Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
No problem but I did take a start until I read your edit.
No problem but I did take a start until I read your edit.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Two Milwaukee cops shot.
- Thread starter iceman71
- Start date
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
But I stand by my statement that its difficult to embrace the job of a police officer when they do not respect our rights.
The nuance is probably not going to come across in textual conversation.
I feelfor the guys who were shot as human beings and I feel for their families, but I can't jump behind the "cops put their lives on the line for their job" cheerleading as a result of the lack of respect that police have for protecting our rights.
As I said in my original post, personally, I hope the officers heal fast and well.
But I stand by my statement that its difficult to embrace the job of a police officer when they do not respect our rights.
The nuance is probably not going to come across in textual conversation.
I feelfor the guys who were shot as human beings and I feel for their families, but I can't jump behind the "cops put their lives on the line for their job" cheerleading as a result of the lack of respect that police have for protecting our rights.
patriotguy
New member
imported post
It seems that the chief and mayor equate the illegally armed criminals with law abiding citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights:
Flynn:
"We're not standing by in this city while people carry guns and put people at risk"
"Which people carry guns?" Which people at risk?
Barrett on how the teenage criminal got the gun:
"If history is any indicator, the gun was purchased locally and someone thought it was a good idea, for whatever reason, to give an 18 year old a handgun."
Anybody want to place bets regarding where that gun came from? Will Flynn's stormtroopers track down the gun's owner? I guarantee that gun didn't get in that kid's hands via a "gunshow loophole".
Barrett:
"I don't care what some special interest groups say... because someone says it's a great idea to be carrying a gun in the middle of a city."
Um..... I think he means us, folks. Again, equating law abiding citizens who want to exercise their rights, with thug criminals who are breaking the law simply by possessing a firearm (CC, felon with a gun, etc.).
Barrett wants the legislature and governor to enhance the penalty for felons who carry guns. Fine, but how about enforcing the laws on the books and not plea bargain these criminals down to minimal crimes.
Once Doyle gets to let a few thousand criminals out of prison early, how many of them will have guns too?
MOLON LABE!!!!!
It seems that the chief and mayor equate the illegally armed criminals with law abiding citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights:
Flynn:
"We're not standing by in this city while people carry guns and put people at risk"
"Which people carry guns?" Which people at risk?
Barrett on how the teenage criminal got the gun:
"If history is any indicator, the gun was purchased locally and someone thought it was a good idea, for whatever reason, to give an 18 year old a handgun."
Anybody want to place bets regarding where that gun came from? Will Flynn's stormtroopers track down the gun's owner? I guarantee that gun didn't get in that kid's hands via a "gunshow loophole".
Barrett:
"I don't care what some special interest groups say... because someone says it's a great idea to be carrying a gun in the middle of a city."
Um..... I think he means us, folks. Again, equating law abiding citizens who want to exercise their rights, with thug criminals who are breaking the law simply by possessing a firearm (CC, felon with a gun, etc.).
Barrett wants the legislature and governor to enhance the penalty for felons who carry guns. Fine, but how about enforcing the laws on the books and not plea bargain these criminals down to minimal crimes.
Once Doyle gets to let a few thousand criminals out of prison early, how many of them will have guns too?
MOLON LABE!!!!!
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
Flynn, cops are people and they carry guns. I guess we should disarm them and see how many want to report to work the next day. What a tool.
Flynn, cops are people and they carry guns. I guess we should disarm them and see how many want to report to work the next day. What a tool.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Only the truth must be true.
Only the truth must be true.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
You're right, there are no absolutes. One of my best friends is an MPD detective. Works for HIDTA, he's a good guy too.
I'm very disturbed by ChiefFlynn and Mayor Barrettsemotional ridden, non-logic statements today. Leadership in Milwaukee is NOTdoing the right thingshere. Quite the contrary.
They really need to drop the rhetoric.
Its one thing to paint with a broad brush, its another to roll through the art gallery with a steam roller.
Here is the reality of what happened yesterday.
There was a 'suspicious person' on a bike. Someone that was doing something that drew the police attention. I'm not sure if the guy was a felon but he WAS a convicted criminal (robbery) in addition, that person had a concealled weapon (against the law). And lastly, anyone who pulls a gun on police is breaking the law.
