has anyone heard anything of righting legends(xtreme freak,author)?
he/she went to san bernadino after that tragic slaughter in 2015.in that no GUNS allowed meeting place,that got shot up by GUNS.
no new blogs since.
no e-mails answered.
any news would be gratefully received!!
thank you in advance
libby
that no GUNS allowed meeting place,that got shot up by GUNS.
Putting up a sign saying "No guns allowed" is the same as putting up a sign "Criminals are safe to kill people here."
BTW I can't find a SoL author with any name like you ask about.
answer= no guns allowed
Sign outside of place where gun advocates go to use their guns - Gun Range.
Sign outside where nutcases and criminals go to use their guns - No guns allowed
edit to add: both indicate a shooting gallery.
Putting up a sign saying "No guns allowed" is the same as putting up a sign "Criminals are safe to kill people here."
I can't decide what's more saddening, the need to erect a sign 'no guns allowed', or your reply.
I can't decide what's more saddening, the need to erect a sign 'no guns allowed', or your reply.
The saddest part is the feeling you need to put up a sign.
The saddest part is the feeling you need to put up a sign.
No the saddest part is being gullible enough to think a sign will make a difference
No the saddest part is being gullible enough to think a sign will make a difference
I'm forced to agree with you on that, as the one's who will obey the sign are not the ones you need to worry about, on the whole. It _does_ make it clear that anyone acting contrary to the sign is doing so deliberately, with malice aforethought, which helps with prosecuting them after the fact.
While traffic laws have never prevented anyone from choosing to drive at an unsafe speed, it makes it possible to prosecute those who choose to drive at an unsafe speed. It's the same thing.
But I totally agree that those who think legislating against something will make it not happen are fools. It just makes it possible to prosecute those who choose to do it anyway.
It should be acknowledged that the majority of people do choose to obey the established laws of the land, which is why speed limits have been beneficial in regard to decreases accidents. That there are those who will choose to ignore the laws of the land does not invalidate the concept of laws of the land, it just means you have to recognize that you will never achieve 100% compliance with the law; it also means you have to make sure that any legislation you pass is something that the vast majority of people will obey. It ties in with the old saying, "never give an order you know will be disobeyed."
... you will never achieve 100% compliance with the law;...
Especially when they only selectively enforce the laws as it is.
Especially when they only selectively enforce the laws as it is.
Truth.
It's openly acknowledged in Oregon; it's allowed to exceed the speed limit, if by keeping to the speed limit you would impede traffic; ambient traffic flow is the concept used, so if _everyone_ is travelling five miles over the limit, _no one_ gets ticketed. But this only goes so far, too much above the limit they _will_ ticket you, it's a careful balancing act between the legislated speed, the speed everyone wants to travel, and those who go too far. It's right there in the DMV issued Driver's Manual, the concept of ambient traffic speed overriding obeying the speed limit; too great a difference between your speed and everyone else's speed makes you a traffic hazard. They realized that changing the speed limit to reflect the actual speed driven wouldn't work, people would just go that much faster over the revised speed limit, so they choose to allow ambient traffic flow to override the posted speed limit so long as it didn't exceed the speed limit by too much, the point where they start to call it too much just happens to agree with what the consensus amongst the drivers had settled upon as how much you would push the speed limit; anyone exceeding that consensus gets ticketed, and the amount they are considered to be speeding is computed from the posted speed limit, not ambient traffic flow. It was a very pragmatic reaction to the reality of the situation, and has worked quite successfully for decades now. The actual speed driven is still much lower than before the Feds tied Highway funds to the posted speed limit, accidents are down as a result, and everyone is pretty much content with the situation. No one wants to rock the boat by suggesting revising either the speed limit or the concept of ambient traffic flow.
They realized that changing the speed limit to reflect the actual speed driven wouldn't work, people would just go that much faster over the revised speed limit
Actually, there are a number of recent studies which show that this is not true. Drivers tend to drive at a speed they consider safe for the road, conditions and their own skill. Changing posted limits (Up or down) will not affect the speed most drivers drive at on a given road/conditions.
A report by a group of traffic/road safety engineers that compiled several of these studies suggested that speed limits should be set at the 80th percentile of the speeds drivers actually drive*. Per their analysis, around 90% of US roads have speed limits that are too low.
*An example of the 80/20 rule of thumb set the speed limit where 80% of drivers are at or below the speed limit and 20% are speeding.
