SC Gang Problem

[ZooFuzz]

<A href="/news/story.aspx?storyid=89277&catid=2">http://www.wltx.com/assetpool/images/090415104601_rich co sheriff.gif (http://www.friendsofsc.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=89277&catid=2)


RCSD arrests 105 suspected gang members in one week

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - It's been a good week for law enforcement and a bad week for Midlands gangs after Richland County deputies arrested 105 people in the past seven days. Sheriff Leon Lott said the arrests are related to the fight against Midlands gangs.

The 105 people were arrested between June 24 and July 2 for the following charges:

<TABLE border=0 orgFontSize="13px"><TBODY orgFontSize="13px"><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Murder</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">3</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">6</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Possession with intent to distribute marijuana</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">4</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Cultivating marijuana</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Trafficking crack cocaine</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Possession of a controlled substance</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Possession of ecstasy</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Weapons violations</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">13</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Simple possession of marijuana</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">53</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Assault</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Driving under suspension</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">11</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Interference with police</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Soliciting prostitution</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">3</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Traffic violations</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">13</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Loitering/disorderly conduct</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">2</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Alcohol violation</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">2</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Resisting arrest</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">1</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Possession of a stolen gun</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">4</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Wanted fugitive</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">6</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Probation violation</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">4</TD></TR><TR orgFontSize="13px"><TD orgFontSize="13px">Bench warrant</TD><TD orgFontSize="13px">3</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12749052

[Cliff]

Are they not from the same gang ?

[swampfox]

So, assuming for a moment that they all go to jail (which of course they won't), over half of them will be there for simple possession. How much will that cost the taxpayers?

[Cliff]

What would you propose ?

[swampfox]

The most dramatic reduction of the use of a particular drug ever was the decline in tobacco use following the Surgeon General's report in 1963. Of course thereafter there was much educational material and many programs, but through public educational efforts alone the rate fell from over 3 fourths of adult Americans to less than one fifth.

[Captain Worley]

So....what's the proposal?

[swampfox]

Sounds like it might be too difficult to try to explain. Strange that I have had better luck with ideas this difficult with little children.

[Captain Worley]

So..explain it.

[swampfox]

You mock me. I'm not one of you. I won't pretend that you don't know what you must surely know. If you have a question about details, do ask.

[Quintessence]

Sounds like it might be too difficult to try to explain. Strange that I have had better luck with ideas this difficult with little children.
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/dood-why-u-gota-be-so-mean.jpg

[Captain Worley]

You mock me. I'm not one of you. I won't pretend that you don't know what you must surely know. If you have a question about details, do ask.
No mocking. I asked for an explanation (as did Cliff).

I have no idea what the "I am not one of you," comment means.

You are not human?
You are not male?
You ar not American?
You are not a meat eater?
You are not a tax payer?
You are not of this earth?

Now THAT was mocking. Before I was asking a sincere question.

[swampfox]

Hint: Check the part that I underlined in my post.

[Captain Worley]

So, assuming for a moment that they all go to jail (which of course they won't), over half of them will be there for simple possession. How much will that cost the taxpayers?


What would you propose ?

Okay, here's where we got cross wise. I thought Cliff was asking about alternatives to sending them to jail for possession, so the education thing completely through me because I had no idea what you were talking about in regards to sentencing. I am interested if you have any thoughts about alternative punishments. Like it or not, possession is illegal, so what sort of sentencing reforms do you think would decrease drug use.

As for education, public education about drugs has been going on for years, and it doesn't seem to be nearly effective in reducing drug usage as it was against cigarettes. I have to wonder why this is.

[swampfox]

Early in my teaching career, cops (and sometimes FBI) were still coming to schools giving presentations that included videos of kids taking a few puffs of marijuana and going completely wild or, in a few cases, actually dying. The kids knew that it was a lie, therefore generations very understandably would not believe a word that the government had to say about any drugs. Much more harm than good was accomplished.

It has been well over ten years since I read a report about the official "War on Drugs" started under the Reagan administration. In it, it was noted that we had spent well over $100 billion dollars in the effort. The results were that cocaine and heroin (we didn't have much of a problem with meth yet) were not only cheaper but much stronger as they were sold on the street, leading to many deaths from overdoses. At the same time, the street cost of relatively safe marijuana skyrocketed, leading some to try the harder stuff instead. Thank you, War on Drugs.

So, it's clear to the blind that law enforcement is not the answer. It pours giant amounts of money into a pit that produces few results, chief among them being filling our prisons and court dockets with simple possession of marijuana cases, a virtually victimless crime (if you insist on using the word crime). Note that a) in a few states many people are allowed to use marijuana medicinally. It is a proven pain reliever far less dangerous than some others that are prescribed. And it is the only drug that has much effect for sufferers of glaucoma and the sickness that comes from cancer chemotherapy. If it is not a crime, with negative effects on the public interests, in California then there is no rational argument that it is a crime in anything but name only (a "CINO") in other states, and b) there are many religious groups that are allowed to use marijuana, peyote, and other more exotic drugs as a part of their religious observances, and their members go on to lead normal lives the rest of the time. If they don't belong in prison for such use, there is no rational argument why anybody else does.

I should say right away that I would personally choose to keep some drugs illegal, at least for the time being. First among them being methamphetamine, which has no medical or religious connection and kills very quickly. Again, for the time being, I would include cocaine and heroin in this category. But I would point out that morphine, a completely natural early derivative of opium, and opium itself for that matter, is a much healthier alternative in medical use than most of the other pain relievers that were created mainly to avoid prescribing morphine. It is just crazy to subject patients to synthetic products just out of fear that they might find pain relief by way of morphine pleasurable to some degree. Plus, many doctors who might be otherwise responsible and true to their oaths decline to give pain medications in general for fear that they will show up on some kind of government list. The relief of pain is one of the major purposes of the science of medicine, yet cultural and legal nuttiness lead many physicians to forsake that portion of their solemn oaths.

SO, what is called for by rational minds is HONEST public education on various drugs. It was not difficult for a long string of surgeons general to show pictures of healthy lungs and the diseased lungs of heavy smokers. It was easy to give true statistics about how smoking led to lung cancer and other respiratory ailments. And look at the results! A huge reduction in smoking! May have taken a few decades, but it worked. What we have been trying with other drugs decidedly has not been working.

