(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   California voters ease the state's "3 Strikes And You're Out" law, sending Los Angeles Dodger hitters into an embarrassing premature celebration

09 Nov 2012 01:57 PM   |   3540 clicks   |   Mercury News
Showing 1-50 of 140 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Some 'Splainin' To Do    [TotalFark]  
It's a bit of a shame that we couldn't also get the death penalty repealed, in spite of the fact that it's just flat-out pointless in this state, but I'll take this as evidence that the voters aren't always going to be duped by tough-on-crime rhetoric.

09 Nov 2012 11:43 AM
shower_in_my_socks    [TotalFark]  
I wanted the death penalty overturned as well, but 1 for 2 on undoing some of our draconian laws here is OK. And I don't think I saw a single ad about the death penalty prop -- maybe with some money behind it next time it will do better. I was more bothered by the severe three-strikes law than I was about the death penalty, since I think it probably affects more people, so I'll take it.

09 Nov 2012 12:47 PM
muck4doo     
One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

09 Nov 2012 02:00 PM
StopLurkListen     
We didn't erase it, we made penalties more flexible for non-violent crimes. Because it was stupid to put people away for life for shoplifting and such. "But we have to be TOUGH ON CRIMEEEEEEEEEE" Yeah, get real.

09 Nov 2012 02:01 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND     
+1

09 Nov 2012 02:01 PM
ProfessorOhki     
Meanwhile, prop 35 passes with 81.2% because of THINK OF THE CHILDREN and is already tied up in court.

Link

09 Nov 2012 02:07 PM
Corvus     
Wow surprised. CA even though the rest of nation thinks it's very liberal, it seems to go crazy about crime and about taxes.

And prop 30 passed and so did this. CA is really changing.

09 Nov 2012 02:08 PM
Corvus     

ProfessorOhki: Meanwhile, prop 35 passes with 81.2% because of THINK OF THE CHILDREN and is already tied up in court.

Link


Yeah. I voted no on that. It's like anything that does like 4 or more different things to change criminal law I don't think should be passed by referendum. It's too complicated to know what all the repercussion are.

09 Nov 2012 02:10 PM
zorgon     
We still have more prisons than ANYONE! USA! USA! CA! CA!

09 Nov 2012 02:10 PM
zorgon     
I also voted against 35 because stupid, but I was still surprised to see the ACLU challenging it. Weird. All weird.

09 Nov 2012 02:11 PM
superfudge73     

StopLurkListen: We didn't erase it, we made penalties more flexible for non-violent crimes. Because it was stupid to put people away for life for shoplifting and such. "But we have to be TOUGH ON CRIMEEEEEEEEEE" Yeah, get real.


I support "tough on crimea" legislation. Someone has to teach those uppity bastards some respect.

americanmonsters.comView Full Size

09 Nov 2012 02:12 PM
muck4doo     

muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.


To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that. They called it a felony, and that was his 3rd strike. His father cried to me that he wish he never called the cops if he knew what they were going to do to George. I hope George gets out, but I fear he is a ruined person now. When he last came out he had joined the Aryan Brotherhood, and had all his tats showing that off, yet he still hung out with us Mexicans and Blacks from the neighborhood when he got out. From what he told me is you do what you gotta do as an explanation. He loves the people he grew up with. 16 years later I doubt he still has that innocent part of him left.

09 Nov 2012 02:17 PM
CynicalLA     

Some 'Splainin' To Do: It's a bit of a shame that we couldn't also get the death penalty repealed, in spite of the fact that it's just flat-out pointless in this state, but I'll take this as evidence that the voters aren't always going to be duped by tough-on-crime rhetoric.


1 out of 2 is better than nothing. Things are changing.

09 Nov 2012 02:18 PM
CynicalLA     

muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that. They called it a felony, and that was his 3rd strike. His father cried to me that he wish he never called the cops if he knew what they were going to do to George. I hope George gets out, but I fear he is a ruined person now. When he last came out he had joined the Aryan Brotherhood, and had all his tats showing that off, yet he still hung out with us Mexicans and Blacks from the neighborhood when he got out. From what he told me is you do what you gotta do as an explanation. He loves the people he grew up with. 16 years later I doubt he still has that innocent part of him left.


Sorry to hear about that. Hope he comes out alright.

