The Answer to Cincy Crime:

[Duemellon]

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/05/17/loc_northside17.html

Aren't you so happy that vigilantism is back in vogue in Northside? I can't wait to walk down the street and be mistaken for a criminal and be shot as a "pre-emptive strike".

This is so great. Why didn't the po-po think of that before? Just arm the citizenry, especially the way this citizen described it:"Thank God!" said Rick Wiggins, 35, giving a thumbs-up sign. "He absolutely did the right thing. If there was a Harold McKinney on every block in Cincinnati, then there would be a lot less crime in this city. If it wasn't for Harold, we'd be dead." and the fact the law was broken in the first place, yet overlooked sends a clear message that conspiring to be a vigilante is condonedThe grand jury ignored charges of felonious assault and carrying a gun in a liquor establishment brought by Cincinnati police against McKinney, a member of Citizens on Patrol. and, good ol' Mike Allen, the wonderful man he is: Grand jury proceedings are secret, but Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen surmised members might have been trying to send a message.

"People in this community are fed up," Allen said. "This is a community that has had it with violent crime, and this individual took action." isn't that great?

So, everyone, gather up your own posse and start cleaning the streets, not only have the police been complacent.... err.. incapable,... no, what's the word... outmatched.. damnit it all sounds bad doesn't it...

Well, anyone, since crime is left to it's own devices, vigilante justice is THE WAY. And Mike Allen, the jurors, and our court system, will reward you with extensive interviews, get-out-of-jail-free cards regardless of any other laws you broke, and you will be responsible for cleaning our streets.

Show the police your support by doing their job.

WTG Cincy, WTfG.

in other news, a criminal tragedy:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BANK_ROBBERY?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME

In crime sometimes people get killed. However, we removed the ability for the average citizen to do something about it long ago because they weren't trained and our govn't took responsibility for protecting us.

If we can't rely on our govn't to protect us, the answer is not to "defend ourselves" it is to correct the govn't. Isn't the govn't supposed to be responsive to us: the people?

[Docta]

i was pretty disturbed by this too. i heard they got around him having a gun in a bar because he was carrying it for protection since a robbery happened in the same bar a few weeks before. he said he had it to "protect himself and his 6 year old daughter." um, protecting your daughter in the bar?

at first i thought this guy was the bar owner in which case this may be a different story but damn.

yes they say he acted "responsibly" with the gun only firing in defence when the armed robbers came into the bar. but i don't ever want to be in a bar where someone is drinking and has a gun in their possession. welcome to the wild west. more reasons to carry a firearm, wonderful.

[IPrayForSound]

I don't agree that what he did was right, but I think you hardly need to worry about walking "down the street and be(ing) mistaken for a criminal and...shot". Now, if you go into a bar with a mask on, take out a gun, and then demand cash in exchange for not pulling the trigger....well, maybe you should worry then.

[Duemellon]

I don't agree that what he did was right, but I think you hardly need to worry about walking "down the street and be(ing) mistaken for a criminal and...shot". Now, if you go into a bar with a mask on, take out a gun, and then demand cash in exchange for not pulling the trigger....well, maybe you should worry then.Obviously I dont have to worry abou that from THIS guy because he acted "responsibly" right?

It's the NEXT chap, u'kno? The one who doesn't want to WAIT to find out what happens? U'kno the type, the woman who thinks you're following her, when in fact you're really just going the same place. Or the one who dashes across the street when you're coming by and reaching into you pocket to check how much money you have...

No, it's not like that now, but when we get there THIS is what started it. I beg you to note and remember that.

[MonkeyGirl]

I actually go to this bar most Friday's. Didn't last night cause I've been ill.
I think shooting the guy in the head was a little extreme, but there seems to be a lot of support for him. The people in that area all express the same feeling- they're sick of this kind of shit happening and believe what Harold did is sending a message to other would-be robbers. I dunno. I don't think it's a "vigilante, let's all get our posse", sort of thing- that's getting a bit dramatic. Look at the situation for what it was, not for what you believe it will spiral out to be.

[Duemellon]

I don't think it's a "vigilante, let's all get our posse", sort of thing- that's getting a bit dramatic. Look at the situation for what it was, not for what you believe it will spiral out to be.vigilantiism is an inappropriate word. It implies some forethought, and I see it wasn't proper to use.

Taking this incident as isolated, it is still disturbing and should be codemned by our city's leaders in a clear and unwaivering fashion.

We removed the power of defending our city from our citizen's hands centuries ago. His reaction to the incident, although generally it turned out for the better, is still an amazingly bold slap in face of our police's capability.

He was strapped because he believed the police couldn't protect him. When he was proved RIGHT that the police can't protect him, the police are thanking him. Our city leaders are thanking him. Our judicial system is thanking him.

What our society has said is "We are incapable of protecting you,...

do it for yourself if you want it done right."

Isn't that tragic enough as an individual case? Now such a suggestion from the city implies they are ecnouraging others to follow in his footsteps. This cannot be viewed as an isolated incident because it is not being responded to in a way which can keep this an isolated incident.

[postfeminist]

i'm struggling a little bit on this one.

i agree with you, due...it sends a message that this guy is being praised for breaking the "firearm in a bar" law, but i'm also glad that the working class folks who hang out in Junker's weren't injured by the robbers.

My little-too-lefty-at-times leanings make me wish that the buses ran out to Indian Hill... *ducking & running*

-pf

[solomon]

This is so great. Why didn't the po-po think of that before? Just arm the citizenry

Exactly. You are being sarcastic, but this WOULD be the best way to deter crime.

and the fact the law was broken in the first place, yet overlooked sends a clear message that conspiring to be a vigilante is condoned

Ok, so hypothetically, lets say there is a law saying you can't swim in a certain lake, but you see a child drowning in it. After you rescue the child, do you think you should be charged for swimming in the lake? Doesn't this add a disincentive to saving an innocent's life?

complacent.... err.. incapable,... no, what's the word... outmatched.. damnit it all sounds bad doesn't it...

Yeah but it's true, and when they aren't complacent they raise their own risk for error and get nailed for making the wrong decisions.

In crime sometimes people get killed. However, we removed the ability for the average citizen to do something about it long ago because they weren't trained and our govn't took responsibility for protecting us.

Which was a horrible decision. Police don't "protect" anyone. They are a clean-up crew. They come after the fact. DEFENSE is up to you, because the police can't be everywhere at once, and I wouldn't like it even if they could. Plus, the police have no competition in the protection service industry. The monopoly situation sets up incentives to take the most, and provide the least labor possible. When this laziness and irresponsibility finally takes its toll, they call it a money issue and demand even more funds.

My mom walked into a robbery of our house. She wasnt hurt and they didn't get anything, but how could the police defend her in this situation? In fact, she was in edgewood KY, and my dad got there from reading road cincy BEFORE the local police. Hardly the people to trust with your life.

If we can't rely on our govn't to protect us, the answer is not to "defend ourselves" it is to correct the govn't. Isn't the govn't supposed to be responsive to us: the people?

Of course we can't. You can't rely on them to do anything right. The government doesn't prevent crime, it arrests the criminal after his crime. Defending yourself is up to you. I don't see how you can knock on the same door so many times and expect to see something different when you open it. How do you possibly think we can correct the government on this issue? And what's so horrible with people defending themselves, that this option can be written off so easily?

It's the NEXT chap, u'kno? The one who doesn't want to WAIT to find out what happens? U'kno the type, the woman who thinks you're following her, when in fact you're really just going the same place. Or the one who dashes across the street when you're coming by and reaching into you pocket to check how much money you have...

Who wants to risk going to jail for the rest of his/her life by shooting someone when it isn't absolutely called for? You mistake the average citizen for the police, who often do act with impunity in the manner you describe: shooting people for reaching in a pocket etc. I really doubt most women would turn and shoot a guy just because he's walking behind her. Of course there will be mistakes, but it's better than the current situation where criminals have such a free reign in the city. Think of how many rapes would be stopped if the rapist knew she likely had a gun, or DID shoot her rapist? People have every right to defend themselves I think.

Sol

[Duemellon]

Someone drowning in a body of water where you aren't supposed to be swimming put themselves in the position. Not to say I wouldn't SAVE them, or THINK of some way to help them, but this isn't QUITE the same situation (analogies are inheirently flawed).

This wasn't about simply saving a life, it was about taking another's life in the process not only by using responsible force (I do easily admit his reaction/w the things he had available is expected and what I would've done) it's more about the reaction of the city and the fact he was "equipped" as such.

The indictment is on the police and our leaders. Yet instead them acknowledging "yeah, things have gotten this bad and we need to do something" they say "wtg dude, we need more like you."