For cases that ONLY consist of simple possession of marijuana I might suggest mandatory classes that consist of HONEST presentations of what the risks are. (If other gang activity is involved, throw the book at it.) Right now we'd be digging ourselves out of a hole to even get started on that, but we dug our own hole, so we don't have much choice. But to make it a criminal issue only is certainly counterproductive, costs us a fortune, and produces no results whatsoever. I ask again, do you know anybody who refrains from using illegal drugs ONLY because they are illegal. I just can't imagine such a person. Maybe there are people who wouldn't use them in certain settings, of course. But in privacy? They are certainly easy to get, not terribly expensive. No, I believe that people who decline dangerous drugs do so because they are concerned about their health, and their family's health. The legality has very little to do with it.

And what about alcohol? It is certainly addictive. It kills (second only to tobacco in the US). It ruins lives, destroys families. What about fetal alcohol syndrome? I have worked with so many kids with FAS you wouldn't believe it. Usually there is no medical diagnosis, but the signs are often unmistakable. And they often come from "good" families too. And then there's the hypocrisy aspect.

Knowing the science and history, including the very ancient history, of humans and intoxication is both enlightening and fascinating. We know that beer was brewed at least 10,000 years ago. And lately there is evidence that much more ancient humans chose fermented fruits when they were available, as well as other substances. Human desire for a temporary altered state of mind is more ancient than history. Even older than the beers that you order with your pizza today. I'll try to pick out a book to recommend.

Intoxication that is not coupled with irresponsible behavior need not be a crime. It is irrational and hypocritical of us to insist that it should be so.

[Cliff]

I thought Cliff was asking about alternatives to sending them to jail for possession,
I was.


through public educational efforts alone
Not gonna work.
It's not an addiction but a life style that has to be changed.
It can be, but the person needs to want the change.

[swampfox]

Imagine if you made cigarettes illegal tomorrow. You'd have to lock up many thousands of people by tomorrow night.

I'm supporting my argument with facts. You're not.

[swampfox]

Remember what happened when we tried making alcohol illegal? Cliff! You would have been a criminal!

[swampfox]

And I can tell you from recent experience that quitting cigarettes is something that you have to want to change and you have to want it real bad.

[Cliff]

Remember what happened when we tried making alcohol illegal? Cliff! You would have been a criminal!
It looks like your assuming again.
When I came to SC I chose to change my life style.
Beer wasn't part of the new life, I put it aside and never went back.



quitting cigarettes is something that you have to want to change
Smoking is a life style, it too can be changed.

[us 378]

The real question is how many do they arrest this week? Is this just a campaign stunt by Lott or is Richland county going to do this each week?

If you hear no reports of how many "gang" members got arrested from July 3 through the 10, you'll know your answer.

[swampfox]

Cliff, these other things we've been discussing, they are not lifestyles? You have the power to change, but others do not? You redefine words as you go along. But you are not the only one. Just as an example, of all the people shouting "socialism" these days, I seriously doubt that one in ten could tell you anything about it. They're just repeating the words of others, desperate to fit in. That's what I'm seeing here.

[Captain Worley]

Swamp, while I agree with you that mrijuana should be legalized, the fact is that it is an illegal drug.



I ask again, do you know anybody who refrains from using illegal drugs ONLY because they are illegal. I just can't imagine such a person.


I don't do them ONLY because they are illegal. I know people who don't smoke pot ONLY because it is illegal. I suspect that there are large numbers of law abiding citizens who'd roll a big fattie the moment they legalized pot.

But, once again...it is illegal.

As for education...


Early in my teaching career, cops (and sometimes FBI) were still coming to schools giving presentations that included videos of kids taking a few puffs of marijuana and going completely wild or, in a few cases, actually dying. The kids knew that it was a lie, therefore generations very understandably would not believe a word that the government had to say about any drugs. Much more harm than good was accomplished.

I can assure you by 1979 that had changed drastically. Even more so by the eighties. The information given out was much more accurate.

I do wonder if pot smoking would lead to increased cancer deaths.

[JDidGirl]

There are absolutely things (drugs) that I would NEVER try even if they were legal because I know how scary and addictive they can be. Pot... I don't do because it is illegal and I won't be around people I know use it. Whether it should be illegal or not really isn't the issue... the truth is... it is illegal. Maybe one day it won't be... for right now, however, it is and people who are caught with it should be prosecuted as such. The truth is... most of these guys that were arrested and that were charged with simple possession probably just got lucky because more than likely they move much bigger & much more powerful stuff. Law enforcement can use that to their advantage a lot of times to work out deals & get more information.

[swampfox]

It was in the late 70s and early 80s that I saw these inaccurate presentations.

Of course pot-smoking would cause cancer if consumed in the same quantities as cigarettes are consumed by people with serious habits. But that is seldom the case. Any burning vegetable (or meat) matter inhaled in similar quantities would do the same thing. So be careful smoking those ribs!

[swampfox]

There are things that are illegal that should not be. Same sex marriage comes to mind.

[JDidGirl]

There are things that are illegal that should not be. Same sex marriage comes to mind.

I never said that pot shouldn't be legal. I'm just saying that right now it is illegal and that being the case you either have to deal with it or move to a state where it is legal. I do, however, find it very interesting that you are even trying to compare same-sex marriage to legalizing marijuana. The two couldn't be farther from each other & how you even compared the two to begin with is beyond me.

[Captain Worley]

It was in the late 70s and early 80s that I saw these inaccurate presentations.

Hmmm...I wonder if that was because they were using older materuials in public schools. Seriously, the stuff I saw was pretty accurate. I have seen some of the 'reefer madness' type things you're talking about, but they were held up in a 'people used to believe this...haha' sort of way.


Of course pot-smoking would cause cancer if consumed in the same quantities as cigarettes are consumed by people with serious habits. But that is seldom the case.

True now, but if it was cheap and legal, the usage would rise. Would all those clamoring for it to be legal then demand the surgeon general's warning label?


Any burning vegetable (or meat) matter inhaled in similar quantities would do the same thing. So be careful smoking those ribs!

Oh, NOW you tell me, after all the 4th of July cookouts!

[Captain Worley]

I'm just saying that right now it is illegal and that being the case you either have to deal with it or move to a state where it is legal.

I *think* that the states can't really deem it legal...its is still a federal law. Isn't the fed suing Cali over the medicinal marijuana stores?

That being said, I think it SHOULD be a state's decision as to what's legal and what isn't...at least with pot.

But it is still illegal, so no fatties for Cap'n Crunk, yo!

[JDidGirl]

I *think* that the states can't really deem it legal...its is still a federal law. Isn't the fed suing Cali over the medicinal marijuana stores?