09 Nov 2012 02:19 PM
WhoopAssWayne     
As long as these criminals stay in California, I have no problem with this at all. They will target their crimes on the dumbass liberals who let them out. In fact, half-way houses should be placed right in the middle of liberal, middle class, suburban soccer mom territory for great justice.

09 Nov 2012 02:21 PM
tortilla burger     

zorgon: I also voted against 35 because stupid, but I was still surprised to see the ACLU challenging it. Weird. All weird.


I was also one of the 20% that voted against it because I thought it was unnecessary. It's already illegal. Passing a measure to make it double-plus bad is just silly. It won't help police identify situations where exploitation is occurring nor will it help prevent its occurrence.

09 Nov 2012 02:22 PM
ProfessorOhki     

Corvus: ProfessorOhki: Meanwhile, prop 35 passes with 81.2% because of THINK OF THE CHILDREN and is already tied up in court.

Link

Yeah. I voted no on that. It's like anything that does like 4 or more different things to change criminal law I don't think should be passed by referendum. It's too complicated to know what all the repercussion are.


Yeah, the out-of-band on it is a bit weird too. Most of the funding and support came from a Facebook ex-exec who tried to run for AG in 2010 and lost 16% to 33% If I had to guess, I'd say he sees this as a sure-fire bill that will let him show how "tough on crime" he is for when he takes a second shot at office. He also created the "Safer California Foundation," which I can't find any stories on before 2011 and seems to be involved in nothing besides this proposition Besides, like you say, criminal sentencing guidelines have no place going through initiative like that. I farking hate politics.

Corvus: Wow surprised. CA even though the rest of nation thinks it's very liberal, it seems to go crazy about crime and about taxes.

And prop 30 passed and so did this. CA is really changing.


30 passed in part because the universities were stalling everything out to see what happened to funding. Some were only accepting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition. I hate tax hikes as much as the next guy, but I didn't see much of a choice. Feels bad being strong-armed like that, but if higher education for CA residents was slashed for a while, the economic impact in a year or two wouldn't be great and I know too many people dealing with admissions/tuition BS.

09 Nov 2012 02:25 PM
ConConHead     
FTFA -The list includes people who committed misdemeanor indecent exposure years ago or whose crimes never involved the Internet, he said.

A sex offender's rights should be restricted only on an individual basis, Risher said, taking into account the offender's history and likelihood of using the Internet to commit new crimes: "It can't dump them all into a category."

**
This drives me crazy. Maybe it's time for the term 'sex offender' to be revisited. A guy who jacks off at a porno theater or exposed himself while drunk is not the same as a guy who raped someone.

09 Nov 2012 02:26 PM
Uncivil Engineer     
Please note, this post will set off sarcasm detectors. Ensure yours is calibrated correctly before proceeding.

I voted no on 35 as well. It seemed to be a pointless proposition. There are already laws on the books that punish human traffickers at both the State and Federal level. Im sure all of the traffickers are up to speed on the laws, and will now all avoid California, kind of like how the death penalty cuts down on murder.

I hate propositions like this one, to most people it is like asking, 'When did you stop beating your spouse?' There is only one answer that is socially acceptable, and in the end it won't have any effect on the problem.

09 Nov 2012 02:29 PM
MyNameIsMofuga     

Some 'Splainin' To Do: It's a bit of a shame that we couldn't also get the death penalty repealed, in spite of the fact that it's just flat-out pointless in this state, but I'll take this as evidence that the voters aren't always going to be duped by tough-on-crime rhetoric.


Texas has the highest execution rate but we also have the lowest murder rate so that proves it works.
/facts
//I don't have them.

09 Nov 2012 02:29 PM
MrEricSir     
Turns out that putting people in jail for life for stealing a candy bar not only didn't reduce crime, but it cost the state a lot of money.

09 Nov 2012 02:42 PM
Krieghund     

ConConHead: A guy who jacks off at a porno theater or exposed himself while drunk is not the same as a guy who raped someone.


www.thefablife.comView Full Size

This.

09 Nov 2012 02:47 PM
The All-Powerful Atheismo     

Corvus: ProfessorOhki: Meanwhile, prop 35 passes with 81.2% because of THINK OF THE CHILDREN and is already tied up in court.

Link

Yeah. I voted no on that. It's like anything that does like 4 or more different things to change criminal law I don't think should be passed by referendum. It's too complicated to know what all the repercussion are.


I also voted "no" on that. Because of the mandatory online registration of sex offenders thing (I forget the exact language). Until they start changing sex offender laws so that some 18 year old who shows his weiner to a 16 year old doesn't get FFL, I'm voting no on this type of thing.

