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.
I support doing all that needs to be done to stop crime but each and every day it seems that we taking legal knowledge to extremes that are unrealistic.
-Woman in upscale apt shot in the head--not thought to be random--once involved in drug trafficking
--Man returns home to find stepson hanging by a noose in the garage--calls out to neighbors to call 911--LE arrives he tries to enter house--was in an agitated state--punched in the face/head/felony charges/assaulting officers--a small man
--Staff members at local library have to resign --patrons exposing themselves and LE wasn't called
--Waiting in line at MacDonalds--at lunchtime--a woman of one ethnicity attacked another because of a presumed inferred slight--police called --no charges to either
--Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan ----Hundreds more.
--Politicians and their personal lives
It all affects the interpretation of the laws by everyone.
I am no saint but I hate to feel I need to be very worried at all times.
What does that mean? That we should approach crime with less knowledge than we have?If I am wrong please correct me.
I also fail to see any connection between Lindsay Lohan and Mel Gibson. While the antics of these two are and have been disturbing, they do not constitute true crime.
Gibson is especially despicable, but he has not committed a crime of the magnitude discussed here.
How does this relate?
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.