Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-12-2020, 08:26 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476

Violent Criminals Owning Guns


I'm pitting a thread (here) rather than any particular poster.

Apparently there are any number of people here at SDMB who think it's unjust that people who have been convicted of, and/or pled guilty to, violent crimes should be prohibited from owning firearms.

Amazing.

Last edited by Saintly Loser; 01-12-2020 at 08:26 AM.
  #2  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:05 AM
Baker is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 20,680
Cite?

I looked through that thread, and that's not what I took away from it.
__________________
At least my dog loves me.

Last edited by Baker; 01-12-2020 at 09:07 AM.
  #3  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:07 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc. The Lautenberg Amendment is a spectacular overreach and always has been. The stories are myriad about people who call the cops on their significant other only to find out that crying wolf on domestic violence just to win a fight results in prosecution, and a plea bargain in a DV case removes gun rights. It is a particular problem in the military, because that extends to service firearms, and if you can’t carry one at any time you’re out.

Each case should be judged on its own merits(or lack thereof), instead of a blanket proscription. If we take the subject of the OP at his word, it’s one of those outlying cases that perhaps ought not result in a right lost. In any case, none of that constitutes support for the (scare quotes) “violent criminals” you’re talking about, any more than supporting the legalization of marijuana means I support “drug dealers”.
  #4  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:15 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
In any case, none of that constitutes support for the (scare quotes) “violent criminals” you’re talking about, any more than supporting the legalization of marijuana means I support “drug dealers”.
I didn't say anything about "support for violent criminals."

That said, someone who has been convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal. I do not agree that "[t]here are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances."

I don't see why someone who was convicted of punching his wife should be given any more slack than someone who was convicted of punching someone in a road rage incident.

If that person believes his or her conviction was unjust, that's what appeals are for.

End of story.
  #5  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:23 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
I didn't say anything about "support for violent criminals."

That said, someone who has been convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal. I do not agree that "[t]here are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances."

I don't see why someone who was convicted of punching his wife should be given any more slack than someone who was convicted of punching someone in a road rage incident.

If that person believes his or her conviction was unjust, that's what appeals are for.

End of story.
I see. So if my wife attacks me and I defend myself by punching her she is a victim of domestic violence and as an offender I lose my rights. No nuance, no shades of gray whatsoever, right?
  #6  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:26 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
I see. So if my wife attacks me and I defend myself by punching her she is a victim of domestic violence and as an offender I lose my rights. No nuance, no shades of gray whatsoever, right?
If you are found guilty of domestic violence, you lose your right to possess a firearm. That is correct. No shades of gray. You lose it, since apparently the court was not convinced by your claim of self-defense.

On the other hand, if your defense to the charge of domestic violence is that you were acting in self-defense, and you are acquitted, you don't lose your right to possess a firearm. No shades of gray.

That seems pretty clear.
  #7  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:38 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
If that person believes his or her conviction was unjust, that's what appeals are for.
To be fair, if you win the appeal, nothing about the past changes. FGE had his guns taken away for hitting (slapping) someone in self defense. He chose not to fight the charge so he could be done with it and now carries the DV charge.
If he appeals it and gets it tossed out, he STILL slapped her in self defense, the only thing that changes is that the DV charge gone.

That's a nuance. Yes, he hit her, but it was only in self defense.
Someone who slapped their wife might be the same as someone who slapped someone during a road rage incident. Those arn't shades of gray. Shades of gray are the difference between someone who slapped their wife (ignoring the self defense part) vs someone who tied her to a chair and beat the shit out of her. It's the difference between someone who slapped their wife and someone who rapes her on a regular basis. It's the difference between someone who slaps their wife and someone who gets drunk and threatens his wife with a gun.

You really think all that's the same? Having said that, when I read the (other) OP a few days ago, and I haven't read the rest of the thread, my first thought was that the OP was had a charge that required him not to poses a gun. It's not personal, it's just how it is.
  #8  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:46 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
You lose it, since apparently the court was not convinced by your claim of self-defense.
Wait...did you actually read that thread? The court didn't believe his claim of self defense because he never made that claim to the court. He was charged with DV after the incident and he chose not to fight the charge.

