State House News: GOP REP. PUSHES 10-YEAR MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR FIRING ON A POLICE

BOBKATT said:
If supporting stiffer penalties for criminals who shoot at police officers is bending your principles, I question your principles to begin with.
Click to expand...

If the only way you can argue against my principles is by willfully misinterpreting them not only to the point where they are no longer my principles, but actually the complete opposite of said principles, then I have nothing more to say to you. When you want an actual conversation on the subject, let me know.
 
FiXXXer024 said:
You guys DO know that there's SEVERAL laws on the books specifically pointed at the protection of one group over another... right???

Punch a pregnant woman and see how fast you get locked up for felony A&B. The same punch to a "normal citizen" and you can't even be arrested if it didn't happen in a cop's presence. Assault an EMT or impede them in the performance of their duties and you'll be joining Mr. Preggo puncher... That's just to name a few.

I know a lot of you are hung up on the issue of a mandatory minimum, but spend some time in a courtroom looking at the inequities of sentencing (specifically in Boston, where I spend my time) and your disgust will soon make you a staunch supporter of mandatory minimums for severe crimes, I assure you. There's no need for mandatory minimums everywhere, but I tell you, I love the knowledge that when I take some gang member with an illegal gun off the streets of my city, I'm guarenteed not to see him again for 18 months.
Click to expand...

I am all for getting DA's and Judges on the bench that will do what you want without setting up a new law for a specific group of people.
 
gene said:
I am all for getting DA's and Judges on the bench that will do what you want without setting up a new law for a specific group of people.
Click to expand...

But the Judges won't though. The DA can't keep track of everything that goes on either. It's incumbant upon me to prepare the ADA and build my own cases sometimes. I could get an ADA to argue the most valid points, with the highest regard for public safety... the problem is, the judge sitting on the bench in Roxbury Court... yeah, they live in North Reading... or Leominster... or Waban. They don't live in Roxbury or Mattapan or Dorchester. They don't realize the effects of their leniency. They see themselves as "reasonable" in their judgements, but in reality they're crippling the neighborhoods by leaving violent felons on the street and not imposing ANY penalties for juvenile offenders (who repeat offenses over and over and over). Forget LIGHT penalties... NO penalties... Dismissed, continued, CWOF... Anything and everything that avoids these people seeing SOME punishment for their actions. It only creates a vicious circle where I'm picking up the same bag of shit for the same robbery or the same ABDW or the same B&E over and over and over. The mandatory minimum takes the judges ability to sabotage my hard work away from them. It ALSO prevents them from seeing any backlash from their sentencing because in the end, it's now out of their hands. They don't have to feel bad about it OR justify why they they did it.

Anyway, just imagine your job. You do all your work. You dot the I's, cross the T's. Leave your desk immaculate. You look sharp. You work HARD to do your job well with the idea of making the place you work BETTER. Then at the end of each day of hard work, the nipplehead from the cubicle next to you walks to your desk, sneezes in your face, farts in your workspace then messes up your papers and walks away like nothing happened... Now you can begin to imagine how frustrating it is to build a case only to have it be dismissed by a loony tune judge.
 
FiXXXer024 said:
But the Judges won't though. The DA can't keep track of everything that goes on either. It's incumbant upon me to prepare the ADA and build my own cases sometimes. I could get an ADA to argue the most valid points, with the highest regard for public safety... the problem is, the judge sitting on the bench in Roxbury Court... yeah, they live in North Reading... or Leominster... or Waban. They don't live in Roxbury or Mattapan or Dorchester. They don't realize the effects of their leniency. They see themselves as "reasonable" in their judgements, but in reality they're crippling the neighborhoods by leaving violent felons on the street and not imposing ANY penalties for juvenile offenders (who repeat offenses over and over and over). Forget LIGHT penalties... NO penalties... Dismissed, continued, CWOF... Anything and everything that avoids these people seeing SOME punishment for their actions. It only creates a vicious circle where I'm picking up the same bag of shit for the same robbery or the same ABDW or the same B&E over and over and over. The mandatory minimum takes the judges ability to sabotage my hard work away from them. It ALSO prevents them from seeing any backlash from their sentencing because in the end, it's now out of their hands. They don't have to feel bad about it OR justify why they they did it.
Click to expand...

You painted a good picture, I think I get at least a little bit of a feeling for what you are talking about here.