This was a criminal. The opposite of us. Did Riley pull his gun when the police approached him in Grand AveMall? No. Law-abiding peoplewould never do that.
If that shooter yesterday was Open Carrying, the police would have been WELL prepared for him.Whatever he was doing that was "suspicious" IN COMBINATION with him open carrying would have made the police 100% capable of protecting themselves.
In short, if that criminal that shot the police had been open-carrying like we do, the police NEVER would have been shot.
You're right, there are no absolutes. One of my best friends is an MPD detective. Works for HIDTA, he's a good guy too.
I'm very disturbed by ChiefFlynn and Mayor Barrettsemotional ridden, non-logic statements today. Leadership in Milwaukee is NOTdoing the right thingshere. Quite the contrary.
They really need to drop the rhetoric.
Its one thing to paint with a broad brush, its another to roll through the art gallery with a steam roller.
Here is the reality of what happened yesterday.
There was a 'suspicious person' on a bike. Someone that was doing something that drew the police attention. I'm not sure if the guy was a felon but he WAS a convicted criminal (robbery) in addition, that person had a concealled weapon (against the law). And lastly, anyone who pulls a gun on police is breaking the law.
This was a criminal. The opposite of us. Did Riley pull his gun when the police approached him in Grand AveMall? No. Law-abiding peoplewould never do that.
If that shooter yesterday was Open Carrying, the police would have been WELL prepared for him.Whatever he was doing that was "suspicious" IN COMBINATION with him open carrying would have made the police 100% capable of protecting themselves.
In short, if that criminal that shot the police had been open-carrying like we do, the police NEVER would have been shot.
SixDegrees
Regular Member
imported post
Barrett's tirade had me boiling. Feel free to join the Facebook Group I created tonight in response:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=89397564375&ref=mf
Barrett's tirade had me boiling. Feel free to join the Facebook Group I created tonight in response:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=89397564375&ref=mf
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
As I understand it the idiot that shot the law officers committed six crimes. (1)Pointed the gun at another person, (2)concealed weapon, (3)criminal in possession of a firearm, (4)uncased weapon on a vehicle, (5)carry of firearm within 1000 feet of a school zone, (6)discharge of a firearm withincity limits. Those laws didn't dissuade him obviously additional laws would do nothing to prevent the tragedy.
Criminals are opportunists. They generally weigh the odds to determine if a situation is in their favor. The only way to reduce the carry of firearms by them is to make the penalty enhancement for possession of a firearm during a crime so severe that they find the risk too great. Unfortunately the penalty enhancements that are already on the "books" are ineffective because prosecutors too often use them as plea bargain material. The firearm charge is often dropped in order to obtain a conviction and put another star on the prosecutors chart.
The number one step needed to reduce firearm crime is disallow plea bargaining of the penalty enhancements. For instance if the penalty for robbery was 5 years in the slammer and the penalty enhancement for possession of a firearm during the crime was 3X, with no plea bargain you better believe many criminals would think twice about using a firearm. My opinion.
Pardon my language but it pisses me off that some slime ball can use a firearm in a crime, even so far as to shoot police officers, and some ambitious prosecutor intent on enhancing their reputation, plea bargains the firearm charges away and the cop-shooter gets a break.
Those words are, of course, wasted on anti-gun people such as Flynn and Barrett. They have such an anti-gun mentality and gun phobia that they cannot comprehend logic. Their only objective in this case is to use the incident to support their anti-gun agenda. Logical discussion with them concerning firearm carry is futile. The only way to win with them is to vote Barrett out of office and have a new gun friendly mayor fire Flynn. Unlikely to happen, but possible.
Unfortunately for us our quest to get the school zone and vehicle carry laws repealed or changed just got very difficult. We need to hit the keyboard to our representatives and community officials more than ever.
As I understand it the idiot that shot the law officers committed six crimes. (1)Pointed the gun at another person, (2)concealed weapon, (3)criminal in possession of a firearm, (4)uncased weapon on a vehicle, (5)carry of firearm within 1000 feet of a school zone, (6)discharge of a firearm withincity limits. Those laws didn't dissuade him obviously additional laws would do nothing to prevent the tragedy.
Criminals are opportunists. They generally weigh the odds to determine if a situation is in their favor. The only way to reduce the carry of firearms by them is to make the penalty enhancement for possession of a firearm during a crime so severe that they find the risk too great. Unfortunately the penalty enhancements that are already on the "books" are ineffective because prosecutors too often use them as plea bargain material. The firearm charge is often dropped in order to obtain a conviction and put another star on the prosecutors chart.