Quote:
I was convicted of a misdemeanor battery charge against my then-girlfriend, now ex-wife for slapping her. She was literally attacking me, trying to gouge my eyes...eh...none of that matters. I slapped her, and admitted it to the two fine officers that showed up that night informing us that one of us would be going to jail. So that guy was me. I owned instead of blaming her for attacking me because
Had he told the cops, right then and there, that he slapped her in self defense because she was trying to gouge his eyes out, this all may have played out differently. If they could get even a shred of corroboration, it would have been her going to jail as the aggressor (in his jurisdiction, one party MUST get arrested in DV situations). However, when the cops got there, he admitted to slapping her, left it at that and was arrested and charged.
  #9  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:47 AM
Flyer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
I didn't say anything about "support for violent criminals."

That said, someone who has been convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal. I do not agree that "[t]here are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances."
Your faith in the infallibility of the criminal justice system is quite amazing. Do you come from a planet where humans never make mistakes and officials are never corrupt?
  #10  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:53 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Wait...did you actually read that thread? The court didn't believe his claim of self defense because he never made that claim to the court. He was charged with DV after the incident and he chose not to fight the charge.
Yes. I actually read the thread. My post was in response to Airman Doors, USAF's hypothetical. I thought that was clear, because I quoted AD's post and responded immediately below the quote. My apologies if it wasn't clear.

That said, if someone chooses not to dispute a charge, they they kind of have to accept the consequences, right? They're not claiming any kind of extenuating circumstances, or claiming that it didn't happen, or anything like that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Had he told the cops, right then and there, that he slapped her in self defense because she was trying to gouge his eyes out, this all may have played out differently. If they could get even a shred of corroboration, it would have been her going to jail as the aggressor (in his jurisdiction, one party MUST get arrested in DV situations). However, when the cops got there, he admitted to slapping her, left it at that and was arrested and charged.
I don't see why we have to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't deny or dispute the charges.
  #11  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:55 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Your faith in the infallibility of the criminal justice system is quite amazing. Do you come from a planet where humans never make mistakes and officials are never corrupt?
Of course not. But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials -- we should be fine with letting him have a carry permit, right?

Nonetheless, seems like a lot of people think that it makes perfect sense to deny firearms to people convicted of violent crimes, but if said violence is committed upon one's wife or girlfriend or the mother of one's children, hey, wait a minute, now we're into a gray area, maybe there were extenuating circumstances, let's not be too hasty.

That's a bit disturbing.

Last edited by Saintly Loser; 01-12-2020 at 09:56 AM.
  #12  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:08 AM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,245
Are we now arguing in earnest that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns because women “cry wolf” about domestic violence?

Really?
  #13  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:09 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Your faith in the infallibility of the criminal justice system is quite amazing. Do you come from a planet where humans never make mistakes and officials are never corrupt?
he'd be perfect as a criminal judge in Japan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Are we now arguing in earnest that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns because women “cry wolf” about domestic violence?

Really?
are we now already at the phase where we just make up whatever it is we think the argument is about and rail against that?

Last edited by jz78817; 01-12-2020 at 10:10 AM.
  #14  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:14 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
That said, if someone chooses not to dispute a charge, they they kind of have to accept the consequences, right? They're not claiming any kind of extenuating circumstances, or claiming that it didn't happen, or anything like that.
That was, like, the point of the entire thread.
In fact, the last line of the OP is "But...I WAS guilty of that. That DID happen. And then now so did this as a result. Thought it'd be an interesting share on the old Doperino. Your thoughts? "
The OP is basically just FGE telling us how hitting someone in self defense and not fighting the charge caught up with him 16 years later.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
Of course not. But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials -- we should be fine with letting him have a carry permit, right?
That's not how self defense works. I'm not sure if you don't understand self defense or if you're trying and failing to make a point. In the US we have the right of self defense, it allows you to use force to stop someone from injuring you. Without getting into all the details, the force you use has to be the minimum necessary to stop the aggressor. FGE slapping (or even had he shoved her back) because she was trying to gouge out his eyes, would probably be okay. Had he hit her with a crowbar or shot her, not so much.

