Whats going on in Chicago?

[BrianFantana]

There's a reason strict liability offences are limited to crimes that don't involve jail time. Please, for your own betterment, read up on why. I am happy to discuss once you understand what we're talking about.

 

[Gervinho]

Serious question though. What does it say about America that they cant get control of a City like Chicago. I am reading police even avoid or dont go into this areas with no back up.

 

[oldshadow]

Did you read up on absolute liability and strict liability? It will be easier to explain when we're on the same page.

Yes and convicted felons commit the majority of the gun crimes and they are breaking the law by carrying a gun.

So I have no problem with making it not worth the time for doing the crime.

No it will not stop all of them and those same we will securely separate and isolate.

This is something that will work.

However with a lot anti 2nd organizations and people that's not the point. The point is to remove guns from all private citizens or to restrict them so they are useless to civil citizens.

We see and understand this which is why we fight to give up more then we already have and fight to get more back.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Easy, Rush. Chicago is a short drive to a number of counties with very lax gun laws, which creates a void in the effectiveness of gun control as a policy.

But if it's firearms that are the problem,why isn't happening in those counties?

 

[silicavaginitis]

 

[BrianFantana]

Yes and convicted felons commit the majority of the gun crimes and they are breaking the law by carrying a gun.

So I have no problem with making it not worth the time for doing the crime.

No it will not stop all of them and those same we will securely separate and isolate.

This is something that will work.

However with a lot anti 2nd organizations and people that's not the point. The point is to remove guns from all private citizens or to restrict them so they are useless to civil citizens.

We see and understand this which is why we fight to give up more then we already have and fight to get more back.

OK, I'm writing this on the basis you did some reading and understand the distinction between the concepts.

The reason strict liability poses such a problem is that it removes considerations of intent, wilfulness, recklessness, and negligence from an analysis of criminal conduct. It poses immediate sentences for breaking a law. The reason it's confined to summary (non-felony) offences is because levying a fine does not result in a restriction of liberty, which, as you will recall, is guaranteed under the Constitution, but for reasonable limits.

So, we assume, rightly or wrongly, that people carrying non-licenced weapons are carrying them in order to commit crimes. We do not consider that they carry them for the same reasons people with licenced weapons do: self-defence. And, given the conditions and circumstances many of these offenders live in, they are more likely to face a situation where they will require a weapon in self-defence than someone like me would.

By removing considerations of intent, wilfulness, recklessness, and negligence from the equation, we are sentencing people to jail terms not for having wronged anyone, but for having contravened a law. It removes any discretion from a judge or jury to consider the alleged offender's intent, and infringes on their Constitutional rights to a fair trial and representation, and liberty.

These may not concern you, but they do concern me a great deal. It's an authoritarian system and it does not reflect the values on which the legal system is based.

 

[BrianFantana]

But if it's firearms that are the problem,why isn't happening in those counties?

But if guns are made at a gun factory, why aren't the people in there being shot all the time?

Reely mks u think.

 

[silicavaginitis]

But if guns are made at a gun factory, why aren't the people in there being shot all the time?

Reely mks u think.

So we both agree it's not the firearms.

 

[BrianFantana]

So we both agree it's not the firearms.

But if a gun is a gun, why aren't more guns getting shot?

Rly mk u tnk.

 

[My Spot]

I wonder if BrianFantana has contacted his Representative and 2 Senators about introducing legislation to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

 

[oldshadow]

OK, I'm writing this on the basis you did some reading and understand the distinction between the concepts.

The reason strict liability poses such a problem is that it removes considerations of intent, wilfulness, recklessness, and negligence from an analysis of criminal conduct. It poses immediate sentences for breaking a law. The reason it's confined to summary (non-felony) offences is because levying a fine does not result in a restriction of liberty, which, as you will recall, is guaranteed under the Constitution, but for reasonable limits.

So, we assume, rightly or wrongly, that people carrying non-licenced weapons are carrying them in order to commit crimes. We do not consider that they carry them for the same reasons people with licenced weapons do: self-defence. And, given the conditions and circumstances many of these offenders live in, they are more likely to face a situation where they will require a weapon in self-defence than someone like me would.

