Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alleged home invasion victim arrested on gun charge(LA)
bayoubuzz.com ^ | 22 October, 2012 | NA

Posted on 10/23/2012 6:38:07 AM PDT by marktwain

SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) -

Shreveport Police say they arrested a homeowner who exchanged gunfire with intruders Monday night because the homeowner illegally possessed his handgun.

Rafeal Sinville, 29, was booked on one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.

The arrest came after police responded about 9:35 p.m. Monday to a call of a home invasion at a home in the 2500 block of Dupont Street.

Authorities say the homeowner was inside his home, heard a knock at the door, and, when he opened it, found one man who was armed and another man trying to force their way in.

(Excerpt) Read more at bayoubuzz.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: banglist; defense; home; la
Everyone has the right to self defense. A felon still should be able to defend his home.
1 posted on 10/23/2012 6:38:13 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If they can't be trusted with self defense, they should remain in prison. Self-defense is a God given right.

/johnny

2 posted on 10/23/2012 6:40:33 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

A felon loses certain means to self-defense because they have demonstrated themselves to be a threat to others.

If they think they can make a case that they are not such a threat, then they have legal means to petition to reinstate their legal ability to have a firearm.

I have no problem with a felony conviction having such consequences.


3 posted on 10/23/2012 6:43:16 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I agree. Right to self defense should override that offense


4 posted on 10/23/2012 6:46:16 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Everyone has the right to self defense. A felon still should be able to defend his home."

Right on!

Unless a person is convicted of a violent offense and at the time, having used a weapon in the commission of said crime, all others should be able to (say after a reasonable time, mayhaps 5 years of going straight) apply for permission to own a weapon.

I have a friend who is a Vietnam Vet and former Fed LEO who got caught up in a white collar crime (some 25 years ago and has not had so much as a parking ticket since) and he is frustrated at not being able to have a weapon (or even live in a home whereby someone else in his family can) to protect himself and his family.

Time to revisit (though I doubt most Pols have the nerve) the auto banning of possession of a weapon for "any" convicted felon.

5 posted on 10/23/2012 6:46:46 AM PDT by neveralib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“That’s right officer, I took the gun from one of the intruders and returned fire. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”


6 posted on 10/23/2012 6:47:52 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neveralib

Hey, I’m just a bystander here, but see sampleman’s post. They do have rights to petition to remove this restriction.


7 posted on 10/23/2012 6:49:57 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Up until recent history, being a convicted felon didn't lose you the right to self defense. That was Johnson's gun law that did that.

I prefer we stick with the Constitution, and the 'shall not be infringed' part.

/johnny

8 posted on 10/23/2012 6:50:10 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Again, the OP spouts without reading the post thoroughly. You did acknowledge that right. Sorry.


9 posted on 10/23/2012 6:51:38 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
If they can't be trusted with self defense, they should remain in prison. Self-defense is a God given right.

Many people have been convicted of crimes demonstrating that they cannot be trusted with many things, such as driving, being around an ex-spouse, having deadly weapons, etc. It is a waste of money to keep them all in prison. Taking away God given rights is what criminal punishment is all about and punishment is not restricted to physical restraint.

When someone can't handle doing something without harming others, then that right can be legally taken away as a form of punishment and societal protection. Prison terms do not rehabilitate people. I very much disagree with your all or nothing approach to prison. The loss of certain rights after release is a form of parole.

As I posted before, if they don't pose a threat, let them plead their case on an individual basis.

10 posted on 10/23/2012 6:54:52 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Wow am I the only one that noticed tha the felon’s last name was “Sinville”? What a name. He didn’t even have a chance.


11 posted on 10/23/2012 6:56:41 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


12 posted on 10/23/2012 6:57:38 AM PDT by steve8714 (Code pink vaginas shown actual size)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The law reads that a felon cannot posses a gun....period.
There’s a very good reason for that and common sense will reveal it only to those with common sense.

With that said I think felon upon felon crime is great. It’s good that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Now, if we can only make criminals executed in the same horrible manner they killed their victims and in the same length of time it took them to die too.


13 posted on 10/23/2012 6:58:22 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I have no problem with a felony conviction having such consequences.

WHAT ABOUT WHEN JAYWALKING BECOMES A FELONY?......

14 posted on 10/23/2012 6:59:14 AM PDT by Red Badger (Why yes, that was crude and uncalled for......That's why I said it..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
If they aren't going to be allowed to defend themselves (going back to the bad old idea of homo sacer or wolf's head) and you don't want to keep them in prison, then the merciful thing to do is kill them.

/johnny

15 posted on 10/23/2012 7:02:16 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

the pederstran has the right of way over the vehicle. He/she is seldom successful in exercising it. It takes money and usually political clout to get one’s civil rights restoted. To be successful, one has to hire a lawyer and said lawyer has to bribe politicians. Both require money.


16 posted on 10/23/2012 7:02:46 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Nope.

They have forfeited the trust of their fellow citizens. Serving your prison sentence does NOT make you trustworthy. They can use lesser means to defend themselves, but their RKBA is gone and justifiably so.

There should be a way for an ex-con to get his RKBA back, but should not be easy or fast.


17 posted on 10/23/2012 7:08:46 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; SampleMan
then they have legal means to petition to reinstate their legal ability to have a firearm.

Are either of you willing to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and funding the required appeals for released felons? I am pretty sure most of them are not, and more than likely never will be, able to fund such an endeavor themselves.

I believe if they are safe enough to have on the street they should have full reinstatement of all rights.

18 posted on 10/23/2012 7:15:39 AM PDT by onceone (0311, K Co., 3/5 1st Mar Div, RVN '68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

There is a way. It is money, lots of it.


19 posted on 10/23/2012 7:18:53 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
They have forfeited the trust of their fellow citizens. Serving your prison sentence does NOT make you trustworthy

Upon re-reading the second amendment I still don't see where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to those the government deems trustworthy. In ract it says "shall not be infringed." This restriction is a new (Johnson era) completely unconstituitonal restriction. Those who support it are de facto supporting the concept of a "living constitution" ie. one that means nothing.

And BTW that restriction didn't really work did it?

20 posted on 10/23/2012 7:21:18 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I have no problem with a felony conviction having such consequences.

What is the difference between misdemeanor theft and felony theft? Does a single dollar value in difference make sufficient grounds to take away a Constitutional Right? Not all felonies are violent or indicative of someone's ability to be responsible with a firearm...

21 posted on 10/23/2012 7:22:48 AM PDT by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
A felon loses certain means to self-defense because they have demonstrated themselves to be a threat to others.

Yeah, except many felonies are not violent. Denying felons their 2nd amendment rights is simply about punishment, not necessarily about protecting anyone. Same with denying them their voting privileges.

22 posted on 10/23/2012 7:27:33 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neveralib
"I have a friend who is a Vietnam Vet and former Fed LEO who got caught up in a white collar crime (some 25 years ago and has not had so much as a parking ticket since) and he is frustrated at not being able to have a weapon (or even live in a home whereby someone else in his family can) to protect himself and his family."

While I agree wholeheartedly that once one has served their time, their rights should be fully restored, in the interim, one should seek alternate solutions. Federal Law exempts black powder arms from the "firearms" definition so there's nothing in the federal law to prohibit a felon from a black powder weapon. Many states have closed this "loophole" so you'd have to evaluate this on a state by state basis, but if I ever found myself in that position, I'd be eying up a Colt Walker repro...


23 posted on 10/23/2012 7:30:18 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Yeah, except many felonies are not violent. Denying felons their 2nd amendment rights is simply about punishment, not necessarily about protecting anyone. Same with denying them their voting privileges.

Which is why they get to petition for those rights back. I see no reason to do it automatically, especially as many charges are pleaded down. That said, you are talking about an adjustment of the law to apply only to "violent felonies". That is a logical thing to explore.

24 posted on 10/23/2012 7:48:45 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Does a single dollar value in difference make sufficient grounds to take away a Constitutional Right? Not all felonies are violent or indicative of someone's ability to be responsible with a firearm...

A better guage than any other, I argue. And the system still allows them to petition their individual case.

25 posted on 10/23/2012 7:50:20 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: onceone
Are either of you willing to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and funding the required appeals for released felons? I am pretty sure most of them are not, and more than likely never will be, able to fund such an endeavor themselves.

No. My mouth was never anywhere close to paying released felons to petition the court. They got themselves into those restrictions, let them bare the burden of getting them lifted. Yes, tough to be a felon.

I believe if they are safe enough to have on the street they should have full reinstatement of all rights.

I don't. All convicted felons should be on lifetime parole, which the firearm and voting restrictions are. You can make a logical case for not treating all felonies the same, but I totally reject the notion that a person released from prison must be automatically reconstituted a full citizen.

26 posted on 10/23/2012 7:54:51 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
If they aren't going to be allowed to defend themselves (going back to the bad old idea of homo sacer or wolf's head) and you don't want to keep them in prison, then the merciful thing to do is kill them. /johnny

How do they defend themselves while they are in prison?

27 posted on 10/23/2012 7:56:00 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
WHAT ABOUT WHEN JAYWALKING BECOMES A FELONY?......

THEN THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM!!!!!!

The logic on your argument is that we should have no punishment for felonies, as anything might be made a felony.

Sorry but I just reject that out of hand. You aren't going to protect yourself from tyranny by removing the punishment for criminal activity. No power that would do one would hesitate because of some earlier action you took.

We have to fight for just and fair laws, enforcement and punishment every day. Creating a low standard for punishment today in order to preempt a bad law tomorrow is no way to run a country.

28 posted on 10/23/2012 8:01:39 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

True enough. But its even better to avoid both. Most citizens do that by not committing felonies.

29 posted on 10/23/2012 8:04:00 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The 2Amd doesn’t make an exception for convicted felons- “shall not be infringed.”


30 posted on 10/23/2012 8:07:27 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DH
The law reads that a felon cannot posses a gun....period. There’s a very good reason for that and common sense will reveal it only to those with common sense...

Riding a bicycle in a wilderness area is a felony now. It defies common sense why that would disqualify someone from possessing a firearm

31 posted on 10/23/2012 8:13:24 AM PDT by poindexters brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; All
in order to preempt a bad law tomorrow is no way to run a country.

The problem is that we are way past that point already. There are already numerous bad laws on the books. There are already numerous ways that people can be convicted of felonies for actions most people would find to be innocuous.

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance."

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

32 posted on 10/23/2012 8:14:36 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Government assumes that responsibility while they are incarcerated.

/johnny

33 posted on 10/23/2012 8:17:35 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Those who would create a totalitarian society first create laws that will make everyone guilty of something..............


34 posted on 10/23/2012 8:22:10 AM PDT by Red Badger (Why yes, that was crude and uncalled for......That's why I said it..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Obviously we differ in our views, except for this:

tough to be a felon.

I suppose it is. I would hate to have that on my resume'.

All convicted felons should be on lifetime parole

But in this case I am not in favor of lifetime punishment for an individual determined to be allowed in the public. Perhaps we could agree on a system that had, and used, the death penalty, where life in prison was, and institution of penal colonies for paroles. If your paroles can not be full functioning citizens , they do not belong on our streets.

35 posted on 10/23/2012 8:30:44 AM PDT by onceone (0311, K Co., 3/5 1st Mar Div, RVN '68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Government assumes that responsibility while they are incarcerated.

Not very well. I'd rather be in a mall without a gun than in a prison without one.

Being put at a disadvantage (like DUI convicts having to walk) comes with the committing the crime.

36 posted on 10/23/2012 9:16:55 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
As with any other government function, they screw it up. Doesn't make a difference to the Constitutional issue.

Besides, as with any other gun law, it affects only those inclined to obey the law. What the law does is make those that obey it (former convicts obviously not a threat) at risk while those that disobey it (violent offenders) get their weapons, regardless of your opinion, or of the law.

/johnny

37 posted on 10/23/2012 10:09:02 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Spoken like a statist.

I agree with the other posters here. If a man cannot be trusted with his own self defense then he belongs in prison.

A God given right cannot be taken away by man.


38 posted on 10/23/2012 10:23:21 AM PDT by READINABLUESTATE ("We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." - Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

“We have to fight for just and fair laws, enforcement and punishment every day. Creating a low standard for punishment today in order to preempt a bad law tomorrow is no way to run a country. “

What about this? Remove all restrictions on “...keep and bear...” and when enough bad lads are left toes up at the scene, they get the message that criminality might not be the best career choice. As to the convicted, restitution would be a better route than punishment by incarceration. That whole “debt to society” thing is pretty nebulous, but paying restitution to the offended party is a bit closer to home. It seems that someone who can learn from a mistake has a better chance of actually doing something to learn from the mistake. Three hots, a cot, and living the lord of the flies doesn’t sound like much more than a higher criminal education.

.02


39 posted on 10/23/2012 10:31:21 AM PDT by petro45acp (The question isn't "are you better off?" it should be "is it really the government's job?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

Its very hard to pay restitution for the dead, raped, and maimed. Most people don’t afix a price to that. Early germanic tribal law did, but it was less than perfect and generally meant to prevent feuds.

Concur, on “debt to society” being bull. People are locked away because we won’t kill them and they aren’t safe to put on the street. I’m all for penal societies where they are sequestered away from the innocent for the rest of their lives, while working to survive.


