wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:36:21 -0400, NotNow wrote:

But there is also the truism that a great majority of gun crimes were
commited by criminals that got their guns from a legal, law abiding
owner in some fashion or another, be it theft, or whatever.


Why don't we outlaw theft?


What a great idea! If we do that, we can increase the percentage of
citizens we imprison to a number no other country would dare challenge,
and we'll finally be Number One in something that matters!

Oops...just a minute...

We are Number One in that area!

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:01:21 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:36:21 -0400, NotNow wrote:

But there is also the truism that a great majority of gun crimes were
commited by criminals that got their guns from a legal, law abiding
owner in some fashion or another, be it theft, or whatever.

Why don't we outlaw theft?

What a great idea! If we do that, we can increase the percentage of
citizens we imprison to a number no other country would dare challenge,
and we'll finally be Number One in something that matters!

Oops...just a minute...

We are Number One in that area!


Most of them are in jail for non-violent drug charges but that is
another rant.

How would you punish theft? Cut off a hand?


Generally, I would drastically cut back on the length of prison terms
for non-violent offenders, and eliminate prison terms for certain
categories of non-violent offenders *unless* there are special
circumstances. Possession of personal amounts of marijuana, for example,
should not be a criminal offense. Dispensing marijuana for medicinal
purposes (with prescription backup) should not be a criminal offense.

Theft, typically, is a non-violent offense.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:02:11 -0400, HK wrote:

Theft, typically, is a non-violent offense.

That is only because we decided to call theft robbery if it is
violent. And it is only non violent if the victim chooses to not
resist.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:02:11 -0400, HK wrote:

Theft, typically, is a non-violent offense.

That is only because we decided to call theft robbery if it is
violent. And it is only non violent if the victim chooses to not
resist.

Casady


Oh, I think there is a bit more to it than that. Theft, for example,
typically does not involve the thief directly engaging face to face with
the victim. If you are held up at gunpoint, you've been robbed. If
someone steals a pocketbook from a desk, the crime typically is not
robbery, is it?

According to the OED, robbery...


1. a.1.a The action or practice of feloniously seizing, by violence or
intimidation, property belonging to another; spoliation, depredation.

I seem to recall discussing the fact that the United States imprisons a
higher percentage of its population than any other modern western
nation, and what might be done to lower that number. My suggestion was
to reduce sentences for non-violent criminals and to decriminalize
certain offenses, such as possession of "personal" amounts of pot.

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:02:11 -0400, HK wrote:

Theft, typically, is a non-violent offense.

So basically you just slap them on the hand and let them keep stealing
until a ****ed homeowner shoots them?

I agree that is pretty much the policy now. We had a guy here who was
a multiple conviction offender (theft and burglary), caught by the
homeowner inside his house and turned over at gunpoint to the sheriff.
The bottom line, he was back on the street in 90 days.
The guy who caught him says, next time he will be turned over to the
coroner. Florida is a castle state. The last guy we had shot dead, in
an RV in the driveway, didn't even draw a charge. An RV is a dwelling
unit in the eyes of the law here.


I didn't give a long answer, but typically I would differentiate between
"theft" and "robbery." Theft typically involves stealing, and usually
not by force. "Robbery" typically is the more serious offense, and
usually involves force. Now, laws and definitions differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so obviously in some places "theft" can
include characteristics of a more serious offense.

Generally, I would not give long prison sentences to non-violent thieves.

I don't support some aspects of some castle laws or the ways they are
interpreted. . If someone is actively breaking into your house, or
potentially making you a victim of a carjacking, or something similar,
then I think you can stand your ground and do whatever you need to do to
protect your life.

I recall a case in Texas, I think, where two men apparently were
breaking into an empty house, and the neighbor came out and shot them
both, even though the police told him not to do so. The shooter was
found not guilty of anything, if memory serves. Well, that's beyond the
intent of castle laws, I think.

When I was newspaper reporter, I remember a case where a shop owner
rigged a shotgun to go off in case someone broke into his store when he
was not there. Well, it worked...the gun killed a fireman who was part
of a crew answering a fire alarm. The shopkeeper was prosecuted,
convicted, and sentenced.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:02:11 -0400, HK wrote:

Theft, typically, is a non-violent offense.

So basically you just slap them on the hand and let them keep stealing
until a ****ed homeowner shoots them?

I agree that is pretty much the policy now. We had a guy here who was
a multiple conviction offender (theft and burglary), caught by the
homeowner inside his house and turned over at gunpoint to the sheriff.
The bottom line, he was back on the street in 90 days.
The guy who caught him says, next time he will be turned over to the
coroner. Florida is a castle state. The last guy we had shot dead, in
an RV in the driveway, didn't even draw a charge. An RV is a dwelling
unit in the eyes of the law here.


I didn't give a long answer, but typically I would differentiate between
"theft" and "robbery." Theft typically involves stealing, and usually
not by force. "Robbery" typically is the more serious offense, and
usually involves force. Now, laws and definitions differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so obviously in some places "theft" can
include characteristics of a more serious offense.

Generally, I would not give long prison sentences to non-violent thieves.

I don't support some aspects of some castle laws or the ways they are
interpreted. . If someone is actively breaking into your house, or
potentially making you a victim of a carjacking, or something similar,
then I think you can stand your ground and do whatever you need to do to
protect your life.

