Robber shot during robbery by concealed carrier

#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
Orlando Sentinel

Father of four killed in driveway for no reason. Yay guns.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

PINE HILLS..

For the non central Florida residents this is the old nice area from the 50's/60's that was overrun with Obama voting types not to long ago and became murder central in Orlando.

So you should really be saying 1.) Yay black people thug life & 2.) Yay Obama voters thug life & 3.) Yay thievery because there is 0.1% chance these turds actually bought the weapons they used legally.

This has more to do with black thug culture, terrible aim and night vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#57
#57
FLVOL_79 said:
Did you read the article?

PINE HILLS..

For the non central Florida residents this is the old nice area from the 50's/60's that was overrun with Obama voting types not to long ago and became murder central in Orlando.

So you should really be saying 1.) Yay black people thug life & 2.) Yay Obama voters thug life & 3.) Yay thievery because there is 0.1% chance these turds actually bought the weapons they used legally.

This has more to do with black thug culture, terrible aim and night vision.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "disenfranchised urban youth".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
volmaverick said:
IF Ted Bundy had been shot and killed by one of the many girls he was trying to rape and kill..TRUT would want the girl arrested and tried!
Click to expand...

Indeed. Trials should establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Why are you against a system that establishes facts of events which result in death?

Further, I have said nothing of the sort regarding 'arrest'. I do not think arresting someone is necessary to trying them; thus, I also do not think detaining someone is necessary. I do think that when someone is killed, though, it merits very close and public scrutiny of the event, and that purpose is served by a trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
therealUT said:
Indeed. Trials should establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Why are you against a system that establishes facts of events which result in death?

Further, I have said nothing of the sort regarding 'arrest'. I do not think arresting someone is necessary to trying them; thus, I also do not think detaining someone is necessary. I do think that when someone is killed, though, it merits very close and public scrutiny of the event, and that purpose is served by a trial.
Click to expand...

One huge flaw in your proposal;

1- It's advantageous to prosecutors to convict people, all of them tout their conviction rates while running for reelection. That would have to change.
 
#60
#60
hog88 said:
One huge flaw in your proposal;

1- It's advantageous to prosecutors to convict people, all of them tout their conviction rates while running for reelection. That would have to change.
Click to expand...

Correct. But, I think it is quite obvious to most in here that I feel the entire justice system requires major overhauls.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
Further, I have said nothing of the sort regarding 'arrest'. I do not think arresting someone is necessary to trying them; thus, I also do not think detaining someone is necessary. I do think that when someone is killed, though, it merits very close and public scrutiny of the event, and that purpose is served by a trial.
Click to expand...

so the Ted Bundys and Green River Killer types of this country when caught should not be arrested and held without bail?

And some call you smart? My God!
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
Indeed. Trials should establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Why are you against a system that establishes facts of events which result in death?

Further, I have said nothing of the sort regarding 'arrest'. I do not think arresting someone is necessary to trying them; thus, I also do not think detaining someone is necessary. I do think that when someone is killed, though, it merits very close and public scrutiny of the event, and that purpose is served by a trial.
Click to expand...

So trials in absentia? In my unprofessional opinion that would just make the "justice system" more of a joke.
 
#64
#64
FLVOL_79 said:
So trials in absentia? In my unprofessional opinion that would just make the "justice system" more of a joke.
Click to expand...

Yep I'm sure the Ted Bundy type with money is going to stick around for court! LOL..MY GOD

with trut way of thinking Bundy would have never faced trial thus free to kill even more
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
volmaverick said:
so the Ted Bundys and Green River Killer types of this country when caught should not be arrested and held without bail?

And some call you smart? My God!
Click to expand...

Correct. Provide your own defense.

FLVOL_79 said:
So trials in absentia? In my unprofessional opinion that would just make the "justice system" more of a joke.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily trials in absentia. The defendant would be notified that they are going to be tried and the defendant would have every opportunity to plead their case; it is just not necessary that they do.
 
#66
#66
volmaverick said:
Yep I'm sure the Ted Bundy type with money is going to stick around for court! LOL..MY GOD

with trut way of thinking Bundy would have never faced trial thus free to kill even more
Click to expand...

You do know that if the 'Ted Bundy type with money' does not appear to defend himself, he will basically have no defense against whatever argument and evidence the prosecution provides. You know this, correct?

Wait, nevermind, you do not know this. Now you do. You're welcome.
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
You do know that if the 'Ted Bundy type with money' does not appear to defend himself, he will basically have no defense against whatever argument and evidence the prosecution provides.

.
Click to expand...

