Should non violent felons have self defense?

My opinion.. and you know what they say.. If you are trusted to get out of prison, then you are afforded all your rights. Now, I know the arquments... and the solution is... don't let them out if you can't trust them... life is the anwser. Many people do stupid things... but did everyone here know that if you have so many misdeameanors, they could equal a felony? This includes traffic violations. And some of the felonies out there... should be misdeameanors. Or, one of the biggest ones.. you "resist" arrest by telling the LEO that you don't have to submit to a search.. and he/she gets pissed... resisting... a felony in many states. I think that it should be a case by case basis. You don't open up the door fast enough for "JBT's" shouldn't be a felony if they don't find anything... but it is (resisting arrest).. but if you rape and murder*.. guess what... a true felony and you should be sent to kalifornia for the rest of your life.

Just my .02

USP45usp

*murder as in, not self defense and not in the "law" or defin. of today's self defense. AKA, someone "disses" you.. you plan and carry out the "hit", murder. You are in your own home, car, business, or minding your own business and someone tries to "jack" you up, self defense.\

I hate to say it (flames begin) but just because you messed up in life, did your time (all of it) and then try to become a law obiding citizen (our defin.), I don't think that law number one (survival) should be put in jeapordy due to a few mistakes. It's like passing the death sentence (or unable to perserve your life sentence) on people.

Think long and hard. In my NSHO, if you are that much of a threat to society, then you shouldn't be allowed out anyway.


UPS45usp

*AKA, the stupid guy.
 
folkbabe, no doubt, forms of incarceration existed long before the
Quakers, however, I said prisons (previously spelled "prisions" before the Edit, whoops!) were not the norm for criminal punishment. The Quakers were the first to initiate it as the primary form of penal justice for their society. I'll agree that rehabilitation has never been fully implemented, but consider this... the Conservative approach to criminal justice is the most widely used and largely effective world wide (if the goal of justice is to reduce crime)... the one attempt at a Conservative/Liberal hybrid resulted in the States' largest recorded crime spike.

George Hill, no doubt, there's a difference between non-violent felons and violent ones, but what I'm saying is that a primary argument against gun control is that it doesn't work... so why support it against even violent felons? In essence, this is similar to the Drug War. A violent felon owning a gun but not using it, infringes upon on one anymore than a crack addict getting high alone, does. Legislation against either, is more against the possibility of future crime than the actual presence of it. My point, I guess, is that if a line for gun rights can be drawn between types of felons, can't it be similarly drawn between types of drugs?

As you point out, it's easy for even law abiding people like us to end up being painted a violent felon... so I'm wary of removing that right even from those classified as violent. Perhaps (and even here I'd be careful), a category of "isolated violent felony" needs exemption? I'm hardly wise enough to know, though.
 
if they only did it right

Let's see, if they hung murderers, we wouldn't be worrying about whether or not they should have the right to bear arms.

I say yes, felons should be allowed to own firearms. BUT let's reform our screwed up criminal justice system first so there's actually a punishment to a violent crime. And as USP45 mentioned, don't be letting them out of prison so early.
 
Felon ... could it be you next?

One of the wonderful things the Bell Bottom Brigade from the sixties has brought us is widespread "felony-itis". It's not really just the war on drugs. That's just used as a means to the end of imposing their notions of behavior on the rest of us, while calling US radicals! Go figure.

Do you know how easy it is to become a felon these days? How about getting caught in a vehicle search and having traces of a drug detected by a K-9. You'll be guilty so fast it'll make your head swim! All due to the little twerp that rode with your son a few days ago. How about an anonymous call from a disgruntled neighbor to the BATF: "I think he's got a machine gun, I heard him "spraying bullets" the other day".

We're all guilty, the charges just haven't been filed yet. Self defense is an inate, fundamental right. Try to hold your breath and kill yourself by asphyxiation (sp?). Try to not flinch from a left jab to the nose. Try to do nothing when your loved ones are threatened.

Just because you are a felon doesn't mean you no longer have the right to breathe.

George, I think you found one of my hot buttons. And I am not a felon ... yet. :)
 
Good subject, George! My solution would be somewhat more radical: non-prison sentences for all non-violent crimes (I don't consider residential burglary non-violent) but sentences that you would really, really like to avoid, a drastic broadening of the circumstances justifying lethal self defense (the deceased should not have threatened to kill him), and a drastic narrowing of what constitutes assault (well, sir, you received dramatic trauma to your facial bones and your legs were broken in six places but the court rules it was justified-you shouldn't have said those things about his wife.) After this is in place, the violent crime that is left? First offense equals only offense-life in prison. Slap someone without provocation? Better not.
The only people I would send to prison were violent criminals. None of them would return.
 
