Ray Davies mugged, shot in New Orleans
Posted by: jayd on 05 January 2004
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Mick P
You very rarely see 65 year old muggers.
They will probably be half dead when they are released and will just shuffle around somewhwere.
The fact that they lack assetts is of no significance.
Like I said.......I am unconcerned about them.
Regards
Mick
They will probably be half dead when they are released and will just shuffle around somewhwere.
The fact that they lack assetts is of no significance.
Like I said.......I am unconcerned about them.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by HTK
I'd like to hear Ray's views on this,
Harry
Harry
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Rich Jerskey
Mr. Davies' unfortunate incident in New Orleans is unfortunately not too surprising as the Big Easy is consistently in the top 3 to 5 of America's most heavily crimed cities. Taking that into account he should in the future also avoid Detroit, Gary, Miami and maybe Houston as well. 
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Rasher
There are many people who take Mick's view for good reason (please excuse me Mick for talking about you like you're not here). The law and the judicial system is inadequate in the UK, which leads to frustration and ultimatly knee-jerk reactions to crime, and in extreme cases, the threat of vigalante groups emerging. Reaction to getting your car stolen or your house burgled? - probably won't even get a visit from the cops, they will just give you a crime number over the phone. If the criminal is caught? - community service or something else inadequate. Wasn't there a case of a car thief killing a child recently after a long history of nicking cars and driving like a lunatic? More than 20 previous cases apparently. What the fuck was he doing being allowed to take another car and killing a child for Christ's sake?
It may not be addressing the real root of the problem and it may not be a grown up view, but who can blame those that feel that they have to look after themselves because the law will not do it for them. Eventually the public will take matters into their own hands.
Not my view personally, but I respect where Mick is coming from.
It may not be addressing the real root of the problem and it may not be a grown up view, but who can blame those that feel that they have to look after themselves because the law will not do it for them. Eventually the public will take matters into their own hands.
Not my view personally, but I respect where Mick is coming from.
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Rich Jerskey
Tom,
The fact that this thread has evoked such a response is precisely because Ray Davies has been such a dominant musical influence for many of us over the years. It's relevant for this thread but could probably just as easily fit nicely in some Padded Cell. Duh! Also, it'd be interesting to find out what he had had for dinner, Tom. Dontcha think?
Rich
[This message was edited by Rich Jerskey on TUESDAY 06 January 2004 at 11:26.]
The fact that this thread has evoked such a response is precisely because Ray Davies has been such a dominant musical influence for many of us over the years. It's relevant for this thread but could probably just as easily fit nicely in some Padded Cell. Duh! Also, it'd be interesting to find out what he had had for dinner, Tom. Dontcha think?
Rich
[This message was edited by Rich Jerskey on TUESDAY 06 January 2004 at 11:26.]
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Rasher
If he was wearing that bloody awful Union Flag/Jack jacket, then he probably deserved it 
. The same applies to anyone wearing Christmas novelty socks IMHO. Simpsons especially.
. The same applies to anyone wearing Christmas novelty socks IMHO. Simpsons especially.Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
First off, in 2001, 89% of those convicted of Robbery (i.e theft with violence or the threat of violence) recieved a custodial sentence. Matthew
Note the words "Of those convicted of Robbery". There is the problem - they tend not to get caught.
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and Happy
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by andy c
Original by Rasher:
The legislation and sentences under the Theft Act and the Firearms Act have been here since 1968 (ish). If the courts had imposed such sentences for robbery and Firearms offences since then I'll dare bet there would be a differant attitude than there is now.
The funny thing about this is that if the mugger had run poor old Ray over, driving a car, instead of shooting him then the mugger would be sent down no worries! No community service etc for traffic offences...
quote:
The law and the judicial system is inadequate in the UK, which leads to frustration and ultimatly knee-jerk reactions to crime, and in extreme cases
The legislation and sentences under the Theft Act and the Firearms Act have been here since 1968 (ish). If the courts had imposed such sentences for robbery and Firearms offences since then I'll dare bet there would be a differant attitude than there is now.
The funny thing about this is that if the mugger had run poor old Ray over, driving a car, instead of shooting him then the mugger would be sent down no worries! No community service etc for traffic offences...