Now explain to me again why creating a special law about shooting at police helps this situation? Just how many cases do you deal with each year where someone shot at the police and they are set free with no penalties?
 
gene said:
So how many cops are getting guns shot at them verses civilians per year. These are the same police chiefs I trust that argued against the recent Katrina bill here in MA that might have allowed me to protect my family and self during a disaster aren't they? Ain't life a bitch when your left with similar laws and protections in the courts as the general population.
Click to expand...

This is why I keep harping that GOAL needs to help educate law enforcement on these bills. The "Katrina Bill", the "Mass Gun Law Reform Bill", etcetera. They need to get the police on their (our) side before they even make it a bill. This needs to happen sooner rather than later. I just mentioned the massgunlawreform.com web site to a pd acquaintance, and he said "Oh, GOAL?" as if to almost dismiss it off the bat. Need to polish this.
 
Like most lawful citizens, we know the judges and the courts are not doing their jobs and it's an outrage. It affects our rights as lawful gun owners (already) far more often than those of the police that already have privilidges the normal citizen doesn't. Half the shit eaten gun laws out there and hoops we go through are because of these same criminals. I don't see the law enforcement community encouraging the law makers to be more reasonable with the stupid restrictions on gun permits. Yet I am sure that criminals fear the armed citizen more than the police since it's more difficult for them to plan the events.

The police and lawful citizens should push together to get the gang bangers and habitual criminals off the streets but until I start seeing the police and law enforcement in general pushing for a citizens right to defend themselves, I can't see why their assault should rank any greater penalty that the average citizen. I am all for giving the bums 10 years for armed assault on either police or a citizen but I don't beleive that would stop someone that is actually intent on shooting a cop from doing it. It may just make is penalty severe enough that he becomes more brazen, after doing so, since he or she knows they are doing 10 years in the big house anyway.
 
Coyote33 said:
This is why I keep harping that GOAL needs to help educate law enforcement on these bills. The "Katrina Bill", the "Mass Gun Law Reform Bill", etcetera. They need to get the police on their (our) side before they even make it a bill. This needs to happen sooner rather than later. I just mentioned the massgunlawreform.com web site to a pd acquaintance, and he said "Oh, GOAL?" as if to almost dismiss it off the bat. Need to polish this.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

In my opinion GOAL's biggest problem is that they are to quick to jump in opposition to everything. They sometimes want to fight for the sake of fighting.

GOAL needs to attempt to work with law enforcement and politicians.

An example of this is when the Bristol County DA was arguing the dangerousness hearings at the SJC. GOAL was jumping all over him based upon what was being reported in the media.

Did they ever attempt to speak with DA Sutter to ascertain his reasoning, motives and intent?

I think I know the answer. If they had taken the time to speak with him they would have learned that they were wrong in their understanding of the situation and they could have gained a very good political supporter who cold help them as well. Instead they lost credibility by spouting off without facts.
 
How about a law that sends a Judge to jail if they give someone a soft sentence and that felon commits another crime?
 
FiXXXer024 said:
But the Judges won't though. The DA can't keep track of everything that goes on either. It's incumbent upon me to prepare the ADA and build my own cases sometimes. I could get an ADA to argue the most valid points, with the highest regard for public safety... the problem is, the judge sitting on the bench in Roxbury Court... yeah, they live in North Reading... or Leominster... or Waban. They don't live in Roxbury or Mattapan or Dorchester. They don't realize the effects of their leniency. They see themselves as "reasonable" in their judgments, but in reality they're crippling the neighborhoods by leaving violent felons on the street and not imposing ANY penalties for juvenile offenders (who repeat offenses over and over and over). Forget LIGHT penalties... NO penalties... Dismissed, continued, CWOF... Anything and everything that avoids these people seeing SOME punishment for their actions. It only creates a vicious circle where I'm picking up the same bag of shit for the same robbery or the same ABDW or the same B&E over and over and over. The mandatory minimum takes the judges ability to sabotage my hard work away from them. It ALSO prevents them from seeing any backlash from their sentencing because in the end, it's now out of their hands. They don't have to feel bad about it OR justify why they they did it.
Click to expand...

And how, exactly, does a mandatory minimum sentence for shooting at a cop get those arrested for "robbery, ABDW or B&E" off of the streets?

It sounds like you should be campaigning for judges in MA to be elected every 2 years (as opposed to a lifetime appointment) instead of campaigning for a mandatory sentence for shooting at a cop. ONLY when the judges are held accountable for their stupidity will you start seeing judges who actually are effective... because the ineffective ones will be on unemployment. Or so I like to think.
 