I disagree with you on the concept to arm the citizens to detur crime. I believe that's the wrong direction. Instead of controlling crime by positive avenues, it creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety for criminals, those mistaken for criminals, and those seeking to protect themselves from criminals.

As for the police being complacent, underachievers, and such, that is something they have unofficially announced. If their actions leads to outrage, or they are facing higher scrutiny because their actions often lead to major questions about their training...

change their training.

Really, their job entails a high-speed decision making process based deeply in self-preservation followed by communal-survival. Our military has done a better job of proper discipline, and they have many of the same powers as the coppers.

It is possible for them to be retrained better to deal with high-speed, high-pressure, and high-stakes, situations. Especially since it has been shown they are doing such a poor job at it currently.

Your point about "protection" versus "reaction" and the monopoly the police have on the enforcement business is well stated. I don't feel this is the appropriate paradigm for our enforcement community. That's actually what CPOP is intended to address. When properly done the community details the areas they wish to have greater focus on, which can be preventive of the crime.

As for the statement regarding "accidental overreaction" I don't want to be the one they overreact on. It appears you have greater faith in your fellow citizen to make the appropriate response in the high-stakes situation than the police who went through training (albiet obviously poor training). I really would hope you would see this and decide that refining/completing/revamping the training for the po-po is of even HIGHER priority.

[Bronzetree]

I can agree this guy shouldn't be put on the pedestal he was, but I also don't think he needs to be ostracized. At the least, he should face a concealed weapon charge. I agreee with whoever said they'd feel uneasy knowing they were in a bar where some patron was carrying a gun. But again, it's hard for me to see charging him when he was defending himself. Probably would have been better for Mike Allen to issue a "no comment" and be done with it. Instead, he opened himself to criticism by saying quite possibly the stupidest thing he has since he took office.

[solomon]

Not to say I wouldn't SAVE them, or THINK of some way to help them, but this isn't QUITE the same situation (analogies are inheirently flawed).

Why are they inherently flawed? It's pretty much the same situation I think: person breaks law and saves life.

"yeah, things have gotten this bad and we need to do something"

What I"m saying is there ISN'T anything they can do, without turning into some nazi style police force and ruling by terror. Protection/defense (on this level) is a responsibility of the people.

Instead of controlling crime by positive avenues, it creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety for criminals, those mistaken for criminals, and those seeking to protect themselves from criminals.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. What positive avenues? Arming your everyday citizen creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety for criminals? Isn't this the idea? That they realize someone in the establishment they are robbing might shoot them in the back of the head and thus are deterred?

I didn't say there wouldn't be mistakes. But cops make plenty of mistakes and always will, and I think ultimately lives saved/crimes prevented would outnumber mistakes.

Our military has done a better job of proper discipline, and they have many of the same powers as the coppers.

Military is totally different. They are following specific top-down commands and any mistakes can be written off as "breaking some eggs" and collateral damage is seen roughly the same way. The situation faced by police in a dark alley holding up a drug dealer is much different. You are holding him up and he reaches in his pants. You have two options, shoot now and preserve your life, or wait and possibly be killed. I don't see how "more training" could alter the options here.

I don't want to be the one they overreact on.

But you DO want to be the person taken hostage at a bank and can't defend himself? Or held up in an alley?

It appears you have greater faith in your fellow citizen to make the appropriate response in the high-stakes situation than the police who went through training (albiet obviously
poor training).

What I'm saying is that cops can't, and shouldn't be, everywhere at once and so "protection" isn't actually their responsibility. It can't be. And laws keeping the citizens from being armed keep the responsible, law-abiding citizens from being armed...exactly the ones that SHOULD be armed. The ones who would make the mistakes you are afraid of likely are already (unlawfully) armed. And the criminals, of course, are armed.

I just think it should be up to the establishments themselves whether they want to permit arms or not, not some sweeping law that forbids it.

I really would hope you would see this and decide that refining/completing/revamping the training for the po-po is of even HIGHER priority.

Sorry, but I do think that is a dead end.

Sol

[Docta]

the problem that has not been brought up here at all is what could have happened in this situation. everyone is all ok since things ended "well" with this, the bad guy got hurt and stopped.

how would we have felt if the second robber had shot and killed a few others in the bar once guns started firing? what if this citizen would have missed and hit someone else?

the outcome here is "good" so people applaud his vigilantism. the next time, and there will be a next time since this guy was aquitted, we should be so lucky.

and yes sol, your analogy is completely flawed. because we are talking about guns here and instances where innocent people can inadvertantly be killed.