I'm not sure what logical leap your taking to consider robbing a liquor store because you're the victim of corrupt officials in even remotely related to self defense, at least not in the legal sense.

Quote:
Nonetheless, seems like a lot of people think that it makes perfect sense to deny firearms to people convicted of violent crimes, but if said violence is committed upon one's wife or girlfriend or the mother of one's children, hey, wait a minute, now we're into a gray area, maybe there were extenuating circumstances, let's not be too hasty.
That's not what I got out of the thread. I got some people saying 'sucks to be you, but I still think it's a good rule' and some people saying that HIS circumstances were extenuating. If a lot of people are suggesting that when violence is directed at a significant other there are, automatically, extenuating circumstances, I missed it in my quick read through.
  #15  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:14 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 13,480
While I generally agree that violent criminals should not be allowed to possess firearms, and am also generally in favor of anything that removes guns from people's hands, I also vehemently disagree with any law that completely removes discretion from the equation. Flawed as human judgment may occasionally, or even frequently be, any rigidly black-and-white system of justice cannot possibly ever be any justice at all.

Such things as mandatory minimum sentencing laws and "zero tolerance" policies are not intelligent, empathetic, evolved, pragmatic solutions to social ills, they are an ill-advised attempt to make the necessarily messy and Byzantine business of criminal justice a simplified matter of following a flowchart, so that literally any idiot could administer it. This is not progress.
  #16  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:14 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
are we now already at the phase where we just make up whatever it is we think the argument is about and rail against that?
A poster above said "There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc.." That seems to me to be explicitly arguing that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns, at least when it comes domestic violence convictions.
  #17  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:15 AM
Oredigger77 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
Of course not. But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials -- we should be fine with letting him have a carry permit, right?

Nonetheless, seems like a lot of people think that it makes perfect sense to deny firearms to people convicted of violent crimes, but if said violence is committed upon one's wife or girlfriend or the mother of one's children, hey, wait a minute, now we're into a gray area, maybe there were extenuating circumstances, let's not be too hasty.

That's a bit disturbing.
I think its crap that people who commit crimes lose their rights for life. Voting and firearms are the most common but the sex offender registry is also terrible. You shouldn't become a second class citizen just because you were a criminal. I don't really care if the guy murdered his wife, she robbed a liquor store, xe got caught peeing behind the bar.

I think what happened to the OP in that thread is sad and he shouldn't be prevented from doing something with his kids because of something he did a decade and a half ago and hasn't done since.
  #18  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:19 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
A poster above said "There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc.." That seems to me to be explicitly arguing that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns, at least when it comes domestic violence convictions.
no, that's entirely your own invention. You're trying to say (essentially) that if someone says an object is not white, then they're explicitly saying it's black.

(I'll spell it out for you- they're not saying there should be "no bright line," they're saying that "maybe this is not quite where it should be placed.") As in "yes, by the letter of the law he is not allowed to own guns, but the circumstances leading up to his loss of that right are at least some percent bullshit."

has everyone in this entire goddamned country lost the ability to even consider the idea that not everything is either/or?

Last edited by jz78817; 01-12-2020 at 10:21 AM.
  #19  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:22 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
That's not how self defense works. I'm not sure if you don't understand self defense or if you're trying and failing to make a point. In the US we have the right of self defense, it allows you to use force to stop someone from injuring you. Without getting into all the details, the force you use has to be the minimum necessary to stop the aggressor. FGE slapping (or even had he shoved her back) because she was trying to gouge out his eyes, would probably be okay. Had he hit her with a crowbar or shot her, not so much.
You keep taking my response to one post or poster and it to something else.

If someone pleads not guilty to a charge, and successfully mounts a self-defense defense, and is acquitted, then none of this applies. I'm only talking about people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I'm not sure what logical leap your taking to consider robbing a liquor store because you're the victim of corrupt officials in even remotely related to self defense, at least not in the legal sense.
It isn't remotely related to a claim of self-defense. Again, you're taking my reply to Flyer, who posted about people making mistakes and corrupt officials, and applying it to something you imagine I said about self-defense.

