Side story on the recent gun spree

[Stan]

A functional integration of various groups/levels of police force could and should certainly increase the efficiency and effectivness. It is of course of great importance that the 'right' group is able to get there in time to do the required job. Utoya sadly docet.


I did reflect a bit on the 'hot spot' approach to policing which was brought up in the cited NYT article. The idea behind it might be surprisingly simple and quite easy to model.

Think of a crime hot spot as an efficient market of crime, where the costumer meets the supplier and the competitor the other. Staying out of that area of criminal exchange will hurt your bottom line or make it harder to get your drug or sex fix. If the police starts to turn up a lot at irregular but often narrow intervals and interrupts that efficient exchange of goods and violence it will induce some criminals to stay away and to shift away to another spot.

The key success from a police point of view is that this disrupts many supply chains and criminal nets which take some time (if at all) to reach the old efficiency in new hot spots. When you look at the big picture with many hot spots forced to undergo this process it is clear that those drops in efficiency can lower the overall crime rate by a good degree.

(Some violence, like inter-gang one, might increase after the shift away from the hot spot, as they might fight over the new territory. It depends of course on the relative gains and falls. )

Firn,
But security is little more than making the situation more secure or uncomfortable enough that the problem simply moves on to someone else's backyard. In rural USA, that may only equate to shifting the thugs several hundred yards into an adjacent neighborhood where the same local law enforcement will still have to deal with the very same problem. No ?

Their goods may end up being more expensive, but we still did not get rid of them.

Why not just terminate the problem where it grew roots instead of sending them into the neighbor's yard ?

[carl]

This is one interesting look at what might be a contributing factor in the uptick in violence in Chicago last year. The article deals with Memphis, but Chicago was doing away with some of its housing projects in the 2010-2011 timeframe. It's a long article, but worth the read.

I read that a long time ago and forgot about it. It was very good. When I skimmed it this time what popped out at me was the mention that NYC and DC by doing this kind of thing are essentially exporting their crime. Perhaps an unintended way to speed gentrification and making those superzip codes that much safer for their denizens.

[slapout9]

Sheriff Clark from Milwaukee (jmm99 part of the country) owns that immigrant reporter Piers Morgan again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwltduVrvuY

[J Wolfsberger]

Sheriff Clark from Milwaukee (jmm99 part of the country) owns that immigrant reporter Piers Morgan again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwltduVrvuY

That would only be an accomplishment if it wasn't so easy to do.

[jmm99]

Here's the CNN transcript of Piers Morgan's interviews of Neil Heslin (a Sandy Hook parent) and then Dave Clarke.

Cold black & white often gives one an opportunity to reflect on what is said.

Heslin about 1/3 down; Clarke about 2/3 down.

Regards

Mike

[Stan]

Now why in God's name would you go on TV and dump .50 ammo only to discover what everybody else in America already knows ?

I swore he was gonna cook the barrel

I thought this Delta Hotel was voted out of our country ?

[Firn]

Firn,
But security is little more than making the situation more secure or uncomfortable enough that the problem simply moves on to someone else's backyard. In rural USA, that may only equate to shifting the thugs several hundred yards into an adjacent neighborhood where the same local law enforcement will still have to deal with the very same problem. No ?

Their goods may end up being more expensive, but we still did not get rid of them.

Why not just terminate the problem where it grew roots instead of sending them into the neighbor's yard ?

Well I just highlighted the not so obvious and intuitive effects of that NY policy referred to in the NYT. The police did of course often not just take a look around as cruising only along would have hardly made a big impact on the behaviour in this criminal market place. Beside specific missions the (in)famous stop-and-frisk was seemingly especially often adopted around such hot spots.

Wiki:

The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons. The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio[1][2] About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011.[1][3][4] New York residents have questioned whether these stops are based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.[5] According to NYPD statistics, almost one in five stopped were guilty of a crime.[3] The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino.[1][3][4]

From a criminal's point of view such activities can be of course more then a hassle, as you could be stopped with a decent probability, possibly while 'just' carrying some illegal stuff or having an outstanding warrant without doing anything 'wrong'.

In the end it is all about the opportunity costs and the specific circumstances. In a world where the criminal markets places are 'sticky' - shift not easily - and suffer a considerable drop in efficiency when disturbed such a policy could be up to a point more effective at curbing crime then the same relative amount of police routine.

P.S: Just read that piece in the Guardian...

Lieberman says that in 2010 she noted a disproportionate concentration of NYPD stop-and-frisks among young men of color: "African American and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24 are 7.2% of the population and 41% of police stop-and-frisks."

Patrick Jones, a 25 year-old African American living in the Bronx, was first stopped by the police at age 12 while hanging out near an NYPD precinct. At the time motorcycles were being stolen out of a police garage, and officers accused Jones of the crime. He was handcuffed, taken to the precinct, questioned and released without charge.

Jones has dealt with police stop-and-frisks ever since. Many of those encounters, he says, have resulted in beatings.

When asked what age stop-and-frisks tend to begin for residents of his neighborhood Jones was frank, "Soon as you're able to go outside on your own. It doesn't matter how old you are."

Jones says young people in his area are targeted for little more than their appearance. "We're kids from the hood. We dress a certain way. We have certain things that we do, so we all look like criminals to them."

"Sometimes they just sweep people," he explained. "There are a bunch of people just standing somewhere; sweep. Somebody's gotta have something. Nine times out of ten they're right."

[Stan]

Well I just highlighted the not so obvious and intuitive effects of that NY policy referred to in the NYT. The police did of course often not just take a look around as cruising only along would have hardly made a big impact on the behaviour in this criminal market place. Beside specific missions the (in)famous stop-and-frisk was seemingly especially often adopted around such hot spots.

In the end it is all about the opportunity costs and the specific circumstances. In a world where the criminal markets places are 'sticky' - shift not easily - and suffer a considerable drop in efficiency when disturbed such a policy could be up to a point more effective at curbing crime then the same relative amount of police routine.

Agreed. But, with our liberal system of 3 strikes and you're out (for example) all the while chasing legal gun owners for shake downs, I don't see much coming out of this scenario.

If we're to be tough on legal gun ownership, so be it. We should be just as vigilant with prosecuting gun-related crime. In two weeks you will be prosecuted and sent to death row. Fairly simple especially when you consider that most of us really don't want to pay to have that idiot fed 3 squares while he watches reruns of Dallas

[jmm99]

Piers dances with Ma Deuce, and with Ted Nugent, a Michigan expatriate.

I have to confess my TV is on at 6pm and off at 8pm, unless there's a decent movie or sporting event somewhere in America's Wasteland. Thus, the world of CNN Transcripts has been essential to my understanding of what the hell you guys are talking about.

In any event, here's Piers, Interviews with Gun Advocates (Aired February 4, 2013 - 21:00 ET):

PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: Tonight, gun advocates say that I just don't get it when it comes to guns and one of the main reasons is I've never fired before, hardly at all. So I've come to gun country, to Houston and Texas to one of the most successful and popular gun stores in the state. And I'm going to find out why so many Americans demand the right to be able to use one of these. By far, one of the most powerful weapons in America's arsenal and they're all legal.

I'll talk to the Texas attorney general and the owner of this store which has become a Mecca to many Texans with guns and ammunition.

And my one-on-one with the Motor City madman himself, Ted Nugent. It got pretty lively last time and I'm sure it will again tonight.

The long, long segment of our maestro's visit to the Texas gun store was, to this reader, well, painful to read.

The short segment with Ted Nugent (at the end of the transcript) was, at its end, informative as to the two personalities:

MORGAN: When you say this kind of bull, and that's what it is, people believe it. And Yemen is not the safest country in the world.

NUGENT: Are you prepared to admit that your dream of a gun free zone in Mexico is working? A gun free zone in Chicago is working? A gun free zone in all these cities where the slaughter rate is the highest of anywhere, including Yemen?

MORGAN: Let me give you some countries, Australia, Britain, Japan, Canada.

NUGENT: They don't have a Second Amendment, Piers.

MORGAN: Your Second Amendment, Ted, doesn't entitle you to have an armored tank outside or an RPG on your should. You accept gun control already.

NUGENT: Are you sure of that?

MORGAN: I wouldn't want you in a tank. But there are already over 50 gun controlled measures in this country. We're not talking about bringing in gun control. We're talking about extending it to cover the --

NUGENT: -- measures are violated by all these perpetrators every time. What makes you think that the 51st law is going to stop this kind of slaughter? I'm here to tell you it will not. I believe an armed society is a polite society.

MORGAN: The mood is changing, Ted. And something has to change. I respect your opinion. I respect you coming down to talk to me.

NUGENT: Back at you.

MORGAN: Ted Nugent. And we'll be back...

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

I don't believe statistics have any real meaning in the so-called gun control "debates" any longer - if they ever did have any.

However, the graphs snipped below brought home to me the very selective nature of US homicides. The data is from Small Arms Survey 2010, its Introduction (for definitions) and its Chapter 5, Gang Violence Worldwide: Context, Culture, and Country (for the graphs and other data). The Small Arms Survey is a joint operation of a number of EU nations and UN agencies, surveying within its mandate:

Small arms: revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, machine pistols, assault rifles and light machine guns.

Light weapons: heavy machine guns, hand-held, under-barrel and mounted grenadelaunchers, portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles, portable anti-tank missile, and anti-tank rocket launchers, portable anti-aircraft missile launchers, and mortars of a calibre less than 100 mm.

In reverse order, Graph 5.2 (snipped to show US data only)(chap 5, p.135):

Graph 5.2 US Deaths.jpg

And, specifically for gang-related homicides, Graph 5.1 (2002-2006)(chap 5, p.134):

Graph 5.1 Gang Deaths.jpg

Chap. 5, pp.132-145 explains the background.

Regards

Mike

[Firn]

Nice link. Earlier in this thread I noted rather similar things after looking at the homicide stats in the US. When it comes to gun violence it is rather obvious that 'high-powered' handguns in the hands of gang members do a great amount of the killing and wounding. The far easier availabilty of guns is obviously a big part of the reason why so much more persons get killed on the American streets compared to good old Europe. As written before this is not just a matter of laws but also enforcements. All in all this perspective offers a good lever for the reduction of a good deal of the serious (hand)gun-related crime in the USA.

Personally I think that felons have for the good of the society no business to legally own or even carry lethal weapons and that said laws should be strictly enforced especially where the related gun violence is high.

P.S: A hunter with all the proper papers was recently stopped near a nearby village by the Carabinieri after they have been informed that somebody was flashing along the wineyards. During the car search they found 8 rabbits, flashlights and a .22 with a suppressor. At home another 20+ rabbits. The whole area is home of a great populations of those rodents, so no problem for the population. The rifle was legally held. The object which will cause him most trouble will be the suppressor, while arguably the biggest impact will be that everybody relevant around him knows. Personal inquires led me believe that he sold a good deal usually after the legal hunting period in the fall, which was quite plausible. Note that nobody even thinks that this man and his silenced rifle are a threat to somebody else.

[Fuchs]

the translation of "felon" is ambiguous; do you mean violent criminals or criminals in general?

I ask because I really don't see why a tax dodger or a sprayer should be turned into marked 2nd class citizens for life.
The revoking of active voting rights criminals in some American states is already awkward*.




* See? I can be polite!

[jmm99]

Thought you might like the links.

The US gang problem is complicated by (1) drug policies, (2) political correctness, and (3) Latin American immigration and assimilation.

The last segues from our Latin American neighbors' front and back yards, where the problem is even worse. BTW: my problem is not with Latin American immigration (it's with us for good), but how to create opportunities for complete assimilation. The Irish were, once upon a time, problem children - Gangs of New York. So also the Italians, but to a lesser degree.

In my worst futuristic nightmares, I see a US containing enclaves that can be handled only by Snake Plissken and Soldier.

Back to reality. You may be familiar with these two authors: Max G. Manwaring and John P. Sullivan. Examples of their takes:

Manwaring, STATE AND NONSTATE ASSOCIATED GANGS: CREDIBLE “MIDWIVES OF NEW SOCIAL ORDERS” (2009)

Sullivan, Criminal Insurgency in the Americas (2010)

I expect you can Google up a dozen articles by each of them.

The problems of the Americas and the Americans (which include, but are not limited to, the USA and USAians) have from the 1960s heavily influenced me in my limited Worldview of US force projection. One has to clean up one's own front and back yards before even thinking of tackling the rest of the neighborhood.

--------------------------
Firn: I got your meaning fine, but "flashing" has a different connotation in the US !

Going back a long time ago when I was a teenager, we backwoods types had a somewhat illegal (to the conservation enforcement officers) pastime of "shining" - white tail deer. Spotlight (hand or vehicle) + .22 LR pistol or rifle. Silencer ? - I heard of people making and using them, but had no experience with that device - Fed felony under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Actually, I had little experience with "shining" to kill deer because I was more afraid of my dad (who was simply a great woodsman and hunter) than the law. His view was that you didn't "shine" unless your family was starving and we were far from starving.

So, my only experience with "shining" was doing it sans rifle, just to tease the conservation officers. Something like American Graffiti:



Description: John Milner (Paul Le Mat) is confronted by Officer Holstein (Jim Bohan).

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

from Fuchs
* See? I can be polite!

OK. I'll try to put aside the snarling Brown Bear visage.

The quick answer to the querstion:

... do you mean violent criminals or criminals in general?

is neither. That doesn't tell you anything substantial.

I'll have to summarize:

1. What is a felony ?

2. What are the short-term consequences of a felony conviction ?

3. What are the long-term consequences of a felony conviction ?

All very doable, but I don't want to get too far down in the legal weeds on that.

The Wiki Felony is not especially helpful (it also looks like something out of the early 20th century). This is generally accurate for Fed and Michigan crimes:

In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor.

Hence, Michigan's current system somewhat resembles what the Wiki says is the German system, on these two points (the other two points don't apply):

Felonies (Verbrechen) is defined as a crime that is punishable with a minimum of one year imprisonment. Misdemeanours (Vergehen) are all other crimes punishable by imprisonment of less than one year or by fine.

However, in some cases a very severe version misdemeanour may be punished with imprisonment of more than one year, yet the crime itself remains considered a misdemeanour. Same applies for a milder version of a felony that is punishable with imprisonment less than a year.

All that being said, the ballgame is ruled by the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2012, 182 pp.). That covers the first two questions, but not the long-term consequences of a felony conviction.

I have to break for the afternoon. Download the Manual (2.4MB). I'll look at some other stuff later. BTW: The Michigan Judicial Institute (MJI) Publications (for judges, but used by all lawyers practicing criminal law) are a good entry into Michigan procedure (similar to Federal procedure).

Regards

Mike

[Firn]

@Fuchs: Without thinking in a precise legal category I meant a violent criminal. Such a ban could be automatically removed after, let us say, 10-15 years. Along with the suitable police work and tactics it should help to handle the spiral of violent escalation. As an gang member in the US it might seem be quite rational to carry a gun simply for self-defense as you have might have to deal with armed violent criminals with a far greater probability then the rest of the population. It is a bit of a prisoner dilemma.

@jimm99: Thanks for the links. I will read the first before making a comment on the issue.

I don't think many would call the police here if they saw somebody 'flashing' in an wineyard.

Shining is arguably as old as powerful lights and is officially used here to get a 'count' of the various populations, especially deer. This count, even if done well, has little to do with the actual numbers but allows one to compare on year to the other. Even I used it a couple of times to check on the way home if some game is around after the legal shooting time. Hunting with flashlights is banned here, but of course practically impossible to police. It is, as we have seen, also done by poachers, often enough with the traditional .22+suppressor combination. Personally I dislike the use of the caliber for deer and bad shooting far more then the use of a suppressor, but the law sees it differently.

As I said before the funny thing is that in such 'traditional' circumstances people tend to say it is not ethical, poor rabbits but no one considered the man with his silenced weapon a danger to society. The guy in qestion is also from a 'good' family. We do tend to think in contexts. So let us get the right music.

[Fuchs]

A ponzi scheme guy, a pickpocket and a killer all belong into the "felon" category; this doesn't seem to make much sense as a basis for who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.
I'd rather expect that crimes involving violence or non-improvised weapons would shape a better category.


Concerning the German law; I didn't learn much about our criminal law (more about civil and constitutional law, though). As far as I can tell we make a major distinction between Straftat (crime) and Ordnungswidrigkeit (lesser illegal action). The latter is punishable only by fines (or if one cannot or doesn't want to pay few days in jail as a replacement) and/or withdrawal of a license (driving license, for example). The important difference is that an employer may ask you to show a certificate by the authorities about whether you've been criminal in the past, and Ordnungswidrigkeit would not show up (this is nowadays only relevant for certain professions, but was quite relevant in earlier decades).
I've yet to see anyone pay attention to the difference between Verbrechen and Vergehen.

In the end, it's not important; the legal norms and terms were not defined with the need to define a group of people who should not possess firearms in mind. One can expect that a new such definition is required in the U.S., and I would strongly suggest that violence and non-improvised weapons would make sense.

[Fuchs]

So let us get the right music.

This
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/2093635/Biscaya_James_Last
is how to play that instrument well !

[Firn]

This
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/2093635/Biscaya_James_Last
is how to play that instrument well !

Not bad. Good night and in bocca al lupo. Even if that is literally no longer allowed.

Luckily, crepi! is valid for deer and the Chamois in question...

[Stan]

Move over dudes....

Number of women buying guns surges

Flash Bang Holsters ?

[jmm99]

from the CNN transcript of Erin Burnett Outfront ...

first, V.P. Biden:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun, have the shells, 12-gauge shotgun and I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded.

I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you, whoever's coming in is not going -- you don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

and then, CNN's Lavendara:

LAVANDERA: The gun industry is developing an arsenal of weapons and merchandise targeting women. There are guns and rifles with bright colors, animal print patterns, even holsters that can make a man blush.

KRISTAL REDEL, PISTOL CLUB MEMBER: The one I have right here is actually meant to put into your bra.

LAVANDERA: This one goes on your bra?

REDEL: This goes into your bra. So, it actually clips underneath and hides right into your cup.

LAVANDERA: They are actually called flash bang holsters.

(LAUGHTER)

REDEL: That is the flash bang.

LAVANDERA: Oh, really? Someone's coming after you, you distract them.

REDEL: Exactly.

Really makes one want to go out shopping.

Regards

Mike