[Duemellon]

What I"m saying is there ISN'T anything they can do, without turning into some nazi style police force and ruling by terror. Protection/defense (on this level) is a responsibility of the people. Protection is the responsibility of the society. The police are part of the protection effort.I'm not sure I understand this sentence. What positive avenues? Arming your everyday citizen creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety for criminals? Isn't this the idea? That they realize someone in the establishment they are robbing might shoot them in the back of the head and thus are deterred?Positive avenues:
Remove the need for criminals to exist
Create an atmosphere of cooperation and trust between citizenry & police
Change the way we even view crime

The last thing I want is a nervous assailant. Sure, they'll be on their toes during the incident, but if I pose a threat and it comes down to "him or me" mentality, even if the threat is an illusion or misinterpretation, I'm the one getting shot. U'kno? Nervous armed criminals become killers.

There has been no link to increased deterrance and a decrease in crime in our country. Sure, crime and such is minimal in the ultra-oppressive nations, but they're govn't is willing to go that "extra mile" that we won't allow.

If I gotta do a crime, I gotta do the crime. At that point I'm aware of the possible consequences and that will affect how I act in the incident. If I know I'm going to get the chair for this holdup if the patrons squeal, ..

then they won't talk.

If I know I'll get life in prison, then I won't let the cops surround me. U'kno?The situation faced by police in a dark alley holding up a drug dealer is much different.It is different, but it also shares much in common. The idea that the average human being is incapable of following a process of decision making within split-seconds is a preposturously weightless excuse. Something as trivial as quarterbacking takes that same split-second multi-layered decision processing, something as complex as a squad leader does too. When in those situations you don't rely on gut-feelings and chance, you fall back on your training.

There have been many of those situations where the perp and the cop were in the dark alley and the police put themselves in a position where they had to overreact, or accidentally did, because of bad decisions. These shootings are not all "life and death" for the cop.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by MonkeyGirl
I don't think it's a "vigilante, let's all get our posse", sort of thing- that's getting a bit dramatic. Look at the situation for what it was, not for what you believe it will spiral out to be.
That's a great quote, MonkeyGirl, & sums it up nicely. All of the philosophical debate in this thread is all well and good, and I agree with a few of the comments against vigiliantism. But still, like Bronze said, don't put the guy up on a pedestal, but also don't let the condemnations get out of hand when it was a pretty clear case of self-defense.

[Duemellon]

don't put the guy up on a pedestal, but also don't let the condemnations get out of hand when it was a pretty clear case of self-defense.but it IS the prescedent the city's reaction set that concerns me. Not the incident itself.

bad thing happened, another bad thing came of it, but everyone ends up alive and the original criminals get punished. That's the way the tv-specials are written.

and also I await to hear from the person who out-and-out condemns him or his actions. I haven't read anyone who said something of the kind in this thread.

[Duemellon]

I feel this uncontrollable urge to respond to this...Why are they inherently flawed?we can both agree that an orange falls from a tree just the same as an apple does. Right? but yet there are subtle difference such as..

well, one is an orange, the other an apple. The fact they are different means we can't say they are exactly the same, u'kno?

The curvature of the more round orange, or the distance the orange has to fall because it's a higher tree, or the time of the harvest season they fall may make a different, etc etc.

So, all analogies are inheirently flawed because we're comparing two things or situations which are NOT the EXACT same thing, so therefore the correalation can be argued against due to those discrete differences.

[BigSugar]

please point me to a single statistic from "conceal/carry" states where the fears of the left wing "bar all guns" crowd have come true? if this vigilantism is going to happen, it'll happen in those states first, right? while you don't necessarily see a correlating drop in crime as a result of "conceal/carry" laws, you also don't see a correlating increase in anti-crime shootings, vigilante justice, or mistaken identity shootings.

it's perception versus reality. outlaw all guns, take them away from everyone (including criminals if you can), ban their manufacture and sale for ANY reason.....what you will likely see is a marked increase in stabbings, or beatings, etc.....you will also see more crimes committed with guns, since the criminals will find a way to buy guns no matter the law, and if the citizens don't have them, then the criminals with guns will have a marked advantage as they walk into the Quickie Mart knowing that Apu doens't have a weapon to fight back....

this is just another area i'm going to have to agree to disagree with many of you on....while i think this guy should be charged and convicted for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, he should be patted on the back for stopping this crime and likely saving lives. the outcome doesn't change the fact that he broke the law, regardless of the "success" of the outcome.