Last edited:
Again I think if you're dumb enough to fire a gun at anybody unprovoked you should be locked up for life.
 
Thin blue line just gets thicker and thicker. Last night I heard an officer refer to his fellow officers as "troops"...Another elevation to become not protectors of the people, but security for the ruling class. What gives me some hope are those who serve that see themselves as citizens - not "troops"...They are out there - I know some....

So, if a bad guy shoots at me on the street, then is lucky enough to escape with his life, turns the corner and shoots at a cop - he gets an automatic 10 for the cop, but not for me? Great...
 
Someone that has decided to commit murder does not care what the consequences of their actions will be. Just another law that says someone is better than others.
 
Half Cocked said:
I think he was arguing the point of minimum mandatory sentences in general..not specific to this bill.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he was floundering around trying to come up with a justification for his support for this bill. [thinking]

I still say that until we get rid of this "Judge-for-life" system we will continue to get crappy judges... since they know that they're not answerable to ANYONE.
 
Ross, very true but a few things to consider:

- Currently in MA (unsure of elsewhere), sitting judges can NOT be held accountable for their actions/inactions, can not be sued, etc. In short, they are made of Teflon.

- My only other experience was in CT where we "elected" judges. TWO CHOICES on the ballot . . . pick ALL Reps or ALL Dems!! NO names, no "types" (probate vs. district vs. ?) on the ballot. This blew me away when I went to vote down there. Didn't leave one the ability to vote for competence, just party line. NOT a good solution.

- Realistically there are so many judges on the various benches that the ballots would be "miles long" (not really, but you get the idea) if we could select each one at the ballot box.

I don't have a good solution, other than pointing out that the system is very broken and unlikely to be fixed anytime soon (next 10-20 years).
 
Provide for the impeachment of judges. Yeah, it probably won't happen very often, but if enough pressure can be applied, they might change their behavior.
 
LenS said:
<snip>
- Currently in MA (unsure of elsewhere), sitting judges can NOT be held accountable for their actions/inactions, can not be sued, etc. In short, they are made of Teflon.
<snip>
Click to expand...

That is 100% true and is one of the biggest problems with the judicial system in MA from what I have observed. Has anyone been following the efforts of the Holyoke COP? He's been fighting with the MA judges for almost 10 years now.
 
FiXXXer024 said:
But the Judges won't though. The DA can't keep track of everything that goes on either. It's incumbant upon me to prepare the ADA and build my own cases sometimes. I could get an ADA to argue the most valid points, with the highest regard for public safety... the problem is, the judge sitting on the bench in Roxbury Court... yeah, they live in North Reading... or Leominster... or Waban. They don't live in Roxbury or Mattapan or Dorchester. They don't realize the effects of their leniency. They see themselves as "reasonable" in their judgements, but in reality they're crippling the neighborhoods by leaving violent felons on the street and not imposing ANY penalties for juvenile offenders (who repeat offenses over and over and over). Forget LIGHT penalties... NO penalties... Dismissed, continued, CWOF... Anything and everything that avoids these people seeing SOME punishment for their actions. It only creates a vicious circle where I'm picking up the same bag of shit for the same robbery or the same ABDW or the same B&E over and over and over. The mandatory minimum takes the judges ability to sabotage my hard work away from them. It ALSO prevents them from seeing any backlash from their sentencing because in the end, it's now out of their hands. They don't have to feel bad about it OR justify why they they did it.

Anyway, just imagine your job. You do all your work. You dot the I's, cross the T's. Leave your desk immaculate. You look sharp. You work HARD to do your job well with the idea of making the place you work BETTER. Then at the end of each day of hard work, the nipplehead from the cubicle next to you walks to your desk, sneezes in your face, farts in your workspace then messes up your papers and walks away like nothing happened... Now you can begin to imagine how frustrating it is to build a case only to have it be dismissed by a loony tune judge.
Click to expand...

I can think of about 10 ways to address some of the problems mentioned here without even having to think about it hard.

Calling attention to "lenient" judges and then screaming for minimum mandatory sentences is almost always a not-too-subtle tactic of the authoritarian.

Minimum mandatories always, and I do mean always result in abuses and injustices against innocents. The federal prisons in particular are full of non-violent people who've done very little if anything really wrong, who are serving 10 and 15-year sentences for fairly trivial stuff.