It's coming across as disingenuous, at the very least.
  #20  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:23 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
no, that's entirely your own invention. You're trying to say (essentially) that if someone says an object is not white, then they're explicitly saying it's black.

(I'll spell it out for you- they're not saying there should be "no bright line," they're saying that "maybe this is not quite where it should be placed.") As in "yes, by the letter of the law he is not allowed to own guns, but the circumstances leading up to his loss of that right are at least some percent bullshit."

has everyone in this entire goddamned country lost the ability to even consider the idea that not everything is either/or?
Not everything is either/or. That said, I'm pretty convinced that people convicted of violent crimes should not be permitted to own firearms. I'm somewhat surprised that this is a controversial position.

Last edited by Saintly Loser; 01-12-2020 at 10:26 AM.
  #21  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:26 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I think what happened to the OP in that thread is sad and he shouldn't be prevented from doing something with his kids because of something he did a decade and a half ago and hasn't done since.
I guess that's where we differ. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the state in which the OP lives to prohibit him from doing this one thing with his kids.
  #22  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:26 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Not all people who are convicted are guilty. I'm somewhat surprised that some are.. er.. surprised to hear that.
  #23  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:35 AM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
(...)The stories are myriad about people who call the cops on their significant other only to find out that crying wolf on domestic violence just to win a fight results in prosecution, and a plea bargain in a DV case removes gun rights.(...)
Yeah, I’m just making shit up.

Last edited by The Librarian; 01-12-2020 at 10:35 AM.
  #24  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:38 AM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Not all people who are convicted are guilty. I'm somewhat surprised that some are.. er.. surprised to hear that.
Why are you worried because some wife beaters lose their gun owning privileges?

Who cares?

If your wife is calling the cops on you, you have issues in your judgement one way or the other and you shouldn’t have guns in the house.
  #25  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
...

Apparently there are any number of people here at SDMB who think it's unjust that people who have been convicted of, and/or pled guilty to, violent crimes should be prohibited from owning firearms.

Amazing.

What part of
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
are you having trouble parsing, Mr. Loser? It says "people", not "people who some libtard considers worthy."

Do armed robbers need guns? Duuuh, that's their occupation. Take away the constitutional rights of someone for overdue parking tickets, or pursuing their chosen occupation, and soon you'll be taking guns away from people who worship in a different church, or smoke a different breed of grass from you. If you're so eager to confiscate all my guns, maybe you'd be happier in North Korea — they already have gun control.

Amazing.
  #26  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:47 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Are we now arguing in earnest that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns because women “cry wolf” about domestic violence?

Really?
Yes. And it goes the other way, too. Domestic violence is not exclusive to men.

The simple fact is that defending a domestic violence charge (or any other charge) is expensive, and taking a plea for a lesser misdemeanor is a common thing in the justice system. In this case, though, that plea comes with a prize, and it takes a lot of people by surprise.

It really isn’t too much to ask that every case be judged based on its own circumstances. The judge has everything he needs to do just that. If he decides that the person's gun rights are forfeit, fine. But the Lautenberg Amendment does away with any discretion whatsoever.
  #27  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:49 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
What part of
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
are you having trouble parsing, Mr. Loser? It says "people", not "people who some libtard considers worthy."

Do armed robbers need guns? Duuuh, that's their occupation. Take away the constitutional rights of someone for overdue parking tickets, or pursuing their chosen occupation, and soon you'll be taking guns away from people who worship in a different church, or smoke a different breed of grass from you. If you're so eager to confiscate all my guns, maybe you'd be happier in North Korea — they already have gun control.

