quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

A burglary is a burglary everywhere - and if he d be caught by the police (and a house owner witnessing it happen should have called them asap) he d probably - taken his minor age - face verdicts ranging from social work to being arrested from a number of days to up to 2 months considering whether it was his first offence or not.

Burglaries typically have a criminal intent element -- intent to commit a felony or a crime of some particular magnitude.

When I was in my teens, we used to go Pool Hopping. We'd trespass, jump fences, etc. typically at night -- to go swimming in pools where we weren't members. It was fun, and it felt dangerous. Garage Hopping seems very related, but with am element of petty theft attached.

There are group of posters here who strongly advocate protecting "beer cans" (as you call them) with deadly force. It's mind boggling. There is also a whole class of Americans sleeping with guns-at-the-ready in their bedrooms and a swath of innocents and family members mistakenly killed by them in confrontations.

The New England Journal of Medicine found that keeping a gun in the home actually increases the likelihood of its inhabitants being shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This case, and many others that have been the subject of threads here, seem to me to revolve around a tension between two conflicting approaches to justice.

The first model emphasises self sufficiency, the castle doctrine, property and gun rights. This model developed as a result of necessity in the days when the US was primarily a rural society, with weak law enforcement at local levels and justice was dispensed in a rather rough and ready fashion by (predominantly) property owners. Within this model, individual responsibility for law enforcement, conflict resolution and dispensing justice is emphasised.

The second model emphasises central law enforcement by professionals, proportionality and due process. This model has evolved to meet the needs of primarily urban populations with far stronger law enforcement institutions at local levels, justice dispensed by courts that uphold the various and sometimes conflicting rights of various parties. Within this model, responsibility for law enforcement, conflict resolution and dispensing justice lies primarily in the State through professional law enforcement institutions - police the courts etc.

The question that needs to be resolved is which of these models, each with its own merits and demerits, is more suited to the needs of the modern largely urban society that is the US today?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

A burglary is a burglary everywhere - and if he d be caught by the police (and a house owner witnessing it happen should have called them asap) he d probably - taken his minor age - face verdicts ranging from social work to being arrested from a number of days to up to 2 months considering whether it was his first offence or not.

Burglaries typically have a criminal intent element -- intent to commit a felony or a crime of some particular magnitude.

When I was in my teens, we used to go Pool Hopping. We'd trespass, jump fences, etc. typically at night -- to go swimming in pools where we weren't members. It was fun, and it felt dangerous. Garage Hopping seems very related, but with am element of petty theft attached.

There are group of posters here who strongly advocate protecting "beer cans" (as you call them) with deadly force. It's mind boggling. There is also a whole class of Americans sleeping with guns-at-the-ready in their bedrooms and a swath of innocents and family members mistakenly killed by them in confrontations.

The New England Journal of Medicine found that keeping a gun in the home actually increases the likelihood of its inhabitants being shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
This case, and many others that have been the subject of threads here, seem to me to revolve around a tension between two conflicting approaches to justice.

The first model emphasises self sufficiency, the castle doctrine, property and gun rights. This model developed as a result of necessity in the days when the US was primarily a rural society, with weak law enforcement at local levels and justice was dispensed in a rather rough and ready fashion by (predominantly) property owners. Within this model, individual responsibility for law enforcement, conflict resolution and dispensing justice is emphasised.

The second model emphasises central law enforcement by professionals, proportionality and due process. This model has evolved to meet the needs of primarily urban populations with far stronger law enforcement institutions at local levels, justice dispensed by courts that uphold the various and sometimes conflicting rights of various parties. Within this model, responsibility for law enforcement, conflict resolution and dispensing justice lies primarily in the State through professional law enforcement institutions - police the courts etc.

The question that needs to be resolved is which of these models, each with its own merits and demerits, is more suited to the needs of the modern largely urban society that is the US today?

Rather, one model assumes that we as individuals are born with inalienable rights, while the other dictates that we are property of the state and have no rights, only that "justice" arbitrarily granted by the state

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


And yet you are one of the first to be outraged if the police do anything to stop crime unless the criminal wants to go peacefully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
This case, and many others that have been the subject of threads here, seem to me to revolve around a tension between two conflicting approaches to justice.

