The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Okay. This death was:

a. A premeditated homicide
b. Gross negligence resulting in death
c. Manslaughter
d. A tragic accident
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
chcr said:
What makes you think that wasn't one?

b. as well.
Click to expand...

Because she included a reference to the official charge, that's all.

I believe it comes down to d. myself.

The problem is that we have come to this crossroad where there are no accidents any more. There is thois mentality that "Someone must pay!" for every wrong done regardless of intent. Criminal punishment for deeds done should go to intent, not just "the law is the law". Every time I hear that phrase, I just cringe. "The law is the law" was why the Rosens and Goldbergs started disappearing back in the thirties and forties.

American jurisprudence used to be based upon three tenets for a conviction of a crime means, or method; motive, or intent; and opportunity. Over the course of recent events, the past twenty years or so, motive has slowly been done away with. Zero tolerance laws are a great example of this.

Recently, a kid went hunting and accidentally brought his rifle to school, unloaded, and left it in his car. A "passerby" (remember that thing about the Rosens and Goldbergs) saw the rifle and called police. Since he was in the school parking lot, he was arrested and released but will be suspended from school for several days.

He had the means to do great harm (the rifle, but no ammunition), and he had the opportunity (every passing person), but he had no intent or motive to do harm. Based on the means, even though he had no ammunition, and opportunity alone, he was suspended.

The same thing happened with a girl who had only a box of shot shells, and no firearm, in her car on school grounds. She is an Olympic hopeful but was suspended for having a "dangerous instrument" in her locked car. In that case, she had no means, motive, or opportunity as the shot shells had no way to be used as a dangerous instrument without the instrument, the shotgun, to discharge them.

There are no accidental acts any more in the eyes of the law.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
jimpeel said:
The problem is that we have come to this crossroad where there are no accidents any more. There is thois mentality that "Someone must pay!" for every wrong done regardless of intent. Criminal punishment for deeds done should go to intent, not just "the law is the law".
Click to expand...

I argree, wholeheartedly. Sometimes, quite often in fact, shit just does happen. We are too quick to jump on the prosecute bandwagon, without looking at the full facts of a case. Committing a crime is an act of willful intent or an act of such willful negligence that you are a danger to yourself or others by not seeing it.

Zero tolerance is another story. You know the rules & you willingly broke them, you pay the price. That too goes go back to willful intent. Bringing some steak knives to school or having your 3rd grader bring th ebaggy of dope he found in your room is hardly willful intent. Zero tolerance with common sense.
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
In 1996, I wrote an editorial opinion piece which was published in the Attleboro, MA Sun-Chronicle entitled "The Death of Goodness In America".

The Death Of Goodness In America

I was exiting a local warehouse club recently and was greeted at the door by the obligatory person who checks your receipt against the goods in your cart. I thought “Treat everyone as though they are a thief and no one can complain.” I later heard the President say on television that we have reached a level of zero-tolerance in America. I thought “Treat everyone as though they are a criminal and no one can complain.” The two were inexorably linked in my mind.

Most Americans can tell you that the death of common sense occurred years ago. What most fail to realize is that the death of goodness accompanied it.

Mandatory sentencing, due to the unwillingness or inability of judges to act against criminals, is one aspect of the equality in justice that has removed all semblance of cognizant thought from the process. Judges have their hands tied when it comes to sentencing; unable to differentiate between persons who broke the law with malice or those who simply fell astray. Any consideration of the motive of the accused is removed and everyone is treated as though they had heinous intent. Everyone is lumped together as a single evil entity.

Not even the President of the United States is exempt from this madness. Under the laws, as written, he has no choice but to impose sanctions on any nation that errs on any side but our own. The result is that the United States now has sanctions on many countries including some of our closest allies. Regardless of their true intent, all who err are treated as though they have the basest of intentions.

In the drunken logic of the modern bureaucrat the equality of treatment for all far outweighs the quality or fairness of that treatment. All things must be treated on an equal basis regardless of right or wrong. The problem is that when you treat all things equally you must always err on the side of evil over goodness. All things are viewed in their worst light. Of course this allows the bureaucrat of the moment to shirk any duty to fairness and relieves them of any and all responsibility for any and all decisions at any and all levels; i.e. the law is the law and it is out of my hands. Neat, concise, to the point.

Zero-tolerance is the primary example of this wrongheaded thinking. Everything is treated as equally bad and everyone is treated as equally evil. Under the guiding principles of zero-tolerance everything is at its worst. Every knife is a weapon. Every drug is a restricted drug. Every action contrary to the wishes of the authorities is evil.

When a girl picked up her mother’s lunch in error one day in Longmont, Colorado she didn’t realize there was a paring knife in the bag. Upon discovery of same, she brought it to the attention of her teacher, and was immediately expelled from school under zero-tolerance.

When a Providence, Rhode Island teenager used the screwdriver on his Swiss Army knife to tighten the screw on a computer case at school he was immediately suspended under zero-tolerance.

When a Denver, CO student handed out lemon drop candies to a few of his fellow students he was met with a barrage of criticism after the school panicked and called out the police, fire department, and paramedics. He was suspended under zero-tolerance.

When a girl in another city gave a girl at school an aspirin for “ladies cramps” she was immediately suspended under zero-tolerance.

What all of these kids have in common is that they were deemed to be the worst of persons with the worst of intentions; even though they were good kids and their intentions were good. They also share the common thread that it will be long and hard to bring them back to whatever respect they previously had for the system that wronged them.

What is the underlying cause for this anomaly in our nation? What has caused us to become so suspicious, so paranoid, so distrusting? In a word; litigation. Our litigious society has driven us over the brink and into the abyss from which we may never return. We now are so paranoid that if we treat one person in one manner, and another in another, we will be sued for the inequality of our actions. One, or the other, will sue us because of their real or perceived injury at our hands and we will do anything to prevent it; even the destruction of an entire generation of our children and their respect for the laws of the nation.

When we treat everyone as a criminal, a ne’er-do-well, a druggie, a purveyor; we also create hostile, disrespectful, angry human beings that will at some point live up to those expectations. We instill in the young that there is no goodness.

The time has come for the people of this nation to realize that zero-tolerance, and like laws, are destructive to our nation and our system of laws and government. The people of this nation must realize that it is time to do away with these destructive laws and return to the common sense approach to the laws that built this nation. Only through the destruction of these laws can we as a nation return to a system that seeks out and reveres goodness.
Click to expand...
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
i don't think zero tolerance is driven by lawyers, exactly, though i'm sure there are some at the orgy.

most of what is "zero tolerated" would seem to stem from... hmmm... are these liberal or conservative concerns? or both?

yep both.

would seem to suggest something about american culture more gnerally... but what?
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
2minkey said:
would seem to suggest something about american culture more gnerally... but what?
Click to expand...

The rush to try to plaeas everyone as they rush to worship at the alter of ppolitical correctness.

The end game of zero tolerance is the satisfaction of those who say "Why didn't someone do something?"

Harris and Klebold had put out warning signs "Why didn't someone do something?"

Kip Kinkle had put out warning signs "Why didn't someone do something?"

The list goes on and on. Now, they simply treat everything as the worst of the worst because they don't want anyone to be able to say "Why didn't someone do something?" They can bring their efforts to court to defend against the lawsuits. "See, we did try to do something."
 
Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
jimpeel said:
I was looking for personal opinion regardless of the official charges.
Click to expand...

Sure there are times when shit just happens and nothing can be done to prevent it, but I doubt this was one of them.

The chick is a flake--the cops were of the opinion that caring for a child was not high on her priority list, and she complained to the babydaddy that she couldn't do it anymore--couldn't deal with the child's crying. Sends the kid away for nearly a month---she was totally disconnected from the word "parent," let alone the responsibilities that come with it.

****

Stop for the doorgreeter to prove that I haven't stolen anything?

I'm curious as to what legal right a business owner has to stop, question, or search a patron of their establishment?

When they have me on camera, or an employee has seen me pocket an item--then they have probable cause. Since I've paid for everything and I'm headed for my car, I won't stop for them. :shrug: Let 'em call the police.
 
chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
You guys whine about this as if it were new or something. For instance, how many of you even remember that ATVs used to have three wheels (and were, coincidently more fun to ride). It's all Ralph Nader's fault. :lol:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. :shrug:
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Cerise said:
The chick is a flake--the cops were of the opinion that caring for a child was not high on her priority list, and she complained to the babydaddy that she couldn't do it anymore--couldn't deal with the child's crying. Sends the kid away for nearly a month---she was totally disconnected from the word "parent," let alone the responsibilities that come with it.
Click to expand...

An astute observation. How much of it is fabricated by a man trying to take his child , failing, and then having the child die is up to speculation. Revenge and angst is a powerful motivator.

****

Cerise said:
Stop for the doorgreeter to prove that I haven't stolen anything?

I'm curious as to what legal right a business owner has to stop, question, or search a patron of their establishment?

When they have me on camera, or an employee has seen me pocket an item--then they have probable cause. Since I've paid for everything and I'm headed for my car, I won't stop for them. :shrug: Let 'em call the police.
Click to expand...

I do not know what they can do outside of cancelling your membership for violating the tenets of the agreement you signed when you subscribed.

If they were to falsely detain you, they would open themselves up to litigation.
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
chcr said:
You guys whine about this as if it were new or something. For instance, how many of you even remember that ATVs used to have three wheels (and were, coincidently more fun to ride). It's all Ralph Nader's fault. :lol:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. :shrug:
Click to expand...

yeah, it was happening 20 years ago, as a broader historical pattern, this is fairly new...

remember wally and beav? :grinyes: they had common sense. :rofl:
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
2minkey said:
i don't think zero tolerance is driven by lawyers, exactly, though i'm sure there are some at the orgy.
Click to expand...

They are the ones yelling discrimination if the cookie has one extra M&M in one particular piece. They are not absolutely the motivating factor (see the Three Strikes laws) but they are the arbiter to it getting this stupid.

chcr said:
For instance, how many of you even remember that ATVs used to have three wheels (and were, coincidently more fun to ride).
Click to expand...

Hated those too. Of course, I preferred my thrills at 90 degress...

suzuki_motocross_jump.jpg
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
That's not but we did that stuff for fun in the Arizona desert ( I also raced MX for a short time)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top