LadyEternity
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/25/2010 Status: offline
|
Ed Thank you!!!! *kiss* I did mention that some of my points were definitely opinion...at least I thought I did. Maybe I just thought it. I do that sometimes. I didn't mean to state the last point as fact but as opinion. I really do feel as if by not taking the previously mentioned moral and ethical responsibility to act when crimes are small or "simple" or misdemeanor quality, the authority actually allows for greater crimes to happen later. This does actually have the effect of increasing the length of time people spend in privately owned jails that make money on the head count. Now, I do admit that most of my information comes from hours long conversations on the phone with my brother listening to him vent about everything wrong with the department and how frustrated even cops are with the system. So my knowledge of laws and ordinances are very limited to the town/county in which he works. I called to have the ammo and illicit items picked up because that was how he told me to handle it and be both safe and legal. I tend to trust as a cop he's telling me how to handle something properly but I know every county, city, and township can have different ordinances and laws. In retrospect maybe he was acting on something he thought was a law across the state but was in fact maybe only in his county/town at the time. Again, this was a decade ago. Your right, possession of unspent rounds is obviously not illegal or no one could own ammo for weapons. But I was unsure whether the ammo was legal or safe and since the house was in a bad place and I had kids I tried to take the course of action related to me by a law enforcement agent I trusted. I acted on the information I had then. Like I was talking about earlier about moral obligation, perhaps the requirements for police to handle unspent ammo changed over the years too. As for the police needing to witness simple assault, I'm not sure how that works. I've always been led to believe that if someone is bleeding, someone gets arrested for assault. Then again, the entire debate is now hypothetical since it came out that mom was lying. I don't know much about differentiation between shooting in the air and pointing at someone to scare off an assailant when it comes to feeling that ones life or someone else's could be in danger. To me, I personally couldn't take a life so I would be wading in with a baseball bat rather than bullets. But I do know deep inside that if I felt threatened, I would still attempt a scare tactic before pointing a gun at someone. From all I've been told/taught, you don't point it unless you mean to pull the trigger. I'm not certain I could. I couldn't exchange a life for my own, all though definitely would have to reevaluate that if it were my kids threatened instead of me. Or really anyone's kid. My biggest complaint/opinion on the original article still stands. I still believe that by not arresting the boy for hitting the girl that boy will likely come away thinking that he can get away with violence towards women. It simply creates an entitlement in his mind that says he has a right to strike a girl and even the cops won't stop him. If someone had at least had a hard, scarey talk with this boy, thrown him in jail overnight, maybe he would have a different path illuminated for him. Maybe not, but isn't it up to those in positions of authority to try? I suppose it's in my opinion that it should be. Again Ed, thanks! way awesome!
|