A report by a group of traffic/road safety engineers that compiled several of these studies suggested that speed limits should be set at the 80th percentile
The 2013 "California manual for setting speed laws" states that "Federal... studies demonstrate that the most effective attribute in establishing the speed limit is to determine the 85th percentile speed and set the posted speed close to that value."
... it's allowed to exceed the speed limit...
Actually I was referring to sentencing methods for criminal convictions. The laws say there is a minimum sentence of 20 years for committing xyz, so the sentence is for the minimum. Then the judge suspends all but 18 months. So now the convict gets to spend 18 months living in better conditions than many honest people trying to eke out a living on 2 jobs. Then there is the '3 strikes' law, yet I keep seeing '12th conviction for xyz sentenced to jail for 6 months with all but 2 weeks suspended, time to be served on weekends so they can pay their child support.' Where is the justice in that? Where is the deterrence? With the way the 'justice' system works these days, Charles Manson would probably have gotten a sentence of 6 month probation!
Then there is the '3 strikes' law
Only a few states actually enacted "3 strikes laws", California being the biggest. It has been a disaster for Ca with the population of prisoners on life without parole sentences increasing more than three fold.
Contrary to what you suggest California prosecutors have been pushing successfully to count non-violent crimes as "strikes" with more than a few people getting life sentences for things like shoplifting.
Then there is the '3 strikes' law,
From the past research I've done on US laws the 3 Strikes Law is not universal to all states, nor is it worded the same in the states where it's used. Some states apply it to only felonies while some states only apply it to felonies with violence, and others don't even have it. The states that do have it only apply it to crimes, never civil actions or county regulations. Thus anything listed as a Violation or a Misdemeanour isn't relevant to the 3 Strikes Law at all.
All the 3 Strikes Law ever does it fill prisons, it would have a strong deterrent effect and be useful if it meant an automatic execution for 3 felonies involving violence. However, I doubt that will be passed in the USA today.
Then there is the '3 strikes' law
The UK has a 'Three Strikes' rule that burglars serve time except in exceptional circumstances. Statistics show that only a quarter of serial burglars actually see jail time - judges and magistrates continually let them off.
AJ
...judges and magistrates continually let them off.
And that is the main problem. Why should criminals worry about the consequences of being caught if the punishment is so lax?
And that is the main problem. Why should criminals worry about the consequences of being caught if the punishment is so lax?
Worse than that, the local (police forces are usually for individual counties)police annual report included the statistic that 5% of reported burglaries were ever solved.
Worse than that, the local (police forces are usually for individual counties) police annual report included the statistic that 5% of reported burglaries were ever solved.
If the insurance company doesn't request a police report, with those statistics why bother to report it at all?
Even if they finally – after some years – catch the perp(s), the public prosecutor may decide to concentrate on watertight cases. To sue the perps for damages is usually futile, so again why report it at all?
So probably the official statistics don't cover all burglaries and those 5% are way too high.
BTW, in Germany many bicycle thefts are never reported, because the bicycles are often not insured or the insurance doesn't pay due to case details.
HM.
If the insurance company doesn't request a police report, with those statistics why bother to report it at all?
I had a case where my wallet was stolen and the cards used. Two banks held back their CCTV footage for the police to collect - one of them was sharp and retained my card.
When I tried to report the theft the police answer was "it's none of our business; we refuse to log the theft". We will not collect the CCTV footage.
To go back to your comment one of the cards was issued by Carte Bleu and under their T & C in the case of loss I had to supply them with details of the police report. The met answer was along the lines of too bad.
Even if they finally – after some years – catch the perp(s), the public prosecutor may decide to concentrate on watertight cases. To sue the perps for damages is usually futile, so again why report it at all?
Back in the days when peelers were peelers my car was damaged in a hit and run in my absence. A passer-by left the number of the offending vehicle and his own phone number.
When I asked for police help in tracing the offender they confiscated the note and gave me a formal warning that if I took any steps to obtain the cost of the repairs even in a civil case then I would be charged and imprisoned for interfering in a police enquiry. That was in about 1968 and they are still making enquiries.
When I tried to report the theft the police answer was "it's none of our business; we refuse to log the theft"
It's one simple and easy way for police to boost their case clearance rates. Refuse to accept complaints in difficult to solve cases.
It's one simple and easy way for police to boost their case clearance rates. Refuse to accept complaints in difficult to solve cases.
The time I had that problem with a known perpetrator the police refused to even check him out.
I got sadistic. I set up a trap for that guy one weekend. I acted like I was going on a trip. Sneaked back into my apartment through a rear window. Made sure every entrance was locked. No lights on at all. Set beside his previous entry point where he had broken out a piece of glass. Held a nice big knife ready. He arrived about midnight and stuck his hand though that opening reached around to the deadbolt lock. I slammed that knife through his hand and into the door frame. Refused to remove the knife until the cops arrived and ordered me to remove it. I took it out spinning it as hard as I could. Talk about the lovely screams he made.
Unless they've repeated it, the municipality of Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia, still requires residents to own guns.
Unless they've repeated it, the municipality of Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia, still requires residents to own guns.
I think you mean repealed, not repeated. Unless you think they used to required muskets and are wondering if they upgraded the requirement to repeating rifles. :)
sorry the author of" Xtreme Freak" is RightingLegends. capital r & L & no space between the 2 words
RightingLegends
He's also active on a number of HP FanFic sites, but nothing since Dec 2015. One has a note his real initials are RK.
I tried to find out how many mass shooter vote left from local Antigua nuts and was told they all vote republican when I mentioned 3 that were known dems they called security that carried guns.hmmm hypocrite much
Anti gun
local Antigua nuts
What is a gua? And why do people where you live not like the gua's nuts?
And now you are waiting for trial because the liberals say you should just let him steal your stuff
nope. The position of his hand and wrist pinned on that door were proof of breaking and entering. His wrist was pinned in that little strip (about 4 inches) where the glass panel had been broken out so he could stick his hand in and unlock the door. I don't know what that darn style of door is called. The cops called me a sadist when I removed the knife because of me spinning it. I just asked them what they would have done. Answer was "Shot him" my reply was "He lived" although his hand was very badly damaged and with the proof he went to jail by way of the hospital. No more burglaries as long as I lived in that area.
The legal theory, as it was explained to me by a lawyer acquaintance, is that if someone is walking in your flower bed, you have the right to stop them. That doesn't mean you have the right to kill them to keep them from walking in your flower bed. I believe the term he used was "proportionate" or "reasonable man rule" or something like that.
Its the reason physical evidence has to be on the inside of the home or business. Outside is harder to prove the self-defense as a result of the criminal's action.
That is why I refused to remove the knife from that burglar's hand until the cops arrived and ordered me to remove it. The position of his arm and hand was not only the proof of his criminal act, but my defense against being charged with an attempted murder charge.
Its funny how even when you are only protecting yourself or someone else. You have to be able to prove it to the police and the courts. Its like you are more guilty than the criminal.
Its like you are more guilty than the criminal.
You got caught with a dead body. He didn't. To them, he's the victim.
Sometimes the bad guy wins here in the u.s. cases were the good guy was holding the bad guy at gun point til the cops show is arrested and charged then sued by the bad guy for mental anguish and wins.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/
Such lawsuits do happen, but as to how often they succeed, that's very difficult to determine.
The filing of such suits tends to make the evening news, but the final outcome almost never does.
And legal databases only track appellate court decisions.
Trial court transcripts and decisions are public records, but there aren't on line databases available for state or federal trial court records like there are for the appellate courts.
It is often said that anyone can sue for anything, and the anecdotal cases where an apparently baseless suit is won leads people to believe that it is commonplace, while in fact most judges throw these things out immediately. In cases where it appears that injustice was done, such as the McDonald's hot coffee case, a study of the actual facts make it a bit clearer why the plaintiff won. In terms of our present discussion, redlion75's last two words were "and wins" and I want to see proof. I did a small search before I posted that it sounded apocryphal, and the Cutrufelli v Leone case you pointed to was one that came up. Only a handful of followups, but they indicate the case was thrown out. See for example http://spriska.com/2015/08/11/just-because-the-police-said-your-shooting-was-self-defense-doesnt-mean-youre-not-going-to-court/
In terms of our present discussion, redlion75's last two words were "and wins" and I want to see proof.
And again, just because one case was tossed doesn't mean every case like it would get tossed.
It's very hard to track these kinds of cases. Civil suits in general don't end up in legal databases unless they go to appeals. And these kinds of cases in particular don't generally draw a lot of news coverage.
If any such cases have ever been won, there would be a records of it, but finding those official records would be a matter of physically visiting every county and federal courthouse in the country, not a simple or inexpensive task.
I have no argument with what you are saying. I have an argument with what redlion75 said. The comment was quite specific, including the plural "cases" and that it was just mental anguish from being held at gunpoint - a circumstance that almost any judge would laugh at. The final part "and wins" certainly implies to me that cases are known, and should be citable. I'm guessing the answer is "I read it somewhere, so it must be true."
