OldHat63

I don't think anybody is arguing against anything you've said, Dolomite... just recognizing problems that no solution have been found for yet.   The privatization of the jail/prison system certainly hasn't been the answer, since that only leads to more prisoners equaling more money in somebody's pocket. And the more money it generates, well... I'm sure you get the idea. One way or the other, it's no surprise that so many people are jailed for such minor reasons.   I'm certainly not gonna offer my own thoughts on any possible fix though... since they'd be less than Politically Correct, at bare minimum.   But then, I grew up in an era where if you misbehaved at school, you got your backside "warmed up" with a wooden paddle, and people were actually held accountable for their actions... instead of having a bunch of psychologist and bleeding-heart bliss-ninnies make excuses for 'em.   So I doubt I'm even qualified by today's standards to even think on the subject, much less actually speak on it. :shrug: :hat:      .J

  Y'know, the worst part about my time as a LEO was the fact we didn't have a donut shop around here at the time... :cry:

I figure with there being so many news articles lately about who the police have shot this time, something a little different would be nice.   Found this one on my news page this morning: http://www.today.com/news/police-officer-shares-meal-homeless-man-nobody-wants-eat-alone-t34466   Not surprising, it wasn't a major headline... or even in the main body of the page. Was kind'a tucked off over in the sidebar, with nothing but the caption.   Anyway, enjoy a "good cop" story for a change.       J.

All of that sounds real good, but the sad fact is, the perp has likely already been in and out of jail multiple times. The lieutenant and his boys catch 'em, and the lawyers and courts release 'em. That's how the system works.   So in the end, it's very unlikely that the person responsible for the burglary is even remotely concerned about meals coming through slots in cell doors. He's probably rather used to it.   Meanwhile, we all get to pay for those meals... and everything else required to keep the fool alive.

No no no... It's "To keep and arm BEARS".  Bears... not squirrels. :shake: :screwy: :ugh:

Chris, check your PMs please. And let me know if you don't have a message there from me.   J.

  Won't disagree with ya there... I've said for years that anybody who says there HAS to be a devil/Satan just hasn't met enough of the wrong kind'a people. There's plenty enough "evil" in the human race without any need for outside help.   But then, I'm someone who believes that there really are people in this world who should be removed from it at the soonest possible opportunity. No coddling, therapy, incarceration, or other nonsense involving keeping them around. :shrug:   So if there's anything good to say about this guy, it can only be that he at least saved the state the cost of a long stupid trial, and the taxpayers the price of having to feed him and keep him alive.

  In Connecticut, you don't shoot skeet, skeet shoot you???  :eek: :panic: :hiding:

Seems this guy was far worse than just an asshole:   http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/theater-gunman-built-reputation-angry-provocateur-32679584

Ran across an interesting article mixed in with the stuff on the theater shooting:   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/why-the-shootings-will-co_b_7865480.html   Although I don't agree with everything in it, I do wish when shootings and such occur, we saw more like it and fewer of the "Just ban all of those evil guns and our troubles will be over" variety.

I dunno what all the fuss is about... Just looks like a good reason for everybody to own a good trap and skeet gun, to me.... :shrug:

  I'm almost certain my ex-wives... and a fair number of my relatives and old bosses.... would disagree.  :shake:   But thanks just the same.

  Um... a lot of folks make the same claim about me, but I don't go 'round shooting people.

  Doesn't much matter, does it?  Still took a live person to build the bomb, park the van, etc.   Guns don't go shoot people on their own, Fertilizer and diesel fuel don't combine themselves then go blow up a building, Anthrax doesn't climb into an envelope and mail it's self. It takes a PERSON to do all those things.   But nobody wants to address that 'cause then they'll have to admit that there's nothing they can do about any of it 'til it's too late and after the fact.   BTW... anybody anywhere saying what this latest psycho's possible motivation might have been? I've heard/read a fair bit about him and what happened, but not the first thing about any possible "why". Granted, "crazy" doesn't necessarily need a reason... at least not one any of us would recognize.

