This is why you don't let violent criminals out of prison

[Lewkowski]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/09...-officers.html

"Court records showed Felix was a gang member who was previously sentenced to four years in prison in a failed murder plot. Felix was charged with attempted murder in a 2009 shooting. Records show Felix pleaded down to assault with a firearm and admitted his gang connection. The Desert Sun newspaper cited documents showing Felix was also the subject of a forceful arrest three years ago at the same house where Saturday's shootings occurred."

And...

"Sgt. Steve Owen was answering a burglary call when sheriff's officials say he was shot and wounded by a man who then stood over him and shot him four more times.

A paroled robber has been charged with murder in that case."

Yeah. Once we've identified someone with literally no worth (attempted murderers, robbers, violent criminals) why do we let them out of prison? They will likely do harm to others again. They have literally proven that they are scum and worthy of ZERO empathy. John Felix is a worthless human being and the world will be a much better place when he ceases to be part of it.

But I bet liberals are like 'waaaah don't be too harsh he had a bad childhood.' 'waaaah he's a human too.' 'waaaaaah we need to give people a second chance.'

I wish people who had compassion for criminal shits could redirect that toward people who actually deserve it.

[Loki]

If only you applied the same logic to violent cops.

[Lewkowski]

If only you applied the same logic to violent cops.

If a police officer used violence for absolutely no reason then I would support the same punishment. However you need to be aware that part of their job is dealing with violent people, they have to be proactive sometimes. If the suspect makes a sudden move for a gun you can't wait until its drawn to fire.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/chicago-...eaten/1543015/

"CHICAGO -- A Chicago police officer who is hospitalized after she was severely beaten said she was afraid to use her gun because of the scrutiny she would have faced, Supt. Eddie Johnson said.
"

I think everyone would agree that the violent thug's life is far less valuable than this police officers. But she could have died because she hesitated, when dealing with the criminal element it is always crucial to remember that police cannot be solely reactive.

There are clear cases where cops have gone out of line and they should be punished to the full extent of the law. However in instances of gray where the police officer is generally doing what is appropriate but things got out of hand I think we should proceed with caution. We don't want a police force that gets killed because they are afraid to engage with the criminal element.

[Aimless]

she was afraid to use her gun because of the scrutiny she would have faced

Really, is there any real evidence of this?? People say all sorts of things

[Lewkowski]

Really, is there any real evidence of this?? People say all sorts of things

They tend to be more believable when they aren't litigating someone in divorce court.

[Aimless]

They tend to be more believable when they aren't litigating someone in divorce court.

She and the person reporting her alleged statement both have every motivation to try to spin this regardless of what the reality is. I'm not buying it. Even if it were true they should be going after the so-called "bad apples" who brought about this situation. Unless you're saying cops shouldn't wear body-cams or be scruitinized? Is that what you're saying?

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah. Once we've identified someone with literally no worth (attempted murderers, robbers, violent criminals) why do we let them out of prison?

Because you're cheap and aren't willing to pay enough taxes.

[Lewkowski]

Because you're cheap and aren't willing to pay enough taxes.

Negative. This is one of the very few items that I think government should be funding. Military, police, prisons and the like. The very nature of government is an agreement to give up completely unrestrained liberty in exchange for safety. Protecting the citizens from internal (crime) and external (invasion, hostile countries, terrorists) is absolutely something I would not mind paying taxes for.

[LittleFuzzy]

Negative. This is one of the very few items that I think government should be funding.

Doesn't matter, because you aren't the only person with funding interests. If you want your pet interest funded sufficiently, you're going to have to allow for others' to get funded as well. Like filthy education. And you won't. You're not willing to pay enough taxes to get the job done. So stop whining about it.

[ar81]

The problem I see is not with violent criminals, but violent people.
A guy with a violent childhood must have been in a highly tolerant environment towards violence, so parents could go unpunished.
If people could understand that no IQ is needed to pull a trigger, and that violence is just for the idiots, being violent would lose the cool factor.
instead of pointing fingers towards others, people must wonder how tolerant they are towards violence.

[RandBlade]

Doesn't matter, because you aren't the only person with funding interests. If you want your pet interest funded sufficiently, you're going to have to allow for others' to get funded as well. Like filthy education. And you won't. You're not willing to pay enough taxes to get the job done. So stop whining about it.

Well said

[Lewkowski]

The problem I see is not with violent criminals, but violent people.
A guy with a violent childhood must have been in a highly tolerant environment towards violence, so parents could go unpunished.
If people could understand that no IQ is needed to pull a trigger, and that violence is just for the idiots, being violent would lose the cool factor.
instead of pointing fingers towards others, people must wonder how tolerant they are towards violence.

Actually history has shown violence is unfortunately not just for idiots. It often pays off.