Our government empowers these people through the prohibition of drugs. The people have done their part through self-disarmament in their false security and complacent reliance on government protection.

    The solution to the problem created by these rather pathetic children is twofold: one, the people must empower themselves by taking up arms in their day-to-day activies, and two, the government must disarm these lazy ne'er-do-wells by taking away their source of easy income: drug sales driven underground by immoral and unconstitutional prohibitions.
    +1 The organized crime from bootlegging dried up overnight when prohibition was repealed. The same thing would happen to most gang violence if the unconstitutional drug laws were repealed.
    There's still Shot Houses out there but few and far between. In the rare cases where they get busted it's because of tax evasion. Or as our liberal buddies call it the government not getting there "fair share"
    People make choices and must live with the consequences of those choices.Everyone knows selling andusing drugs is againstthe law. There are many laws against gangs as well. Should we do away with those lawsthat combat gangs? We could have a zero murderrate tomorrow if we did away with laws against murder(yes an extreme example, but still relevant)

    Excusing poor choices by blaming the Government for the problem IMO, is not just wrong, but overlooks the fact laws work for the overwhelming majority of people in this Country.



    The point the man was making was that it is beyond the scope and reach of the Constitution for the federal government to illegalize drugs unless they cross state lines. Drugs are in no way similar to MURDER for pete's sake. People choose to do drugs, they normally don't choose to be murdered. Drugs are bad for you but so is smoking, drinking to excess, eating too much fatty foods. Perhaps we should illegalize all that???

    You've got to look at the cost verses benefit of the drug war. 90% or better of those incarcerated are there because of drugs. Gangs would nearly dry up if drugs were legal (think of all the revenue for the government!). Peer pressure is much more effective and a hell of a lot less expensive. 0.08 BAC is NOT what is driving down drunk driving incidents, it's peer pressure. The same would work for drugs. Look at the money spent, YOUR freedoms lost, and the lives destroyed by the war. The benefits just do not come near to justifying the costs. That's the position that the poster was making. Even I can understand that and I don't necessarily agree. You have to understand that they do have some good arguments. But using poor arguments like "why don't we legalize murder" does nothing to defend your position that drugs should be illegal.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    People make choices and must live with the consequences of those choices.Everyone knows selling andusing drugs is againstthe law. There are many laws against gangs as well. Should we do away with those lawsthat combat gangs? We could have a zero murderrate tomorrow if we did away with laws against murder(yes an extreme example, but still relevant)

    Excusing poor choices by blaming the Government for the problem IMO, is not just wrong, but overlooks the fact laws work for the overwhelming majority of people in this Country.



    I don't see how someone shooting up dope relates to them running around in a dangerous gang, one isn't a crime against another person - one is acting violently towards others.

    The only just laws are those that are to hold accountable those that violate others rights. All other laws restricting personal freedoms are unjust.

    I don't do drugs, never have, but I think anyone should be allowed to use them. But, you commit an offense to pay for your drugs, you deserve jail time, most def.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    rebfan wrote:
    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    vt357 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Our government empowers these people through the prohibition of drugs. The people have done their part through self-disarmament in their false security and complacent reliance on government protection.

    The solution to the problem created by these rather pathetic children is twofold: one, the people must empower themselves by taking up arms in their day-to-day activies, and two, the government must disarm these lazy ne'er-do-wells by taking away their source of easy income: drug sales driven underground by immoral and unconstitutional prohibitions.
    +1 The organized crime from bootlegging dried up overnight when prohibition was repealed. The same thing would happen to most gang violence if the unconstitutional drug laws were repealed.
    There's still Shot Houses out there but few and far between. In the rare cases where they get busted it's because of tax evasion. Or as our liberal buddies call it the government not getting there "fair share"
    People make choices and must live with the consequences of those choices.Everyone knows selling andusing drugs is againstthe law. There are many laws against gangs as well. Should we do away with those lawsthat combat gangs? We could have a zero murderrate tomorrow if we did away with laws against murder(yes an extreme example, but still relevant)

    Excusing poor choices by blaming the Government for the problem IMO, is not just wrong, but overlooks the fact laws work for the overwhelming majority of people in this Country.