Amazing.
Do we really have to go down that road? Every right has limits, and the Second Amendment is no exception.
  #28  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:08 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc. The Lautenberg Amendment is a spectacular overreach and always has been. The stories are myriad about people who call the cops on their significant other only to find out that crying wolf on domestic violence just to win a fight results in prosecution, and a plea bargain in a DV case removes gun rights. It is a particular problem in the military, because that extends to service firearms, and if you can’t carry one at any time you’re out.
Yeah, no. You're just dismissing DV cases as "crying wolf" with a very Trumpian passive voice, "the cases are myriad "

Quote:
Each case should be judged on its own merits(or lack thereof), instead of a blanket proscription.
Yeah, you try it, because it looks like you've already decided that DV victims are lying "just to win a fight."
  #29  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:21 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Yeah, no. You're just dismissing DV cases as "crying wolf" with a very Trumpian passive voice, "the cases are myriad "



Yeah, you try it, because it looks like you've already decided that DV victims are lying "just to win a fight."
That is not correct. The problem is the edge cases. They always are, no matter what we’re talking about. There’s no point in bringing up the obvious cases because they’re exactly that.

So, to be clear, domestic violence does happen, in most cases the convictions are warranted, and the forfeiture of rights is justified.
  #30  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:27 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
What gets me is how often people in these discussions talk about DV convictions and police being called for an 'argument' like it's something completely ordinary that just happens. Maybe my circle of friends and colleagues is somehow unique, but arguments that escalate to the point that cops show up to calm things down are really, really out of the ordinary in my experience, and I think that people who are routinely involved in violent altercations that need police intervention very likely are people who should not be allowed to possess firearms. This isn't a case of something absurdly minor like 'oh, he painted his car the wrong color and got a ticket', this is a case of someone engaging in violence with their intimate partner and being convicted of it.

I'll also note that there is room for shades of grey in the case in the original thread - as was mentioned in that thread, there's a process for having the restriction on firearms rights reviewed and possibly removed. However, it's unlikely that the OP of that thread could prevail in that process, as he has a recent (2017) conviction for DUI, a crime of gross negligence in operating a piece of deadly machinery. I really don't think that the kind of person who thinks that endangering people by choosing to drink alcohol then get in control of a ton of steel careening around the roads is someone who I want running around with firearms.
  #31  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:29 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
I see. So if my wife attacks me and I defend myself by punching her she is a victim of domestic violence and as an offender I lose my rights. No nuance, no shades of gray whatsoever, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
That is not correct. The problem is the edge cases. They always are, no matter what we’re talking about. There’s no point in bringing up the obvious cases because they’re exactly that.

So, to be clear, domestic violence does happen, in most cases the convictions are warranted, and the forfeiture of rights is justified.
More passive voice.

You were not talking about "edge cases." You said, "the cases are myriad."
  #32  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:31 AM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
Yes. And it goes the other way, too. Domestic violence is not exclusive to men.



The simple fact is that defending a domestic violence charge (or any other charge) is expensive, and taking a plea for a lesser misdemeanor is a common thing in the justice system. In this case, though, that plea comes with a prize, and it takes a lot of people by surprise.



It really isn’t too much to ask that every case be judged based on its own circumstances. The judge has everything he needs to do just that. If he decides that the person's gun rights are forfeit, fine. But the Lautenberg Amendment does away with any discretion whatsoever.


Why are you worried about the gun owning rights of people who call the cops when they quarrel? Are they not prime examples of “people who shouldn’t have guns in the house”? What is wrong with taking away the guns away from people with anger issues? I would argue that laws taking away those guns can only be a net benefit to society.
__________________
Oook!
  #33  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:33 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
That is not correct. The problem is the edge cases. They always are, no matter what we’re talking about. There’s no point in bringing up the obvious cases because they’re exactly that.
No, I think that the problem is that the LA is one of the rare pieces of legislation that actually works to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but that some dangerous criminals don't like that and so complain that it keeps them from having guns. The stories of overreach are myriad, but that's because criminals both tend to think of themselves as innocent and are willing to lie about their crimes to gain sympathy. The 'myriad stories' are, as far as I can tell, a combination of BS from convicted criminals who don't want to admit guilt and a similar rate of false convictions as there is for any other crime. If there was some actual supporting evidence for this I'd be glad to see it, but I don't think there is.
  #34  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:36 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
You know what, you guys are right. No exceptions. And everybody currently in jail deserves to be there. No exceptions. After all, why in the world would the police ever get involved if they hadn’t been doing something wrong?