I was actually going for the comparison that Swampy made about pot being illegal like gay marriage is. The comparison was so far off it's not even funny.

[Captain Worley]

Maybe its 4:20...

[swampfox]

Both are things that should be a matter of individual choice that don't affect anybody else (except in cases of gross irresponsibility with marijuana, similar to what happens in the homes of alcoholics).

[swampfox]

Cap'n, as usual you are a rare man. Where did you find rolling papers big enough for those ribs over the weekend?

[JDidGirl]

Both are things that should be a matter of individual choice that don't affect anybody else (except in cases of gross irresponsibility with marijuana, similar to what happens in the homes of alcoholics).

Well, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. One has to do with an illegal substance. The other has to do with human rights. I really think you are grasping at straws with that comparison, but hey... if that's how you want to compare it... go for it. I won't argue with you.

[Captain Worley]

Cap'n, as usual you are a rare man. Where did you find rolling papers big enough for those ribs over the weekend?

Cows 'n' Chronic.

[JDidGirl]

Cows 'n' Chronic.

So that's the big deal about cow tipping...

[swampfox]

It's not the best comparison in the world. If you want to find fault with it it's not hard to do. But in the way I explained why I chose it it is an apt comparison. Some things are just nobody's business. If I've heard anything from the right that made sense these last few years, it's that we have a duty as Americans to oppose laws that should not exist, but what I have NOT been hearing from them is that we should work through the system to abolish them. (That's why that Angles woman from Nevada and her "second amendment alternatives" should be a sign to everybody that true psychosis is being put up before us by mainstream parties.)

[JDidGirl]

It's not the best comparison in the world. If you want to find fault with it it's not hard to do. But in the way I explained why I chose it it is an apt comparison. Some things are just nobody's business. If I've heard anything from the right that made sense these last few years, it's that we have a duty as Americans to oppose laws that should not exist, but what I have NOT been hearing from them is that we should work through the system to abolish them. (That's why that Angles woman from Nevada and her "second amendment alternatives" should be a sign to everybody that true psychosis is being put up before us by mainstream parties.)

I don't think that it is an apt comparison at all. Not in the least. But you have it in your head (somehow) that it is so fine... if it works for you then so be it. Personally, as a gay person I find it insulting, but hey... that's me. Anyway... go roll another one Swampy. Now I think I'm starting to understand where some of these thoughts and ideas are coming from.

[swampfox]

You would find it insulting if I said good morning. What a childish comeback! This is why you can ONLY have discussions among your little commando unit of equally non-thinking compatriots. Actual ideas are just out of the question, aren't they? They must be sidestepped or twisted or turned into something that they're not. I haven't been to the moon either. Does that mean I can't talk about it?

How half-witted can you get?!?!

That lemming thing was one for the tea party books. And surely here it will come again. And it will cause its participants to roll on the floor just as hard as it did the first time.

[Quintessence]

I sure hope you have a fireproof catcher's mitt because you're going to catch he!! !

http://images.dailyme.com/assets/2009091000002319.jpg

[swampfox]

If manners don't apply to everybody, it's ridiculous to suppose that they apply to anybody.

[Quintessence]

What about somebody? ... Okay, if that was in reference to my post, catch IT... Is that better? No matter how you say it, it's comin'! I would imagine you can bet on it..., but then again, who knows...maybe it will be ignored.

I know you love me...admit it, you do. ; )

[Quintessence]

That lemming thing...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SRIjpCcBMGI/AAAAAAAAWys/9PuzrspAbmc/s400/lemmings.JPG

http://www.babyreagan.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/lemming.jpg

[swampfox]

Seriously, Q. This is just another way of doing the childhood thing where you stick your fingers in your ears and sing or something and say "I can't hear you" when usually an adult is trying to talk with you.

Upon reflection, I did go too far with my response to JDG's rude response to me. Nobody will convince me, though, that somehow it's OK that I am the only one here who is not entitled to be treated with some courtesy. I got the exact same thing, about the marijuana, from anti-babble a while back. Some would say, "Enough said." It's not enough said. But I despair at putting effort into arguments supported by evidence, putting time into them, and getting some childishness (if I'm lucky) or nastiness (at other times) in return. I had said nothing to deserve "Go roll yourself some joints" or whatever it was, certainly not for a second time, and nobody says a word about that. Because it's me. If that's the way anybody here truly feels, I should be expressing my sympathy, for I'm touching a life that is probably more miserable than I can imagine.

So, again, I should have risen above like I'm always saying, but I didn't. At some point a person just has enough of being singled out.

[Quintessence]

Seriously, Q. This is just another way of doing the childhood thing where you stick your fingers in your ears and sing or something and say "I can't hear you" when usually an adult is trying to talk with you.

You know that is total and complete BS because I most often contain myself rather than address your condescending remarks. Believe me, the only reason you don't hear from me more often is because everyone here, I believe, can fight their own battles quite effectively without any assistance. It doesn't mean that I don't want to stand up for them because I do. BTW, I never stick my fingers in my ears, I listen...I listen thoroughly and completely,...and you know it. I am most certain that you know that I do. So, I will take your response as an insult, just as you intended.


Upon reflection, I did go too far with my response to JDG's... response to me.
Yes, you did. You should have stated that in the context of your statement you felt it appropriate; however, you acknowledeged it, understood her point of view, and expressed that you had no intention of offending her. That is just my opinion.


Nobody will convince me, though, that somehow it's OK that I am the only one here who is not entitled to be treated with some courtesy. Yes, we all, indeed, deserve courtesy, but I must say that many of your comments lately...well, for quite some time...on this board have caused some, maybe many, of us to be on the defensive. Even your...now rare sense of humor is often difficult to recognize since you seem to relish in insulting others.



I got the exact same thing, about the marijuana, from anti-babble a while back. I don't know about that, don't recall exactly..., but when someone made a joke...at least I took it as such..., you insulted me in the same way. I don't take kindly to being accused of using illegal substances. I do not, will not, and unless it is clearly a joke, I get right upset.[/quote]

BTW, the lemmings thing was just a joke. Lighten up. You use to have an awesome sense of humor!

[Quintessence]

Oh yeah, I don't wish to disappoint you, so...
Seriously, Q. This is just another way of doing the childhood thing...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L8Ft2DyD9Ns/SFfa_fH8BbI/AAAAAAAAAJg/u2tk4f5NzI0/s320/funny-pictures-farting-kitten.jpg

[Captain Worley]

Swamp, I hate to say it, but you've become pretty quick to call names. This exchange was from the first page:


So....what's the proposal?