Passing minimum mandatory sentences is exactly the same as gun control. It doen't really produce much in the way of crime reduction, but it makes people "feel" better....at the cost of liberty and justice.

As for ADAs screwing up cases, tell me again how that has anything to do with lenient judges, I must have missed it. Also, I realize that you NEVER EVER make a mistake and get the wrong guy or violate the constitution when you apprehend someone, but believe it or not, it's been known to happen on occasion. Now if you'd prefer to do it the way the UK does, we could talk about it. Fail to read someone their rights or conduct an illegal search and you get fired, no if ands or buts. -Something tells me you wouldn't be happy with this "solution."

I'm all for a complete overhaul of the justice system. Trial judges in particular should be elected officials and subject to recall IMO. You can do that with a ballot initiative...get cracking.

Then again I'm all for making DAs ineligible for elected public office for 10 years after they leave the job so we have fewer prosecutions based on polls and more based on actual crime and deterrence.

Everyone here I'm sure wants to see bad guys locked up for a LONG time. But tinkering around the edges with mandatory minimums doesn't solve the problem and at the same time introduces even more injustice into the system that already needs reform.
 
Bill Nance said:
The federal prisons in particular are full of non-violent people who've done very little if anything really wrong, who are serving 10 and 15-year sentences for fairly trivial stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm on your side on this argument, mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines are bad and are used/abused to apply plea-bargain pressure to force settlement prior to fair trial... No matter how messy, the state/people have the "burden of proof". It's there to protect "us" as well as "them"...

HOWEVER (bold, italic and underlined!), I must call BS on the oft quoted "non-violent people" over-stuffing the prisons.

While it is absolutely correct that there are people in there who have never been convicted of a violent crime, because of the aforementioned abuses in the court system, whatever they were convicted of was a plea down from whatever they did.

The ADAs and AAG's will jump at a chance to smack someone with an easy to prove big mandatory drug minimum rather than prove all the garbage that goes with assault, larceny, etc... So they DO!

I've seen with my own eyes that a lot of the people who end up in "prison" circled through the system on many (sometimes dozens) arrests, plea's, short jail terms, etc... many times before they finally hit the jackpot and/or got a little older and committed a "biggie"... You aren't likely going "into the hole" for your first grand-theft auto, simple assault, or even larceny... The 16yr old kid that broke into my car (TWICE) in college had been arrested previously quite a few times but even having gotten caught (by being dumb enough to break into the same car twice), he never served any time for that...

Now, we CANNOT have a justice system based on the idea that "most of the time" the guys we lock up for long stretches were really bad guys anyway regardless of why we locked them up (i.e. non-violent drug offenses).

However, that's a long way away from the idea that we are filling the prisons with boy scouts who "took a bong hit with Phelps" and got caught...

The way our prisons get overstuffed with the "wrong people" goes back to the "nation within a nation" that the drug trade creates.

The culture and (viable) economy of crime. Growing up stealing cars for fun and dealing drugs as an after-school job and learning how to apply force to get what you want and that "the system" has nothing to offer you in the way of future employment and wealth... That's how our prisons have gotten so crowded, we are fighting an insurgency we created...
 
Last edited:
LenS said:
- My only other experience was in CT where we "elected" judges. TWO CHOICES on the ballot . . . pick ALL Reps or ALL Dems!! NO names, no "types" (probate vs. district vs. ?) on the ballot. This blew me away when I went to vote down there. Didn't leave one the ability to vote for competence, just party line. NOT a good solution.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are referring to there. Only probate judges are elected in Connecticut, and they are elected as individuals not parties.

Other judges are nominated by the Governor from names selected by a judicial selection committee, and then appointed by the legistature.

Hovever, appointments are not permanent, they are for eight years, and there is a process for impeachment of judges, although I can't recall one being impeached.

I've been voting here for 25 years and it's been this way at least that long, I think it has been like this essentially "forever".
 
dsm said:
I'm not sure what you are referring to there. Only probate judges are elected in Connecticut, and they are elected as individuals not parties.

Other judges are nominated by the Governor from names selected by a judicial selection committee, and then appointed by the legistature.

Hovever, appointments are not permanent, they are for eight years, and there is a process for impeachment of judges, although I can't recall one being impeached.

I've been voting here for 25 years and it's been this way at least that long, I think it has been like this essentially "forever".
Click to expand...

