Ferguson discussion thread (FERGUDISHU)

[cclaxton]

New Jersey has even stiffer penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and we still have 3 of the top 10 most violent cities in the US (depending on which report/year youre reading).

Correlation doea not equal causation.

I think the point I was making is that it was a combination of improved training for Richmond police and the higher penalties.
I am concerned that old hippies that have shotguns for hunting and get caught with personal weed might be punished too harshly.
Cody

[Mr_White]

Not sure I agree. Reading the article reminded me of my agency's training program. We do a lot of training that includes case studies like the article mentioned. We do a lot of shooting (compared to other agencies), DT and also quite a bit of force on force. I think giving guys the training that we do allows guys to understand the law better and also to make quicker, better decisions than officer who barely train. We have gone completely away from the "use of force continuum" and now train to the constitutional standard of "object reasonableness". Now our guys have to think past the "the continuum says I can" mindset and now REALLY justify what they have done. But I truly believe that agencies who train their officers better in the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements for using force will see better results overall and fewer controversial uses of force. Which may be what happened here.

But some places are just shit holes and no matter what, the cops are gonna shoot people. And be justified doing it.

Like I said, hopefully I am reading the article wrong. There were several elements of the article that prompted my comment.

[Josh Runkle]

I am concerned that old hippies that have shotguns for hunting and get caught with personal weed might be punished too harshly.
Cody

You are concerned that people who break the law would be punished by the law if their intentions are less harmful?

So, if they murdered someone, but the person they murdered was like a bad person who deserved it, they shouldn't be punished as harshly?

Or if they steal a car, but they really only want to joyride around in it and return it, they shouldn't be punished as harshly as if they wanted to keep it?

[cclaxton]

You are concerned that people who break the law would be punished by the law if their intentions are less harmful?

So, if they murdered someone, but the person they murdered was like a bad person who deserved it, they shouldn't be punished as harshly?

Or if they steal a car, but they really only want to joyride around in it and return it, they shouldn't be punished as harshly as if they wanted to keep it?

Well, my own personal opinion is that these are entirely different things. If they were the same we only need one law. Laws are built to try and encourage behavior in the right direction and punish it in the wrong direction. The problem is that many times laws have unintended consequences for those that the law is really not intended to punish. The law was intended to get drug dealers to stop carrying guns, which results in less shootouts between rival dealers. The law was not intended to put casual weed smokers in prison for 5 years because he happens to own firearms, but it could apply to them.
Cody

[GardoneVT]

Well, my own personal opinion is that these are entirely different things. If they were the same we only need one law. Laws are built to try and encourage behavior in the right direction and punish it in the wrong direction. The problem is that many times laws have unintended consequences for those that the law is really not intended to punish. The law was intended to get drug dealers to stop carrying guns, which results in less shootouts between rival dealers. The law was not intended to put casual weed smokers in prison for 5 years because he happens to own firearms, but it could apply to them.
Cody

The biggest reason it seems drug dealers shoot each other has nothing directly to do with the law at all. Either its a commercial dispute which is being settled by ammunition instead of a court/lawsuit, or they've been raised to despise and mock law and order as "whitey's world".

Neither problem is the issue of the law. Its the issue of a society with economic and moral problems, ones regrettably useful to certain political parties at the moment.

[BaiHu]

Charles Barkley:

[TR675]

So, if they murdered someone, but the person they murdered was like a bad person who deserved it, they shouldn't be punished as harshly?

Or if they steal a car, but they really only want to joyride around in it and return it, they shouldn't be punished as harshly as if they wanted to keep it?

In a word, yes. The law takes intent and gravity of crimes into account during the punishment phase of criminal trials, as it should.

[cclaxton]

In a word, yes. The law takes intent and gravity of crimes into account during the punishment phase of criminal trials, as it should.

Well, it should. In this case it is a mandatory minimum 5 years unfortunately. I think mandatory minimums remove prosecutorial and judicial discretion.
Cody

[John Hearne]

The biggest reason it seems drug dealers shoot each other has nothing directly to do with the law at all. Either its a commercial dispute which is being settled by ammunition instead of a court/lawsuit, or they've been raised to despise and mock law and order as "whitey's world".

Check out "Gang Leader for a Day" by Sudhir Venkatesh. He spent years with the gangs in Chicago. One of the major reasons for drive by shootings was too much commercial success at a rival. They would go by and shoot in order to make customers feel unsafe and hope to secure some of those customers for themselves.

[SouthNarc]

Charles Barkley:

Man if Barkley ran for anything I'd vote for him.