09 Nov 2012 02:49 PM
The All-Powerful Atheismo     

ProfessorOhki: Some were only accepting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition.


Interesting because my university gives automatic acceptance to local students (though not necessarily to a particular program).

09 Nov 2012 02:51 PM
jjorsett     

StopLurkListen: We didn't erase it, we made penalties more flexible for non-violent crimes. Because it was stupid to put people away for life for shoplifting and such. "But we have to be TOUGH ON CRIMEEEEEEEEEE" Yeah, get real.


The first two crimes that preceded the third "pizza theft" crime were serious ones. What the backers of this law sought and got was that somebody has to get hurt now before we put one of these career recidivists away for good. I don't know why you consider the fact that yet another person will have to be injured a triumph, but congratulations. Better hope that it isn't somebody you care about who ends up as the third victim.

09 Nov 2012 02:52 PM
Rent Party     

muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that.


Your friend George sounds like a violent criminal that should be locked up.

09 Nov 2012 02:52 PM
The All-Powerful Atheismo     

jjorsett: StopLurkListen: We didn't erase it, we made penalties more flexible for non-violent crimes. Because it was stupid to put people away for life for shoplifting and such. "But we have to be TOUGH ON CRIMEEEEEEEEEE" Yeah, get real.

The first two crimes that preceded the third "pizza theft" crime were serious ones. What the backers of this law sought and got was that somebody has to get hurt now before we put one of these career recidivists away for good. I don't know why you consider the fact that yet another person will have to be injured a triumph, but congratulations. Better hope that it isn't somebody you care about who ends up as the third victim.


I hope you are the third victim

09 Nov 2012 02:56 PM
ProfessorOhki     

The All-Powerful Atheismo: ProfessorOhki: Some were only accepting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition.

Interesting because my university gives automatic acceptance to local students (though not necessarily to a particular program).


Link
Link

I'm honestly not that informed on it, but I've got some friends with college-age kids that have been raging pretty hard about it.

09 Nov 2012 02:56 PM
The All-Powerful Atheismo     

ProfessorOhki: The All-Powerful Atheismo: ProfessorOhki: Some were only accepting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition.

Interesting because my university gives automatic acceptance to local students (though not necessarily to a particular program).

Link
Link

I'm honestly not that informed on it, but I've got some friends with college-age kids that have been raging pretty hard about it.


I'm from SJSU and what I said remains accurate.

09 Nov 2012 02:58 PM
ProfessorOhki     

The All-Powerful Atheismo: ProfessorOhki: The All-Powerful Atheismo: ProfessorOhki: Some were only accepting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition.

Interesting because my university gives automatic acceptance to local students (though not necessarily to a particular program).

Link
Link

I'm honestly not that informed on it, but I've got some friends with college-age kids that have been raging pretty hard about it.

I'm from SJSU and what I said remains accurate.


Link ?

09 Nov 2012 03:01 PM
The All-Powerful Atheismo     

ProfessorOhki: The All-Powerful Atheismo: ProfessorOhki: The All-Powerful Atheismo: ProfessorOhki: Some were only accepting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition.

Interesting because my university gives automatic acceptance to local students (though not necessarily to a particular program).

Link
Link

I'm honestly not that informed on it, but I've got some friends with college-age kids that have been raging pretty hard about it.

I'm from SJSU and what I said remains accurate.

Link ?


I guess they just changed that this semester.

Lame.

09 Nov 2012 03:03 PM
muck4doo     

Rent Party: muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that.

Your friend George sounds like a violent criminal that should be locked up.


25 years for saying mean things sounds about right, right? You authoritarian dickwads make me sick. Oh noes! He got in a couple of fights by 21 and said mean things later! Look him up 25 to life whhaargarble!!!

09 Nov 2012 03:04 PM
Rent Party     

muck4doo: Rent Party: muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that.

Your friend George sounds like a violent criminal that should be locked up.

25 years for saying mean things sounds about right, right? You authoritarian dickwads make me sick. Oh noes! He got in a couple of fights by 21 and said mean things later! Look him up 25 to life whhaargarble!!!


No. 25 years for demonstrating that he lacks the self control to not be violent and commit violent acts, as evidenced by his "mistakes."