You're right about it being easy to inadvertantly commit a felony, expecially around Christmas time because... in California, it is a _felony_ if you bounce a check for more than $400.00. This is a pretty easy law to break, especially for those who have joint checking accounts.

This isn't just hearsay either. I got this info. from a deputy DA's presentation to a citizen's police academy class that I attended. The DA doesn't _usually_ prosecute it as a felony, but they can if they don't like you. :barf:

Back when the law was made, $400 was a lot of money. The law was never modified for inflation.

---

The deputy DA told stories of shoplifters getting busted for stealing a $425 leather jacket from Macy's. Since it's more than $400, it's a felony. The defense argued that the jacket was overpriced, because it only cost $325 at JC Penny's. The defense lost.

This would be somewhat comical were it not for the fact CA's version of "3 strikes" counts _any_ type of felony as a strike, not just violent felonies. So that leather jacket could send someone to prison for 15 years or more.

---

Re: neighbors getting revenge by saying "I heard a lot of shots, I think he has a machine gun"... in Connecticut, it's even worse. MUCH WORSE.

If a neighbor is mad at you, all he has to do is call the cops and claim that he heard you making mildly threatening comments, eg, "If your dog doesn't stop barking, I'll make him stop myself."

That in and of itself now gives the Connecicut police the legal authority to seize all of your firearms. Forever. :barf:

Even though you broke no law, and the only evidence of your "violent comments" are hearsay.

They passed this heinous law last year, after some loser shot a coworker or two at the state lottery office. The politicans passed this law 'cause they know the liberal press would give them much more attention if they further eroded the 2nd Amendment than if they punished a violent person. :rolleyes: The story they fed the press was that "people knew" that the shooter had been making threats, but "no one could take away his guns" because (they claimed) they couldn't do anything until he actually committed a crime. So they invented a law that let them take away people's guns _before_ they commit a crime. Instead of asking a judge to use his brain, they opted for the ever-popular "zero tolerance" version of the law. :barf:

---

I agree about punishing children early, vs. the ineffectiveness of doing it later. I personally got spanked growing up, and after the first few times, merely the threat of a spanking was enough to keep me in line (or be more careful about not getting caught when I up to no good). ;)

Unfortunately in California, it is against the law to spank your child. I'm not talking about belting them in the eye. I'm talking about hitting their butt with your hand. ILLEGAL.

Furthermore, if your kid shows up at school and the teacher notices a scrape, cut, or bruise, then the teacher is legally required to tell the police, who will then come visit the parent (at home or work) to make sure the parent had nothing to do with the child's "injury".

Teachers know that 99.99% of the time it is the kid getting injured from playing, but they still report it, because if they don't, then the _teacher_ is now considered an accessory. Police know it's usually bogus too, but they are required to do it nonetheless. Sure it takes time away from tracking down those violent criminals, "but if it would save just one child, it's worth it" (as the politicians say for every ridiculous law they create).

---
In the citizen's policy academy, the people who deal with juveniles told of many cases where the kids were EXTORTING their parents for sports cars! I kid you not. They'd tell their parents, "If you don't buy me a Honda Prelude with a VTEC engine and a $5,000 custom stereo, then I'm going to tell my teacher that you hit me because you didn't like my bad grades."

The police and child services people know this is going on, but they said that there is nothing they can tell the parents except to bow down to their children's extortion. "Just put up with it until they're 18, then you can legally put them out of your house."

So parents have to live in fear of their kids.

And people wonder why California is so out of control....

I asked about the possibility of parents sending their out-of-control extortionist kids to one of those military schools. They said that is fine, but you can't use force to do it. You can't force your kid to get on the plane, or in the car.

I decided to move out of California before having kids.
 
Three Strikes - You're Out ...

Three strikes and you're out!? Grrrr.... :mad: What's wrong with ONE strike you're out? Slightly off-topic here, but even-handed sentencing and serving full time might eliminate the need for three strikes you're out, might it not? I mean one of the explanations I've heard is that with some repeat offenders, they've never really served a complete sentence for any offense, if any time at all. So there is a reduced fear of consequences. That may be an exaggeration. I'll have to look for some recent statistics (and learned opinions).
 
All right, I'll be honest. I don't know what the heck this topic is about and I did not read any previous post. What I want to say is this, take the criminals, put em stocks like the good ole Puritan days, and then pelt 'em with rocks, garbage, and the victims have a lifetiem opportunity to beat the hell out of 'em whenever so dispossed. Even non-violent felons suck lifesblood from their victims.
 
All misdemeanors crimes suffer the same penalty: Slow torture in a public place and a mandatory community service time of your age in years. You should know better.
All felony crimes crimes suffer the same penalty: Slow torture in a public place and your choice of death.
1. Air injected into veins.
2. Evisceration with no anesthetics.
3. Electrocution.
4. Subjected to any one of a number of chemical or biological toxins/posions (your choice), isolated until death and than decontaminated and burned.

After which one random member of your family will suffer the same fate, your family will have all rights afforded to them as citizens of this country taken away, and undergo mandatory sterilization.

Harsh?

Jon
 
You sound like a puritan of the Salem type yourself. I thank God we have a country that has abstained from cruel and unusual punishments. I agree with the death penalty, and here in Texas, we've put more people to death than Iran and Iraq combined. We're catching up to Communist China, and I whole heartedly agree that all of these folks got what they deserved.

What I disagree with is that we should use some super-painful torture to put them down. I would be in favor of giving the condemned the following choices:

1. Hanging- painless if done correctly.
2. Firing Squad- again, painless and relatively clean if done correctly.
3. Gas chamber filled with Carbon Monoxide not some cruel painful gas such as cyanide.

I don't like lethal injection. There is no proof that the injection is painless or quick. Hanging is. Shooting is. Carbon monoxide is.

Except by cabon monoxide, the other two are painless, and inexpensive.

The reason I don't like to automatically use brutal punishments is that most of us could become felons overnight. Many of us are already felons being that there is some obscure law on the books that makes something we have or something we have done a felony. I bet a raiding party in my house would probably find two or three felonies if they were looking hard enough. Maybe they might say that since I don't have child-safe draw-cords on my mini-blinds, I'm endangering a child which is a felony in Texas. There have been crazier things happen. We should only honor felonies on those who have deprived another of life, liberty or property.
 
Sure sounds like "cruel and unusual punishment" to me, and as for punishing family members, in the US of A, there's no "corruption of blood."

As for public executions, I've got no problem with the execution part, but what did I do to deserve having to watch them?
 
Well, there's not much I can add to this topic at this point except my echo of many other opinions...

Maybe this: A felon gets a sentence of, say, five years. Once out of prison, extend their probation to a time period equal to their sentence for automatic reinstatement of all rights and priviliges. If they can show in this time that they are willing to rejoin law-abiding society then their record should be cleared and never again considered by any government institution.

I also agree that only violent felons belong in prison. This would exempt non-violent types from the above abridgement of rights...

A tricky question George. Dang, you made me stop and think again. ;)

Ken
 
Life in prison?

That costs $30,000 per year per prisoner!

Sorry, I can't afford to pay that much in taxes. Hell, a lot of people don't even gross $30,000/year.

If it's more than 5 years, put a bullet in their head.
 
Just some personal observations and opinions, FWIW:

In colonial America, there was only pre-trial confinement. When the Constitution was written, judicial punishment consisted of either public humiliation (stockade) or execution (theft of a horse; now one doesn't even get jail time for car theft).

How does being housed at public expense "repay society?" That's a liberal concept that I do not subscribe to.

Stupid is as stupid does. Stupidity is not an excuse, it's a cause. Stupid people play with guns too. Oops! I guess I shouldn't have pointed a loaded gun at the guy. Sorry! Oops, you mean I'm not supposed to get a 1000% return on a short-term investment? Sorry!

There are no victimless crimes. Somebody pays somewhere. So don't buy into the ploy of non-violent crimes being victimless. Society pays, you pay.

Felons KNOW they are doing wrong, but CHOSE to commit the crime anyway for PERSONAL gain. They take from others for themselves. THAT's a MAJOR character flaw that just doesn't go away. And sure they repent...but ONLY BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT!!!

Felons mainly need "self-defense" from one another. Seems ironic.

Got a little carried away there, but as a victim of a crime myself, seeing criminals portrayed as some kind of "victim" gets me steamed.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top