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar

outlaw all guns, take them away from everyone (including criminals if you can), ban their manufacture and sale for ANY reason.....what you will likely see is a marked increase in stabbings, or beatings, etc.....

i don't know that this was a gun control debate at all sug. now that you bring it up however....

how many accidental stabbings/bludgenings do you see happen? i for one would rather have someone attempt to stab me or beat me up rather than shoot at me. at least with the former i have a bit better chance of fighting them off and likely will not DIE because of the incident.

[solomon]

Protection is the responsibility of the society. The police are part of the protection effort.

"society" cannot provide protection at this level, unless you set up a complete surveillance system so the police know what is going on everywhere at all times. That's what I'm trying to say.

Positive avenues:
Remove the need for criminals to exist
Create an atmosphere of cooperation and trust between citizenry & police
Change the way we even view crime

Government will always make sure criminals exist. Your first I agree with, a lot of crime would be reduced if certain activies and trades werent confined to the black market.
The second and third I'm not sure about.

The last thing I want is a nervous assailant. Sure, they'll be on their toes during the incident, but if I pose a threat and it comes down to "him or me" mentality, even if the threat is an illusion or misinterpretation, I'm the one getting shot. U'kno? Nervous armed criminals become killers.

There has been no link to increased deterrance and a decrease in crime in our country. Sure, crime and such is minimal in the ultra-oppressive nations, but they're govn't is willing to go that "extra mile" that we won't allow.

I think what you aren't doing is looking at the marginal incentives/disincentives which you have to do. I think you are assuming that in two situations, no-guns/lots of guns, that you will end up having the same amount of crimes. There are criminals who just BARELY see an incentive in committing the crime. THey are the ones on the margin. It's these that will be deterred from committing their crime, because thinking that a citizen might blow them away will reduce the incentive to do the crime by just enough, or more, to keep them from doing it.

See, it seems logically obvious to me that increased deterrence MUST lead to a decrease in crime, other things being equal. Because the incentives/disincentives at the margin will change.

The idea that the average human being is incapable of following a process of decision making within split-seconds is a preposturously weightless excuse.

That's not what I"m saying, what I"m saying is that there isn't a multitude of decisions to make that training can even affect in that situation. It's either shoot/don't shoot. Right? The situation is what it is, and you only have so many options at a certain point.
They can follow a decision-making process, but there's only a few decisions to make.

Sol

[solomon]

Duemellon

Analogies are just logical tools we can use to isolate the concepts and principles. Sometimes we see that the main idea behind two situations is the same, but certain things are affecting our opinion which are then revealed to be pretty inconsequential. Of course the two situations aren't the same, thats the whole idea of using the tool, to see how they are similar in key respects, and see which aspects might by clouding a logical judgment. So we can try to stay consistent.

Sol

[Duemellon]

Unfortunately, when you're introducing an analogy the listener must be willing to accept your view on the compared attributes of the situations.

If they are looking for a reason to dismiss your analogy, it doesn't take much effort at all. You, as the author, may feel it is extremely prudent, but with the introduction of a few undesireable attributes, your analogy is dismissed as too faulted.

[Duemellon]

"society" cannot provide protection at this level, unless you set up a complete surveillance system so the police know what is going on everywhere at all times. That's what I'm trying to say. i mean something wider than that. Society includes me and you, the criminal, the rock, the trees, Yoda, and Vader. yes,... Vader. Face him you must.

I'm referring to the mindset more than the physical situation. Our society breeds criminals out of need, thrills, and other situations.The second and third I'm not sure about. GO TO HELL YOU RACIST BASTARD! j/k, fine with me. That's not the crux of my arguement, so we can simply disagree ;) I think you are assuming that in two situations, no-guns/lots of guns, that you will end up having the same amount of crimes. I do beleive that arming the citizenry does not affect crime rates. I do believe arming them creates a higher likelihood of calamitous <sic> endings.See, it seems logically obvious to me that increased deterrence MUST lead to a decrease in crime, other things being equal.that is so logical in theory but unproven in practice. I cannot agree with you that there is a relation IRL.They can follow a decision-making process, but there's only a few decisions to make. again, yes and no. If they made the correct decisions leading up to the situation and still themselves in it, the options are few. It's not just the moment when the perp reaches into their pocket, it's all the stuff leading up to it and how well the police made their choices.

