Maurice Hill, Philidelphia Shooter- Why Was He On The Street?

[Stanyon]

Before the shooting of police serving a narcotics warrant:

Multiple felonies, at least 12 arrests since he was 18, 6 times convicted spent time in prison
-Illegal gun possession by a felon
-drug dealing
-aggravated assault
-kidnapping
The list goes on, so why was this person on the street in the first place and why do we have politicians saying things like
"We must stand up to the NRA" after this?

 

[Enoch07]

Before the shooting of police serving a narcotics warrant:

Multiple felonies, at least 12 arrests since he was 18, 6 times convicted spent time in prison
-Illegal gun possession by a felon
-drug dealing
-aggravated assault
-kidnapping
The list goes on, so why was this person on the street in the first place and why do we have politicians saying things like
"We must stand up to the NRA" after this?

Because liberals have no idea what gun laws already exist, the difference between an ar-15 and a m-16 (hint the m-16 is an assault rifle the ar-15 is not liberals ). Overall they are totally clueless and lost in a fog of their own fairy tales and totally disconnected from reality.

 

[HonestJoe]

The list goes on, so why was this person on the street in the first place

Because he’d served the custodial part of the sentence for his last conviction?

If you’re just going to lock up every potentially dangerous person indefinitely, you might as well make the entire country one big prison. Prison isn’t a solution, it’s a means to an end; securing those who are imminently dangerous, as part of the punishment for those who can be deterred by such things and as a basis for rehabilitation and support.

I think the main problem, especially in America, is that “rehabilitation” is a dirty word and the whole concept of treating criminals (and prospective criminals) as people who need care and support an anathema to the general hatred and division ingrained in your society. This guy shouldn’t have had multiple arrests, charges and convictions because the root problems should have been properly address at, if not before, the first one. There are nothing like enough people interested in doing that work though and far too many who would actively first to prevent it even being tried.

Something messed this guy up many years ago. Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, even as there will be countless other people being messed up in exactly the same kind of way that nobody cares about either.

 

[Valjean]

Because liberals have no idea what gun laws already exist, the difference between an ar-15 and a m-16 (hint the m-16 is an assault rifle the ar-15 is not liberals ). Overall they are totally clueless and lost in a fog of their own fairy tales and totally disconnected from reality.

I, too, find it annoying when people with no knowledge of guns feel free to weigh in on the issue, but it's also annoying when conservatives with little knowledge of economics or history do the same.

 

[Stanyon]

Because he’d served the custodial part of the sentence for his last conviction?

If you’re just going to lock up every potentially dangerous person indefinitely, you might as well make the entire country one big prison. Prison isn’t a solution, it’s a means to an end; securing those who are imminently dangerous, as part of the punishment for those who can be deterred by such things and as a basis for rehabilitation and support.

I think the main problem, especially in America, is that “rehabilitation” is a dirty word and the whole concept of treating criminals (and prospective criminals) as people who need care and support an anathema to the general hatred and division ingrained in your society. This guy shouldn’t have had multiple arrests, charges and convictions because the root problems should have been properly address at, if not before, the first one. There are nothing like enough people interested in doing that work though and far too many who would actively first to prevent it even being tried.

Something messed this guy up many years ago. Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, even as there will be countless other people being messed up in exactly the same kind of way that nobody cares about either.

In your mind, how many felonies should a person be able to commit before they lose their freedom for good?

 

[HonestJoe]

In your mind, how many felonies should a person be able to commit before they lose their freedom for good?

I don’t see “number of felonies” is the right measure at all. I also see the idea of imprisonment “for good” an entirely separate concept from imprisonment as part of the criminal justice process as I described.

The only justification I could see for securing anyone indefinitely (it should never be impossible for anyone to be released, however unlikely it might be in practice) would be if appropriate professionals deemed them serious enough threat to others or themselves, to the extent that can’t be reasonably managed otherwise. That doesn’t require them to have been convicted of any crime nor is it automatically supported by someone committing lots of crimes. It’s about the underlying psychology, not the consequential actions.

The core problem is that you (and the rest of society) dismissed this man as incurable without even trying to cure him, without even trying to understand him. That’s probably happened all of his life, right from before he ever committed any crimes and therefore almost certainly played a role in his story. It happens to countless other people every day too and many of them go on fall in to cycles of crime and self-destruction. Rather than waiting for that to happen and trying to sweep away the remains, out-of-sight, out-of-mind, how about considering how a little investment in positive support and guidance could help prevent so many of those examples in the first place? It’s not cheap (though neither is millions of lifetime prison cells) and it’s not easy (much harder than just locking all out problems away in boxes) but then that’s so often true of doing the right thing.

 

[Stanyon]

I don’t see “number of felonies” is the right measure at all. I also see the idea of imprisonment “for good” an entirely separate concept from imprisonment as part of the criminal justice process as I described.

The only justification I could see for securing anyone indefinitely (it should never be impossible for anyone to be released, however unlikely it might be in practice) would be if appropriate professionals deemed them serious enough threat to others or themselves, to the extent that can’t be reasonably managed otherwise. That doesn’t require them to have been convicted of any crime nor is it automatically supported by someone committing lots of crimes. It’s about the underlying psychology, not the consequential actions.

The core problem is that you (and the rest of society) dismissed this man as incurable without even trying to cure him, without even trying to understand him. That’s probably happened all of his life, right from before he ever committed any crimes and therefore almost certainly played a role in his story. It happens to countless other people every day too and many of them go on fall in to cycles of crime and self-destruction. Rather than waiting for that to happen and trying to sweep away the remains, out-of-sight, out-of-mind, how about considering how a little investment in positive support and guidance could help prevent so many of those examples in the first place? It’s not cheap (though neither is millions of lifetime prison cells) and it’s not easy (much harder than just locking all out problems away in boxes) but then that’s so often true of doing the right thing.

That is you opinion, myself I say people are responsible for their own actions and if they can't handle their freedom then they lose it for a while. I they continually show themselves as incapable of living in society then they should removed from it to protect the rest.
It seems you want to give this career criminal a pass as if he bears no responsibility for his actions, I guess you can visit him in prison or be a pen pal. I imagine he will get life as he should.

 

[Shad]

Before the shooting of police serving a narcotics warrant:

Multiple felonies, at least 12 arrests since he was 18, 6 times convicted spent time in prison
-Illegal gun possession by a felon
-drug dealing
-aggravated assault
-kidnapping
The list goes on, so why was this person on the street in the first place and why do we have politicians saying things like
"We must stand up to the NRA" after this?

Prosecutors are under the pressure of prison reform to downgrade charges to toe the party line instead of looking at merit and non-violent criminals to be candidates. Hence why this guy wasn't in jail a year ago. Prosecutors didn't press charges a year ago against him that were a slam dunk.

 

[Shad]

The only justification I could see for securing anyone indefinitely (it should never be impossible for anyone to be released, however unlikely it might be in practice) would be if appropriate professionals deemed them serious enough threat to others or themselves, to the extent that can’t be reasonably managed otherwise. That doesn’t require them to have been convicted of any crime nor is it automatically supported by someone committing lots of crimes. It’s about the underlying psychology, not the consequential actions.

His criminal record establishes this.

 

[Enoch07]

I, too, find it annoying when people with no knowledge of guns feel free to weigh in on the issue, but it's also annoying when conservatives with little knowledge of economics or history do the same.

Unfortunately libs have no little to no knowledge about history or economics as well. Otherwise they wouldn't be tempted to flirt with socialism or communism.

 

[Valjean]

Unfortunately libs have no little to no knowledge about history or economics as well. Otherwise they wouldn't be tempted to flirt with socialism or communism.

Au contraire.
When you conservatives hear "socialism" you immediately think repression and Bolshevism.
When we liberals hear it we think New Deal and Great Society. We equate it with Social Security, universal suffrage, 40 hour week, minimum wage, public education, civil rights, public fire and police protection, food and drug regulation, environmental regulation, &c -- all 'socialist' programs conservatives opposed tooth and nail.
Did you think the freedom and prosperity we enjoy today were products of conservatism?

 

[Enoch07]

Did you think the freedom and prosperity we enjoy today were products of conservatism

Yes and No.

It wasn't Liberalism or Conservatism that got us here alone. It was a balance of both.

Now there have been many shifts over the years on who is Liberal and Conservative and what that means.

The Protestants that first came to the U.S. were liberals of the time. Along with the founding fathers. Even though now they would be considered conservative.

It was Christian's that ended slavery in the U.S.

It is Judeo-Christian values that have provided the stability and civility to live in this great times we live in now in the west. Without that stability civilization as we know it might not have occured.

Democrats was the ones that supported slavery. Lincoln was a Republican for instance.

On the other hand Dems have helped reign in civil rights issues and social programs etc as you mentioned.

So you see in reality it's been a collaboration. The thing that sucks is nobody wants to compromise anymore. It's a "my way or the hwy" political culture the past 20 years or so.

Though none of this applies to me per say.

I'm a Libertarian I have gripes about both Dems/Repubs and Libs/Conservatives.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because liberals have no idea what gun laws already exist, the difference between an ar-15 and a m-16 (hint the m-16 is an assault rifle the ar-15 is not liberals ). Overall they are totally clueless and lost in a fog of their own fairy tales and totally disconnected from reality.

Exactly and assault rifle is basically one you could put into automatic. A machine gun.

I fired the M16 already many times, I also fired AR-15s (the real thing). There's a big difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic.

Assault rifle is a term in the Socialist Democrats like to throw around because it scares people who are too ignorant or dumb to know the difference.

 

[Valjean]

Yes and No.

It wasn't Liberalism or Conservatism that got us here alone. It was a balance of both.

Now there have been many shifts over the years on who is Liberal and Conservative and what that means.

The Protestants that first came to the U.S. were liberals of the time. Along with the founding fathers. Even though now they would be considered conservative.

The early Protestants as in the Puritan theocrats?! They were about as conservative as you could get -- by the stndards of any age. The founding fathers, on the other hand, were influenced by enlightenment ideals, but they only applied them to themselves, the rich landowners. The government they actually set up was of, by and for the rich elite.

It was Christian's that ended slavery in the U.S.

Just as it was Christians who instituted it, maintained it and used Christianity to justify it. And it was good, god-fearing Christians who fought against the godless "damned Yankees" to preserve it.
God's always been used to justify whatever position's convenient at the time.

It is Judeo-Christian values that have provided the stability and civility to live in this great times we live in now in the west. Without that stability civilization as we know it might not have occured.

If western civilization can be described as stable, I'd hate to see what an unstable civilization might look like.

Democrats was the ones that supported slavery. Lincoln was a Republican for instance.

Seriously? This old trope?
You began by claiming that there have been shifts in liberalism and conservatism over the years. This isn't entirely true. There have, however, been changes in how the parties labeled themselves.
Abolition was always a liberal issue, but Republicans haven't always been on the conservative side of issues, just as Democrats haven't always leaned liberal.

On the other hand Dems have helped reign in civil rights issues and social programs etc as you mentioned.

Hah! Thought you could fool me, didn't you? That was liberals, not Dems. Nixon and Goldwater's Southern Strategy switched all the conservative southern Republicans into conservative, anti civil rights Democrats.


-

 

[Enoch07]

The early Protestants as in the Puritan theocrats?! They were about as conservative as you could get -- by the stndards of any age.

Liberals of the day! The conservatives were the Catholics. They despised those freedom loving Prots!

Just as it was Christians who instituted it, maintained it and used Christianity to justify it.

Incorrect, the African slave trade existed 1,000 years or more before Europeans ever used it for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

If western civilization can be described as stable, I'd hate to see what an unstable civilization might look like.

Go live in Somalia and you will see the difference quickly.

Seriously? This old trope?

This true though.

Hah! Thought you could fool me, didn't you?

Civil rights isn't just about black folks and women's rights. But also LGBTQ+ etc.

 

[Shad]

Exactly and assault rifle is basically one you could put into automatic. A machine gun.

I fired the M16 already many times, I also fired AR-15s (the real thing). There's a big difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic.

Assault rifle is a term in the Socialist Democrats like to throw around because it scares people who are too ignorant or dumb to know the difference.

Bingo.

 

[Shad]

Au contraire.
When you conservatives hear "socialism" you immediately think repression and Bolshevism.
When we liberals hear it we think New Deal and Great Society. We equate it with Social Security, universal suffrage, 40 hour week, minimum wage, public education, civil rights, public fire and police protection, food and drug regulation, environmental regulation, &c -- all 'socialist' programs conservatives opposed tooth and nail.
Did you think the freedom and prosperity we enjoy today were products of conservatism?

Which means you have changed definitions to fit your bias, nothing more.

 

[Valjean]

Liberals of the day! The conservatives were the Catholics. They despised those freedom loving Prots!

You've got it backwards. The Calvinists, Puritans, &al were the conservatives. They objected to the Catholic's worldly, hedonistic lifestyle and advocated an ascetic life of simplicity and piety. Freedom was not in their vocabulary. One group even fled Europe to establish a repressive, fundamentalist theocracy in Massachusetts.

Incorrect, the African slave trade existed 1,000 years or more before Europeans ever used it for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Point taken, slavery's alway's existed, but it wasn't till the 19th century that a group of radical liberals began agitating against the practice from a moral standpoint. Previous to that it had been accepted -- perhaps as a necessary evil to be rectified at some future time -- but accepted.
When the liberal radicals in the North began stirring up serious controversy, it was religion that the conservatives appealed to to bolster their cause.

Go live in Somalia and you will see the difference quickly.

The Somalia you refer to is a libertarian paradise, quite the opposite of socialist or fascist.
Stability? Is this your idea of a stable Christendom?

Civil rights isn't just about black folks and women's rights. But also LGBTQ+ etc.

True enough -- and all vigorously opposed by conservatives.

 

[Valjean]

Which means you have changed definitions to fit your bias, nothing more.

How so? Weren't all these denounced by conservatives as radical socialism?

 

[Enoch07]

You've got it backwards.

Nope it's you. Britain and the Catholic church were the oppressors.

The protestants were the freedom fight g rebels.

Point taken, slavery's alway's existed, but it wasn't till the 19th century that a group of radical liberals began agitating against the practice from a moral standpoint.

Yes a radical group of liberal under the name of Christian Abolitionism - Wikipedia!

When the liberal radicals in the North began stirring up serious controversy, it was religion that the conservatives appealed to to bolster their cause.

Incorrect, only a very small number of folks in the south owned slaves 3-5%. So for you today say they represent all of Christianity is false. Let alone the majority of Christian's opposed slavery.

The Somalia you refer to is a libertarian paradise, quite the opposite of socialist or fascist.

Not all Libertarians are anarchist. (We don't really talk to them if we don't have too, bunch of whack-O's).

An anarchist p00phole indeed though.

True enough -- and all vigorously opposed by conservatives.

Incorrect, though I will concede some do.