The times we live in

[sam]

but that's my point if they're still that big of a threat why are they being released

[x5060]

but that's my point if they're still that big of a threat why are they being released

Because a criminal can never be entirly reabilitated.

[LikeableRodent]

I haven't been up on the news lately, so I'm possibly wrong, but I think that Fort Wayne at least is looking into, or already has, this information available.

You can search the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry.

Who knows, you may be living next to this guy or something.

[sam]

nice link it don't work

[LikeableRodent]

I blame shitty sites with frames and janky input fields.

[Mei-Mei]

I agree that a lot of police are bumbling idiots and abuse what power they have. I also think that they run into a lot of truly crazy people. It's a delicate balance on what's right or wrong to do, but I've lost my faith that they always try to do the right thing. Seems they do what's convenient to them at that moment.

That officer shooting that student, that's wrong. So wrong. The family should sue that asshat.

And sex offenders? Well-ll-ll. That's a personal, passionate hate I have. I have no sympathy for any of them.

[Original Sin]

A GPS tag, hm? Personally, I think if they're that big a threat, they shouldn't be released. Of course, our department of corrections is cutting corners and letting people out early. They may as well NOT be released, especially now with everyone wanting to know who/where they are.
They'll never get housing, they'll never get a job, they'll never get any semblence of a normal life.... So what's the point? They'll have nothing to lose, so they'll just do it again.
If rape and/or other sexual crimes had harsher consequences, perhaps people would think twice about it...or at least not get back out once they do it.

And yes, I agree Sam. If the government takes this step, and starts tagging people...there's no telling when it'll stop. What's next? Tagging Arabs, because they're a 'threat to our society?'

I'm not defending sex offenders at all...they can rot in hell for all I care, but I'm not supporting this bill, soley for the reason Sam stated, and I just stated about.
Once they start, they're not gonna stop. Once people accept their new forms of control, they'll find bigger, better ways to do it. Then one by one, our freedoms, they very thing that makes us American (or so they tell us) will be taken away.
That's how liberty dies folks. Just don't let it go willingly...We've come too far to let it die now.

For the people that are inevitably going to say 'What about the victims?!,' hear this:
There are always criminals, there are always crimes. Always have been, always will be. We won't stop them from happening...the only thing we can do is keep our eyes open, and if we're lucky maybe we'll catch a few before hand...the rest, we have to deal with as we find them...and hopefully have the common sense not to let them out early so they can do it all over again.
You can put more restrictions on a criminal, but it won't stop them. You'll just make more cunning, creative criminals. Taking away guns won't stop murder. Putting a GPS tag on a rapist isn't going to stop him from getting his sick jollies...We need to lock them up tight, or execute them if that's your thing, when they're proven guilty. That's the only thing that's going to stop them.

[malictus]

My quick 2 cents...

Using your gun should always be the very LAST line of defense for a cop; sounds to me like the guy in this situation (the article from the original post) did the right thing.

I'm strongly opposed to tagging sex offenders and keeping registries of them; it's a blatant civil rights violation. If these people are still a danger to society, then LEAVE THEM IN PRISON for crying out loud.....

[fpd]

My quick 2 cents...

Using your gun should always be the very LAST line of defense for a cop; sounds to me like the guy in this situation (the article from the original post) did the right thing.

I'm strongly opposed to tagging sex offenders and keeping registries of them; it's a blatant civil rights violation. If these people are still a danger to society, then LEAVE THEM IN PRISON for crying out loud.....

Agreed on both parts.
A cop should never shoot anyone unless they are being shot at. They are trained to take down people in "nonviolent" (in other words, not wounding them more than "Ouch, that hurt" for more than a day or two) I'm sure you all remember the bullshit about the BSU cop shooting the kid last year right? I actually felt kinda unsafe around there after that, cause I had seen some of the retards that work there as cops, they are fucking idiots. (I was at the academy for school at BSU)
He should not have shot the guy, what's the worst a guy drunk off his ass is going to do to you? Throw up on you! There's no way he could've fought well, and even if he was a prize fighter or something, cops are trained to take them down without any bodily harm inflicted upon the cop.

I just fucking hate the government and "Authority" figures taking advantage of what position they have. Which is why I don't respect cops any more than any other person. I see no reason to respect someone for what job they chose, they wanted to fucking do it, and if they're an ass to me, I'll be an ass to them. Having a badge gives them no more rights than I have... Well, It shouldn't, but sadly does.

[x5060]

Agreed on both parts.
A cop should never shoot anyone unless they are being shot at. They are trained to take down people in "nonviolent" (in other words, not wounding them more than "Ouch, that hurt" for more than a day or two)

Your in a hostage situation, a man with a knife is holding a 10 year old hostage. You get a clean shot you know you can make, do you take it? Do you let him continue to threaten the child?

So a man attacks you. He is winning. He starts choking you to death. Others around are cheering him on. You would just sit there and die?

You respond to a domestic abuse call, Crazy boyfreind (big guy) is yelling at his wife and threatening everyone in sight. At one point he grabs an aluminium Baseball bat and starts walking tword you aggresivly. Do you let him beat you to death?

Those "nonviolent" ways of taking someone down are NOT guarenteed, nor 100% effective. Hand to hand combat is much more confusing and ineffective than you know

[XxJennaxX]

My quick 2 cents...

Using your gun should always be the very LAST line of defense for a cop; sounds to me like the guy in this situation (the article from the original post) did the right thing.

I'm strongly opposed to tagging sex offenders and keeping registries of them; it's a blatant civil rights violation. If these people are still a danger to society, then LEAVE THEM IN PRISON for crying out loud.....

So say you oppose this bill, how would you feel if your own children were molested and possibly murdered by a sex offender? Wouldn't it make you wish they would have had it in place even though it's a violation of civil rights? The instant a child is molested, killed, or anything of that nature (or any human in general), he has unfortunately lost his right of personal security. The sick bastard doing it to these kids doesn't deserve the right to anything.

[sam]

obviously they would be left in jail to rot. rather than letting them roam free you know they could lengthen sentances? getting charged with dealing cocaine is as bad as killing someone. Class A felony. Same with dealing any hallucinogenic substances. These charges can get YEARS in prison while Rape in the first degree is a class b felony. all the rape charges are explained pretty well here.

and to x5060:
police are trained and have different weapons for different levels of force. Night sticks, taser guns, firearms, mace they have many different deterrant methods. They have been trained to do the "proper thing" (in most areas...a lot have rush methods to get the young out) in most situations.

[malictus]

My quick 2 cents...

Using your gun should always be the very LAST line of defense for a cop; sounds to me like the guy in this situation (the article from the original post) did the right thing.

I'm strongly opposed to tagging sex offenders and keeping registries of them; it's a blatant civil rights violation. If these people are still a danger to society, then LEAVE THEM IN PRISON for crying out loud.....

So say you oppose this bill, how would you feel if your own children were molested and possibly murdered by a sex offender? Wouldn't it make you wish they would have had it in place even though it's a violation of civil rights? The instant a child is molested, killed, or anything of that nature (or any human in general), he has unfortunately lost his right of personal security. The sick bastard doing it to these kids doesn't deserve the right to anything.

A valid question; but yes, as Sam points out, I would support longer sentences, or (in the case of pedophiles) NOT letting them out at all. Psychologists tell us that it's next to impossible to 'reform' a pedophile. I would support leaving someone like that in jail, away from my own kids, forever.

My point is simply that, if they let you out of prison, the assumption is that you are reformed and no longer a threat to society. So to have the government tag you and track you, if you are free from prison, just isn't right...

[Mosh_Mosh_Revolution]

I like the idea of the people rotting in prison better than letting them out with GPS tags and info all over the place about them.

However, with prison, we have to look into how much it costs to house a prisoner.

I mean, besides the whole no freedom thing, prisoners have it better than I do. LoL. They get cable and hot meals.

I remember seeing a figure once about how much it costs to keep prisoners, and that's coming out of our pockets. Honestly, I would readily pay more taxes to keep sick people off the streets, but I know a lot of people wouldn't.

[Original Sin]

My quick 2 cents...

Using your gun should always be the very LAST line of defense for a cop; sounds to me like the guy in this situation (the article from the original post) did the right thing.

I'm strongly opposed to tagging sex offenders and keeping registries of them; it's a blatant civil rights violation. If these people are still a danger to society, then LEAVE THEM IN PRISON for crying out loud.....

So say you oppose this bill, how would you feel if your own children were molested and possibly murdered by a sex offender? Wouldn't it make you wish they would have had it in place even though it's a violation of civil rights? The instant a child is molested, killed, or anything of that nature (or any human in general), he has unfortunately lost his right of personal security. The sick bastard doing it to these kids doesn't deserve the right to anything.