Sounds like it might be too difficult to try to explain. Strange that I have had better luck with ideas this difficult with little children.


So..explain it.


You mock me. I'm not one of you. I won't pretend that you don't know what you must surely know. If you have a question about details, do ask.


No mocking. I asked for an explanation (as did Cliff).

I have no idea what the "I am not one of you," comment means.

You are not human?
You are not male?
You ar not American?
You are not a meat eater?
You are not a tax payer?
You are not of this earth?

Now THAT was mocking. Before I was asking a sincere question.

Now I admit, my last post was testy, but I was completely confused (as I explained in a following post) and when I asked for explanation, all I got were insults. Maybe everyone was having a bad day, I don't know.

And QT is right; there are probably members who don't respond for fear of a condescending remark, which happens pretty frequently these days when you disagree wit people's opinions.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L8Ft2DyD9Ns/SFfa_fH8BbI/AAAAAAAAAJg/u2tk4f5NzI0/s320/funny-pictures-farting-kitten.jpg


BUWAHAHA!! Right-clicky-save.

[JDidGirl]

You would find it insulting if I said good morning. What a childish comeback! This is why you can ONLY have discussions among your little commando unit of equally non-thinking compatriots. Actual ideas are just out of the question, aren't they? They must be sidestepped or twisted or turned into something that they're not. I haven't been to the moon either. Does that mean I can't talk about it?

How half-witted can you get?!?!

That lemming thing was one for the tea party books. And surely here it will come again. And it will cause its participants to roll on the floor just as hard as it did the first time.

Swampfox... at some point or another you certainly fell off the turnip truck. And I wasn't kidding about where your ideas are apparently coming from... I think you are hitting the pipe just a little too much these days. If you have an issue with me being offended because you compared legalizing pot to legalizing same-sex marriage then you are a bigger idiot than I've been thinking you are. Honestly, I am so completely glad - as a lot of parents should be - that you are no longer teaching the youth of today. If this is the kind of nonsense that you spout on here... I can't imagine the kind of nonsense you would spout to a more captive audience. Do me a favor... exercise that right of yours to put me on your "ignore list"... I think we would all be a lot happier.

[Captain Worley]

Better get some popcorn...

[JDidGirl]

No... it's not like that. In fact, Worley... you know exactly how it'll be. He'll come back on here ranting and throwing a tantrum because - as he'll claim... he always does - that he's not allowed to have an opinion or make comments for whatever reason and then throw his insults and childish comments around. He's done it to you... Q... Cliff... Bender... Gator... geez, the list is too long even go on with. You get the point. When... in fact... the only issue he has is that almost no one really agrees with anything he says these days. Personally, I'm just done with it. He's childish and immature and his foolish comments make my head want to explode.

[Captain Worley]

Oh, I hear you.

[JDidGirl]

A lot of people do. I'm sure my posts came across as angry... you can't tell tone most of the time in printed word... but I'm not. That's just matter-of-factly how I feel about it all. Swampfox use to be someone that I enjoyed a good banter with. I believe a lot of people on here feel/felt the same way, but over the course of a year or so his attitude about anyone that disagrees with him has gone from "okay, I can debate an opinion" to "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!!!!!!" and followed up by childish insults designed only to make himself feel better. It's absurd.

[Captain Worley]

I believe a lot of people on here feel/felt the same way, but over the course of a year or so his attitude about anyone that disagrees with him has gone from "okay, I can debate an opinion" to "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!!!!!!" and followed up by childish insults designed only to make himself feel better. It's absurd.

I have to agree with that. I still enjoy his posts, for the most part, but have to ignore the insults. Every so often they get away from me, but usually I say, "That's just swampy" and move along.

I have noticed that there are long time posters on this board who don't discuss political issues anymore. That's kinda sad, because I really do miss the input.

[Quintessence]

I want to clarify something I stated earlier. I think an apology was/is in order, but since I doubted he would provide that, I believe that he should have at least acknowledeged and attempted to understand JDid's point of view, and let her know that he had no intention of offending her (if indeed that is the case). Again, just my opinion.

[Sarge]

I have to agree with that. I still enjoy his posts, for the most part, but have to ignore the insults. Every so often they get away from me, but usually I say, "That's just swampy" and move along.

I have noticed that there are long time posters on this board who don't discuss political issues anymore. That's kinda sad, because I really do miss the input.

As well as many long time posters who no longer participate in anything.

[Captain Worley]

True. Life is too short to put up with being called names and being accused of things, so i can see why people would just up and quit. Shoot, i almost bailed over the complexion thing, and many members have been treated worse.

On the other hand, swamp has been a traget of many unregistereds, so I can see why he's sensitive to the name calling. But those days are over, pretty much. I think for the most part the members who have been around a while have been pretty decent in responding to him, unless goaded.

JDG, its been almost two years, not a year. Page 9 of the Domination or Damnation thread is when the wheels started coming off the train.

[Captain Worley]

I want to clarify something I stated earlier. I think an apology was/is in order, but since I doubted he would provide that, I believe that he should have at least acknowledeged and attempted to understand JDid's point of view, and let her know that he had no intention of offending her (if indeed that is the case). Again, just my opinion.

I agree. I know what he was getting at, but I can also see why it was an offensive statement to make. We have all chosen poor wording or bad examples at times, Lord knows I have.

[JDidGirl]

I want to clarify something I stated earlier. I think an apology was/is in order, but since I doubted he would provide that, I believe that he should have at least acknowledeged and attempted to understand JDid's point of view, and let her know that he had no intention of offending her (if indeed that is the case). Again, just my opinion.

I appreciate that, but Swampy doesn't owe me an apology really. He just needs to realize that we all don't have the same opinion and I'm allowed to be offended over something without a slew of insults coming from him to follow because I don't agree with his point of view. The same thing he's done to you, to Worley, to Gator, to Bender, to Cliff, to Anti-Babble, to RDW and the list goes on and on. Hey, not everyone shares my view of the subject at hand... and I'm very, very cool with that (if you go with Swampy's way of thinking then you have to akin legalizing a drug with allowing people to enjoy not having their basic human rights taken away... and it is totally fine if you do agree with that line of thinking). I'm just sick, sick, sick to death of his constant belittling of anyone that doesn't share his point of view.

[swampfox]

I stated very clearly the basis of the comparison. ("There are some things that are illegal that shouldn't be." "Some things are just nobody's business.") Using the same strategy, I could compare a hot dog with a Saturn V rocket ("They're both longer than they are thick") But I wouldn't recommend ordering both on a bun.

Note my post that started it all.


Early in my teaching career, cops (and sometimes FBI) were still coming to schools giving presentations that included videos of kids taking a few puffs of marijuana and going completely wild or, in a few cases, actually dying. The kids knew that it was a lie, therefore generations very understandably would not believe a word that the government had to say about any drugs. Much more harm than good was accomplished.

It has been well over ten years since I read a report about the official "War on Drugs" started under the Reagan administration. In it, it was noted that we had spent well over $100 billion dollars in the effort. The results were that cocaine and heroin (we didn't have much of a problem with meth yet) were not only cheaper but much stronger as they were sold on the street, leading to many deaths from overdoses. At the same time, the street cost of relatively safe marijuana skyrocketed, leading some to try the harder stuff instead. Thank you, War on Drugs.

So, it's clear to the blind that law enforcement is not the answer. It pours giant amounts of money into a pit that produces few results, chief among them being filling our prisons and court dockets with simple possession of marijuana cases, a virtually victimless crime (if you insist on using the word crime). Note that a) in a few states many people are allowed to use marijuana medicinally. It is a proven pain reliever far less dangerous than some others that are prescribed. And it is the only drug that has much effect for sufferers of glaucoma and the sickness that comes from cancer chemotherapy. If it is not a crime, with negative effects on the public interests, in California then there is no rational argument that it is a crime in anything but name only (a "CINO") in other states, and b) there are many religious groups that are allowed to use marijuana, peyote, and other more exotic drugs as a part of their religious observances, and their members go on to lead normal lives the rest of the time. If they don't belong in prison for such use, there is no rational argument why anybody else does.

I should say right away that I would personally choose to keep some drugs illegal, at least for the time being. First among them being methamphetamine, which has no medical or religious connection and kills very quickly. Again, for the time being, I would include cocaine and heroin in this category. But I would point out that morphine, a completely natural early derivative of opium, and opium itself for that matter, is a much healthier alternative in medical use than most of the other pain relievers that were created mainly to avoid prescribing morphine. It is just crazy to subject patients to synthetic products just out of fear that they might find pain relief by way of morphine pleasurable to some degree. Plus, many doctors who might be otherwise responsible and true to their oaths decline to give pain medications in general for fear that they will show up on some kind of government list. The relief of pain is one of the major purposes of the science of medicine, yet cultural and legal nuttiness lead many physicians to forsake that portion of their solemn oaths.

SO, what is called for by rational minds is HONEST public education on various drugs. It was not difficult for a long string of surgeons general to show pictures of healthy lungs and the diseased lungs of heavy smokers. It was easy to give true statistics about how smoking led to lung cancer and other respiratory ailments. And look at the results! A huge reduction in smoking! May have taken a few decades, but it worked. What we have been trying with other drugs decidedly has not been working.

For cases that ONLY consist of simple possession of marijuana I might suggest mandatory classes that consist of HONEST presentations of what the risks are. (If other gang activity is involved, throw the book at it.) Right now we'd be digging ourselves out of a hole to even get started on that, but we dug our own hole, so we don't have much choice. But to make it a criminal issue only is certainly counterproductive, costs us a fortune, and produces no results whatsoever. I ask again, do you know anybody who refrains from using illegal drugs ONLY because they are illegal. I just can't imagine such a person. Maybe there are people who wouldn't use them in certain settings, of course. But in privacy? They are certainly easy to get, not terribly expensive. No, I believe that people who decline dangerous drugs do so because they are concerned about their health, and their family's health. The legality has very little to do with it.

And what about alcohol? It is certainly addictive. It kills (second only to tobacco in the US). It ruins lives, destroys families. What about fetal alcohol syndrome? I have worked with so many kids with FAS you wouldn't believe it. Usually there is no medical diagnosis, but the signs are often unmistakable. And they often come from "good" families too. And then there's the hypocrisy aspect.

Knowing the science and history, including the very ancient history, of humans and intoxication is both enlightening and fascinating. We know that beer was brewed at least 10,000 years ago. And lately there is evidence that much more ancient humans chose fermented fruits when they were available, as well as other substances. Human desire for a temporary altered state of mind is more ancient than history. Even older than the beers that you order with your pizza today. I'll try to pick out a book to recommend.

Intoxication that is not coupled with irresponsible behavior need not be a crime. It is irrational and hypocritical of us to insist that it should be so.

What I got in return consisted mostly of "but it's illegal". I know that. Except for Worley people seemed to be responding without having read what I spent a good deal of time writing. Most of what I know about the history of drug usage I got from presentations (not at school, but in the evenings) by Richland County deputies as well as some reading. I went to these meetings on my own time. I tried very hard to be a positive adult in the lives of children, many of whom had none, and I was very good at it. To insinuate that I promoted drug use among students is just outrageous. And again, such a thing would be said about nobody but me.

Also again, to have it said for a second time that I wrote what I've written here because I've been "hitting the pipe" too much is almost equally outrageous. Will I get any support for that ("Well, maybe she shouldn't have said that." "Maybe she was having a bad day.") I guess we'll wait and see.

I'm not buying the "I'm so insulted' thing. I'm a big supporter of same-sex marriage for those who want it (two friends of mine just did it recently, in another state of course), and I would never equate the two issues without saying in what way they are similar ("There are some things that are illegal that shouldn't be." and "Some things are just nobody's business."). Morally there is no equivalence.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but if it sounded condescending when I came down hard on people who think that killing other people is a) funny, or b) a rational plan of action when we are not at war, then so be it. Those are indefensible positions, always have been, always will be.

Human behavior has always been one of my main interests. There are some patterns that repeat over and over. There are some that are ancient. There are some that are modern adaptations of the ancient ones. There is much well-understood science about how people can be, and are, manipulated by others. Salesmen do it, TV preachers do it, radio hosts with agendas do it. I used to listen to school principals do it and count the steps as they went through them. You can go to workshops to learn how to do it, usually "How to be a better salesman" or something like that. It gets results, consistently. I thought I was doing a service by sharing that knowledge. Maybe not.

I believe that we were given these big brains so that we might use them to the best of our abilities. It pains me to see capable people choose not to do so. Maybe the right thing to do is to be silent about that. I'll have to give it some thought.