By removing considerations of intent, wilfulness, recklessness, and negligence from the equation, we are sentencing people to jail terms not for having wronged anyone, but for having contravened a law. It removes any discretion from a judge or jury to consider the alleged offender's intent, and infringes on their Constitutional rights to a fair trial and representation, and liberty.

These may not concern you, but they do concern me a great deal. It's an authoritarian system and it does not reflect the values on which the legal system is based.

I understand your concerns but l do not agree with it.

The self-defence aspect would be greatly reduced because the other felons in their area would be under the same law.

This is not a new law it is just giving the old one more teeth, right now it has no teeth.

 

[BrianFantana]

I wonder if BrianFantana has contacted his Representative and 2 Senators about introducing legislation to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder if you're capable of a level of discourse beyond aimless pot shots into a void of nothingness.

 

[BrianFantana]

I understand your concerns but l do not agree with it.

The self-defence aspect would be greatly reduced because the other felons in their area would be under the same law.

This is not a new law it is just giving the old one more teeth, right now it has no teeth.

You don't agree that the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process is a profound and fundamental constitutional right?

I would urge you to reconsider that position.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Its not Chicago -- its a small sections within the city and its pretty contained within the those areas. Also, the death toll numbers have been cut dramatically since the 80's and 90's -- thanks in large part to the reduction of lead based products.

And, really, who gives a shit? If the poor underclass filled with the criminal element want to kill each other, so be it. I say the objective is to keep in contained so it doesn't spread to affect the productive populaces. I say open up some more abortion clinics to help speed along the process and let them tear each other apart.

Less cops in these areas, less trials, less public defenders, more dead in the underclass -- all saves money.

 

[oldshadow]

You don't agree that the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process is a profound and fundamental constitutional right?

I would urge you to reconsider that position.

They get due process and if convicted of the crime they receive the pentialty.

They know before they put that gun in their pocket they are breaking the law and the consequences.

If I am speeding and get caught I take the ticket and shut up because I know what the consequences of speeding are,

 

[BrianFantana]

They get due process and if convicted of the crime they receive the pentialty.

They know before they put that gun in their pocket they are breaking the law and the consequences.

If I am speeding and get caught I take the ticket and shut up because I know what the consequences of speeding are,

The consequences of speeding are not an automatic jail sentence.

When the consequences are a deprivation of liberty (jail), there is a constitutional right to a trial. This proposal effectively circumvents a trial by making it a strict liability offense.

Frankly, if you want to steadfastly defend the Constitution, you're going to have to take the whole thing.

 

[oldshadow]

The consequences of speeding are not an automatic jail sentence.

When the consequences are a deprivation of liberty (jail), there is a constitutional right to a trial. This proposal effectively circumvents a trial by making it a strict liability offense.

Frankly, if you want to steadfastly defend the Constitution, you're going to have to take the whole thing.

They get a trial unless they plead guilty. If they are found guilty then they pay the penalty.

They get due process with everything that comes with.

So where is the constitutional problem.

The only one you can try and bring up is the 8th and that will not stand.

 

[BrianFantana]

They get a trial unless they plead guilty. If they are found guilty then they pay the penalty.

They get due process with everything that comes with.

So where is the constitutional problem.

The only one you can try and bring up is the 8th and that will not stand.

No, they do not. Depriving people of the defences available to them through imposition of strict liability is why several laws have been declared unconstitutional; they are not permitted to mount a defence, meaning they are not granted a fair trial, meaning there is not due process.

 

[oldshadow]

No, they do not. Depriving people of the defences available to them through imposition of strict liability is why several laws have been declared unconstitutional; they are not permitted to mount a defence, meaning they are not granted a fair trial, meaning there is not due process.

They can use any defence they want the only thing they have set or should set stronger is the sentence they get if they are found guilty.


http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/28/u...datory-life-term-is-upheld-in-drug-cases.html


If there is a mandentory sentence for rape that doesn't stop any defence the court allows.

 

[My Spot]

I wonder if you're capable of a level of discourse beyond aimless pot shots into a void of nothingness.

So is that a yes or no? I mean, isn't that better than protesting and screaming about guns until you're blue in the face?