Such as, the laws regarding high-speed chases. Some areas have adopted a "run plates, if not stolen, non-violent, let them go and get them later". It used to be "get the perp no matter what" until it was found that sometimes the police escalated the situation, or the consequences for pulling over some panicked stoner wasn't worth the death of innocents.

There are many opportunities to make decisions leading up to the crucial moment of life and death.how many accidental stabbings/bludgenings do you see happen?god, if only that rhymed it'd be the BESTEST single-line response I've read in months. The secret NRA rebuttal to gun control: "Guns don't kill people, but it sure makes it easier."

As this converstation begins to meander into debate over effective crime-control, I wanted to restate that the biggest concern I have regarding this incident is the prescendent set by the city.

Referrring to it as "Open season for Criminals" would be a bit extreme, but I could see how many could see it as that.

[Bronzetree]

Originally posted by Docta
how many accidental stabbings/bludgenings do you see happen? i for one would rather have someone attempt to stab me or beat me up rather than shoot at me. at least with the former i have a bit better chance of fighting them off and likely will not DIE because of the incident.

You and me both, pal.

[BigSugar]

i'd much rather noone try to stab, kick, beat, bludgeon, hump, jump, pump, or roshambo me ever. but if they did, i'd sure like to be able to pull my gun out and prevent it.

"Just like a wop, bringing a knife to a gun fight....."

[foolsgold]

As someone who enjoys his Ragu from time to time, I found your last comment very insensitive, Sug.

I'd do something about it if I wasn't so drunk and lazy.


Faith and Begorrah,
Seamus O'Leary

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar
i'd much rather noone try to stab, kick, beat, bludgeon, hump, jump, pump, or roshambo me ever. but if they did, i'd sure like to be able to pull my gun out and prevent it.


ah, but you started this on the premise of guns being done away with brutha.

if i have a gun then more than likely my attacker does too, and if he/she shoots me, i may (or may not) be able to shoot them as well but who the hell cares if i am dead.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Docta
but who the hell cares if i am dead.

Dude!! i care if you're dead!!! come over here and give me a hug you big galoot! just watch out for my arsenal. :):D

speaking of doing something instead of just talking....any of you KY people not vote in today's primary yet!?? if you don't like what's happening, and you don't vote, then all of us with the "i voted today" stickers will point and laugh at you and call you names like "non-voter" and "commie symp" :)

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by foolsgold
As someone who enjoys his Ragu from time to time, I found your last comment very insensitive, Sug.

I'd do something about it if I wasn't so drunk and lazy.


Faith and Begorrah,
Seamus O'Leary

shut up you silly Mick! :rolleyes: :p

[solomon]

I'm referring to the mindset more than the physical situation. Our society breeds criminals out of need, thrills, and other situations.

It seems you are taking it from the "prevent the crime BEFORE it happens" view, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I think it's deviating from what we were talking about: ONCE a guy comes in to a store and holds it up, there's nothing the police can do to protect anyone. And no other group can do anything either. The only chance is that the bartender/cashier has a weapon, or a patron currently is armed.

that is so logical in theory but unproven in practice. I cannot agree with you that there is a relation IRL.

What I'm saying is that it MUST be true. There's no logical way I can see of explaining that it would NOT be true. However, a key part of it is "other things being equal", if it's not true in practice (which I believe evidence shows that it IS true but we can argue numbers forever and ever...) it means other things are NOT equal and the reason deterrence isn't reducing crime lies somewhere here and THIS should be the target of study.

Referrring to it as "Open season for Criminals" would be a bit extreme, but I could see how many could see it as that.

Do you mean open season for criminals to attack victims or open season for people to shoot criminals. I do see it as the latter and I think it's great. It should always be open season on aggressors, and..i just do not believe the government has a right to keep me from defending myself.

Sol

[Duemellon]

It seems you are taking it from the "prevent the crime BEFORE it happens" view, yes, i am.but I think it's deviating from what we were talking aboutwell, that may have been YOUR point, but MY point was to focus on prevention of crime which would reduce the call to arms. If someone is currently in the act, or has dedicated themselves to crime, prevention isn't going to reach them in time. However, making every citizen a possible threat of being a deadly encounter is NOT the proper response IMO.There's no logical way I can see of explaining that it would NOT be true.Increased risk/deturrance leads to crime reduction the same way affirmative action reduces racism in some people, or anti-drug media campaigns reduce drug use.