Thank you for convincing me of the error of my ways.

Last edited by Airman Doors, USAF; 01-12-2020 at 11:37 AM.
  #35  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:45 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
You know what, you guys are right. No exceptions. And everybody currently in jail deserves to be there. No exceptions. After all, why in the world would the police ever get involved if they hadn’t been doing something wrong?

Thank you for convincing me of the error of my ways.
You guys won't let him make up the rules so he wins so you're big libtard meanies.

And guys who claim they were falsely convicted are right up there with actually-innocent black guys in terms of injustice.

Sounds about white.
  #36  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:53 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
You guys won't let him make up the rules so he wins so you're big libtard meanies.

And guys who claim they were falsely convicted are right up there with actually-innocent black guys in terms of injustice.

Sounds about white.
I didn’t let him make up the rules. I TOLD HIM WHAT THE RULES WERE.

We were discussing the effect of the law as it relates to the edge cases, of which his was one if we take him at his word (I’ve included that caveat repeatedly), and in a country of 350 million people your belief that there are not a lot of those edge cases, hence “myriad”, and your refusal to acknowledge any sort of nuance makes this whole conversation moot, so I conceded. You won.
  #37  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:55 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
You keep taking my response to one post or poster and it to something else.
Flyer asked you if you think government officials are infallible and never corrupt. You responded "But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials ". It should be noted that flyer's question was a reply to your comment about violent criminals.
You're going to have to walk me through the logic on that one because I can't follow it.

Quote:
It isn't remotely related to a claim of self-defense. Again, you're taking my reply to Flyer, who posted about people making mistakes and corrupt officials, and applying it to something you imagine I said about self-defense.
It's coming across as disingenuous, at the very least.
I'll give you that I introduced the self-defense aspect to that side discussion, but I still don't understand what Flyer said that makes you suggest, by his logic, that it's okay to rob a liquor store if you're the victim of corrupt officials.


Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
What part of
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
are you having trouble parsing, Mr. Loser? It says "people", not "people who some libtard considers worthy."
The amendments are certainly not in my wheelhouse, but isn't this where the 5th amendment comes into play? It states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. IOW, if I understand it correctly, the government CAN deprive you of life, liberty or property after a trial. How else could people be put in prison?
But, again, this isn't my strong suit. Also, I know there's all kinds of cases about this, I was just making the point that, as I understand it, these rights can be taken away by a court of law.
  #38  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:55 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
You know what, you guys are right. No exceptions. And everybody currently in jail deserves to be there. No exceptions. After all, why in the world would the police ever get involved if they hadn’t been doing something wrong?

Thank you for convincing me of the error of my ways.
and the person/people who really killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are still out there somewhere.
  #39  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:56 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Yeah, no. You're just dismissing DV cases as "crying wolf" with a very Trumpian passive voice, "the cases are myriad "



Yeah, you try it, because it looks like you've already decided that DV victims are lying "just to win a fight."
for someone accusing him of arguing in bad faith, you're doing a bang-up job of it yourself.
  #40  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:07 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
for someone accusing him of arguing in bad faith, you're doing a bang-up job of it yourself.
Yeah, how DARE I get sarcastic with another dishonest dogwhistler by quoting him and pointing out that the actual effect of his dishonesty is to lump in liars with people who have actually been falsely accused.
  #41  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:11 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
and the person/people who really killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are still out there somewhere.
Hey, no fair! They weren't killed with guns!