    The point the man was making was that it is beyond the scope and reach of the Constitution for the federal government to illegalize drugs unless they cross state lines. Drugs are in no way similar to MURDER for pete's sake. People choose to do drugs, they normally don't choose to be murdered. Drugs are bad for you but so is smoking, drinking to excess, eating too much fatty foods. Perhaps we should illegalize all that???

    You've got to look at the cost verses benefit of the drug war. 90% or better of those incarcerated are there because of drugs. Gangs would nearly dry up if drugs were legal (think of all the revenue for the government!). Peer pressure is much more effective and a hell of a lot less expensive. 0.08 BAC is NOT what is driving down drunk driving incidents, it's peer pressure. The same would work for drugs. Look at the money spent, YOUR freedoms lost, and the lives destroyed by the war. The benefits just do not come near to justifying the costs. That's the position that the poster was making. Even I can understand that and I don't necessarily agree. You have to understand that they do have some good arguments. But using poor arguments like "why don't we legalize murder" does nothing to defend your position that drugs should be illegal.
    Exactly what freedoms have I or anyone else given up because there are drug laws? I would say the reason why drunk driving is down, is the cost of being caught is much more then it used to be. At one time drinking and driving did not have the stigma or penaltiesit carries now. I used the murder argument to point out that sure we can eliminate many of the problems we have now, but that does not make it right. The cost to lock up criminals is of course expensive. However, what is the alternative?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    I don't see how someone shooting up dope relates to them running around in a dangerous gang, one isn't a crime against another person - one is acting violently towards others.

    The only just laws are those that are to hold accountable those that violate others rights. All other laws restricting personal freedoms are unjust.

    I don't do drugs, never have, but I think anyone should be allowed to use them. But, you commit an offense to pay for your drugs, you deserve jail time, most def.



    The only problem with that is that unless one grows, makes, etc, their own drugs in their own homes, other people are involved in the actions of that particular drug user. That puts the general public at risk because the drugs are either shipped across the border or from one State to another State. In that course of that shipment the public is at risk from those transporting the drugs, i.e. running from the police, growing/making drugs in areas where the public is at risk of running across those engaged in such activities. Drug dealers tend to be pretty protective of their drugs and will use violence to protect them. Innocent folks can easily get caught up in the violence of the drug dealers.





  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    The only problem with that is that unless one grows, makes, etc, their own drugs in their own homes, other people are involved in the actions of that particular drug user. That puts the general public at risk because the drugs are either shipped across the border or from one State to another State. In that course of that shipment the public is at risk from those transporting the drugs, i.e. running from the police, growing/making drugs in areas where the public is at risk of running across those engaged in such activities. Drug dealers tend to be pretty protective of their drugs and will use violence to protect them. Innocent folks can easily get caught up in the violence of the drug dealers.



    I would assume it would be legal to sell it if it is legal to use it. You can't decriminalize drugs without making it legal to manufacture and sell it. If you made selling illegal but made using legal, you just create a larger black market.

    Legalize it all and let the market sort it out. The crime aspect will disappear instantly. Violent crime only occurs due to the limitations, not because of the product.

    Making beer isn't dangerous, making and selling vicodin isn't dangerous - legal sale of drugs wouldn't be either.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    Would legalizing drugs really drive out gangs and others who deal them?

    Seems that cigarettes are legal and taxed by the Government. But, that still does not prevent criminals from trying to make money off of them.

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1461823





  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    The only problem with that is that unless one grows, makes, etc, ...
    Don't forget mandated single payer healthcare. When we can spurn a druggie dying in the gutter with an easy conscience then we will have achieved a necessary step to a druggie society.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    Exactly what freedoms have I or anyone else given up because there are drug laws? I would say the reason why drunk driving is down, is the cost of being caught is much more then it used to be. At one time drinking and driving did not have the stigma or penaltiesit carries now. I used the murder argument to point out that sure we can eliminate many of the problems we have now, but that does not make it right. The cost to lock up criminals is of course expensive. However, what is the alternative?
    I'm no expert but generally you never know what freedoms you've lost until the Feds are at your door. One that comes to mind is the illegal siezure of property without due process of law. No-knock warrants, such as the guy in Norfolk who is facing capital murder charges because he shot a cop busting into his house late at night. Just two off the top of my head. I'm QUITE sure there are many more.