They are already determined to be the way they will remain, and these attacks on their sensibilities give them a point of contention which increases their stedfastness.Do you mean open season for criminals to attack victims or open season for people to shoot criminals.I meant people to shoot criminals. Me? In theory I'm all FOR calling "open season" on criminals, but who is going to be the judge & jury?

I know, i know, you honestly believe that the average gun-totin' joe is gonna be able to discern the difference between a perp with a gun pointing at someone and an innocent pony-tailed red-bowed flower-dress wearing schoolgirl.

If it was only that simple I'd agree with you.

[onest2.0]

Can we talk about what's really important? Like was any beer unnecessarily spilled?

[solomon]

They are already determined to be the way they will remain,

That isn't true, and you are still ignoring the marginal criminal.
That's like saying, if I decide I am driving over to cincinnati, that nothing will stop me, even if I hear that there is 4 hours of traffic. Yes, for some criminals it isn't going to matter, they have made up their mind or the disincentive isnt strong enough to counter the benefit they see in it. But to say that all criminals are determined to be that way is a sweeping statement that is definitely not true. Criminals see a BENEFIT in being a criminal. For many, if you reduce the benefit of being a criminal, and increase the risk of being a criminal, you will then make BEING a criminal a less attractive career choice.

Increased risk/deturrance leads to crime reduction the same way affirmative action reduces racism in some people, or anti-drug media campaigns reduce drug use.

No, it would be like affirmative action of the government MADE everyone have a gun. I'm just saying citizens should be free to carry weapons if they choose. The media campaign example seems good though, it increases knowledge and awareness and for the person who is tempted just enough to actually give drugs a try, it could be enough to change their mind.

Sol

[Duemellon]

Can we talk about what's really important? Like was any beer unnecessarily spilled?was the beer spilled on an unarmed person? or someone with a gun? That makes the difference here.

Here's the analogy:
Beer spilled on the armed person is just like blue cocoa puffs laying around a sleeping leather sandal.

there.That isn't true, and you are still ignoring the marginal criminal. any time I committed a crime i was marginal. I am not a career criminal, and I only did them when I thought I could get away with it. Sometimes I didn't get away with it, and suddenly I found myself in a bigger mess than I could've imagined. Now, well, the only thing deturring my involvement in crime is that I can legally get small luxuries and necessities. Jail time, social ostricization, criminal history, going to Hell, none of them deturred me as much as being able to get it legally.

[solomon]

Now, well, the only thing deturring my involvement in crime is that I can legally get small luxuries and necessities.

Ok I'm confused. If Jail etc doesn't deter you, than why not steal much bigger items? Jail is a deterrent. Are you saying that the idea of spending ten years in prison has no bearing on whether or not you would commit a crime? If you knew that your "little crime" carried a ten year jail sentence, would you still have done it?

Sol

[Duemellon]

most of my little crimes carried a fine, and from less than a year sentance to 3 yr sentances.

But that's all after the fact. I never really paid attention to the consequences because, well, I always had a positive attitude about it.

Heck, jail sounded like a good place to be to me, sometimes. 3 squares a day, workout program, time to think, free education, regimented lifestyle, close-knit social society, etc etc.

Sure, there's the whole "stain on your permanent record" thing, but if you increased the punishments for petty theft, jaywalking, shoplifting, forgery, tax evasion, assualt & battery, tresspassing, and other misdemeanors like such, to 10-years, I still would've been there doing it.

Hardassed criminal? no. I have no need or desire to be one today, because the bulk of the things I really need I get honestly, and those things I want on the side, I no longer want.

It was a change of view from materialism to greater emphasis on self-empowerment, awareness, and expression, that pulled me away from being a criminal.

Increased deturrents don't work.

[Bronzetree]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Heck, jail sounded like a good place to be to me, sometimes. 3 squares a day, workout program, time to think, free education, regimented lifestyle, close-knit social society, etc etc.

Being some beefy man's bitch...

Sign me up!

[solomon]

but if you increased the punishments for petty theft, jaywalking, shoplifting, forgery, tax evasion, assualt & battery, tresspassing, and other misdemeanors like such, to 10-years, I still would've been there doing it.

Nonsense. Don't buy it one bit.

Sol

[lawdog]

Originally posted by Bronzetree


Being some beefy man's bitch...

Sign me up!

Bronze, my pal G. Gordon Liddy has some advice about how to keep your manhood in the joint (and I'm paraphrasing): "When some big guy says hello to you, bash his head in with a mop handle."