  Yeah, the whole bit about the woman leaving a dead body in a parking lot for 2 weeks opens up a whole new series of doors on this mess.   In the first article, yes, there's room to question entering the home. In the second, not so much.   All in all, the whole thing smells about as rotten as the inside of the vehicle the fellow was found in does now, :puke:   It'd be nice to know the truth behind the whole story, but I doubt it'll ever see print.

Typical of the news media, there're articles about the theater shooting at the top of the news page, then this crap a little further down: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11759907/Barack-Obama-says-failure-to-change-gun-laws-his-biggest-frustration.html   Seems the media is already grubbing around and trying to blame the guns again, instead of the lunatics and nut-jobs who actually pull the trigger.   I guess they've all forgotten how many people Timothy McVeigh killed without ever firing a shot.

I don't know what a gold plating machine costs, but the good folks of L.A. need to chip in and buy whoever it was stolen from a new one... 'Cause the one that was taken just saved the tax-payers there a sh!t-load of money and aggravation.

  Big difference between that story and the first piece, huh? But then we all knew it wasn't the whole story or even close to the truth, didn't we? ( Nor is this one likely to be. ) Doesn't change a thing I said earlier though, since there was no mention of a lawyer, the fiancee or the fact the condo was hers.   I still find it a bit odd that they maintain that there's not been any crime committed though... Are we to assume that it's okay to leave dead bodies wherever you please in California? A: "Ralph just died! Whatta we do???" B: "Just roll 'im out to the parking lot. Somebody'll pick 'im up, sooner or later." A: "Really? You can do that here? In the summer no less? Won't he stink?" B: "Yeah, this is California... We leave the stinkers curb-side here. Figure it's better to let the pros handle the mess." "Plus it gives the cops and reporters something to do." :shake: :shrug:      Then again, I guess some folks'll have less problem with that than a person owning 1200 guns.... :surrender:

  It has everything to do with the subject under discussion. See my reply to DaveTN and maybe you can work out how.   And don't put it past some damned fool to attempt a robbery with a high-heel as a weapon. Stranger things have been known to happen. :shake: ( Don't make me hunt up the article about the woman who went to jail for assaulting her partner with a dildo... )

  Yes, a court would probably order the house searched if no relatives or other responsible parties were turned up. And it would no doubt order any valuables to be removed and locked up. BUT... no one would even be aware of the guns until after that point. As for the neighbors... they didn't notice the guy was "down the road" and dead, so it's unlikely they'd know what if anything he owned. ( Edit: I looked up Pacific Palisades, and this is NOT out in the middle of nowhere. Looks like typical "California Suburbia" to me, if there's any such thing. The fellow should have been parked near somebody's house, but apparently took a while to draw attention? California is weird... )     Dead in the residence, no, certainly not. Dead on the property, with the house standing open, or showing signs of B&E... nope, no warrant needed.  Dead some distance from the property, and no signs of a crime being committed?  Wouldn't have worked around here, 18 years ago. It might now, post-9/11, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.   A fellow that lives just down the road from me has a building behind his house with over a million dollars worth of vintage/classic cars in it. He also has an extensive gun collection, from what I've heard. His wife died from cancer a couple of years back, so he lives there alone now.   Now, if this fellow ends up being found dead in his yard, car keys in hand, so sign of trauma or struggle, and his house locked up... do you think the local S.O. is gonna search the house and clean the place out, cart all the vehicles to impound, and check all the serial numbers on the guns.... or are they gonna secure the premises, call his kids, and wait 'til one of 'em gets there?   The news article was pretty vague on details, but it sounds like the person in question probably had some sort of medical emergency, managed to pull over, and died.  No crime. No crime scene.    The fact he sat there long enough to begin to noticeably decay says to me he was there at least 12-24 hours... at least that's my best guess for California in the summer.  And nobody noticed for that long?  Quiet neighborhood then. Good chance none of his neighbors even knew he wasn't home.   There was also no mention of whether or not the house was locked or unlocked.    Like I said, there's a lot the article doesn't say.   Just to make it clear... our recent shooter in Chattanooga died away from home... after committing several crimes. Yes, search his residence, you have reason.  Someone has a heart attack behind the wheel of their car, but doesn't cause death or injury to others... what they have at home plays no part in the officer's involvement. Shouldn't anyway... Maybe it does these days, and the 4th amendment is as worthless as the 2nd.    And yet the police are gonna spend the time, energy, and money to haul 'em in, run all the numbers, etc.  And also risk being accused of possibly "losing" some of them if someone turns up claiming intimate knowledge of what was in the house and saying the PD inventory list is wrong and that all were not returned.       Why not? 1200 pairs of expensive shoes could be as valuable as the guns.  And personal property is just that. At an average value of $300, that guy's gun collection would be worth $360,000.00.   That's an awful lot of money to trust to police impound if it doesn't have to be.     Why not? That's effectively what they're doing to this fellow.  And this is after claiming they don't believe he was doing or had done anything wrong. Why are the two things so different?  Hell, he wasn't even carrying or using the guns at the time; they were AT HOME. And unless there was signs of forced entry, locked up as well.       Secured the incident/crime scene, looked the situation over while the CID folks were en route, and try to determine as best I could what had happened. ( No blood, or signs of violence? The body basically intact? Seat belt on, keys in the ignition switch? Best guess: Medical problem of some kind, most likely.) Next would be to identify the person and their address. Either go myself or send someone to determine the state of said residence. Locked up tight, or the doors kicked in?  Locked up tight, leave it alone until told otherwise. Get someone to try and contact relatives, friends, etc. Door kicked in? Secondary crime scene... which also makes the dead guy in the car part of the PRIMARY crime scene.  Repeat as above, but search open residence, proceed from there.   No where in there does anything inside the residence make any difference until it's been determined that a crime of some kind has been committed.  It could be guns, swords and knives, sports collectables, etc.  It doesn't matter. All that gets sorted out later once attempts have been made to contact someone connected with our dead body.   Does that about cover it?

Been trying to stay away from this one, but.... I just can't do it.  :surrender:   Here's my problem with the whole thing:     Okay, so... no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause.... and I'm guessing no search warrant?   As far as I know, there's no limit set on how many guns a person can own, even in California. If you're legal to own one, you could own a million of 'em. No?   So, it seems to me that the residence should have simply been secured, and some attempt made to contact family members. If that was unsuccessful, then a court should have been consulted to decide what to do and an order issued.   Other than that, the police had no business going into the house. ( The body wasn't even found there. )   As for the guns... would they be treating it the same if he'd had 1200 pairs of shoes? I bet not.   It'll be interesting to hear if the guy does have any family members who can take possession of the guns, and if so, what sort of legal actions they may have to take to get them back, or actions regarding them being taken in the first place.   Then again, given how the news media is about ( not ) telling the whole story, there may be more to this that would change my mind.   Who knows? :shrug:   Oh, and one last thing... Would anybody here be okay with the police setting up shop at your local shooting range, and checking the serial number of every gun that comes in there to make sure it wasn't stolen or been involved in a crime? Oh, and also verifying how/where you got them?   Just curious.

  George must've been onto something, given how old he lived to be.   I must just have a low tolerance to "happiness" though, 'cause one bad woman was way past enough for me. :shake:

  Aw, you haven't quit smoking then, you've just slowed down.   As for alcohol, believe it or not, my doc says it's okay to use for pain management caused by neuropathy (nerve damage ), provided I don't over-do it. I have a rather odd metabolism, and pain meds just don't have the same effect on me as they do the rest of the world. Bourbon and rum work just fine though.  Lucky me. :drunk:   He still wants me to quit smoking though... but has learned I can say "go to hell" as quickly and as often as he can suggest it, so doesn't really bother anymore. :devil:

  Howdy, Oh Shoot. Glad to be back.   Seems to me you could simplify that last statement by simply saying "Cut out all the fun". :death: :(

  Pardon me for bein' confused, but since the conversation has digressed a bit, I gotta ask...  Are you talkin' about snakes or women here? :squint:   Could be either, based on personal experience... though I might have to argue the "poisonous" part in regard to women. :unsure:   Then again, maybe I'm just better at telling which is which with snakes, and not so much with the females of our species. :shrug: