1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by buffyfan, Apr 13, 2020.

  1. Brutus58

    Brutus58 Trusted.Member

    My "Like" is for the "Good to know information" provided. Thanks.
     
    Neophyte likes this.
  2. Neophyte

    Neophyte Moderator Staff Member

  3. phantom

    phantom Trusted.Member

    The issue with guns as a whole is if they are used. The issue with gun laws is that they don't stop the people that would kill people. It is so easy at this point for the underground to make gun.. the issue or concern they have about buying them is gone.. they just make them out of site and make their own ammo.
     
  4. Brutus58

    Brutus58 Trusted.Member

    That's scary.
     
  5. Dane

    Dane Moderator Staff Member

    Why is it with the liberals that when a cop shoots a criminal trying to kill the cop, the cop is to blame.

    But when a criminal uses a gun to kill people, the gun and the gun manufacturers and the NRA are to blame??
     
    D.C. Barnet and Brutus58 like this.
  6. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Most Liberals have no issue with a cop firing on someone who pulls on them. It is usually more of when the cop shoots them as a zero threat for running away (SC case). They Taylor case where they busted in with no word but theirs they identified themselves. On a warrant that turned out to be very shaky and almost completely made up. The person they claimed verified a package to that address that week? Later said he never spoke to that cop in his life, was not at work then the officer claimed he spoke to him at the office. And the kicker? The person they were seeking there? Was in custody almost a FULL DAY before the raid. The solution to those is no more "no knock warrants". The balance has swung too far in favor of "If we dont bust in?! Then we might lose evidence!".
     
  7. Neophyte

    Neophyte Moderator Staff Member

    Most people would think that this would be a contradiction of belief or a double standard. But Liberal belief sees blaming the cop in the first case, and blaming the gun in the second case, as the same position. The position is to remove personal protection from out of the private hand or independent institutions, and placing it solely in the hands of the government.
     
    D.C. Barnet and Dane like this.
  8. phantom

    phantom Trusted.Member

    exactly.. and then the US is not a free democracy!
     
    Dane likes this.
  9. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Most liberals I know just want someone who is not a cop looking over the situation. Taylor again. There is now real teeth to the "DAs just decide not to even indict to "help out" the officers.". The DA there got caught lying. Swore he presented Manslaughter and Homicide charges. When a judge, due to GJ members sued and got it unsealed. He only presented reckless endangerment for police bullets that went into the next apartment.
     
  10. Neophyte

    Neophyte Moderator Staff Member

    Its not the rank and file Liberal that institute their policy. The ordinary Liberal is worth less than nothing to the Liberal Elite. A Conservative is at least an adversary. Considering the number of repeat criminals the DA's are releasing onto the streets, if they prosecute the police, it will prove how truly unscrupulous they are.
     
  11. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    The problems on the DA side are 100 fold. In truth? Some, if not a lot in my personal experience, comes from the small amount of "rogue cops". Who know the warrant is coming. it gets signed at 9:10pm. Problem is the bust was made and the search was complete by 8:50pm because the cop got jumpy. Unfortunately as a DA? When that is challenged? I was not able to say "WELL SHIT HAPPENS! WE FOUND WHAT WE FOUND!". That will be thrown out along with everything that was found because of it. We could not "present it anyway!".

    As to Bail Reform? I agree with the thought, not the execution. Until we fix the system where someone does not sit in lockup THREE YEARS for a charge that cant result more the 18 months sometimes? And that assumes the jury finds them guilty? Maybe non violent charges should not involve lockup. I will use the case that truly triggered it. Dont remember the kid's name. But a kid was on PROBATION. Minding his own business. Person here on a work visa CLAIMED he stole a backpack. Never found the backpack. But NYPD and NYCC "violated" that probation. The problem? He was accused of a crime. The "witness" changed his story 12 times before going back to Pakistan to live again. When the witness was gone and the charges dropped? They kept him in Rikers for another 18 months for "violating probation". How you ask? Someone SAID he did something and that was ENOUGH for a violate. Even when it was found to be BS. Once that went hard public NYPD and NYCC were smashed from all sides and they released him. The kid committed suicide days later.

    So it swung way too far the other way.

    But in the end? It was "I AM THE LAW!" cops and corrections officers. I make BANK off of cops who don't realize once it leaves the Precinct? Their "Cowboy" moves get cases DISMISSED and no one cares that they think they are the boss.
     
    D.C. Barnet likes this.
  12. Neophyte

    Neophyte Moderator Staff Member

    You fail to acknowledge those that were released on bail reform, that committed murder while awaiting trial. Or the case of a murder that was released with no bail. You have criminals arrested for robbery, who commits more robberies once released. In fact there are some that commit multiple robberies while still awaiting trials for the first arrest. You gave an example where someone died in the system, but I bet that you can find multiple cases to your one, where people died from criminals being released. They say if you can save one life, but they are sacrificing multiple lives just for the possibility of saving one life. On the scale of how many people are dying, which is better.
     
  13. Dane

    Dane Moderator Staff Member

    I just don't understand why there isn't even one judge who can grow some balls and set a new precedent with bail reform.

    Quit setting high bail on non-violent felonies and stop the liberal judges from releasing or low-bail those arrested
    for physical violence.

    Neo's example of releasing the violent ones because of a new law in the liberal states proves the judges are either
    claiming they are too fucking weak to disobey what the DA or the county prosecutor wants, or they lack all fucking common sense (which seems to be not just a liberal mindset anymore) to keep a violent person away from the general public.
     
  14. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Did you miss the words "So then it swung too far the other way"?
     
  15. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    OK. Here is how bail laws work. Judge X "grows balls"? Appeals Court, hours later a day tops, overturns that bail. If not the Adminstrative Judge. Because the "Law on Paper" overrules the "Judge's Balls". NY wrote a law that says what can or can't be bail worthy (went too far, and that is coming from someone on the "dark side"). His example is someone SHOPLIFTED, then while out ROR committed a violent crime. Do we remand everyone from now on until trial because they "Could commit a violent crime while out on bail for a non violent crime"?

    Also note. What I am saying is this. If the crime has low time in jail if found guilty? Take it to trial now. If you need time to build a solid case for trial AFTER they are indicted? You were not really ready to indict. That joke is not an exaggeration. In fact it is an understatement. It is not even a ham sandwich. You could, in theory, indict a TREE for murder. Here is why. There is no defense. it is just the DA theory of the crime. Violent crime? Sure. Remand. If you are holding someone on shoplifting? And you need more than a few days to go to trial? You dont have a case.

    Now the real issue. The clogged justice system because we prosecute every little thing. If the top penalty can be served in "lockup" and not prison? Plead it out for a lesser and move on. We need more judges (DO NOT WANT THAT JOB EVER). But judges need to understand the law. Not "have an interest". I know one INCOMPETENT judge who managed to get into the job because he sat on BUSINESS COUNCILS. He owned restaurants. He is now a CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE by appointment.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2022 at 4:00 AM
    Dane likes this.
  16. Dane

    Dane Moderator Staff Member

    All again how you've pointed out how fucked up our criminal court system is.

    (Didn't realize the Appellate Court was that active in changing set bail)
     
  17. Neophyte

    Neophyte Moderator Staff Member

    They only change the bail, if they think its unreasonable.
     
  18. Neophyte

    Neophyte Moderator Staff Member

    If it comes down to the police not doing their job and the judicial system not doing their job, then the private citizens need to become vigilantes. And the Democrats want to stop the people from being able to defend themselves. To me, if the police, the court, and the politicians won't do their jobs, then they are just as guilty as the criminals.
     
  19. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Then stop demanding "Tax cuts" all the time. DAs wont work for Min Wage because "I want less taxes. Do MORE with LESS. Taxes are too high!". Know why ADAs have such high Plea %? Because they get paid crap for most of their career. So many flee to Criminal Defense where you get paid a lot more. So the good one flee within 5-10 years for better pay. You cant have "low taxes", waste in Police Departments like buying military surplus, and a system that does well.

