If you oppose the death penalty than you think an illegal alien cop killer is entitled...

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

Well, no, they have guns because they want to feel important as insecure bullies..

But anyway, stats show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, so there's that.

The reason for that is bad guys go through great lengths to insure nobody is home before they break in. Why? Because breaking into a possibly occupied home could easily get you killed. Not worth it to steal a playstation 4.

Take guns away from people and criminals would have little fear breaking into an occupied home. Even if you don't own a firearm, you are safer because of the people that do. Uncertainty plays a part here.

Years ago when I was in a local blog and our CCW laws were in consideration, I got into a debate with a guy (I'm assuming) just like you. He asked why I would like to see the law passed. I explained to him that my mother never had a drivers license in her life, and she walks everywhere. He then asked if the law passed, would my mother carry a gun with her? To that I replied "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

Well then. Your theory would mean states wh more gun ownership have fewer break ins .

I say that is bunk!

Occupied home break-ins? I would be willing to bet so. But it's not just having guns, it's laws that protect the innocent.

It was only a little over a decade ago that our laws allowed criminals to have the upper-hand when it came to home invasions. If you had the possibility to escape your own home, you were required by law to do so. However if you couldn't and used deadly force, you were still subject to lawsuits for damages done to the criminal or family if he was shot dead. That was even the case if a criminal broke into an unoccupied home and hurt himself once inside.

Our Castle Doctrine changed all that. You no longer have the duty to retreat. You can use deadly force at will. You will not be held liable for any accidents or killings. They even extended our Castle Doctrine to the vehicles of CCW holders. Breaking into my occupied car is no different than breaking into my occupied home.

CCW licenses are subject to reciprocity for states that wish to participate. However even if my license was legal in California or New York, I would never use my firearm because the state would not be behind me. I would be guilty (like it was in my state) until proven innocent. Here, it's just the opposite. A prosecutor needs a damn good reason to level a case against you.

 

[Rigby5]

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

{...
By the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament of 2 Ed. III (Statute of Northampton), and 5 Rich. II (Forcible Entry Act 1381) in law since 1381—which imposed criminal sanctions intending to discourage the resort to self-help.[8][9] This required a threatened party to retreat, whenever property was "involved" and resolve the issue by civil means.

Then as now, there were English politicians who were for or against the use of self-help over state-help. William Blackstone, in Book 4, Chapter 16[10] of his Commentaries on the Laws of England,[11] proclaims that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words:

And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[12] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?[13] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nuisancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.

— William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the Crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. It should be noted that prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.
...
On the American frontier
On the American frontier, the doctrine of no duty to retreat extended outside a residence. It asserted that a man in an altercation that he did not provoke was not obliged to flee from his attacker, but was free to stand his ground and defend himself. A state Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877,[14]

Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.

American West historian Richard M. Brown wrote that under the circumstances, for a man in the American West to flee under such circumstances would be cowardly and un-American. Legendary dentist and gambler Doc Holliday successfully used this defense when he shot Billy Allen as he entered a saloon. Holliday owed Allen $5 which Allen wanted paid and had threatened Holliday. Although Allen was unarmed at the time, Holliday had received reports that Allen had been armed and looking for him earlier in the day. During the subsequent trial, Holliday asserted he was within his rights and the jury agreed. He was acquitted on March 28, 1885.[14]

Current position
Today, the penal and civil forcible-entry laws of most American states forbid the use of force in the recovery of possession of land.[15] At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide,[16] not a permission or pretext to commit homicide—which is generally unlawful. A minority of states, permit individuals who have the right of immediate possession of land to use reasonable force to regain possession of that land.[17]

The term "make my day law" came to be used in the United States in 1985 when Colorado passed a law that shielded people from any criminal or civil liability for using force against a home invader, including deadly force.[18] (The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" (meaning 'do something so I have an excuse to kill you') uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty Harry" Callahan in the 1983 police film Sudden Impact.)
...}

 

[Rigby5]

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

The gun is merely an object.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

Righty logic : Guns don’t kill people , immigration status kills people .