The threats are merely more evidence of that. Should the state have waited until your uncontrollably violent friend seriously injured or killed someone? Would that be more "he just made a mistake" wailing and gnashing of teeth?

When sentencing, your criminal history is admissible, and that is as it should be. Your buddy, after he got done communicating a threat had a judge that looked at two prior convictions for violent acts, and locked his ass up for good.

Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.

09 Nov 2012 03:14 PM
Barnstormer     
A simple way to get out of jury duty is to claim to be a firm believer in reincarnation, so much so that you believe that the penalty for every crime should be death. Eventually after many cycles of life you will be naturally predisposed to live in harmony with all other living beings.

09 Nov 2012 03:16 PM
Gawdzila    [TotalFark]  

Rent Party: muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that.

Your friend George sounds like a violent criminal that should be locked up.

 

img838.imageshack.usView Full Size

09 Nov 2012 03:25 PM
Rent Party     

Gawdzila: Rent Party: muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that.

Your friend George sounds like a violent criminal that should be locked up. 

[img838.imageshack.us image 250x250]


Completely serious.

Nothing pisses me off when some thug associate washes away the violent actions of their buddy with a "he just made a mistake."

If it was serious enough to warrant a felony conviction, it wasn't a mistake. It was a criminal act.

09 Nov 2012 03:27 PM
muck4doo     

Rent Party: muck4doo: Rent Party: muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that.

Your friend George sounds like a violent criminal that should be locked up.

25 years for saying mean things sounds about right, right? You authoritarian dickwads make me sick. Oh noes! He got in a couple of fights by 21 and said mean things later! Look him up 25 to life whhaargarble!!!

No. 25 years for demonstrating that he lacks the self control to not be violent and commit violent acts, as evidenced by his "mistakes."

The threats are merely more evidence of that. Should the state have waited until your uncontrollably violent friend seriously injured or killed someone? Would that be more "he just made a mistake" wailing and gnashing of teeth?

When sentencing, your criminal history is admissible, and that is as it should be. Your buddy, after he got done communicating a threat had a judge that looked at two prior convictions for violent acts, and locked his ass up for good.

Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.


Ah, I see. It was a pre-emptive strike before he did any real harm. Can I have you locked away as an authoritarian douche before you do any real damage?

09 Nov 2012 03:28 PM
Rent Party     

muck4doo:
Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.

Ah, I see. It was a pre-emptive strike before he did any real harm.


That is precisely what it was. But lets not pretend that your mistake prone buddy was just selected off the streets pre-cog style. It aint like they just pulled his name out of a hat. He farked himself over with two felony violent crimes.

Your friend is a violent douchebag. Rather than railing on about what an injustice it is that your violent douchebag friend got locked up, you could focus on helping him not be a violent douche, should society ever determine he is worth giving yet another chance.

If here given four tries, do you suppose he could refrain from committing violence and threatening people? His personal history suggests no.



Can I have you locked away as an authoritarian douche before you do any real damage?


When I'm convicted of my first violent offense, you can come calling. Unfortunately for you, I am not a violent criminal.

09 Nov 2012 03:32 PM
Gawdzila    [TotalFark]  

Rent Party: No. 25 years for demonstrating that he lacks the self control to not be violent and commit violent acts, as evidenced by his "mistakes."


It was before he was 21. I'm not sure how much you know about teenagers or brain development (evidently not much), but poor impulse control is a hallmark of young people. I mean, are you really advocating locking people up for life for getting into fights as a teenager?


Rent Party: The threats are merely more evidence of that.


No, they're evidence of a custody battle. I imagine that some very large percentage of bitter custody battles probably involve threats.


Rent Party: Your buddy, after he got done communicating a threat had a judge that looked at two prior convictions for violent acts, and locked his ass up for good.


The judge had nothing to do with it. He was compelled by law to lock the guy up no matter what he thought of his prior convictions.


Rent Party: Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.


Which is why it is a dumb law.

09 Nov 2012 03:33 PM
muck4doo     

Rent Party: Your friend is a violent douchebag. Rather than railing on about what an injustice it is that your violent douchebag friend got locked up, you could focus on helping him not be a violent douche,


25 years in prison for making threats should fix that, right? That'll learn him.

09 Nov 2012 03:37 PM
muck4doo     

Rent Party: muck4doo:
Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.

Ah, I see. It was a pre-emptive strike before he did any real harm.