    As far as drunk driving goes you made my point! The cost is much higher and the stigma of drunk driving is much greater than it used to be. It's NOT because they changed the law from 0.10 BAC to 0.08 BAC. All that draconian law does is to make it so practically anyone is drunk driving after a beer or two, regardless of how under the influence they are. It take the power to make your life a mess out of your hands and into a cops, who may or may not be on his own power trip.

    I never said doing drugs was right, anymore than abusing alcohol, overeating, or not flossing. Just when is it justified for the feds to stick their nose into whos business? It's about freedom, baby.

    The alternative to the war on drugs is to stimatize it. The gangsta culture would die if drugs were legal. Not immediately but it would die. Of course gangs would try to find other avenues for revenue, but they're also already doing those things. The gangs will just not be able to support the number of "employees" they currently have once the drug cash flow ends. They'll have to fire them and those fired would have to get real jobs. That's where a good peer pressure campaign would come in. Use peer pressure to embarass those who would otherwise be deadbeats into becoming responsible citizens, show them the respect that a 9-5er who earns an honest living gets for himself. Like you or me.

    All this goes back to the whole Prohibition example. Even the main proponents of Prohibition were campaigning against it after a few years.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    SNIP: Excusing poor choices by blaming the Government for the problem IMO, is not just wrong, but overlooks the fact laws work for the overwhelming majority of people in this Country.
    I think they're not blaming the gov. for drug use. People do indeed make their own foolish choices.
    But if drugs weren't illegal we wouldn't have drug gangs. We also wouldn't have SWAT teams and cictizens getting entangled during no-knock warrants.
    Even if drug laws, or, in your example murder laws did not exist most people would not become addicts or murderers.

    Its an example of the whole anti-gunners theory that "guns kill people". No, of course they don't. Bad people kill people. ANd bad people make bad choices with or without gun laws, drug laws, or even murder laws.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    I'm no expert but generally you never know what freedoms you've lost until the Feds are at your door. One that comes to mind is the illegal siezure of property without due process of law. No-knock warrants, such as the guy in Norfolk who is facing capital murder charges because he shot a cop busting into his house late at night. Just two off the top of my head. I'm QUITE sure there are many more.

    As far as drunk driving goes you made my point! The cost is much higher and the stigma of drunk driving is much greater than it used to be. It's NOT because they changed the law from 0.10 BAC to 0.08 BAC. All that draconian law does is to make it so practically anyone is drunk driving after a beer or two, regardless of how under the influence they are. It take the power to make your life a mess out of your hands and into a cops, who may or may not be on his own power trip.

    I never said doing drugs was right, anymore than abusing alcohol, overeating, or not flossing. Just when is it justified for the feds to stick their nose into whos business? It's about freedom, baby.

    The alternative to the war on drugs is to stimatize it. The gangsta culture would die if drugs were legal. Not immediately but it would die. Of course gangs would try to find other avenues for revenue, but they're also already doing those things. The gangs will just not be able to support the number of "employees" they currently have once the drug cash flow ends. They'll have to fire them and those fired would have to get real jobs. That's where a good peer pressure campaign would come in. Use peer pressure to embarass those who would otherwise be deadbeats into becoming responsible citizens, show them the respect that a 9-5er who earns an honest living gets for himself. Like you or me.

    All this goes back to the whole Prohibition example. Even the main proponents of Prohibition were campaigning against it after a few years.
    +1!!

    I have no issue with holding peoples feet to the fire with using and driving, but that isn't a valid excuse to keep from making drugs legal. Look at the amount of drunk drivers on the road.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:
    Would legalizing drugs really drive out gangs and others who deal them?

    Seems that cigarettes are legal and taxed by the Government. But, that still does not prevent criminals from trying to make money off of them.

