Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: udet on August 01, 2002, 10:48:51 PM
-
-from yahoo-
The girls were abducted at 1 a.m. in the Quartz Hill area outside Lancaster by a gunman who left the girls' dates bound with duct tape. The kidnapper drove off in a Ford Bronco that belonged to Brooks' date, leaving behind a car the FBI ( news - web sites) said was stolen in Las Vegas last month-
How the f-ck can you ducktape someone ,at the same time holding a gun, and pay attention to four people at the same time?
The only explanation I can come up with is that the girls' dates were two weenies, and they didn't try to do anything.
If I ever end up in a situation like this, I sure as hell hope I won't be acting as cowardly,even if I will pay for it with my life...
-
He taped up the first guy, then the second car just happened to pull up, then he tied up that guy. Easy to second guess from our PC, having a gun pointed at your head by a crazy man is very coersive.
-
Really now udet...
Ever have someone wave a loaded gun in your face?
-
The bottom line is that they captured this nutburger before he got the chance to do God only knows what to these kids. Lock this sucker up, lose the key. He deserves to be a bad man's girlfriend for the next fifty years. Thank God we recovered the kids cause statistics show that most kids who get abducted don't survive the first 48 hours.
-
The guy was killed in the shootout. Girls are safe but both apparently raped according to CNN.
-
I'm glad that they're alive, but it really sucks that they were raped.
-
udet
I can only hope your idiotic post is a troll
If it was serious, you sir are a moron.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Really now udet...
Ever have someone wave a loaded gun in your face?
It obvious he hasnt.
-
Sure, the first kid could have struggled... and been shot and killed. Then the second kid could have struggled when he showed up... and been shot and killed. The kids did the right thing in that situation, IMO. The perp was armed and more than likely willing to use the gun. They reported the crime as soon as they could with as good of a description of the perp and vehicle as possible. Within 12 hours, the perp is dead and girls are rescued. Much better scenario than 2 boys dead, 2 girls missing (or found dead) and a perp still on the loose.
-
Originally posted by udet
If I ever end up in a situation like this, I sure as hell hope I won't be acting as cowardly,even if I will pay for it with my life...
Not only would it have been pointless death, once killing the guy, the criminal would most likely have stopped trying to abduct the girl but killed her as not to live a witness and escaped promptly.
miko
-
Regarding the fatally shot abductor: Like rabbid animals, some humans need to be killed. Its as simple as that.
-
I agree that they did the smart thing. Being Kids they were simply unprepared to deal w/a situation like this. Hell..most adults would be unable to deal w/it. They retained good info and simply didnt panic in a way to lose their minds.... they did well.
Now... I understand where Udet is coming from. Personaly I will die before somebody hurts or takes my wife...but THAT is my WIFE not my "girlfriend". I can also say that though I am certainly no John Rambo I have some limited training in facing armed oppents w/a knife...but not a gun. I will say that if the gun is in your face your helpless... the ONLY thing you can do is hope he/she loses focus and your real bloody quick. The average joe isnt a killer...but if this joe IS a killer and doesnt hesistate to pull the trigger, your dead.
Once again.. I am no rambo but I had a squad leader in a unit I served in who thought true hand to hand was something we should know something about. So we learned some basics... and believe me.... all you can remember w/out years and years of training are the basics if your lucky...
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Eagler
udet
I can only hope your idiotic post is a troll
If it was serious, you sir are a moron.
Eagler is correct......
-
My wife and I have talked about this one... if someone ever tries to take her or the kids, they are to fight to the death on the spot. What happened this time is not the common scenario- in fact, those girls are darn lucky he didn't kill the boys right away. The way we see it, you're dead when he pulls the gun, so they may as well find the bodies right away without all the suffering first. I'd rather be killed straight out than to suffer hours or days of torture, then be killed and possibly found months later in a shallow grave.
-
Guys I'm with Kieran on this one. In a rape/torture situation, the "do what the assailant says" stuff goes out the window, and the first opportunity he'd give me or I could create, my weapon would be coming out and one of us would be going down, and most likely him. If some crook just wants money or my car, have at it, it isn't worth engaging IMO for that, but if he wants my fiancee, sorry, but he's going down, or I am trying.
I took a couple of re refresher courses at Front Site recently, and they trained on this specific engagement. Too bad California is a non CCW state, it would cut down on some of this nonsense.
My best pal is a cop, and my fiancee is in the application process with CPS here in town as well, and both of them agree, don't resist unless it is evident that your assailant is not after money or financial instruments. After that, fights on.
Sure, liberal types will say "you'll just end up hurt, or the poor criminal will be killed, and not subjected to retraining/phsychological treatment, when instead, all we have is 2 raped girls". Well, with HIV so prevalent in jails, being raped by a criminal is a possible death sentence anyway. I'd rather risk being shot by my assailent to prevent someone going through that, and again, odds are that if you have even a small bit of training, you have a HUGE advantage on a criminal in a situation like this. All you have to do is use it.
In this situation, hell, they are just kids, and with few defensive systems being legally available to people in that state, not much you can do I guess. Taking on a guy with a firearm when you don't have one is Hollywood for the most part, unless the guy is uber stupid and gets very close to you, and you get very lucky. I feel sorry for them, especially the girls.
-
I'm Batdog on this one.
As adults we are far more prepared to make this kind of decision than a couple of teenage boys.
In a situation like that, an adult with a gun holds all the advantage. Those two boys are lucky to be alive.
-
How the f-ck can you ducktape someone ,at the same time holding a gun, and pay attention to four people at the same time?
Evel Knievel at 12 would have whipped his ass! ( and stole his loot and donated it anonymously to a children’s charity)
You liberal popsicle Sandman. FunkedUp could steal your last peice of pizza and you'd ask if he needed a napkin.
-
So now I find out they were raped. Fortunately for the guy he's dead. But I still get to daydream of slowly torturing him to death. Starts with a USP or something similar so maybe it won't be so slow.
I really feel sorry for the two girls. I hope the $h*#head didn't give them an STD. But either way, they will need a lot of help to cope with it and I hope they will be able to "live" again. And someday find mates who will understand and not reject them.
rapist = coward
The coward used a firearm (adding once again to the gun-control fire) on a bunch of teenagers. Their dates couldn't have done anything about it, but instead did a good job in finding someone who could quick. Sure in a situation like that you could wish to be as quick as Jet Li and grab the guys gun, disengage the slide, and somehow rip it off without the guys finger pulling the trigger, but that ain't gonna happen. Hollywood can get you killed. No CCW in this state either (you're dreaming if you don't think crime occurs - rich japanese tourists tend to not blend in, but alas this state isn't mature enough for CCW), so unless you're lucky enough to have an officer near you, you're on your own.
mauser
-
Originally posted by Creamo
FunkedUp could steal your last peice of pizza and you'd ask if he needed a napkin.
lol!
-
Those kids where in a very tough spot and nobody should be second-guessing their actions.
I doubt if I'd have behaved the same but I wasn't there. These kids where with their girlfriends (well it turns out one may have been there with someone else’s girlfriend) not their wives or kids.
Most people don't discuss security or reaction to crime procedures with people they are dating.
But I've never been 'cooperate and see where this goes' kind of guy and the whole 9-11 thing taught us where that can lead.
My kids are taught to fight abduction with every breath. Even after abduction, whether it's screaming, fighting physically or sabotaging cars to buy time or draw attention. And my wife and kids know that in a similar situation, I will fight and they will run. They are not to stand around and try to help, or see how it plays out. If he has a gun odds are I'm just buying time for them with my life and they better not waste what I bought. If I happen to win I damn sure don't want my wife or kids to see the side of me that would do what had to be done.
But I've had 18+ years to talk to my wife and discuss reactions to this sort of situation. But these kids where just doing what they could in a situation they where completely unprepared for, they did the best they could and it worked out fairly well, unfortunately the girls where abused but things where not near as bad as they could have been.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Eagler is correct......
Eagler and Midnight Target, my opinion is that both of you are idiots. But heck,it's just an opinion...
-
also, when I posted this, i didn't know the exact circumstances of the kidnapping-hence the question mark in the title of the post :P
-
This is the part I disagree with:
The only explanation I can come up with is that the girls' dates were two weenies, and they didn't try to do anything.
If I ever end up in a situation like this, I sure as hell hope I won't be acting as cowardly,even if I will pay for it with my life...
I apologize for calling you a moron. But the above quote sure sounds moronic to me. I guess even smart people can say moronic things. Peace.
-
Man, what happened to the good old fashioned venom we used to have here?
:(
-
Hblair. Bear's still dead and Auburn is gonna kick yer butt in the Iron Bowl.
sorry man, that's all the venom I got. ;)
-
The actions taken by the victim would depend on the situation itself and the victim's mindset.
I have seen statistics over the years that indicate that those who do not resist are more likely to suffer beatings, death, or rape at the hand of their assailants than are those who resist in some way.
Of course, statistics can be manipulated to show any result you happen to want...so they are often totally unreliable. However, we are given our survival instinct for a reason. When threatened, most animals do not hesitate to fight back. Why should we?
Let me give you a case in point:
Several years ago I read of an incident involving a policeman who attempted to arrest a violent felon. The cop was in good physical condition and was getting the best of the con in the hand to hand struggle. At some point, the con got his hands on the cop's .357 revolver.
With the con cursing him and threatening to kill him the cop suddenly thought of his wife and invalid daughter. As he thought of them having make their way though life without him he suddenly decided to fight. He psyched himself up, made himself insane with fury and adrenalin. When he attacked, the con opened fire.
Despite being shot five times with his own revolver, he came over the gun and kicked the living crap out of the con. Nearly killed him. And he lived through the ordeal.
I remember another case:
A mugger spotted a blind man walking through a city-park and decided to rob him. Brave man. What could be safer, right?
Wrong! He made the mistake of letting the blind man get his hands on him. The struggle degenerated into a wrestling match. The victim managed to get his hand on a rock and then proceeded to beat the scumbag to death with it.
I'm not advocating that it is always the wisest thing to do to resist. As I said at the front of this post, that would depend on the situation. But at times it is safer to resist than to simply try to give the scum what they want. Quite often they want more than just your money...they want your body or your life. In that situation you may as well resist. What have you got to lose?
Regards, Shuckins
-
peace to you too midnight. The incident just made me really mad,when i found out the girls have been raped.
But I won't retract the part about how I would act in such a situation. I could never live with myeslf afterwards, knowing that I let somebody be kidnapped and raped.
-
Originally posted by udet
peace to you too midnight. The incident just made me really mad,when i found out the girls have been raped.
But I won't retract the part about how I would act in such a situation. I could never live with myeslf afterwards, knowing that I let somebody be kidnapped and raped.
by living you'd have saved them in the end. Bruse Lee toejame would have killed you and the girls.
I think you are a youngster so I retract my moron remark. :)
-
I'm 22 years old. Define youngster,please...
-
The problem with all this is that it is Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst possible kind. I have always been more of a resister than a submitter as far as my planned response for a situation like these, but it is all so case dependent.
9/11 along with many criminal cases that have happened through history did indeed teach us that in many cases submitting will just lead to your death in the end anyhow. My personal opinion is that if I were taken in a situation like this, and I submitted, and this happened, I wouldnt be able to live with second guessing what could have been if only I had resisted. However, human will to live is a strong force, and I wasnt in their shoes. A gun to the head is a powerful persuader.
Certainly there are still cases where submitting may be the best option. Lets say you are in a vehicle with your girlfriend and the bad guy comes up and points his gun at her from a distance and says, "Im taking your car, dont move or I'll kill your girlfriend." Now I'm in the military, and I risk my life for a living but I'm a lot less comfortable risking somebody elses life. If I think the dirtbag is just after the car, and I believe that if I move to resist he is definitely going to kill her, than I'm not going to try anything stupid. He is standing more than 20 feet away and is smart enough not to give away the standoff advantage the gun gives him. You are in the car and the engine isnt running so you cant run without giving him all the time he needs to shoot. You can see that this is a scenario where I would really think twice about resisting, because if I mess up, she dies. The decision time will be very short, and then the bad guy orders you out on the ground face down and says to leave the keys in the car. Now that you are laying face down the bad guy comes up and cuffs your hands behind your back, takes the girl and leaves. There are many other possible scenarios that could have happened that would explain this just as well, besides the easy conclusion for everybody that the boyfriends must have been sissies. The boyfriend was the one on the spot, he had to make the decision and he did what he thought was right at the time Im sure, if he even had time to think about it much. We will never know if by resisting the boyfriends would have stopped this crime from occurring or if they would have just ended up adding to the toll, with the girls still getting taken. The fact is, they were there, you and me were not. I will not second guess their decision.
Crime is somewhat rare and the odds are against you ever becoming the victim of violent crime, but it isnt as rare as some people seem to think. I am only 25, and I have had several close brushes with violent crime either directed at me or people I know. I am certainly not blaming these kids for what happened to them, but I think that parking at 1 AM in lonely areas is a risky practice. The "son of sam" killings, and many other serial killers have proved this to be so. There are plenty of secured areas that you can go to.
That all said, if I found myself in this situation I can only hope that I would have the opportunity and the strength to resist. I would rather die fighting a warriors death, then be shot execution style after I was tied up. You never know what could happen, the man says he is going to shoot you if you move, how do you know he isnt just going to tie you up then take you somewhere else, then shoot you? Again, that is putting the whole situation in his hands, I would rather trust in my own strength and luck than put my fate in the bad guys hands like that. Its all situational though, there is no "one size fits all" solution. These kids may have done the right thing, none of us can say. I feel terribly sorry for them and the girls though. I hope the media will leave them alone and allow them to get on with their lives, and I hope they recover quickly from this ordeal.
-
If that serial killer was bisexual, he might have gotten away.
:mad:
-
y a udet..its bettr to be alive and give descriptions then to be ded in a ditch,,,,
Its liek Flying...theres times when you must extend if you want to stay alive..u nmay have to leave som1 to die..but you will do more damage on the return..
And Yes it is disgusting tht the 2 girls wre raped..but i thot they would be then killed....
Its really too bad we couldnt torture the guy a bit slower....The last 2 shots fired went into his head..so no ttoo much sufferen...
But owell..keep huntne those frikn dirtbags down....
THink how much money and manpower was aved by his death!!!!
No courts..no layewrs..no witnesses no cops to testify...wow...Im goona statn carrying my 357 all over now....
anyways..God Bless those VERY Young women...
BiGB
-
Originally posted by udet
I'm 22 years old. Define youngster,please...
You qualify :D (I've been 22 twice now).
-
If you have never been in a REAL life and death struggle, don't bother saying what you would do. You don't know yet what you can do. Second guessing kids faced with death for the first time???? yeah right, you weren't there.
-
"never met a rapist yet that didn't understand a kick in the balls followed with a slug from a .45" ...hollywood.
..and udet, at 22 yer still young, dum and fulla cum. Unless you've been specificly trained to face that situation what DOES go thru yer mind when somebody sticks a gun in yer face and sez ''chill diddly face, or i blow yer diddlyin brains out' is..
"holy toejam, i just peed myself"
-
The part of this that P me off, is those kids ARE asking them selves the same question. The difference is you guys will forget about this in a week. Those boys will be asking themselves that question the rest of their lives. And it is OUR fault, for allowing the situation to get to the point where they had to choose. If you want to talk about how brave you would be. What are you going to do NOW to stop this from happening. Set by while the liberal prettythang judges smack these guys on the wrist? Talk about these animals unhappy childhood? You already have the power. If you have any guts, get rid of the lib judges with the absurd records. If you cant vote them out, get rid of the guy that appointed them. Try putting a little kung fu on the political system. If you want to impress someone. Post here what you have done about the people that make this possible. That would impress some of us.
-
Gimme a break. You can't blame a liberal judge for a monster like Roy Dean Ratliff.
Do you think for even one minute that Ratliff gave a rat's bellybutton about the potential legal consequences of his actions?
There are some people that only a bullet to the head will stop.
EDIT... Oh... and by the look of things around here, I'm not the only one here that has pizza for Funkedup. Nice troll, Creamo. :rolleyes:
MORE EDIT... I was surprised to read that the two girls did not know each other. The four kids weren't together as a group.
-
Ratliff, 37, a Native-American who once lived in Rosamond, near the lover's lane where the girls were abducted, was charged in October 2001 with five counts of sexual assault for allegedly raping a 19-year-old relative.
A rape conviction would have been a third-strike against Ratliff under California law, Sparks said. "He would have been looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, but that's not going to happen now."
Gee! You would have thought the first TWO convictions would have been enough. And YOU think liberal judges had nothing to do with this.
-
You've got a point there, Easymo. We have a judge in our town that put 3 kids into the care of their father after the father walked across the street and shot his ex-wife's boyfriend to death in full view of the neighbors and kids on a fine Thanksgiving morning.
The judge's reasoning? "Just because he killed someone doesn't mean he'll be a bad father." Ooooo-kaaaaaay...
This of course isn't the only example of his "judgement", but I have certainly voted against him every election every since. Apparently I am alone in my views- or at least, not enough people share my viewpoint. That may change, the newspaper recently did a story about the judge... it appears he is being investigated by the state over his history.
-
Send them boys to Texas for trial. This is what passes for a liberal judge down here :)
Retired minister gets two prison terms for sex abuse
A Conroe judge has sentenced a 72-year-old retired minister from the small town of Cut and Shoot to two prison terms for sexually abusing two children. Cohelia Jones, who pleaded guilty but has maintained his innocence, drew sentences of 25 years for aggravated sexual assault and 20 years for indecency with a child.
-
Whoa... charged with sexual assault, not convicted of it.
Ratliff was a loser with convictions for burglary, theft and possession of methamphetamines. He was not a convicted sex offender.
The guy was a wanted criminal. The fact that he was on the street is not the fault of the judicial system.
-
Ya, I here the poor guy didn't get that pony when he was 12 either. They probably should sue the cops that shot him.
Three strikes and your out is for baseball. Not sociopaths. The guy shouldn't have been out on the street.
-
Maby more on topic.
LOS ANGELES -- One of the two teenage victims of Thursday's harrowing kidnapping ordeal is speaking out.
The tearful 17-year-old girl told a TV station in Los Angeles that she and the other victim tried to kill Roy Ratliff (pictured, right) in his sleep.
They hatched a plan to attack him with a knife and a whisky bottle as he slept in the Bronco he'd stolen when he kidnapped them.
The 17-year-old says they tried it, stabbing him in the throat, hitting him, and even getting his big, thick glasses away from him, but he regained control of the situation with his gun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on real guts.
Although the girls were bound for much of the ordeal, Jacqueline said she did have one opportunity to escape, when Ratliff untied her during a stop for gas and let her go to the bathroom. She said he also bought the girls chips and sodas during the stop.
"She could have ran," said her mother, Nadine Dyer, but was certain that if she did her abductor would have killed the other girl.
-
Yes there ar e DEFintly LIberal Cook judges that are endangering your duaghters..sisters - brohters and mothers out there.....
Golly-gee better vote w/ some commen sense....I know its hard to find in a lot of people..
But It makes me happy to see alot of these AH pilots seem to be on the "right " side of things.....:)
Thank, God
Love BiGB
Mini-14, 357, 9 mil and 12 guages ready.....Lets go looking for dirtbags..I got justice wrapped up in a Full Metal jacket
( aim for the knees and belly..let them suffer greatly)
xoxoxo
-
My, my. Look at all the Liberal judge bashing by people who obviously have no clue how the system works.
Where, in the US, does the judge act as jury? Not here in CA. Thus, the judge did not let him get off. The jury did.
If you need a target, blame the prosecuter that wasn't good enough to convict him. At least we don't have to worry about that a second time.
Another point, blame the Conservative pushed War on Drugs for the lack of prison space for real criminals because we need the beds for guys who were caught with a joint. The madatory sentences that put non-violent drug offenders in prison for longer periods of time tan rapists and murders.
-
Do prosecutors set sentencing in Cal.? Can their Judges tell the difference between a kid with a joint, and a career criminal? Obviously you cant.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Ya, I here the poor guy didn't get that pony when he was 12 either. They probably should sue the cops that shot him.
Three strikes and your out is for baseball. Not sociopaths. The guy shouldn't have been out on the street.
The guy was convicted of theft, burglary and possession of illegal drugs.
Does this sound like a sociopath to you?
-
yes Karak...who does sentencing>>>???? huh???
could it be .......Judges!!!???
hmmm
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
yes Karak...who does sentencing>>>???? huh???
could it be .......Judges!!!???
hmmm
Damn straight. Gawdamn liberal judge should have given the bastard life for possession of methamphetamines. :rolleyes:
-
Where, in the US, does the judge act as jury?
Happens all the time in civil cases, and in matters of custody of children, just like the example I gave above.
Wanna guess who here doesn't have a clue how the system works?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Happens all the time in civil cases, and in matters of custody of children, just like the example I gave above.
Wanna guess who here doesn't have a clue how the system works?
I have no clue how custody cases are handled. I'm still married. I still have my children. We all live in the same house.
-
Married here, too, however I get to see custody cases and read files all the time- you'd be surprised what a teacher gets to see. I also work with a number of social workers, counselors, court appointees, etc.
Oh yes, the judge most certainly can be the jury.
-
Yep. But lets wait till he kills someone in one of these thefts or burglaries or maybe when he's high out of his mind..
Then his, not giving a toejam about anyone but himself, will really show and he might get more than a slap on the wrist.
nah......even then he should be cut some slack..after all he's a human being..just like us..
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The guy was convicted of theft, burglary and possession of illegal drugs.
Does this sound like a sociopath to you?
-
On the other hand... the sexual assault charge that Ratliff was wanted for would have been his third strike. The guy was looking at a life sentence if convicted.
Scariest thing on the planet is a man with nothing left to lose...
-
You know, there was this part in Austin Powers II when Will Farrell played an assassin who couldn't bear to have questions repeated twice... Powers commented "why the slavish devotion to form?"... So, if the guy has been through the mill twice, why give him the third chance? Don't we have enough studies to suggest sexual offenders seldom if ever are rehabilitated?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You know, there was this part in Austin Powers II when Will Farrell played an assassin who couldn't bear to have questions repeated twice... Powers commented "why the slavish devotion to form?"... So, if the guy has been through the mill twice, why give him the third chance? Don't we have enough studies to suggest sexual offenders seldom if ever are rehabilitated?
That's the thing. Ratliff was not a convicted sex offender. There was a warrant for his arrest for a sexual assault. All things in order... First, catch the sexual offender. Second, prosecute the sexual offender in court. Third, punish/incarcerate the sexual offender. Fourth, upon the sexual offender's release from prison, notify his community.
Can hardly blame the judicial system for not getting to steps 3 and 4.
Karnak hit the nail on the head. If our police force wasn't so busy chasing down drug users, they might have time to catch the real criminals.
-
Sorry, in my not-so-popular book drug offenders, particularly dealers, are a problem. That's another debate altogether, however.
-
so in short these 2 girls getting raped by a wanted fellon is the fault of the liberal judicial system that wanted to lock him up and drugs.that were never mentioned once anywhere reguarding the case.
sounds like a broken record, but wow i cant believe it.
no one blamed clinton? its a mirical
-
it's clintons fault.
how we doin?
-
Eat the rich!
-
Just saw an interview on tv of one of the girls. Wow the two girls were very brave for trying to get loose. They even tried to stab him in the throat. Unfortunately the blade didn't go deep enough or hit the right place (she mentioned stabbing him at the place where you take a pulse.. she pointed at the side of the adams apple). They were very brave to try... killing a person is not an easy thing. Being scared out of their minds, and a natural human instinct to NOT hurt others makes it very difficult. I don't know about you guys, but I don't know if I could stab someone deep enough to kill them. Shooting them might be a little easier, but a stab involves personally shoving the blade in. Something that, for those of us who have never hurt another person before, would be very difficult to do without hesitation, shaking, etc. And I think there's only one place on the body, that once punctured, would mean instant death. And it's probably very hard to get to with a knife.
mauser
-
"On the other hand... the sexual assault charge that Ratliff was wanted for would have been his third strike. The guy was looking at a life sentence if convicted.
Scariest thing on the planet is a man with nothing left to lose..."
I have read accounts of lefties going to some idiotic lengths to excuse criminal behavior. But this is a classic.
He would be severly punished, so he had nothing to lose.
Of course, If you bring up the death penalty they hold there breath until they turn blue. And of course, the scociopath would have nothing left to lose.
Tell me sand. When would this guy have something to lose?
I have nothing left to lose. So I will tell you what I think. Guys like you make it possible for guys like ratliff to exist. Sleep well.
-
Originally posted by easymo
I have read accounts of lefties going to some idiotic lengths to excuse criminal behavior. But this is a classic.
He would be severly punished, so he had nothing to lose.
Of course, If you bring up the death penalty they hold there breath until they turn blue. And of course, the scociopath would have nothing left to lose.
Tell me sand. When would this guy have something to lose?
I have nothing left to lose. So I will tell you what I think. Guys like you make it possible for guys like ratliff to exist. Sleep well.
You read that as an excuse for criminal behavior? Then you missed the point completely.
The point is to excuse the failure of the law enforcement agencies to apprehend this man.
The point is that there isn't much you can do to protect yourself from this type of man beyond killing him.
The point is that four teenagers could do practically nothing to defend themselves against this man.
Get the point?
Ratliff was a diddlying monster to do the things he did. But why the hell should we think that we could have defended against it (other than possibly ending the drug war and letting our police do real police work or setting up permanent security check points at each of the major interstate junctions).
The man was a wanted criminal for a sex offense, but not a convicted one. His picture might even be displayed at the local post office so I'm rather certain that he didn't announce his presence at the local station house.
It's obviously the fault of some liberal judge somewhere that Ratliff was a paroled felon with convictions for theft, burglary and drug use. It's obviously the fault of some liberal judge that the man wasn't already in prison for a crime he had not yet committed.
I'm assuming that Ratliff did indeed commit the crime he was wanted for. If so, the man had to know that if caught, he would spend the rest of his life in prison. He probably thought, "I better make this worth it." His fate was predetermined and he knew it. Life in prison or death. Complete freedom to act without worrying about the details of what would happen if he were caught. You tell me what could be more frightening about a criminal than that?
Clear enough?
Guys like me... your self-righteousness is clouding your vision, Easymo.
-
those kids should have been packing heat. if they were all carrying loaded fire arms i dont see how the assailant could have pulled this off.
-
Sandman,
Try doing the job for a while before condeming all Law Enforcement for not catching this guy prior to this last offense. It IS a mobile society and those nasty people do move around. Makes it hard to find them since they won't stay in one spot. :rolleyes: Perhaps all the other calls and requirements for responses could hinder the search for one person out of all the hundreds, if not thousands, of wanted suspects. Then again, if he hadn't been out on parole it might not have happened either. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandman,
Try doing the job for a while before condeming all Law Enforcement for not catching this guy prior to this last offense. It IS a mobile society and those nasty people do move around. Makes it hard to find them since they won't stay in one spot. :rolleyes: Perhaps all the other calls and requirements for responses could hinder the search for one person out of all the hundreds, if not thousands, of wanted suspects. Then again, if he hadn't been out on parole it might not have happened either. :rolleyes:
That wasn't condemnation of law enforcement. It's not their fault that there aren't enough of them. It's not their fault that they spend a disproportionate amount of their time chasing down non-violent drug offenders. It's not their fault that real criminals are paroled to make room for more drug offenders. It's not their fault.
-
Sandman-
You sure are going to great lengths to underscore drug offenders are not criminals, even to the point of making the stance this whole thing wouldn't have happened if people were only allowed to take drugs as they wished. Tell me, who's reaching more- the conservatives who say judges shouldn't let criminals go so easily, or liberals who blame the war on drugs for such events?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Sandman-
You sure are going to great lengths to underscore drug offenders are not criminals, even to the point of making the stance this whole thing wouldn't have happened if people were only allowed to take drugs as they wished. Tell me, who's reaching more- the conservatives who say judges shouldn't let criminals go so easily, or liberals who blame the war on drugs for such events?
The conservatives. Our prisons are overfilled and the business of incarceration is booming so big that private corporations are getting in on the money. But the supply of bed space can't keep up with the demand so terms are shortened and felons get parole.
There is only one reason for it. The drug war.
-
I see.
Front page of our local newspaper sports the picture of a former student of mine who just suffocated his 5-month-old son because the boy was crying. Seems the little nipper was interrupting the beauty rest of this recreational druggy that just couldn't find the motivation to get a job- much less get out of bed- and something had to be done. So the young man took his pillow, laid it over the face of the infant lying next to him, and went back to his drug-induced sleep.
Friend of mine from high school was meat-cleavered to death over a drug deal gone bad.
Another friend of mine was high and sitting in the back seat of a car at a gas station. His friend went inside to pay for the gas, and my friend begins playing with his father's service .45. You guessed it, he blew his own head off.
I could go on, but it won't matter. You are convinced drugs are no problem at all. Me, I walk past the ghosts of the past, people with promise who aren't going anywhere anymore because of drugs or alcohol, or worse, have resorted to crime to feed a habit they cannot afford, or accidentally or purposely killed someone when under the influence. What I can't understand is how a smart guy like you cannot see the connection.
-
So sandman what would happend if the "drug war" ended or whatever it is exactly that you want changed happend?