I mean, they weren't killed by people with guns, since people kill people, guns don't kill people.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #42  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:16 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,305
ph
  #43  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:29 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
You know what, you guys are right. No exceptions. And everybody currently in jail deserves to be there. No exceptions. After all, why in the world would the police ever get involved if they hadn’t been doing something wrong?
So you don't have anything to support your contention that there are more 'edge cases' of DV than other crimes, and are just throwing a hissy fit because you got called out on it?
  #44  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:50 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin
Sounds about white.
  #45  
Old 01-12-2020, 01:12 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
That was, like, the point of the entire thread.
In fact, the last line of the OP is "But...I WAS guilty of that. That DID happen. And then now so did this as a result. Thought it'd be an interesting share on the old Doperino. Your thoughts? "
[...]
That's not what I got out of the thread. I got some people saying 'sucks to be you, but I still think it's a good rule' and some people saying that HIS circumstances were extenuating.
Right. As far as I can tell there is a general consensus in that thread that the individual in question screwed up to begin with, handled it wrong back then, and furthermore has not exactly been shiningly immaculate ever since.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
The simple fact is that defending a domestic violence charge (or any other charge) is expensive, and taking a plea for a lesser misdemeanor is a common thing in the justice system. In this case, though, that plea comes with a prize, and it takes a lot of people by surprise.
True, but as they say, ignorance (of collateral consequences) is no excuse (in the originating case) and more recently he knew better having been told so by others (yourself included).

There is an entire other issue with a criminal justice system that operates to incentivize plea-dealing to save the state the hassle of a trial, dissuade the accused from fighting the charge, and spare the victim being subjected to adversarial questioning on the public record, and where people don't fully grasp what the plea deal entails; and about what are the means to prove rehabilitation. Worth debating separately in its own right.

But that runs into how with DV it is not rare to get a "never mind, don't want to pursue further" from the alleged victim, which is something the Lautenberg Amendment was trying to take into account under a reasonable understanding that the system propended to real serious assaults being pleaded down if at all pursued, so they extended the civil penalties to the misdemeanor range as well.

Still, as mentioned before both here and in the other thread, the subject went right ahead and owned it from the start, whether or not it was the smart or right move, so it's what they have to deal with.

(Also, from the statements in the other thread, the restrictions apparently had already failed to kick in in a couple of prior instances, which is yet another entirely separate thing to worry about...)


As to the matter of "by definition any person convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal" ISTM that is yet another debate on legal and social semantics and on connotation v. denotation.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 01-12-2020 at 01:16 PM.
  #46  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:03 PM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,357
I don't see why someone who was convicted of punching his wife should be given any more slack than someone who was convicted of punching someone in a road rage incident.

Slapping, not punching in this case. You're trying to poison the well, and I'm calling you out on it.

That being said, if you're guilty of gun violence, you should not own a gun. Taking away gun rights for slapping your wife/mate in a domestic abuse incident is just stupid.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #47  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:15 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
Slapping, not punching in this case. You're trying to poison the well, and I'm calling you out on it.
So slapping is cool, but punching isn't? Only domestic violence above a certain threshold (as defined by you) should count?

Bullshit.

Last edited by Saintly Loser; 01-12-2020 at 02:16 PM.
  #48  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:17 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
That being said, if you're guilty of gun violence, you should not own a gun. Taking away gun rights for slapping your wife/mate in a domestic abuse incident is just stupid.
That's a declaration, but I don't see why preventing someone who is willing to engage in domestic abuse from acquiring more effective tools for violence is 'just stupid', especially given the well-supported connection between people who engage in domestic violence and who later kill their partners. Is there any deeper justification than assertion for the claim that it is 'just stupid' to restrict violent criminals, specifically those who engage in domestic violence, from legal access to deadly weapons?
  #49  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:22 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
Taking away gun rights for slapping your wife/mate in a domestic abuse incident is just stupid.
Un-fucking-believable. The insanity of gun rights fundies has no bounds.

So it's "stupid" to take away gun rights from people convicted of violent crimes, as long as that violence is directed towards one's wife/girlfriend/mother of children/etc.?

It's fucking hopeless. The bloodbath will never end.
  #50  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:34 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
. . . I still don't understand what Flyer said that makes you suggest, by his logic, that it's okay to rob a liquor store if you're the victim of corrupt officials.
Unless I misunderstood Flyer, he/she seemed to be saying that, since officials can be corrupt and judges and juries are not infallible, it's unjust to take away someone's right to possess guns because that person was convicted of a domestic violence crime.

I did not suggest that it's okay to rob a liquor store. That's bullshit. I did suggest that his/her logic implied that the same standard should be applied to anyone convicted of a crime, including someone convicted of sticking up a liquor store. It's admittedly a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the logic is fairly clear.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017