The number one step needed to reduce firearm crime is disallow plea bargaining of the penalty enhancements. For instance if the penalty for robbery was 5 years in the slammer and the penalty enhancement for possession of a firearm during the crime was 3X, with no plea bargain you better believe many criminals would think twice about using a firearm. My opinion.
Pardon my language but it pisses me off that some slime ball can use a firearm in a crime, even so far as to shoot police officers, and some ambitious prosecutor intent on enhancing their reputation, plea bargains the firearm charges away and the cop-shooter gets a break.
Those words are, of course, wasted on anti-gun people such as Flynn and Barrett. They have such an anti-gun mentality and gun phobia that they cannot comprehend logic. Their only objective in this case is to use the incident to support their anti-gun agenda. Logical discussion with them concerning firearm carry is futile. The only way to win with them is to vote Barrett out of office and have a new gun friendly mayor fire Flynn. Unlikely to happen, but possible.
Unfortunately for us our quest to get the school zone and vehicle carry laws repealed or changed just got very difficult. We need to hit the keyboard to our representatives and community officials more than ever.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Lammie wrote:
Actually that is not true for the vast majority of criminals. I wish I could find the study again but what they found from jailhouse interviews and other other factors is that around 80% of all criminals felt that they would not be caught. The penalties for being caught never entered their mind. Most felt they were too smart to be caught and others were too dumb to even think about it.
This was a study to see if increasing penalties for crimes would have a deterrent and what they finally concluded was that it would be only a marginal factor in preventing most crimes. They siad that in interview after interview the inmate said that getting caught just never entered their mind no matter what the possible sentence was.
Lammie wrote:
Actually that is not true for the vast majority of criminals. I wish I could find the study again but what they found from jailhouse interviews and other other factors is that around 80% of all criminals felt that they would not be caught. The penalties for being caught never entered their mind. Most felt they were too smart to be caught and others were too dumb to even think about it.
This was a study to see if increasing penalties for crimes would have a deterrent and what they finally concluded was that it would be only a marginal factor in preventing most crimes. They siad that in interview after interview the inmate said that getting caught just never entered their mind no matter what the possible sentence was.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Should it matter if you rob someone with a gun, knife, baseball bat, or brass knuckles?
I'm sorry, but if you smack someone over the head with a fire extinguisher, or shoot them with a gun, I don't think it should matter. The fact is, you ASSAULTED someone. These silly enhancers are just politically opportunistic legislation that demonizes an inanimate object and distracts from the actual CRIME.
Prosecute CRIMES, not situations, or tools.
If we want to talk about REAL deterent, we DON'T need to enhance the penalties per-se, we need to do a better job of CATCHING criminals.
If John-thug grows up seeing his friends commit crimes, and the almost NEVER get caught (or only a small percent do) they will not think its realistic that THEY will get caught.
If howver, John-thug sees that EVERY time a person commits a crime, they get caught, they will believe that THEY will get caught.
The best deterent is not to try to get a criminal to fear a sentence that they don't think they'll ever face (because they won't get caught) the best deterent is to demonstrate that they WILL get caught.
Police resources are SO dedicated to victimless crimes. (the war on drugs, revenue generation speeding enforcement) that the REAL workable remedies are left unattended to.
Think about it. Your house gets broken into, what is the close-rate on cases like that? But yet look at all the time allocated to speeding enforcement and chasing drug dealers?
Now don't get me wrong, I don't use drugs, but if 2 people want to voluntarily participate in a business transaction, we'll NEVER win that battle.
We should take the resources we allocate to these victimless crimes and allocate them to investigate and close crimes where there IS a victim.
Our jails should be filled with people who committed a crime against another person. Not people who got caught conducting a voluntary transaction between the 2 of them.
Catch criminals = deterent
Increase penalties that criminals don't believe they'd ever have to face (cause they won't get caught) = worthless
How about we forget about these silly enhancers, and prosecute actions.
Should it matter if you rob someone with a gun, knife, baseball bat, or brass knuckles?
I'm sorry, but if you smack someone over the head with a fire extinguisher, or shoot them with a gun, I don't think it should matter. The fact is, you ASSAULTED someone. These silly enhancers are just politically opportunistic legislation that demonizes an inanimate object and distracts from the actual CRIME.
Prosecute CRIMES, not situations, or tools.
Research we studied in criminology classes I took as free electives during my undergrad work indicated the same.
If we want to talk about REAL deterent, we DON'T need to enhance the penalties per-se, we need to do a better job of CATCHING criminals.
If John-thug grows up seeing his friends commit crimes, and the almost NEVER get caught (or only a small percent do) they will not think its realistic that THEY will get caught.
If howver, John-thug sees that EVERY time a person commits a crime, they get caught, they will believe that THEY will get caught.
The best deterent is not to try to get a criminal to fear a sentence that they don't think they'll ever face (because they won't get caught) the best deterent is to demonstrate that they WILL get caught.
Police resources are SO dedicated to victimless crimes. (the war on drugs, revenue generation speeding enforcement) that the REAL workable remedies are left unattended to.
Think about it. Your house gets broken into, what is the close-rate on cases like that? But yet look at all the time allocated to speeding enforcement and chasing drug dealers?
Now don't get me wrong, I don't use drugs, but if 2 people want to voluntarily participate in a business transaction, we'll NEVER win that battle.
We should take the resources we allocate to these victimless crimes and allocate them to investigate and close crimes where there IS a victim.
Our jails should be filled with people who committed a crime against another person. Not people who got caught conducting a voluntary transaction between the 2 of them.
Catch criminals = deterent
Increase penalties that criminals don't believe they'd ever have to face (cause they won't get caught) = worthless
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
hugh jarmis wrote:
You have hit the nail on the head there. It doesn't matter if it is 90 days or 90 years if they don't think they will ever be caught. We need more resources in actually catching criminals than filling out paperwork to prove their rights weren't violated.
Sajuuk
Regular Member
imported post
Looks like they found info on the gun:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/47777127.html
Looks like they found info on the gun:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/47777127.html
patriotguy
New member
imported post
Man charged with buying gun for suspect in officers' shooting
By John Diedrich of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jun. 11, 2009 10:48 a.m.
A 21-year-old man has been charged in federal court with buying a gun that police say was used by another man to shoot two Milwaukee police officers, according to court records.
Jacob D. Collins of Milwaukee bought the .40-caliber Taurus pistol at Badger Guns in West Milwaukee in early May, then sold it to Julius Burton, 18, according to a criminal complaint. Burton has been arrested in the officers' shooting but has not been formally charged. The district attorney's office is reviewing the case.
Collins admitted to investigators that he lied when he signed a form at Badger saying he was the actual buyer of the gun, the complaint says. Collins said he bought the gun knowing he was going to sell it to Burton for $40, it says.
"Collins advised that 'Julius' wanted a firearm for protection and that since 'Julius' was 18 years old, he could not purchase one himself," according to the complaint.
Collins also admitted he smokes marijuana and lied about that on the federal gun purchase form, the complaint says.
Collins is being held without bond. A detention hearing is set for 3 p.m. Thursday in federal court. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, according to records.
How do you buy a .40 Taurus, and then sell it for $40? Also, we see that the perp lied twice in purchasing the firearm, thereby making the purchase illegal.
I am sure that this is all the fault of the "crazy gun".
Man charged with buying gun for suspect in officers' shooting
By John Diedrich of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jun. 11, 2009 10:48 a.m.
A 21-year-old man has been charged in federal court with buying a gun that police say was used by another man to shoot two Milwaukee police officers, according to court records.
Jacob D. Collins of Milwaukee bought the .40-caliber Taurus pistol at Badger Guns in West Milwaukee in early May, then sold it to Julius Burton, 18, according to a criminal complaint. Burton has been arrested in the officers' shooting but has not been formally charged. The district attorney's office is reviewing the case.
Collins admitted to investigators that he lied when he signed a form at Badger saying he was the actual buyer of the gun, the complaint says. Collins said he bought the gun knowing he was going to sell it to Burton for $40, it says.
"Collins advised that 'Julius' wanted a firearm for protection and that since 'Julius' was 18 years old, he could not purchase one himself," according to the complaint.
Collins also admitted he smokes marijuana and lied about that on the federal gun purchase form, the complaint says.
Collins is being held without bond. A detention hearing is set for 3 p.m. Thursday in federal court. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, according to records.
How do you buy a .40 Taurus, and then sell it for $40? Also, we see that the perp lied twice in purchasing the firearm, thereby making the purchase illegal.
I am sure that this is all the fault of the "crazy gun".
patriotguy
New member
imported post
repeat post
repeat post
eleuthera
Regular Member
imported post
i heard the mayor and fuhrer flynn on the radio last night - just about puked.
you got two kids in the hospital, and before they even stop the bleeding you're hoisting them on a flag pole as champions for your idiot political propoganda?
Major douchebag move, barret. You two should be ashamed of yourselves.
i heard the mayor and fuhrer flynn on the radio last night - just about puked.
you got two kids in the hospital, and before they even stop the bleeding you're hoisting them on a flag pole as champions for your idiot political propoganda?
Major douchebag move, barret. You two should be ashamed of yourselves.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
LEO's view everyone as a potential criminal because everyone is a potential criminal. The report said they stopped the car under suspicion but under suspicion of what. There have been many routine traffic stops that have turned deadly in a second. Even the 72 year old great-grandmother that got tazed was a "potential" criminal and wound up being one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31202935/
hugh jarmis wrote:
LEO's view everyone as a potential criminal because everyone is a potential criminal. The report said they stopped the car under suspicion but under suspicion of what. There have been many routine traffic stops that have turned deadly in a second. Even the 72 year old great-grandmother that got tazed was a "potential" criminal and wound up being one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31202935/
In today's society I suspect that the only way a LEO is going to stay alive is to view everyone, even their own grandmother, as a potential criminal. Around here I would say that at least 1/3 of the murder victimsare close relatives of the murderer. Very hard to assume anyone is a "law abiding" citizen anymore.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
It doesn't matter how many crooks are caught. If they are only penalized with a slap on the wrist that is no deterrent. Because of the overcrowding in state and federal prisons most first time offenders serve no jail time at all.
In 1994 a survey taken in 15 states found that of 272,111 prisoners interviewed 67.5% were re-arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor within 3 years. If they didn't think they would get caught the first time they certainly must have thought there was a high probability they would get caught the second time.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sisfcfq.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
It doesn't matter how many crooks are caught. If they are only penalized with a slap on the wrist that is no deterrent. Because of the overcrowding in state and federal prisons most first time offenders serve no jail time at all.
In 1994 a survey taken in 15 states found that of 272,111 prisoners interviewed 67.5% were re-arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor within 3 years. If they didn't think they would get caught the first time they certainly must have thought there was a high probability they would get caught the second time.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sisfcfq.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
This forum is about the open carry of firearms and the impact of firearms on society. I center my posts around that theme. I'm fully aware that people can be killed by a pillow. My other posthas links to the Bureau of Justice's crime statistics. One link is the 167 page questionaire thatthe BOJhas prisoners fill out. The other link has the results of thequestionaire under cover of various BOJ documents. Catching more criminals is no deterrent to crime if 67.5% have no fear of going back to prison.
This forum is about the open carry of firearms and the impact of firearms on society. I center my posts around that theme. I'm fully aware that people can be killed by a pillow. My other posthas links to the Bureau of Justice's crime statistics. One link is the 167 page questionaire thatthe BOJhas prisoners fill out. The other link has the results of thequestionaire under cover of various BOJ documents. Catching more criminals is no deterrent to crime if 67.5% have no fear of going back to prison.
imported post
I think badger guns needs to think about telling Barrett and Flynn to kiss their a--.
If people are buying guns legally from a store, then what do they have to complain about. If badger did something illegal when selling their guns, then I can see where they can slam them. (they should ask flynn and barrett for an apology)
I just watched the news at 3:00pm channel four. To me it seemed like Flynn back pedaled a bit and actually called them criminals and not people that carry guns in milwaukee. Maybe he is starting to see them as that, criminals.
I think badger guns needs to think about telling Barrett and Flynn to kiss their a--.
If people are buying guns legally from a store, then what do they have to complain about. If badger did something illegal when selling their guns, then I can see where they can slam them. (they should ask flynn and barrett for an apology)
I just watched the news at 3:00pm channel four. To me it seemed like Flynn back pedaled a bit and actually called them criminals and not people that carry guns in milwaukee. Maybe he is starting to see them as that, criminals.