That is precisely what it was. But lets not pretend that your mistake prone buddy was just selected off the streets pre-cog style. It aint like they just pulled his name out of a hat. He farked himself over with two felony violent crimes.

Your friend is a violent douchebag. Rather than railing on about what an injustice it is that your violent douchebag friend got locked up, you could focus on helping him not be a violent douche, should society ever determine he is worth giving yet another chance.

If here given four tries, do you suppose he could refrain from committing violence and threatening people? His personal history suggests no.



Can I have you locked away as an authoritarian douche before you do any real damage?

When I'm convicted of my first violent offense, you can come calling. Unfortunately for you, I am not a violent criminal.


By the way asshole, no one was killed or raped in his 2 stupid fights by 21.

09 Nov 2012 03:41 PM
WhoGAS    [TotalFark]  

Gawdzila: Rent Party: No. 25 years for demonstrating that he lacks the self control to not be violent and commit violent acts, as evidenced by his "mistakes."

It was before he was 21. I'm not sure how much you know about teenagers or brain development (evidently not much), but poor impulse control is a hallmark of young people. I mean, are you really advocating locking people up for life for getting into fights as a teenager?


Rent Party: The threats are merely more evidence of that.

No, they're evidence of a custody battle. I imagine that some very large percentage of bitter custody battles probably involve threats.


Rent Party: Your buddy, after he got done communicating a threat had a judge that looked at two prior convictions for violent acts, and locked his ass up for good.

The judge had nothing to do with it. He was compelled by law to lock the guy up no matter what he thought of his prior convictions.


Rent Party: Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.

Which is why it is a dumb law.


Remember, most of the "vocal" people on Fark are simply here to argue for the sake of arguing. Some call them trolls, I just call them lonely but either way, they don't do much besides breathe, eat and crap. That's okay, sometimes they bring out some good discussions, but mostly they tell you how wrong you are (even when correct) because you said purple instead of violet.

09 Nov 2012 03:42 PM
Rent Party     

Gawdzila: Rent Party: No. 25 years for demonstrating that he lacks the self control to not be violent and commit violent acts, as evidenced by his "mistakes."

It was before he was 21. I'm not sure how much you know about teenagers or brain development (evidently not much), but poor impulse control is a hallmark of young people. I mean, are you really advocating locking people up for life for getting into fights as a teenager?


I don't care. He was over 18, and therefore an adult, and therefore responsible for his actions. And if he was under 18 and they charged him as an adult anyway, that tells me his crimes were much more serious than you have let on. So, which is it?

I've also raised three kids and none of them have this problem with committing "mistakes." None of 'em have stuck up a 7-11, carjacked anyone, peddled dope, beat anyone up, or done any of these violent things that you would just like to brush of as "a mistake." I have/had to cajole on them on occasion to get them to do their homework and clean their rooms, but otherwise, no violent felons.

Your friend is solely accountable and responsible for his actions. No one else is.


Rent Party: The threats are merely more evidence of that.

No, they're evidence of a custody battle. I imagine that some very large percentage of bitter custody battles probably involve threats.


Well, having been through my own bitter custody battle, and noting that the number of custody battles that result in felony arrests is strikingly small, I can state categorically that you are wrong.

Your friend is just a douchebag. That's the only real answer.


Rent Party: Your buddy, after he got done communicating a threat had a judge that looked at two prior convictions for violent acts, and locked his ass up for good.

The judge had nothing to do with it. He was compelled by law to lock the guy up no matter what he thought of his prior convictions.


Thank god for that! He might have been one of those judges that thinks a dude with two violent felonies and in hock for a third might someday change his ways. I am a "leopard doesn't change his spots" kind of guy. Especially after the second time.


Rent Party: Your friend is *exactly* the clown that "three-strikes" laws were intended to put away.

Which is why it is a dumb law.


Yeah, keeping violent douchebags off the streets is dumb.

09 Nov 2012 03:43 PM
SirEattonHogg     
I don't get the Dodgers reference. I mean they didn't make it to the playoffs but they were hardly terrible. Bad luck being in the same division as the Giants and 2 away from having clinched wild card. They just didn't come together as a team later in the season.

What were we talking about anyways?

09 Nov 2012 03:44 PM
Rent Party     

muck4doo: Rent Party: Your friend is a violent douchebag. Rather than railing on about what an injustice it is that your violent douchebag friend got locked up, you could focus on helping him not be a violent douche,

25 years in prison for making threats should fix that, right? That'll learn him.


