Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it's covered under stalking laws now. But it wasn't in the past. Stalking laws are a relatively new thing. So if we're talking about stalking laws, are we saying that we will arrest for intent only when there are laws in place against that specific intent?
What about things there aren't laws against yet?
OK, let's talk about kids shooting up a school. Suppose you found a kid who had a journal that reflected his wish to shoot up his school and maybe this kid has access to weapons. Is this a genuine threat or not? Should the student be confined? Does he have to hurt someone first? What happens if all he's doing is getting his frustrations out on paper and he has no intention of hurting anyone? How can we tell? And if you say a psychiatrist will talk to him and make a decision, is that a rational thing to continue doing in these cases if the psychiatrist makes the wrong decision? Should we stay on the safe side and confine this student "just in case" he's serious or take a chance and do nothing?
What about an author who writes a book about someone shooting up a school? Is a published book all that different from a personal journal? And what if the book in question is written in journal form? Same difference?
And a criminal act doesn't have to be something that is communicated in writing. A level 3 sex offender, by virtue of his level, is almost guaranteed to offend again. So why do we let them out? By their past behavior, aren't they telling us they'll offend again? So once free, shouldn't they all be confined again before they offend, rather than after? And if so, once set free, isn't confining them again confining them for intent before they've done anything?
I just like to see what other people think. I always learn something in a debate with other people.
If there's no law against something, it's not illegal.
Look in reality everyone is a risk, everyone of us can find ourselves in situations that may result in us causing harm to ourselves and others. Should everyone be locked up just in case? Because we're all potential threats to each other.
Fortunately we have laws, and rights that prevents the kinds of "law enforcement" you seem to support. Further even the most benign form of government with the power to imprison proactively, will ultimately discover that there are certain things that should not be done, not for public safety reasons, but because they're a threat to that government. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
People already are. Consider "conspiracy to commit X" crimes. In conspiracy arrests, two or more people are arrested for planning to commit a crime in the future. Usually the crime is murder, but it can also be kidnapping or another serious crime.
Yes, it's covered under stalking laws now. But it wasn't in the past. Stalking laws are a relatively new thing. So if we're talking about stalking laws, are we saying that we will arrest for intent only when there are laws in place against that specific intent?
What about things there aren't laws against yet?
OK, let's talk about kids shooting up a school. Suppose you found a kid who had a journal that reflected his wish to shoot up his school and maybe this kid has access to weapons. Is this a genuine threat or not? Should the student be confined? Does he have to hurt someone first? What happens if all he's doing is getting his frustrations out on paper and he has no intention of hurting anyone? How can we tell? And if you say a psychiatrist will talk to him and make a decision, is that a rational thing to continue doing in these cases if the psychiatrist makes the wrong decision? Should we stay on the safe side and confine this student "just in case" he's serious or take a chance and do nothing?
What about an author who writes a book about someone shooting up a school? Is a published book all that different from a personal journal? And what if the book in question is written in journal form? Same difference?
And a criminal act doesn't have to be something that is communicated in writing. A level 3 sex offender, by virtue of his level, is almost guaranteed to offend again. So why do we let them out? By their past behavior, aren't they telling us they'll offend again? So once free, shouldn't they all be confined again before they offend, rather than after? And if so, once set free, isn't confining them again confining them for intent before they've done anything?
I just like to see what other people think. I always learn something in a debate with other people.
“Sorry Ma’am. We believe you. We just can’t go after him because he hasn’t broken any laws. Until he does; there is nothing we can do …”
… Because those are usually the last words the victim of DV or a sex offender hears before they are murdered.
A Restraining Order is only good for ONE thing: Establishing the paper trail you will need when you enter your plea of “Not Guilty for reasons of Self-Defense“.
There are no options here. Either everybody surrenders their right of Innocent Until Proven Guilty; or you prepare yourself to CYA & handle your “problem” yourself.
I’ve had to do this twice & am so grateful that the problems were gone AND nobody had to die; because I don’t have it in me to handle that (which is one of the reasons I become the target of these “problems“ in the first place).
But if they would have; I would have been charged with at least Manslaughter & that’s they way it SHOULD be. I don’t have an issue with being held accountable under the same laws that maintain our right to a fair trial in a court of law & with due process.
And when asked, under oath; “Did you file a Restraining Order against the victim?” I would have been able to answer “Yes” & provide proof.
Every situation is different but to be honest, I personally would never file a Restraining Order without first having a “Plan B”: Humans are animals too & in the animal “kingdom” there are Predators & there are Prey. Filing a Restraining Order against a human predator is like making eye contact with a Wolf in the wild.
If there's no law against something, it's not illegal.
Look in reality everyone is a risk, everyone of us can find ourselves in situations that may result in us causing harm to ourselves and others. Should everyone be locked up just in case? Because we're all potential threats to each other.
