100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Murder deterent . . stalking felony? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This is true of all Anti2A, anti gun, anti personal responsibility liberals. Where are our moderate liberals who understand personal responsibility and do not want to create feel good laws. There are a few other anti-qualifiers that you left out, which are very important: - anti smooching - anti apple pie - anti love - auntie love - anti law - anti sex - anti understanding - anti kindness - anti prayer - anti counterrevolutionarydisestablishmentarialism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felony charges for any crime are not a deterrent if someone wants to off someone else.
You can look at the inmates on death row or previously executed in Texas and quite a few have a prior felony or felonies on their record.. Burglary and armed robbery are the most common.. Take classes if necessary and arm yourself.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/16/12 09:31 AM
|
|
Bushidobillyclub
I agree with you 100%. Less laws more personal responsibility. My personal belief system insists on taking complete personal responsibility for yourself and your life, health etc. Your decisions, your thoughts, your actions, your intentions etc. are vital factors in what ever happens in your daily life. The government cannot and will not protect you when the chips are really down. When a society collapses, if you have been completely dependent on your government to protect you and take care of you, I think you will find a rude awakening when you discover that they (the government officials) will only think of themselves and rush to their underground bunkers and lock the doors and leave you (the public) to face global disaster alone. Worse scenario. While I have not lost complete trust in government (they are good for some things and they serve there purpose - even being corrupt as they are - I certainly do not place faith is their ability to protect me, or even in their intention to do so in a worse case scenario. (Total chaos) Personal responsibility should be first. Laws like that are supported by frightened people who want to play the roll of the helpless victim who needs protection, but laws like that are easily abused. Laws like that are made by politicians who are doing it to justify their jobs and gain votes and support of frightened people who demand to be protected. So what do these frightened people do when the law and the government turns on them? And it will. How will you protect yourself against an all powerful government that has gone completely wrong? (Dictatorship.) Who will protect you now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushidobillyclub I agree with you 100%. Less laws more personal responsibility. My personal belief system insists on taking complete personal responsibility for yourself and your life, health etc. Your decisions, your thoughts, your actions, your intentions etc. are vital factors in what ever happens in your daily life. The government cannot and will not protect you when the chips are really down. When a society collapses, if you have been completely dependent on your government to protect you and take care of you, I think you will find a rude awakening when you discover that they (the government officials) will only think of themselves and rush to their underground bunkers and lock the doors and leave you (the public) to face global disaster alone. Worse scenario. While I have not lost complete trust in government (they are good for some things and they serve there purpose - even being corrupt as they are - I certainly do not place faith is their ability to protect me, or even in their intention to do so in a worse case scenario. (Total chaos) Personal responsibility should be first. Laws like that are supported by frightened people who want to play the roll of the helpless victim who needs protection, but laws like that are easily abused. Laws like that are made by politicians who are doing it to justify their jobs and gain votes and support of frightened people who demand to be protected. So what do these frightened people do when the law and the government turns on them? And it will. How will you protect yourself against an all powerful government that has gone completely wrong? (Dictatorship.) Who will protect you now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is it illegal to sell raw food? are you talking about the REQUIREMENTS involved in order to sell it? or are you implying its illegal period....? I've been told that you can no longer easily obtain truly raw almonds in california, due to changes in the law (from about 5 years ago, I think). There are almonds that are marked 'raw', meaning simply that they haven't been "baked for flavor" - but they have been subject to some heat-based pasteurization like process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is it illegal to sell raw food? are you talking about the REQUIREMENTS involved in order to sell it? or are you implying its illegal period....? I've been told that you can no longer easily obtain truly raw almonds in california, due to changes in the law (from about 5 years ago, I think). There are almonds that are marked 'raw', meaning simply that they haven't been "baked for flavor" - but they have been subject to some heat-based pasteurization like process. I didn't know about that law but California really does have a lot of laws. I haven't seen raw almonds in super markets, but I can still get them in health food stores here in Colorado. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So I am a eugenicist becuase I think you should handle your own problems. I am going to ignore that becuase it has nothing to do with my position. I think its a bit of projection from the evolution thread, but whatever . . . In the OP, she had been assaulted by this guy. She should have armed herself, learned to use a firearm, AND continued to press charges. In that scenario you have a person taking personal responsibility for there actions, for there own safety, and to seek justice for ACTUAL harms committed against her person and her rights. In SOPA, I am also for personal responsibility. The person who owns the property, IP, copyrights is responsible for policing there own content, determining that the IP rights have been violated and then seek redress through the system by suing the person they allege is violating there copy rights. In both cases the opposition to my position wants someone else to be responsible. In the case of the stalker laws, its the government being responsible for protection from poeple who harrass you, threaten you, and generally wont leave you alone. In SOPA is it the IP holders who want the responsibility of policing rights violations to be on content sites and not themselves. The punishments are designed