In other words tell us what you would do if you were Fuhrer?
-
While most of the research attempting to delineate the causes of child maltreatment and substance abuse has focused on familial and individual factors, the social environment clearly plays a role (Cicchetti and Olsen 1990).
Factors such as community norms, neighbourhood disorganisation, cultural disenfranchisement (particularly applicable to indigenous peoples), and the unavailability of community education on either substance abuse or child maltreatment have been posited as exacerbating the risk of both child maltreatment and substance abuse.
Poor school performance, truancy and leaving school early correlate with a greater risk of substance abuse in adolescence. These factors also correlate with the maltreatment of children from addicted families (Gottfredson 1986, as cited in Hayes and Emshoff 1993).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is no coincidence that the rape ratliff was being persued for was his step daughter.
-
Poor school performance, truancy and leaving school early correlate with a greater risk of substance abuse in adolescence. These factors also correlate with the maltreatment of children from addicted families (Gottfredson 1986, as cited in Hayes and Emshoff 1993).
I agree partially, but I think it is the other way around. Drugs lead to truancy, not vice versa.
-
Guys... To continue the drug war or not is off topic.
The drug war is simply cited as a reason for prison overcrowding and the early parole of criminals. Is this not true?
The drug war is again cited as the reason why our law enforcement agencies are understaffed (or lack the time/resources to pursue other more violent criminals). Could this also be true?
You'll get no argument from me regarding the dangers from drug addiction, Kieran. It's the war itself and the consequences of waging it that I question. (But that's another thread.)
-
It's a definite conundrum, but your proposed solution so far is unacceptable to me. What you seem to suggest is, since we cannot hope to catch everyone, and even if we did, we cannot house them all, we should drop our hands in defeat. This isn't the solution.
And don't even begin to talk about replacing the current program with education to prevent people from getting hooked in the first place. It hasn't worked yet, and certainly won't on its own.
The way to end the problem is to cut off the drugs altogether. That in itself may be unrealistic, but as long as people can get their hands on drugs, they will take them.
Further, had there been no drug laws, it would have been one less thing against Ratliff. Now, let's say you are right, and he wouldn't have been desperate. He gets taken alive, but now, since it is only TWO strikes against him, he gets paroled down the road. Next time it might not be so happy an ending, and you know darn well there WOULD be a next time. As I said before, there is no evidence I have ever seen to suggest sexual offenders EVER rehabilitate. Sure, he would have to register as an offender- big deal. He would merely hunt outside of his neighborhood, which he would probably do anyway.
Edit: Sorry, you're right, this is stuff for another thread.
-
Hmmm... did I propose a solution?
-
I believe you stated we need to end the war on drugs, so that our overcrowded prisons wouldn't be, and we could lock up the real criminals. Have I mis-paraphrased you?
-
I'm pretty sure I stated that the drug war was the problem. It is the reason we have more prisons and that those prisons are overcrowded and that mandatory sentencing requirements force the parole of other more violent criminals.
I don't think I offered a solution. I find it rather funny that you guys see the same solution that I do to the above problem. The real difference is whether we find that "solution" acceptable or not. Certainly, there are others... The DNC would have us throw more money at it. The GOP would increase the penalty. (But again... another thread).
:)
-
Ah! I think I need to correct you on something, then... I only agreed there were some pretty wacky judges out there, like the one I mentioned. I also agree there are people that are walking around that should have been put away long ago, and there has been ample opportunity to do so. Lumping me in with people blaming all liberal judges is not exactly correct.
OTOH, I am resolute on my feelings about drugs and their impact on society. I merely began to notice you repeatedly reference the war on drugs, wasted efforts, and the real criminals.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Ah! I think I need to correct you on something, then... I only agreed there were some pretty wacky judges out there, like the one I mentioned. I also agree there are people that are walking around that should have been put away long ago, and there has been ample opportunity to do so. Lumping me in with people blaming all liberal judges is not exactly correct.
Did I do that? Or... was it Karnak?
EDIT: Damnit, I did offer it as a solution... sort of.
other than possibly ending the drug war and letting our police do real police work or setting up permanent security check points at each of the major interstate junctions
I give up...
:rolleyes:
-
;)
-
Originally posted by easymo
I have read accounts of lefties going to some idiotic lengths to excuse criminal behavior. But this is a classic.
While I support the death penalty, I admit that there is a good case to be made that if the punishment is extremely severe - like one for rape same as for murder, the criminal would tend to kill the victim to remove a witness - since he does not risk more punishment but increases his chances to get away.
I would prefer to have some kind of ID bracelet installed permanently on all violent criminals after the first offence.
Sandman: That wasn't condemnation of law enforcement. It's not their fault that there aren't enough of them. It's not their fault that they spend a disproportionate amount of their time chasing down non-violent drug offenders.
Oh yes, it is - they may have been corrupted by the drug war but the result is that they are corrupt.
Did you see John Stossel exposee? A protest meeting for legalisation of pot? A bunch of guys with posters, few lighting the joints demonstratively. A whole load of police around - dozens. Jumping on the offenders and arresting them?
Stossel asks a group of poicemen - one woman among them: "Do you believe those guys pose any danger?"
Everybody says "No, of course not, they are harmless".
He asks again: "Aren't you worried that after 9/11 with all the threats so many of you are busy here on a nuisance patrol?" and "Would you not rather prefer to be somewhere chasing terrorists and real criminals than standing watch over those harmless guys?".
And the stupid cow says righ into the camera "Of course I would rather be here than chase terrorists!".
If that is not a corruption, than what is? "New York Finest" - what a shame...
kieran: I believe you stated we need to end the war on drugs, so that our overcrowded prisons wouldn't be, and we could lock up the real criminals. Have I mis-paraphrased you?
How about not jailing the users or growers for self-consumption but only dealers and sellers? That would cut the prison population drastically. As for people who hurt other people, prosecute them whether they were stoned, drunk or sober at the time. We already have laws for that.
miko
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Guys... To continue the drug war or not is off topic.
The drug war is simply cited as a reason for prison overcrowding and the early parole of criminals. Is this not true?
No, people breaking the law and getting caught is the reason for prison overcrowding. Perhaps it's murderers who are causing the overcrowding. I think we should legalize murder so that we can get prison population numbers lower.
-Sikboy
-
sickboy: I think we should legalize murder so that we can get prison population numbers lower.
You vote for legalizing murder, I will vote for legalizing pot. It's your right to express your views.
One thing that can be said for sure about rabid fundmentalists is that they see the world as black and white rather than it's natural scale.
To them there is no difference between a person (arguably) harming himslef and killing another - I guess it's like a religious difference where every nuance matters. All or nothing. I guess US was Sodom and Gomorrah before the 1920 when drugs were outlawed - as bad as if murder was legal, right?
Now all is well though - you can kick back with your beer and cigar and boast how you took mother away from her childern for ten years for smoking a joint.
miko
-
Since this has gone off into another drug debate let me chip in my reasons. I wont cover them all, just an example.
I had an aquaintence in Denver, back in the early 80,s. He was a successful business man. He also like coke a lot. And not the kind that makes you fat. He gave me a bit of a lecture, one night, on his usage. He pointed out that he was harming no one but himself, if that. He also said that his wife and two children did not want for anything. He supported them in a fine manner.
Two days later, I received the news that he was dead from a drug overdose. I belive that this hurt his children, and I know it hurt his wife. She told me that he had used up all their savings on dope. There was life insurance. But not nearly enough for the kids education, Or to keep them living in anywhere near the standard they were use to.
So this whole victimless crime business is a lot of BS. I wont even bother with the crimes that are committed by dopes to get more dope, or just because they were loaded at the time and their natural inhabit ions were deadened
-
Yeah, but Easymo... this was under the current "War On Drugs", wasn't it?
I rest my case. The current "War on drugs" and it's policies are a miserable failure and waste of police man power and tax payers money.
Review the policy, make it a true war on drugs and not a war on the american people.
"Lock 'em up! That'll make 'em get off that dope!"
Errr no... a lot of 'em just hit the dope harder and become hardened criminals.
-SW
-
Errr no... a lot of 'em just hit the dope harder and become hardened criminals.
-SW
OH! I get it. Its the threat of criminal prosecution that makes them take drugs.
-
Where did I say that Easymo?
And... err... "threat of criminal prosecution"? No, they have already been prosecuted and placed in jail.
Hence the "ship 'em off to jail, that'll make 'em stop doing illicit drugs" sarcastic comment.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, the current policy isn't working at all.
They arrest a couple million druggies a year, bust a couple hundred thousand tons of illict drugs a year(approx 40-60%), and spend millions of tax payers money a year... and you will whole heartedly support the current "War on Drugs"....
What if I told you that after all of that, it's still a multi-billion dollar business... still think the current "War on Drugs" is working?
-SW
-
Originally posted by easymo
Since this has gone off into another drug debate let me chip in my reasons. I wont cover them all, just an example.
I had an aquaintence in Denver, back in the early 80,s. He was a successful business man. He also like coke a lot. And not the kind that makes you fat. He gave me a bit of a lecture, one night, on his usage. He pointed out that he was harming no one but himself, if that. He also said that his wife and two children did not want for anything. He supported them in a fine manner.
Two days later, I received the news that he was dead from a drug overdose. I belive that this hurt his children, and I know it hurt his wife. She told me that he had used up all their savings on dope. There was life insurance. But not nearly enough for the kids education, Or to keep them living in anywhere near the standard they were use to.
So this whole victimless crime business is a lot of BS. I wont even bother with the crimes that are committed by dopes to get more dope, or just because they were loaded at the time and their natural inhabit ions were deadened
No argument. Drugs are dangerous and quite possibly very bad things. This doesn't mean the drug war is necessarily a good thing.
-
easymo: ... he was dead from a drug overdose. ...he had used up all their savings on dope.
So this whole victimless crime business is a lot of BS.
Are those particular reasons for or against legalisation?
As I see it, he is a victim - of the war on drugs. But for war of drugs he could have bought cheap safe coke of regulated purity in convenient dozage at the pharmacy. No need to dip into kids' college savings or risk overdose/poisoning.
Of course they all would have been better off if government arrested him and thrown to jail for twenty years and his wife for ten as an accomplice, confiscated their car and house and put children to into foster care.
miko
-
As I see it, he is a victim - of the war on drugs. But for war of drugs he could have bought cheap safe coke of regulated purity in convenient dozage at the pharmacy. No need to dip into kids' college savings or risk overdose/poisoning.
You have to be kidding me!
Do you really think in a free market society, where an addictive product such as cocaine is available, it would be CHEAP!? That is, unless, the government puts a price cap so that it is available to all citizens at fair prices. *cough*socialized drug addiction*cough*.
Do you really think with a product such as cocaine maintaining "standards" would come without government intervention?
Do you really think the government should go into the business of dealing drugs over-the-counter to its people? (I can see the rebuttal now: "Iran/Contra")
Has cocaine not shown itself to be an all-consuming addiction for many, sapping the users of the will to do anything but score the next high? (I can see the rebuttal now: "Yea, but what about alcohol?")
And this man's death is because the government was trying to take away the instrument of his demise? Wow, I've seen some twisted logic and denial, but this is pretty up there.
-
Sandman seems to think the drug war is caused by law enforcement. After all if there was no enforcement there'd be no drug war right??? :rolleyes: Perhaps the problem just MIGHT be the people who are using the drugs. Ya thnk they just might be a bit irresponsible in stealing, robbing, killing just so they could satisfy the selfish "urge" to enjoy the drug of their choice and be a burden on society???? Nah that COULDN'T be it.
It's not the "drug war" that's the problem. It's those that feel they have the right to do what the hell they damn well please and are willing to take any action they can to get what they want. It isn't all related to drugs either, it can be simple greed or a general lack of learning how to be a responsible person.
BTW Sandman, those that I helped put away in the so called "drug war" were not simple "users" who didn't bother people. They were societal predators who actually hurt people. You are welcome to your preconcieved notions however, whether they are natural or chemically induced.
For those who advocate the use of drugs for "recreational" putproses. At what age should you give your son or daughter their first joint? Their first hit of cocaine? Thier first speedball, heroin skinpop or mainline? I'm curious as I figure you'd raise your children to emulate your behavior.
-
If I ate a hippie that had just smoked a joint would I get stoned?
-
Originally posted by mauser
Just saw an interview on tv of one of the girls. Wow the two girls were very brave for trying to get loose. They even tried to stab him in the throat. Unfortunately the blade didn't go deep enough or hit the right place (she mentioned stabbing him at the place where you take a pulse.. she pointed at the side of the adams apple).
That's what's wrong with youth today. Limited knowledge of the human body, but they probably know all the words to both of Pink's hit songs.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
If I ate a hippie that had just smoked a joint would I get stoned?
Yes, by the villagers who would yell "Cannibal!" at you as they threw rocks at you and chased you out of town.
-
Originally posted by hblair
He taped up the first guy, then the second car just happened to pull up, then he tied up that guy. Easy to second guess from our PC, having a gun pointed at your head by a crazy man is very coersive.
Maybe he wasn't the one doing the taping. All he had to do was point the gun at the girl and tell her to tape him up.
Now shut up and get in the car!
-
the scene: late night at a lovers lane, a young couple is sitting in a car, a badguy approches car yanks door open.
BADGUY:: "gimme your girlfriend, punk"
GIRLFRIEND:: "EEEEEK"
BOYFRIEND:: <>
BADGUY:: " AARRRRGGH....damm NRA"
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandman seems to think the drug war is caused by law enforcement.
Why should law enforcement want the drug war to stop? There's profit in it.
-
Sandman,
In my own Department we had about 550 to 600 commisioned personell. That's all ranks from the Chief on down to the last rookie Patrolman. This was a department that served a base population of about 750,000 with an increase to about 1.2Million plus when the snow birds arrive. Figure it out, that means less than one commissioned Cop (all ranks not just the ones that work the street) per thousand population. When you figure the ratio of street Cops per thousand it's significantly less, at least a third and I'm being concervative.
Out of that department only about 20 commisioned (including the obligatory admin supervisors Lt's and above who do NOT do any enforcement duties) were involved in Narcotics. They also had to work other tasks such as Vice. Now that brings the total force in the "drug war" you are obsessed about to less than 3% of the force. Hardly a significant part of the budget and this is in a city on the main pipeline for narcotics of all types into the country.
To counter that, the majority of crimes against property, read burglary, theft, auto theft and simple robbery are due to those who commit those crimes to feed their freaking selfish desire to get more drugs. A significant amount of the crimes against people are due to the inability of people to handle their interpersonal relations while under the influence of one substance or another (including alcohol and prescription drugs). Add to this, the ones that drive under the influence and it gets worse. The last year I worked there was an average of 10,000 traffic accidents per year in the city limits. These were the ones that a report was generated on by an Officer responding.
Frankly with all this crap going on, the "drug war" as you put, it is a pretty paltry factor in street law enforcement. In other words, those actually dedicated to your "drug war" aren't much more than a drop in the bucket out of law enforcement. Some "profit" huh.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Yes, by the villagers who would yell "Cannibal!" at you as they threw rocks at you and chased you out of town.
Who said elfinwolf ate a dead hippy. Perhaps the result would only be a really happy hippy. :D
-
Score two for Maverick! When I read Sandman's last post, thought of ol' Mav... gotta say,
Ouch, Elf, that's gonna leave a mark!
-
Kieran, if ya dish it out ya gotta be able to take it. Anyway it made me laugh. :)
-
Maverick. I am curious how many class 1 felonies, a cop feels, a guy should get. Before they throw away the key.
-
Easymo,
I am not familiar with what you mean as "class 1 felony".
In any case, taking a blind stab at this. In some cases one felony is plenty. I happen to take a real dim view of child molestors, child killers and those who assault kids. Not talking spanking here for those wh jump to conclusions. I mean those who just get their jollies hurting kids.
If it's a crime against property I take a much more lenient view. Lopping off the dominant hand comes to mind. :p
Seriously, it depends n what you mean by that felony level. I have to say in a fair number of homicides it's a one time deal and not much likelyhood of recidivism. As it is now, given the rate of convictions for criminals the norm is a fair number of offenses before incarceration. Not just a one time crime but a string of several before they are caught.
After a while you tend to want to smack flies with a hammer after seeing the same thing being done by the same offender. The number of victims gets pretty large in the case of most felons, particularly in property crimes. Perspective is a hard thing to maintain.
Did this answer your question?
Here is a quandry. What do you do with a career criminal that is a juvinile? Think I'm kidding?? Nope. One made the news in Tucson the other week. He was on his 5th felony arrest. They others ranged from autotheft, burglary, sexual assault and an aggravated assault. The latest arrest was for attempted murder. Here is the real kicker. He's only 10, according to the news story I heard on TV. Haven't seen anything else but I only see the papers infrequently since I'm out of town most of the time.
Punishment is a real heavy item. I think that most cops just look at it in one way. What will keep the offender from hurting anyone else? Protecting the victims is the primary goal.
-
that 10 yr kid should be in official custody (juve hall, whatever) until he's 18. At that time, see if he's fit to be released into society. If not, throw him in prison until he is. If never, so be it.
hmm... a lot of good this registering of sex offenders is doing.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/080702/Local/ST009.shtml
Two of the local news briefs today were registered sex offenders arrested for more sexual crimes. One allegedly raped a 19 year old and the other fondled a 12 year old girl in a K-Mart.
-
The answer is obvious- you cut the cancer out before it destroys the body.
-
Mav. Just took a guess at what a capital felony. Or first degree felony. Is called in your state.
Yes you did answer my question. Thank you. BTW. FWIW. I agree with you on all counts.