WOW.. THAT SHOULD BE A DETERRENT

I'm sure someone that has killed 10 to 20 people is really worried about that! that's why he escaped to begin with! He was worried about the prosecution using escspe and running against him.Lol god help us
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
volmaverick said:
WOW.. THAT SHOULD BE A DETERRENT

I'm sure someone that has killed 10 to 20 people is really worried about that!
Click to expand...

So, once again, your pea-sized brain has failed you. The trials would still produce verdicts; and, nothing I've said has precluded those verdicts from entailing sentences. The difference is, nobody would be locked away before having been convicted of a crime in my system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
therealUT said:
nobody would be locked away before having been convicted of a crime in my system.
Click to expand...

and the Ted Bundy types would never face trial in your system

or are they just going to be nice little law abiding citizens and show up in court and bring cookies for everyone?

You're going to sit here and tell everybody on this fourm that Ted Bundy would have showed up for court?
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
volmaverick said:
and the Ted Bundy types would never face trial in your system

or are they just going to be nice little law abiding citizens and show up in court and bring cookies for everyone?

You're going to sit here and tell everybody on this fourm that Ted Bundy would have showed up for court?
Click to expand...

What are you failing to understand? They would be tried. If convicted, then they would be arrested. If that requires constant surveillance from the time they are charged through conviction, so be it. The Bundy case is terrible for you since he escaped detention anyway.
 
#71
#71
therealUT said:
What are you failing to understand? They would be tried. If convicted, then they would be arrested. If that requires constant surveillance from the time they are charged through conviction, so be it. The Bundy case is terrible for you since he escaped detention anyway.
Click to expand...


So no one ever gets arrested in your system till after conviction?

I guess we give DUI tickets and let them go on their way
 
Last edited:
#72
#72
therealUT said:
What are you failing to understand? They would be tried. If convicted, then they would be arrested. If that requires constant surveillance from the time they are charged through conviction, so be it. The Bundy case is terrible for you since he escaped detention anyway.
Click to expand...

You're view is either not feasible or you're contradicting yourself. Or both.
 
#73
#73
volmaverick said:
So no one ever gets arrested in your system till after conviction?

I guess we give DUI tickets and let them go on their way
Click to expand...

Correct, no one is arrested and imprisoned against their will without proof of their having committed a crime being demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of their peers.

govols/cc said:
You're view is either not feasible or you're contradicting yourself. Or both.
Click to expand...

If you are going to charge someone with having committed a contradiction, you ought to point out the contradiction. Feel free to do so.

As for the feasibility aspect, it is not unfeasible. It would take a great paradigm shift, as well as a shift of resources (not necessarily more costs, just different costs). Take the following sequence of events:

1. A crime occurs.
2. The crime is investigated.
3. Suspects are identified
4. Primary suspect is charged.
5. Primary suspect is notified of the charge.
6. Primary suspect placed under constant surveillance (so long as he moves about in public, anyone is permitted to follow and watch)
7. Trial begins
8. Verdict of guilty is reached.
9. Sentencing is decided.
10. The now guilty party is arrested.

One might argue that the suspect will flee upon notification of the charges, but that is not a different worry than suspects fleeing when they are aware they are suspects. Most simply do not have the resources to do so; those that do, usually are deluded to think they are too smart to be found out, charged, convicted, etc. The former pose no problem; the latter would still think they are too smart to be convicted (hell, they might even appear in court to defend themselves). For the few that have the resources and feel they would be convicted, one worry is that they flee the US. Is that a problem? If all the criminals in our society fled to other societies, what is the problem, from the stand point of our society? Further, my view does not preclude international agreements, in which the surveillance team follows the charged individual to the airport, to the flight, and then calls ahead to whatever nation this individual is flying to; once he arrives, he is under surveillance there (easy to do considering flight numbers, itineraries, etc.) Of course, this takes a mass diversion of funds (but, funds for many jails would be free to use in such a way). It also would require US cooperation with foreign nations in a way that the US might not want to cooperate (one nation might think our drug laws arcane and not want to help enforce, but might do so on the condition that we help enforce their religious laws). Of course, this might just force the US to get rid of a bunch of arcane laws.

Is there anything unfeasible about holding a trial in absentia for the cases in which the defendant decides not to show up for trial? What is unfeasible? The prosecution would still present a case (an argument and evidence) to the jury; the burden of proof would still be on the prosecution; yet, no defense counsel would be there to poke holes in said argument. Seems like an incentive for individuals to show up in court.

But, I digress, you are the one who leveled the charges re: feasibility and contradiction. I guess it is you who ought to highlight what these consist of.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top