to be severe and as such would remove the desire for the content sites to engage in both legal, and illegal uses of copyrighted materials. Consistent through and through without any vague notions of "weight" of possible scenarios, whatever that means . . . you have still not made that clear. I am not anti law, I am pro simple clear law. Im not sure what survival of the fittest has to do with eugenics,,,so I Will skip past that one... I dont want to be responsible for someone elses actions or decisions which harm or lead to harming me or mine that is true I can be responsible for being vigilant and careful but I Also want a system that backs me up by prosecuting those who violate my ability to function without threat of harm,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So I am a eugenicist becuase I think you should handle your own problems. I am going to ignore that becuase it has nothing to do with my position. I think its a bit of projection from the evolution thread, but whatever . . . In the OP, she had been assaulted by this guy. She should have armed herself, learned to use a firearm, AND continued to press charges. In that scenario you have a person taking personal responsibility for there actions, for there own safety, and to seek justice for ACTUAL harms committed against her person and her rights. In SOPA, I am also for personal responsibility. The person who owns the property, IP, copyrights is responsible for policing there own content, determining that the IP rights have been violated and then seek redress through the system by suing the person they allege is violating there copy rights. In both cases the opposition to my position wants someone else to be responsible. In the case of the stalker laws, its the government being responsible for protection from poeple who harrass you, threaten you, and generally wont leave you alone. In SOPA is it the IP holders who want the responsibility of policing rights violations to be on content sites and not themselves. The punishments are designed to be severe and as such would remove the desire for the content sites to engage in both legal, and illegal uses of copyrighted materials. Consistent through and through without any vague notions of "weight" of possible scenarios, whatever that means . . . you have still not made that clear. I am not anti law, I am pro simple clear law. Im not sure what survival of the fittest has to do with eugenics,,,so I Will skip past that one... I dont want to be responsible for someone elses actions or decisions which harm or lead to harming me or mine that is true I can be responsible for being vigilant and careful but I Also want a system that backs me up by prosecuting those who violate my ability to function without threat of harm,,, Well if you you get robbed, raped and killed I don't think you will care much about what happens to the guy who did it. You'll be dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So I am a eugenicist becuase I think you should handle your own problems. I am going to ignore that becuase it has nothing to do with my position. I think its a bit of projection from the evolution thread, but whatever . . . In the OP, she had been assaulted by this guy. She should have armed herself, learned to use a firearm, AND continued to press charges. In that scenario you have a person taking personal responsibility for there actions, for there own safety, and to seek justice for ACTUAL harms committed against her person and her rights. In SOPA, I am also for personal responsibility. The person who owns the property, IP, copyrights is responsible for policing there own content, determining that the IP rights have been violated and then seek redress through the system by suing the person they allege is violating there copy rights. In both cases the opposition to my position wants someone else to be responsible. In the case of the stalker laws, its the government being responsible for protection from poeple who harrass you, threaten you, and generally wont leave you alone. In SOPA is it the IP holders who want the responsibility of policing rights violations to be on content sites and not themselves. The punishments are designed to be severe and as such would remove the desire for the content sites to engage in both legal, and illegal uses of copyrighted materials. Consistent through and through without any vague notions of "weight" of possible scenarios, whatever that means . . . you have still not made that clear. I am not anti law, I am pro simple clear law. Im not sure what survival of the fittest has to do with eugenics,,,so I Will skip past that one... I dont want to be responsible for someone elses actions or decisions which harm or lead to harming me or mine that is true I can be responsible for being vigilant and careful but I Also want a system that backs me up by prosecuting those who violate my ability to function without threat of harm,,, Well if you you get robbed, raped and killed I don't think you will care much about what happens to the guy who did it. You'll be dead. thats true on either side of the debate about felonies,, dead is dead even in the case of accidents , dead is dead and in my living years, I hope that I will not be the reason anyone else life is taken, even if they have taken mine,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 03/17/12 01:46 PM
|
|
I think trying to detail the elements of a stalking crime makes for a very challenging endeavor to try to balance individual rights vs a persons perceived safety. I just dont think its possible for a law to be effective in this way, and also not violate citizens rights. The only protection which is effective, and does not violate anyone rights is personal protection via being armed. That form of protection is only taken up when the attacker has already decided to violate your rights, his end where yours begin. No infringement, no trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with a stalker law, and then have ignorance of law removing the actual ability for it to deter. With all the negatives, I just cant see it being worth while for the limited potential for effectiveness, and this is probably why this has been swatted down time after time in that particular legislature. I think laws are never absolute and vary in minute to grandiose ways from case to case and detail to detail no singular absolute consequence deters 100 percent of the time, and that sums up what the 'negative' is for me but that doesnt give me pause about laws being in place to deter crime and set standards for what is and is not acceptable behavior in our society,,,, the country is pretty big, the states are decent sizes, and even in smaller cities,, the chances of two people who dont WANT to be in the same place consistently being in view of each other depends greatly on the actual EFFORT one or both are making to do so its not an imposition to ask someone to stay away from me, its actually easier than asking them to follow me around its not an imposition for the law to back up my request once its made either if there is a 'perception' of threat on my part Enforcement give them the Teeth! Says nowhere that a Citizen isn't allowed to enforce certain Laws in an Emergency! Besides,the Law of Self-Defense trumps all others! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is it illegal to sell raw food? are you talking about the REQUIREMENTS involved in order to sell it? or are you implying its illegal period....? I've been told that you can no longer easily obtain truly raw almonds in california, due to changes in the law (from about 5 years ago, I think). There are almonds that are marked 'raw', meaning simply that they haven't been "baked for flavor" - but they have been subject to some heat-based pasteurization like process. I didn't know about that law but California really does have a lot of laws. I haven't seen raw almonds in super markets, but I can still get them in health food stores here in Colorado. JB, Volant was speaking of truly raw almonds, meaning unpasteurized. They will still be marked as "raw" in the store, and to most people they will look and taste essentially the same. We have many of the same marked-as-raw almonds here in california as you have in colorado. I'm sure that some of the raw almonds you see there are pasteurized. What you also have along with pasteurized marked-as-raw almonds (and what we lack on the open market) are unpasteurized almonds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felony charges for any crime are not a deterrent if someone wants to off someone else. You can look at the inmates on death row or previously executed in Texas and quite a few have a prior felony or felonies on their record.. Burglary and armed robbery are the most common.. Take classes if necessary and arm yourself..  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushidobillyclub I agree with you 100%. Less laws more personal responsibility. My personal belief system insists on taking complete personal responsibility for yourself and your life, health etc. Your decisions, your thoughts, your actions, your intentions etc. are vital factors in what ever happens in your daily life. The government cannot and will not protect you when the chips are really down. When a society collapses, if you have been completely dependent on your government to protect you and take care of you, I think you will find a rude awakening when you discover that they (the government officials) will only think of themselves and rush to their underground bunkers and lock the doors and leave you (the public) to face global disaster alone. Worse scenario. While I have not lost complete trust in government (they are good for some things and they serve there purpose - even being corrupt as they are - I certainly do not place faith is their ability to protect me, or even in their intention to do so in a worse case scenario. (Total chaos) Personal responsibility should be first. Laws like that are supported by frightened people who want to play the roll of the helpless victim who needs protection, but laws like that are easily abused. Laws like that are made by politicians who are doing it to justify their jobs and gain votes and support of frightened people who demand to be protected. So what do these frightened people do when the law and the government turns on them? And it will. How will you protect yourself against an all powerful government that has gone completely wrong? (Dictatorship.) Who will protect you now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides,the Law of Self-Defense trumps all others! Hopefully. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the crime should be ELEVATED.
If someone is stalking, there should be the original TRO and when the TRO is violated, with premeditation (Im not talking about ending up at the same store where you both actually ARE shopping) the offense should be elevated I dont want to be in a situation (its on my mind alot lately, so its going to keep coming up in my logic,,,) where I am scared by someone following me at night even IF I try to go a different direction and put distance between us and I end up dead after fighting to try to SAVE my life and leaving bruises on my intimidator/aggressor at least, if I Have had a TRO on that person at any time, they will have less justification in the eyes of the law,,, being followed around can be very intimidating,,,and make one feel very threatened depending upon the environment,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Ruth34611
on
Wed 03/28/12 04:04 PM
|
|
I think the crime should be ELEVATED. If someone is stalking, there should be the original TRO and when the TRO is violated, with premeditation (Im not talking about ending up at the same store where you both actually ARE shopping) the offense should be elevated I dont want to be in a situation (its on my mind alot lately, so its going to keep coming up in my logic,,,) where I am scared by someone following me at night even IF I try to go a different direction and put distance between us and I end up dead after fighting to try to SAVE my life and leaving bruises on my intimidator/aggressor at least, if I Have had a TRO on that person at any time, they will have less justification in the eyes of the law,,, being followed around can be very intimidating,,,and make one feel very threatened depending upon the environment,,, Yep, that is true. When you are dead that TRO will definitely be used by the DA to prosecute your killer. Good plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the crime should be ELEVATED. If someone is stalking, there should be the original TRO and when the TRO is violated, with premeditation (Im not talking about ending up at the same store where you both actually ARE shopping) the offense should be elevated I dont want to be in a situation (its on my mind alot lately, so its going to keep coming up in my logic,,,) where I am scared by someone following me at night even IF I try to go a different direction and put distance between us and I end up dead after fighting to try to SAVE my life and leaving bruises on my intimidator/aggressor at least, if I Have had a TRO on that person at any time, they will have less justification in the eyes of the law,,, being followed around can be very intimidating,,,and make one feel very threatened depending upon the environment,,, Yep, that is true. When you are dead that TRO will definitely be used by the DA to prosecute your killer. Good plan. IF I die, its better than ending up with he said she said...in my opinion IF the law works as it should, once its elevated to an imprisonable offense, I will be much SAFER with them behind bars, than continuing to follow and harass me ,,, |
|
|
|
|
