people who want to coddle criminals

[Andara Bledin]

Probation/parole is not the answer to everything, and I'd rather have crowded prisons than violent criminals walking free, waiting for their next victim to kidnap/rape/murder.

If we stopped going after drug users, hell, if we merely legalized marijuana which is already safer than our two main legal intoxicants, our prisons would suddenly be about half-empty. Literally.

It's our own doing, huh?

Absolutely and without question, Yes.

^-.-^

[protege]

If they're truly nonviolent, why not send them to a halfway house? They'd still have to behave, but they'd be monitored. The only problem with this, is very few people will want such a facility in their neighborhood. Still, it would solve the overcrowding problem.

[Plaidman]

I love that so many scream that we need to babysit and love rapists and murderers. They scream to kill them with kindness and they'll never hurt a fly. After all, rehibitation is 40 percent effective and they never do crime again over the prison system as is.

Cept that 40 percent is mostly 39.9 percent people that did something minor/stupid like drinking and driving, or being 19 and sleeping with your 17 year old bf/gf, or having a ounce of weed.

The people that repeatedly rape and kill never learn their lesson. There is no need to treat them with any more kindness then they did their victims.

[blas87]

Legalizing mary-jane is a whole other can of worms. I agree it would open up tons of space in prison, but letting everyone get high whenever they want isn't the answer, either. I certainly don't want to be partners at work with someone who is so high they cut their hand off or can't help me do inventory and we have to start over and spend hours on the same order. I also don't want to imagine what traffic would be like if everyone drove high. Legalize marijuana and then companies can no longer fire anyone for using it, so then workman's comp will be paying out lots of money for people who injure themselves while high, which will force companies to do with pot what they've done with tobacco, just make it so you can't use it on the clock, and then there will be outrage over that.

[Bronzebow]

If this were true, it'd be investigated and he'd be in his own world of trouble for torturing.

He's kinda under federal investigation at this moment *because* of everything he's done, yeah...as in, right now. I've also updated that last post with other links to whet your beak.

Having one whackjob site claim that aliens are our world leaders doesn't mean that, when several dozen local and national newspapers and organizations are all saying the same thing, you can just shoot them all out as invalid. You can't just brush aside the dozens of links I've given you as all faulty. Read into him.

I love that so many scream that we need to babysit and love rapists and murderers. They scream to kill them with kindness and they'll never hurt a fly. After all, rehibitation is 40 percent effective and they never do crime again over the prison system as is.

Overreaching hyperbole.

[blas87]

Anyone can post anything online. Journalism isn't completely unbiased. You can't blame me for not wanting to believe every post people cite to back up their arguments.

[Bronzebow]

Legalizing mary-jane is a whole other can of worms. I agree it would open up tons of space in prison, but letting everyone get high whenever they want isn't the answer, either. I certainly don't want to be partners at work with someone who is so high they cut their hand off or can't help me do inventory and we have to start over and spend hours on the same order. I also don't want to imagine what traffic would be like if everyone drove high. Legalize marijuana and then companies can no longer fire anyone for using it, so then workman's comp will be paying out lots of money for people who injure themselves while high, which will force companies to do with pot what they've done with tobacco, just make it so you can't use it on the clock, and then there will be outrage over that.

None of these reasons make any sense to me. You're making it out to be as if it were legalized, it would somehow protect users as if they were under ADA and subsequently have the world go into a tailspin of destruction. That just doesn't jive:

-If someone comes to work high on a regular basis, just like if someone were to come to work drunk on a regular basis, do you think employers would really keep them? There's nothing that would force companies to keep someone who comes to work high, and no (valid) reason to get rid of someone who tokes up once a month.

-If someone were to drive high, just like if someone were to drive drunk, they would have the book thrown at them. Also, anyone who wants to get high *right now* can and will get high, and if we're not having an epidemic of high driving right now, then we wouldn't post-prohibition either.

-If someone's outraged over not being able to smoke maryj on the clock, as someone would be outraged over not being able to smoke tobacco...well, that's their own problem. It's the company's decision, and if they don't like it, they can find other employment. The world goes on.

Anyone can post anything online. Journalism isn't completely unbiased. You can't blame me for not wanting to believe every post people cite to back up their arguments.

I can when--despite the corroborating evidence, the large number of posts from dozens of different sources and organizations, and even several of those links contain video--you choose to not even entertain the possibility.

[Plaidman]

1st link: There are countless times where people pretend to have a heart attack, or a stroke, or giving birth in hopes of getting away from a police officer. It doesn't work. This was a time where it was true. Is it an excuse? No, but since she was in the country illegally, she must have been desperete to escape so that she can raise her kid here.

2: Yeah, a reporter of the site claiming he was harrassed with no proof. Way to sell a paper.

3: oooh! A machine gun! Horrible idea. Next time, all police officers should have only clubs to protect them selves from drug runners carrying ak47's across the border, that have nothing to lose by shooting border guards. Are you really complaining he has a deterrent to protect his men? Being a gun he hasn't had to use in seven years?

4: Not uncommon to have that kind of crap for minor stuff. Hell, twice now in my neighboor hood they had SERT, snipers, canine units, giant command center tanks up and down the street easily spanning a mile, for a single 19 year old kid with a gun in an apartment threatening suicide, and another that was near the golf course for a man that held family hostage. These men were going in beliving that people had armor piercing rounds, cop killing guns. What you want them to do? Send a single cop to knock on the door and ask if they have them?

5: Wow. Another case of the paper claiming that the cop they hate so much, is threatening them. Not exactly proof of his misdeeds.

-If someone comes to work high on a regular basis, just like if someone were to come to work drunk on a regular basis, do you think employers would really keep them? There's nothing that would force companies to keep someone who comes to work high, and no (valid) reason to get rid of someone who tokes up once a month.



-If someone's outraged over not being able to smoke maryj on the clock, as someone would be outraged over not being able to smoke tobacco...well, that's their own problem. It's the company's decision, and if they don't like it, they can find other employment. The world goes on.

Wrong for one minor detail.

People couldn't go to work drunk, true. But people CAN go to work as high as they want, because they'll be under /medical reasons/ claim, which companies cannot fire or even suspend for without being sued back and losing. Only can hope that the workers while high can do their job functions and minimalizing the major damage they'll eventually cause.

[AdminAssistant]

You're confusing the goal of prison with organizations like AA.

Actually, AA is mostly ineffective and heavily religious, so I wouldn't want the courts sending people there (although I know it happens). But, if somebody is in on their 3rd DUI/DWI offense...they have a drinking problem. Send them to a rehab so that they can get help with the drinking problem. Ditto drugs. It gets these people out of the prison system (more space) and gets them real help so that they won't reoffend. Rehab isn't exactly paradise either. They'll be cut off from friends and family, just like prison.

[Bronzebow]

1st link: There are countless times where people pretend to have a heart attack, or a stroke, or giving birth in hopes of getting away from a police officer. It doesn't work. This was a time where it was true. Is it an excuse? No, but since she was in the country illegally, she must have been desperete to escape so that she can raise her kid here.

2: Yeah, a reporter of the site claiming he was harrassed with no proof. Way to sell a paper.

3: oooh! A machine gun! Horrible idea. Next time, all police officers should have only clubs to protect them selves from drug runners carrying ak47's across the border, that have nothing to lose by shooting border guards. Are you really complaining he has a deterrent to protect his men? Being a gun he hasn't had to use in seven years?

4: Not uncommon to have that kind of crap for minor stuff. Hell, twice now in my neighboor hood they had SERT, snipers, canine units, giant command center tanks up and down the street easily spanning a mile, for a single 19 year old kid with a gun in an apartment threatening suicide, and another that was near the golf course for a man that held family hostage. These men were going in beliving that people had armor piercing rounds, cop killing guns. What you want them to do? Send a single cop to knock on the door and ask if they have them?

5: Wow. Another case of the paper claiming that the cop they hate so much, is threatening them. Not exactly proof of his misdeeds.

