I moved out of there 2 years ago. I remember when cuomo was running against pataki. We all wanted cumo out. Pataki got a b rating from NRA. I even put a bumper sticker on my van. Well NY has seen more gun control with a republican gov then cumo. NY would have been better with anti gun cumo. My theory is that he got support from the anti gun dems and the anti gun republicans and then a few republicans to vote party line. Thats how it all happen from what I saw. My last point is I never loved NY. I felt like a fish out of water there. The best thing I did was to move. Good luck.
Pataki & Police
What a peice of crap. Apparently the average "citizen's" life isn't as important as a Leo's according to Gov. Pataki. He called for a special session of the NYS legislature on Friday to "..enact tougher gun control laws and police protection." In his "Crimes Against Law Enforcement Officers Bill", there will be an increase in the penalties for criminals who injure or kill police officers. The sentences could include the death penalty. "You shoot a cop, you go to prison for 20 years...(and) with our bill, there would be a death penalty for killing a cop," Pataki said at a Manhattan news conference. "That's just common sense." WWWHHHAAATTT!!! Common sense!?! You've GOT to be kidding me! Hey George, HOW "BOUT THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ANY SCUMBAG WHO KILLS SOMEONE? Kill a Leo, you die. Kill a meber of my family or one of my friends, you die. No offense to Leo's, but this P.O.S. is just using this to grandstand. It's a freakin' insult to every New York "citizen" and you bet I'm gonna be e-mailing and calling. Man, I love New York, but between the taxes and the politics here it's going to be hard not to end up moving to another state in a few years.
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
I'm personally skeptical about any differences between punishments of LEOs/government officials and "normal" citizens. We no longer live in a society where the government fears the people - so what happens when LEOs/government perpetrates acts of injustice on an unsuspecting/undeserving citizen and the citizen acts out, perhaps even killing the LEO/government official? These sorts of things are rare, granted. However, we know that such instances have been covered up, and it will happen again. So what about those people who will lose their justice and perhaps their lives? Those situations (again - as rare as they are in this country compared to many others) are why the police must not be given too much power or too much protection. Such protection stops the government from fearing the people, and tyranny follows.
Easy there killer. A couple of facts for you. First of all the State of NY has the death penalty already. Doesn't matter if you kill a cop or a cabbie you can get the death penalty. The fact that liberal DA's never ask for it is a different story. From what I understand about the new law it takes away the ability of the DA to decide to seek the death penalty when an officer is killed in the line of duty.
Also, there is an improtant difference between your average joe six pack and a sworn LEO. The LEO represents the authority of the state. An attack on a LEO is not only an attack on that individual but the state itself. In most jurisdictions there are additional penalties or stiffer sentences for assaulting a LEO as opposed to a civilian.
Also, there is an improtant difference between your average joe six pack and a sworn LEO. The LEO represents the authority of the state. An attack on a LEO is not only an attack on that individual but the state itself. In most jurisdictions there are additional penalties or stiffer sentences for assaulting a LEO as opposed to a civilian.
Grandstanding
The regular session would begin next month anyways. He calls for a special session before the end of the year to have the Republican-led Senate and the Democratic-led Assembly come together, but he CAN'T REQUIRE THAT THEY VOTE. HHHMMMM? (Not that they would agree on anything anyways.) I know there's a token "death penalty" already, but from the gist of this I'm getting from his proposed bill, is that it's a done deal to the chair,needle,chamber,whatever if someone kills an officer. (Which I AGREE with.) However, what I don't agree with is the apparent division that Magilla states in his post. Sorry, but there might be a difference between the "average joe sixpack" and a Leo, but there shouldn't be in the penalties for taking an innocent life of ANY type. What if that "average" person is a doctor,nurse,teacher,fireman,etc.? If someone takes a family member of mine, I certainly don't want any lesser of a penalty for the SOB than he would've gotten had it been a Leo. I've already e-mailed his office for further clarification to see if it's any different than what I'm reading in the newspapers. If it is or not, I'll relay his response. Magilla, when you say that most jurisdictions have additional penalties or sentences for assaulting a Leo as opposed to a citizen, do you know if those same jurisdictions have different readings on the death penalties for killing either a Leo or a civilian? This is the first I've heard of a difference in the penalty for killing someone, although I profess I'm not a lawyer,judge, or politition of any type.