People die because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

I’m pretty sure that cop was armed .

And if he was unarmed, would that have been safer?

 

[Rigby5]

People die because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

No, people die because the presence of a gun changes a petty argument into a tragedy.

That makes no sense at all.
If a petty argument can turn deadly, then it would still always anyway, because there are plenty of knives, pipes, hammers, etc.
Guns are the last thing people think of because they are complicated. You have to load, rack, turn off the safety, etc.
The high homicide figures are deliberately false.
For example, London has a higher homicide rate than NYC currently.
But the cause of homicides have nothing at all to do with the access of weapons, and weapons in all countries are essentially ubiquitous.
The causes of homicides are injustice, lack of opportunity, inequality, explotation, etc.
In no way has any study EVER remotely shown firearms to ever cause any crime anywhere.
And many countries with higher firearm per person rates, like Switzerland and Israel, have much lower homicide rates.

 

[Rigby5]

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

Well, no, they have guns because they want to feel important as insecure bullies..

But anyway, stats show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, so there's that.

The reason for that is bad guys go through great lengths to insure nobody is home before they break in. Why? Because breaking into a possibly occupied home could easily get you killed. Not worth it to steal a playstation 4.

Take guns away from people and criminals would have little fear breaking into an occupied home. Even if you don't own a firearm, you are safer because of the people that do. Uncertainty plays a part here.

Years ago when I was in a local blog and our CCW laws were in consideration, I got into a debate with a guy (I'm assuming) just like you. He asked why I would like to see the law passed. I explained to him that my mother never had a drivers license in her life, and she walks everywhere. He then asked if the law passed, would my mother carry a gun with her? To that I replied "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

Well then. Your theory would mean states wh more gun ownership have fewer break ins .

I say that is bunk!

That is true.
States like Idaho or Alaska, with higher rates of being armed, have a much lower break in rate.
Cities like Chicago, NYC, and DC, that try to essentially ban all guns, have the highest break in rates.

 

[Rigby5]

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

Well, no, they have guns because they want to feel important as insecure bullies..

But anyway, stats show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, so there's that.

That is total nonsense.
There is no basis for that claim at all.
And you are not even quoting it correctly.
The claim is that if you have a gun you are 17 times more likely to get shot.
And the real basis for that claim even, it the illogical correlation from the fact those who buy and own guns are those who live in very dangerous neighborhoods and that is what causes them to be more likely to get shot.

Insecure bullies would never risk getting shot by someone who was armed.
So then clearly the solution if more arms, not fewer.

 

[McRocket]

....to free room and board for life at taxpayer expense.

I'm sorry, but that does NOT cut it.

I am 100% against the death penalty because I don't think the state should have the right to murder ANYONE - a criminal or otherwise (outside of a DECLARED war which is - theoretically - soldiers vs. other soldiers).

And BTW, it is cheaper to incarcerate someone for life then for the state to execute them - so your argument is completely out the window.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614

'Much to the surprise of many who, logically, would assume that shortening someone's life should be cheaper than paying for it until natural expiration, it turns out that it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute them. In fact, it is almost 10 times cheaper! One might ask, “how can that be?”'

 

[JoeB131]

The reason for that is bad guys go through great lengths to insure nobody is home before they break in. Why? Because breaking into a possibly occupied home could easily get you killed. Not worth it to steal a playstation 4.

um, no, the main reason why they do is because when someone is home, it moves up to home invasion and it's a much heavier penalty. Also greater chance they'll be identified....

Not because they are worried about your penis compensator.

Take guns away from people and criminals would have little fear breaking into an occupied home. Even if you don't own a firearm, you are safer because of the people that do. Uncertainty plays a part here.

Uh, most gun deaths aren't criminals shooting people, it's people shooting themselves or each other. Again, 43 times more likely to kill a household member. The NRA was so shocked by this study they made sure no one ever studied this again!!!