A valid question; but yes, as Sam points out, I would support longer sentences, or (in the case of pedophiles) NOT letting them out at all. Psychologists tell us that it's next to impossible to 'reform' a pedophile. I would support leaving someone like that in jail, away from my own kids, forever.

My point is simply that, if they let you out of prison, the assumption is that you are reformed and no longer a threat to society. So to have the government tag you and track you, if you are free from prison, just isn't right...

Exactly. And the reason you can't reform a pedophile, is because you can't choose who you're attracted to. The same with the difference between gay/straight people: Most of them don't make a conscious choice saying 'I'm gonna be gay today!' It just happens.
Now, pedophiles who go out and abuduct/rape little boys/girls...yeah, they won't be rehabilitated, and if they've done it once, they're most likely going to do it again. They shouldn't be let out at all, so the tagging thing should never have to happen.
There should be no tagging, for two reasons.
A) They should not be let out AT ALL.
B) Tagging sex offenders will lead to tagging more and more people, for crimes that are insignificant. Soon, they'll just start tagging you at birth, and there you have it. Freedom is dead. Yay?

On the police matter:

Police are human beings to, and most of them do not get into conflicts very often, whether with fire arms or hand to hand. They get moderate levels of training in each field, but unless you use it on a regular basis, that training won't mean much.
Also, if someone is choking you, there is no good way to get them off of you...especially using the means you're talking about. Let me elaborate...

Pepper spray- Useless. The guy already has his hands around your neck, and regardless of whether you spray him or not, the odds are he isn't going to let go of you. Pepper spray essentially makes you blind and extremely uncomfortable...but at this point, the guy doesn't need to see you to kill you.
Baton/nightstick- At this range, either of the two would be almost completely useless. There isn't enough room to build up speed/leverage for a decent strike at any point on the guys body. All this method will do is piss him off more.
Taser- A taser might work, assuming you can get it out and arm it in time, and he doesn't turn it against you. However, I don't believe all cops carry tasers, and they're extremely controversial on the force anyway. The new models have been known to kill people. Or more accurately, lead to a condition causing the death of people.
Hand to hand- A LOT HARDER THAN YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK. It's extremely difficult to get free yourself when you're being choked, especially if you're close to death. There are methods of doing it, but they require intensive practice and knowing what you're doing. If you've never been in a situation requiring it before, the odds are you won't even remember it. If you're being choked, dying with each passing second, you're going to be calmly concidering your options...you're going to be thinking 'Holy shit I'm going to die.'
If this guys partner hadn't shown up, the odds are he would be dead now. Even if he did get the guy off, he would have been extremely weak and vulnerable from being choked. Who's to say the guy wouldn't just grab him again, or someone else from the angry mob would come in and do something worse?

Like I said, in THIS situation, as I have laid it out above, I would have pulled my gun, and I would have shot him. When you're inches from death, you're not thinking 'OK, in 20 seconds my partner MIGHT show up and help me.' You're thinking, 'I'm dying. I need to get this asshole off of me as quickly as possible.'


On this subject, there was a recent case around here where an officer shot someone. I'm curious to see what kind of response this'll get.

Officers respond to a domestic dispute here in town. They find a guy holding a woman hostage with a knife. They call for back up, try to keep him calm/negotiate, all the usual jive. The man starts stabbing the woman multiple times. The officers shoot him, and kill him.
Last I heard, the woman is alive, though she was still in the hospital. I havn't heard anything new on the case, so I dunno if she's still alive or not.
Now, if the police had not shot him, the woman would have been dead. How do I figure this? Short of SWAT team bean-bag/rubbber riot rounds, all forms of non-lethal attacks require you to be within a few feet of your opponent. During a hostage situation, police always keep a safe distance between them, and the hostage taker. By the time these officers would have reached this guy, he would have had time to stab the woman plenty more times, each time decreasing her chances of survival. Furthermore, they would have had to to tange with a man, with a knife. Odds are, one of them would have been cut/stabbed, at least once.

Now, the first thing I heard on the news in response to this was a black man saying 'I don't care, they shouldn't have shot him! That's police brutality, blah blah blah.'
So, where do you people stand? What it comes down to is, the hostages life, or the criminals life? Which are you going to save?