I recall a case in Texas, I think, where two men apparently were
breaking into an empty house, and the neighbor came out and shot them
both, even though the police told him not to do so. The shooter was
found not guilty of anything, if memory serves. Well, that's beyond the
intent of castle laws, I think.

When I was newspaper reporter, I remember a case where a shop owner
rigged a shotgun to go off in case someone broke into his store when he
was not there. Well, it worked...the gun killed a fireman who was part
of a crew answering a fire alarm. The shopkeeper was prosecuted,
convicted, and sentenced.

You really are out of your mind! BTW - it's burglary or robbery. The
difference is that robbery involves a person rather than an unoccupied
dwelling or unattended personal property. Would you feel the same if
you came home and Karen's house was empty and your desk (gasp!) in your
basement living quarters was gone along with your mainframe and multiple
workstations?

And what connection does any of that have to do with a story about a
moron who booby trapped his store?

WAFA!

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:02:11 -0400, HK wrote:

Theft, typically, is a non-violent offense.

So basically you just slap them on the hand and let them keep stealing
until a ****ed homeowner shoots them?

I agree that is pretty much the policy now. We had a guy here who was
a multiple conviction offender (theft and burglary), caught by the
homeowner inside his house and turned over at gunpoint to the sheriff.
The bottom line, he was back on the street in 90 days.
The guy who caught him says, next time he will be turned over to the
coroner. Florida is a castle state. The last guy we had shot dead, in
an RV in the driveway, didn't even draw a charge. An RV is a dwelling
unit in the eyes of the law here.


I didn't give a long answer, but typically I would differentiate between
"theft" and "robbery." Theft typically involves stealing, and usually
not by force. "Robbery" typically is the more serious offense, and
usually involves force. Now, laws and definitions differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so obviously in some places "theft" can
include characteristics of a more serious offense.

Generally, I would not give long prison sentences to non-violent thieves.

I don't support some aspects of some castle laws or the ways they are
interpreted. . If someone is actively breaking into your house, or
potentially making you a victim of a carjacking, or something similar,
then I think you can stand your ground and do whatever you need to do to
protect your life.

I recall a case in Texas, I think, where two men apparently were
breaking into an empty house, and the neighbor came out and shot them
both, even though the police told him not to do so. The shooter was
found not guilty of anything, if memory serves. Well, that's beyond the
intent of castle laws, I think.

When I was newspaper reporter, I remember a case where a shop owner
rigged a shotgun to go off in case someone broke into his store when he
was not there. Well, it worked...the gun killed a fireman who was part
of a crew answering a fire alarm. The shopkeeper was prosecuted,
convicted, and sentenced.

Didn't you try to kill someone with your truck for a non violent crime?
Don't you threaten to kill anyone who comes in your home uninvited?
Sounds like you can't keep your stories straight.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:15:33 -0400, HK wrote:

I didn't give a long answer, but typically I would differentiate between
"theft" and "robbery." Theft typically involves stealing, and usually
not by force. "Robbery" typically is the more serious offense, and
usually involves force. Now, laws and definitions differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so obviously in some places "theft" can
include characteristics of a more serious offense.

Generally, I would not give long prison sentences to non-violent thieves.

So basically a guy can just be a thief or a living and nothing bad
will ever happen to him. He just goes to "crime school" for a little
while to become a better thief, maybe join a gang.


I didn't say or imply that. My point is that non-violent crimes
typically do not deserve really long sentences. Remember, we incarcerate
a higher percentage of our population than almost any other country.

As for what our convicts learn in prison, it isn't as if we generally
make any serious effort to rehab and re-educate. Basically, we store our
criminals in a system that brutalizes and hardens them.

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:15:33 -0400, HK wrote:

I didn't give a long answer, but typically I would differentiate between
"theft" and "robbery." Theft typically involves stealing, and usually
not by force. "Robbery" typically is the more serious offense, and
usually involves force. Now, laws and definitions differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so obviously in some places "theft" can
include characteristics of a more serious offense.

Generally, I would not give long prison sentences to non-violent thieves.

So basically a guy can just be a thief or a living and nothing bad
will ever happen to him. He just goes to "crime school" for a little
while to become a better thief, maybe join a gang.

I have a perfect example of this. At my office complex, in broad
daylight, some scumbag broke my truck window and stole my GPS. I call
the county cops. They take my info, give me a case number for insurance,
and thats it. I asked if they were sending an officer out to look. Oh,
no, we don't have the resources for that, common break ins are SO
frequent that we don't bother. Now, a lot of criminals are pretty smart
in their own way, and I'm sure many of them know that in the county
where my office is, that they can get away with it.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:19:39 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:34:44 -0700, jps penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|No such chance.
|
|The easy availability of hand guns made killing Steve McNair easy.
|
|Gun purchased one or two days prior without a waiting period through a
|private sale.
|
|Nice work NRA.

What rabid anti-gun folks don't quite comprehend is that homicidal
intent is not weapon dependent. I had to wait to get my Concealed
Carry Permit or alternatively, I would have to wait to get a gun. That
wouldn't help much if I had a festering homicidal intent.

The problem Gene is that there are so many ****ing weapons on the
street that your truism may have validity.

If we hadn't let the cat out of the bag and had exercised a little
better foresight, there wouldn't be a profusion of easily obtainable
weapons...

Second amendment is not meant to make certain the entire ****ing
country is armed.

Have you visited a trauma ward recently? I have a friend who works in
the local ward. It's filled with shooting victims and the occasional
idiot who's cramed his head into a sidewalk from a motorcycle.