Years ago when I was in a local blog and our CCW laws were in consideration, I got into a debate with a guy (I'm assuming) just like you. He asked why I would like to see the law passed. I explained to him that my mother never had a drivers license in her life, and she walks everywhere. He then asked if the law passed, would my mother carry a gun with her? To that I replied "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

Criminals have very little fear from your gun.. They always have the advantage of initiative.

Here's the thing... all those countries where they have gun control... They all have a lot less crime than we do.

(Waiting for Ray to say something stupid and racist, in three, two, one)

 

[JoeB131]

That is total nonsense.
There is no basis for that claim at all.
And you are not even quoting it correctly.

Um, no, i'm quoting the Kellerman Study.. Look it up and get back to me when you know what you are talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

That's what I thought, long before we had more ability to provide undisputed evidence. At least you admitted to it.

It wasn't undisputed evidence... They were absolutely convinced these 13 guys killed someone.

So how did they get convicted? Corrupt Cops, incompetent defense lawyers, prosecutors who were looking to glorify themselves.

We still have all those things today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's what I thought, long before we had more ability to provide undisputed evidence. At least you admitted to it.

It wasn't undisputed evidence... They were absolutely convinced these 13 guys killed someone.

So how did they get convicted? Corrupt Cops, incompetent defense lawyers, prosecutors who were looking to glorify themselves.

We still have all those things today.

Not really. Years ago an eye witness was good enough in some cases. Circumstantial evidence was another one.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really. Years ago an eye witness was good enough in some cases. Circumstantial evidence was another one.

Most cases are still made on those.

One more time, how do you get rid of corrupt cops, incompetent defense lawyers and overzealous prosecutors.

Those are the main reasons why people get wrongfully convicted.

Obviously, we are nowhere near getting rid of corrupt cops... we can have video tape of them shooting unarmed children, and there will always be a racist asshole like you defending them.

And it's not like we are going to set aside enough money for every poor defendant to get a "Dream Team" like OJ got.

And as long as prosecutors are elected officials, there will always be that pressure to convict people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Criminals have very little fear from your gun.. They always have the advantage of initiative.

Here's the thing... all those countries where they have gun control... They all have a lot less crime than we do.

(Waiting for Ray to say something stupid and racist, in three, two, one)

Facts are stupid to you because you refuse to believe them, so it's really a waste of time providing links. It's like providing links to a child that Santa Clause doesn't exist. In the mind of a leftist, if a gun is not available, it stops all ability for a person to commit murder.

Uh, most gun deaths aren't criminals shooting people, it's people shooting themselves or each other. Again, 43 times more likely to kill a household member. The NRA was so shocked by this study they made sure no one ever studied this again!!!

Really? And just how did they do that? Hold a gun on anybody that tried?

 

[JoeB131]

Facts are stupid to you because you refuse to believe them, so it's really a waste of time providing links. It's like providing links to a child that Santa Clause doesn't exist. In the mind of a leftist, if a gun is not available, it stops all ability for a person to commit murder.

Yes, yes, that's exactly my point. If you don't have a gun, it's a LOT HARDER to kill someone. You might even have time to think about what a bad idea it is.

Point is, if Guns and prisons made us safer, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the Industrialized World, not the highest.

Really? And just how did they do that? Hold a gun on anybody that tried?

Got the CDC to end all guns studies... that's how they did it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. Years ago an eye witness was good enough in some cases. Circumstantial evidence was another one.

Most cases are still made on those.

One more time, how do you get rid of corrupt cops, incompetent defense lawyers and overzealous prosecutors.

Those are the main reasons why people get wrongfully convicted.

Obviously, we are nowhere near getting rid of corrupt cops... we can have video tape of them shooting unarmed children, and there will always be a racist asshole like you defending them.

And it's not like we are going to set aside enough money for every poor defendant to get a "Dream Team" like OJ got.

And as long as prosecutors are elected officials, there will always be that pressure to convict people.

Duh! Just like defense lawyers will always take the side of the criminal. Hint: It's their job!

I know you'd love to live in a country where you can make up laws as you deem proper, but we don't do that in a civilized world, we do that in jungles and places unknown to most men. In a civilized society, laws are created and we all follow them be they in our favor or against. We also live in a country where evidence is needed to prosecute a case. That's the one liberals hate the most.

In Joe's world, a cop is not allowed to use deadly force unless it's a white cop doing so with a suspect of his own race, and that suspect was only within microseconds of killing the police officer first. If a suspect starts fighting with an officer, the officer is just supposed to stop contact and allow the criminal run away. And a police officer would not be allowed to use deadly force unless equal force was being used against him.

Of course nobody would be stupid enough to accept a job as a police officer in Joe's world, so chaos would ensue on a consistent bases. Instead of doing the logical thing like having a real authority to protect the innocent people, you would disarm the public thinking the criminal would happily give up their gun just to make things equal for the victims.

To some degree you had your way, it's called the Ferguson effect, and since it's inception, violent crime and murder increased in most cities because police no longer wanted to go the extra mile and stop crime before it happened. Now police wait until they are summoned after the crime is committed. Prior to the Ferguson effect, gun violence and violent crime were on the decline in the US since the early 90's. But of course, we can't blame it on that, it must have been purely coincidental.

 

[JoeB131]

Duh! Just like defense lawyers will always take the side of the criminal. Hint: It's their job!

I know you'd love to live in a country where you can make up laws as you deem proper, but we don't do that in a civilized world, we do that in jungles and places unknown to most men. In a civilized society, laws are created and we all follow them be they in our favor or against. We also live in a country where evidence is needed to prosecute a case. That's the one liberals hate the most.

Uh, guy, the problem is, we arent' following our own laws. Our laws say that every defendent should have representation, but public defenders offices are overworked, understaffed and only employ the lawyers no one else would hire. Which is how you get 13 people in IL sent to DEATH ROW for things they didn't do.

In fact, there have been 164 exonerations across the US for DP cases. compared to 1450 people executed. That means for every 9 people we've put to death, one person was wrongly convicted and put on death row.

How the fuck is this 'civilized'?

In Joe's world, a cop is not allowed to use deadly force unless it's a white cop doing so with a suspect of his own race, and that suspect was only within microseconds of killing the police officer first. If a suspect starts fighting with an officer, the officer is just supposed to stop contact and allow the criminal run away. And a police officer would not be allowed to use deadly force unless equal force was being used against him.

In Joes' world, when you shoot a child, you go to prison. Even if you are cop.

Here's the thing, I don't dispute most of the 1200 police killings of civilians were legal under guidelines. It's when you get cases like Mike Brown, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, LaQuan McDonald where the cops were clearly in the wrong and the system defends them anyway. If we treated all criminals like these cops, we'd never put anyone in jail.

To some degree you had your way, it's called the Ferguson effect

There was no Ferguson effect. If a cop isn't doing his job, FIRE HIS ASS!

What you do have is a problem where the police aren't trusted, so people don't report crimes, don't come forward as witnesses and don't get involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh, guy, the problem is, we arent' following our own laws. Our laws say that every defendent should have representation, but public defenders offices are overworked, understaffed and only employ the lawyers no one else would hire. Which is how you get 13 people in IL sent to DEATH ROW for things they didn't do.

In fact, there have been 164 exonerations across the US for DP cases. compared to 1450 people executed. That means for every 9 people we've put to death, one person was wrongly convicted and put on death row.

How the fuck is this 'civilized'?

What we taxpayers do is provide a public defender. If you want to hire your own, you are more than welcome to do it. But taxpayers are not going to pay the best defense lawyers who not only charge us over a million dollars a year, but able to free criminals that will be let out back into society just like OJ Simpson.

In Joes' world, when you shoot a child, you go to prison. Even if you are cop.

Here's the thing, I don't dispute most of the 1200 police killings of civilians were legal under guidelines. It's when you get cases like Mike Brown, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, LaQuan McDonald where the cops were clearly in the wrong and the system defends them anyway. If we treated all criminals like these cops, we'd never put anyone in jail.

And there you go, it's not about law with you leftists, it's about what you approve or disapprove of just like the lawless jungle. You should move there if that's the way you feel, because over here in a civilized world, we have laws, and you can't send somebody to jail when they didn't break any laws. We don't send people to prison because a leftist doesn't like an outcome of a situation.

There was no Ferguson effect. If a cop isn't doing his job, FIRE HIS ASS!

What you do have is a problem where the police aren't trusted, so people don't report crimes, don't come forward as witnesses and don't get involved.

That only takes place in black areas. It's what I call the Code of Stupidity. Don't cooperate with police and stop them from apprehending the people that are causing you harm because you hate them so much.

In middle-class white neighborhoods, that doesn't happen. That's one of the reasons there's less crime. We fully cooperate AND TRUST our police and expect them to do their job......speaking of which.

Police officers have a lot of leeway when it comes to law enforcement. They can do the extras or they can only respond when asked to. If they don't do the extras, they don't prevent crime, that's when things go to hell, and you can't expect officers to go the extra mile when you have Democrats and the MSM around.

So you can't fire a police officer that does his job, but doesn't put his heart into it. WTF would a cop stop somebody for a traffic violation, get in a physical fight with a black guy who doesn't want to cooperate, and end up having a target on his back thanks to the Democrats and the MSM? Nobody wants to do that. If you want police to go the extra mile, you have to give those officers your total support. If you are going to condemn them for doing their job, they are going to do the minimal possible, and nobody can blame them.

It's like what GW once said: you are either with us--or you are against us.

 

[rightwinger]

....to free room and board for life at taxpayer expense.

I'm sorry, but that does NOT cut it.

Yes.....just like any other criminal

Even Mexico is too civilized to execute people

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

....to free room and board for life at taxpayer expense.

I'm sorry, but that does NOT cut it.

Yes.....just like any other criminal

Even Mexico is too civilized to execute people

Correct, and look at how orderly and law abiding the people in Mexico are. Their only problem are US citizens jumping their borders and selling drugs to their people. Outside of that, everybody is trying to get into Mexico.

 

[JoeB131]

What we taxpayers do is provide a public defender. If you want to hire your own, you are more than welcome to do it. But taxpayers are not going to pay the best defense lawyers who not only charge us over a million dollars a year, but able to free criminals that will be let out back into society just like OJ Simpson.

Why not? The sixth amendment guarantees the right to defense...

What OJ proved is how much the Police and Prosecutors really suck at their jobs, when forcefully challenged.

And there you go, it's not about law with you leftists, it's about what you approve or disapprove of just like the lawless jungle. You should move there if that's the way you feel, because over here in a civilized world, we have laws, and you can't send somebody to jail when they didn't break any laws. We don't send people to prison because a leftist doesn't like an outcome of a situation.

Except they did break laws. Last time I checked, shooting a child is against the law. I know i'd go to jail if I did it. so should cops.

That only takes place in black areas. It's what I call the Code of Stupidity. Don't cooperate with police and stop them from apprehending the people that are causing you harm because you hate them so much.

Or you don't trust the cops to cause more harm than good. You think the person who called Cleveland and said, "Hey, he's playing with a toy gun in the park" didn't feel real awful when they sent the mentally ill guy out who shot him at point blank range?

In middle-class white neighborhoods, that doesn't happen. That's one of the reasons there's less crime. We fully cooperate AND TRUST our police and expect them to do their job......speaking of which.

That an the police know they get in trouble when they shoot white kids.

So you can't fire a police officer that does his job, but doesn't put his heart into it. WTF would a cop stop somebody for a traffic violation, get in a physical fight with a black guy who doesn't want to cooperate, and end up having a target on his back thanks to the Democrats and the MSM?

Again, considering most of those "traffic violations' are "Driving while black", I don't have a problem with not doing them.

If you are such a racist fuck you can't treat the community with respect, maybe you'd be happier doing something else for a living.