Ray Davies mugged, shot in New Orleans
Posted by: jayd on 05 January 2004
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
Jay
What will happen to the muggers once they are caught.
In the UK where the system is run by liberal pinkos, they would probably be put on probation.
This sort of thing deserves a 20 year stretch so as people can walk the streets in safety and before anyone starts, I don't give a damn about the muggers. A woman was scared and a man was shot.
Regards
Mick
What will happen to the muggers once they are caught.
In the UK where the system is run by liberal pinkos, they would probably be put on probation.
This sort of thing deserves a 20 year stretch so as people can walk the streets in safety and before anyone starts, I don't give a damn about the muggers. A woman was scared and a man was shot.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by monkfish
Hi
I'm with you on this one Mick.
Violent crime needs to be addressed properly and the sentence you suggest is spot on. Both of these people could easily have been killed and this type of crime is far too common (obviously because the detterent is a joke).
Regards
Jim
I'm with you on this one Mick.
Violent crime needs to be addressed properly and the sentence you suggest is spot on. Both of these people could easily have been killed and this type of crime is far too common (obviously because the detterent is a joke).
Regards
Jim
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by herm
two words (though French):
déja vu
Herman
déja vu
Herman
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
Why not
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by matthewr
"In the UK where the system is run by liberal pinkos, they would probably be put on probation"
As usual Mick you are showing your ignorance.
First off, in 2001, 89% of those convicted of Robbery (i.e theft with violence or the threat of violence) recieved a custodial sentence. Under current sentencing guidelines a custodial sentence is almost guaranteed. In this case probably something like 4 to 6 years for the Robbery alone.
Secondly, in violent street muggings where the victim is seriously injured a separate charge of Causing GBH with Intent might be applicable and would attract an appropriate consecutive sentence.
Thirdly, in this case as the offender used a firearm they would also be a separate charge under the 1968 Firearms Act. So add on a few more years for that.
Finally, under Section 109 of the Criminal Powers Act 2000 if the defendant had been previsouly convicted of a serious offence such as Robbery, the use of a firerm would attract a mandatory life sentence.
So I reckon something from 8 to 10 years to life. Although I am not a lawyer.
Matthew
As usual Mick you are showing your ignorance.
First off, in 2001, 89% of those convicted of Robbery (i.e theft with violence or the threat of violence) recieved a custodial sentence. Under current sentencing guidelines a custodial sentence is almost guaranteed. In this case probably something like 4 to 6 years for the Robbery alone.
Secondly, in violent street muggings where the victim is seriously injured a separate charge of Causing GBH with Intent might be applicable and would attract an appropriate consecutive sentence.
Thirdly, in this case as the offender used a firearm they would also be a separate charge under the 1968 Firearms Act. So add on a few more years for that.
Finally, under Section 109 of the Criminal Powers Act 2000 if the defendant had been previsouly convicted of a serious offence such as Robbery, the use of a firerm would attract a mandatory life sentence.
So I reckon something from 8 to 10 years to life. Although I am not a lawyer.
Matthew
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by jayd
Near as I can tell, assault with a firearm, where the firearm is discharged, carries an average sentence of around 10 years, according to one source I checked. Many states have a mandatory minimum sentence (in the 3-5 year range). Not sure about the specifics of Louisiana, though. Tack on a bit for the robbery, and it still may not amount to much.
Anyway, it's a bit of an unpleasant coincidence... I was wondering this morning how Elton John got appointed official dirge-master for pop culture (did it start with "Empty Garden?") I'm very glad we won't be hearing Elton's tribute to Ray anytime soon.
[This message was edited by jayd on MONDAY 05 January 2004 at 22:26.]
Anyway, it's a bit of an unpleasant coincidence... I was wondering this morning how Elton John got appointed official dirge-master for pop culture (did it start with "Empty Garden?") I'm very glad we won't be hearing Elton's tribute to Ray anytime soon.
[This message was edited by jayd on MONDAY 05 January 2004 at 22:26.]
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by monkfish
Hi Matthew
I have lost count of the cases I have read about in my local press where a community service order was given for repeatedly offending criminals, some violent crimes included. Also cases where probation and supervised attendance orders were breached and fines not paid and the result was more probation or a community service order, for christ sake this is blatant disregard for the law and the punishment which had been imposed.
I know some of the people involved in a case where a nutter badly assaulted three wommen and the two policemen who arrived on the scene, result = 80 hours community service.