I lived in the City of Groton (w/in the Town of Groton, but that's another story for another day [thinking] ) back in 1971 to 1974. It was as I described it then. No idea what it's like now, but there were no names, just "Dem Judges" or "Rep Judges" on the ballot . . . select one or the other or none (which is what I did after the WTF moment).
 
Bill Nance said:
I can think of about 10 ways to address some of the problems mentioned here without even having to think about it hard.

Calling attention to "lenient" judges and then screaming for minimum mandatory sentences is almost always a not-too-subtle tactic of the authoritarian.

Minimum mandatories always, and I do mean always result in abuses and injustices against innocents. The federal prisons in particular are full of non-violent people who've done very little if anything really wrong, who are serving 10 and 15-year sentences for fairly trivial stuff.

Passing minimum mandatory sentences is exactly the same as gun control. It doen't really produce much in the way of crime reduction, but it makes people "feel" better....at the cost of liberty and justice.

As for ADAs screwing up cases, tell me again how that has anything to do with lenient judges, I must have missed it. Also, I realize that you NEVER EVER make a mistake and get the wrong guy or violate the constitution when you apprehend someone, but believe it or not, it's been known to happen on occasion. Now if you'd prefer to do it the way the UK does, we could talk about it. Fail to read someone their rights or conduct an illegal search and you get fired, no if ands or buts. -Something tells me you wouldn't be happy with this "solution."

I'm all for a complete overhaul of the justice system. Trial judges in particular should be elected officials and subject to recall IMO. You can do that with a ballot initiative...get cracking.

Then again I'm all for making DAs ineligible for elected public office for 10 years after they leave the job so we have fewer prosecutions based on polls and more based on actual crime and deterrence.

Everyone here I'm sure wants to see bad guys locked up for a LONG time. But tinkering around the edges with mandatory minimums doesn't solve the problem and at the same time introduces even more injustice into the system that already needs reform.
Click to expand...
Well my man, you seem to have all the answers, right?... or at least I'll let you think you do while I sit here shaking my head at how uninformed you really are after reading that post. Stick to your day job bud. You're not a lawyer, a judge, a cop, a court clerk, a prison guard or a politician right?
Where's your experience to support ANY of what you just wrote? For instance, you don't know me, so you don't know dick about what I have or haven't done or what other hard working people who want to make the streets safer have done with the mandatory minimums on firearms charges for instance, right? So why make a rediculous statement like "Minimum mandatories always, and I do mean always result in abuses and injustices against innocents."... That just speaks to your level of knowledge on the issue, which is not very good.
The third paragraph you wrote is complete and utter garbage that's not even worth dignifying with a response. It seems to be your personal feelings on this matter and in no way does it offer any constructive input on the topic at hand...
The fourth paragraph, again, total garbage. You don't KNOW anything. You THINK you do, but you don't. When the gang members myself and other officers take off the streets with guns EVERY DAY are in prison for the mandatory 18 months, I guarentee you crimes committed BY THEM are decreased DRAMATICALLY for that time, because how can you commit any crimes when you're in jail, hmmm?
Also, could you point to where I said "ADA's screw up cases"? I don't recall ever saying that. You're interjecting your own version of what I wrote to bolster your "opinion statement". Not something people usually do when they want to have rational and thoughtful discussion, just for future reference.
Beyond that, I do agree that there should be more reform of the justice system, but here's some food for thought. It's only going to get done through trial and error (no pun intended). There'll be no sweeping reform one day that's going to make it all work right overnight. It's just going to be one good idea, one bad idea, another bad idea, another good idea, ad nauseum... Mandatory minimums are a good idea. That's my informed and experienced opinion and that's what this thread is about so that's what I'll end this post on. Agree or don't, as always that's your choice.
I respect your opinion on this topic, so please don't disrespect mine by attacking my posts with garbage statements.
 
Last edited:
A lot of wind is blowing in this thread. Most of it can be summed up in something that was written a long time ago:

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"- George Orwell, Animal Farm
 

Similar threads

New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
365
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
State Sen. Pushes Campus Carry for AZ College Students with Concealed Carry Permits
Replies
0
Views
59
Reptile
Reptile
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
480
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
American tourist facing possible 12-year prison sentence after ammo found in luggage in Turks and Caicos
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
4K
Varmint
Varmint
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
154
Animal357
A
Back
Top Bottom