Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[DinoDoc]

With the expanding use of RICO, is anyone actually shocked that terrorism laws would get expanded use as well?

[GePap]

No. Its still wrong.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


Jaguar posts something I actually take the time to read and respond to in a long time

You think I care whether you read my posts?


I match your generic insult, and raise you an smiley.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

You think I care whether you read my posts?

Why thank you- its so nice to know of a troll that posts purely for the love of it, even when they know they will be rightfully ignored.

I match your generic insult, and raise you an smiley.

OHH, how original of you

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap
OHH, how original of you

You raise a and an ?

/me folds.

[Mr. Harley]

GePap, I understand everything you are saying. I have one question. You are critisizing one aspect of a broken system. If the DA does not go for the maximum punishment, or does not get a conviction, you know that his next opponent is going to have a field day.

I would not critisize the DA. I would instead critisize how this system has developed, starting with voters who are too lazy to vote in primaries, or to pay attention to the actual records of the individuals they vote for. Also for people who vote for "tough on crime" politicians who aren't willing to pay more money for courts, public defenders, procecutors, and prisons. I call that hypocracy by both those voters and the politicians.

The DA has a thankless job. As long as he operates within the system, and this individual receives due process, then I will be quite satisfied if he is locked up for life. I fully understand your point, and if the system was working like it should, I would agree. In the real world of the judicial system (look at my sig and note the friend I quote - he is a fingerprint specialist) I will settle for the probable results, which include a plea bargain anyway and the shooter being incarcerated for under twenty years, possibly under ten. I think the child's life was worth substantially more.

[GePap]

/me goes to collect his winnings..

wait, what winnings?

[GePap]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
GePap, I understand everything you are saying. I have one question. You are critisizing one aspect of a broken system. If the DA does not go for the maximum punishment, or does not get a conviction, you know that his next opponent is going to have a field day.

1. In NYC, you have to be an utter idiot to ever lose as an incumbent, even a DA. I doubt someone could win an election by running on abusing the terrorism statute.

I would not critisize the DA. I would instead critisize how this system has developed, starting with voters who are too lazy to vote in primaries, or to pay attention to the actual records of the individuals they vote for. Also for people who vote for "tough on crime" politicians who aren't willing to pay more money for courts, public defenders, procecutors, and prisons. I call that hypocracy by both those voters and the politicians.

I agree, but at the same time, there is some level of personal responsibility- the DA could have sought the normal chanrges, which mean significant jail time if convicted.

The DA has a thankless job. As long as he operates within the system, and this individual receives due process, then I will be quite satisfied if he is locked up for life. I fully understand your point, and if the system was working like it should, I would agree. In the real world of the judicial system (look at my sig and note the friend I quote - he is a fingerprint specialist) I will settle for the probable results, which include a plea bargain anyway and the shooter being incarcerated for under twenty years, possibly under ten. I think the child's life was worth substantially more.

I don't know what lives "are worth", and I will be coldly honest and say I don't care. I still don;t like to see certain statutes used as bargaining chips. If the DA believes this case is vital, he can push it to trial and make sure the youth gets the top charge with a negative sentencing recommendation.

[Mr. Harley]

GePap, I think we both agree on the theoretical issue, but totally disagree on the solution/results. So the DA goes for a regular trial, on the lesser charge. He ends up ignoring/not preparing adequately for others, almost every aspect of the judicial system is squeezed for funding right now.

Or he stretches the statute, uses it for a bargaining chip, and with the plea deal still gets less of a sentence then if he had taken him to trial on the lesser charge and convicted him. He also now has the resources to more successfully additional crimes effectively, removing more feral criminals from the streets. I'll agree to disagree, even while I also vote against el cheapo law-and-order politicians who won't put their money where their mouth is, and hope for the same end result we both want.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Per the same Definition used against Gang Members (and KKK)
you could state that violent members of Anti-Abortion Groups (who intimidate or even murder Abortion Doctors [AFAIK there have been some cases in the past]) are to be considered terrorists.

After all they use Violence/Murder to propagate a social Agenda (i.e. say "No" to Abortion)

definately so. This is done on a case by case basis so I don't see why anti-abortion terrorists would not be treated as such. If they want to oppose abortion they have to do so without violence and that should go for all other political activism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would like you to point out where the vagueness of the 1st amendment is

Well that's easy .

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Are they talking about 'an estasblishment of religion' which is any church, mosque, synagoge, etc., or are they speaking of establishing a state relgiion or what? The text is vague on that point.

That's just the establishment clause. The free exercise clause includes fun issues like what happens when someone's free exercise conflicts with someone elses.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui That's just the establishment clause. The free exercise clause includes fun issues like what happens when someone's free exercise conflicts with someone elses.

Just wait your turn, and dont do more than 12 reps.

Free exercise
High health club dues
Hiking
National Park Service User Fees