    Want the system to unclog fast? Get rid of "confidential discipline" for police. If an officer has a history of false claims on paperwork? They belong nowhere near a badge let alone the "stand" in a trial. A great example. The current people getting off on DUIs in Nassau County NY? Not "Liberal Laws". It is 50a repeal (short and sweet, NYS passed a law that Police Discipline is NOT CONFIDENTIAL) and the NCPD's stance has been "Well. We wrote in our COUNTY POLICE contract that if local, county or state law ever says they are no longer confidential we do not have to comply because we wrote it in our CONTRACT.". Yes NCPD wrote "we can put in our contract that we are immune from any laws we dont want to apply to us". The judge dismissing all these charges? Dismissing because......... his simple request is while they fight the state HE, and ONLY HE, is given a copy to make sure the officer does not have a history of "creating scenarios for PC to stop motorists". All the NCPD has to do is show HIM that the officers involved have no history of it, and it can go to trial. NCPD? "Screw YOU! Take it to trial on our word there is none! Just do what WE say!". You NEVER EVER tell a judge what to do as a participant.

    In addition. When found to not be accurate? Especially outright lies? Time for QI to go bye bye. Screw this BS. I know you watch Steve Lehto. I know you have to have seen his QI videos. Where he goes over cases like "An officer can NOT be sued for stealing during an investigation by the person they stole from. Why? It was not a decided case in that Circuit Pre QI Creation of the USSC. Therefore? Protected because it was done ON DUTY.". That one was a real lawsuit that was DISMISSED because a court in that district did not SPECIFICALLY find, in the past, that an OFFICER CANT STEAL ON THE JOB.

    But mostly? Unless people study law? They need to realize that "Common SENSE and SOME BALLS" is not usually successful in the legal system. Because the law is the law is the law. And "Well Common Sense says........ so grow some BALLS and do the will of the people!" usually ends up in the TAX PAYERS paying off lawsuits. Sorry Neo. The law is the law. And the Common Man's thoughts on it usually are not informed. And many "Blue Collar" opinions sound like a lot of cops that muck up this system with "badge=his word is now LAW". Cop Fs up? Court does not care that he wanted to get in before they were noticed and get the evidence already before they can get rid of it. Warrant signed at 9pm and provable entry to the location at 8:55pm? Chose enough that it cant be camera timing errors. That evidence is OUTSIDE the warrant. And anything gained from it is too. Does not matter "grow some BALLS Judges and say 'so WHAT? Proof is PROOF!'".
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022 at 1:06 AM
    Incs likes this.
  20. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Just using well known cases.

    Sorry. The McDaniels boys were not "Defending themselves". They had no right to pursue and detain Arbury on "suspicions" and "guarding the neighborhood". I am 50/50 on Rittenhouse. In that, fine I will stipulate he may have been in self defense (have some issues with a few procedurals there, but not enough that it should 100% be overturned and retried). the 50 that is not "Self Defense" is that he did not HAVE to be there. He did not HAVE to "stand his ground". The Car Dealer claimed he never put out a "Craigs List" ad for volunteer guards. Other than that? It was close enough that it could be found. Treyvon Martin? Zimmerman was a self appointed "Community Guard". If you stop someone on the street? They are not obligated to answer your questions to "your satisfaction". Show you the proof you want before you "let them leave". You should not following and stalking people to "investigate" them if you are not LEO. In addition a few procedural issues. The judge ruled that Trayvon's history and blood panels were "relevant". Whether GZ was on HIS anti psychotics? "The jury does not need that. It is prejudicial!".

    In general? Stand your Ground is TOO DAMNED BROAD in some states. Where you can PICK A FIGHT with someone and as soon as they fight back you can claim "In that microsecond I was scared for my life!". Even though the chain of events is that you STARTED IT. You are allowed to narrow it to that moment under "Stand your Ground". Simple fix to that law? The instigating party cant also "stand their ground".

    I think you forget, a lot, that I am ultra pro 2nd. I think that everyone has the right to own firearms. But if we put a single rule, like "felons can not"? We cant then play "but that is IT, no other laws or rules.".