...

I can let slide the their word vs mine arguments...I really can, even though a little homework will find you videos of exactly that. I can forgive the heartless interpretation of the birthing mother who wasn't even allowed to hold or see her child post birth. I can even forgive the crazy scenarios that you've cooked up here, as if life were a series of seasons of 24.

But did you just argue that police forces have a valid use for using military weapons of war and mass death on civilians (which is exactly what happened in those links)? For a machine gun and a tank? No. The army is geared for destruction and death. The local police force is for keeping the peace and serving the populace. Mixing the two for something as asinine as a no-knock warrant, creating violence where there was none before...no. That just just madness. Suggesting that police would be stuck with nightsticks and their hides? Overreaching hyperbole.

Wrong for one minor detail.

How do we handle people now who are on medication that effect them mentally? Nothing a simple reevaluation of medical use can't fix. Post legalization, the need for people faking for medical use won't be a necessity as you could walk into any distributer and pick up what you need.

[Talon]

I thought the objective of prisons was to ensure prisoners didn't re-offend? Both the carrot and the stick?

The objective certainly is not to make people feel "macho".

[Plaidman]

I never said I AGREED with what happened with the mother, just understandible from the police side of it.

As for the tanks and guns? I do agree. The machine gun isn't used in normal neighborhoods to scare or intimidate your local mugger. It's used on the border where known drug runners are, that typically carry weapons to kill. It's the army job to protect the country, but once people start selling drugs and killing anyone that tries to stop them? That does fall under police when its under their juridistion.

And again, when they went to that house with the tank, they were under the impression that it was loaded with armor piercing bullets. Just because they live in a nice neighborhood does NOT mean that they aren't law abiding and never hurt a fly. Your a cop. Your job is to protect people. You get a ton of reports and edvence that state this house has bullet piercing ammo and are with killers. What do you do? Go in with a small army to neutraize and arrest the threat, or do you just send a lone cop to see what's up? (And likely killed quickly and painfully if true).

[Bronzebow]

I never said I AGREED with what happened with the mother, just understandible from the police side of it.

As for the tanks and guns? I do agree. The machine gun isn't used in normal neighborhoods to scare or intimidate your local mugger. It's used on the border where known drug runners are, that typically carry weapons to kill. It's the army job to protect the country, but once people start selling drugs and killing anyone that tries to stop them? That does fall under police when its under their juridistion.

And again, when they went to that house with the tank, they were under the impression that it was loaded with armor piercing bullets. Just because they live in a nice neighborhood does NOT mean that they aren't law abiding and never hurt a fly. Your a cop. Your job is to protect people. You get a ton of reports and edvence that state this house has bullet piercing ammo and are with killers. What do you do? Go in with a small army to neutraize and arrest the threat, or do you just send a lone cop to see what's up? (And likely killed quickly and painfully if true).

It's not the job of local county/city police to fight a war and protect national borders. It's not. If you believe that extreme of a standoff scenario is going to take place, you call in the state and possibly federal entities, depending on whatever's happening. You don't get massive war weapons and roll them through a neighbor's back yard, get drunk driving them, smash them into parked cars, and blow up the house in a neighborhood where the fire could easily spread...especially if you're a county sheriff with the county PD.

That's even if those scenarios you list are what happened. I'd like to point out that in a lot of the cases with that particular sheriff, they're not.

[Plaidman]

I only replied with what you gave me. The machine gun in your link was for the border. The tank was because the people had armor peircing rounds.

Are you saying that's not what happened now? You might want to change your links then.

[Bronzebow]

I only replied with what you gave me. The machine gun in your link was for the border. The tank was because the people had armor peircing rounds.

Are you saying that's not what happened now? You might want to change your links then.

I replied in kind. It's not their job and is a gross overstretch of the sheriff's actual authority.

I also said that with a lot of his stories, he's just delivering 3am no-knock raids to people suspected of recreational drug use. Imagine: Smoked a joint? There's a freaking tank in your yard.