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1461823



    The only reason people run cigarettes or moonshine is because the TAXES on them are so HIGH! Why should the taxes be higher than other goods. Make the taxes the same for everything. You don't see people running groceries across state lines to circumvent taxes do you :^)?

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    rebfan wrote: The only reason people run cigarettes or moonshine is because the TAXES on them are so HIGH! Why should the taxes be higher than other goods. Make the taxes the same for everything. You don't see people running groceries across state lines to circumvent taxes do you :^)?
    Correct. The elected nanny-staters are willing to limit your freedoms "for safety" but not their own revenue streams.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post


    As far as drunk driving goes you made my point! The cost is much higher and the stigma of drunk driving is much greater than it used to be. It's NOT because they changed the law from 0.10 BAC to 0.08 BAC. All that draconian law does is to make it so practically anyone is drunk driving after a beer or two, regardless of how under the influence they are. It take the power to make your life a mess out of your hands and into a cops, who may or may not be on his own power trip.


    Of course lowering the bac level helped too. That is part of cracking down on drinking and driving.

    Where did your distrust of law enforcement come from?

    Those that want to take away our gun rights love to point out one or two examples of poor choices made by legal gun owners to paint all of us as not worthy of being responsible gun owners. Is that fair?

    Law enforcement should be held accountable for their actions when they break the law, or violate our rights, and I will be right there to speak out against them, such as was the case in the "Manassas 7". However, that does not mean we should not trust them or have laws for them to enforce because of a couple of bad apples in the bunch.

    We will always have gangs and as you pointed out, they will always find a way to make money.





  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    rebfan wrote:
    Would legalizing drugs really drive out gangs and others who deal them?

    Seems that cigarettes are legal and taxed by the Government. But, that still does not prevent criminals from trying to make money off of them.

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1461823



    The only reason people run cigarettes or moonshine is because the TAXES on them are so HIGH! Why should the taxes be higher than other goods. Make the taxes the same for everything. You don't see people running groceries across state lines to circumvent taxes do you :^)?
    It might not happen as much now, but when the dollar was much stronger, Canadians would come down to America and grocery shop. People run food stamp rings as well. Anytime there is a chance to earn a buck, there are going to be people willing to break the law in order to profit.
    Even if drugs were legalized, there would be a tax on them. No matter how hight or low that tax was, there would still be a black market for drugs.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    If one of the gang's principle sources of revenue is the loot from home invasions, the legality of drugs won't have much of an impact.

    At first glance, this choice might seem a bit Darwinian. In a pro-gun state like Virginia, where a great many citizens own guns for protection, it would seem more rational to choose a different, less risky endeavor.

    However, Darwin suggests that species adapt to survive. In our culture, the litigation resulting from a failed home invasion can be extremely lucrative.

    What is really needed is a better Castle Doctrine, with civil immunity, so that the defending homeowner doesn't end up becoming a cash cow for the gang that (perhaps unsuccessfully) invaded his home.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    +1 for legalizing drugs... BUT if it were to succeed, the laws need to be tightened with regard to personal responsibility. Society needs to tighten up as a whole. It will have to start with the kids because, as I see it, generations upon generations are being raised to understand that consequences don't exist. Teachers accept late school work and send the message that timeliness isn't important. Parents make excuses for their kids time and time again and the kids are taught that "it's not their fault". If a kid hurts another kid they think saying "I'm sorry" is the way out of the mess. I say restitution is called for... the kid can say he's sorry, but then he should DO SOMETHING to make it better. Otherwise he walks away and doesn't learn anything. Late schoolwork should never be accepted or at minimum be accepted with no chance of scoring higher than a D. Parents need to start backing the teachers again.

    Of course it's not just the kids that will need to be taught differently, our laws would need to change dramantically. Our laws allow people to be "innocent" because they are insane. Why should insane people get a free pass to commit crimes? At the very least, they should be "guilty" by reason of insanity. All the more reason to lock them up. Sure, give them medical help, but LOCK THEM UP. Our jails are a joke and we need to take lessons from countries like Mexico and tell the bleeding hearts to stop caring so much about the criminals and start doing more for the victims.

    When we start holding people accountable for their decisions, I say legalize drugs. I have a feeling, however, that all of what I've written is a pipe dream and will never happen. <sigh>

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post





    DTag wrote:
    +1 for legalizing drugs... BUT if it were to succeed, the laws need to be tightened with regard to personal responsibility. Society needs to tighten up as a whole. It will have to start with the kids because, as I see it, generations upon generations are being raised to understand that consequences don't exist. Teachers accept late school work and send the message that timeliness isn't important. Parents make excuses for their kids time and time again and the kids are taught that "it's not their fault". If a kid hurts another kid they think saying "I'm sorry" is the way out of the mess. I say restitution is called for... the kid can say he's sorry, but then he should DO SOMETHING to make it better. Otherwise he walks away and doesn't learn anything. Late schoolwork should never be accepted or at minimum be accepted with no chance of scoring higher than a D. Parents need to start backing the teachers again.

    Of course it's not just the kids that will need to be taught differently, our laws would need to change dramantically. Our laws allow people to be "innocent" because they are insane. Why should insane people get a free pass to commit crimes? At the very least, they should be "guilty" by reason of insanity. All the more reason to lock them up. Sure, give them medical help, but LOCK THEM UP. Our jails are a joke and we need to take lessons from countries like Mexico and tell the bleeding hearts to stop caring so much about the criminals and start doing more for the victims.

    When we start holding people accountable for their decisions, I say legalize drugs. I have a feeling, however, that all of what I've written is a pipe dream and will never happen. <sigh>
    Pip dream it is. We do not have personal responsibility now as you pointed out, we won't have any if drugs are legalized. Besides, do you want to work with someone who has dropped acid? Or, who has taken acid andthen flip out while piloting a plane or drivinga bus? Of course what people do on their own time is no concern to us, so it is very likely if drugs are legalized we will have a whole new set of problems to deal with.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    rebfan wrote:



    DTag wrote:
    +1 for legalizing drugs... BUT if it were to succeed, the laws need to be tightened with regard to personal responsibility. Society needs to tighten up as a whole. It will have to start with the kids because, as I see it, generations upon generations are being raised to understand that consequences don't exist. Teachers accept late school work and send the message that timeliness isn't important. Parents make excuses for their kids time and time again and the kids are taught that "it's not their fault". If a kid hurts another kid they think saying "I'm sorry" is the way out of the mess. I say restitution is called for... the kid can say he's sorry, but then he should DO SOMETHING to make it better. Otherwise he walks away and doesn't learn anything. Late schoolwork should never be accepted or at minimum be accepted with no chance of scoring higher than a D. Parents need to start backing the teachers again.

    Of course it's not just the kids that will need to be taught differently, our laws would need to change dramantically. Our laws allow people to be "innocent" because they are insane. Why should insane people get a free pass to commit crimes? At the very least, they should be "guilty" by reason of insanity. All the more reason to lock them up. Sure, give them medical help, but LOCK THEM UP. Our jails are a joke and we need to take lessons from countries like Mexico and tell the bleeding hearts to stop caring so much about the criminals and start doing more for the victims.

    When we start holding people accountable for their decisions, I say legalize drugs. I have a feeling, however, that all of what I've written is a pipe dream and will never happen. <sigh>
    Pip dream it is. We do not have personal responsibility now as you pointed out, we won't have any if drugs are legalized. Besides, do you want to work with someone who has dropped acid? Or, who has taken acid andthen flip out while piloting a plane or drivinga bus? Of course what people do on their own time is no concern to us, so it is very likely if drugs are legalized we will have a whole new set of problems to deal with.
    No, you'd have the same problems to deal with. But with a much simplified criminal code and justice system. It would still be illegal to rob, rape, murder, drive recklessly, orannoy me (just slipped that one in there) whether or not a person is high, drunk, or stone cold sober.

    The act of doing a bad thing would still be a crime.

    Thinking about a crime or engaging in behavior that may or may not make you more likely to commit a crime in the future should not be a crime.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •