It might also help to shut down the pot farmers who keep 15 year old girls in metal boxes.

How is it the lawyer didnt review the vids until AFTER the conviction?

The penalty for attempting to frame someone for a crime should be the same as the penalty for the crime itself - in this case, 2 to 7 years.

I would suit me just fine if attempting to frame someone for a crime was double the crime itself.

Still, he got seven years. Probably out on parole in less than three. Still time enough to think about what he did.

Gog, just read the link you posted. You understated the cruel and inhumane treatment that poor girl received.

Those animals need to be put down like terminally ill dogs.

Still, he got seven years. Probably out on parole in less than three. Still time enough to think about what he did. -- Patrick at July 29, 2013 9:39 AM

You're talking about the "framer"?

If it is a cop in the general population, especially for corruption, his life expectancy is going to be in the less than one year area.

I thought the story was about them using a civilian for the framer.

I have a better idea. Since the crack was his (meaning "the framer's"), why not charge him with possession in addition to framing someone? He had the stuff, and you have prima facie proof that it was on him.

I have a better idea. Since the crack was his (meaning "the framer's"), why not charge him with possession in addition to framing someone? He had the stuff, and you have prima facie proof that it was on him. -- Patrick at July 29, 2013 4:35 PM

I was taking the "framers" as the cops, not the guy with the baggie. But a six month stint would be enough to drop the snitch. You don't want to be known to ever work with the cops.

I posted this on my Facebook wall. A lawyer friend of mine tells me he can be charged with possession, obstruction of justice and evidence tampering.

Eric Holder can be charged with being an accessory to murder. The question is, what, if anything, will he be charged with? I won't even bother asking about the cops, I suspect they'll get a "better luck next time" from the chief.

Jim;

Can't seem to post in the Loisiana link, seems to be a glitch about the challenge question.

So I'm posting it here.

"You've argued that a gun should not be drawn on someone who is only using their fists or a knife."

You've skewed it, actually.

Equal force is just that. Equal. If you had a knife, and buddy had a knife, by all means use it. I never asserted anything over personal safety. PROPERTY is my argument.

Huge difference between a 250 lb man trying to rape you, and a kid looking for a new stereo.

"By your standards there should be zero shootings in Canada because everyone is law abiding."

Not once did I ever assert that everyone in Canada is a law abiding citizen. Were that true, we wouldn't need cops or prisons. We also wouldn't have legislation governing the use of knives. I said that very few people in Canada have them, compared with the US, and yet the vast majority of the time, we are safe, without them.

"Again -- firing a warning shot means that you weren't in immediate danger and shouldn't be firing in the first place."

I said that, and used it in my argument.

"Your version of gun control is useless. That means that a law abiding citizen will have to jump through many hoops, pay many dollars, to finally get a firearm that will never be used by the owner for criminal intent."

Gun control is not aimed at making it hard for law abiding citizens to obtain guns, though it does.If you're a law abiding citizen, you shouldn't have a problem with the checks, wait times, or cost.(Guns can get pretty damn expensive too.)

It is about making sure that guns do not fall into the hands of unsupervised children and criminals. It's also about making sure we are able to track the weapons that do get stolen, making convictions easier.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm

It is also about making sure fully automatic weapons are not available.

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm

It is also about making sure silencers aren't used.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6802569_canada_s-silencer-laws.html

If the real worry about gun control in the US were self defense, instead of the government taking away a right that was no longer needed, (which is not what gun control aims to do...) Americans would be satisfied with handguns. Silencers and automatic weapons wouldn't even be an issue.

"BTW, if gun registration works so well, why are so many Canadian politicians working to get rid of it."

As you see, it states:

"arguing it exceeded the federal government's mandate and arguing that it was too expensive;"

Cost, cost, cost.

Our current administration (and the Liberal party) is a bunch of fucktards who wouldn't save a dollar to save their own lives. They've screwed it up so badly, of course it went over the projected cost.

They also screwed up a number of other initiatives, Ambulance Orange for example, going multiple billions over the projected cost, but nobody on the hill said a word about that. Well, they did, but were very quickly hushed.

The idea is sound, the implementation is fucked up. Of course, the current bunch of idiots could fuck up lunch.

If you check into it, you'll find the debate about the gun registry is similar to the Obamacare debate in your own country. A smokescreen, to distract from the very important issues.

The gun registry is far from ideal, and won't stop all gun crimes. It does however, reduce the impact, and make convictions easier. Far more, I personally think, then a 14 day wait time, with automatic weapons perfectly legal for purchase.

"You also aren't a 14 year old trying to get into the local gang either."

Yet another argument for gun control, as I said.

"You aren't using anything from pot...."

Oh REALLY! When was the last time you saw a pot head do anything more than go for the fridge? You're more likely to commit a crime while drunk.

Actually, drug addicts aren't all that likely to commit violent crimes when compared to other convicts.

http://www.ccsa.ca/2003%20and%20earlier%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-009105-2002.pdf

As the study states, drug use is the cause of crimes, not the motivator, at least for most.

NOTE FROM AMY: PLEASE -- JUST ONE LINK PER COMMENT. THIS WENT TO MY SPAM FOLDER BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE LINKS IN IT.

Amy at this point if I were you I'd just stop rescuing the multi link posts. You've warned people for years nows

How many more innocent victims of the War on Drugs before we put a stop to the madness? That's all I want to know.