Lock the bastards up for years and allow ordinary peaceful people to go about their business without fear of attack.
Regards
Jim
I have lost count of the cases I have read about in my local press where a community service order was given for repeatedly offending criminals, some violent crimes included. Also cases where probation and supervised attendance orders were breached and fines not paid and the result was more probation or a community service order, for christ sake this is blatant disregard for the law and the punishment which had been imposed.
I know some of the people involved in a case where a nutter badly assaulted three wommen and the two policemen who arrived on the scene, result = 80 hours community service.
Lock the bastards up for years and allow ordinary peaceful people to go about their business without fear of attack.
Regards
Jim
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by matthewr
Jim,
I'm not sure what is happening in Dundee but in Engladn and Wales a conviction for Robbery is almost certainly going to get you a custodial sentence unless there are some unusual mitigating circumstances. Lord Justice Woolf famously upheld a custondial sentence of a mobile phone mugger and said a custodial sentence was basically mandatory for violent street crime. If anything the amount of people we send to jail for cuch crimes will come down rather than go up.
Matthew
I'm not sure what is happening in Dundee but in Engladn and Wales a conviction for Robbery is almost certainly going to get you a custodial sentence unless there are some unusual mitigating circumstances. Lord Justice Woolf famously upheld a custondial sentence of a mobile phone mugger and said a custodial sentence was basically mandatory for violent street crime. If anything the amount of people we send to jail for cuch crimes will come down rather than go up.
Matthew
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
The point is very simple.
If someone committs an act of violence against an inocent person....they should cease to exist as a citizen. Twenty years (no reductions allowed) will stop them committing any further crimes.
Even 30 or 40 years is reasonable.
The difference between you and I is that I just don't give a damn over the welfare of thugs.
Regards
Mick
If someone committs an act of violence against an inocent person....they should cease to exist as a citizen. Twenty years (no reductions allowed) will stop them committing any further crimes.
Even 30 or 40 years is reasonable.
The difference between you and I is that I just don't give a damn over the welfare of thugs.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by matthewr
Mick,
I didn't mention the welfare of thugs. I just pointed out that your original claim about such an offence attracting a probation order was wrong and that such offences do in fact attract heavy custodial sentences up to and including life imprisonment.
Matthew
I didn't mention the welfare of thugs. I just pointed out that your original claim about such an offence attracting a probation order was wrong and that such offences do in fact attract heavy custodial sentences up to and including life imprisonment.
Matthew
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
Yes the reference to probation was flippant but I cannot agree that 7 or 8 years is a heavy sentence.
With remission, that will equate to serving only 50% of the sentence and the answer is to keep them off the streets period. That is why I think 20 served years is the absolute minimum. There is also an argument for keeping them in until they are 65 years of age, irrespective of their age when they committed the offence.
Discussions on reforming them are pointless. If they used violent, especially with a gun, then it should be in the slammer for a long long time.
Regards
Mick
It will be interesting to find out, if the man who shot Ray Davies ever had a previous conviction.
With remission, that will equate to serving only 50% of the sentence and the answer is to keep them off the streets period. That is why I think 20 served years is the absolute minimum. There is also an argument for keeping them in until they are 65 years of age, irrespective of their age when they committed the offence.
Discussions on reforming them are pointless. If they used violent, especially with a gun, then it should be in the slammer for a long long time.
Regards
Mick
It will be interesting to find out, if the man who shot Ray Davies ever had a previous conviction.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by jayd
Update (from ABC news):
The suspect's previous criminal record (if any) wasn't discussed.
quote:
...Police said Davies got the license number of the car, which officers were able to trace. They arrested Jerome Barra, 25, as he drove up to a house hours after the shooting.
Barra was booked on charges of armed robbery and aggravated battery. Another suspect was being sought.
The suspect's previous criminal record (if any) wasn't discussed.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by ErikL
This occured in New Orleans.
Quit suggesting that my tax money be spent on long prison sentences. The shooter should serve time in Iraq, guarding some facilities. We already know he can use a gun with some degree of accuracy.
Thank you.
Quit suggesting that my tax money be spent on long prison sentences. The shooter should serve time in Iraq, guarding some facilities. We already know he can use a gun with some degree of accuracy.
Thank you.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
I think it is highly likely that this is not his first offence, assuming of course, that it was he who actually committed the crime.
Regards
Mick
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
I share your sentiments over paying for prison sentences.
I have often argued that any person who is imprisoned should be made to pay for the previledge. Either by paying a monthly sum after release or by siezing their assetts.
Regards
Mick
I have often argued that any person who is imprisoned should be made to pay for the previledge. Either by paying a monthly sum after release or by siezing their assetts.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by andy c
Just read this, and what I'm saying is poss only applicable to uk citizens...
You pays your money and you gets your legal system.
On first conviction a person could get 5 years for assault, ranging to life for GBH or Robbery.
But it costs money to keep em locked up. Who pays - we do, or do we?
Some would argue that they don't wish to pay any more towards the legal system, and thats the main reason the sentences are light (no cash to pay for prisons, police etc)... because so long as it doesn't affect them why should they bother?
Robbery is differant, as it attracts central funding so therefore is a government priority. The figures quoted above are about right in general.
And also be thankful we don't live in the 'states where their gun crime makes ours look minute...
And also if offenders got the max sentence befitting a particular crime AND SERVED IT this debate probably would not be happening...
You pays your money and you gets your legal system.
On first conviction a person could get 5 years for assault, ranging to life for GBH or Robbery.
But it costs money to keep em locked up. Who pays - we do, or do we?
Some would argue that they don't wish to pay any more towards the legal system, and thats the main reason the sentences are light (no cash to pay for prisons, police etc)... because so long as it doesn't affect them why should they bother?
Robbery is differant, as it attracts central funding so therefore is a government priority. The figures quoted above are about right in general.
And also be thankful we don't live in the 'states where their gun crime makes ours look minute...
And also if offenders got the max sentence befitting a particular crime AND SERVED IT this debate probably would not be happening...
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by John C
Just as well it didnt happen a couple of weeks ago or he would have got off scot free by invoking the insanity clause.
John
John
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by ErikL
The mugger obviously never read "Mugging for Dummies". Chapter 6 is titled "You Have The Loot- Now What?" and states (in bold) "No matter how hot the chase, never take a pot shot at the victim(s)".
Seriously, I don't know what the guy was thinking.
Seriously, I don't know what the guy was thinking.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by matthewr
Mick,
Exactly -- you just read "violent street crime" and like Paul Dacre's Pavolvian Dog that you are, a rant about banging em up and throwing away the key came blurting out.
You also have a slight escalation problem here in that if you are going to give someone a mandatory 20 years without parole for mugging, people who actually murder someone are going to have to get 60 years. Therefore -- to meet the 65 year old release age -- we would need to identify and incarcerate these people as 5 year olds before they actually committed the murder(s) in order to make sure they paid their debt to society properly.
Is that what you want Mick? Prisons full of 5 year old murderers?
Sheesh. You make me sick.
Matthew
PS I wonder if it was some kind of Tupac/Biggie Smalls type deal and the perp will turn out to have been hired by The Small Faces or something?
Exactly -- you just read "violent street crime" and like Paul Dacre's Pavolvian Dog that you are, a rant about banging em up and throwing away the key came blurting out.
You also have a slight escalation problem here in that if you are going to give someone a mandatory 20 years without parole for mugging, people who actually murder someone are going to have to get 60 years. Therefore -- to meet the 65 year old release age -- we would need to identify and incarcerate these people as 5 year olds before they actually committed the murder(s) in order to make sure they paid their debt to society properly.
Is that what you want Mick? Prisons full of 5 year old murderers?
Sheesh. You make me sick.
Matthew
PS I wonder if it was some kind of Tupac/Biggie Smalls type deal and the perp will turn out to have been hired by The Small Faces or something?
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by matthewr
I think by "sizing their assets" Mick is using a euphemism for a particularly nasty form of torture he has in mind.
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by jayd
quote:
PS I wonder if it was some kind of Tupac/Biggie Smalls type deal and the perp will turn out to have been hired by The Small Faces or something?
excellent.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Martin D
Mick - with you as well
Martin
Martin
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Joe Petrik
Mick,
OK, but what if the criminal's resultant indebtedness or poverty (from having to pay his own way) leads to, ummm, robberies, muggings and hold-ups?
Joe
quote:
I have often argued that any person who is imprisoned should be made to pay for the previledge. Either by paying a monthly sum after release or by siezing their assetts.
OK, but what if the criminal's resultant indebtedness or poverty (from having to pay his own way) leads to, ummm, robberies, muggings and hold-ups?
Joe
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by ErikL
My thought exactly, Joe.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by mykel
vicious circle init.
regards,
michael
regards,
michael