I know I'm not the most liked person on the board, in regards my job, but I did want to weigh in on a few things.
No contact orders are helpful in some cases but NOT all. I was trying to write out a post that explained what I see often but issues like this are too complicated to write small posts about. And as far as my view on parole/probation some know my view on that (even if it wasn't my job I would feel the same way.) (and I'm applying for a job with Border Patrol in the deserts of AZ anyway so this isn't me trying to keep my job).
As far as drug/alcohol treatment being ordered only for juveniles, it is actually often apart of a court judgement in criminal trials that someone participate in a "rehab" program.
As far as "suicide by cop" in regards to this particular person I don't think anyone could know what his reasoning was behind this whole incident.
As I think someone posted on, I'm not sure how this is a "open carry" issue but here is my 2 cents anyway.
Best to everyone
Here's another way to look at it.
There is no one currently IN prison being forced to participate in drug and alcohol treatment.
There are people on parole who have agreed to participate in drug and alcohol treatment. Here's how that works: they are sentenced to 9 years. At year 7 the parole board makes an offer kind of like this...
"We will release you now, but only if you agree to waive your 4th and 5th amendment rights -- so you know, our parole officers can roust you without a warrant. Oh yeah, you also have to agree to participate in drug or alcohol treatment. Please be aware, you don't have to agree to any of this, you can serve the full 9 year sentence and not attend treatment, and not have a parole officer."
So were they sentenced to treatment? No.
Or here's another scenario:
A lady gets arrested for DUI (breaking gender stereotypes here). She is facing a very tough trial: either by jury, or by bench.
She's in jail awaiting trial. The judge says something like this...
"You can rot in jail until your trial, or we can let you out if you agree to not drink alcohol, not drive a vehicle, and attend AA meetings. Of course, you're welcome to sit in jail."
Bam! Voluntary agreement. She is waiving her rights to a large degree by consent.
So she agrees, and later the DA comes to her and says...
"We can take this to trial and you can take your chances. You could face FIVE years in prison for this DUI. Or you can plead guiltily, save me hours of work, make me look good in front of my boss, get me a raise, and my name in the paper... and in exchange for your voluntary agreement to plead guilty I will make sure you only serve 2 days in jail, but you have to also attend AA meetings, not drive a car, not drink alcohol in any form."
BAM! Voluntary agreement. She could have faced trial and as a result she would have lost her case and been given a sentence that did NOT include treatment. Period.
Find me someone who faced a real trial by jury, or by bench, where there was no plea agreement, and the full sentence was served, and who also was forced to go to treatment. Good luck. Anything short of that is voluntary participation in treatment, or the modern WoD criminal approach to drug abuse -- and the ensuing 'court ordered' treatment mills-- are a joke.
Frankly, I win either way. Because if that "worthless human" was forced into treatment than he is a murder victim of the WoD. We failed him. And if he wasn't forced into treatment, then he was trying to turn his life around by definition.
Dave_pro2a, if you disagree with the article so fervently, why not write your own about the same topic. You can post it here, and we'll all critique it. I don't mean this negatively, it just seems there are two very differing viewpoints here.