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Duemellon
most of my little crimes carried a fine, and from less than a year sentance to 3 yr sentances.

But that's all after the fact. I never really paid attention to the consequences because, well, I always had a positive attitude about it.

Heck, jail sounded like a good place to be to me, sometimes. 3 squares a day, workout program, time to think, free education, regimented lifestyle, close-knit social society, etc etc.

Sure, there's the whole "stain on your permanent record" thing, but if you increased the punishments for petty theft, jaywalking, shoplifting, forgery, tax evasion, assualt & battery, tresspassing, and other misdemeanors like such, to 10-years, I still would've been there doing it.

Hardassed criminal? no. I have no need or desire to be one today, because the bulk of the things I really need I get honestly, and those things I want on the side, I no longer want.

It was a change of view from materialism to greater emphasis on self-empowerment, awareness, and expression, that pulled me away from being a criminal.

Increased deturrents don't work.

I had a friend do some checking and he couldn't find any criminal record for J****, R** DOB 8-8-1972.

[Duemellon]

I had a friend do some checking and he couldn't find any criminal record for J****, R** DOB 8-8-1972. exactly.

[solomon]

Duemellon

I'm still trying to make sense of how you can say that deterrence has no effect on behavior.

What you are basically arguing, then, is that people pay no attention at all to the risks of actions in deciding whether or not to perform them?

It would seem then that benefits couldn't matter at all either in making a decision about what to do, since benefits and risks can be reworded in terms of each other.

So it seems that you are arguing that perceived benefits and risks are completely ignored by everyone in deciding what to do. Do you think this just about crime? If not, then what ARE the deciding factors in our actions, if not benefits and risks? In other words, it seems you are saying risk vs reward has no bearing on decision making, which to me, seems like an impossible position to defend.

Sol

[Duemellon]

logic says it should have a greater effect on decision making, but maybe you're looking at the risks people don't bother to compute?

The risk may be that they DONT have it if they dont do anything.

Maybe the risk isn't that they go to JAIL, the part their risking is getting CAUGHT.

After all, if u do a crime and aren't caught, the possible consequences law enforcement has for you don't really matter. Most of the criminals out there don't expect to be caught. If they expect to be caught, found out, busted, THEN they won't do it (unless they're making some political statement or WANT jail for whatever reason).

Just ask that J****, R** fella, i'm sure he'll tell you, since he hasn't been caught, why does he care about the consequences of his actions (years ago, I should add, not present)

[solomon]

logic says it should have a greater effect on decision making, but maybe you're looking at the risks people don't bother to compute?

What do you mean? I'm not saying that every risk is computed the same way for everyone. For some, a ten year sentence will not change their behavior. This is likely the "hardened criminal". But for the criminal who just BARELY sees an advantage to being a criminal, it will.

The risk may be that they DONT have it if they dont do anything.

Don't have what? The thing they are stealing? Well again, that's the benefit. Supposed you have Benefit X. Getting X requires a risk of five years prison (or some other risk if you don't particularly think prison is a risk). If you increased risk from five to 10, you have altered the risk vs reward ratio. It WILL change how you view the action...maybe not enough to change your decision if you value X enough, but it WILL change how you view it, since chance of bad has gone up compared to chance of good.

After all, if u do a crime and aren't caught, the possible consequences law enforcement has for you don't really matter.

Right, that's the benefit, the reward. That's what makes people turn to crime in the first place. But reward is WEIGHED in relation to risk.

Most of the criminals out there don't expect to be caught. If they expect to be caught, found out, busted, THEN they won't do it

They may not think they will be caught, but they know what will happen IF they are caught, and the chance is always there. For instance, I feel pretty confident I could get away with not paying my taxes, because I don't make very much. But I sure as hell don't want to go to jail, so I pay them anyway.

Sol

[Duemellon]

I guess what I was trying to say, with all that "benefit/risk/computing" stuff was that most criminals don't worry about the time, they worry about getting caught.

Muggings happen without ever being solved, burgarliers, even murders, they go on without ever finding even a likely suspect. So, change the frequency at which we catch criminals, and you change the equasion enough to deturr it.

[Bronzetree]

Originally posted by dcXhc


I had a friend do some checking and he couldn't find any criminal record for J****, R** DOB 8-8-1972.

So Due IS who I think he is. Fun!

[Duemellon]

Finding personal information isn't THAT hard nowadays. So I'm busted, big hairy deal.