The regular session would begin next month anyways. He calls for a special session before the end of the year to have the Republican-led Senate and the Democratic-led Assembly come together, but he CAN'T REQUIRE THAT THEY VOTE. HHHMMMM? (Not that they would agree on anything anyways.) I know there's a token "death penalty" already, but from the gist of this I'm getting from his proposed bill, is that it's a done deal to the chair,needle,chamber,whatever if someone kills an officer. (Which I AGREE with.) However, what I don't agree with is the apparent division that Magilla states in his post. Sorry, but there might be a difference between the "average joe sixpack" and a Leo, but there shouldn't be in the penalties for taking an innocent life of ANY type. What if that "average" person is a doctor,nurse,teacher,fireman,etc.? If someone takes a family member of mine, I certainly don't want any lesser of a penalty for the SOB than he would've gotten had it been a Leo. I've already e-mailed his office for further clarification to see if it's any different than what I'm reading in the newspapers. If it is or not, I'll relay his response. Magilla, when you say that most jurisdictions have additional penalties or sentences for assaulting a Leo as opposed to a citizen, do you know if those same jurisdictions have different readings on the death penalties for killing either a Leo or a civilian? This is the first I've heard of a difference in the penalty for killing someone, although I profess I'm not a lawyer,judge, or politition of any type.
It disgusts me to think that a LEO would differentiate between themselves and other citizens by using such terms: a pejorative ("average joe six pack") to describe a civilian citizen and a term that I imagine is supposed to sound honorable and good ("sworn LEO") to describe the LEO. The problem here is that in using such terminology there is an air of "I'm an LEO so I'm so much better and so I SHOULD be more protected." The problem arises here because the government (state) is supposed to be "of the people". When those in the government start to think they are "above the people" instead of "of the people", the "state" becomes "police state".magilla gorilla said:Also, there is an improtant difference between your average joe six pack and a sworn LEO. The LEO represents the authority of the state. An attack on a LEO is not only an attack on that individual but the state itself. In most jurisdictions there are additional penalties or stiffer sentences for assaulting a LEO as opposed to a civilian.
Truly, that is what the special protection provides - a foundation for a police state. The police do not need to fear the same things that citizens do. Police do not need to fear unconstitutionality, because they are protected by laws saying that if a citizen fights back, the citizen is screwed.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the peopel fears the government, there is tyrrany." More than that need not be said.
I guess what I'm saying is that as long as the law applies differently to civilian citizens and LEOs/gov't officials, there exists a police state.
(Note - sorry for the edits. I've been terribly sick all day and I'm not thinking straight at all. My thoughts are likely still not as organized as I would like. Hopefully you walk away from my posts here with at least a little bit of what I'm trying to say.)
Here's the thing about LEO deaths
In 2003 there were 45 police officers shot and killed in the line of duty. There were 49 that died in vehicle accidents in that same year. In this day and age, police officers are more likely to die by their own hand than by someone else's.
I believe that all murderers should be put to death for their crimes. For certain crimes, and certain criminals, that is the only solution.
As for Pataki, well he's a politician trying to make an issue out of a non issue, but isn't that usually the case? Isn't that what they are doing when they start grandstanding about the evils of firearms? In 2001 there were a total of 29,573 people who died as a result of gunfire. 802 were "unintentional" 231 were "undetermined" and 16,869 were suicide. of that total, 11,671 were homicides. By comparison, about 17,500 (of the approximately 43,000 total automobile fatalities) people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet when someone gets drunk and kills a family of four, people excuse if to some degree (not all, but many). "It was an accident" is all too often the excuse, because it's "obvious" he didn't mean to kill those people.
Sorry to venture off topic, but I was trying to prove a point. We've been through out "drunk drivers are bad" phase, but "we" can't seem to get away from our "guns are bad" phase. Why? (BTW, by "we" and "our" I mean Americans in general, politicians, "celebrities" and the media in particular.
My 2¢
Robert
In 2003 there were 45 police officers shot and killed in the line of duty. There were 49 that died in vehicle accidents in that same year. In this day and age, police officers are more likely to die by their own hand than by someone else's.
I believe that all murderers should be put to death for their crimes. For certain crimes, and certain criminals, that is the only solution.
As for Pataki, well he's a politician trying to make an issue out of a non issue, but isn't that usually the case? Isn't that what they are doing when they start grandstanding about the evils of firearms? In 2001 there were a total of 29,573 people who died as a result of gunfire. 802 were "unintentional" 231 were "undetermined" and 16,869 were suicide. of that total, 11,671 were homicides. By comparison, about 17,500 (of the approximately 43,000 total automobile fatalities) people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet when someone gets drunk and kills a family of four, people excuse if to some degree (not all, but many). "It was an accident" is all too often the excuse, because it's "obvious" he didn't mean to kill those people.
Sorry to venture off topic, but I was trying to prove a point. We've been through out "drunk drivers are bad" phase, but "we" can't seem to get away from our "guns are bad" phase. Why? (BTW, by "we" and "our" I mean Americans in general, politicians, "celebrities" and the media in particular.