Are you going to assert that all he did was make threats? You are going to ignore the prior history of violence that was so egregious it led to not one, but two (2) felony convictions? He didn't learn the first time. He didn't learn the second time. What on Earth would make you think he's going to learn now?

09 Nov 2012 03:44 PM
Rent Party     

muck4doo:
By the way asshole, no one was killed or raped in his 2 stupid fights by 21.


Does that matter?

Felony battery is still felony battery, as is aggravated assault.

Why don't you give us the details on his "2 stupid fights" so we can determine just exactly how much you're not telling us.

09 Nov 2012 03:46 PM
muck4doo     

Rent Party: muck4doo: Rent Party: Your friend is a violent douchebag. Rather than railing on about what an injustice it is that your violent douchebag friend got locked up, you could focus on helping him not be a violent douche,

25 years in prison for making threats should fix that, right? That'll learn him.

Are you going to assert that all he did was make threats? You are going to ignore the prior history of violence that was so egregious it led to not one, but two (2) felony convictions? He didn't learn the first time. He didn't learn the second time. What on Earth would make you think he's going to learn now?


Yes, he said mean and nasty things. Lock him up 25 to life! Even his father regretted going to the cops. You know why? They are authoritarian douche bags like you.

/Lord I hope no one says anything mean to you

09 Nov 2012 03:49 PM
Gawdzila    [TotalFark]  

Gawdzila: Rent Party: Your buddy, after he got done communicating a threat had a judge that looked at two prior convictions for violent acts, and locked his ass up for good.

The judge had nothing to do with it. He was compelled by law to lock the guy up no matter what he thought of his prior convictions.


Incidentally this is, I think, the biggest problem with the 3 strikes law.
A 3rd violent felony shouldn't automatically force a life sentence. This law is, or at least should be, about keeping people like gang members off the streets who are obviously going to keep re-offending and not do anything useful for anyone. It should not be for the guy who had a poor upbringing but now has a job and family, but then commits what would generally be considered a minor crime.

Allowing a judge to actually weigh the severity of current and past crimes, what they have done with themselves in the time between and how long it has been, and then giving them the option of handing out a life sentence instead of the standard sentence would be a much more acceptable option that would have the balance of being checked by the the logic and judgment of a.. you know... judge.

09 Nov 2012 03:49 PM
Corvus     

muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that. They called it a felony, and that was his 3rd strike. His father cried to me that he wish he never called the cops if he knew what they were going to do to George. I hope George gets out, but I fear he is a ruined person now. When he last came out he had joined the Aryan Brotherhood, and had all his tats showing that off, yet he still hung out with us Mexicans and Blacks from the neighborhood when he got out. From what he told me is you do what you gotta do as an explanation. He loves the people he grew up with. 16 years later I doubt he still has that innocent part of him left.


Sorry but you are like so many conservatives. If it is something that personally affects you, you care but if not you have the attitude of fark everyone else. It's like why conservatives that are pro-gay marriage usually has friends or relatives who are gay. Unless you know some personally you are unable to empathize with others.

09 Nov 2012 03:51 PM
muck4doo     

Corvus: muck4doo: muck4doo: One of my best friends I grew up with, George, thanks you for this 16 years later.

To elaborate, he made a couple of mistakes by the time he was 21 with fights, and got locked up. He got out at 25, and got into a nasty custody dispute between his ex-wife and parents. He made threats at his father, who called the cops, and George has been sitting in prison since 1996 for that. They called it a felony, and that was his 3rd strike. His father cried to me that he wish he never called the cops if he knew what they were going to do to George. I hope George gets out, but I fear he is a ruined person now. When he last came out he had joined the Aryan Brotherhood, and had all his tats showing that off, yet he still hung out with us Mexicans and Blacks from the neighborhood when he got out. From what he told me is you do what you gotta do as an explanation. He loves the people he grew up with. 16 years later I doubt he still has that innocent part of him left.

Sorry but you are like so many conservatives. If it is something that personally affects you, you care but if not you have the attitude of fark everyone else. It's like why conservatives that are pro-gay marriage usually has friends or relatives who are gay. Unless you know some personally you are unable to empathize with others.


And you are a dumbass that makes many assumptions. I'm libertarian, but yes, I do lean conservative. Ideally they should have have less doucherags looking to expand government power, but it doesn't always work that way, does it?

09 Nov 2012 03:56 PM
Showing 1-50 of 140 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined