Michigan governor signs 48-month welfare limit

[^_^ 5,021]

I'd be willing to wager you live in a relatively low crime area.

Very low crime, majority minority area.

Edited September 7, 2011 by \

[slim 1,533]

Very low crime, majority minority area.

Demographics has very little to do with it. Accountability is what it's all about.

Remember when someone else's mom would whip your butt for messing up instead of just saying, "Mmm hmmm. Her kids got no damm sense. She got no sense either."

[^_^ 5,021]

Demographics has very little to do with it. Accountability is what it's all about.

Remember when someone else's mom would whip your butt for messing up instead of just saying, "Mmm hmmm. Her kids got no damm sense. She got no sense either."

No one here beats up anyone elses kids. All the kids who play outside my house are very well behaved, just very noisy when excited.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Exactly why Slimonomics would fix the problem.

You'd get your full pay rate for a week. 75% the next. 50% the week after. 25% your last week on unemployment. After that, you better have a job. If you don't, that's not our problem.

I think that's a bit extreme, but at least we can agree that the current system needs to be blown up and redrawn

My opinion on the matter is violent criminals (rape, robbery, murder, etc.) should be shot in the act or hung from the nearest tree after a jury trial by their peers. Everyone else should be dealt with by the community and locking someone up is about the worst form of punishment since it not only denies the liberties of those locked up but forces the jailors to deny liberty and as such, society as a whole must deny liberty.

And we wonder why it's been so easy to make liberty scarce!

You're really starting to sound like one of those 'Sovereign Citizens' now slim.

I've already done so.

You keep acting like there's more money I need to pay back. I've done everything they've told me to do. Paid back all the money they've required. The problem is the system held me for so long and required so much in order to "make me pay" for my crime.

I'll agree with you. It was a waste on both sides.

I don't know if you realize it or not, but you're actually making a case for decreasing the size of the justice system and I'm fully with you on that one. We require so much to prosecute a crime - even petty crimes - in the name of feeling better or safer or something like that when what we should be doing is handling the crime in our neighborhoods all by ourselves.

You're going to accuse me of vigilante justice but that's not where I'm going. What I'm saying is we don't even know our neighbors anymore yet we pay armed men to patrol our streets and deny liberty to those who are accused of disrupting our quiet anonymity. If we'd simply take back our own communities, help our neighbors and hold them responsible for their actions - while expecting the same for ourselves - then we wouldn't need to pay others to handle it for us.

That's truly where our money's going. And it's not because of the criminals... it's because of us.

I'm not disputing that. What I disagree with is the actual number. I think criminals should pay back to society the entirety of what they cost. A criminal housed in jail is not done so for free, it takes tax money paid from the rest of society to house, feed, and in some cases provide medical treatment for incarcerated individuals. I think we should be able to recoup those expenditures.

It's absolutely horrible that someone would want to be free and independent of everyone else. Horrible. How dare they.

See above. You've already made it acceptable... as long as you're doing it like everyone else.

Slim, I know I have said it before in a joking manner, but there is some truth to it. If you want to live in a country where there are no restrictions or laws, and you can have any gun, as many of them as you want, then the United States is not the nation for you. This is a civilized society, which does not seem to be in line with your goals in life. I can suggest a few if you are interested.

If you were to delve into public records you'd notice that quite a few DVs lack any physical contact.

While I understand a threat of violence is sufficient for a conviction, it's amazing the amount of evidence acceptable in most jurisdictions. "He said he was going to hit me."

How would you quantify a credible threat of violence? I would think that they should look at past behavior to determine whether or not there is a credible threat at hand. That is what they have done in California in a few of the cases I have seen. But very frequently, the person charged with DV has a long history of making threats or physical abuse. The recidivism rate for DV is very high.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

How would you quantify a credible threat of violence? I would think that they should look at past behavior to determine whether or not there is a credible threat at hand. That is what they have done in California in a few of the cases I have seen. But very frequently, the person charged with DV has a long history of making threats or physical abuse. The recidivism rate for DV is very high.

http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_police_families.html

In San Diego, a national model in domestic violence prosecution, the City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of referred domestic violence cases, but only 42% of cases where the batterer is a cop.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It looks like if your a cop in California then it's ok to beat your woman. Go figure eh...

[slim 1,533]

No one here beats up anyone elses kids. All the kids who play outside my house are very well behaved, just very noisy when excited.

So nobody goes over to the parents' house and says, "little johnny just peed on my bushes."?

I think that's a bit extreme, but at least we can agree that the current system needs to be blown up and redrawn

Every system needs to be blown up and redrawn. (Although, since the NSA reads my posts, I'm not advocating blowing up anything.)

You're really starting to sound like one of those 'Sovereign Citizens' now slim.

And that's a bad thing?

I'm not disputing that. What I disagree with is the actual number. I think criminals should pay back to society the entirety of what they cost. A criminal housed in jail is not done so for free, it takes tax money paid from the rest of society to house, feed, and in some cases provide medical treatment for incarcerated individuals. I think we should be able to recoup those expenditures.

What about a case like mine where the charges (the ones that kept me locked up) were dropped?

I was on electronic monitoring for a while and I didn't have to pay a single penny for that since all charges were dropped. Why should I have to pay for incarceration as well? If I wasn't a danger to anyone, why should I pay since society messed up and kept me in jail?

Who pays then?

Slim, I know I have said it before in a joking manner, but there is some truth to it. If you want to live in a country where there are no restrictions or laws, and you can have any gun, as many of them as you want, then the United States is not the nation for you. This is a civilized society, which does not seem to be in line with your goals in life. I can suggest a few if you are interested.

I realize you don't understand what the United States is supposed to be. If you did, you'd see that sovereign citizens aren't the crazy ones. Folks who want to pay 30% of their income in taxes are.

Why should I leave when it's still possible to return this country to what it's supposed to be?

How would you quantify a credible threat of violence? I would think that they should look at past behavior to determine whether or not there is a credible threat at hand. That is what they have done in California in a few of the cases I have seen. But very frequently, the person charged with DV has a long history of making threats or physical abuse. The recidivism rate for DV is very high.

Then you should also know the recidivism rate for accusers is high as well.

See a problem with that?

[^_^ 5,021]

So nobody goes over to the parents' house and says, "little johnny just peed on my bushes."?

That has never happened.

[slim 1,533]

That has never happened.

Good. But I'm guessing if it did, it wouldn't just be ignored. It would be taken care of by Mr. Peebody's parents after someone brought it to their attention.

In most problem areas people are unwilling to "snitch" on someone doing wrong. They're even less likely to hold that person responsible themselves.

[The_Dude 1,142]

http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_police_families.html

In San Diego, a national model in domestic violence prosecution, the City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of referred domestic violence cases, but only 42% of cases where the batterer is a cop.

It looks like if your a cop in California then it's ok to beat your woman. Go figure eh...

Are you trying to hijack the thread, or is this just more of your kindergarten level trolling?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Thread closed for multiple TOS violations and administrative action taken.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Kathryn41
to correct statement