And finally, I think you know me well enough to understand that if I wanted to promote drug use I would do it openly. That is not what I've been doing, that is not what I intend. I just think that the hypocrisy in our laws and attitudes on the subject is amazing. We as a group would continue to pour money into something that is proven not to work at a time when we are laying off teachers and other vital public and private employees, like rats chewing more holes in the sides of our own sinking ships. That goes beyond hypocrisy. It is an obsession. I do know something about the history and science of this subject that would help in understanding the craziness, but I'll wait until I'm asked.

[JDidGirl]

First and foremost... I stand firmly behind everything I said. Secondly, I'll give him credit... this is the first time in a very long time that he's backed up his opinion without feeling the need to insult or belittle everyone else involved. Nevertheless, I have no use for this anymore. Please Swampy... add me to your ignore list. It will make us both much happier.

[swampfox]

If you're standing behind the "hitting the pipe" thing, then you're a much sadder human being than I ever imagined.

[JDidGirl]

I stand behind it all. I really couldn't care less how or what you think of me at this point. You lost my respect a while back... as you did with many others... so your opinion of me means absolutely nothing. You should, however, apologize to people like Q & Worley... they've tried to give you credit when you deserved absolutely none and yet you still felt the need to belittle and insult them to make yourself feel better.

[Captain Worley]

Using the same strategy, I could compare a hot dog with a Saturn V rocket ("They're both longer than they are thick") But I wouldn't recommend ordering both on a bun.

I don't recommend riding both to the moon, either.


What I got in return consisted mostly of "but it's illegal". I know that. Except for Worley people seemed to be responding without having read what I spent a good deal of time writing.

And I did appreciate all that you wrote on the subject. But the bottom line is that is illegal, so when the cops busted all these goons and found drugs, they charged them. I don't have a problem with that. I reallly don't see that they had a choice. You can't let that go.


To insinuate that I promoted drug use among students is just outrageous.

That was over the top, if not meant in jest. I've been told to put down the pipe/bong/whatever, but took it as a joke. I've said it as a joke, too.


(two friends of mine just did it recently, in another state of course),

Tim and Victor? Whatever happened to TahoeTim?


I don't mean to sound condescending, but if it sounded condescending when I came down hard on people who think that killing other people is a) funny

It was a joke, a very old one. Just as aside to Zoo, there is an article on the D7E in the August car and Driver.


Human behavior has always been one of my main interests. There are some patterns that repeat over and over. There are some that are ancient. There are some that are modern adaptations of the ancient ones. There is much well-understood science about how people can be, and are, manipulated by others. Salesmen do it, TV preachers do it, radio hosts with agendas do it. I used to listen to school principals do it and count the steps as they went through them. You can go to workshops to learn how to do it, usually "How to be a better salesman" or something like that. It gets results, consistently. I thought I was doing a service by sharing that knowledge. Maybe not.

Actually, i think you ought to start a thread on that. It might be very interesting. recommended reading would be good, too. You know, in case I decide to go into politics.


I believe that we were given these big brains so that we might use them to the best of our abilities. It pains me to see capable people choose not to do so. Maybe the right thing to do is to be silent about that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I've found it best to observe and remain silent, if I can help it. Some times I can't.


We as a group would continue to pour money into something that is proven not to work at a time when we are laying off teachers and other vital public and private employees, like rats chewing more holes in the sides of our own sinking ships. That goes beyond hypocrisy. It is an obsession.

I really don't think the 'War on Drugs' has been much more of a catch phrase for years. I think the gov pays lip service to it, and goes after dealers (which is fine in my book) but pretty much leaves the users alone, unles they are caught doing something else, or are so blatant that it can't be ignored.


I do know something about the history and science of this subject that would help in understanding the craziness, but I'll wait until I'm asked.

That'd be another thread I think you ought to start that would be interesting.

[Captain Worley]

You should, however, apologize to people like Q & Worley... they've tried to give you credit when you deserved absolutely none and yet you still felt the need to belittle and insult them to make yourself feel better.

I have gotten upset at the insults at times, but like Cliff says, 'Duck feathers.' Some times are harder than others.

I'm sure I've inadvertantly done the same.

[JDidGirl]

Where did the comment

To insinuate that I promoted drug use among students is just outrageous.
come from? That was never anything I said. My comment about Swamp and being glad that he's not teaching anymore wasn't about drug use... it was about the way he handles everything and every subject he discusses. If you disagree with him then you are wrong & you are insulted. You are verbally beaten to a pulp. That is what I meant and I firmly stick by that. I think even Swampy has enough common sense not to have discussed his opinions on drug use to his students.

[swampfox]

Tahoe Tim and Victor are fine. Cue just visited them. They went to California and got married last fall. Tim continues to publish outrageous recipes on another board. Sometimes I send him one of mine.

I can't let go the "hitting the pipe" thing. It's been stood behind twice now. It's a vile, childish response.

Didn't Jules Verne originally write "From the Earth to the Moon" using a hollowed-out ham? "La Jambon de la Lune". Now HE may have been hitting the pipe. Conan Doyle and Lewis Carroll certainly did, as did Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

[JDidGirl]

I can't let go the "hitting the pipe" thing. It's been stood behind twice now. It's a vile, childish response.



Well, hold onto it like a pitt bull then. As far as vile and childish... well, I guess it was time to finally stoop to your level so maybe you would finally get it. Did you finally get it, Swampy? Go on... I'll give you the last word. I won't respond whatsoever.

[swampfox]

That was the last word. It's in the pocket now, velcro closures engaged.

You might enlighten us about when I've accused you of doing something illegal.

Vile and childish.

[Captain Worley]

Literature is full of pipe hitters. When someone accuses me of hittin' the pipe, I just tell myself they are alluding to my lterary genius and pure wit.



You are verbally beaten to a pulp.


Tis true. Might want to lighten up on that. That's hurt a few feelings.

[swampfox]

Damn! I thought better of you than this.

[JDidGirl]

Onward then... back to the subject...

[Captain Worley]

That was the last word. It's in the pocket now, velcro closures engaged.


Now I'm confused again.

[Captain Worley]

Damn! I thought better of you than this.
Who? Me? Comments going to fast, i think.

[JDidGirl]

Who? Me?

It's just always about you, isn't it?

[swampfox]

I can't think of any occasions of beating anybody to a pulp verbally except over the killing thing, and I would do that again. If the subject of lynching came up as a proposal, I would do it.

Otherwise I'll be more careful. But as for condescending, it is not condescending when I come up with arguments supported by facts. I don't think anybody expects me to engage below my abilities on the subjects that I know well. Some subjects I don't know well, and I'm grateful to learn.

[swampfox]

What I was saying about the pocket is basically that it won't be forgotten until it's acknowledged as vile and childish, but that I won't be obsessing over it in the meantime.