My 2¢
Robert
Mighty full of yourself there Xori? I am not nor have I ever been a LEO officer. I am and have always been your "average joe six pack" but thanks for telling me that I used a pejorative term to describe myself. Excuse me while I go beat my face for being so insensative.Xori Ruscuv said:It disgusts me to think that a LEO would differentiate between themselves and other citizens by using such terms: a pejorative ("average joe six pack") to describe a civilian citizen and a term that I imagine is supposed to sound honorable and good ("sworn LEO") to describe the LEO. The problem here is that in using such terminology there is an air of "I'm an LEO so I'm so much better and so I SHOULD be more protected." The problem arises here because the government (state) is supposed to be "of the people". When those in the government start to think they are "above the people" instead of "of the people", the "state" becomes "police state".
Here is an news flash for you we actually need police officers. I certianly don't wan't to do the job and those who are willing to risk their lives to do the job certianly do deserve additional proctection. I find your constant rantings about the police state to be disturbing.Truly, that is what the special protection provides - a foundation for a police state. The police do not need to fear the same things that citizens do. Police do not need to fear unconstitutionality, because they are protected by laws saying that if a citizen fights back, the citizen is screwed.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the peopel fears the government, there is tyrrany." More than that need not be said.
As I stated before the penalties for assaulting a LEO in most jursidictions is already more severe than the laws that are applied to assaults on non LEO. I guess I must have missed the memo but now that I know I live in a police state I'll be sure to look over my shoulder every time I leave the house.I guess what I'm saying is that as long as the law applies differently to civilian citizens and LEOs/gov't officials, there exists a police state.
I am hoping you didn't mean them to read they way they did because it was pretty insulting from my seat.(Note - sorry for the edits. I've been terribly sick all day and I'm not thinking straight at all. My thoughts are likely still not as organized as I would like. Hopefully you walk away from my posts here with at least a little bit of what I'm trying to say.)
One other thing Xori. I see that you are only 24 years old and wonder if you have had the opportunity to travel outside the States. I have been to several third world countries (with penney ante dictators) and one communist (Chinia) country. If you think that we are a borderline police state you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Yes, we need police officers. I'm not one who would claim that anarchy could actually work. However, our government continues to enforce ever more repressive laws (many of which violate our Constitution) by use of ever expanding "law enforcement" agencies. The extra protection given to such ever expanding agencies is what puts us on the "BORDERLINE" of being a police state". I don't think it is too late to turn around, though.magilla gorilla said:Here is an news flash for you we actually need police officers. I certianly don't wan't to do the job and those who are willing to risk their lives to do the job certianly do deserve additional proctection. I find your constant rantings about the police state to be disturbing.
Indeed I have - and even if I hadn't, it is necessary only to study international governments to understand the differences between "us" and "them". Age certainly doesn't play a factor here. There are a good many people more knowledgable of politics than I - and many of those people are younger and have been fewer places.magilla gorilla said:One other thing Xori. I see that you are only 24 years old and wonder if you have had the opportunity to travel outside the States.
Many a communist/facist country ARE police states.magilla gorilla said:I have been to several third world countries (with penney ante dictators) and one communist (Chinia) country. If you think that we are a borderline police state you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
We may not be on our way to Haiti/Somalia/Afghanistan, but we are certrainly on our way to China if we don't pay attention here. We are indeed what I would call a "BORDERLINE police state". In other words, we are certainly heading toward a police state under a bloated authoritarian government that ignores the principles of a Republic and allows the citizenry to vote more and more power away from the people. We have to be very careful where we go from here. We need to take note when things like the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents occur - it shows a lack of restraint on the part of government officials and law enforcment officials as well as a government that allows itself far too much power in ignoring the rights of its people.
Unfortunately, our country is packed with people (both progressive/socialist and conservative) who take no issue with the government and law enforcement having ever increasing power and the people have ever decreasing rights or recourse against such power.
Now gentlemen do try to behave
We do need police officers, and affording their murderers an automatic "go to death row" is as good a place to start as any.
It should also be noted that it was the governor of New York that started all of this, not a police officer. It is a political stunt, meant to grab attention and divide the people so that the politicians can do what they want. Don't fall for their trick and start bickering amongst ourselves.
Robert
We do need police officers, and affording their murderers an automatic "go to death row" is as good a place to start as any.
It should also be noted that it was the governor of New York that started all of this, not a police officer. It is a political stunt, meant to grab attention and divide the people so that the politicians can do what they want. Don't fall for their trick and start bickering amongst ourselves.
Robert
Then there really is not point in having this discussion if you really think this a borderline police state. I have seen the real thing and know the difference.Xori Ruscuv said:We are indeed what I would call a "BORDERLINE police state". In other words, we are certainly heading toward a police state under a bloated authoritarian government that ignores the principles of a Republic and allows the citizenry to vote more and more power away from the people. We have to be very careful where we go from here. We need to take note when things like the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents occur - it shows a lack of restraint on the part of government officials and law enforcment officials as well as a government that allows itself far too much power in ignoring the rights of its people.
Agreed.magilla gorilla said:Then there really is not point in having this discussion if you really think this a borderline police state. I have seen the real thing and know the difference.
... but for the record, so have I and so do I. It is all about where you draw the line. Also note that I'm not saying that the United States is a police state. I know what a police state is and I know that the United States is not it. What I AM saying is that the United States is on its way there, hence the term I used: "borderline police state".
So long as it was truly a murder - ie. provable that it was not self defense.thearmedrebel said:We do need police officers, and affording their murderers an automatic "go to death row" is as good a place to start as any.
Xori Ruscuv said:I'm personally skeptical about any differences between punishments of LEOs/government officials and "normal" citizens. We no longer live in a society where the government fears the people - so what happens when LEOs/government perpetrates acts of injustice on an unsuspecting/undeserving citizen and the citizen acts out, perhaps even killing the LEO/government official? These sorts of things are rare, granted. However, we know that such instances have been covered up, and it will happen again. So what about those people who will lose their justice and perhaps their lives? Those situations (again - as rare as they are in this country compared to many others) are why the police must not be given too much power or too much protection. Such protection stops the government from fearing the people, and tyranny follows.
Give me the examples!!!! While not all LEO's are perfect (we have our bad apples, just like any other profession) show me where a LEO had to be killed by a private citizen, because the LEO "perpetrates a act of injustice".
Please bring up Waco. I will agree that the planning may have not been the best, but the guy was sleeping with little girls, abusing a trust his people gave him as a minister, breaking up familys, had his own little gestapo, and while it is a unpopular topic here, had several illegal items and such. Yeah this guy was who I wanted for a neighbor.
In my state it a LEO attempts a illegal arrest, the person can resist with enough force to stop the action. Another little theory that you stated thats wrong. Heres something too, I don't go to work dreaming on how to take your guns or violate your rights. None of the guys I work with do either.
Thank you for bringing it up for me.darby said:show me where a LEO had to be killed by a private citizen, because the LEO "perpetrates a act of injustice".
Please bring up Waco. I will agree that the planning may have not been the best, but the guy was sleeping with little girls, abusing a trust his people gave him as a minister, breaking up familys, had his own little gestapo, and while it is a unpopular topic here, had several illegal items and such. Yeah this guy was who I wanted for a neighbor.
Alright, so what do you do when someone is committing rape?
What do you do when someone is holding others against their will (I'll say this because I'm not sure if there is a line between this and kidnapping)?
What do you do when someone is disturbing the peace?
You do not assault and kill innocents. The assaults and slaying of innocents was not accidental. I understand collateral damage - and as much as collateral damage sucks, it does happen. However, what we saw at Waco was not collateral damage. You don't kill innocents in order to capture someone who is raping, holding people against their will and disrupting the peace. The actions at Waco were as overwrought as they were because there were some people who hated Koresh's outspoken RKBA activism.
Very interesting. I didn't know that existed in any state. It is great to know that. Thank you for pointing that out. (By the way, what state do you live in? Just the state, I'm not asking for anything more. I'd like to do some research on such laws.darby said:In my state it a LEO attempts a illegal arrest, the person can resist with enough force to stop the action.
I have to admit, what you said there confuses me though, because I thought that "resisting arrest" is an offense all of its own.
For your state. Is this the case in the majority (or all) states?Another little theory that you stated thats wrong.
Good. I'm glad that we have LEOs like you and the guys you refer to that you work with. You are an obvious credit to your profession, and I hope that if I ever have cause to deal with an LEO, that the LEO I deal with is as great as you seem to be.Heres something too, I don't go to work dreaming on how to take your guns or violate your rights. None of the guys I work with do either.
Sorry to dissagree, but I have to on this one
Just for fun, here's the definition of a police state, according to The American Heritage Dictionary:
police state
n.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
Last time I checked, we weren't "on our way" there. If anything, we are currently moving away from that standard, as referenced by the fact that the most infringing aspects of the PATRIOT Act will expire in a few weeks, and their reinstatement is questionable.
As for the murder versus self defense thing, I am assuming a fair trial, and appeals (all death sentences go to automatic appeal, BTW)
Robert
The United States is the freest Nation in the world. Period. Is it as free as it possibly could be? I don't think so, but the freest nonetheless.Xori Ruscuv said:What I AM saying is that the United States is on its way there, hence the term I used: "borderline police state".
Just for fun, here's the definition of a police state, according to The American Heritage Dictionary:
police state
n.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
Last time I checked, we weren't "on our way" there. If anything, we are currently moving away from that standard, as referenced by the fact that the most infringing aspects of the PATRIOT Act will expire in a few weeks, and their reinstatement is questionable.
As for the murder versus self defense thing, I am assuming a fair trial, and appeals (all death sentences go to automatic appeal, BTW)
Robert
Yes, it is. So? That doesn't mean that we aren't on our way "there". We have serious problems that we need to address.thearmedrebel said:The United States is the freest Nation in the world. Period. Is it as free as it possibly could be? I don't think so, but the freest nonetheless.
A dictionary definition? That seems far too simplistic. We're looking at a form of government here. Look instead at existing "police states". What one can see in common between all "police states" is a lack of rights of the citizens, and a supremacy of the police and government officials.Just for fun, here's the definition of a police state, according to The American Heritage Dictionary:
police state ... A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
Again, this is all about where you draw the line. I consider the existence of restrictions against the Second Amendment to be "repressive controls". I also consider the existence of "victimless crime" laws in this country to be "repressive controls". I see these things as doing nothing more than keeping people from taking care of themselves and having absolute control over their own lives. I've been there - I've been below the poverty line while having severe medical problems and it is damn hard to take care of yourself with many of the restrictions put in place. I am fortunately (and only by the grace of God and by my own hard work) no longer in that situation, but I will never forget it, and I will forever fight to educate people on how hard it is to take care of yourself because of laws that restrict you.Last time I checked, we weren't "on our way" there.
(I'll nip any discussion of welfare right here and now - I'm not talking about entitlement here, I'm talking about laws that keep you from doing things or obtaining goods that are necessary for your survival or well being. The costs can be insanely prohibitive, believe me. I am strongly against entitlement and have nothing but contempt for people who think that "freedom" means "free", and who think that the government/people/society owes them something.)
I've been following this and this is indeed great news.If anything, we are currently moving away from that standard, as referenced by the fact that the most infringing aspects of the PATRIOT Act will expire in a few weeks, and their reinstatement is questionable.
Your assumption is understood. That assumption standing, we are on the same page.As for the murder versus self defense thing, I am assuming a fair trial, and appeals (all death sentences go to automatic appeal, BTW)
After reading this thread, my fiance (she's a lurker!) pointed out something important to me that I failed to consider in my posts here.
She pointed out that for the most part, state jurisdiction and lower jurisdiction LEOs tend to support the citizens' RKBA.
I'm not necessarily denying this, and I'm not trying to say "all LEOs are like this..." or something. I like to avoid such generalist statements. However, I do have a distinct fear and disdain for certain chains of command that have come into being in this nation's history - especially under AG Janet Reno.
Such exreme examples point to why I feel that we are "borderline police state". There are other reasons I have alluded to as well (such as those on a personal level), but I fear that this thread is coming far off topic. If you would like to continue that part of the discussion, I welcome the opportunity to do so. Please PM me and we'll set up an email thread. I hate to have you thinking that my arguments are baseless. They aren't. I just can't "base" them while keeping within this forum's "gun-related legal and political".
She pointed out that for the most part, state jurisdiction and lower jurisdiction LEOs tend to support the citizens' RKBA.
I'm not necessarily denying this, and I'm not trying to say "all LEOs are like this..." or something. I like to avoid such generalist statements. However, I do have a distinct fear and disdain for certain chains of command that have come into being in this nation's history - especially under AG Janet Reno.
Such exreme examples point to why I feel that we are "borderline police state". There are other reasons I have alluded to as well (such as those on a personal level), but I fear that this thread is coming far off topic. If you would like to continue that part of the discussion, I welcome the opportunity to do so. Please PM me and we'll set up an email thread. I hate to have you thinking that my arguments are baseless. They aren't. I just can't "base" them while keeping within this forum's "gun-related legal and political".
I don't really have a problem with the idea of an automatic death sentence for anyone convicted of murder. Like Xori, though, I don't really see why the murder of a school teacher, or professional jazz drummer, or homeless person (etc.) should not carry the same penalty. I don't like the idea of laws that divide society into classes (in this case, police, and everyone else). I'm not quite ready to sound the "police state" alarm yet, but it's the kind of thing that makes me wary.
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
1911Forum
A forum community dedicated to all 1911 firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
