This is a discussion on Enhanced Penalities for crimes? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Hopyard, I do not object to a JUDGE weighing mitigating and aggravating factors in a crime. That is, of course, their job. What I object ...
Hopyard, I do not object to a JUDGE weighing mitigating and aggravating factors in a crime. That is, of course, their job.
What I object to is that we have seen many crimes played up and over hyped in the media which were prosecuted as "hate crimes", such as Mathew Shepard's murder, and there have been other notorious crimes, with the perpetators and victims being of reversed races, which seemed MUCH, more demonstrably to be crimes of racism, and hatred, NOT prosecuted under similar applicable statutes, and very much BURIED by the mainstream Media. (Knoxville Massacre, Wichita Horror)
Evil acts deserve high punishment. I hope a good judge applies severe sentences to violent, hateful criminals, I do not want to see middling level crimes "enhanced" with manadory minimum additions because someone said a taboo word, or got into a conflict with someone of the wrong race.
We've seen that before, and it was wrong, then, too.
An irresponsible drunk carries a weapon and suddenly the prosecutor is shameless? A felony DUI would disqualify anyone in Arizona from acquiring or maintaining a concealed weapons permit. And frankly, anyone that is so irresponsible as to drink and drive should not be allowed to own a firearm.
This forum is becoming severely twisted. A drunk is hailed as a hero and the prosecutor should be hog tied, tarred and feathered. And many here support rebellion against a duly elected Constitutional government simply because they have irrational fears.
Shall we discuss the horrific consequences of drunk driving and their innocent victims? Or shall we elevate a drunk for the ONLY reason that he owns a gun?
I give full credit to the prosecutor for trying to keep a deadly weapon out of the hands of an irresponsible drunk. It is unfortunate that Minnesota has not limited ownership of firearms to responsible, law abiding citizens.
I guess my point is, an LEO isnt a protected class. He is only protected by stiffer penalty's during the course of serving the public. Flip side, the LEO is also subjected to more crime against him that cannot be prosecuted vs. that of the normal citizen.
Also, I argue that it is not a special anything to be protected by this law, LEO or elderly. You can become an LEO and "enjoy" the added protection just like I did. One day, hopefully, we all will be elderly too.
"Just blame Sixto"
I reserve the right to make fun, point and laugh etc.
I remember having to take a class on discrimination at my former workplace. A lawyer specializing in equal rights gave it. When we all were seated she looked around and remarked that none of us were covered or protected by the laws. She refused to discuss why.