DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Growing number of police chiefs, sheriffs join call to arms

I agree but they report to a much smaller audience so they have to keep a little closer to center once the cameras are rolling. They can't afford to tick off half of their viewers, where as a national news channel can afford to have half of the people in the country think they are stupid.

Consider the local news as the farm teams. It's where it all started for the journalists until the cable news boom was born and we had a 24/7 news cycle. CNN kicked off as that untreated spot of weeds in your lawn, now it's spread to the rest of your lawn so much that 40's gardener can't keep up.

Sounds more like you worked with a bunch of college Professors

This trend began long before cable news flourished.

There was a show called Hard Copy that started this trend. It did become more prominent when the 24 hour news cycle began but the birth of the slanted profile began with Hard Copy.

Kind of a long article...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2...122014-n2106732

----------------------------------------------------

Gun control advocates think we need more laws, gun rights supporters think we have enough laws on the books–it’s just that they’re not being enforced. In Delaware, there have been over 11,000 gun charges filed, but 71 percent have been dropped in plea deals in order to put criminals behind bars. If a criminal confesses to a crime, or takes a deal since the evidence would have landed him a more lengthy prison term if he or she had gone to trial, we should all rejoice. A felon is off the streets, yet are gun charges the ones that should be axed with these legal negotiations? (via USA Today):


From 2012 to 2014, more than 11,700 felony weapon charges were filed in Delaware, and in most cases, the weapon was a gun. Yet, 71 percent of those charges disappeared before trials began.

State prosecutors said they're not surprised by the rate, but said there is more to it than those raw numbers. They said that cases usually have multiple charges, and that in Superior Court where felony trials occur, they get some sort of conviction in 87 percent of cases involving a firearm.

Most of the time, 62 percent, the convictions are for gun offenses.

[…]

"Cases are defendants and it's the defendants who we are prosecuting and it's the defendant for whom we are seeking incarceration, not a charge," said Steve Wood, who, with more than 30 years' experience is one of the most senior prosecutors in the Delaware Attorney General's Office. He said the important thing is to get a conviction.

Wood said if a defendant is charged with homicide and gun charges, prosecutors will sometimes drop the firearms charges in exchange for a guilty plea in the homicide. He called that result a victory because the defendant is going to prison for a long time.

"Nobody would care that a charge was dropped to get there," Wood said.

Then there is the case of Mateo Pinkston.

In late summer 2011, court documents say Pinkston walked up to a man, pointed a gun at him and took his cellphone.

Pinkston, who had already been convicted of two felonies and was a suspect in a still-unsolved homicide, was arrested by Wilmington police and charged with robbery and several gun counts.

But the Delaware Attorney General's Office cut a deal with him in 2012, agreeing to drop three weapon charges that carried a maximum of 41 years in prison in exchange for Pinkston admitting to second-degree robbery and terroristic threatening, which carried a maximum of eight years in prison.

Soon after being released from his 12-month prison sentence, Pinkston, police said, shot and killed 25-year-old Arteise Brown in Wilmington last year.

The publication added that State Sen. Brian Pettyjohn, a Republican, has been tracking the number of dropped gun charges for the past three years in order to help the state attorney general better prosecute these crimes. Not every single gun charge will be prosecuted; Pettyjohn knows this as our system is geared towards plea-bargaining. But the senator is more concerned with the crimes in which a firearm was used during a felony:


According to the 2012-2014 report by the Delaware Criminal Justice Council, of the more than 5,300 charges involving a gun or other weapon during the commission of a felony, 80 percent were not prosecuted in those three years.

"I don't think a weapons charge should be dropped," he said. "I think that we can drop some other charges, but if they're committing a felony with a weapon, whether its a knife or a hammer, ... I think we should be prosecuting for that. That would send a very strong message that the Attorney General's Office is very serious about prosecuting these crimes."

Not prosecuting gun charges makes him question why new gun laws are needed.

"I think we've got enough and I think we really need to start prosecuting the crimes that we have now," he said.

It looks as if this isn’t a case about law enforcement not doing their job. They obviously did their duty with the vast amount of weapons charges added to the various dockets; it’s prosecutorial discretion. Yet, even there, prosecutors face problems with standards for trial–an officer’s bar for probable cause is lower–and expenses. Some legal departments don’t have the manpower to prosecute every gun crime. Prosecutors also gave the news organization examples of when they might drop weapons charges:


Five probationers are in a car and there's a gun on the seat and the vehicle is stopped by police. That officer has enough probable cause to charge all five with possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. But prosecutors will only indict the person whose fingerprints match prints on the gun, dropping the charges against the other four.

A man gets charged by police with burglary and carrying a deadly weapon, which turns out to be a baseball bat. As prosecutors investigate the matter, they might end up dropping the weapons charge because the suspect is an avid baseball player who had the bat at the time of his arrest, not necessarily when he committed the burglary.

[…]

For every Pinkston case, where the conviction prosecutors achieve is for less time than a gun charge, Grubb says, there is a Jose Quinones, a 33-year-old arrested last year after being shot by a BP service station clerk he was trying to rob at gunpoint. A joint investigation by state and Wilmington police linked Quinones to at least 14-armed robberies.

Quinones is expected to receive a 30-year jail sentence.

Regardless, it appears there are enough laws that ensnare criminals on weapons charges. The question is how do we increase the number of convictions? Do we increase the number of people working for the state regarding the prosecution of law? This would require an increase in expenditures to law departments and the expansion of staffs, which is an increase in the size and scope of government. I’m sure some on the right might fell uneasy about spending more money. At the same time, this is to protect the rule of law. The National Rifle Association has no qualms about adding more ATF assets to make the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operate more efficiently.

We don’t need more gun control laws, which, at this point, only infringe on a law-abiding citizen's right to own firearms. The debate it seems, besides tackling the long ignored issue of mental health, is beefing up our legal system so we can get these folks off the street.

Once again the Right thinks logically while the Left pushes for more laws so they FEEL better.

Well, I think the more important thing about that article is that it gives the public at large a look at how the legal system actually operates in these types of cases. To be fair, while many on the Right have said we need to "enforce the laws on the books" very few could actually expand their opinion beyond that statement. They couldn't tell you which laws aren't being enforced, and they couldn't tell you how they weren't being enforced.

Well I don't know who you refer to as "They" but we Conservatives have been yelling for years about enforcement.

We have always said...

-Why are so many underage folks carrying guns?
-Why not use "Stop and Frisk" techniques on the streets until we get the word out that carry is illegal unless you are certified? You want to stop crime? Stop being PC about search.
-How can people be committing crimes with guns in Cities where guns are illegal?
-How can it be that druggies and nuts are relied upon to check the "Yes" box on a Registration form?
-Why make new laws that only work on the law abiding?

The Left has never been serious about gun crime control. They are only concerned with their gun control for everyone agenda.

Most of us realized the Courts will drop gun charges if they can get a murder plea and that is fine as long as the perp is going away. It is all the other crimes they let slide on a daily basis that angers us.

So you want to fight for our 2nd amendment rights while tossing our 4th amendment rights out the window?

Stop and frisk is ridiculous.

Some people claim to be for the constitution, until they're not.

Stop being so PC

Yea, you guys are right on that stop and frisk thingy.
But if the cop sees a gun bulge in a man's coat, you don't think he should stop and frisk?

Not without buying him dinner first.

On that alone? Hell no. There needs to be more than that.

Why?
If guns are illegal in NYC, why can't you stop and frisk a gun bulge? You guys have been stopping people for "Smells" for years.

Yes, that's why it's a 4th amendment violation.

That's it? How bout an explanation.

Because a) guns aren't 100% illegal in NY and b) while extremely difficult to get, you can get a concealed weapons permit.

Just because a person in front of me looks, smells, acts like a dirt bag, none of that is what we in the business call "reasonable suspicion" that IF that person has a gun, that they don't have a permit to do so.

If I'm on patrol and I see some dude walking down the sidewalk, I have no lawful grounds to jump out, and put my hands on him to see if he has an illegal weapon on him. Even if I've arrested that guy before, know for a fact he's a convicted felon... just seeing him walking down the street means nothing other than he's walking down the street.

Now, what could be some factors that would increase my lawful authority to interact, possibly detain and identify, and maybe even frisk him?

ATTORNEY: Officer DevilDawg... on the evening of xxx you stopped my client, detained him, and searched him. Why? He was just walking down the street wasn't he?

ME:
-I was called to the area by a citizen who reported a suspicious person who appeared to be looking in car windows and pulling on their handles
-That neighborhood had at that point experienced several dozen reported car break ins, all or most occurring during the night time hours
-The citizen was only able to provide a limited description of a subject in dark clothing.
-I circulated the neighborhood and within a few blocks of the initial citizen complaint, I observed your client walking down the middle of the street. He was wearing a dark blue hoodie and blue jeans. He didn't have a backpack with him.
-At this time I stopped my patrol vehicle to perform an investigative detention and to identify him based on the following reasons:
1) he was wearing dark clothing
2) he was in close proximity both in time and distance to the initial complaint
3) this neighborhood does not have sidewalks so it wouldn't be uncommon for someone to walk in the street, however at 3 am, it is extremely unusual for anyone to be walking around at that time. I have patrolled that area for the past 3 years.
4) 3 am also falls within the time frame that recent crimes have been committed

-When I asked him if he lived in the neighborhood, he said "yeah". When I asked where, he mumbled and pointed somewhere behind him. When I asked him for his address he could not provide one. I then asked him for his ID. He said he didn't have it on him. He did provide me with a name and date of birth. During my encounter with him he initially had his hands in his pockets. I asked him to take them out of his pockets and keep them out. He did take them out of his pockets, but shortly after put them back in. I again asked him to take his hands out of his pockets, which he did do, but his hands continued to go back to the area of his front waistband. This type of behavior is typical of someone who has something that they don't want discovered, is nervous about something, and the front waist band is place where a handgun is often concealed by people who don't have a CCW. People who don't have items concealed in their waist band generally don't subconsciously reach for that area.
-Given his level of agitation, his inability to provide basic information that a resident of that neighborhood would be able to provide, and his repeated motions that are consistent of a person carrying a weapon, I believed there was increased concern for my safety, I performed a frisk for weapons.

*note: there's a difference between a frisk and a search

Now, maybe I find a gun on that subject or maybe he just has jock itch. If he doesn't have on, the fact that he didn't doesn't suddenly mean his Rights were violated.

Do you see the difference 40?

As to smell, well, for the uninitiated, it has a very distinct odor... smelling that distinct odor is a pretty good indicator that a crime is occurring (in states that haven't legalized it yet of course).

My gut feeling that probably within a couple years, the Supreme Court is going to reign in probable cause searches based on the odor of marijuana. I think it's an area that we'll do it to ourselves and someone somewhere is going to stretch the authority beyond it's original intent. I can touch on that a little more later if y'all like

I only have 1 issue with you.

It concerns your sig.

Do me a favor, will you? Don't ever buy a jersey that says "Arch is Awesome".

I promise! lol

Think how paranoid I am to get my name on the back of one!

I think I'm just going to look for a nice polo or something.

Great post as always, DD. And I hope your gut is correct, but after watching our SC rule in the digital age, I doubt we'll see this. But we can always hope

Yep. My gun carrying Rights are safe.
If you can't stop the criminal, you can't stop me.

I don't know if I'd ever consider myself to be 'wise.' That assessment would be for others to make. But I DO know what I don't know... and that's enough for me to:

1. Remain open to ongoing discourse in an effort to learn
2. Refrain from strong (unfounded or unsupported) opinions until I have enough facts to represent myself well in a spirited debate.

I like my egg IN my face... not on it, thank you very much.

Those who find themselves wrapped up in Grey areas seem to me to be unable to form a judgement on an issue, for or against.

Those Grey areas are to be temporary as one makes up their mind.

So many on the Left deal with Grey areas as a way of life and consider themselves "Open" and "Thoughtful" and explain it as intelligence. It mostly deals with "Feelings" on a subject.

To me, that is like corn meal mush while our "Laws" and "stands" are like steak and tatters.

Eat well my friend.

B

Agree 40, sometimes, it's an easy out for some who choose not to be held accountable for strong opinions or thoughts on an issue.

Didn't you just say on another thread that you're on the fence now on capital punishment?


Is there anything you're consistent on?

Yes, I can see being hung up on Grey areas while you think over a situation but eventually you need to make a decision.

Duh, no.

Yes, consistently misread.

Yea you did.

A little clarification seems to be in order here... at least for my own peace of mind.

I don't actually "live in the gray areas," but I will admit to spending a bit more time there than others might. For the sake of argument, let's call it being 'deliberate' rather than 'impulsive,' shall we?

An example: during the Ferguson, Cleveland, and Baltimore 'episodes,' I was rarely one of the first to comment. For good reason, too... those events were always FILLED with emotional content... but always laced with a healthy dose of conflicting stories coming out at rapid-fire pace, amid very fluid situations. Always better to see what's truly what, than look like a fool taking some hardline stance as soon as a story drops... only to have to sheepishly retract it later.

(My Pops: "5 extra seconds of thought saves 5 hours of backtrackin'.")

Worse yet, is what I often see in controversial conversations: to be one of those 'first-in-line, with the loudest voice,' ...and instead of retracting a statement that's proven to be false/unfounded, doubling-down... with a stiffened back, deflecting with demagogic rhetoric, or obfuscating with tangential BS that only remotely relates to the original subject. I see it all the time when these types of threads wander MILES from the original issue.

(-it's also why you don't usually see me on later pages of threads that wander too far afield...).

I agree that 'gray' is supposed to be a temporary locale.

If you examine my body of posts in EE, you'll find two traits that run in tandem:

1. I have no trouble articulating my POV on issues that I have knowledge about.
2. When I don't know for sure, I'll always say so- either with a flat-out statement, or my signature ".02" ("my two cents' worth") at the end- which indicates that the post is totally opinion-based.

______________________________


I've noticed that you've often simplified these EE discussions to a level of L v. R/ Con v. Lib.... and I tried to tell you in some of our first encounters that my mind simply doesn't work that way. I can't help it. I've been like this since I was a little kid. I don't do 'Binary Thought Process.'

It limits us, as a species. And we ain't Chimpanzees.

Now look... I'll concede that it makes arguing with someone much neater, tidier, and efficient... but in my mind, it rarely does justice to the depth of the subject, for reasons that I've already outlined earlier in this post. I abhor superficial "point/counterpoint" shoutfests that rely on vacuous talking points, because they do nothing to further the discourse into areas where mutual learning can occur. Instead, they become games of verbal 'table tennis'... where every point 'earned' is either a "Ace service" or a "whiff."

__________________

I have 3-4 lifelong friends with whom I've had some of the most challenging, stimulating (and exhausting) talks in my life. A single subject can dominate an entire evening's discourse- and send our (pssd-off) spouses to bed HOURS before we're done. Those guys have helped to shape my World View almost as much as My Pops- and we've come to respect each other above almost everyone else because of what we demand from one another.

Opinions require validation. Facts matter. Back your *crap* up, or back (TF) down.

One of those friends is now a retired full-bird Colonel (USAF). Brilliant individual. As we were walking past the R&R Hall Of Fame on our way to FirstEnergy stadium last pre-season, Mark said to me:

"I've always loved our talks, Bobby... because I don't have to explain s**t before The Talk can begin. You've already done your homework. Doesn't matter what subject. You've pushed me as far as some Generals I've known."

Dawg... I had to stop dead in my tracks- and let that one sink in when I heard it. Mass of people flowing past us on their way to a Browns game... and I became a "human traffic cone" for about 5 seconds. It was one of the most deepest-felt compliments I'd ever received... and we've 'knocked heads' on a multitude of subjects dating back to the Carter and Reagan years.

Three months ago, His Pops died- at the age of 91. WWII hero (U.S. Army/Pacific Theater: Soldier's Medal, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Combat Medical Badge, along with several unit and campaign decorations). I was the first person Mark contacted, because he KNEW I'd understand.

You see, 40... Mark's Pops was one of The Four who challenged me. 'Mama Jane' would throw up her hands and head to bed when her husband would get 'deep into it' with her baby boy's best friend. Lowell was a staunch conservative, a patriot... and a surrogate father to me, after My Pops' untimely death when I was just 22 years old.

These talks are more nuanced for me than they are many othersm because of my history with Deep Thinkers. I take an extra minute or two to ask myself:

"What would Pops have to say about this issue?"
"What would Uncle Lowell say about this?"

...and I'm glad a hell that I met 'My Worthy Adversaries'... because they forced me to "think about things from both sides," before I came down on a definitive Point Of View.

I owe them much more than I have ever owed someone who always "saw it my way" from Day One... because they forced me to truly examine my preconceived attitudes- and find a Truth that actually made sense for me.

(I'm glad as hell that Pops & Uncle Lowell never had the chance to 'gang up on me,' because BOTH were a handful, one-on-one!

___________________

If we MUST put 'labels' on our respective political positions, I'd have to honestly say that Mark is "center-right,' and I'm "center- left"... but on the most important issues that effect us both, we see Life from much the same P.O.V. on all the issues that make us American Citizens- and best friends.

And THAT's why I don't see either him or me... as flavorless porridge. Both of us are still evolving, changing, growing.

Who knows who'll we'll be, if we both make it to the same retirement village in the years of our dotage? Neither one of us is yet a 'fait accompli'... and both of us will continue to challenge each other until our brains no longer allow us to learn and grow.

We were both trained by Our Fathers to be more than that.
So there will always be "grays" for us to explore.


Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.



"YOUR mileage may vary."
But that's you- not us.


.02

Thanks! I always love discussions about the 4th Amendment. It's very difficult for people to take a partisan stance over it and it's a topic I find I'm able to educate people the most on about my job. When I put my uniform on and go to work, the 4th Amendment is literally the basis for every kind of interaction I have with a citizen during my shift, whether it's giving a sticker to a little kid while we're in line at the donut shop all the way to taking a murder suspect in to custody.

j/c:

I skimmed through the last 20-30 posts, mostly because it's so easy to predict what many posters will say. Here, like on the football discussion on the board.......it seems it is more important to "win the debate" than it is to actually learn through meaningful dialogue and thought.

One thing I noticed was the talk about the amendments. I have no stance on those arguments at this time. I will have to process what I read, research for more information, and then evaluate the new information and how it affects my existing perceptions.

I did think that it was interesting to read the passion some expressed how wrong it would be for the police to search for a gun if they saw the outline of one on a person while it is apparently fine for the police to use the odor of pot or alcohol to further investigate a possible suspect.

I find that interesting.

Don't know if you read my long post yet, but to summarize real quick for you because 40 had the same question:

Being able to search based on an odor of weed or alcohol is based upon the (current) legal standard that the presence of those odors is indicative of a crime currently "a foot" i.e. weed being considered illegal contraband in most states, and the odor of alcohol on a persons breath sitting behind the wheel possibly driving intoxicated.

If you and I are in line at Starbucks waiting for our vente latte's and I see a bulge in your waist band, that doesn't indicate that a crime is occurring in my presence because (at least in NC) concealed carry is legal with a permit. Currently I have no legal basis to ask someone standing in line at Starbucks to a) show me if they have a gun and b) prove to me they have a permit.

Does that help any? You may not agree with searching based upon odor, but do you at least understand the legal difference and standard?

Clem you are a wise and educated poster and I have always learned from what you have to say, even when I disagree.

In my world, Grey is a disease to be fought through in order to make a final decision and achieve the Nirvana of Black and White.

Didn't know you lost Pops at such an early age. That is rough, that is sad. He would be proud to see what you have become.

I agree with the need to be well informed and practiced on any particular subject we discuss here...

BUT

If everyone took the time required to do as you do, EE would be a place to visit once a week just to see if anyone said anything yet!

So as the rest of us battle in the trenches of EE, we await the words of our General, you, and the wise summary of all we have fought for.

did you at least put on lipstick first before you kissed his ass?

What constitutes a bulge anyway? Are we assuming everyone is wearing spandex so a clear outline of a gun can be seen? Even then, as you mentioned in quite a few states permitted carry is legal, there are also quite a few that allow permitted open carry, are people expecting anyone with a gun in these states or a "bulge" or possibly loose fitting clothing to be stopped? How often, by whom? What if I was stopped and frisked today, am I good for 24 hours or how many times in that 24 hours can I be stopped and frisked?

This whole bulge thing is silly.

That's way over simplified... is it not logical to look at gun violence rates in the United States compared to other countries and realize that whatever we are doing isn't working? Is it not logical to think that changes might need to be made?

Both sides are using logical arguments, they are just arriving at different conclusions. There is no need to demean anybody. The right (for lack of a better term) says that more guns will reduce gun violence... can you at least see how the left feels THAT is illogical?

Got no problem with Responsible people owning guns.

How we arrive at who's responsible, I don't know.

Background checks should include mental fitness as well. A person can have a perfectly clean background but have mental issues. Honestly, I have no idea how to address that. Especially since a perfectly well grounded individual can have an event (spouse or child dies, bump on the head etc) that could cause them to go off the rails. How do you determine that?

They feel it is illogical but they are wrong.
The criminals already have every kind of weapon available to them but you think it is logical to disarm the law abiding with laws and gun control.

Now that right there is illogical!
"Feel" better yet?