The first model emphasises self sufficiency, the castle doctrine, property and gun rights. This model developed as a result of necessity in the days when the US was primarily a rural society, with weak law enforcement at local levels and justice was dispensed in a rather rough and ready fashion by (predominantly) property owners. Within this model, individual responsibility for law enforcement, conflict resolution and dispensing justice is emphasised.

The second model emphasises central law enforcement by professionals, proportionality and due process. This model has evolved to meet the needs of primarily urban populations with far stronger law enforcement institutions at local levels, justice dispensed by courts that uphold the various and sometimes conflicting rights of various parties. Within this model, responsibility for law enforcement, conflict resolution and dispensing justice lies primarily in the State through professional law enforcement institutions - police the courts etc.

The question that needs to be resolved is which of these models, each with its own merits and demerits, is more suited to the needs of the modern largely urban society that is the US today?

Rather, one model assumes that we as individuals are born with inalienable rights, while the other dictates that we are property of the state and have no rights, only that "justice" arbitrarily granted by the state

No, that's not what the two models means. The first is being self absorbed and creating problems. The second is forgetting the nature of the Constitution and creating problems. Both models would not work for this nation. Since the nature of the US Constitution is to 'apply all laws to all persons found under the domain of power of the federal system'. Try to develop an important law on firearms that applies to the conditions, settings, and problems of Quinhagak, Alaska....and...equally apply to New York City, New York. Both locations are so different from the other on so many levels.

What's the best model? Uncorrupting the 2nd amendment, and applying its meaning as a whole to the problems faced by the nation at current. The concept of 'self defense' was never really brought up at the individual level for the 2nd, just like 'net neutrality' was never brought up for the 1st and 4th amendments back in the 18th century. Its up to the people in 2014/2015 to decide how best new technology and cultural shifts effect the laws (not just firearms) we have now and conditions of the future.

No one wants to uncorrupt the 2nd, because to many have to much invested in keeping it fucked up. Groups big and small, not to mention political, religious, and financial entities have much in the way to gain from things remaining fucked up. And that to many Americans rather accept the corrupted versions because the uncorrupted version means they'd have to actually pay for their freedoms. Sadly we force our soldiers to foreign lands to 'defend our freedoms', and when they come back, most want to fucking forget they ever existed! Yet when we are called to do the same, we take the easy ways out and keep it corrupted. We'll have to endure another dozen mass school shootings before we might consider the insanity. On top of that many more accidental and unusual shootings (like the back story of this thread). A few hundred gun laws in many states for all sorts of conditions/reasons. And hours upon hours of talking heads on all sides 'debating' things to death; both 'on air' and on this and other forums.

The two models were 'a good try', but will not work. And not for why you and BamaD believe to understand. Both of you, like the liberals, moderates and conservatives on this forum and the nation at large, are 'ok' with the corrupted amendment. That your 'ok' with all the funerals, all the moments of tragedy, and bullshit shoveled to keep it corrupted. The issue comes up every general election area, and is never actually dealt with like responsible adults. Because it would force all sides to come up with some other division to attack the others on during campaign speeches.

What's the uncorrupted version you ask? Why should I even bother explaining it? None of you would listen. You have so much invested in the corrupted version and raw passion built up to consider a better path. Its one in which we pay for this particular kind of freedom. The liberals and moderates would have more trust of conservatives and vise verse. That it would strength our communities as a group, rather than the 'my life is an island' attitude so common in this nation. And maybe, just maybe, it forces us to find common ground on many other issues/problems facing the nation, because we talk and listen to each other like adults. Or have we not learned what happens when we as citizens 'slack off' in our duties as citizens in government in the past two decades?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

What's the best model? Uncorrupting the 2nd amendment, and applying its meaning as a whole to the problems faced by the nation at current. The concept of 'self defense' was never really brought up at the individual level for the 2nd, just like 'net neutrality' was never brought up for the 1st and 4th amendments back in the 18th century. Its up to the people in 2014/2015 to decide how best new technology and cultural shifts effect the laws (not just firearms) we have now and conditions of the future.