Yes, it was JDG that I thought better of. Worley, like myself, I count among the Wunderkinder of the Abandoned Regions.

[Captain Worley]

It's just always about you, isn't it?

Well yeah, it is.


Otherwise I'll be more careful.

Thanks.


Some subjects I don't know well, and I'm grateful to learn.

So are you going to start those other threads?

[Captain Worley]

What I was saying about the pocket is basically that it won't be forgotten until it's acknowledged as vile and childish, but that I won't be obsessing over it in the meantime.

Never heard that turn of phrase before.

[swampfox]

One last thing about the glut of simple possession cases in the courts.

Let's say you are a small businessman, and somebody screws you out of more money than you can afford to lose. You have a perfect case. You WILL win. But because of the glutted dockets it may be two or three years before you can get to court. (The same judges try both criminal and civil cases.) The result may very well be that you lose your business and can't pay YOUR debts that don't go away or go on hold. That happens all the time. It will come to a head when it happens to enough people.

OK, as for gangs in general, I repeat what I have said many times. They are terrorists, and the laws that apply to other terrorists should apply to them. I add, again, that it's my opinion that with very few unusual exceptions, violent crimes should result in very long sentences as a rule, and certainly life without parole for a second offense if not the first offense, depending on the circumstances. This would have to become a societal norm. Sentencing should not be the role of the legislative branch.

[swampfox]

Never heard that turn of phrase before.

I was trying to be poetic.

[Captain Worley]

But because of the glutted dockets it may be two or three years before you can get to court. (The same judges try both criminal and civil cases.)

Ummm...not that I'm doubting you, but my experience, at least in Richland County, was that cases, civil cases, went through in less than a motnh, unless therewas some intervention from the plainiff's or defendan't lawyers.


OK, as for gangs in general, I repeat what I have said many times. They are terrorists, and the laws that apply to other terrorists should apply to them. I add, again, that it's my opinion that with very few unusual exceptions, violent crimes should result in very long sentences as a rule, and certainly life without parole for a second offense if not the first offense, depending on the circumstances. This would have to become a societal norm.

No arguments with that.



Sentencing should not be the role of the legislative branch.


Now we're back to my beef with having lawyers write the laws.

[Captain Worley]

Damn! I thought better of you than this.
Really? Because I've come to expect that of JDG.

[JDidGirl]

Really? Because I've come to expect that of JDG.

Bwuhahahaha! You beat me to it!!! I said I wasn't going to say anything more on the subject, but it was killing me... it was hard to just let that one go!

[swampfox]

Hysteria is setting in. I'd drop it, at least for a while.

[swampfox]

Ummm...not that I'm doubting you, but my experience, at least in Richland County, was that cases, civil cases, went through in less than a motnh, unless therewas some intervention from the plainiff's or defendan't lawyers.

It depends on the amount of money, and there often is that intervention, particularly from the defendant. The defendant may know that he'll have to pay. He may not even hire an attorney. For him it's an interest-free loan, possibly for a few years. For the plaintiff, it may mean losing everything he's worked for.

[Captain Worley]

It depends on the amount of money, and there often is that intervention, particularly from the defendant.

That's true. The most expensive thing I saw was for something like $10K. I was surprised how many cases had rent to own places as the plainiff. I still can't figure out how they'd recover their money from someone who had absconded with the furniture without paying.

[Quintessence]

Otherwise I'll be more careful. But as for condescending, it is not condescending when I come up with arguments supported by facts.
Not when you provide arguments/facts, etc.


You would find it insulting if I said good morning. What a childish comeback! This is why you can ONLY have discussions among your little commando unit of equally non-thinking compatriots. Actual ideas are just out of the question, aren't they? They must be sidestepped or twisted or turned into something that they're not. I haven't been to the moon either. Does that mean I can't talk about it?

How half-witted can you get?!?!

That lemming thing was one for the tea party books. And surely here it will come again. And it will cause its participants to roll on the floor just as hard as it did the first time.
^This and all other similar statements.
Meant to say this earlier, but on pg. 2, I probably should have used the term insulting or demeaning rather than condescending, but I have observed each in posts throughout the threads.

[swampfox]

This referred to a fairly long written argument (I feel that I must clarify that in this case "argument" is not being used in the sense of "quarreling".) supported by facts, for which I got few substantive responses and many that seemed as if the writers had not bothered to read what I had written, as they did not respond to a single point. I do footnotes sometimes, but usually not on message boards. The above was not one.

Afterwards I was treated to the discourtesy reserved only for me (among regular members) and I forgot momentarily one of my most cherished childhood lessons, which was/is to "rise above". I regret not rising above on this occasion, but the outrageousness of what was being said to me was just too much.

If it matters to anybody, I don't write the way I talk. So many years of writing, much of which has had to be formal, has led me into habits that may seem unusual. If you heard me speak, you might say, "What part of the backwoods did HE come from?" Actually it was back-swamps, not far from our beloved coast.

I won't get fooled again.

[swampfox]

BTW, I think it's a result of the internet age, but I know many people of all levels of education who will not read anything more than a few sentences long. There is even an internet abbreviation in common use for it: "TMI" (too much information). We are in the very early stages of learning what we have lost as a people because of this.

I was a teacher all through the coming and implementation of all of this technology. The thing that I first noticed about student writing when writing on the computer became the norm was that sentences were not as long (when I was lucky enough to get something that was not just cut and pasted, it is so easy to tell). But as time went by, what became obvious was that the thoughts were not as deep or as complex, mirroring what had become the internet norm. As more time went by, I realized that more and more of my students were no longer capable of learning to have deep thoughts. This is a tragedy as great as most that we have faced. Of course a lot of students were/are still capable, but with each passing year the bottom numbers got bigger while the middle got smaller. The top stayed about the same.

Now with texting and tweeting, a great many students cannot even write in English. Only with the texting abbreviations. (PPL, OMG, BFF, etc.) We're going to be paying for this big-time.

[us 378]

The defendant may know that he'll have to pay. He may not even hire an attorney. For him it's an interest-free loan, possibly for a few years.

Getting a judgment against a defendant is the easy part. Collecting on the judgment is much harder.

[swampfox]

That's true. Which costs the plaintiff even more.

Access to the courts should be quick, and when necessary there should be some pre-trial proceeding to determine merit and need for scheduling some trials very quickly. If some real criminals have to wait a little longer for their day in court, so be it.

Justice delayed is justice denied. (old legal saying)

[Cliff]

Now with texting and tweeting, a great many students cannot even write in English. Only with the texting abbreviations. (PPL, OMG, BFF, etc.) We're going to be paying for this big-time.

I agree with that last part.
But abbreviations and short cuts have been used for a long time. Especially in code.
Hams used the 'Q' signals and others like OM, 73, BH, RST and others.

[ZooFuzz]

I agree with that last part.
But abbreviations and short cuts have been used for a long time. Especially in code.
Hams used the 'Q' signals and others like OM, 73, BH, RST and others.



Back when school let out for the summer, I read where a HS Senior took a final exam in "text" slang. I understood that they are going to let him take it over.

[swampfox]

Well, it's different when it's some sort of specialty activity like ham radio. But not when it's a big part of a generation's major way of communicating.

I hope that kid is capable of retaking his exam in English. You'd be surprised how many kids could not. If I had a school-age kid I'd want him/her to have a cell phone, but maybe one without texting. A big part of the problems come from electronic communication that never stops.

[us 378]

well SwampFox, the area of the constitution that has been taken away from the people is the right to a speedy trial, aka 6th amendment.

[swampfox]

You're right, but the remedy under the circumstances would be to increase taxes enough to pay for more courts and more judges. Could we sell that?

Trying to make sense of the laws seems to be unpopular.

[Gator96]

I think cocaine is a wonderful drug, in the right hands.

[Captain Worley]

You're right, but the remedy under the circumstances would be to increase taxes enough to pay for more courts and more judges. Could we sell that?

They could sell it, if the people believed money earmarked for that activity actually went to pay for more judges and courts. Unfortunately, the politicians have lost that trust.

[swampfox]

It would have to be a LOT more.

[Captain Worley]

I'm not sure the problem isn't, as we discussed earlier, machinations by the defendant's attorney taking up court time. As I've said, everything I've ever seem go through took less than a month. That leads me to believe the problem isn't with not having enough judges and courts, the problem lies with defendant attornies. That won't change because the lawyers won't allow it to.

And they make the laws.

[Sarge]

Once again the "scholars" on this board are confusing the point and missing it.

The sixth Ammendment applies to criminal proceedings.

The focus of the posts on here so far have been civil proceedings taking to long to get through the court system.

So if the Sixth Amendment was to be applied fully and to the likings of members here it would actually increase the time a civil action would take as the criminal actions would take full precedence over the civil.

[us 378]

You're right, but the remedy under the circumstances would be to increase taxes enough to pay for more courts and more judges. Could we sell that?

Nope. It's just like trying to sell that we need more money for prisons, yet the public insists on putting people in prison.

[swampfox]

One of my major points all along. Prison is mainly for violent criminals. (or reckless and potentially violent, like drunk drivers) For many of the rest we can find another way.

The violent ones need to stay there.

[Cliff]

What is the point in locking up violent criminals and the like?
Isn't locking someone up for 30-40-50 or more years a cruel and unusual punishment?
Besides that, how many are rehabilitated?

[swampfox]

Trying to parse your question. I'm just saying to lock them up. Rehabilitation rarely works. It's not cruel and unusual in my opinion.

Is this another "Look what the liberals do!" thing? I don't get it.

[swampfox]

See, many people don't seem to get the most important reason for imprisonment. Not rehab (almost never works), not punishment (very little deterrent effect on violent criminals), not revenge (although I understand when people sometimes feel that way). The point is to separate them from the rest of society, for most if not all of the rest of their lives in my view. There is no reason why we should have to offer ourselves as victims while some people work out their personal problems.

[Captain Worley]

Well here's a charming individual to be on the lookout for!

http://www.wltx.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/110622115804_Timothy-Kinlaw.jpg



Officers want to find 26-year-old Timothy A. Kinlaw, who they intend to arrest on three counts of use of threats of violence by a gang member to solicit membership or prevent withdrawal, and three counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

Investigator say Kinlaw is a self-admitted gang member. According to deputies, he harassed victims regularly about joining a gang, and when they refused, he told them that there was no choice and they were a member of the gang. Deputies say he told them that if they didn't follow the rules, he would conduct drive-by shootings at their homes and assault their family members.

Detectives also say he coerced three juveniles into breaking into vehicles by using threats of violence.


http://www.wltx.com/news/article/141097/2/Deputies-Man-Threatened-People-to-Join-Gang-

[JDidGirl]

Someone just needs to go ahead and and do the rest of us a favor and take this thug out.

[Quintessence]

Is it just me, or does he kinda, sorta resemble the "What What in the ..." guy? I think it is something in the eyes.

[Captain Worley]

That is exactly what I thought!!

[Quintessence]

That is exactly what I thought!!
Hahahahaha! You're kidding! That is too funny...so it isn't just me. Is he currently in jail? Maybe that is why "Officers...intend to arrest" him. LE may be required to make special accommodations for his protection.

[Captain Worley]

No, seriously, that was my thought when I saw him.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMu4sseThv3miuJ8vZV7tVQ38mtN_aq Zan8PLr7KtBBortIfg9

It would have been nice if the article mentioned what section of town he was in.

[JDidGirl]

Hahahahaha! You're kidding! That is too funny...so it isn't just me. Is he currently in jail? Maybe that is why "Officers...intend to arrest" him. LE may be required to make special accommodations for his protection.

No, he's not in jail. Still very much out there roaming around bringing property values down just by his sheer presence.

[Captain Worley]

They got him.



Officers say 26-year-old Timothy A. Kinlaw was arrested on three counts of use of threats of violence by a gang member to solicit membership or prevent withdrawal, and three counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor.


http://www.wltx.com/news/article/141097/2/Deputies-Arrest-Man-Who-Threatened-People-to-Join-Gang-

Of course, he's probably already back out and if and when he comes to trial, I bet he gets a slap on thewrist.

[JDidGirl]

It's disgusting, isn't it?

[Quintessence]

They got him.



http://www.wltx.com/news/article/141097/2/Deputies-Arrest-Man-Who-Threatened-People-to-Join-Gang-

Of course, he's probably already back out and if and when he comes to trial, I bet he gets a slap on thewrist.
Maybe, just maybe, he'll get a "What What in the ...."


It's disgusting, isn't it?
Yeah, guess I shouldn't have stated the above, but sometimes, the only way to learn a lesson is equivalent repercussions.... Disgusting act deserves a disgusting consequence. Sorry folks. (Actually, I wouldn't wish that particular act upon anyone who hasn't provided consent, but I think you guys know what I mean.)