Retaliation for SD
- Thread starter jdm357
- Start date
sacp81170a
Inactive
I hear that. One particularly unsettling fact of life as an LEO is taking some dirtbag to jail and then meeting up with him at the local grocery store a couple of weeks later while you're there with your wife. But, to quote Super Chicken, "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
Too bad anyone has to put up with this kind of stuff when all they wanted to do was keep themselves and their loved ones safe. The country's all messed up if the good guys are afraid of the criminals. Makes ya want to grit your teeth.
Hallucinator
New member
I'm wondering if burglary laws shouldn't be toughened up a bit. If people had to risk 25 years in prison for burglarizing somebody's home maybe they'd not do it so often. And I think that there should be a special category of punishment for people who invade people's homes and terrorize them.
Hallucinator,
I'd agree, except that I think there would be pressure to plea-bargain down the time to be served to avoid "overcrowding" the jails.
When something like this happens, the DA typically will charge burglary, false imprisonment, assault and any other crime he think can stick. Once arrested, the bargaining begins and what started out as a potential 50-year term ends up being 18 months with 6-months suspended.
The problem lies primarily with the courts and legal system. I don't get the "logic" of the system when in one case you have 2 prior felonies and shoplift from a department store, the DA prosecutes it as "burglary" to get the 3rd strike instead of a misdemeanor theft.
Yet, in another case a dirtbag breaks into an occupied home, sneaks up and starts to fondle a 12 year old girl who screams, fights and escapes with some lacerations and when the guy is caught, he gets only 9 months in jail with 5 months suspended to cover his 3 week incarceration before trial. Then instead of 4 months in the slam, he's in jail only 2 weeks before being "paroled" into the public.
That people fear criminals is nothing new. That's been happening throughout history. But throughout most of history, when a criminal was killed during his crime it was basically considered an occupational-hazard. Unfortunately today, in some jurisdictions, I think people may be equally afraid of the legal system as they are of the criminals.
I'd agree, except that I think there would be pressure to plea-bargain down the time to be served to avoid "overcrowding" the jails.
When something like this happens, the DA typically will charge burglary, false imprisonment, assault and any other crime he think can stick. Once arrested, the bargaining begins and what started out as a potential 50-year term ends up being 18 months with 6-months suspended.
The problem lies primarily with the courts and legal system. I don't get the "logic" of the system when in one case you have 2 prior felonies and shoplift from a department store, the DA prosecutes it as "burglary" to get the 3rd strike instead of a misdemeanor theft.
Yet, in another case a dirtbag breaks into an occupied home, sneaks up and starts to fondle a 12 year old girl who screams, fights and escapes with some lacerations and when the guy is caught, he gets only 9 months in jail with 5 months suspended to cover his 3 week incarceration before trial. Then instead of 4 months in the slam, he's in jail only 2 weeks before being "paroled" into the public.
That people fear criminals is nothing new. That's been happening throughout history. But throughout most of history, when a criminal was killed during his crime it was basically considered an occupational-hazard. Unfortunately today, in some jurisdictions, I think people may be equally afraid of the legal system as they are of the criminals.
Hallucinator
New member
Bill: shooting more of them would go a long way to relieving the overcrowding problem. By the way, the reason for overcrowding is the five year mandatory minimum drug laws. Every sorry assed little street corner hustler ends up in for 5.
80% of the people in prison are in for "drug related" crimes. You'd think that we would realise that the war on drugs is lost and legalise them.(the drugs) If we did that we could control the manufacture and quality and make a ton of money on the taxes. Not to mention the reduction of court costs and enforcement costs. The Netherlands have legalised drugs and while they still have addicts, and people are still ruining their lives over this stupidity, they are not paying billions of dollars to control what people put in their bodies.
As far as retaliation goes, everyone has to make his own decisions. As for me, My two sons and I are all ex-special ops types. If it came to it the BGs would learn something about retaliation. I don't look for trouble and I try very hard to stay out of trouble, but I won't lie down and let any SOB run roughshod over me, my family or my friends. And I won't wait for them to make the first move, nor will I wait for the police to protect me.
As far as retaliation goes, everyone has to make his own decisions. As for me, My two sons and I are all ex-special ops types. If it came to it the BGs would learn something about retaliation. I don't look for trouble and I try very hard to stay out of trouble, but I won't lie down and let any SOB run roughshod over me, my family or my friends. And I won't wait for them to make the first move, nor will I wait for the police to protect me.
"but then neither would going out to confront someone who has allready shown he is capable and willing to defend his home and self"
A lot of you tough guys/gals seem to think a confrontation is what you would get
Something out of an old western no doubt
What is more likely is that you would get a lifetime of looking over your shoulder (if you are lucky) escorting your loved ones everywhere, staying away from windows and checking your vehicle for bombs
The bad guys are not likely to announce their intentions....you are more likely to get shot at from concealment and when you least expect it
And don't forget civil actions as well.....
All good reasons why lethal force is a last resort
A lot of you tough guys/gals seem to think a confrontation is what you would get
Something out of an old western no doubt
What is more likely is that you would get a lifetime of looking over your shoulder (if you are lucky) escorting your loved ones everywhere, staying away from windows and checking your vehicle for bombs
The bad guys are not likely to announce their intentions....you are more likely to get shot at from concealment and when you least expect it
And don't forget civil actions as well.....
All good reasons why lethal force is a last resort
Happens in a lot of careers, not just law enforcement. A guy I know is on a hit list because he was involved in having surveyors go onto someone's land. The landowner's son has said he'd kill the man someday. We are pretty sure he's serious as he's currently serving time for murdering another of my company's employees over this matter.