Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Because it does dilute the idea of what terrorism is, plus, who the hell has said shopping for harsher punishment is valid? maybe 25 to life with chance of parole, as the legislature wrote the statute, is the correct punishment for this act, NOt life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is what is being sought.



Courts can't add things to the consitution. Check the document. Its very clear.

In this country it it doesnt matter what the document says it matters what the courts say. Seperation of church and state is the supreme law of the land on the same footing as any written portion of the constitution is.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Because it does dilute the idea of what terrorism is, plus, who the hell has said shopping for harsher punishment is valid? maybe 25 to life with chance of parole, as the legislature wrote the statute, is the correct punishment for this act, NOt life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is what is being sought.



Courts can't add things to the consitution. Check the document. Its very clear.

maybe and maybe not. the legislature wrote both laws and it will be up to the courts and the jury to decide whether the defendent is guilty of either of them.

[David Floyd]

The DA is paid with Tax money, as are the jurists and the judge. You support one crime to prosecute another?

You're talking about something completely different. I seriously doubt it costs that much more to charge him with the terrorism stipulation than it does to charge him with 2nd degree murder, but either way, I believe that the court system is a valid function of government and it's proper to charge people with crimes.

The funding of the system may be another (irrelevant in this case, because the funding won't change no matter what charge is used) matter, but I certainly don't oppose the existence of a judicial system.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So the laws can overlap. How is this a problem? The DA is prosecuting under both statutes they choose the applicable one that will give the harshest penalty for which they think they can get a conviction. That's worked ok till now.

Except that the terrorism statute, just like the hate crimes statute, exists becuase certain crimes are seen as so much worse they deserve exceptional punishment.

This DA is stretching that definition in order to punish an individual, but it destroys the intent of that statute. What is each time someone from one race killed another person and deemed it a hate crime, simply becuase of the differeing races, then you destroy the meaning of the hate crime statute. All while the law already more than deals with the situation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You're talking about something completely different. I seriously doubt it costs that much more to charge him with the terrorism stipulation than it does to charge him with 2nd degree murder, but either way, I believe that the court system is a valid function of government and it's proper to charge people with crimes.

The funding of the system may be another (irrelevant in this case, because the funding won't change no matter what charge is used) matter, but I certainly don't oppose the existence of a judicial system.

Actually, the cost of incarceration will be different, all of which we will steal from you. Expect a personal call from the taxman.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that the terrorism statute, just like the hate crimes statute, exists becuase certain crimes are seen as so much worse they deserve exceptional punishment.

This DA is stretching that definition in order to punish an individual, but it destroys the intent of that statute. What is each time someone from one race killed another person and deemed it a hate crime, simply becuase of the differeing races, then you destroy the meaning of the hate crime statute. All while the law already more than deals with the situation.

Ok so you object to gang members prosecuted as terrorists because you feel the law with the lesser penalty more than deals with the situation. I disagree. At least now we know where we both stand.

[David Floyd]

True, the cost of incarceration will be different, but I've already stated that I have absolutely no objection to jails and the judicial system.

On the other hand, I DO have a problem with providing prisoners with weight rooms and cable. Let's cut out that kind of **** and call it even, OK?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the cost of incarceration will be different, all of which we will steal from you. Expect a personal call from the taxman.

yes the cost will certainly be different. If the released prisoner becomes a repeat offender it will be significantly more expensive to deal with.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and of course my solution would have just been for someone with concealed carry to pull out his handgun and pop the ****er in the first place. Then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap


A political agenda means wanting political change- a new regime. Extorsion, which is what you are talking about, is not taxation (which is legal) and there are laws against it already. And witness tampering is already a crime as well- as for it being political- again, what does witness tampering have to do with which regime or political ideology is in power?

They do want a new regime, but only in their neighborhoods. They're like warlords, their political agenda is despotism.

We all know what despotism does to productivity, growth, and public morale.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and of course my solution would have just been for someone with concealed carry to pull out his handgun and pop the ****er in the first place. Then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Except that if they're gangsters their fellow gang members will hunt you down and execute you.

[David Floyd]

Maybe not, if they had to face the prospect of a minimum of mandatory life in a maximum security prison with no possibility of parole (and in some states the DP), and that's assuming none of them got shot in the process.

[Mr. Harley]

And possibly your family as well. When a certain individual, Stalin, did that (killing innocent people and families as well as opponents) it was called the Terror. Guess why?

[David Floyd]

Well, then that's what the police are for. And the courts/prison system. Pretty tough to retaliate against anyone's family when your ENTIRE gang is charged with domestic terrorism and gets a mandatory sentence of life in prison, isn't it?

[Whoha]

Re: Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

Originally posted by Verto

Appropriate application of the law, or an abuse?

As for myself,

they can't nail these violent gang members on their immigration status, but they still want to nail em so they go with what they got.