40 posted on 10/23/2012 12:11:09 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: READINABLUESTATE
A God given right cannot be taken away by man.

That will no doubt come as a shock to everyone in prison.

41 posted on 10/23/2012 12:12:28 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Besides, as with any other gun law, it affects only those inclined to obey the law.

You are factually mistaken. The same logic applies to restraining orders. Can someone break the law? Well, of course they can, but doing so puts them in jeopardy. Many will avoid it or get caught before taking it to the next level. But, I would still outlaw murder, even if only 5% of people were ever caught.

Everyone here seems to have missed the constitutional issue of due process. People are not automatically losing their rights, felons are losing their rights AFTER due process.

42 posted on 10/23/2012 12:18:35 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

He can’t go back and undo that.


43 posted on 10/23/2012 12:46:18 PM PDT by steve8714 (Code pink vaginas shown actual size)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

He can’t go back and undo that.


44 posted on 10/23/2012 12:47:26 PM PDT by steve8714 (Code pink vaginas shown actual size)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
He can’t go back and undo that.

The felony? Not likely, although he could petition to have his rights reinstated. If he's been a good citizen and doesn't pose a threat, he would have good odds.

That said, there are many, many decisions that we make in life, which cannot be unmade. The consequences also cannot be unmade. Likewise, people who are raped cannot be unraped, people who are beaten cannot be unbeaten, etc.

We are not taking away rights willy-nilly. It is established due process with a purpose. The purpose is to protect society and to put the burden of proving otherwise on those who have already been judged to be a threat.

45 posted on 10/23/2012 1:55:18 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
And the system still allows them to petition their individual case.

You have said that twice. In theory that may be so. Except $ZERO dollars are appropriated for such a process. So there is no one to hear your case, no one to render a judgment. Just a process.

And then there is the issue of just how many things are now "felonies". It is just gun control by other means.

46 posted on 10/23/2012 9:58:49 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Except $ZERO dollars are appropriated for such a process. So there is no one to hear your case, no one to render a judgment. Just a process.

You are correct, I do not suggest special treatment for felons nor government dole to correct what they themselves have created. THEY, the felon, can pay for a lawyer, if that is important to them. Why in the hell should I pay for it. They brought it on themselves. Its called consequences and responsibility.

I want citizenship to mean more, not less. Felons do and should lose certain rights.

And then there is the issue of just how many things are now "felonies". It is just gun control by other means.

I wouldn't repeat so often, if what I said weren't' ignored. If jaywalking were a felony, the way to fix that is to make it a misdemeanor, not to make murder a $5 fine.

47 posted on 10/24/2012 4:52:26 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
THEY, the felon, can pay for a lawyer, if that is important to them.

What for? There is no one for the lawyer to plea to, no one to render a decision. The process exists in theory only. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

If jaywalking were a felony, the way to fix that is to make it a misdemeanor, not to make murder a $5 fine.

No one suggested that. How ridiculous.

48 posted on 10/24/2012 6:50:02 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

>>> “Everyone has the right to self defense. A felon still should be able to defend his home.”

In theory, I totally agree.

In practice, hmmmmmmmmmm. I’m awful relieved my neighbor cannot legally exercise his 2A rights. Every so often he manages to reactivate probationary conditions that make him liable to a home search, and that’s a good thing. Before, he used to be quite the firearms collector.

It’s silly that his “felony” status came about due to DUI x3, but that only scratches the surface of his problem: impulse control. For example, he assaulted the last wife for the last time in my presence.

Couldn’t meet a nicer guy when he’s sober. But he won’t stay in that condition. Undoubtedely he would resent the comparison, but just as a ballot or a gun in the hands of a liberal is a disaster in the making...


49 posted on 10/24/2012 7:44:15 AM PDT by Titan Magroyne (What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
There is no one for the lawyer to plea to, no one to render a decision. The process exists in theory only. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Simply Googling the issue will get you the detailed process for each state. Here is the statute for Virginia:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2

In VA, the felon gets a letter from the Gov. then petitions the court.

Simple process? No. Nor should it be simple to reverse the judgement of the legislature, a jury, and a judge. Harsh, well yea, its kindof like these people committed a crime or something.

No one suggested that. How ridiculous.

You certainly did suggest decreasing the punishment for serious crimes, because punishment is accorded to too many offenses. My analogy simply demonstrated your thought process. If you think something shouldn't be a felony, then push to fix that, don't weaken all felony punishment.

50 posted on 10/24/2012 8:00:22 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson