CA - State Senate passed, lower sentences, felons used a gun

[RicInOR]

Proof CA Democrats Prefer Criminals Over Legal Gun Owners

Thursday, in a move that absolutely defies the slightest semblance of logic, the Democrat controlled California State Senate passed a measure that will lower the sentences for felons who used a gun in the commission of their crimes.

As a career California cop, and a gun owner, the passage of this bill conveys a special message. It tells me that these Democrat politicians are more concerned with the lives of convicted felons who used a gun in the commission of their crime than they are about law abiding gun owners who are guilty of nothing more than the unspeakable act of merely owning a gun. There really is no other way to logically interpret this. To them, law abiding gun owners are bad, but using a gun in the commission of a felony is acceptable.

Read More

 

[coop44]

Insanity

 

[HB of CJ]

Actually that make sense. As a Libertarian I have always wondered how the means or method makes any difference how a crime was committed. Kinda like punishing an object and not the person, then blaming the person more. Do we see any additional time given for using knifes, cars, bats, clubs, etc.? I also have a problem with the definition of a "hate crime". Just me. Respectfully.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

we need stiffer punishment for gun related crime.


just sayin

 

[Ura-Ki]

 

[nammac]

How is it that criminals have rights but their victims don't?

The whole dang system and process are upside down...

 

[albin25]

They're politicians....
...and are just extending a little bit of professional courtesy to some associates.

 

[HB of CJ]

albin25 nailed it and thank you. Partners in Crime.

 

[3MTA3]

Actually that make sense. As a Libertarian I have always wondered how the means or method makes any difference how a crime was committed. Kinda like punishing an object and not the person, then blaming the person more. Do we see any additional time given for using knifes, cars, bats, clubs, etc.? I also have a problem with the definition of a "hate crime". Just me. Respectfully.

Hate crime bothers me too, but the reason for stiffer penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime is to convince the criminal to use something less lethal that has a lesser chance of the criminal killing someone. If you want the crimes to all be considered the same then elevate the crimes using ANY weapon to the same status as a gun, and not lower sentencing regulations.

Seems Californians may need firearms more to protect themselves from their lawmakers than from the criminals the lawmakers won't crack down on.

Quick question for California members: Do convicted criminals in California get unemployment during the time they are incarcerated since it prevents them from their normal employment of stealing, robbing, and selling drugs and other illegal things? Seems the logical next step for the legislation above.

 

[awshoot]

Actually that make sense. As a Libertarian I have always wondered how the means or method makes any difference how a crime was committed. Kinda like punishing an object and not the person, then blaming the person more. Do we see any additional time given for using knifes, cars, bats, clubs, etc.? I also have a problem with the definition of a "hate crime". Just me. Respectfully.

I'm in the camp that thinks the US over-criminalizes. It's why we have more people in prison (on an absolute basis, not merely per capita) than any other nation on earth, even repressive regimes like China where our total population fits in the margin of error for population estimates there.

However, I do think that the weapon used makes a difference in evaluating violent crime. A kid who pockets a candy bar and runs away with it is doing something much more forgivable than the one who holds up a pocket knife to a clerk and demands a Snickers, an act which is also lesser than pointing a pistol at the clerk's head and demanding that candy bar. In each of these three cases there are varying levels of risk to the public, from near zero with shoplifter (he could bump into someone which could cause injury), to a wounding requiring medical care with the pocket knife (although death is a possibility), to instant almost assured death with a bullet to the head. It makes sense to treat these differently even if the end case is only a lost candy bar.

 

[Stomper]

Let them eat cake.

 

[MrMillspecer]

I lost my Baby Ruth in a pool once.

 

[Caveman Jim]

SMFH....

 

[Stomper]

SMFH....

I had to look that one up... LMAO!!

 

[RicInOR]

Actually that make sense. As a Libertarian I have always wondered how the means or method makes any difference how a crime was committed. Kinda like punishing an object and not the person, then blaming the person more. Do we see any additional time given for using knifes, cars, bats, clubs, etc.? I also have a problem with the definition of a "hate crime". Just me. Respectfully.

There are lots of problems with intent. But our law requires it.
Kill someone. Going free, or to Death Row, depends upon intent.

When you hear of some s'muck who had a screwdriver in his pocket (not hand) when he shop lifted a candy bar, getting a felony conviction - because of the weapon - you have to have some sympathy.

So, to answer your question, yes, we see more sever charges when the perpetrator has or uses a weapon (object)



Of course, there is a tangent to this story, involving the unexpected guests of the USA. If they commit certain crimes, they won't be charges such that they won't get deported. Feel good for them.

 

[awshoot]

... When you hear of some s'muck who had a screwdriver in his pocket (not hand) when he shop lifted a candy bar, getting a felony conviction - because of the weapon - you have to have some sympathy. ...

Absolutely agree with you on this.

 

[DuneHopper]

When is that place breaking off into the Pacific?????