Fortunately we have laws, and rights that prevents the kinds of "law enforcement" you seem to support. Further even the most benign form of government with the power to imprison proactively, will ultimately discover that there are certain things that should not be done, not for public safety reasons, but because they're a threat to that government. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
This is exactly correct. I doubt you can find anyone more "law abiding" than me, but if people want to lock up people who even think about a crime, then I'd be in jail, too. This thread is just one more example of how all too many Americans are obsessed with crime and punishment...even when no crime has actually been committed. And you're also correct about governments that lock people up because of people who are a threat to the government itself...and the types of governments who often take that path are the rightest regimes that have been so prolific in places like South and Central America.
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
The judgement is where this falls at. A much greater percentage can see a situation that has already occurred and conclude it was a crime. As we are an innocent until proven guilty society, this is important.
I recall one situation where a boss was breaking some laws, but I was too quick to detect what he'd done and would constantly undue it. It became very frustrating because, as no law had been broken, there was nothing anyone could do. Upon leaving, I let some company officials know this is where they should look on their next audit. They did, and while I was no longer privy to details, he and his boss were promptly terminated a few months later.
I had to get out of the way though. If a criminal won't be deterred, sometimes they have to commit the crime in order to make sure they can't do it again.
That last section of yours is pretty close to "lynch law" thinking. This country has been there and done that. We don't need to go back down that lane again.
Get real. We aren't living in movie scripts. We don't need to talk about "neutralizing" people. If you're living in that kind of situation, then my guess is that you are part of the problem. And there's plenty of law enforcement around that can help solve problems. The police are only a 911 call away.
True, however, there are several things to consider when you make such a comment. Many times police are only a short time away, other times it can be 1/2 hour or more.
Regardless, as the old saying goes, police are minutes away when seconds count.
How many times do you need to hear 911 calls where a scared and helpless person is waiting for the police to arrive, and are assaulted/killed before the police arrive?
This is not a knock on LE, rather an acknowledgment that they are limited because of resources and what they are empowered to do, to prevent crime, vs. dealing with the aftermath.
Furthermore, lets assume the police will arrive in time because you called them to say your nutcase neighbor was arguing with you, and said he was going to kill your wife, kids, or even the family dog. Presumably the police will go to said neighbors home, and ask them if they said such a thing. Chances are very good they will deny it, and even claim you threatened them.
Classic he said she said right?
The police will leave after a stern warning to both sides.
Then what?
Now, many people talk, vent, spout off, etc. and nothing comes of it. However lets say your neighbor is someone you really sense will harm little Suzy, Johnny or even Rover. You have called the police, they came and were not able to do anything. Yet you know or at least strongly sense this nutcase is intent on harming your family. What do you do?
Before you assume this scenario has never played out, or has happened maybe once, rest assured there are plenty of examples where people knew the person they were fearful of, really intended on doing them or their family harm.
But after Suzy, Johnny or Rover are dead, what good does it do you to see the nut lead off in handcuffs?
If there's no law against something, it's not illegal.
This isn't about whether something is legal or illegal. That's a completely different thing. My point is, people will do what they want regardless of whether it's legal or not. It's illegal to murder people but just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So my question is: if someone is thinking about doing something to harm another, legal or not, do we owe it to ourselves as a society to stop him some way before he does it?
I'm not talking about merely thinking about doing something. We all do that. I meant having evidence such as journals, drawings, computer posts, belonging to a violent group that said they were planning something, telling someone what you're going to do, etc. Example: Suppose you were complaining about your ex and told a friend you were going to burn down his house and even went so far as to buy some gas. On the basis of the police hearing from your friend what you said and finding what you have in your garage, should we, in the name of safety, confine you somehow instead of our present policy of well, nothing illegal's been done yet, so we can't do anything?
I think in this country we actually do both things to a certain degree. Threaten the president? Threaten to kill someone? Say you have a bomb at an airport? You get taken away, never mind that you may never do what it is that you threaten.
Other times you do literally have to kill or hurt someone before the law can kick in and arrest you, no matter how many times you threatened to do it.
So should we confine or arrest everyone who makes a threat, or not? If not, are we going to continue to wait until someone is killed or hurt before anything can be done? And is that ethical if we could have locked up the killer beforehand?
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
Sure, police should be able to search you and your house on suspicion of being suspicious. Why not?
Unless you have something to hide?
In which case we'll arrest you for suspicion of having something suspicious to hide.
Of course they should. And they are. Frequently. The question goes to what they intend to do, not what they are thinking. Conspiring to commit a crime. Think of it that way. Are we not to arrest a terrorist until after his bomb detonates?
Quite. "Intent" speaks to a commitment to carrying out a crime. Plans have been made and said crime will be carried out if not preempted, and the conspiracy to do so is a listed crime subject to prosecution. Arrests for this crime are not conducted on some temporal ability with no evidence of intent. There's no divination involved. There's hard evidence of someone's Intent and ability and that a serious crime WILL be carried out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