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by matthewr
Mike Lacey said "There is the problem - they tend not to get caught"
Completely agree. Research routinely shows that increased sentencing has little or no deterrant effect but increasing detection and conviction rates does.
"If the courts had imposed such sentences for robbery and Firearms offences since then I'll dare bet there would be a differant attitude than there is now"
But they have! Sentencing for such offences, which are very broad, has always been pretty tough and violent robbery almost always gets you a custodial sentence.
This stuff about violent armed robbers being let off with community service is a complete red herring and blatantly untrue.
Unlike Mick's proposed Vortex of Crime which would lead to prisons full of child murderers and a generation of benefit dependent, OAP, prison hardened, old lags running rampage around our towns and cities.
Matthew
Completely agree. Research routinely shows that increased sentencing has little or no deterrant effect but increasing detection and conviction rates does.
"If the courts had imposed such sentences for robbery and Firearms offences since then I'll dare bet there would be a differant attitude than there is now"
But they have! Sentencing for such offences, which are very broad, has always been pretty tough and violent robbery almost always gets you a custodial sentence.
This stuff about violent armed robbers being let off with community service is a complete red herring and blatantly untrue.
Unlike Mick's proposed Vortex of Crime which would lead to prisons full of child murderers and a generation of benefit dependent, OAP, prison hardened, old lags running rampage around our towns and cities.
Matthew
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Mick P
We can go on forever with this. However, to sum up, my attitude is :-
1. Muggers and the like are worthless scum. I have no concern for their welfare. I have no interest in reforming the unreformable.
2. The main objective is to keep them off the streets for as long as possible. Therefore anyone over 17 years who mugs or uses a gun as an act of violence should get 20 actual years as a minimum.
Consideration should be given to keeping them in custody until their 65th birthday.
3. To finance all of this, sieze their goods and property etc. Also have work gangs where they are forced to do community work. If they refuse to work, starve them until they change their mind. They should have no human rights at all, they forfiet that when they use a gun.
4. The prisons should be concrete jungles that are cheap to run and keep them away from us. I would expect a high proportion of them to die inside.
In essence, my concern is with the victims only.
Regards
Mick
1. Muggers and the like are worthless scum. I have no concern for their welfare. I have no interest in reforming the unreformable.
2. The main objective is to keep them off the streets for as long as possible. Therefore anyone over 17 years who mugs or uses a gun as an act of violence should get 20 actual years as a minimum.
Consideration should be given to keeping them in custody until their 65th birthday.
3. To finance all of this, sieze their goods and property etc. Also have work gangs where they are forced to do community work. If they refuse to work, starve them until they change their mind. They should have no human rights at all, they forfiet that when they use a gun.
4. The prisons should be concrete jungles that are cheap to run and keep them away from us. I would expect a high proportion of them to die inside.
In essence, my concern is with the victims only.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
Not my view personally, but I respect where Mick is coming from.
OK...maybe I was a little hasty...
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by matthewr
Mick,
The obvious flaw -- if we ignore morals and ethics for the moment and think purely from a Utilitarian viewpoint -- is that your proposed punishment is so draconian that there is no disinsentive for a mugger not to murder the victim. If you are already facing 20 years and a big bill if you get caught you might as well dispose of the main witness while you are at it.
"In essence, my concern is with the victims only"
Increasing the likelihood of them being murdered notwithstanding.
Matthew
The obvious flaw -- if we ignore morals and ethics for the moment and think purely from a Utilitarian viewpoint -- is that your proposed punishment is so draconian that there is no disinsentive for a mugger not to murder the victim. If you are already facing 20 years and a big bill if you get caught you might as well dispose of the main witness while you are at it.
"In essence, my concern is with the victims only"
Increasing the likelihood of them being murdered notwithstanding.
Matthew
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by andy c
quote:
But they have! Sentencing for such offences, which are very broad, has always been pretty tough and violent robbery almost always gets you a custodial sentence.
Only where the evidence is strong enough to convict. I suggest that if people who actually saw what happened re robbery cases came forwards as witnesses, and recieved what they felt was suitable protection from the offender re witness intimidation etc then the rates of detection/conviction would go up.
I feel like this about most stuff tho - people moan about lack of convictions and then don't come forwards to help convict the offender, in some cases because of the fear of reprisals...
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Hammerhead
The only gentlemanly way of resolving this argument is a duel at dawn.
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Paul Gravett
I would like to add to what Matthew has said by repeating something which should be obvious: if we try to punish criminals who commit relatively non-serious crimes with draconian sentences, all we succeed in doing is turning them into more serious criminals.
If someone knows they are going to get 20 years minimum by pushing over a person and nicking their wallet/bag, then they will be more likely to use violence to resist arrest.
This used to be known as the 'I may as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb' approach to crime. Before capital punishment was abolished some murderers went on to kill again because they knew they'd be executed anyway if they got caught for the first one.
All that would happen if all muggers received 20 years would be more of them tooling up with guns and armed combat with the police on the streets.
Paul
If someone knows they are going to get 20 years minimum by pushing over a person and nicking their wallet/bag, then they will be more likely to use violence to resist arrest.
This used to be known as the 'I may as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb' approach to crime. Before capital punishment was abolished some murderers went on to kill again because they knew they'd be executed anyway if they got caught for the first one.
All that would happen if all muggers received 20 years would be more of them tooling up with guns and armed combat with the police on the streets.
Paul
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
<snip>
Anyway why turn the civilsied (me) into guntoting animals (Mick Parry). Thank God Crieff is just far enough away from Edinburgh
And what exactly is wrong with Edinburgh?
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Mick P
You said "is that your proposed punishment is so draconian that there is no disinsentive for a mugger not to murder the victim."
The answer to that is simple. If they are convicted of murder....you hang them.
Now I suppose you object to that as well.
Regards
Mick
The answer to that is simple. If they are convicted of murder....you hang them.
Now I suppose you object to that as well.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Mick
In your world we have only criminals and victims. Nobody can cross between these camps (as they are dead or locked up if the former). Your statement that 'all muggers are scum who are all unreformable' defines this viewpoint.
I'll differ. I think we are shaped by situation, experience and opportunity. I think we can be one and the other, sometimes even both of your classifications. To deny any chance of change, or punish people who are themselves frequently serial victims seems to me the grossest of simplifications. Removing 'all the criminals' to vast concrete death camps is close to eugenics, it has that air of'cleansing the undesirables'.
Bruce
The Booker prize was recently won by a criminal worthless scum.
In your world we have only criminals and victims. Nobody can cross between these camps (as they are dead or locked up if the former). Your statement that 'all muggers are scum who are all unreformable' defines this viewpoint.
I'll differ. I think we are shaped by situation, experience and opportunity. I think we can be one and the other, sometimes even both of your classifications. To deny any chance of change, or punish people who are themselves frequently serial victims seems to me the grossest of simplifications. Removing 'all the criminals' to vast concrete death camps is close to eugenics, it has that air of'cleansing the undesirables'.
Bruce
The Booker prize was recently won by a criminal worthless scum.
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Mick P
Some criminals need help and some need punishment.
Any person who walks the streets with a gun in their hand and uses it to rob someone has overstepped the limit.
That person is just plain unreformable and I put the needs of inocent people way higher than his.
He should be kept of the streets until he is no longer a threat. If that means locking him up for at least 20 years, then let us do it.
My own view is that locking them up until their 65th birthday is a reasonable thing to do. After that age, he is inlikely to be a threat.
The other point (kill for a sheep as for a Lamb) is readily solved by hanging. You will think twice about going out with a gun if you know that you are likely to be hung or imprisoned for most of your life.
I have no concerns for muggers and murderers. Either imprison them or hang them.
Incidently, I know a few Policemen socially and believe me, they all favour my approach.
Regards
Mick
Any person who walks the streets with a gun in their hand and uses it to rob someone has overstepped the limit.
That person is just plain unreformable and I put the needs of inocent people way higher than his.
He should be kept of the streets until he is no longer a threat. If that means locking him up for at least 20 years, then let us do it.
My own view is that locking them up until their 65th birthday is a reasonable thing to do. After that age, he is inlikely to be a threat.
The other point (kill for a sheep as for a Lamb) is readily solved by hanging. You will think twice about going out with a gun if you know that you are likely to be hung or imprisoned for most of your life.
I have no concerns for muggers and murderers. Either imprison them or hang them.
Incidently, I know a few Policemen socially and believe me, they all favour my approach.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by jayd
"And he’s oh, so good,
And he’s oh, so fine,
And he’s oh, so healthy,
In his body and his mind.
He’s a well respected man about town,
Doing the best things so conservatively..."
And he’s oh, so fine,
And he’s oh, so healthy,
In his body and his mind.
He’s a well respected man about town,
Doing the best things so conservatively..."
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by ErikL
Mick, have you considered cases where a suspect is wrongly accused and sentenced?
On reform... People make mistakes, some more serious than others. They grow up, they get perspective, they change, blah, blah, blah. For fuck's sake, perhaps the greatest American of the 1900's was a criminal before educating himself in a dimly-lit prison cell: Malcolm X*.
There's always hope.
(* Sentenced to 10 years for armed robbery; also peddled drugs and prostitutes prior to prison)
On reform... People make mistakes, some more serious than others. They grow up, they get perspective, they change, blah, blah, blah. For fuck's sake, perhaps the greatest American of the 1900's was a criminal before educating himself in a dimly-lit prison cell: Malcolm X*.
There's always hope.
(* Sentenced to 10 years for armed robbery; also peddled drugs and prostitutes prior to prison)
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by Mick P
If someone deliberately shoots someone else then they should be removed from the streets forever.
The person who shot Ray Davies is scum and it is best for society that he decomposes in a prison cell.
Regards
Mick
The person who shot Ray Davies is scum and it is best for society that he decomposes in a prison cell.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by ErikL
Louisiana Gun Laws
Anti-Trafficking
Is there a one-handgun-per-month limit on gun sales? NO
No state restrictions on gun-trafficking such as a limit on the number of handguns that can be purchased at one time. Gun traffickers can easily buy large quantities of handguns at gun stores and resell them on the street to criminals.
Assault Weapons
Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? NO
No state restriction on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons like the AK47 and Uzi. Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles. No restriction on the sale or possession of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading. Federal law does prevent the sale of some assault weapons and rapid-fire magazines manufactured after 1994, but the federal law will sunset in 2004 unless Congress and President Bush renew it.
Background Check At State Level
Do state police perform a background check in addition to federal NICS check? NO
Louisiana: State law does not require gun buyers to go through any state-based criminal background check. Gun buyers only go through the more limited federal NICS check. This could create a serious problem because the federal records are often not as complete or up-to-date as state records. Failure to check state records may allow prohibited gun buyers, like those under recently-issued restraining orders or those with mental illness, to improperly buy guns.
Gun Show Checks
Are background checks required at gun shows? NO
No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.
License or Permit to Purchase
Is a license/permit required to buy handguns? NO
No state requirement that handgun buyers obtain a handgun license or undergo any type of safety training prior to buying a handgun.
Saturday Night Specials
Are there limitations on 'junk' handguns? NO
No state restriction on the sale of Saturday night specials or "junk" handguns. No requirement that handguns meet any safety tests such as a drop-safety test or a firing-performance test. No restriction on the sale of snub-nosed handguns that are very small and easy to conceal.
Secondary Sales
Are background checks required on 'private' gun sales? NO
No state requirement that criminal background checks be done on people buying firearms at gun shows, swap meets or through newspaper or internet advertisements. Criminal background checks are only required if the buyer goes to a federally-licensed gun store - all other sales are not subject to the background check.
Add in the fact that Lousisiana has long been one of the poorest states and among the weakest in job growth and you get desparate people taking desparate measures. Then there's this, from Lousiana's Department of Education:
"...Louisiana children to be the poorest and most at risk of failure of children in any state in the country. According to the report, children in Louisiana are at serious risk due to a combination of four or more chronic family conditions: growing up in a single parent home, having parents with low educational attainment, living in poverty, having parents who are not in the work force, being dependent on welfare, and lacking health insurance... Louisiana has the largest number of children in four or more categories. Thirty-two percent of Louisiana children live in poverty (ranking 50th, ahead of the District of Columbia); 39 percent live with parents who do not have full-time, year-round employment (ranking 49th, ahead of West Virginia and the District of Columbia); and 35 percent come from single-parent families (ranking 49th, ahead of Mississippi and the District of Columbia)."
Anti-Trafficking
Is there a one-handgun-per-month limit on gun sales? NO
No state restrictions on gun-trafficking such as a limit on the number of handguns that can be purchased at one time. Gun traffickers can easily buy large quantities of handguns at gun stores and resell them on the street to criminals.
Assault Weapons
Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? NO
No state restriction on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons like the AK47 and Uzi. Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles. No restriction on the sale or possession of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading. Federal law does prevent the sale of some assault weapons and rapid-fire magazines manufactured after 1994, but the federal law will sunset in 2004 unless Congress and President Bush renew it.
Background Check At State Level
Do state police perform a background check in addition to federal NICS check? NO
Louisiana: State law does not require gun buyers to go through any state-based criminal background check. Gun buyers only go through the more limited federal NICS check. This could create a serious problem because the federal records are often not as complete or up-to-date as state records. Failure to check state records may allow prohibited gun buyers, like those under recently-issued restraining orders or those with mental illness, to improperly buy guns.
Gun Show Checks
Are background checks required at gun shows? NO
No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.
License or Permit to Purchase
Is a license/permit required to buy handguns? NO
No state requirement that handgun buyers obtain a handgun license or undergo any type of safety training prior to buying a handgun.
Saturday Night Specials
Are there limitations on 'junk' handguns? NO
No state restriction on the sale of Saturday night specials or "junk" handguns. No requirement that handguns meet any safety tests such as a drop-safety test or a firing-performance test. No restriction on the sale of snub-nosed handguns that are very small and easy to conceal.
Secondary Sales
Are background checks required on 'private' gun sales? NO
No state requirement that criminal background checks be done on people buying firearms at gun shows, swap meets or through newspaper or internet advertisements. Criminal background checks are only required if the buyer goes to a federally-licensed gun store - all other sales are not subject to the background check.
Add in the fact that Lousisiana has long been one of the poorest states and among the weakest in job growth and you get desparate people taking desparate measures. Then there's this, from Lousiana's Department of Education:
"...Louisiana children to be the poorest and most at risk of failure of children in any state in the country. According to the report, children in Louisiana are at serious risk due to a combination of four or more chronic family conditions: growing up in a single parent home, having parents with low educational attainment, living in poverty, having parents who are not in the work force, being dependent on welfare, and lacking health insurance... Louisiana has the largest number of children in four or more categories. Thirty-two percent of Louisiana children live in poverty (ranking 50th, ahead of the District of Columbia); 39 percent live with parents who do not have full-time, year-round employment (ranking 49th, ahead of West Virginia and the District of Columbia); and 35 percent come from single-parent families (ranking 49th, ahead of Mississippi and the District of Columbia)."
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by herm
desperate measures
Somebody shooting an ex-kink is certainly pretty desperate, and I'm sure Oliver Stone is taking script meetings right now.
However I'm sure somebody else has been mugged and shot since the monumental Davies shooting, so perhaps a new thread is in order.
There's a couple of things in this thread I resent, but perhaps none more than the notion that bad luck occurring to a rich has-been pop star is cause for great concern whereas the rest of the population is irrelevant.
This may sound a tad unreasonable so I guess I should conclude with: innit?
Herman
Somebody shooting an ex-kink is certainly pretty desperate, and I'm sure Oliver Stone is taking script meetings right now.
However I'm sure somebody else has been mugged and shot since the monumental Davies shooting, so perhaps a new thread is in order.
There's a couple of things in this thread I resent, but perhaps none more than the notion that bad luck occurring to a rich has-been pop star is cause for great concern whereas the rest of the population is irrelevant.
This may sound a tad unreasonable so I guess I should conclude with: innit?
Herman
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by jayd
quote:
There's a couple of things in this thread I resent, perhaps none more than the notion that bad luck occurring to a rich has-been pop star is cause for great concern whereas the rest of the population is irrelevant.
We routinely post obituaries of musicians in this area. I've yet to see an obit for someone's grandmother posted here, worthy though they might have been of recognition. I see no disregard of the greater population in this. Innocent people getting shot is deplorable no matter what their station, but this is a forum about music and musicians.
Granted, this was no obituary, but as it was news about a popular musician, I posted it. Had I known it would turn into a debate on gun control and capital punishment, I'd have just whispered a "Get well, Ray" to myself and called it good.